Crypto World

The CLARITY Act quietly bans a US CBDC. What that actually means

Published

4 hours ago

29 June 2026

The CLARITY Act quietly bans a US CBDC. What that actually means

Everyone is watching the CLARITY Act for what it does to crypto market structure. Buried inside it is a provision with a different target entirely: a ban on a US central bank digital currency. It is literally one of the bill’s three names. Here is what the anti-CBDC provision does, why it is there, and why it may matter more for stablecoins than for anything else.

Summary

The CLARITY Act carries an anti-CBDC provision so central that it is one of the bill’s three official short titles, alongside the market-structure language that gets all the attention.
The provision amends the Federal Reserve Act to bar the Fed from issuing a retail central bank digital currency directly or indirectly, and from using one to conduct monetary policy, without explicit approval from Congress.
A central bank digital currency would be a direct liability of the Fed recorded on a government-controlled ledger, which supporters argue would hand the government real-time visibility into individual transactions.
The biggest practical effect would be to remove the only potential government-backed competitor to private stablecoins, handing issuers of tokens like USDC, USDT, and Ripple’s RLUSD a durable structural advantage.
The same CBDC ban is advancing on several tracks at once, including a four-year ban that already passed both chambers inside a housing bill, so the CLARITY provision is part of a broader, redundant Republican push.

Almost everyone watching the CLARITY Act is watching it for one reason: it would settle the long fight over whether crypto tokens are securities or commodities, reshaping how the entire digital-asset market is regulated. That is the headline, and it is a big one. But folded inside the same bill is a provision aimed at something completely different, a ban on a United States central bank digital currency, and it is not a minor footnote.

The anti-CBDC language is so integral to the legislation that it is one of the bill’s three official short titles: the same act is named the Digital Asset Market Clarity Act, the CLARITY Act, and the Anti-CBDC Surveillance State Act. In other words, stopping a government digital dollar is not a rider quietly attached to the bill; it is one of the bill’s stated purposes, written into its very name. Yet because the market-structure debate consumes nearly all the attention, the CBDC ban has traveled largely under the radar, which is exactly why it is worth examining on its own.

The reason this matters extends well beyond a technical change to the Federal Reserve Act. A ban on a US central bank digital currency touches some of the most charged questions in money today: financial privacy, government surveillance, the future of the dollar, and, most concretely for crypto, the competitive fate of private stablecoins. Removing the possibility of a government-issued digital dollar does not just settle a privacy debate; it clears the field of the one competitor that could have challenged the private stablecoins now becoming central to crypto and payments.

This piece explains what the anti-CBDC provision actually does, what a central bank digital currency is and why it generates such fierce opposition, the political case behind the ban, the bigger prize of a protected lane for private stablecoins, the several parallel tracks on which the ban is moving, the serious arguments against it, and what it all means for crypto holders. The market-structure fight may decide how crypto is regulated, but the CBDC provision could quietly shape who wins the payments future, which makes it one of the most consequential parts of the bill almost nobody is discussing.

What the provision actually does

Start with the mechanics, because the provision is specific. The anti-CBDC language amends the Federal Reserve Act to impose several related prohibitions on the central bank. It bars the Federal Reserve banks from offering certain products or services directly to individuals, which is the structural feature a retail digital dollar would require, since a true retail CBDC would mean ordinary people holding accounts or balances directly with the Fed.

It prohibits the Fed from issuing a central bank digital currency, or any digital asset substantially similar to one, directly to individuals or indirectly through financial institutions or other intermediaries. It prohibits the use of a central bank digital currency to conduct monetary policy. And in its fuller forms, the anti-CBDC framework also bars the Fed from even testing or developing a CBDC without explicit authorization from Congress.

The throughline of all these provisions is a single principle: the Federal Reserve should not be able to create a digital dollar for the general public on its own authority. Under the ban, any move toward a retail CBDC would require Congress to pass a law specifically authorizing it, rather than the Fed proceeding through its own rulemaking. This converts the question of a digital dollar from a decision the central bank could make into one that only elected legislators could make, which supporters see as a crucial check and critics see as an unnecessary handcuff.

Notably, the bans are generally written to protect private, dollar-denominated digital currencies that are open and preserve the privacy features of physical cash, meaning they target a government-issued CBDC specifically while leaving private stablecoins untouched. That carve-out is not incidental; as the later sections show, protecting private stablecoins while blocking a government one is arguably the whole point.

What a CBDC is, and why it draws such fire

To understand the intensity of the opposition, you have to understand what a central bank digital currency actually is, because it is easy to confuse with the digital money people already use. The dollars in an ordinary bank account are already digital, but they are a liability of a commercial bank, not the Federal Reserve, and they pass through the banking system with its existing layers of intermediation.

A retail central bank digital currency would be fundamentally different: it would be a direct liability of the Federal Reserve itself, a form of digital money issued and backed by the central bank, held by the public, and recorded on a ledger the government controls. In its retail form, it would be used by ordinary people for everyday transactions, the digital equivalent of cash but issued directly by the state, as distinct from a wholesale CBDC, which financial institutions would use to settle large transactions among themselves.

The objection that animates the ban is captured in the bill’s own framing as an anti-surveillance measure. Critics of CBDCs, including the lawmakers behind the provision, argue that because a retail CBDC would be recorded on a centralized, government-controlled ledger, it would give the issuing authority complete, real-time visibility into individual transactions, and potentially the power to control or restrict how people spend their own money.

To this way of thinking, a government digital currency is the antithesis of the privacy that cash and, in a different way, cryptocurrency provide, and it edges toward a system of financial surveillance incompatible with a free society. Supporters of the ban frame it as protecting Americans from government overreach into their financial lives.

This is why the provision carries the loaded name Anti-CBDC Surveillance State Act, and why the issue has become a rallying point: for its proponents, blocking a CBDC is about preventing a tool of state surveillance before it can be built, which is a far more emotive cause than the technical market-structure questions that surround it in the same bill.

The political case behind the ban

The anti-CBDC provision did not arrive by accident; it reflects a deliberate and long-standing political push, and understanding that context clarifies why it sits inside the CLARITY Act. Opposition to a US central bank digital currency has been a priority for many Republican lawmakers and for the current administration, framed around privacy and limited government.

The legislator most associated with the standalone anti-CBDC effort has described its purpose as codifying the President’s stated effort to prevent the development of a central bank digital currency and to keep the country’s digital-currency policy in the hands of the American people rather than what he called the administrative state.

The President signed an executive order opposing a CBDC early in the administration, and the Treasury Secretary has publicly stated that a digital dollar is off the table, with the government instead focusing its energy on passing crypto legislation like the CLARITY Act.

This alignment between the administration and congressional Republicans is why the anti-CBDC language has been pursued through multiple vehicles and why it found a home inside the CLARITY Act. For its proponents, the goal is not merely to stop a CBDC that might be built someday, but to write the prohibition into durable law so that no future administration could pursue a digital dollar without going back to Congress.

It is worth being precise that this is a contested, partisan framing rather than a neutral consensus: supporters present the ban as a vital privacy protection, while opponents, as a later section details, see it as solving a problem that does not exist and forfeiting a tool other countries are embracing.

But on the proponents’ side, the case is coherent and deeply felt: a retail CBDC represents, in their view, an unacceptable expansion of government power over individuals’ money, and banning it preemptively is a way to foreclose that risk for good. That conviction is what put an anti-surveillance measure into a crypto market-structure bill and made it one of the bill’s defining names.

The bigger prize: a moat for private stablecoins

Beyond the privacy argument, the anti-CBDC provision carries a commercial consequence that may matter more for crypto than the surveillance debate, and it concerns the booming market for private stablecoins. Stablecoins are privately issued digital tokens pegged to the dollar, and they have become central to crypto trading and increasingly to real-world payments, with the largest, such as Circle’s USDC and Tether’s USDT, accounting for the overwhelming majority of stablecoin volume, and newer entrants like Ripple’s RLUSD growing quickly.

A retail central bank digital currency would be the one thing capable of seriously challenging these private stablecoins, because a government-issued digital dollar would offer the public a sovereign, risk-free digital alternative to a privately issued token. If people could hold digital dollars directly from the Federal Reserve, the appeal of holding a private stablecoin would diminish for many uses.

By banning a US CBDC, the provision removes that competitor before it can exist, and this is where the privacy framing and the commercial reality converge. The ban forecloses the only credible government-backed rival to private stablecoins, effectively handing issuers a structural advantage that no amount of regulation or marketing could buy them: the absence of a sovereign competitor, guaranteed by law.

This is why the CLARITY Act and the stablecoin framework already signed into law are best understood as sequential pieces of the same strategy. The earlier law set up the licensing framework for private stablecoins, and the CLARITY Act, by blocking a CBDC, helps clear the competitive field on which those stablecoins will operate. The result is a deliberate tilt of the payments future toward private issuers and away from a government digital dollar.

For crypto, and for the stablecoin issuers in particular, this is arguably the most important practical effect of the anti-CBDC provision: not the abstract privacy principle, but the concrete removal of the one competitor that could have constrained the private stablecoin market just as it is becoming central to the industry. Holders of stablecoin-linked assets, including those in the XRP ecosystem given Ripple’s RLUSD, sit on the favorable side of that tilt.

The ban is moving on several tracks at once

An important nuance, often lost in coverage, is that the CLARITY Act is not the only vehicle carrying the CBDC ban, and appreciating the full picture prevents overstating the role of any single bill. The same anti-CBDC objective has been advancing through at least three parallel paths. First, the language lives inside the CLARITY Act itself as one of its named components.

Second, a standalone Anti-CBDC Surveillance State Act passed the House of Representatives as its own bill and went to the Senate separately, giving the prohibition an independent path. Third, and most strikingly, a four-year ban on a Federal Reserve CBDC, running through the end of 2030, was attached to an unrelated housing bill that passed the Senate by an overwhelming margin and cleared the House, putting it on the verge of becoming law.

That housing-bill ban illustrates both the momentum behind the anti-CBDC push and the political turbulence around it. The provision sailed through Congress with broad support, banning the Fed from issuing a CBDC directly or indirectly through intermediaries while explicitly protecting private stablecoins that are open and preserve cash-like privacy. But the bill’s signing was delayed when the President held it up over an unrelated demand on separate legislation, a reminder that even broadly supported measures can get caught in larger political standoffs, and that the delay consumed legislative time the CLARITY Act itself could ill afford.

The takeaway is that the CBDC ban is overdetermined: it is being pursued through redundant channels, so even if the CLARITY Act stalls, the prohibition may well become law through one of the other paths. For anyone trying to gauge the future of a US digital dollar, the honest assessment is that the political system has moved decisively against one, through multiple overlapping efforts, of which the CLARITY Act provision is one prominent part instead of the sole determinant.

The serious case against the ban

Evenhandedness requires taking the arguments against the CBDC ban seriously, because they are substantive and come from credible quarters, not just from would-be government surveillers. The most striking criticism is that the ban would make the United States a global outlier. A great many countries are actively developing or piloting central bank digital currencies, with China’s digital yuan among the most advanced and well over a hundred countries exploring the technology in some form.

Banning a CBDC outright would make the United States the only major economy to foreclose the option entirely, which critics argue cedes ground in the evolution of money and could, over time, weaken the dollar’s competitive position in a world moving toward digital sovereign currencies. The concern is not that a digital dollar is necessarily desirable, but that permanently banning even the ability to build one is a drastic and possibly shortsighted response.

A related criticism is that the ban could hamper legitimate central-bank work on the future of payments. The Federal Reserve participates in international efforts to modernize cross-border payments using tokenized central-bank money, and a sweeping prohibition could undercut that research and the United States’ role in shaping global standards. Critics also note a certain irony: the Federal Reserve was not actually building a retail CBDC, so the ban forecloses a project that did not exist, which they argue makes it more a symbolic and ideological act than a response to a real and present threat.

From this angle, the provision solves a hypothetical problem at the cost of real flexibility, while the privacy concerns it cites could in principle be addressed through design choices instead of an outright ban. Supporters answer that a preemptive, permanent ban is exactly the point, because it removes the temptation and the risk for good, and that the surveillance dangers are too serious to leave to future design promises. Both sides have a coherent case, and reasonable people land in different places, but the debate is real and should not be flattened into a simple privacy-versus-surveillance morality tale. The ban has genuine costs as well as the benefits its supporters emphasize.

What it means for crypto and XRP holders

For crypto holders trying to translate all this into something actionable, the anti-CBDC provision points in a fairly clear direction, even if its effects are more structural than immediate. The most direct consequence is favorable for private stablecoins and, by extension, for the parts of the crypto ecosystem built around them.

By removing the prospect of a government-issued digital dollar, the ban protects the competitive position of private stablecoins at exactly the moment they are becoming central to crypto payments and settlement. Issuers like Circle and Tether benefit from the absence of a sovereign rival, and so does Ripple’s RLUSD, which means holders in the XRP ecosystem have a stake in this outcome even though it sits in the regulatory weeds instead of the price charts. The broader thesis that private, on-chain dollars will carry an increasing share of payments gets a meaningful boost when the public-sector alternative is taken off the table by law.

The effects on the wider crypto market are more diffuse but still real. The anti-CBDC stance is part of the same policy posture that favors private digital assets and lighter-touch regulation, and its advance signals an environment broadly supportive of the industry. At the same time, holders should keep the provision in proportion. Because no US retail CBDC was actually being built, the ban changes the hypothetical future more than the present reality, and its largest effects are competitive and long-term instead of an immediate catalyst for any token’s price.

It is also worth remembering that the ban is moving through several vehicles, so its fate is not bound to the CLARITY Act alone, and that the privacy debate it embodies is genuinely contested, with credible arguments on both sides about whether foreclosing a CBDC serves or harms the country’s long-term interests. The clear-eyed reading for a holder is that the anti-CBDC provision is a quiet but meaningful tailwind for private stablecoins and the broader private-digital-money thesis, embedded in a bill whose market-structure provisions will likely matter more for prices in the near term, but whose CBDC language may shape the deeper question of who owns the future of digital payments.

Frequently Asked Questions

Does the CLARITY Act really ban a US CBDC?

Yes, the anti-CBDC provision is one of the bill’s three official short titles, alongside the Digital Asset Market Clarity Act and the CLARITY Act, the third being the Anti-CBDC Surveillance State Act. The language amends the Federal Reserve Act to bar the Fed from issuing a retail central bank digital currency directly to individuals or indirectly through intermediaries, from using a CBDC for monetary policy, and, in its fuller forms, from even testing one without explicit authorization from Congress. So blocking a government digital dollar is not a minor rider but one of the bill’s stated purposes, even though the market-structure provisions receive nearly all the public attention.

What is a central bank digital currency?

A central bank digital currency, or CBDC, is digital money issued and backed directly by a country’s central bank. A retail CBDC, the kind the ban targets, would be held by ordinary people and used for everyday transactions, making it a direct liability of the Federal Reserve recorded on a government-controlled ledger. This differs from the digital dollars already in bank accounts, which are liabilities of commercial banks, not the Fed. It also differs from a wholesale CBDC, which financial institutions would use to settle large transactions among themselves. The retail version is what generates the privacy concerns, because it would route everyday payments through a ledger the government controls.

Why do supporters want to ban a CBDC?

Supporters frame it as a privacy and anti-surveillance measure. Their core argument is that a retail CBDC, recorded on a centralized government ledger, would give the state real-time visibility into individuals’ transactions and potentially the power to control how people spend their money, which they see as incompatible with financial freedom. The provision’s name, the Anti-CBDC Surveillance State Act, captures this framing. Proponents, including the administration and many Republican lawmakers, want to write the ban into durable law so no future administration could build a digital dollar without explicit congressional approval, foreclosing what they view as a serious surveillance risk before it can materialize.

How does banning a CBDC affect stablecoins?

It helps private stablecoins significantly. A government-issued digital dollar would be the one thing capable of seriously challenging private stablecoins like USDC, USDT, and Ripple’s RLUSD, because it would offer the public a sovereign, risk-free digital alternative. By banning a US CBDC, the provision removes that competitor before it can exist, handing private stablecoin issuers a structural advantage guaranteed by law. The bans are also typically written to protect private stablecoins explicitly while blocking the government one. This is arguably the most important practical effect of the provision, tilting the future of digital payments toward private issuers and away from a public digital dollar.

Is the CLARITY Act the only bill banning a CBDC?

No, and this is an important nuance. The same anti-CBDC objective is advancing through several parallel tracks. It exists inside the CLARITY Act as one of its named components, a standalone Anti-CBDC Surveillance State Act passed the House separately and went to the Senate, and a four-year CBDC ban running through 2030 was attached to an unrelated housing bill that passed both chambers and is near becoming law. So the prohibition is being pursued redundantly, which means it may become law through one of these paths even if the CLARITY Act stalls. The CLARITY provision is one prominent part of a broader push instead of the sole vehicle.

What are the arguments against banning a CBDC?

Critics make several serious points. A ban would make the United States the only major economy to foreclose a CBDC entirely, while many countries, including China with its digital yuan, are actively developing them, which critics argue cedes ground in the evolution of money and could weaken the dollar’s long-term position. They note the Fed was not actually building a retail CBDC, so the ban forecloses a project that did not exist, making it more symbolic than responsive to a real threat. They also warn it could hamper legitimate central-bank work on modernizing cross-border payments. Supporters counter that a permanent, preemptive ban is precisely the point, removing the risk for good. Both sides have coherent arguments

This article is information, not legal, financial, or investment advice. The status and contents of the CLARITY Act, the standalone anti-CBDC legislation, and related bills reflect reporting available as of June 27, 2026, and can change. The CBDC debate is politically contested, and this article presents the arguments of multiple sides instead of endorsing any. Nothing here is a recommendation regarding any token or security. Verify current details from primary sources and consider your own circumstances before making any decision.

Source link

Crypto World

White House to speak with law enforcement groups to push Crypto’s Clarity Act

Published

4 minutes ago

29 June 2026

NewsAdmin

White House favors some stablecoin rewards, tells banks it's time to move

White House officials — especially lead crypto adviser Patrick Witt — have sought to keep the Clarity Act moving forward in the Senate, including holding previous meetings with those who have objected, such as law enforcement groups and Wall Street bankers. Representatives of the White House didn’t immediately respond to requests for comment on the expected Monday meeting, which meant to work through some of the remaining concerns, and few details were available.

Industry groups such as the Blockchain Association have defended the legislation’s crime-fighting tools, arguing that the bill includes a number of new powers for pursuing bad actors, and that the absence of a new law will leave a vacuum.

At an industry-hosted event earlier this month, White House adviser Witt said, “We’re putting real regulatory constraints on businesses and actors that currently live in a state of uncertainty.”

To law enforcement officials, he argued, “You should be the biggest cheerleaders for this bill, because this is really what is missing.”

Meanwhile, the Clarity Act’s political opponents, such as Senator Elizabeth Warren — the top Democrat on the Banking Committee, have maintained a steady stream of criticism on the legislation’s illicit-finance front. They routinely cite crypto’s use by criminal groups, drug cartels and human traffickers.

Source link

Crypto World

Strategy (MSTR) Stock Drops as Company Prepares $1.25B Bitcoin Sale

Published

11 minutes ago

29 June 2026

NewsAdmin

Key Takeaways

Strategy is preparing to liquidate up to $1.25 billion in Bitcoin holdings to strengthen its cash position, currently sitting at $2.55 billion.
Two separate $1 billion buyback initiatives have been authorized — targeting both common and preferred shares.
The firm’s mNAV metric fell beneath the critical 1.0 threshold on June 27, eliminating its capital-raising edge.
STRC preferred stock dividend increased to 12%, with new policies requiring cash reserves to cover a full year of obligations.
Shares of MSTR were trading at $82.31, reflecting a 3.5% decline, as Bitcoin hovered around $60,275.

Strategy (MSTR) is executing a dramatic strategic reversal. The enterprise that staked its reputation on accumulating and never selling Bitcoin is now preparing to offload a significant portion — a development that has captured Wall Street’s full attention.

MSTR Stock Card
Strategy Inc, MSTR

In a June 29 filing, Strategy outlined intentions to divest up to $1.25 billion in Bitcoin assets. The capital raised will strengthen the company’s treasury, finance preferred shareholder dividends, service debt obligations, and support general corporate requirements.

MSTR shares climbed approximately 5% during pre-market hours following the disclosure, though by regular trading the stock had retreated to $82.31, representing a 3.5% decline. Bitcoin was trading near $60,275, posting a modest 0.6% gain over the previous day.

According to the filing, Bitcoin disposals will occur opportunistically based on prevailing market dynamics and capital requirements — not according to any predetermined timeline.

The Economics Have Shifted

For an extended period, Strategy’s approach was remarkably straightforward: raise capital through securities offerings, acquire Bitcoin, then repeat the cycle. This framework delivered exceptional results during Bitcoin’s bull runs, particularly when the company’s mNAV — measuring enterprise valuation against Bitcoin holdings — remained substantially above 1.

That crucial metric slipped below parity on June 27. This development signals that the valuation premium enabling Strategy to access inexpensive capital for Bitcoin acquisitions has essentially vanished.

Both common and preferred securities have experienced severe declines tracking Bitcoin’s downturn. MSTR has plummeted nearly 80% during the past twelve months. The perpetual preferred instruments Strategy introduced in 2025 — initially conceived as a mechanism to expand Bitcoin holdings without diluting existing shareholders — have tumbled below $75, significantly beneath the $100 par value necessary for economically sensible purchases.

Management also indicated greater restraint regarding future common stock issuances, especially when share prices approach net asset value.

Dual share repurchase authorizations totaling $1 billion each were unveiled — one addressing Class A common stock, the other targeting preferred Digital Credit Securities.

A newly adopted board mandate now obligates Strategy to maintain treasury reserves sufficient to cover no less than twelve months of anticipated preferred dividends and interest charges. Current reserves total $2.55 billion.

Warning Signs Emerged Weeks Ago

The shift became evident as early as June 1, when Strategy revealed it had liquidated 32 Bitcoin — marking its first sale since 2022. While negligible compared to its approximately $51 billion total position, the symbolic significance was undeniable.

Bitcoin skeptic Peter Schiff quickly seized on the development. In a June 29 commentary, he characterized Strategy as “now a Bitcoin seller,” highlighting the company’s rebranded Bitcoin Monetization Program.

FalconX senior derivatives trader Bohan Jiang provided a more balanced perspective: “While there is more selling pressure on Bitcoin, it is definitely positive for the stock, and both the common and preferred shareholders.”

The STRC preferred dividend rate was elevated to 12% as part of the restructuring announcement.

Bitcoin has faced headwinds lately, dipping below $59,000 the previous week before staging a partial recovery.

Source link

Crypto World

Can AI drain DeFi? Separating Claude Mythos hype from reality

Published

17 minutes ago

29 June 2026

NewsAdmin

Claude Mythos and DeFi: Real threat or overblown fear?

When Anthropic introduced Claude Mythos-class models as its most advanced AI system for cybersecurity, it drew the usual mix of reactions from crypto communities. The lineup included Claude Fable 5, a Mythos-class model intended for broad use, although access was later suspended after a US government directive.

The concern around decentralized finance (DeFi) was easy to understand. If AI systems can find software flaws faster and with less human input, attackers may also use them to spot weak points in protocols before security teams can fix them.

Those concerns may seem overstated, but they come from a real shift in technology. AI tools have become better at reviewing code, spotting flaws and supporting security teams. At the same time, DeFi remains a major target for attackers because its code is often public, its protocols hold large amounts of money and many systems are new or not fully battle-tested.

The key question is whether Claude Mythos and similar tools pose a serious threat to DeFi, or whether the industry is overstating what today’s AI can actually do.

The answer sits somewhere between the hype and the alarm.

What is Claude Mythos?

Claude Mythos is Anthropic’s most advanced AI system for cybersecurity. Unlike general-purpose AI assistants that can write code or explain technical concepts, Mythos is designed to handle complex security tasks.

Anthropic initially limited access to the model instead of releasing it widely. According to the company, Mythos showed clear improvements in vulnerability research, exploit analysis and layered cybersecurity reasoning compared with earlier versions.

That capability drew attention quickly because vulnerability detection is valuable in both cybersecurity and crypto.

A security expert might spend weeks reviewing code for small flaws. If AI can shorten that timeline to hours, or even less, it could change the balance in defensive security.

That possibility explains much of the unease in crypto circles.

Why Claude Mythos matters to DeFi

DeFi has lost billions of dollars to hacks, exploits and protocol failures in recent years. The concern is not new.

Flash-loan attacks, cross-chain bridge exploits, governance attacks and smart contract bugs have shown that even audited protocols can still have gaps.

Unlike traditional software systems, DeFi protocols often control large amounts of money through smart contracts. A vulnerability may not just expose information. It could allow attackers to move funds quickly and without permission.

That makes DeFi especially attractive to malicious actors.

The open-source nature of many blockchain projects adds another risk. Their code is available for security teams to review, but it is also available to attackers.

In the past, finding advanced vulnerabilities required deep technical skill. Security researchers needed strong knowledge of coding languages, blockchain architecture, cryptography and attack methods.

AI changes that.

Instead of manually reviewing large codebases, analysts can now use AI assistants to flag suspicious patterns, summarize complex systems and point out possible attack paths.

This is where concerns around Claude Mythos begin.

Did you know? In some controlled security competitions, AI systems have identified software vulnerabilities in minutes that would normally take human researchers several hours, or even days, to find.

Can AI really find vulnerabilities in DeFi protocols?

The short answer is yes. AI systems have already shown that they can find certain types of software vulnerabilities.

Studies from Anthropic and other research groups show that advanced models can review code repositories, test security assumptions and sometimes find issues that human analysts miss.

Smart contracts are well suited to this kind of analysis because they are often public and written in structured languages such as Solidity.

An AI system can quickly review thousands of contracts, spot repeated patterns and look for known types of vulnerabilities.

Areas where AI is likely to provide growing support include:

Reviewing audit reports
Identifying unsafe coding practices
Comparing protocol upgrades
Detecting permission errors
Modeling possible exploit paths
Analyzing interactions between smart contracts

AI is becoming a force multiplier for security researchers. A task that once required a full team of experts could increasingly be handled by a smaller group of security professionals using advanced AI tools.

That is a meaningful change, not just marketing hype.

The table below shows how Claude Mythos compares with other models:

Why AI threats to DeFi may be exaggerated

Even with these advances, there is a clear difference between finding a vulnerability and stealing funds. Many crypto attacks involve much more than spotting a flaw.

Attackers often need to:

Understand complex protocol mechanics
Bring in significant capital
Coordinate multiple transactions
Exploit market conditions
Manipulate liquidity
Navigate governance systems
Avoid detection

Even when a vulnerability exists, turning it into a successful attack often requires detailed planning and careful execution.

The real-world environment is far more complex than isolated coding tests.

Current AI systems also have limits. They can reach wrong conclusions, miss key details or follow weak lines of analysis. Security experts often find that AI tools produce useful insights alongside many false alarms.

An AI tool might flag 10 possible vulnerabilities, but only one may turn out to be valid. That matters because skilled human oversight is still essential.

Claude Mythos could speed up vulnerability detection, but it does not remove the need for experienced security experts.

Did you know? Many DeFi protocols publish their code online. This gives both security teams and AI tools more real-world financial software to review than in traditional banking systems.

The defensive side of AI in DeFi

A major flaw in the claim that AI will weaken DeFi is the idea that only attackers will benefit from these tools. Security teams have access to them too.

Security firms are already adding AI to their review processes. Developers are using AI-assisted code checks more often. Bug hunters can also use AI to spot issues before attackers find them.

Over time, AI may become a normal part of protocol security.

That could mean:

Every code update goes through AI-assisted review
AI agents continuously monitor deployed contracts
Automated systems look for unusual on-chain activity
Possible vulnerabilities are flagged before deployment

In that case, AI could strengthen DeFi security instead of weakening it.

The technology is neutral on its own. Its impact depends on how well attackers and defenders use it.

When AI attacks meet AI defenses

A more realistic outlook points to a future where AI systems challenge each other directly. This would make security faster on both sides.

Attackers will use more advanced models to find vulnerabilities and plan attacks. Security teams will use similar tools to monitor threats, improve code quality and respond faster.

This already happens in traditional cybersecurity, where offensive and defensive tools improve side by side.

DeFi could become the next major battleground for this contest. The likely result is not a sudden collapse of the sector. Instead, DeFi may enter a period of faster security upgrades and adaptation.

Projects that are slow to find vulnerabilities and update their code could face greater risk. Those that adopt AI-supported safeguards may become stronger than before.

Did you know? Several major crypto losses have come from compromised private keys, social engineering attacks or governance manipulation rather than flaws in smart contract code itself.

Assessing protocol vulnerabilities

Risk is not spread evenly across DeFi. Smaller projects with limited security resources often face the highest exposure.

Several categories are especially vulnerable:

Fast deployment schedules: Projects that prioritize quick launches over careful testing may leave structural flaws in place.
Copied codebases: Many protocols reuse or slightly modify existing code. Advanced AI tools can compare these systems quickly and expose inherited flaws.
Weak audit coverage: Projects with little or no third-party review are less prepared for advanced attacks.
Legacy smart contracts: Older contract designs may rely on assumptions that no longer hold up against modern exploit methods.

Automated analysis tools could sharply reduce the time needed to find these weaknesses.

What DeFi builders should do now

Claude Mythos offers an important lesson for the industry. DeFi builders should assume that attackers may already be using automated research tools. Security strategies need to improve accordingly.

Core priorities should include:

Expanding automated security testing
Running continuous, real-time audits
Adding AI-assisted code analysis to development pipelines
Increasing bug bounty rewards
Using formal verification for critical code
Improving threat monitoring and real-time incident response

Engineering teams must reduce the time between finding a vulnerability and deploying a fix. In an AI-accelerated environment, response time becomes just as important as prevention.

A major shift, not DeFi’s breaking point

Claude Mythos has shown that automated systems can handle complex security tasks that once required specialized experts. That marks a major shift for DeFi, where a code flaw can lead to the immediate loss of user funds.

Still, predictions of total systemic failure ignore several practical realities. Finding a vulnerability does not guarantee a successful exploit. Current AI tools still produce uneven results, human oversight remains essential and defensive teams have access to the same technology.

The more likely outcome is a change in security standards, not a collapse of DeFi. Automated tools could reduce the time and cost needed to find vulnerabilities. That will put more pressure on development teams to improve code quality, respond faster and build stronger security systems.

Ultimately, these developments are a warning, not a guaranteed outcome. The future of decentralized infrastructure will not be decided only by what AI can find. It will also depend on whether attackers or defenders use the technology more effectively.

Source link

Crypto World

Chainlink price prediction: record network growth meets bearish technicals

Published

25 minutes ago

29 June 2026

NewsAdmin

Can the Chainlink-Mastercard partnership reverse LINK’s bear trend?

Chainlink added 6,182 new wallets in two days.
LINK’s price must clear $8.31 to strengthen its recovery.
Technical indicators lean more bearish than bullish.

Chainlink (LINK) is showing a rare divergence between its on-chain activity and price action.

While the token has struggled to recover from recent losses, network activity has accelerated at its fastest pace this year, raising questions about whether the increase in network activity can eventually translate into a price rebound.

At the time of writing, LINK is trading around $7.30, up just 0.3% over the past 24 hours.

Despite the modest daily gain, the broader trend remains weak.

LINK has declined 8.7% over the past week, 20.3% over the last 30 days, and 45.8% over the past year.

Chainlink network activity reaches highest level of 2026

Recent on-chain data showed that the Chainlink network added 6,182 new wallet addresses in just two days, marking its strongest two-day growth of 2026.

✍️ TL;DR: Chainlink network growth erupts with two highest on-chain days of the year
📊 Metrics used: Network Growth
🔗 Link to chart: https://t.co/V88ThZQNSi
📈 BREAKING: Chainlink just posted its two strongest network growth days of 2026, with 3,142 new LINK wallets on June… pic.twitter.com/H0FVqxDvwB
— Santiment Intelligence (@SantimentData) June 26, 2026

The increase was spread across two consecutive days, with 3,142 new wallets created on June 25 and another 3,040 on June 26.

Such growth is often viewed as a sign of rising user participation because it reflects fresh addresses interacting with the network during a period when the token itself has been under selling pressure.

The surge is particularly notable as it came while LINK was trading close to multi-month lows instead of a rally.

In many cases, rapid wallet growth accompanies rising prices as new investors enter the market.

This time, the increase in network activity arrived even as the token remained below several important resistance levels.

Chainlink continues to maintain a total value locked (TVL) of about $28.841 billion, showing that the protocol remains one of the largest decentralised oracle networks despite recent weakness in its token price.

Some market observers have pointed to the divergence between improving on-chain metrics and weaker prices as evidence that network usage has remained resilient.

However, address growth alone does not guarantee higher prices, particularly when broader market conditions remain under pressure.

Bearish technical indicators continue to dominate

Despite the encouraging on-chain data, technical indicators still favour the sellers.

From a technical perspective, LINK is trading below its 10-day, 20-day, 50-day, 100-day, and 200-day EMAs, leaving every major moving average above the current price and acting as resistance.

Remaining below the 200-day EMA also suggests that the longer-term trend has yet to turn positive.

Momentum indicators offer a slightly more balanced view.

The 14-day Relative Strength Index (RSI) stands at 32.21, keeping the token above the traditional oversold threshold of 30 but still close enough that trading volume could play a decisive role in the next move.

On the weekly timeframe, the RSI is 33.23, indicating that bearish momentum has eased compared to earlier weeks, although the broader trend remains under pressure.

Key Chainlink price levels to watch

The technical structure leaves several important price levels in focus.

Immediate support sits at $7.02. If the token closes below that level, the current support structure would weaken significantly and could expose LINK to additional downside.

Chainlink price chart

On the upside, traders are watching $8.31, which represents the first major resistance level.

A confirmed close above that price would improve the technical outlook and could allow LINK to challenge the next resistance around $9.19.

Some technical analysts have also highlighted the possibility of a double-bottom formation if support continues to hold.

Under that scenario, a sustained breakout above resistance could eventually open the path toward the $9 region.

Share this article

Crypto World

Crypto analytics firm Chainalysis proposes standards for blockchain tracing

Published

31 minutes ago

29 June 2026

NewsAdmin

Crypto analytics firm Chainalysis proposes standards for blockchain tracing

The ontology lays out how Chainalysis views the role of attribution to these clusters, presenting a two-tier structure; the first tier “defines the structural graph,” while the second assesses how confident the analysis is in that graph.

“What does it mean that these addresses belong together, right? It’s clearly because somebody believes that they are under the control of the same entity, right?” Illum said. “Maybe it’s an exchange, or maybe it’s a darknet market, or maybe it’s a mixer, or whatever. But what are the grounds to establish that these things actually belong together?”

Investigators likely won’t have private keys, which would be the easiest way to tell if a cluster of addresses is all being controlled by the same entity, so they would then have to look at onchain data.

Illum was also clear about the limitations of this type of analysis: While Chainalysis could conduct research into transactions and clusters, it cannot, on its own, identify the actual end user without additional information.

Chainalysis could track funds to a crypto exchange, for example, or another entity managing wallets on behalf of customers, but investigators might need to issue a subpoena to identify who the customer is.

In other words, who controls a wallet or what entity is associated with the wallet are separate questions from the actual tracing aspect.

Source link

Crypto World

Bitcoin Critics Turn to Blockchain: 5 Notable Crypto U-Turns

Published

38 minutes ago

29 June 2026

NewsAdmin

The debate that once framed much of mainstream finance as “crypto skepticism” has quietly shifted—at least for some of the most visible skeptics. A handful of prominent figures who previously dismissed digital assets as illegitimate or destructive have either backed crypto-adjacent products, invested in tokenization, or moved from public hostility to selective engagement.

Rather than a single narrative of conversion, the pattern looks more like a split between those who reconsider the technology and those who keep attacking the asset while profiting from the rails. The result: crypto’s credibility continues to spread not only through believers, but through well-positioned skeptics adjusting their strategies.

Key takeaways

Several top executives have moved from condemning Bitcoin to treating it as a fit within regulated investment channels, helping drive institutional access.
Some “still skeptical” voices have not changed their public stance on Bitcoin, while simultaneously building or selling blockchain-enabled infrastructure.
Tokenization appears to be the common thread: even critics often gravitate toward regulated, asset-backed digital formats rather than “unbacked” crypto.
Opportunistic engagement—whether via products, marketing, or political positioning—has become increasingly lucrative for high-profile figures.

Larry Fink’s pivot: from money-laundering claims to tokenized finance

Larry Fink, CEO of BlackRock, is often cited as the clearest example of a skeptic moving toward crypto’s mainstream role. In 2017, Fink described Bitcoin as an “index of money laundering,” reflecting a widespread early-finance critique that digital assets were dominated by speculation and illicit activity. A decade later, the tone is notably different.

It is unclear what specifically drove the reassessment, but by 2020 Fink began acknowledging Bitcoin’s potential. By 2023, he was actively defending BlackRock’s crypto push. Today, BlackRock is among the most influential institutional on-ramps for Bitcoin through spot exchange-traded products—an important development because it places exposure to Bitcoin inside frameworks that many traditional investors already understand.

In later communications connected to BlackRock’s investor relations, Fink has also discussed tokenization more directly, portraying it as an effort to modernize financial systems. The key shift is not simply acceptance of Bitcoin as an investment; it is an argument that digital asset rails can be integrated into conventional finance in a more institutional way.

Jamie Dimon’s approach: criticism of Bitcoin, investment in the rails

While Fink’s evolution leaned toward acceptance, JPMorgan’s Jamie Dimon illustrates a more conditional stance. Dimon has repeatedly criticized Bitcoin in strong terms—including describing it as a “fraud” and warning that it would blow up. He has also used public platforms, including Congressional hearings, to reiterate his objections.

Yet JPMorgan’s activities suggest an important asymmetry: the bank may dislike Bitcoin as an asset, but still wants control over—if not profit from—the infrastructure that enables tokenized finance. The bank has built out its Onyx division, rolled out JPM Coin, and experimented with connecting bank infrastructure to crypto wallets. It has also developed tokenized collateral platforms aimed at moving cash and securities more efficiently.

For investors and market participants, this distinction matters. The more banks treat blockchain-based workflows as tools worth integrating, the more the ecosystem’s “plumbing” becomes institutional-grade—regardless of whether executives like Dimon endorse Bitcoin’s legitimacy.

Peter Schiff’s consistency: gold first, but tokenization still works

Peter Schiff has largely stayed consistent in his critique of Bitcoin’s market structure and long-term sustainability, and his skepticism appears to intensify during rallies. However, Schiff’s business decisions show that even critics of crypto can embrace tokenization when it aligns with familiar value storage.

According to the article, Schiff launched T-Gold.com in December 2025, a tokenized gold platform that represents physical bullion via blockchain-recorded tokens. The model allows users to buy physical gold and silver held in segregated vaults and receive digital tokens tied to specific quantities, with ownership recorded on a blockchain.

In framing this as a continuation rather than an apostasy, the underlying message is straightforward: keep the rails, swap the asset. Schiff’s move underscores a broader trend—tokenization can be pitched less as “crypto” and more as a transfer-and-custody layer for assets with long-established monetary histories.

Nouriel Roubini’s “Technodollar”: skepticism directed at unbacked assets

Nouriel Roubini, known to crypto audiences as “Dr. Doom,” is not typically associated with pivoting toward digital assets. In prior commentary, he has described many cryptocurrencies as “useless,” warned of a “crypto apocalypse,” and highlighted governance failures and investor harms.

Yet this week, as reported in the source material, he co-authored a whitepaper with Atlas Capital and announced USAFi, a tokenized instrument marketed as a regulated permissionless security intended to reflect what he calls the “Technodollar.” Roubini characterizes the move as not a reversal. He told Cointelegraph he remains skeptical of unbacked crypto assets whose value depends mainly on speculation rather than fundamentals.

What changes, in his view, is the design goal: modernizing the financial system through regulated, asset-backed digital instruments. The stance is telling for market watchers. Even prominent critics are shifting focus away from “Bitcoin versus nothing” toward questions about backing, governance, and investor protection—precisely the areas that regulators and institutional stakeholders have emphasized.

Donald Trump’s strategy: political leverage and profit—without technical precision

Donald Trump’s relationship with crypto is best described as pragmatic rather than technical. The article notes that he previously called Bitcoin “seems like a scam” and warned about its impact on dollar dominance, but later rebranded himself as a “crypto president.”

Trump has also been associated with nonfungible token drops and launched meme coins, including tokens linked to his family. The source further claims that he has pocketed more than $2.3 billion from various crypto endeavors since 2024, citing Reuters for that figure.

In this approach, understanding the mechanics appears less important than reading political incentives. The article argues that crypto has matured into a voting bloc and donors are becoming more strategic—so what matters is language about freedom, innovation, and opposing overreach. For the broader market, the implication is that crypto’s influence can expand through politics even when skeptics maintain that technological comprehension is secondary to adoption and capital formation.

What’s actually changing: belief, incentives, or both?

Across these cases, the common thread isn’t a simple conversion story. It’s a pattern of selective engagement shaped by incentives and fit with established business models.

For executives like Fink, the shift is framed as a reframing of crypto and tokenization as extensions of existing finance missions—helped by demand and by the prospect of new fee streams within huge institutional platforms. For skeptical banking voices like Dimon, the public criticism may remain intact while the bank’s product strategy leans into blockchain-enabled systems that can improve how institutions move value.

For critics like Schiff and Roubini, the direction is toward asset-backed or tokenized representations that resemble traditional value storage or regulated securities. And for political figures like Trump, the signal is that crypto can become part of a broader coalition strategy—where engagement is driven by attention, constituencies, and financial upside.

Whether these developments represent genuine intellectual evolution or an instinct to follow the money is difficult to prove. But for market participants, the practical takeaway is clear: crypto skepticism is no longer a barrier to building crypto-related products. Instead, it’s increasingly being redirected into debates about structure—backing, compliance, custody, and governance.

As more institutions and high-profile actors adapt their strategies, the next question for readers is how far tokenization will spread into regulated products that resemble traditional finance—and which remaining skeptics will adjust their positions as those offerings become more mainstream.

Source link

Crypto World

Palantir (PLTR) Stock Climbs on Expanded Surf Air Aviation Partnership

Published

44 minutes ago

29 June 2026

NewsAdmin

Key Highlights

PLTR shares advance following enhanced Surf Air Mobility collaboration announcement.
Partnership acceleration brings additional engineering resources to SurfOS development.
Enterprise BrokerOS deployment establishes foundation for broader platform expansion.
Company leverages AIP and Foundry platforms to address private aviation inefficiencies.
Integrated SurfOS ecosystem designed to connect industry stakeholders on unified platform.

Shares of Palantir Technologies experienced upward momentum during morning sessions following news of an enhanced collaboration with Surf Air Mobility. The stock advanced 3.53% to reach $116.92 after progressing steadily before experiencing minor profit-taking. This strategic expansion reinforces the company’s commitment to aviation technology as the industry continues operating on disconnected legacy infrastructure.

Palantir Technologies Inc., PLTR

Strategic Alliance with Surf Air Mobility Intensifies

Palantir Technologies revealed an enhanced commercial and technical collaboration with Surf Air Mobility. This upgraded arrangement brings additional personnel and capabilities from both organizations to accelerate the SurfOS platform’s evolution. The partnership aims to expedite market introduction throughout private aviation and urban air mobility sectors.

The enhanced collaboration encompasses multiple product lines including OperatorOS, OwnerOS, and SurfOS Enterprise Solutions. These offerings focus on serving aircraft operators, private aircraft owners, charter brokers, and various aviation service companies. Consequently, Surf Air seeks to establish an integrated technology infrastructure for an industry characterized by operational fragmentation.

The SurfOS architecture operates on top of Palantir’s Artificial Intelligence Platform (AIP) and Foundry infrastructure. This system enables aviation enterprises to streamline operations, reduce overhead expenses, and enhance decision-making capabilities. The platform also positions Surf Air to diversify beyond its core aviation marketplace operations.

BrokerOS Deployment Establishes Framework for Expansion

This partnership enhancement arrives following BrokerOS’s commercial introduction. Surf Air additionally finalized a significant seven-figure agreement with Wheels Up for the Enterprise BrokerOS solution. This arrangement positioned Wheels Up as the inaugural enterprise customer for the platform.

BrokerOS specifically addresses charter broker requirements and facilitates related operational processes. Nevertheless, Surf Air envisions SurfOS extending across additional private aviation segments. The comprehensive platform now targets operators, private aircraft owners, original equipment manufacturers, and maintenance service providers.

Palantir will additionally contribute to commercial strategy execution under this expanded arrangement. The firm has demonstrated expertise deploying solutions in complex industries facing data fragmentation challenges. Surf Air anticipates that Palantir’s involvement will compress development cycles and accelerate market penetration.

Aviation Technology Initiative Extends Commercial Portfolio

This collaboration provides Palantir with an additional enterprise application beyond its traditional defense and government segments. The private aviation sector represents a substantial market opportunity plagued by information silos and outdated technology infrastructure. Accordingly, Palantir can establish its platforms as solutions for process automation and operational visibility.

Surf Air Mobility simultaneously secures a more robust technology collaborator for its software division. The organization envisions SurfOS evolving into the core operating system for air mobility enterprises. This approach connects brokers, operators, owners, and manufacturers within a unified software environment.

Nevertheless, successful deployment hinges on market acceptance and customer uptake. Surf Air must demonstrate that SurfOS delivers measurable cost reductions and operational improvements. Palantir equally requires additional aviation sector clients to transform this collaboration into sustainable commercial momentum.

Source link

Crypto World

Bernstein Sees Prediction-Market M&A Wave as Platforms Integrate

Published

51 minutes ago

29 June 2026

NewsAdmin

Bernstein Sees Prediction-Market M&A Wave as Platforms Integrate

Prediction-market operators are bringing trading infrastructure in-house, a rapid shift that could trigger a wave of acquisitions across crypto platforms, sportsbooks, brokerages and standalone exchanges, according to analysts at Bernstein.

In a research report on Monday, Bernstein said the industry is going through “operational consolidation,” with major platforms moving to control more of the prediction-market stack.

“Every consumer platform that matters has merged the front and back end of the prediction-market stack,” they said. This includes distribution, brokerage, exchange and clearing. That convergence had placed businesses that historically operated in separate industries within a single competitive landscape.

Bernstein pointed to Robinhood routing major World Cup contracts through Rothera, the exchange it jointly owns with Susquehanna, and DraftKings launching DKeX and moving volume away from CME and Crypto.com infrastructure. The firm also cited Coinbase’s acquisition of The Clearing Company and its launch of event contracts as evidence that consumer platforms are seeking to control more of the prediction-market stack.

Owning the infrastructure allows platforms to retain fees that previously flowed to outside partners, making acquisitions a faster route to distribution, licenses, or completing missing parts of the stack. However, the same convergence that strengthens the case for consolidation could also heighten state and federal scrutiny by further blurring the regulatory boundary between financial trading and gambling.

Timeline of acquisitions. Source: Bernstein

Regulatory clash could constrain consolidation

Bernstein said regulatory scrutiny remains one of the main barriers to larger integrations across the prediction-market sector.

While combining crypto platforms with brokerages, sportsbooks and exchanges could improve margins and reduce reliance on outside partners, Bernstein said such deals could attract antitrust scrutiny and deepen disputes over whether sports event contracts should be regulated as financial derivatives or gambling products.

That could further stoke the jurisdictional conflict already playing out across several states. Minnesota enacted what the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) described as the first outright ban on prediction markets, while Illinois adopted legislation requiring platforms to obtain a state license before offering sports event contracts.

Valuation of online sports books compared to leading prediction markets.
Source: Bernstein.

Kalshi challenged both states’ restrictions, arguing that federally regulated exchanges fall under the CFTC’s exclusive authority.

The growing resistance suggests that consolidation may make commercial sense but remain difficult to execute until regulators and courts settle where federal derivatives oversight ends and state gambling authority begins.

Magazine: Bitcoin slides to $58K, XRP hits $1 but onchain data promising: Market Moves

Source link

Crypto World

The 52% Coincidence: Bitcoin and Silver Are Bleeding in Near-Perfect Sync

Published

57 minutes ago

29 June 2026

NewsAdmin

The 52% Coincidence: Bitcoin and Silver Are Bleeding in Near-Perfect Sync

Bitcoin (BTC) and silver have almost nothing in common, yet both now sit roughly 52% below their record highs at the same moment. Their weekly charts have started to rhyme, candle for candle.

Bitcoin trades near $59,893, while silver hovers around $58.50 per ounce. Both assets broke key support levels in recent weeks, and their momentum indicators rolled over together.

The 52% Mirror in Bitcoin and Silver

The headline number is hard to ignore. Bitcoin trades about 52% under its $126,200 peak from late 2025. Silver sits 52% beneath its $121.76 record set in January 2026.

The structure matches just as closely. Both weekly charts show a clear sequence of lower highs and lower lows since their tops.

Supertrend confirms the regime on each chart. The indicator flipped bearish on Bitcoin in November 2025 and on silver in mid-March 2026.

Each asset has also surrendered major Fibonacci supports. Bitcoin lost the 0.382 and 0.5 levels, and now defends the 0.618 golden pocket near $58,000.

Silver broke through both its 0.382 and 0.618 levels. Its last visible support is the 0.786 retracement around $54.50.

Where Bitcoin and Silver Split on the 200-Week Average

One difference breaks the symmetry. The 200-week moving average separates the two charts in a meaningful way.

Bitcoin closed below its 200-week moving average last week for the first time this cycle. That level had acted as a long-term floor at previous Bitcoin bottoms.

Silver tells a calmer story here. Its 200-week average sits near $36, far below the current price of around $58.50.

That gap gives silver a wide cushion. Bitcoin, by contrast, has already lost the support that bulls watch most closely.

A weekly close back above that average would ease the pressure on Bitcoin. Until then, the metal holds the stronger structural position of the two.

Momentum Warns That Both Trends Could Extend

Momentum points the same way on both weekly charts. Each relative strength index (RSI) has broken down in recent weeks.

Silver’s RSI lost an ascending support line that had held since July 2022. The line confirmed twice, in March 2025 and March 2026, before breaking in May 2026. The reading now sits near 39.

Bitcoin’s RSI looks weaker still. It trades inside a falling channel and failed to reclaim the midline in May 2026, sliding toward 34.

Readings below 40 points to fading demand on both assets, a divergence that earlier predictions also flagged. A move back above the broken levels would mark the first sign of repair.

For now, silver must defend $54.50 to avoid a slide toward its $50 long-term support. Bitcoin needs to hold the $58,000 golden pocket or risk a drop toward the 0.786 level near $39,000.

The two charts have fallen in step for months. Whether they bottom together or break down together is the question traders now face.

The post The 52% Coincidence: Bitcoin and Silver Are Bleeding in Near-Perfect Sync appeared first on BeInCrypto.

Source link

Crypto World

Ripple Price Analysis: Calm Before the Storm for XRP as Decision Time Arrives

Published

1 hour ago

29 June 2026

NewsAdmin

XRP is still under heavy selling pressure, mirroring the broader crypto market. Both its USDT and BTC pairs continue to trade within clear downtrend structures. While the dollar pair is testing a major demand zone, the BTC pair is also hovering just above an important support level, leaving the market at a key decision point.

Ripple Price Analysis: The USDT Pair

The daily chart shows XRP extending its broader bearish structure while remaining confined inside a long-term descending channel. The asset is currently trading around $1.05 after losing several higher lows over the past few weeks, confirming that sellers continue to dominate the higher timeframe.

The most important support now sits in the $1.00 to $1.10 zone, where the price is currently attempting to stabilize. This area has previously attracted demand and could produce a relief bounce if buyers manage to defend it once again. However, the overall trend remains bearish as XRP continues to trade below both major moving averages, with the 100-day and 200-day averages sloping lower simultaneously and acting as dynamic resistance levels.

Any recovery attempt is likely to face its first obstacle around the 100-day moving average near the $1.3 area, which coincides with the upper boundary of the descending channel. A breakout above both the channel resistance and the moving average would be required to signal a meaningful shift in market structure.

On the downside, losing the current support area could expose the lower boundary of the descending channel near the $0.80 region, making this support zone particularly important for the medium-term outlook.

The BTC Pair

Against Bitcoin, XRP continues to underperform, with the XRP/BTC pair remaining firmly inside its own descending channel. The pair is currently trading around 1,750 sats, sitting directly above a horizontal support level that has repeatedly prevented deeper declines since May.

Although this support has held on multiple occasions, none of the subsequent rebounds has produced a clear bullish breakout, highlighting persistent selling pressure and a lack of sustained bullish momentum. The repeated failures near the 100-day moving average further reinforce the bearish structure.

Overhead, the first major horizontal resistance is located around 1,850 sats, which converges with the declining 100-day moving average. Above that, stronger resistance emerges near 2,000 sats, followed by the descending 200-day moving average and the upper channel resistance. As long as XRP remains below these resistance clusters, the trend against Bitcoin favors continued relative weakness.

On the downside, a confirmed breakdown below the 1,700 sats support region would likely invalidate the current consolidation and open the door for another leg lower toward the psychological support level around 1,500 sats, and potentially lower. This keeps XRP at a critical decision point on both USDT and BTC charts, as the buyers and sellers fight one another to establish dominance over the trend.