Coinbase has expanded its Webull infrastructure partnership into Canada, adding a fourth market to an agreement that already supports crypto services in the United States, Brazil and Australia.

Coinbase will supply Webull Canada’s crypto infrastructure

Coinbase said in an announcement that Webull Canada will use its Crypto-as-a-Service platform to support digital asset trading and custody. The arrangement gives Webull access to Coinbase’s liquidity and infrastructure while allowing customers to trade without leaving the Webull platform.

Rather than building its own trading and custody system, Webull will connect its Canadian service to technology already used in three other countries. Coinbase will handle the infrastructure behind the offering, while Webull will control the customer-facing investment experience.

Michael Constantino, CEO of Webull Canada, said Canadian clients are seeking access to more asset classes, including digital assets. In his view, Coinbase can provide the capacity and reliability needed to support the service.

“Canadian investors expect access to a growing range of asset classes, and crypto has become an increasingly important part of that mix,” Constantino said. “Our partnership with Coinbase provides the infrastructure needed to deliver this offering with the scale and reliability our clients expect.”

Webull Canada had already announced plans to introduce crypto trading after receiving regulatory approval. In a June statement, the company said the service would support 24-hour trading in assets including Bitcoin, Ethereum, Solana, XRP, Cardano, and Litecoin.

Beta access was expected to begin with selected clients before reaching more users, according to the June announcement. Webull said customers would be able to fund accounts, monitor portfolios, access reports, and trade digital assets within its existing platform.

Canadian crypto ownership has reached 25%

Demand data cited by Coinbase came from the Ontario Securities Commission’s 2025 crypto asset survey, which found that one in four Canadians owned crypto assets or crypto funds. The 25% national ownership rate was up from 10% in 2023.

Among respondents identified as investors, the ownership rate reached 39%, according to the OSC. About 30% of Canadians had owned crypto at some point, while 74% of current owners held cryptocurrencies directly through an exchange or another platform.

The findings provide the demand backdrop for Webull’s Canadian rollout, although the regulator also identified gaps in investor knowledge. The OSC reported that many owners continued to misunderstand the protections attached to crypto accounts and the risks associated with digital assets.

Webull Canada Crypto Limited is regulated by the Canadian Investment Regulatory Organization as an investment dealer. The company offers order-execution-only services, meaning customers make their own investment decisions without receiving portfolio recommendations from the platform.

While Webull Securities (Canada) Limited belongs to the Canadian Investor Protection Fund, Webull’s disclosures state that crypto assets do not qualify for CIPF coverage. Eligible cash held in a crypto trading account may receive protection within applicable limits and under the fund’s coverage policy, but the protection does not extend to cryptocurrencies themselves.

The distinction matters because CIPF generally covers missing property when a member investment dealer becomes insolvent. It does not insure investors against falling crypto prices, trading losses, or the failure of an asset.

Webull extends a partnership already active in the US

Before entering Canada, Coinbase’s infrastructure supported Webull crypto products in the United States, Brazil and Australia. Webull selected the company based on its available assets, liquidity, pricing, custody services, and ability to operate across several markets, according to Coinbase.

The U.S. part of the partnership gives the Canadian expansion a direct connection to American investors. Webull Corporation trades on Nasdaq under the ticker BULL and operates licensed brokerage businesses across 16 markets, according to the company’s June release.

Webull said it serves more than 27 million registered users globally. Its Canadian brokerage already offers Canadian and U.S.-listed shares, exchange-traded funds and options, along with cash, margin, tax-free savings and retirement accounts.

For Coinbase, the agreement supplies infrastructure to another financial platform without requiring Webull clients to trade directly through the Coinbase application. Crypto-as-a-Service products generally allow brokerages and financial technology companies to add digital asset functions while an external provider handles parts of trading, liquidity, and custody.

The Canadian rollout also builds on Webull’s existing local presence. The company entered Canada in January 2024 after obtaining regulatory authorization in November 2023, initially offering access to Canadian and U.S. equities.

Coinbase adds stocks, tokenized assets and EU services

Outside its work with Webull, Coinbase has continued adding products that combine crypto infrastructure with conventional financial markets. Earlier in August, crypto.news reported on its launch of nearly 4,000 U.S. stocks for eligible customers in the United Kingdom.

The UK service allows trading for 24 hours a day on five weekdays, with purchases funded through pounds or USDC. Coinbase also offers fractional shares starting from £1 and zero-commission trades, although its disclosures warn that currency movements can affect purchases made with pounds and that out-of-hours trading carries added risks.

Orders are routed through Coinbase Capital Markets Corporation and executed by Apex, while Apex Clearing holds the U.S. shares, according to the August report. Fractional shares remain unavailable outside regular U.S. trading hours even though supported whole-share orders can be placed during extended sessions.

Coinbase has also moved into stock-linked derivatives through Deribit. The derivatives exchange plans to offer perpetual contracts tied to companies such as Strategy and Robinhood, placing equity-linked products alongside its existing crypto derivatives business.

Onchain equities form another part of the company’s product expansion. On Aug. 24, Coinbase launched four stock tokens on Base, providing eligible non-U.S. users with exposure to Nvidia, Meta, Apple and Alphabet shares.

Each product initially represents a beneficial interest in one underlying share held through a segregated custody account. Coinbase Onchain SPV Ltd., an Abu Dhabi Global Market company, issues the securities, while U.S.-registered Alpaca Securities acts as the broker and custodian.

Chainlink later added Data Feeds for NVDAc, METAc, AAPLc and GOOGLc, allowing supported Base applications to calculate collateral values and monitor liquidations. Each lending protocol remains responsible for setting its borrowing limits and risk controls.

Coinbase has limited the Base stock tokens to eligible non-U.S. investors under Regulation S. The securities have not been registered under the U.S. Securities Act and are unavailable to U.S. persons, despite representing economic interests in shares of companies listed in the United States.

In Europe, Coinbase opened its Luxembourg hub under the Markets in Crypto-Assets framework in June. Its authorization from Luxembourg’s Commission de Surveillance du Secteur Financier permits the company to provide regulated crypto services across all 27 European Union member states through MiCA passporting rules.

Strive has purchased 1,800 Bitcoin for about $143 million, raising its treasury to 23,156 BTC and moving past Bullish into fifth place among public corporate holders.

Strive Bitcoin holdings reach 23,156 BTC

The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission Form 8-K filing, submitted on Aug. 31, showed that Strive acquired 1,800 BTC between Aug. 24 and Aug. 28 at an average price of $79,431 per coin, including fees and expenses.

At the reported average price, the transaction cost approximately $143 million. Strive ended the period with 23,156 BTC, up from 21,356 BTC one week earlier.

BitcoinTreasuries.net data placed the Dallas-based company ahead of crypto exchange Bullish, which holds 22,000 BTC. The new balance made Strive the fifth-largest publicly traded corporate Bitcoin holder, behind Strategy, Twenty One Capital, Metaplanet, and MARA Holdings.

At a Bitcoin price of roughly $76,400, Strive’s holdings were worth about $1.77 billion. Market values can change with the price of BTC, while the filing did not disclose the company’s combined acquisition cost for its full treasury.

Chief executive Matt Cole confirmed the purchase in an Aug. 31 post on X.

“Strive acquired an additional 1800 BTC for $143M at an average cost of $79431 per bitcoin, bringing total holdings to ₿23156,” Cole wrote.

The acquisition followed another filing one week earlier in which Strive disclosed a purchase of 1,110 BTC for $81.5 million. As previously reported by crypto.news, the company paid an average of $73,409 per coin between Aug. 17 and Aug. 21, lifting its balance from 20,246 BTC to 21,356 BTC.

Across the two reporting periods, Strive acquired 2,910 BTC for approximately $224.5 million. Its average purchase price rose during the second week as Bitcoin moved through the upper-$70,000 range.

Share sales financed the Bitcoin purchase

Strive has used two Nasdaq-listed securities to raise money for its Bitcoin strategy: ASST common stock and SATA preferred stock. Both operate through at-the-market programs, which allow appointed sales agents to issue shares gradually instead of completing one large underwritten offering.

The latest filing showed that Strive’s outstanding Class A common shares increased by 3.58 million during the week, rising from 79.89 million to 83.47 million. Its Class B share count remained unchanged at 9.79 million.

Effective common shares outstanding consequently reached 93.26 million, while the assumed fully diluted count increased by 3.57 million to 96.52 million. The latter figure includes options and unvested employee awards but excludes 26.6 million shares tied to traditional warrants.

SATA issuance also continued, with the number of preferred shares climbing by 803,099 to 9.07 million. The security carries a $100 liquidation preference, placing its implied aggregate liquidation value at about $907.4 million.

Although Strive did not divide the purchase funding between the ASST and SATA programs, the simultaneous increase in both share counts showed that the company continued using common and preferred equity to support its treasury activity. Its filing also identified dilution from new ASST and SATA issuance as a risk for investors.

In June, Strive disclosed plans to add $2.1 billion of capacity to each program, creating up to $4.2 billion in possible new fundraising. The fundraising expansion gave the company more room to issue securities when market demand and pricing allowed.

For U.S. investors, ASST and SATA offer different exposure to Strive’s Bitcoin balance sheet. Common shareholders own the remaining equity after senior claims and can experience dilution as Strive sells more shares, while SATA holders have priority for declared dividends but do not own a direct claim on a fixed amount of Bitcoin.

SATA is a perpetual preferred security without a scheduled maturity date. Strive has maintained a 13% annualized dividend rate and began paying declared cash dividends every business day in June.

Strive’s cash position rises despite $143M purchase

Alongside its Bitcoin acquisition, Strive increased cash and cash equivalents by $11.6 million, from $171.9 million on Aug. 21 to $183.5 million on Aug. 28.

The company also continued holding 505,000 shares of Strategy’s STRC preferred stock. Although the number of shares did not change during the week, their reported fair value rose by $581,000 to $49.15 million.

Cash and STRC together had a reported value of approximately $232.65 million at the end of the period. Strive has used both assets as part of the reserves supporting its preferred-stock obligations.

Earlier in August, the company reported that it had retired all outstanding short- and long-term debt. Its second-quarter results showed a GAAP net loss of $257.6 million, including $234 million linked to declines in the fair value of Bitcoin and STRC during the quarter.

Preferred dividends also affect the amount available to common shareholders. Strive recorded $26.2 million in SATA dividends within its adjusted second-quarter loss attributable to common stockholders.

The company reported 6,236 BTC of purchases during the second quarter and 12,237 BTC during the first six months of 2026. An additional 303 BTC acquired through Aug. 7 brought the treasury to 20,167 BTC before several purchases later in the month.

Strive then bought 79 BTC for about $5 million between Aug. 10 and Aug. 14, followed by 1,110 BTC the next week and 1,800 BTC during the latest reporting period. The three transactions added 2,989 BTC in 15 days.

Back in May, a 1,109 BTC purchase had raised Strive’s holdings to 16,500 BTC and pushed the company ahead of Coinbase and Riot Platforms in the public-company ranking at the time.

ASST stock extends its August rally

ASST shares rose more than 5% during Monday trading after closing at $21.74 on Aug. 28. Market data showed the stock opened at $22.54 and traded between $21.95 and $23.46 during the session.

At approximately $23.16, ASST was up 6.5% on the day and had gained about 95% during August. Trading volume exceeded 5.2 million shares during the session, compared with an average near 5.18 million.

The stock’s rise followed a sharp increase in Strive’s Bitcoin balance and continued issuance under its common-stock program. ASST shareholders, however, remained exposed to Bitcoin price changes, preferred dividend costs, and further share issuance listed in the company’s SEC disclosures.

SATA traded near its $100 liquidation preference after falling below par the previous week. The preferred stock’s price matters to Strive because issuing shares well below $100 requires more units to raise the same capital, which adds to the company’s continuing dividend obligation.

Bitcoin traded near $78,000 during the same period after moving between approximately $77,161 and $79,346 over 24 hours. The cryptocurrency remained below Strive’s latest average purchase price of $79,431 but above the $73,409 average paid for the company’s preceding 1,110-BTC acquisition.

Metaplanet has paid over $45 million to operate a bitcoin (BTC) treasury company that has a $1 billion unrealized loss from investing in BTC.

The Japanese company that emulated Michael Saylor’s Strategy loaded its purchases far higher than Strategy’s $75,385 cost basis. It paid 36% more, to be precise.

Indeed, Metaplanet has paid $4.41 billion to buy 43,000 BTC at an average cost basis of $102,502 per coin.

In March, an almost-dead Bitcoin wallet suddenly resurfaced and moved about $1 million worth of BTC through a large centralized custodian—only for nearly the same amount to be sent back three weeks later. Less than two months after that brief “round trip,” the same stash was intentionally destroyed by sending it to an unspendable address.

The episode sits within a broader puzzle highlighted by blockchain researchers: multiple BTC-burning transactions in May, totaling 107 BTC (worth roughly $8.5 million at the time). New wallet-cluster analysis suggests the burn-related addresses were likely controlled by the same individual, raising the question of why someone would deliberately destroy coins that represent long-held value.

Key takeaways

• One dormant wallet moved 20.00010537 BTC through an unidentified major custodian and then received 20.00006037 BTC back about three weeks later—an outcome difficult to square with typical trading.
• Five separate wallets later burned their BTC, and Chainalysis reported “strong indicators of common ownership” linking them.
• Most of the funds behind the burn can be traced back to Mt. Gox-era origins, suggesting an early adopter connection.
• Researchers cannot confirm why the coins were destroyed; even CoinShares-class level of onchain forensics can’t determine intent from transaction history alone.
• A possible clue emerges from repeated transfers clustered around similar dollar values (about $10,400), hinting at a planned approach—but not fully explaining the March round trip.

A dormant wallet returns—and immediately interacts with a custodian

Blockchain educator Bennet described a wallet that lay dormant for nearly 12 years before suddenly moving 20.00010537 BTC to “a custodian of some kind,” according to his analysis. Three weeks later, almost the entire balance returned, minus only a very small difference (about $3). Bennet characterized the pattern this way: the full balance went out to what appeared to be an exchange hot wallet and nearly the same amount came back three weeks later; then, seven weeks after the return, the funds were burned.

What makes the sequence notable is its symmetry. Burning is irreversible on-chain, but the “round trip” suggests the private keys behind the dormant wallet were actively used—not merely to let funds sit, but to interact with custodial infrastructure, retrieve the coins, and then choose a terminal outcome.

Bennet’s observation aligns with a timing link to a wider narrative of BTC destruction. Earlier coverage connected the broader mystery to 107 BTC burned in May, described as worth approximately $8.5 million at the time. The March event may be part of the same story, even though the chain of custody is obscured once the coins enter custodian systems.

Chainalysis: the burn wallets point to one controller

Chainalysis analysis, as summarized by Bennet and repeated in the coverage, indicates that five wallets ultimately responsible for destroying BTC show “strong indicators of common ownership.” In other words, the on-chain behavior suggests the same party controlled these addresses at some point.

The wallets were reportedly funded on the same day in April 2014. From there, each address sent BTC to the same deposit address at a large centralized exchange. Researchers also noted a rotational pattern: one address would transmit BTC to the exchange until its activity paused, then another would take over with transactions of similar cadence and dollar-equivalent value.

Chainalysis further reported that most of the funds could be traced back to Mt. Gox, implying an early Bitcoin holder background. While the connection suggests origin, it does not prove the coins were withdrawn directly from Mt. Gox at the time it ceased trading in February 2014—because the five wallets were funded in April. Bennet argued it’s plausible the owner was among those who managed to get their coins out before the collapse.

Equally important: the custodian remains unidentified. Chainalysis confirmed it is a large centralized exchange, but it does not publicly disclose the names of the services it identifies. Bennet’s interpretation is that the deposit address behaves like a static customer address within a custodian—one that doesn’t maintain a meaningful balance itself because deposits are swept and consolidated internally using an omnibus wallet approach. That design makes the coins’ subsequent fate hard to follow on the public blockchain.

The “$10,400” pattern—and why it may still be incomplete

One of the wallets involved in the burn later sent 19.6 BTC in 60 separate transactions to the same custodian between 2022 and 2024, according to the mempool-linked reference in the reporting. The BTC amounts varied widely—from roughly 0.15 BTC to 0.62 BTC—but when translated into dollars at the time of each transfer, the transactions were strikingly consistent.

Specifically, 58 of the 60 transfers were within 10% of approximately $10,400 per transaction. That implies the controller cared more about dollar totals than fixed BTC amounts. Bennet suggested the behavior could reflect a planned liquidation strategy.

However, the pattern has limits. The blockchain cannot prove whether those dollars were realized through a sale, held, or moved onward, because once funds hit a custodian they are mixed with many other inputs and consolidated internally. Researchers also noted that while the payment size was broadly constant, transaction frequency was not; transfers arrived in clusters rather than a perfectly regular automation schedule. Bennet viewed that as more consistent with sending a fixed-dollar amount when conditions required it, rather than a purely automated periodic process.

Still, even if the “$10,400” behavior hints at strategy, it doesn’t close the gap around the March event—particularly the fact that the wallet sent almost exactly the same amount out and got almost the same amount back shortly afterward.

The $1 million “round trip” doesn’t fit a simple trading explanation

After remaining untouched for roughly 12 years, the dormant wallet moved its entire balance of 20.00010537 BTC and received 20.00006037 BTC back—leaving a tiny difference of about 4,500 satoshis (around $3). The returned Bitcoin was split into three transactions of 7 BTC, 7 BTC, and 6.00006037 BTC, sent over three consecutive days.

Bennet argued that the use of round numbers may align with custodial withdrawal limits. More importantly, the coins did not just reappear somewhere else—they returned to the same address that had sent them to the custodian.

The transaction history also suggests the same private key holder controlled the wallet before and after the round trip. Bennet noted that using the BTC in March would have required the private key to authorize the custodian movement, and burning it in May required the key again. That shared key linkage makes the sequence particularly difficult to interpret as a straightforward exchange workflow where funds simply change hands.

The central tension is clear: if the activity were primarily about trading or liquidation, the near-identical “go out, come back” outcome appears unusually tight, especially given the custodial mixing that otherwise obscures on-chain details.

So what was the point of a deliberate burn?

Multiple explanations have been floated, but the available evidence doesn’t neatly select one. The liquidation theory helps rationalize earlier patterns—especially the “$10,400” clustering and the apparent rotational funding to the same custodian—but it does not readily explain why the controller would send roughly $1 million through the same infrastructure in March and then retrieve virtually all of it.

One alternative possibility is that the controller was testing an old custody setup or wallet—verifying that after a long dormancy, coins could still be moved through a major custodian and returned successfully. Yet that still leaves the subsequent decision to destroy the BTC.

Tax or compliance narratives could also be imaginable: someone might reorganize assets through recognized custody channels for record-keeping. But the reporting notes there is no evidence tying these actions to any specific regulatory or tax event.

Privacy is another candidate. Sending BTC through a custodian that sweeps deposits into an omnibus wallet can make on-chain tracing more difficult after the point of deposit. Still, privacy alone doesn’t clarify why the coins later ended up burned rather than merely secured.

Bennet also suggested a more personal motive: someone without heirs might have chosen to permanently reduce Bitcoin’s circulating supply by burning rather than destroying private keys. He also emphasized that this hypothesis is not provable purely via blockchain analysis.

Chainalysis, as cited in the coverage, effectively summed up the current limitation: it does not have a clear explanation for why the owner would move a long-dormant stash through a custodian, retrieve roughly the same amount, and then burn it deliberately.

In other words, the blockchain records the “what” with unusual clarity, but not the “why.”

The next thing to watch is whether more tracing work identifies the custodian involved in the March round trip and in the May burn-linked transfers, or whether additional wallet-cluster research finds consistent behavioral links across other dormant-to-active Bitcoin movements. Without that, the most important unknown remains intent—and intent is the one variable onchain forensics can’t conclusively measure.

XRP price traded near $1.36 on Aug. 31 after falling roughly 7% over seven days, as fading momentum and leveraged position unwinding offset record weekly demand from U.S. spot exchange-traded funds.

XRP price pulls back 7% after August rally

According to data from crypto.news, XRP (XRP) price was trading around $1.36 on Aug. 31 at the time of writing. The token had declined from approximately $1.48 over the previous seven days, leaving it down about 7% for the period.

The pullback followed a rapid recovery from an August low near $0.98. XRP gained more than 30% during the month and briefly reached $1.70 on Aug. 22 before sellers rejected the move. Price then formed a series of lower highs below $1.55, $1.50, and $1.45.

XRP’s 4-hour chart shows that the latest decline brought the token back toward a support area that formed during the initial breakout. The Supertrend indicator remained bullish at $1.341, placing its active support slightly below the market price.

However, the Awesome Oscillator registered a negative reading of -0.0364. Its histogram also stayed below zero, indicating that short-term bearish momentum had not fully cleared despite XRP’s attempt to stabilize above $1.35.

The combination leaves XRP at a decision point. Holding $1.34–$1.35 would preserve the higher trading range created by the August rally, while a confirmed 4-hour close below it could weaken the remaining bullish structure.

ETF inflows counter XRP derivatives reset

U.S. spot XRP ETFs recorded $110.49 million in net inflows during the week ending Aug. 28, according to data from SoSoValue. It was their strongest weekly result of 2026.

The funds held about $1.44 billion in net assets after the inflows, while cumulative net inflows reached approximately $1.66 billion. The demand created a contrast between institutional fund flows and XRP’s falling market price.

Derivatives traders took a more defensive position. Aggregate XRP futures open interest had climbed to approximately $2.73 billion earlier in August, its highest level since October, as leveraged traders positioned for a larger move.

Price and open interest later declined together as XRP retreated from the $1.48–$1.50 resistance zone. Such a combination generally points to traders closing existing positions rather than building an aggressive new short position, although open-interest changes alone cannot identify every trader’s direction.

The reset reduced some of the leverage accumulated during the rally. It did not, however, produce enough spot buying to return XRP above $1.40 before the end of the month.

XRP liquidation map identifies the next price magnets

The one-week CoinGlass liquidation heatmap places the largest nearby liquidity concentrations around $1.35 and $1.38. XRP tested both areas during the Aug. 31 decline and was trading between them when the chart was captured.

A concentrated band around $1.35 could attract further price movement if sellers retest the weekly low. Losing that level would place the next visible liquidity pockets near $1.33 and $1.30.

Liquidity also remains stacked above the market. The first meaningful overhead cluster appears near $1.40–$1.42, followed by a broader concentration between $1.44 and $1.45. Larger liquidation bands extend toward $1.48–$1.50.

Those zones could accelerate a rebound if XRP moves higher and forces leveraged short positions to close. They can also act as resistance because traders may use the same levels to exit positions.

The daily chart provides a more constructive signal. Chaikin Money Flow stood at 0.09, keeping the indicator above zero and pointing to net buying pressure over its 20-day measurement period. The positive reading suggests capital has not fully left the market despite the weekly price decline.

XRP nevertheless remained close to the daily Murrey Math pivot near $1.40. A daily recovery above that level would open a path toward $1.50 and the chart’s $1.60 resistance. Failure to reclaim it would leave the token exposed to another test of the lower trading range.

XRP support at $1.28 becomes the main downside test

Chart analyst ChartNerd said XRP had failed to reclaim its 50-week exponential moving average for a second consecutive week. The analyst placed that average near $1.53 and identified the 20-week EMA around $1.27 as the next short-term support floor.

The weekly rejection adds weight to the $1.48–$1.53 resistance range. A break above the zone would invalidate the present series of lower highs and allow buyers to target $1.60, followed by the August wick near $1.70.

On the downside, the 4-hour Supertrend at $1.341 offers the first line of support. A decisive break could send XRP toward $1.30 and the weekly 20 EMA near $1.27–$1.28. The bullish August recovery would become more vulnerable if the price closes below that moving average.

Ripple’s scheduled escrow release adds another short-term consideration. The company’s monthly system is set to unlock 1 billion XRP on Sept. 1, although Ripple has historically returned a large share of the released tokens to escrow. The scheduled release does not mean the full amount will enter the open market at once.

CLARITY Act vote adds a US policy catalyst

The U.S. Senate is expected to hold a procedural vote on the CLARITY Act on Sept. 15. The vote would test whether supporters can secure the 60 votes required to advance the market-structure legislation.

The vote is not final passage, and no signed law is scheduled for Sept. 15. Its outcome could still affect sentiment toward U.S.-traded digital assets because the proposal seeks to clarify federal oversight of crypto markets.

For XRP, the immediate technical range remains more important. Buyers must protect $1.34–$1.35 and reclaim $1.40 to shift short-term momentum. Losing the lower boundary would increase the risk of a deeper correction toward $1.28, while a move above $1.50 would put the August recovery back in control.

Solana price traded near $102.50 on Aug. 31 after retreating from a weekly high of $110.04, but its daily and 4-hour charts show that the broader August breakout remains intact above $100.

Solana price cools after reaching $110

According to data from crypto.news, Solana (SOL) price opened Aug. 25 at $98.56 and rose to an intraday high of $110.04 on Aug. 27, producing an 11.6% advance in less than three days. Its price subsequently pulled back to around $102.50 on Aug. 31, reducing the weekly gain to roughly 4.2%.

The retreat followed a much larger recovery from Solana’s early-August low near $71. From that level to the weekly peak, SOL gained approximately 55%, leaving the token vulnerable to profit-taking as traders approached the end of the month.

Solana’s daily chart shows that the rally pushed the price above the upper Bollinger Band before sellers emerged near $110. The token remained above the indicator’s middle band at $90.36, while the upper and lower bands stood at $114.36 and $66.36, respectively.

A move beyond the upper band often reflects strong momentum, but it can also indicate that price has advanced faster than its recent volatility range. SOL’s return inside the band therefore points to cooling momentum after the breakout rather than confirmation of a broader bearish reversal.

The daily Relative Strength Index supports that reading. RSI reached overbought territory during the rally but had fallen to 68.43 by Aug. 31. Its moving average remained higher at 77.14, showing that momentum was easing after the rapid advance.

The $100 level is Solana’s immediate technical test

Solana’s 4-hour chart places the Supertrend support at $100.95, just below the market price. SOL has remained above the indicator since its breakout from the mid-$70 range, and the Supertrend has continued to signal an upward short-term structure.

The position leaves the $100–$101 area as the first line of defense. A sustained close below that range would weaken the 4-hour setup and could send the price toward $97.50, followed by the previous breakout region between $92 and $95.

Selling pressure has already started to appear in the Chaikin Money Flow indicator. 4-hour CMF stood at minus 0.07, showing that capital flow had shifted slightly negative as SOL retreated from $110.

The reading is not deeply bearish, but it indicates that buyers have yet to regain the strength seen during the breakout. A CMF recovery above zero, combined with SOL holding over $100.95, would provide firmer evidence that the pullback has run its course.

On the upside, initial resistance lies between $104 and $105, where several recent rebounds stalled. Clearing that area would expose $107.50 and the Aug. 27 high at $110.04. A daily close above $110 could then bring the upper Bollinger Band near $114.36 into focus.

Liquidation map puts SOL between two leverage zones

CoinGlass’ 24-hour liquidation heatmap shows Solana trading between concentrated leverage levels on both sides of its price.

The strongest nearby downside cluster appears around $100.50–$101. A drop into that zone could trigger leveraged-long liquidations, potentially accelerating a break below the 4-hour Supertrend support.

Additional liquidity is visible below $100, particularly around $99 and $97.50. Those levels could become relevant if sellers force a decisive loss of the psychological $100 mark.

Above the market, liquidation concentrations appear near $104–$105, followed by larger clusters around $107.50–$108. A rebound through those areas could force short positions to close and add momentum to another attempt at $110.

The heatmap does not predict which side will be reached first. It instead identifies areas where leveraged positions are concentrated, meaning price volatility may increase if SOL moves into either cluster.

Analyst sees a larger Solana breakout forming

Analyst Gerla said on Aug. 31 that Solana had broken a downtrend that had lasted for roughly one year and was beginning to establish a higher-low structure.

“If this reaccumulation holds, I’m watching the $100 area first, then $300+ as the next major expansion zone.”

The chart shared by Gerla treats $100 as the base of a longer-term recovery rather than an immediate upside target. Her projection requires SOL to hold its reclaimed range and continue forming higher highs and higher lows over a much longer period.

The $300 target remains speculative and sits far above the levels shown by the current daily indicators. Before such a scenario becomes relevant, SOL would need to reclaim $110, break the daily upper Bollinger Band near $114, and overcome several resistance zones left by its decline from the 2025 peak.

For the short term, the charts present a narrower decision range. Holding $100.95 would preserve the 4-hour Supertrend signal and keep $105, $107.50, and $110 in play. Losing $100 on strong selling pressure would invalidate the immediate bullish setup and raise the risk of a deeper retracement toward $97.50 or $92–$95.

US traders may also watch demand through US-listed Solana investment products and any progress on federal crypto market-structure legislation. However, the next directional move will likely depend first on whether spot buyers defend $100 as leveraged positions unwind around the monthly close.