Crypto Breaking

The United Kingdom’s Gambling Commission is evaluating whether cryptocurrency could function as a consumer payment option within licensed online gambling, as the country moves to bring crypto activity under a new regulatory regime led by the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA). Tim Miller, the commission’s executive director for research and policy, told attendees at the Betting and Gaming Council’s annual general meeting in London that policymakers want to map out “the potential path forward” for cryptoasset payments in Great Britain. He noted that, once the regime starts, regulated crypto activities would require FCA authorization under the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000. The licensing framework is targeted for 2027.

Key takeaways

The Gambling Commission is actively exploring a formal path to allow crypto payments for licensed gambling in Great Britain, as part of the FCA-regulated regime.

Any entities conducting regulated crypto activities would need FCA authorization under FSMA once the regime commences.

The commission ties crypto payments to consumer protection, citing evidence that crypto is among the top searches leading British bettors to illegal sites.

Even if crypto payments are permitted, this would not automatically subject casinos to full UK regulation, given challenges around customer suitability checks.

The FCA has published a final consultation with 10 proposals for crypto markets, with the licensing regime slated to go live in October 2027 and an application window expected to open in September 2026.

Tickers mentioned:

Sentiment: Neutral

Market context: The UK’s approach reflects a broader movement toward regulated crypto services as policymakers weigh consumer protections and AML safeguards amid evolving crypto legislation worldwide. The FCA’s upcoming licensing framework signals tighter oversight that could influence how payment rails, operator compliance, and consumer protections evolve across Europe and beyond.

Why it matters

The potential acceptance of cryptocurrency as a legitimate payment option within licensed gambling could reorder the onboarding experience for players and redefine how operators manage risk. If crypto payments are permitted within a regulated framework, operators would likely have to implement rigorous know-your-customer (KYC) and due-diligence processes to ensure that crypto flows do not bypass existing controls. This shift could also influence the competitive dynamics of online gambling, encouraging platforms to invest in compliance infrastructure to win consumer trust in a landscape that remains under intense regulatory scrutiny.

regulators emphasize consumer protection and the integrity of the market. The commission’s stance reflects a cautious acknowledgement that crypto payments may offer consumer benefits—such as faster settlement options and alternative funding channels—while also raising new questions about identity verification, transaction tracing, and the risk of financial harm if illicit actors exploit crypto rails. The idea is not to hastily embrace digital assets as a mainstream payment method but to evaluate a measured, regulated pathway that aligns with the UK’s broader financial oversight framework. The ultimate objective is to reduce the exposure of legitimate bettors to illegal operators while ensuring that any crypto-enabled gambling activity sits on a robust licensing backbone.

This discussion sits at the intersection of technology, consumer protection, and public policy. It mirrors a wider regulatory trend in which governments are testing how digital assets can coexist with traditional financial safeguards. The UK’s approach—balancing innovation with precaution—adds to a growing chorus of inquiries across jurisdictions that are trying to determine whether crypto payments can be integrated into regulated consumer sectors without undermining the rule of law or consumer protections.

What to watch next

The FCA’s final consultation on crypto market proposals and the timeline for implementing the regime, with the licensing gateway expected to open in September 2026 and the regime going live by October 2027.

The Industry Forum’s recommendations on the practical path forward for crypto payments in licensed gambling, as the regulator weighs feasibility and safeguards.

The ongoing regulatory developments, including potential UK government or parliamentary inquiries and related activity around stablecoins and broader crypto regulation.

Any concrete steps operators take to prepare for a regime that could permit crypto payments, including enhanced KYC, AML controls, and consumer protection measures.

Sources & verification

Gambling Commission – Tim Miller’s remarks at the Betting and Gaming Council AGM in London (https://www.gamblingcommission.gov.uk/news/article/bgc-agm-2026-tim-miller-speech).

UK crypto rules and regulatory outlook — final FCA consultation on crypto markets (Cointelegraph article referencing the FCA’s proposals) (https://cointelegraph.com/news/uk-dodges-us-malaise-regulator-new-crypto-rules).

FCA licensing timeline for cryptoassets, including September 2026 application window and October 2027 live date (https://cointelegraph.com/news/uk-crypto-september-2026-fca-licensing-gateway# and https://www.fca.org.uk/firms/new-regime-cryptoasset-regulation/how-gateway-will-operate).

Related regulatory context — UK Lords’ inquiry into stablecoins (Cointelegraph article) (https://cointelegraph.com/news/uk-lords-open-stablecoin-regulation-inquiry).

Crypto payments in licensed gambling: charting a regulatory path

The conversation around crypto-enabled payments in Britain’s regulated gambling sector has shifted from a speculative debate to a structured policy inquiry. At the heart of the discussion is a governance framework that would bring crypto activity under the FCA’s umbrella, ensuring that any use of digital assets for consumer payments remains within a tested, transparent boundary. Tim Miller’s remarks signal a willingness to explore practical steps rather than to provide a rushed verdict on crypto as a payment method. The Betting and Gaming Council event served as a platform to translate high-level regulatory intent into a concrete, industry-facing inquiry.

Under the proposed regime, entities conducting regulated crypto activities would need to secure authorization from the FCA under the FSMA when the regime becomes operative. This requirement underscores the government’s intent to avoid creating a parallel, under-regulated ecosystem for crypto gambling activities. The emphasis on licensing suggests that operators would be expected to meet the same or higher standards of consumer protection, anti-money laundering, and risk management as traditional payment providers. The objective is not only to deliver a lawful pathway for crypto payments but also to ensure that consumer safety remains the cornerstone of any new financing mechanism.

“And that, as well as the growing appetite we see from punters, means we do now want to start looking at what the potential path forward would be to create a way for cryptoasset to be used as a consumer payment option for licensed and regulated gambling in Great Britain.”

The debate also touches on a broader risk-reward calculus. On one hand, crypto payments could align Britain’s gambling market with evolving digital finance technologies, potentially offering faster settlement times and new user experiences. On the other hand, regulators remain vigilant about the possibility of illicit platforms operating on the periphery of legality. The Gambling Commission’s data showing crypto as a leading entry point to illegal sites reinforces the need for robust controls if such payments are to be legalized within licensed venues. Miller’s comments suggest that any forward-looking framework would be designed to close gaps that currently allow illicit access, rather than to normalize risky activity without guardrails.

Crucially, authorities are careful to separate the act of permitting crypto payments from the broader question of licensing. The fact that crypto payments could be allowed does not automatically imply a broader expansion of regulatory reach over operators. Instead, regulators appear intent on upholding rigorous customer suitability checks and ongoing oversight, which could complicate how crypto-based payments are integrated. This nuance matters for operators weighing whether to pilot crypto-enabled deposits and withdrawals, as well as for investors tracking how regulatory risk might shape the value proposition of gaming platforms that move to accept digital assets.

From a market perspective, the UK’s stance sits within a global mosaic of crypto regulation, where authorities are increasingly seeking to harmonize innovation with accountability. The FCA’s licensing roadmap, coupled with related inquiries in other domains such as stablecoins, creates a framework that could influence the pace at which crypto-friendly payments scale in other regulated sectors. While the path to full integration remains under discussion, the UK’s approach signals that crypto as a payment option in gambling is not a hypothetical fantasy; it is a policy question being actively worked through by regulators, lawmakers, and industry stakeholders.

This article was originally published as UK Regulator Considers Crypto Payments for Online Betting on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

Tether (USDT) Price Prediction

Tether’s USDT peg persists amid competition from yield-bearing stablecoins and evolving regulations. Reserve accumulation and cross-chain volume growth reinforce its market position. Analysts monitor depeg potential through quarterly attestations, futures open interest, and macroeconomic developments. Price scenarios for 2026 to 2030 appear next, covering base, stress, and premium cases informed by reserve structures, transaction flows, and external variables.

2026-2030 Price Scenarios

Base case projects a $0.99-$1.01 range through 2030. Annual supply growth of 8–10% tracks reserve expansion, keeping coverage modestly above 100% to maintain peg stability. Tokenization demand and emerging market absorption prevent sustained premium formation.

Stress scenarios anticipate temporary declines to $0.96-$0.98 during 2026-2027. Coverage falling below 1.01x prompts $5-10 billion in redemptions, mirroring 2022 patterns. Burns and arbitrage restore equilibrium within 30-60 days.

Premium scenarios target $1.02-$1.05 by 2030 during scarcity phases. Yield-bearing alternatives claim less than 10% market share as real-world asset tokenization accelerates. Regulatory simplification drives institutional inflows.

Year Base Range Stress Range Premium Range Base Probability 2026 $0.99-1.00 $0.96-0.98 $1.01-1.02 85% 2027 $0.99-1.00 $0.95-0.97 $1.01-1.03 82% 2028 $1.00-1.01 $0.96-0.98 $1.02-1.04 84% 2029 $1.00-1.01 $0.97-0.99 $1.02-1.04 87% 2030 $0.99-1.01 $0.97-0.99 $1.02-1.05 88%

Reserves and Peg Stability

Latest attestations show reserves modestly exceeding liabilities, with coverage approaching parity historically triggering several billion dollars in redemptions. U.S. Treasuries and cash equivalents represent the dominant allocation, typically accounting for roughly 70–80% of total reserves, while the remainder includes secured loans, precious metals, and a limited Bitcoin position. Excess reserves fluctuate quarterly and function as a liquidity buffer rather than a fixed structural surplus.

Composition favors short-duration Treasuries, which yield compression from Fed policy affects minimally. Quarterly burns offset mints, limiting supply growth to 8% annualized. USDC trails at $75 billion circulation with similar transparency standards.

Component Allocation ($B) Share U.S. Treasuries 112.4 80% Reverse Repos 21.0 15% Cash Equivalents 6.4 5% Excess Coverage 6.8 4%

Redemption queues process within 48 hours under normal conditions. During May 2022 volatility, USDT briefly traded well below $1 on secondary markets, with intraday prints near $0.95 on some venues before arbitrage restored parity. Emerging market holdings concentrate 40% of issuance, amplifying velocity over domestic flows.

Chain Trends Driving Volume

Tron and Ethereum dominate USDT transfers. Tron leads in low-cost, high-velocity transfers, while Ethereum anchors DeFi liquidity. Solana handles a smaller share (~8%) through high throughput. Emerging markets account for ~40% of TRC20 activity, prioritizing transaction speed over smart contract depth.

Market participants use USDT TRC20 swap tools to capture fee arbitrage during Ethereum congestion, preserving liquidity across protocols without premium costs.

Chain Volume Share Average Fee Primary Application TRC20 45% $0.001 High-velocity transfers ERC20 50% $0.50 DeFi liquidity pools Solana 8% $0.0005 Rapid settlement trades

Tron issuance exceeds 80 billion tokens, reflecting sustained adoption in dollar-scarce regions. ERC20 maintains pricing anchor despite fee disadvantage. Volume distribution signals preference for cost efficiency over ecosystem lock-in.

Platform Execution for Traders

USDT pairs account for 60% of exchange volume, with futures open interest steady at $26 billion across major platforms. Binance remains the primary venue for USDT liquidity, while Coinbase lists USDT but structurally prioritizes USDC in U.S. markets. Execution differences emerge in liquidity depth and order book resilience during volatility spikes.

Traders compare Coinbase vs Binance metrics when selecting USDT pair venues, weighing spread tightness against regulatory exposure for range-bound positioning.

Platform USDT Volume Share Open Interest ($B) Spread (bps) Binance 45% 15 1.2 Coinbase 22% 6 2.1 Others 33% 5 1.8

Funding rates average 0.01% daily, signalling low leverage risk. Platform choice influences slippage on $1-2 billion daily rotations, particularly during attestation windows. Concentration on two venues exposes systemic liquidity risks if outflows coincide.

Technical Indicators Now

USDT trades in a narrow $0.998-$1.002 range under recent market conditions, indicating low volatility. Technical indicators, such as Bollinger Bands and RSI, suggest range-bound positioning, consistent with peg stability.

Futures open interest remains at $26 billion with funding rates near 0.01%. MACD lines converge without histogram divergence, pointing to consolidation ahead of quarterly reports. Volume profiles flatten week-over-week, consistent with range-bound positioning.

Support levels sit near $0.997 (50-day EMA) and around $0.99 for historical stress periods.

Resistance caps at $1.002 (upper band) and $1.005 (recent high).

Breakouts below $0.997 signal deeper tests of psychological support. Upper breaches require sustained mints exceeding $2 billion daily. Current setup favors mean reversion over directional bets.

Catalysts and Headwinds

Real-world asset tokenization eyes $400 billion by 2028, channeling demand to USDT pairs. Emerging markets generate 35-40% circulation growth via TRC20 in Latin America and Southeast Asia. U.S. regulatory easing curbs NYAG scrutiny, supporting $20 billion annual institutional inflows.

Yield-bearing stablecoins take 6-8 DeFi TVL points:

USDe yields 4.8-5.5% APY on $12 billion.

PYUSD hits $1.8 billion through merchants.

Fed rate paths squeeze Treasury yields on 80% reserves. Coverage margins tighten. The EU’s Markets in Crypto-Assets framework imposes stricter reserve transparency and liquidity standards for compliant issuers, increasing scrutiny on stablecoin structures operating within the bloc.

A visible decline in reserve coverage toward parity would likely accelerate institutional redemptions, with magnitude driven by liquidity conditions rather than a fixed numerical trigger. RWA gains offset this, locking in 62-65% dominance through 2027.

Trader Tactics and Storage

Position USDT within 20-30% portfolio limits to manage concentration risk. Review reserve attestations each quarter for coverage trajectory. Store amounts over $100,000 in multi-signature or hardware wallets, keeping recovery phrases offline.

Chain preferences vary by use case:

TRC20 suits transfers below $50,000 where fees stay under $0.001.

ERC20 fits DeFi positions despite $0.50 average costs.

Solana handles sub-second needs for high-frequency execution.

Primary redemptions typically settle within 1–2 business days under normal conditions. Cross-chain swaps capture fee savings during Ethereum spikes. Avoid leverage entirely. Shift 10-15% to yield options only in stable conditions. Track funding rates exceeding 0.02% daily as outflow warnings. Coverage drops below 1.02x demand immediate position cuts.

USDT Peg Outlook

Reserve buffers slightly above parity support the $0.99–$1.01 range under normal market conditions, bolstered by TRC20 efficiencies and RWA flows. Technical ranges and volume shifts confirm resilience. Yield rivals plus MiCA test margins, but redemptions cap stress at $0.96-$0.98 with rapid recovery.

Platform tactics and storage limit slippage risks. USDT continues to hold a majority share of the global stablecoin market, with dominance dependent on liquidity depth, regulatory positioning, and cross-chain accessibility. Prioritize quarterly attestations, 20-30% caps, and chain rotations before Fed yield squeezes. Premiums over $1.02 require rival erosion below 10%, unlikely by 2030.

FAQ

Will USDT maintain its $1 peg through 2030?
Base scenarios project 85-88% probability within $0.99-$1.01. Stress cases limit breaches to $0.96-$0.98 with burn-driven recovery.

What drives TRC20’s volume dominance?
TRC20 leads in low-cost, high-velocity transfers (~45% of USDT activity), while ERC20 supports DeFi liquidity despite higher fees (~50%). Emerging markets prioritize transaction speed in dollar-scarce regions, contributing to TRC20’s practical advantage.

How do yield rivals impact USDT?
USDe and PYUSD erode 6-8 DeFi TVL points at 4.8-5.5% APY. Liquidity depth restricts share loss below 10%.

What triggers a 2026 stress depeg?
Coverage approaching parity can trigger several billion dollars in redemptions, historically absorbed by arbitrage and reserve buffers. Fed yield compression or MiCA collateral caps may accelerate outflows.

Should portfolios hold USDT long-term?
Cap exposure at 20-30% for peg reliability. Allocate 10-15% to yields during stable periods.

Can USDT trade above $1.02 sustainably?
Premium scenarios need rival erosion below 10% share. RWA scarcity supports this at 5-10% odds by 2030.

How reliable are these projections?
Ranges derive from attestation trends and historical patterns, with coverage consistently above parity. Black swans alter probabilities.

Why prefer TRC20 over ERC20?
TRC20 suits transfers under $50,000. ERC20 anchors DeFi despite fee disadvantage.

What storage secures larger USDT positions?
Multi-signature or hardware wallets for over $100,000. Keep phrases offline; enable direct Treasury redemption.

When do Fed rates affect reserves?
Treasury yield drops on 80% allocation narrow coverage. Monitor before rate cuts for rotation signals.

Disclaimer

This article offers informational analysis only. It does not constitute investment, financial, or trading advice. Cryptocurrency markets exhibit high volatility, and historical patterns do not predict future outcomes. Readers must conduct independent research and consult qualified professionals before making decisions. The publisher assumes no liability for any losses incurred.

This article was originally published as Tether USDT Price Outlook 2026-2030 on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

Bitcoin is contending with a rare confluence of resistance on the weekly chart, a setup that could determine whether the bear phase eases into March or drags on for longer. The price action comes as BTC hovers in a tight zone just below three major barriers: the 200-week exponential moving average (EMA) at about $68,330, the long-standing 2021 all-time high near $69,000, and the round-number psyche of $70,000. The most recent moves show a struggle to reclaim those levels after a mid-week peak that touched $70,040 but failed to hold. This backdrop has traders weighing the probability of a sustained rebound versus another leg lower, with the market watching for a decisive bullish signal.

Key takeaways

Bitcoin is testing a triple-resistance cluster on the weekly chart, with the 200-week EMA at roughly $68,330, the 2021 peak around $69,000, and $70,000 acting as a psychological barrier.

BTC has dropped about 14% in February, marking a fifth consecutive red month, highlighting persistent downside pressure even as buyers consider a potential shift in momentum.

The price hovered near $67,720 after failing to reclaim the $70,000 level, underscoring the need for a weekly close above the 200-week EMA to sustain any upside.

Analysts have flirted with the idea that March could turn bullish if a weekly close clears the EMA hurdle, suggesting a possible retest toward higher targets if momentum builds.

Historical precedent factors into the discussion: a similar streak in late 2018 preceded a multi-month rally, raising expectations that a reversal could materialize in the spring once selling pressure loosens.

Longer-term signals remain mixed, with traders eyeing the potential break above a major cost-basis level around $74,500 as a potential marker for a sustained bull phase.

Tickers mentioned: $BTC

Market context: The price action arrives as liquidity and risk appetite swing with broader market dynamics, including a stock-market rebound and earnings data that have previously boosted risk-on assets. Traders are balancing technical resistance with macro cues, keeping a close watch on trend-following signals and key levels on the chart.

Why it matters

From a technical standpoint, the trio of resistance points converges at a zone that has historically defined BTC’s near-term fate. A weekly close above the 200-week EMA at $68,330 would be a rare indication that sellers are losing steam and that bulls are regaining control. Such a move could rekindle momentum toward the next psychological and technical targets, potentially delivering a more substantive bounce than a cursory intraday spike.

The broader context matters because these levels are not arbitrary driftlines; they reflect long-standing anchors in Bitcoin’s price history. Confronting the old high at $69,000 provides a test of whether demand can overwhelm supply that has persisted through a prolonged drawdown. The $70,000 level, in turn, functions as more than a price barrier—it signals a market memory of previous turning points when risk appetite reacted to macro news and liquidity conditions. A sustained move through these gates could alter sentiment in a market that has endured a multi-month downtrend.

Beyond the immediate price optics, the discussion is inseparable from the mechanism of a potential bear-market exit. Some market observers point to a pivotal threshold around $74,500—the cost basis for the 18-24 month age band—as a possible inflection line for the bear narrative. A break above that zone has historically carried implications for the durability of any upward move, even if the current price action remains within a volatile corridor. In this sense, the path forward is not simply about punching higher; it is about confirming a durable change in the supply-demand dynamics that have characterized BTC for months.

The market’s current mood is further informed by a blend of on-chain and sentiment signals that emphasize demand resilience and the risk of renewed selling pressure if macro catalysts deteriorate. Market watchers have noted that previous episodes of similar consolidation tended to be followed by more pronounced moves once the EMA and key resistance levels gave way. This pattern, while not a guarantee, has shaped a cautious outlook for March as participants await the weekly cadence of candles to reveal whether bulls can sustain a breakout or whether fresh selling emerges to prolong the consolidation.

In parallel, commentary from prominent traders underscores the fragility of any rally, noting that a lack of a convincing weekly close could delay a meaningful rebound. For instance, a trader known as Captain Faibik argued that clearing the 200-week EMA on a weekly basis could pave the way for a resurgence toward higher targets, cautioning that March could shape up as a turning point if momentum is captured. His assessment reflects a common view that the longer horizon—beyond a single daily move—matters for how the market assigns value to risk assets in the near term.

BTC/USD weekly chart. Source: TradingView

As a reminder of the historical context, a Cointelegraph piece noted that the bear market could end if BTC reclaimsthe cost basis around the 18-24-month band, a threshold that has historically signaled a shift in trend. The question remains whether this time will mimic the late-2018 to early-2019 period when a months-long drawdown was followed by a dramatic multi-bagger rally. If selling pressure abates and demand returns, April could mark the onset of a more constructive phase for the asset, even as the journey toward that inflection point remains uncertain.

“I think March is going to be a bullish month.”

Data from CoinGlass reinforces the immediacy of the trend, showing a five-month streak of negative performance for Bitcoin with February posting about a 14% decline. The cadence of losses has raised concerns about macro-driven risk-off sentiment, yet it also sets the table for a potential reversal should macro news align with technical breakouts. The market’s memory of past cycles—where similar declines have given way to decisive rallies—keeps the discussion open for a spring resurgence, provided the price clears the critical thresholds and maintains momentum.

In this environment, traders are urged to monitor the confluence of signals rather than relying on a single data point. A sustained push through the key hurdle at $68,330 on a weekly close would be a more meaningful signal than a fleeting intraday peak. If momentum bets align with a broader market backdrop that supports risk-on assets, the path toward higher levels could materialize, offering traders a clearer roadmap for the weeks ahead.

What to watch next

Watch for a weekly close above the 200-week EMA near $68,330 to confirm momentum and potentially open a path toward $70,000 and beyond.

Monitor price action around $69,000 and $74,500 as potential inflection points that could alter the bear narrative and attract new buyers or trigger renewed selling.

Observe the interplay between macro catalysts and risk appetite, including market reactions to earnings data and macro releases, which have previously influenced BTC’s correlation with broader assets.

Track on-chain indicators and investor behavior for signs of exhaustion in selling pressure and the emergence of accumulation patterns that precede sustained rallies.

Sources & verification

BTC price context and resistance levels as discussed in a Cointelegraph piece focusing on the confluence of barriers at $68k–$70k

BTCUSD TradingView data illustrating price hovering around $67,720 after rejection from $70,000

CoinTelegraph report on bear-market dynamics tied to reclaiming $74,500 as a key end-state

CoinGlass data documenting February’s 14% decline and the five-month red streak

Public posts by traders on X, including insights from CryptoFaibik and Alek Carter, discussing near-term momentum and historic precedents

This article was originally published as Bitcoin’s 5-Month Slump Could Drag in March as $70K Cap Holds Price on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

In a security-focused update, the XRP Ledger Foundation (CRYPTO: XRP) confirmed it patched a critical flaw in an upcoming amendment to Ripple’s XRP Ledger, averting a potential on-chain exploit. On February 19, a Cantina security engineer and its AI assistant detected a logic flaw in the signature-validation routine tied to a code batch amendment. The amendment had entered voting but had not activated on mainnet, and officials stressed that no funds were at risk at the time. The incident underscores how on-chain governance, automated discovery, and rapid patching interact in the evolving security landscape of public blockchains.

Key takeaways

The flaw resided in the signature-validation logic of a code-batch amendment slated for the XRP Ledger, creating a theoretical path to unauthorized transactions if exploited.

The amendment was still in the voting phase and had not been activated on mainnet, meaning funds were not exposed at the time of discovery.

Cantina AI’s autonomous vulnerability hunter Apex identified the issue, highlighting the role of AI-powered tooling in proactive security workflows.

The XRPL Foundation described the potential exploit as capable of eroding confidence in the XRP Ledger and destabilizing the broader ecosystem if left unpatched.

An emergency patch, rippled 3.1.1, was released on February 23 to block the amendment from activating, reflecting a rapid, coordinated response by the Ripple engineering and validator communities.

Tickers mentioned: $XRP

Market context: The episode arrives amid increasing attention on governance safety, on-chain upgrade processes, and the growing use of AI-driven security tools to identify flaws before they can be exploited. While no funds were at risk in this instance, the incident underscores how rapid disclosure, responsible patching, and a mature validator environment help preserve confidence in public ledgers as the crypto industry navigates ongoing macro and regulatory uncertainties.

Why it matters

The XRPL ecosystem demonstrated a disciplined, defense-forward response to a potential class of vulnerability that could have had outsized consequences. In this case, the vulnerability lay in a signature-validation routine tied to a prospective amendment. Because the amendment had not yet activated on mainnet, the risk remained theoretical, but the XRPL Foundation’s decision to halt its momentum and push for a secure fix illustrates how governance processes can act as a safeguard against mischief or misconfigurations before they ever affect real users or funds.

Beyond the immediate incident, the episode spotlights the balance between improvement and risk in decentralized networks. Amendments that modify validation logic or consensus rules are powerful but carry operational risk; the governance cycle—proposal, testing, voting, and activation—must be coupled with robust security testing to prevent drift between code intent and on-chain behavior. The XRPL Foundation’s emphasis on a clear, auditable patch path reinforces the importance of reliability as developers push new features and optimizations onto a live ledger used by institutions and individuals alike.

On the security tooling front, the event contributes to a broader narrative about AI-enabled defense. Cantina AI’s autonomous discovery tool—Apex—identified the bug through static analysis of the rippled codebase and submitted a disclosure that allowed Ripple’s engineering teams to validate and patch the issue. This incident sits within a growing backdrop where AI-driven scanners and automated auditing are increasingly deployed to detect flaws that human inspectors might miss. Anthropic’s Claude Code Security, unveiled just days earlier, has already become a talking point in security circles, illustrating a trend toward AI-powered reasoning in vulnerability detection and remediation. As AI tools become more integrated into software development and security workflows, the industry may see faster mitigations but also a need to manage the risk of false positives and new threat surfaces introduced by automated processes.

A successful large-scale exploit could have caused substantial loss of confidence in XRPL, with potentially significant disruption for the broader ecosystem.

The investigation also aligns with broader discussions about the economics of security in crypto networks. Cantina’s Hari Mulackal has framed the potential impact in monetized terms, noting that the hypothetical loss could have been dramatic, given the scale of the XRP market capitalization. While the specific asset’s price is subject to broader market dynamics, the emphasis here is on preserving trust and functionality within the ledger’s architecture, rather than on short-term price moves.

In tandem with the technical response, the incident demonstrates how AI-enabled security tooling is reshaping incident response in crypto. The use of automated code analysis, prompt vulnerability disclosure, and rapid patching can shorten the window during which an attacker could act, shifting risk dynamics in favor of users and validators who uphold the network’s integrity. The ripple effect across ecosystems is unlikely to be isolated to one project; as more blockchains integrate similar tools, the bar for secure upgrade processes rises, potentially reducing the frequency and severity of major exploits in the future.

What to watch next

Monitor updates on the amendment’s voting status and any new disclosures from XRPLF and Ripple’s engineering teams, including patch notes and rollback options if needed.

Watch validator participation in rippled 3.1.1 adoption and downstream effects on on-chain performance and upgrade timelines.

Follow Cantina AI’s ongoing research and any subsequent bug disclosures related to XRPL or comparable codebases embedded in other ledgers.

Assess how AI-driven security tools influence governance and incident response timelines across the broader crypto ecosystem.

Sources & verification

XRPL Foundation vulnerability disclosure report (xrpl.org/blog/2026/vulnerabilitydisclosurereport-bug-feb2026).

XRPLF status update confirming the non-activation of the amendment on mainnet and the emergency mitigation (XRPL Foundation).

Cantina AI and Spearbit leadership statements about the discovery and the Apex autonomous vulnerability hunter (X thread: https://x.com/hrkrshnn/status/2027191844988424343).

Rippled 3.1.1 emergency patch details and rollout timing (XRPLF status updates).

What the wider story changes: patching a future risk

This article was originally published as XRPL Foundation fixes critical flaw that nearly reached mainnet on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

Bitcoin se ocitl na křižovatce po dlouhém období prodejního tlaku, přičemž pozorovatelé poznamenávají, že prodej může ztrácet sílu. V průběhu uplynulých tří týdnů se hlavní kryptoměna obchodovala v relativně úzkém pásmu mezi 60 000 a 70 000 dolary, s krátkým poklesem pod 67 000 dolarů během pozdního obchodování ve čtvrtek. Někteří analytici tvrdí, že trh přechází z fáze korekce do období boční konsolidace spíše než okamžitého oživení. Nadcházející týdny mohou odhalit, zda kupující znovu získají kontrolu, nebo zda trh pokračuje v trávení nedávných likviditních šoků, což nechává obchodníky v ostražité pozici, zatímco se vyvíjejí makro dynamiky a likviditní podmínky.

Vitalik Buterin has outlined a four-pronged plan to harden Ethereum against quantum threats, identifying four areas most vulnerable: validator signatures, data storage, user account signatures, and zero-knowledge proofs. As headlines spotlight quantum risk across crypto, including discussions around Bitcoin (CRYPTO: BTC) and other chains, the Ethereum co-founder argues that a careful, long-horizon upgrade path is essential. In a Thursday post, he described a roadmap that hinges on selecting a post-quantum hash function for all signatures—an issue that could determine the network’s security stance for years. The discussion echoes prior proposals, including Justin Drake’s Lean Ethereum idea proposed in August 2025.

Key takeaways

Buterin identifies four pillars for quantum resistance: validator signatures, data storage, user account signatures, and zero-knowledge proofs, framing a holistic upgrade rather than piecemeal fixes.

The plan contemplates replacing the current BLS signatures with lean, quantum-safe hash-based signatures, with the choice of hash function carrying long-term implications for the network.

Data storage would transition from KZG to STARKs, a move that aims to preserve verifiability while enhancing quantum resistance, albeit with significant engineering work ahead.

User accounts would shift from ECDSA toward signatures compatible with lattice-based, quantum-resilient schemes, though heavier gas costs are a concern.

A long-term solution centers on protocol-layer recursive signatures and proof aggregation to keep on-chain verification costs in check, potentially enabling vast scalability for quantum-resistant proofs.

The conversation nods to ongoing research, including ETHresearch discussions on recursive-STARK approaches and the broader Strawmap effort to accelerate finality and throughput.

Tickers mentioned: $BTC, $ETH

Sentiment: Neutral

Market context: The push toward quantum-resistant primitives sits against a backdrop of ongoing network upgrades and a broader move toward scalable zero-knowledge proofs, with developers weighing security, efficiency, and long-term viability as they plan multi-year transitions.

Why it matters

The four-pronged approach to quantum resistance is more than a theoretical exercise; it signals how Ethereum intends to preserve user trust as quantum threats loom on the horizon. If effective, a hash-based signature layer could become the de facto standard for post-quantum security, shaping how users interact with wallets, smart contracts, and validator participation for years to come. The decision on the hash function is particularly consequential: once a standard is chosen, it tends to anchor the protocol for a generation, influencing tooling, hardware requirements, and compatibility with future cryptographic advances.

On data storage, the plan to replace KZG with STARKs reflects a subtle shift in cryptographic assumptions. STARKs are lauded for being quantum-resistant and transparent, but integrating them into Ethereum’s data availability and verification stack would demand substantial engineering effort, optimization, and rigorous security audits. Buterin has framed it as “manageable, but there’s a lot of engineering work to do.” The move would balance the need for robust post-quantum guarantees with the practical realities of a live, globally used network.

Account signatures represent another frontier. Ethereum currently relies on ECDSA, a staple of today’s cryptographic ecosystem. Moving to a system that can accommodate lattice-based or other quantum-safe schemes may impose heavier computational loads and gas costs in the near term. Yet the long‑term payoff could be a network that remains secure even as quantum computing capabilities grow. Buterin points to a longer-term fix—protocol-layer recursive signature and proof aggregation—that could dramatically reduce gas overheads by verifying many signatures and proofs within a single frame. If realized, that approach could unlock scalable, quantum-resistant transactions without sacrificing usability.

A central theme across the discussion is the balance between immediate practicality and enduring security. Quantum-safe signatures are not a cosmetic upgrade; they alter core data paths, from how validators validate blocks to how users sign transactions and how proofs are verified. The blockchain community increasingly recognizes that a “one-size-fits-all” cryptographic choice may not suffice; instead, a layered strategy—where traditional primitives coexist with post-quantum alternatives and where recursive techniques optimize verification—could define Ethereum’s security posture for years to come.

Beyond the cryptographic specifics, the conversation is anchored in ongoing academic and developer experiments. For example, researchers have explored recursive-STARK concepts to compress bandwidth and computation, including discussions on a bandwidth-efficient mempool that leverages recursive proofs. This line of inquiry mirrors Ethereum’s broader push toward scalable, verifiable computation that remains tenable in a post-quantum world. The discussion also nods to real-world upgrade planning, such as Lean Ethereum, which Justin Drake proposed in August 2025 as a pragmatic framework for accelerating quantum readiness without destabilizing current operations.

In parallel, governance and roadmap conversations continue to unfold within the Ethereum Foundation and the wider developer community. Buterin’s own posts have highlighted expectations that progress on “Strawmap” could yield progressive decreases in both slot time and finality time, signaling a more agile path to security without sacrificing decentralization or user experience. The architecture changes under consideration—ranging from signature schemes to data verification protocols—must harmonize with these operational expectations to minimize disruption while maximizing resilience against quantum-era threats.

What to watch next

Updates on Lean Ethereum: Any formal milestones or testnet deployments that demonstrate practical quantum-ready components in action.

Hash-function selection for post-quantum signatures: The criteria, security proofs, and network-wide implications of choosing a long-term standard.

Progress toward STARK-based data storage: Engineering roadmaps, performance benchmarks, and on-chain verification strategies.

Adoption of lattice-based or alternative signatures for user accounts: Changes to wallets, client libraries, and tooling compatibility.

Implementation of recursive signatures and proof aggregation: Realistic timelines, gas impact assessments, and potential protocol changes needed to support such a paradigm.

Sources & verification

Vitalik Buterin’s quantum-resistance roadmap post and related discussions: https://x.com/VitalikButerin/status/2027075026378543132

Lean Ethereum proposal by Justin Drake: https://cointelegraph.com/news/justin-drake-proposes-lean-ethereum

Headlines about quantum threats to Bitcoin: https://cointelegraph.com/news/saylor-says-quantum-threat-to-bitcoin-is-more-than-10-years-out-expects-coordinated-global-upgrade-if-risk-emerges

Quantum-resistant data storage and STARKs vs KZG discussion: https://cointelegraph.com/news/vitalik-details-roadmap-for-faster-quantum-resistant-ethereum

Ethereum Foundation quantum gas‑limit priorities and protocol considerations: https://cointelegraph.com/news/ethereum-foundation-quantum-gas-limit-priorities-protocol

Strawmap and related timing expectations: https://cointelegraph.com/magazine/bitcoin-7-years-upgrade-post-quantum-bip-360-co-author/

Recursive-STARK mempool concept: https://ethresear.ch/t/recursive-stark-based-bandwidth-efficient-mempool/23838

Ethereum’s quantum resilience roadmap: four frontiers and the road ahead

Ethereum’s path to quantum resistance, as articulated by Buterin, centers on four pivotal domains: validator signatures, data storage, user account signatures, and zero-knowledge proofs. The proposal calls for replacing the current Boneh-Lynn-Shacham (BLS) consensus signatures with a lean, hash-based, post-quantum alternative. The selection of the hash function is underscored as a long-term decision, potentially locking in an approach for years to come. This shift aims to preserve the integrity of validator operations while mitigating the risk that quantum computers could break current signatures used to attest to blocks and transactions.

In parallel, the data layer would transition away from KZG-based storage to STARKs, a move designed to maintain verifiability under quantum pressure. Buterin notes this is a technically manageable transition, yet it requires substantial engineering effort to integrate seamlessly with Ethereum’s existing data availability and verification mechanisms. If realized, the change would address a core vulnerability by ensuring that data proofs remain verifiable even in a quantum era, without compromising network performance.

On user accounts, the plan envisions a broader compatibility with signature schemes beyond ECDSA, including lattice-based approaches that resist quantum attacks. The practical challenge here is gas consumption: quantum-safe signatures tend to be heavier to compute, which could elevate gas costs in the near term. The longer-term payoff, though, would be a network able to function securely even when advanced quantum hardware becomes capable of breaking traditional cryptographic keys. To counterbalance the added computational load, Buterin points to a protocol-layer solution—recursive signature and proof aggregation—that could dramatically reduce on-chain gas overhead by consolidating verification work into master frames that validate thousands of signatures or proofs at once.

Quantum-resistant proofs pose another cost hurdle, motivating the same aggregation strategy. Instead of individually verifying every signature and proof on-chain, a single, compiled structure—an overarching validation frame—would authorize thousands of sub-validations in a single operation. This approach could reduce the per-transactions verification burden to near-zero costs in practice, enabling a scalable model for post-quantum proof workloads. The narrative echoes ongoing research, including discussions around a recursive-STARK-based bandwidth-efficient mempool, which envisions more efficient data flow and validation under heavy workloads.

Finally, the Strawmap discussions hint at a broader tempo for the network upgrade. Buterin and researchers anticipate incremental improvements in slot times and finality, signaling a measured cadence for upgrading cryptographic primitives without triggering disruptive forks. The convergence of these threads—signature upgrades, data storage shifts, and aggregation-based efficiency—paints a future where Ethereum (ETH) remains secure and usable as quantum capabilities advance. The dialogue around these topics reflects a mature, evidence-based approach to governance and engineering, balancing theoretical security with the practicalities of a live, billions-of-dollars ecosystem.

This article was originally published as Vitalik Buterin Unveils Ethereum Quantum-Resistance Roadmap on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

Bitcoin has inched back toward the $70,000 mark, but traders remain wary as derivatives signals fail to echo the price recovery. On Wednesday, the benchmark cryptocurrency briefly touched the round level after a Tuesday dip to around $62,500, a move that was supported by a fresh wave of inflows into U.S.-listed Bitcoin ETFs. Yet the mood in the derivatives market stayed guarded: the annualized futures premium versus the spot price hovered near 2%, well below a neutral readings range, and options markets showed a cautious stance despite the price rebound. The combination of a tepid cycle in bullish bets and lingering macro and liquidity concerns suggests that bulls may need a more durable catalyst before revisiting higher targets, such as $75,000. For context, Bitcoin has been trading in a choppy corridor as market participants weigh the near-term risk-and-reward dynamics.

Bitcoin has retested the $70,000 level amid a broader risk-off environment that has cooled some of the enthusiasm that followed the earlier rally. Official data indicates that inflows into U.S.-listed Bitcoin exchange-traded funds helped stabilize sentiment over a two-day window, with net inflows of $764 million, partially offsetting $1.2 billion of outflows observed over the prior eight trading sessions. In practice, this signals that institutional demand can surface when prices experience sharper pullbacks, even if momentum remains fragile. The underlying caution, however, is underscored by the futures market where traders appear reluctant to extend bullish exposure through leverage, a sentiment that has persisted since late January when BTC briefly relinquished a long-standing $85,000 support level.

Analysts tracking the options surface point to a more nuanced risk posture. The 30-day delta skew on BTC options, a proxy for appetite to buy protection versus chasing gains, showed a 14% premium on put options relative to calls on the most recent session, indicating that risk-off hedging remained a priority for many market participants. Although this measure has moved away from the distress levels seen earlier in the week, it remains outside a balanced range, suggesting that professional traders prefer downside protection even as the spot price paused near $70,000. Data from Laevitas.ch, cited in the market commentary, also highlights that the two-month futures annualized premium persists well below the neutral threshold of 5%, with readings around 2% on Thursday.

Beyond pure price mechanics, a spectrum of theories has circulated about what’s keeping Bitcoin under pressure. Some observers have pointed to a potential exogenous shock—quantitative trading activity and internal market dynamics at major venues—that could have contributed to the recent volatility, including episodes linked to well-known trading desks. In particular, a highly publicized line of inquiry has centered on the activities of a prominent quantitative trading firm and its relationship to other liquidity channels in the ecosystem. While those theories have triggered debate, there is no conclusive public evidence tying any single entity to the broader price weakness. The narrative has nonetheless fueled ongoing market chatter about liquidity risk and cross-venue arbitrage.

Is a single entity behind Bitcoin’s price weakness?

Over the past several weeks, a constellation of explanations has circulated for the price pullback from multi-year highs. Some narratives trace the decline to macro headlines and risk-off sentiment, while others hinge on perceived vulnerabilities within the crypto liquidity stack. The discussion intensified when a market-catalyzing event earlier in the year coincided with a broader shift in institutional posture toward risk assets. In parallel, discussions about long-term security risks—some tied to advancements in quantum computing—reappeared in market commentary, prompting blockchain developers to explore on-chain post-quantum cryptography enhancements (for example, proposals centered on upgrading cryptographic resilience).

Within this broader debate, the possibility that several market actors are reconfiguring leverage and hedging strategies has drawn attention. Recent filings from major trading firms in the context of public equity positions have sparked speculation about delta-neutral approaches and how those strategies might intersect with crypto exposure. One notable thread has involved the public disclosures of holdings that intersect with Bitcoin-related instruments, underscoring how large players may be combining on- and off-chain positions to manage risk.

Meanwhile, price action has occasionally mirrored shifts in benchmark technology equities, with macro-driven risk-off moves weighing on speculative bets. A notable signal came from a sector that often correlates with sentiment across growth and tech equities: a sharp daily decline in a leading semiconductor stock, historically viewed as a bellwether for risk appetite. The implication is not that Bitcoin’s trajectory directly mirrors that stock, but that broader risk sentiment remains a powerful driver of crypto price behavior in the near term.

On the regulatory and governance front, the crypto community has kept a close eye on proposals aimed at strengthening on-chain security and resilience. Proponents of post-quantum readiness have advanced technical ideas, including on-chain upgrades that could reduce future exposure to quantum-related risks. While the market remains in a wait-and-see mode, these technical conversations underscore the industry’s ongoing effort to harden infrastructure in the face of evolving threats.

Another strand of the discourse centers on the role of major exchanges and liquidity providers in shaping market outcomes. In the wake of high-profile liquidations tied to oracle pricing and latency issues, industry participants have emphasized the importance of robust risk controls and transparent pricing mechanisms to prevent cascading effects during periods of stress. While it is difficult to attribute BTC’s price dynamics to a single cause, the confluence of macro headwinds, hedging demand, and structural liquidity considerations appears to be anchoring sentiment at a cautious level as traders monitor the path to the next price milestone.

The conversation around Bitcoin’s price trajectory continues to be informed by a mix of on-chain indicators, derivatives signals, and macro context. While the price flirted with the $70,000 zone, the absence of a broad-based acceleration in bullish bets, coupled with persistent hedging interest, suggests that a sustained move into higher territory will require more than a momentary price bounce. Investors and traders will be watching whether this resilience can translate into a clean breakout or whether the market remains tethered to a diplomatic, risk-aware stance as the year progresses.

Why it matters

The ongoing tension between price action and derivatives signals matters for a wide range of market participants. For retail traders, the current environment underscores the importance of risk management and positioning beyond simple directional bets. For institutions, the pattern of ETF inflows and hedging activity highlights the appetite for crypto exposure when prices pull back, while also signaling caution about leverage-driven risk during periods of volatility. Miners and token issuers watch these dynamics closely because sustained price strength could influence capital expenditure plans and liquidity provisioning.

From a broader market perspective, the narrative around Bitcoin cycles—how price recovers against a backdrop of risk-off sentiment and evolving on-chain security considerations—helps frame the trajectory for other digital assets. The confluence of derivatives mood, ETF flows, and major macro indicators can serve as a guide to the potential impulse needed to push liquid markets back into a more constructive regime. In this sense, Bitcoin’s near-term path remains a useful proxy for assessing risk appetite within the crypto sector and for calibrating expectations around liquidity and institutional engagement in the months ahead.

What to watch next

Upcoming ETF flow data and their potential to sustain or extend recent inflows, particularly if prices test or breach key levels such as $75,000.

Public disclosures and 13-F filings from major market participants that could signal shifts in delta-neutral strategies or crypto exposure across portfolios.

Regulatory or technical updates aimed at post-quantum security on-chain, including any formal governance proposals or implementation milestones.

Bitcoin volatility and option markets around major expiries, which could amplify price moves if hedging demand surges or wanes.

Key macro developments that influence risk sentiment and liquidity conditions across traditional and digital-asset markets.

Sources & verification

Bitcoin price and futures premium data cited from Laevitas.ch, including the annualized premium around 2% and the 5% neutral benchmark.

Bitcoin put-call delta skew data from Deribit via Laevitas.ch, showing a 14% premium for puts on the latest session.

Net flows into US-listed Bitcoin ETFs, with $764 million in two days of inflows and prior $1.2 billion of outflows.

Market commentary referencing on-chain security discussions and post-quantum cryptography proposals (e.g., BIP-360 concepts).

Industry observations on liquidity dynamics, exchange risk controls, and the impact of large-scale trading activity on price moves.

Market reaction and key details

The near-term narrative remains one of cautious optimism rather than a decisive bullish breakout. While price action has managed to flirt with the $70,000 threshold, the lingering fear in derivatives markets and the absence of broad bullish momentum point to a more nuanced transition phase for Bitcoin. Investors will be watching whether upcoming ETF inflows persist and whether major options expiries bring a clearer signal about the direction of risk appetite. In the meantime, Bitcoin (CRYPTO: BTC) continues to function within a spectrum of hedging considerations and risk-management strategies as market participants weigh the evolving balance of incentives and constraints facing the crypto sector.

Tickers mentioned: $BTC, $NVDA

Market context: The current environment reflects cautious risk sentiment across both crypto and traditional markets, with liquidity conditions and hedging activity shaping short-term moves as macro factors and regulatory considerations continue to influence pricing.

Why it matters: The interaction between ETF flows, futures hedging, and security-focused on-chain proposals determines how quickly the market can transition from a risk-off stance to a more constructive rally, with implications for traders, institutions, and developers alike.

This article was originally published as Futures and Options Market Signals Caution as BTC Chases $70K on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

Block, společnost zabývající se platbami, kterou spoluzaložil Jack Dorsey, se snaží o rozsáhlé snížení počtu zaměstnanců, cílené na více než 4 000 pracovních míst jako součást širšího přepracování řízeného AI. Tento krok přichází po zprávě Bloombergu, která tento měsíc uvedla, že přibližně 10 % zaměstnanců Blocku by mohlo být propuštěno během ročních hodnotících pohovorů v rámci restrukturalizace. V dopise zaměstnancům zveřejněném na X Dorsey popsal posun směrem k nástrojům podporovaným AI a plochým, menším týmům, které podle něj urychlují způsob, jakým společnost buduje a řídí své operace. Tvrdil, že nechat proces vlekoucí se by podkopalo morálku a důvěru mezi zákazníky a akcionáři. Plán odstupného, který Dorsey popsal, zahrnuje 20 týdnů platu, plus jeden dodatečný týden za každý rok zaměstnání, šest měsíců zdravotního pojištění, vrácení firemních zařízení a přechodový stipendium ve výši 5 000 dolarů. Cointelegraph poznamenává, že číslo Bloombergu rámovalo rozsah širší restrukturalizace.

Nasdaq has filed a proposed rule change to list the VanEck JitoSOL ETF, a fund designed to hold the Solana-based liquid staking token JitoSOL (CRYPTO: JTO). The instrument would give investors exposure to on-chain staking economics without the need to operate validator infrastructure, wrapping the underlying asset in publicly traded shares. If approved, the fund would reflect staking rewards in its net asset value rather than distributing separate yield payments, a detail highlighted by the Jito Foundation’s leadership. The token itself compounds rewards automatically, so each share would represent the SOL deposited and the staking yield accrued on the Solana network (CRYPTO: SOL).

The filing, submitted under Nasdaq Rule 5711(d) governing commodity-based trust shares, seeks approval to list and trade shares of a trust that would hold JitoSOL directly rather than track via futures or other derivatives. The move underscores the ongoing regulatory interest in expanding regulated access to on-chain staking economics, a path that has gained momentum as liquidity and investor demand for crypto yield products continue to evolve across jurisdictions.

The asset at the center of the proposal, JitoSOL, is a liquid staking token issued by the Jito Network and backed by SOL deposited into a Solana staking pool. It enables holders to earn staking rewards through a transferable token without the operational burden of running validators. In the broader regulatory dialogue, the filing references earlier SEC actions on spot crypto ETPs, noting the agency’s prior approvals for spot Bitcoin (CRYPTO: BTC) and spot Ether (CRYPTO: ETH) exchange-traded products and arguing that a liquid staking token can be evaluated under the agency’s generic listing standards rather than requiring a dedicated futures framework. The document also cites the MarketVector JitoSol VWAP Close Index as the basis for valuing trust shares, a price construct derived from cross-platform pricing inputs that would undergird the ETF’s NAV. The trust would allow both cash and in-kind creations and redemptions, a mechanism that could help maintain price alignment with the underlying asset over time.

JitoSOL is designed to sit within the Solana ecosystem’s staking framework but to offer a ready-made exposure vehicle. The token is described as economically akin to SOL, with proponents arguing that an appropriately structured liquid staking token can be treated similarly to the underlying asset for aims of listing standards. The filing rests on the premise that regulators have, in recent months, acknowledged the potential for liquid staking and staking-receipt tokens to fit within existing regulatory frameworks, even as formal rulemaking continues to evolve.

The SEC’s review timeline for such listings typically provides a 45-day window from Federal Register publication to issue a decision, with possible extensions bringing the period to 90 days. The current status places the project in the exchange-review phase, a stage where Nasdaq lenders and the SEC assess disclosures, surveillance, and anti-fraud provisions before determining whether a listing may proceed. While the path forward remains contingent on regulatory signaling, the filing signals a growing appetite to broaden structured exposure to staking economics through traditional market infrastructure.

Staking exposure exists, but not liquid staking ETFs

Even as the VanEck JitoSOL ETF advances through regulatory review, the United States has yet to host a liquid staking token ETF of this explicit design. Market participants have, however, explored regulated access to staking economics through other vehicles. One notable example is the Rex-Osprey Solana + Staking ETF (SSK), which began trading in July and pairs spot Solana exposure with on-chain staking rewards distributed to shareholders. In September, Rex-Osprey expanded its lineup with the REX-Osprey ETH + Staking ETF (ESK), presenting Ether alongside staking-derived yields. Grayscale subsequently broadened staking exposure within its U.S. crypto-ETP roster, adding products tied to staking economics such as the Grayscale Ethereum Mini Trust ETF and Grayscale Ethereum Trust ETF (ETHE). Grayscale also introduced staking for the Grayscale Solana Trust (GSOL), which is seeking regulatory uplisting as an exchange-traded product. These products indicate a clear demand for regulated staking exposure, even as the regulatory framework for liquid staking tokens remains a developing area.

Regulatory guidance in the United States has been cautious. In May, the SEC’s Division of Corporation Finance indicated that certain protocol staking activities generally do not involve the offer or sale of securities under federal law, and in August the agency published staff guidance on liquid staking and staking receipt tokens. These statements do not constitute formal rulemaking and do not automatically approve specific products. In Europe, meanwhile, 21Shares launched a Jito-staked Solana exchange-traded product in January, providing listed exposure to SOL with integrated staking features. Jito’s prominence in the liquidity and staking space is reflected in its TVL, which hovered around $1.1 billion after peaking above $3.0 billion in 2025, according to DefiLlama data.

The evolving landscape around liquid staking, staking revenues, and on-chain reward mechanics sits at the intersection of technology, regulation, and market structure. Investors are watching how these products align with existing surveillance, valuation standards, and consumer protection requirements as new variants of staking exposure enter mainstream trading venues. The debate over whether staking-derived yield should be treated as a security, a yield instrument, or a synthetic exposure continues to shape how products get approved and marketed in regulated markets.

Market dynamics outside the United States add texture to the conversation. As mentioned, Europe has already welcomed a Jito-backed exposure through 21Shares, signaling an appetite for product design that blends price exposure with staking rewards. The global appetite for regulated staking products reflects a broader trend toward translating on-chain value accrual into familiar investment constructs that traditional investors can access without direct operational responsibilities on a blockchain network.

Overall, the idea of a liquid staking ETF for JitoSOL sits at a crossroads of innovation and regulation. It highlights how asset ownership, reward compounding, and on-chain security contributions can be packaged into tradable vehicles while attempting to meet the same standards that govern more conventional assets. The regulatory path ahead is nuanced, but the direction—toward structured exposure to staking economics within established market frameworks—appears to be gaining momentum.

Why it matters

For investors, a Nasdaq-listed JitoSOL ETF would provide a regulated, transparent channel to participate in the Solana staking economy without the operational overhead of running validators. The vehicle would anchor staking yields within a familiar product structure, potentially improving accessibility and diversification for crypto yield seekers. For builders and validators, widespread ETF exposure could bolster liquidity and create more robust on-chain-to-off-chain capital links, potentially increasing the velocity of staking-derived rewards across markets. For regulators, the proposal foregrounds the importance of clear surveillance and custody standards when bridging on-chain activity with traditional financial markets, a dynamic that is likely to inform future rulemakings and product approvals.

From a market context perspective, the emergence of liquid staking-linked ETFs aligns with a broader push to offer regulated access to decentralized finance concepts. As liquidity, risk sentiment, and macro conditions shape crypto markets, these products may influence how institutions allocate crypto exposure and how retail participants manage yield-oriented strategies within a compliant framework. The success or failure of the JitoSOL listing could also influence the pace at which other liquid staking tokens pursue similar registrations, potentially widening the spectrum of staking-backed instruments available in U.S. markets.

What to watch next

Regulatory decision timeline: The SEC has a 45-day window from Federal Register publication to approve or disapprove, with possible extensions up to 90 days.

Nasdaq listing decision: The exchange’s review and any required disclosures will determine whether the JitoSOL ETF advances to the next stage.

Market acceptance: How traders price the trust and how NAV tracking via the VWAP index holds against on-chain SOL staking dynamics.

Comparative launches: Developments in European ETPs and U.S. competing staking-exposure products (SSK, ESK, ETHE, GSOL) may shape investor expectations and pricing.

Sources & verification

Nasdaq filing SR-NASDQ-2026-010 detailing the proposed listing of a JitoSOL-based ETF and the use of 5711(d) for commodity-based trust shares.

SEC commentary and staff guidance on spot BTC/ETH approvals and liquid staking considerations, as referenced in the filing and related communications.

MarketVector JitoSol VWAP Close Index as the basis for valuing trust shares and its methodology for price tracking.

DefiLlama data on Jito’s total value locked (TVL), cited as around $1.1 billion after a peak above $3.0 billion in 2025.

European exposure such as 21Shares’ Jito-staked Solana ETP and the Rex-Osprey U.S. staking ETF lineup including SSK and ESK, which illustrate broader market interest in staking-based products.

Nasdaq eyes listed exposure to JitoSOL amid a shifting staking landscape

Nasdaq’s bid to list the VanEck JitoSOL ETF marks a notable step in the maturation of on-chain staking products within traditional market structures. By directly holding JitoSOL (CRYPTO: JTO), the proposed vehicle would provide a regulated path to Solana’s staking economics, anchoring investor claims to a fungible token that represents staked SOL (CRYPTO: SOL) and the accrued rewards. The approach leverages a NAV framework that encapsulates compounded yields, contrasting with older yield-distribution models and aligning with how many conventional funds account for performance alongside custody and surveillance considerations.

The regulatory dialogue remains nuanced. While the SEC has signaled openness to generic listing standards as a vehicle to accommodate certain digital-asset exposures, it also demands rigorous disclosures and robust market safeguards. The absence of a regulated futures market for JitoSOL adds another layer of complexity, but the filing argues that a well-structured liquid staking token can still meet the standards required for listing through alternative means. If the proposal clears the review, it would join a small but growing set of US products attempting to bridge on-chain staking with mainstream investment channels.

Beyond the United States, the market has already shown appetite for staking-integrated exposure. Europe’s 21Shares has offered a Jito-staked Solana ETP since January, demonstrating demand for listed access to SOL-backed staking yields. In the U.S., comparable products such as the Rex-Osprey SSK and ESK funds and Grayscale’s staking-related ETFs indicate that investors are seeking institutional-grade vehicles to access staking economics without navigating on-chain complexities. The convergence of these products suggests that custody, governance, and surveillance standards will define the pace at which new staking-based vehicles arrive in both regulated markets and crypto-native platforms.

Whether Nasdaq’s bid to introduce the JitoSOL ETF becomes a blueprint for future liquid-staking listings may depend on how the SEC interprets the evolving landscape of staking receipts and related on-chain activity. For market participants, the potential listing provides a focal point for assessing risk, yield, and regulatory alignment across a spectrum of products that connect the on-chain economy with traditional finance rails. The outcome could shape subsequent filings, influence how staking rewards are accounted for in NAV calculations, and influence investor expectations about the accessibility of staking-based yields through regulated exchanges.

This article was originally published as SEC Seeks Approval for JitoSOL Solana Liquid Staking Token ETF on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

U.S. lawmakers and regulators are sharpening their focus on prediction markets as a high-profile insider-trading narrative unfolds around Polymarket and Axiom. At the center is a claim by on-chain investigator ZachXBT that an Axiom employee—Broox Bauer—and others allegedly used internal tools to access sensitive user data and execute profitable insider trades, a practice the researcher says may have persisted since early 2025. The timing is notable: Polymarket traders had placed large bets on the outcome of ZachXBT’s disclosures, with activity approaching tens of millions of dollars. In response, Axiom said it has removed access to the implicated tools and pledged to investigate and hold responsible parties to account, framing the episode as a test of governance and user protection within the evolving prediction-market ecosystem.

Key takeaways

On-chain sleuth ZachXBT alleged that an Axiom employee, Broox Bauer, and others conducted insider trading by leveraging internal tools to access private user data, with the investigation dating back to early 2025.

Axiom stated it has cut off access to the questioned tools and committed to an internal probe, stressing that the incident does not reflect the broader team or its user-first ethos.

Polymarket bettors wagered nearly $40 million on the investigation’s outcome, with at least one user profiting about $400,000 and others winning more than $9.7 million on the contract asking which crypto company ZachXBT would expose.

The episode arrives as U.S. regulators debate the proper reach of federal oversight over prediction markets, with CFTC Chair Michael Selig asserting exclusive jurisdiction and signaling potential clashes with state authorities.

The case adds to a broader tightening of governance norms and data-access controls across crypto prediction platforms, underscoring regulatory risk and the need for transparent, auditable processes.

Market context: The unfolding events occur against a backdrop of ongoing regulatory scrutiny of prediction markets, where federal and state authorities have historically juggled distinct jurisdictions. The CFTC has stressed federal authority, while some states have pursued their own enforcement actions, creating a patchwork that operators must navigate as markets rely on on-chain data and user-submitted contracts.

Why it matters

The allegations touch on core governance questions for crypto-enabled prediction platforms. If internal tools can be leveraged to access user data for trading advantage, it raises serious concerns about user privacy, algorithmic transparency, and the integrity of market signals. Platforms that rely on public-facing interfaces for forecasting outcomes must demonstrate robust controls, independent audits, and clear incident-response playbooks to preserve trust among participants who treat these markets as both entertainment and hedged exposure to real-world events.

From a market-structure perspective, the episode illustrates how prediction markets intersect with fast-moving on-chain analytics. The ZachXBT disclosures, if verified, would imply a potential mismatch between platform-level governance and user expectations, potentially inviting regulatory actions if risk controls are perceived as lax or opaque. For investors and builders, the case underscores the importance of transparent data-access policies, strict separation between product tooling and private data, and incident disclosures that are timely and verifiable.

On the regulatory front, the scenario underscores the tension between federal authority and state initiatives in enforcement. The CFTC chair’s comments about exclusive jurisdiction suggest a preference for centralized oversight, which could influence how prediction-market platforms structure offerings, disclosures, and compliance programs going forward. Traders and operators should monitor not only the outcomes of internal investigations but also any subsequent regulatory guidance that clarifies permissible use of internal tools, data access, and administrative controls within prediction markets.

Ultimately, the incident matters because it tests the resilience of prediction markets as legitimate, auditable venues for price discovery on real-world events. If platforms fail to demonstrate robust safeguards, participants may migrate to environments with stronger governance or shifted risk profiles. Conversely, transparent corrective steps that restore trust—such as rapid suspension of the implicated tools, independent audits, and clear accountability measures—could reinforce the long-term appeal of crypto-enabled prediction markets as competitive and innovative financial infrastructure.

What to watch next

Updates from Axiom’s internal investigation, including findings and any leadership actions taken against implicated personnel.

Any formal statements or enforcement actions from U.S. regulators, particularly the CFTC, regarding prediction-market governance and data-access policies.

Responses from Polymarket and other platforms about governance changes, risk controls, and disclosures in light of these revelations.

Further disclosures from ZachXBT or other researchers that could corroborate or challenge the claims of insider trading and tool misuse.

New disclosures or developments around the contract categories that speculated on the case, including volumes and settlement outcomes.

Sources & verification

ZachXBT’s X post alleging insider trading by an Axiom employee and others (link: https://x.com/zachxbt/status/2027016064534757659).

Axiom’s X post acknowledging the incident, stating access to tools has been removed and that the team will investigate (link: https://x.com/AxiomExchange/status/2027018976929423583).

Polymarket bettors’ activity surrounding the ZachXBT insider-trading exposure, including bets near $40 million (link: https://cointelegraph.com/news/polymarket-bets-zachxbt-insider-trading).

CFTC Chair Michael Selig’s remarks on exclusive jurisdiction over prediction markets (link: https://cointelegraph.com/news/cftc-michael-selig-defending-prediction-markets).

Related coverage on Kalshi’s governance and insider-trading-related actions (link: https://cointelegraph.com/news/kalshi-booted-politician-youtuber-insider-trading).

Market reaction and key details

The contemporary disclosure cycle around insider-trading claims in crypto prediction markets marks a pivotal moment for the sector. As the industry grapples with how to regulate and supervise on-chain prediction activities, observers are watching closely how platforms respond to allegations of improper data access and trading influence. The rapid public responses from Axiom reflect a recognition that reputational risk in this space can translate into regulatory risk quickly, especially when user trust is at stake and the outcomes of investigations are uncertain.

Why it matters for users, builders, and the market

For users, the episode reinforces the importance of data governance, transparent tool access, and clear incident reporting. Any perception that insiders could exploit tools to gain an edge undermines confidence in the integrity of the market and may deter participation, especially from risk-averse traders who rely on credible price signals. For builders and operators, the episode highlights the value—and the cost—of implementing verifiable controls, independent audits, and robust user-privacy protections as a competitive differentiator in a crowded field of prediction platforms.

From a market-wide lens, the incident sits at the intersection of regulatory clarity and technological experimentation. The CFTC’s insistence on federal jurisdiction signals that there could be a stricter, more standardized framework for how prediction markets operate in the United States, potentially influencing product design, KYC/AML considerations, and inter-exchange cooperation. Participants should expect a period of heightened scrutiny across platforms as governance models evolve and as regulators balance innovation with the protection of market integrity and consumer data.

What to watch next

Formal disclosures from Axiom detailing the investigation’s scope and any disciplinary actions.

Regulatory updates or new guidance from the CFTC and state authorities on prediction-market governance and data access.

Material changes to Polymarket’s or other platforms’ risk controls and user-privacy policies.

Additional research or forensic findings from ZachXBT or other researchers that corroborate or challenge the claims.

Sources & verification

ZachXBT’s X post alleging insider trading by a named Axiom employee and others (link: https://x.com/zachxbt/status/2027016064534757659).

Axiom Exchange’s official comment and tool-access suspension (link: https://x.com/AxiomExchange/status/2027018976929423583).

Polymarket bet coverage on ZachXBT insider-trading exposure (link: https://cointelegraph.com/news/polymarket-bets-zachxbt-insider-trading).

CFTC leadership remarks on exclusive jurisdiction over prediction markets (link: https://cointelegraph.com/news/cftc-michael-selig-defending-prediction-markets).

Related coverage on Kalshi’s enforcement actions and governance (link: https://cointelegraph.com/news/kalshi-booted-politician-youtuber-insider-trading).

What the investigation changes for the landscape of prediction markets

The case underscores the delicate balance prediction-market platforms must strike between enabling rapid, data-driven bets and enforcing robust controls that prevent misuse of internal tools. It also highlights the evolving role of on-chain researchers in surfacing governance and ethics concerns, and the extent to which platforms must respond quickly and transparently to preserve market integrity and participant confidence. As regulators intensify their focus, the sector will likely see accelerated moves toward standardized governance practices, clearer lines of responsibility, and more explicit privacy safeguards—elements that could determine whether prediction markets remain a vibrant, trust-worthy corner of the crypto ecosystem.

This article was originally published as Polymarket user pockets $400K betting on ZachXBT investigation on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

The AI-driven data-center expansion is increasingly financed through debt, and lenders are weighing risk and opportunity in the AI-infrastructure and crypto-mining nexus. TheEnergyMag’s latest newsletter tracks roughly $33 billion in long-term senior notes raised over the past 12 months, excluding convertible debt, underscoring how traditional lenders view capture risk and growth potential in this space. In parallel, debt markets show widening spreads: AI- and crypto-linked issuers typically pay 7%–9% coupons, versus 4%–5% for regulated utilities. The momentum comes as Nvidia reports robust AI demand, while Bitcoin miners map a path toward dozens of gigawatts of new power capacity to support AI workloads.

Key takeaways

AI data-center issuers have raised about $33 billion in long-term senior notes over the past year, excluding convertible debt, illustrating the scale of capital chasing AI compute capacity tied to crypto operations.

Debt pricing shows a notable spread: AI/crypto-linked papers are typically priced around 7%–9% coupon, compared with 4%–5% for traditional regulated utilities.

Recent placements include CoreWeave at 9.25% in May 2025 and 9% in July 2025, Applied Digital at 9.2% in November 2025, TeraWulf at 7.75%, and Cipher Mining at 7.125% and 6.125% as part of diversified AI-infrastructure financing.

Nvidia’s fourth-quarter results underline sustained AI demand as a macro driver for data-center investments, with net income at about $43 billion and revenue near $68.1 billion, up sharply year over year.

Bitcoin miners are targeting roughly 30 gigawatts of new power capacity to run AI workloads, a figure that would nearly triple current capacity and signal a coordinated push into AI-centric compute.

Tickers mentioned: $BTC

Sentiment: Neutral

Market context: The move to finance AI infrastructure via high-yield debt sits at the intersection of AI demand, crypto mining expansion, and a debt market that increasingly values long-dated, growth-oriented assets with offtake risk. As lenders price risk, capital flows reveal how investors are balancing the prospect of AI-driven compute with the volatility and energy-intense nature of crypto operations.

Why it matters

The current financing environment highlights a broader redefinition of what counts as infrastructure in the digital era. Projects that blend AI compute with crypto mining—whether repurposed data centers or greenfield AI data-hub builds—are increasingly treated as growth credits rather than traditional utility-style assets. This shift matters for developers and investors because it widens the pool of potential capital, but at a higher financing cost reflective of perceived tail risks, project complexity, and energy demand. The elevated coupons imply lenders are pricing in uncertainties around offtake arrangements, energy supply contracts, and regulatory risk, even as long-term demand for AI workloads remains a tailwind for data-center-heavy businesses.

The Nvidia earnings backdrop reinforces how AI compute can catalyze investment waves across adjacent sectors. Nvidia’s fourth-quarter performance—net income of about $43 billion and revenue of $68.1 billion, with year-over-year profit growth approaching the mid-to-high double digits—signals robust demand for AI accelerators and the compute capacity that data centers must deliver. While Nvidia is not a crypto-specific company, its results illuminate the demand side of AI infrastructure that, in turn, informs how lenders price risk for related projects. In parallel, Bitcoin miners’ plans to pursue roughly 30 gigawatts of new power capacity for AI workloads suggest a deliberate alignment between hash-rate economics and AI compute needs, potentially shaping energy markets and grid usage for years to come.

The financing narrative also underscores why some observers view the AI-infrastructure supercycle as broader than crypto alone. The sector’s access to capital hinges on how easily developers can secure long-duration debt with credible offtake, and how regulators and utilities respond to aggregate energy demand. The mix of blue-chip AI demand signals and crypto-driven compute pipelines paints a picture of a market that is increasingly comfortable funding ambitious buildouts—yet only under terms that reflect the complexity and risk of these multi-use facilities.

For readers tracking the intersection of AI, crypto, and infrastructure finance, the core takeaway is clarity: lenders are increasingly differentiating between steady, regulated load and growth-oriented, asset-light models that rely on AI-driven demand. That distinction translates into a bifurcated debt market where some projects on the frontier of AI infrastructure can access capital at high yields, while others with less certain offtake or regulatory clarity may see more muted appetite. The practical implication is a potential deceleration in some buildouts if the cadence of funding slows or if risk pricing tightens further, even as marquee projects with visible AI demand and confirmed long-term offtake can attract funding dollars more readily. The convergence of AI compute, crypto mining, and energy capacity decisions therefore remains a critical lens for investors navigating 2026 funding cycles.

Links and references from the reporting track the contours of this evolution. For instance, recent bonds tied to AI infrastructure were highlighted by TheEnergyMag’s analysis, which cites deals ranging into the 7%–9% coupon band. The same narrative is echoed in a presentation from Janus Henderson Investors, drawing on research from BofA Global Research, that underscores selective issuance in the high-yield space for 2026. At the project level, public disclosures and industry reporting have highlighted strategic moves by miners and AI infrastructure players, including stakes and capacity expansions in U.S. sites and AI-driven data-center deployments, which you can corroborate through industry updates linked below.

Related coverage includes a Canaan-led expansion in Texas mining sites and a Google-backed stake in Cipher Mining as part of broader AI-deal strategies that tie mining assets to compute demand. These developments illustrate how the collateral base for crypto-related data centers is expanding beyond traditional power contracts to include AI workloads and software-defined infrastructure. The broader takeaway is that the convergence of AI and crypto compute is reshaping both the risk-return profile and the capital allocation frameworks for data-center projects across the sector.

For readers seeking the underlying documents and official statements shaping these conclusions, the linked materials offer direct insight into issuer terms, credit ratings, and the strategic narratives driving these financing choices. The discussion remains dynamic: as AI adoption accelerates, lenders will recalibrate risk premia, and developers will adapt by locking in offtake commitments, hedging energy costs, and exploring hybrid models that blend traditional infrastructure with growth-oriented, AI-enabled compute.

What to watch next

Upcoming bond issuances by AI-infrastructure developers and crypto-mining operators, including pricing, term sheets, and offtake arrangements.

Regulatory developments affecting data-center expansions, energy usage, and crypto mining operations that could influence debt pricing and project viability.

Updates on AI workload adoption by mining-centric or multi-use data centers, with potential implications for energy demand and grid resilience.

Further commentary from chipmakers and AI platforms on demand trajectories and capital expenditure plans that could influence future risk pricing.

Sources & verification

TheEnergyMag newsletter tracking about $33 billion in long-term senior notes tied to AI data-center and related projects: https://www.minerweekly.com/p/33-billion-bonds-ai-arms-race?

Janus Henderson Investors article on high-yield bonds outlook citing BofA Global Research: https://www.janushenderson.com/en-ch/investor/article/high-yield-bonds-outlook-increasing-selectivity-in-2026/

Canaan’s stake expansion in Texas mining sites: https://cointelegraph.com/news/canaan-buys-49-stake-texas-bitcoin-mining-sites-40m

Google’s stake in Cipher Mining as part of an AI deal: https://cointelegraph.com/news/google-acquires-5-4-stake-in-bitcoin-mining-company-cipher-mining-in-ai-deal

AI infrastructure financing reshapes risk in crypto data centers

This article was originally published as High-Yield Bond Surge Flags Rising Risk, BTC Mining & AI Infra on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

In online crypto circles, a persistent debate has emerged around whether a quantitative trading firm could nudge Bitcoin’s price at the moment U.S. markets open. Proponents point to a recognizable 10:00 a.m. Eastern Time pattern as potential evidence of coordinated selling, while critics caution that such a signal is not definitive proof of manipulation and may reflect broader market mechanics. The discussion intensified a day after a court-appointed administrator overseeing Terraform Labs’ affairs filed a suit against Jane Street, alleging insider trading tied to Terra’s May 2022 collapse. The intersection of high-speed trading, ETF liquidity, and opaque hedging strategies has kept traders watching the clock as BTC moves through daily cycles.

Key takeaways

Allegations focus on a recurring 10:00 a.m. ET window at the market open, but analysts say this does not constitute conclusive manipulation or a sole driver of BTC’s price trajectory.

Public filings show Jane Street’s exposure to BlackRock’s IBIT ETF, alongside stakes in Bitcoin mining firms, suggesting hedging and liquidity strategies rather than a simple directional bet.

Industry voices argue that a single institution cannot control a global, liquid market as fragmented as Bitcoin, even if some trading strategies amplify volatility around open hours.

Delta-neutral approaches—holding spot exposure while selling futures—are cited as a common method for capturing spreads rather than betting on direction, according to market observers.

The discourse features a mix of on-chain data, trading analytics, and public posts from market observers, underscoring the complexity of disclosures and how net exposure can be obscured.

Contextual factors such as geopolitical risk and competition for investor attention from AI-related equities are cited as broader drivers of BTC price moves beyond any single firm’s activity.

Tickers mentioned: $BTC, $IBIT

Sentiment: Neutral

Market context: The dialogue unfolds amid a broader crypto environment characterized by liquidity fluctuations, evolving ETF dynamics, and ongoing regulatory and macro influences shaping how traders price risk and opportunities.

Why it matters

The debate touches on the core questions facing crypto markets: how liquidity, disclosure, and algorithmic trading intersect with real-world price discovery. If a large player can influence the clock at which liquidity sweeps occur or how efficiently a spot market absorbs ETF-related flows, that could have implications for price integrity and market education. Yet the consensus among many analysts is that Bitcoin’s price formation remains a product of multiple forces, including macro risk appetite, capital allocation shifts, and competitive attention toward AI-driven tech and growth narratives.

At stake is trust in market transparency. For traders, the issue highlights the importance of understanding how publicly reported positions, hedges, and complex derivatives can mask net exposure. For regulators and exchanges, it underscores the need for clear, timely disclosures that help market participants distinguish legitimate liquidity activity from attempts to edge the price. For investors, the episode reinforces a prudent approach: interpret open-hour moves in the context of the broader market regime rather than attributing them to a single actor.

The discourse also intersects with ongoing legal and regulatory developments. The Terraform administrator’s lawsuit against Jane Street and the ongoing scrutiny of ETF structures like IBIT keep the conversation anchored in concrete questions about governance, disclosure requirements, and the boundaries of high-frequency market making in a frontier asset class. While proponents of a conspiracy narrative may highlight specific posts or data points, skeptics point to a broader pattern: markets are influenced by a constellation of participants with diverse strategies, and attribution to one firm oversimplifies the dynamics at play.

What to watch next

Updates in the Terraform-related litigation against Jane Street, including any new filings or court rulings that may illuminate insider-trading claims.

New or amended 13-F filings from Jane Street that shed light on hedging strategies, including positions in IBIT and mining-related equities, and any disclosed derivatives that could affect net Bitcoin exposure.

On-chain and market data around the 10:00–10:30 a.m. ET window to assess whether any statistically significant patterns persist in the near term.

Regulatory or industry guidance on disclosure practices for large ETF components and liquidity providers that could affect how market participants interpret “hidden” exposure.

Monitoring broader market signals—geopolitical developments, liquidity conditions, and AI-sector performance—that could influence Bitcoin independently of any singular trading desk.

Sources & verification

Court-appointed administrator filing related to Terra/Labs and Jane Street, alleging insider trading tied to the May 2022 collapse.

Jane Street’s 13-F filings showing holdings in BlackRock’s IBIT ETF and stakes in Bitcoin mining companies such as Bitfarms, Cipher Mining, and Hut 8.

Public posts and commentary from market observers, including Bechler’s discussions on 10:00 a.m. ET moves and the contention that IBIT-related hedging could conceal net exposure.

CryptoQuant head of research Julio Moreno’s analysis on whether the described activity is unique to a single firm or part of delta-neutral trading patterns commonly used to capture spreads.

Industry analysts’ assessments of whether a single actor can meaningfully drive BTC price given the structure and depth of the market, including critiques of the “10 a.m. dump” narrative by researchers such as Alex Krüger.

Market reaction and key details

Bitcoin (CRYPTO: BTC) has long been a magnet for debate over who moves the market and when. In recent weeks, observers have spotlighted a recurring pattern that some traders interpret as a 10:00 a.m. ET “dump” coinciding with the U.S. market open. Proponents of the theory argue that a firm with deep liquidity, such as Jane Street, could deploy algorithmic sales to reap benefits from ETF inflows and to acquire spot Bitcoin at a discount on the open. A prominent critic of the narrative, however, notes that a single actor is unlikely to set the tone for a market as diffuse as Bitcoin’s, where liquidity is drawn from a wide array of exchanges and participants across multiple jurisdictions.

One thread of the debate centers on Jane Street’s disclosed exposure to the IBIT ETF, alongside positions in mining-related equities. Bechler, a crypto influencer, suggested that if Jane Street carries roughly $790 million in IBIT, the actual net Bitcoin exposure could be largely hedged away, masked by options and futures combinations rather than a straightforward long or short bet. This line of reasoning emphasizes that public filings reveal only a fragment of a much larger, more complex risk posture, where hedges might offset or even invert visible positions.

Yet others push back on the idea that the activity is unique to Jane Street. CryptoQuant’s Julio Moreno cautioned that many funds employ delta-neutral strategies—buying spot exposure while selling futures—to capture spreads without committing to a directional bet. In practice, these maneuvers can appear as divergent price actions around the open while serving to maintain neutral exposure in volatile markets. Moreno’s observations underscore a broader point: the mechanics of hedging frequently blend with price movement in ways that are not easily ascribed to a single firm’s choice of timing or size.

In the eyes of some researchers, even a credible pattern around the open does not translate into a bear-market engine powered by one institution. Nick Puckrin of Coin Bureau argued that Bitcoin’s price dynamics are inherently multifactorial, and a solitary actor—even one as large as Jane Street—cannot unilaterally dictate longer-term moves. He framed the conversation as part of a more nuanced reality: price action is shaped by geopolitical risk, global liquidity conditions, and the ongoing competition for attention among high-growth tech sectors, including AI.

As the market digests these viewpoints, the intersection of legality, disclosure, and market structure remains a live area of inquiry. The Terra-related lawsuit and the ongoing discourse about ETF flows highlight the need for transparency in how large players interact with both spot markets and derivative instruments. The broader takeaway is not a verdict on manipulation, but a reminder that the Bitcoin market’s depth and fragmentation make it resistant to easy explanations or simple villains.

This article was originally published as Analysts Rebuke Jane Street 10am Dump; Bitcoin Not Easily Manipulated on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

Crypto Professionals Under Attack: How Fake Meeting Links Are Targeting the Digital Asset Industry

The cryptocurrency and Web3 ecosystem has always attracted innovation, opportunity and unfortunately increasingly sophisticated scams.

In recent months, a growing number of professionals working in digital assets, trading, venture capital and blockchain development have reported highly convincing social engineering attempts designed to compromise their devices and gain access to sensitive accounts.

Unlike traditional phishing emails filled with obvious mistakes, these new attacks are carefully constructed, patient and highly personalized.

They don’t look like scams.

They look like business opportunities.

The New Entry Point: Professional Meetings

One of the most concerning trends involves fake investor meetings arranged through legitimate platforms such as LinkedIn, Telegram or email introductions.

The approach often begins professionally:

a private investor or founder requests a meeting;

conversations appear structured and credible;

investment topics sound realistic;

scheduling tools such as Calendly are used to reinforce legitimacy.

Everything feels normal.

Until the meeting link arrives.

Instead of a standard Zoom or Google Meet invitation, victims receive a link disguised as a meeting room but hosted on a non-official domain designed to imitate legitimate services.

At first glance, the link may appear authentic.

In reality, it can lead to a fake login page or a malicious download designed to compromise the user’s device.

Why Crypto Professionals Are Being Targeted

Digital asset professionals represent an attractive target for attackers.

Many founders, traders and advisors operate:

multiple wallets;

exchange accounts;

browser extensions connected to crypto platforms;

password managers;

messaging platforms linked to investment communities.

Gaining access to a single compromised browser session can expose far more than a traditional account breach.

Attackers are not necessarily looking for passwords.

They are looking for active sessions.

Once malware is executed, certain tools can extract stored browser cookies, authentication tokens and locally saved data.

This allows attackers to bypass passwords entirely.

In some reported cases, compromised devices enabled access to email accounts, messaging apps and crypto wallets without victims realizing what happened until assets had already been moved.

Social Engineering Over Technical Hacking

The most dangerous aspect of these attacks is psychological rather than technical.

Scammers often invest significant time building trust.

They may:

speak fluent English;

present realistic professional backgrounds;

introduce additional “consultants” into meetings;

discuss portfolio management or partnership opportunities.

The goal is simple.

Lower defenses.

When security concerns are raised, a common warning sign appears.

Instead of accommodating reasonable requests such as using an official meeting platform or a different link, attackers may insist on joining through their specific invitation.

Pressure replaces flexibility.

That is often the moment professionals realize something is wrong.

The Fake Software Trap

Some fraudulent meeting links redirect users toward downloading software disguised as:

meeting updates;

audio plugins;

video codecs;

conferencing applications.

In reality, these downloads may contain infostealer malware or remote access tools.

Even experienced professionals have fallen victim to this method because everything leading up to the moment appeared legitimate.

Once executed, malicious software may search for:

browser session data;

saved passwords;

wallet extensions;

screenshots containing recovery phrases.

The consequences can be immediate.

The Second Scam: “Recovery Experts”

Unfortunately, the risks do not end after an incident.

A second wave of scammers often targets victims who publicly report losses online.

These individuals claim they can recover stolen funds or trace blockchain transactions for a fee.

In most cases, they are simply another scam.

Blockchain transactions are generally irreversible.

Promises of guaranteed recovery should always be treated with extreme skepticism.

How to Protect Yourself

Simple habits dramatically reduce risk.

Professionals should consider the following precautions:

Only join meetings through official domains.

Platforms such as Zoom or Google Meet use verified domains. If a link looks unusual, verify before joining.

Avoid downloading software to attend a meeting.

Legitimate conferencing platforms rarely require additional downloads beyond official applications.

Use your own meeting rooms when possible.

If uncertainty exists, offer to host the meeting yourself.

Separate crypto activity from daily browsing.

Dedicated devices or browser profiles for wallet access can reduce exposure.

Enable strong account protection.

Two-factor authentication and hardware security keys significantly improve account safety.

Awareness Is the Strongest Defense

Social engineering attacks continue to evolve alongside the growth of the digital asset industry.

Many professionals assume technical expertise alone protects them.

In reality, most successful compromises begin with trust rather than code.

Recently, our editorial team encountered a similar attempt involving a professional meeting setup that appeared entirely legitimate until a suspicious meeting link was introduced at the last moment.

Fortunately, the situation was identified before any interaction occurred.

Others may not be as lucky.

As conferences, partnerships and investment conversations increase across the Web3 ecosystem, remaining cautious without becoming paranoid is essential.

Opportunities exist everywhere in crypto.

So do traps.

Taking a few extra seconds to verify a meeting invitation may ultimately protect far more than a calendar slot.

This article was originally published as Fake Zoom Meeting Scams Target Crypto Professionals: How to Stay Safe on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

Poznámka redakce: Následující briefing popisuje novou phishingovou kampaň odhalenou společností Kaspersky, která zneužívá legitimní oznámení Google Tasks k odcizení firemních přístupových údajů. Útočníci se vydávají za důvěryhodné služby, využívají domény @google.com a interní firemní signály, aby se vyhnuli standardním filtrům a přiměli uživatele jednat rychle. Oběti jsou vyzvány, aby klikly na odkaz a vyplnily podvodný formulář pro ověření zaměstnanců, čímž odhalují citlivé přístupové údaje, které by mohly poskytnout neoprávněný přístup. Tato výstraha zdůrazňuje vyvíjející se taktiky, které zločinci používají k využívání známých nástrojů, a důležitost bdělosti v podnikových prostředích.

Poznámka redaktora: Nejnovější výsledky společnosti Nvidia zdůrazňují rostoucí cyklus AI infrastruktury, přičemž společnost překonala očekávání a odhaduje 78 miliard USD na Q1 FY2027. Segment datových center vedl růst, zatímco marže zůstaly robustní, protože zákazníci hyperscale rozšiřují své nasazení AI. Tento přehled rámcuje širší trend: datová centra připravená na AI se stávají hlavním motorem digitální transformace a Nvidia se nachází uprostřed této vlny.

Klíčové body

NVIDIA (NASDAQ: NVDA) odhaduje střední hodnotu příjmů za Q1 FY2027 na 78 miliard USD, nad konsensem.

Abú Dhabí, Spojené arabské emiráty— Vedoucí představitelé globálního financování, infrastruktury digitálních aktiv a regulačních institucí se sejdou v Abú Dhabí 13. května 2026 na inauguračním Digitálním fóru aktiv Abú Dhabí — vysoce kurátorované shromáždění zkoumá přijetí digitálních aktiv v rámci pokrokového regulačního rámce SAE.

Fórum se koná uprostřed rychlé institucionální dynamiky v oblasti Zálivu. SAE se staly globálním lídrem v regulaci digitálních aktiv, poskytujícím strukturované licenční režimy, programy inovací podporované státem a robustní ekosystém, kde banky, správci aktiv a institucionální investoři aktivně nasazují kapitál a vytvářejí strategická partnerství.

Rising geopolitical tensions in the Middle East are shaping how investors size risk, with safe-haven assets drawing attention as equities and crypto markets recalibrate. Fresh indicators show hedging behavior taking hold: oil flows from Iran are rising, while gold demand in key markets is climbing as traders seek ballast against potential disruption and macro volatility. At the same time, crypto markets are responding to a mix of flows that can tilt risk sentiment in either direction, underscoring why the ongoing dialogue around Iran’s nuclear policy and broader policy risk remains central to market discourse.

Key takeaways

India’s gold ETFs are attracting record inflows, with purchases totaling about 250 billion rupees (roughly $2.7 billion), a new high that surpassed equity mutual fund inflows for the first time.

Iran’s crude exports surged to about 20.1 million barrels in a recent window (Feb. 15 to Friday), a move analysts describe as both a preemptive supply shift and a hedge against potential disruption amid rising U.S.-Iran tensions.

Bitcoin (CRYPTO: BTC) continues trading in a defined range, with weak whale accumulation and persistent ETF outflows dampening conviction in the near term.

U.S.-listed spot Bitcoin ETFs posted notable daily inflows, signaling renewed investor interest as BTC tests the $68,000 level, though the broader outflow backdrop remains a factor.

Gold holds near $5,172 per ounce after a weekly gain of about 4.4%, reflecting robust defensive demand amid macro uncertainty.

Tickers mentioned: $BTC

Sentiment: Neutral

Price impact: Neutral — BTC remains in a defined range as macro signals yield mixed safe-haven and inflation hedging pressures.

Market context: The market narrative sits at the intersection of geopolitics, currency flows, and risk-on versus risk-off dynamics, with gold and Bitcoin acting as competing hedges in a volatile environment.

Why it matters

The current environment underscores how geopolitical frictions can recalibrate investor behavior across traditional and crypto assets. As oil markets reflect potential disruption, demand for physical gold and related instruments strengthens, particularly in large consumer economies where import patterns and sentiment drive flows. In this context, India’s gold ETFs—representing a major portion of the world’s gold consumption—are capturing outsized attention. The surge in inflows signals a structural tilt toward gold as a core component of portfolios, especially in a region where the metal plays a tangible role in wealth protection and risk diversification.

On the crypto side, Bitcoin’s latest price action illustrates a delicate balance between safety-seeking capital and the lure of potential upside as inflation fears wax and wane. The most recent on-chain data from Glassnode shows that the market’s short-term behavior remains cautious: BTC is oscillating within a broad band, and there is a notable absence of robust whale accumulation even as exchange-traded exposure remains a prominent factor in liquidity dynamics. A sizable portion of Bitcoin sits at a loss, suggesting that a portion of holders are still realizing losses rather than cycling profits, which can dampen near-term upside momentum but does not preclude longer-term volatility from re-emerging should macro conditions shift.

Beyond price charts, ETF activity remains a critical barometer. U.S.-listed spot Bitcoin ETFs posted strong daily inflows in one session, lifting the sector after weeks of outflows and helping prices test recent resistance. While inflows can reflect renewed interest, they also mirror ongoing shifts in the broader compliance and retail adoption landscape, where regulated access remains a key driver for investor diversification. This dynamic is complemented by a growing conversation about how macro environments—whether driven by dollar strength, inflation expectations, or geopolitical risk—affect the appeal of digital assets as hedges or risk-on instruments.

Meanwhile, the gold complex continues to reflect a convex response to uncertain macro signals. The metal has traded near $5,172 per ounce, rising by roughly 219 dollars across the prior week, a move that corroborates the “risk-off” tilt some investors favor when equity markets appear stretched or geopolitical headlines intensify. The Indian market, in particular, is illuminating a broader theme: a shift from equity allocations toward defensive assets—gold and its financial proxies—as part of a broader effort to shield capital against volatility.

In a broader sense, the narrative around demand for safe-haven assets—both physical gold and regulated gold exposure in the form of ETFs—highlights a common thread: investors are seeking reserves that are less exposed to fiat dollar shocks and geopolitical flashpoints. The question for market participants is whether these hedges will crowd into digital assets as macro conditions evolve or whether traditional shields will maintain their primacy in the near term.

For context, a separate analysis has highlighted that questions about the sustainability of a megaregional shift—such as whether China will shift its foreign-exchange reserves toward gold or other hedges—continue to influence investor expectations. As markets parse these signals, the balance between risk-off assets like gold and risk-on or hedged exposure in crypto remains a focal point for traders and portfolio managers alike.

What the data say about sentiment and positioning

On-chain metrics illustrate a cautious stance among Bitcoin holders. The latest weekly perspective notes that Bitcoin has traded in a broad $60,000 to $70,000 corridor, with subdued accumulation by large holders and ongoing ETF-related outflows. In parallel, the broader market narrative remains sensitive to liquidity shifts and policy cues, making near-term price directions highly contingent on incoming macro data and geopolitical developments.

In the same vein, the Islamic-markets and Indian retail segments appear to be carving out distinct hedging behaviors, contrasting with U.S. and European flows that continue to be shaped by ETF structures and regulatory considerations. These dynamics contribute to a mosaic where gold and Bitcoin can diverge on path while still reflecting a common underpinning: a search for reliable hedges amid heightened uncertainty.

What to watch next

Updates on Iran–U.S. policy rhetoric and potential escalations, given the sensitivity around nuclear talks and regional security, could recalibrate risk appetite for both gold and crypto markets.

Continued momentum in India’s gold ETF inflows and any emergent shifts in other major gold markets, alongside price movements in gold and related products.

Bitcoin price action near critical levels—whether the $64,000–$65,000 zone or the $69,000 threshold proves decisive in signaling a breakout or renewed consolidation.

US ETF flow data for Bitcoin and other crypto products in the coming weeks, which could confirm whether recent inflows signal a durable regime shift or a temporary rebound.

Sources & verification

Iranian crude export data and shipment volumes from Kharg Island reported in Middle East Eye coverage covering Feb 15 to the following Friday.

India gold ETF inflows and the broader gold demand narrative as summarized by The Kobeissi Letter, with data showing 250 billion rupees in inflows and a shift away from equities.

Glassnode weekly on-chain data detailing Bitcoin’s price range, whale activity, and the loss position of a large portion of supply, including the 90-day realized profit-to-loss metric.

US-listed spot Bitcoin ETF inflows, including a session with about $506.5 million in daily inflows and commentary on weekly inflow patterns after a period of outflows.

Gold price history and current trading levels cited in GoldPrice and related references, showing price movement in the recent week.

Key figures and next steps

The market narrative remains tethered to how geopolitics will influence the balance of risk assets. Gold’s outperformance in response to uncertainty underscores the appeal of traditional hedges, while BTC’s constrained range reveals the tension between caution and speculative opportunity. As policymakers and market participants absorb new data—from oil shipments and sanctions risk to ETF flows and on-chain signals—the path forward for crypto and gold will likely reflect a composite outcome rather than a single directional move.

What it means for traders and investors

For traders, the current environment emphasizes the importance of liquidity and risk controls, particularly as macro drivers can flip sentiment quickly. For investors, the experience reinforces a diversified approach that weighs both physical and financial hedges against a backdrop of evolving macro risk. For builders in the crypto space, the message is clear: regulated access and clear, transparent risk disclosures remain vital to sustaining interest as traditional hedges compete with digital assets in a shifting risk landscape.

What to watch next

Iran–U.S. policy updates and potential escalation indicators.

Sustained inflows into India’s gold ETFs and any corresponding price dynamics in gold markets.

Bitcoin price activity around critical levels and any breakout signals beyond the current range.

Regulated ETF flow trends for Bitcoin in the United States and other major markets.

Why it matters (final)

The intersection of geopolitics, macro risk, and investor hedging remains a central theme for 2026. While gold continues to be the primary safe-haven instrument in many geographies, digital assets are increasingly intertwined with mainstream investment infrastructure, aided by regulated access and institutional interest. The evolving narrative around safe havens, currency dynamics, and reserve diversification will likely shape how portfolios balance exposure to traditional assets and newer forms of collateral, even as headline risks continue to drive volatility and appetite for hedges across asset classes.

This article was originally published as Gold Surges as Middle East Tensions Drive Safe-Haven Demand on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

Gate, kryptoměnová burza, která provozuje platformu sloužící milionům uživatelů po celém světě, dosáhla dalšího regulačního milníku v Evropě. Skupina se sídlem na Maltě obdržela licenci platební instituce od Úřadu pro finanční služby Malty (MFSA), která opravňuje Gate Technology poskytovat regulované platební služby v rámci Evropské unie podle rámce PSD2. Tento krok rozšiřuje přítomnost Gate v EU nad rámec obchodování a úschovy do platebních systémů fiat a stablecoin v rámci bloku, čímž posiluje svou strategii spojit tradiční platební infrastrukturu s možnostmi Web3 v Evropě. Gate poznamenává, že její globální uživatelská základna přesahuje 49 milionů, což podtrhuje potenciální dosah platformy pro platby v celé EU. Tato poslední autorizace doplňuje předchozí úspěch Gate v získání licence MiCA, která udělila možnosti přeshraničního obchodování a úschovy napříč členskými státy počínaje rokem 2025.

Kraken introduces Flexline for Pro users

Kraken has introduced Kraken Flexline, a crypto-backed loan product to Kraken Pro members. The service enables users to borrow against supported digital assets without the need to sell their holdings. The company targets advanced and institutional traders through its Pro platform.

Flexline provides two-day to two-year-term, fixed-rate loans. Borrowers will be able to get proceeds in cryptocurrencies or stablecoins. Therefore, eligible users may trade the funds on the platform or withdraw them, depending on jurisdictional rules. Kraken has restricted access in several countries, including the United States and the United Kingdom.

Annual percentage rates range from 10% to 25%, according to the exchange’s website. Kraken has not disclosed specific loan-to-value ratios. Users may repay loans early through their account balances, although early repayment fees apply.

Collateral structure and risk controls

Kraken demands borrowers to post supported cryptocurrencies as collateral. The funds are credited to the platform virtually immediately upon approval. The exchange maintains collateral in segregated wallets and incorporates it into its Proof of Reserves attestations, which certify client assets on a 1:1 basis.

Source: Kraken

Kraken can sell off collateral in case a borrower does not meet maintenance obligations or does not repay the loan before the maturity date. According to the exchange, these controls are meant to contain credit risk and ensure transparency. The company markets the product as a formalized alternative to unstructured crypto lending services at variable rates.

Crypto-backed lending gains momentum across exchanges, DeFi and traditional finance

Kraken’s launch follows renewed revival of crypto-backed lending markets. Coinbase has recently increased its collateral loan provision. US eligible users are now able to borrow up to $100,000 in USDC with collateral against assets like XRP, Dogecoin, Cardano, and Litecoin.

Holding XRP, DOGE, ADA, or LTC?

Now you can unlock the value of your portfolio without giving up your position.

Borrow up to $100k in USDC against your tokens, instantly, without selling.

Available now in the U.S. (ex. NY). pic.twitter.com/Uozxim3t7C

— Coinbase (@coinbase) February 18, 2026

Decentralized finance lending protocols also continue to grow. DeFiLlama data indicates that the sector carries a total value of approximately $51.9 billion, of which nearly $30.8 billion is borrowed. Apollo Global Management also ventured into the space by partnering in the blockchain-based lending infrastructure.

The trends signal continued interest in crypto-backed liquidity solutions in exchanges, DeFi and traditional finance.

This article was originally published as Kraken launches Flexline fixed-rate crypto loans for its Pro Users on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

Key insights:

Perplexity Computer combines research, coding, design, and deployment in one system, reducing reliance on multiple AI tools.

The company shifts to subscriptions and expands features, including patents search, shopping, and Galaxy voice assistant support.

AMD and Meta sign a long-term AI infrastructure deal using Instinct GPUs and custom chips to power large-scale model training.

Perplexity introduces unified AI workspace

Perplexity AI unveiled Perplexity Computer, a platform that manages projects from idea to deployment inside a single environment. The system allows users to research information, design products, write code, and launch applications without switching services.

Introducing Perplexity Computer.

Computer unifies every current AI capability into one system.

It can research, design, code, deploy, and manage any project end-to-end. pic.twitter.com/dZUybl6VkY

— Perplexity (@perplexity_ai) February 25, 2026

The company reported that the platform also monitors live operations after deployment. Developers can review performance and adjust workflows directly within the interface. Perplexity aims to reduce fragmented workflows that often slow production across multiple AI tools.

Expanding products and subscription strategy

Perplexity has diversified its products over the last one year. In October 2025, it published Perplexity Patents, a component that enables end-users to query filings of global intellectual property using natural language queries. The tool is aimed at researchers, startups and law firms in need of quicker patent analysis.

The firm also partnered with Samsung to integrate its assistant, branded “Hey Plex,” into Galaxy devices. Meanwhile, U.S. Pro users gained an in-app shopping feature linked with commerce platforms such as Shopify. The company ended advertising trials and moved toward a subscription model, citing trust and answer neutrality as priorities.

AMD and Meta scale AI infrastructure

Separately, AMD (NASDAQ: AMD) and Meta (NASDAQ: META) announced a multiyear AI infrastructure agreement valued by analysts near $100 billion. AMD will supply up to six gigawatts of Instinct GPUs for training and inference workloads in Meta’s systems.

The companies will coordinate silicon, hardware systems, and software development to improve efficiency. Meta will also receive custom chips based on AMD’s MI450 architecture. Initial shipments are scheduled for the second half of the year.

Meta already operates millions of AMD EPYC processors and large numbers of MI300-series GPUs. The new agreement expands collaboration within the Open Compute Project and strengthens Meta’s computing capacity for future AI models.

This article was originally published as Perplexity launches all-in-one AI platform as AMD and Meta expand deal on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.