Many recent Bitcoin sellers are likely expecting a downturn and may be turning to social media to sway sentiment in that direction, according to an analyst.

Santiment said Bitcoin’s retail-whale divide is a flashing warning sign, while other analysts anticipate new highs on a macro rebound.

DefiLlama has launched LlamaAI, a natural language analytics tool that turns user prompts into onchain insights using its full dataset.

The post DefiLlama launches LlamaAI to bring natural language analysis to onchain data appeared first on Crypto Briefing.

Coinbase roadmap includes Aster, highlighting increased institutional interest in the decentralized perpetuals trading platform.

The post Coinbase adds Aster to listing roadmap appeared first on Crypto Briefing.

Japan’s three largest banking groups have received the greenlight from the FSA for a stablecoin issuance and cross-border payments project.

Mitsubishi UFJ, Mizuho, & Sumitomo Mitsui To Jointly Issue Stablecoins

As announced in a press release by MUFG bank, its banking group, along with two other major financial institutions, has just received approval from Japan’s Financial Services Agency (FSA) on a stablecoins proof-of-concept.

According to the press release, the banks’ project will involve joint stablecoin issuance and advanced cross-border payments, with both set to receive support from the FSA. Digital asset platform Progmat, founded by Mitsubishi UFJ, will provide the infrastructure and technological support for the proof-of-concept. “The three banks considering joint issuance will define requirements and establish evaluation criteria to build a concrete structure,” said MUFG.

A stablecoin is a cryptocurrency that has its price pegged to a fiat currency. Currently, the most popular assets of this type are tied to the US dollar (USD). The three big banks are expected to issue a stablecoin backed by the Japanese yen (JPY).

Last month, Japanese startup JPYC launched the nation’s first yen-based stablecoin, as reported by Bitcoinist. The token, called “JPYC,” is backed by domestic deposits and Japanese government bonds. For now, the company is offering 0% fees on issuance and redemption of JPYC to promote adoption.

MUFG’s press release noted that blockchain-based payments and use of tokenized deposits and stablecoins are being explored both domestically and overseas. So this proof-of-concept from the banks will serve as a testing ground to accumulate practical knowledge related to joint stablecoin issuance.

Elsewhere in Asia, Hong Kong approved its legislature on these fiat-tied tokens earlier this year, and big names like Standard Chartered in its joint venture are on the waiting list for an issuer license.

The first batch of approvals was earlier expected to drop next year, but a recent Financial Times report has revealed that mainland regulators have urged applicants to pause their plans, due to concerns about the growth of currencies controlled by the private sector.

Over in Europe, a consortium of big banks has come together to launch a euro stablecoin in the second half of 2026. Initially, the consortium included nine European banks, but later a tenth financial institution in the American Citigroup joined the effort.

The euro-pegged token, which aims to be fully compliant with the European Union’s Markets in Crypto-Assets Regulation (MiCAR), seeks to provide a real alternative to the USD-heavy stablecoin market.

Bitcoin Price

Bitcoin has been facing bearish pressure recently, which has taken its price to the $100,000 level, down over 8% on the weekly timeframe.

Earlier in the week, Bitcoin saw a recovery surge above $104,000. This rally interestingly occurred alongside notable stablecoin exchange inflows, as pointed out by an analyst in a CryptoQuant Quicktake post. It’s possible that investors made these deposits to convert their stables for BTC and other volatile assets, but considering the latest price trend, the buying pressure didn’t last.

A public research center in Tenerife is preparing to sell a stash of Bitcoin it bought more than a decade ago — a holding that has grown from a modest experiment into a multi-million dollar pot.

Reports say the Institute of Technology and Renewable Energies (ITER), tied to the Tenerife Island Council, purchased 97 BTC in 2012 for about €10,000. The coins are now worth over $10 million at current prices.

Preparing To Liquidate A Long-Held Holding

ITER did not buy the Bitcoin as a bet on prices. According to local reporting, the purchase was part of a project to study blockchain and related systems. Now, after years of rising values, council officials are in talks with a regulated Spanish financial institution to move the assets into cash in line with Bank of Spain and CNMV rules.

The sale process faces hurdles. Banks and brokers often demand detailed compliance paperwork for big crypto transactions. That means the operation will be carried out through official channels rather than on a retail exchange. Some sources note ITER has been trying for years to sort legal and administrative steps around the holdings.

Funds Pledged To Research Projects

Based on reports, the money raised from the sale will be used to fund new research at the institute. ITER plans to put the proceeds toward projects including quantum technology and other scientific work that it says will benefit the island and regional development. Officials have framed the plan as a way to turn an old experiment into a public resource for research.

The numbers are stark. Buying 97 Bitcoin for roughly €10,000 in 2012 and selling them now at market levels would mean a return measured in the thousands of percent. Exact figures will depend on the final sale price and exchange rates used on the day the coins move. Tax and legal costs could also affect the net amount the institute receives.

Council members and ITER representatives have given short statements to local press about the plan, noting that the original purpose was research rather than investment. Reports indicate officials are coordinating with legal and financial advisers to make sure the disposal meets Spanish rules around public funds and asset sales. The aim is to avoid any misstep that might delay the cashing-out.

Featured image from Unsplash, chart from TradingView

The Artificial Superintelligence Alliance, once hailed as crypto’s flagship AI collaboration, is now unraveling under the weight of internal conflict and competing interests.

Formed to unify Fetch.ai, SingularityNET, and Ocean Protocol into a shared ecosystem, the alliance promised to accelerate decentralized AI development through token and governance alignment.

But what began as a vision of synergy has devolved into public disputes over control, transparency, and token management.

Those tensions have now spilled into the courtroom, with Fetch leading a class action that could test not only the alliance’s future but also the very notion of DAO autonomy.

Why is Fetch taking legal action against Ocean Protocol?

Fetch and three token holders have filed a class action in the Southern District of New York alleging Ocean Protocol and its founders misled the community about the autonomy of OceanDAO.

The complaint, “Fetch Compute, Inc., et al. v. Bruce Pon, et al., case no. 1:25-cv-9210,” was filed Nov. 4, 2025, and names Ocean Protocol Foundation Ltd., Ocean Expeditions Ltd., OceanDAO, and Ocean co-founders Bruce Pon, Trent McConaghy, and Christina Pon as defendants.

Plaintiffs claim that Ocean misrepresented that hundreds of millions of OCEAN “community” tokens would be reserved for DAO rewards, but instead converted and sold those tokens after joining the Artificial Superintelligence Alliance, thereby depressing the value of FET and undermining the DAO’s stated governance model.

According to the complaint, the alleged scheme centered on the status of approximately 700 million OCEAN community tokens.

Plaintiffs claim that those tokens were initially pledged for autonomous, rules-based distribution to contributors via smart contracts as Ocean transitioned to a DAO model, but were subsequently reclassified in practice and removed from community control.

The filing argues that Ocean transferred the OceanDAO assets to a Cayman Islands entity, Ocean Expeditions, in late June, converted OCEAN to FET beginning in early July, liquidated a large portion of the resulting FET on centralized venues, and withdrew from the ASI Alliance in October.

K&L Gates partner Ed Dartley, counsel to Fetch.ai and the plaintiff class, said in a statement shared with CryptoSlate that

“Ocean misled the token community and its merger partners… to believe that 600 million Ocean tokens were reserved for community rewards.”

He added that the defendants “reaped millions of dollars that should have gone to the community.”

Ocean Protocol Foundation is contesting the claims. In a statement to CryptoSlate, Preston Byrne, Managing Partner of Byrne & Storm, who represents Ocean Protocol Foundation, said:

“This is a very strange lawsuit that seems designed for consumption on social media rather than destined for success in a courtroom. OPF will be responding to this lawsuit vigorously in due course.”

In a statement shared with CryptoSlate, Dr. Ben Goertzel, CEO of SingularityNET and co-founder of the ASI Alliance, said:

“While I have been very unpleasantly surprised by some of the recent actions of Ocean Protocol in the context of their departure from the ASI Alliance, I would rather leave the legal side in the hands of the lawyers.

I would just like to reiterate that while Ocean has chosen to go their own way, the Alliance continues to move forward powerfully toward decentralized AGI and superintelligence, with new advances every day.”

Plaintiffs detail a timeline that tracks the ASI token merger and Ocean’s eventual departure.

According to the filing, plaintiffs assert claims of fraud, civil conspiracy, violations of New York General Business Law, breach of contract, breach of the implied covenant, and promissory estoppel, and they seek class certification, damages, and equitable relief, including rescission and disgorgement.

The complaint frames the case around whether a purportedly decentralized DAO was, in fact, controlled by a small group that could move community assets without the approval of token holders, and whether Ocean’s public materials, blog posts, and “vision” documents created a binding covenant regarding how community tokens would be used.

They allege that Ocean joined the alliance on the basis that community tokens would remain restricted for rewards, whereas the FET and AGIX communities voted to proceed.

Afterward, the complaint states that Ocean created Ocean Expeditions on June 27, 2025, transferred OceanDAO assets to that entity, began converting OCEAN to FET around July 1, 2025, and later exited the ASI Alliance on October 8–9, 2025.

The filing quantifies the flows as more than 661 million OCEAN converted into approximately 286.46 million FET, followed by sales of roughly 263 million FET into the market, equivalent to more than 10 percent of the circulating supply at the time, resulting in price pressure on FET during and after Ocean’s withdrawal.

For readers tracking the on-chain and structural mechanics, the complaint claims Ocean had previously revoked contract control and described OceanDAO as “fully decentralized and autonomous,” with community tokens to be disbursed by smart contract to participants in data farming and other incentive programs.

Plaintiffs argue that these commitments were central to merger-vote approvals and to token holders’ decisions to hold, convert, or acquire tokens during the ASI transition, and that any undisclosed change in control of the community token wallets would be material to market behavior and governance expectations.

The filing also asserts market structure impacts. Plaintiffs allege that converting and then selling community tokens created a persistent overhang, weakening confidence in DAO governance and impairing the alliance’s ability to attract contributors and sustain incentives.

The complaint cites price levels around the exit window and ties the drawdown to Ocean’s actions and announcements, while noting the scale of the tokens at issue in relation to the float.

The theory of harm combines direct token price effects with a loss of the incentive pool that the community expected to fund data and model contributions over time.

For an at-a-glance view of the dispute as pleaded:

The case lands in a period of mounting regulatory and civil scrutiny for token projects that describe themselves as decentralized while maintaining foundation-controlled multisig structures. U.S. agencies and courts have treated DAOs as unincorporated associations when human controllers are identifiable.

Recent matters have focused on who can authorize treasury moves, how proposals are approved, and whether token holder votes are binding in practice. The SDNY forum adds discovery and motion practice that can probe the gap between technical decentralization claims and operational control, especially where a large “community” allocation is alleged to have been spent, converted, or redirected.

Key next steps to watch are an appearance by defense counsel, any motion to dismiss challenging the contract and consumer protection claims, and requests for preliminary relief tied to control of token holdings referenced in the filing.

Plaintiffs also plead for equitable remedies that could affect custodied balances or on-chain addresses if granted. Any parallel governance changes, signer disclosures, escrow arrangements, or return mechanisms announced by the parties would reshape the live controversy even as the litigation proceeds.

Ocean’s response will determine whether this dispute proceeds directly to motions practice or toward a negotiated framework for handling the tokens at issue.

Plaintiffs have framed the case around DAO accountability and the reliance of token holders on the DAO. The defense has framed it as a social media narrative.

The complaint now presents that conflict before a federal judge in New York.

The post Crypto’s flagship AI project fractures: Fetch sues Ocean over 263M FET ‘community’ sales appeared first on CryptoSlate.

US-traded spot Bitcoin (BTC) exchange-traded funds’ (ETFs) flows turned net positive after nearly a week of redemptions.

According to Farside Investors’ data, US spot Bitcoin ETFs recorded $240 million in net inflows on Nov. 6, following six consecutive sessions that drained more than $660 million from the products.

BlackRock’s IBIT led with $112.4 million, followed by Fidelity’s FBTC at $61.6 million and Ark 21Shares’ ARKB at $60.4 million.

The movement means that the largest marginal buyers in the Bitcoin market just stopped selling and started buying again.

Although one green day doesn’t erase a week of red, in a market where liquidity determines price action more than sentiment, the reversal matters because ETF flows are no longer just demand signals. The funds have become a liquidity infrastructure.

Since launch, US spot ETFs have accumulated over $60.5 billion in net inflows and control roughly $135 billion in assets under management. That represents approximately 6.7% of all Bitcoin in existence, held in products that cater to regulated-access demand.

When those products flip from net redemptions to net creations, they don’t just change the headline, but rather the mechanical pressure on order books.

The arithmetic of absorption

Following the halving, miners issue approximately 450 BTC daily. At current prices of nearly $102,555.06, that translates to over $46 million in new supply entering the market every day.

A single $240 million inflow day absorbs more than five days of global issuance through US ETFs alone. This isn’t metaphorical buying pressure, but a programmatic demand executing through authorized participants who must purchase BTC to create new shares.

When ETF flows turn negative, the process reverses. Authorized participants redeem shares and sell Bitcoin back into the market or into their internal inventories, creating constant and predictable sell pressure at the margin.

When flows flip positive, those same participants buy in size to meet demand for creation.

Because ETFs now control a mid-single-digit percentage of total supply and serve as the primary vehicle for institutional allocation, their net flow has become the cleanest measure of large, trackable marginal liquidity in Bitcoin.

The market structure has changed. Liquidity for BTC no longer primarily resides on Binance’s spot and perpetual futures markets, but also lives in what IBIT, FBTC, and their peers are doing with daily creations and redemptions.

Two conditions, one met

Recent analysis from Glassnode identified two requirements for Bitcoin bulls to regain structural control: consistent positive ETF flows and a reclaim of roughly $112,500, the short-term holder cost basis, as support.

The Nov. 6 inflow satisfies the first condition in miniature. It demonstrates that real TradFi demand still exists at current prices, willing to buy the dip via ETFs rather than abandon the product after a $1.9 billion outflow stretch.

One print doesn’t rewrite the structure. Over the past week, ETFs have remained net negative.

However, the moment those daily bars flip from red to green and stay there, the market turns off a major systematic seller and turns back on a buyer capable of outbidding both new issuance and a portion of long-term holder distribution.

That’s when the “ETF flows plus $112,500 reclaim” combination becomes a credible setup rather than wishful thinking.

Four channels to tighter markets

The liquidity impact operates through multiple channels simultaneously.

First, positive ETF flows pull coins from liquid spot venues into ETF custody, where they remain relatively stable, thereby immediately reducing the tradable float. A thinner spot float combined with steady or rising demand creates more sensitive order books.

Once buyers lean in, transactions occur more quickly and with less volume.

Second, when US ETFs enter net-buy mode, authorized participants sweep liquidity across major exchanges to fulfill creation orders. That tightens spreads at the top of the book, but drains resting asks.

In a market already dealing with lower post-halving issuance and heavy HODL concentrations, ETF bid returns are the kind of structural flow that can fuel an upside break, rather than every rally being absorbed by sellers.

Third, the $135 billion ETF complex adds “paper” liquidity in the form of deep, regulated trading in ETF shares themselves. This makes it easier for pension funds, registered investment advisor platforms, and corporations to allocate or rebalance without affecting spot markets.

When those players turn net buyers, Bitcoin’s effective demand base broadens, and volatility from purely crypto-native leverage gets better absorbed by diversified flow.

Fourth, there’s signal value. After a week where outflows tracked broader risk-off positioning and long-term holders quietly distributed into weakness, a decisive inflow day from the most significant brand-name funds represents an important shift in sentiment.

The inflows indicate that large allocators remain comfortable adding Bitcoin exposure via ETFs at near six-figure prices, which supports the thesis that sub-$100,000 wicks are being treated as opportunities rather than regime breaks.

Snapping a six-day, $660 million outflow streak with $240 million of fresh creations doesn’t end Bitcoin’s correction or guarantee the next leg up. But it does something more important for market structure: it removes mechanical sell pressure from the single largest category of marginal buyers.

For now, the pressure flipped. Whether it stays flipped determines whether Bitcoin’s liquidity environment supports consolidation or another test of support.

The post Bitcoin ETFs break 6-day outflow streak with $240M buy: What it means for liquidity appeared first on CryptoSlate.

After 18 tense days in a Manhattan federal courtroom, the high-profile U.S. v. Peraire-Bueno trial has ended in a mistrial.

Judge Jessica G.L. Clarke declared the outcome late Friday, citing a deadlocked jury unable to reach a unanimous verdict on charges of wire fraud and money laundering. Challenges seen in the case are to some extent similar to what happened between the Department of Justice and Tornado Cash.

$25 Million Trial Tests Whether Code Can Be a Crime

The case centered on two MIT-educated brothers, Benjamin and Noah Peraire-Bueno, accused of orchestrating an exploit on Ethereum’s Maximal Extractable Value (MEV) system.

Ethereum MEV is a core mechanism that determines how transactions are ordered in blocks. Prosecutors alleged the pair executed so-called “sandwich attacks”, manipulating transaction sequencing to siphon roughly $25 million from other traders.

Matthew Russell Lee of the Inner-City Press described the case as one of the most technically complex crypto cases to date, testing the boundaries between algorithmic opportunism and criminal intent.

Reportedly, defense attorneys argued that the brothers leveraged public blockchain code, conduct they claimed was “within the rules of the system.” Prosecutors, however, painted the scheme as a calculated digital heist disguised as clever coding. The mistrial was declared after three days of jury deliberations.

Throughout the trial, jurors struggled to understand how to interpret mens rea, or criminal intent, in the context of decentralized finance (DeFi).

Code vs. Intent — The Legal Grey Area Exposed by the Mistrial

According to courtroom transcripts shared by Lee, defense lawyer Looby argued that “the government didn’t want this description of intent in there,” emphasizing that the accused believed they were acting within the technical framework of Ethereum rather than committing a traditional fraud.

The prosecution countered that the defendants acted with “wrongful purpose,” exploiting a system designed for transparency to deceive and enrich themselves.

Judge Clarke noted that under existing statutes, “there is no requirement that the defendants knew their actions were illegal.”

The mistrial now leaves both regulators and developers with a difficult precedent, or lack thereof. The Peraire-Bueno case could have set a landmark judgment on whether code-based exploits in decentralized networks can be prosecuted under conventional fraud laws.

Instead, it ends with ambiguity. The Department of Justice has not yet announced whether it will seek a retrial. DeFi advocates could call the outcome a victory for open systems and innovation.

To some extent, this case mirrors the challenges seen with the Tornado Cash case. As the case centered on decentralization, it sparked debate on regulating blockchain tied to criminal misuse.

As it initially happened, a US federal appeals court struck down sanctions imposed by the Treasury Department on Tornado Cash. 

The post Mistrial in $25 Million Ethereum ‘Sandwich Bot’ Case Puts Code and Value on Trial appeared first on BeInCrypto.

The Ripple price surged 5% in the past hour to $2.32 after 21Shares filed a key amendment for its proposed spot XRP ETF (exchange-traded fund).

The move triggers a 20-day SEC review period that could automatically clear the fund for trading by late November.

XRP Jumps 5% as SEC Clock Starts on 21Shares ETF

The XRP community clearly received the news with euphoria, seen with a surge in buying activity, which catapulted the Ripple price nearly 5% within the hour.

The filing, officially known as an Amendment No. 3 to Form S-1, was submitted under Section 8(a) of the Securities Act of 1933.

It sets the clock for a potential automatic approval if the US SEC (Securities and Exchange Commission) does not intervene within the window. ETF analyst Eric Balchunas confirmed the move on X (Twitter).  

If the SEC remains silent, the ETF could go live around November 27, as highlighted by market expert, Scott Melker.

“It could automatically go live around November 27 if the SEC does not act!” Melker noted.

Likewise, pro-XRP community member Diana described the update as “a countdown to SEC review,” predicting a big “god candle” within a month.

In technical analysis, a god candle refers to a massive, sudden green candlestick on a price chart that represents an explosive upward move in a very short period.

One such instance where the XRP price recorded a good candle was in July 2023, when Judge Analisa Torres delivered a partial ruling in favor of the Ripple community.

Then, naysayers missed out on gains of up to 70% as the XRP price skyrocketed. Therefore, Diana’s god candle prediction reflects the prospective euphoria.

Institutional Filings Align Around November

The 21Shares development comes just days after Franklin Templeton and Grayscale Investments made parallel adjustments to their own XRP ETF filings. As BeInCrypto reported, the moves signaled growing institutional coordination ahead of what could be a historic month for the approval of the Ripple-affiliated token.

In particular, Franklin Templeton removed regulatory language that could delay approval from its S-1 registration statement, eliminating the same 8(a) clause that once required explicit SEC clearance before launch.

This change, often used to fast-track ETF effectiveness, has been interpreted by analysts as a sign of readiness for a November rollout.

Meanwhile, Grayscale filed its second amendment for its proposed XRP Trust conversion, designating key executives and legal counsel. This is another preparatory step typically seen ahead of launch timelines.

Adding to the momentum, Canary Capital is now targeting a November 13 debut for its own XRP ETF, pending final approval from Nasdaq.

If one or more XRP ETFs go live this month, it would mark the first time the token joins Bitcoin and Ethereum in the spot ETF market. The event could reshape institutional exposure and liquidity flows for XRP.

The post 21Shares XRP ETF Filing Sparks Frenzy — Is a ‘God Candle’ Coming Next? appeared first on BeInCrypto.

XRP community figure Diep Sanh made a tongue-in-cheek prediction about future market behavior, saying investors would be “Shi**ing their pants” if XRP slid from $1,200 to $1,000 sometime around 2070. At the moment, XRP trades at $2.16, down 12% in the last seven days as the wider crypto market struggles.

Investor Reactions Vs. Reality

Based on reports, the drop has stirred panic even though XRP is up over 300% since November last year. That sharp gain is easy to miss when prices fall. History shows how emotionally charged this market can be: XRP hit a $3.31 high in January 2018, then sank below $1 and spent six years between $0.3 and $0.7, with a brief rise to $1.95 in April 2021. The coin later rallied above that zone during November 2024, touching $3.40 before facing resistance.

By 2070, you guys will be shitting your pants when XRP drops from $1,200 to $1,000

— BD (@DiepSanh) November 6, 2025

Market Numbers & Sentiment

Today’s numbers put the recent mood in context. Reports show XRP reached a market cap peak of $215 billion in July but has since given up more than $82 billion, leaving a market cap near $131 billion at press time.

Technical indicators and short-term forecasts point to continued pressure: one prediction expects XRP to fall 0.73% to reach $2.19 by December 7, 2025.

The altcoin’s Fear & Greed Index reads 24, labeled “Extreme Fear”, and XRP recorded 15/30 green days with 6% price volatility over the last 30 days. Traders see the data and react quickly. Some call this a chance to buy; others see it as a warning sign.

Diep Sanh’s quip — that people will be pooping their pants when a $1,200-to-$1,000 move happens in about 45 years — is meant to point out a behavioral pattern, not to set a real price target for 2070.

Still, the numbers he used are eye-catching: a $1,000 valuation from today’s $2.23 would represent a 44,740% gain. That kind of math flips the usual perspective. What looks like a crash from the peak would actually be an extraordinary profit relative to present levels.

Certain analysts contend that the latest pullback could prolong and offer yet another opportunity to accrue XRP below $2 for those who missed the previous rally. Conversely, some warn that those who bought after the surge in November 2024 may currently be sitting on losses.

Based on reports, the outlook remains speculative and tied tightly to trader sentiment rather than any single fundamental shift. Markets move, people react, and the debate over whether this drop is a buying moment or the start of a deeper slide is still up in the air.

Featured image from Pixabay, chart from TradingView

Bitcoin has retraced its recent recovery above $104,000 as data shows the Coinbase Premium Gap has continued to be negative.

Bitcoin’s Coinbase Premium Gap Has Been Red Recently

As pointed out by CryptoQuant community analyst Maartunn in a new post on X, investors on Coinbase keep selling Bitcoin. The indicator of relevance here is the “Coinbase Premium Gap,” which measures the difference between the BTC price listed on Coinbase (USD pair) and that on Binance (USDT pair).

When the value of this metric is positive, it means the asset is trading at a higher rate on Coinbase than Binance. Such a trend suggests the users of the former are applying a higher buying pressure (or lower selling pressure) than those of the latter. On the other hand, the indicator being under the zero mark implies Binance users are the ones participating in a higher amount of accumulation as they have pushed the asset to a higher price on the platform.

Now, here is the chart shared by Maartunn that shows how the Coinbase Premium Gap has fluctuated over the past week:

As displayed in the above graph, the Bitcoin Coinbase Premium Gap has stayed mostly in the negative zone during the past week, implying users on Coinbase have been participating in selling. The metric briefly turned neutral-green as the cryptocurrency witnessed a surge back above $104,000, but since then, the indicator’s value has again plummeted, and with it, the BTC price has erased its recovery.

Since the start of 2024, Bitcoin has often reacted to movements in the Coinbase Premium Gap in a similar manner, showcasing how Coinbase users have been a driving force in the market. The exchange is mainly used by American investors, especially large institutional entities like the spot exchange-traded funds (ETFs), so the Coinbase Premium Gap essentially reflects how the US-based whales differ in behavior from Binance’s global traffic.

Since the indicator has been red recently, it would appear that the American institutions have been distributing the cryptocurrency. Considering the pattern over the last couple of years, it’s possible that BTC’s recovery might depend on whether a bullish sentiment can return among this cohort.

In some other news, a movement of old tokens has just been spotted on the Bitcoin blockchain, as Maartunn has highlighted in another X post.

From the chart, it’s visible that a stack of over 13,000 BTC that has been dormant for between 3 and 5 years has become involved in a transaction, a potential sign that a HODLer may be gearing up for selling.

BTC Price

At the time of writing, Bitcoin is trading around $100,200, down almost 9% over the last week.