Crypto political action committee Fairshake spent roughly $130 million during the 2024 US elections to support pro-crypto candidates.

The second meeting between crypto and the banks at the White House over the crypto market structure bill has yet to come to an agreement on stablecoin provisions.

Robinhood's testnet launch could revolutionize financial markets by enabling 24/7 trading and seamless integration of traditional and crypto assets.

The post Robinhood activates testnet for Ethereum layer 2 blockchain appeared first on Crypto Briefing.

Goldman Sachs' diversification into XRP and Solana ETFs signals growing institutional acceptance and potential mainstream integration of altcoins.

The post Goldman Sachs discloses first XRP and Solana ETF holdings valued at $260M appeared first on Crypto Briefing.

As Russia moves to regulate the crypto sector later this year, the European Union (EU) is considering implementing strict sanctions on all digital asset transactions linked to the country to curb sanctions evasion.

EU Seeks Sanctions On Russian Crypto Transactions

On Tuesday, the Financial Times (FT) reported that the European Commission (EC) is evaluating measures to prohibit all crypto transactions with Russia, stepping up its efforts to crack down on the country’s use of digital assets to evade sanctions.

According to documents reviewed by the FT, the Commission has seemingly proposed a broader prohibition “instead of attempting to ban copycat Russian crypto entities spun out of already sanctioned platforms.”

“In order to ensure that sanctions achieve their intended effect [the EU] prohibits to engage with any crypto asset service provider, or to make use of any platform allowing the transfer and exchange of crypto assets that is established in Russia,” explained the internal document outlining the proposed sanctions.

The Commission argued that “any further listing of individual crypto asset service providers … is therefore likely to result in the set-up of new ones to circumvent those listings.”

Notably, the proposal reportedly focuses on preventing the growth of successors to the Russia-linked crypto exchange Garantex. In 2022, the US sanctioned the platform for “operating as the exchange of choice for cybercriminals”.

Moreover, the document is aimed at the payments platform A7, a company reportedly conceived as a mechanism to facilitate cross-border trades due to sanctions imposed after Russia invaded Ukraine, and its connected ruble-pegged stablecoin A7A5, previously used by Garantex to transfer funds to Kyrgyz exchange Grinex.

As reported by Bitcoinist, the EU, UK, and US have adopted restrictive measures against the payment platform. Despite this, recent reports revealed the stablecoin has an aggregate transaction volume of $100 billion.

In addition, the EC suggested adding 20 banks to the list of sanctioned entities and a ban on any digital ruble-related transactions. The Commission also proposed a ban on the export of certain dual-use goods to Kyrgyzstan, claiming that local companies have sold prohibited goods to Russia.

Nonetheless, imposing the measures would require the unanimous support of member states, and three of the bloc’s countries have reportedly expressed doubts, three diplomats briefed on discussions told the FT.

Russia’s Digital Assets Landscape

The potential crackdown comes as Russia continues to develop its upcoming digital assets framework. The CBR recently unveiled its comprehensive regulatory proposals to enable retail and qualified investors to buy digital assets through licensed platforms in the country.

Last month, the Committee on State Building and Legislation at the State Duma also advanced a bill to regulate the seizure of crypto assets in criminal proceedings and reduce the risks associated with the use of digital assets in criminal activities, including money laundering, corruption, and terrorist financing.

Meanwhile, Russia’s largest bank by assets, Sberbank, recently announced that it is preparing to offer crypto-backed loans to corporate clients following strong corporate interest.

The bank affirmed its readiness to work with the Central Bank of Russia (CBR) to develop regulations, and it is finalizing the necessary infrastructure and procedures for potential scaling of crypto-backed lending.

Project 11 CEO Alex Pruden is challenging a CoinShares estimate that only 10,200 bitcoin sit in “genuinely” quantum-vulnerable legacy addresses, arguing instead that roughly 6.9 million BTC could be exposed if cryptographically relevant quantum computers arrive sooner than the market expects.

The dispute, amplified by Castle Island partner Nic Carter, goes to the heart of a debate that has started to spill out of academic circles and into investor-facing research: not whether quantum computing would be catastrophic for today’s signature schemes, but how much Bitcoin is already exposed given how keys are used on-chain and how quickly the ecosystem would need to coordinate a migration.

Why ‘Only 10,000’ Bitcoin Are The Wrong Estimate

Pruden’s core objection to the “only 10k BTC” framing is definitional. In his thread, he argues quantum vulnerability extends well beyond old-style pay-to-public-key (P2PK) outputs and includes “any address that has signed a transaction once (and left residual funds there),” because the public key becomes visible on-chain once a spend is signed. In that model, coins left behind in those UTXOs could be vulnerable to an attacker able to derive a private key from a known public key.

He points to a “constantly updated tracker” run by Project Eleven listing 6,910,186 BTC as quantum-vulnerable, and cites Chaincode Labs’ technical report on post-quantum threats to Bitcoin as a cross-reference.

Pruden also singles out Satoshi Nakamoto’s presumed holdings as a large, dormant target surface. “The entity believed to be Satoshi alone holds 1,096,152 BTC across 21,924 addresses. All vulnerable,” he wrote, framing those coins as exposed under his broader definition.

Carter, responding to coverage circulating around the CoinShares number, said: “re that number of ‘only 10k quantum-vulnerable BTC’ you are seeing reported today… as much as I respect Chris and his work at Coinshares, he’s wrong on this one.”

Pruden situates the Bitcoin debate inside a wider shift among large tech companies and security institutions toward post-quantum planning. He cites a Google blog post by Hartmut Neven and Kent Walker that characterizes post-quantum cryptography as an urgent, systemic transition requiring coordinated action and accelerated adoption.

He also references a Google research result suggesting breaking RSA-2048 may require “~1 million noisy qubits,” lower than earlier estimates, and argues this compresses perceived timelines — even if Bitcoin uses ECDSA rather than RSA. To reinforce the uncertainty, Pruden quotes prominent theoretical computer scientist Scott Aaronson warning against complacency around Shor-vulnerable systems:

“On the other hand, if you think Bitcoin, and SSL, and all the other protocols based on Shor-breakable cryptography, are almost certainly safe for the next 5 years … then I submit that your confidence is also unwarranted. Your confidence might then be like most physicists’ confidence in 1938 that nuclear weapons were decades away, or like my own confidence in 2015 that an AI able to pass a reasonable Turing Test was decades away… The trouble is that sometimes people, y’know, do that.”

Pruden’s conclusion from that framing is less about predicting a date and more about avoiding a planning regime built on “it’ll be slow.”

Pruden argues the CoinShares post underestimates the operational reality of a post-quantum transition for an already-deployed, decentralized system. He highlights the need to migrate “millions of distributed keys,” the lack of a centralized authority, and the fact that asset ownership is enforced purely by digital signatures, with “no fallback.”

He also cites peer-reviewed research claiming “the BTC blockchain would have to shut down for 76 days” to process migration transactions for the existing UTXO set in a best-case scenario — a datapoint meant to stress that even a distant threat can demand near-term engineering and governance work.

Pruden further criticizes what he calls an appeal to authority in citing a hardware-wallet executive as evidence quantum is far away, arguing vendors may have incentives to downplay urgency if quantum-resistant signatures would obsolete existing devices.

At press time, BTC traded at $69,050.

Polymarket traders are pricing the prospect of China legalizing onshore Bitcoin purchases at roughly 5%.

At first glance, the number appears dismissive. Still, it raises the question of whether the Chinese government will explicitly permit citizens to convert renminbi into Bitcoin within mainland China by the end of 2026.

That distinction matters because the regulatory architecture Beijing recently completed points in the opposite direction.

The prediction market asks a binary question: Will the People's Republic of China announce by Dec. 31, 2026, that Chinese citizens can legally buy Bitcoin with yuan within China?

The resolution hinges on the announcement itself, not on implementation. It excludes Hong Kong sandboxes, offshore products, and institutional workarounds. This is a test of onshore banking rails and legal purchase pathways, the exact infrastructure China spent the last year systematically dismantling.

The ban just got stronger

In February 2026, Chinese regulators issued a sweeping joint notice that effectively codified “Ban 2.0.” The document reaffirms that virtual-currency business activity constitutes illegal financial activity and that crypto holds no legal tender status.

However, it extends beyond the September 2021 framework it replaces, explicitly targeting marketing, traffic facilitation, payment clearing, and even the naming or registration of entities that support crypto activity.

The notice singles out stablecoins as a priority enforcement area, banning unauthorized offshore issuance of yuan-pegged stablecoins and framing them as vectors for anti-money laundering gaps, fraud, and unauthorized cross-border fund transfers.

It also introduces a civil deterrent: investing in virtual currencies or related products now violates “public order and good morals,” rendering such transactions legally invalid and imposing personal losses on investors.

This wasn't a campaign memo. It abolished the 2021 notice, establishing itself as the new legal baseline. For anyone wagering on a reversal by year-end, the timeline looks punishing.

Hong Kong as a controlled experiment

Beijing's approach to crypto becomes clearer when viewed through the lens of Hong Kong's role as a regulatory laboratory.

In April 2024, Hong Kong launched Asia's first spot Bitcoin and Ethereum ETFs, explicitly marketed as products for a jurisdiction where mainland trading remains banned.

The city's stablecoin licensing framework took effect in August 2025, though as of early 2026, the Hong Kong Monetary Authority's register showed zero licensed issuers.

The first batch is expected in March 2026, and regulators have signaled it will be “a very small number.”

Even offshore experimentation faces political constraints. The Financial Times reported that Chinese tech giants, including Ant Group and JD.com, suspended plans for a Hong Kong stablecoin after Beijing intervened.

The message: innovation can proceed in controlled environments, but only when it reinforces rather than circumvents central oversight.

This structure allows Beijing to permit the use of contained pilots, such as ETFs, tokenization frameworks, and licensed stablecoins, while maintaining an impermeable barrier to onshore renminbi-to-Bitcoin conversions.

Hong Kong functions as a pressure valve, not a preview of mainland policy.

The tokenization paradox

China's February 2026 regulatory blitz also clarified where digital assets are permitted: in tightly supervised, permissioned tokenization lanes.

On Feb. 6, the China Securities Regulatory Commission tightened oversight for offshore tokenized asset-backed securities tied to onshore assets, requiring enhanced filings, disclosures, and cross-border coordination.

The same day, a notice from the People's Bank of China paired the virtual currency crackdown with language stipulating that tokenized products backed by onshore assets would be subject to strict vetting.

Three days later, Reuters framed the move as establishing a legal pathway for offshore issuance of tokens backed by mainland assets, even as real-world asset issuance domestically remains banned.

The interpretation aligns with Beijing's broader posture: digital finance is acceptable when it's auditable, state-supervised, and routed through approved entities. Unregulated trading is not.

McKinsey forecasts a tokenized asset market capitalization of roughly $2 trillion by 2030, with a bullish case around $4 trillion, excluding “crypto like Bitcoin.”

Beijing can simultaneously be aggressively pro-tokenization and anti-Bitcoin trading, because tokenization aligns with the state's surveillance and control infrastructure.

One data point complicates the tightening narrative: China's Bitcoin mining share rebounded to roughly 14% by October 2025, according to the Hashrate Index, with some industry estimates placing it between 15% and 20% of global mining.

This resurgence occurred despite the mining ban and suggests enforcement gaps at the local level.
But this dynamic reflects compliance drift, not policy reversal. Local tolerance of underground mining doesn't translate into legal clarity at the national level, and Beijing's February 2026 notice makes no accommodation for mining activity.

What 5% odds actually price

Polymarket's current pricing reflects a cluster of low-probability scenarios.

The most plausible path to a “Yes” resolution involves a narrow onshore pilot: a state-supervised platform in a free-trade zone that permits limited renminbi-to-Bitcoin purchases, subject to strict capital caps and know-your-customer controls.

Such a pilot would require explicit licensing pathways, access to banking services, and a shift away from “illegal financial activity.”

Nothing in the current regulatory environment signals movement toward that outcome. The February 2026 framework shifted the Overton window in the opposite direction, treating virtual-currency businesses not as a gray area to be tolerated but as illegal activities to be extinguished.

A secondary scenario, which is indirect Bitcoin exposure via tightly regulated products, might gain traction, such as mainland investors accessing Hong Kong crypto ETFs through approved channels.

However, this wouldn't satisfy Polymarket's resolution criteria, which hinge on a legal onshore renminbi-to-Bitcoin purchase.

Sovereignty lens and signals worth watching

Beijing's hardline posture also aligns with broader anxieties about monetary sovereignty.

In 2025, the Bank for International Settlements noted that more than 99% of stablecoins are denominated in US dollars, raising concerns about stealth dollarization and capital-control evasion, which are precisely the vulnerabilities Chinese regulators cite when justifying crypto restrictions.

For a government that views capital controls as essential to macroeconomic stability, permitting unregulated renminbi-to-Bitcoin conversion would amount to opening a permanent leak in the dam.

The political cost of such a reversal, especially absent a crisis that forces Beijing's hand, looks prohibitively high.

If the odds were to move meaningfully, certain triggers would precede the shift. A formal statement from the State Council or the People's Bank of China establishing a legal pathway for licensed exchanges or brokers to operate domestically would be the clearest signal.

Banking permissions allowing renminbi accounts to settle transactions for crypto platforms would be another. Language shifts in official notices, from “illegal financial activity” to “regulated activity,” would indicate a conceptual reframing.

Free-trade zone announcements explicitly permitting the purchase of renminbi with Bitcoin within designated geographic areas could satisfy Polymarket's resolution criteria without requiring nationwide legalization. None of these signals has appeared.

The regulatory trajectory since late 2025 has been unidirectional: tighter controls, clearer prohibitions, and more explicit civil and criminal deterrents.

The real bet

Polymarket traders aren't pricing whether China will “embrace crypto” or “become blockchain-friendly.” They're pricing in the likelihood that Beijing will reverse a newly reinforced policy framework within a year, permit citizens to convert state currency into an asset the government deems illegal, and do so without any discernible political or economic catalyst.

What Beijing has constructed instead is a bifurcated system: permissioned digital finance under state oversight, and continued prohibition of decentralized trading.

Hong Kong can host experiments. Tokenization can proceed on controlled rails. Stablecoins can gain licenses under strict conditions. But onshore renminbi-to-Bitcoin purchases remain incompatible with the regulatory logic that China spent 2025 and early 2026 hardening into law.

The architecture isn't ambiguous. It's explicit, codified, and expansive. Betting on a reversal by December 2026 isn't just betting against current policy, but betting against the framework China just finished building.

The post China Bitcoin legalization is priced at 5% but Beijing’s February 2026 Ban 2.0 made one detail brutal appeared first on CryptoSlate.

Gold demand reached a record $555 billion in 2025, driven by an 84% surge in investment flows and $89 billion in inflows into physically backed ETFs.

The World Gold Council reports ETF holdings climbed 801 tons to an all-time high of 4,025 tons, with assets under management doubling to $559 billion. US gold ETFs alone absorbed 437 tons, bringing domestic holdings to 2,019 tons, valued at $280 billion.

This indicated institutional repositioning.

Bitcoin, meanwhile, spent the first two months of 2026 shedding holders. US spot Bitcoin ETFs recorded net outflows of over $1.9 billion in January.

As of Feb. 9, spot Bitcoin ETFs globally held 1.41 million BTC valued at $100 billion, roughly 6% of Bitcoin's fixed supply. Yet, the tape suggests capital is moving out, not in.

The gold rally validates the debasement thesis, raising the question of whether Bitcoin captures any of the next wave of flows or whether allocators have already assigned it to a different risk bucket entirely.

What actually changed

Investment demand for gold reached 2,175 tons in 2025, an 84% jump year-over-year.

Using the World Gold Council's average price of roughly $3,431 per ounce, that translates to approximately $240 billion in notional investment demand. This figure is driven by ETF adoption, central bank buying, and concerns about currency stability rather than cyclical growth fears.

China's People's Bank bought gold for a 15th consecutive month, holding 74.19 million ounces valued at $369.6 billion as of January 2026.

The IMF notes global debt remains above 235% of world GDP, a backdrop that makes hard collateral appealing regardless of growth expectations.

Gold's 2025 run, which resulted in 53 all-time highs, wasn't a trade. It was a repricing of the role of strategic reserves amid persistent sovereign deficits and weakening confidence in the stability of fiat currencies.

Bitcoin's proponents argue it serves the same function: a non-liability asset immune to debasement. However, the ETF tape tells a different story.

While gold funds doubled assets under management, Bitcoin ETFs hemorrhaged capital. If allocators viewed the two as substitutes, the flows would track each other. They don't.

Small percentages and big numbers

The hypothetical exercise is important because it quantifies the implications of small reallocations for Bitcoin's marginal bid.

Starting with global gold ETF assets under management of $559 billion, a 0.25% rotation would represent $1.4 billion, or roughly 19,900 BTC, at current prices of approximately $70,212. At 0.5%, doubling yields $2.8 billion and 39,800 BTC.

A full percentage point translates to $5.6 billion, enough to purchase approximately 79,600 BTC, equal to 6.3% of existing US spot ETF holdings or about 177 days of post-halving issuance at 450 BTC per day.

Using 2025 gold ETF inflows of $89 billion as an alternative base, the same exercise yields smaller but still meaningful figures. A 0.25% reallocation amounts to $222 million, or approximately 3,170 BTC, while a 0.5% reallocation amounts to $445 million and 6,340 BTC.

At 1%, the figure rises to $890 million and approximately 12,700 BTC.

A third base is based on the derived $240 billion in gold investment demand from 2025. Quarter-percent, half-percent, and one-percent reallocations translate to $600 million (8,550 BTC), $1.2 billion (17,100 BTC), and $2.4 billion (34,200 BTC), respectively.

These aren't forecasts. They're sensitivity checks. But they clarify the stakes: even a 0.5% allocation of gold ETF assets would represent an order-of-magnitude capital comparable to Bitcoin's worst monthly outflow in recent memory.

The problem is there's no mechanism forcing that rotation, and current behavior suggests allocators treat the two assets as complements in different portfolios rather than substitutes within the same mandate.

Jan. 30 tells you what Bitcoin is

On Jan. 30, gold dropped nearly 10%, its steepest single-day decline since 1983, after Kevin Warsh's nomination as Treasury Secretary triggered concerns about balance sheet tightening and the CME raised margin requirements.

Silver collapsed 27% the same day. Bitcoin fell 2.5% to around $82,300, explicitly tied by Reuters to liquidity fears stemming from the potential for a smaller Federal Reserve balance sheet.

Gold and silver didn't behave like stable insurance. They gapped down amid a hawkish liquidity shock and a wave of leverage unwinds. Bitcoin joined them.

By Feb. 9, gold had recovered to around $5,064 as the dollar weakened and markets repriced for rate cuts. However, the Jan. 30 tape revealed something critical: in 2026, Bitcoin still trades as a liquidity barometer during policy-tightening shocks, not as insurance against fiat debasement.

This distinction matters for the rotation thesis. If the primary catalyst driving capital into gold is sovereignty concerns and debt sustainability, Bitcoin theoretically benefits.

However, if the transmission mechanism involves tighter policy or margin calls, Bitcoin behaves more like risk-on leverage than like collateral.

Street forecasts remain bullish on gold. UBS targets above $6,200 per ounce later in 2026, JPMorgan $6,300, and Deutsche Bank $6,000. But those projections assume gold benefits from both debasement fears and safe-haven demand during stress.

Bitcoin has demonstrated the former but not the latter.

When the debasement trade could favor Bitcoin

The regime that supports Bitcoin is one in which markets expect easier policy, balance sheet expansion, and a weaker dollar. These conditions lift assets that benefit from abundant liquidity.

Reuters commentary explicitly links Bitcoin and gold to balance sheet expansion hedging, and the World Gold Council notes that falling yields, a weakening dollar, safe-haven demand, and momentum supported 2025 ETF inflows.

For Bitcoin to win rather than merely tag along, two conditions must hold: sustained spot ETF inflows rather than reflex bounces, and reduced leverage reflexivity that can amplify sell-offs during liquidity shocks.

Recent months show the opposite. Outflows have been persistent, and Bitcoin's correlation with risk assets remains high during stress.

A clean hypothetical illustrates the stakes: if Bitcoin captured 1% of global gold ETF assets under management in a debasement-driven regime, that would represent roughly $5.6 billion in incremental buying, about 80,000 BTC at $70,000, equal to 6% of current US spot ETF holdings.

That's not a small number. But it requires a catalyst strong enough to shift allocator behavior, not just to align narratives.

What to watch

The dollar and real-rate expectations will drive the next leg. DXY direction, explicit signals about balance sheet policy, and the speed of any Fed rate cuts will determine whether the environment favors hard assets broadly or just those with established safe-haven credibility.

The Jan. 30 shock demonstrated sensitivity to liquidity conditions. A reversal toward easier policy could flip the script.

ETF flows provide the clearest indication of allocator intent. Comparing weekly inflows into gold ETFs with daily flows into US spot Bitcoin ETFs will indicate whether capital treats Bitcoin as an alternative store of value or as a high-beta macro trade.

China's continued gold accumulation, spanning 15 consecutive months of central bank buying, supports its sovereignty bid for hard collateral and sets a baseline for how nation-states are positioning themselves.

Gold forecasts clustering around $6,000 to $6,300 per ounce create a testable scenario: if gold consolidates and then re-accelerates toward those targets, does Bitcoin follow or diverge?

The answer will reveal whether the debasement thesis translates into Bitcoin demand or whether institutional flows remain anchored to traditional hard assets with deeper liquidity and regulatory clarity.

The underlying question

Gold's $555 billion demand year wasn't about traders front-running inflation prints. It concerned central banks, sovereign wealth funds, and institutional allocators repositioning for a world in which debt levels, currency stability, and geopolitical fragmentation matter more than short-term growth cycles.

Bitcoin's case rests on the same macro logic, but its behavior during the Jan. 30 shock and the months of ETF outflows that preceded it suggests allocators still view it as a liquidity-sensitive asset rather than a liability-free reserve.

The rotation math shows what's possible if that perception shifts.

A 1% reallocation from gold ETF assets could move markets. However, possibility isn't probability, and current flows in the opposite direction.

Bitcoin doesn't need gold to fail. It needs a catalyst that convinces the same institutions driving gold's record year that Bitcoin belongs in the strategic collateral bucket, not the speculative beta sleeve. So far, that catalyst hasn't arrived.

The post Why Bitcoin ETFs bleed billions while Gold makes 53 new all-time highs with $559B in demand appeared first on CryptoSlate.

Ethereum (ETH) now trades below the average entry levels of both accumulation addresses and exchange-traded fund (ETF) holders, leaving a significant portion of major holders underwater.

Yet current data points to continued structural commitment rather than broad exit activity, suggesting that capital remains engaged despite the drawdown.

Ethereum’s Decline Pushes Major Buyers Into Unrealized Loss Territory

Ethereum has extended its losses in 2026, shedding more than 30% year-to-date amid a broader crypto market downturn. The second-largest cryptocurrency by market capitalization fell below the $2,000 level last week. Although it briefly recovered that mark, the rebound proved short-lived, and ETH has once again slipped beneath it.

According to BeInCrypto Markets data, Ethereum declined 4.58% over the past 24 hours. At press time, it was trading at $1,971.

The price weakness has pushed many holders underwater. BeInCrypto previously reported that BitMine, the world’s largest Ethereum treasury, saw its unrealized losses swell to $6 billion last week. With the recent drawdown, those paper losses have now climbed to more than $7 billion, according to CryptoQuant data.

Moreover, on-chain data suggests that accumulation cohorts are under strain. In a recent post, a pseudonymous analyst, CW8900, noted that Ethereum has fallen below the realized price of accumulation addresses.

Large-scale whale accumulation began in June 2025. The current market price is now below the average level at which those wallets started building positions.

At the same time, ETF investors are also under increasing pressure. James Seyffart, Senior Research Analyst at Bloomberg Intelligence, highlighted that Ethereum ETF holders are currently in a worse position than their Bitcoin ETF counterparts. 

With ETH hovering below $2,000, the asset trades well below the estimated average ETF cost basis of approximately $3,500. 

“The drawdown went beyond 60% at the most recent bottom, which was roughly equivalent to the % drawdown we saw for ETH in April of 2025,” Seyffart added.

Ethereum Drawdown Tests Investor Conviction

Despite the sharp downturn, investor confidence has not fully eroded. Analyst CW8900 noted that whales have not stepped back from the market and are still adding to their Ethereum positions.

“Their accumulation is proceeding even more aggressive. The current price will likely appear attractive to ETH whales,” the analyst said.

BeInCrypto also reported that Ethereum’s exchange net position change indicator has turned negative. This means more ETH is being withdrawn from exchanges than deposited. Such a pattern is typically associated with accumulation.

Meanwhile, Seyffart emphasized that most ETF investors have remained in place despite the drawdown. Net inflows into Ethereum ETFs have declined from roughly $15 billion to below $12 billion. 

While this represents a sharper relative selloff compared to Bitcoin ETFs, he noted that the majority of ETF holders are still holding their positions.

“This is a much worse selloff than the Bitcoin ETFs on a relative basis but still fairly decent diamond hands in grand scheme (for now),” the analyst remarked.

BitMine further exemplifies this institutional optimism. The firm purchased 40,000 ETH yesterday. Furthermore, Lookonchain reported that it staked another 140,400 ETH. 

This brings its total staked holdings to 2.97 million ETH, valued at $6.01 billion. This accounts for 68.7% of Bitmine’s total ETH, indicating a commitment to long-term network involvement rather than short-term trading.

For now, Ethereum appears to be in a phase of compressed conviction: prices reflect stress, but capital behavior suggests that major participants are choosing to hold and, in some cases, accumulate.

Whether that resilience translates into a durable recovery will likely depend on broader market conditions and Ethereum’s ability to reclaim key technical levels in the weeks ahead.

The post Ethereum’s 30% Slide Puts Big Money in the Red: Here’s What They’re Doing Next appeared first on BeInCrypto.

The United States (US) Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) will release the delayed Nonfarm Payrolls (NFP) data for January on Wednesday at 13:30 GMT.

Volatility around the US Dollar (USD) will likely ramp up on the employment report, with investors looking for fresh insights on the US Federal Reserve’s (Fed) path forward on interest rates.

What to Expect From the Next Nonfarm Payrolls Report?

The BLS reported early last week that it had postponed the release of the official employment report, originally scheduled on Friday, due to the partial government shutdown. After the US House passed a package on Tuesday to end the shutdown, the agency announced that it will release the labor market data on Wednesday, February 11.

Investors expect NFP to rise by 70K following the 50K increase recorded in December. In this period, the Unemployment Rate is expected to remain unchanged at 4.4%, while the annual wage inflation, as measured by the change in the Average Hourly Earnings, is projected to soften to 3.6% from 3.8%.

Previewing the employment report, TD Securities analysts note that they expect job gains to have remained subdued in January, increasing by 45K.

“We look for private to add 40K and government to add 5K. We expect private sector strength to be concentrated in healthcare and construction. We look for the Unemployment Rate to show continued signs of stabilization, remaining at 4.4%. The low-fire, low-hire labor market remains. Average Hourly Earnings likely increased 0.3% m/m and 3.7% y/y,” they add.

How Will the US September Nonfarm Payrolls Affect Eur/USD?

The USD started the month on a firm footing as markets reacted to the nomination of Kevin Warsh, who served as a Fed Governor from 2006 to 2011, as the new chair of the Fed. Meanwhile, the USD also benefited from the heightened volatility surrounding precious metals, especially Silver and Gold, and Stock markets. 

In turn, the USD Index, which gauges the USD’s valuation against a basket of six major currencies, rose 0.5% in the first week of February. Fed Governor Lisa Cook said earlier in the month that she believes the labor market will continue to be supported by last year’s interest rate cuts. 

Cook further noted that the labor market has stabilized and is approximately in balance, adding that policymakers remain highly attentive to the potential for a rapid shift. 

Similarly, Governor Philip Jefferson argued that the job market is likely in balance with a low-hire, low-fire environment. The CME Group FedWatch Tool shows that markets are currently pricing in about a 15% probability of a 25 basis-point (bps) rate cut in March. 

In case the NFP reading disappoints, with a print below 30K, and the Unemployment Rate rises unexpectedly, the USD could come under pressure with the immediate reaction, opening the door to a leg higher in EUR/USD. On the other hand, an NFP figure at or above the market expectation could reaffirm another policy hold next month. 

The market positioning suggests that the USD has some room on the upside in this scenario. Investors will also pay close attention to the wage inflation component of the report. 

If Average Hourly Earnings rise less than expected, the USD could find it difficult to gather strength, even if the headline NFP print arrives near the market forecast.

Danske Bank analysts argue that softer wage growth could negatively impact consumer activity and pave the way for a dovish Fed action.

“The Challenger report showed more job cuts than expected in January and the JOLTs Job Openings came in at 6.5m in December (consensus 7.2m). Hence, the US ratio of job openings to unemployed fell to just 0.87 in December. Such cooling is usually a good predictor for weakening wage growth and may be a concern for the private consumption outlook and, all else equal, supports the case for earlier cuts from the Fed,” they explain.

Eren Sengezer, European Session Lead Analyst at FXStreet, offers a brief technical outlook for EUR/USD:

“The Relative Strength Index (RSI) indicator on the daily chart holds above 50, and EUR/USD fluctuates above the 20-day Simple Moving Average (SMA) after having tested this dynamic support last week, reflecting buyers’ willingness to retain control.” “On the upside, 1.2000 (round level, psychological level) aligns as the next resistance before 1.2080 (January 27 high) and 1.2160 (static level). Looking south, the first key support level could be spotted at 1.1680, where the 100-day SMA is located, before 1.1620-1.1600 (200-day SMA, Fibonacci 23.6% retracement of the January 2025-January 2026 uptrend). A decisive drop below this support region could attract technical sellers and open the door for an extended slide.”

The post Fed Policy in Focus With 70,000 Nonfarm Payrolls Increase Expected appeared first on BeInCrypto.

The founder of CryptoQuant has explained that Bitcoin is not “pumpable” right now based on the divergence in the Market Cap and Realized Cap.

Bitcoin Market Cap Fell Even As Realized Cap Grew

In a new post on X, CryptoQuant founder Ki Young Ju has talked about the difference in growth that the BTC Market Cap and Realized Cap have witnessed over the past year.

The Market Cap here is just the total value of the cryptocurrency’s supply at the current spot price. The Realized Cap is also a model to calculate BTC’s total valuation, but it doesn’t take such a simple approach. This on-chain capitalization model assumes that the ‘real’ value of any coin in circulation is equal to the spot price at which it was last transacted on the blockchain.

In short, what the Realized Cap signifies is the amount that the Bitcoin investors as a whole have put into the cryptocurrency. In contrast, the Market Cap represents the value that they are holding in the present.

Generally, changes in the former, which can be thought of as capital inflows/outflows, result in changes in the latter. Below is a chart that tracks how the Market Cap is reacting to fluctuations in the Realized Cap.

As displayed in the graph, the growth rate difference between the Bitcoin Market Cap and Realized Cap was positive in mid-2025, suggesting that the Market Cap was going up faster than the Realized Cap. This changed in the last quarter of the year, however, with the indicator dropping into the negative zone as the market observed a crash.

2026 has only seen the metric drop deeper as the price decline in the cryptocurrency has continued. “Bitcoin is not pumpable right now,” noted Young Ju. The CryptoQuant founder has pointed out the contrast in market dynamics between 2024 and 2025 to showcase his point.

In 2024, a $10 billion increase in the Realized Cap was enough to cause a $26 billion jump in the Market Cap. Over the course of 2025, a whopping $308 billion in capital flowed into the asset, yet the Market Cap actually fell by $98 billion. “Selling pressure is too heavy for any multiplier effect,” explained the analyst.

In some other news, New Whales on the Bitcoin network have been capitulating recently, as CryptoQuant community analyst Maartunn has pointed out in an X post.

“New Whales” are the investors who entered the market within the past 155 days and are holding more than 1,000 BTC in their balance. During the recent price drawdown, this cohort took massive losses, including a loss-taking spike of $1.46 billion on February 5th.

BTC Price

At the time of writing, Bitcoin is floating around $68,500, down over 12% in the last seven days.

Solana failed to settle above $90 and trimmed some gains. SOL price is now facing hurdles near $88 and might decline again below $82.

• SOL price started a decent recovery wave above $78 and $82 against the US Dollar.
• The price is now trading below $85 and the 100-hourly simple moving average.
• There is a key bearish trend line forming with resistance at $85 on the hourly chart of the SOL/USD pair (data source from Kraken).
• The price could continue to move up if it clears $85 and $90.

Solana Price Faces Resistance

Solana price remained stable and started a decent recovery wave above $72, like Bitcoin and Ethereum. SOL was able to climb above the $80 level.

There was a move above the 50% Fib retracement level of the downward move from the $106 swing high to the $68 low. However, the bears are active near $90. The price is now moving lower below $88. There is also a key bearish trend line forming with resistance at $85 on the hourly chart of the SOL/USD pair.

Solana is now trading below $85 and the 100-hourly simple moving average. On the upside, immediate resistance is near the $85 level and the trend line. The next major resistance is near the $92 level and the 61.8% Fib retracement level of the downward move from the $106 swing high to the $68 low.

The main resistance could be $96. A successful close above the $96 resistance zone could set the pace for another steady increase. The next key resistance is $105. Any more gains might send the price toward the $112 level.

Downside Continuation In SOL?

If SOL fails to rise above the $85 resistance, it could continue to move down. Initial support on the downside is near the $82 zone. The first major support is near the $80 level.

A break below the $80 level might send the price toward the $75 support zone. If there is a close below the $75 support, the price could decline toward the $70 zone in the near term.

Technical Indicators

Hourly MACD – The MACD for SOL/USD is gaining pace in the bearish zone.

Hourly Hours RSI (Relative Strength Index) – The RSI for SOL/USD is below the 50 level.

Major Support Levels – $82 and $75.

Major Resistance Levels – $85 and $92.