Crypto World
what Claude Mythos 5 changes
The AI model its own maker says can find and exploit software flaws better than almost any human is back online. It arrives in the middle of crypto’s worst year for hacks. Here is what actually changes, and what the panic gets wrong.
Summary
- On July 1, 2026, Anthropic restored global access to Claude Fable 5 after the U.S. lifted export controls, while the less-restricted Mythos 5 returned only to a set of vetted U.S. organizations through a program called Glasswing.
- Anthropic markets Mythos-class models as able to find and exploit software vulnerabilities more effectively than any other model and than all but the most skilled human experts, and says the models surfaced more than 10,000 high-severity flaws in important software.
- The alarm in crypto is that cheap, fast, AI-driven vulnerability discovery turns unaudited protocols and small forks into easy targets, in a year when hacks have already drained more than $840 million.
- The skeptical view, shared by some security experts and by Anthropic’s own review, is that the models mostly accelerate known attack types, social engineering, exposed keys, and misconfigurations, instead of inventing new ones, and that weaker models can do much of the same work.
- The same capability that helps attackers also helps defenders, through faster audits and patching, which is why the near-term risk is real while the long-run balance is contested.
The model built to find software flaws is back, and it landed in the worst possible year for the industry with the most to lose. On July 1, 2026, Anthropic restored access to Claude Fable 5 worldwide after the U.S. Department of Commerce lifted the export controls that had forced the model offline in June, while its more powerful sibling, Mythos 5, returned only to a set of vetted organizations. The timing is what makes it a crypto story. Anthropic describes Mythos-class models as able to find and exploit vulnerabilities better than nearly any human, and crypto is in the middle of a record run of hacks, with billions in assets sitting inside publicly visible code that an AI can read at machine speed.
This piece separates what these models actually change from what the panic gets wrong, and it does so without treating a single headline as the whole picture. The central question is not whether AI makes crypto security riskier; it does. The harder question is where the added risk actually sits, whether it is in smart contracts themselves, bridges, human operations, signing flows, or the speed at which attackers can now move from disclosure to exploit. The answer is less cinematic than the fear, but more useful for anyone holding funds or building protocols.
What came back, and what did not
The distinction between the two models is the first thing to get right, because they are not equally available. Fable 5 is the public, safeguarded member of the Mythos class, released in June 2026 and priced at roughly twice the cost of Anthropic’s prior flagship. It returned to global users on July 1 across Anthropic’s platforms. Mythos 5 is the less-restricted version that carries the full cyber capability, and it did not return to the public.
Anthropic restored Mythos 5 only to a set of vetted U.S. organizations that operate and defend critical infrastructure, through an opt-in program called Glasswing, following government approval in late June. So the model most crypto observers worry about is not the one now sitting behind a consumer subscription. The distinction matters because public access changes the risk surface very differently from vetted critical-infrastructure access. A powerful model in the hands of security teams is not the same thing as a powerful model available to every attacker with a credit card.
The episode that pulled both offline is worth understanding, because it colors the risk debate. In June, researchers at Amazon showed a jailbreak that got Fable 5 to identify software vulnerabilities and write exploit code, and the U.S. government responded with an emergency export-control order that Anthropic complied with by disabling the models entirely, since it could not restrict access by nationality in real time. The controls were lifted at the end of June, and access returned in the first days of July, with Fable 5 global and Mythos 5 limited. Anthropic’s own account of the incident cuts against the loudest fears: its review, conducted with the government, found that the reported technique did not reveal a uniquely Mythos-level capability, and that several weaker models could reproduce the same vulnerabilities.
The company argued the capability had been oversold, and it deployed a new safety classifier it says blocks the specific technique in more than 99% of cases, routing risky cybersecurity prompts to a weaker model in fewer than 5% of sessions. That is the company’s framing, and it matters, but it is not the whole story either. The point for crypto is narrower: even if public access is constrained, the capability exists, it is improving, and weaker models already reproduce parts of it. That means the security problem cannot be solved by focusing on one model alone.
What Mythos-class models can actually do
The capabilities that alarmed the security world are real and documented, not hypothetical. Under its restricted program, Mythos-class models reportedly surfaced more than 10,000 high and critical-severity vulnerabilities in systemically important software, and found critical flaws across more than 1,000 open-source projects, including widely used components such as the Linux kernel and a popular media library. In one cited case, the model generated a working proof-of-concept exploit for a complex issue in under 31 minutes. Cloudflare reported that an earlier Mythos preview chained bugs into working exploits across more than 50 of its code repositories before refusing to produce a live demonstration.
The capability that most changes the math for defenders is speed. Anthropic has warned that the window between a vulnerability being disclosed and being exploited is collapsing, in some cases from days to hours. Its researchers concluded that a single operator with this class of model could turn a month of software patches into working exploits in a single afternoon, for a cost measured in a few thousand dollars. Security practitioners have started describing the shift as moving from an era of N-days, where attackers had weeks or months after a disclosure, to something closer to N-hours.
When a patch ships, it also reveals the flaw it fixes, and a model that can read the patch, understand the bug, and build an exploit in hours compresses the defender’s response window dramatically. None of this is the same as inventing a new class of attack. It is acceleration and scale. The model reads public code, compares versions, summarizes audits, and reasons about weaknesses faster and cheaper than a human team, which lowers the cost and expertise needed to do work that skilled attackers already do.
That distinction, acceleration rather than invention, is the fault line the entire debate runs along. For crypto teams, the practical implication is brutal: slow patching, stale dependencies, and unaudited forks become more dangerous when attackers can automate the boring parts of vulnerability discovery. The frontier model does not need to be magical to change the economics. It only needs to make the existing attack pipeline cheaper and faster.
Why crypto is uniquely exposed
Crypto sits in the blast radius for reasons specific to how it works. Smart contracts are public by design: the code that controls billions of dollars is visible on-chain for anyone, including an AI, to read and analyze. Bridges, the infrastructure that moves assets between blockchains, concentrate the collateral of many chains into a single set of contracts and message-verification systems, which makes them the highest-value targets in the space. An attacker who can scan code at machine speed has an unusually rich, unusually open field in crypto compared with closed corporate systems.
The backdrop is a genuinely bad year. Crypto has lost more than $840 million to hacks in 2026, with some tallies putting the figure past $940 million across more than 120 incidents, and April alone set a record near $600 million. The two largest losses tell the story of where the damage comes from. Kelp DAO lost roughly $292 million when attackers forged a cross-chain message on its bridge, exploiting a setup that let a single compromised node approve fraudulent withdrawals.
Drift Protocol lost about $285 million not to a code bug but to a six-month social engineering operation that ended in compromised administrative keys. Bridges have accounted for the largest share of losses, and North Korean groups have been linked to a large portion of the total. That pattern is the key context for the AI debate, because it shows where crypto actually bleeds. The biggest 2026 losses came less from novel smart-contract bugs than from human error and operational failure: social engineering, exposed keys, flawed signing flows, and misconfigured infrastructure.
Any assessment of what a Mythos-class model changes has to start from that reality, not from the image of an AI writing an exotic new exploit from scratch. The crypto risk surface is not only code. It is bridges, multisigs, admin keys, custody practices, signing devices, deployment scripts, and teams that still operate under startup-style security despite controlling institutional-scale money. AI makes that whole surface easier to search.
The alarm case
The bearish read is straightforward and has serious voices behind it. Simon Dedic, a well-known crypto investor, warned that a public Mythos-class model could sharply lower the cost and expertise needed to find exploitable flaws in smart contracts, and that unaudited protocols would become, in his words, sitting ducks. The argument is about barriers. Finding a subtle vulnerability in a contract used to require rare skill and considerable time.
If a model compresses that to hours and pennies, the population of people capable of attacking a weak protocol expands enormously, and the long tail of small projects, forks, and unaudited contracts becomes far more exposed. The numbers give the argument weight. Analysts have linked part of 2026’s elevated hacking losses to the growing use of advanced AI in identifying vulnerabilities, and the trend line points toward more automated, faster reconnaissance. In this view, even if the very best human attackers gain little, the marginal attacker gains a great deal, and crypto has no shortage of marginal attackers or of weak targets for them to point a capable model at.
The alarm is less about the top of the skill curve and more about how many more people can now operate near it. That is why small DeFi forks, rushed launches, and unaudited protocols are the obvious danger zone. A well-resourced protocol with continuous audits and strong operational controls may use AI defensively. A copy-paste fork with weak key management may simply become easier to attack.
The skeptics’ case
The counterargument is equally serious, and it comes from builders and from Anthropic itself. Michael Egorov, the founder of a major decentralized exchange, argued that smart contracts typically contain only a few thousand lines of code and are already well understood by human auditors and existing AI tools, so a more capable model changes less about direct contract exploits than the panic suggests. In his view, operational security failures and supply-chain attacks are the larger risk, and those are not primarily a smart-contract-analysis problem. That view fits the loss data, where administrative compromises and bridge failures dominate the largest incidents.
Anthropic’s post-incident review reinforces the skeptical case from an unexpected direction. The company found that the jailbreak technique that triggered the export controls did not reveal a uniquely Mythos-level capability, and that weaker models, its own and others, could reproduce the same vulnerability findings. If a capability is broadly available across many models rather than locked inside one frontier system, then restricting or releasing that single system changes less than it appears to. The skeptics do not claim the models are harmless; they claim the marginal danger of any one release is smaller than the headlines imply, because the underlying capability is diffuse and because the hardest part of most real attacks is not finding the flaw.
That is an important distinction for crypto readers. The risk is not “Claude Mythos appears, therefore every DeFi protocol is suddenly doomed.” The risk is that AI-assisted security analysis is becoming normal across many models, countries, and toolchains, which means attackers and defenders alike will have faster vulnerability discovery available. In that world, the question shifts from whether one model should be online to whether crypto teams can patch and harden faster than adversaries can scan and exploit.
The part everyone agrees on
Between the alarm and the skepticism sits a consensus, and it is the most useful part of the debate. Security experts broadly agree that advanced AI will not invent fundamentally new categories of crypto hack, but will dramatically speed up the attacks that already dominate the loss tables: social engineering, exposed keys, and flawed signing flows. A model does not need to hand over a finished exploit to change the economics of an attack. It can read public repositories, compare old and new versions of software, summarize audit reports, and draft convincing messages designed to catch the small operational mistakes humans make.
As one analysis put it, these exploits remain rooted in social engineering and human error; AI did not create that reality, it made it visible and accelerated it to machine speed. That reframing points straight at the 2026 loss data. The Drift and Kelp attacks, the two largest of the year, were an operational compromise and a bridge-verification failure, not clever new contract bugs. A model that accelerates reconnaissance, scans for the weakest key path or the sloppiest signing flow, and helps craft the human-facing part of an attack makes exactly those failure modes cheaper and faster to exploit.
The practical implication is that the defense that matters most is not writing unbreakable contracts, but hardening the human and operational layer where the money actually leaks. That means keys, signing steps, privileged accounts, dependencies, cross-chain message verification, and incident response. It also means treating every public disclosure and every patch as a race. In an N-hour world, yesterday’s slow security process becomes tomorrow’s exploit window.
The defensive flip side
The same capability that worries defenders can also serve them, which is why the long-run balance is genuinely contested. A model that finds vulnerabilities faster than humans is, pointed the other way, an audit tool that finds them before attackers do. Anthropic has argued that AI will eventually favor defenders in cybersecurity, while conceding that the transition will be turbulent, and it restored the restricted Mythos 5 specifically to organizations that defend critical infrastructure through its security program. That is the defensive version of Glasswing: put the best tools in the hands of teams whose job is to patch before adversaries exploit.
One incident has become the reference point for both sides. In early June 2026, a critical vulnerability in a privacy coin’s shielded pool was discovered using Anthropic’s Opus 4.8, a model a generation below the Mythos class. The flaw, if exploited, could have allowed unlimited minting of the token, and it had eluded expert cryptographers for roughly four years. The token dropped more than 35% on the disclosure.
The lesson cuts both ways: a weaker model catching a four-year-old flaw shows how much AI can strengthen defense, and also how much latent, undiscovered risk sits in code that a stronger model could surface, for good or ill. Faster discovery is a defensive gift when a friendly party finds the bug first and a catastrophe when an attacker does. Which side wins any given race depends on who is scanning, how fast teams can patch, and whether defenders adopt the tools as aggressively as attackers will.
What crypto users and teams can actually do
The useful response to all of this is not panic but hardening, and most of it is advice that held before any model returned. For individual users, the recurring guidance from security researchers is concrete: revoke unused token approvals, since every outstanding approval grants a contract permission to move your funds, and tools exist to review and cancel them. Move significant holdings into self-custody and cold storage, so that the keys controlling real money sit somewhere a compromised laptop cannot reach, and treat any unaudited protocol as a higher risk than it looked a year ago. When approving a transaction, use a device with a trusted screen that shows what is actually being signed, because if AI accelerates the scouting phase, the final signing step becomes the moment that matters most.
For teams and protocols, the priorities follow from where the losses come from. Rapid patch management matters more in an N-hour world, because the window between a disclosure and a working exploit is shrinking, so shipping and applying fixes quickly is now a security control in itself. Continuous auditing beats one-time audits, and using AI-driven analysis on your own code before attackers do is increasingly a baseline instead of an edge. Above all, harden the operational layer: secure key management, tighten signing flows, limit privileged access, and scrutinize dependencies and cross-chain message verification, because that is where the year’s biggest breaches actually happened.
Over-reliance on any single external model carries its own risk, so teams are stress-testing multiple tools instead of betting on one. The same caution applies to exchanges and custodians, where exchange security is not just a proof-of-reserves page but a question of controls, custody, liabilities, and operational discipline. For protocols experimenting with AI agents in crypto, the lesson is even sharper: automation expands what software can do, but also expands what must be secured. The more autonomy a system has, the more dangerous weak permissions and signing flows become.
The honest conclusion is that the return of these models changes the tempo of an existing problem more than it introduces a new one. Crypto was already losing record sums to human error, operational failure, and bridge design long before Fable 5 came back online. Capable AI makes the reconnaissance faster, the attacks cheaper, and the response window shorter, which is a real near-term headwind for a chronically insecure industry. It also puts a powerful audit tool in defenders’ hands, which is the reason the long-run outcome is a race instead of a verdict.
The protocols and users who treat the moment as a prompt to fix the operational basics will be the ones best placed whichever way that race runs. The ones still relying on one-time audits, permissive approvals, weak admin keys, and slow patch cycles are the obvious targets. AI did not create those weaknesses. It just made them easier to find.
Frequently asked questions
What is Claude Mythos 5?
Claude Mythos 5 is a frontier AI model from Anthropic that the company describes as its most capable for cybersecurity, marketed as able to find and exploit software vulnerabilities more effectively than any other model and than all but the most skilled human experts. It is the less-restricted version of the Mythos class. Its safeguarded public sibling is called Fable 5. Mythos 5 is available only to vetted organizations, not the general public.
Why did the models go offline and come back?
In June 2026, researchers showed a jailbreak that got Fable 5 to identify vulnerabilities and write exploit code, and the U.S. government issued an emergency export-control order. Anthropic disabled both models globally because it could not restrict access by nationality in real time. The controls were lifted at the end of June, and access returned in early July, with Fable 5 restored globally and Mythos 5 limited to vetted U.S. organizations. The important distinction is that the public model and the restricted cyber model did not come back under the same access rules.
Can these AI models really hack crypto protocols?
They can accelerate the work attackers already do rather than invent new attacks. Mythos-class models reportedly found more than 10,000 high-severity flaws in important software and can build a proof-of-concept exploit in under an hour. In crypto, the larger effect is speeding up reconnaissance and the human-facing parts of attacks, since the biggest 2026 losses came from social engineering, exposed keys, and operational failures instead of novel contract bugs. That makes unaudited protocols, weak bridge setups, and poor key management especially exposed.
How much has crypto lost to hacks in 2026?
Crypto has lost more than $840 million to hacks in 2026, with some tallies exceeding $940 million across more than 120 incidents, and April alone set a record near $600 million. The two largest losses were Kelp DAO at about $292 million from a bridge message forgery and Drift Protocol at about $285 million from a social engineering operation that compromised administrative keys. Those examples matter because they show where the real losses are coming from: not only code flaws, but operational and verification failures. AI makes those weak points easier to find and exploit faster.
Does AI make crypto hacks fundamentally worse?
The consensus among many security experts is that AI accelerates and scales existing attack types instead of creating new ones. It lowers the cost and expertise needed to find flaws, which most exposes unaudited protocols and small projects. Skeptics, including some builders and Anthropic’s own review, argue the marginal danger of any single model is smaller than headlines suggest, since weaker models can do similar work and the hardest part of most attacks is not finding the flaw. The risk is therefore less about one model suddenly changing everything and more about AI-assisted hacking becoming broadly available.
Can AI also help defend crypto?
Yes, and that is the contested part of the debate. The same ability to find vulnerabilities fast makes AI a powerful audit tool when defenders use it first. In one case, a weaker model discovered a four-year-old critical flaw in a privacy coin’s shielded pool before it was exploited. Anthropic argues AI will eventually favor defenders, while admitting the transition will be turbulent, so the outcome depends on who adopts the tools faster.
What should crypto holders do to protect themselves?
Security researchers recommend revoking unused token approvals, moving significant holdings into self-custody and cold storage where keys sit offline, and treating unaudited protocols as higher risk. When signing transactions, use a device with a trusted screen that shows exactly what is being approved. These steps address the human and operational failures that account for most real losses, which AI mainly accelerates instead of replacing. The goal is to reduce the number of places where an attacker can turn a mistake into a transfer.
Is Mythos 5 available to the public now?
No. After the export controls were lifted, Anthropic restored the safeguarded Fable 5 to global users, but the less-restricted Mythos 5 returned only to a set of vetted U.S. organizations that defend critical infrastructure, through an opt-in program. The company says it will work to expand access over time, but the model with the full cyber capability is not behind a consumer subscription. Public users may have access to stronger AI tools than before, but not to the same unrestricted Mythos 5 setup described in the security program.
Disclaimer: This article is for information and educational purposes only and does not constitute financial, investment, legal, or security advice. It describes an evolving situation involving AI capabilities and cybersecurity risk, and details may change. Nothing here is a recommendation to buy, sell, or use any specific model, asset, or service. Always do your own research and consult qualified professionals for security decisions. Information is accurate as of July 2, 2026, and may change.
Roughly 82.1% of the top-100 crypto assets declined in June, the worst market breadth of 2026, even as the group’s average return stayed positive.
That split defined the month. A single outlier lifted the average into positive territory while the median return dropped 16.8%, according to a second-quarter recap from CryptoRank.
A Headline Average That Hid the Damage
Across the current top-100 assets excluding stablecoins, CryptoRank recorded a positive average return of 8.9% for June. That figure reflected a single outlier rather than the broader market.
“The market breadth data shows a clear deterioration in participation across the current non-stablecoin Top 100 assets. In June, breadth weakened to its worst level of 2026 so far,” the report read.
Follow us on X to get the latest news as it happens
The report noted that the average was affected by Velvet (VELVET), which surged 1,715% during the month, lifting the aggregate. The 25-point gap between the positive average and the negative 16.8% median showed how few tokens carried the upside.
Besides VELVET, other top gainers included LAB (LAB) at 116% and Audiera (BEAT) at 112%. June also reversed a stronger start to the quarter.
April saw 64% of top-100 assets gain, the best month of 2026. Meanwhile, May showed a more fragile structure, and the June breakdown confirmed the reversal.
Weakness Reached Major Crypto Narratives in June
The decline was not limited to the largest assets. Across all traded tokens with 24-hour volume of more than $1 million, every one of the eight tracked narratives posted a negative median return.
Layer 2 chains led the losses at -24.9%, followed by Decentralized Physical Infrastructure Networks (DePIN) at -24.8% and Layer 1 chains at -22.8%.
“All 8 tracked narratives posted negative median returns, with losers outnumbered gainers in nearly every category, confirming that the market remained defensive and narrow through Q2 without a broad recovery in breadth,” CryptoRank said.
The gainers-versus-losers split showed how narrow the market became. Decentralized Finance (DeFi) recorded 42 gainers against 117 losers, while Artificial Intelligence (AI) posted 21 gainers against 35 losers.
The pattern pointed to a defensive market. Bitcoin (BTC) dominance held near 56% at quarter-end as capital rotated away from weaker altcoins.
Whether June marks a base or another leg lower depends on breadth recovering in the second half.
Subscribe to our YouTube channel to watch leaders and journalists provide expert insights
The post Crypto’s Positive June Average Masked an 82% Decline Across Top Assets appeared first on BeInCrypto.
Russia’s central bank says the digital ruble is ready for a Sept. 1 rollout, keeping the country’s central bank digital currency plan on schedule.
Summary
- Russia’s Sept. 1 digital ruble rollout moves ahead despite EU sanctions targeting related financial infrastructure.
- Bank rules require major lenders and large retailers to support digital ruble payments in stages.
- U.S. lawmakers are moving toward a temporary CBDC ban while Russia expands state digital money.
Governor Elvira Nabiullina said “everyone is ready” for the launch, according to a July 2 report by RIA Novosti.
The digital ruble will circulate alongside cash and non-cash rubles, not replace them. The Bank of Russia has said people will be able to open digital wallets through banking apps connected to its platform. It has also said individuals will not pay fees on digital ruble transactions.
The rollout begins with banks and large merchants
The Bank of Russia’s timeline requires major banks to offer digital ruble services from Sept. 1, 2026. Large retailers with annual revenue above 120 million rubles must also accept digital ruble payments from that date.
The rules will expand in stages. Banks with universal licenses and retailers with annual revenue above 30 million rubles must join from Sept. 1, 2027. Other banks and smaller retailers will follow from Sept. 1, 2028, while very small merchants will remain exempt.
Sanctions pressure frames the rollout
The launch comes as the European Union has already moved against Russia-linked digital finance. In its 20th sanctions package, the EU Council banned transactions involving RUBx and all EU support for the development of the digital ruble. It linked the measures to Russia’s war against Ukraine and wider concerns over sanctions evasion.
In addition, the EU also proposed broader restrictions on foreign crypto services tied to Russian sanctions evasion. That plan followed growing scrutiny of ruble-linked crypto rails, including platforms and tokens that authorities say may support cross-border payments outside Western controls.
Russia has tested digital ruble use cases for more than a year. As previously reported, the Central Bank of Russia piloted digital ruble smart contracts in Tatarstan, including tests on conditional spending for public funds. The latest timeline shows that Moscow now wants to move the project from testing into broader payment use.
U.S. policy moves in the opposite direction
Russia’s CBDC push contrasts with U.S. policy, where lawmakers have moved toward a temporary ban on a Federal Reserve digital dollar. As crypto.news reported, the 21st Century ROAD to Housing Act would block the Fed from creating a CBDC or similar asset through 2030 if it becomes law.
The U.S. debate reflects concerns over privacy, state control, and the role of private stablecoins. The Russian approach is different. Moscow is building a state-run digital currency while also testing other digital asset rules for trade and financial access under sanctions.
A February report by Jack Jarmon for the Australian Institute of International Affairs said Russia could face limits if it relies on Bitcoin or other proof-of-work assets to bypass sanctions. The report pointed to old power infrastructure and limited access to foreign technology. Those limits may explain why the digital ruble remains central to Moscow’s state-led payment strategy.
The Sept. 1 launch will test whether Russia can drive adoption among banks, merchants, and users. Nabiullina said the central bank wants the digital ruble to be “in demand by people and businesses” and “convenient.”
For now, the rollout places Russia among the countries pushing CBDCs forward while sanctions and U.S. policy debates keep digital state money under close review.
eToro has led a $12.5 million strategic funding round in Extended, an onchain exchange for perpetual futures.
Summary
- eToro’s Extended investment links Zengo self-custody tools with onchain perpetual futures trading access for users.
- Jump Crypto joined the round as brokerages move deeper into decentralized derivatives and market infrastructure.
- Perp DEX growth is pulling trading platforms toward self-custody, tokenized assets, and onchain execution.
Extended announced the round in a July 2 post on X, saying eToro led the investment and Jump Crypto also joined the deal.
Meanwhile, the funding is tied to a partnership between Extended and Zengo, the self-custody wallet eToro acquired earlier this year. The companies plan to work on access to global financial markets through onchain infrastructure. eToro said the partnership will explore ways to connect traditional financial assets with decentralized trading venues.
Self-custody becomes part of the plan
Zengo gives eToro a direct route into self-custody products. The wallet uses multi-party computation technology, which removes the need for seed phrases while still giving users control over assets. It also supports swaps, staking, and access to decentralized applications.
eToro completed its Zengo acquisition on April 30 while reporting a sharp drop in crypto trading profit. The company said at the time that Zengo would support its plan to connect traditional financial products with onchain systems. The Extended deal now gives that plan a derivatives-focused path.
Extended builds onchain perps market
Extended was founded by former Revolut employees and opened trading to all users in late 2024. In its public launch announcement, the company said it planned to add unified margin with technical support from StarkWare.
The exchange is built on StarkWare’s StarkEx scaling engine. It focuses on perpetual futures, a type of derivative contract that has no expiry date. Extended says its model supports self-custody trading while aiming to keep execution fast enough for active traders. That structure places it between centralized crypto futures venues and fully decentralized trading platforms.
Perps growth draws larger firms
Perpetual futures remain one of the largest crypto trading markets. As crypto.news reported, CoinGecko’s 2026 Crypto Perpetuals Report found that perp DEX open interest share rose from 3.6% in early 2025 to 13.5% in 2026. The same report showed Binance and OKX still leading centralized perps trading, even as decentralized venues gained share.
That growth has drawn more attention from brokers and trading apps. Previously, crypto.news reported that Robinhood launchedperpetual futures tied to commodities, ETFs, and currencies for eligible European users. The rollout showed how crypto-style trading tools are moving into traditional markets.
Deal follows weaker crypto trading income
The investment comes after eToro reported lower crypto-related trading profit in the first quarter of 2026. As reported by crypto.news, crypto generated $13 million in profit during the quarter, or about 5% of eToro’s total net trading profit of $258 million. That was down from $46 million in the same period in 2025.
The Extended round shows that eToro is still building around digital assets despite weaker short-term crypto revenue. The company is using Zengo to strengthen its self-custody stack and Extended to enter onchain derivatives more directly.
Moreover, the move also places eToro closer to a market where trading apps, crypto exchanges, and decentralized platforms are competing for users who want faster access, direct asset control, and broader exposure to global markets.
Blockchain technology has evolved rapidly over the past decade, giving rise to hundreds of networks optimized for different use cases. Some prioritize speed, others focus on security, privacy, scalability, or specialized applications like gaming and decentralized finance (DeFi). While this diversity has fueled innovation, it has also created one of Web3’s biggest challenges: blockchain silos.
Today, the industry is moving toward a future where blockchains no longer operate as isolated ecosystems. Instead, they’re becoming interconnected networks that can communicate, exchange assets, and share data seamlessly. This shift could redefine how decentralized applications (dApps), users, and institutions interact with blockchain technology.
What Are Blockchain Silos?
A blockchain silo exists when a network operates independently without native communication with other blockchains. Assets, data, and smart contracts remain confined to their respective ecosystems.
For example:
- Bitcoin primarily serves as a secure store of value.
- Ethereum powers a vast ecosystem of smart contracts.
- Solana focuses on high-speed transactions.
- BNB Chain emphasizes affordable and scalable DeFi.
- Avalanche offers customizable blockchain infrastructure.
Each blockchain has unique strengths, but moving assets or information between them has traditionally required third-party bridges or centralized exchanges.
This fragmentation often creates unnecessary complexity for users and developers alike.
The Problems Caused by Blockchain Silos
1. Fragmented Liquidity
Liquidity scattered across multiple blockchains reduces capital efficiency. Instead of one unified financial ecosystem, liquidity is divided among separate networks, making markets less efficient.
2. Poor User Experience
Managing several wallets, switching networks, paying different gas fees, and learning multiple interfaces discourages mainstream adoption.
3. Limited Application Potential
Developers often build applications for a single blockchain, restricting access to users and liquidity from other ecosystems.
4. Security Risks
Traditional cross-chain bridges have become attractive targets for hackers. Billions of dollars have been lost through bridge exploits over the past several years, highlighting the need for more secure interoperability solutions.
The Rise of Blockchain Interoperability
Instead of competing in isolation, blockchain ecosystems are increasingly embracing interoperability—the ability for different blockchains to communicate securely.
Modern interoperability solutions aim to allow:
- Cross-chain asset transfers
- Cross-chain messaging
- Shared liquidity
- Multi-chain smart contract execution
- Unified user experiences
Rather than forcing users to choose one blockchain, interoperability allows them to benefit from many simultaneously.
Technologies Driving the End of Silos
Cross-Chain Messaging
Instead of merely transferring tokens, cross-chain messaging enables smart contracts on one blockchain to trigger actions on another.
This opens the door to far more sophisticated decentralized applications.
Interoperability Protocols
Dedicated interoperability layers provide standardized communication between independent blockchains.
These protocols reduce fragmentation while allowing each network to maintain its own security and governance.
Chain Abstraction
One of the biggest emerging trends is chain abstraction.
Instead of asking users to manually manage networks, wallets, bridges, and gas tokens, applications handle the complexity behind the scenes.
Users simply interact with the application while the infrastructure determines the optimal blockchain for each transaction.
Intent-Based Architecture
Intent-based systems allow users to specify their desired outcome rather than manually executing every blockchain interaction.
For example:
Instead of bridging tokens, swapping assets, and staking manually, a user simply requests:
“Stake my stablecoins in the highest-yield lending protocol.”
The protocol automatically completes every required cross-chain action.
Benefits of an Interoperable Future
Better Capital Efficiency
Assets can move freely across ecosystems, creating deeper liquidity and more efficient markets.
Improved User Experience
Users no longer need to understand every blockchain’s technical details. Applications become as simple as traditional fintech apps.
More Powerful Applications
Developers gain access to users, assets, and services across multiple chains, enabling richer decentralized applications.
Greater Ecosystem Collaboration
Instead of competing for users, blockchain networks can specialize while remaining connected through shared infrastructure.
Challenges That Still Need Solving
Although interoperability has advanced significantly, several challenges remain.
Security
Cross-chain infrastructure must maintain strong security guarantees without introducing centralized trust assumptions.
Standardization
The industry still lacks universal standards for messaging, identity, and asset transfers across every blockchain.
Scalability
As interoperability grows, systems must efficiently process increasing volumes of cross-chain communication.
Governance
Coordinating upgrades across multiple decentralized ecosystems remains a complex challenge.
What This Means for DeFi
The end of blockchain silos could dramatically reshape decentralized finance.
Future DeFi platforms may automatically source liquidity from multiple chains, optimize yields across ecosystems, and execute transactions wherever conditions are most favorable—all without requiring users to manually bridge assets or switch networks.
This could make decentralized finance significantly more accessible to everyday users while improving efficiency for institutional participants.
Beyond DeFi: A Unified Web3
Interoperability extends far beyond finance.
Potential applications include:
- Cross-chain gaming assets
- Portable digital identities
- Interoperable NFTs
- Multi-chain DAOs
- Unified social networks
- Enterprise blockchain integration
- AI agents coordinating across decentralized ecosystems
Rather than existing as separate blockchain islands, these services could operate within one connected Web3 ecosystem.
Conclusion
The next phase of blockchain evolution isn’t about finding a single “winning” blockchain—it’s about enabling all blockchains to work together.
As interoperability protocols, chain abstraction, and intent-based systems mature, users may no longer need to think about which blockchain they’re using. Just as internet users rarely consider which servers deliver a website, future Web3 users may simply interact with applications while the underlying infrastructure seamlessly coordinates across multiple networks.
The end of blockchain silos represents more than a technical milestone. It marks the transition from isolated blockchain ecosystems to a truly interconnected decentralized internet—one where assets, applications, and information flow freely across networks, unlocking the full potential of Web3.
REQUEST AN ARTICLE
U.S.-linked wallets appear to be the largest political trading group on Polymarket’s global platform, even though the platform lists the United States as a blocked country.
Summary
- U.S.-linked wallets dominate Polymarket political trading despite geoblocks, according to new Allium on-chain research findings.
- Researchers say offshore activity raises fresh oversight questions as prediction markets face tougher global controls.
- Polymarket restrictions list the United States as blocked, but demand appears to continue offshore globally.
Blockchain data firm Allium said in a July 3 report that the U.S. was the biggest national political market by contracts traded among wallets it could link to a country.
The firm said its data covered only about 6% of wallets with country tags, so the results should be treated as directional. Still, Allium said the pattern was clear enough to show that US demand did not disappear after access blocks. “Blocking access did not end U.S. participation,” the report said. It added that activity had moved offshore and outside direct U.S. oversight.
Geoblocks face fresh questions
Polymarket’s own geographic restriction page says the platform is unavailable in the United States and other blocked countries. It also says users must not use VPNs or similar tools to bypass location rules. The page lists 33 fully blocked countries, along with several regions where trading is not allowed.
That policy traces back to earlier U.S. enforcement. In 2022, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission ordered Polymarket to pay a $1.4 million civil penalty and wind down markets that did not comply with US rules. The platform later developed a separate U.S.-regulated product, while the global platform continued to block U.S. users.
Trading patterns point to politics and conflict
Allium said U.S.-linked wallets on Polymarket showed more interest in foreign conflict markets than the wider platform. Five of the top 12 markets by notional volume for the U.S.-linked group related to the Iran war, according to the report. “U.S. money pours into foreign wars,” Allium said, while adding that U.S.-linked traders showed less interest in election markets.
A separate analysis by Rutgers statistician Harry Crane reached a similar view in June. Crane estimated that U.S. users may account for about 30% of total Polymarket volume by studying sports preferences and trading times. His work said Polymarket’s activity pattern looked global, but still showed a large U.S. share.
Rules tighten as markets grow
The report comes as prediction markets face wider regulatory pressure. As crypto.news reported, the CFTC is preparing new prediction market rules that could affect Polymarket and Kalshi. The proposed review process would give regulators more tools to assess event contracts tied to politics, sports, and real-world events.
Previously, crypto.news reported that Spain moved to block Polymarket and Kalshi over gambling license concerns. That action followed similar blocks or restrictions in several other countries. As crypto.news reported in May, Polymarket also said it had no plan to require mandatory KYC on its main global market, even as legal and sanctions pressure increased.
The latest Allium report adds a new point to that debate. If U.S. users still reach global markets despite geoblocks, regulators may ask whether location controls can work at scale. For Polymarket, the data may add pressure at a time when the platform is also dealing with security concerns, including a recent $2.9 million frontend theft that led to promised user refunds.
The issue also puts Polymarket’s split model under closer review. Its U.S.-regulated platform offers a narrower product set, while global markets still draw interest from users who appear to be in blocked regions. That gap may become harder to defend if more data show steady activity from restricted jurisdictions.
US users remain the most active force behind Polymarket’s political prediction markets, even after the platform moved to geoblock Americans from its global, decentralized service. New analysis from blockchain research firm Allium finds that the United States is the largest single country for political contracts on Polymarket when measured by trading volume and wallet participation—suggesting the demand simply shifted outside formal US oversight.
The findings add another layer to the regulatory and compliance challenges surrounding Polymarket, which has already faced scrutiny from US authorities and was compelled to restrict access under a settlement with the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) in 2022.
Key takeaways
- Allium’s report ranks the US as Polymarket’s biggest political market by both contracts traded and wallet count.
- Despite access restrictions, the study argues that US demand did not disappear—it moved offshore.
- US traders appear more drawn to foreign conflict-related markets, with Iran-war themes dominating the top US markets by volume.
- Election-focused markets attract less US participation on the global Polymarket, where such markets are comparatively more prominent on Kalshi and Polymarket US.
- Independent research has previously estimated a large share of Polymarket activity originates from the US, even with geoblocking and VPN countermeasures.
US activity persists after Polymarket’s geoblock
Allium’s analysis, published on Thursday, estimates that US-based users form the largest single political crowd on Polymarket across all countries it tracks. The report emphasizes that this is based on tagged wallets—specifically, the 6% of wallets Allium could associate with a country—so the figures are directional rather than definitive.
Still, Allium frames the result as a clear outcome of Polymarket’s restrictions. Blocking access, the firm argues, did not stop US participation; instead, it concentrated it into a way that makes the US look even larger by volume within the offshore-access model.
“Blocking access did not end US participation; it made the US the largest single political market on Polymarket by volume,” the report said. “The demand is still there, now offshore and beyond US oversight.”
This is an important distinction for investors and market participants watching the political prediction market space: the restriction regime may be affecting where and how US users participate, but it has not eliminated US influence over global outcome bets.
Foreign conflict markets draw more US bets than elections
Allium’s breakdown suggests that US participants disproportionately favor foreign conflict-related topics. In the report’s assessment, five of the top 12 markets for US users by notional volume relate to the Iran war.
At the same time, US interest in election-related markets appears comparatively weaker on Polymarket’s global platform. Allium notes that election markets are a category that is allowed on Kalshi and Polymarket US—meaning the global audience’s incentives and the market landscape may differ from what US users most actively trade.
“US money pours into foreign wars, lately Iran, and largely skips the elections the global crowd trades,” said Allium.
For readers tracking adoption and behavior in prediction markets, the takeaway is not just who is trading, but what they are trading. If US demand continues to show up most strongly in geopolitical risk and away from election positioning, that may shape how liquidity, volatility, and information demand evolve across the different platforms.
Polymarket US vs. the global platform: restrictions and regulatory pressure
Allium’s report also clarifies an often-confused distinction: Polymarket US is a US-regulated platform launched in December and offers a narrower selection of markets. The research discussed here concerns the global Polymarket environment, where access was curtailed for US users.
Polymarket was forced to cut off US users from its global platform as part of a $1.4 million settlement with the CFTC in 2022. That enforcement backdrop has continued to cast a spotlight on how prediction market operators handle jurisdictional boundaries and user verification.
Cointelegraph previously reported that US policy makers and regulators have raised concerns about Polymarket, including issues connected to its marketing and compliance approach. Those broader concerns remain relevant in light of Allium’s findings that US involvement has not gone away—only changed form.
Evidence from other researchers: US share remains large
Allium’s results align with an earlier study by Rutgers University statistician Harry Crane. In a June publication, Crane estimated that 30% of Polymarket trading volume comes from the US, despite Polymarket blocking US-based IP addresses and VPNs that can be used to bypass geofencing.
Crane’s analysis estimated that US-based traders sent between $10.6 billion and $26.7 billion through Polymarket between May 2025 and April 2026. The researcher tied activity to likely US participants by comparing trade timing and the specific markets where trades occurred.
There have also been reports that Polymarket has moved to clamp down on VPN usage by blocking certain IP addresses associated with VPN services, reinforcing the idea that the company is actively attempting to reduce circumvention. However, the existence of US-heavy participation in outcome bets—whether directly or via offshore access—suggests countermeasures may not be fully effective.
Where Polymarket is blocked and where it is “close only”
Geographic restrictions are not limited to the United States. Polymarket is completely blocked in more than 34 countries, with Spain cited as the latest example where authorities took action as a “precautionary measure” while investigating whether the companies are operating without necessary licensing.
In an additional tier, four countries—including Singapore, Thailand, Taiwan, and Poland—operate under “close only” rules. In those jurisdictions, users can close existing positions but cannot open new trades.
Polymarket also maintains restricted regions within countries, according to published information: Ontario in Canada, and Crimea, Donetsk, and Luhansk in Ukraine, where Polymarket is blocked locally but remains accessible elsewhere in the same nation.
These layers of access—complete blocks, close-only allowances, and region-level restrictions—highlight how uneven enforcement and licensing frameworks can be across jurisdictions. For traders, it means the practical reach of a prediction market can remain broader than what top-line policy statements might suggest.
Going forward, the key question is how Polymarket will adapt its geoblocking and compliance tooling as scrutiny grows. Readers should watch whether enforcement tightens enough to materially change participation patterns—or whether US influence continues to reappear offshore in ways that keep global political markets effectively driven by the same demand.
CFTC Chair Michael Selig criticized Illinois lawmakers over a new 0.2% tax on crypto transactions, saying the state had moved against financial technology at the wrong time.
Summary
- Illinois’ 0.2% crypto tax drew sharp CFTC criticism before its planned 2027 start date.
- The law requires broker registration, monthly reports, and tax collection on covered digital asset activity.
- Federal crypto tax and market structure talks are moving while Illinois pursues its own rule.
In a July 1 statement, Selig said Illinois lawmakers “slammed the brakes on technological progress” when they approved the measure.
The tax forms part of Illinois’ fiscal 2027 budget and is set to take effect on Jan. 1, 2027. It applies to certain digital asset activity carried out by brokers, including exchange, transfer, custody, and wallet services. The rule has drawn criticism from crypto firms, policy groups, and some market figures.
Selig says state risks falling behind
Selig said blockchains could change how value moves across markets, much as the internet changed how information moves. He argued that tokenized assets may cover commodities, currencies, stocks, and bonds. His statement said Illinois could place residents and businesses at a disadvantage if the state taxes crypto transfers differently from other financial activity.
The CFTC chair also said Illinois lawmakers “decided they know better” than federal lawmakers working on crypto market rules. His comments came as Washington continues to review market structure bills, tax proposals, and agency roles. The remarks show a growing split between state-level tax policy and federal efforts to set national digital asset rules.
Brokers face new duties
Illinois’ Digital Asset Tax Act requires brokers to register with the Illinois Department of Revenue before covered activity begins. Brokers must collect the tax as a separate line item and file monthly reports on covered digital asset activity.
The law can also reach firms outside Illinois if they serve users in the state. Tax advisers have said customer records, mailing addresses, IP addresses, and other data may help decide whether activity falls under Illinois rules. That has raised questions about how exchanges, wallet firms, and custody providers will track and apply the tax in practice.
Industry criticism grows
Previously, crypto.news reported that Strategy co-founder Michael Saylor called the Illinois tax a “Big Mistake” after Governor JB Pritzker signed the budget. Industry groups also warned that the law could raise costs for users and push crypto firms away from the state.
Some critics have focused on the design of the tax. They argue that it applies to activity itself, not only to profits or capital gains. Others have raised concerns about routine wallet transfers, broker reporting systems, and whether the rule treats digital assets differently from stocks, bonds, or derivatives.
Federal talks add pressure
The Illinois dispute comes while Congress reviews broader crypto tax rules. As previously reported, lawmakers have split the Digital Asset PARITY Act into seven tax discussion drafts covering stablecoin payments, mining, staking, lending, wash-sale rules, charitable donations, and disclosure duties.
Moreover, Federal agencies are also reviewing crypto market rules. The SEC and CFTC opened a joint rules review covering derivatives, margining, and market structure questions. Against that backdrop, Selig’s criticism frames the Illinois tax as a state-level move that may clash with wider federal attempts to build clearer rules for digital assets.
Microsoft is investing $2.5 billion in a new operating business that embeds 6,000 engineers and industry experts directly inside enterprise customers to build and run AI systems.
The company, called Microsoft Frontier Company, launched on Thursday. It ties its work to measurable business results.
How the Microsoft Frontier Company Works and Who Runs It
The unit delivers what Microsoft calls Frontier Transformation. Experts embed with customers to co-design, deploy, and continuously improve AI systems at scale.
Follow us on X to get the latest news as it happens
Judson Althoff, CEO of Microsoft’s Commercial Business, positioned the effort beyond standard industry practice. He argued it combines deep industry knowledge with enterprise AI engineering.
“This goes beyond what has been labeled as Forward-Deployed Engineering, and will be the largest, most capable, outcome-driven engineering organization in the industry,” he said.
Microsoft Frontier Company will include salespeople, support staff, technical consultants, and forward-deployed engineers already at the company, many with experience in specific industries, CNBC reported.
The company stressed that customers keep control of their own intelligence. It pledged that client data will not be used to train models in ways that erode a customer’s competitive edge.
The platform also stays model-diverse. Customers can run models from OpenAI, Anthropic, Microsoft, open source, or specialized industry options for each task. Rodrigo Kede Lima will serve as president of the new organization.
Microsoft Enters a Crowded AI Deployment Race
The launch puts Microsoft in a fast-growing market. Rivals have moved quickly to sell hands-on AI deployment, not just tools.
Amazon Web Services committed $1 billion to its own deployment venture two days earlier. Both OpenAI and Anthropic also launched their own deployment ventures in May.
The OpenAI Deployment Company is a standalone entity backed by more than $4 billion in funding. Anthropic teamed up with Goldman Sachs, Blackstone, and Hellman & Friedman on a $1.5 billion venture to deploy Anthropic’s Claude AI model directly inside businesses.
Subscribe to our YouTube channel to watch leaders and journalists provide expert insights
The post Microsoft Commits $2.5 Billion to New AI Deployment Business appeared first on BeInCrypto.
Binance has moved a step closer to returning to the Philippine market after the country’s Securities and Exchange Commission granted final approval for its local partner BlockShoals Technologies to begin regulatory sandbox testing.
Summary
- The Philippine SEC has granted final sandbox approval to BlockShoals, moving Binance closer to a regulated return to the local market.
- BlockShoals will complete a 90 day integration with a licensed local provider before Binance backed user onboarding begins.
- The approval covers SEC sandbox testing, while separate BSP licensing requirements for crypto services remain in place.
In a post on X, Binance co-founder and Chief Customer Service Officer Yi He said the exchange had officially entered the Philippine market, while an accompanying SEC document showed that BlockShoals Technologies Inc. had received final approval to launch financial product and service testing under the Commission’s Strategic Regulatory Sandbox (Stratbox) framework.
SEC approves sandbox rollout
Under the approval, BlockShoals will operate using a crypto-asset intermediary model that allows users in the Philippines to access selected products and services through its global crypto-asset service provider partner, Binance.
The SEC document stated that BlockShoals must first complete system integration with a local virtual asset service provider during an initial 90-day phase before proceeding with the approved testing program.
Once that integration is completed, the testing plan will move forward under regulatory oversight and applicable safeguards, including user registration and onboarding through Binance as its global CASP partner, according to the SEC approval.
The final approval follows the SEC’s earlier clearance of BlockShoals’ Stratbox application in November 2025, after the company fulfilled the remaining regulatory requirements set by the Commission.
BSP licensing question remains
The latest SEC approval comes weeks after the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas clarified that neither Binance nor BlockShoals currently holds a Virtual Asset Service Provider license required for certain crypto payment and transaction services.
As previously reported by crypto.news, the BSP said participation in the SEC’s Stratbox program does not replace the need for a separate central bank license because the two regulators oversee different parts of the country’s financial sector. The central bank also noted that BlockShoals would need to integrate with a licensed domestic VASP before onboarding users through Binance’s infrastructure could begin.
While Yi He described the development as Binance’s official entry into the Philippines, the SEC approval itself authorizes BlockShoals to begin sandbox testing and identifies Binance as its global CASP partner. The document does not state that Binance has obtained a Philippine VASP license.
Binance has been working to strengthen its regulatory position in several jurisdictions. On July 1, the exchange told affected European Union users that withdrawals and other account options would remain available as MiCA-related service changes took effect, while it continued pursuing authorization to operate under the bloc’s new crypto rules.
Bitcoin price has rebounded above $60,000 after easing oil prices and softer U.S. macro expectations lifted risk appetite, though persistent ETF outflows continue to threaten the recovery.
Summary
- Bitcoin price has reclaimed $60,000 as easing oil prices and improving macro sentiment triggered a relief rally.
- Persistent U.S. spot Bitcoin ETF outflows continue to weigh on institutional demand despite the rebound.
- Technical charts show room for further gains above $61,000, but failure to hold $60,000 could revive selling pressure.
According to data from crypto.news, Bitcoin (BTC) price climbed from a low near $58,300 to around $60,600 over the past 24 hours as investors responded to softer inflation expectations and improving sentiment across global markets.
Risk assets also benefited from progress in indirect U.S.-Iran talks, while Brent crude slipped below $71 a barrel after oil shipments through the Strait of Hormuz accelerated and concerns over supply disruptions eased. Lower energy prices reduced inflation worries, giving cryptocurrencies room to recover after June’s sharp sell-off.
The rebound comes after one of Bitcoin’s weakest months in recent years. U.S. spot Bitcoin ETFs recorded another $294.6 million in net outflows on July 1 after losing $222.6 million, $231.1 million and $444.5 million during the previous three sessions, extending a streak of institutional withdrawals that has removed billions of dollars from the sector in recent weeks. Those redemptions have continued to offset improving macro sentiment by forcing ETF issuers to sell underlying Bitcoin into the market.
Federal Reserve policy also remains a key obstacle. Although traders welcomed recent dovish remarks, interest rates remain elevated, and expectations for policy easing have been pushed further into the future. Higher Treasury yields continue to compete with non-yielding assets such as Bitcoin, while institutional capital has increasingly flowed toward U.S. technology and artificial intelligence stocks instead of digital assets.
Bitcoin must reclaim $62.7K and $65K to strengthen the recovery
Bitcoin’s 1-day chart shows price rebounding from the 100% Fibonacci retracement near $57,826 after briefly testing the lower boundary of a multi-month decline. The recovery has lifted RSI from deeply oversold territory to around 40, suggesting selling pressure has eased without yet confirming a trend reversal.
Even after reclaiming $60,000, Bitcoin continues to trade below all key moving averages clustered between roughly $62,400 and $75,100, leaving major resistance overhead.
The 4-hour chart paints a more constructive short-term picture. Bitcoin has reclaimed the Supertrend support near $57,700 while the Aroon Up reading has climbed above 78%, with Aroon Down slipping below 43%, suggesting buyers have regained short-term control after the late-June washout.
Bitcoin price has also returned above psychological support at $60,000, though sustained buying will still be needed to challenge resistance around $61,000 before the larger moving-average cluster comes into view.
Derivatives positioning shows traders remain heavily focused on nearby liquidation levels. CoinGlass’ 24-hour heatmap highlights dense short liquidation clusters between $61,000 and $61,800, suggesting a move through that range could accelerate buying as bearish positions are forced to close. On the downside, equally large long liquidation pockets sit around $59,500 and $58,000, creating potential downside magnets if Bitcoin loses its recent gains.
According to analyst Ted Pillows, the latest advance should still be treated cautiously.
“This is just a relief rally, which often happens after a 30% crash. Bitcoin’s key levels are $62,700 and $65,000, which must be reclaimed for another lower high before a new cycle low.”
Commenting on the shorter-term setup, analyst Altcoin Sherpa noted that Bitcoin looks constructive on lower time frames while price remains above current support, although he added that he would not feel confident until Bitcoin decisively breaks above $65,000 on higher-time-frame charts.
ETF selling and macro risks could quickly reverse the recovery
Several downside risks continue to threaten Bitcoin’s rebound. Continued spot ETF redemptions remain the most immediate concern, particularly if institutional demand fails to return after June’s record wave of outflows. Corporate developments have also weighed on sentiment after Strategy revised its capital policy to permit token sales, raising concerns that one of Bitcoin’s largest corporate holders could eventually add supply to the market.
Macro and geopolitical uncertainty also remain unresolved. While oil prices have retreated on improving U.S.-Iran negotiations, any disruption to talks or renewed tensions around the Strait of Hormuz could quickly push energy prices higher and revive inflation concerns.
On the technical side, failure to defend the $60,000 area would expose the $59,500 and $58,000 liquidation zones, while a break below June’s low near $57,800 would invalidate the current relief rally and reopen the path toward fresh cycle lows.
Disclosure: This article does not represent investment advice. The content and materials featured on this page are for educational purposes only.
Crypto’s Positive June Average Masked an 82% Decline Across Top Assets
World Cup 2026: Manzambi's brilliance guides Switzerland past Algeria
‘Football fan’ extremist, 19, who bought a gun and looked to target Old Trafford and Manchester Arena is jailed
-
Fashion6 days agoWeekend Open Thread: Staud – Corporette.com
-
Politics7 days agoThe House | Manchesterism won’t survive the painful trade-offs unless it gets citizens on board
-
Crypto World3 days agoStrategy authorizes up to $1.25B in Bitcoin sales under new capital plan
-
Business7 days agoAsia stock markets slide as tech shares slump
-
News Videos4 days agoMAJOR BITCOIN & MARKET UPDATE!!!! (MUST WATCH ASAP!!!)
-
Tech3 days agoAnonymous researcher drops 0-day ‘exploitarium’ repo
-
Crypto World6 days agoCoinbase, Circle Deepen Crypto Stock Losses Despite Resilient S&P 500
-
Business3 days agoAustralia treasurer says alleged access of prime minister’s bank data ’incredibly concerning’
-
Crypto World6 days agoKraken's xStocks Opens Bending Spoons IPO Registration to EEA Retail
-
Sports6 days agoFIH Pro League: India defeat Pakistan 7-1, register biggest win of campaign | Other Sports News
-
Tech5 days agoBluekit phishing kit adopts browser-in-the-middle for login theft
-
Crypto World7 days agoTether (USDT) Passes Ether in Market Cap as ETH Drops Toward $1.5K
-
Crypto World7 days agoHyperliquid Named on Singapore MAS Investor Alert Register
-
Tech6 days agoRussian hackers now target Signal backup recovery keys
-
Crypto World7 days agoRTX holders must register wallets before token distribution begins
-
Sports2 days agoBroncos roster: OL Ben Powers (No. 74) entering final year of contract
-
Business3 days agoThe AI boom won’t burst all at once. It will pop in ‘rolling bubbles’: Macquarie
-
Tech5 days agoClaude Code turned every engineer into three. Now companies need more product thinkers
-
Crypto World7 days agoSpaceX Called a Market Top Signal Just 2 Weeks After Its $86 Billion IPO
-
Tech5 days agoSilicon Valley paid to kill AI regulation, now it wants the rules back
You must be logged in to post a comment Login