Cardano price rallied as high as $0.190 after whales accumulated 240 million ADA, while a bullish reversal pattern pointed to a possible extension toward $0.208.

Cardano price trims gains after reaching $0.190

According to data from crypto.news, Cardano (ADA) price traded near $0.186 on Aug. 3 after touching an intraday high of $0.190, extending its recovery from the July 8 low near $0.154.

The move left ADA roughly 20% above that floor, although profit-taking emerged after the token tested the upper boundary of its recent trading range. The daily candle was down about 1.4% at the time of the chart snapshot.

ADA’s latest advance also pushed it above the Bollinger Bands’ 20-day moving average at $0.1688. The level had contained several recovery attempts during July and may now serve as medium-term support.

The price briefly moved above the upper Bollinger Band, located near $0.1846. Trading outside the band reflects strong momentum, but it can also indicate that the rally has become stretched in the short term.

Bollinger Bandwidth rose to 0.0262 as the bands expanded, confirming that volatility returned after several weeks of consolidation. The increase supports the breakout but also raises the risk of larger intraday reversals.

Whale accumulation helped fuel the ADA rally

Large holders were a central driver of the move. Analyst Ali Martinez cited Santiment data showing that whales accumulated more than 240 million ADA over five days.

“Whales loaded up. Cardano took off,” Martinez wrote.

The reported holdings increased from around 14.1 billion ADA to more than 14.3 billion ADA during the period. That accumulation coincided with a roughly 22% price increase, suggesting that large buyers absorbed supply as ADA recovered.

The rally also followed Cardano’s July 18 protocol upgrade and the network’s transition toward its next development phase. Expectations surrounding future scaling work, including Ouroboros Leios, added a fundamental catalyst to the whale-led move.

Cardano is also approaching six months of CME futures trading on Aug. 9. That milestone could become relevant to prospective US spot ADA exchange-traded fund applications under generic listing requirements, although it would not guarantee regulatory approval.

US traders will therefore be watching whether the futures record strengthens the case for broader regulated ADA investment products. Any ETF progress would still depend on the filing structure and applicable SEC requirements.

ADA inverse head-and-shoulders targets $0.208

The 4-hour chart shows ADA completing an inverse head-and-shoulders pattern between July 10 and Aug. 2. The formation includes two rounded shoulders near $0.160 and a deeper head around $0.154.

ADA broke above the pattern’s $0.1808 neckline on Aug. 2 and subsequently reached $0.190. The measured distance between the head and neckline is approximately $0.0274.

Adding that distance to the breakout point produces an upside target near $0.2083, about 12% above the current price. A sustained 4-hour close above $0.190 would strengthen the case for that extension.

Money flow remains supportive. The 4-hour Chaikin Money Flow reading stood at 0.16, showing that buying pressure continued to outweigh selling pressure despite the pullback.

However, the Aroon indicator presents a more cautious near-term picture. Aroon Down stood at 57.14%, while Aroon Up had fallen to zero, suggesting that the breakout’s immediate upward momentum was cooling.

Analyst Gerla also identified an inverse head-and-shoulders formation on the daily chart after a bullish RSI divergence played out. That broader pattern places the immediate resistance zone around $0.190–$0.195.

ADA must convert that area into support before the market can target $0.208. Failure to hold the $0.1808 neckline would weaken the bullish pattern and expose the 20-day average at $0.1688.

Liquidation levels could determine ADA’s next move

The 3-day liquidation heatmap shows dense leveraged positions on both sides of the current price, creating conditions for continued volatility.

The nearest downside liquidity sits around $0.181–$0.183, close to the inverse head-and-shoulders neckline. A decline into that zone could trigger long liquidations before buyers attempt another defense.

Larger pools of liquidity appear above the market between approximately $0.193 and $0.195. These levels could act as short-term price magnets if ADA retakes $0.190, but they may also generate resistance as short positions are closed and traders take profits.

Additional overhead liquidity extends toward $0.198, while lower clusters are visible near $0.176 and $0.170. This leaves ADA inside a broad leveraged range where a break on either side could accelerate the next move.

The bullish scenario requires ADA to remain above $0.1808 and close decisively above $0.195. That would open a path toward the pattern target at $0.2083.

A close below $0.1808 would indicate that the breakout is losing strength. In that case, $0.1688 becomes the main support, followed by the lower Bollinger Band near $0.153.

Stacks explores Bitcoin staking and DeFi growth as investors assess STX’s 2026 potential amid efforts to bring more Bitcoin capital into productive use.

Any Stacks (STX) price prediction for 2026 increasingly turns on a question bigger than short-term market momentum: can Stacks convert a small share of Bitcoin’s largely underused capital base into recurring demand for STX?

The gap is large. DeFiLlama currently tracks about $4.35 billion in total value locked across the Bitcoin category against a Bitcoin market capitalization of roughly $1.33 trillion, equal to only about 0.3%. Stacks is positioning its planned self-custodial Bitcoin staking system as one route for bringing more BTC into productive use without requiring holders to bridge or wrap their coins.

STX already serves as the native asset used to pay transaction fees on Stacks and participate in the network’s existing Stacking system. Its expanding role also supports the case for STX as capacity to grow Bitcoin native finance, particularly as Stacks develops new ways for Bitcoin holders to put their capital to work. The proposed Bitcoin staking design would mean that participants would lock BTC on Bitcoin Layer 1 and pair it with STX worth approximately 5% of the BTC position to create a protocol bond. The current design targets about 3% annualized yield in BTC, funded by Bitcoin committed by Stacks miners through Proof of Transfer, or PoX.

The attraction is easy to understand. Stacks says PoX has distributed more than 4,200 BTC to stackers since 2021, giving the proposed product an existing source of Bitcoin-denominated rewards rather than a new emissions-funded incentive. The key caveat is timing: Bitcoin staking was operating on a private testnet as of July 16, 2026, with mainnet activation still ahead.

How Bitcoin staking could create direct STX demand

The strongest part of the STX token fundamentals case is the proposed protocol-bond requirement.

Under the current design, every BTC position entering Bitcoin staking needs a corresponding STX position worth roughly 5% of the Bitcoin being bonded. That creates a direct relationship between BTC participation and the amount of STX needed to access staking capacity.

At the roughly $66,200 BTC price recently tracked by DeFiLlama, 5,000 BTC entering the system would require about $16.6 million in paired STX value. A 50,000 BTC cohort would imply about $165.5 million, assuming the approximate 5% ratio remains in place. Those figures are illustrations rather than forecasts: the STX-to-BTC ratio is designed to become market-driven, and the protocol limits capacity based on its ability to support reward obligations.

That distinction matters for any STX crypto analysis. Protocol-bond demand would be tied to use of the system rather than a marketing campaign or discretionary token incentive. Yet it would not automatically translate into equivalent open-market buying. Participants could source STX through exchanges, over-the-counter transactions, existing holdings or future financing arrangements.

Even so, the mechanism gives STX a measurable demand channel. More BTC entering protocol bonds would require more STX capacity under the current model, while lower participation would produce less demand. That makes adoption of Bitcoin staking one of the clearest variables to watch when assessing the token.

Why lockups and network use matter for STX tokenomics

Demand is only one side of the equation. The proposed bonding structure could also reduce the amount of STX readily available for trading during each bonding period.

Protocol bonds are designed around an approximately six-month term. The paired STX remains locked for that period and cannot simultaneously be used elsewhere. Stacks’ design includes an early-exit path for BTC, but an exiting participant forfeits remaining yield and the paired STX stays committed for the original term.

That creates a possible supply-compression effect if Bitcoin staking attracts meaningful participation. New STX demand could arrive at the same time as bonded tokens become temporarily unavailable to the market.

STX also remains the gas asset for the network. Every transaction, including lending, swaps and other smart-contract activity, requires STX for fees. If Bitcoin staking brings more users and capital into Stacks-based applications, transaction demand could add another source of token utility alongside the protocol-bond requirement.

The Bitcoin DeFi flywheel, and where it can break

Stacks already has a live DeFi base, which gives new capital somewhere to move if Bitcoin staking reaches mainnet and gains users. DeFiLlama currently tracks about $86 million in Stacks DeFi TVL, with Zest Protocol accounting for roughly $69 million. Zest separately reports around 800 BTC deposited in its Stacks market and says deposits previously peaked above $100 million.

That existing activity matters because the broader STX thesis extends beyond the first protocol bond. The project’s stated model assumes that, if STX rises in value during a six-month bond, a participant may need fewer STX tokens to support the same BTC value in a later bonding period. The unused STX could then be redeployed into lending markets, decentralized exchanges or other applications.

That outcome is possible, but it is not automatic. Participants may sell surplus STX, hold it, hedge the exposure or choose not to renew a bond. The strength of the proposed flywheel therefore depends on user behavior as much as protocol design.

The same reflexivity can also work in reverse. Stacks’ own Bitcoin staking materials identify a circular relationship between STX value, miner economics, staking capacity and BTC yield. Stronger network activity can support miner incentives and deepen the ecosystem, while weaker STX economics or lower miner bids can pressure yields. The protocol proposes capacity limits, reserve buffers and a staged rollout to manage that risk, but those tools cannot remove market risk entirely.

What an STX price prediction for 2026 must account for

The structural case for STX is clearer than a simple narrative that Bitcoin DeFi growth will automatically lift the token. The proposed staking design creates a specific mechanism that could connect BTC inflows to STX demand, and the six-month bond could temporarily tighten liquid supply. Existing DeFi applications also give additional capital practical uses beyond staking.

The main challenge is that the most important catalyst is still being tested. Stacks announced on July 16 that partners were running the PoX-5 mechanism on a private testnet ahead of mainnet activation. The target BTC yield is also not guaranteed, while participants face STX price exposure and a long bond term. New smart-contract code adds another execution risk that the staged launch is intended to address.

For that reason, a credible STX price prediction 2026 thesis should treat Bitcoin staking as a potential demand engine rather than an established source of sustained buying. The strongest evidence will come after launch: how much BTC enters protocol bonds, how much STX becomes locked, whether users renew their positions, and whether the added capital increases real activity across Stacks.

FAQ

What makes STX different from other yield tokens?

STX is not simply a token issued as a staking reward. It is the native gas asset of Stacks, an asset used in the network’s existing Stacking system, and the proposed capacity asset for Bitcoin staking protocol bonds. The reflexive element comes from the possibility that BTC participation creates STX demand, bonded STX reduces liquid supply and greater ecosystem activity creates additional transaction demand. That loop remains dependent on adoption and network economics.

How does Bitcoin staking create demand for STX?

The proposed protocol requires participants to pair BTC with STX worth approximately 5% of the Bitcoin position. As more BTC enters the system, more STX value would be required under the current design. If a later bonding cycle needs fewer STX tokens because the token has appreciated, participants could redeploy the surplus elsewhere, though the protocol does not require them to do so.

What happens to STX when the Bitcoin DeFi ecosystem grows?

More activity can increase demand for STX as the network’s gas asset and can create more places to deploy STX across lending, trading and liquidity applications. Under the proposed Bitcoin staking model, stronger BTC participation could also increase demand for bonded STX. The effect on price remains dependent on adoption, liquidity, issuance, market conditions and the health of miner economics.

Boltz, a non-custodial Bitcoin swap provider, has paused its service “until further notice,” citing what it describes as a sharp rise in automated, AI-assisted probing attempts against its infrastructure. In a statement published on X, the team said multiple exploits over recent months were contained individually, but that the pace of attacker iteration has begun to outstrip the ability of a small security team to find and patch issues quickly.

The pause arrives amid broader concern across crypto that AI capabilities—when paired with automation—can compress the time between vulnerability discovery and real-world exploitation. Boltz also emphasized that the shutdown is an operational decision rather than a response to customer losses, stating that no user funds have been at risk due to the non-custodial nature of its swaps.

Key takeaways

• Boltz is disabling swaps temporarily after reporting an accelerated pattern of “automated AI-assisted probing” in recent months.
• The company says its team cannot patch vulnerabilities quickly enough relative to attacker iteration speed, despite containing prior exploits.
• Boltz states that swaps are cryptographically secured and non-custodial, and that no user funds have been at risk.
• Solana’s security leadership has argued for “autonomous defense” to match threats operating at machine speed.

Boltz pauses swaps as automated probing intensifies

In its X post, Boltz attributed the decision to a “steady increase” in automated AI-assisted attempts to probe its systems over the course of this year. The firm said it has dealt with several exploits during that period; while each incident was contained, the overall pattern—attackers iterating faster than the service’s ability to remediate—has become difficult to manage.

“Over the past months… we have dealt with several exploits. Each was contained, but the pattern is clear: attackers now iterate faster than a team our size can find and patch.”

After reviewing security scans, Boltz said it cannot responsibly re-enable swaps while it is still being actively targeted by multiple groups, and while fixes are in progress. The company also described a recent acceleration, stating that within just a few days it saw a “drastic acceleration” in attacks and does not believe the asymmetry will reverse soon.

For users, the practical implication is straightforward: swap execution is paused, and the company is effectively prioritizing security remediation over service continuity. For builders and investors, Boltz’s decision is another sign that as threats become more automated, smaller teams running open-source infrastructure may face rising operational risk—especially when patch cycles are measured against attacker speed rather than human-led testing schedules.

Non-custodial design remains, but swap operations are suspended

Boltz’s service enables non-custodial, trustless atomic swaps, including transfers between Bitcoin mainnet and Bitcoin-related layers such as Lightning Network and Liquid Network. Because the swaps are non-custodial, Boltz said users retain full control of assets throughout the process.

The company stressed that, despite the security incidents it has described, no user funds have ever been at risk. Boltz’s reasoning is tied to its cryptographic approach: the swap mechanism is built so that custody is not transferred to Boltz in a way that would expose users to direct theft of funds.

Boltz also said its API will remain available to process refunds, and that its support team will continue to be reachable. That matters for downstream users and integrators because it suggests the pause is focused on swap re-enablement rather than an abrupt cessation of all related functionality.

“What we are seeing is a major paradigm shift for Bitcoin services operating on an open source stack, and it needs careful analysis. Do not expect swap services to resume shortly.”

At the time of writing, DefiLlama data showed Boltz’s total value locked at $180,860, providing a snapshot of the service’s on-chain footprint while it remains paused.

Why AI-driven automation raises the patching bar

Boltz’s announcement reflects a recurring theme in crypto security: when attackers can automate discovery and testing, the window for defenders to respond shrinks. The firm’s complaint is not only that vulnerabilities exist, but that the attack pattern is now iterative and fast enough that a small team cannot keep up with the remediation workload—even when individual exploits are contained.

This tension between offense speed and defense capacity is also echoed by Solana Foundation’s security leadership. Earlier coverage of Solana Foundation’s chief information security officer, Michael Coates, pointed to a need to move beyond purely human-scaled security processes. In July, Coates told Cointelegraph that the industry has reached a “tipping point” where humans cannot scale to meet AI-enabled threats.

“The only path forward we have is to have autonomous defense that operates at the speed of machines.”

That framing helps explain why Boltz’s response may be longer-term than a routine patch cycle. If defenders can’t reliably close the loop faster than attackers probe and iterate, even “contained” incidents may signal an ongoing risk environment rather than an isolated problem.

Boltz’s operational decision also mirrors comments from other crypto-adjacent services dealing with frequent exploitation. PayPerQ, an AI prompt-payment platform that accepts payment in Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies, said it has been fighting off exploits every other week for several months and believes many could be AI-powered. The company described the current situation as “very dangerous,” reinforcing the idea that AI assistance may be becoming a force multiplier for attackers.

What investors and users should watch next

Boltz has not offered a timeline for re-enabling swaps, and its statement explicitly cautions that swap services should not be expected to resume shortly. The key question for users is whether Boltz can reduce the probing-to-patching gap through changes to its security posture—such as tighter monitoring, faster remediation pipelines, and more automated defenses—before attacker iteration once again outpaces its team size.

For the broader Bitcoin ecosystem, Boltz’s pause is a timely reminder that non-custodial design can limit direct user fund exposure, but it does not eliminate operational and reliability risks. Readers should watch for how quickly Boltz can restore swap functionality, and whether the industry’s push toward machine-speed security becomes a practical requirement rather than a theoretical goal.

Strategy has sold 1,638 Bitcoin for $104.7 million after redirecting part of the proceeds toward preferred-stock dividends and share repurchases while increasing its U.S. dollar reserve.

An SEC filing submitted on Monday showed the company sold the Bitcoin between July 27 and Sunday at an average price of $63,957 per coin. Strategy allocated $52.4 million from the sale to dividend payments on its STRC perpetual preferred stock, while another $52.3 million went toward repurchasing STRC shares.

Following the transaction, Strategy’s Bitcoin holdings declined to 842,138 BTC acquired at a combined cost of approximately $63.5 billion.

The filing also disclosed that Strategy raised another $290.6 million by selling MSTR common shares during the same reporting period. Of that amount, $250 million was added to the company’s U.S. dollar reserve, $28.9 million funded additional STRC repurchases, and $11.7 million increased its cash balance.

Executive Chairman Michael Saylor said in a post on X that Strategy repurchased $81.2 million worth of STRC stock during the period and extended the company’s U.S. dollar funding runway by 57 days to roughly 2.3 years.

Bitcoin sale follows Strategy’s revised capital plan

The latest disposal comes after Strategy introduced a new capital framework at the end of June that allows Bitcoin sales to support preferred-stock dividends, debt obligations, approved security repurchases and the company’s dollar reserve.

Earlier SEC filings showed the company also sold 3,588 Bitcoin for approximately $216 million on July 6 and disclosed another sale of 32 Bitcoin in early June, its first reported Bitcoin disposal since a tax-related transaction in 2022.

Recent company updates had already pointed to a change in capital allocation. During its second-quarter earnings call on July 31, Executive Chairman Michael Saylor said Strategy would no longer direct every available dollar toward immediate Bitcoin purchases, choosing instead to maintain both cash and Bitcoin on its balance sheet.

Chief Executive Phong Le also said during the earnings call that Strategy would hold off on additional Bitcoin purchases while STRC continued trading below its $100 stated value.

By July 26, the company had built a $3.75 billion U.S. dollar reserve, which has now increased to about $4 billion after the latest stock sales. Strategy previously said the reserve is intended to cover preferred dividends and debt-related obligations unless the board approves another use.

STRC remains the company’s immediate priority

Supporting STRC has become a central part of Strategy’s financing plan because the preferred security is one of the vehicles it uses to raise capital for Bitcoin purchases.

Yahoo Finance data showed STRC traded at $89.40 during Monday’s pre-market session, leaving it 10.6% below its $100 stated value. MSTR shares were also down 0.9% before the opening bell.

A lower STRC price can make future fundraising through preferred-share sales less effective. The company has previously acknowledged that it wants the security to trade close to its stated value before resuming more aggressive Bitcoin accumulation.

Earlier this month, Strategy confirmed it would keep STRC’s annual dividend rate at 12% for August despite the preferred stock remaining below par. Under a revised policy adopted on June 29, management now considers factors including market price, competing yields, Bitcoin volatility, credit spreads and cash-reserve coverage instead of automatically raising the dividend whenever STRC trades below $100.

The company has increasingly relied on discounted share buybacks rather than repeated dividend increases. Earlier disclosures showed it repurchased roughly $25 million worth of STRC between July 20 and July 26, while nearly $1 billion remained available under its preferred-securities repurchase authorization.

Cash reserve has continued expanding while Bitcoin purchases pause

The latest filing indicates Strategy is still directing fresh capital toward strengthening liquidity even as it trims part of its Bitcoin position.

Most of the $290.6 million raised from MSTR share sales was added to the company’s dollar reserve, bringing the balance to approximately $4 billion as of Sunday. According to Saylor’s update, the additional liquidity extended the reserve’s ability to support dividend and interest obligations by nearly two months.

The approach follows management’s earlier comments that preserving funding flexibility could ultimately support future Bitcoin purchases rather than deploying all available capital immediately.

CryptoQuant founder and CEO Ki Young Ju argued in a June 24 post on X that Strategy should temporarily pause Bitcoin acquisitions, rebuild its cash reserves and adopt a more systematic purchase framework after estimating that the company’s dividend coverage had fallen sharply.

The company’s actions since then have largely centered on rebuilding liquidity, repurchasing discounted STRC shares and maintaining the preferred dividend instead of expanding its Bitcoin holdings.

Analysts and investors remain focused on Strategy’s funding model

Strategy reported an $8.22 billion net loss during the second quarter after recording an $8.32 billion unrealized loss on its Bitcoin holdings under fair-value accounting rules. Even so, management maintained that the accounting loss did not change the company’s long-term Bitcoin strategy.

During the earnings call, executives said restoring STRC closer to its $100 stated value would take priority before new Bitcoin purchases resume.

Benchmark and H.C. Wainwright both maintained buy ratings following the quarterly results, although Benchmark lowered its price target. 

The firms said Strategy’s cash reserve, preferred-share repurchases and financing strategy could strengthen its ability to raise capital in the future, while continuing to note that the company’s outlook remains closely linked to Bitcoin prices and investor demand for its preferred securities.

Cointelegraph is committed to providing independent, high-quality journalism across the crypto, blockchain, AI, and fintech industries.

All news, reviews, and analyses are produced with full journalistic independence and integrity. For more details on our standards and processes, please read our Editorial Policy.

Circle Internet Group has received a downgrade from Morgan Stanley, which has lowered its rating to Underweight from Equal Weight and reduced its price target to $38 from $106 after cutting long-term expectations for USDC growth.

Morgan Stanley said the downgrade follows lower forecasts for USDC circulation and concerns that Circle’s earnings model could face pressure as reserve income becomes more sensitive to slower stablecoin growth and increasing competition from tokenized cash products.

Circle shares fell about 6% in premarket trading on Monday to $58.81 after the research note was published, even as another Wall Street firm took the opposite view by initiating coverage with a bullish rating.

Morgan Stanley expects slower USDC expansion

Morgan Stanley reduced its assumptions for USDC circulation by about 33% for 2027 and 44% for 2028, arguing that the stablecoin has not expanded as quickly as previously expected. The brokerage also lowered its GAAP earnings-per-share estimates to around 3% below consensus for 2027 and roughly 20% below consensus for 2028.

According to analyst James Faucette, Circle’s reserve-income business faces increasing pressure because tokenized money market funds and tokenized deposits could compete for the same capital that would otherwise remain in USDC. The report also argued that USYC, Circle’s tokenized money market fund, carries structurally lower economics than its reserve-income business.

Morgan Stanley further said Circle’s OpenUSD initiative introduces shared governance and reserve economics that increase the cost of maintaining USDC distribution, while agentic payment activity remains too small to contribute meaningfully to revenue. The brokerage estimated that agentic payments have fallen to roughly $41,900 in daily volume, implying an average transaction size of about $0.24.

The brokerage also questioned Circle’s long-term growth target, saying USDC has “effectively not grown” since the third quarter of last year despite management’s objective of averaging 40% annual growth across market cycles.

Stablecoin payments remain limited, report says

While payment companies including Mastercard and Stripe have expanded their stablecoin offerings, Morgan Stanley said commercial adoption has yet to produce meaningful transaction volumes outside a handful of use cases.

Drawing on data from McKinsey, the brokerage noted that stablecoins processed roughly $35 trillion in adjusted transaction volume during 2025. Only about $390 billion represented identifiable real-world payments, however, with most activity still tied to crypto trading and transfers rather than commerce.

Morgan Stanley said payment activity continues to be concentrated in cross-border business transactions, remittances and stablecoin-linked card spending. According to the report, those use cases have yet to generate the durable balances and recurring transaction economics needed to offset pressure on Circle’s reserve-income model.

TD Cowen has taken the opposite view on Circle

Offering a contrasting assessment, TD Cowen initiated coverage of Circle with a Buy rating and an $82 price target, arguing that investors may be underestimating the company’s ability to develop into a financial infrastructure platform beyond stablecoin issuance.

Analyst Bryan Bergin said Circle is building products across payments, treasury services, tokenized real-world assets, interoperability and developer infrastructure, which could diversify revenue over time alongside USDC circulation.

TD Cowen also described Circle as a way for investors to gain exposure to institutional adoption of stablecoins and the modernization of financial infrastructure.

Wall Street remains closely divided on the stock. LSEG data shows that 16 of the 30 analysts covering Circle currently rate the shares Hold or Sell, while the remaining 14 recommend Buy or Strong Buy.

Regulatory progress has continued despite investor concerns

The downgrade arrives only days after Circle strengthened its regulatory position in the United States by securing a limited-purpose trust charter from the New York Department of Financial Services for Circle Internet Trust Company LLC, operating as Circle New York Trust.

Circle said the state approval complements the federal trust bank authorization it received from the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency in July. While the OCC-approved Circle National Trust is expected to provide fiduciary digital asset custody services, the company has said USDC issuance will continue through its New York trust entity before gradually transitioning under its approved regulatory structure.

Chief executive Jeremy Allaire previously said obtaining a New York trust charter had been a long-standing objective because of the regulatory clarity provided by the NYDFS framework. Circle has also said the approval builds on its relationship with the regulator, which dates back to 2015 when it became the first company to receive a BitLicense.

The regulatory milestones have not translated into sustained support for the stock. Circle shares ended July 31 down 2.54%, and on the same day Cathie Wood’s ARK Invest purchased 109,129 Circle shares across three exchange-traded funds, increasing its exposure to the stablecoin issuer ahead of the company’s scheduled second-quarter earnings release on Aug. 5.

Investors are also watching the proposed Clarity Act, which is expected to establish a regulatory framework for the U.S. cryptocurrency industry. Morgan Stanley’s latest report indicates that, despite improving regulatory oversight, future performance will still depend on USDC adoption, transaction activity, and Circle’s ability to generate revenue beyond reserve income.

SHR Miner explores the rising demand for computing infrastructure as blockchain adoption expands across tokenized assets, stablecoins, and financial services.

Blockchain adoption is entering a new stage as major financial institutions move tokenized assets and stablecoin settlement closer to real-world deployment.

The Depository Trust & Clearing Corporation recently completed live production transactions involving tokenized U.S. Treasuries, equities, collateral, securities lending and repo settlement. Around 40 financial and technology organizations participated, including BlackRock, Goldman Sachs, JPMorgan, Circle and Fireblocks.

Visa has also expanded its digital asset strategy with a stablecoin platform designed to help banks and fintech companies issue, transfer and manage stablecoins across blockchain networks.

These developments indicate that blockchain is no longer limited to cryptocurrency trading. It is becoming part of the infrastructure used for payments, asset settlement and global financial operations.

As blockchain and artificial intelligence adoption accelerate simultaneously, demand for data centers, computing power, energy systems and automated digital infrastructure is also increasing.

SHR Miner connects users to the infrastructure economy

The SHR Miner AI-powered digital infrastructure platform allows users to access distributed computing resources without purchasing or maintaining physical mining equipment.

Founded in the United Kingdom in 2018, the platform operates more than 150 data centers and infrastructure nodes across a network serving over five million users in more than 180 countries and regions.

Users can register online, select an infrastructure contract and monitor daily settlement information through a mobile or browser-based dashboard.

No mining hardware, technical configuration or equipment maintenance is required.

• AI-powered scheduling: Computing resources are automatically allocated across global nodes according to performance, energy costs and operating conditions.
• Advanced algorithm capability: SHR Miner uses deep reinforcement learning, temporal convolutional networks and graph neural networks to analyze infrastructure and digital asset data.
• Renewable-energy operations: The platform combines hydroelectric, solar and wind energy with AI-based energy scheduling.
• Automated risk management: Internal systems analyze market and blockchain data, optimize capital allocation and monitor operational risks.
• Multi-asset support: Supported assets include BTC, ETH, DOGE, USDT, USDC, XRP, SOL, LTC and BCH.
• Cloud-based access: Users can view contracts, rewards and resource information entirely online.

Use case: Moving beyond short-term trading

Daniel M., a cryptocurrency user from Canada, previously relied mainly on spot trading and spent several hours each day monitoring Bitcoin and Ethereum price movements.

After joining SHR Miner, he first claimed the platform’s $15 new-user computing-power reward and used the introductory contract to understand the dashboard and daily settlement process.

He later selected the MICROBT WhatsMiner M66 contract:

• Contract amount: $3,000
• Duration: 15 days
• Listed daily reward: $40.80
• Listed contract reward: $612.00

The calculation was straightforward:

$40.80 × 15 days = $612.00

Daniel did not need to purchase a physical mining machine, arrange cooling systems or manage electricity and maintenance costs. The contract information and daily settlement results were displayed directly in the SHR Miner application.

“I wanted a simpler way to participate without constantly watching market charts,” Daniel said. “The platform allowed me to view the contract and daily results directly from my phone.”

Five selected SHR Miner contracts

Users can explore SHR Miner’s available cloud computing contracts and choose an entry level based on their preferred participation scale.

The tiered structure allows new users to begin with a lower-cost contract before deciding whether to access additional computing capacity.

For example:

$70.5 per day × 25 days = $1,762.5 with the Bitcoin Miner S21 XP Imm contract.
$151 per day × 35 days = $5282 with the Bitcoin Miner S21e XP Hyd.

Claim a limited-time $15 new-user reward

Eligible new users can currently receive a $15 free computing-power reward after registering with SHR Miner.

The process involves three simple steps:

Register → Claim the $15 reward → Download the application

Users can then view available infrastructure contracts and daily settlement information through the cloud dashboard.

New users can create an SHR Miner account and claim the $15 computing-power reward before exploring the platform’s available infrastructure services.

A new phase of digital infrastructure

As blockchain becomes part of the global financial system and artificial intelligence drives greater demand for computing resources, the infrastructure behind these technologies is becoming increasingly important.

SHR Miner combines global computing nodes, automated resource scheduling, renewable-energy management, and cloud-based access to provide users with a simpler way to participate in the emerging digital infrastructure economy.

No hardware purchase. No equipment maintenance. No specialist technical background.

Discover the future of AI-powered digital infrastructure with SHR Miner.

Bitcoin price rebounded toward $63,900 on Aug. 3 after briefly falling near $62,300, but weak spot demand and fresh short-term holder losses continue to limit its recovery.

Bitcoin price recovers from $62,300

According to data from crypto.news, Bitcoin (BTC) price traded at $63,894 at the time of writing, up 0.51% for the day after moving between $62,300 and $63,993.

The recovery followed a sharp decline toward $62,600 noted in Glassnode’s latest market report. According to the on-chain analytics firm, Bitcoin failed to hold its earlier move above $66,000 as weak spot demand and persistent net selling kept the market within a consolidation phase.

The daily chart shows that BTC has stabilized slightly above the 78.6% Fibonacci retracement level at $63,183. This area has acted as a short-term pivot since the beginning of July, with repeated price movements on both sides of it.

However, the rebound has not yet changed Bitcoin’s broader structure. BTC continues to trade below its July peak near $66,900 and remains well under the 61.8% Fibonacci retracement level at $67,394.

A daily close above $64,000 would strengthen the short-term recovery. Failure to hold $63,183 could expose Bitcoin to another test of the $62,000 region.

Short-term Bitcoin holders lock in losses

Selling by short-term holders appears to be adding pressure near the lower end of Bitcoin’s range.

A CryptoQuant chart shared by market observer Whale Factor showed that approximately 32,000 BTC reached exchanges at a loss within a single day. The account described the move as the largest short-term holder capitulation event in 30 days.

Transfers to exchanges do not confirm that every coin was sold. Still, coins moving from short-term holders at a loss can indicate defensive positioning or capitulation, particularly when prices are testing support.

Glassnode reported a similar deterioration in market profitability. The proportion of Bitcoin’s supply held in profit is approaching a cyclical low, while investor spending patterns increasingly reflect stop-loss activity.

Long-term holders have remained more resilient. Glassnode said the ratio of supply held by short-term holders relative to long-term holders remains near historical lows, indicating that older coins are not moving at the same rate.

Network activity has also increased. Daily active addresses and adjusted transfer volume moved above their recent statistical ranges, suggesting that Bitcoin’s latest volatility has been accompanied by greater on-chain usage.

Liquidation clusters put $62,000 and $64,000 in focus

CoinGlass’s three-day liquidation heatmap shows two major pools of leveraged positions surrounding Bitcoin’s current price.

The closest upside cluster sits between roughly $63,800 and $64,100. Bitcoin’s rebound toward $63,900 has already brought the price into this area, where further gains could force leveraged short positions to close.

Additional liquidity is visible around $64,300, followed by thinner bands near $64,800 and $65,000. A decisive move through $64,100 could therefore accelerate toward the upper clusters, although weak spot buying may limit the size of any short squeeze.

The largest nearby downside concentration is around $61,900 to $62,200. This bright liquidity band sits just below Bitcoin’s latest intraday low and could attract price if the recovery loses momentum.

Bitcoin’s position between these two clusters leaves it vulnerable to sharp moves in either direction. A break above $64,100 could target $65,000, while a decline below $62,000 would put the June–July floor near $57,820 back in view.

Momentum remains neutral despite the rebound

Bitcoin’s daily relative strength index stands at 49.28, slightly below its signal average of 50.87. That reading shows balanced momentum rather than a clear advantage for buyers or sellers.

The MACD is less constructive. Its histogram has turned negative, while the MACD line remains below the signal line. This indicates that the recovery from the late-June low has lost momentum, even though Bitcoin has avoided another major breakdown.

For a stronger bullish reversal, BTC would need to reclaim $64,000 and then clear the July resistance zone between $66,000 and $67,394. The next Fibonacci targets would sit at $70,352 and $73,309.

The bearish scenario would gain traction if Bitcoin closes below $63,183 and subsequently loses $62,000. That would increase the risk of a decline toward $60,000, followed by the broader range floor near $57,820.

US investors will also be watching spot Bitcoin ETF flows for evidence of institutional demand. Glassnode said ETF inflows and trading volumes improved during the past week, providing some support even as spot-market momentum remained weak.

For now, Bitcoin’s rebound has defended near-term support but has not resolved the wider range. The concentration of liquidation leverage on both sides of the price makes $62,000 and $64,100 the main boundaries for the next directional move.

Smart accounts replace seed phrases with passkeys, social recovery, and gas sponsorship, making self-custody usable without memorizing 12 words.

Introduction

The standard advice for anyone entering crypto has not changed in a decade: write down 12 words, store them offline, and never lose them. This instruction is correct under the old model. Externally owned accounts (EOAs) derive a single private key from that mnemonic, and whoever holds the key controls the funds. There is no recovery, no spending limit, no way to require a second signature. Lose the phrase, lose everything.

Account abstraction changes this premise. Instead of coupling wallet security to a single secret, AA turns the wallet itself into a smart contract, one that can enforce arbitrary rules about who may sign, how gas is paid, and what happens when a key is compromised. The upgrade does not require users to understand smart contracts. From the outside, a passkey wallet looks like logging into an app with a fingerprint. Underneath, the architecture is fundamentally different.

This guide explains how AA works at the protocol level, what ERC-4337 introduced, and why the shift matters for self-custody going forward.

How Ethereum wallets worked before account abstraction

Every Ethereum address before AA was an externally owned account. An EOA is controlled by a private key derived from a mnemonic seed phrase. The account has no on-chain logic. It can send transactions and sign messages, but it cannot enforce rules about those actions. For a broader overview of wallet types and their mechanics, see what are crypto wallets.

This design has three structural limitations:

No recovery mechanism. If the private key is lost and no backup exists, the account is permanently inaccessible. Chainalysis estimates that roughly 20% of all Bitcoin is held in wallets whose keys are presumed lost. Ethereum faces the same problem.

No spending controls. An EOA cannot limit transaction size, restrict destination addresses, or require multiple signatures. A single compromised key means total loss. Organizations that need shared control over funds must use external multisig contracts instead of native account features. For how those multisig setups work and where they have failed, see how crypto’s biggest treasuries get secured and robbed.

Gas must be paid by the sender. Every transaction requires the signing account to hold ETH for gas. A new user receiving tokens on Ethereum cannot move them without first acquiring ETH from somewhere else. This creates an onboarding dead end that has persisted since Ethereum’s launch in 2015.

What ERC-4337 introduced

ERC-4337, authored by Vitalik Buterin, Yoav Weiss, Kristof Gazso, Namra Patel, Dror Tirosh, and Shahaf Nacson, went live on Ethereum mainnet in March 2023. It delivers account abstraction without requiring a hard fork, which was a critical design constraint. Previous AA proposals (EIP-2938, EIP-3074) required protocol-level changes that validators and client teams were reluctant to adopt. ERC-4337 sidesteps this by operating entirely at the smart contract layer.

The standard introduces four components:

UserOperations. Instead of sending a regular transaction, users submit a UserOperation (UserOp), a data structure that describes the intended action. UserOps enter a separate mempool, not the standard transaction mempool. Each UserOp contains the sender’s smart account address, the calldata for the intended action, gas limits, and an optional paymaster address.

Bundlers. Specialized nodes collect UserOps from the alternative mempool, bundle them into a single on-chain transaction, and submit that transaction to the network. The bundler pays gas upfront and is reimbursed by the smart account or a paymaster. Bundling creates gas savings: the fixed overhead of an Ethereum transaction is paid once per bundle rather than once per user action.

EntryPoint contract. A singleton contract deployed at a canonical address on every ERC-4337 chain. All bundled UserOps pass through this contract, which calls each smart account’s validation function, executes the operation, and handles gas accounting. The EntryPoint contract has been audited by OpenZeppelin and is immutable once deployed, providing a stable trust anchor for the entire system.

Paymasters. Optional contracts that sponsor gas on behalf of users. A paymaster can pay fees in exchange for ERC-20 tokens, absorb costs as a dapp subsidy, or implement any other payment logic. The paymaster’s validatePaymasterUserOp function is called during validation, and the paymaster can reject operations that do not meet its criteria.

The result: a wallet is no longer a key pair. It is a smart contract with a programmable validateUserOp function that decides whether a given operation is authorized.

The UserOperation lifecycle in detail

Understanding how a UserOp moves through the system clarifies what makes AA different from regular transactions.

1. Construction. The wallet application constructs a UserOp containing the target contract call, gas parameters, and a nonce. If a paymaster is involved, the paymaster address and its approval data are included.
2. Signing. The user signs the UserOp. The signature format is defined by the smart account, not by the protocol. This is the key flexibility: the smart account can accept ECDSA signatures, passkey signatures, multisig thresholds, or any other scheme.
3. Submission. The signed UserOp is submitted to a bundler via a JSON-RPC endpoint (eth_sendUserOperation). The bundler validates the UserOp off-chain to ensure it will not revert.
4. Bundling. The bundler groups multiple UserOps into a single transaction that calls the EntryPoint contract’s handleOps function.
5. Execution. The EntryPoint calls each smart account’s validation function. If validation passes, the EntryPoint executes the operation. If a paymaster is present, the EntryPoint charges the paymaster instead of the smart account for gas.
6. Confirmation. The bundled transaction is included in a block. Each UserOp within it is treated as an independent action that either succeeds or fails without affecting other UserOps in the bundle.

This lifecycle means the user never interacts with the Ethereum mempool directly. The bundler handles gas estimation, nonce management, and transaction submission. From the user’s perspective, the experience is closer to submitting a form on a website than to broadcasting a raw blockchain transaction.

Passkey wallets and the end of seed phrases

The most visible consequence of AA is that wallets can now authenticate users with passkeys instead of seed phrases.

A passkey is a cryptographic credential stored in a device’s secure enclave (the Secure Enclave on Apple devices, Titan M on Google Pixels, or TPM on Windows machines). The user authenticates with a fingerprint, face scan, or device PIN. The private key never leaves the hardware.

Coinbase Smart Wallet, launched in June 2024, uses this approach. Account creation takes under 10 seconds. The user authenticates with a biometric, and the wallet deploys a smart contract account that recognizes that passkey as a valid signer. There is no seed phrase to write down, no browser extension to install. Coinbase reported deploying over 10 million smart accounts through this flow by early 2026.

Safe (formerly Gnosis Safe) has integrated passkey signing into its smart account framework. Users can add a passkey as one of multiple signers on a multi-signature account, combining the convenience of biometric login with the security of threshold signatures.

The tradeoff is platform dependency. A passkey created on an iPhone is synced through iCloud Keychain. If a user loses all Apple devices and cannot access iCloud, the passkey is gone. This is why social recovery exists as a complementary layer. Passkey wallets are strongest when combined with at least one backup signer that uses a different authentication method.

Social recovery: replacing backup with guardians

Social recovery, proposed by Vitalik Buterin in a 2021 blog post, replaces the single backup (seed phrase) with a group of guardians.

The mechanism works as follows:

1. The wallet owner designates a set of guardians. Guardians can be friends, family members, institutional custodians, or even other smart contracts.
2. The owner sets a threshold. For example, 3 of 5 guardians must approve a recovery request.
3. If the owner loses access, they initiate a recovery process from a new device. Guardians independently confirm the request.
4. Once the threshold is met, the smart account replaces the lost signing key with a new one.

The guardians do not need to coordinate simultaneously. Most implementations include a time delay (typically 24 to 48 hours) during which the original owner can cancel a fraudulent recovery attempt.

This model eliminates the single point of failure. Losing a device does not mean losing funds, as long as enough guardians are reachable. It also eliminates the physical security burden of storing a seed phrase in a fireproof safe or safety deposit box.

Guardian selection matters significantly. Guardians should be distributed across different geographies, communication channels, and relationship types. If all guardians are in the same group chat and that chat is compromised, the recovery mechanism becomes an attack vector. Some implementations allow adding institutional guardians (such as a hardware wallet provider or a custodial service) alongside personal contacts, creating defense in depth.

Gas sponsorship and how paymasters work

Before AA, a new user who received USDC on Ethereum could not send it anywhere without first acquiring ETH to pay gas. This chicken-and-egg problem has been one of the largest onboarding barriers in crypto.

Paymasters solve this. A paymaster is a smart contract that agrees to cover gas costs for a UserOperation, subject to its own rules.

Three common paymaster models have emerged:

Dapp-sponsored gas. The application pays all gas for its users. The dapp deposits ETH into the paymaster contract and authorizes UserOps from its users. From the user’s perspective, transactions are free. Dapps treat gas as a customer acquisition cost, similar to free shipping in e-commerce. This model is particularly effective on Layer 2 networks where gas costs are fractions of a cent per transaction.

ERC-20 gas payment. The paymaster accepts an ERC-20 token (USDC, DAI) instead of ETH. The user pays for gas, but in a token they already hold. The paymaster swaps the token for ETH to reimburse the bundler. This removes the need for users to hold two separate tokens (the asset they want to use plus ETH for gas).

Subscription or session-based. The paymaster authorizes a batch of operations within a time window or spending limit. A gaming dapp might sponsor 100 transactions per day per user, for example. Session keys extend this concept further: the user signs a single transaction that grants a temporary key the right to perform specific actions (such as moves in a game) without requiring approval for each one.

Pimlico, Alchemy, and Stackup operate paymaster infrastructure that dapps can integrate with a few API calls. Alchemy alone has facilitated over one million smart account deployments through its paymaster and bundler services. The economics are straightforward: on Layer 2 networks where gas costs pennies, sponsoring user transactions is trivially cheap.

EIP-7702 and the road to native account abstraction

ERC-4337 works without protocol changes, but it is not the end state. Ethereum’s roadmap includes EIP-7702 (authored by Vitalik Buterin and Sam Wilson), which was included in the Pectra upgrade.

EIP-7702 introduces a new transaction type that allows an EOA to temporarily point to smart contract code for the duration of a single transaction. The EOA does not permanently become a smart contract. Instead, it can behave like one when needed, gaining access to batched calls, sponsored gas, and custom validation logic, and then revert to standard EOA behavior.

This matters for two reasons. First, it lets existing EOA holders (anyone with a MetaMask wallet today) access AA features without migrating to a new account. Migration has been a major friction point: users do not want to move all their assets, permissions, and on-chain history to a new address. Second, it reduces gas costs because the permanent smart account deployment overhead is avoided for users who only need AA features occasionally.

The long-term vision, discussed across multiple Ethereum Foundation roadmap posts, is that every account on Ethereum becomes a smart account by default. StarkNet and zkSync already implement this: on those networks, every account is a smart contract from creation. EIP-7702 is the bridge that moves Ethereum’s existing user base toward this model without breaking backward compatibility.

Where account abstraction is deployed today

AA adoption is concentrated on Layer 2 networks where gas costs make experimentation cheap.

Base has the highest density of smart accounts, driven by Coinbase Smart Wallet. By mid-2026, Base had processed over 30 million UserOperations. The network’s sub-cent gas costs make paymaster sponsorship economically trivial.

Polygon integrated AA early and offers native account abstraction at the protocol level in its zkEVM rollup. Polygon’s focus on gaming and social applications aligns well with the session-key model, where users need many low-value transactions without repeated approval prompts.

Arbitrum and Optimism support ERC-4337 through the standard EntryPoint contract. Major dapps on both chains have begun migrating onboarding flows to smart accounts, particularly DeFi protocols that want to offer gasless first trades. For context on how Ethereum updates enabled wallets to operate as smart contracts, the timeline begins with the ERC-4337 EntryPoint deployment.

Ethereum mainnet supports ERC-4337 but higher gas costs mean paymaster sponsorship is more expensive. Most mainnet AA usage comes from high-value multi-sig wallets (Safe) rather than consumer dapps. Safe manages over $100 billion in assets across its smart account deployments.

StarkNet and zkSync implement native account abstraction at the protocol level, meaning every account is a smart contract by default. This is the direction Ethereum’s long-term roadmap points toward.

What this does not cover

This guide focuses on the mechanism of account abstraction and its immediate consequences for wallet design. It does not cover:

• Detailed comparison of specific smart account implementations (Safe, Kernel, Biconomy, ZeroDev)
• The MEV implications of the UserOperation mempool (for MEV mechanics, see what is MEV)
• Formal security audits of individual paymaster contracts
• Cross-chain account abstraction and how smart accounts interact with bridging

Practical checks for evaluating an AA wallet

Before trusting funds to a smart account wallet, consider these questions:

Is the smart contract audited? Check whether the wallet’s smart account implementation has undergone third-party security audits. Safe’s contracts are among the most audited in DeFi. Newer implementations may not have the same track record.

What happens if the provider shuts down? A passkey wallet tied to a single vendor creates a new form of dependency. Look for wallets that allow adding multiple signers, including a traditional private key as a backup.

Where is the passkey stored? Understand whether the passkey is device-bound or synced through a cloud provider. iCloud Keychain and Google Password Manager sync passkeys, which is convenient but expands the attack surface to include cloud account security.

Does the wallet support social recovery? If the only authentication method is a passkey and the passkey is lost, funds may be unrecoverable. Social recovery adds a safety net. Check how many guardians the wallet supports and whether the recovery process has been tested.

What chains does the smart account work on? A smart account on Ethereum mainnet has a different address than the same account on Arbitrum unless the wallet uses CREATE2 deterministic deployment. Verify cross-chain compatibility before depositing funds on multiple networks.

What is the upgrade path? Some smart account implementations are upgradeable (the contract logic can be changed by the owner). This is powerful but introduces risk: a compromised upgrade key could rewrite the wallet’s validation logic. Check whether upgrades require a time delay or multi-party approval.

Boltz, a non-custodial Bitcoin swap service, says it is disabling its service until further notice after a rise in AI-assisted hacking attempts over the last few months.

In a post to X on Monday, Boltz said the decision came after seeing a steady increase in “automated AI-assisted probing” of its infrastructure this year. 

“Over the past months… we have dealt with several exploits. Each was contained, but the pattern is clear: attackers now iterate faster than a team our size can find and patch.” 

“After reviewing the results of our own recent security scans, we cannot responsibly re-enable Boltz swaps, especially as we are being actively targeted by what appear to be multiple resourceful groups while we race to deploy fixes.” 

Boltz’s operational pause highlights the difficulty that smaller development teams are facing, as attackers discover vulnerabilities and adapt exploits faster than they can respond.

Source: Boltz

“In the past few days alone we saw a drastic acceleration [of attacks] and we do not believe this asymmetry will reverse,” said Boltz. 

Solana’s security chief calls for automated defense

In July, Solana Foundation’s new chief information security officer, Michael Coates, told Cointelegraph there is a need to switch to automated defenses in the age of AI. 

“We’re at a tipping point as an industry where humans cannot scale to meet these threats,” said Coates. 

“The only path forward we have is to have autonomous defense that operates at the speed of machines.” 

PayPerQ, a pay-per-prompt AI service that takes payment in Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies, said it has also been dealing with a surge in exploits, possibly AI-powered. 

“We’ve been fighting off exploits every other week for several months, most of which we believe are AI-powered. It’s a very dangerous time out there.” 

No user funds at risk

Boltz lets users perform non-custodial, trustless atomic swaps, moving Bitcoin and Bitcoin-denominated assets between the mainnet and different layers of Bitcoin such as Lightning Network and Liquid Network. 

Related: AI has not triggered DeFi ‘hackpocalypse,’ Dragonfly partner says

DefiLlama shows total value locked on Boltz at the time of writing is $180,860.

Boltz said no user funds have ever been at risk, as all Boltz swaps use advanced cryptography and are non-custodial, which means users retain full control of their assets throughout the swap process. 

Boltz said its API will remain available to process refunds, and its support team will stay reachable. 

“What we are seeing is a major paradigm shift for Bitcoin services operating on an open source stack, and it needs careful analysis. Do not expect swap services to resume shortly.”

Magazine: Fears of AI-driven DeFi hack epidemic overstated for now — but not for long