Crypto-linked stocks surged Friday, led by a sharp rally in beaten-down digital asset treasury firms, as progress toward ending the Iran war jolted risk assets, sending bitcoin BTC$78,038.92 to a two-month high of $78,000.

U.S. President Donald Trump said in a Truth Social post that Iran committed to keeping open the Strait of Hormuz, a key artery for global energy markets.

“Iran has just announced that the Strait… is fully open and ready for full passage,” Trump said in a Truth Social post, adding that peace talks between the countries were progressing. Reports that the U.S. is considering unfreezing $20 billion in Iranian assets and Trump’s remarks about acquiring Iran’s enriched uranium further boosted sentiment.

As the headlines helped calm fears of a prolonged energy shock, crude oil tanked 13% to near $80 per barrel.

Risk-on signal

“The reopening of the Strait of Hormuz is the risk-on signal the global markets have been waiting for,” said Matt Mena, senior crypto research strategist at digital 21shares.

“By removing one of the most significant geopolitical chokepoints in the world, Iran has effectively uncorked a massive wave of liquidity and investor confidence,” he added. “With oil nose diving below $85 for the first time in a month, inflation fears may finally come to an end.”

Bitcoin BTC$78,038.92 climbed to $78,000, breaking out from a two-month range that capped prices since early February and up nearly 5% over the past 24 hours.

The move rippled across the broader cryptocurrency prices higher, with major altcoins ether (ETH), Solana (SOL) and XRP (XRP) posting 4%-5% gains.

Looking at crypto-related equities, the biggest winners were crypto treasury firms — companies that hold digital assets on their balance sheets — which had been heavily battered in recent months.

Trump-family-backed American Bitcoin (ABTC) jumped more than 21%, while Strategy (MSTR) surged 13%. Strive (ASST) and ProCap (BRR) added around 10%-11% as investors rotated back into high-beta bitcoin exposure.

Similar moves played out across altcoin-linked equities. Forum Markets (FRMM), an Ethereum-focused treasury firm that pivoted to tokenization, climbed 19%, while Solana-linked names like Solmate (SLMT) and Upexi (UPXI) gained 12%-11%.

Other digital asset-related stocks also advanced: Coinbase (COIN) rose more than 6%, Galaxy (GLXY) gained 8%, and Bullish (BLSH) rose 4.5%.

Just after the noon hour on the East Coast, the Nasdaq and S&P 500 were each higher by about 1.4%, both jumping to new record levels.

TLDR:

• Payward plans to acquire Bitnomial for up to $550M using a mix of cash and stock.
• Bitnomial holds rare U.S. licenses enabling trading, clearing, and brokerage services.
• The deal allows Payward to bypass years of regulatory approvals and setup delays.
• Acquisition strengthens Kraken’s position in the regulated U.S. derivatives market.

Kraken’s parent company, Payward, has agreed to acquire Bitnomial in a deal valued at up to $550 million. The transaction combines cash and stock, positioning Payward to expand its regulated derivatives capabilities within the United States market.

Payward Targets Licensed Infrastructure to Accelerate Growth

Details of the acquisition surfaced through a report shared by CoinDesk, later amplified by Wu Blockchain on X. The structure of the deal reflects a calculated expansion strategy rather than a defensive move.

Payward is leveraging its valuation to secure critical infrastructure instead of building internally over time.

The agreement places Payward’s valuation at approximately $20 billion. This valuation provides the company flexibility to pursue acquisitions that support long-term positioning. The use of both cash and stock signals a balance between liquidity management and equity utilization.

Bitnomial stands out due to its regulatory approvals. It operates with a Designated Contract Market, a Derivatives Clearing Organization, and a Futures Commission Merchant license. This combination is rare within the crypto sector, particularly among firms built within the industry.

Bitnomial is the first crypto-native platform to secure all three licenses. These approvals enable a fully integrated derivatives operation under U.S. regulatory oversight. As a result, Payward gains immediate access to a compliant framework.

This approach reduces the need for prolonged regulatory applications. Building such a structure independently often requires years of legal preparation and operational planning. By acquiring Bitnomial, Payward bypasses those delays and gains a ready-to-use system.

U.S. Market Entry Anchored in Compliance and Scale

The acquisition reflects a focused effort to expand within the United States derivatives market. This market remains tightly regulated, with strict entry requirements for both trading and clearing operations. Many crypto firms face challenges when attempting to meet these standards.

With Bitnomial’s licenses, Payward can operate within an established regulatory perimeter. This positions the company to compete with existing regulated entities. It also opens pathways for offering derivatives products to institutional participants.

The CoinDesk report noted that the deal was shared exclusively with the publication. This approach indicates a controlled release of information aimed at a targeted audience. The messaging aligns with efforts to reinforce credibility within both crypto-native and institutional circles.

Institutional demand for regulated crypto products continues to shape market strategies. Firms with compliant infrastructure are better placed to attract this segment. Payward’s move reflects a broader shift toward structured and regulated offerings.

Furthermore, the acquisition supports deeper liquidity development in compliant markets. Access to brokerage, clearing, and exchange functions within one framework creates operational efficiency. It also reduces reliance on third-party providers for critical services.

The coverage framed the deal as a strategic step toward regulatory positioning. The emphasis remained on access, speed, and operational readiness. These factors contribute to Payward’s ability to expand without extended delays.

Overall, the transaction combines market access, licensing, and infrastructure within a single move. Payward secures a pathway into a regulated derivatives environment while maintaining its global presence. The acquisition aligns with a structured approach to scaling within the United States.

Key Highlights

• Energy Focus (EFOI) shares experienced a dramatic 300% surge on Friday following the revelation of two significant data center infrastructure agreements.
• Project G reached completion in 2025, delivering approximately $0.5 million in revenue through a UPS system installation for a Taiwan-based electronics firm.
• Project Y represents a multi-year contract (2026–2027) with a leading Asian data center developer, carrying an estimated value of $6.6 million.
• The aggregate value of both agreements totals roughly $7.1 million.
• Insider activity over the past year shows two purchases with no reported sales.

Energy Focus (EFOI) shares skyrocketed approximately 300% on Friday after the firm announced developments regarding two major data center infrastructure initiatives, designated as Project G and Project Y.

Energy Focus, Inc., EFOI

The total contract value spanning both initiatives reaches approximately $7.1 million. Considering the company’s market capitalization stands at merely $13.18 million, this figure represents substantial potential impact.

Project G concluded in 2025. The initiative centered on deploying a large-scale Uninterruptible Power Supply infrastructure for a Taiwan-based electronics producer with operations in the Southern Taiwan Science Park. This project contributed roughly $0.5 million to EFOI’s 2025 revenue stream.

While this figure appears modest in isolation, it demonstrates operational capability for a company that has struggled to capture investor enthusiasm historically.

Project Y: The Major Catalyst

Project Y represents the primary catalyst behind investor enthusiasm. This multi-year infrastructure rollout spans 2026 through 2027, executed in partnership with one of Asia’s premier data center development organizations.

The initiative encompasses large-scale UPS installations with capacities spanning 250kW to 1,250kW, complemented by advanced Fan Wall Units designed for thermal regulation.

The total projected contract value for Project Y amounts to approximately $6.6 million throughout the deployment timeline. This represents a significant commitment given the company’s current scale.

Energy Focus indicated these initiatives demonstrate growing market demand for high-capacity UPS infrastructure and advanced cooling technologies within large-scale, AI-powered data environments.

The organization stated it stands strategically positioned to capitalize on hyper-scale data center expansion, AI-driven computational density increases, and escalating power demands across facilities.

Important Considerations for Investors

A balanced perspective requires acknowledging certain realities. Energy Focus maintains a GF Score of 42 out of 100, highlighting difficulties with profitability and expansion. The profitability ranking sits at merely 1 out of 10.

Shares traded at $2.09 preceding Friday’s movement, establishing a market capitalization of $13.18 million. The organization currently operates without generating profits, reflected in a P/E ratio of 0.

Regarding financial stability, there’s a more encouraging indicator. EFOI maintains a current ratio of 5.04, demonstrating solid capacity to meet near-term obligations.

Over the trailing 12 months, company insiders executed two purchase transactions with zero sales — a modest yet encouraging indicator.

The firm’s forward project pipeline now stretches through 2027, with supplementary opportunities reportedly under consideration.

As disclosed on April 17, 2026, Project G has reached completion while Project Y remains in active execution phase.

Key Takeaways

• DeepSeek is pursuing a minimum of $300 million in external capital for the first time in its history
• The AI company from China aims for a valuation starting at $10 billion
• High-Flyer Capital Management, a Chinese hedge fund that owns DeepSeek, has been its sole financial backer
• The startup rejected numerous investment proposals from leading Chinese venture firms and tech corporations in the past
• American venture investors may show reluctance toward the opportunity given DeepSeek’s Chinese background

The Chinese artificial intelligence company DeepSeek, which created the budget-friendly R1 model that disrupted the tech world, is opening itself to external investors for the first time.

According to a report from The Information, the organization is negotiating to secure a minimum of $300 million with a baseline valuation of $10 billion. Four individuals with knowledge of the discussions provided this information.

Up until this point, DeepSeek has relied exclusively on financial support from High-Flyer Capital Management, its parent hedge fund based in China.

The company had consistently declined investment opportunities from China’s most prominent venture capital organizations and influential technology corporations. This fundraising initiative represents a significant departure from that strategy.

When DeepSeek unveiled its R1 model, it captured substantial attention from both financial markets and the technology sector. Industry observers viewed the model as comparable to leading Western artificial intelligence systems while requiring significantly less capital to develop.

The model’s introduction created turbulence in equity markets and sparked debates about the extensive investment strategies of American AI corporations.

The Case for External Investment

Developing and maintaining cutting-edge AI models demands increasingly substantial financial resources. The emergence of reasoning-based models and agentic AI applications has elevated capital demands throughout the sector.

DeepSeek’s decision to pursue external funding reflects its need to maintain competitiveness in this challenging landscape.

The organization did not provide a response to Reuters’ inquiry for comment, and Reuters indicated it was unable to independently confirm the report’s specifics.

American Investment Firms Face Dilemma

Given DeepSeek’s Chinese origins, several American venture capital firms are anticipated to approach the funding opportunity with caution, The Information notes.

This hesitation mirrors wider geopolitical friction surrounding technological competition between the United States and China.

Earlier reporting from Reuters revealed that DeepSeek utilized Nvidia’s most sophisticated chip to train one of its recent models, even though that particular chip falls under US export control measures for sales to China.

Additionally, DeepSeek chose not to provide its primary model to American chip manufacturers for performance enhancement purposes, according to Reuters’ reporting.

China has been encouraging domestic technology companies to adopt locally produced processors and minimize reliance on international technology, creating additional complications for DeepSeek’s strategic positioning.

The proposed $10 billion valuation would position DeepSeek among the most highly valued artificial intelligence startups worldwide, particularly notable given its comparatively brief operational track record relative to American competitors.

DeepSeek has not made any public statements confirming these fundraising discussions. The Information’s reporting draws from individuals with direct knowledge of the situation, and no formal agreement has been disclosed.

The dominance of centralized exchanges in early crypto wasn’t accidental or irrational. It was a practical response to real constraints, technical, commercial, and user experience constraints that the alternatives of the time couldn’t adequately address.

Early crypto users needed somewhere to convert assets, discover prices, and execute trades with reasonable reliability.

Centralized exchanges provided all of this in a familiar package, an interface that looked and worked roughly like a traditional brokerage, custody handled by the platform, and liquidity sufficient for the asset range that existed at the time.

For users coming from traditional finance, the mental model translated. For new users, the learning curve was manageable. For a nascent market, it worked.

The centralized model also solved the bootstrapping problem that decentralized alternatives struggle with fundamentally, liquidity. A centralized exchange could onboard market makers, manage order books actively, and ensure that users could actually execute trades rather than posting orders into thin books and waiting.

In the early market, this wasn’t a minor convenience. It was the difference between a functional trading venue and an unusable one.

The Architectural Shifts That Followed

The response to centralized exchange limitations came in waves, each wave addressing specific failure modes of the centralized model, each wave introducing its own set of tradeoffs.

The first wave was technical hardening of centralized exchanges themselves. Better security practices, cold storage for user funds, proof-of-reserves mechanisms, improved audit procedures.

These improvements reduced but didn’t eliminate the structural risks inherent in centralized custody, because the fundamental architecture remained the same. A more secure centralized exchange is still a centralized exchange, with all the single-point-of-failure characteristics that implies.

The second wave was the emergence of decentralized exchanges, platforms where trading happened through smart contracts rather than centralized order books, where users retained custody of their assets throughout the trading process, and where no central operator could freeze accounts or misappropriate funds.

The promise was significant. The execution, particularly in early iterations, was uneven. A crypto exchange solution that emerged from this period of architectural experimentation looked quite different depending on when in the cycle it was built and what specific problems its designers prioritized.

Solutions built primarily in response to security concerns looked different from those built primarily in response to user experience concerns or liquidity concerns.

The diversity of approaches produced a rich ecosystem of alternatives, and, eventually, the conditions for a synthesis. The synthesis, what the market increasingly calls the hybrid model, didn’t emerge from a single design decision or a single team.

It emerged from accumulated recognition that centralized and decentralized approaches each had genuine strengths and genuine weaknesses, and that the most useful exchange infrastructure would find ways to combine the strengths while mitigating the weaknesses.

That recognition, translated into actual architecture, is what defines the current frontier of exchange infrastructure development.

The Cracks That Appeared – What Centralized Models Got Wrong?

The problems with centralized exchange infrastructure didn’t announce themselves dramatically at first. They accumulated, in security incidents, in operational failures, in the gradual recognition that certain structural characteristics of the centralized model created risks that couldn’t be engineered away.

Custody risk was the most consequential. Centralized exchanges hold user funds, which means they’re attractive targets, and when security fails, user funds disappear.

The history of centralized exchange hacks is long and expensive. Mt. Gox. Bitfinex. Coincheck. FTX, in a different but related category of failure. Each incident represented real user losses and a real erosion of trust in centralized custody as a model.

The FTX collapse in particular clarified something that security-focused critics had been arguing for years, that centralized custody creates not just security risk but operational and governance risk that users have no visibility into and no control over.

Funds held on a centralized exchange are not your funds in any meaningful sense. They’re IOUs from an institution whose internal operations you can’t audit and whose solvency you can’t verify.

For users in jurisdictions with restrictive financial regulations, or users whose assets became politically inconvenient, the centralized model’s single point of control became a single point of failure for their access to the market. Opacity around fees, execution quality, and order flow created a third category of concern.

Centralized exchanges have information advantages over their users, they see order flow before execution, they can adjust fee structures in ways that aren’t always transparent, and they’re not subject to best-execution obligations that apply to regulated financial venues.

Whether these advantages were systematically exploited varied by exchange. That they existed at all was a structural feature of the model.

Decentralized Exchanges – The Promise, The Reality, And The Gap

Decentralized exchanges arrived with genuinely compelling architecture. No custody risk. No single operator to freeze accounts or misappropriate funds.

Transparent execution through auditable smart contracts. Self-sovereign asset control throughout the trading process. On paper, these properties addressed precisely the failure modes that centralized exchange history had exposed.

The reality of early DEX experience was more complicated. Liquidity was thin outside major pairs on established networks. Slippage on anything beyond the most common swaps was significant enough to make execution economically unattractive.

Gas costs on Ethereum-based DEXs added a fee layer that made small transactions uneconomical entirely. The user experience, connecting wallets, approving transactions, managing gas, understanding slippage tolerance, assumed a technical sophistication that most users didn’t have and shouldn’t need.

Speed was the other gap. Blockchain transaction finality times meant that DEX execution was measured in seconds to minutes rather than milliseconds.

For users accustomed to centralized exchange execution speeds, this felt like regression. For use cases requiring time-sensitive execution during volatile markets, it was a genuine functional limitation.

AMM-based DEXs improved on some of these dimensions – providing passive liquidity through pooling mechanisms that didn’t require active market making. But AMMs introduced their own set of issues. Impermanent loss for liquidity providers.

Sandwich attacks and MEV extraction that reduced execution quality for traders. Price impact curves that made large trades expensive relative to centralized alternatives.

None of this made DEXs without value. For specific use cases, privacy-sensitive transactions, access from jurisdictions where centralized options were unavailable, trading of assets not listed on centralized platforms, DEXs provided genuine utility that centralized alternatives couldn’t match.

The point is that DEXs as a complete replacement for centralized infrastructure faced real obstacles that pure decentralization couldn’t fully resolve.

The Hybrid Model – Combining The Best Of Both

The hybrid exchange model didn’t emerge from a manifesto or a whitepaper. It emerged from practitioners recognizing specific combinations of centralized and decentralized characteristics that produced better outcomes than either approach alone.

The core insight is straightforward: custody and execution are separable. A centralized exchange bundles them together, the platform holds your assets and executes your trades. But there’s no technical reason these functions need to be coupled.

Non-custodial architecture keeps assets under user control throughout the exchange process, while centralized infrastructure handles the rate aggregation, liquidity matching, and execution optimization that decentralized systems struggle with at scale.

This separation produces something genuinely useful. The user retains asset control – reducing custody risk to near zero – while getting execution quality and speed that DEX-only infrastructure can’t match.

The platform handles the operational complexity of liquidity aggregation and routing without ever touching user funds in a custodial sense. Both parties get the properties they most care about without accepting the downsides of either pure model.

Order matching in hybrid systems varies by implementation. Some use centralized order books with on-chain settlement, the speed and depth of centralized matching with the transparency and finality guarantees of blockchain settlement.

Others use aggregated liquidity across both centralized and decentralized sources, routing to whichever provides better execution for a specific transaction.

The architectural choices at this layer significantly affect the rate quality and execution reliability that users experience. The regulatory positioning of hybrid models is also more tractable than pure DEX architecture in many jurisdictions.

Non-custodial infrastructure reduces the regulatory surface area associated with holding user funds, while the presence of identifiable operating entities, unlike fully decentralized protocols, provides regulatory counterparties that can engage with evolving compliance requirements.

This isn’t a complete regulatory solution, but it’s a meaningfully better starting position than either extreme.

What Modern Hybrid Infrastructure Actually Looks Like?

Theory is useful. What hybrid exchange infrastructure looks like in actual production deployments is more instructive.

LetsExchange operates as a practical example of what mature hybrid architecture delivers at scale, non-custodial exchange across hundreds of cryptocurrency pairs, with liquidity aggregated across multiple sources to produce competitive rates without requiring users to surrender asset custody at any point in the transaction flow https://letsexchange.io/.

Assets move directly between user wallets. The platform handles rate discovery, liquidity routing, and execution optimization in the middle. No funds held, no custody risk, no single point of failure for user assets.

The breadth of asset coverage in modern hybrid systems reflects the aggregation architecture underneath them. Single-source systems are limited to whatever their one liquidity provider supports.

Aggregated hybrid infrastructure can support the union of all supported assets across all connected sources, which in practice means hundreds of tradeable pairs including assets that no individual centralized exchange lists.

For users with diverse portfolio needs, this coverage breadth has real practical value. Transaction speed in hybrid systems has converged toward centralized exchange performance for most use cases.

The multi-minute execution times of early DEX infrastructure are not characteristic of well-built hybrid systems, rate confirmation and transaction initiation happen in seconds, with settlement times determined by the underlying blockchain networks involved rather than by the exchange infrastructure itself.

Fee transparency in hybrid architecture tends to be cleaner than in centralized alternatives. No hidden order flow revenue, no opaque spread manipulation, no custody-related fee structures.

What the user sees in the rate quote is what the transaction costs. For businesses with margin calculations that depend on accurate exchange cost modeling, this transparency has operational value beyond the immediate transaction.

Where The Evolution Goes Next?

The trajectory from centralized to hybrid is clear in retrospect. Where the evolution goes from the current hybrid frontier involves more uncertainty, but the directional forces are identifiable.

Cross-chain hybrid infrastructure is the most significant near-term development. Current hybrid systems generally operate within chain boundaries, aggregating liquidity on a specific network or between networks through defined bridge infrastructure.

Truly seamless cross-chain hybrid execution, where the user requests a swap and the system routes across chain boundaries as naturally as it routes within them, is technically achievable and commercially compelling. The infrastructure complexity is substantial. The user experience improvement it enables justifies that complexity.

Regulatory clarity will shape hybrid architecture development significantly over the next several years. Jurisdictions that develop clear frameworks for non-custodial exchange infrastructure will see hybrid platforms optimize for compliance within those frameworks.

Jurisdictions that remain ambiguous will see hybrid platforms designed for maximum flexibility. The regulatory environment is a design constraint that the best hybrid infrastructure builders are already building around rather than ignoring.

Bitcoin (BTC) refreshed February highs on Friday as attention focused on the upcoming weekly close and a longer-term rally to $88,000.

Key points:

• Bitcoin hits its highest levels in ten weeks as markets abandon geopolitical nerves.

• BTC price strength may bring back $88,000 in just two to four weeks, a trader predicts.

• $72,800 becomes the level to watch for the next weekly candle close.

Bitcoin price local peak brings hope of $88,000

Data from TradingView confirmed new ten-week highs of $77,027 on Bitstamp.

BTC price action attempted to capitalize on recent strength across risk assets, with geopolitical tensions and uncertainty over global oil supplies increasingly priced in. A ceasefire between Israel and Lebanon appeared to further boost market confidence.

On Thursday, the S&P 500 hit 7,050 points for the first time in history, sealing its highest-ever close and its second all-time high of the week.

Commenting, crypto trader Michaël van de Poppe said that Bitcoin should soon gain more thanks to reduced macro volatility, notably in the VIX volatility index.

“As long as the VIX continues to fall, and we’re in a new equilibrium, where oil volatility goes down, Gold volatility significantly drops,” he wrote in a post on X. 

“What will you start to see? More inflows in the $BTC ETF as allocators can allocate more towards Bitcoin.”

Van de Poppe referred to the US spot Bitcoin exchange-traded funds (ETFs), which have seen $330 million in net inflows week-to-date, per data from UK-based investment firm Farside Investors.

“That would also benefit altcoins and $ETH, as they’ll follow the path of Bitcoin,” he added. 

“In that case, I see a strong case for Bitcoin continuing the rally to $85-88K in coming 2-4 weeks.”

Trader and analyst Rekt Capital, meanwhile, put $72,800 as the “pivotal” level to reclaim at the upcoming weekly candle close for BTC/USD.

“If Bitcoin wants to Weekly Close above the Weekly resistance ($72,810, blue), then price would need to hold the blue level as support on any upcoming dip,” he explained alongside a chart showing key price points. 

“The last time Bitcoin rejected from the black resistance in mid-March, price also lost the blue level as support. Which is why a Daily Close below the blue level after any upcoming dip could see price drop back into the blue-blue Weekly Range.”

Trader warns of volume-led BTC price downside

Bearish perspectives included that of trader Roman, who maintained expectations of lower levels next.

Related: Bitcoin can grow ‘probably a lot bigger’ than $30T+ gold market — Analysis

Declining trading volume into the highs, he warned, was a telltale sign of fading momentum.

“We’re in a macro downtrend which when we see high volume continues downward. Low volume implies consolidation/correction to continue the overall trend,” he explained on X. 

“The next high volume move likely takes us lower.”

As Cointelegraph reported, sub-$50,000 price levels remain a popular bet for Bitcoin’s next macro bottom.