Crypto World
What is a token burn? How buyback-and-burn works
Burning a token means destroying it on purpose, sending it to an address no one can open. Paired with a buyback, it becomes one of the most common tools a crypto project uses to manage supply and defend its price.
Summary
- A token burn permanently removes coins from circulation by sending them to a burn address, a wallet with no private key that can receive tokens but never send them, making the destruction irreversible and verifiable on-chain.
- Buyback-and-burn combines two steps: a project uses revenue or reserves to buy its own token on the open market, then burns what it bought, converting earnings into a permanent supply cut.
- The goal is scarcity. Fewer tokens spread across the same or growing demand can support the price, though a burn does nothing on its own if demand falls faster than supply.
- The idea comes from stock buybacks in traditional finance, but with a key difference: repurchased shares are usually held and can be reissued, while burned tokens are gone forever.
- Burns can also mislead, since a team can send tokens to a wallet it controls and call it a burn, so verifying the burn address and the on-chain record matters more than the announcement.
A token burn is one of the simplest ideas in crypto and one of the most misunderstood.
At its core, burning means destroying tokens on purpose, taking them out of circulation for good. Projects do it to shrink supply, and shrinking supply, all else equal, is meant to support the value of what remains. When a burn is paired with a buyback, where the project spends money to buy its own token before destroying it, the combination becomes a recurring engine that turns revenue into scarcity. This guide explains how a burn actually works, what buyback-and-burn does, how it compares with a stock buyback, why projects use it, and where it can mislead.
What a token burn actually is
Start with the mechanics, because they are more literal than the word suggests.
Nothing is set on fire. A token burn is a transaction that sends tokens to a burn address, also called an eater address or a null address, which is a wallet designed so that tokens can go in but never come out. A normal wallet has a private key, the secret that authorizes moving its contents. A burn address has no known private key, so anything sent to it is locked forever. Common examples include addresses that end in a long string of zeros or the recognizable “dead” address on Ethereum-style chains, and the so-called blackhole address on the BNB Chain.
Because blockchains are public, every burn is visible and permanent. Anyone can look up a burn address, see exactly how many tokens have been sent to it, and confirm they have left circulation. That transparency is part of the appeal: a burn is a provable, irreversible reduction in supply, not a promise. Once the tokens arrive at the burn address, the maximum and circulating supply figures for the project drop accordingly, and no team, exchange, or court can reverse it.
The permanence is the whole point. A burn is a one-way door. That is what separates it from simply moving tokens to storage, and it is why the burn address matters so much: if the destination can ever send tokens back, it was never a real burn.
What buyback-and-burn adds
A plain burn destroys tokens the project already holds. Buyback-and-burn adds a first step that makes the mechanism self-sustaining: the project spends money to buy its own token on the open market, then sends what it bought to the burn address. The two actions together turn a stream of income into a steady, permanent supply cut.
The buyback half matters for two reasons. First, it creates real buy-side demand, since the project is competing with everyone else to purchase the token, which can support the price directly through the purchase itself. Second, it ties the supply reduction to the project’s actual performance, because the more revenue a protocol generates, the more it can buy and burn. A well-designed program scales with success: rising fees mean more tokens bought and destroyed, which tightens supply exactly when the network is growing.
The funding source is the detail that separates a durable program from a marketing stunt. Buybacks paid for out of genuine protocol revenue or fees are sustainable, because they draw on money the network actually earns. Buybacks paid from a treasury or from external fundraising are finite, because that reserve can run dry. When you evaluate a buyback-and-burn, the first question is always where the money comes from.
Buyback-and-burn versus a stock buyback
The concept is borrowed from traditional finance, where public companies repurchase their own shares, so the comparison is worth drawing precisely. In a stock buyback, a company buys its shares on the market and absorbs them, reducing the number outstanding. This lifts earnings per share and can support the price, and it is a familiar way to return capital to shareholders.
The crucial difference is what happens next. Repurchased shares are usually held in the company treasury, where they can be reissued later for compensation, acquisitions, or fresh capital raises. They are removed from the float, but not necessarily destroyed. A token burn goes further: the bought-back tokens are sent to the burn address and can never return. The supply cut is absolute, not a temporary parking of shares that management could undo.
There is a second difference around certainty. Corporate buybacks are discretionary, decided by management and subject to change, so investors cannot be sure a program will continue. Many crypto buyback-and-burn programs run on pre-programmed smart contracts, which execute automatically according to fixed rules, removing the discretion. When a burn is coded into the protocol, holders can verify it will happen instead of trusting that it will. That automation and permanence are what crypto added to the old idea.
Why projects burn tokens
The headline reason is supply and demand. If the number of tokens falls while demand stays flat or grows, basic economics points toward upward pressure on price, because the same value is spread across fewer units. A burn is a lever on the supply side of that equation, and projects reach for it to support the value of the tokens still in circulation.
There are other motivations layered on top. A burn is a signal: a team spending real money to buy and destroy its token communicates confidence and a commitment to holders, which can improve sentiment beyond the mechanical supply effect. Burns also offset inflation. Many tokens issue new supply continuously to reward validators, stakers, or liquidity providers, and a burn can counteract that issuance, keeping net supply flat or even negative so that the rewards do not dilute holders into the ground. A project that emits new tokens and burns an equal or greater amount can market itself as deflationary, which many investors prize.
Finally, burns can serve housekeeping purposes: removing unsold tokens after a sale, correcting an oversupply from an early distribution, or cleaning up tokenomics that were set too loose at launch. In each case the underlying logic is the same, which is to bring supply into a healthier relationship with demand.
A worked example
Numbers make the mechanism concrete. Imagine a project with a circulating supply of 1 billion tokens trading at $0.10, giving a market cap of $100 million. The protocol earns fees and commits a portion to buyback-and-burn. Over a quarter, it uses revenue to buy 100 million tokens on the open market and sends them all to the burn address.
Two things happen. During the quarter, the buying itself adds demand, which tends to support or lift the price as the program competes for tokens. After the burn, the circulating supply drops from 1 billion to 900 million, a 10% reduction. If demand and market cap held steady at $100 million, the price per token would rise from $0.10 to about $0.111, because the same total value now divides across fewer coins. If demand also grew over the period, the effect compounds.
The example also shows the limit. If, over that same quarter, holders lost confidence and demand fell so that the market cap dropped to $81 million, the price would sit near $0.09 even after the burn, lower than where it started. The burn cut supply by 10%, but demand fell further, and price follows the balance of the two. A burn improves the supply side; it cannot rescue a token whose demand is collapsing.
Types of burn programs
Not all burns are the same, and the distinctions matter when you assess one. The first split is burn versus treasury buyback. A buyback-and-burn destroys the repurchased tokens permanently. A treasury buyback purchases tokens on the market but keeps them in the project treasury, where they remain outstanding and could be redeployed for incentives or investment later. Only the burn permanently reduces supply; the treasury version reduces the float temporarily.
The second split is the funding source. Revenue-funded and fee-funded burns draw on money the protocol actually earns, so they scale with adoption and are the most sustainable. Treasury-funded and externally funded burns draw on finite reserves and cannot continue indefinitely. The third split is manual versus automatic. Manual burns are decided by a team or a governance vote, offering flexibility but requiring trust. Automatic burns run on smart contracts at fixed intervals or thresholds, offering predictability that holders can verify.
A fourth category worth separating out is the fee burn, where a protocol destroys a portion of every transaction fee instead of buying tokens back. This is a different mechanism from buyback-and-burn, since there is no purchase step, but it achieves a similar deflationary effect by removing tokens with each use of the network. Knowing which type you are looking at tells you how durable and how trustworthy the supply reduction really is.
Notable examples
The most cited program is the one that popularized the model. The largest exchange token runs a quarterly buyback-and-burn funded by a share of exchange profits, with a stated goal of shrinking its supply substantially over time, and each burn is documented and verifiable on-chain. It became the template that many other projects copied.
More recent designs push the mechanism further. Some trading platforms route the large majority of their protocol fees into an on-chain fund that continuously buys and burns the native token, so the burn is tied directly to real usage and scales automatically with volume. Meme tokens have run burn campaigns that destroy a set portion of profits or a fixed amount into a public burn wallet, using the burns partly as a community rallying point. And some base-layer networks burn a portion of every transaction fee at the protocol level, so that heavy network use can make the token deflationary during busy periods. Each of these illustrates a different funding source and trigger, but all rest on the same core idea of provable supply reduction.
When burns mislead
This is the part that matters most for protecting yourself, because a burn is easy to fake in appearance if not in substance. The most common trick is a team announcing a burn while sending tokens to a wallet it secretly controls rather than to a true burn address. Nothing is destroyed; the tokens are simply moved, and they can be sold later. Verifying that the destination is a genuine, keyless burn address, and not just an unfamiliar wallet, is the difference between a real burn and theater.
Burns can also be used to hide concentration. A project might burn tokens to make the remaining distribution look less concentrated, masking how much supply a few insiders still hold. And burns are sometimes deployed purely as marketing, timed to generate a price pop and attention rather than to reflect any sustainable program, with no revenue behind them and no plan to continue. A large one-time burn with no ongoing funding is a very different thing from a revenue-funded program that runs every quarter.
The deeper limitation is the one the worked example showed: scarcity is not value. Reducing supply supports price only if demand holds. A token with a shrinking supply and no users, no utility, and no demand will still decline because there is nothing on the other side of the equation. A burn is a tool, and like any tool it can be used well, used carelessly, or used to deceive. The on-chain record, the funding source, and the presence of real demand are what separate the three.
Burns versus locks and vesting
One of the most useful habits when you read tokenomics is separating a burn from the mechanisms that only look like supply reduction. A burn permanently removes tokens. A lockup and a vesting schedule do something very different: they delay when tokens reach the market without removing them at all. Confusing the three is a common way to misjudge how much real supply pressure a token faces.
A lockup holds tokens in a contract that releases them at a set time. Team allocations, investor allocations, and rewards are often locked for months or years, which keeps them out of circulation for now but not forever. When the lock ends, those tokens unlock and can be sold, adding supply exactly when the schedule dictates. Vesting is the same idea spread over time, releasing a locked allocation in steady increments instead of all at once. Neither reduces the eventual supply; both simply push it into the future. A token can look tight today and face heavy unlocks next quarter, and only reading the vesting schedule reveals it.
A burn is the opposite. The tokens are gone, so they can never unlock, never vest, and never hit the market. That permanence is why a burn and an unlock are worth watching together: a project might burn a headline number while a far larger allocation sits waiting to vest, so the net supply is still climbing. The burn grabs attention; the unlock schedule determines what actually happens to supply. A serious read of any token weighs burns against pending unlocks to see where net supply is heading, not just at the burned figure in isolation.
There is a further wrinkle around circulating versus total supply. A burn reduces both, since destroyed tokens leave the maximum forever. A lockup reduces circulating supply for now but leaves total supply unchanged, because the tokens still exist and will circulate later. Projects sometimes lean on the lower circulating figure to make a token look scarcer than it is, while a large locked allocation waits in the background.
Checking total supply and the unlock calendar alongside any burn is what keeps you from mistaking a delay for a reduction.
The practical takeaway is a short checklist. When a project touts a burn, confirm the tokens went to a real burn address, find the funding source behind it, and then look at what is locked and vesting on the other side of the ledger. A revenue-funded burn running against a light unlock schedule is a genuinely tightening supply. A one-time burn running against heavy upcoming unlocks is a headline masking the opposite. The burn is only half the picture, and the locks and vesting are the half that projects prefer you skip.
Frequently Asked Questions
What does it mean to burn a token?
Burning a token means permanently removing it from circulation by sending it to a burn address, a wallet with no private key that can receive tokens but never send them. Because the address cannot be opened, the tokens are locked forever. Every burn is recorded on the blockchain, so anyone can verify that the supply has been reduced.
What is a burn address?
A burn address, also called an eater or null address, is a wallet with no known private key. Normal wallets use a private key to authorize moving funds, but a burn address lacks one, so any tokens sent to it can never be moved again. Common examples include addresses ending in many zeros or a recognizable “dead” address, and the blackhole address on some chains.
How does buyback-and-burn work?
Buyback-and-burn is a two-step process. First, the project uses revenue or reserves to buy its own token on the open market, which adds real buying demand. Second, it sends the tokens it bought to a burn address, permanently reducing supply. Together, the steps convert the project’s income into a lasting supply cut that scales with how much revenue it generates.
How is a token burn different from a stock buyback?
A stock buyback repurchases shares and usually holds them in the company treasury, where they can be reissued later, so the reduction can be temporary. A token burn destroys the tokens at a burn address, making the supply cut permanent and irreversible. Many crypto burns also run automatically on smart contracts, while corporate buybacks are discretionary decisions by management.
Does burning tokens always raise the price?
No. A burn reduces supply, which can support the price if demand holds or grows, but it cannot lift a token whose demand is falling. If confidence drops and demand declines faster than supply, the price can fall even after a large burn. Scarcity supports value only when there is real demand on the other side of the equation.
Why do projects burn their own tokens?
Projects burn tokens to support price through scarcity, to signal confidence and commitment to holders, and to offset the new supply issued as staking or liquidity rewards, keeping the token from inflating. Burns are also used for housekeeping, such as removing unsold tokens after a sale or correcting an oversupply set at launch. The common goal is a healthier balance between supply and demand.
Can a token burn be faked?
Yes. A team can announce a burn while sending tokens to a wallet it secretly controls instead of a true burn address, so nothing is actually destroyed and the tokens can be sold later. Burns can also mask holder concentration or serve purely as marketing to spark a price pop. Verifying that the destination is a genuine keyless burn address on-chain is essential.
What is the difference between buyback-and-burn and a fee burn?
Buyback-and-burn has a purchase step: the project buys tokens on the market, then destroys them, using revenue or reserves. A fee burn has no purchase step; instead, the protocol destroys a portion of every transaction fee automatically as the network is used. Both reduce supply, but the fee burn scales directly with network activity rather than with a funded buyback program.
Disclaimer: This article is for information and educational purposes only and does not constitute financial, investment, or trading advice. Cryptocurrency prices are volatile, and mechanisms such as token burns do not guarantee any price outcome. Nothing here is a recommendation to buy or sell any asset. Always do your own research and consider consulting a licensed professional before making financial decisions.
Information is accurate as of July 1, 2026, and may change.
FuelCell Energy stock skyrocketed nearly 70% in June. Shares now trade near $36.25, powered by a decisive pivot toward the AI data center power market. The move made FCEL one of the best-performing US stocks of the month.
The rally reshaped how Wall Street values fuel-cell companies serving the booming buildout of AI infrastructure.
Why FCEL Stock Jumped 70% in June on the AI Data Center Push
FuelCell Energy (FCEL) is a Nasdaq-listed clean energy company that develops high-temperature fuel cell systems for stationary power generation.
The stock has emerged as a top play on the AI data center power crunch. Furthermore, shares now trade at $36.25 after the historic June rally.
The one-month move was remarkable in scale. FCEL delivered a 70% gain across June, according to TradingView data. Moreover, the past 5 trading days alone added another 79%, showing how much of the rally concentrated into the final week of the month.
The broader picture is even more striking. FCEL is now up 383% year-to-date in 2026. Furthermore, the stock has surged 552% across the past 12 months. Consequently, the June performance capped the company’s best quarter in more than 5 years of trading.
Follow us on X to get the latest news as it happens.
Trading volume also confirmed the shift in sentiment. Retail attention exploded, with Stocktwits message volume up 1,056% in 24 hours during the peak of the rally.
Moreover, the stock was included in the Russell 3000 index as of June 26, unlocking passive index-tracking flows.
What the AI Data Center Power Pivot Really Delivered
The AI data center pivot is the strategic shift where FCEL now targets hyperscaler power demand as its main growth engine. Over 80% of its commercial pipeline is now tied to data centers. Furthermore, the total pipeline has grown by 275% year-over-year across recent quarters.
The centerpiece deal is the Fit Energy agreement announced in June. FCEL will supply up to 380 MW of clean baseload on-site power for AI data centers. Moreover, the deal includes a deposit-backed initial order for 30 MW, with delivery slated to begin in late 2026.
Additional catalysts stacked up throughout June. The Export-Import Bank of the United States (EXIM) approved a $49 million financing package to support FCEL’s South Korea expansion. Moreover, management outlined plans to increase Torrington’s manufacturing capacity to 500 megawatts annually, with an investment of $200 to $275 million.
“$FCEL just received what I believe is the most important piece of news in the company’s history, and the stock sold off. I added. I believe this can be a 2x+ from here by EOY ($50+) The risks are obvious: • Ramp execution • Management’s ability to reach its long-term product gross margin targets (>20%) But once those questions are answered, the demand side of the story becomes very hard to ignore,” one analyst said on X.
The company reported its fiscal first quarter 2026 results in March 2026, delivering strong year-over-year revenue growth. Revenue reached $30.5 million, a 61% increase from $19.0 million in the same period last year, driven by progress on its power generation projects and its advancing data center power strategy.
Despite the top-line improvement, the company continued to face operating challenges, posting a gross loss of $5.9 million, an operating loss of $26.3 million, and a net loss per share of $0.49.
The backlog stood at $1.17 billion, slightly down from the prior year, as the company focuses on commercial momentum in carbon capture and high-efficiency fuel cell solutions to meet the growing demand for clean energy and data centers.
Subscribe to our YouTube channel to watch leaders and journalists provide expert insights.
The post This US Stock Skyrocketed 70% in June Amid the AI Data Center Pivot appeared first on BeInCrypto.
Bitcoin (BTC) has delivered a key trend change setup in the latest sign that the macro downtrend could soon reverse.
Key points:
- Bitcoin is seeing its first “perfected” TD9 indicator downtrend setup on monthly time frames since mid-2022.
- While not a “buy signal” on its own, the move marks a key inflection phase in the bear market, analysis suggests.
- RSI divergences continue to gain sway among those eyeing the final stages of the 2026 market downturn.
BTC price “perfected” TD9 setup echoes final bear-market stages
In an X post on Tuesday, analyst Tony Severino flagged a “perfected” buy signal on the TD9 indicator.
TD9 is a derivative of the Tom DeMark Sequential market timing indicator, which alerts traders to potential trend changes. Here, price triggers a notable signal when nine candles in a row close higher (in an uptrend) or lower (in a downtrend) than the closing price four candles prior.
“Bitcoin has ‘perfected’ a TD9 buy setup on the monthly,” Severino commented alongside data from TradingView.
BTC/USD one-month chart with TD9 indicator data. Source: Cointelegraph/TradingView
The setup is Bitcoin’s first in several years on monthly time frames, with the last TD9 downtrend signal coming in July 2022.
At the time, BTC/USD spent another five months ironing out its bear-market bottom, and as Severino notes, a completed TD9 setup does not “necessarily mean that the bottom is in.”
“Not a buy signal by itself. But if it holds into the close, it’s the kind of thing you pay attention to,” Tony Carrera, host of the Proof of Pain podcast, wrote in a further X post.
“TD 9s are where you stop chasing fear, zoom out, and ask: Is this where $BTC reminds everyone what happens when they think it’s dead?”
RSI divergences spark “good odds” for Bitcoin’s bullish comeback
As Cointelegraph reported, consensus among market participants still favors new macro lows coming before the bear market truly reverses.
Related: Bitcoin just $5K away from ‘best investment opportunity’ of bear market
Targets differ, with $55,000 now popular, while BTC price cycle comparisons put the current bear market at just over two-thirds complete.
By contrast, bullish divergences across multiple time frames are locking in on the relative strength index (RSI) — a classic hint that trend change is due.
“Not sure I have ever seen more confirmed and potential bullish divergence with oversold RSI on more time frames, ever,” trader, analyst and podcast host Scott Melker told X followers on Wednesday.
“Divs building over multiple time frames is my favorite signal. Good odds.”
BTC/USD one-day chart with four-hour, one-day, one-week RSI data. Source: Cointelegraph/TradingView
Robinhood has moved its blockchain testing effort into the public spotlight, announcing that its Robinhood Chain layer 2 network has launched its public mainnet. The rollout follows an earlier testnet launch in February, meaning the company ran roughly four months of testing before going live.
In its announcement on Wednesday, Robinhood said the chain—built on Arbitrum—positions itself as “AI-native” and designed to support tokenized real-world assets. The move comes as the brokerage and crypto platform broadens its on-chain ambitions alongside new and existing offerings for crypto, tokenized stocks, and decentralized finance within its wallet ecosystem.
Key takeaways
- Robinhood Chain’s public mainnet launched after testnet activity began in February, following about four months of preparation.
- The layer 2 network is built on Arbitrum and is marketed as “AI-native” and intended for real-world asset tokenization.
- Robinhood says tokenized stock products are already live in its wallet app across more than 120 countries, and it plans to add crypto trading in the UK soon.
- New decentralized lending functionality, Robinhood Earn, lets users lend USDG stablecoins from a self-custody wallet at an estimated ~7% annual yield.
- Competition among Ethereum layer 2 networks remains intense, with major ecosystems such as Base drawing attention for recent reliability incidents.
From testnet to public mainnet for Robinhood Chain
Robinhood’s blockchain strategy is now taking a concrete form with the mainnet launch of Robinhood Chain. According to the company, the network went live on testnet in February and has now been promoted to a public mainnet stage.
The chain is an Arbitrum-based L2, an architectural choice that links Robinhood’s development to a well-established ecosystem for scaling and on-chain throughput. Robinhood’s messaging around the network centers on its intended use for tokenized real-world assets, a theme that continues to anchor much of the platform’s tokenization efforts.
Notably, the mainnet launch is happening as Robinhood pushes further into both tokenized securities and DeFi products—two areas that require careful execution because they touch user protections, custody models, and compliance requirements.
Tokenized stocks, wallet access, and a UK crypto push
Alongside the mainnet news, Robinhood reiterated that its tokenized stock products are already operational. The company said these products are available through its wallet app to users in more than 120 countries.
Robinhood also disclosed plans to launch crypto trading in the United Kingdom “soon.” While the announcement does not provide an additional timeline beyond that phrasing, it signals that Robinhood’s on-chain expansion is not only about infrastructure, but also about expanding the accessibility of crypto services geographically.
Earlier this year, Robinhood CEO Vlad Tenev argued that tokenized stocks are “inevitable,” and he tied the rationale to potential market-structure benefits—specifically, the idea that tokenization could help reduce the risk of trading freezes that can occur on traditional exchanges. That perspective sets a clear policy narrative for the company’s product direction, even as regulators and market operators continue to shape the rules around tokenized assets.
Robinhood Earn: lending USDG from self-custody
Robinhood also introduced a decentralized product called Robinhood Earn. The feature is designed to let users lend USDG, a dollar-backed stablecoin, via a self-custody wallet experience.
Robinhood’s announcement places an estimated annual percentage yield of around 7% on the lending activity. For users, the practical change is the shift from keeping assets entirely within custodial frameworks toward a model that emphasizes self-custody while still providing access to yield through on-chain lending mechanics.
For builders and traders watching Robinhood’s L2 ambitions, the key point is that the mainnet launch is paired with a DeFi component rather than being purely infrastructural. This could influence how quickly liquidity and user activity form around the chain, especially if tokenized stock rails and stablecoin lending become tightly integrated.
A crowded L2 landscape—and a reminder on reliability
Robinhood Chain is entering an increasingly competitive layer 2 market. One of the most prominent incumbents in the segment is Base, the Coinbase-backed blockchain, which has expanded rapidly in recent periods.
Reliability has become a major differentiator across L2 networks. In June, Cointelegraph reported that Base suffered two outages within hours of each other. The engineering team later said a sequencer bug caused the incidents. Cointelegraph also noted that Base is the second-largest layer 2 network by total value secured, at about $11 billion, underscoring how large networks can still face operational issues.
Against that backdrop, Robinhood’s decision to launch a public mainnet after a testnet period may be interpreted as an attempt to ensure readiness before broadening usage. Still, the real test for any L2 network is post-mainnet stability—especially if Robinhood’s tokenized stocks and DeFi products rely on uninterrupted chain performance.
Robinhood shares rose about 8% on Wednesday following the announcement. For crypto participants and investors, the next watch item is straightforward: whether Robinhood Chain can sustain stable operation under real user load, and how quickly usage grows as tokenized stock rails, USDG lending via Robinhood Earn, and broader regional availability (including the planned UK crypto trading) come online.
Nike (NKE) stock slid about 1% on Wednesday, briefly trading at $40, its lowest level in about 12 years. The fall came despite an earnings beat, because most of the profit came from a one-time tariff refund.
That refund flattered the headline number and did nothing to fix Nike’s shrinking sales. Wall Street responded by trimming price targets, and the charts now point to more downside.
Why the Earnings Beat Triggered Target Cuts
Here is the earnings loophole the title promised. Nike reported a profit of $0.20 per share and beat the $0.13 that Wall Street expected. But most of that profit did not come from selling shoes.
About $0.52 per share (a large part of the $0.72 EPS) came from a $986 million tariff refund, money the government returned after the Supreme Court struck down many of the levies. That is a one-time payment, not a recurring business model.
Take the refund away, and Nike still looks weak. Sales slipped to $10.97 billion, and sales in China fell 12%.
Want more insights like this? Sign up for Editor Harsh Notariya’s Daily Newsletter here.
The market response shows how little faith investors have. A monthly chart from earlier shows Nike has now given back its entire pandemic-era run and sits back at prices last seen in early 2014.
Because the profit was a one-off, analysts cut their price targets instead of raising them. Goldman Sachs trimmed its target to $42 from $46 post-results, and JPMorgan cut to $47 from $52.
UBS stayed the most constructive at $48. Jefferies remains the lone bull among these analysts at $90.
Even so, most reduced targets sit only slightly above the last close near $41. In other words, the Nike stock price upside is not what analysts are betting on right now.
The soft outlook has therefore shifted attention to traders’ positioning.
Bearish Bets Are Building Against Nike Stock
Options traders turned defensive fast. The put-call ratio, which compares bearish put bets to bullish call bets, jumped to 1.14 on June 30 from 0.53 on June 26.
A ratio above 1 means puts now outnumber calls. That marks a sharp swing toward hedging and downside bets around nike earnings.
Meanwhile, volume tells the same story. Nike traded 73.89 million shares, its second-heaviest session since early April, and it came on a down day.
Additionally, Chaikin Money Flow (CMF), a proxy for institutional buying and selling pressure, sits at -0.29. The deep negative reading suggests big money is not stepping in to catch the fall.
More so when the Nike price chart clearly shows a bearish head-and-shoulders pattern with a 14% potential dip.
With flows and positioning aligned bearishly, the price chart becomes the decider.
Nike Stock Price Levels to Watch
The daily chart shows a head-and-shoulders pattern. Nike’s head formed near $47, with a right shoulder around $42.
The neckline now sits near $39, roughly 3% below the last close. A clean break there would confirm the pattern and open the door toward $38 as the first bearish target.
Below that, the measured move points to about $34, with $33 as the deeper extension target. That path frames the dramatic downside now in play.
The bulls still have a case, but it needs work. Nike must reclaim $41 quickly, and a daily close above $42 would signal real strength, the same level analysts already expect the stock to prove.
A push over $43 would improve the tone, while a move above $46 would weaken the bearish setup. Moreover, a clean daily break above $47 cancels the pattern entirely. Traders should note that head-and-shoulders patterns only confirm once the neckline breaks on volume, and failed breakdowns are common.
For now, the $39 neckline separates a slow base-building recovery from a deeper slide toward $34.
The post Nike Stock Hits a 12-Year Low as an Earnings Loophole Masks Weak Sales appeared first on BeInCrypto.
Disclosure: This article does not represent investment advice. The content and materials featured on this page are for educational purposes only.
Venga obtains a MiCA license from Spain’s CNMV, which lets the Barcelona crypto firm operate under the EU’s new regulatory framework.
Summary
- Venga secures MiCA authorization from Spain’s CNMV before Europe’s crypto transition period reaches its deadline.
- MiCA requires crypto providers to meet stronger standards for governance, security, reporting, and customer protection.
- Industry data cited shows only about 194 firms secured MiCA approval by May 2026 overall.
Venga has received authorization from Spain’s Comisión Nacional del Mercado de Valores to operate as a Crypto-Asset Service Provider under the European Union’s Markets in Crypto-Assets Regulation. The Barcelona-based company announced the approval on July 1, 2026. The Venga MiCA license allows the firm to provide regulated crypto-asset services under the EU’s new framework.
Venga MiCA license marks regulatory milestone
The authorization places Venga among a limited group of crypto firms approved under MiCA. The company, founded in Barcelona in 2023, said the approval follows nearly two years of work across its business.
“Obtaining the MiCA license is a major milestone for Venga and the result of nearly two years of work across every area of the business,” said Michael Stroev, co-founder and CEO of Venga. He said the process required investment in governance, compliance, security, reporting systems, and operational processes.
Spain’s CNMV granted the authorization as the European crypto market moves into a new phase of oversight. MiCA sets common rules for crypto-asset service providers. These rules cover governance, capital adequacy, operational resilience, cybersecurity, risk management, customer protection, and internal controls.
The license also gives Venga a route to passport its services across the European Union. The company can expand beyond Spain while operating under one regulatory framework.
MiCA authorization changes market standards
MiCA represents a broad regulatory reset for crypto assets in the European Union. The framework moves the sector away from earlier national registration systems. It requires companies to meet operating and supervision standards.
The transition period is ending on July 1. Crypto companies that relied on older national registrations must secure MiCA authorization or stop offering regulated crypto-asset services within the European Union. The change may force some providers to suspend activities, transfer clients, or leave certain European markets.
A report by crypto.news showed that more than 3,000 crypto firms were registered across the European Union before MiCA took effect. About 194 firms had secured MiCA authorization as of May 2026. That gap points to a smaller authorized market under the new rules.
The approval comes during consolidation in the European crypto sector. Firms that meet MiCA standards can operate under ongoing supervision. Firms that do not receive approval face limits on their ability to serve EU customers.
oversight expands for crypto-asset service providers
Authorized providers under MiCA face continuous regulatory duties. These include supervisory obligations, periodic reporting, annual audits, and oversight by national authorities. Those authorities apply standards coordinated by the European Securities and Markets Authority.
“For users, MiCA introduces a level of regulatory accountability that has not previously existed across much of the European crypto sector,” Stroev said. He added that authorization is not a one-time event and that licensed firms must continue to meet operational, financial, and customer protection requirements.
The new structure may change how users assess crypto platforms. Under MiCA, users can check whether a provider has authorization under the EU framework. That status shows whether the firm must follow the required safeguards and reporting rules.
Venga said the authorization confirms that it has built its business for the regulatory framework that will define the future of crypto services in Europe. The company aims to make digital assets accessible through a regulated platform available in Spanish, Catalan, and English.
Disclosure: This content is provided by a third party. Neither crypto.news nor the author of this article endorses any product mentioned on this page. Users should conduct their own research before taking any action related to the company.
Crypto World
Supreme Court Overturns Humphrey's Executor, Clearing Trump to Fire SEC and CFTC Commissioners
The Supreme Court ruled Monday that President Trump can fire commissioners at the Federal Trade Commission and other independent agencies without cause, overturning a 91-year-old precedent that shielded regulators including the SEC and CFTC from at-will removal. The 6-3 decision in Trump v…. Read the full story at The Defiant
Avalanche Treasury Corp, the largest publicly traded company holding AVAX as a corporate treasury asset, told regulators its ability to continue as a going concern is in doubt after its stock collapsed 93% over the past month. The Nasdaq-listed company, ticker AVAT, disclosed the warning in a 10-Q… Read the full story at The Defiant
The second-largest cryptocurrency has been severely damaged by the prolonged bear market, closing Q2 firmly in the red. Even more striking is that this marks the third consecutive quarter of losses for ETH – something unseen in the asset’s history and a clear signal of how persistent the current downturn has become.
Analysts speculate that bulls might have to endure more pain in the near future, with some projecting a price crash to as low as $1,000.
The Bears Take Total Control
It was last August that ETH climbed to a new all-time high of almost $5,000. Since then, it has headed south and currently trades at around $1,560 (per CoinGecko), representing a whopping 70% decline from the historic peak.
Weak market conditions and seasonal factors suggest the asset may experience a further short-term plunge. One should keep in mind that July has rarely been a favorable month for Ethereum, as it has finished the period in the red six out of the last ten times.
The analyst who uses the X moniker Ted noted that ETH has been holding up better than BTC lately, but warned that the former isn’t out of the woods yet. He paid special attention to the $1,700 level, arguing that if the asset fails to reclaim it, the probability of setting a new low will rise significantly.
Crypto with Haris ₿ addressed the increasingly popular predictions that ETH could plunge to $1,000 during this cycle, adding that such an extreme downside scenario is far less plausible than many fear.
“Ethereum has already been one of the hardest-hit major coins this cycle and is now building a strong base around the $1,500-$1,600 zone. Even with another Bitcoin flush, I think the realistic downside is around $1,200-$1,300. Could we go below $1,200? Maybe. But I think the risk of trying to catch that exact level is much higher than people realize,” he stated.
Meanwhile, the recent whale behavior strengthens the bearish outlook. Ali Martinez revealed that large investors sold around $900 million in ETH over a single week, while the analytics platform Lookonchain reported that an anonymous market participant cashed out almost 2,500 coins, incurring a major $4.33 million loss.
Some Bullish Signals
Still, it is not all doom and gloom for Ethereum. The number of coins stored on crypto exchanges remains quite close to the ten-year low recorded in June: a development that reduces selling pressure.
Moreover, ETH’s Relative Strength Index (RSI) continues to hover around 30, indicating that the asset has entered oversold territory and could be due for a rebound. The technical analysis indicator ranges from 0 to 100; anything above 70 is considered a warning of an impending pullback.
The post Ethereum (ETH) Sets a Historic Negative Record: More Pain Ahead? appeared first on CryptoPotato.
Morpho received two major institutional endorsements in a single day after Standard Chartered initiated coverage of the DeFi lending protocol and Robinhood unveiled a new Crypto Earn product powered by Morpho’s infrastructure.
The back-to-back developments strengthen Morpho’s position as one of the fastest-growing decentralized lending platforms competing alongside Aave. The MORPHO token’s price is up over 12% on the day.
Robinhood Brings Morpho to Mainstream Users
Robinhood has begun rolling out its Crypto Earn product, a decentralized lending service powered by Morpho, to eligible users through the Robinhood app and Robinhood Chain.
Follow us on X to get the latest news as it happens
The first lending vault is curated by Steakhouse Financial and incorporates Maple Finance’s newly launched syrupUSDG, an institutional credit product backed by the regulated Global Dollar (USDG) stablecoin issued by Paxos on behalf of the Global Dollar Network.
According to Maple, the company has originated more than $22 billion in institutional loans since 2022. Through the new integration, Robinhood users will gain access to on-chain credit strategies built on Morpho’s open lending infrastructure.
“Morpho provides the open credit network that enables specialized credit strategies to reach users at scale,” Morpho CEO and co-founder Paul Frambot said in the announcement.
Standard Chartered Strengthens the Bullish Narrative
The Robinhood announcement follows Standard Chartered’s decision to initiate coverage on MORPHO, calling the protocol one of the strongest long-term plays in decentralized finance.
The bank highlighted Morpho’s Vaults architecture as a key differentiator, arguing that its modular design makes it well suited for institutional asset managers, fintech platforms, and tokenized real-world assets. Analysts also pointed to the protocol’s rapid growth and expanding integrations across the digital asset ecosystem.
Together, the research note and Robinhood integration suggest growing institutional confidence in Morpho’s infrastructure rather than simply its token.
What’s Next for Morpho?
Robinhood said access to Crypto Earn will expand gradually over the coming weeks, while Maple plans to extend syrupUSDG to additional blockchain networks beyond Ethereum and Robinhood Chain.
For investors, the latest announcements suggest Morpho is evolving from a leading DeFi lending protocol into critical financial infrastructure for regulated stablecoins, institutional credit, and mainstream fintech platforms, a trend that could further accelerate adoption as tokenized finance continues to grow.
The post Standard Chartered Backs Morpho, Then Robinhood Puts It to Work appeared first on BeInCrypto.
Elon Musk dismissed a Wall Street Journal report that SpaceX built a prototype AI device, calling it “utterly false”. SpaceX stock (SPCX) fell about 7% on Wednesday as investors weighed the conflicting accounts.
The report said the company privately showed investors a handset-like device before its public listing. The denial gave traders little clarity on a stock already prone to sharp swings.
Musk Rejects the AI Device Report
The Wall Street Journal reported that SpaceX showed investors a device slimmer than an iPhone before its June listing. The prototype reportedly ran a proprietary operating system on a Qualcomm (QCOM) Snapdragon chipset.
It also drew on technology from Musk’s xAI unit, now folded into SpaceX. Sources described the project as early-stage, with a design that could still change. Elon Musk has however refuted the claims. The post has since been deleted.
Follow us on X to get the latest news as it happens
No filing, image, or product demonstration has backed the report, and SpaceX has stayed publicly silent. The denial echoes February, when Musk rejected a Reuters report that SpaceX was building a Starlink phone.
Still, the report fits how SpaceX sells itself. The company spans rockets, satellite internet, and AI. Its broader AI push, though, has favored data centers and satellites over consumer gadgets.
SpaceX Stock Extends Its Post-IPO Slide
SPCX fell to $157.88, down about 7% from Tuesday’s close of $170.86. As of this writing, it was trading for $158.33, with the drop leaving the stock roughly 30% below its June peak of $225.64. It has deepened a retreat that began soon after the stock’s record IPO debut.
SpaceX priced that June offering at $135 a share, raising about $75 billion. That gave it a valuation near $2.09 trillion.
Qualcomm shares edged higher as some traders read the report as a new chip partnership. That split reaction captured the market’s uncertainty. SpaceX now trades near a make-or-break support level that analysts have flagged for weeks.
The muted company response leaves investors waiting for clarification. Musk’s denials have not always ended speculation. Continued silence from SpaceX could keep pressure on SPCX in the coming sessions.
The post Elon Musk Sends SpaceX Shares Lower With Two-Word AI Device Denial appeared first on BeInCrypto.
Belgium come back from the brink with most dramatic win of World Cup 2026
This US Stock Skyrocketed 70% in June Amid the AI Data Center Pivot
UBTECH Launches UWORLD U1 Humanoid Robot Companions Built to Listen, Remember, and Move Naturally
-
Fashion5 days agoWeekend Open Thread: Staud – Corporette.com
-
Politics6 days agoThe House | Manchesterism won’t survive the painful trade-offs unless it gets citizens on board
-
Crypto World2 days agoStrategy authorizes up to $1.25B in Bitcoin sales under new capital plan
-
Politics6 days agoPotential 2028er World Cup attendee leaderboard
-
Business6 days agoAsia stock markets slide as tech shares slump
-
News Videos3 days agoMAJOR BITCOIN & MARKET UPDATE!!!! (MUST WATCH ASAP!!!)
-
Tech6 days agoA Look At A Gaggle Of Transputer Boards
-
Crypto World6 days agoDell (DELL) Shares Tumble Over 5% Following Analyst Downgrade to Hold
-
Crypto World4 days agoCoinbase, Circle Deepen Crypto Stock Losses Despite Resilient S&P 500
-
Business2 days agoAustralia treasurer says alleged access of prime minister’s bank data ’incredibly concerning’
-
Crypto World5 days agoKraken's xStocks Opens Bending Spoons IPO Registration to EEA Retail
-
Sports5 days agoFIH Pro League: India defeat Pakistan 7-1, register biggest win of campaign | Other Sports News
-
Crypto World6 days agoBitcoin Sparks $600M Hourly Liquidations With $65,000 Set To Become Resistance
-
Tech4 days agoBluekit phishing kit adopts browser-in-the-middle for login theft
-
Tech5 days agoRussian hackers now target Signal backup recovery keys
-
Crypto World5 days agoHyperliquid Named on Singapore MAS Investor Alert Register
-
Crypto World5 days agoRTX holders must register wallets before token distribution begins
-
Crypto World7 days agoRipple and SBI launch RLUSD in Japan after JFSA approval
-
Tech2 days agoAnonymous researcher drops 0-day ‘exploitarium’ repo
-
Sports11 hours agoBroncos roster: OL Ben Powers (No. 74) entering final year of contract
You must be logged in to post a comment Login