Need to know what happened in crypto today? Here is the latest news on daily trends and events impacting Bitcoin price, blockchain, DeFi, NFTs, Web3 and crypto regulation.

Ryan Navi will guide Forward Industries’ Solana treasury strategy as digital asset companies’ shares face steep market declines.

Vanguard will open its platform to crypto ETFs and funds, offering more than 50 million clients access to Bitcoin, Ether, XRP, and Solana.

The post Vanguard will open trading access to crypto ETFs and funds starting tomorrow appeared first on Crypto Briefing.

Kalshi launches tokenized event contracts on Solana, enabling regulated, on-chain trading of event outcomes on the blockchain network.

The post Kalshi brings tokenized event contracts to Solana appeared first on Crypto Briefing.

Tesla and SpaceX chief Elon Musk has stoked fresh debate about Bitcoin after a recent social post in which he said the cryptocurrency is “based on energy” and that energy cannot be faked. The comment, posted on X, quickly drew attention from investors and politicians alike.

Musk’s remark landed as markets moved. Bitcoin was down, and trading roughly around $86,500 at the time of the post, and crypto coverage noted a flurry of reactions across social feeds and trading desks. Some market watchers saw the statement as a boost for BTC’s narrative as an inflation hedge.

Musk Frames Bitcoin As ‘Energy Money’

According to Musk, the act of mining ties Bitcoin to physical energy: miners consume electricity to secure the network and mint new coins, which he said makes Bitcoin harder to fake than printed fiat.

In a fresh clip shared from Nikhil Kamath’s interview, Musk makes his stance clear:

Out now @elonmusk pic.twitter.com/dQVLniUgWA

— Nikhil Kamath (@nikhilkamathcio) November 30, 2025

The line of argument presents energy use not as a flaw but as a kind of proof that creates scarcity. Several crypto outlets ran pieces unpacking the idea and how it contrasts with past criticism Musk voiced about mining’s environmental toll.

Market Moves And Political Echoes

Traders and some policy figures reacted quickly. Bitcoin backers posted support, while others urged caution. Meanwhile, separate coverage noted that SpaceX recently moved almost $270 million worth of Bitcoin, a move that traders flagged as potentially market-swaying. Those on both sides of the debate said Musk’s post could influence investor sentiment, at least in the short run.

The core of the claim is simple: you cannot manufacture energy the way a central bank can print more currency. That idea appeals to people worried about rising public spending on tech and AI, which some analysts say could put pressure on fiat money.

But critics point out a gap: energy used to mine Bitcoin does not become a stored reserve like gold. It is consumed. Value, they argue, still relies heavily on trust and demand, not energy alone.

Musk’s comment marks a visible shift from his earlier stance in 2021 when Tesla paused Bitcoin payments over mining energy concerns.

Since then, the mining sector has changed in parts, with more projects claiming use of renewables, while others still depend on fossil fuels. The debate now mixes technical, economic and political threads, making clear answers hard to find.

Featured image from Lovepik, chart from TradingView

Peter Schiff has never hidden his distaste for Bitcoin, but his latest comment on X has added a new twist to his long-running feud with the cryptocurrency. The economist, known globally as one of BTC’s most persistent skeptics, admitted that he made a major mistake when he first encountered it more than a decade ago. 

His mistake, however, was not about failing to buy early or doubting a successful technology. Instead, Schiff insisted that his real error was assuming other people would recognize why Bitcoin wouldn’t work. 

Biggest Mistake Was Trusting People To Understand Bitcoin’s Flaws

In his recent tweet, Schiff stated that he initially believed most people would see Bitcoin the same way he did, as a system destined to fail because it is not backed by anything physical and therefore has no real value. He added that the people foolish enough to buy it then are the same people who will refuse to sell even as the market proves him right.

The comment reinforced the core of Schiff’s philosophy: BTC’s worth, in his view, rests entirely on speculation, not fundamentals. According to him, the cryptocurrency’s design means that it cannot function as a reliable store of wealth, medium of exchange, or unit of account.

The post immediately drew many reactions, most of them from Bitcoin supporters who are of the notion that Schiff’s bitterness comes from missing out when Bitcoin traded for less than $1.

Bitcoin believers argued that his supposed mistake wasn’t intellectual but financial. The counterclaim is that Schiff is frustrated because he ignored Bitcoin when it traded for less than a dollar. One reply from BTC advocate Carl Menger captured the mood perfectly. He wrote that Schiff’s real mistake was failing to buy when he first encountered the asset at $1, adding that Schiff is now “an old salty pal yelling at it.” Other commenters also echoed the sentiment.

A Long History Of Harsh Criticism Against BTC

Schiff’s skepticism is not new. Over the years, he has repeatedly maintained that Bitcoin is nothing more than a digital bubble. He has also insisted that BTC lacks any underlying value because it is not tied to a physical commodity, unlike gold. Despite the introduction of Bitcoin ETFs and its growing institutional presence, he maintains that wider adoption does not change what he calls its “fundamental uselessness.”

Bitcoin’s trajectory tells a very different story from the one painted by critics like Schiff. The cryptocurrency has expanded on a scale few assets in modern history can match, reaching levels of global relevance that go far beyond its early niche. 

Its price may be moving through a period without clear bullish momentum, but it still ranks among the largest assets in the world. In fact, BTC now sits as the 9th biggest asset by market capitalization, ahead of companies such as Meta, Saudi Aramco, and Tesla.

Ripple’s RLUSD stablecoin is rapidly expanding on Ethereum rather than the company’s native XRP Ledger (XRPL).

According to CryptoSlate data, RLUSD’s total circulating supply has surged to $1.26 billion within 12 months of its launch. Of this, roughly $1.03 billion, or 82% of the total supply, resides on Ethereum, while the $235 million balance is on XRPL.

These numbers show that the market seems to favor the deep liquidity and composability of the Ethereum Virtual Machine over the more compliance-focused architecture of the XRPL.

Why RLUSD is growing on Ethereum

The primary driver of this disparity is the maturity of the underlying financial stack.

On Ethereum, RLUSD entered an environment where dollar liquidity is already entrenched. Data from DeFiLlama confirms that Ethereum continues to lead all chains in total value locked (TVL) and stablecoin supply, providing a turnkey ecosystem for new assets.

So, any new stablecoin that can plug into major DeFi protocols like Aave, Curve, and Uniswap immediately benefits from existing routing engines, collateral frameworks, and risk models.

RLUSD’s presence on Aave and Curve confirms this. The USDC/RLUSD pool on Curve now holds approximately $74 million in liquidity, ranking it among the larger stablecoin pools on the platform.

For institutional treasuries, market makers, and arbitrage desks, this depth is non-negotiable. It ensures low-slippage execution for trades in the tens of millions, facilitating basis trades and yield-farming strategies that drive modern crypto capital markets.

On the other hand, the XRPL is still in the nascent stages of building a DeFi foundation. Its protocol-level automated market maker (AMM) went live only in 2024. So all RLUSD-related pools on the ledger, such as the USD/RLUSD pair created in January 2025, still suffer from shallow depth and limited follow-through.

Moreover, the XRPL AMM design has not yet attracted the liquidity provider density seen in EVM ecosystems.

Consequently, a dollar of RLUSD placed on XRPL presently finds far fewer venues for swaps, leverage, or yield than the same dollar deployed on Ethereum.

RLUSD’s growing user base on Ethereum

Critics might argue that RLUSD’s Ethereum supply is merely “vanity metrics,” large sums minted but sitting idle.

However, a deeper analysis of on-chain transfer data refutes this. RLUSD is showing a genuine product-market fit with Ethereum, characterized by high velocity and recurring usage.

According to Token Terminal, weekly RLUSD transfer volume on Ethereum now averages approximately $1.0 billion, a dramatic increase from the $66 million average seen at the start of the year.

The data shows an apparent structural shift of a steady upward trend through the first half of 2025, followed by a “re-basing” to a significantly higher floor in the second half.

Crucially, recent weeks show activity clustering around this elevated level rather than spiking and reverting. In market structure terms, a rising baseline typically signals a transition from a distribution phase to a utility phase.

This implies that the token is being used in ongoing, recurring flows, such as institutional settlement and commercial payments, rather than isolated speculative events.

Transfer counts support this thesis. Weekly transactions on Ethereum now average 7,000, up from 240 in January.

The fact that transfer counts are rising in parallel with volume is a critical health indicator. If volume were rising while counts remained flat, it would suggest a market dominated by a few whales moving massive sums. Instead, the concurrent rise points to broader participation.

Furthermore, the holder data suggest a healthy dispersion of risk. According to data from Etherscan, Ripple’s RLUSD has attracted roughly 6,400 on-chain holders on Ethereum as of late November 2025, up from just 750 at the start of the year.

While the supply growth has been driven by “chunky” batch issuances rather than drip minting, the holder count has followed a smooth upward curve.

The friction between RLUSD and XRPL

The structural divergence between the two networks explains why the “permissionless” growth loop has favored Ethereum.

On Ethereum, RLUSD functions as a standard ERC-20 token. Wallets, custodians, accounting middleware, and DeFi aggregators are already optimized for this standard.

Once a protocol like Curve “wires in” a token, it becomes part of the standard dollar-pair universe alongside USDC and USDT, accessible to any address without prior authorization.

On the other hand, XRPL’s design choices, while technically robust, impose significantly higher friction on the user.

To hold RLUSD on the native ledger, users generally must maintain an XRP balance to satisfy reserve requirements and configure a specific trustline to the issuer. If the issuer enables the `RequireAuth` setting, which is a feature designed for strict compliance and granular control, accounts must be explicitly allow-listed before they can receive tokens.

So, while Ripple notes that these features appeal to banks that require explicit control, they act as a brake on organic adoption.

Essentially, the compliance tools that make XRPL attractive to regulated entities are the same features that slow down wallet-to-wallet distribution.

In a market where capital seeks the path of least resistance, the operational burden of trustlines renders XRPL less competitive for the high-frequency, automated flows that define DeFi.

RLUSD’s path to growth

Despite the ledger imbalance, the overall trajectory of RLUSD puts Ripple within striking distance of a major market tier.

Token Terminal has stated that Ripple would cement itself as the third-largest stablecoin issuer globally, behind only the incumbents Tether and Circle, if RLLUSD’s market cap were to grow 10x from current levels.

Considering this, RLUSD’s growth depends heavily on whether Ripple can leverage its Ethereum success to eventually jumpstart its native chain.

A base-case projection for the next six months sees RLUSD’s Ethereum supply climb from roughly $1.0 billion to a range of $1.4 billion to $1.7 billion. This assumes that Curve liquidity remains in the $60 million to $100 million band and that CEX and OTC demand continues to grow.

Under this path, XRPL would likely see its pools accumulate more liquidity over time but remain a small fraction of the aggregate issuance.

Meanwhile, a more aggressive “catch-up” scenario for XRPL would require deliberate market intervention. If Ripple or its partners commit to multi-month AMM reward programs and successfully mask trustline configurations behind single-click wallet interfaces, the native ledger could begin to erode Ethereum’s lead.

With these levers, XRPL liquidity could plausibly reach $500 million and claim up to 25% of the total supply.

However, the downside risk for the native ledger is real. If Ethereum cements its lead and the Curve USDC/RLUSD pool expands beyond $150 million, the network effects may become insurmountable. In that scenario, Ethereum could retain 80% to 90% of the supply indefinitely.

For now, Ripple finds itself in a paradoxical position: to succeed in its ambition to become a top-tier stablecoin issuer, it must rely on the infrastructure of its biggest rival.

The post RLUSD supply hit $1.26B, and 82% of it now sits on Ethereum, not XRPL appeared first on CryptoSlate.

If you open your brokerage this year and a “Markets” tab seems to be sprouting unfamiliar yes/no questions (“Will the Fed cut rates in March?”, “Will a major ETF get approved this quarter?”), you wouldn’t necessarily be hallucinating. The recent regulatory green-light for Polymarket via a cleared path under its newest acquisition of an exchange and its clearinghouse means those kinds of event-contracts might soon appear inside mainstream trading apps.

Meanwhile, a court in Nevada has tightened the lines around what counts as “financial trading” vs. “gambling,” complicating the view on sports or athlete-based markets.

Prediction markets plug into brokerage

Polymarket’s comeback doesn’t arrive on the strength of hype or speculation alone. Earlier this year, the firm acquired QCX LLC and QC Clearing, entities already licensed under the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC). That maneuver laid a firm regulatory foundation for their bold expansion plans.

In September 2025, the CFTC then issued a no-action letter that provided relief to QCX/QC Clearing under certain recordkeeping and reporting exemptions for event contracts. That relief effectively restored a legal avenue for Polymarket to serve US customers under the traditional exchange and clearing framework.

Finally, in late November 2025, Polymarket received an “Amended Order of Designation,” formally permitting it to operate in the US as a regulated exchange. Under this order, brokerages and futures commission merchants (FCMs) can list and clear Polymarket contracts.

That path is critical, as it launches Polymarket from a niche, quasi-black-market website into the orbit of mainstream finance, meaning familiar apps your friends use for stocks or ETFs could theoretically integrate these event-based bets.

Brokers won’t need to build entirely new infrastructure to enable the well-loved and frequently-used prediction markets we know in crypto; they just tap into existing derivatives clearing and custody rails. It slots into what’s already there for everything from user experience to back-office plumbing. For someone casually checking markets, including portfolio values, yield products, and crypto quotes, a binary prediction contract could soon appear as just another instrument.

Betting or hedging? The fine, fine, fine shifting line

That said, not all event markets travel the same regulatory terrain. Federal approval doesn’t equal universal acceptance. A freshly issued ruling from a judge in Nevada has cast a sharp shadow over sports- or athlete-based prediction contracts, even on platforms run by federally regulated exchanges such as Kalshi.

In a November 2025 decision, US District Judge Andrew Gordon found that sports-outcome contracts are not “swaps” under the federal law that governs derivatives (the “Commodity Exchange Act”). That means they fall outside the CFTC’s regulatory domain, exposing them instead to state gambling laws, even if offered through a CFTC-designated exchange.

One consequence of that is that the Nevada Gaming Control Board (NGCB) has clearly stated that sports event contracts constitute wagering activity under state law, regardless of whether a platform is federally registered.

That disconnect splits prediction markets into two broad classes:
Macro, political, financial-policy bets (rates, CPI, earnings, elections): These retain a good claim to federal oversight and may flow through brokerages generally unimpeded.

Sports, prop bets, athlete outcomes: These run into a patchwork of state gambling regimes. States such as Nevada may block their availability entirely or subject them to licensing requirements that many prediction platforms may not satisfy.

So even as Polymarket readies its relaunch, what appears in your brokerage might depend heavily on your state.

What this means if you trade on your phone

You might soon scroll past “Stocks,” “Crypto,” and “Options,” and find binary yes/no contracts on macroeconomic events (e.g., rate decisions, inflation surprises), earnings beats, or even political outcomes.

These differ from traditional options as payout is all-or-nothing (or fixed fraction), with clearly defined maximum loss (the amount invested), but possibly higher take-rates by the platform.
Liquidity could be thin, especially early on, and price swings may feel jumpier than a well-traded stock or even a popular option.

If you live in a state that deems “sports/event contracts = gambling,” such instruments might be geofenced or blocked entirely. Brokerages and FCM partners may need to implement KYC/AML, suitability checks, and state-level compliance.

The outlook: steady bets, fractured states

What could success look like for Polymarket and other event-contract platforms?

If enough brokerages integrate via QCX/QC Clearing rails, and focus remains on macro, policy, or finance events rather than sports or prop bets, the model might flourish. Election cycles, central-bank decisions, regulatory headlines, and macro inflection points naturally generate demand for binary outcome bets. People want to hedge uncertainty or stake conviction, and binary contracts meet that itch cleanly.

Yet the fractured legal landscape remains a wildcard. Nevada’s ruling may embolden other states to assert even more jurisdiction over sports-outcome contracts. That would force platforms to design around state-by-state restrictions, geofence certain event categories, or build compliance, rather than assume universal access.

Meanwhile, traditional bookmakers and sportsbooks might not cede ground easily. From their perspective, prediction markets represent competitive pressure on sports-betting revenue. A regulatory or legal pushback could win favor with incumbent stakeholders.

For casual users, especially those who log into their brokerage app without much fanfare, event contracts could become a new frontier: a hybrid between market speculation and betting. The financial-market rails offer structure, limits, and clearing. The state-by-state overlay imposes hurdles, especially around sports. What emerges might be a narrow but growing corridor, where macro and political wagers are delivered through familiar apps, while more controversial sports or props stay fringe or blocked.

When you tap “Markets” in your brokerage app and see a binary contract on “Will the central bank raise rates next meeting?,” it might no longer be a fringe novelty. It could be part of an expanding offering that’s shaped by federal rulings, strategic acquisitions, and shifting regulatory boundaries.

The post Prediction markets are coming to your brokerage appeared first on CryptoSlate.

Tokenized gold is gaining momentum as geopolitical uncertainty and rising gold prices weaken trust in fiat-backed assets. Major institutions and sovereign actors are launching or expanding gold-backed tokens. 

This shift suggests tokenized gold may soon move beyond its niche role amd become a credible next-generation, stable, and globally usable digital value.

A Five-Year Flight to Safety

The turbulence of the past few months has reinforced the role of gold as a safe-haven asset. It was only two months ago that the metal’s price hit a record, surpassing $4,000 per ounce. 

This isn’t only a recent phenomenon. Between 2020 and 2025, the price of gold more than doubled, reflecting a wider flight to safety as global markets confronted a pandemic, inflation, wars, sanctions, and persistent geopolitical tensions. 

At the same time, advances in blockchain technology have transformed the use of gold. Tokenization, instant settlement, and 24/7 global liquidity now make a traditionally static asset far more flexible in digital form.

Several developments show how quickly the trend is gaining traction across both crypto and traditional finance.

Institutional Gold Tokens on the Rise

Last month, Swiss metals giant MKS PAMP, one of the world’s largest gold refiners and a major supplier of precious metals to global markets, relaunched DGLD, a gold-backed token designed for institutional investors.

In the crypto space, Tether Gold (XAUt) continues to see steady growth. Pax Gold (PAXG), launched by New York–regulated blockchain firm Paxos, is also expanding. Together, their market caps now exceed $3 billion, making them the most widely used gold-backed digital assets available to the public.

Traditional banking players are also testing the waters. HSBC, one of the largest multinational banks and a major custodian of physical gold through its London vaults, is experimenting with its own gold token for clients.

While these digital gold products are still relatively small compared to the market value of gold exchange-traded funds (ETFs), their expansion signals a growing confidence that blockchain-based gold is becoming a credible financial instrument.

In fact, the movement is not even limited to the private sector. 

In November, Kyrgyzstan launched USDKG, the first gold-backed stablecoin pegged to the US dollar. Backed by the country’s national gold reserves, it offers a sanction-resistant tool for cross-border payments and trade. Kyrgyzstan’s approach could also encourage other, larger nations to follow suit. 

Still, some challenges remain. 

Regulators Stay Wary

Gold-backed tokens still have no clear industry standard, which makes it harder for users to compare their reliability. 

Transparency also varies. Some issuers publish regular third-party audits, while others offer limited details about their vaults or redemption processes. Regulations differ widely across countries, adding another layer of uncertainty for consumers and businesses. 

These gaps explain why many governments remain cautious. 

Officials worry that freely circulating gold-backed assets could weaken confidence in national currencies and complicate monetary policy. They also fear that digital gold could facilitate the movement of money outside traditional banking controls.

Even so, momentum is unmistakable. 

If clearer rules and rising geopolitical pressures push the industry forward, tokenized gold could move from the margins to become a core pillar of stable, globally usable digital money.

The post Could Tokenized Gold Become the Next Standard in Stablecoins? appeared first on BeInCrypto.

Washington state regulators have ordered CoinMe to halt all money-transfer activity after accusing the crypto ATM operator of treating more than $8 million in customer funds as its own revenue. 

The Department of Financial Institutions (DFI) issued an emergency cease-and-desist order on December 1, citing “unsafe and unsound practices.”

Regulator Flags Misuse of Customer Money

DFI said CoinMe failed to safeguard money that consumers paid for crypto vouchers. Instead, the company allegedly counted unclaimed or expired voucher balances as income.

According to the filing, customers bought vouchers at CoinMe kiosks but never redeemed them. Washington law requires companies to hold those funds as consumer property or turn them over as unclaimed assets.

However, DFI says CoinMe treated the balances as corporate revenue. The regulator argues this harmed consumers and distorted the company’s financial condition.

Because of these findings, DFI ordered CoinMe to stop all money-transfer and kiosk-related operations in the state. The company cannot accept new funds from Washington consumers under the order.

Officials also said they will seek restitution for affected customers. The agency signaled plans to revoke CoinMe’s state money-transmitter license.

The cease-and-desist order lists several other violations. These include failing to maintain required net worth, keeping inaccurate records, and submitting incorrect filings.

DFI also noted that some CoinMe vouchers displayed a support phone number that no longer worked. The regulator said this contributed to poor consumer protection.

A Significant Blow to a Major Cash-to-Crypto ATM Network

This action marks one of the most serious state enforcement moves against a US crypto ATM operator. CoinMe operates one of the largest cash-to-crypto networks in the country.

The case highlights growing scrutiny of crypto on-ramps that handle physical cash. Regulators expect these companies to follow the same standards as traditional money-transmitters.

CoinMe can contest the order, but Washington regulators appear prepared to escalate the case. If the state revokes the company’s license, CoinMe will lose the ability to operate any money-transfer service in Washington.

Meanwhile, DFI urged affected customers to prepare claims for potential refunds. The agency’s priority, it said, is protecting consumers who rely on licensed firms to securely handle their money.

The post Washington Shuts Down Crypto ATM that Claimed $8 Million in User Funds as Income appeared first on BeInCrypto.

A sudden drop in XRP balances across major crypto exchanges has led to speculations about how this might affect the cryptocurrency’s price action. The movement was highlighted by analyst Vincent Van Code, who explained that the transfers are not simply a sign of long-term holders scooping up supply. 

Instead, he pointed to the expanding influence of newly launched Spot XRP ETFs, which are now absorbing a significant share of market activity that once took place on retail platforms.

ETF Demand Is Pulling Liquidity Away From Exchanges

Van Code noted that billions of XRP leaving Binance, Upbit, and Kraken are largely flowing into ETF custodial wallets. This changes the way the market reacts to buying and selling pressure because retail exchanges now operate with thinner liquidity. When daily trading volume on those platforms averaged around the multi-billion-dollar range, it required very large orders to create noticeable price movement. 

Now that volume has contracted, even moderate-sized trades can produce sharp intraday swings. The effect is a market environment that is fundamentally supported by ETF buying, yet increasingly sensitive to smaller sell-offs or sudden bids.

Even as exchange liquidity drops, Van Code noted that high-frequency trading firms are preventing price dislocations. These groups have already mastered the arbitrage models used in Bitcoin and Ethereum ETFs, and they have now adapted the same systems for XRP. 

Whenever the ETF price drifts above or below its underlying value, the bots immediately correct the gap, keeping both markets tightly aligned. This mechanism makes sure that XRP still gets purchased during ETF creation events and provides a layer of structural stability, even though retail charts may begin to show more frequent spikes and dips.

What This Means For XRP’s Approach To New Price Highs

In Van Code’s view, the long-term picture for XRP is strengthened by this shift, even though the short-term experience for traders may become more uncomfortable. When XRP enjoyed daily spot volumes in the range of $2 billion to $3 billion on exchanges, you would typically need more than $200 million in concentrated buying or selling to push the price 5% to 10% in either direction. 

Now that on-exchange volume has dropped toward levels below $1 billion a day, the equation looks very different. A sell order or resistance wall of around $15 million can now swing XRP by roughly 12% to 18% within a single hour in these thinner conditions. However, the saving grace is these arbitrage bots. 

According to the analyst, XRP is still on track to reach $5. However, until the price adapts to reduced spot volume on exchanges, traders should be prepared for air pockets up to 20% in price, where relatively modest buy or sell flows can cause outsized moves.

XRP is entering December with a mix of unusual market signals, steady price action, and renewed bullish expectations from analysts and prediction platforms.

Despite the general instability and uncertainty in the crypto market, traders continue to monitor XRP’s behavior above the $2.0 range as new data points shape sentiment.

One-Sided Liquidations Highlight Market Imbalance

Liquidation data from CoinGlass recorded an unusual reading this week after XRP posted $0 in short liquidations during a one-hour window. All losses came from long positions, totaling about $128,000. Such a clean one-sided liquidation profile is rare in active derivatives markets and immediately stood out across the crypto sector.

Other major assets, such as Bitcoin and Ethereum showed typical liquidation activity on both sides. For XRP, the imbalance suggested that leveraged traders were heavily positioned for upside, leaving long holders exposed even to small price movements.

Despite this, XRP’s price has not been immune to the broader market downturn, which saw the total crypto market cap drop by more than 5%. XRP slipped toward the $2.04 area, but analysts note that the $2.00 zone remains a key support level. On the upside, $2.20 continues to act as the immediate resistance level to watch.

Technical Outlook Points to a Potential December Breakout

XRP ended November down more than 17%, mirroring a broad market decline that has seen Bitcoin fall to $86,700 and several altcoins record double-digit losses. This drop came despite positive developments, including strong early inflows into newly approved crypto ETFs and the growth of Ripple USD (RLUSD).

On the charts, XRP continues to trade around the Murrey Math Lines pivot. Analysts highlight a bullish flag pattern forming on the eight-hour timeframe, which is typically a continuation structure that may trigger a breakout. A successful move higher could send the token toward $2.73, the next major resistance.

Prediction markets are split on XRP’s near-term prospects. Kalshi data shows a 69% probability that XRP will end the year with a positive return, reflecting strengthened sentiment after weeks of consolidation. In contrast, Polymarket assigns a 99% chance to XRP reclaiming the ATH by 2026.

Despite the divergence, the community outlook remains firm. Traders point to XRP’s steady range, rising ETF interest, and resilience during volatility as indicators of potential upside. As December unfolds, XRP’s narrow trading band and unusual liquidation patterns are setting the stage for this decisive month.

Cover image from ChatGPT, XRPUSD chart from Tradingview