U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission Chairman Atkins is a top speaker at the Digital Chamber’s DC Blockchain Summit next month, and the event’s chief sponsor — Unicoin — is in a legal fight with the agency, claiming the SEC’s chairman is being misled into perpetuating a legacy war on crypto.

The chief executive for Unicoin, which is the summit’s “platinum” sponsor, says his company is not allowed to speak with the SEC’s leaders due to the agency’s ongoing legal action against the crypto platform. In May last year, the SEC sued the company and its executives, including CEO Alexander Konanykhin, accusing them of raising $100 million for tokens that weren’t backed by real estate in the way the firm represented.

Konanykhin said that the legal clash is pursued by rogue agency enforcers (the “henchmen” of former SEC Chair Gary Gensler) that have misled current SEC Chairman Paul Atkins. (The case may have begun under Gensler’s tenure, but the resulting lawsuit was filed last year under then-Acting Chair Mark Uyeda.)

“We are prohibited from talking to Atkins or other commissioners, so they have no way of knowing that they have been defrauded by ‘dirty cops,’ holdovers from Gensler’s War on Crypto,” Konanykhin wrote in a message to CoinDesk.

Unicoin executives may not be able to speak with Atkins, but the company is helping pay for the event at which Atkins and Commissioner Hester Peirce are the first two speakers highlighted on the summit’s website, in a list that also includes Konanykhin.

When asked about the confluence of Unicoin and its agency adversary at the upcoming summit, the organizers responded with a statement, saying, “Companies come to the Digital Chamber’s DC Summit because it is an opportunity to educate and build bridges.”

An SEC spokesman declined to comment on the situation.

Konanykhin’s company has further sought to educate the SEC with a campaign involving trucks circulating around the center of Washington and past the agency, decorated with pointed messages that included the sentiment, “The War on Crypto is NOT over.”

The CEO has been threading a needle in his sharp criticism of the SEC. He praised Atkins for “steadily repairing the damage on the crypto industry inflicted by his predecessor,” but he insisted that the agency’s enforcement staff is sabotaging Atkins by maintaining Gensler’s legal fight with the digital assets sector, despite the fact the SEC dismissed or delayed the other major crypto enforcement cases pursued under Gensler.

Also, the current securities-fraud charges against Unicoin were made last year, when Republican Commissioner Uyeda was the stand-in chairman. The lawsuit was approved by a commission that then included two Republicans and a Democrat, with no dissenting statements issued. But Konanykhin says the enforcement lawyers got the approval rubber-stamped, arguing that “rejection of a staff recommendation is the exception rather than the rule.”

The policy summit, among the most prominent annual crypto events in Washington, features a code of conduct that calls for “a safe and welcoming environment that fosters open dialogue and the free expression of ideas.” While Konanykhin might want to tell Atkins that his enforcement crew “crudely fabricated absurd charges against Unicoin and its executives,” the legal constraints against him won’t permit that open dialogue.

Bitcoin has recently experienced volatility, pushing the price back toward a critical demand zone. Although a short-term reaction has emerged, the market has yet to show convincing signs of trend reversal, keeping the focus on consolidation and corrective movements.

Bitcoin Price Analysis: The Daily Chart

On the daily timeframe, BTC is still struggling to reclaim the channel’s mid-trendline at $68K, which continues to act as a firm dynamic resistance. Multiple attempts to push above this boundary have failed, reinforcing the presence of sellers and confirming that the broader bearish structure remains intact.

The recent sharp sell-off drove prices toward the $60K region, where buyers stepped in and triggered a modest bounce. However, this rebound has so far lacked strong follow-through, and the price continues to consolidate below the channel’s midline. As long as Bitcoin remains capped beneath this dynamic resistance, upside movements are likely corrective in nature.

Given the current structure, short-term consolidation between the $60K demand zone and the channel’s middle boundary appears likely until a decisive breakout occurs.

BTC/USDT 4-Hour Chart

On the 4-hour timeframe, Bitcoin recently broke below a symmetrical triangle pattern, signaling short-term seller dominance. The breakdown invalidated the prior compression structure and accelerated downside momentum, confirming that bears remain in control at lower highs.

The asset has since found support near the $62K zone, where demand has temporarily stabilized the decline. A minor rebound is underway, and there is potential for a short-term pullback toward the underside of the broken triangle trendline. Such a move would likely act as a technical retest of prior support-turned-resistance.

Unless Bitcoin decisively reclaims the broken trendline and builds structure above it, any recovery toward that area should be viewed as corrective. Sustained weakness below the trendline keeps the short-term bias tilted to the downside, with the $60K–$62K region remaining the key support cluster.

Sentiment Analysis

Funding rates across exchanges have recently turned negative following the latest sell-off, reflecting increased short positioning and a shift in market sentiment toward caution. The spike in negative funding during the sharp drop suggests aggressive short exposure entering the market as the price approached the $60K region.

Historically, sustained negative funding can create conditions for short squeezes if the price stabilizes and begins to recover. However, at present, funding appears moderately negative rather than extreme, indicating that while bearish sentiment has increased, the market is not yet at capitulation levels.

The combination of price holding near support and funding remaining below neutral suggests a fragile equilibrium. If Bitcoin maintains stability above $60K, the elevated short positioning could fuel a corrective bounce. Conversely, renewed downside pressure could push funding deeper into negative territory, reinforcing bearish continuation.

Overall, Bitcoin is consolidating beneath major resistance, holding above critical support, and experiencing rising short bias in derivatives markets. The interaction between price structure and funding dynamics will likely dictate the next significant move.

The pennant pattern is a continuation chart formation frequently observed in forex and CFD markets during periods of strong directional momentum. It develops after a sharp price movement followed by a brief consolidation phase, reflecting temporary equilibrium before potential trend continuation.

Unlike reversal patterns, a pennant forms within an existing trend structure and is commonly used by traders to analyse breakout conditions, organise entry planning, and define risk parameters using measurable price projections. The pattern’s compact structure allows market participants to evaluate volatility contraction and subsequent expansion within a clearly defined technical framework.

Advertisement

This article examines how bullish and bearish pennant patterns are identified across different market environments, how breakout scenarios are evaluated step by step, how price targets are derived using the flagpole measurement method, and how false breakouts can be filtered through confirmation techniques and professional trading tools.

Key Takeaways for Professional Traders

• A pennant is a continuation chart pattern in forex, equity, commodity, and crypto* markets. It’s formed during volatility contraction.
• Breakout confirmation requires volume expansion.
• Targets are typically projected using flagpole measurement.
• The pattern is more popular in trending, high-momentum markets.

What Are Pennant Chart Patterns?

A pennant pattern is a short-term continuation chart formation that develops after a sharp directional price move and signals a potential breakout in the direction of the prevailing trend. The pennant pattern’s structure is:

• Flagpole — a strong impulsive move driven by momentum and liquidity imbalance.
• Consolidation phase — price compresses within converging trendlines.
• Breakout — volatility expansion as price exits the pattern in the direction of the prior trend. The breakout should be accompanied with high volumes.

Pennants reflect a pause in momentum rather than a structural reversal.

Bullish Pennant Pattern

A bullish pennant pattern forms after a strong upward impulse. The consolidation appears as a small symmetrical triangle sloping slightly against the prior trend. A breakout above the upper boundary signals potential continuation higher.

This setup frequently appears in trending currency pairs such as EUR/USD during macro-driven momentum phases.

Bearish Pennant Pattern

A bearish pennant develops after a sharp decline. Price consolidates within converging trendlines before breaking below the lower boundary, indicating further downside continuation.

In high-volatility markets such as cryptocurrencies*, bearish pennant trading setups often form during strong sentiment-driven selloffs.

How Pennant Patterns Form in Live Forex & CFD Markets

In real market environments, pennants often develop during:

• Central bank policy decisions
• Important macroeconomic data releases
• Institutional repositioning
• Liquidity imbalances

The initial impulse creates directional imbalance. During consolidation, volatility contracts and volume typically declines. As price compresses, stop orders accumulate outside the structure. The breakout phase triggers these orders, accelerating momentum through volatility expansion.

This contraction-to-expansion transition is the core edge of pennant trading strategies.

Advertisement

Pennant Pattern Checklist for Traders

• Strong flagpole (impulsive move)
• Tight symmetrical consolidation
• Declining volume during compression
• Volume confirmation breakout
• Breakout aligned with higher timeframe trend

How Traders Identify and Trade a Pennant Pattern (Step-by-Step)

Identifying a valid pennant pattern requires precision. Not every consolidation qualifies.

If you would like to find the formations yourself, consider using the TickTrader trading platform with over 700 instruments and 1200 trading tools.

Step 1: Identify a Strong Flagpole

A valid pennant begins with a sharp, one-sided move supported by expanding momentum.

Without a strong flagpole, the pattern loses statistical edge.

Step 2: Confirm Tight Consolidation

Characteristics:

• Decreasing volatility
• Converging trendlines
• Shallow retracement (ideally <50–60% of flagpole)

Step 3: Wait for a Confirmed Breakout

Breakout should:

• Close decisively beyond upper/lower boundary
• Align with higher timeframe direction
• Show strong momentum expansion

Traders avoid entering inside the pattern. The setup becomes valid only after confirmed breakout structure not to be trapped by false breakouts.

Breakouts during major news events may cause slippage and spread widening.

Step 4: Apply Entry Techniques

Professional traders typically choose between:

• Momentum entry (enter immediately after breakout close)
• Retest entry (wait for pullback to broken boundary). Retest entries might improve risk-to-reward ratio.

Step 5: Use Pennant Pattern Target Calculation

Use the flagpole projection method:

1. Measure the length of the flagpole
2. Project it from breakout point

Alternative targets:

• Key support/resistance
• Fibonacci extensions
• Fixed risk-reward ratios (1:2 or 1:3)

Step 6: Implement Pennant Pattern Stop-Loss Placement and Risk Management

Common stop-loss placements:

• Beyond opposite pennant boundary
• Below/above recent swing point

Additional risk management considerations:

• Minimum risk-to-reward ratio (e.g., 1:2)
• Trailing stop adjustments after breakout confirmation
• Limit exposure across correlated instruments

When Traders Avoid Trading Pennant Patterns

Traders don’t trade if:

• Retracement exceeds 60%
• Breakout lacks momentum
• Higher timeframe contradicts setup
• Major resistance/support sits inside projected target

Case Study: Bullish Pennant Breakout Strategy

To understand how a pennant pattern works in live market conditions, let’s examine a structured bullish breakout example on EUR/USD.

Market Context

The downtrend reversed with a solid upward momentum. Although there was no confirmation on a higher timeframe, traders could consider trading the pennant pattern.

A strong, impulsive bullish move developed over two days with large-bodied candles and no pullbacks. This created the flagpole, establishing directional bias.

Following the impulse, the price entered a tight consolidation, with converging trendlines forming and momentum temporarily pausing. This compression phase lasted for several days.

The breakout occurred in the direction of the prior trend with a strong bullish candle close.

Aggressive traders could enter on a breakout close. Conservative traders could wait for a retest of the broken resistance.

Trade Structure

Entry: Traders could enter at a retest of the broken trendline

Stop-Loss: Below the lower boundary

Target: Flagpole projection method, but with amendments. Although one of the rules states that the price is supposed to rise as far as the length of the flagpole, markets aren’t perfect. Therefore, many traders prefer to set a smaller target, taking into account recent price movements.

Why This Setup Worked

This example aligned with several high-probability conditions:

• Clean compression structure
• Breakout with momentum expansion
• No immediate resistance overhead

Advertisement

The setup demonstrates that pennants are not traded based on shape alone — they require context, confirmation, and disciplined execution.

You can test your own strategies across more than 700 instruments at FXOpen’s TickTrader trading platform.

Statistical Reliability of Pennant Patterns

Professional traders evaluate pennant formations within a broader market framework rather than as isolated chart patterns. Pattern performance is primarily influenced by objective market conditions, including:

• Higher-timeframe trend alignment
• Momentum persistence following the impulse leg
• Relative volume expansion during breakout
• Presence of directional liquidity and absence of equilibrium conditions

Trade outcomes, however, also depend on execution variables specific to the trader, such as:

• Entry model and confirmation criteria
• Risk management methodology
• Position sizing discipline
• Behavioural consistency during volatility expansion

According to research by Thomas Bulkowski in Encyclopedia of Chart Patterns, pennants are classified as moderately reliable continuation patterns.

In trending environments, measured-move targets are frequently achieved. In low-liquidity or sideways markets, failure rates increase.

Timeframes for Trading Pennants

Timeframe affects pattern’s reliability:

• Intraday (M15–H1): More signals, more noise
• H4–Daily: Cleaner structure
• Weekly: Institutional continuation setups

According to Thomas Bulkowski’s Encyclopedia of Chart Patterns, pennants form within up to 3 weeks. They are shorter than symmetrical triangles and wedges.  

Brian Shannon explains how to trade in multiple timeframes in his Technical Analysis Using Multiple Timeframes.

Advertisement

Market-Specific Considerations

• Forex. Major pairs like EUR/USD respond strongly to policy divergence cycles.
• Cryptocurrencies*. Cryptocurrencies* display higher volatility, which may result in more false breakouts.
• Equity indices. Stock indices often form cleaner structures in sustained institutional trends. However, the pattern usually lasts no longer than three weeks, which means that it’s not very common on index charts.

Pennant vs Flag vs Symmetrical Triangle

Understanding structural distinctions between pennant pattern vs flag pattern vs symmetrical triangle pattern might improve trade selection and risk control.

Pennants differ from flags in that they show price compression rather than gradual retracement. Compared to symmetrical triangles, pennants are smaller and typically form over shorter durations during high-momentum conditions.

Advertisement

John Murphy widely explains the difference between pennant and flag patterns in his book Technical Analysis of the Financial Markets.

Common Pennant Trading Mistakes

Even experienced traders misinterpret compression structures. Frequent errors include:

Advertisement

• Entering before breakout confirmation. Acting inside the pennant, without confirmation, often means making a wrong decision. The pattern only matters once the price breaks cleanly.
• Trading consolidation without a clear flagpole. Not every consolidation is a pennant. If the lines don’t converge, or if the move before it wasn’t sharp and one-sided, it’s probably not a pennant. Forcing the pattern can lead to poor results.
• Ignoring higher timeframe trends. A pennant ahead of major resistance/support or against the broader trend weakens the setup. Context always matters more than the shape alone.
• Overlooking key macro catalysts. Important economic and political events can invalidate technical compression structures by abruptly shifting liquidity and volatility conditions.
• Neglecting volume analysis. A valid pennant typically shows declining volume during consolidation followed by expansion on breakout; without participation confirmation, price moves are statistically more prone to false breakouts.

Pattern shape alone is insufficient. Context and confirmation determine the edge.

Advantages and Limitations

Pennants are useful in strong trending markets, but they’re not perfect. Let’s take a look at the formation’s advantages and disadvantages.

Advantages

• Clear Structure: Pennants have three clear parts — the sharp flagpole, the tight consolidation, and the breakout offer a straightforward sequence.
• Works Across Timeframes: Pennants occur on many timeframes: from 5-minute charts to daily or weekly ones. That makes them useful for numerous kinds of strategies.
• Defined Breakout Levels: The converging trendlines naturally give a clear area to watch for breakout behaviour.

Limitations

• False Breakouts: Breakouts that stall quickly can trap traders, especially in choppy markets.
• Easily Confused: A messy pennant can look like a triangle or flag. If the structure isn’t clean, the signal can be harder to interpret.
• Relies on Existing Trend Strength: If the initial move is weak or inconsistent, the pennant can be less meaningful. It needs momentum to have the highest probability of working out.

Is It Possible to Improve Pennant Signals?

Like any pattern, the pennant isn’t foolproof. However, traders use certain methods when building a trading strategy around pennants.

Aligning With Trend Tools

Pennants are used in strong trends. You can use tools like moving averages to confirm them. For example, if the price is above the 50-period EMA and the pennant forms during a steady uptrend, that adds weight. A breakout above a short-term moving average can strengthen the case.

Momentum indicators can also help. If the Relative Strength Index (RSI) sits comfortably above 50 while the bullish pattern forms, or breaks out above 50 alongside the pennant, that can confirm a bullish trend and vice versa. However, if the RSI shows overbought/oversold conditions and the market does look very overstretched, that might be a sign to hold off or manage risk more carefully.

Using Volume as a Filter

Volume can give clues. During the pennant, volume may dry up and signal a pause. However, if the breakout coincides with strong volume, that can show genuine interest as buyers or sellers rush in to take advantage of a possible new trend leg. If it stays low, the move may fail or reverse due to a fake breakout.

Pairing It with Context

A pennant is just part of a broader story. For instance, if the market is bouncing off of a resistance level, creates an impulsive flagpole and then forms a bear pennant, that might add conviction to the pattern. However, if the breakout is straight into a major support level, traders might consider looking for a bullish reversal pattern instead.

Advertisement

Alignment between timeframes and correlated assets can be valuable too. If a pennant on the 1-hour chart occurs during a larger trend on the daily, that may add weight. Likewise, if there’s a bullish pennant forming on EUR/USD while dollar weakness is apparent across the board, there might be a higher probability that the bullish breakout is genuine.

Final Thoughts

The pennant pattern is a valuable tool, which provides useful insights into potential price trends. However, it may provide false signals; therefore, to trade with a pennant, you need to be familiar with technical analysis and be able to interpret charts.

You can explore live charts and apply these techniques using the FXOpen TickTrader platform, which provides 700+ instruments and advanced charting tools.

Consider opening an FXOpen account today and trade forex and CFDs on indices, commodities, and crypto* with:

• Spreads from 0.0 pips**
• Commission from $1.50**
• Fast execution
• Institutional-grade liquidity

FAQ

What Is a Pennant Pattern?

The pennant meaning refers to a short-term continuation pattern that forms after a sharp price move. It’s made up of a brief consolidation phase with converging trendlines, then followed by a breakout in the same direction as the original move. It can signal an impending continuation trend leg.

How Do Traders Trade a Pennant Pattern?

Traders usually wait for the price to break out of the pennant on rising volume in the same direction as the initial move. The height of the flagpole is typically used as a rough target, while stop losses are set beyond the last swing high/low or opposite pattern’s boundary.

What Happens After a Bullish Pennant?

A bullish pennant typically leads to further upside if the price breaks above the pattern’s upper trendline with strong momentum.

What Is the Difference Between a Bull Flag and a Bull Pennant?

Bull flags and bull pennants both follow strong upward moves and signal a trend continuation. The key difference between a pennant and a flag is structure. The price in a flag drifts lower or moves sideways within parallel lines that form a sloping or horizontal channel. The price in a pennant contracts into a small symmetrical triangle with converging trendlines.

*Important: At FXOpen UK, Cryptocurrency trading via CFDs is only available to our Professional clients. They are not available for trading by Retail clients. To find out more information about how this may affect you, please get in touch with our team.

**Additional fees may apply.

This article represents the opinion of the Companies operating under the FXOpen brand only. It is not to be construed as an offer, solicitation, or recommendation with respect to products and services provided by the Companies operating under the FXOpen brand, nor is it to be considered financial advice.

North Carolina federal authorities have seized more than $61 million in a dollar-pegged stablecoin tied to a wide-ranging “pig butchering” scheme that exploited fake online romances and fraudulent trading platforms to ensnare victims. Prosecutors in the Eastern District of North Carolina in Raleigh disclosed that the defendants posed as romantic partners and claimed to possess special trading expertise, luring individuals into convincing but fraudulent crypto sites. These sites displayed manipulated portfolios showing outsized returns, encouraging victims to invest more. When victims attempted to withdraw funds, the scammers blocked withdrawals and imposed additional fees, extracting ever-larger sums before the scheme collapsed under law enforcement scrutiny. Investigators from Homeland Security Investigations traced the proceeds across multiple wallets used to launder the money and ultimately identified several addresses holding substantial sums that were seized and earmarked for forfeiture. In a notable detail, the Department of Justice highlighted that Tether cooperated in transferring these assets, underscoring how stablecoin issuers are increasingly cooperating with authorities in asset freezes and recoveries. The following items are drawn from the DOJ release and related enforcement documents: the investigation’s trajectory, the role of the fake platforms, and the collaboration with the stablecoin issuer that helped secure the funds. The press release can be found here: US Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of North Carolina.

Key takeaways

• The seizure showcases a growing convergence of romance-scams and fraudulent trading platforms within crypto-enabled fraud, illustrating how fraudsters adapt to sophisticated, multi-channel schemes.
• Law-enforcement agencies traced assets across laundering wallets and secured forfeiture actions against addresses still holding sizable holdings, signaling a persistent focus on traceability in crypto-fueled crime.
• Stablecoin issuers, notably Tether in this case, are increasingly cooperating with investigators to freeze and recover illicit funds routed through dollar-pegged tokens.
• Market data from Chainalysis indicates that crypto scam losses surged in 2025, with AI-driven impersonation and social-engineering tactics driving a sharp rise in profitability for criminals.
• Enforcement actions have begun translating into longer sentences for key figures connected to pig-butchering networks, highlighting a tougher stance on crypto-laundering operations.

Tickers mentioned: $USDT

Sentiment: Neutral

Market context: The North Carolina seizure comes as regulators and enforcement agencies escalate efforts to counter crypto fraud, particularly schemes that blend romance, fake investment platforms, and laundering networks. It reflects a broader pattern of increased cooperation between authorities and stablecoin issuers as asset tracing tools and compliance checks mature, a trend reinforced by recent sentencing in related pig-butchering cases and ongoing scrutiny of illicit flows through tokenized markets. Chainalysis data cited by industry coverage shows that annual losses from crypto scams reached $17 billion in 2025, underscoring the scale of risk facing ordinary users and the importance of enhanced diligence in an increasingly complex ecosystem across digital assets.

Why it matters

The seizure underscores how sophisticated crypto fraud has become, adapting to the optics of romance and trust to avoid early detection. By weaving convincing narratives and presenting fake performance dashboards, perpetrators exploit victims’ emotions as a gateway to financial loss, often moving funds through multiple wallets and across exchanges to complicate traceability. The involvement of a stablecoin issuer in the asset-transfer process signals a notable shift: authorities are not only prosecuting individuals but also pressing the infrastructure that underpins crypto payments to assist in asset recovery. As the DOJ release notes, the collaboration with Tether illustrates a broader regulatory and investigative push to freeze and seize illicit flows tied to dollar-pegged tokens, which are frequently used for cross-border fraud and money laundering.

For investors and users, the case reinforces the importance of skepticism in online investment pitches and due diligence when confronted with unusually high returns advertised on crypto platforms. It also highlights the evolving role of law enforcement in crypto markets, where traditional financial crime frameworks are increasingly applied to digital assets. The convergence of romance scams and fake investment products complicates the risk landscape, making it critical for individuals to verify counterparties, examine investment portfolios, and avoid sharing sensitive information or funds with unverified partners. The broader context—rising scam sophistication, AI-enabled impersonation, and the stability of the crypto ecosystem—demands continued vigilance from consumers, platforms, and regulators alike. Earlier related coverage on pig-butchering and crypto laundering, including detailed analyses of how trust is weaponized in these schemes, provides useful context for staying ahead of evolving fraud vectors.

What to watch next

• Potential additional forfeitures or asset recoveries tied to linked addresses and other wallets identified in the case, including any future DOJ updates.
• Sentencing developments for other individuals connected to pig-butchering networks, including cases involving laundering operations valued at tens of millions of dollars.
• Regulatory and industry responses to stablecoins and their use in fraud, including enhanced due diligence and stricter KYC/AML controls on platforms that facilitate token transfers.
• Ongoing law-enforcement efforts to track AI-enabled impersonation and social-engineering fraud, with a focus on international cooperation and cross-border asset tracing.

Sources & verification

• U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of North Carolina — press release announcing the seizure of $61 million in cryptocurrency linked to the pig-butchering scheme.
• Department of Justice and Homeland Security Investigations statements within the same release on cooperation from Tether (stablecoin issuer) to transfer the assets.
• Chainalysis 2026 Crypto Scams report cited in coverage detailing 2025 losses and the rise of AI impersonation and social-engineering scams.
• Cointelegraph coverage of pig-butchering crime and related sentencing, including the 20-year federal sentence in a connected laundering operation and analyses of how these scams operate.
• Related explainer and investigative pieces linked in the source material on how pig-butchering scams manipulate trust and funnel funds into fake investment platforms.

Cryptocurrency seizure and enforcement in focus: what the case reveals

The North Carolina action marks a convergence of traditional financial-crime enforcement with the uncertainties and complexities of digital assets. The authorities’ ability to trace the proceeds through laundering wallets and eventually freeze or seize assets demonstrates progress in on-chain analytics and cross-institutional cooperation. The involvement of Tether underscores a willingness among stablecoin issuers to participate in investigations that aim to recover funds and deter future illicit flows, a trend increasingly echoed across the industry as watchful regulators seek greater accountability for crypto-native crime.

As investigations unfold and courts issue longer sentences for prominent figures in pig-butchering networks, stakeholders should expect ongoing enhancements to enforcement strategies, including more aggressive asset-recovery efforts and stricter platform-level protections to deter scammers. The evolving landscape requires ongoing attention from users, policymakers, and market participants to recognize and mitigate these multifaceted threats—where trust, technology, and regulation intersect in real time.

South Korea is moving to tighten the supervision of online voices that promote crypto and traditional stocks, with a bill that would require finfluencers to disclose what they own and whether they receive compensation for their endorsements. The plan, being drafted by Democratic Party lawmaker Kim Seung-won, targets communications that influence public investment decisions, from articles and blogs to podcasts and broadcasts. It builds on two laws—the Capital Market and Financial Investment Business Act and the Act on the Protection of Virtual Asset Users—and would push for clear disclosures that could help investors gauge potential conflicts of interest. The details, reported by Herald Business, would center on criteria established by presidential decree for when those disclosures must occur.

Key takeaways

• The proposed amendments would compel individuals who repeatedly promote financial products or virtual assets to reveal compensation, and to disclose the assets they hold and their ownership quantities.
• Promotional content delivered through publications, online posts, and broadcasts could fall under the disclosure mandate, with criteria to be set by presidential decree.
• Financial authorities point to a surge in semi-advisory activity via media channels, citing rising numbers of quasi-investment advisors (QIAB) in Korea—through 2018 to 2024.
• International regulators have pursued similar steps: the UK requires pre-approval for promotions; the US has issued penalties for undisclosed endorsements; and EU guidance is shaping expectations for finfluencers across member states.
• The core aim is to reduce conflicts of interest and improve transparency in online investment promotion, protecting everyday investors from biased or misleading guidance.

Sentiment: Neutral

Market context: The move aligns with broader regulatory attention to online investment promotions as crypto markets remain volatile and retail participation high. Global regulators have intensified scrutiny of finfluencers, signaling a trend toward greater transparency and accountability in digital finance communications.

Why it matters

The Korean initiative reflects a growing concern among policymakers about how information disseminated online can influence investment flows, especially in high-volatility assets like cryptocurrencies. By proposing mandatory disclosures of compensation and holdings, the bill seeks to illuminate potential conflicts of interest that might otherwise go unseen by viewers and readers. Proponents argue that transparent disclosures can help investors distinguish independent analysis from paid promotion, reducing the risk of losses caused by biased recommendations.

Observers note the potential practical impact on content creators and media outlets that cover finance and crypto. If enacted, the rules could require finfluencers to maintain records of sponsorships and assets, and to publish those disclosures in a consistent format. This would add a new compliance dimension to a space already under scrutiny from regulators in other jurisdictions, including the United Kingdom, the United States, and Europe, where authorities have moved to curb undisclosed promotions and to sanction misrepresentations. The approach signals a broader move toward harmonizing standards for financial promotions in an era of rapid digital outreach, where impressionable audiences can be reached instantly across platforms.

For investors, the potential changes may improve confidence in online investment content, but they could also reshape the incentives for creators who monetize audiences through endorsements. Critics warn that rigid disclosure regimes might suppress independent commentary or push some analysts to alter how they present opinions to avoid penalties. Yet, the overarching rationale remains straightforward: when opinions carry material financial consequences for large swaths of the public, transparency should be a baseline expectation rather than an optional add-on.

On a global scale, the discussion around finfluencers is not unique to Korea. Regulators in other regions have moved to curb promotional activity that lacks disclosure, with the UK’s Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) requiring pre-approval for financial promotions, while the US SEC and FINRA have pursued enforcement actions tied to undisclosed promotions. In Europe, ESMA guidance circulated through national watchdogs underscores that EU advertising rules apply to digital influencers promoting high-risk assets, including crypto. These international developments provide a backdrop for Korea’s draft legislation, suggesting a convergence toward more stringent norms governing online investment communications.

Whatever the final shape of the proposals, the public debate centers on how to balance open information with consumer protection. Lawmakers emphasize reducing conflict of interest when influential online voices sway investment decisions, while critics warn against stifling legitimate commentary or imposing overly burdensome reporting requirements. The conversation is likely to evolve as presidential decrees clarify the scope of the disclosures and as regulatory bodies outline enforcement mechanisms for violations.

What to watch next

• Clarification of the presidential decree criteria that will define when disclosures are required for finfluencers.
• A timeline for the legislative process in the National Assembly, including committee review and potential amendments.
• Regulatory guidance from the Financial Services Commission and the Financial Supervisory Service detailing how disclosures should be implemented and verified.
• Responses from media outlets, content creators, and crypto exchanges about how the new rules could affect promotional practices.
• Comparative developments in other jurisdictions, particularly updates to FCA guidance, SEC/FINRA actions, and ESMA-adopted standards that may influence Korea’s final approach.

Sources & verification

• Herald Business report on amendments to Korea’s Capital Market and Financial Investment Business Act and the Act on the Protection of Virtual Asset Users.
• Financial Supervisory Service data on quasi-investment advisors (QIAB) activity trends from 2018 to 2024.
• UK Financial Conduct Authority guidance on pre-approval for financial promotions.
• US Securities and Exchange Commission and FINRA enforcement actions related to undisclosed promotions.
• European guidance via ESMA on finfluencer advertising and crypto promotions (as cited in regional reporting).

South Korea scrutinizes finfluencers: a push for disclosure in crypto and stock promotions

South Korea is intensifying its regulatory focus on the voices that guide retail investors toward or away from financial assets, including virtual currencies. The leadership plan, steered by lawmaker Kim Seung-won, seeks to codify a formal disclosure regime for individuals who frequently dispense investment recommendations or benefit financially from such endorsements. The core of the proposal rests on two pillars: first, amendments to the Capital Market and Financial Investment Business Act; second, a revision to the Act on the Protection of Virtual Asset Users. In essence, those who act as financial promoters across media—whether in print, online, or on air—would face obligations to reveal compensation and to disclose their asset holdings and positions. The presidential decree would specify the criteria that trigger those disclosures, ensuring that the rules are not uncoupled from real-world practices in media and marketing.

The motivation behind the plan, according to the policy discourse, is to curb conflicts of interest that may arise when highly influential individuals shape public opinion about investments without full transparency. Kim is quoted as underscoring the risk that fin-influencers can disseminate inappropriate guidance and create unpredictable outcomes for ordinary investors. The approach aims to temper the influence wielded by these figures by making their financial incentives transparent, thereby helping the public assess the reliability of the information they encounter online.

Beyond Korea’s borders, the global regulatory canvas is moving toward similar aims. In the United Kingdom, the FCA’s stance is to require pre-approval for financial promotions, a model designed to prevent misleading or underinformed pitches. In the United States, the SEC and FINRA have pursued penalties tied to undisclosed endorsements, signaling that regulators continue to elevate scrutiny of online investment recommendations. Within Europe, ESMA guidance circulated by national authorities points to a broad application of EU advertising standards to finfluencers, including those active in crypto markets. These cross-border developments shape a regulatory environment in which Korea’s draft amendments may find resonance, potentially aligning local rules with international best practices while addressing domestic market dynamics.

The data backdrop in Korea underscores a regulatory imperative. The Financial Supervisory Service notes a surge in organized quasi-investment analysis activity via media channels, with reports of QIAB cases rising from 132 in 2018 to 1,724 in 2024. This trend highlights the scale of promotional content that can influence investor decisions and the corresponding need for clarity about who is paying for such content and what holdings underpin those recommendations. The proposed framework would compel disclosures of compensation and asset ownership, widening the information set available to the public and enabling more informed comparisons across different promotional sources.

As this policy debate unfolds, observers will watch for how the presidential decree and legislative language balance investor protection with the open flow of information that characterizes crypto and finance media. The Korea case could set a precedent for how regulators manage finfluencer activity in a rapidly evolving digital landscape, where rapid dissemination of content intersects with complex financial relationships. While the path from draft bill to law is rarely linear, the implications for advertisers, content creators, exchanges, and everyday investors could be substantial if the final framework demands consistent, verifiable disclosures across channels and formats.

Artificial intelligence spending is accelerating globally. Boards are approving larger budgets. Innovation teams are experimenting aggressively. Yet across North America, Europe, and Asia-Pacific, enterprise leaders are facing the same uncomfortable reality: AI investments are not translating into measurable enterprise value. The problem is not model accuracy. It is structural misalignment. When AI initiatives operate independently without a unified enterprise AI strategy, ROI erosion becomes inevitable. Disconnected deployments create fragmented data ecosystems, unclear financial attribution, governance exposure, and diluted competitive advantage.

This is precisely why leading enterprises are turning toward structured AI strategy and consulting services to transform scattered AI experimentation into disciplined, value-driven enterprise transformation.

The Structural Problem: AI Without Enterprise Architecture

Many organizations adopt AI in pockets:

• Marketing launches personalization engines
• Finance deploys forecasting models
• Operations experiments with automation
• HR introduces AI-driven talent tools

Individually, these initiatives appear progressive. But collectively, they lack coordination. Without oversight from an experienced AI strategy consulting Company, enterprises unknowingly create:

• Redundant infrastructure investments
• Conflicting data standards
• Vendor sprawl
• Inconsistent governance protocols
• Limited enterprise-wide impact visibility

This fragmentation does not just reduce ROI. It destroys scalability.

Why ROI Collapses in Disconnected AI Environments

AI does not fail because it lacks intelligence. It fails because it lacks integration. When artificial intelligence is deployed without financial discipline, strategic sequencing, and governance alignment, ROI erosion becomes inevitable. The collapse is not dramatic; it is structural.

Industry Evidence: AI ROI Underperforms Without Enterprise Alignment

The risks of fragmented AI investment are not theoretical – they are substantiated by recent enterprise research.

A 2026 study from the IBM Institute for Business Value reports that while executives remain highly optimistic about AI’s long-term revenue contribution, many organizations acknowledge significant integration challenges across operating models, data architecture, and financial planning. The research highlights a clear execution gap between AI ambition and enterprise-wide value realization.

Complementing this, Gartner’s 2025 survey on AI strategy adoption found that only a small minority of organizations, for example, just 23% of supply chain leaders, reported having a formal AI strategy in place. This indicates a broader enterprise trend: most AI spending occurs without a structured strategy or governance, which in turn makes measurable ROI harder to achieve.

Taken together, these findings reinforce a critical point: AI performance is not determined by model sophistication alone. It is determined by architectural alignment across financial, operational, and governance dimensions.

1. Financial Detachment

AI initiatives frequently lack alignment with capital allocation models. When projects are not embedded into structured financial planning, leadership cannot measure EBITDA contribution, cost compression, or margin expansion.

A mature AI strategy consulting for enterprises approach ensures every initiative is linked directly to financial performance indicators.

2. Absence of Enterprise Sequencing

Disconnected AI projects often launch simultaneously without prioritization logic. This overwhelms data teams, strains infrastructure, and slows adoption.

A structured AI roadmap development framework ensures that investments are sequenced according to clear strategic priorities. Rather than launching parallel initiatives without coordination, organizations align AI programs based on:

• Strategic leverage across the value chain
• Scalability across business units
• Measurable financial impact
• Regulatory and governance complexity

When sequencing is absent, AI initiatives compete for resources, dilute focus, and create operational noise instead of enterprise value.

3. Governance Risk Amplification

Global regulatory scrutiny is intensifying. From evolving AI regulatory frameworks across the EU and other major markets to risk-based governance expectations across international markets, enterprises must embed accountability into AI architecture.

Without expert AI Strategic Advisory, organizations face:

• Model bias risks
• Compliance violations
• Reputational damage
• Legal exposure

Disconnected governance models are no longer sustainable.

4. Value Attribution Failure

One of the most common executive frustrations is the inability to quantify AI returns. This is where structured AI value engineering services become essential. Instead of asking whether an algorithm works, leadership evaluates:

• Revenue uplift contribution
• Cost avoidance metrics
• Productivity amplification
• Risk-adjusted return

A disciplined AI value engineering framework transforms AI from experimental expenditure into a measurable performance driver.

The Enterprise Solution: From Fragmentation to Financial Engineering

To fix disconnected AI, enterprises must move beyond tool deployment toward architectural transformation. Here is the structured approach that leading organizations follow:

Step 1: Enterprise AI Portfolio Audit

An experienced AI Consulting Services team evaluates:

• Existing AI initiatives
• Vendor landscape
• Data infrastructure maturity
• Governance gaps
• Financial alignment

This diagnostic phase uncovers duplication, inefficiencies, and unrealized value.

Step 2: Define a Unified Enterprise AI Strategy

A robust enterprise AI strategy defines:

• Where AI drives margin expansion
• Which workflows become autonomous
• How predictive intelligence compresses decision cycles
• How compliance architecture mitigates regulatory exposure
• How workforce capability evolves

This ensures AI investments align with long-term strategic differentiation.

Step 3: Implement AI Strategy and Value Engineering Services

Through integrated AI strategy and value engineering services, enterprises establish:

• Capital allocation models for AI
• Risk-adjusted ROI forecasting
• Performance attribution dashboards
• Continuous optimization loops

This is the foundation of sustainable AI business value optimization.

Step 4: Redesign Operating Models

Advanced AI Business Strategy Services embed intelligence directly into

• Market expansion planning
• Supply chain resilience modeling
• Capital allocation simulations
• Risk forecasting systems

AI should not optimize yesterday’s process. It must redefine tomorrow’s competitive structure.

What Differentiates Elite AI Strategy Consulting

Not all AI providers are created equal. A truly leading AI strategy consulting Company operates at the intersection of business insight, technical expertise, and enterprise-scale transformation. What differentiates top-tier firms is their ability to move beyond deploying isolated tools and instead create systemic, organization-wide value.

1. Financial Engineering Expertise

Enterprise-focused providers integrate AI initiatives directly into capital planning and financial strategy. They quantify potential ROI, optimize investment allocation, and ensure AI contributes to margin expansion, cost reduction, and risk-adjusted performance. Every project is evaluated not as a technical experiment, but as a strategic capital allocation decision that drives measurable business outcomes.

2. Governance Architecture Mastery

Top-tier consulting firms design robust governance frameworks that enforce accountability, compliance, and operational resilience. They embed regulatory foresight, data stewardship, and ethical AI practices into enterprise architecture, ensuring AI scales safely across departments and global markets without regulatory or reputational exposure.

3. Cross-Industry Implementation Depth

Leading AI consultants bring experience from multiple industries, enabling them to apply proven frameworks, accelerate deployment, and anticipate domain-specific challenges. Whether in finance, manufacturing, supply chain, or marketing, they translate AI potential into actionable enterprise strategies, avoiding common pitfalls that siloed initiatives encounter.

4. Enterprise Transformation Leadership

Experienced advisors don’t just implement technology; they transform organizations. They guide leadership in redesigning workflows, integrating predictive intelligence into operations, and aligning workforce capabilities with AI-driven decision-making. The focus is on creating an intelligence infrastructure that becomes a durable competitive advantage, not a collection of disconnected pilots.

The difference is clear: Tools alone don’t drive results. Leading AI strategy consulting Companies architect intelligence ecosystems that convert AI initiatives into measurable business impact and sustainable advantage.

The Global Competitive Reality

Across global markets, AI maturity is no longer experimental; it is a competitive differentiator. Enterprises that integrate AI into their core operating architecture are not just improving efficiency; they are building structural advantages that compound over time:

• Proprietary data flywheels that continuously strengthen decision accuracy
• Autonomous operational systems that reduce latency and human dependency
• Predictive capital allocation engines that optimize investments in real time
• Accelerated innovation cycles powered by continuous intelligence feedback

These organizations are embedding intelligence into the foundation of how they compete. In contrast, companies running scattered AI pilots experience the opposite effect. Instead of compounding advantage, they accumulate technical debt, governance risk, and operational complexity.

The result is a widening intelligence divide. AI leaders are scaling clarity, speed, and precision. Others are scaling experimentation without integration. In a market where decision velocity and predictive foresight determine competitive position, that gap does not remain static; it expands.

If AI isn’t aligned to capital strategy, it isn’t aligned at all.

Disconnected AI does not fail because the technology is weak. It fails because the architecture is missing. Enterprises that operate without a unified enterprise AI strategy will continue to see fragmented impact, unclear ROI, and rising governance complexity.

The path forward is disciplined integration through structured AI strategy and consulting services, measurable AI value engineering services, and executive-level AI Strategic Advisory that aligns intelligence with capital strategy and competitive positioning.

If AI investment has not translated into a measurable financial impact, the issue is not technology. It is architecture. Antier delivers enterprise AI strategy consulting that aligns intelligence with capital, governance, and competitive advantage.

The exchange’s institutional desk highlights negative gamma exposure between $60,000 and $70,000, a setup that can amplify volatility.

Bitcoin’s brief rebound above $66,000 following U.S. President Donald Trump’s State of the Union address has done little to shift the underlying market structure, with fresh analysis from Coinbase Institutional pointing to a critical support zone near $60,000 that, if broken, could trigger accelerated selling.

The combination of options market dynamics and on-chain data suggests the path of least resistance remains lower, with any sustained recovery likely requiring a reclaim of $82,000, a level that currently stands as the first major hurdle to renewed upside momentum.

Options Market Points to Accelerated Downside Risk

Coinbase Institutional’s latest Bitcoin playbook introduced gamma exposure (GEX) as a lens for understanding how options dealers influence price action. According to the firm, when dealers hold positive gamma, their hedging tends to stabilize prices, selling into strength and buying into weakness. Negative gamma has the opposite effect, forcing dealers to buy as prices rise and sell as they fall, amplifying trends.

The current configuration shows a pronounced negative gamma band concentrated in the $60,000 to $70,000 region, with positive gamma pockets forming higher up near $85,000 and $90,000. This structure, per Coinbase, carries a specific implication: downside momentum into the $60,000 area could accelerate rapidly, while any advance toward $90,000 would likely grind and consolidate rather than break out cleanly.

Dense support sits near $60,000 based on historical market structure and volume profiles, while $82,000 represents the first significant resistance band. According to Coinbase’s market watchers, if Bitcoin fails to hold above $82,000 on approach, the lack of stabilizing gamma in that region suggests resistance may hold. By contrast, a break below $60,000 would occur in a negative gamma environment, meaning selling could feed on itself as dealers hedge in the direction of the move.

On-Chain Data Confirms Defensive Regime

Coinbase’s options-derived outlook matches up with deteriorating on-chain fundamentals. Yesterday, analyst Axel Adler Jr. noted that Realized Cap has declined for a second consecutive month, falling roughly $33 billion from its peak of $1.127 trillion in November 2025 to around $1.094 trillion. Furthermore, the 30-day Realized Cap Net Position Change is still negative, signaling ongoing capital outflows.

Separate data from Glassnode showed the 90-day moving average of the Realized Profit/Loss Ratio falling below 1, meaning more BTC is being sold at a loss than at a profit. According to the analytics platform, such regimes have historically persisted for months before liquidity conditions improved.

You may also like:

Meanwhile, sentiment tracker Santiment said on Wednesday that bullish commentary across X, Reddit, and Telegram has reached a four-week high following Trump’s State of the Union speech. However, the firm cautioned that elevated retail optimism and talk of a “bear cycle” ending have, in the past, coincided with stalled rallies.

Key Takeaways

• Disclosure Filed: Anchorage Digital confirmed it holds Strategy’s Nasdaq-listed STRC stock.
• Position Scope: The move targets STRC’s 11.25% annual dividend yield, providing income-focused Bitcoin exposure.
• Strategic Signal: The partnership bridges operational custody with corporate treasury accumulation.

South Korea is reportedly preparing new rules that would force social-media personalities promoting cryptocurrencies and stocks to reveal what they own and whether they are being paid.

Democratic Party lawmaker Kim Seung-won, a member of the National Assembly’s Political Affairs Committee, is drafting amendments to the Capital Market and Financial Investment Business Act and the Act on the Protection of Virtual Asset Users, according to a report from Korean-language business news website Herald Business.

Under the proposal, individuals who repeatedly offer advice or receive compensation to encourage the public to buy or sell financial products or virtual assets must disclose the compensation received and the type and quantity of assets they hold. The requirement would apply to advice delivered through publications, online communications and broadcasts, with detailed criteria to be set by presidential decree.

Violations may carry penalties similar in severity to those for market manipulation or insider trading, per the report.

Related: Victim of a crypto scam? Here’s what to do next

Lawmaker warns on “finfluencer” investor risks

The initiative is aimed at reducing conflicts of interest and improving transparency in online investment promotion. “So-called fin-influencers are emerging, offering investment advice to unspecified individuals without compensation from positions of significant public influence,” Kim reportedly said.

“These individuals are providing inappropriate information and creating conflicts of interest. However, their opinions have significant influence on the public, causing unpredictable losses to investors,” he added.

The move comes as Financial Supervisory Service data shows reports involving quasi-investment advisors (QIAB), entities in Korea that provide general investment advice to people via media, jumped from 132 in 2018 to 1,724 in 2024, according to the report.

Cointelegraph reached out to Kim Seung-won for comment, but had not received a response by publication.

Related: Influencers shilling memecoin scams face severe legal consequences

Global regulators tighten rules on finfluencers

Regulators abroad have also taken similar initiatives. The United Kingdom’s Financial Conduct Authority allows financial promotions only with prior approval, while the US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) have issued fines and reprimands tied to undisclosed promotions.