TLDR

• Krane Funds Advisors increased its position in AMD by 72.7% during the fourth quarter, now holding 11,306 shares valued at approximately $2.42 million.
• The chipmaker delivered first-quarter earnings of $1.37 per share, surpassing Wall Street expectations by $0.08, while revenue climbed 37.8% year-over-year to $10.25 billion.
• Goldman Sachs shifted its stance on AMD from Neutral to Buy, increasing its price target from $240 to $450; TD Cowen pushed its target even higher to $600.
• Shares opened at $466.38, significantly exceeding the 50-day moving average of $358.36, while the consensus price target stands at $419.86.
• Company insiders offloaded $119.5 million in shares during the last 90 days, while semiconductor stocks faced headwinds following Broadcom’s disappointing AI forecast.

Advanced Micro Devices has emerged as one of the semiconductor industry’s most compelling narratives in recent months. A combination of impressive quarterly results, multiple analyst endorsements, and heightened institutional participation has propelled the stock significantly beyond its recent trading ranges — despite encountering some volatility.

Advanced Micro Devices, Inc., AMD

Shares began trading Monday at $466.38, representing a substantial premium over the 50-day moving average of $358.36 and significantly above the 200-day moving average of $265.16. With a 52-week trading band stretching from $115.06 to $546.44, the stock’s trajectory has been nothing short of dramatic.

The primary driver behind this recent optimism was AMD’s first-quarter financial performance. The semiconductor company reported earnings of $1.37 per share, exceeding the Street’s $1.29 consensus. Revenue reached $10.25 billion, topping expectations of $9.90 billion and marking a 37.8% increase compared to the prior-year period.

Such outperformance typically captures the attention of Wall Street analysts.

Wave of Analyst Endorsements

Goldman Sachs elevated AMD from Neutral to Buy on May 6th, simultaneously raising its price objective from $240 to $450. Sanford C. Bernstein followed suit, upgrading shares from Market Perform to Outperform while boosting its target from $265 to $525.

TD Cowen took the most aggressive stance, elevating its price target to $600 on June 1st while reaffirming a Buy recommendation. JPMorgan maintained its Neutral position but still increased its target from $270 to $385. Barclays established a $665 price objective, citing accelerating CPU demand driven by expanding artificial intelligence workloads.

The prevailing analyst consensus is Moderate Buy, with a mean price target of $419.86. Notably, this figure trails the current trading price, suggesting the recent rally has outpaced Street expectations.

Krane Funds Advisors was among the institutional players expanding their AMD holdings in the fourth quarter, increasing its stake by 72.7% to 11,306 shares worth approximately $2.42 million. Vanguard stands as the largest institutional stakeholder with more than 158 million shares valued at roughly $33.9 billion. Norges Bank established a fresh position worth about $4.9 billion during Q4.

Institutional investors and hedge funds collectively control 71.34% of AMD’s outstanding equity.

Executive Selling and Market Challenges

Not all signals point upward. Company executives have divested $119.5 million worth of AMD shares over the past three months. EVP Paul Darren Grasby disposed of 24,376 shares at $444.39 apiece on May 8th. EVP Mark D. Papermaster sold 31,320 shares at $350.00 on April 24th through a prearranged 10b5-1 plan.

From a broader market perspective, AMD experienced pressure following Broadcom’s quarterly results, which underwhelmed investors expecting more robust AI-related guidance. This development weighed on chip stocks across the board and renewed valuation debates surrounding AMD, particularly given its price-to-earnings multiple of 152.91.

TSMC has indicated that artificial intelligence chip supply constraints will persist for years, supporting demand fundamentals while highlighting ongoing capacity limitations throughout the industry.

Wall Street analysts currently forecast AMD will deliver $6.20 in earnings per share for the complete fiscal year.

The escalating feud between Justin Sun and Donald Trump’s World Liberty Financial has reached a new level as Sun’s HTX has now delisted USD1.

Sun and World Liberty Financial have, for months, been involved in a public dispute that’s spilled over from X and into the courts.

This delisting comes comes after Sun alleged that World Liberty attempted to strong-arm him into becoming a larger minter of the Trump-affiliated stablecoin.

CoinDesk Indices presents its daily market update, highlighting the performance of leaders and laggards in the CoinDesk 20 Index.

The CoinDesk 20 is currently trading at 1715.91, up 6.7% (+107.11) since 4 p.m. ET on Friday.

Nineteen of 20 assets are trading higher.

Leaders: NEAR (+12.3%) and TAO (+12.0%).

Laggards: BCH (-3.2%) and AVAX (+1.1%).

The CoinDesk 20 is a broad-based index traded on multiple platforms in several regions globally.

Bitcoin’s BTC$63,578.60 slide below $60,000 may have less to do with Michael Saylor’s Strategy (MSTR) and more to do with inflation creeping higher, one analyst argued.

In a Monday report, Markus Thielen, founder of 10x Research, wrote to clients that investors have largely misread the drivers behind crypto’s sharp selloff over the past weeks. While much of the market focused on Strategy’s first bitcoin sale since 2022 and the potential overhang if the largest corporate holder sells more, the bigger story has been a wave of institutional selling through spot bitcoin exchange-traded funds (ETF), he said.

Since the U.S. inflation report for April came in higher than anticipated on May 12, U.S.-listed bitcoin ETFs have seen roughly $5.4 billion in net redemptions, Thielen noted. During the same period, Strategy accumulated about $2 billion worth of bitcoin, making it one of the few significant buyers in the market.

“The market has misdiagnosed this selloff,” Thielen wrote. “Strategy is not the problem.”

Thielen said that attention should turn now to Wednesday’s consumer price index report for May, which could determine whether bitcoin’s recent correction deepens or stabilizes.

10x’s model forecasts annual inflation rising to 4.3%, above both the previous month’s 3.8% reading and Wall Street’s consensus estimate of 4.2%. A reading above 4% could reinforce concerns that the Federal Reserve will need to keep interest rates higher for longer, or potentially even consider additional hikes, the report said.

That would be unwelcome news for risk assets. Markets entered the year expecting multiple rate cuts, but after a string of hotter-than-expected inflation and labor market readings traders are now pricing out easing altogether and increasingly discussing the possibility that the Fed’s next move could be a hike rather than a cut.

While bitcoin appears technically oversold after its recent plunge, Thielen cautioned against treating a short-term bounce as the start of a sustained recovery. The firm expects bitcoin could see a relief rally early in the week, but the move will likely to fade if inflation surprises to the upside.

The broader flow picture has also remained weak, 10x Research said. Stablecoins recorded roughly $1.7 billion of net outflows last week and $5.5 billion over the month, suggesting capital leaving the crypto market. Meanwhile bitcoin futures open interest has fallen sharply as traders reduced exposure.

Thielen said ETF flows remain the key metric to watch to gauge bitcoin’s next move. “Institutional ETF flows are driving price,” he wrote. “Follow the money, not the narrative.”

Read more: Bitcoin’s slide has no single cause. AI, tech IPOs, quantum, Strategy sale all play a role, NYDIG says

Decentralized finance (DeFi) is recovering from a string of sophisticated exploits that have triggered an intense debate over whether public blockchain protocols can truly handle systemic risk.

The crisis peaked in April 2026, with the $292 million exploit of KelpDAO’s LayerZero-powered bridge triggered a devastating $8.45 billion deposit run on Aave, the world’s largest decentralized lending platform. The massive withdrawals occurred within 48 hours.

Stani Kulechov, founder and CEO of Aave Labs, defended Aave’s mathematical superiority over traditional finance at the Proof of Talk event in Paris last week. Rather than addressing the operational failures of a multi-million dollar liquidity crunch that nearly broke Aave’s insolvency shields, Kulechov pivoted to frame the massive capital flight as empirical proof of the network’s “resilience.”

“Aave’s existing V3 infrastructure has seen multiple market cycles,” he said, adding that “Aave has been really resilient during really turbulent times.”

However, a closer look at the April crisis reveals that Aave’s survival relied less on flawless autonomous design and more on a chaotic, human-led $300 million emergency bailout. The emergency recovery effort required a 25,000 ETH pledge from the Aave DAO and a personal 5,000 ETH ($8.4 million) contribution from Kulechov himself to stave off disaster.

Deflecting the blame

Kulechov separated core smart contract code from the external infrastructure failures impacting the wider market.

“When it comes to development as well… there are very few, actually any sort of issues in DeFi protocols’ smart contracts generally,” Kulechov argued. “They are actually third-party dependencies that are related to more traditional security that might have an impact across the DeFi space, as we’ve seen recently.”

While technically precise, the April hack began with an RPC-spoofing and DDoS attack targeting LayerZero’s verifier nodes on KelpDAO rather than a bug in Aave’s code. Risk analysts said that Kulechov’s defense side-steps a harsher reality.

Blockchain risk modeling firm LlamaRisk later revealed that the hackers used the exploit to mint worthless collateral, deposit it into Aave, and drain authentic wrapped Ether (wETH), leaving Aave V3 saddled with an estimated $123.7 million in bad debt. Furthermore, banking analysts at the Bank Policy Institute pointed out that Aave’s inadequate insurance exposed how DeFi platforms are vulnerable to bank runs in detriment of their users.

Blueprint for V4

Kulechov did concede that the architectural threat of contagion requires a complete overhaul. To prevent future bridge failures from triggering systemic deposit runs, he noted that Aave Labs is using its upcoming V4 upgrade to fundamentally restructure its risk management.

Kulechov explained that Aave Labs is using its upcoming V4 tech upgrade to entirely redesign risk management with the aim of preventing future bridge exploits from triggering deposit runs.

Kulechov explained that under the new version, a modular “hub-and-spoke” system will replace traditional token pooling, enabling the core protocol to autonomously levy localized risk premiums and freeze specific collateral lines before contagion can reach primary lending reserves.

“When you have a completely auditable and public system, anyone can actually inspect the code and also do different kinds of risk analysis based on that. I think that is the key to building resilient software,” he concluded.

​Whether institutional allocators will continue to overlook these multi-billion dollar “stress tests” while waiting for V4 to launch remains the defining question for DeFi’s mainstream future.

• Zcash’s Orchard pool bug, undetected since 2022, sent ZEC crashing 52% to $303.
• The proposed Ironwood upgrade lets anyone verify ZEC’s 21 million coin supply cap.
• Analyst Yashu Gola warns of a rising wedge pattern, with $314 as the key support.

Zcash (ZEC) suffered one of its worst weeks in recent memory last week.

The privacy-focused cryptocurrency plunged from around $635 to a low of roughly $303 in a matter of days after Shielded Labs, a nonprofit developer on the Zcash network, disclosed a critical bug in its Orchard shielded pool, the part of the system responsible for hiding transaction details.

The bug, which had gone undetected since 2022, could have allowed an attacker to mint an unlimited amount of fake ZEC without detection.

However, by Monday, June 8, ZEC had clawed back a significant portion of those losses, trading around $442 at press time, a roughly 45% rebound from the June 5 low.

The rebound followed two key developments: an emergency patch to address the vulnerability and the introduction of a new upgrade proposal called Ironwood.

Nevertheless, the token is still down approximately 19.7% over seven days and 26.2% over the past 30 days, leaving plenty of ground to recover.

What the Ironwood upgrade actually does

The emergency patch was a coordinated effort.

Shielded Labs, the Zcash Foundation, and the Zcash Open Development Lab pushed through network upgrades within days of the disclosure, working alongside mining pools ViaBTC and Foundry to get it done quickly.

But fixing the bug was only step one.

On June 6, those same groups formally proposed the Ironwood upgrade as a longer-term solution to restore confidence in Zcash’s coin supply.

Ironwood would create a brand-new privacy pool built on the repaired code and effectively shut down the old Orchard pool, blocking any new coins from being created there.

Once active, anyone running Zcash software would be able to aggregate balances across the old and new pools and independently verify that no more than the maximum supply of 21 million ZEC is in circulation.

The upgrade could also serve as a forensic tool of sorts.

As users migrate their coins out of the old pool, any counterfeit ZEC that might have been minted would either show up when it tries to move or get stranded and effectively destroyed.

Shielded Labs has said it believes the vulnerability was never exploited, though that has not been confirmed definitively.

Developers have not committed to a timeline yet, noting that building, testing, and coordinating the upgrade across the network will take time.

Here’s why the rebound may not hold

While the price recovery looks sharp on paper, technical analysis shows a warning sign.

ZEC appears to be forming a rising wedge pattern on the four-hour chart. The pattern is characterized by higher highs and higher lows within a narrowing range and often signals that buying momentum is fading rather than strengthening.

Notably, after rebounding, ZEC has struggled to establish sustained momentum above the $420-$430 area, suggesting buyers are finding it difficult to push decisively higher.

If the price breaks below the wedge’s lower trendline, the measured downside target lands near $314.

That $314 level is not arbitrary. On the weekly chart, it aligns with the lower trendline of a broader ascending triangle and sits near the 0.236 Fibonacci retracement drawn from the approximately $700 swing high to the $200 swing low.

If ZEC holds above $314 during a pullback, bulls can argue that the broader structure remains intact.

But a decisive break below that level opens the door to a deeper slide toward the $250–$200 support zone.

For bulls to keep the recovery on track, ZEC needs to defend wedge support and clear $450 convincingly.

The 7-day range tells the full story of just how volatile this period has been: $303.80 on the low end and $635.49 on the high end, a spread of more than $330 within a single week.

The fundamental damage from the bug disclosure should not be underestimated either.

Zcash’s core value proposition rests on privacy, cryptographic integrity, and a fixed, trustworthy supply of 21 million coins.

A vulnerability that could have silently inflated that supply struck at the heart of what makes the asset appealing to its investor base.

Even with the patch in place and Ironwood on the table, rebuilding that confidence will take more than a 45% price bounce.

The coming weeks will likely depend on two factors: whether Ironwood progresses from proposal to implementation, and whether ZEC can maintain its key technical support levels during that process.

Galaxy Digital has revised downward its assessment of the likelihood that the U.S. Senate will pass the CLARITY Act this year, signaling a shrinking window for regulatory action ahead of the August recess. In a Friday note, Galaxy’s head of research, Alex Thorn, said the probability of enactment in 2026 was trimmed to 60% from 75% previously, reflecting stalled negotiations and the looming legislative pause. thorn noted that the calendar matters: the Senate must act before a late-July recess, after which the window for major year-end legislation effectively closes.

Thorn emphasized that substantial legislation typically slows as midterm elections approach, and a 60-vote bill that still requires floor debate, amendments, and reconciliation with the Senate Agriculture text faces a tight timetable. “Anything later and the procedural steps do not fit before the recess,” he said. The CLARITY Act has gained traction in the House and in Senate committees, but passage now hinges on floor time and cross-chamber alignment.

Source: Alex Thorn

Separately, analysts have begun to bracket their expectations differently. JPMorgan researchers said they see less than a 50% chance the CLARITY Act passes this year, citing the tightening congressional calendar. In contrast, Bitwise Investment Chief Matt Hougan pegged the odds as contingent on ongoing negotiations and suggested a broad range of 5% to 30%, depending on information from insiders. Hougan’s comments were reported in Cointelegraph.

Senator Cynthia Lummis, who chairs the Senate Banking Subcommittee on Digital Assets, has stepped up her push for passage, publishing numerous posts on X in June to press lawmakers toward a floor vote. “The Clarity Act passed committee. The floor is next. We did not come this far to quit at the 5 yard line,” she wrote on X. Source

Reflecting on the policy dynamics, Lummis also told CNBC that the working group on the bill is addressing ethics and illicit finance provisions that could affect floor support. The ongoing negotiations remain a central risk to near-term passage. CNBC interview excerpt noted the complexity of achieving a converged, floor-ready text. For deeper context on how the CLARITY Act intersects with non-custodial DeFi and broader regulatory goals, see Cointelegraph Magazine’s coverage.

Key takeaways

• Galaxy Digital reduces its probability estimate for CLARITY Act passage in 2026 to 60%, citing a shrinking legislative window before the August recess.
• The bill faces a 60-vote requirement on the Senate floor, plus floor debate and potential amendments, making July scheduling critical.
• Unresolved provisions on ethics and illicit finance are highlighted as major sticking points that could derail momentum.
• JPMorgan expects sub-50% odds this year, while Bitwise’s Matt Hougan cites a wide, insider-driven range (roughly 5%–30%).
• Senator Lummis has intensified public pressure for floor action, while acknowledging ongoing negotiations around sensitive provisions that could influence support.

Legislative trajectory and timing

The CLARITY Act has progressed through Senate Agriculture and Banking committees and now awaits a floor vote. To move without extended debate, it must secure at least 60 votes and undergo possible amendments, followed by reconciliation with the House-passed version and any changes that emerge from conferencing. Galaxy’s Thorn underscored that Majority Leader John Thune would need to schedule floor time in July to keep the bill on track, given that the late-July start of the recess would complicate efforts to complete all steps beforehand.

Analysts note that, even with committee approvals, Senate leadership must allocate a window for floor consideration and potential amendments. Any delay beyond July could render passage impractical before lawmakers depart for the recess, extending regulatory uncertainty into the autumn session or into 2027.

Regulatory context and industry implications

Beyond the procedural dynamics, the CLARITY Act sits at the center of a broader U.S. regulatory dialogue around crypto markets, with implications for licensing pathways, investor protection, and cross-border compliance. If enacted, the act could influence how crypto firms register, disclose, and operate within a framework that intersects with existing enforcement priorities from the SEC, CFTC, and DOJ. In parallel, the industry context includes ongoing policy objectives in the European Union through MiCA, and firms are weighing how U.S. regulatory clarity might align with or diverge from international standards for cross-border activity and banking relationships.

The unresolved ethics and illicit-finance provisions are repeatedly cited as pivotal to securing bipartisan support. The field-facing consequences for exchanges, custodians, and DeFi actors hinge on the text’s final balance between innovation, consumer protections, and enforcement controls. As the policy process continues, financial institutions and crypto firms must assess how regulatory clarity—or its absence—affects licensing determinations, onboarding of customers, and international collaboration on compliant product offerings.

According to Cointelegraph reporting, the combination of floor timing, amendment dynamics, and unresolved policy language will determine whether the CLARITY Act gains momentum before the August recess or stalls in the current session. The outcome will reverberate through compliance workflows, risk assessments, and strategic planning for firms navigating a changing regulatory landscape.

For a broader policy perspective on DeFi and non-custodial models, readers may consult Cointelegraph Magazine’s feature exploring how the CLARITY Act could redefine regulatory paths for non-custodial DeFi in the United States.

What to watch next remains tightly focused on legislative scheduling, the evolution of ethics and illicit-finance provisions, and the degree to which Senate leaders can align the text with the Agriculture Committee’s version and the House’s stance—an alignment that could unlock or further delay regulatory clarity for the industry.

Looking ahead, the path to regulatory clarity for U.S. crypto markets hinges on concrete floor action in July, decisive progress on contentious provisions, and the ability to reconcile divergent legislative texts before lawmakers retreat for the August recess. Absent a timely vote, regulatory timing and the associated compliance planning will likely extend into the 2027 session.

The European Union’s (EU) regulatory framework has redefined the competitive landscape of Web3, unintentionally shifting the advantage away from crypto startups, directly into the hands of legacy financial institutions, according to Charles Guillemet, chief technology officer (CTO) at wallet maker Ledger.

While the EU’s Markets in Crypto-Assets (MiCA) regulation was designed to establish a unified, secure market, industry insiders warn its steep financial barriers are choking early-stage innovation. Under the framework, crypto companies face strict tiered minimum capital requirements. The costs range from 50,000 euros ($58,000) for advisory services to 150,000 ($174,000) just to operate a trading platform, on top millions of euros in mandatory legal auditing, insurance, and continuous compliance infrastructure.

An impact assessment by the EU Commission on MiCA estimated that each white paper could cost issuers between $4,500 and $87,000, depending on the complexity of the regime and the amount of legal advice required.

“I’m not sure that was the initial intent, but this is the result,” Guillemet said. “When it’s implemented, you have two kinds of companies: those who can pay for this compliance overhead, and the other ones that can’t. Smaller players cannot access the market, which creates a moat for the bigger players.”

While crypto startups view the high costs of MiCA compliance as a barrier to entry in the EU, European regulators have defended the rules, saying they are required to protect consumers and build mainstream institutional trust.

Institutional security

The widening regulatory gap comes at a critical time when traditional finance (TradFi) transitions from testing blockchain to full-scale adoption. Guillemet recalled the listing of spot crypto ETFs in early 2024 as a significant turning point, which sparked significant demand from traditional banks for enterprise-grade custody and asset tokenization.

“Before, banks mostly wanted to do small innovation projects,” Guillemet explained. “Now, it really changed. The main departments of banks really want to build around crypto, and they want to go all-in on blockchain technology.”

To capture this banking business, Ledger has been expanding past its retail roots into a dedicated business-to-business (B2B) infrastructure. Building these institutional security setups requires serious cash; Ledger has spent hundreds of millions of dollars over the years to maintain a massive engineering team.

“First and foremost, Ledger is a security company,” Guillemet said. “We have around 200 to 250 engineers who are working at Ledger to build the technology. We have a dedicated security team, who spend 100% of their time improving the security of our product. Security is front and center in everything we do.”

Real-world risks

However, Ledger’s massive security budget is an indication of the challenges its executive team continuously faces: in Web3, even hundreds of millions of dollars in engineering defenses cannot guarantee absolute immunity.

While Guillemet introduces Ledger’s enterprise architecture to traditional banks, the firm’s historical vulnerabilities underscore the relentless operational risks public blockchains face.

Ledger previously reported a cloud breach involving a third-party processor. That incident followed a major 2020 data breach affecting 270,000 customers, and a 2023 exploit that drained $500,000 from decentralized applications.

As traditional banks rush to bring real-world assets onto public blockchains, they are leaning on native crypto security firms to handle these operational risks. The end result is a shifting landscape: while smaller startups are being priced out of Europe by high compliance costs, traditional financial institutions are moving in, using native crypto code to build the new plumbing of global finance.

South Korean police have reportedly raided Bithumb as part of an investigation into alleged nepotism involving independent lawmaker Kim Byung-gi.

Kim allegedly attempted to influence employment opportunities for his son at multiple crypto firms, including Bithumb and Dunamu, the operator of rival exchange Upbit, according to a Monday report by News1.

Kim’s son joined Bithumb in January 2025 and worked there for about six months, the local outlet reported. Authorities are investigating whether any external pressure or preferential treatment influenced the hiring process.

Hiring favoritism and influence-peddling allegations remain politically sensitive issues in South Korea, where a series of high-profile scandals involving politicians and conglomerates, particularly in hiring and admissions, have fueled public scrutiny over abuse of power and insider networks.

Probe widens beyond Bithumb hiring allegations

Police have reportedly questioned Kim several times as they continue investigating whether any criminal conduct occurred in connection with the alleged misuse of his political position.

The allegations widened after reports revealed that Kim, while serving on the National Assembly’s Political Affairs Committee overseeing the nation’s finance regulator, repeatedly directed questions at Dunamu during proceedings, raising questions over whether he was attempting to support the company where his son was working.

Bithumb is one of South Korea’s largest exchanges. Source: Bithumb

Police previously called executives from crypto exchanges in for questioning as witnesses in February, and earlier carried out a separate search and seizure at Bithumb’s headquarters and Bithumb Financial Tower.

Related: South Korea police probe Polymarket users over illegal gambling claims: Report

Investigators continued gathering testimony in April by questioning additional individuals connected to Bithumb.

Kim was also questioned in April over 13 separate allegations, including claims tied to nomination bribery, employment-related favors involving his son and alleged requests connected to a university transfer.

Authorities have not announced whether further summonses are planned. During his sixth appearance before investigators, Kim said he was confident he would be cleared of wrongdoing.

Bithumb under regulatory watch

Bithumb has faced regulatory scrutiny in South Korea over Anti-Money Laundering (AML) and compliance deficiencies, including a $24.5 million fine and a six-month partial suspension order issued in March by financial regulators following inspections in 2025.

The enforcement action stemmed from findings of Know Your Customer (KYC) and AML shortcomings and included restrictions on certain services, particularly related to onboarding new users, as part of the broader penalty package.

In late April, a South Korean court temporarily blocked the implementation of that suspension order after Bithumb challenged the regulator’s decision, pausing enforcement while legal proceedings continue.

Cointelegraph reached out to Bithumb for comment but did not receive a response by publication.

Asia Express: North Korea denies crypto hacks, Upbit’s bank tests Ripple