Crypto World
What the DTCC deal means
Stellar trades near $0.18, but a May 2026 plan for the DTCC to connect its tokenization service to Stellar, with XLM named as the settlement token, could route trillions in traditional securities onto the network. What would that actually mean for the price? Here is the realistic read, separating the landmark from the hype.
Summary
- Stellar trades near $0.18 as of late June 2026, down from a July 2025 high near $0.52, with the Fear and Greed reading in extreme fear despite strong network fundamentals. In May 2026, the DTCC, the backbone of United States securities settlement, announced it would connect its tokenization service to Stellar, with XLM designated as the settlement token and live assets targeted for the first half of 2027.
- The deal is a genuine long-term, high-conviction catalyst because it links potential institutional securities volume directly to the network, but the 2027 timeline means price until then is driven by speculation and sentiment.
- The central question for the price is value accrual: whether routing securities settlement through Stellar translates into sustained demand for the XLM token, a question complicated by XLM’s fixed supply with no burn mechanism.
- Year-end 2026 forecasts span roughly $0.18 at the bearish end to $1.20 to $2.50 in bullish models, a gap that turns on whether the DTCC and other catalysts begin converting fundamentals into token demand.
Stellar (XLM) is trading near $0.18 as of late June 2026, and it presents one of the sharpest disconnects in crypto: a network with strong and growing fundamentals attached to a token sitting near multi-year lows.
XLM is down from a July 2025 high near $0.52, the Fear and Greed reading is mired in extreme fear, and yet the underlying network is arguably healthier than ever, with tokenized real-world assets on Stellar having climbed past $2.83 billion, stablecoin payment volume around $5.5 billion, developer engagement at record highs, and consensus achieved in under six seconds through its Federated Byzantine Agreement design.
Into that gap between fundamentals and price landed the most consequential development in Stellar’s recent history: in May 2026, the Depository Trust and Clearing Corporation, the institution that sits at the center of United States securities settlement, announced it would connect its tokenization service to Stellar, with XLM named as the settlement token and live assets targeted for the first half of 2027.
The announcement raised an obvious and high-stakes question for anyone watching XLM: if the backbone of traditional securities settlement is routing tokenized assets through Stellar, what does that mean for the price of the token?
This article answers that question as realistically as possible, separating the genuine significance of the deal from the hype that inevitably surrounds it. It works through where Stellar stands now and why the fundamentals-price gap exists, what the DTCC deal actually is, why it could be a landmark, the all-important value-accrual question of whether network volume translates into token demand, the problem of the 2027 timeline, the other catalysts stacking up around XLM, the supply dynamics that complicate the bull case, what the analysts forecast, and three scenarios for the price.
The aim is to give XLM holders and observers a clear-eyed read rather than either dismissive skepticism or breathless promotion, because the DTCC deal is simultaneously a real, high-conviction catalyst and a development whose price impact is years away and structurally uncertain. The forecasts here are information, not advice. And the thread running through the whole analysis is the same question that haunts every payments-token valuation: does the network’s success actually accrue to the token, or can the volume flow through while the token is bypassed? For Stellar, the DTCC deal makes that question concrete and urgent.
Where Stellar stands and the fundamentals gap
Begin with the disconnect that defines XLM right now, because it is the context for everything the DTCC deal might change. Stellar near $0.18 is down significantly from its July 2025 high near $0.52, and the Fear and Greed reading sits in extreme fear, the same deeply pessimistic sentiment weighing on the broader crypto market.
On the charts, XLM has spent 2026 oscillating, with periods of consolidation around the high teens to low twenties in cents and sharp volatility, including swings of substantial magnitude within single months, but the broad trend has left the token near the lower end of its range and below where it traded a year ago. By the standard technical and sentiment measures, XLM looks like what it is: a beaten-down mid-cap altcoin in a fearful market.
What makes Stellar unusual is that its fundamentals tell a very different story from its price. The value of tokenized real-world assets issued on Stellar has surged past $2.83 billion, growing at a rapid clip, and stablecoin payment volume on the network has reached roughly $5.5 billion, both signs of genuine, growing utility rather than mere speculation. The network supports a large base of accounts and a wide array of fiat and crypto on-ramps, achieves fast and cheap settlement through its consensus design, and has added the Soroban smart-contract platform to enable tokenization and decentralized finance.
Developer engagement is at record levels. This is the crux of the Stellar investment debate: a network whose real-world usage and institutional positioning are strengthening, attached to a token whose price has fallen to multi-year lows. Bulls read the gap as a buying opportunity and evidence of accumulation, on the logic that price will eventually catch up to fundamentals. Skeptics read it as evidence that network usage does not reliably accrue value to the XLM token, which is precisely the question the DTCC deal forces to the center. The fundamentals-price gap is the setup; the DTCC deal is the potential catalyst that either closes it or exposes it as permanent.
What the DTCC deal actually is
To assess its impact, you have to understand precisely what was announced, because the details determine the significance. In May 2026, the Depository Trust and Clearing Corporation revealed plans to connect its tokenization service to the Stellar network. The DTCC is not a peripheral player; it is the central infrastructure of United States securities settlement, the institution through which an enormous share of the country’s stock and bond transactions are cleared and settled, handling quadrillions of dollars in securities annually across the traditional financial system. Its decision to build tokenization capability on a public blockchain at all is significant, and its selection of Stellar specifically, with XLM named as the settlement token for the infrastructure, is what makes the announcement material for the token. The plan targets live assets in the first half of 2027, meaning the connection is a forward-looking build rather than something already moving volume today.
The stated logic is that tokenization, representing traditional securities as digital tokens on a blockchain, can make settlement faster, cheaper, and programmable, and that Stellar’s compliance-focused, settlement-oriented architecture is suited to regulated finance. The phrase that captured attention is that the arrangement brings the potential for trillions in traditional securities onto the network over time, with XLM as the settlement token directly linking that future institutional volume to token demand. That is the bullish framing, and it is grounded in real fact: the DTCC genuinely chose Stellar, XLM is genuinely named as the settlement token, and the addressable volume is truly enormous. But three qualifications matter from the outset and shape the rest of this analysis.
First, the assets go live in 2027, not now. Second, the scale of what actually migrates onto Stellar, as opposed to the theoretical addressable market, is unknown. And third, and most important for the price, the mechanism by which settlement volume translates into sustained XLM demand is the contested value-accrual question instead of an automatic pass-through. The deal is real and large in potential; what it means for the token depends on details that are not yet settled.
Why it could be a landmark
Taken at its strongest, the DTCC deal is a genuine landmark, and the bull case for its significance deserves a full and fair statement. The first reason is validation. When the institution at the heart of United States securities settlement chooses to build tokenization infrastructure on Stellar, it is an endorsement of Stellar’s architecture for regulated, institutional finance that no marketing campaign could buy. It signals that Stellar’s long-standing bet on compliance and settlement, often overlooked during the speculative manias that drove other chains, is being recognized by exactly the kind of counterparty it was designed to serve. For a network whose pitch has always been institutional and payments-focused instead of retail-speculative, having the DTCC select it is the strongest possible third-party confirmation of the thesis.
The second reason is the direct linkage to token demand, at least in principle. Because XLM is named as the settlement token for the DTCC tokenization infrastructure, future institutional volume flowing through that infrastructure has a potential channel to XLM demand, unlike vaguer partnership announcements that leave the token’s role ambiguous. The third reason is scale and trajectory. The addressable market for tokenized securities is measured in the trillions, and even capturing a modest fraction would represent settlement volume far beyond anything Stellar handles today, which is why the deal is framed as a long-term, high-conviction bullish driver instead of a short-term price catalyst. It fits a broader pattern in which Stellar has positioned itself as compliance-ready infrastructure for tokenization, evidenced by its alignment with regulatory frameworks and its role hosting regulated stablecoins.
The strongest version of the bull case, then, is that the DTCC deal is the moment Stellar’s institutional thesis begins to be validated by the most credible possible counterparty, with a direct potential link to token demand and an addressable market large enough to transform the network’s economics. Whether that potential converts into token price is the next, harder question.
The value-accrual question
Here is where realism has to enter, because the gap between a network landmark and a token price runs straight through the value-accrual question, and Stellar’s situation has a cautionary parallel close at hand. The question is whether routing securities settlement through Stellar actually creates sustained demand for the XLM token, or whether the volume can flow through the network while the token captures little of the value. This is not a hypothetical concern invented for skepticism; it is the same question that has dogged XRP, where Ripple’s commercial success in cross-border payments has not reliably translated into XRP token appreciation, because much settlement activity can occur without participants holding the token for any meaningful duration. Stellar faces a structurally similar issue: a settlement token may be used transiently to bridge value during a transaction without anyone needing to hold XLM as a durable asset, in which case enormous settlement volume could produce only modest, fleeting token demand.
The specifics of how XLM is used in the DTCC infrastructure will determine which way this resolves, and those specifics are not yet fully clear. If XLM is required as a persistent bridge or reserve asset that institutions must hold to access the settlement rails, and if the volume is large, the demand could be substantial and sustained. If, instead, XLM functions as a momentary settlement medium that is acquired and released within transactions, or if stablecoins denominated in dollars do most of the actual value transfer while XLM plays a minimal technical role, then the token demand could be far smaller than the headline volume suggests.
The honest assessment is that the DTCC deal creates a potential channel for value to accrue to XLM, but it does not guarantee that it will, and the magnitude depends on technical and economic details that remain to be seen. This is the single most important caveat for anyone pricing XLM off the DTCC news. The deal could be a genuine landmark for the network and still deliver a muted token-price impact if the value-accrual mechanism is weak, exactly as has happened with XRP. The network’s success and the token’s success are related but not identical, and conflating them is the most common error in valuing payments tokens.
The 2027 timeline problem
Even setting aside the value-accrual question, the DTCC deal carries a timing problem that directly affects how it should be priced today. The plan targets live assets in the first half of 2027, which means that for the entire rest of 2026 and into early 2027, there is no actual DTCC settlement volume flowing through Stellar, only the anticipation of it. This matters because, until the infrastructure goes live and shows real volume, XLM’s price will be driven by speculation and sentiment about the future instead of by current flows, which makes it vulnerable to the same volatility that afflicts any narrative-driven asset. The market has already shown this dynamic, with XLM experiencing sharp moves and pullbacks, including a notable drop after a rally, as enthusiasm about the deal collided with the reality that nothing changes operationally for many months.
The timing problem cuts in two directions, and a fair analysis acknowledges both. On one hand, it tempers the near-term bull case: those expecting the DTCC deal to lift XLM’s price in 2026 are betting on sentiment and positioning instead of on actual usage, and sentiment can fade, reverse, or be overwhelmed by broader market conditions long before 2027 arrives. A deal that goes live in 18 months provides little support for a token if the broad crypto market stays fearful in the meantime.
On the other hand, the long runway means the catalyst is not yet spent: if and when the infrastructure goes live in 2027 and begins showing real volume, that could be a fresh, concrete catalyst at a point when much of the speculative anticipation may have faded, potentially providing an upside surprise to a token that the market had given up on.
For pricing XLM through the rest of 2026 specifically, the timeline problem means the DTCC deal is best understood as a long-term thesis underpinning the token instead of a near-term price driver, and that anyone buying XLM on the DTCC news in 2026 is making a multi-year bet whose payoff, if it comes, is concentrated in 2027 and beyond, contingent on the value-accrual question resolving favorably.
The other catalysts stacking up
The DTCC deal does not stand alone; it sits atop a cluster of other developments that collectively strengthen Stellar’s institutional thesis, and a complete picture has to account for them. The most important is the regulatory designation.
On March 17, 2026, United States regulators designated Stellar as a digital commodity, the same classification extended to a short list of major tokens, which removed a significant barrier by clarifying XLM’s legal status and making it eligible for custodial services from institutions that safeguard assets. That designation is foundational because it is what allows firms to build regulated products on Stellar and to hold XLM with legal confidence, and it underpins the DTCC deal and the others.
Building on it, CME Group XLM futures are expected during 2026, which would provide regulated derivatives infrastructure and a potential structural source of institutional demand and price discovery, and an Amundi fund and other institutional vehicles point to growing traditional-finance engagement with the token.
Several more developments round out the picture. Stellar is widely seen as a beneficiary of the CLARITY Act, the legislation that aims to codify digital-asset rules and that could advance in 2026, in the same way XRP is, since both are payment-focused tokens whose institutional adoption hinges on regulatory certainty. Stellar’s design aligns with European regulatory frameworks, evidenced by regulated stablecoins launching on the network, giving it a compliance posture suited to multiple jurisdictions. And the Soroban smart-contract platform expands what the network can host, broadening its addressable market into tokenization and decentralized finance.
The significance of this cluster is that the DTCC deal is not an isolated bet but part of a coherent institutional thesis: regulatory clarity through the digital-commodity designation and potential CLARITY Act passage, derivatives infrastructure through CME futures, traditional-finance vehicles through funds like Amundi’s, and the flagship tokenization linkage through the DTCC.
If the thesis works, these catalysts reinforce one another, with regulatory clarity enabling the institutional products that enable the volume that could drive token demand. The caveat from the value-accrual discussion still applies to all of them, but the breadth of the catalyst stack is itself a meaningful part of the bull case for XLM.
The supply picture that complicates the bull case
A factor specific to XLM that any honest price analysis must weigh is its supply structure, which cuts against the simplest bullish narratives in an important way.
Following a 2019 community vote, Stellar ended its annual token issuance, fixing the total supply near 50 billion XLM and removing the inflationary dilution that suppresses price appreciation on many rival networks. That fixed supply is truly favorable: it means new issuance does not constantly dilute holders, and if demand rises against a fixed supply, the price pressure is upward. To that extent, the supply structure supports the bull case, and it is a point bulls rightly emphasize.
But there is a crucial qualification that complicates the value-accrual story. Stellar has no token-burn mechanism that meaningfully reduces circulating supply as the network is used. On some networks, transaction activity burns tokens, so that rising usage automatically tightens supply and creates upward price pressure independent of speculative demand, a direct link between network use and token scarcity. Stellar lacks this channel at scale, which means that fee-driven demand from network activity does not automatically remove XLM from circulation.
The implication for the DTCC deal is significant: even if substantial securities settlement volume flows through Stellar, that activity will not, by itself, shrink the XLM supply the way a burn mechanism would, so 1 of the clearest channels through which network usage could force token-price appreciation is absent.
The price would have to rise through genuine, sustained holding demand for XLM as an asset, not merely through transactional throughput, which loops back to the value-accrual question. The fixed supply is a modest positive; the absence of a burn mechanism is a real limitation on how mechanically network success can translate into token-price gains. Together they mean XLM’s bull case depends more heavily on durable demand for the token itself than on raw volume, which raises the bar for the DTCC deal to move the price.
What the analysts forecast
The analyst forecasts for XLM in 2026 span an extraordinarily wide range, even by the standards of the other majors, and the spread maps directly onto the questions this article has raised. At the bearish end, the algorithmic forecaster CoinCodex reads Stellar as bearish on technical indicators and, strikingly, its model does not project XLM reaching $1 until 2047, treating the token as a slow-compounding asset that the current setup does not favor.
Other cautious forecasters cluster low: Traders Union’s model points to roughly $0.40 to $0.48 for year-end, and DigitalCoinPrice sees around $0.32, both well above current levels but far below the bullish targets and treating Stellar as an infrastructure asset that appreciates slowly instead of a narrative rocket. Base-case forecasts that assume regulatory clarity holds and tokenization grows at a moderate pace tend to land in a $0.25 to $0.50 band, a meaningful recovery from current levels without a breakout.
At the bullish end sit forecasters who weigh the institutional catalysts heavily. Coinpedia’s hybrid model is the most bullish of the major platforms for 2026, placing XLM in a moderate range of $1.20 to $1.80 and a stronger scenario toward $2.50 if it reclaims key resistance, explicitly anchoring the thesis in institutional adoption velocity, rising stablecoin and tokenized-asset volume, and the catalysts described above, with a longer-term 2030 target as high as $6.19 under favorable conditions.
CoinLore and others produce aggressive cycle targets in the range of roughly $0.50 to $1.69 for the year. The gap, from a model that does not see $1 until 2047 to 1 targeting $2.50 this year, is enormous, and it reflects exactly the unresolved questions: whether the DTCC deal and the other catalysts convert into token demand, whether the value-accrual mechanism is strong or weak, and whether the 2027 timeline leaves 2026 to sentiment.
The bullish forecasts assume the institutional thesis begins paying off in token demand; the bearish ones assume the fundamentals-price gap persists because usage does not accrue to the token. The forecasts cannot settle which is right; they can only show how much rides on the DTCC deal and its peers actually closing that gap.
Three scenarios for Stellar around the DTCC catalyst
Pulling the analysis into scenarios clarifies the range without pretending to certainty. In the bull scenario, the market begins to price the institutional thesis ahead of the 2027 go-live. Confidence grows that the DTCC deal, the digital-commodity designation, CME futures, and the broader catalyst stack will convert into real XLM demand, an altcoin-favorable phase arrives, and XLM recovers toward the $1.20 to $2.50 range that the most bullish credible models describe, with the fundamentals-price gap finally closing as anticipation of trillions in tokenized volume lifts the token. This path requires the market to look through the 2027 timeline and to bet that the value-accrual question resolves in XLM’s favor, and it leans on the breadth of the catalyst stack as the engine. It is achievable but conditional on a favorable read of exactly the questions that remain open.
In the base scenario, the most defensible central case, XLM recovers modestly to a $0.25 to $0.50 band. Regulatory clarity holds, the catalysts develop roughly on schedule, and the token grinds back up from its lows as the institutional thesis slowly gains credibility, but without a breakout, because the DTCC volume is not live until 2027 and the value-accrual mechanism remains unproven through 2026.
This recovery-without-breakout outcome fits the weight of base-case forecasting and reflects the reality that the biggest catalyst is years from delivering actual volume. In the bear scenario, the fundamentals-price gap persists or widens. The broad market stays fearful, the DTCC anticipation fades as 2027 stays distant, doubts deepen about whether settlement volume will ever accrue to the token given the no-burn supply structure, and XLM stalls in the $0.10 to $0.20 range or drifts lower, validating the bearish models that treat it as a slow-compounding asset. Which scenario unfolds depends on the broad market, the pace of the catalysts, and above all whether the market comes to believe that routing securities through Stellar will create durable demand for XLM. All 3 are live, and the DTCC deal is the pivot around which they turn, a genuine landmark for the network whose translation into token price remains the open question.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the DTCC tokenization deal with Stellar?
In May 2026, the Depository Trust and Clearing Corporation, the central infrastructure of United States securities settlement, announced it would connect its tokenization service to the Stellar network, with XLM named as the settlement token and live assets targeted for the first half of 2027. The DTCC clears and settles an enormous share of United States securities transactions, so its decision to build tokenization capability on Stellar is a major institutional endorsement. The arrangement carries the potential to bring tokenized traditional securities onto the network over time, with XLM as the settlement token linking that future volume to potential token demand. It is a forward-looking build, not something moving volume today.
Will the DTCC deal make XLM’s price go up?
It could, but it is not automatic, and the timing and mechanism matter. The deal is a genuine long-term, high-conviction catalyst because it links potential institutional securities volume to the network with XLM named as the settlement token. But assets do not go live until the first half of 2027, so through 2026 the price is driven by speculation instead of actual flows. More fundamentally, whether settlement volume translates into sustained XLM demand is the contested value-accrual question: a settlement token can be used transiently without anyone holding it durably, and Stellar lacks a burn mechanism that would tighten supply as usage grows. The deal could be a landmark for the network and still deliver a muted token-price impact if value accrual is weak.
Why is Stellar’s price so low if its fundamentals are strong?
This is the central Stellar paradox. The network’s fundamentals are strong and growing, with tokenized real-world assets past $2.83 billion, stablecoin payment volume around $5.5 billion, record developer engagement, and fast, cheap settlement, yet XLM trades near $0.18, down from a 2025 high near $0.52, with sentiment in extreme fear. Bulls read the gap as a buying opportunity on the logic that price will catch up to fundamentals. Skeptics read it as evidence that network usage does not reliably accrue value to the XLM token, the same issue that has dogged XRP. The gap exists because network success and token-price appreciation are related but not identical, and the mechanism linking them for XLM is contested.
What is the value-accrual question for XLM?
It is whether routing activity like securities settlement through Stellar actually creates sustained demand for the XLM token, or whether volume can flow through the network while the token captures little value. A settlement token may be used transiently to bridge value within a transaction without anyone needing to hold XLM as a durable asset, in which case large settlement volume could produce only modest, fleeting token demand. This is the same question that has limited XRP’s price despite Ripple’s commercial success. For the DTCC deal, the magnitude of token-price impact depends on whether XLM is required as a persistent bridge or reserve asset or functions only as a momentary settlement medium, details that are not yet fully clear.
Does Stellar’s fixed supply help the price?
Partly, but with an important limitation. Following a 2019 community vote, Stellar ended annual issuance and fixed total supply near 50 billion XLM, removing the inflationary dilution that suppresses many rival tokens, which is favorable because rising demand against fixed supply creates upward price pressure. However, Stellar has no token-burn mechanism that meaningfully reduces circulating supply as the network is used. On some networks, transaction activity burns tokens so that rising usage automatically tightens supply; Stellar lacks this at scale, so fee-driven demand does not automatically remove XLM from circulation. The implication is that even large settlement volume will not shrink supply by itself, so the price must rise through durable holding demand instead of throughput, which raises the bar for catalysts like the DTCC deal
What are analysts forecasting for Stellar in 2026?
The range is extraordinarily wide. At the bearish end, CoinCodex’s model is bearish and does not project XLM reaching $1 until 2047, while Traders Union sees roughly $0.40 to $0.48 and DigitalCoinPrice around $0.32 for year-end, treating XLM as a slow-compounding infrastructure asset. Base-case forecasts that assume moderate growth cluster in a $0.25 to $0.50 band. At the bullish end, Coinpedia models $1.20 to $1.80 and up to $2.50 if resistance is reclaimed, anchored in institutional adoption, with a 2030 target as high as $6.19. The gap, from no $1 until 2047 to $2.50 this year, reflects the unresolved questions of whether the DTCC deal and other catalysts convert into token demand and whether the fundamentals-price gap finally closes.
This article is information, not financial or investment advice. Stellar price levels, network metrics, the DTCC announcement details, and analyst forecasts reflect data available as of June 28, 2026, are point-in-time, and can change. Cryptocurrency is highly volatile, and you can lose money. Price predictions are inherently uncertain, and the scenarios described are not guarantees. Do your own research and consult a qualified financial professional before making any investment decision.
Bitcoin has seen a spike in very small transfers—moves of less than 1 BTC—that match the intensity last observed around the collapse of FTX. The renewed activity comes as researchers continue to track a suspected Coldcard wallet-related hack, underscoring how quickly users are reacting when self-custody tools appear compromised.
According to CryptoQuant head of research Julio Moreno, Friday recorded the highest daily level of sub-1 BTC transfers since November 2022, with 39,600 BTC moved. The total was just 300 BTC below 39,900 BTC transferred on Nov. 16, 2022, shortly after FTX filed for bankruptcy. Moreno framed the comparison as a sign of urgency and said users appear to be “taking action.”
Key takeaways
- Daily Bitcoin transfers below 1 BTC hit their highest level since November 2022, totaling 39,600 BTC, per CryptoQuant’s Julio Moreno.
- Galaxy Research says the suspected Coldcard incident caused estimated losses of 1,367 BTC across 4,585 addresses, after identifying a further 207.7 BTC taken in an additional wave.
- Galaxy’s Alex Thorn warned that the attack was still ongoing and urged affected users to move funds immediately from Coldcard-generated addresses.
- The incident is reigniting debate over whether self-custody is safer than relying on third-party platforms, with executives arguing the impact differs across user approaches.
Small-transfer surge echoes the post-FTX era
While large market moves often capture headlines, the current data point focuses on behavior at the granularity of everyday wallet operations: sub-1 BTC transfers. Moreno’s analysis suggests the market is seeing a level of small withdrawals not observed since the period following FTX’s bankruptcy filing.
The comparison matters because it points to reflexive user behavior—moving funds in smaller increments—rather than a single, coordinated “whale” action. In the wake of FTX, exchange-related uncertainty drove users toward faster, more defensive moves. Here, the catalyst is different: ongoing concerns tied to Coldcard-generated addresses.
Moreno’s observation that these transfers had not occurred at similar daily intensity since the FTX collapse suggests that the Coldcard incident may be triggering a comparable sense of immediate risk. That doesn’t prove equivalence in scale or cause, but it does show that user reaction can look similar even when the underlying event is distinct.
Galaxy Research details additional theft wave
Galaxy Research, part of Galaxy Digital, reported Saturday that it had identified another attack wave tied to the suspected Coldcard hack. In that wave, an additional 207.7 BTC was drained—valued at roughly $13.2 million at the time Galaxy cited.
Including the newly identified activity, Galaxy estimated total losses of 1,367 BTC, affecting 4,585 addresses. Galaxy’s reporting suggests the incident is not a single moment of exploitation, but an ongoing process where both victims and attacker infrastructure continue to emerge as investigators refine their tracking.
Galaxy also points readers to a Coldcard-focused tracking resource, “Coldcard Watch,” as part of the broader transparency around wallet activity connected to the suspected incident.
“Still ongoing” warnings push users toward immediate withdrawal
Alex Thorn, Galaxy Digital’s head of firmwide research, said in an X post on Sunday that the attack remained active. Thorn urged users to move funds from Coldcard-generated addresses immediately if they had not already done so.
Thorn added that his team continues to identify both new victim addresses and attacker addresses. He also noted that reports from users have helped investigators and authorities track stolen funds, reinforcing a practical implication for readers: in incidents where on-chain patterns are evolving, user-provided information can accelerate investigative work.
The warning is also a reminder that self-custody isn’t only about holding assets—it’s about operational readiness. When wallet-generated addresses are implicated, the “time to react” becomes part of the security model, whether users follow best practices or not.
Self-custody debate returns as commentators argue “failure” vs “risk control”
The suspected Coldcard hack has again pulled the conversation toward the long-running fault line in crypto security: self-custody versus third-party custody. Self-custody is a foundational principle in Bitcoin, emphasizing user control without dependence on intermediaries. Yet security incidents involving consumer-grade tools can complicate the narrative and raise fresh questions about usability and safety.
Nick Neuman, CEO of Bitcoin security company Casa, pushed back against claims that “self-custody is over.” He argued that because self-custody is distributed, users have time to respond as threats are identified. Neuman also estimated that potentially 10 times more Bitcoin was protected through self-custody than was stolen and identified so far in the attack.
That position reframes the debate from whether an incident can occur at all to how the system responds once the risk becomes visible. In Neuman’s view, the existence of ongoing victims does not negate the defensive advantage that self-custody can provide—especially when users monitor, verify, and act on warnings.
Others took the issue in a different direction. Eric Balchunas, a senior ETF analyst at Bloomberg, argued via X that Bitcoin exchange-traded funds may offer a safer and more convenient alternative for many users, pointing to the longer operating history of ETFs.
In contrast, critics of that argument say the Coldcard episode reflects a failure of a specific wallet provider or implementation rather than a fundamental breakdown of self-custody itself. The tension here is important for readers to recognize: “self-custody” is not a single technology—it’s a set of practices and tools—so incidents can be interpreted as either systemic or localized depending on what readers believe broke down.
What to watch next
With Galaxy saying the attack is still unfolding and continuing to identify new victim and attacker addresses, the next key signal will be whether transfer patterns and wallet-specific indicators stabilize as users move funds. For investors and builders, the bigger question is how quickly the broader community can validate affected addresses and coordinate response—because in cases like this, speed is part of the security outcome.
Crypto World
Unlike the FTX collapse, the $89 million Coldcard exploit has investors sending bitcoin back to exchanges
“Seems people really moved their Bitcoin out of extreme caution after the coldcard hack,” Moreno said.
Small Bitcoin transactions tell a similar story. According to CryptoQuant, the combined volume of all transfers smaller than 1 BTC reached 39,600 BTC on Friday, just shy of the 39,900 BTC moved on November 16, 2022, the day after FTX filed for bankruptcy.
“The Bitcoin plebs had not moved this amount of BTC in a day since the FTX collapse,” Moreno said, adding that he liked to see people “taking action.”
Blockchain sleuth Timechainindex made a similar observation, noting that total net inflows to exchanges totaled 11,163 BTC on July 31, most of which flowed into major exchanges and firms like Binance, River, Kraken, and OKX.
“These are plebs who are scared,” the handle said on X, explaining the nature of the BTC inflow.
The total number of BTC held in wallets tied to centralized exchanges has increased to 2.715 million from 2.703837 million before the Coldcard exploit.
Reverse of FTX
Following FTX’s failure, the dominant risk was exchange insolvency and withdrawal freezes. Holders responded by moving bitcoin into self-custody, reducing exchange balances.
The current episode centers on self-custody risk associated with a single hardware wallet. The vulnerability has prompted some holders to temporarily shift smaller balances onto exchanges.
BNB Chain said on Aug. 1 that it was pursuing legal action against a former employee who allegedly retained unauthorized access to a seed phrase and later used the associated wallet address with a new memecoin.
Summary
- BNB Chain says a former employee retained unauthorized seed phrase access after leaving the company.
- Four wallets allegedly bought 79.67% of ASTEROID’s supply for $10,000 before later selling most tokens.
- Lookonchain estimates 1,103 BNB in sales produced approximately $628,000 in profit for the alleged operator.
The network said it was cooperating with authorities but did not identify the individual, jurisdiction, agency or court.
The wallet was created for a company video tutorial showing how to generate a token, according to BNB Chain’s statement. The organization said the former employee later generated a new private key from the retained seed phrase. It denied creating, authorizing, promoting or participating in the new token.
BNB Chain distances itself from ASTEROID
BNB Chain described the address’s later use as independent activity and said the token was not affiliated with or endorsed by the ecosystem. Its announcement did not provide a complaint, case number, named regulator or details about where the planned legal action would be brought.
Changpeng “CZ” Zhao reposted the statement and called the former employee “basically a scammer,” while telling users to “Stay SAFU.” His description is an allegation, not a court finding. BNB Chain did not disclose whether it is seeking asset recovery, damages or criminal charges.
Four wallets allegedly controlled nearly 80% of supply
On-chain analytics account Lookonchain linked the launch to a token called Asteroid Shiba, or ASTEROID. It alleged that four newly created wallets spent about $10,000 to acquire 796.7 million tokens, equal to 79.67% of the stated one billion-token supply.
Lookonchain said the wallets later sold 718.8 million ASTEROID for 1,103 BNB, valued at about $638,000, producing an estimated $628,000 profit. It published the four addresses for review on BscScan. However, blockchain records show wallet activity, not the legal identity controlling it. The employee attribution therefore remains an allegation supported by BNB Chain’s statement and Lookonchain’s analysis.
A seed can generate the private keys used within a deterministic wallet. Removing one private key from a device does not invalidate a retained copy of the underlying seed, which can be used to derive wallet keys again. The case raises questions about how tutorial wallets and recovery phrases were handled when employees left.
BNB Chain has not disclosed when the employee departed, how long the seed remained accessible or when it discovered the retained access. It also has not said whether other tutorial wallets are under review.
Crypto.news reported in 2025 that Binance suspended an employee following an investigation into alleged token front-running involving knowledge from a previous BNB Chain role. The latest statement does not say whether the incidents involve the same person.
Separately, as crypto.news reported, investigators have used fresh wallet clusters and concentrated ownership to examine suspected memecoin manipulation. Such patterns can establish connections between addresses, but identity claims may still require exchange records or other off-chain evidence.
Legal action and wallet tracing come next
BNB Chain said it is working with relevant authorities, but its statement did not name an agency that had opened an investigation. A formal complaint or enforcement notice would clarify the legal claims, venue and requested remedies. Until then, the company statement and on-chain analysis remain the main public records.
The wallets and any destinations receiving the 1,103 BNB may provide a trail for investigators. Recovery would depend on whether funds reach identifiable exchange accounts or services able to respond to lawful requests. BNB Chain has not announced a freeze, recovery or repayment.
No token-price reaction is included because multiple assets use the ASTEROID name and BNB Chain did not publish a contract address. Using market data for another token could misstate the event. The next verified development would be a company update, regulator notice or public court filing.
The summer is not the most exciting period in the cryptocurrency markets, and the past month or so proved it. Nevertheless, Ethereum managed to become one of the few (re)rising stars, surging by roughly 20% and reaching a local peak.
History suggests that August has been quite the controversial month for the largest altcoin, and we will explore that data to try to see what could be hiding around the corner in the next 30ish days.
ETH Saw Big July Gains
The second-largest cryptocurrency by market cap had a violent end to 2025 and a similarly painful start to 2026. Its troubles began after the all-time high marked in August last year, when it was rejected and marked six consecutive monthly closures in the red. The most painful were November (-22.38%), January (-17.52%), and February (-19.81%).
A minor relief rally followed in March and April with gains of around 7% each. However, the bears returned in May with an 11% drop, while June was extremely bearish for the entire market and ETH dumped by 21.7%. As such, the expectations for July were high for a rebound. Historically, it hasn’t been Ethereum’s best month, but all that were in the green saw double-digit gains.
July 2026 didn’t disappoint. The altcoin rebounded from the early slumber when it dipped toward $1,500 and rocketed to $1,980 at one point. Although it was rejected there, it ended the month at around $1,900, which meant a solid surge of approximately 20%. This performance dwarfed BTC’s monthly gains, as the market leader jumped by a more modest 9%.
What’s Next in August?
Although there are some warning signs about ETH’s short-term price future, August has delivered some major gains throughout the years. Obviously, the 2017 edition stands out when the token skyrocketed by nearly 93%. 2020 brought a respectable 25.32% surge, followed by another 35.62% pump in 2021. The gains in August 2025 were also double digits, and ETH managed to break its previous ATH record during that month.
The opposite side of the coin is that the other six Augusts since 2016 have been in the red. The most painful examples that stand out were during the 2018 bear market when ETH slumped by almost 35%, another 21.31% leg down a year later, and the 2024 drop of 22.21%.
The post Ethereum Just Had Its Best Month in a Year: Can ETH Keep Rallying in August? appeared first on CryptoPotato.
BNB Chain said a former employee allegedly used a company tutorial wallet to create a memecoin that the company says it did not authorize or endorse.
Trump Media & Technology Group, the parent company behind the Truth Social platform, has continued trimming its Bitcoin exposure, according to on-chain tracking shared by Lookonchain. The latest activity adds to a months-long pattern of sales that have significantly reduced the company’s reported BTC balance.
In transfers identified by Lookonchain using Arkham data, Trump Media-linked wallets sent 2,628 BTC to Crypto.com. The move is reported to be worth roughly $165 million, extending a selling cycle that began about seven months ago.
Key takeaways
- Trump Media-linked wallets reportedly transferred 2,628 BTC (about $165M) to Crypto.com, per Lookonchain’s analysis of Arkham data.
- Lookonchain estimates Trump Media has sold a total of 7,281 BTC over the past seven months, worth roughly $545M.
- Arkham wallet data cited by Lookonchain shows remaining holdings of 4,261 BTC, worth about $269.8M at the time of reporting.
- Current scrutiny is taking place alongside broader legislative debate over the CLARITY Act, which has drawn attention for its ethics provisions around digital asset activity.
New Crypto.com transfers cut into remaining Bitcoin
Lookonchain reported that Trump Media has executed another batch of Bitcoin sales via transfers to Crypto.com. The analysis attributes the transactions to Trump Media-linked wallets and cites Arkham’s wallet and transaction information.
In this most recent set of moves, Arkham data referenced by Lookonchain points to two transfers: one for 2,429 BTC and another for 198.9 BTC.
Taken together, Lookonchain said these transfers total 2,628 BTC, valued at about $165 million based on the prevailing price assumptions used in its reporting. This latest reduction follows earlier transfers to Crypto.com reported on May 22, when the company-linked wallets moved a combined 2,650 BTC, worth roughly $205 million.
Seven-month selling spree shrinks reported holdings
Lookonchain frames the most recent transfer as the continuation of a broader liquidation strategy. The tracker said Trump Media purchased 11,542 BTC at an average price of $118,522 before beginning to sell portions of its holdings around seven months ago.
Based on the same dataset, Lookonchain estimates cumulative sales of 7,281 BTC over that period, worth approximately $545 million. The analysis also calculates an average selling price of $74,855 per BTC for those transactions.
After the latest outflows, Arkham data referenced in the report indicates Trump Media’s remaining Bitcoin holdings stand at 4,261 BTC, valued at about $269.8 million at the time of publication. That implies the company’s reported BTC balance has fallen by roughly 63% compared with the initial purchase total cited by Lookonchain.
Why the timing matters amid ethics and ownership debates
Beyond the on-chain mechanics, the sales arrive as lawmakers debate the Digital Asset Market Clarity (CLARITY) Act, a proposal that has attracted scrutiny for its approach to ethics rules and the question of whether officials’ digital asset activity could create conflicts of interest.
Critics have pointed to a range of Trump-linked crypto initiatives discussed in the broader public policy debate, including memecoins such as Official Trump (TRUMP) and Melania (MELANIA), as well as World Liberty Financial’s governance token WLFI and a USD1 stablecoin. The controversy centers on the overlap between political influence and private crypto holdings or products.
Recent CLARITY Act discussions, as described in coverage referenced by Cointelegraph, have focused on tightening ethics provisions—particularly rules governing when officials could issue or sponsor digital assets. However, as the source notes, the legislation remains under consideration and does not mandate that companies sell existing holdings.
That distinction is important for investors and compliance watchers: even if a law ultimately changes future behavior for officials or connected entities, it may not retroactively affect the ability of companies to keep, liquidate, or otherwise manage already-held crypto.
What to watch next for Trump Media-linked wallets
For market participants, the key signal in this story is not simply that Bitcoin is being sold, but how steadily it is being done and through which counterparties—here, Crypto.com—based on wallet and transaction clustering reported through Arkham data by Lookonchain.
Readers should watch for whether additional transfers continue to appear from the same Trump Media-linked wallet set, and whether the remaining 4,261 BTC balance changes further. At the same time, political and regulatory attention around the CLARITY Act suggests that disclosure, governance, and ethics standards for digital asset participation may remain a live topic even if near-term changes do not compel immediate sales.
Crypto World
XRP Price Prediction: Japan Just Made It Insanely Easy to Get Free XRP with a Credit Card
Japan just handed XRP holders a mainstream on-ramp that many Western markets still cannot match, and it’s bullish for Ripple’s price prediction. However, the pullback tells only part of the story. Tokyo’s latest crypto move could matter more than today’s price action.
Effective July 31, 2026, SBI VC Trade and Orient Corporation launched a first-of-its-kind integration. Orico credit card holders can now convert Orico Points into BTC, ETH, or XRP through the VCTRADE platform. The redemption rate is 1,200 Orico Points for ¥1,000 worth of crypto.
Meanwhile, Orico cards earn points at a 1.0% base rate, rising to 2.0% for new cardholders during their first six months. It marks the first time crypto has become a redemption option within the Orico Points program. The launch expands SBI’s push to connect traditional finance with digital assets.
A loyalty program that turns everyday spending into XRP exposure helps normalize the token for millions of Japanese consumers. That could gradually narrow the gap between retail interest and actual blockchain activity. While price remains volatile, easier access often supports adoption over the long run.
Discover: The Best Token Presales
XRP Price Prediction: Break $2 Again as Japan Adoption Accelerates?
XRP trades near $1.05 after a volatile week, leaving bulls stuck inside another familiar range. Recent weakness reflects cautious market sentiment more than XRP-specific selling. Meanwhile, relatively light volume suggests consolidation instead of heavy distribution.
Support now sits between $1.00 and $1.02, where buyers have repeatedly defended the price. A daily close below $1.00 would weaken the current structure and increase downside risk. Meanwhile, resistance stands between $1.08 and $1.10, where recent recovery attempts have faded.
Over the next two days, XRP is likely to trade between $1.00 and $1.10 unless a fresh catalyst shifts sentiment. A move above $1.10 could open the door to $1.15. However, losing the $1.00 support may trigger another test of the $0.95 region.
Longer term, bullish forecasts above $2.00 still depend on sustained institutional adoption. Japan’s new loyalty to the crypto initiative could strengthen that case over time. Still, investors will likely wait for meaningful user activity before pricing in a lasting breakout.
Trade XRP on Bybit and Get a Chance to Win Our $1,000 USDT Airdrop
Bitcoin Hyper Targets Early Mover Upside as XRP Tests Key Levels
XRP at today’s price is a legitimate hold for exposure to Japan’s institutional adoption story, but the upside math at this market cap requires a multi-month timeline and macro prediction. Traders looking for asymmetric early-stage returns are increasingly eyeing infrastructure plays that haven’t yet priced in their ceiling.
Bitcoin Hyper ($HYPER) is positioning itself as exactly that kind of infrastructure bet. The project is the first-ever Bitcoin Layer 2 with Solana Virtual Machine (SVM) integration, meaning smart contract execution at sub-Solana latency speeds, built on Bitcoin’s security layer. That’s a genuinely different value proposition from anything currently live on-chain.
The presale has raised $32.9 million at a current price of $0.0136839, with staking already live for participants. The combination of a hard technical USP, a nine-figure fundraise still in presale, and BTC’s institutional tailwinds makes $HYPER worth putting on the research list.
Discover: The Best Crypto to Diversify Your Portfolio
The post XRP Price Prediction: Japan Just Made It Insanely Easy to Get Free XRP with a Credit Card appeared first on Cryptonews.
Jay Clayton becomes America’s top intelligence official on Monday. He is the same man who, as SEC chairman, sued Ripple for $1.3 billion.
Bill Pulte announced the handover on Saturday. He has held the DNI job on an acting basis since June.
What Jay Clayton’s DNI Move Means for Ripple
Clayton ran the SEC until December 2020. On his final full day, the agency sued Ripple.
The complaint named two executives as well. It said Brad Garlinghouse and Chris Larsen sold about $600 million of XRP themselves.
Judge Analisa Torres gave each side part of what it wanted. Only Ripple’s sales to large institutions broke the law.
She fined the company $125,035,150. She also ordered it not to repeat those sales.
Both sides gave up their appeals on August 7, 2025. That ended the four-year case, and the fine stood.
Now Clayton leaves finance behind for good. His new job has no power over the SEC, crypto rules, or XRP.
That answers the question BeInCrypto asked at his June DNI nomination. XRP barely moved. It traded near $1.08 on Sunday, up 1.9% on the day.
The token is still down 64% over the past year.
Pulte Returns Full Time to Housing Finance
Pulte held two big jobs at once for about seven weeks. He ran the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI). He also stayed in charge of the Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA).
However, Pulte spent much of that time cutting staff.
Hours before the Senate confirmed Clayton 51-47, Pulte announced a fifth round of firings on X (Twitter). He called it an “approximately 30% Staff Reduction from Weeks Ago.”
He did not say how many people lost their jobs, Nextgov reported.
In his farewell message, Pulte treated the shrinking as the point of his stint.
“I am eternally grateful to President Trump for the opportunity to serve as Director of National Intelligence, while he completed historic declassifications and we right sized the ODNI,” said Pulte, acting Director of National Intelligence.
Follow us on X to get the latest news as it happens
The cuts began before him. Tulsi Gabbard planned to shrink ODNI staff by 40% and its budget by $700 million before she resigned in June.
Congressional aides told the Washington Post that roughly 200 staff left or moved after June 1.
Clayton may not carry on. He told senators he wants a “fairly lean” office, but agreed to look again at some cuts.
“There needs to be a place of oversight, a place to resolve conflict. I look at it as a ‘board of directors’ role,” Clayton said in the hearing.
For crypto readers, Pulte is the name that matters more. He told Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to count crypto in mortgage assessments in June 2025.
In March he went further and let crypto reserves back mortgages. From Monday, housing is his only job again.
The post Ripple Lawsuit Architect Takes Over as US Director of National Intelligence appeared first on BeInCrypto.
Trump Media & Technology Group, the parent of Truth Social, has continued to reduce its reported Bitcoin exposure with another batch of transfers to exchange infrastructure. According to Lookonchain, the company sold 2,628 BTC—valued at roughly $165 million at the time of the transfers—via movements to Crypto.com, based on blockchain data compiled from Arkham.
The latest activity adds to a broader pattern of selling observed over the past seven months, shrinking the company’s reported holdings and feeding into ongoing political scrutiny of Trump-linked crypto projects and the ethics questions surrounding digital asset ownership.
Key takeaways
- Trump Media-linked wallets transferred 2,628 BTC (about $165 million) to Crypto.com, according to Lookonchain’s analysis using Arkham data.
- Over the past seven months, reported Bitcoin sales total 7,281 BTC (about $545 million), per Lookonchain.
- Arkham wallet data shows remaining holdings of 4,261 BTC (worth about $269.8 million at the time of reporting).
- Recent transfers include an Arkham-documented transaction for 2,429 BTC and another for 198.9 BTC moving to Crypto.com.
- The selling comes amid congressional discussion of the CLARITY Act, which targets ethics and digital asset rules but does not compel companies to liquidate existing holdings.
Another Crypto.com-linked transfer reduces reported BTC
In a Sunday post on X, Lookonchain said Trump Media sold 2,628 BTC through transfers to Crypto.com. The analysis was based on on-chain visibility attributed to Trump Media-linked entities, with Arkham used as the data layer for identifying the wallet activity.
Lookonchain further reported that Trump Media had purchased 11,542 BTC at an average price of $118,522 before starting to sell portions of its holdings about seven months prior to the latest transactions.
How much Bitcoin has been sold—and what remains
Lookonchain’s tally places total reported sales over the same seven-month window at 7,281 BTC, valued around $545 million, with an average selling price of $74,855 per BTC based on its methodology.
Arkham’s wallet figures cited by the analysis indicate that Trump Media’s remaining Bitcoin holdings were 4,261 BTC at the time of publication, worth approximately $269.8 million.
The most recent movements to Crypto.com, according to Arkham wallet data referenced in the report, included two notable transfers: one transaction of 2,429 BTC and another of 198.9 BTC. These transfers follow earlier activity that Lookonchain linked to the same selling program, including two movements recorded on May 22 totaling 2,650 BTC (worth about $205 million at the time).
Why repeated selling matters for investors watching disclosures
For market participants, the practical significance of these transactions is less about the immediate price impact of any single sale and more about consistency, transparency, and how quickly a large holder can reduce exposure. When a corporate-linked balance sheet shows continued liquidation of a major volatile asset like Bitcoin, investors often interpret it as a shift in treasury strategy, liquidity planning, or a risk-management decision.
Just as importantly, the reported activity draws attention to how on-chain transfers by identifiable entities can affect expectations around future flows. If more transfers to exchange-linked addresses continue, traders may look for repeated liquidity events that can complicate execution for both spot and derivatives participants—particularly if the market perceives the sales as part of a longer unwinding rather than one-off diversification.
CLARITY Act debate keeps ethics questions in focus
Beyond the on-chain movements, the latest Bitcoin sales land at a time when lawmakers are weighing the Digital Asset Market Clarity (CLARITY) Act. In the broader debate, attention has turned to ethics provisions, conflicts of interest, and how public officials should handle relationships with digital asset issuers and related ventures.
Critics have pointed to a cluster of Trump-linked crypto interests discussed in policy circles, including the Official Trump (TRUMP) and Melania (MELANIA) memecoins, as well as World Liberty Financial’s WLFI governance token and USD1 stablecoin. The issue raised by opponents is the overlap between political influence and private crypto holdings—particularly where governance or issuance incentives could be perceived as benefiting affiliated interests.
While current CLARITY Act discussions have focused on tightening ethics rules—such as restrictions on officials issuing or sponsoring digital assets—the legislation remains under consideration and, according to the report’s framing, does not require companies to sell existing crypto holdings.
That distinction is likely to matter in how the market interprets these developments. Even if policymakers move toward stricter disclosure or conflict-of-interest standards, treasury actions already in motion—like the sell-through described by Lookonchain and supported by Arkham wallet data—may continue on a timetable driven by corporate liquidity decisions rather than by immediate regulatory requirements.
What to watch next
Readers should watch for whether additional exchange-linked transfers continue from the same Trump Media-linked wallets and whether lawmakers’ CLARITY Act deliberations progress in a way that clarifies disclosure and ethics obligations for officials and affiliated entities. Until then, the main signal remains the on-chain pattern: reported Bitcoin balances appear to be shrinking in measured batches, supported by repeated wallet movements documented through Arkham and aggregated by Lookonchain.
Michael Saylor says the $5 billion Bitcoin sale story that tore across X (Twitter) this weekend was never news at all. Every dollar of it, he says, was made public a month ago.
The claim spread fast. MicroStrategy (now Strategy) had just won approval to sell up to $5 billion in Bitcoin (BTC), the posts said. Saylor called it old news in a new wrapper.
Where the $5 Billion Number Came From
MicroStrategy announced a new capital plan on June 29, 2026. Inside it sits a BTC Monetization Program. The program lets the company sell Bitcoin. It never makes it.
The plan set four spending limits.
- $1.25 billion to rebuild its cash reserve
- $1 billion to buy back preferred shares
- $1 billion to buy back common stock
- About $1.76 billion a year in dividend and interest bills
Add them up and you get $5.01 billion. That is the viral number. It went public five weeks ago.
Why did the cash reserve need rebuilding? It had shrunk to $871 million by May 25. MicroStrategy had just spent $1.38 billion of cash clearing debt.
BeInCrypto covered the shift toward active management when the plan landed.
The Never Sell Rule That Never Existed
So why did anyone think MicroStrategy would never sell?
Because Saylor said so. He posted “Never sell your Bitcoin” in February 2025. Followers treated the line as law.
The company had already moved on. Chief Executive Phong Le said on May 26 that selling Bitcoin was part of the toolkit. He said investors heard it on the first quarter earnings call.
That was five weeks before June 29. MicroStrategy’s first sale since 2022 came days later, to cover a dividend.
Saylor now separates his own advice from company policy.
Follow us on X to get the latest news as it happens
We have never had a “never sell” policy. The program does not require any BTC sale, and we expect to remain a net buyer of Bitcoin over time.
Watcher Guru, the account behind the viral post, has since deleted it.
What the Numbers Actually Show
Timing is the whole fight. MicroStrategy reported an $8.22 billion loss on July 30. Almost all of it was on paper. Bitcoin fell, so the value of its stack fell too.
Calling a June decision a reaction to a July loss gets the order backwards.
The trading says plenty. MicroStrategy bought 85,296 Bitcoin between April and June. It sold 1,395. That is 61 bought for every one sold. The stack still grew 11% to 846,000 BTC.
Sales this year hit $218.4 million by July 26. All of it paid dividends. That is 0.4% of a stack worth $54.8 billion.
Selling is picking up, though. Roughly $135 million of that came in July alone. That beats the whole second quarter. MicroStrategy has also paused its Bitcoin purchases for five weeks.
Bitcoin traded near $63,378 on Sunday, about half its October record. Staying a net buyer now rests on cheap money, not belief.
The post Michael Saylor Shuts Down Viral $5 Billion MicroStrategy Bitcoin Sale Claims appeared first on BeInCrypto.
Capital One Says It Closed Trump Organization Accounts Over Anti-Money Laundering Concerns in Court Filing
Coldcard Hack Fallout Widens as Bitcoin Losses Hit $88.6M
Brooklyn Beckham, Wife Vacation With His Godfather Elton John
Renter of Home in Anne Heche Crash Denies Settlement With Son
No Jackpot Winner as $257 Million Prize Rolls Over to $269 Million Monday Draw
Weekend Open Thread: Staud – Corporette.com
5 financial literacy lessons I wish I learned in high school
“POV: Nobody Believed In You Except You #shorts #success #money #mindset
LISA ‘MONEY’ mirrored dance cover #shorts (based on the Performance vid and added some freestyle)
-
Sports7 days agoCommonwealth Games boxing: Jadumani Singh seals dominant 5-0 win over Pakistan’s Sumama Rehman to enter quarter-finals | Commonwealth Games News
-
Business4 days agoWhy Trees Belong on the Risk Register
-
Fashion2 days agoWeekend Open Thread: Wit & Wisdom
-
Tech6 days agoIntel is reversing course and bringing hyper-threading back to its server chips
-
Politics2 days agoMeta enters AI-training agreement with far-right ‘propaganda rag’ Newsmax
-
Politics6 days agoLuke Littler dismantles Gerwyn Price to retain title in Blackpool
-
Crypto World21 hours agoMicroStrategy Post-Earnings CLARITY Act Push Could Add New Catalyst for Its Stock
-
Politics5 days agoThe Part of the Electric Transition Nobody Wants to Discuss
-
Entertainment5 days ago‘Stargate’ Creator’s New Sci-Fi Series Returns for Season 3 Tomorrow
-
News Videos7 days agoBITCOIN JUST ENTERED THIS CRITICAL ZONE…
-
Business4 days agoMajor shareholder moves on Canyon
-
Politics7 days agoSpain sweeps the board at 2026 World Cup with individual awards
-
News Videos3 days agoBitcoin Enters the 3rd Stage of the Bear Market
-
Crypto World1 day agoXRP Ledger v3.3.0 brings five institutional features
-
Crypto World5 days agoKraken Enables Retail Access to Jersey Mike’s IPO via Tokenized Shares
-
Tech5 days agoNew macOS Sequoia & Sonoma security updates for older Macs
-
News Videos5 days agoClaude: Build Financial Dashboards in Minutes (2026)
-
Politics3 days agoLuke Littler’s dominance sparks GOAT debate
-
Sports2 days agoSeema Kaliramna Wins Discus Throw Bronze, Takes India’s CWG Medals Tally To 17
-
Business5 days agoJohnson & Johnson agrees to $5.5B settlement over talc cancer claims
You must be logged in to post a comment Login