Crypto World
XRP confidential transfers: what Ripple MPT changes
Ripple shipped zero-knowledge privacy for tokenized assets on the XRP Ledger. The feature encrypts balances and transfer amounts while keeping accounts visible, a design that separates it from every privacy coin on the market and raises a question regulators have not yet answered.
Summary
- XRP Ledger version 3.3.0, released on August 6, 2026, includes the Confidential MPT amendment (XLS-0096), which uses EC-ElGamal encryption, Pedersen commitments, and Bulletproof range proofs to hide Multi-Purpose Token balances and transfer amounts while keeping sender and receiver accounts fully visible on the public ledger.
- The amendment sits alongside four other proposals in the same release: BatchV1_1 for atomic multi-account transactions, Sponsor for third-party fee delegation, DynamicMPT for mutable token properties, and Permission Delegation for granular account access, collectively representing the largest single protocol expansion in XRPL history.
- More than $530 million in tokenized real-world assets already live on the ledger, issued by firms including Ondo Finance ($212.6 million), VERT Capital ($116.1 million), and Archax ($55.4 million), all of which could opt into encrypted balances once validators activate the amendment.
- A $550,000 Sherlock security contest identified 96 vulnerabilities across the five amendments before any code reached mainnet, including two critical flaws: a signature-validation bypass in Batch that would have allowed unauthorized transactions, and a Permission Delegation bug enabling silent balance drainage through repeated fee charges.
- Activation requires at least 80 percent support from trusted validators, sustained continuously for two weeks, meaning the code is live in the software but not yet enforced on the network.
Ripple has spent most of 2026 building infrastructure that major financial institutions are willing to touch. JPMorgan settled a tokenized Treasury redemption on the XRP Ledger in under five seconds. Deutsche Bank deepened its integration with Ripple Payments. SBI launched RLUSD, Ripple’s dollar-pegged stablecoin, in Japan after securing regulatory approval. The stablecoin itself has grown to a $1.6 billion market cap, making it the third-largest regulated dollar stablecoin in the United States.
None of those milestones solved a problem that institutional treasurers and compliance officers keep raising: every token balance and every transfer amount on the XRP Ledger is visible to anyone with a block explorer. For a bank moving $50 million in tokenized bonds, that transparency is not a feature. It is a competitive liability.
The XRP Ledger 3.3.0 release is Ripple’s answer. It ships five amendments in a single package, but the one that matters most for institutional adoption is Confidential MPT, a cryptographic layer that encrypts token balances and transfer sizes while preserving the public, auditable nature of the ledger itself. What makes this design unusual is not just the privacy it offers, but the privacy it deliberately withholds.
What confidential MPT actually does
The Confidential MPT amendment, formally specified as XLS-0096, replaces plaintext per-account Multi-Purpose Token balances with EC-ElGamal ciphertexts. When a user sends tokens, the transfer amount is encrypted on-chain, and both the sender and receiver balances update as ciphertext values that cannot be read by third parties scanning the ledger.
Validators do not need to decrypt anything to confirm a transaction is valid. Instead, the protocol relies on a layered zero-knowledge proof system. Each confidential transfer includes a compact sigma proof binding all ElGamal ciphertexts under a single Fiat-Shamir challenge, a pair of Pedersen commitments that encode the transfer amount and the remaining balance, and an aggregated Bulletproof range proof confirming that no balance has gone negative and that the total supply remains intact.
The cryptographic payload is not trivial. A Ripple research paper authored by Murat Cenk, Aanchal Malhotra, and Joseph Ayo Akinyele, published through the International Association for Cryptologic Research (IACR) in 2026, details the mathematical foundations. The system includes a linkage proof that binds the ElGamal ciphertext used for the transfer to the Pedersen commitment used for the range proof, preventing a class of attacks where a malicious sender could submit valid proofs for a different amount than the one actually transferred.
The proof system is designed to prevent two specific attack vectors that plague simpler confidential transaction schemes. First, without the linkage proof, a sender could generate a valid range proof for one amount while the ElGamal ciphertext actually encrypts a different amount, effectively creating tokens out of thin air. Second, the protocol requires a proof of knowledge during account registration to prevent rogue key attacks, where a malicious party registers a public key derived from another user’s key to manipulate aggregate ciphertexts.
Validators process these proofs without learning anything about the underlying values. The verification cost is logarithmic in the range size thanks to Bulletproofs, keeping transaction validation efficient even as the proof payload grows. According to the IACR paper, a single confidential transfer proof adds roughly 1.5 kilobytes to the transaction, a manageable overhead for a ledger that already handles thousands of transactions per second.
Critically, the amendment is opt-in at the issuer level. A token issuer creating a new MPT can choose whether balances and transfers should be confidential. Issuers who opt in retain the ability to designate authorized parties, such as auditors, regulators, or compliance officers, who can decrypt and verify the underlying amounts. Freeze and clawback controls, the same mechanisms issuers already use for standard MPTs, remain fully functional.
What stays visible is equally important. Sender and receiver account addresses are public. The token type being transferred is public. The fact that a transaction occurred is public. Only the amount and the resulting balances are hidden.
How this differs from Monero and Zcash
The comparison to privacy coins is inevitable, but the architecture is fundamentally different in ways that matter for both regulators and users.
Monero treats privacy as a default that cannot be turned off. Every transaction hides the sender, receiver, and amount using ring signatures, stealth addresses, and RingCT. After the FCMP++ upgrade in early 2026, tracing a Monero transaction requires analyzing the entire unspent output set, more than 1.8 million outputs, making it computationally infeasible. No blockchain analytics firm has publicly shown reliable XMR tracing at scale since that upgrade.
Zcash offers privacy as an option through zk-SNARKs, but adoption has been uneven. Shielded transaction usage reached an all-time high of 59.3 percent in February 2026, meaning roughly 40 percent of ZEC transactions remain fully transparent. The network hides sender, receiver, and amount in shielded-to-shielded transfers, but the optional nature creates a metadata leakage problem: the act of choosing privacy can itself be informative.
XRPL’s Confidential MPT occupies a third category entirely. Privacy is neither mandatory nor user-selected. It is issuer-controlled. The token creator decides at issuance whether balances are encrypted, and that decision applies uniformly to all holders of that token. Individual users cannot opt in or out. This means the privacy model is determined by the entity with the compliance obligation, not the entity with the privacy preference.
The scope of concealment is also narrower. Monero and Zcash hide who is transacting. Confidential MPT does not. Account addresses remain visible on every transaction, preserving the ability to map transaction flows even when amounts are hidden. For an analytics firm or a regulator, this is a meaningful distinction: they can see that Account A sent tokens to Account B, they simply cannot see how many.
Sponsored fees and the enterprise onboarding problem
The Confidential MPT amendment gets the headlines, but the Sponsor amendment (XLS-68) may have a more immediate impact on adoption. It addresses a friction point that has blocked enterprise deployment on every account-based blockchain: the requirement that end users hold the native token before they can do anything.
On the current XRP Ledger, every account must hold a minimum reserve of XRP and pay transaction fees in XRP. For a bank onboarding thousands of customers to a tokenized money market fund, this means either distributing XRP to every participant or building a custodial layer that abstracts the requirement away. Both approaches add cost, complexity, and regulatory surface area.
The Sponsor amendment lets a third party, whether a bank, an issuer, or a platform operator, cover transaction fees and reserve requirements on behalf of its users. Sponsors can co-sign individual transactions or pre-fund a sponsorship pool that covers costs automatically. Users retain full control of their accounts and private keys throughout.
The design is straightforward. A sponsor includes a signature in the user’s transaction indicating willingness to pay. The network charges the sponsor’s account for the fee and, if the transaction creates new on-chain objects, applies the reserve requirement to the sponsor’s balance. Users can transact with zero XRP in their wallets.
For institutional tokenization, this changes the deployment calculus significantly. A fund administrator issuing tokenized shares on the XRP Ledger can now guarantee that investors never need to interact with a cryptocurrency exchange, never need to acquire XRP, and never need to understand gas mechanics. The entire fee layer becomes invisible, handled by the issuer as a cost of doing business, the same way traditional brokerages absorb settlement costs.
Combined with Confidential MPT, the picture becomes clearer. An institution can issue a token where balances are encrypted, transfers are private, and users never touch XRP. The ledger handles settlement, the cryptography handles privacy, and the sponsor handles fees.
This combination addresses a complaint that has echoed through every institutional blockchain pilot since 2017: public chains expose too much, and private chains sacrifice interoperability. The XRPL approach threads the needle by keeping the chain public and permissionless while making specific asset classes opaque at the issuer’s discretion. Whether this hybrid model satisfies the compliance teams at firms like BlackRock and BNY Mellon, both of which already work with Ripple through RLUSD partnerships, remains to be seen.
Batch transactions and atomic settlement
The BatchV1_1 amendment completes the institutional toolkit by allowing up to eight transactions across different accounts to execute atomically within a single ledger close. Every transaction in the batch either succeeds or the entire group fails.
This is a corrected version of an earlier Batch implementation that was disabled after the Sherlock security audit found 96 vulnerabilities across the five proposed amendments. The original Batch code contained a critical signature-validation flaw that could have allowed attackers to execute transactions from any account without holding its private key. The rewritten version, designated V1_1, addresses this and other issues identified during the $550,000 community security contest.
Atomic batching matters for regulated finance because it enables delivery-versus-payment, the simultaneous exchange of a security for cash that reduces counterparty risk. On traditional rails, this coordination requires intermediaries, clearing houses, and settlement windows measured in days. On a ledger with atomic batches, the swap happens in one operation: the buyer’s payment and the seller’s delivery either both complete or neither does.
The $530 million already on the ledger
These amendments are not being built for a hypothetical future. The XRP Ledger already hosts approximately $1.38 billion in tokenized real-world assets. Excluding RLUSD’s $845.7 million contribution, more than $530 million in other tokenized assets sit on the ledger today, issued by firms that have a direct commercial interest in balance privacy.
Ondo Finance leads with $212.6 million in tokenized products, followed by VERT Capital at $116.1 million and Archax at $55.4 million. These are not experimental deployments. Ondo is one of the largest tokenized Treasury issuers in the industry. Archax is an FCA-regulated digital asset exchange based in London. Their presence on the XRP Ledger represents real capital with real compliance requirements.
For these issuers, the current transparency of MPT balances creates a problem that grows with scale. When a single fund holds $200 million in tokenized Treasuries, every subscription, redemption, and rebalance is visible to competitors, front-runners, and the public. Confidential MPT gives issuers the option to encrypt those movements while retaining the ability to share decrypted data with authorized auditors.
Version 1 of the amendment supports only direct MPT payments between accounts. Decentralized exchange trades, escrow arrangements, and payment channels are excluded from the initial scope. This means privacy, for now, applies to bilateral transfers, not to on-chain trading.
The regulatory question: does privacy help or hurt
Ripple has built one of the strongest institutional partnerships in the industry, including relationships with JPMorgan, Deutsche Bank, and SBI. The company holds a full MiCA authorization through Luxembourg’s CSSF, opening regulated access across all 30 European Economic Area countries. In the United States, Ripple received conditional OCC approval for a national trust bank in December 2025 and applied for a Federal Reserve master account.
Adding privacy features to a ledger this embedded in the regulated financial system is a calculated move. The timing coincides with two regulatory developments that pull in opposite directions.
The Digital Asset Market Clarity Act, which would classify XRP as a digital commodity under CFTC jurisdiction, is scheduled for a Senate procedural vote on September 15, 2026, after delays caused by partisan disagreements over ethics rules. A March 2026 joint SEC-CFTC classification already named XRP among 16 assets classified as digital commodities, but statutory codification would provide stronger legal certainty. The Clarity Act does not specifically address privacy features on commodity-classified ledgers, leaving an interpretive gap.
In Europe, Ripple’s MiCA license does not explicitly cover privacy-enhanced tokens. MiCA’s travel rule requirements mandate that transfer information, including sender, receiver, and amount, accompany crypto-asset transactions above certain thresholds. Confidential MPT’s design, where amounts are encrypted but issuer-designated parties can decrypt them, may satisfy this requirement if the issuer grants access to the relevant financial intelligence unit. But that interpretation has not been tested.
The European Union’s Anti-Money Laundering Regulation (AMLR) adds another layer. The regulation, set to restrict privacy coins at licensed exchanges by July 2027, targets assets where sender, receiver, or amount information cannot be obtained by authorities. XRPL’s issuer-controlled disclosure model may fall outside this definition, since authorized parties can always access the underlying data, but the regulatory text has not been applied to issuer-gated confidential tokens.
A March 2026 US Treasury report explicitly backed legitimate blockchain privacy use cases, recognizing that commercial confidentiality and financial privacy are valid objectives. This report is frequently cited by Ripple’s regulatory team as evidence that privacy features, when designed with compliance controls, are not inherently suspicious.
The opposing case: why confidential MPT may not matter
The strongest argument against Confidential MPT’s significance is adoption. The feature is opt-in at the issuer level, and issuers face no penalty for ignoring it. If Ondo Finance, VERT Capital, and Archax choose not to enable encryption on their existing tokens, the amendment becomes dead code sitting on the ledger.
There are reasons they might hesitate. Encrypted balances add computational overhead to every transaction, increasing the proof-generation burden on sending clients. Compliance teams at regulated issuers may prefer the simplicity of transparent balances, where auditors can verify holdings by scanning the ledger, over a system that requires key management and authorized decryption workflows.
The privacy this amendment offers is also partial. Account addresses remain visible, which means transaction graphs, the patterns of who transacts with whom, are fully exposed. For sophisticated analytics firms, amount-hidden but graph-visible transactions can still reveal significant information through frequency analysis, timing correlation, and known-address mapping. A competitor monitoring an issuer’s on-chain activity could infer approximate volumes from transaction counts alone.
Version 1’s scope limitation, excluding DEX trades, escrow, and payment channels, further narrows the practical utility. Institutional workflows that involve secondary market trading would need to fall back to transparent mode for any on-chain exchange activity, creating a two-tier visibility system that may confuse more than it conceals.
There is also a competitive angle. Ethereum, Polygon, and Avalanche all offer confidential transaction solutions through third-party protocols like Railgun and Aztec. These solutions operate at the application layer, meaning any token on those networks can be routed through a privacy pool without issuer permission. For institutions that want compliance-friendly privacy, this permissionless approach is a liability. But for institutions that simply want to move assets without broadcasting positions, application-layer privacy on a more liquid chain may be sufficient, and it does not require waiting for a validator vote.
The invalidation criteria for the bull case are clear. If fewer than three of the top ten XRPL asset issuers enable Confidential MPT within six months of activation, the feature has failed its market test. If validators reject the amendment outright, failing to reach 80 percent support, the privacy thesis for XRPL is shelved indefinitely. And if MiCA enforcement agencies rule that issuer-gated encryption does not satisfy travel rule requirements, European issuers, the fastest-growing segment of XRPL’s RWA market, cannot use the feature at all.
What active accounts and XRP demand tell us
The broader context for these amendments is a ledger searching for renewed activity. Active XRPL accounts fell 51 percent in 2026, declining from 15,571 on January 1 to 7,630 on July 20. XRP trades near $1.00, down more than 65 percent from its January high of $3.40. Weekly net inflows into US spot XRP ETFs collapsed 93 percent in the week ending August 8, falling from $14.86 million to just $1.01 million.
Ripple continues to release 1 billion XRP from escrow monthly, re-escrowing 600 to 800 million and allowing 200 to 400 million XRP to enter circulation. This supply schedule means the escrow releases tokens two to four times faster than the entire ETF complex absorbs them.
The Sponsor amendment has a direct bearing on this dynamic. By removing the requirement for end users to hold XRP, it potentially reduces organic demand for the token. Users of sponsored accounts interact with the ledger without ever acquiring XRP. The network fees are still paid in XRP, but they flow from the sponsor’s holdings, concentrating demand among a smaller set of institutional sponsors.
For XRP as an investment asset, the combination of privacy features and sponsored fees creates a paradox. The amendments make the ledger more useful for institutions but do not necessarily make XRP more valuable. Institutional activity settles through RLUSD, not XRP. Fees are paid by sponsors, not retail holders. And the privacy features apply to MPTs, not to XRP itself, which remains fully transparent.
The most direct path to XRP price recovery, as Ripple’s own community has noted, would be requiring RLUSD transactions to settle through XRP as a bridge asset. No such requirement exists in the current protocol.
What to watch
– Validator voting threshold: the Confidential MPT amendment needs 80 percent support from trusted validators, sustained for two consecutive weeks, before activation. Track the amendment vote count at xrpl.org once the two-week window opens.
– Issuer opt-in rate: whether Ondo Finance, VERT Capital, and Archax enable encrypted balances on existing or new token issuances within the first quarter after activation signals real demand for on-chain privacy.
– MiCA enforcement guidance: the European Banking Authority’s interpretation of whether issuer-gated encrypted amounts satisfy travel rule obligations will determine whether European issuers can use Confidential MPT at all.
– Clarity Act floor vote: the Senate procedural vote scheduled for September 15, 2026, will either codify XRP’s commodity classification or leave its regulatory status dependent on executive-branch guidance that could change with administrations.
– Sponsored-account adoption: the number of accounts operating under third-party fee sponsorship will indicate whether the Sponsor amendment succeeds in lowering onboarding barriers for institutional deployments.
This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute financial, investment, or legal advice. Cryptocurrency markets are volatile and unpredictable. Always conduct your own research and consult a qualified professional before making any financial decisions. Information is accurate as of August 16, 2026.
“Very unlikely.”
That’s how Goldman Sachs described the chances of a September Federal Reserve interest-rate increase, which provides a potential major tailwind for bitcoin , which has traded in a narrow range since early July.
The cryptocurrency is currently priced around $63,500, a 1% gain since midnight UTC. The price has remained firmly locked within the $62,000–$66,000 range that has been in play for over a month.
Goldman lowered the odds in response to a string of soft economic data, specifically retail sales, a key barometer of consumption, and employment figures alongside slowing inflation, Chief Economist Jan Hatzius told clients, according to Bloomberg.
“Under our baseline economic forecasts, the inflation news is more likely to improve further than to deteriorate anew as the year progresses,” Hatzius wrote in a note Sunday. “We still think market pricing for the funds rate is too hawkish.”
Ripple minted 10 million Ripple USD tokens on the XRP Ledger on Aug. 17, completing another large issuance transaction as the stablecoin’s circulating supply reached approximately 1.711 billion.
Summary
- Ripple minted 10 million RLUSD on XRPL on Aug. 17, according to public ledger records.
- CoinGecko placed circulating supply near 1.711 billion, with market capitalization around $1.71 billion Monday morning.
- The transaction cost 0.000405 XRP and used two authorized signers for approval before settlement completion.
- Ripple Mint lets approved institutions issue, redeem, bridge and monitor RLUSD through interfaces and APIs.
- One mint does not independently prove new institutional demand, market deployment, or purchases of XRP.
Public data cited by XRPScan showed that Ripple’s issuer account transferred the tokens to a designated RLUSD destination account. The transaction cost 0.000405 XRP, used two authorized signers and recorded a maximum delivery amount of 10 million RLUSD.
Ripple did not identify the receiving customer or disclose the tokens’ intended use. The transaction confirms issuance, but it does not independently support claims that “institutional demand grows.”
RLUSD mint does not confirm customer demand
A stablecoin mint creates tokens on a blockchain. It does not prove that the tokens immediately entered exchanges, payment channels or institutional portfolios. Newly issued RLUSD can remain in controlled accounts until an approved customer completes a transaction.
The ledger entry also does not establish that $10 million entered the broader crypto market. Ripple Mint allows customers to issue, redeem and transfer RLUSD for settlement, liquidity and treasury operations. Some issuance can therefore reflect inventory management rather than new investment.
Ripple completed another 10 million token mint on Aug. 10. As crypto.news reported, the transaction occurred while RLUSD’s supply remained below earlier summer levels. Ripple did not name the customer behind that issuance either.
A separate post by the BankXRP community account reported that 5 million RLUSD had been burned on Ethereum. Burns remove tokens from circulation and can accompany customer redemptions. Available records do not show whether the burn and the Aug. 17 XRPL mint were connected.
RLUSD supply returns to the $1.71 billion area
CoinGecko placed RLUSD’s circulating supply near 1.711 billion tokens on Aug. 17. Its market capitalization was approximately $1.71 billion, while reported 24 hour trading volume was around $50 million when checked. Market data can change throughout the day.
The latest supply figure was higher than Ripple’s Aug. 6 disclosure. Its transparency page reported $1.5896 billion of circulating RLUSD and $1.7026 billion of reserve assets as of that date.
The difference reflects the timing of the reserve snapshot and later blockchain activity. Monthly attestations provide a historical view rather than a live balance. Mints and burns recorded after the reporting date can change circulating supply before the next report.
Supply has also fluctuated during 2026. The Aug. 10 mint occurred after earlier burns reduced circulation. Individual issuance transactions should therefore be considered alongside redemptions and burns rather than treated as permanent growth.
U.S. oversight governs RLUSD reserves
Standard Custody & Trust Company issues RLUSD under a limited purpose trust charter from the New York State Department of Financial Services. The arrangement gives the stablecoin a direct U.S. regulatory connection through New York.
Ripple says RLUSD is redeemable at one U.S. dollar and backed by segregated reserves. Those reserves include cash, cash equivalents and short term U.S. Treasury securities. An independent accounting firm licensed in the United States conducts monthly attestations.
The Aug. 6 reserve disclosure showed assets exceeding the reported circulating supply at that date. It does not establish the exact reserve balance when the Aug. 17 mint occurred. A later attestation will provide the next formal comparison between outstanding tokens and reserve assets.
Regulatory oversight also does not identify the customer behind each mint. The framework covers areas including reserve management, redemption rights and reporting, while public ledger records show token movements.
Ripple widens institutional access to RLUSD
Ripple introduced Ripple Mint in July for approved institutional customers. The platform provides a web interface and application programming interfaces for minting, redeeming, bridging and monitoring RLUSD.
As previously reported, Ripple designed the platform so institutional customers can automate minting and redemption workflows. Customers can receive notifications covering fiat receipt, mint processing, blockchain settlement and payout completion.
Ripple also made an undisclosed investment in Notabene. The companies plan to add RLUSD to Notabene Flow and explore connections between Notabene’s transaction authorization system and Ripple Payments. They have not announced the first customer or a completion date.
International access has expanded alongside that infrastructure. In June, Ripple and SBI opened a new distribution channel after RLUSD became available to customers in Japan. SBI VC Trade offers the token to eligible retail and institutional customers through VCTRADE.
Ripple also partnered with BiLira, Bitexen and Bitlo to make RLUSD available to institutions in Türkiye. These developments support Ripple’s broader institutional strategy, but none identifies the party behind the latest mint.
What happens next for the 10 million tokens
Future transactions from the destination account may show whether the tokens move to an exchange, payment provider, market maker or another controlled wallet. Wallet movements may still leave the customer’s identity and commercial purpose undisclosed.
Later burns will determine whether the mint produces lasting supply growth. Ripple has not published a future issuance schedule or a deadline for disclosing customer activity connected to the transaction.
The next monthly reserve report will provide the clearest formal update on circulation and backing. Until then, the verified facts remain limited: Ripple minted 10 million RLUSD on XRPL, supply reached about 1.711 billion, and the public record does not prove growing institutional demand.
Anthropic appears to be moving closer to its initial public offering (IPO), which undoubtedly is one of the most closely watched technology listings of 2026.
The emerging consensus is that Claude’s maker could reach the public markets this fall; however, there are still a few important caveats and clarifications.
Prediction Markets Lean Toward October
While in no way a certainty, prediction market traders are leaning heavily in the direction that the IPO will come in October.
As you can see on the Polymarket snapshot, the contract tracking whether Anthropic will go public by September 15 implies just a 2% chance, while the probability for September 30 stands at 10%. By October 31, however, the odds jumped to 70%, and the market shows an 83% chance of an IPO by the end of this year.
Notably, the October probability had increased sharply in recent trading sessions, suggesting that users are becoming more confident that the listing could happen during that month.
Reports Also Point to Fall Listing
Not surprisingly, that view is also largely supported by recent reporting. A report from the Wall Street Journal said that the firm’s executives have been meeting with prospective investors to strengthen confidence ahead of an IPO that could arrive in September or early October.
Anthropic has also taken a major procedural step: the firm confidentially filed for a US IPO in June, giving it flexibility to move once regulatory review and market conditions allow it.
But that’s not the only impressive part about the IPO. Another report outlined that some investors are targeting a valuation of $2 trillion or even more for an October debut. This would be more than double the $965 million post-money valuation that Anthropic received in its May funding round, although the company has not publicly confirmed either the IPO date or the valuation.
$2 Trillion Valuation?
Whether participants in the IPO and public investors will support such a massive figure is likely to depend on the confidence placed in Anthropic’s growth projections.
Reuters reported that the company is forecasting roughly $190 billion to $200 billion in revenue in 2028, compared with a $47 billion annualized revenue run rate disclosed in May. Bankers and investors are now looking unusually far into the future when they assess what the firm could be worth. They are attempting to account for the company’s rapid growth and the high costs of training and operating cutting-edge AI models.
The post Is Anthropic About to Go Public Soon? October IPO Odds Are Surging appeared first on CryptoPotato.
Greenlane Holdings’ BERA-focused digital asset treasury has fallen to $16.4 million in fair value at the end of the second quarter, leaving the portfolio about 76.6% below its $70 million cost basis.
Summary
- Greenlane’s BERA treasury was valued at $16.4 million at the end of Q2, down 76.6% from its $70 million cost basis.
- The company held 81.3 million BERA and equivalent tokens as of June 30, up from 77.7 million at the end of March.
- Greenlane recorded a $19.1 million digital asset fair value loss and a $24.8 million net loss for the quarter.
- BERA has fallen 75.9% year to date and was trading near $0.146.
According to Greenlane’s latest regulatory filing, the Nasdaq-listed company held about 81.3 million BERA and BERA-equivalent tokens as of June 30, up from roughly 77.7 million at the end of the first quarter despite a continued decline in the token’s market price.
The difference between the portfolio’s acquisition cost and quarter-end fair value stood at about $53.8 million. Greenlane recorded a $19.1 million noncash fair-value loss on its digital assets during the three months through June, which contributed to a net loss of $24.8 million for the period.
At the same time, the company continued putting its holdings to work across the Berachain ecosystem. Its digital asset operations generated about $309,000 in staking and yield revenue during the quarter, providing income in BERA and other assets while the value of the underlying treasury declined.
Greenlane’s exposure has increased since the start of the year. The company reported 77.7 million BERA and equivalent tokens at the end of March, meaning its holdings grew by about 3.6 million tokens during the second quarter.
Greenlane’s BERA treasury has grown despite falling valuations
Greenlane entered the crypto treasury business in October 2025, transforming a company previously known mainly for cannabis accessories and consumer products into a publicly traded holder of Berachain’s native token.
The strategy followed a $110.7 million private placement backed by digital asset investors. As previously reported by crypto.news, the October 2025 financing was led by Polychain Capital, with participation from Blockchain.com, Kraken, North Rock Digital, CitizenX and dao5.
Greenlane said at the time that proceeds would support its BERA treasury, with tokens acquired through open-market and over-the-counter purchases. The company also established BeraStrategy as its digital asset management operation as part of the transaction.
By the end of February, Greenlane’s holdings consisted of its initial 54.2 million BERA position, another 14.9 million tokens bought in the open market and additional BERA obtained through staking, validator participation and structured token trading agreements, according to company disclosures.
Greenlane’s first-quarter filing later showed how quickly falling BERA prices were affecting the strategy. For the three months ended March 31, the company reported a net loss of $18.2 million, while its balance sheet had become heavily tied to digital assets, cash and dollar-pegged stablecoins.
Management said in that filing that its financial condition and operating results had become significantly influenced by digital asset market conditions, particularly the fair value of its BERA holdings.
The company has continued its legacy lifestyle accessories business through vapor.com and related channels, although Greenlane said the operation was reduced after its 2025 strategy change. Warehouse operations were substantially exited, and the remaining commerce business moved toward an asset-light drop-ship model.
BERA price decline has cut into Greenlane’s holdings
The valuation losses have come as BERA continued a steep decline from levels reached earlier in 2026.
Berachain was trading at about $0.146 at the time of writing, according to CoinGecko, leaving the token down roughly 75.9% since the start of the year. BERA had briefly traded above $1.20 earlier in 2026 before falling toward the $0.15 area.
The decline followed a period of extreme volatility in February. BERA briefly surged as high as $1.43 after an unusual imbalance in perpetual futures markets triggered heavy short liquidations.
During that move, BERA rallied 82% within 24 hours to about $0.94, while futures volume jumped 632% to $2.94 billion and open interest increased 102% to $142.8 million. Funding rates had swung between deeply negative and positive levels as traders repositioned after a Feb. 6 token unlock involving 63.75 million BERA.
The rally did not develop into a sustained recovery. By July 15, BERA was trading around $0.187, with the token already down more than 30% over the preceding month. Its price has since moved closer to $0.15, further reducing the dollar value of large BERA-denominated positions such as Greenlane’s treasury.
BERA’s current price also sits far below levels recorded soon after Berachain launched in February 2025. Following listings across several major exchanges, including Crypto.com, Upbit, MEXC and Bithumb, BERA reached an all-time high near $15 before beginning a prolonged decline.
Token supply has also increased since the network’s early trading period. A May 2025 Boyco Vaults release brought additional assets and BERA into circulation, with the token falling 21% over a seven-day period around the event. The release involved $2.7 billion in locked assets and included about 2% of BERA’s total supply.
Greenlane is earning yield from its Berachain position
While Greenlane’s treasury valuation has fallen, the company’s strategy involves more than holding BERA on its balance sheet.
Greenlane participates in staking, validator operations, liquidity provisioning, and other Berachain activities designed to generate additional tokens or yield. Those activities accounted for the $309,000 in digital asset segment revenue reported for the second quarter.
Berachain uses a Proof-of-Liquidity model that links network incentives to liquidity supplied across its decentralized finance ecosystem. BERA serves as the network’s native gas token, while BGT is used for governance and HONEY operates as its collateral-backed stablecoin.
Changes to that system have also expanded the role of BERA as a yield-producing asset. A Proof-of-Liquidity upgrade proposed in 2025 directed one-third of protocol incentives toward a BERA rewards model, creating a protocol-level source of yield for token holders.
The network had expanded its rewards beyond Berachain’s BEX pools in March 2025, allowing additional applications and vaults to participate in Proof-of-Liquidity incentives.
Greenlane’s strategy uses similar network mechanics to add to its token holdings over time. Its February disclosure said the treasury had accumulated BERA not only through purchases but also through staking and validator participation, while the company cautioned that protocol reward rates could change with network conditions, validator changes, reward schedules, and market volatility.
As of June 30, those activities had helped increase Greenlane’s BERA and BERA-equivalent position to 81.3 million tokens even as the fair value of the portfolio fell to $16.4 million.
Capital B purchased another five Bitcoin for €280,000, lifting its strategic Bitcoin treasury to 3,145 BTC as the Euronext Growth Paris-listed company continued using equity issuance to fund its accumulation strategy.
Summary
- Capital B bought five Bitcoin for €280,000, lifting its strategic treasury holdings to 3,145 BTC.
- Capital B’s Bitcoin reserve cost €284.2 million but carried a reported €170.9 million net value.
- The company reported 2.14% year-to-date BTC Yield, a treasury metric rather than traditional investment yield.
- Blockstream Capital Partners converted 14.2 million OCA B-01 instruments into 28.7 million ordinary shares Monday.
- Capital B issued 647,110 new shares through its TOBAM program, raising approximately €301,460 in capital.
The Aug. 17 release shows the latest Bitcoin was acquired at an average €55,882 each. Capital B now reports a total acquisition cost of €284.2 million, or €90,352 per BTC.
Capital B raises Bitcoin treasury to 3,145 BTC
The purchase followed €301,460.25 of capital increases completed through Capital B’s ATM-type agreement with French asset manager TOBAM. The company issued 647,110 ordinary shares at an average rounded price of €0.47 between July 27 and Aug. 7.
That issuance price represented a 3.52% premium to Capital B’s Aug. 14 closing price. Euronext shows the stock closed Friday at €0.454, down 2.72% for the session.
The company’s latest five-BTC acquisition follows a much larger accumulation earlier this year. As crypto.news previously reported,the company deployed newly raised capital to purchase 192 BTC in May, taking holdings to 3,135 BTC at the time.
Bitcoin reserve remains well below its acquisition cost
The firm reported a €170.9 million net asset value for its 3,145-BTC strategic reserve, compared with the €284.2 million acquisition cost. That leaves the company-calculated BTC value about €113.3 million below cost at the reference price used in Monday’s disclosure.
The company calculates this figure using Bitcoin’s closing price on the trading day before each press release. It is therefore a snapshot of the Bitcoin reserve rather than the net asset value of the entire company.
Capital B also disclosed another 61 BTC held for operational purposes. Those coins are segregated from the treasury reserve and excluded from its published Bitcoin strategy performance indicators.
Capital B reports 2.14% BTC Yield
The company reported a year-to-date “BTC Yield” of 2.14%, alongside a BTC Gain of 60.3 BTC and a BTC € Gain of about €3.28 million. Quarter-to-date BTC Yield stood at 0.28%. Its BTC per fully diluted share remained at 736.4 satoshis, unchanged from Aug. 3.
Those figures require a caveat. Capital B states that “BTC Yield” is not equivalent to yield in the traditional financial context and does not measure investment returns, operating income or returns generated by its Bitcoin holdings. The metric instead tracks changes in Bitcoin held per fully diluted share.
Blockstream completes OCA B-01 conversion
The company also confirmed that Blockstream Capital Partners completed the conversion of 14,195,352 OCA B-01 instruments into 28,687,362 ordinary shares at a rounded conversion price of €0.495. No OCA B-01 instruments now remain outstanding.
Following the transaction, Blockstream Capital Partners holds 71.8 million ordinary shares, representing 21.74% of Capital B’s issued capital. Its stake is 35.63% on the company’s stated fully diluted basis.
The conversion comes after shareholders approved more than €100 billion in financing capacity in June to support further Bitcoin treasury expansion. Capital B says its longer-term strategy is focused on raising Bitcoin per fully diluted share rather than merely increasing its absolute BTC balance.
In addition, Capital B’s continued accumulation contrasts with the recent actions of Strategy, the world’s largest corporate Bitcoin holder.
Strategy sold a combined 3,328 BTC across two weeks ending Aug. 9, raising about $213.3 million. The company used proceeds for preferred-stock dividends and STRC share repurchases rather than abandoning its broader Bitcoin treasury strategy.
As crypto.news reported, Strategy recently sold $108.6 million of Bitcoin to fund STRC repurchases, showing how some treasury companies are beginning to use Bitcoin more actively in capital management.
Meanwhile, Capital B retains broad financing authority for additional Bitcoin purchases. Its June shareholder vote authorized up to €5 billion in capital increases and €100 billion in credit instruments, although authorization does not mean those amounts will necessarily be issued.
The next treasury disclosures will show whether new financing can increase Bitcoin per diluted share while the market value of the existing reserve remains below its historical acquisition cost.
Duquesne Family Office has disclosed a $23 million position in Hyperliquid Strategies Inc., giving Stanley Druckenmiller’s investment office indirect exposure to HYPE through the Nasdaq-listed digital asset treasury company.
Summary
- Duquesne Family Office disclosed a new $23 million stake in Hyperliquid Strategies.
- The Nasdaq listed company holds millions of HYPE tokens as part of its digital asset treasury strategy.
- Duquesne’s former partner Kevin Warsh became Federal Reserve chairman in May 2026.
- Warsh disclosed more than $100 million in assets before his confirmation.
The SEC filing for the second quarter of 2026 showed Duquesne held shares of Hyperliquid Strategies, which trades under the ticker PURR, as of June 30, with the position appearing in the family office’s portfolio for the first time.
The disclosure adds Duquesne to the institutional investors gaining exposure to Hyperliquid through publicly traded shares instead of purchasing the protocol’s HYPE token directly. Hyperliquid Strategies operates as a digital asset treasury company built around accumulating and managing HYPE.
Fintel data based on the filing also lists PURR as a new Duquesne position, accounting for roughly 0.44% of the investment manager’s reported portfolio.
Duquesne adds Hyperliquid Strategies to its portfolio
Hyperliquid Strategies has built one of the largest corporate HYPE holdings since establishing its digital asset treasury business.
As crypto.news previously reported in February, the Nasdaq-listed company purchased another 5 million HYPE for about $129.5 million at an average price of $25.90 per token. The acquisition increased its holdings at the time to 17.6 million HYPE while leaving the company with about $125 million in cash.
Its holdings later increased substantially. Artemis data cited in a June treasury report showed Hyperliquid Strategies controlled about 23.7 million HYPE and was sitting on more than $1.1 billion in unrealized gains at the time.
The report found HYPE-focused treasury companies were among the few major digital asset treasury groups still carrying sizeable paper profits during the June market downturn. Bitcoin, Ether and Solana treasury companies, by comparison, were recording substantial unrealized losses as prices fell.
Duquesne’s $23 million PURR holding gives the family office exposure to that treasury structure through a regulated U.S. equity. The 13F does not show whether the firm bought the shares in a single transaction or accumulated them at different points during the quarter, since the filing only reports holdings as of June 30.
Form 13F reports are required from institutional investment managers that exercise investment discretion over at least $100 million in certain securities. The disclosures provide a quarterly snapshot of reportable holdings but do not show positions purchased or sold after the reporting date.
Hyperliquid Strategies has accumulated millions of HYPE
Institutional interest in Hyperliquid Strategies came as HYPE recorded large price swings during the second quarter.
HYPE reached a record of about $73.7 on June 1 after gaining more than 70% over the preceding month. At the time, Hyperliquid Strategies was already one of the largest publicly identified corporate holders of the token.
Demand for HYPE had also expanded through regulated investment and derivatives products. In June, Kalshi launched CFTC-regulated HYPE perpetual futures for U.S. traders, after which HYPE futures open interest rose to $2.48 billion and briefly surpassed XRP open interest, according to a June 11 report.
Institutional exposure has not been limited to listed treasury companies. Bitwise Chief Investment Officer Matt Hougan said in May that HYPE had gained 77% since the start of 2026 while Hyperliquid processed about $170 billion in monthly trading volume.
Bitwise also said it would direct 10% of management fees collected from its BHYP Hyperliquid exchange-traded fund toward purchasing and holding HYPE on its own balance sheet, as detailed in May.
Hyperliquid’s token model sends a large share of protocol trading fees toward HYPE purchases through its Assistance Fund. The mechanism has provided another source of demand alongside corporate treasury purchases and investment products.
Fed Chair Kevin Warsh previously worked with Duquesne
Duquesne’s newly disclosed PURR investment also comes with a connection to Federal Reserve Chairman Kevin Warsh, who worked with the family office before returning to the central bank.
The Federal Reserve’s official biography says Warsh served as a partner at Duquesne Family Office after leaving the Fed’s Board of Governors in 2011. Warsh had previously served as a governor from 2006 to 2011 and returned to the central bank as chairman on May 22, 2026.
Before his confirmation, financial disclosures filed as part of the nomination process provided more detail about his relationship with Stanley Druckenmiller’s investment office.
Warsh disclosed assets worth well over $100 million, according to his April financial disclosure, although government ethics forms report investments in ranges and do not always provide precise valuations.
Two positions in the Juggernaut Fund LP were each listed at more than $50 million. The disclosure did not identify the underlying investments because of pre-existing confidentiality agreements, while Warsh committed to divesting the positions if confirmed.
The same filing showed that Warsh had received $10.2 million in consulting fees from Druckenmiller’s investment office during the period covered by the disclosure. His overall consulting income exceeded $13 million across several financial firms.
Warsh also agreed to dispose of assets required under Federal Reserve ethics rules before assuming the chairmanship. Fed investment rules introduced in 2022 place restrictions on the securities that senior officials and their immediate families may hold, including crypto-related assets.
After completing the confirmation process, Warsh took office as Federal Reserve chairman on May 22 for a four-year term ending May 21, 2030. He also became chairman of the Federal Open Market Committee and holds a separate term as a member of the Board of Governors through January 31, 2040.
Chainalysis is challenging the US government’s decision to award a blockchain analytics contract to TRM Labs without a competitive bidding process.
According to a case filed in the US Court of Federal Claims, the company alleged that the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) favored TRM Labs.
Clash Over $94.66M Contract
At the center of the lawsuit is a major contract of $94.66 million, which was awarded last month by ICE to TRM Labs. This one-year award runs from July 1, 2026, through June 30, 2027, and states,
“The purpose of this contract is to support the Department of Homeland Security, Homeland Security Investigations, Homeland Security Task Force National Coordination Center Cyber Disruption Center through the provision of analytical support services.”
Chainalysis has challenged that award while alleging that the federal law enforcement agency’s decision was “arbitrary, capricious, and unreasonable.” The company stated that the agencies skipped the normal competitive process and awarded the work directly to its rival. It has now asked the court to stop the award. The full complaint is under seal because it contains Chainalysis’ confidential, proprietary information and trade secrets, so the public docket does not reveal all of its arguments.
TRM Labs has already joined the case as an intervenor to defend the government’s decision. The court has also approved a protective order. Briefing is now underway, and filings are scheduled through the end of August. Oral arguments are set for September 2 at the National Courts Building in Washington, DC.
Meanwhile, the government has asked the court to issue a decision by September 10.
Lucrative Market for Crypto Analytics
Chainalysis and TRM Labs are both popular blockchain analytics companies whose tools are used by government agencies to track cryptocurrency activity. These tools have become increasingly important for authorities tracking crypto-linked financial activity by identifying wallets and following the movement of funds tied to sanctioned entities and illicit networks. The technology has also been used in cases involving state-linked wallets and the freezing of crypto assets.
This has helped platforms such as Chainalysis to build a significant business with the US government.
In the case of Chainalysis as well, its federal work dates back to 2015, when the FBI awarded it a $9,000 contract for data software. Since then, its government business has grown substantially, working with several agencies, including the DEA and IRS.
The post Chainalysis Takes US Government to Court Over $94.66M TRM Labs Contract appeared first on CryptoPotato.
Foreign borrowers are flooding into Asia-Pacific bond markets. So-called Kangaroo, panda, and dim sum bond sales all hit records in 2026.
Kangaroo bonds, sold in Australian dollars by foreign borrowers, reached about 42 billion US dollars this year. That is a 40% jump from 2025, per LSEG data cited by Reuters.
Hong Kong and Yuan Bond Debuts Hit Records
Hong Kong dollar bond issuance has also hit a record high in 2026. Commerzbank, Engie, and Singapore Airlines sold Australian dollar or yuan bonds for the first time this year, Reuters reported.
Chinese onshore panda bonds and offshore dim sum bonds also hit records in the first half of 2026. Panda bond sales reached about 160 billion yuan, or 24 billion US dollars. Dim sum sales hit 350 billion yuan.
Both figures mark gains of more than 60% from a year earlier, according to Goldman Sachs data cited by Reuters. International borrowers accounted for about half of that volume.
“We’ve reached a tipping point where these markets have tipped over into being significantly more meaningful both to local names and inevitably to international names.”
Carla Goudge, head of debt syndicate for Asia-Pacific at HSBC, told Reuters.
Yen Bonds and the AI Borrowing Boom
Yen bond sales by foreign borrowers have also doubled this year. Alphabet’s record bond sale drove much of the increase, though yen issuance is at a seven-year high even without it.
Global bond sales topped 4 trillion US dollars by late July, up from about 3.5 trillion dollars a year earlier. Rising artificial intelligence (AI) infrastructure spending and government deficits are straining major bond markets.
Big Tech’s heavy AI spending has already squeezed hyperscaler free cash flow. That adds pressure on the same bond markets these firms depend on.
The trend also reflects Beijing’s push to internationalize the yuan. It follows a stretch of sharp swings in Asian equities, including the Kospi and Nikkei sell-off earlier this year.
German carmakers and European financial institutions have been especially active panda bond issuers. That’s according to Clifford Lee, global head of investment banking at Singapore’s DBS.
More Governments Eye the Panda Bond Market
Portugal became the first eurozone government to sell a dim sum bond in April. The sale raised almost 2 billion yuan, or 300 million US dollars.
Portugal later swapped the proceeds back to euros at a small savings, Rui Amaral of the debt agency said.
Brazil plans to sell its first-ever panda bond later this year, Reuters reported. Kenya is also weighing a debut in the market.
The post Kangaroo, Panda, Dim Sum: Foreign Bond Sales Hit Records Across Asia appeared first on BeInCrypto.
Bitcoin just absorbed a $390 million shock, and a warning JPMorgan issued back in April explains why. Institutions pulled that sum out of spot Bitcoin ETFs last week as oil spiked and the Strait of Hormuz stayed shut.
The Bitcoin price is holding near $63,500 despite the exit, yet the selling traces a clean line from a blocked shipping lane, through inflation, to crypto order books.
Why Is the Oil Shock Back, and Why Does Bitcoin Care?
Brent crude pushed back above $88 a barrel in the week to August 15, up more than 5%, after the US said its naval blockade of Iran could run indefinitely while talks to reopen the Strait of Hormuz stayed deadlocked.
The same blockage does more than lift crude. The Middle East ships close to a quarter of the world’s urea through Hormuz, and JPMorgan flagged that nitrogen fertilizer benchmarks jumped 25 to 50% after the conflict began. With the World Bank’s fertilizer index near its highest since 2022, the bank saw that ripple lifting global food inflation toward 4 to 5%.
Those prices have eased from the April peak in recent weeks, but they sit far above pre-war levels, and this week’s oil surge alongside renewed Hormuz attacks threatens a second leg higher.
For Bitcoin, the connection comes down to one word, inflation.
Sticky energy and food costs give the Federal Reserve reason to keep rates high, and high rates drain the cheap liquidity that risk assets lean on.
So a shock that begins in a shipping lane lands on crypto order books, and the collapse of the US-Iran ceasefire keeps that pressure building rather than fading.
Are Bitcoin Whales Selling Into the Inflation Fear?
The first traders to act on that logic were the whales. Reading the same macro signal, wallets holding 1,000+ BTC peaked near 1,963 on July 31, according to Glassnode, then thinned steadily through August as oil climbed.
Want more token insights like this? Sign up for Editor Harsh Notariya’s Daily Crypto Newsletter here.
The trend is the entire story. The cohort’s 30-day change turned net negative around August 10, the very week crude pushed higher, meaning the largest holders were cutting exposure as the inflation threat hardened.
When the most informed money leaves first, the slower money usually follows. But the whales weren’t the only ones.
Why Did $390 Million Leave Bitcoin ETFs?
Spot Bitcoin exchange-traded funds bled about $390 million in the week to August 14, just after the whales turned, their heaviest weekly outflow since early July and a sharp reversal from the $853 million they absorbed the week before.
That order is the whole point.
The macro fear hit whales first and funds second, so the selling flowed from Hormuz through inflation to Bitcoin in a matter of weeks.
Even so, the Bitcoin price has drifted near $63,500 rather than crashed, which reads as steady de-risking instead of panic.
How Has the Price Reacted to War Before?
If that chain sounds ominous, history offers a counterweight. When Russia invaded Ukraine in February 2022, Bitcoin fell about 9% in two days. It then rebounded roughly 15% within five weeks. The 2023 Israel-Hamas war barely moved it. Moreover, June 2025’s Israel-Iran flare-up knocked BTC about 4% before a ceasefire sparked a recovery.
So war itself has not stayed bearish for long. The first drop has repeatedly proven a shakeout that de-escalation reversed. This is the pattern our analysis of the Ukraine playbook traced in detail. If another de-escalation wave arrives, Bitcoin prices can again start showing strength. However, this time both whales and ETFs are not seeing an optimistic conclusion to the current scenario.
Analyst’s View: From here, the story splits two ways. If the Gulf tension eases, or if whales and ETF buyers simply step back in, the dip likely repairs itself. Same way the past war scares did. Then the bottom talk fades as fast as it started. Experts watching the chains already describe an accumulation zone, even while admitting the floor is not yet in.
The other path is harder. If the Bitcoin ETFs keep bleeding through August, historically one of Bitcoin’s weakest months, and whales keep selling rather than buying, the capitulation could deepen into the kind of floor that only forms once sellers are exhausted. In short, a real Bitcoin bottom may still be near. Yet, it forms only if the fear gets worse before it gets better.
The post Bitcoin Just Took a $390 Million Hit: A JPMorgan Warning From April Explains Why appeared first on BeInCrypto.
Benjamin Cowen says Bitcoin (BTC) is between 69 and 73 days from its next cycle bottom. He bases that estimate on Bitcoin’s current cycle-day count of 1,363.
The prior two cycles bottomed on day 1,432 and day 1,436, respectively. That places Cowen’s projected low near October 2026.
Why Bitcoin’s Cycle Bottom Call Faces Pushback
Cowen’s day-count model has become a go-to reference for traders. Historically, he has argued the current cycle topped within a week of the prior two cycles. He used that timing to defend the four-year cycle framework.
He has made that case before.
Bitcoin topped within one week of when it historically tops, despite the narratives for calling the four-year cycle dead.
Cowen made the comment earlier this year, and is still holding to it as it approaches.
Bitcoin is Showing Signs
Cowen has also flagged August and September as historically weak months. In past midterm election years, Bitcoin fell an average of roughly 10% in August. September has typically added further, smaller losses before any recovery began.
However, not every analyst agrees the old clock still applies. Fidelity has pointed to new lows in one-year volatility appearing just months after Bitcoin’s record high. That pattern, the firm says, never showed up in earlier cycles.
Bitwise Chief Investment Officer Matt Hougan has gone further. He argues that spot exchange-traded funds (ETFs) and corporate treasury demand have weakened the old halving cycle. Grayscale’s 2026 outlook made a similar case, citing steady ETF inflows as evidence the boom-bust pattern no longer holds cleanly.
Still, Cowen’s recent research paper argues the floor has barely moved across four cycles, even as blow-off tops have flattened. Whether that holds through October will decide which camp was right this time.
The post Benjamin Cowen Says Bitcoin 69-73 Days From Bottom, But Does BTC Still Follow Cycles? appeared first on BeInCrypto.
Learn Valuation and Financial Modeling | Investment Banking | Finance
Woman in her 50s dies after Limavady crash
Earnings call transcript: Nitro Games posts H1 2026 growth push as shares fall
Weekend Open Thread: Staud – Corporette.com
Weekend Open Thread – Corporette.com
Weekend Open Thread: Brooks Brothers
Learn Valuation and Financial Modeling | Investment Banking | Finance
The Other Side of the Bitcoin: Crypto & Corruption w/Ben McKenzie | The Weekly Show with Jon Stewart
This Will Completely Change How You Think About Money
-
Fashion3 days agoWeekend Open Thread: Ann Taylor
-
NewsBeat5 days agoCommunication cards help banking customers access services or report scams
-
Business6 days agoOil Price Today (August 11): Crude oil rises to $88 after Trump’s compensation demand dents Hormuz opening. Here’s why
-
Crypto World6 days agoRevolut wins French banking licence, creates second EU banking hub
-
Sports3 days agoThis U.S. Amateur is a glimpse into golf’s future in more ways than you think
-
Crypto World6 days agoWhy Did Nvidia Stock Fall on Monday Despite a $500 Billion Wall Street AI Deal?
-
Sports2 days agoBirmingham 2026: Day 6 Timetable for Irish Athletes
-
NewsBeat2 days agoMyanmar says over 300,000 Rohingya refugees verified for repatriation as exodus enters ninth year
-
Politics2 days agoSEQ Code: The Three Letter Boarding Pass Code That Could Give You The Worst Seat
-
Entertainment5 days agoKeke Palmer Subtly Hints At Sean Evans Drama With Cryptic Post
-
Crypto World7 days agoGrayscale quietly drops Cardano, Polkadot and Hedera ETF plans
-
Fashion6 days agoCoffee Break: The Fonteyn Jane Flat
-
Entertainment6 days ago57 Years Later, the Best Sitcom Ever Made Still Deserves a Reboot
-
Tech6 days agoZoom Screen-Sharing Bug Let People Fully Take Over Other Devices On A Call
-
Crypto World7 days agoHormuz Nerves Cost Bitcoin $65,000 Mark Despite Solid Institutional Flows
-
Fashion7 days agoCan You Wear Double Cloth Gauze Clothing To Your Office?
-
Crypto World6 days agoBitcoin's BIP Editors Remove Luke Dashjr Two Days After BIP-110 Fork Stalled
-
Fashion6 days agoClaire Life: Kicking Off MVAAFF With the C Suite Luncheon Featuring Phylicia Rashad, Letoya Luckett, and More!
-
Fashion6 days agoShould you refinance your debt? Pros, cons, and real numbers
-
Crypto World5 days agoXRP bridge drained after software mistook fake deposits for real ones
You must be logged in to post a comment Login