Crypto World
Swan’s record Bitcoin holder supply hints at early bottom
Bitcoin’s “long-term holder” supply has climbed to new highs, a development that some analysts say could point to an earlier end to the current drawdown. Swan Bitcoin CEO Cory Klippsten highlighted that long-term investors are holding a record amount of BTC, a pattern he argues has historically coincided with cycle lows.
At the same time, other market watchers continue to stress that macro signals and US regulatory uncertainty may still weigh on demand. Grayscale, for instance, tied potential downside pressure to the uncertain fate of the US CLARITY Act, while Galaxy Digital later reduced its odds that the bill would become law in 2026.
Key takeaways
- Long-term holders reportedly reached 14.7 million BTC, described by Swan Bitcoin’s Cory Klippsten as “cycle low” territory in prior market turns.
- Glassnode data cited in the discussion links the increase in long-term holder supply to “continued conviction” among experienced investors.
- Coinglass data shows long-term holder supply is up about 14% since Nov. 26, reflecting renewed accumulation after earlier market stress in October.
- Some forecasts based on corporate treasury metrics suggest Bitcoin may still bottom later, potentially after Strategy’s mNAV hits its own low.
- Grayscale and Galaxy Digital both flagged uncertainty around the CLARITY Act as a factor that could keep near-term selling pressure elevated.
Record long-term holder supply revives “earlier bottom” arguments
Klippsten said Bitcoin supply held by long-term holders has reached an all-time high, pointing to a level of BTC held in “addresses of long-term holders” that he characterized as having “marked cycle lows historically.” In an interview with Cointelegraph shared via X, Klippsten attributed the reading to long-term investor behavior rather than speculative turnover.
According to Glassnode, the amount of BTC held by long-term holders reached 14.7 million BTC on Wednesday, a record level that the analytics firm said signals “continued conviction.” The core idea behind this metric is that long-term holder cohorts—typically understood as holders that have not moved their coins for extended periods—tend to be less sensitive to short-term price fluctuations. When that cohort grows, it can be interpreted as reduced willingness to sell during weaker markets.
Klippsten’s interpretation takes this one step further: he suggested that the data could imply Bitcoin’s cycle bottom may arrive sooner than in previous downturns. That view stands in tension with at least one prominent alternative framework referenced in the discussion.
Why treasury-based models still point to a later cycle low
Earlier coverage cited a forecast from Lebit Mining Pool founder Jiang Zhuoer, who argued Bitcoin would bottom between October and December 2026—roughly six months after Strategy’s Multiple to Net Asset Value (mNAV) measure found its own cycle low.
Zhuoer’s reasoning, as presented in the referenced post, centers on mNAV. He wrote that Strategy’s mNAV had already declined to 0.72, approaching the lowest level of 0.7 seen on May 11, 2022. Under this model, the time gap between a company-level valuation trough (mNAV) and the broader market’s cycle low could remain consistent across cycles.
Zhuoer also suggested that such a lag could place Bitcoin’s cycle low closer to the $42,000 to $44,000 region. While that range is model-derived rather than a direct price target, it highlights an important disagreement among analysts: long-term holder accumulation may be suggesting early stabilization, while valuation compression in major treasury buyers could still imply additional downside before the market bottoms.
For investors and traders, the practical takeaway is that “accumulation signals” and “valuation timing signals” are not necessarily synchronized. If long-term holder supply continues to rise, it may reinforce a case for faster stabilization. But if treasury-driven downside pressures extend, any improvement may be slower than accumulation data alone would imply.
Accumulation restarted after October’s liquidation shock
The long-term holder narrative gains additional context from supply trends tracked by Coinglass. Coinglass reports that long-term holder supply stood at 16.65 million BTC at the time of publication, up 14% from 14.6 million BTC on Nov. 26.
Coinglass defines long-term holders as addresses that have held BTC for at least 155 days. In its framework, rising long-term holder supply often indicates that participants are reluctant to sell at current levels—an observation that aligns with Klippsten’s broader thesis about conviction during weaker periods.
The report also notes that long-term holders resumed accumulation at the end of 2025, nearly two months after early October’s record $19 billion liquidation event. That linkage matters because it suggests the observed behavior change is not purely random: a major stress event may have forced a reassessment among longer-term participants, who then positioned more conservatively as the market stabilized.
At the same time, the renewed accumulation doesn’t automatically resolve the question of price depth. If the market continues to absorb forced selling or if demand is delayed by regulation-related uncertainty, long-term holder accumulation can coexist with further price weakness.
CLARITY Act uncertainty could keep pressure on Bitcoin demand
Beyond on-chain and corporate valuation signals, the discussion also points to policy uncertainty that could affect Bitcoin demand in the US. Grayscale linked the potential for additional “deleverage” by treasury companies to whether the CLARITY Act passes.
In a Friday report, Grayscale’s head of research Zach Pandl wrote that if the CLARITY Act does not pass this year, companies such as Strategy and other treasury operators may continue to “deleverage,” which Grayscale suggested could cause Bitcoin to “fall moderately further.”
Galaxy Digital separately reduced its odds estimate, cutting the likelihood that the CLARITY Act would become law in 2026 to 50%. Galaxy Digital’s warning, as cited in the referenced coverage, emphasized that the US Senate may be running out of time to advance the broader crypto market structure bill before its August recess.
The bill is scheduled for a House of Representatives committee hearing on July 17. It aims to create the first regulatory framework for digital assets in the US, but has faced resistance from parts of the banking industry, particularly over the bill’s approach to allowing yield on stablecoin holdings.
For market participants, this policy dimension matters because it can directly influence institutional appetite—especially among firms whose balance-sheet strategies depend on clear regulatory pathways. When legislation is uncertain, even structurally bullish long-term investors may slow their risk-taking, affecting the pace at which demand can offset any sell-side pressure.
Next, readers should watch whether long-term holder supply continues rising alongside improving liquidity conditions, and whether the CLARITY Act’s legislative timeline shifts closer to or further from passage. Those two forces—on-chain conviction and regulatory clarity—may ultimately determine whether current accumulation translates into a quicker cycle turn or a longer grind lower.
Crypto influencer Nick O’Neill said he deliberately sold off a community-created token after its developers sent him 60% of its supply.
The incident has sparked criticism from some traders, while others argue the entrepreneur had no obligation to support an unofficial token created without his approval.
O’Neill Defends Selling Unsolicited Token
It all started when the Fibonacci account on X shared a clip from O’Neill’s Choose Rich Live YouTube show, in which he had noted that The Black Bull (ANSEM) had surged 40% to a peak market cap above $120 million after the influencer it was named after, Ansem, teased weekly airdrops.
In the clip, he also pointed out that Ansem controls 60% to 65% of the token supply and fees through a public wallet that was valued at about $50 million at the time.
“Will it surge to similar highs? I don’t know. It’s hard for these to sustain…If you take a look at the charts of Ansem, it’s setting up for a pretty bad head and shoulders pattern. And I think the reality is, it’s like there’s not enough buyers in the market,” remarked O’Neill on ANSEM’s performance.
But even after expressing those doubts, a now-deleted post suggested that O’Neill could also have benefited if he had controlled 65% of a token’s supply, and, responding to the idea before the post disappeared, the podcaster replied, “I mean that would have been incredible.”
However, he said the opposite shortly after, telling his nearly 286,000 followers on X that he had no intention of supporting tokens launched in his name apart from the original RICH meme coin.
“I will literally rug any token anybody creates for me other than the original $RICH. I just rugged another token,” the influencer wrote.
When criticism started, O’Neill clarified that someone had independently created and distributed the token in question, named I Choose Rich Everytime (NICK), before sending him a large allocation.
Reserve, the account behind the coin, accused the influencer of selling the NICK tokens shortly after receiving them, something he did not deny, instead arguing that there was no reason for him to back another community-created asset when an existing cryptocurrency already carried his branding.
“If I wanted to do this I wouldn’t have some random person do it,” he responded.
ANSEM Comparison Hangs Over the Discussion
Some of O’Neill’s followers urged him to embrace the token anyway, suggesting it could rival ANSEM’s success. But others defended his decision, with one of them, ExcaliberArt, comparing the situation to receiving free shares in a company, which O’Neill was free to sell since he had never promised to promote or endorse the token.
As CryptoPotato reported yesterday, the deployer behind The Black Bull sent 650 million tokens, worth about $71 million at the time, directly to Ansem’s wallet for free while walking away with just $5,500 for themselves. According to on-chain analysts, the distribution suggested a pre-arranged promotional scheme, although some watchdogs, such as Rugcheck, warned that the token’s concentrated ownership had increased the risk of market manipulation.
The post Crypto Influencer Nick O’Neill Says He ‘Rugged’ Unsolicited Token Sent to Him appeared first on CryptoPotato.
Bitcoin miner Riot Platforms (RIOT) has moved another 500 Bitcoin (BTC) to custody firm NYDIG, worth roughly $39 million, the latest move in a treasury strategy now funding its push beyond mining.
On-chain monitors spotted the deposit, which fits a familiar pattern. Riot has sold far more Bitcoin than it mines, converting its reserves into cash for a costly pivot into AI data centers.
A Familiar Pattern for Riot
Blockchain monitor Onchain Lens flagged the 500 BTC deposit on June 30. It mirrored a similar transfer that analytics firm Arkham tracked in early April. Such moves to custodians often precede sales.
The scale of the selling is striking. Riot disclosed selling 3,778 Bitcoin for $289.5 million last quarter, while mining just 1,473 coins. The first-quarter Bitcoin sell-off far outpaced production, draining the treasury.
Those sales cut holdings to about 15,680 BTC as of this writing, down 18% from a year earlier.
Other miners offloading Bitcoin have leaned on the same playbook. Rival MARA Holdings sold about $1.1 billion in Bitcoin this year, while Core Scientific began monetizing most of its coins.
Thinner margins since the 2024 halving have squeezed pure mining.
The Riot Bitcoin Sale Funds an AI Bet
The clearest link between the selling and the pivot came in January. Riot funded a $96 million land purchase at its Rockdale site in Texas entirely by selling about 1,080 Bitcoin.
That land now anchors a data center business. Anchor tenant AMD signed a 10-year lease worth about $311 million, then doubled its commitment to 50 megawatts last quarter. The segment brought in $33.2 million of revenue, its first contribution.
The economists explain the urgency. Once equipment depreciation is accounted for, Riot spent $96,283 to mine each Bitcoin last quarter, more than a Bitcoin was worth. It reported a net loss of about $500 million.
What the Sale Streak Signals
CEO Jason Les has cast the shift as a turning point rather than a retreat.
“The first quarter of 2026 marks a definitive inflection point for Riot, as we officially transitioned into an active, revenue-generating data center operator,” the miner’s CEO, Jason Les, said.
Follow us on X to get the latest news as it happens
Riot abandoned its long-standing hold-only policy in 2025 and now sells routinely. Still, the company has staked its future on tenants like AMD rather than on Bitcoin alone.
With Bitcoin trading near $58,700, Riot can still raise large sums from a shrinking treasury. The race for AI infrastructure has rewarded that bet, with miner stocks climbing even as mining margins fade.
The coming quarters will test whether data center income can replace what mining once delivered.
The post Nasdaq-Listed Riot Keeps Selling Bitcoin While Reinventing Its Business appeared first on BeInCrypto.
Anthropic and OpenAI opened a new front in their rivalry on Tuesday, both aiming at scientific research. Anthropic launched Claude Science, an AI workbench for researchers, while OpenAI released GeneBench-Pro, a benchmark for computational biology.
The same-day releases push the AI race beyond chatbots and coding into laboratory work. One company shipped a tool for scientists to use today. The other built a yardstick for how far the technology still has to go.
What Anthropic’s Claude Science Does
Claude Science brings the databases, code, and computing power scientists use into a single app. It connects more than 60 scientific databases across genomics, proteomics, and cheminformatics.
Claude Science is an app, not a new model. It lands while Anthropic’s most powerful Fable 5 and Mythos 5 models stay restricted under US export rules. Every result is auditable and traced back to the code that produced it.
The workbench extends a life sciences push Anthropic began in October 2025. In beta, the Allen Institute’s Jérôme Lecoq used it to compress reviews that once took up to two years.
Anthropic will also fund up to 50 research projects, with up to $30,000 in credits each.
OpenAI’s GeneBench-Pro Raises the Bar
Shortly after Anthropic’s Claude Science release, OpenAI released GeneBench-Pro. It tests whether AI agents can make the judgment calls that real biology research demands.
The benchmark contains 129 problems across genomics, quantitative biology, and translational medicine.
OpenAI’s strongest model, GPT-5.6 Sol, solved 28.7% of the problems at its highest reasoning level. That figure rose to 31.5% in Pro mode. The company’s earlier staggered GPT-5.6 release came at Washington’s request.
GPT-5 scored below 5% on the original GeneBench, while Anthropic’s Opus 4.8 reached 16% on the harder test.
Follow us on X to get the latest news as it happens
Two Strategies, One Race
The split reveals two paths to the same goal. Anthropic is shipping a product for daily lab use. OpenAI is measuring how reliably models reason through messy data.
Both launches also arrive as Chinese models gain ground in AI research. OpenAI’s own numbers temper the hype because its best model still fails most GeneBench-Pro tasks.
The pressure is both geopolitical and scientific. US export limits have already pushed Anthropic to weigh new host countries for its models.
Reviewers estimated each GeneBench-Pro problem would take a human expert 20 to 40 hours, costing thousands of dollars. OpenAI said its model finishes the same analysis for a few dollars.
Aubrey de Grey, a biomedical gerontologist, sees AI clearing key research bottlenecks even if broader gains take longer.
“What we’re going to see very very soon is that AI will make certain parts of the process, especially the development of drugs no longer rate limiting,” Aubrey de Grey, President and Chief Science Officer of the Longevity Escape Velocity Foundation, speaking on a BeInCrypto podcast.
De Grey cautioned that turning faster research into approved treatments still depends on regulation and public tolerance for risk.
Researchers Expect Faster Adoption
Some specialists argue the shift is already underway. Dr. Derya Unutmaz, a Professor of Immunology, told the same BeInCrypto panel that AI now outperforms his own judgment.
“I personally trust AI more than my own ideas in my field of 35 years.”
He expects that reliance to spread quickly across clinical practice.
“It is unethical and I believe that very soon it’s going to be malpractice not to use AI in medicine.”
That optimism still runs ahead of the benchmarks. The coming months will show whether scientists adopt these tools and whether GeneBench-Pro scores start to climb.
The post Anthropic and OpenAI Take Their AI War Into Scientific Research appeared first on BeInCrypto.
Key Takeaways
- Circle (CRCL) shares plummeted over 13% to approximately $65, reaching their lowest point in four months following the rival stablecoin announcement.
- More than 140 major corporations, including Visa, Stripe, Mastercard, BlackRock, and Coinbase, have unveiled Open USD, a new stablecoin project.
- Open Standard, the organization managing Open USD, is headed by Zach Abrams, who previously co-founded Bridge before its acquisition by Stripe in 2024.
- Open USD distinguishes itself from Circle’s USDC by offering zero-fee minting and redemption, plus shared reserve income distribution among consortium members.
- Circle’s CEO Jeremy Allaire dismissed concerns about the competition, asserting that USDC maintains its position as the most reliable stablecoin in the market.
Shares of Circle Internet Group experienced a significant decline on Tuesday. The stock plummeted as much as 14% during trading before closing down approximately 13%, hovering around $65—marking its weakest performance since the end of February.
The sharp decline came after news emerged that a consortium exceeding 140 corporations intends to introduce a rival stablecoin. This new digital asset, dubbed Open USD, represents a direct challenge to Circle’s flagship USDC token.
Coinbase shares also experienced downward pressure from the announcement, declining roughly 6% to $142.37. This decline carries particular significance given that Coinbase partnered with Circle to create USDC and has historically shared in its revenue stream.
The Consortium Behind Open USD
The alliance backing this initiative includes an impressive roster of industry leaders. Among the founding partners are payment giants Visa, Mastercard, and Stripe, alongside financial powerhouses BlackRock and Coinbase, plus banking institutions including BNY, Standard Chartered, and U.S. Bank.
Major technology corporations have also joined the effort. Google and IBM are both participants, along with prominent blockchain projects such as Ripple, Solana, Polygon, and Aave.
An independent entity named Open Standard oversees the project. Zach Abrams serves as its leader, bringing experience from co-founding Bridge, a stablecoin infrastructure company that Stripe purchased in 2024.
Abrams positioned the initiative as addressing market needs, stating that while current stablecoins have merits, the business community requires a solution that’s open, affordable, and structured to serve their interests at enterprise scale.
Industry observers weren’t completely caught off guard. CoinDesk had previously reported earlier this month that Stripe, Visa, and Mastercard were developing a competing stablecoin platform, with indications that Coinbase might participate.
Open USD’s Competitive Advantages Over USDC
The economic model represents the most significant challenge to Circle’s revenue stream. Open USD will allow businesses to create and redeem tokens without any associated fees.
The distribution of reserve income follows a similar collaborative approach. Rather than concentrating interest earnings from reserves within a single entity, Open USD intends to distribute yields among all participating partners following operational expense deductions.
This directly threatens Circle’s primary revenue source. Circle generates income by investing USDC reserves in short-duration Treasury securities and retaining the majority of interest generated—a model that Open USD explicitly aims to disrupt.
Governance authority will be distributed among consortium members instead of residing with a sole issuer. This approach resembles USDG, another consortium-based stablecoin supported by Paxos, Robinhood, Kraken, and Galaxy Digital.
USDC presently maintains approximately $73.6 billion in circulation, positioning it as the dominant U.S.-originated stablecoin. Tether’s USDT holds a larger global presence with roughly $145 billion in circulation, though it focuses primarily on cryptocurrency trading and developing economies.
The implications for Coinbase are substantial. Revenue connected to USDC accounted for 44% of Coinbase’s subscription and services division during the first quarter.
Circle’s CEO Jeremy Allaire took to X on Tuesday to defend his company’s position, characterizing USDC as “the most trusted, widely adopted, institutional-ready stablecoin in the world.” He emphasized that Circle collaborates with thousands of institutional partners.
A Coinbase representative maintained an optimistic perspective, suggesting that additional stablecoin issuers and applications ultimately expand the total addressable market, while affirming that USDC continues to be central to their platform strategy.
According to Open Standard’s official statement, Open USD is scheduled to debut later this year.
Bitcoin (BTC) has dropped roughly 20% over the past month, pulling most cryptocurrencies down with it. Even so, top 5 altcoins for July 2026 enter the new month carrying concrete catalysts that could lift them against the trend.
This selection favors dated July catalysts over raw momentum. Every pick ranks inside the top 50 by market cap, holds relative chart strength, and faces a specific upgrade, fork, or launch within weeks.
How We Picked Altcoins for July 2026
The market backdrop is bearish, so momentum alone means little right now. Each candidate had to clear four filters before making the list.
- Top 50 by market cap, for enough liquidity to matter.
- A dated July catalyst, such as an upgrade, fork, or launch.
- Relative technical strength while the major coins decline.
- Recent price behavior judged against a risk-off market.
Three names clear all four cleanly. Solana, Hyperliquid, and Zcash lead the group. Ondo and TRON join on the catalyst strength.
1. Solana (SOL) Targets a Channel Reclaim
Ranking: #7
Price: $73.33
Market Cap: $42.6 billion
Solana (SOL) heads into July with several drivers. Jito plans to launch its JTX trading terminal during the month. The Alpenglow upgrade is in testing toward Q3 activation, while Firedancer continues to expand across validators.
From February to May, SOL traded inside a rising channel between roughly $78 support and $100 resistance. That structure broke in early June. One high-volume candle cut through the floor and bottomed near $62.
Since then, SOL has been trading around $62 to $65 and recovered to about $73. Price is now testing the 0.786 retracement near $73.31 and the bottom of the old channel.
The Relative Strength Index (RSI) has climbed from oversold near 30 to the low 50s. That shift suggests momentum is turning higher rather than simply bouncing. Broader Solana ecosystem activity has also picked up.
A daily close above $78 to $80 would push SOL back inside its channel. That move would open the $88 to $92 zone.
Key risk. A rejection near $80 that breaks $62 would reopen the June lows.
2. Hyperliquid (HYPE) Holds Its Uptrend
Ranking: #10
Price: $64.76
Market Cap: $14.4 billion
Hyperliquid (HYPE) runs the leading on-chain perpetuals venue, with around 70% market share. Its HIP-3 permissionless markets are scaling fast, and a native options market is slated for Q3. Analysts at Multicoin also see large long-term upside for the token.
HYPE owns the strongest structure in this group. Price has followed a rising trendline from its February low near $21 for the past 5 months. It set an all-time high of around $77 in June before easing back.
The pullback looks orderly. HYPE is trading at the 0.236 retracement at $63.66, where it is now consolidating near $64.76. Resistance sits in the $73 to $76 supply zone. Support waits at the 0.382 band near $55, then the trendline around $48.
The RSI sits near 50, and volume has thinned during the range. That pattern reads as a healthy pause rather than a distribution. A break above $76 would reopen price discovery.
Key risk. Around 10 million HYPE unlock each month on the 6th. Buybacks absorb much of that supply, yet the overhang remains.
3. Zcash (ZEC) Defends Key Support Into a Fork
Ranking: #15
Price: $399.01
Market Cap: $6.7 billion
Zcash (ZEC) faces its biggest catalyst of the year in late July. The Ironwood network upgrade, also tracked as Network Upgrade 7, activates then. It promises higher shielded throughput and a new supply audit mechanism.
ZEC offers the most two-sided chart here. The token ran from $184 to a $680 head in May. That move formed a head-and-shoulders top, with the right shoulder near $600.
The neckline broke in early June on heavy volume. Price has since failed twice to reclaim the $520 to $540 area.
ZEC is now trading near the 0.382 retracement at $400. That level aligns with prior structure and marks the line bulls must defend. An earlier Orchard pool issue continues to weigh on sentiment.
Below it, support waits at $317 and the $240 base. A reclaim of $466 would invalidate the bearish pattern and reopen $530.
Key risk. The head-and-shoulders target sits below $400. A break there before the upgrade would pressure the price further.
4. Ondo (ONDO) Leans on a July Catalyst
Ranking: #47
Price: $0.3098
Market Cap: $1.5 billion
Ondo (ONDO) carries a strong institutional catalyst amongst our altcoins for July 2026. The token is tied to a tokenization deployment that involves major asset managers. The effort targets tokenized equities and Treasury bills.
ONDO holds the weakest chart of the five, which fits its catalyst-led role. After basing near $0.25 in the first quarter, it spiked to $0.49 in May. Every rally since has printed a lower high.
A descending trendline now caps price near $0.31. The token trades below the 0.382 retracement at $0.331 and the $0.36 supply band. It joins a wider RWA rotation theme.
The next downside magnet sits at the 0.236 level near $0.282. That zone matches the top of the old accumulation range. A higher low near $0.28 to $0.29, then a trendline reclaim, would flip the structure. The July catalyst could trigger that shift.
Key risk. Momentum points lower. Without the catalyst landing on time, a slide toward $0.28 looks likely.
5. TRON (TRX) Tests Its Yearlong Trendline
Ranking: #8
Price: $0.3149
Market Cap: $29.9 billion
TRON (TRX) offers steady rather than explosive catalysts. Regulators dismissed their case against the foundation, and Mastercard added TRON to a partner program. A post-quantum mainnet rollout is planned for Q3, per Messari research.
TRX runs the steadiest chart in the group. Price has tracked a rising trendline from its February low near $0.27 all year. It peaked at $0.377 in late May, then eased with the market.
TRX now trades near $0.315, pressed against that trendline. It sits between the 0.5 retracement at $0.323 and the 0.618 at $0.310.
The $0.31 zone is the support that must hold. Resistance waits at $0.336, then the $0.352 and $0.377 highs. The RSI near 40 looks soft but not extreme. As long as $0.31 holds, the longer uptrend stays intact.
Key risk. No single July event stands out. A close below $0.31 would break the trendline and expose $0.292.
Altcoins for July 2026: Summary
July 2026 rewards catalysts over momentum. Solana, Hyperliquid, and Zcash pair strong charts with real events. Ondo and TRON depend more on their catalysts than their charts.
Coin
Price
July Catalyst
Chart Posture
Key Risk
Solana (SOL)
$73.33
Jito JTX launch, Alpenglow testing
Reclaiming broken channel
Rejection at $80
Hyperliquid (HYPE)
$64.76
HIP-3 growth, Q3 options
Uptrend intact above $63
Monthly token unlocks
Zcash (ZEC)
$399.01
Ironwood fork in late July
Holding $400 support
Break below $400
Ondo (ONDO)
$0.3098
Tokenization go-live
Weak, below trendline
Slide toward $0.28
TRON (TRX)
$0.3149
Steady institutional adoption
Testing yearlong trendline
Close below $0.31
The post Top 5 Altcoins for July 2026 as Bitcoin Drops 20% appeared first on BeInCrypto.
Ether has struggled to regain traction after failing to hold above the $1,600 area since Thursday, as a broader risk-off tone across crypto coincided with shifting expectations for macro policy. With oil prices easing and equities staying relatively supported, attention has leaned toward traditional markets—an environment that can drain momentum from high-beta assets like ETH.
Traders are now focused on whether ETH can defend the $1,500 support level. Negative flows into US spot Ether ETFs have erased recent “accumulation” narratives, while onchain signals—especially fading activity in Ethereum’s fee and decentralized application (DApp) economics—suggest the network’s incentives have not strengthened in tandem with tokenization ambitions.
Key takeaways
- US-listed spot Ether ETFs recorded net outflows of $345 million since June 17, counteracting ETH accumulation reported from Ether treasury-related companies.
- ETH’s pullback remains consistent with weak Ethereum fee and DApp revenue trends, which have not yet translated into stronger staking or ecosystem demand.
- Regulatory uncertainty in the US—around the proposed Digital Asset Market CLARITY Act—continues to complicate institutional confidence.
- Despite growing real-world asset (RWA) tokenization figures on Ethereum, the current pace of DeFi activity tied to tokenized assets remains limited.
Spot Ether ETF outflows overtake treasury accumulation
According to the figures cited in the source, US-listed Ether ETFs have seen $345 million in net outflows since June 17. That selling pressure has outweighed accumulation reported over the same period from Ether treasury strategies—specifically $182 million in ETH associated with BitMine Immersion (BMNR US) and Sharplink (SBET US).
Separately, the article notes that BitMine’s ETH holdings rose to 57 million, referencing earlier coverage from Cointelegraph. In practical terms for markets, the key issue is not whether ETH treasuries are buying, but whether those purchases are sufficient to absorb ETF-driven outflows. With spot ETF flows clearly running negative, near-term downside risk to ETH increases if demand fails to reappear.
That helps explain why traders are again prioritizing technical levels. If $1,500 does not hold, the narrative quickly shifts from “temporary correction” to a broader weakening in ETH positioning.
What’s weighing on ETH sentiment: regulation and capital rotation
Beyond ETF flows, the article points to US regulatory uncertainty as a continuing headwind. It highlights that the Digital Asset Market CLARITY Act has been awaiting a Senate vote since May 15. The bill is described as aiming to reduce “regulation-by-enforcement” and clarify which tokens are treated as securities.
However, lawmakers have raised objections related to stablecoin yield mechanics and anti-money-laundering standards. Even when a bill is seen by many market participants as supportive of decentralized finance, persistent uncertainty can delay institutional commitments—particularly for assets that remain highly sensitive to regulatory expectations.
Meanwhile, the source connects crypto’s muted tone to a stronger draw from traditional markets. Lower inflation expectations and ongoing focus on equities and earnings can support broader risk appetite, but it also tends to redirect incremental capital away from crypto if investors don’t see a clear catalyst specific to the sector.
Onchain economics: shrinking fees and DApp revenue
Ethereum’s current fundamentals, at least as reflected by onchain monetization, appear soft. The article cites DefiLlama data showing that Ethereum monthly network fees fell to $10.7 million in June, down from $24.4 million in April.
DApp revenue also declined: it reached $51.7 million in June, compared with $64.8 million two months earlier. The source lists several top contributors, including Sky (formerly Maker) at $12.7 million, Titan Builder at $7.2 million, and Chainlink at $4.6 million.
When fees and DApp revenue weaken, the incentive structure around ETH can look less compelling. The article argues that this contributes to a more inflationary supply dynamic and that staking yields remain limited—reducing the ecosystem’s “economic pull” for both holders and builders. It also notes that parts of DApp revenue that could otherwise reinforce the token economy flow back to users, which can further temper the case for sustained token price appreciation.
To be clear, this doesn’t mean Ethereum’s long-term thesis is broken. Instead, it suggests the network is not currently generating enough broad monetization to outweigh macro and flow-driven pressure.
Tokenization is rising, but DeFi incentives are not yet catching up
The article argues that tokenization remains early and that its long-term expansion could increase blockchain demand. It points to Ethereum real-world assets (RWA) activity, noting a tokenized market capitalization of $14.5 billion on Ethereum.
Yet the piece also emphasizes a gap: despite the growth in tokenized assets, that momentum has not produced meaningful DeFi activity so far. It also cites a staking yield of 2.7% alongside weak onchain metrics, concluding that the probability of ETH slipping below $1,500 remains “in play.”
This tension—rapid growth in one segment (RWA tokenization) alongside slower translation into ecosystem-wide DeFi traction—may be central to why ETH has struggled to regain strength. Investors may want confirmation that tokenization leads to higher fee-generating activity, deeper liquidity, and stronger DApp revenue—signals that, based on the cited numbers, have been deteriorating rather than improving.
Related coverage referenced in the source notes Ether treasury activity, including an earlier report that Sharplink bought $62.4M ETH last week. But until spot ETF flows stabilize and onchain economics improve, that kind of accumulation may have limited impact on near-term price behavior.
Looking ahead, the market’s next prompts are likely to be ETF flow direction, whether Ethereum’s fee and DApp revenue trends reverse, and any concrete progress on US regulatory clarity. If those catalysts fail to materialize, the $1,500 level remains the line traders will watch most closely.
HYPE got its first U.S. exchange-traded fund in May, ran 16 straight days of inflows, then saw money walk out the door. The ETF is a new demand channel, but the first outflow is the first test of it.
Summary
- Hyperliquid (HYPE) trades in the mid-$60s as of late June 2026, roughly 14% below its $76.67 record set on June 16, with a market cap near $14 billion to $16 billion and a fully diluted valuation around $60 billion.
- The Bitwise HYPE ETF launched on May 14, 2026, giving regulated investors a wrapper for HYPE exposure, after Bitwise had already listed a Hyperliquid staking product in Europe in April.
- The fund logged 16 consecutive days of inflows before its first daily outflow of nearly $3 million on June 5, a small figure in dollars but a notable turn in the early demand story.
- HYPE’s core engine is a buyback that routes 97% of protocol fees into purchasing and burning the token, which has retired over $1 billion of HYPE and pulled circulating supply below 300 million, working against a roughly 1.2 million monthly unlock to insiders.
- Forecasts run from Coinpedia’s high-$30s average to Arthur Hayes at $150, with prediction markets leaning toward HYPE clearing $80 by year-end, so the ETF flow and the buyback-versus-unlock balance, not any single target, will decide the path.
In May 2026, Hyperliquid crossed a line that most tokens never reach: it got its own U.S. exchange-traded fund. The Bitwise HYPE ETF gave ordinary brokerage accounts and institutions a regulated way to hold exposure to one of the most talked-about assets in crypto.
For 16 trading days, the money flowed in. Then, on June 5, it reversed, with the fund posting its first daily outflow of close to $3 million. The amount was tiny next to HYPE’s multibillion-dollar market cap, but the symbolism was real, and crypto.news flagged the turn at the time.
This piece looks at HYPE’s price through the lens of that ETF and its first outflow, which is a different question from whether HYPE can reach $100. It covers what the Bitwise fund changed, what the early outflow signals, the buyback engine the ETF flows into, the unlock overhang pulling the other way, the regulatory cloud overhead, where the chart sits, and what analysts and prediction markets expect. It closes with bull, base, and bear scenarios and a short FAQ.
The Bitwise ETF and why it mattered
The Bitwise HYPE ETF debuted on May 14, 2026, pitched as targeted exposure to the infrastructure behind on-chain derivatives. It was not Bitwise’s first Hyperliquid product. In April, the firm listed a Hyperliquid staking exchange-traded product, BHYP, on Deutsche Boerse’s Xetra venue in Europe, one of a growing suite of staking vehicles.
Bitwise also leaned into Hyperliquid’s own transparency ethos, committing to publish the ETF’s wallet addresses so investors could verify the fund’s holdings on-chain rather than take them on trust.
The reason an ETF matters for price is access. A token that previously required a self-custody wallet or an offshore exchange suddenly becomes reachable through a regulated product that fits inside retirement accounts and institutional mandates. That widens the pool of potential buyers and, in theory, adds a steady bid that is less reactive than crypto-native flows.
For HYPE, which already carried a large following, the ETF was a credibility marker as much as a demand channel: it signaled that a serious asset manager judged the token investable enough to wrap and sell.
The catch is that an ETF is a pipe, not a pump. It makes buying easier, but it does not create demand on its own. The flows that move through it can run in either direction, and that is exactly what the first month showed.
The first outflow, and what it signals
For 16 straight sessions after launch, the Bitwise HYPE ETF took in money. That streak was the bullish read in action: regulated demand arriving day after day, exactly the steady bid the ETF was supposed to deliver. Then on June 5, the fund recorded its first daily outflow, nearly $3 million leaving in a single session. In dollar terms, it was almost nothing against a market cap in the tens of billions. As a signal, it carried more weight than its size.
The outflow is best read as the first test of the ETF demand story rather than its failure. It coincided with HYPE pulling back from its mid-June record and the broader market sliding into a risk-off, extreme-fear posture, so some of the selling was almost certainly market-wide rather than HYPE-specific. But it punctured the clean narrative of one-directional institutional accumulation. ETF flows, it turned out, would ebb and flow with sentiment like everything else, and that makes them a variable to track instead of a guaranteed tailwind.
For the forecast, the practical point is that ETF flow is now one of the clearest real-time gauges of institutional appetite for HYPE. A return to sustained net inflows would confirm the bull thesis that regulated demand is building. A pattern of choppy or net-negative flows would suggest the early enthusiasm has cooled, and that the price has to lean on its other engines instead.
The buyback engine the ETF flows into
What makes HYPE structurally unusual is where its trading fees go. Roughly 97% of the protocol’s fees feed an Assistance Fund that continuously buys HYPE on the open market and burns it. This is not a promise of future buybacks; it is a live mechanism funded by real activity. Cumulative buybacks have passed $1 billion; the program has burned around 4.17% of total supply, pushing circulating supply below 300 million tokens. The platform’s daily revenue has run near $2.5 million, HyperEVM transaction fees have set records, and cumulative trading volume has crossed $4.15 trillion.
The ETF and the buyback connect in a way that matters for price. The buyback is powered by trading volume, because more volume means more fees and therefore more HYPE bought and burned. The ETF, by widening the holder base and supporting the token’s profile, can indirectly feed the system if it helps sustain attention and activity on the platform.
The product expansion compounds the same way: the FOMO app launched on June 11, letting users trade perpetuals across equities, pre-IPO stocks, crypto, indices, and commodities from one interface, while HIP-3 and HIP-4 push the platform toward prediction markets and options. Each new market is a potential new source of the fees that drive the burn.
The bull case in one line is that this engine eats its own supply faster than the unlocks can replace it. The more the platform grows, the more it buys back, and the thinner the float becomes. The ETF is one more on-ramp pointed at that engine.
The unlock overhang pulling the other way
Against the buyback sits the supply schedule. Only about 27% of HYPE’s roughly 953 million to 1 billion maximum supply is in circulation, which means a large share is still locked and scheduled to come to market over years. Roughly 1.2 million HYPE per month is distributed to team members and early backers, a steady stream of new sellable supply that the buyback has to absorb just to stay even.
The fully diluted valuation near $60 billion is the number the skeptics point to: it implies a very large eventual supply, and the gap between the circulating market cap and the FDV is the overhang the market has to digest over time.
This is the tug-of-war that defines HYPE. The buyback pulls supply off the market and burns it; the unlocks push new supply on. ETF inflows can tilt the balance toward demand; ETF outflows tilt it back. The reason forecasts vary so wildly is that the outcome depends on which side wins, and that in turn depends on whether platform volume keeps growing fast enough to keep the burn ahead of the unlocks. No model can know that in advance, which is why honest analysis tracks the variables instead of betting the house on a single price.
The regulatory cloud
HYPE carries a regulatory question mark that the ETF does not erase. In one episode, Singapore’s monetary authority added Hyperliquid to its Investor Alert List, a reminder that a permissionless derivatives venue draws scrutiny from regulators who worry about access and oversight.
Hyperliquid also operates in a legal gray zone in some jurisdictions, including restrictions affecting users in the United States, and the traditional derivatives establishment has been pressing regulators to bring platforms like it under tighter rules, citing concerns about manipulation and permissionless markets.
For the price, regulation cuts both ways. A clear, favorable framework would remove an overhang and could unlock broader access, especially in the United States where the platform’s reach is constrained. A crackdown, or even sustained uncertainty, could cap institutional participation and weigh on the very ETF demand the bull case depends on. The ETF brings HYPE closer to the regulated world, which is a benefit when the rules are friendly and a liability when they are not.
Where the chart and the price sit
HYPE trades in the mid-$60s as of late June, roughly 14% below the $76.67 all-time high set on June 16. The price history is a story of violent moves: the token launched near $7.56 in November 2024, climbed to about $35 by year-end, peaked near $59 in September 2025, then corrected hard to the $21 to $26 range in early 2026 with a February low around $21. From there it built a long base and broke out through the $50 to $52 zone in June, ran to its record, and pulled back. That $50 to $52 area now reads as structural support, the floor the breakout set.
The short-term picture is post-record consolidation. After a sharp run to a new high, the token is digesting gains, with momentum cooled from its peak. The bullish structural read is that the correction is happening while the platform’s fundamentals, volume, revenue, and fees keep setting records, which is the opposite of a top built on fading activity.
The bearish read is that a second failed push at the high would raise doubts and open the door back toward the low-$50s support. Reclaiming and holding above the record is what would put price discovery back in play.
What analysts and prediction markets expect
Third-party forecasts for HYPE span an enormous range, which reflects the genuine uncertainty in the buyback-versus-unlock outcome. These are external projections, offered as a spread of views instead of targets this publication endorses.
On the cautious side, Coinpedia’s 2026 model runs from roughly $19.85 to $54.87 with an average near $37, and Cryptopolitan points to a peak around $58 with a separate analysis near a $40 average. In the middle, several views see a return toward or past the all-time high if adoption continues.
At the bullish extreme, Arthur Hayes has floated $150 by August 2026, premised on the buyback, organic volume growth, and the prediction-market and options expansion all firing together, while Multicoin Capital argues for $319 by 2028 on the thesis that the market underrates Hyperliquid as an emerging “everything exchange” instead of just a perpetuals venue. Prediction markets in mid-2026 leaned toward HYPE clearing $80 before year-end, with a smaller share betting on $100 and bets on a drop below $50 carrying meaningful odds.
The spread, from the high $30s to $150 in the same year, is the point. It is not noise; it is an honest map of how much depends on volume, flows, and regulation. The ETF is one input into that map, not the whole territory.
How HYPE’s ETF compares with the Bitcoin and Ether funds
The clearest way to read the Bitwise HYPE ETF is against the template set by the Bitcoin and Ether funds that came before it. Those products showed the playbook: a regulated wrapper opens a corridor for capital that cannot or will not touch spot crypto directly, and once that corridor exists, an asset stops being treated as a fringe speculation and starts being treated as an allocatable holding.
The Bitcoin funds in particular showed how powerful steady, structural inflows can be when they arrive day after day from advisers and institutions instead of from reactive crypto traders.
HYPE inherits that template, but with important differences that cut against a clean comparison. It is far younger and far smaller than Bitcoin or Ether, which makes its ETF flows more volatile and more capable of moving the underlying price in both directions. Its fully diluted valuation near $60 billion sits well above its circulating market cap, so the supply overhang is larger and more present than it was for the major assets when their funds launched. And HYPE’s regulatory standing is less settled, which caps how aggressively some institutions can participate.
The European staking product, BHYP on the Xetra venue, adds a second access point and a yield angle that the early Bitcoin funds lacked, but it does not change the core asymmetry: a smaller, younger token feels ETF flows more sharply than a trillion-dollar asset does.
The takeaway is that the ETF is a genuine structural positive that should not be mistaken for a guaranteed one. For Bitcoin, the funds eventually delivered sustained net demand. For HYPE, the first month already showed flows can reverse, so the corridor is open but the traffic through it is not yet proven to run one way.
What to watch: the metrics that decide HYPE
For readers tracking HYPE instead of reacting to each candle, a handful of metrics will signal which scenario is unfolding. The first and most direct is ETF flow direction. Sustained net inflows would confirm the bull thesis that regulated demand is building, while a pattern of choppy or negative flows, in the vein of the June 5 outflow, would suggest the early enthusiasm has cooled, and the price must lean on its other engines.
The second is weekly trading volume and fee revenue, because those power the buyback. As long as volume keeps setting records and fees keep feeding the Assistance Fund, the burn stays strong, and supply keeps tightening. A slowdown in volume would weaken the buyback at the worst possible time, just as fresh unlocks arrive.
The third is the unlock pace itself, roughly 1.2 million HYPE a month to insiders, and whether the buyback is retiring tokens faster than the schedule releases them. The fourth is regulation: any movement on the U.S. access question or follow-through on alerts like the one from Singapore’s authority would shift the institutional calculus quickly.
The fifth is the chart structure around two levels. Reclaiming and holding above the $76.67 record would put HYPE back into price discovery and validate the optimistic targets, while losing the $50 to $52 breakout support would confirm the post-record correction has turned into something deeper.
Tracked together, these five say more about HYPE’s path than any single forecast, because they map directly onto the buyback-versus-unlock tug-of-war that the ETF flows now sit on top of. The ETF made HYPE easier to buy. These metrics decide whether buyers keep showing up.
Bull, base, and bear scenarios for HYPE
The scenarios below combine the ETF flow story with the buyback, the unlocks, and the regulatory backdrop. They are illustrative ranges drawn from the external forecasts and current structure, not guarantees.
Bull case
In the bull scenario, ETF flows turn decisively net positive again after the early wobble, confirming that regulated demand is building. Platform volume keeps climbing as the FOMO app, prediction markets, and options add fee sources, so the buyback accelerates, and the burn stays ahead of the roughly 1.2 million monthly unlocks. Regulation breaks favorably, easing the access overhang. HYPE reclaims $76.67, enters price discovery, and runs toward the optimistic targets in the $90 to $150 range that Telegaon and Arthur Hayes describe, with the “everything exchange” thesis supporting a higher multi-year path. This case needs volume growth to outrun the unlocks and the regulatory cloud to lift.
Base case
In the base scenario, the ETF settles into choppy flows that neither confirm nor break the demand story, and the buyback roughly offsets the unlocks without overwhelming them. HYPE holds its $50 to $52 breakout support and trades in a wide band beneath the record for much of the year, with the average landing somewhere around the high $30s to high $50s that the cautious Coinpedia and Cryptopolitan models bracket, punctuated by sharp moves in both directions as sentiment shifts. The fundamentals stay strong, but the supply overhang and regulatory uncertainty cap sustained upside. This is the “strong business, range-bound token” outcome.
Bear case
In the bear scenario, ETF outflows persist and signal that institutional enthusiasm has cooled, while a risk-off market and any regulatory escalation, building on the MAS alert and U.S. access concerns, weigh on demand. Platform volume slows, the buyback weakens just as fresh unlocks arrive, and the FDV gap reasserts itself. HYPE loses the $50 to $52 support and slides toward the low-$30s or below, in line with the bottom of the cautious forecast range. In this case, the buyback cannot keep pace with the unlocks, and the ETF that was supposed to be a tailwind becomes a visible scoreboard for fading demand.
Frequently Asked Questions
When did the Bitwise HYPE ETF launch?
The Bitwise HYPE ETF debuted on May 14, 2026, offering regulated exposure to Hyperliquid’s token. Bitwise had earlier listed a Hyperliquid staking product, BHYP, on Deutsche Börse’s Xetra venue in Europe in April 2026. The firm also committed to publishing the fund’s wallet addresses so investors could verify holdings on-chain.
What was the first HYPE ETF outflow, and does it matter?
After 16 consecutive days of inflows, the Bitwise HYPE ETF recorded its first daily outflow of nearly $3 million on June 5, 2026. The dollar amount was small relative to HYPE’s market cap, and it coincided with a broad risk-off pullback, so it was not a HYPE-specific collapse. It matters as a signal: it showed ETF flows will move with sentiment, making them a variable to track instead of a guaranteed source of demand.
How does the HYPE buyback work?
Roughly 97% of Hyperliquid’s protocol trading fees flow into an Assistance Fund that buys HYPE on the open market and burns it. Cumulative buybacks have passed $1 billion, around 4.17% of supply has been burned, and circulating supply has fallen below 300 million. The buyback is powered by trading volume, so more platform activity means more buying and burning.
What is the main force working against HYPE’s price?
The main counterweight is the token unlock schedule. Only about 27% of the maximum supply circulates, and roughly 1.2 million HYPE per month is released to team members and early backers. That steady new supply, plus a fully diluted valuation near $60 billion, is what the buyback has to absorb. The balance between buyback and unlocks is the central question for the price.
Is HYPE affected by regulation?
Yes. Singapore’s monetary authority placed Hyperliquid on its Investor Alert List, and the platform operates in a legal gray zone in some jurisdictions, including restrictions affecting U.S. users. Favorable rules could broaden access and support ETF demand, while a crackdown or prolonged uncertainty could limit institutional participation and weigh on the price.
What do forecasts say HYPE could reach?
External forecasts vary widely. Coinpedia’s 2026 range runs from about $20 to $55 with an average near $37, and Cryptopolitan points to a peak around $58. More bullish views include Arthur Hayes at $150 by August 2026 and Multicoin Capital at $319 by 2028. Prediction markets leaned toward HYPE clearing $80 by year-end. The wide spread reflects how much depends on volume, ETF flows, and regulation.
Disclaimer: This article is for information purposes only and does not constitute financial, investment, or trading advice. Cryptocurrency prices are highly volatile, and price predictions are speculative estimates that may not occur. Nothing here is a recommendation to buy or sell any asset. Always do your own research and consider consulting a licensed professional before making financial decisions. Figures are accurate as of June 30, 2026, and will change.
Honeywell Aerospace (HONA) has made a weak and volatile start on the Nasdaq, trailing the wider aerospace and defense sector despite a strong standalone business case.
The stock began trading on June 29 after Honeywell International separated its aerospace unit through a one-for-two distribution. The debut was choppy. HONA reportedly rose nearly 7% intraday before fading and closing down 0.4%, with volume near 8.5 million shares.
Aerospace and defense stocks have remained in demand, while HONA has lagged the group by about 10 percentage points.
The first explanation is spin-off churn. Newly separated companies often face early selling from funds that do not want the new stock, cannot hold it, or need to rebalance after the distribution. That selling can pressure the share price even when the business itself looks solid.
A Strong Business Faces Early Doubt
The standalone case for Honeywell Aerospace is clear. Management told investors earlier in June that the business generated $17.4 billion in 2025 sales and $4.3 billion in operating profit. Sales also grew 12% organically, meaning growth came without acquisitions.
The business has a large repeat-revenue base. About 44% of sales come from servicing aircraft already in operation. These are parts, repairs and upgrades that operators need long after a plane is delivered.
Defense and space accounted for 41% of sales, giving the company another steady revenue stream. Honeywell Aerospace also says its technology is used on roughly 90% of aircraft flying today.
The order book adds support. The company has about $18.56 billion of future work lined up across its units, led by Electronic Solutions at $6.8 billion.
HONA also looks cheaper than many peers. At about $70 billion, the company trades near 15 times yearly profit on an EV/EBITDA basis. Comparable aerospace and defense stocks often trade closer to 18 to 20 times.
That discount can attract buyers, but it also shows the market has not fully accepted the new listing yet.
Traders are Still Split
Short-term money flow has not confirmed a clear rebound. Chaikin Money Flow, a gauge of buying and selling pressure, was slightly negative on intraday charts.
Options activity points to a more bullish view, although the signal is indirect. HONA options are still new, so traders have been watching Honeywell International options as a proxy. HON’s put-call ratio fell sharply by June 29, showing heavier interest in bullish calls than bearish puts.
That does not guarantee HONA will recover. It does show that some traders are still positioning for upside, even as the spot price remains soft.
The Key Levels for HONA Stock
For now, the chart still favours caution. HONA trades below its VWAP near $223.55. VWAP tracks the average price paid during the session, adjusted for volume. When a stock trades below it, sellers usually have more control.
The key downside level is $217.74. A clean break below that area could push HONA toward $208.59. Before that, $220.56 is the first warning level to watch.
On the upside, HONA needs to reclaim $223.39 to steady the chart. A move above $232.54 could open a retest of $238.48.
The caveat is that HONA has only a few days of trading history. These levels may shift quickly as the market finds a fair price.
For now, HONA looks like a strong aerospace business with a weak early tape. If buyers defend the $217 area and push the stock back above VWAP, the debut sell-off may look like early spin-off noise.
If that level fails, the market may keep marking HONA lower before giving the fundamentals credit.
The post Honeywell Aerospace Stock Stumbles After Nasdaq Debut appeared first on BeInCrypto.
PI is down 11% this week after losing its key support at $0.13. Where will it go next?
PI Network (PI) Price Predictions: Analysis
Key support levels: $0.10
Key resistance levels: $0.13, $0.16
PI Falls Towards $0.10
With the support at $0.13 lost, PI is down 11% on the weekly chart. This latest push from sellers has seen the price nosedive towards the key support at $0.10. At the time of this post, the price was found around $0.11.
It’s unlikely that this cryptocurrency will find any relief until it reaches 10 cents, a key psychological level. Buyers may be tempted to return there, but it’s still too early to say if they will be successful in stopping the downtrend there.
Downtrend Resumes
With support lost, PI resumed its downtrend. This means the bottom may take quite a bit longer to reach, and the price will unfortunately continue to fall until buyers return. So far, buy volume has been very weak and sporadic.
In the last two weeks, sellers totally dominated the chart, which also explains the recent loss of support. Bulls tried to hold at $0.13, but they only managed a brief relief in early June, which was not enough to stop the bearish momentum.
RSI Shows Bears are in Control
Since May, the daily RSI has been hovering below 50 and has never managed to go above it. That’s an extremely bearish signal since it shows buyers have no control over the price action.
Moreover, the RSI recently fell below 30, placing it in the oversold area. However, PI has visited this area repeatedly since May, which is just another sign of weakness and not a buy opportunity.
The post Pi Network (PI) Price Predictions for This Week (June 30) appeared first on CryptoPotato.
A Pump.fun token airdropped to a famous trader’s wallet is up tens of thousands of percent in days. Here is the honest version: this is a high-risk memecoin with no product, and most tokens like it go to zero.
Summary
- The Black Bull (ANSEM) is a Solana memecoin launched on Pump.fun in mid-June 2026, trading near $0.13 with a market cap around $56 million after a move of roughly 26,000% in a week.
- The token was not created by the trader it is named after. An anonymous developer airdropped a large share of the supply to the wallet of Ansem, a well-known Solana influencer, who later embraced it rather than launching his own coin.
- There is no product, roadmap, team, or revenue behind the token. Its price is driven entirely by attention, one influencer’s involvement, and speculative trading, which makes it a casino bet, not an investment.
- On-chain analysis tools have flagged manipulation risk and heavy holder concentration; liquidity is thin relative to the market cap, and the trader associated with it has faced market-manipulation allegations.
- Third-party forecasts that exist for ANSEM are wide and speculative, spanning roughly $0.03 to $0.25, and the most realistic base case for any token of this type is a sharp drawdown, with a real chance of going to near zero.
Before anything else, the blunt version. The Black Bull, traded under the ticker ANSEM, is a memecoin. It has no underlying business, no cash flows, and no roadmap that would anchor a valuation. Its price exists because a famous trader is associated with it and the internet is paying attention.
Tokens like this can produce life-changing gains and total losses inside the same week, and the overwhelming majority of Pump.fun launches lose nearly all their value, many within a single day. Any “price prediction” for an asset like this is closer to handicapping a roulette spin than forecasting a company. Read the rest with that frame fixed in place.
This piece explains what The Black Bull actually is, the numbers behind its move, why it is a casino rather than an investment, the bull thesis stated fairly, the specific ways it could go to zero, what the few forecasters tracking it say, and then bull, base, and bear scenarios. It closes with a short FAQ.
What The Black Bull (ANSEM) actually is
The Black Bull is a Solana token launched on Pump.fun, the memecoin launchpad, around June 16 to 17, 2026, with the on-chain contract address ending in “pump” as Pump.fun tokens do. The story that gave it life is specific. An anonymous developer created the token and airdropped a large portion of the supply, by some accounts around 65%, directly to the wallet of Ansem, a prominent Solana trader and influencer also known by the handle blknoiz06, whose real name is Zion Thomas. Ansem is one of the best-known memecoin personalities on Solana, with roughly a million followers and a reputation as an early caller of tokens like WIF and BONK.
Crucially, Ansem did not create the token, and it is not officially his project. The developer essentially bet that putting the supply in a famous wallet would manufacture attention. It worked. Rather than dump the airdrop or launch a competing coin of his own, Ansem leaned in, reportedly pledging to airdrop creator fees back to holders instead of cashing out, and his wallet holds a very large position, on the order of 600 million tokens that at points represented the bulk of his visible on-chain portfolio. That alignment, a recognizable figure with skin in the game, is the entire bull narrative. It is also the entire risk, because the token’s fate is tethered to one person’s continued involvement.
The numbers behind the move
As of late June 2026, ANSEM trades near $0.13, having reached a peak around $0.14 on June 29. The 7-day move was roughly 26,000%, the kind of figure that only appears in freshly launched memecoins coming off a near-zero base. The market cap sits around $56 million, with roughly 410 million of a 1 billion total supply in circulation, implying a fully diluted valuation closer to $136 million. The token ranks somewhere around #374 by market cap, and daily trading volume has run between roughly $60 million and $94 million, which against a $56 million cap produces a volume-to-market-cap ratio above 2.
That ratio is itself a warning light: it means the token turns over its entire value more than twice a day, the signature of frantic speculative churn rather than steady holding. ANSEM trades across venues including PumpSwap and Meteora on Solana, with perpetual futures listed on some offshore exchanges such as MEXC and others, and it has appeared as a verified token on Solana interfaces like Jupiter and Phantom. The presence of leveraged perps on a token this young amplifies the volatility in both directions, because liquidations can cascade fast when the price moves.
These numbers describe a token in the most volatile possible phase of its life. The percentage gains are real, and so is the fragility underneath them.
Why this is a casino, not an investment
This section is the heart of the piece, and it is deliberately heavier than the bull case, because the risks here are not footnotes. They are the main event.
First, there is nothing to value. ANSEM has no product, no revenue, no roadmap, and no team in the conventional sense. There is no cash flow to discount, no user base to grow, no utility that creates demand for the token beyond speculation. Its price is a pure function of attention and belief, both of which can evaporate without warning.
Second, on-chain analysis has flagged it. Token-screening tools such as Rugcheck have raised manipulation warnings tied to supply concentration in wallets that are not clearly identified. Heavy concentration means a small number of holders could move the price violently or exit into the liquidity that retail buyers provide. Thin liquidity relative to the market cap compounds this: when real liquidity is shallow, a few large sells can collapse the price far faster than the order book suggests.
Third, the person at the center carries his own controversy. The trader associated with the token has faced market-manipulation allegations in the broader memecoin context, which adds reputational and regulatory risk to an asset whose entire thesis rests on his involvement. If he steps back, sells, or is forced to distance himself, the narrative that supports the price can vanish.
Fourth, the base rate is brutal. The large majority of Pump.fun memecoins lose almost all their value, frequently within hours or days of launch. Survivorship bias makes the winners loud and the thousands of dead tokens silent. Treating ANSEM as likely to be one of the rare survivors, instead of one of the many that fade, is the single most common and most expensive mistake buyers of tokens like this make.
Put together, these are not reasons to never touch a memecoin. They are reasons to size any exposure as money one is fully prepared to lose, and to never confuse a fast chart with a sound investment.
The bull thesis, stated fairly
For balance, the case the buyers make deserves a fair hearing, even inside a risk-first frame. The bull argument has 3 legs. The first is reach: Ansem commands a large, engaged audience, and in memecoins, attention is the scarce resource that drives price. A token he is actively associated with has a built-in distribution advantage that most launches never get.
The second is alignment. By reportedly pledging to route creator fees back to holders instead of launching a separate token to cash in, Ansem signaled that his incentives point in the same direction as the people holding the coin, at least for now. In a category defined by developers dumping on their communities, an influencer choosing to share fees is a comparatively constructive signal.
The third is the Solana memecoin meta itself. Solana has repeatedly produced memecoins that ran far longer and higher than skeptics expected, and the ecosystem’s culture, low fees, and fast launches keep the speculative engine fed. In a market where attention rotates quickly, a token with a recognizable face and an active community can sustain a narrative longer than a faceless launch.
None of this changes the absence of fundamentals. The bull case is a bet that attention and alignment persist long enough to matter, which is a real but fragile proposition.
What could make it go to zero
The bear mechanics are concrete and worth naming, because they are the most probable outcome for tokens of this kind. Concentration is the first: if large holders, identified or not, decide to sell into the thin liquidity, the price can fall faster than buyers can react, and early entrants exit at the expense of late ones. Liquidity withdrawal is the second: if liquidity providers pull their positions, the token can become nearly untradeable at anything close to the quoted price.
Narrative death is the third and most likely slow killer. Memecoins live on attention, and attention is finite. When the crowd rotates to the next launch, volume dries up, the chart bleeds, and the token drifts toward irrelevance even without a dramatic crash. Copycats accelerate this, as the inevitable wave of imitation tokens splits the speculative capital and dilutes the original’s mindshare. Finally, the single-person dependency is the acute risk: if Ansem sells, goes quiet, or is forced to distance himself for legal or reputational reasons, the one pillar holding up the price is removed, and there is nothing fundamental left to catch it.
Any one of these can take a token like this down by 80% or more in short order, and several can combine. This is not a tail risk for ANSEM. It is the central scenario that any honest forecast has to treat as the base case.
What forecasters say
A handful of exchange-affiliated outlets have published speculative ANSEM ranges, and they should be read as guesses about a chaotic asset, not as analysis grounded in fundamentals, because there are no fundamentals to ground them in. These are 3rd-party figures, not endorsements.
Some short-term models from venues such as WEEX have sketched a near-term base band roughly between $0.085 and $0.135, a momentum upside toward $0.15 to $0.18 if attention holds, and a downside toward $0.06 to $0.075 if it fades. Broader 2026 ranges floated by outlets including BTCC and WEEX span roughly $0.03 to $0.25. The width of these ranges, a possible multiple up or a collapse of more than half, is the most honest thing about them: it concedes that the outcome is dominated by reflexive sentiment, not by anything that can be modeled. For an asset like this, the error bars are the message.
The pattern this fits: influencer memecoins before ANSEM
The Black Bull is not the first token to run on a famous name, and the history of the pattern is the most useful guide to its likely path. Solana has produced a long line of influencer-linked and celebrity memecoins, some tied to the same callers who built reputations on early WIF and BONK trades. The recurring shape is familiar: a token attaches itself to a recognizable figure, attention floods in, the price goes parabolic on a near-zero base, and a wave of buyers arrives late expecting the early gains to repeat. What happens next sorts almost entirely on whether attention and the figure’s involvement persist.
The brutal majority outcome is decay. Most of these tokens fade within days or weeks as the crowd rotates to the next launch, leaving holders who bought the peak deeply underwater. A small number sustain a community and trade sideways at a fraction of their high for longer. A rare few extend into something more durable, and those are the cases the next round of buyers remembers, which is exactly how survivorship bias keeps the cycle turning. The honest framing is that ANSEM is drawing from the same deck, and the base rates for that deck are unforgiving.
What makes The Black Bull slightly different from a faceless launch is the creator-fee airdrop dynamic, which gives the central figure a reason to stay engaged instead of dumping immediately. That can extend the attention window. It does not change the category math.
An influencer can prolong a memecoin’s life, but no influencer has reliably prevented the eventual reversion that defines the type. Treating ANSEM as exempt from that pattern, because this time the figure seems aligned, is the precise belief that has separated late buyers from their money in every prior cycle.
If you choose to speculate anyway
This is not a recommendation to buy ANSEM or any memecoin. But because people will trade tokens like this regardless of warnings, the harm-reduction principles that disciplined speculators apply are worth stating plainly, since they are the difference between a survivable loss and a damaging one.
The first principle is sizing. Money committed to an asset like this should be money one can lose in full without affecting rent, savings, or obligations, because total loss is a realistic outcome, not a worst case. The second is that the position should be treated as already gone the moment it is opened, which removes the emotional pressure that leads people to average down into a falling token or chase it higher. The third is that taking profits on the way up is the only way speculative gains become real; a paper gain in a token with thin liquidity is not a realized gain until it is sold, and the same shallow liquidity that let the price spike can prevent an exit at the quoted price on the way down.
The fourth principle is to distrust leverage entirely here. The presence of perpetual futures on a token this young and this volatile is a fast path to liquidation, because the swings that make memecoins exciting also trigger margin calls in minutes.
The fifth is to verify instead of assume: checking the contract, the liquidity, and the holder concentration before committing, instead of trusting a chart or a name. None of this makes a memecoin a sound investment. It makes the gamble less likely to cause real damage, which is the most honest advice anyone can give about an asset with no fundamentals.
Bull, base, and bear scenarios for ANSEM
These scenarios are illustrative and speculative. For a memecoin with no fundamentals, they describe possible paths driven by attention and holder behavior, not valuations. The bear case is weighted as the most probable, consistent with how tokens of this type typically resolve.
Bull case
In the bull scenario, Ansem stays actively involved, the creator-fee airdrops keep holders engaged, and the Solana memecoin meta stays hot enough to keep attention flowing. Volume holds, new buyers keep arriving faster than early holders exit, and the token sustains or extends its level, pushing toward the upper speculative bands near $0.15 to $0.25 that the most optimistic 3rd-party ranges describe. This case requires attention to persist, concentration not to unwind, and no reputational or regulatory shock to the figure at its center. It is possible, and in memecoins it does happen, but it is the minority outcome.
Base case
In the base scenario, the initial frenzy cools as it almost always does. Volume fades from its launch peak, the chart gives back a large portion of the parabolic move, and the token settles into a lower, choppier range, perhaps the $0.06 to $0.13 zone, while it searches for whether a durable community remains after the hype. From there it either grinds out a smaller, attention-dependent existence or slowly bleeds lower as the crowd moves on. Even this “survives but deflates” path involves a substantial drawdown from the peak for anyone who bought the top.
Bear case
In the bear scenario, which is the most likely for a token of this kind, the attention rotates away, concentration unwinds into thin liquidity, or the single-person narrative breaks. The price falls 80% or more from its highs and continues toward near zero as volume disappears, joining the large majority of Pump.fun launches that do not survive. A liquidity pull, a large holder exit, a wave of copycats, or the central figure stepping back are each sufficient to trigger this, and they often compound. Anyone holding into this scenario should expect to lose most or all of the position.
Frequently Asked Questions
Did Ansem create The Black Bull token?
No. The token was created by an anonymous developer who airdropped a large share of the supply to Ansem’s wallet to attract attention. Ansem, the Solana trader also known as blknoiz06, did not launch it, and it is not officially his project. He later embraced it and reportedly pledged to share creator fees with holders, but the origin was a 3rd party using his name and wallet.
Why has ANSEM risen so much?
The move, roughly 26,000% in a week, reflects a freshly launched memecoin coming off a near-zero base combined with the attention of a well-known influencer. There is no product or revenue driving it. The price is a function of speculation, social momentum, and one person’s involvement, which is exactly why it can reverse just as violently.
Is The Black Bull a safe investment?
No. It is a high-risk memecoin with no fundamentals, flagged manipulation and concentration risk, thin liquidity, and a price dependent on a single person’s involvement. The large majority of tokens like it lose nearly all their value. It should be treated as a speculative gamble with money one is fully prepared to lose entirely, not as an investment.
What are the biggest risks?
The biggest risks are holder concentration selling into thin liquidity, liquidity providers withdrawing, attention rotating away and the narrative dying, copycat tokens splitting interest, and the central figure selling or stepping back for legal or reputational reasons. Any one can cause an 80%-plus decline, and they often combine.
What price targets do forecasters give?
Speculative 3rd-party ranges from exchange-affiliated outlets span roughly $0.03 to $0.25 for 2026, with short-term bands near $0.06 to $0.18. These are guesses about a chaotic, sentiment-driven asset, not fundamentals-based analysis. The wide ranges reflect that the outcome cannot be modeled with any confidence.
What is the most likely outcome?
For a memecoin of this type, the most likely outcome is a sharp drawdown from the peak, with a meaningful chance of trending toward near zero as attention fades. A minority of such tokens sustain a smaller community-driven existence, and a rare few extend higher. Betting on the rare outcome is the most common and costly mistake.
Disclaimer: This article is for information purposes only and does not constitute financial, investment, or trading advice. Memecoins are extremely high-risk, speculative assets with no underlying value, and most lose nearly all of their value. Prices are highly volatile, and the figures here, accurate as of June 30, 2026, will change rapidly. Nothing here is a recommendation to buy or sell any asset. Never invest more than you can afford to lose entirely, and consider consulting a licensed professional before making financial decisions.
Mystery over why Oliver! star Shanay Holmes quit hit show
China’s RatingDog manufacturing PMI eases in June, stays in expansion
Crypto Influencer Nick O’Neill Says He ‘Rugged’ Unsolicited Token Sent to Him
-
Fashion4 days agoWeekend Open Thread: Staud – Corporette.com
-
Politics5 days agoThe House | Manchesterism won’t survive the painful trade-offs unless it gets citizens on board
-
Crypto World23 hours agoStrategy authorizes up to $1.25B in Bitcoin sales under new capital plan
-
Politics5 days agoPotential 2028er World Cup attendee leaderboard
-
Business5 days agoAsia stock markets slide as tech shares slump
-
News Videos2 days agoMAJOR BITCOIN & MARKET UPDATE!!!! (MUST WATCH ASAP!!!)
-
Tech5 days agoA Look At A Gaggle Of Transputer Boards
-
Crypto World7 days agoSecuritize Wraps Roubini's SEC-Registered ETF as Dubai VARA Digital Security
-
Crypto World7 days ago
Bitcoin (BTC) Dips Below $62K, Ethereum (ETH) Plunges 6% Daily: Market Watch
-
Crypto World5 days agoDell (DELL) Shares Tumble Over 5% Following Analyst Downgrade to Hold
-
Crypto World3 days agoCoinbase, Circle Deepen Crypto Stock Losses Despite Resilient S&P 500
-
Crypto World4 days agoKraken's xStocks Opens Bending Spoons IPO Registration to EEA Retail
-
Business23 hours agoAustralia treasurer says alleged access of prime minister’s bank data ’incredibly concerning’
-
Sports4 days agoFIH Pro League: India defeat Pakistan 7-1, register biggest win of campaign | Other Sports News
-
Crypto World5 days agoBitcoin Sparks $600M Hourly Liquidations With $65,000 Set To Become Resistance
-
Tech3 days agoBluekit phishing kit adopts browser-in-the-middle for login theft
-
Tech4 days agoRussian hackers now target Signal backup recovery keys
-
Crypto World4 days agoHyperliquid Named on Singapore MAS Investor Alert Register
-
Crypto World6 days agoRipple and SBI launch RLUSD in Japan after JFSA approval
-
Crypto World4 days agoRTX holders must register wallets before token distribution begins
You must be logged in to post a comment Login