CoinRank

Goldman Sachs izskaidrojums par 2026. gadu: stiprs ASV ekonomikas augšupeja un mērens inflācijas līmenis pastāv vienlaikus; Fed veiks vēl divas procentu likmes samazināšanas pasākumus
Pump.fun ievieš radītāja maksa ieņēmumu dalīšanas funkciju
Indonēzija apstiprinājusi 70 miljonus ASV dolāru atbalstīto ICEx kā valsts otru oficiālo kriptovalūtas apmaiņu vietu
LISA samazinājās par 76% 24 stundās; pārdotāju pārdošana no trim alfa lietotājiem izraisīja ātru cenas krišanu
#Cryptocurrency - saistīto saturu skatījumu skaits YouTube ir samazinājies līdz zemākajam līmenim kopš janvāra 2021. gada
#CoinRank #GM

Konversācijas AI un klientu pieredzes sasaukums (CACES) notiek savas 10. starptautiskās izdevuma laikā Kuala Lumpurā, nostiprinot Malaizijas pozīciju kā reģiona AI un digitālās pārveidošanas centru.

 

Viendienas, personiskās konferencē sapulcēsies augstākā līmeņa CX vadītāji, AI speciālisti un uzņēmumu lēmumu pieņēmēji, lai apspriestu praktiskus lietojumus konversācijas AI, GenAI, LLM pieņemšanā, etiskā AI un AI balstītā klientu pieredzē.

 

Zināms ar augstām redakcijas standartiem un eksekutīvā līmeņa tīkla veidošanu, CACES ASIJA 2026 mērķis ir palīdzēt organizācijām pārveidot AI stratēģiju par mērāmiem biznesa rezultātiem Austrumāzijas reģionā.

Prediction markets are not inherently gambling tools. Their function depends on user intent. The same YES or NO contract can represent speculation, insurance style hedging, or risk free arbitrage.

 

Hedging is the most misunderstood but most powerful use case. When users already carry exposure such as airdrops, leveraged positions, or price risk, prediction markets allow that risk to be priced, transferred, and partially neutralized.

 

Arbitrage activity is essential to market quality. By exploiting temporary price inconsistencies across outcomes or platforms, arbitrageurs improve efficiency and turn prediction markets into reliable probability and pricing signals.

 

Are prediction markets just casinos?

 

At first glance, they do look like one. Users buy YES or NO on whether an event will happen. After the event resolves, positions are settled. If the outcome matches your position, you profit. If not, you lose. This structure feels very similar to traditional gambling.

 

However, this interpretation only captures one narrow use case.

 

The core idea of a prediction market is to turn the question “will an event happen” into a tradable market. What is really being traded is probability. Capital becomes a way to express beliefs, manage exposure, and transmit information through prices.

 

If someone enters a prediction market only to guess outcomes such as weather events or sports results, then the behavior is indeed close to gambling.

 

But prediction markets can support much broader financial behavior. In many situations, they resemble insurance markets or financial derivatives rather than casinos.

 

For some participants, prediction markets are entertainment.

 

For others, they are tools for managing risk or extracting price inefficiencies.

 

The difference is not the mechanism. It is the motivation for participation.

 

If you enter without existing exposure and simply want to guess an outcome, you are betting.

 

If you already face risk linked to an event, the prediction market becomes a place to trade that risk.

 

THREE DISTINCT WAYS TO USE PREDICTION MARKETS

 

Prediction markets support very different strategies depending on how users approach risk and profit.

 

BETTING

 

In betting mode, the user actively takes on outcome risk.

 

There is no prior exposure to the event. The user selects a direction based on belief or intuition. If the prediction is correct, the payoff depends on the entry price and implied probability. If incorrect, the position can lose its full value.

 

Returns can vary widely. They range from small gains to very large multiples, depending on how unlikely the outcome was at entry.

 

The logic is simple. You predict whether an event will happen.

 

This is the use case that most closely resembles gambling.

 

HEDGING

 

In hedging mode, the user already carries risk.

 

The goal is not to maximize upside. The goal is to reduce downside. This behavior is closer to buying insurance.

 

The user places a position on an outcome they do not want to happen. If that outcome occurs, the profit from the prediction market helps offset losses elsewhere.

 

The key idea is risk transfer. The user pays a premium to reduce uncertainty.

 

ARBITRAGE

 

In arbitrage mode, the user avoids outcome risk altogether.

 

Profit comes from price inconsistency rather than predicting results. Individual trades usually have very small margins. Profit depends on repetition and execution speed.

 

Arbitrage activity helps align prices across markets and improves overall efficiency.

 

The core logic is straightforward. When prices do not match, arbitrage closes the gap.

 

HEDGING AIRDROP VALUATION RISK WITH PREDICTION MARKETS

 

In crypto markets, airdrops are common and often uncertain.

 

Two questions appear almost every time.

 

What will the valuation be at launch, and was the participation effort worth it.

 

After receiving the tokens, should they be sold immediately, or is there upside or downside risk ahead.

 

 

Once you participate in an airdrop, you already hold price exposure. This is different from pure speculation. Prediction markets allow you to manage or transfer that exposure.

 

This behavior is closer to insurance than betting.

 

On platforms such as Polymarket, there are markets that predict a token’s fully diluted valuation one day after its token generation event.

 

Two points are important.

 

First, this is not the opening price. It is the valuation after one day of trading.

 

Second, fully diluted valuation is not the same as circulating market cap. It reflects total token supply.

 

For an airdrop participant, the logic is simple.

 

If the valuation is high, the token price is high, and the airdrop value is strong.

 

If the valuation is low, the token price is low, and the airdrop value is weak.

 

This market can be treated as a hedging tool.

 

One approach is to buy NO on a high valuation outcome. If the token launches strongly, the airdrop performs well while the hedge loses slightly. If the launch is weak, the airdrop underperforms but the hedge compensates.

 

 

Another approach is to buy YES on a low valuation outcome. The structure is the same, with different pricing and payout profiles.

 

The purpose is not to increase expected returns. It is to reduce variance.

 

The same logic applies after receiving the tokens.

 

If you sell immediately but worry about a price surge, you can hedge with positions that benefit from higher valuations.

 

If you hold and worry about a price drop, you can hedge with positions that benefit from lower valuations.

 

Prediction market positions can be exited before settlement, subject to liquidity. Position sizing matters. If the hedge exceeds the underlying exposure, the strategy turns back into speculation.

 

APPLYING THE SAME LOGIC TO BITCOIN AND ETHEREUM RISK

 

The same principles apply to major crypto assets.

 

If a trader holds a leveraged position, the most dangerous risk is not short term volatility. It is liquidation during extreme moves.

 

Prediction markets often offer contracts tied to future price ranges or maximum prices within a time window.

 

A trader with a short position can use a small prediction market position as protection against extreme upside moves.

 

The objective is not higher profit. It is survival.

 

This is risk management, not betting.

 

ARBITRAGE AND MARKET PRICE ALIGNMENT

 

Arbitrage is not exploiting errors. It is a natural mechanism that keeps markets coherent.

 

Arbitrage and hedging share one trait. Neither depends on guessing the final outcome.

 

They differ in purpose. Hedging manages exposure. Arbitrage manages mispricing.

 

Because markets are never perfectly aligned, opportunities appear briefly.

 

SINGLE OUTCOME ARBITRAGE

 

Each binary outcome has a YES and a NO. Only one settles to one. The other settles to zero.

 

In theory, buying both for a total cost below one guarantees profit.

 

In practice, order mechanics prevent placing such trades simultaneously. These opportunities only appear temporarily through timing and liquidity imbalance. They are extremely difficult to execute manually.

 

MULTI OUTCOME EVENT ARBITRAGE

 

Some events have multiple mutually exclusive outcomes. Only one can occur.

 

If the total cost of buying all YES options is below one, arbitrage exists.

 

This can happen when liquidity is thin or when large trades distort prices. Such opportunities are short lived and often require automation.

 

CROSS PLATFORM ARBITRAGE

 

The same event may appear on multiple platforms.

 

If definitions and deadlines match exactly, positions can be combined across platforms.

 

Care is critical. Even small differences in definitions or resolution rules invalidate the strategy.

 

Some events are not identical but logically connected. Mispricing across such events can also create opportunities.

 

A CLEAR FRAMEWORK FOR USING PREDICTION MARKETS

 

Betting means you had no prior exposure and chose to take risk.

 

Hedging means you already had exposure and want to manage it.

 

Arbitrage means you avoid exposure and exploit price mismatch.

 

THE LONG TERM ROLE OF PREDICTION MARKETS

 

Prediction markets are not casinos by default. They are tools for pricing risk.

 

A useful comparison is CME.

 

CME is a futures market, but it is also a major pricing center. Participants include banks, asset managers, insurers, and hedge funds. Many trades exist for hedging and balance sheet management rather than speculation.

 

Prediction markets differ in one key way. They trade probability directly. This makes interpretation more intuitive.

 

Could they become core onchain pricing infrastructure.

 

Possibly, but only under certain conditions.

 

Events must matter economically. Price ranges, macro decisions, protocol launches, and valuation metrics generate real hedging demand. Sports and celebrity gossip do not.

 

Liquidity must be deep. Without depth, prices carry little informational value.

 

As onchain finance integrates more macro and financial activity, prediction markets may evolve into essential infrastructure. If that happens, their role in hedging and arbitrage will expand, and their perception as casinos will continue to fade.

 

〈Prediction Markets Are Not Casinos: Three Ways to Use Them — Betting, Hedging, Arbitrage〉這篇文章最早發佈於《CoinRank》。

Powell’s criminal investigation has increased Federal Reserve policy uncertainty, reinforcing concerns over politicization and weakening confidence in traditional monetary governance structures.

Rate-cut expectations for 2026 have dropped sharply to 51 basis points, yet Bitcoin has shown resilience as equities declined.

Bitcoin’s stable price action amid macro turmoil strengthens its narrative as a hedge against fiat policy risk and institutional instability.

Powell’s criminal investigation reshapes Federal Reserve policy risk as rate-cut expectations fall. Bitcoin shows signs of decoupling as a hedge against political uncertainty.

On January 9, 2026, the U.S. Department of Justice launched a criminal investigation into Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell, an action Powell described as politically motivated pressure. As rate-cut expectations cooled sharply—markets now pricing only 51 basis points of easing in 2026—Bitcoin showed early signs of decoupling from traditional risk assets. While U.S. equity futures declined 0.4–0.7%, Bitcoin remained stable and even gained 0.7%. Many analysts argue that growing concerns over Federal Reserve politicization are strengthening Bitcoin’s role as a hedge against inflation and fiat policy risk.

 

BACKGROUND OF THE POWELL CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION AND FEDERAL RESERVE INDEPENDENCE

 

The criminal investigation into Jerome Powell represents one of the most extraordinary developments in modern U.S. monetary history. According to the disclosed timeline, the probe was approved in November 2025 by U.S. prosecutor Jeanine Pirro, with a grand jury subpoena formally issued to the Federal Reserve on January 9, 2026. Two days later, on January 11, Powell released a video statement via the Federal Reserve’s official website, characterizing the investigation as an unprecedented attempt to exert political pressure on monetary policy rather than a legitimate inquiry into misconduct.

 

The investigation centers on Powell’s June 2025 congressional testimony regarding a $2.5 billion Federal Reserve headquarters renovation project. The project, initiated in 2022 and scheduled for completion in 2027, has exceeded its original budget by approximately $700 million. The Department of Justice stated that its priority is examining potential misuse of taxpayer funds and the accuracy of Powell’s testimony before Congress. Powell has strongly rejected this framing, arguing that the renovation issue is being leveraged as a political instrument to undermine Federal Reserve independence.

 

POLITICAL PRESSURE, TRUMP, AND THE FEDERAL RESERVE LEADERSHIP TRANSITION

 

The Powell investigation cannot be separated from the broader political context surrounding U.S. monetary policy. Tensions between Powell and Donald Trump have persisted for years, particularly over disagreements regarding the timing and scale of interest rate cuts. Powell’s term as Federal Reserve Chair is set to expire in May 2026, and Trump has indicated plans to announce a successor in the near future.

 

Compounding uncertainty, Senator Thom Tillis has publicly opposed confirming any new Federal Reserve nominee until the investigation is resolved, raising concerns about judicial overreach and the erosion of institutional independence. As a result, investors are increasingly forced to account not only for macroeconomic data, but also for the growing risk that monetary policy decisions may be shaped by political dynamics rather than economic fundamentals.

 

 

FEDERAL RESERVE RATE CUT EXPECTATIONS AND POLICY UNCERTAINTY IN 2026

 

Market expectations for Federal Reserve rate cuts in 2026 have shifted dramatically. As of January 12, 2026, CME FedWatch data shows a 95% probability that rates will remain unchanged at the January 28 FOMC meeting, with only a 5% chance of a 25 basis point cut. For March, the probability of no change stands at 71.3%, while the likelihood of a cut has declined to 27.6%, down sharply from over 50% one week earlier.

 

June 2026 is now widely viewed as the earliest plausible timing for the first rate cut, with markets assigning a 73% probability to a 25 basis point reduction. In total, expectations for 2026 have been revised down to just 51 basis points of easing, compared with earlier projections of 70–80 basis points before the release of stronger-than-expected December employment data on January 9.

 

Although the Powell investigation did not trigger an immediate repricing of rate-cut probabilities, it has materially increased perceived policy uncertainty. Powell has explicitly linked the probe to threats against Federal Reserve independence, and the uptick in the VIX on January 12 reflects a rising demand for protection against macro and institutional risk.

 

 

BITCOIN PRICE REACTION AND DECOUPLING FROM TRADITIONAL RISK ASSETS

 

Bitcoin’s price behavior during this period has attracted significant attention. From January 1 to January 6, Bitcoin rallied from $87,520 to a weekly high of $93,927, representing a 7.3% gain. Following Powell’s January 11 statement, Bitcoin retraced to $90,442, a 3.7% decline from the local high. However, as news of the investigation spread more broadly, Bitcoin stabilized and rose to $91,884 by 02:00 UTC on January 12, posting a 0.7% gain over 24 hours.

 

This resilience stood in stark contrast to traditional risk assets. During the same period, Dow Jones futures fell by 180–200 points, S&P 500 futures declined 0.5%, and Nasdaq futures dropped 0.7%. The divergence suggests that Bitcoin may be temporarily decoupling from equities, behaving less like a high-beta risk asset and more like a hedge against macroeconomic and institutional uncertainty.

 

 

BITCOIN TECHNICAL ANALYSIS AND DERIVATIVES MARKET SIGNALS

 

From a technical standpoint, Bitcoin’s indicators remain broadly constructive. As of January 12, the 14-day RSI stands at 56.65, indicating neutral momentum without signs of overheating. The MACD histogram reading of 227.26 confirms a bullish crossover, while price action remains above both the 12-day and 26-day exponential moving averages, reinforcing short-term trend support.

 

Key support levels are identified at $87,200, followed by $84,000 and a broader zone between $72,000 and $68,000. On the upside, resistance is clustered near $94,000, with additional barriers at $101,000, $104,000, and the $107,000–$110,000 range. The 200-day simple moving average at $106,174 remains a significant long-term resistance level.

 

Derivatives data provides additional insight. Total open interest reached $61.86 billion, up 0.91% over 24 hours, while funding rates across major exchanges remained positive, indicating that long positions are paying shorts. Over the same period, total liquidations amounted to $22.03 million, with short liquidations significantly exceeding long liquidations, signaling persistent upward pressure but also elevated leverage risk.

 

CRYPTO MARKET SENTIMENT, FED POLITICIZATION, AND BITCOIN NARRATIVES

 

Within the crypto community, the Powell investigation has reinforced several dominant narratives. Despite the recent cooling in rate-cut expectations, many participants continue to view any eventual easing cycle as a structural tailwind for Bitcoin. More importantly, concerns over Federal Reserve politicization are increasingly interpreted as supportive for Bitcoin’s long-term value proposition.

 

Bitcoin is being framed less as a speculative asset and more as a non-sovereign store of value, designed to hedge against institutional credibility risk. Some commentators argue that a leadership change at the Federal Reserve could accelerate a shift toward more accommodative policy, further strengthening Bitcoin’s appeal in a liquidity-driven environment.

 

Prominent voices such as Anthony Pompliano have suggested that political pressure on the Federal Reserve could lead to weaker equities, higher volatility, a softer dollar, and stronger performance for Bitcoin and gold—a pattern partially reflected in early 2026 data.

 

CONCLUSION: POWELL INVESTIGATION, FED POLICY RISK, AND BITCOIN’S STRATEGIC ROLE

 

The criminal investigation into Jerome Powell marks a significant escalation in the long-standing tension between political authority and central bank independence. While officially centered on a headquarters renovation project, the investigation has heightened fears that monetary policy could become increasingly politicized.

 

In the short term, Bitcoin’s ability to hold above $90,000 while equity futures declined suggests a meaningful shift in market perception. Rather than trading purely as a risk asset, Bitcoin is increasingly functioning as a hedge against institutional uncertainty and fiat policy risk. Technical indicators and derivatives positioning support this view, even as leverage-related risks remain.

 

Looking ahead, the investigation introduces a new layer of complexity into an already fragile macro environment. If leadership changes or political pressure accelerate a dovish policy shift, the resulting liquidity dynamics could provide a meaningful medium-term tailwind for Bitcoin. Ultimately, while the investigation raises short-term uncertainty, it may strengthen the structural case for Bitcoin as a hedge against the erosion of monetary credibility.

The above viewpoints are referenced from Ace

 

Read More:

Why Gold Is Surging: Central Banks, Sanctions, and Trust-1

Gold Front-Runs QE as Bitcoin Waits for Liquidity-2

〈Powell Criminal Investigation Sparks Fed Uncertainty, Bitcoin Holds Firm〉這篇文章最早發佈於《CoinRank》。

According to reports, if upcoming legislation includes restrictions on stablecoin reward mechanisms, Coinbase may reconsider its support for the digital asset market structure bill.
This development highlights stablecoin incentives as a growing point of tension between the crypto industry and regulators, with potential implications for both legislative progress and industry positioning.
#Coinbase #Stablecoin #Crypto

“Es beidzot esmu šeit” uzplaukums ātri parāda, kā slavenību paziņojumi un platformas atbalsts var nekavējoties pārvērst mīmu par augstas likviditātes spekulatīvu aktīvu.

 

Tokenu attiecībā notiek polarizēta debates, kas atspoguļo dziļākas pretrunas starp kultūras izpausmi, mīmu likumību un uztvertu priekšnostāju centrālizētu apmaiņas ekosistēmās.

 

Binance iesaistīšanās ar mīmu monetām ir mazāk jautājums par garšu nekā strukturāla nepieciešamība, kas ir noteikta tās loma kā lielākā CEX, kas konkurentē par likviditāti, lietotājiem un tirdzniecības aktivitāti.

The GENIUS Act aimed to bring clarity to stablecoin regulation, but its ban on interest payments exposed a deeper conflict over who controls the time value of digital dollars.

 

While banks warn that interest bearing stablecoins could drain deposits and weaken credit creation, crypto firms argue that blocking yield effectively taxes users and reduces the global competitiveness of the U.S. dollar.

 

As retail stablecoins face strict limits, major financial institutions have moved ahead with tokenized deposits and funds, creating a system where institutions access onchain yield while ordinary users cannot.

A LAW THAT PROMISED CLARITY BUT CREATED A NEW BATTLE

 

When the United States passed the GENIUS Act in 2025, lawmakers framed it as a breakthrough. For the first time, payment stablecoins received a clear federal framework. The goal was simple. Reduce risk, protect users, and secure the future of the digital dollar.

 

However, clarity did not bring calm.

 

Within months, the law triggered a new conflict. This time, the debate was not about reserves or solvency. Instead, it focused on one issue that had stayed hidden for years. Who is allowed to earn interest on digital dollars.

 

Under the GENIUS Act, stablecoin issuers must hold full reserves in cash or short term U.S. Treasuries. They cannot lend. They cannot create credit. More importantly, they cannot pay interest to users based on holding alone.

 

 

At first glance, this rule looks harmless. Lawmakers wanted to prevent stablecoins from replacing bank deposits. Yet the market had already changed. Stablecoins were no longer simple payment tools. They had become the base layer of onchain dollars.

 

As interest rates rose, the time value of money became visible again. Yield did not disappear. It simply waited for a path to reach users.

 

HOW A LEGAL GRAY ZONE SHOOK THE BANKING SECTOR

 

The GENIUS Act restricts issuers. It says far less about distributors. That gap reshaped the market.

 

Circle, the issuer of USDC, followed the rulebook. It did not pay interest directly to users. However, USDC does not circulate at the issuer level. It circulates on platforms.

 

Coinbase plays a central role in that flow. Through distribution agreements, Circle pays Coinbase fees tied to the amount of USDC held on the exchange. Coinbase then uses part of that revenue to offer USDC rewards to users.

 

Formally, these rewards are not interest. They are platform incentives. In practice, they come from Treasury yield.

 

This structure alarmed banks. From their perspective, stablecoins had crossed a line. They were attracting funds without following banking rules.

 

Banking groups warned that trillions of dollars could leave the deposit system. While the numbers were exaggerated, the concern was real. Banks depend on low cost deposits. For decades, most users accepted near zero returns without protest.

 

 

Stablecoins changed that behavior. They offered fast settlement, global access, and visible yield. Even indirect yield was enough to shift expectations.

 

Banks argued the system was unfair. Stablecoin platforms face no capital requirements. They do not fund local lending. They do not pay deposit insurance. Yet they compete for the same dollars.

 

What banks avoided answering was simpler. Why should users be blocked from earning the return created by their own funds.

 

THE CRYPTO ARGUMENT AND THE IDEA OF A HIDDEN TAX

 

In response, the crypto industry reframed the debate.

 

One argument gained traction quickly. The idea of a holding tax. Stablecoin reserves earn yield because users supply capital. If the law blocks that yield from reaching users, the system forces them to give it up entirely.

 

From this view, the interest ban is not about safety. It is about control.

 

Crypto firms also widened the lens. Stablecoins are not only domestic tools. They extend dollar influence globally. If digital dollars cannot earn yield, they lose appeal in cross border use.

 

This concern grew as other countries moved faster. China adjusted its digital currency framework to allow interest. That decision sent a clear signal. Digital money does not need to sacrifice yield.

 

There is also legal uncertainty. On custodial exchanges, platforms often control private keys. Under existing interpretations, this raises questions about who legally holds the asset. If platforms are holders, revenue sharing may already conflict with the law.

 

As a result, enforcement risk now hangs over the entire stablecoin sector.

 

WHILE RETAIL DEBATED, WALL STREET MOVED ON

 

As retail stablecoins faced scrutiny, large financial institutions chose a different path.

 

Banks launched tokenized deposits. These are bank liabilities, not stablecoins. They settle on blockchains and pay interest by default. They fall outside the GENIUS Act.

 

For institutional clients, the choice is obvious. Onchain efficiency without losing yield.

 

 

Asset managers followed with tokenized money market funds. These products keep a stable value and distribute yield daily onchain. Legally, they are securities. Functionally, they behave like interest bearing stablecoins.

 

Access, however, is limited. Retail users remain excluded.

 

This has created a quiet divide. Ordinary users are protected from risk but also from return. Institutions receive both. The interest ban did not remove yield. It redirected who can access it.

 

Meanwhile, traditional financial infrastructure continues to move onchain. Custodians, banks, and payment networks are adopting blockchain settlement. In this environment, zero yield stablecoins risk becoming secondary tools.

 

THE FUTURE OF MONEY IS A FIGHT OVER TIME VALUE

 

The stablecoin interest war is not a technical dispute. It is a fight over who controls time value.

 

Banks want to preserve intermediation. Crypto argues that technology allows direct sharing. Traditional finance has already adapted by securing yield through existing legal frameworks.

 

Upcoming hearings may adjust the rules. They will not reverse the trend.

 

Time value is being repriced. Money is changing shape. If the digital dollar cannot carry yield, capital will search for alternatives.

 

Law can delay that shift. It cannot stop it.

〈The War Over Stablecoin Interest Inside the U.S. Financial System〉這篇文章最早發佈於《CoinRank》。

POL pieauga aptuveni par 51% vienā nedēļā, kad tīkla degšanas aktivitāte sasniedza rekordus, saīsinot efektīvo piegādi, izmantojot lietojumam saistītus maksājumus, nevis brīvprātīgus pirkumus.

 

Liels POL pārskaitījumi uz vietām, piemēram, Binance un GSR Markets, izskatās savienoti ar strukturētu pozicionēšanu un likviditātes pārvaldību, nevis tiešu izplatīšanu.

 

Uzplūdes ilgtermiņa ilgtspēja atkarīga no tā, vai paaugstināts tīkla izmantojums un rezultējošais degšanas ātrums var pastāvēt ilgāk par īstermiņa impulsu un spekulatīvo interesi.

Michael Saylor @saylor posted that the strongest-performing asset categories over the past decade are now clear:
🔹 Digital intelligence: #NVIDIA ( $NVDA)
🔹 Digital credit: #Strategy ( $MSTR)
🔹 Digital capital: #Bitcoin ( $BTC)
His remarks once again place Bitcoin alongside core U.S. technology equities, reinforcing its long-term narrative as “digital capital.” They also reflect an institutional view in which AI, crypto assets, and capital structure are increasingly converging.

The U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Columbia has launched a criminal investigation into Federal Reserve Chair Jerome H. Powell, focusing on the accuracy of his statements and congressional testimony regarding the Federal Reserve headquarters renovation project. The project was originally budgeted at approximately $2.5 billion and is now estimated to be over budget by around $700 million.
At a time when rate-cut expectations and policy credibility are highly sensitive, the investigation may further intensify market scrutiny of the Fed’s governance and transparency.
#FederalReserve #Powell #CryptoNews

Spot zelta cena sasniedza rekordaugstāko līmeni virs 4600 USD par unciju, pirmkārt izmantojot palielinātu ģeopolitisko un politisko nevienmērīgumu, savukārt Bitcoin atgriezās, taču atpalika, tāpēc ka tirgus struktūra bija ietekmēta ar ETF un derivātiem.

 

Bitcoin cenas kustība jāturi ierobežotā apjomā ar opciju hēdžēšanas un likviditātes nosacījumiem, pat tādā gadījumā, kad tā ilgtermiņa vērtības glabāšanas stāsts turpina stiprināties kopā ar zeltu.

 

"Divu bullu" scenārija izturība ir mazāk atkarīga no ziņām un vairāk no tā, vai politiskie riski saglabājas, hēdžēšanas spiediens samazinās un kopējā likviditātes situācija sāk uzlaboties.

Kāpēc kriptovalūtas tirgus ir samazināts, pamatā ir likviditātes stāsts. Kapitāls vairs nav brīvs vai bez nosacījumiem, un augstāki reālie likmes ir spieduši investīcijas veikt kā riska aktīvu, kas konkurentē ar ieņēmumu nesējiem alternatīvām.

 

Institucionālā pievienošanās ir mainījusi tirgus struktūru, nevis iznīcinājusi ciklus. ETF plūsmas ir padarījušas kapitāla pārvietošanu ātrāku un pārredzamāku, pastiprinot gan ienākumus, gan pārdošanas spiedienu, kad makroekonomiskie apstākļi pasliktinās.

 

Regulēšana un globālā naudas konkurence pārveido prasību. Stabilās monetās ierobežojumi un valsts digitālo valūtu uzplaukums spiež investīcijas pārskatīt kriptovalūtas lomu mainīgā finanšu kārtībā.