Crypto World
What’s going on with crypto?
by Gonzalo Wangüemert Villalba
•
4 September 2025
Introduction The open-source AI ecosystem reached a turning point in August 2025 when Elon Musk’s company xAI released Grok 2.5 and, almost simultaneously, OpenAI launched two new models under the names GPT-OSS-20B and GPT-OSS-120B. While both announcements signalled a commitment to transparency and broader accessibility, the details of these releases highlight strikingly different approaches to what open AI should mean. This article explores the architecture, accessibility, performance benchmarks, regulatory compliance and wider industry impact of these three models. The aim is to clarify whether xAI’s Grok or OpenAI’s GPT-OSS family currently offers more value for developers, businesses and regulators in Europe and beyond. What Was Released Grok 2.5, described by xAI as a 270 billion parameter model, was made available through the release of its weights and tokenizer. These files amount to roughly half a terabyte and were published on Hugging Face. Yet the release lacks critical elements such as training code, detailed architectural notes or dataset documentation. Most importantly, Grok 2.5 comes with a bespoke licence drafted by xAI that has not yet been clearly scrutinised by legal or open-source communities. Analysts have noted that its terms could be revocable or carry restrictions that prevent the model from being considered genuinely open source. Elon Musk promised on social media that Grok 3 would be published in the same manner within six months, suggesting this is just the beginning of a broader strategy by xAI to join the open-source race. By contrast, OpenAI unveiled GPT-OSS-20B and GPT-OSS-120B on 5 August 2025 with a far more comprehensive package. The models were released under the widely recognised Apache 2.0 licence, which is permissive, business-friendly and in line with requirements of the European Union’s AI Act. OpenAI did not only share the weights but also architectural details, training methodology, evaluation benchmarks, code samples and usage guidelines. This represents one of the most transparent releases ever made by the company, which historically faced criticism for keeping its frontier models proprietary. Architectural Approach The architectural differences between these models reveal much about their intended use. Grok 2.5 is a dense transformer with all 270 billion parameters engaged in computation. Without detailed documentation, it is unclear how efficiently it handles scaling or what kinds of attention mechanisms are employed. Meanwhile, GPT-OSS-20B and GPT-OSS-120B make use of a Mixture-of-Experts design. In practice this means that although the models contain 21 and 117 billion parameters respectively, only a small subset of those parameters are activated for each token. GPT-OSS-20B activates 3.6 billion and GPT-OSS-120B activates just over 5 billion. This architecture leads to far greater efficiency, allowing the smaller of the two to run comfortably on devices with only 16 gigabytes of memory, including Snapdragon laptops and consumer-grade graphics cards. The larger model requires 80 gigabytes of GPU memory, placing it in the range of high-end professional hardware, yet still far more efficient than a dense model of similar size. This is a deliberate choice by OpenAI to ensure that open-weight models are not only theoretically available but practically usable. Documentation and Transparency The difference in documentation further separates the two releases. OpenAI’s GPT-OSS models include explanations of their sparse attention layers, grouped multi-query attention, and support for extended context lengths up to 128,000 tokens. These details allow independent researchers to understand, test and even modify the architecture. By contrast, Grok 2.5 offers little more than its weight files and tokenizer, making it effectively a black box. From a developer’s perspective this is crucial: having access to weights without knowing how the system was trained or structured limits reproducibility and hinders adaptation. Transparency also affects regulatory compliance and community trust, making OpenAI’s approach significantly more robust. Performance and Benchmarks Benchmark performance is another area where GPT-OSS models shine. According to OpenAI’s technical documentation and independent testing, GPT-OSS-120B rivals or exceeds the reasoning ability of the company’s o4-mini model, while GPT-OSS-20B achieves parity with the o3-mini. On benchmarks such as MMLU, Codeforces, HealthBench and the AIME mathematics tests from 2024 and 2025, the models perform strongly, especially considering their efficient architecture. GPT-OSS-20B in particular impressed researchers by outperforming much larger competitors such as Qwen3-32B on certain coding and reasoning tasks, despite using less energy and memory. Academic studies published on arXiv in August 2025 highlighted that the model achieved nearly 32 per cent higher throughput and more than 25 per cent lower energy consumption per 1,000 tokens than rival models. Interestingly, one paper noted that GPT-OSS-20B outperformed its larger sibling GPT-OSS-120B on some human evaluation benchmarks, suggesting that sparse scaling does not always correlate linearly with capability. In terms of safety and robustness, the GPT-OSS models again appear carefully designed. They perform comparably to o4-mini on jailbreak resistance and bias testing, though they display higher hallucination rates in simple factual question-answering tasks. This transparency allows researchers to target weaknesses directly, which is part of the value of an open-weight release. Grok 2.5, however, lacks publicly available benchmarks altogether. Without independent testing, its actual capabilities remain uncertain, leaving the community with only Musk’s promotional statements to go by. Regulatory Compliance Regulatory compliance is a particularly important issue for organisations in Europe under the EU AI Act. The legislation requires general-purpose AI models to be released under genuinely open licences, accompanied by detailed technical documentation, information on training and testing datasets, and usage reporting. For models that exceed systemic risk thresholds, such as those trained with more than 10²⁵ floating point operations, further obligations apply, including risk assessment and registration. Grok 2.5, by virtue of its vague licence and lack of documentation, appears non-compliant on several counts. Unless xAI publishes more details or adapts its licensing, European businesses may find it difficult or legally risky to adopt Grok in their workflows. GPT-OSS-20B and 120B, by contrast, seem carefully aligned with the requirements of the AI Act. Their Apache 2.0 licence is recognised under the Act, their documentation meets transparency demands, and OpenAI has signalled a commitment to provide usage reporting. From a regulatory standpoint, OpenAI’s releases are safer bets for integration within the UK and EU. Community Reception The reception from the AI community reflects these differences. Developers welcomed OpenAI’s move as a long-awaited recognition of the open-source movement, especially after years of criticism that the company had become overly protective of its models. Some users, however, expressed frustration with the mixture-of-experts design, reporting that it can lead to repetitive tool-calling behaviours and less engaging conversational output. Yet most acknowledged that for tasks requiring structured reasoning, coding or mathematical precision, the GPT-OSS family performs exceptionally well. Grok 2.5’s release was greeted with more scepticism. While some praised Musk for at least releasing weights, others argued that without a proper licence or documentation it was little more than a symbolic gesture designed to signal openness while avoiding true transparency. Strategic Implications The strategic motivations behind these releases are also worth considering. For xAI, releasing Grok 2.5 may be less about immediate usability and more about positioning in the competitive AI landscape, particularly against Chinese developers and American rivals. For OpenAI, the move appears to be a balancing act: maintaining leadership in proprietary frontier models like GPT-5 while offering credible open-weight alternatives that address regulatory scrutiny and community pressure. This dual strategy could prove effective, enabling the company to dominate both commercial and open-source markets. Conclusion Ultimately, the comparison between Grok 2.5 and GPT-OSS-20B and 120B is not merely technical but philosophical. xAI’s release demonstrates a willingness to participate in the open-source movement but stops short of true openness. OpenAI, on the other hand, has set a new standard for what open-weight releases should look like in 2025: efficient architectures, extensive documentation, clear licensing, strong benchmark performance and regulatory compliance. For European businesses and policymakers evaluating open-source AI options, GPT-OSS currently represents the more practical, compliant and capable choice. In conclusion, while both xAI and OpenAI contributed to the momentum of open-source AI in August 2025, the details reveal that not all openness is created equal. Grok 2.5 stands as an important symbolic release, but OpenAI’s GPT-OSS family sets the benchmark for practical usability, compliance with the EU AI Act, and genuine transparency.
The 2026 split between gold and Bitcoin is being read through the lens of two distinct buyer groups, according to Stephen Coltman, head of macro at 21Shares, a provider of crypto exchange-traded products. While gold has benefited from a sustained wave of central-bank purchases, Bitcoin remains largely a retail asset, with ownership concentrated among individuals rather than institutions. Coltman framed the dynamic as a macro-driven divergence that could persist as fundamentals evolve.
Physical gold has a greater geopolitical strategic role currently, as the asset of choice for state actors who want to store wealth in a way that is protected from rival powers. This has meant that it has traded with greater sensitivity to deteriorating international relations.
On the other hand, Bitcoin’s practical appeal centers on everyday users seeking resilience amid financial stress. Coltman notes that BTC has significant appeal as an alternative lifeline when local banking infrastructure falters or access to the traditional financial system is constrained, a feature that becomes particularly salient during crises. This contrast helps explain why gold and Bitcoin can diverge at the same time, even as investors watch both assets for different kinds of hedging and exposure.
Coltman also highlighted the inverse correlation between BTC and gold, suggesting that investors may benefit from holding both assets to tap into their respective strengths—gold as a strategic reserve and Bitcoin as a mobile, permissionless financial option during disruptions.
Macro forces through most of the last few years pushed gold to a record run, with the precious metal climbing toward near $5,600 per ounce in January 2026. Yet heightened volatility and swift drawdowns pulled prices back to roughly $4,497 per ounce, renewing the debate about gold’s role as a store of value and how it will fare against Bitcoin in the medium term.
Key takeaways
- Gold’s rally has been driven predominantly by central-bank purchasing, while Bitcoin remains more retail-led in ownership and demand.
- The BTC–gold relationship tends to move inversely, suggesting a potential diversification benefit for investors who allocate to both assets.
- January 2026 saw gold scaling multi-decade highs near $5,600/oz, followed by a retreat to around $4,500/oz amid renewed volatility.
- Analysts diverge on the long-term leadership: some see BTC outperforming gold over the next few years, while others argue gold’s reserve-asset status strengthens its staying power.
Two camps on future dominance: BTC versus gold
Among market observers, the tug-of-war between Bitcoin and gold persists as a central theme for the years ahead. Macro economist Lyn Alden contends that Bitcoin is likely to outperform gold over the next three years, arguing that the existing rally in gold could face diminishing returns in the next cycle. As Alden put it in discussions cited in coverage around these views, the pendulum typically swings between the two assets, and heavy gains for gold could temper BTC’s upside in the near term.
But not everyone sees Bitcoin eclipsing gold. Ray Dalio, the famed hedge-fund veteran, maintains that BTC will not replace gold as a store of value. He points to Bitcoin’s exposure to risk-on dynamics and its correlation with technology equities, whereas gold carries entrenched status as a reserve asset within the global banking system. The debate underscores a broader question: which asset better preserves wealth across regimes of stress and monetary policy shifts?
Geopolitics, crises, and the case for 24/7 access
The 2026 period has also underscored the practical differences between the two assets during real-world events. Coltman cited episodes such as the Iran-related conflict, where financial infrastructure and market access in some regions faced disruption. In such moments, the appeal of a global, 24/7 settlement layer—Bitcoin—appears to offer continuity when traditional financial rails are strained. That sense of resilience helps explain why BTC can behave differently from gold in the same geopolitical environment.
The dynamic is not purely academic. In times of stress, gold’s geopolitical role as a state-aligned wealth store remains a stabilizing force for many investors who seek a traditional hedge within a framework of central-bank policy and international relations. Yet Bitcoin’s ability to function as a borderless, permissionless asset during crises adds a complementary edge for those who want an alternative pathway to financial access when banks and payments networks are disrupted.
What to watch next
As macro and geopolitical headwinds evolve, the balance between gold and Bitcoin will hinge on central-bank action, inflation dynamics, and how effectively both assets penetrate different investor cohorts. For traders and portfolio builders, monitoring central-bank balance-sheet trends, currency stability in stressed regions, and the pace of retail adoption for Bitcoin will be essential to gauge which asset gains resilience in the next phase of the cycle. The core tension—whether gold’s reserve role or Bitcoin’s crisis-resilience will lead—remains unresolved, but the ongoing dialogue among analysts signals that both assets will continue to play meaningful, albeit distinct, roles in diversified crypto and traditional portfolios.
Investors should stay alert to shifting macro signals and geopolitical developments, as these factors will continue to shape how gold and Bitcoin interact in 2026 and beyond. The landscape remains uncertain, but the case for a dual exposure—benefiting from the unique strengths of each asset—appears to be a persistent theme for informed market participants.
TLDR:
- Bitmine holds 4.6 million ETH, with 3 million actively staked and generating around $180 million annually.
- Ethereum’s 2.8% staking yield cuts the cost gap, meaning Lee needs only 8–9% more to match Saylor’s offer.
- Bitmine has been acquiring over 60,000 ETH weekly, building a low cost basis ahead of any product launch.
- Unlike Bitcoin, Ethereum’s native protocol yield subsidizes the dividend structure, making the flywheel self-reinforcing.
ETH Stretch may be the next big institutional product to emerge in the crypto market. Bitmine, led by strategist Tom Lee, currently holds 4.6 million ETH.
That figure represents nearly 4% of Ethereum’s total circulating supply. Of that holding, 3 million ETH is actively staked, generating around $180 million per year in protocol rewards.
Analyst Axel Bitblaze recently argued that Lee has the infrastructure to launch a Stretch-style fixed-yield product on this existing base.
Ethereum Staking Yield Creates a Structural Cost Advantage
Michael Saylor’s Stretch product offers a fixed 11.5% yield, with all proceeds going into Bitcoin. This buying pressure has pushed hundreds of millions into BTC each week.
Many credit this as a key reason Bitcoin held above $69,000. Without this demand, some analysts suggest prices would sit near $50,000.
Tom Lee, however, already runs a yield engine that Saylor does not have. Bitmine’s staked ETH generates about 2.8% annually from Ethereum’s protocol.
That income covers part of any fixed dividend Lee would need to pay out. Lee would only need to generate an additional 8–9% to match Saylor’s offer.
Bitblaze noted on X that this cost structure allows Lee to undercut Stretch on yield expenses. That margin could make the product more attractive to institutional capital.
Wall Street typically responds well to yield products with stronger cost profiles. Staking income is a meaningful competitive edge in this space.
Additionally, Bitmine has been buying over 60,000 ETH per week in current market conditions. The firm’s cost basis remains low, and Ethereum sentiment is broadly negative.
Those two factors create a favorable window for any product announcement. A low cost basis combined with native yield strengthens the overall case considerably.
The Ethereum Flywheel and Its Reflexivity Potential
The mechanics of an ETH Stretch product follow a clear and self-reinforcing loop. Every dollar raised would go toward buying more ETH on the open market.
More ETH purchased means more ETH available for staking. More staked ETH then generates additional protocol rewards to help fund the dividend.
This cycle differs from Saylor’s model in one key respect: Ethereum has native yield. Bitcoin has no protocol income, yet the BTC Stretch flywheel has still gained traction.
Ethereum’s staking rewards subsidize the structure from the start. That makes the feedback loop cheaper to run and easier to grow.
Bitblaze argued that Saylor’s flywheel works despite Bitcoin having no yield. Lee’s version, by contrast, would run on Ethereum’s own protocol income.
That distinction changes the product economics entirely. A yield-backed demand engine does not rely solely on price appreciation. It draws strength directly from the Ethereum protocol itself.
Should Lee announce such a product while sentiment is low, the price response could be rapid. Institutional capital targeting yield would flow in, driving ETH demand higher.
Higher ETH prices improve staking returns in dollar terms, attracting still more capital. That loop, once active, tends to accelerate.
Crypto World
Ethereum Price Prediction: ETH Price Could Reach $2,500 as BNB Weakens and Pepeto Shows the Utility Gains That Matter
BlackRock launched the iShares Staked Ethereum Trust on March 12, and the fund pulled in $254 million in its first week, making it the fastest growing crypto ETF this quarter.
While the ethereum price prediction shows a path toward $2,500, Pepeto is drawing attention with exchange infrastructure already live, more than $8 million raised, and a Binance listing approaching. The wallets entering now are targeting returns the ethereum price prediction needs the full cycle to deliver.
Ethereum Price Prediction Gains Support After BlackRock Staked ETF Pulls $254 Million in One Week
BlackRock launched ETHB on March 12 on Nasdaq, staking 70% to 95% of its Ethereum holdings and paying investors roughly 82% of staking rewards through monthly payouts, according to CoinDesk.
The fund reached $254 million in assets within seven days, according to Decrypt. Goldman Sachs reported over $1 billion in Ethereum ETF holdings, and Larry Fink called blockchain infrastructure necessary at Davos this year.
The ethereum price prediction has institutional money behind it, but from $2,083 the path to $2,500 is a 20% move that takes patience.
Ethereum Price Prediction and the Presale Offering Returns ETH Cannot Match
Pepeto
As rug pulls grow more common, the cost of entering a project without checking its contracts keeps rising. Every cycle, traders lose more capital to scams that grow harder to detect with each new method. Doing your own research takes hours most people do not have, and it still misses the risks buried in smart contract code.
Pepeto was designed to end that problem before your money is at risk. The exchange is already running while the presale fills. The risk scorer examines every contract for hidden traps and scam patterns, giving you a clear answer in seconds instead of hours of digging through code, so you act with confidence instead of guessing.
The cofounder who took the original Pepe coin to $11 billion with nothing is now building an exchange with zero fee trading, cross chain transfers at zero cost through the bridge, and a SolidProof audit completed before the presale opened. A former Binance expert is on the dev team, 195% APY staking compounds in wallets that positioned early, and the presale has crossed more than $8 million with the Binance listing approaching.
At $0.000000186 with the same 420 trillion supply that reached $11 billion under Pepe, matching that market cap is over 150x, and Pepeto has the exchange infrastructure Pepe never built. The wallets filling the presale are taking the entry that disappears the moment trading begins, and the holders who are not inside yet are the ones who will spend this cycle wishing they had moved.
Ethereum Price Prediction: Can ETH Reach $2,500 With BlackRock Leading Institutional Demand?
ETH trades near $2,083 as of March 22, holding above the $2,000 support that formed a floor since mid February, according to CoinMarketCap.
BlackRock’s ETHA holds $6.5 billion and the new staked ETHB already sits at $254 million after one week. Resistance levels form at $2,235 and $2,380, and if both break cleanly the next ethereum price prediction target is $2,500.
Losing $2,000 could trigger a pullback toward $1,800. Even the bullish $2,500 scenario is a 20% move from current prices, a return that requires months of positive conditions and institutional follow through.
BNB
BNB trades near $631 as of March 22, steady despite the broader correction, according to CoinMarketCap. The Binance ecosystem keeps BNB supported, but from $631 the token needs to reclaim $720 before any meaningful run begins.
A 2x requires BNB above $1,200, a level it has never held. Neither the ethereum price prediction nor BNB delivers the distance a presale to exchange listing compresses into the moment trading opens.
Ethereum Price Prediction Points to $2,500 but the Presale Entry Points to Where Wealth Was Built
The ethereum price prediction has BlackRock behind it, the staked ETF is pulling institutional money, and the $2,500 target is realistic. But the smart money wallets filling Pepeto at presale pricing are building positions that expect returns ETH from $2,090 takes years to match.
The crypto news will cover this moment after the Binance listing, and the only question is whether you lock in your position on the Pepeto official website today or pay a higher price later from wallets that moved while you were still reading about ETH.
BlackRock is staking ETH for 3% yield. The wallets inside Pepeto are targeting 150x, decide which return fits this cycle.
Click To Visit Pepeto Website To Enter The Presale
FAQs
What is the ethereum price prediction for today?
The ethereum price prediction targets $2,500 if ETH holds above $2,000 support. Investors seeking faster returns are looking at Pepeto, where matching Pepe’s market cap is over 150x from presale.
Why is Pepeto trending alongside the ethereum price prediction?
Pepeto has become the presale drawing the most capital because it combines a working exchange with the same supply that took Pepe to $11 billion, positioning it for returns ETH cannot match from $2,083.
How does the ethereum price prediction compare with early presales like Pepeto?
The Pepeto official website offers a presale where the Binance listing compresses the return window into days, while the ethereum price prediction from $2,083 to $2,500 is a 20% move requiring months.
Disclaimer: This is a Press Release provided by a third party who is responsible for the content. Please conduct your own research before taking any action based on the content.
TLDR:
- Trump issues 48-hour ultimatum demanding Iran reopen the Strait or face power plant strikes.
- Iran warns of full closure of the Strait and retaliation against regional energy infrastructure.
- Tanker traffic dropped 90%, increasing concerns over global oil supply and market stability.
- Iranian officials list potential targets, including Israel and US-linked energy assets.
Iran war live Trump Strait of Hormuz tensions intensified after a 48-hour ultimatum triggered threats of energy infrastructure attacks, raising risks of wider regional escalation and disruption to global oil transit routes.
Trump Issues 48-Hour Ultimatum
The United States has issued a direct warning to Tehran. In his statement, President Donald Trump demanded that Iran fully reopen the Strait within 48 hours.
He threatened attacks on major Iranian power plants if the demand is ignored. The ultimatum highlighted the strategic significance of the Strait of Hormuz, through which a significant portion of global oil shipments pass.
Tanker traffic has already fallen by nearly 90% in recent weeks, raising concerns about energy supply disruptions worldwide.
Trump’s statement did not clarify whether nuclear-linked power plants, such as Bushehr, would be included in the strike. This uncertainty added to regional tension, as the potential for collateral damage remains high.
“If Iran doesn’t FULLY OPEN the Strait, the US will hit major power plants first,” Trump’s statement read, reflecting the firm deadline.
Iran Warns of Retaliation and Regional Impact
Iranian officials outlined a detailed response as spokesperson Ebrahim Zolfaghari confirmed that the Strait remains partially open under controlled access. He however, warned that any strike on power plants would trigger immediate retaliation.
Iran indicated that a full closure of the Strait would follow any attack, with reopening dependent on reconstruction of damaged infrastructure.
Officials also listed potential regional targets, including power plants in Israel, companies with American shareholders, and energy infrastructure in countries hosting US bases.
Iran’s parliament speaker, Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf, further emphasized the scale of potential consequences. He warned that attacks on Iranian infrastructure could lead to the irreversible destruction of energy networks across the Gulf, maintaining elevated oil prices for an extended period.
Previous demonstrations of Iran’s reach, such as the strike on Qatar’s Ras Laffan LNG terminal, showed the country’s capability to disrupt regional energy systems.
Regional and international actors are monitoring the situation closely, highlighting the strategic and economic stakes.
Iran war live Trump Strait of Hormuz tensions remain critical as the 48-hour deadline approaches, with both sides maintaining firm positions and regional stability at stake.
The divergence between gold and Bitcoin (BTC) in 2026 can be explained by two distinct segments of buyers, according to Stephen Coltman, head of macro at crypto exchange-traded product (ETP) provider 21Shares.
Gold’s rally over the last three years has been primarily fueled by central bank buying, while Bitcoin is more widely held by individuals than financial institutions, Coltman told Cointelegraph. He said:
“Physical gold has a greater geopolitical strategic role currently, as the asset of choice for state actors who want to store wealth in a way that is protected from rival powers. This has meant that it has traded with greater sensitivity to deteriorating international relations.”
However, BTC has more utility for individuals who may use it as an alternative “lifeline” when local banking infrastructure fails during times of crisis, and accessing the traditional financial system is not possible.
“Shortly after the conflict started, both the Dubai and Abu Dhabi exchanges were shut down following missile and drone strikes from Iran,” which, he said, is a “stark reminder” of how valuable 24/7 access is in wartime situations or other emergencies.
Coltman told Cointelegraph that the inverse correlation between BTC and gold means that investors should hold both to benefit from each asset’s unique properties.
Ongoing macroeconomic and geopolitical shocks over the last several years drove gold to an all-time high of nearly $5,600 per ounce in January 2026.
However, heightened volatility dragged the precious metal back down to about $4,497 per ounce, leading to renewed debate among analysts about gold’s role as a store of value asset, and how it will perform against Bitcoin in the coming years.
Related: Bitcoin vs gold shows potential bottom signals as BTC bulls defend $70K
Financial analysts are split on gold versus BTC dominance
Bitcoin is likely to outperform gold over the next three years, according to macroeconomist Lyn Alden.
“It’s usually a pendulum between the two. If gold has gone up as much as it did, the entire diminishing return story per cycle is going to be erased in the coming one, too,” Alden said.
However, former hedge fund manager Ray Dalio expects that BTC will never replace gold as a store-of-value asset because it still trades like a risk-on asset with correlation to technology stocks, while gold is entrenched as a reserve asset in the banking system.
Magazine: Is China hoarding gold so yuan becomes global reserve instead of USD?
Crypto World
Hyperliquid Surpasses 218,000 Active Traders as Crude Oil Perpetuals Hit $300 Million Open Interest
TLDR:
- Hyperliquid’s active perpetual traders reached 218,340, marking a fresh local high with a 2.14% 24-hour gain.
- Crude oil perpetuals crossed $300M in open interest, overtaking every crypto and equity pair on Hyperliquid.
- Hyperliquid’s HIP-3 markets surpassed $1.43B in total open interest as platform activity hit an all-time high.
- Real-world assets including commodities, stocks, ETFs, and FX now account for roughly 30% of platform volume.
Hyperliquid is recording fresh activity highs across its perpetual trading platform in 2025. Active perpetual traders have reached 218,340, marking a new local high with a 24-hour gain of 2.14%.
Simultaneously, crude oil perpetuals on the platform have crossed $300 million in open interest. This figure places crude oil above every crypto and equity pair on the exchange.
Together, these numbers reflect a platform experiencing steady and measurable expansion this year.
Hyperliquid Trader Activity Recovers and Pushes Into New Territory
Hyperliquid’s active trader count has followed a notable recovery path over recent months. The platform peaked around November before pulling back sharply into January, dropping to roughly 150,000 active traders. That kind of reset typically stalls momentum on most trading platforms.
However, Hyperliquid began climbing again from late January onward. Since then, participation has moved steadily higher, reclaiming previous levels along the way. The platform has now pushed past its earlier highs into fresh territory.
According to data shared by Hyperliquid Hub on X, the platform went from around 127,000 traders in August to over 218,000 today.
That represents a broad expansion in user activity within less than a year. The growth has been gradual rather than driven by a single spike.
The post further noted a reinforcing dynamic: more traders bring more liquidity, which tightens spreads and improves execution.
Better execution, in turn, draws additional traders to the platform. This cycle has been building steadily through 2025 and continues to gain traction.
Crude Oil Perpetuals Lead Platform as Real-World Assets Drive Volume
Crude oil perpetuals have emerged as the largest market on Hyperliquid by open interest. The $300 million figure surpasses all crypto and equity pairs currently listed on the exchange. This development was reported by Delphi Digital and reflects a shift in what traders are engaging with.
Real-world assets, including commodities, stocks, ETFs, and foreign exchange pairs, now account for approximately 30% of overall platform volume.
That share represents a meaningful portion of activity. The growth of non-crypto markets on the platform has been a defining trend this year.
Hyperliquid’s HIP-3 markets have also crossed $1.43 billion in total open interest across all listed pairs. Active traders reached a new all-time high alongside this open interest figure. Both metrics moved higher together, suggesting broad participation rather than concentrated positioning.
The expansion into real-world assets marks a broader shift in how the platform is being used. Traders are no longer limited to crypto pairs when using Hyperliquid. The platform’s range of markets has grown, and so has the volume flowing through them.
Bitcoin (BTC) traded just below the $69,000 mark as traders braced for a pivotal weekly candle close, with prices hovering near the long-term line around $68,300. After a weekend slide, the setup underscores a tug-of-war between a fragile near-term outlook and the possibility of a contrarian move, even as analysts debate the significance of a fresh technical signal.
Historically, the 200-week exponential moving average has anchored multi-year cycles, but this year its reliability has been questioned. Cointelegraph has noted that the long-term EMA has failed to act as a clear support in 2026, complicating investor expectations for a durable bottom or renewed upside. As BTC approached the $68,300 region, traders watched to see whether the weekly close would restore any confidence in the metric or amplify the lingering bearish bias.
Key takeaways
-
Bitcoin remained under $69,000, testing the 200-week EMA near $68,300 as a critical reference point for the weekly close.
-
Market psychology tilted toward caution, with substantial liquidations signaling risk-off dynamics over the past 24 hours.
-
A fresh bullish tempo appeared with a golden cross developing between the 21-day and 50-day moving averages, but durability remains uncertain.
-
Analysts split on the path forward: some warn of continued macro downside even as near-term momentum offers a potential relief rally.
Weekend test of the long-term line
Trading data show BTC price action around the 200-week trend line, a level that has historically framed major cycles even as the asset wobbled through the weekend. The immediate vicinity of $68,300 serves as a focal point for whether bulls can sustain a bid above entrenched resistance or if sellers reassert control as the weekly close approaches.
Extended downside pressure in the days leading into the close produced notable liquidations across the market. CoinGlass reported that more than $300 million in long positions were liquidated, with roughly $100 million in shorts also liquidating in the same window. The liquidation profile underscores a risk-off environment in which traders are shrinking risk exposure into key technical junctures.
From a chart perspective, BTC’s motion around the 200-week EMA has reinvigorated debate about whether this line can again offer a meaningful foothold. In a broader 2026 context, some analysts have warned that the EMA’s traditional role as a durable support may be waning, complicating the interpretation of daily moves around this level.
Liquidity pressure and trader sentiment
The weekend action underscored a broader mood among market participants: risk appetite remains fragile as macro uncertainties persist. With a large portion of the futures market liquidated into the close, traders may adopt a cautious stance, awaiting a clearer directional cue from the weekly close and any subsequent macro catalysts.
In such a regime, the key question is whether the counter-move, if it occurs, can sustain momentum beyond a relief rally. The balance between safe-haven flows and renewed appetite for risk will likely define BTC’s trajectory over the coming sessions, particularly as market participants await more concrete signals from on-chain data, derivatives activity, and broader market liquidity conditions.
Momentum flicker: the Golden Cross and what it may imply
On the technical front, a visible positive signal emerged as the 21-day simple moving average crossed above the 50-day moving average, a formation often interpreted as a short-term momentum cue. Proponents of the setup cautioned that the cross could herald a temporary lift, though they emphasized that durability would hinge on subsequent price action.
Keith Alan, cofounder of trading resource Material Indicators, commented on the potential implications, saying the Golden Cross “will likely deliver some short term bullish momentum. Must watch to see if it develops into something durable.” He added a more cautious note, reflecting the prevailing sentiment: “For now…the range game continues.”
These near-term signals come after March saw two “death crosses” on BTC’s daily chart, a pattern historically associated with renewed downside pressure. The market’s interpretation of a Golden Cross in the current environment remains mixed: a possible spark for a bounce, but no guarantee of a sustained breakout without follow-through from higher timeframes.
Bearish undertones persist in higher timeframes
Several well-known traders have stressed that longer-horizon momentum remains skewed to the downside. A prominent analyst reiterated a bearish thesis for the macro cycle, highlighting ongoing fragility in higher timeframes despite any short-term bullish cues. The tension between near-term momentum signals and longer-term risk remains a defining feature of the BTC narrative as the market approaches another pivotal weekly close.
“There are still 0 signs of bear market exhaustion on HTF. No divs, no bear PA exhaustion, no momentum loss, etc.” He also noted a continued outlook for lower prices, saying, “I still have high confidence in seeing 50k and likely a bit lower.”
That sentiment sits alongside reminders from earlier periods that the market can swing on a few data points, even as long-run structural factors weigh on price discovery. The debate over whether BTC can muster a sustained recovery or slide toward new macro-driven lows remains unresolved, with bulls awaiting confirmation from price action and bears watching for any renewed downside momentum.
What readers should watch next
The immediate focus for BTC markets is the weekly candle close and how price behaves in the aftermath. If the price can hold above key support near the 200-week EMA and demonstrate follow-through above near-term moving averages, a cautious upside tilt could emerge. Conversely, failure to defend the region around $68,000–$68,300 may invite renewed selling pressure and retesting of lower support bands.
Investors should also monitor liquidity patterns and derivatives activity as they often foreshadow the next directional move. In addition, traders will be paying close attention to any shifts in macro sentiment or changes in the risk-on/risk-off appetite that can influence Bitcoin’s risk premium and its correlation with broader markets.
This ongoing narrative—between a fragile near-term bounce and the weight of higher-timeframe bears—will likely shape price action in the weeks ahead. As always, readers are advised to conduct their own research and consider how these developments fit their risk tolerance and investment horizon.
TLDR:
- BTC dominance has been ranging between 58% and 60% for months and is now approaching the critical 58% range low.
- Analyst CryptoCandy24x expects a rotation back to 60% or higher if BTC dominance holds firmly above the 58% boundary.
A CME gap at 70.1K remains unfilled, with analysts watching for a potential rejection that could push Bitcoin toward 66K. - Analyst maintains a short position, warning that Bitcoin’s structure stays bearish while price trades below the 71.4K level.
BTC dominance is nearing the 58% range low as Bitcoin’s price holds around $67,922, drawing attention from analysts across the market.
The metric has been cycling between 58% and 60% for months, and its latest move toward the lower boundary is happening alongside a key CME gap sitting at 70.1K.
Traders are now watching both developments closely, as the outcome of each could shape Bitcoin’s short-term price direction in the days ahead.
BTC Dominance Tests Critical Support at 58%
BTC dominance has been trapped in a defined range between 58% and 60% for several months. The metric has repeatedly rotated from the range high to the range low without breaking in either direction.
This prolonged consolidation has kept traders on alert for any sign of a decisive move. The current approach toward 58% is now putting that lower boundary under renewed pressure.
Analyst @cryptocandy24x noted that BTC dominance is once again approaching the range low near 58%. According to the analyst, if the current momentum holds, a rotation back toward the 60% range high is possible in the coming days.
However, this outlook only remains valid as long as BTC dominance holds above the 58% level. A confirmed breakdown below that mark would shift the bias in a different direction entirely.
A hold at 58% would suggest Bitcoin is maintaining its market share against altcoins. If dominance bounces from this level, it would align with the analyst’s expectation of a return toward 60% or higher.
On the other hand, a drop below 58% could signal growing altcoin strength across the broader market. The next few sessions will be telling as to which scenario plays out.
CME Gap at 70.1K Adds Pressure to Bitcoin’s Short-Term Outlook
While BTC dominance tests its range low, Bitcoin’s price is also facing a notable technical setup overhead. The CME closed at 70.1K, leaving a gap below the close that the market has yet to address.
Gaps of this nature have historically shown a strong tendency to get filled at some point. This makes the 70.1K level a significant reference point for traders planning their next moves.
Analyst @KillaXBT provided an update on how Bitcoin’s structure is developing around these key levels. The analyst noted that a push toward the CME gap, followed by a rejection, could lead to a retest of the 66K level next week.
KillaXBT also confirmed that the broader structure remains bearish while Bitcoin stays below 71.4K. The analyst noted they remain short and are tracking how price reacts at these zones.
A gap fill at 70.1K followed by a strong rejection would add more weight to the bearish case currently building. Traders are therefore watching for entry signals around that level ahead of any potential downside continuation.
The 66K area, meanwhile, stands as the next key support zone if selling pressure resumes. Until Bitcoin reclaims 71.4K, the market structure continues to favor the downside.
TLDR:
- Strategy has scaled its Bitcoin raises from hundreds of millions to over $1.8 billion per round in 2026.
- Five instruments, MSTR, STRK, STRF, STRD, and STRC, fund weekly Bitcoin purchases across investor profiles.
- Strategy recorded 12 consecutive weekly Bitcoin buys in 2026, regardless of short-term price movements.
- With 761,000 BTC held, Strategy still needs roughly 260,000 more coins to hit its one-million target by 2026.
Strategy has notably increased the pace of its Bitcoin accumulation through a series of larger and more frequent capital raises.
The company, led by Michael Saylor, has moved from occasional fundraising rounds to near-weekly capital deployments.
This shift has allowed Strategy to stack Bitcoin at a scale that few institutional players can match. The company currently holds over 761,000 Bitcoin and is targeting one million coins by the end of 2026.
Capital Raise Volume Grows From Millions to Billions
Between 2021 and 2023, Strategy raised capital through relatively modest and infrequent transactions. Convertible notes and occasional equity raises were the primary tools used during that stretch.
The amounts were in the hundreds of millions at most. The overall pace was slow compared to what the company would later execute.
That changed sharply heading into 2025 and 2026. Strategy began closing raises of $1 billion, $1.4 billion, and $1.8 billion in rapid succession.
The frequency moved from quarterly to weekly across that period. Crypto analyst Axel Bitblaze described the shift on X, calling Strategy “a bitcoin vacuum cleaner” that Saylor has carefully engineered.
The larger raises are now structured across five separate financial instruments. These are MSTR equity, STRK, STRF, STRD, and STRC.
Each instrument attracts a different type of investor within the capital stack. This design allows Strategy to pull in capital from a much wider pool of institutional and retail participants.
The broader result is a self-reinforcing system. As more investors seek yield or equity upside, more capital flows into Bitcoin purchases.
Bitblaze noted that Saylor has effectively built “a bitcoin-backed yield curve inside a single company.” Wall Street demand, therefore, converts directly and automatically into Bitcoin demand every single week.
Weekly Purchase Cadence Drives Steady Bitcoin Demand
Strategy recorded 12 consecutive weekly Bitcoin purchases throughout 2026 alone. Each purchase was funded through one or more of the five capital instruments currently in use.
The consistency of these buys has remained steady regardless of short-term price movements. No week was skipped even during periods of broader market uncertainty.
With 761,000 Bitcoin already on its balance sheet, Strategy still requires approximately 260,000 more coins to hit its one-million target.
That remaining demand translates into ongoing and predictable buying pressure across the market. The purchase timeline runs through the end of 2026. Price action along the way does not appear to alter the accumulation schedule.
Saylor recently posted the phrase “The Orange March Continues” across his social media channels. Analysts quickly read the statement as a signal of another imminent purchase.
Bitcoin was trading near $68,425 at the time. According to observers, the market had not yet priced in the anticipated move.
Strategy’s expanded capital raise program directly funds each new round of Bitcoin acquisitions. Larger raises mean larger and more frequent purchases moving forward.
The five-instrument structure ensures that investor demand across different risk profiles continues feeding the system.
For the broader Bitcoin market, this translates into a sustained and growing source of institutional buying pressure week after week.
Crypto World
Solana Head and Shoulders Breakdown Triggers Bearish Outlook Amid On-Chain Selling Pressure
TLDR:
- Solana confirms a head and shoulders breakdown, projecting downside toward the $70–$77 range.
- Market cap fell from $55B, signaling capital outflows and weakening investor confidence.
- On-chain data shows sustained realized losses, with daily selling pressure between $30M and $50M.
- Exchange outflows rose sharply, yet the price remains weak due to a lack of strong buyer demand.
Solana price analysis indicates a confirmed bearish reversal after a structured breakdown. Price action, declining market cap, and on-chain signals collectively point to sustained selling pressure in the near term.
Head and Shoulders Breakdown Signals Trend Reversal
Solana price has shown a clear head and shoulders formation after an extended uptrend. The pattern includes a defined left shoulder, a higher peak, and a lower right shoulder.
This structure typically signals exhaustion among buyers and a shift in trend direction. The neckline formed as a slightly ascending support level, reflecting earlier higher lows.
However, price action failed to hold this zone, leading to a decisive breakdown. This move confirmed a structural shift, with sellers gaining control of momentum.
Following the breakdown, Solana declined nearly 4% toward the $86 level. This move aligns with the expected reaction after a neckline breach.
The measured move projects a downside range between $70 and $77, based on the pattern’s height. $SOL has confirmed a head and shoulders breakdown.
If the price fails to reclaim this level, it may act as resistance. This scenario often accelerates selling pressure and reinforces the bearish outlook.
Market Cap and On-Chain Data Confirm Weakness
Solana’s network valuation peaked near $55 billion before entering a sharp decline phase. This drop reflects strong distribution activity and reduced participation. The initial decline around March 17 marked a turning point in sentiment.
Market cap fell rapidly, suggesting large holders exited positions. Afterward, the price entered a consolidation phase between $50 billion and $52 billion.
However, recovery attempts remained weak and formed lower highs. A further decline below $50 billion aligned with the neckline breakdown.
This confluence between price structure and capital flow strengthens the bearish case. Sustained weakness below this level may support the projected downside targets.
On-chain data adds another layer to the analysis. Net realized profit and loss shows continued selling at a loss since mid-February.
Daily losses range between $30 million and $50 million, indicating persistent pressure.Exchange flow data shows a shift, with outflows reaching 700,000 SOL after March 17.
This suggests reduced selling supply on exchanges. However, price has not responded positively, indicating weak demand.
Currently, Solana trades near $87.29, below key support at $88.02. A sustained move lower may expose the next support at $81.60. Resistance remains near $92.19, where buyers must regain strength.
La Liga: Real Madrid vs Atletico Madrid preview and live streaming details | Football News
Hackaday Links: March 22, 2026
Heartbroken family turns off avid cyclist grandfather’s life support after he suffered catastrophic injuries from hitting pothole on ride
-
Fashion2 days agoWeekend Open Thread: Adidas – Corporette.com
-
Politics2 days agoJenni Murray, Long-Serving Woman’s Hour Presenter, Dies Aged 75
-
Tech5 days agoAre Split Spacebars the Next Big Gaming Keyboard Trend?
-
Crypto World1 day agoBest Crypto to Buy Now: Strategy Just Spent $1.57 Billion on Bitcoin During Fear While Early Investors Quietly Enter Pepeto for 150x Potential
-
Crypto World2 days agoNIO (NIO) Stock Plunges 6.5% as Shelf Registration Sparks Dilution Worries
-
News Videos4 days agoRBA board divided on rate cut, unusually buoyant share market | Finance Report | ABC NEWS
-
Crypto World1 day agoBitcoin Price News: Bhutan Sells $72 Million in BTC Under Fiscal Pressure, but the Smart Money Entering Pepeto Sees What the Market Does Not
-
Business7 days agoAustralian shares drop as Iran war enters third week
-
Crypto World7 days agoCrypto Lender BlockFills Enters Chapter 11 with Up to $500M in Liabilities
-
Politics5 days agoThe House | The new register to protect children from their abusers shows Parliament at its best
-
Fashion7 days ago25 Celebrities with Curly Hair That Are Naturally Beautiful
-
Tech3 days agoinKONBINI Lets You Spend Summer Days Behind the Register
-
Politics5 days agoReal-time pollution monitoring calls after boy nearly dies
-
Crypto World4 days agoCanada’s FINTRAC revokes registrations of 23 crypto MSBs in AML crackdown
-
NewsBeat4 days agoResidents in North Lanarkshire reminded to register to vote in Scottish Parliament Election
-
Business6 days agoMeta planning major layoffs as AI spending and automation reshape workforce
-
News Videos4 days agoPARLIAMENT OF MALAWI – PAC MEETING WITH REGISTRAR OF FINANCIAL ON AMARYLLIS HOTEL – INQUIRY LIVE
-
Business8 hours agoNo Winner in March 21 Drawing as Prize Rolls to $133 Million for Next
-
Entertainment7 days ago
Oscars reunite Rob Reiner supergroup of 17 stars for emotional tribute: Here's who appeared on stage
-
Business4 days agoWho Was Alex Pretti? 5 Key Facts About the ICU Nurse Killed by Federal Agents in Minneapolis
You must be logged in to post a comment Login