Anthropic says its Claude AI will remain ad-free, positioning itself against OpenAIs plans to explore ads on ChatGPT.

The post Anthropic rules out ads for Claude as Super Bowl spot targets ChatGPT ad plans appeared first on Crypto Briefing.

Growing Wall Street trust may signal a turning point for crypto equities and a market recovery ahead.

The post Matt Hougan: Crypto winter may be ending, institutional flows are stabilizing Bitcoin, and the Clarity Act could spark a bull market | The Wolf Of All Streets appeared first on Crypto Briefing.

With volatility intensifying in the broader cryptocurrency market, the price of Ethereum has fallen sharply, drawing dangerously close to the $2,000 level. While there are speculations that the ongoing trend is akin to a bear market phase, investors seem to be unshaken by the sharp pullback in ETH’s price, with accumulation not showing signs of slowing down.

Investors’ Behavior After Ethereum’s Drop Below Realized Price

Following the sharp pullback on Tuesday, the Ethereum price has now fallen below a key level regarded as the Realized Price. Despite the price experiencing steady downside movements, investors are moving in the opposite direction, as evidenced by their continued interest in the leading altcoin.

Related Reading: Ethereum Holders Jump 3% In January, Clear 175 Million Milestone

According to CW, a market expert and investor, investors continue to steadily stack the altcoin even with ETH trading below its realized price, which puts a large portion of the market in unrealized loss territory. On-chain data points to continued accumulation from large holders or whales and conviction-driven buyers.

What’s interesting about the whale’s action is that these investors are persistently accumulating Ethereum despite being in a loss. Large investors sitting on unrealized losses are still buying, which is a pattern typically linked to heightened stress and shifting sentiment across the network.

Even with the current pullback, ETH inflows into accumulation addresses have also increased. CW highlighted that Ethereum had previously hit this level in April of last year, but it swiftly recovered before rising again. When the buying power of whales remains intact, this implies that the group has found the current price attractive. As a result, a significant rebound in ETH’s price is expected in the near future. 

ETH Seeing Heightened Social Media Interest

Ethereum may be struggling with volatility, but the leading altcoin is experiencing increased interest from investors and social media participants. This is because of price movements, investment strategies, staking, and its potential as a deflationary asset following upgrades like EIP-1559 and the merge.

Related Reading: Here’s How Ethereum Staking Transforms Into A Multi-Billion-Dollar Bet For Bitmine Immersion

Data from Santiment, a popular on-chain data analytics firm, shows that ETH is commonly brought up in flash deals and cryptocurrency trading services, emphasizing its usage across platforms such as Binance, MetaMask, and Trust Wallet. 

ETH’s increased social media mentions are attributed to the massive buying activity by BitMine. The company recently bought a large amount of ETH, signaling robust confidence in the altcoin’s future despite ongoing market volatility and unrealized losses.

CW reported that the company has acquired another 20,000 ETH, valued at approximately $46.04 million, through FalconX. With this purchase, Tom Lee’s Bitmine now boasts over 4.305 million ETH, worth a staggering $9.99 billion, which represents about 3.56% of the total ETH supply. 

Despite this massive figure, Bitmine’s goal is to own 5% of all ETH supply. Bitmine remains the largest Ethereum treasury company in the world, with 2.87 million of its ETH holdings being locked away in staking. Other coins owned by the company include Bitcoin, of which they hold over 193 BTC.

Shiba Inu lead developer Shytoshi Kusama has returned to the X platform, teasing an important update for the SHIB community. This comes just as the meme coin’s price crashed to a 3-year low amid the recent crypto market crash. 

Shiba Inu Lead Developer Returns as Price Hits New Lows

In an X post, the Shiba Inu lead developer revealed that he had an “ultra important” update for the SHIB community. Shytoshi indicated that it was a very important update, noting how it could take 2 more hours to explain and that it was “extremely important to many.” Meanwhile, in a subsequent X post, the developer hinted that the update may be related to AI and a potential integration.

Meanwhile, Shiba Inu developer Kaal Dhairya has yet to comment on what the update may be about. However, he defended Shytoshi following criticisms from some members of the SHIB community over the developer’s cryptic comments. SHIB marketing lead Lucie also commented on Shytoshi’s statement, indicating that she was waiting on the update. 

The Shiba Inu lead developer’s return comes amid the recent crash in the Shiba Inu price, with the meme coin falling to a 3-year low of $0.000006461. SHIB’s crash follows the broader crypto market downtrend, with Bitcoin dropping to a new yearly low of $73,000. Crypto traders also appear to be bearish on the meme coin at the moment as CoinGlass data shows a 4% drop in SHIB’s open interest. 

Furthermore, the long/short ratio is currently below 1, signaling that more traders are shorting Shiba Inu in anticipation of lower prices. The SHIB price is now down year-to-date (YTD), erasing the double-digit gains that it recorded at the start of the year. 

SHIB’s Rebuild Depends On Execution, Not Price

In an X article, Lucie indicated that the key to rebuilding confidence in the Shiba Inu ecosystem is execution and not price. She remarked that real confidence would show up first in behavior, not charts. She outlined ways they can improve this execution, including ensuring steady activity on the Ethereum layer-2 network, Shibarium. 

Furthermore, the Shiba Inu marketing lead stated that they must avoid repeating exploit patterns and ensure a smooth LEASH migration. She also addressed the developers, saying that they have to ship new upgrades without drama. 

Meanwhile, Lucie noted that users must continue interacting on the network even when the Shiba Inu price is stagnant, as this is what a recovery phase looks like. The SHIB executive added that the meme coin sits between two states as an asset that is no longer just a meme coin but one that isn’t yet a mature infrastructure network. 

At the time of writing, the Shiba Inu price is trading at around $0.000006774, down almost 2% in the last 24 hours, according to data from CoinMarketCap.

Julio Moreno, head of research at CryptoQuant, recently declared that Bitcoin is in a bear market that could extend through the third quarter of 2026.

He's not alone. Matt Hougan at Bitwise and a growing chorus of institutional voices are using the “bear” label more freely than at any point since early 2023.

Yet the same analysts often hedge with structure: many institutions are holding or adding exposure even as they acknowledge the regime shift.

This creates a definitional problem. If a bear market no longer means capitulation and exodus, what does it mean?

And if the famous four-year cycle is dead, as VanEck, K33 Research, and 21Shares have each argued in recent reports, how long does a bear market last when the old calendar no longer applies?

What configures a bear market

The traditional finance definition for a bear market offers a starting point.

The US Securities and Exchange Commission defines a bear market as a broad index falling 20% or more over at least two months. Bitcoin cleared that threshold months ago.

From its early October 2025 peak above $126,000, BTC has declined by roughly 41% to approximately $74,000 as of Feb. 3. By the headline standard, the case is closed.

However, Coinbase Institutional research explicitly calls the 20% threshold “somewhat arbitrary” and less applicable to crypto, where 20% swings can happen without a true regime change.

In practice, analysts rely on a three-part dashboard: price trend, positioning and derivatives, and demand and liquidity.

Price trend is the most visible. CryptoQuant leans heavily on the 365-day moving average as a boundary marker.

Bitcoin currently trades below that level, which sits around $101,448. CryptoQuant's Bull Score Index, a composite measure of on-chain health, registered 20 out of 100, described as extreme bear territory.

Coinbase has used the 200-day moving average in past cycle analyses to qualify bear regimes, and Bitcoin remains below that threshold as well.

Positioning and derivatives offer a second signal. Glassnode's recent Week On-Chain reports document rotation toward downside protection, bearish skew in options markets, and conditions that increase downside sensitivity, including dealer gamma below zero.

When traders pay premiums to hedge against further declines rather than to capture upside, the market is behaving defensively.

Demand and liquidity provide the structural context. CoinShares estimates that large holders have sold approximately $29 billion in Bitcoin since October. Digital asset exchange-traded products saw approximately $440 million in year-to-date outflows.

CryptoQuant and MarketWatch characterize the current regime as weak demand combined with contracting stablecoin liquidity, classic ingredients of a bear market.

The latest Coinbase Institutional and Glassnode global investor survey, conducted from Dec. 10, 2025, to Jan. 12, 2026, found that 26% of institutions now describe the market as being in the bear phase. The results are up from just 2% in the prior survey.

Yet the same survey revealed that 62% of institutions held or increased net long exposure since October, and 70% view Bitcoin as undervalued.

This disconnect is the defining feature of the 2026 bear market. It's not about capitulation—it's about regime recognition while maintaining structural exposure.

The label “bear market” is becoming less about who is fleeing and more about who is still buying, even as sentiment remains terrible.

When does this bear market end?

Defining the end of a bear market requires clarity about what “end” means.

The most rigorous approach treats it as a regime shift rather than a feeling. Analysts identify three practical triggers: trend reclamation, demand inflection, and risk appetite normalization.

Trend reclaim occurs when Bitcoin regains and holds above long-term moving averages, such as the 200-day or 365-day, for multiple weeks.

Demand inflection means exchange-traded fund and exchange-traded product flows shift from subdued or negative to sustained inflows, and large-holder distribution slows.

Risk appetite normalization means options skew returns to balanced levels, with less demand for downside protection and leverage building sustainably.

The forward-looking scenarios cluster into three time horizons, each supported by specific analyst commentary.

The first scenario is a classic crypto winter that extends through mid or late 2026.

Julio Moreno has identified $70,000 over three to six months and $56,000 in the second half of 2026 as a deeper potential path. This scenario assumes demand stays weak, flows remain negative, and Bitcoin fails repeated attempts to reclaim its moving averages. Bear-market rallies happen but fail to hold.

The second scenario is a shorter, shallower bear market lasting three to six months, characterized by choppy, range-bound price action, followed by improving conditions in the second half of 2026.

CoinShares explicitly expects a choppy three-to-six-month period, with medium-term constructive conditions as whale selling exhausts by mid-2026.

In this framing, the bear market is more about time than depth: a regime in which upside is capped until demand reverses, but the floor holds.

The third scenario treats the bear market as a liquidity-wave event rather than a calendar-based cycle.

The bear ends when demand and liquidity re-accelerate, regardless of what the halving clock says. This maps directly onto CryptoQuant's demand-led framing and avoids determinism stemming from halving. It acknowledges that the old playbook may no longer apply.

Is this bear market smaller than past cycles?

The current drawdown of roughly 40% is already small compared to the stereotypical over 70% crypto winters of prior cycles.

However, multiple analysts' downside scenarios cluster around $55,000 to $60,000, implying a total drawdown closer to the mid-50% range if realized.

That would still be smaller than historic extremes but meaningful enough to qualify as a bear market by any standard.

The market is also increasingly bifurcated. Bitcoin holds structural leadership, whereas much of the rest of the crypto market performs far worse.

The Coinbase and Glassnode report emphasize this via dominance metrics and defensive positioning behavior. The 2026 market is K-shaped, and the “bear market” may affect asset classes unevenly.

The four-year cycle is over, but what replaces it?

VanEck argued in 2025 that the four-year cycle had broken and that the old playbook was less reliable.

K33 Research published a report titled “4-year cycle is dead, long live the king,” which lays out why the regime changed.

21Shares describes the cycle as evolving, potentially extending to five years, as liquidity waves lengthen and institutional participation deepens.

What replaces the four-year clock is a liquidity-and-flows clock. This includes real yields, global liquidity impulses, flows of exchange-traded funds and exchange-traded products, stablecoin liquidity, and hedging demand.

CoinShares explicitly frames Bitcoin's recent dislocation in terms of relationships with precious metals and macro liquidity. Coinbase and Glassnode emphasize a defensive derivatives posture as a real-time regime indicator.

The implication for bear market duration is that bear markets may become more frequent but less severe. Instead of existential winters, the market may experience more frequent regime drawdowns if institutional flows provide a floor.

Rallies can still fail until demand and liquidity turn, but the underlying structure may prevent the kind of multi-year capitulation that has defined past cycles.

This creates a paradox. The bear market may last longer in calendar time but inflict less damage in percentage terms. Or it may end sooner if demand inflects before the old cycle logic would predict.

Either way, the clock that governed Bitcoin for a decade no longer governs it.

The checklist matters more than the calendar

In 2026, calling a bear market isn't one metric, but a checklist.

Trend breaks, hedging demand, and a demand-liquidity rollover all point in the same direction. Bitcoin is in a bear regime by most frameworks that matter.

When it ends depends less on the halving calendar and more on the timing of the demand cycle. CoinShares expects three to six months of chop. CryptoQuant sees potential for deeper lows in the second half of the year.

Both could be right at different moments if the regime oscillates rather than resolves cleanly.

The four-year cycle is dead, but the question of when this bear ends is not unanswerable. It ends when Bitcoin reclaims its long-term moving averages, when institutional flows turn positive, and when options markets stop pricing for protection.

Until then, the market is in a regime where upside is capped, and patience is required. Even if institutions keep buying while calling it a bear.

The post Bitcoin bear market ends when 3 signals flip, and one is already starting to twitch appeared first on CryptoSlate.

The White House's end-of-February deadline for banks and crypto firms to resolve the “stablecoin yield” debate exposes a structural fault line that was never going to stay buried.

This isn't a speed bump on the road to crypto-friendly regulation. Instead, it's a core collision that happens when digital dollars scale large enough to threaten the business model of deposit-taking itself.

According to multiple reports, the White House convened banks and crypto representatives with an explicit mandate: find common ground on whether platforms can offer rewards on stablecoin holdings, or risk broader market structure legislation collapsing in 2026.

Reuters confirmed the summit's focus on “interest and other rewards,” framing it as an attempt to unstick a bill already delayed by this exact clash.

The stakes are binary.

If Coinbase, banks, and other stakeholders reach consensus this month, the CLARITY Act advances. However, almost certainly in a form that neither side currently recognizes.

If they don't, the broader digital asset market structure package dies for the year, and crypto's regulatory momentum fractures into agency-by-agency enforcement rather than comprehensive legislation.

What's actually being fought over

The technical dispute centers on whether exchanges, wallets, or other intermediaries can pass Treasury yields to users as “rewards” on stablecoin holdings.

Stablecoin issuers earn yield on reserves, such as primarily short-dated Treasuries and overnight instruments. Yet, under the framework Congress designed, issuers themselves cannot pay interest directly to holders.

That prohibition was intentional: lawmakers wanted to distinguish payment stablecoins from deposit accounts.

Banks argue that allowing exchanges or affiliates to offer yield-like rewards circumvents that intent.

The American Bankers Association and Bank Policy Institute have urged senators to “close the loophole,” arguing that any third party paying rewards tied to stablecoin balances effectively converts a payment instrument into a savings product.

Coinbase and crypto trade groups counter that Congress deliberately preserved the ability for third parties to offer lawful rewards.

The Blockchain Association's letters argue that GENIUS, the stablecoin framework, prohibited issuer interest but left room for platforms to design incentive structures tied to usage, transactions, or other engagement.

This isn't semantic hairsplitting. It's a distributional fight over who gets to route Treasury yields to consumers digitally, and whether doing so outside the banking system constitutes unfair competition or legitimate product innovation.

Why the fight matters now

Stablecoins crossed a threshold where hypothetical risk became quantifiable exposure.

Total stablecoin market capitalization sits around $305 billion as of early February 2026. That's large enough for banks to model deposit flight scenarios and large enough for regulators to worry about financial stability.

Standard Chartered estimated roughly $500 billion in US bank deposit outflows by the end of 2028, tied to stablecoin adoption, explicitly noting that the trajectory depends on whether third parties can offer interest.

The Bank Policy Institute cited a Treasury-attributed estimate of up to $6.6 trillion in deposit outflows under certain assumptions. This is a high-end stress scenario designed for persuasion but reflective of the scale banks now see as plausible.

The global context tightens the clock.

Hong Kong's regulator expects to issue its first stablecoin issuer licenses in March 2026.

The Bank for International Settlements documented three broad global approaches to stablecoin-related yields: complete bans, retail bans with institutional carve-outs, and no explicit prohibition.

The UK is designing a regime in which systemic payment stablecoin issuers hold a portion of their backing assets unremunerated with the central bank, specifically to prevent stablecoins from becoming savings products.

A deal happens, CLARITY advances

If consensus emerges by the end of February, the bill that moves forward will not resemble the clean House-passed version.

A crucial technical detail clarifies what “different format” likely means: the House Digital Asset Market Clarity Act's Section 404 addresses exchange registration with the CFTC, not stablecoin rewards.

The controversial “yield Section 404” language exists in Senate Banking drafts, not the House chassis.

So “different format” almost certainly means a Senate Banking overlay that bolts a stablecoin inducements title onto the House market-structure framework.

Three drafting pathways map to what stakeholders are already signaling.

The most likely compromise is an “activity-based rewards” safe harbor. Senate-side language being discussed publicly centers on banning yield paid solely for holding a payment stablecoin while allowing rewards tied to activity: payments, transactions, loyalty programs, and settlement.

The bill would define “solely for holding” tightly, prohibiting time-based APY marketing while permitting behavioral incentives.

If this version passes, stablecoin rewards become a regulated marketing and product-structure engineering exercise. Expectations are that platforms will shift from “park USDC, earn 4%” to “transact or route payments, earn rebates.”

A second pathway involves a “reserve-at-community-banks” quid pro quo. Reports suggest compromise discussions include requiring stablecoin reserves to be held with community banks.

This is political and industrial policy: turn stablecoins into a new distribution channel for bank balance sheets rather than a substitute for them.

A third option splits retail and institutional treatment. A bill could prohibit retail “yield-like” rewards while allowing institutions to receive fee rebates or settlement incentives, subject to disclosure and capital rules.

This tilts stablecoin growth away from consumer savings substitution and toward B2B settlement, collateral, and treasury operations, which is precisely where banks also want to compete.

Standard Chartered's $500 billion deposit outflow scenario assumes meaningful rewards remain available.

If the deal sharply constrains retail rewards, adoption tilts away from “savings substitute” and toward “payments rail,” lowering outflow risk relative to the high-end bank memos.

No deal, CLARITY dead for 2026

If no consensus emerges by the deadline, two things happen simultaneously.

The first is that legislative momentum stalls. Reuters framed the White House summit as an attempt to unstick a bill already delayed by the bank-crypto clash. Commentary points to the midterm timing and the lack of bipartisan runway as structural risks to passage if this drags on.

Even if everyone stays “pro crypto,” the calendar can kill the package. However, regulatory momentum fragments instead of vanishing.

Even if CLARITY slips, stablecoin rules still move via existing law and implementation. GENIUS implementation questions are part of why “loophole” fights matter. The US ends up with a stablecoin regime but no unified market-structure perimeter.

That means enforcement and agency interpretation fill the gap.

“No CLARITY” doesn't mean “no regulation.” It means more path dependence: case-by-case constraints, uneven state and federal overlays, and product design shaped by enforcement risk rather than statutory clarity.

Stablecoins move faster than the broader token market because they touch banks, deposits, and payments, areas where regulators already have tools.

Tribalism survives even if CLARITY passes

The stablecoin yield fight exposed that “crypto” is not a single lobby but competing profit centers with different optimal rules.

The coalition is business models versus business models, and not “crypto versus banks.” The fault lines now run through the industry itself.

Brogan Law reported that Tether's US operation told Senate Banking members it supports the draft approach restricting yield and distanced itself from Coinbase's decision to take the fight public.

The logic is clear: Coinbase and USDC distribution economics make rewards central to growth, while Tether's dominant offshore footprint makes it less dependent on US retail reward mechanics.

The split matters because it sets expectations for future legislative fights.

Once “stablecoin yield” becomes the gating factor for market structure, it becomes a reusable veto point. Next time Congress tries to legislate DeFi, custody, or taxation, expect firms to defect early if the draft threatens their profit-and-loss statements.

This has permanent effects even if a deal is struck.

Banks now have a template: pair financial stability memos with community-bank “local lending” narratives and force a hard yes-or-no on economic incentives.

Additionally, global competitive framing hardens, as other jurisdictions actively license and structure regimes. Meanwhile, the US indecision becomes part of the story firms tell boards about where to base product lines.

The question that remains open

The stablecoin yield war is a structurally inevitable collision that occurs when payment instruments scale large enough to function as deposit substitutes, routing the risk-free rate to consumers.

Regulators worldwide agree on a principle: payment stablecoins should not resemble savings products. The US tried to thread that needle by banning issuer interest while leaving third-party rewards ambiguous.

That ambiguity is now the battleground. Whether it results in an activity-based compromise, a reserve-placement deal, or a retail-versus-institutional split, the outcome determines not just CLARITY's fate but also the blueprint for every future crypto bill.

The fight clarifies what “crypto-friendly regulation” actually means: not frictionless adoption, but negotiated settlements where someone's business model loses.

The deadline is February 28. What happens next determines whether the US enacts comprehensive digital asset legislation in 2026 or watches stablecoin rules advance while market structure fragments into agency enforcement and jurisdictional patchwork.

The post White House sets February deadline to settle $6.6 trillion fight between Coinbase and banks appeared first on CryptoSlate.

Bitcoin fell sharply to $73,000 on February 3, extending a broader bearish trend that has now erased 41% from its October 2025 all-time high above $126,000. The drawdown has intensified debate over whether the market is approaching a cyclical bottom—or entering a deeper corrective phase.

The sell-off mirrors rising anxiety across traditional markets. US equity indices weakened amid concerns about artificial intelligence-driven disruption and escalating geopolitical risks, prompting investors to rotate away from risk assets. 

In that environment, capital flowed back into traditional safe havens such as gold and silver, while Bitcoin failed to attract defensive demand.

Macro and Geopolitical Stress Push Investors Toward Traditional Havens

Bitcoin’s volatility continues to reflect macro sensitivity rather than isolation from global markets. The latest leg down coincided with renewed tensions between the United States and Iran after an Iranian drone was reportedly shot down near a US aircraft carrier. 

The incident pushed the VIX up roughly 10% and drove the Crypto Fear & Greed Index into “extreme fear” territory.

At the same time, developments in artificial intelligence—including new announcements around Anthropic’s Claude chatbot—sparked renewed concerns about disruption across the tech sector. 

That uncertainty weighed on major technology stocks and further reduced appetite for speculative assets.

While Bitcoin declined, gold rose 6.8% and silver gained 10%, reinforcing their role as preferred hedges during periods of monetary and geopolitical stress.

Speaking to CNN, Gerry O’Shea, Global Head of Market Insights at Hashdex, noted that the divergence between Bitcoin and gold suggests investors still view precious metals as the primary safe haven during periods of uncertainty. 

That shift has weakened Bitcoin’s short-term refuge narrative and added downside pressure.

Analysts Warn of Deeper Drawdowns and a Potential Bull Trap

Market participants remain divided, but several analysts are openly warning that the correction may not be over.

Crypto analyst Benjamin Cowen argued that Bitcoin’s near-term path is critical:

Other analysts are more pessimistic. Nehal, a widely followed trader on X, suggested the current structure resembles a classic bull trap, warning that the move lower may only be halfway complete.

According to Nehal’s historical comparison, Bitcoin’s previous cycles ended with drawdowns of 86% in 2018 and 78% in 2021. 

Applying a similar framework to the current cycle implies a potential 72% decline, which would place Bitcoin near $35,000.

This cyclical perspective remains influential despite structural changes in the market, including ETF adoption and greater institutional participation.

On-Chain Data Signals “Bottom Discovery” Phase

On-chain indicators are adding another layer to the debate. Analyst CryptOpus noted that Bitcoin has entered what he describes as a “bottom discovery” phase for the first time this cycle.

At the 2025 peak, roughly 19.8 million BTC were held in profit. That figure has now dropped to 11.1 million BTC, a 40% reduction in profitable supply.

Historically, similar conditions have marked transitions from corrective phases toward cycle resets. In 2018, Bitcoin remained in this state for roughly eight months before stabilizing.

Key Technical Levels Under Scrutiny

From a technical standpoint, downside risks remain clearly defined. Nic, CEO of Coin Bureau, highlighted that Bitcoin has remained under pressure since breaking below the 50-week moving average in November.

Bitcoin is currently trading near MicroStrategy’s cost basis and close to the April lows around $74,400.

“If we break lower, the next major level is $70,000, just above the previous all-time high of $69,000. A clean break below that opens the door to a bear market target in the $55,700–$58,200 range, between realized price and the 200-week moving average,” Nic warned.

Conflicting Views on Whether a Bottom Is Near

Not all analysts agree with the bearish outlook. Michaël van de Poppe believes Bitcoin may already be nearing the end of its downturn.

Meanwhile, analyst David Battaglia focused on liquidation dynamics, describing current conditions as increasingly irrational.

Battaglia noted that below $85,000, liquidity gaps were significant, meaning panic sellers—whether institutional or whales—likely exited at suboptimal prices. 

He contrasted this with the October 10 crash tied to Binance, which he described as structurally cleaner.

“Between $90,000 and $100,000, there’s massive short density and a 14:1 puts-to-calls imbalance, which under normal conditions already signals a strong bottom,” Battaglia said.

In Summary

Bitcoin’s drop to $73,000 has reignited fears of a deeper correction. Macro uncertainty, geopolitical tension, and mixed on-chain signals leave the market split between expectations of further downside and signs of an emerging bottom. 

The coming weeks will likely determine whether this move represents a temporary pause—or the foundation of a new trend for 2026.

The post Is Bitcoin Price Headed Lower? Analysts Debate a Much Deeper Fall appeared first on BeInCrypto.

Ripple has announced that Ripple Prime, its institutional prime brokerage platform, now supports Hyperliquid, a fast-growing on-chain derivatives venue.

At first glance, the headline looks broadly bullish for Ripple’s ecosystem. But a closer look shows the benefits are unevenly distributed: the deal is structurally positive for Hyperliquid and its HYPE token, while the impact on XRP is limited.

What Ripple Prime actually does

Ripple Prime is not an exchange. It is a prime broker, meaning it acts as a single access point for large trading firms and institutions.

Instead of opening accounts at many exchanges and managing collateral separately, institutions use a prime broker to:

• Trade multiple asset classes through one account
  
• Post one pool of collateral
  
• Centralize risk management and reporting
  

Ripple Prime already connects clients to crypto, FX, fixed income, and derivatives markets. With this update, Hyperliquid becomes one of the execution venues available inside that system.

Meanwhile, Hyperliquid is currently the most popular on-chain derivatives exchange, best known for perpetual futures. Trades settle on-chain using smart contracts, without a centralized exchange holding user funds.

This design works well for crypto-native traders, but it creates friction for institutions. Most funds cannot manage wallets, sign transactions, or interact directly with DeFi protocols.

The Ripple Prime integration solves that problem.

Institutions can now trade on Hyperliquid without touching wallets or smart contracts directly. Ripple Prime sits in the middle, handling collateral, margin, settlement, and risk. Hyperliquid provides the liquidity and on-chain execution.

Why this is Bullish for HYPE, Not XRP

The implications for Hyperliquid are clear. New institutional trading flow becomes possible. 

Also, liquidity can deepen as larger, more stable participants enter. Overall, Hyperliquid gains credibility as an institution-grade venue

Most importantly, Hyperliquid achieves this without changing its protocol or becoming centralized. Ripple Prime acts as an access layer, not an owner or controller.

This strengthens Hyperliquid’s long-term growth narrative, which directly supports HYPE.

By contrast, the link to Ripple’s XRP token is weak.

The integration does not require XRP for trading or margin, nor does it route Hyperliquid activity through the XRP Ledger. So, it does not create mandatory XRP usage

XRP may still be used internally by Ripple Prime for settlement or liquidity management, but that usage is optional, invisible to users, and unlikely to create measurable token demand.

Bottom line

The Ripple–Hyperliquid partnership is best understood as an institutional access deal, not a token-level integration.

It materially improves Hyperliquid’s ability to attract institutional volume, which supports HYPE’s long-term value proposition. For XRP, the impact is indirect at best.

The post Ripple and Hyperliquid Deal Is a Big Win for HYPE, Not So Much for XRP appeared first on BeInCrypto.

Months ago, a prominent crypto analyst outlined a precise window where the Bitcoin price could enter a violent downside phase. At the time, the projection seemed extreme. Now, with price behavior beginning to align with that roadmap, the analyst has released a far more expansive update — one that not only reinforces the crash call but also maps what comes before and after the next major pivot.

Bitcoin Price Multi-Cycle Model Signals A Structural Reset

In the update shared on X, the analyst integrates yearly, monthly, and weekly cycles to define both the potential magnitude of decline and the timing of the next pivot. On the yearly timeframe, Bitcoin sits in what he labels an extreme risk zone ahead of a projected pivot around February 2. The structure is left-translated with distributive price action — a formation linked to late-cycle weakness.

He compares the current setup to a previous harmonic phase where Bitcoin dropped roughly 50% from its all-time high before reaching the same pivot window. That decline produced a rebound of about 40% but failed to reach a new all-time high, suggesting the February pivot may bring relief rather than expansion. He also identifies a macro risk window from April to September 2026.

On the monthly cycle, the analyst marks a decisive pivot around December 22. Historical drawdowns in similar harmonics were 56%, 77%, and 34%, depending on the cycle context. The 77% drop occurred during a bear market, while the 34% retracement formed a mid-bull cycle. Upside rebounds ranged between 140% and 375%, with a later 158% expansion, showing that monthly harmonics often host the sharpest price dislocations.

On the weekly timeframe, a nearer-term pivot appears around November 19. Past pullbacks ranged from 20% to 34%, followed by upside expansions of 99%, 96%, 95%, 127%, and 69%, providing the tactical signals traders may rely on for short-term adjustments within the broader trend.

What’s More: Refined Crash Targets And The Bottom Window

Beyond confirming the original crash call, the analyst refines the downside roadmap by synchronizing all three cycles. When harmonics align, volatility and pivot significance increase. While the full drawdown ranges 20%–77%, he narrows the likely decline to 34%–55% from the all-time high, noting deeper bear-market conditions are not yet confirmed.

The November weekly pivot appears too early for a macro bottom, with higher-timeframe pressure likely pushing the true pivot into January. A late-November dead-cat bounce is possible before further downside. Key levels: $90,000 (~30% drop) for November, $72,000 (~43% below the high) for January, with further support at $45,000 and $28,000 if selling intensifies.

The analyst remains cautious, noting the last comparable yearly harmonic rallied 40% without surpassing the all-time high, with similar limits expected before the May–September 2026 risk window. However, while his four-month-old crash call held, he believes Bitcoin’s path is far from over—investors should prepare for further downside and a multi-stage recovery shaping the next macro cycle.

Crypto sentiment is shifting decisively. While Bitcoin hovers around critical resistance levels, the real capital velocity is moving elsewhere. Seasoned investors are looking beyond simple price action on the majors and focusing on the “Best Altcoins Right Now” narrative—a story increasingly dominated by infrastructure plays rather than speculative meme assets.

The driver here is structural. As institutional capital cements Bitcoin’s role as the digital economy’s pristine collateral, the friction of using the network—think slow block times and prohibitive fees—has become a massive bottleneck. The market is screaming for scalability solutions that don’t sacrifice security.

That matters. Liquidity historically flows from the hardest asset (Bitcoin) to the protocols that unlock its utility. We’re seeing the early innings of a “DeFi on Bitcoin” supercycle, echoing Ethereum’s 2020 expansion but potentially far larger given Bitcoin’s trillion-dollar market cap.

Smart money is currently hunting for projects that bridge the gap between Bitcoin’s security and the high-speed execution needed for modern apps. Data suggests a pivot to modular solutions—architectures that separate settlement from execution. Within this emerging landscape, Bitcoin Hyper has surfaced as a serious contender, using the Solana Virtual Machine (SVM) to bring high-frequency trading capabilities directly to the Bitcoin network.

Bitcoin Hyper Integrates SVM To Solve The Scalability Trilemma

Frankly, the thesis driving Bitcoin Hyper ($HYPER) is simple: technological convergence. For years, developers were stuck choosing between Bitcoin’s security and Solana’s speed. By integrating the Solana Virtual Machine (SVM) as a Layer 2 atop Bitcoin, this project attempts to eliminate that trade-off entirely.

The implications are huge. The SVM is widely considered the most performant execution environment in crypto (capable of thousands of transactions per second with sub-second finality). Bringing this engine to Bitcoin enables order-book exchanges, high-speed gaming dApps, and complex DeFi protocols that were previously impossible on the mainnet due to scripting limitations.

This approach fixes the “programmability gap” that’s left billions in BTC sitting idle. Through a Decentralized Canonical Bridge, users can move assets seamlessly between the secure L1 and the high-speed L2. This utility proposition—high-speed payments in wrapped BTC and Rust-based smart contracts—positions the project as critical infrastructure rather than just another governance token. The market generally assigns higher valuations to protocols that solve fundamental throughput issues, suggesting that Bitcoin Hyper is positioning itself to capture real value from the growing Bitcoin L2 ecosystem.

Explore the Bitcoin Hyper ecosystem.

Whale Activity Spikes As Presale Funding Crosses $31 Million

Tech whitepapers are easy to write. On-chain capital flows? Those are harder to fake. The fundraising data for Bitcoin Hyper indicates substantial early backing. Per the official presale page, the project has already banked $31,228,293.92—a figure that screams institutional interest rather than retail speculation.

Currently priced at $0.0136751, the token is attracting attention from high-net-worth individuals looking to position themselves before the Token Generation Event (TGE). Etherscan records show 2 whale wallets have swept up $116K. The biggest single buy? A $63K clip on Jan 15, 2026. This type of accumulation often precedes wider market recognition, as smart money tends to enter during the “infrastructure build” phase rather than the “public hype” phase.

Then there are the tokenomics. Staking is available immediately after TGE with high APYs, designed to lock up circulating supply while the network matures. Plus, a 7-day vesting period for presale stakers mitigates the risk of immediate post-launch dumping—a mechanism that helps stabilize early price discovery. For investors analyzing the best altcoins right now, the combination of heavy capital accumulation and vesting structures points toward a project built for sustainability, not just a quick flip.

Join the Bitcoin Hyper presale.

Disclaimer This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute financial advice. Cryptocurrencies are volatile; conduct your own due diligence before investing.

Key Takeaways

• Infrastructure Rotation: Capital is shifting from major assets into protocols that solve Bitcoin’s scalability and programmability issues.
• Technological Convergence: Projects merging Bitcoin’s security with high-speed execution environments like the SVM are capturing developer attention.
• Smart Money Signals: Bitcoin Hyper has raised over $31 million, with confirmed whale accumulation indicating strong conviction in the Bitcoin L2 narrative.

Utility Focus: Investors are prioritizing tokens that offer tangible utility, such as high-speed bridging and decentralized finance capabilities.