Base’s decision to move away from the OP Stack to a unified software stack is raising questions about the long-term economics behind Optimism’s Superchain model.

The OP Mainnet, which is powered by the OP Stack, is currently the third-largest Ethereum Layer-2 by total value locked (TVL) at $1.84 billion, per L2beat.

OP, Optimism’s native token, is currently trading at around $0.14, down 26% over the past 24 hours, according to CoinGecko data. The sell-off followed a Wednesday, Feb. 18, blog post from Base – the Ethereum Layer-2 blockchain launched by Coinbase with a TVL of $3.8 billion – outlining plans to move away from Optimism’s software over the coming months.

Experts told The Defiant this move matters because Base is the biggest network using Optimism’s technology. If Base steps away, it raises doubts about whether the Superchain can keep growing its shared revenue over time.

Optimism’s Superchain Model

Under Optimism’s Superchain model, chains that join agree to share a small portion of their fees with the Optimism Collective, according to an official Optimism blog post from 2024. Specifically, each chain sends back either 2.5% of its chain revenue or 15% of its on-chain profits (after costs and gas fees), whichever is higher.

Because Base has been one of the busiest rollups, it was widely seen as one of the biggest contributors to this shared pool.

“Base moving away from the OP Superchain isn’t that surprising when you look at the incentives,” said Shresth Agrawal, CEO of Pod Network. “Base was reportedly contributing around 97% of the revenue, so at some point the ‘Superchain tax’ becomes hard to justify.”

Nicolai Sondergaard, a research analyst at Nansen, told The Defiant that Base was processing roughly four times more transactions than Optimism, generating about 144 times more decentralized exchange (DEX) volume, and producing 80 times more gas fees.

“The ~26% crash in OP (now around $0.14) is the market repricing the whole Superchain thesis,” Sondergaard added. “If Coinbase’s Base, the flagship OP Stack chain, is leaving to build their own stack, why would anyone else stay and share revenue?”

However, Agrawal said that the broader issue, in his opinion, is licensing. “The OP Stack became the default L2 framework partly because it embraced open-source norms,” Agrawal explained. “But fully permissive licenses make monetization difficult—large, well-distributed players can fork or internalize the stack without long-term revenue sharing.”

He pointed to alternatives such as business-style licenses (similar to Arbitrum’s early approach), which he said may be harder to adopt at first but could prove more commercially sustainable.

“Main Revenue Driver”

Meanwhile, Oxytocin, head of ecosystem at Umia and a former Optimism governance delegate, explained to the Defiant that rollup partnerships like Base are integral to Optimism’s long-term revenue narrative.

“While this revenue would go directly to the Foundation as opposed to a token-controlled treasury, the value accrued through these kinds of deals with rollups was one of the main proposed revenue drivers,” Oxytocin said. “The timing of this announcement will also impact the effectiveness of the recently proposed OP buyback scheme.”

In January, the Optimism Foundation proposed a buyback program that would use 50% of incoming Superchain revenue to purchase OP tokens starting sometime in February. The plan is meant to better align the token’s value with the growth of the Superchain ecosystem.

Moving Forward

The Defiant reached out to Optimism for comment and was redirected to an X post by Jing Wang, the CEO of OP Labs and Co-founder of Optimism. “This is a hit to near-term on-chain revenues,” Wang wrote on Feb.18. “But as cryptotwitter has been saying for ages, we needed to evolve our biz model.”

Wang added that the OP Stack remains the “most performant” and has “endured the most traffic in production,” regardless of Base’s fork. Data from DeFiLlama shows that the TVL in Optimism Bridge is $498 million, down sharply from its peak of around $5 billion in 2024.

In an official statement, Optimism said it was “grateful” for its three-year partnership with Base and that it will continue working with Base as an OP Enterprise customer “while they build out their independent infrastructure.”

The development also comes as Optimism is attracting new partners. On Wednesday, decentralized finance (DeFi) firm EtherFi said it plans to move its Cash accounts and card program from Scroll to Optimism’s OP Mainnet.

The move is expected to bring $160 million in TVL and more than 70,000 active cards to the network, The Defiant previously reported. Both companies described the move as a long-term partnership.

“While the recent news is a significant shakeup for many, I remain confident that OP Labs will be able to iterate on their value mission and continue attracting new members to the OP Stack, like the recent announcement from EtherFi,” Oxytocin concluded. “Optimism’s ethos has always been one of strong reflection and iteration, and they have proven many times in the past that they are able to re-align their roadmap as needed.”

Bitcoin is sculpting what could become a five-month red stretch, a pattern that would mark the longest losing run for the largest crypto asset since the 2018 bear market. With BTC down about 15% this month after four consecutive negative closes, traders are weighing whether March might bring a contrarian turn. Data from CoinGlass underscores the current malaise, while some analysts point to historical precedents suggesting a relief rally could follow a protracted drawdown. Yet others caution that the narrative this time could be structurally different, complicating parity between history and the present price action.

Key takeaways

• Bitcoin is on its fifth straight red monthly candle, placing it on the longest losing streak since 2018 if the pattern persists into March.
• Historical analogs show that multi-month declines have sometimes been followed by substantial rallies, with Milk Road suggesting as much as a 316% gain over the next five months if history repeats.
• A potential reversal could begin as early as April 1, according to an analyst-led interpretation of prior cycles.
• In 2022, BTC endured four consecutive red quarters, culminating in a 64% annual drawdown and a year-end close near $16,500 after opening near $46,230.
• Some market voices argue the current bear market is fundamentally different, pointing to RSI behavior and other indicators that diverge from prior cycles, complicating traditional bottoming expectations.

Tickers mentioned: $BTC

Sentiment: Neutral

Price impact: Neutral. While patterns hint at a possible rebound, no definitive price move is confirmed yet.

Market context: The Bitcoin narrative sits amid a broader backdrop of historic drawdowns, with weekly and quarterly signals suggesting a mixed path ahead. Analysts note that the current bear period may not mirror past cycles, even as the same asset class contends with macro and liquidity dynamics that shape risk appetite across crypto markets.

Why it matters

The persistence of downbeat monthly candles keeps a number of questions at the forefront for investors and builders alike. If Bitcoin’s streak ends in the near term, it could validate a patience-driven approach in a market where volatility remains a defining feature. The potential for a sizable rebound — should the cycle mirror past recoveries — would have implications for institutional engagement, risk management, and the development of on-chain infrastructure that often aligns with price cycles.

From a risk-management perspective, the divergence between monthly patterns and weekly or quarterly signals matters. While a five-month red run would align with the memory of 2018’s late-stage bear, the more nuanced pattern observed in 2022 — four red quarters culminating in a brutal annual drawdown — suggests that the bottoming process can be uneven and drawn out. This nuance is essential for traders who rely on calendar-based expectations, as opposed to a purely price-driven narrative. The discussion around whether the bear is structurally different adds another layer to how market participants interpret leverage, liquidity provisioning, and hedging strategies within the crypto ecosystem.

Analysts emphasize that a bottom is not a singular event but a process that unfolds across multiple timeframes. The contrast between longer, slower-moving monthly candles and shorter, more volatile weekly candles can produce whipsaws or false signals, challenging even seasoned traders. The current discourse also highlights how historical reference points can both illuminate potential paths and mislead when the fundamentals have shifted — for example, the RSI, a widely watched momentum indicator, is said to be at levels that resemble prior bear-market lows, which some observers interpret as either a cap on upside or a prelude to a reversal depending on the broader setup.

In practical terms, this means market participants should remain vigilant for changes in liquidity conditions, risk sentiment, and macro drivers that influence appetite for risk across crypto assets. The evolving narrative around whether this bear is “different” matters not just for price trajectories but for how developers, investors, and miners approach long-horizon planning, supply dynamics, and the deployment of new financial products tied to BTC exposure.

What to watch next

• Monitor April 1 as a potential pivot point if the historical pattern repeats, with attention to whether the fifth red month translates into a sustained rebound.
• Track weekly candle formations and RSI behavior for signs of a bottom or renewed downside pressure.
• Follow commentary around the notion that the current bear cycle is fundamentally different, to assess whether this changes risk management and capital allocation approaches.
• Observe any shifts in macro sentiment and liquidity that could influence BTC’s risk-on/risk-off dynamics in the near term.

Sources & verification

• CoinGlass data on Bitcoin’s fifth consecutive red month and the 15% monthly decline.
• Milk Road analysis and X post citing the potential 316% upside over the next five months if history repeats, with an April 1 timeframe mentioned.
• Historical quarterly performance in 2022 showing four red quarters and a 64% annual drawdown, as contextualized by on-chain and price-history analysis.
• Analyst commentary noting a potentially different bear market structure in 2026 relative to prior cycles, as discussed by market observers.
• Solana Sensei’s chart discussion focusing on Bitcoin’s weekly performance and the persistence of a five-candle streak.

Bitcoin’s latest drawdown and what it changes

Bitcoin (CRYPTO: BTC) finds itself at a crossroads as a fifth consecutive monthly red candle looms, a scenario that would mark the longest such streak since the 2018 downturn. CoinGlass’s data frames the cue: BTC has declined around 15% this month after finishing the four preceding months in the red. The most notable parallel in recent history is the 2018 bear, a period that preceded a protracted decline before a multi-times rally years later. This context frames the current debate: are we approaching a traditional bear-market bottom, or is this cycle signaling a new regime with different dynamics?

Within this debate sits a striking counterpoint from Milk Road, which highlighted that prior episodes of extended debits often culminated in powerful rallies. The analysis notes a potential 316% gain in the subsequent five months if the pattern repeats, with an initial pivot anticipated around early April. While such projections draw on historical analogs, they do not guarantee future outcomes, and market participants remain mindful of the speed and scale of moves that can occur in crypto markets. The possibility of a rapid reversal exists, but it is contingent on a confluence of favorable conditions that historically have proven elusive to time with precision.

The 2022 bear period adds another layer of caution. That year, BTC endured four consecutive red quarters, culminating in a total drawdown of roughly 64% as the price collapsed from a starting point near $46,230 to around $16,500 by year-end. The stark difference between that season and the present has led some to question whether history offers a reliable playbook for all cycles. In a broader sense, the bear narrative for 2026 has permeated analysis, with voices warning that a similar stretch could push prices toward new lows if macro and liquidity conditions deteriorate further. One linked discussion even imagines a scenario where the decline might extend below the 15-month support band near $60,000, underscoring the potential for further downside if selling pressure intensifies.

Within the microstructure, weekly performance has drawn the attention of traders as well. A well-known analyst in the space highlighted that Bitcoin printed its fifth consecutive weekly down candle, marking the longest such streak since 2022 and positioning it as the second-longest losing run on record. The 2022 period saw nine red weeks and a descent to around $20,500, illustrating how abrupt and protracted declines can be, even after substantial drawdowns. The interplay of monthly, weekly, and quarterly signals underscores the challenge of diagnosing a bottom with a single timeframe in mind and highlights the risk of misreading the onset of a durable recovery.

Beyond the numbers, a divergence in narrative is shaping market sentiment. Veteran analyst Sykodelic argues that the current bear phase is fundamentally different from earlier cycles, pointing to the monthly RSI having already touched levels associated with prior bear-market lows in 2015 and 2018. The assertion is that the absence of a classic overbought expansion in the bull phase can complicate expectations of symmetric contractions. In other words, traders may be dealing with a regime where the typical playbook fails to capture the full complexity of price action, making caution and disciplined risk management all the more important as the market tests key psychological and technical thresholds.

All of this occurs as broader market narratives evolve around risk tolerance and the appetite for crypto exposure. The tension between potential upside and the risk of renewed downside remains a core feature of the current price environment. For market participants, the central question is whether the repeated red candles are signaling a deeper pattern or simply a fraught interim phase that could resolve in a relatively swift re-pricing if buyers step back in with confidence. The answer will likely hinge on a mix of on-chain signals, liquidity conditions, and macro developments that influence whether BTC can sustain any rally beyond a few weeks or months.

What to watch next

• April 1 as a potential inflection point if the historical pattern repeats, with close attention to price action in the days that follow.
• Confirmation signals from weekly candles and RSI stabilization, which could indicate a bottoming process even amid ongoing volatility.
• Shifts in risk sentiment and liquidity that may tilt BTC toward a risk-on or risk-off regime in the near term.

Key takeaways:

• Professional traders are paying a 13% premium for downside protection as Bitcoin struggles to maintain support above $66,000.

• While stocks and gold remain strong, $910 million in Bitcoin ETF outflows suggest that institutional investor caution is rising.

Bitcoin (BTC) price entered a downward spiral after rejecting near $71,000 on Sunday. Despite successfully defending the $66,000 level throughout the week, options markets reflect growing fear as professional traders avoid downside price exposure. 

Even with relative strength in the stock market and gold prices, traders seem to be effectively betting on a $60,000 retest rather than overreacting to Bitcoin price dips.

Bitcoin put (sell) options traded at a 13% premium relative to call (buy) instruments on Thursday. Under neutral conditions, the delta skew metric typically ranges between -6% and +6%, indicating balanced demand for upside and downside strategies. The fact that these levels have been sustained over the past four weeks shows that professional sentiment is leaning heavily toward caution.

This bearish bias is clear in the neutral-to-bearish positioning seen in Bitcoin options. According to Laevitas data, the bear diagonal spread, short straddle and short risk reversal were the most traded strategies on the Deribit exchange over the past 48 hours.

The first lowers the cost of the bearish bet because the short-term option loses value faster, while the second maximizes profit if Bitcoin price barely moves. The short risk reversal, on the other hand, generates profit from a downward move with little to no upfront cost, but it carries unlimited risk if the price spikes.

Weak institutional demand for Bitcoin ETFs fuels discontent

To better gauge the risk appetite of traders, analysts often look at stablecoin demand in China. When investors rush to exit the cryptocurrency market, this indicator usually drops below parity.

Under neutral conditions, stablecoins should trade at a 0.5% to 1% premium relative to the US dollar/Yuan exchange rate. This premium compensates for the high costs of traditional FX conversion, remittance fees and the regulatory friction caused by China’s capital controls. The current 0.2% discount suggests moderate outflows, though this is an improvement from the 1.4% discount seen on Monday.

Part of the current discontent among traders can be explained by the lackluster flows in Bitcoin exchange-traded funds (ETFs), which serve as a proxy for institutional demand. 

Related: Bitcoin ETFs still sit on $53B in net inflows despite recent outflows–Bloomberg

US-listed Bitcoin ETFs have seen $910 million in total outflows since Feb. 11, which likely caught bulls off balance, especially as Bitcoin traded 47% below its all-time high while gold prices hovered near $5,000, up 15% in just two months. Similarly, the S&P 500 index sat only 2% below its own all-time high, indicating that this risk-aversion is largely restricted to the cryptocurrency sector.

While Bitcoin options signal a fear of further downside, traders are likely staying extremely cautious until a clear rationale for the crash to $60,200 on Feb. 6 finally emerges.