Crypto companies and traditional exchanges have been rushing to offer round-the-clock stock and ETF trading using blockchain-based technology.

Bitcoin erased its gains for the month and fell below $88,000 as crypto markets shed $225 billion, with analysts linking the crash to a “sell America” trade and Japanese bond market woes.

The institutionalization of crypto by 2026 could revolutionize financial systems, enhancing liquidity, efficiency, and global settlement.

The post Ripple President Monica Long predicts half of Fortune 500 will adopt crypto strategies this year appeared first on Crypto Briefing.

This partnership signifies a shift in retirement planning, integrating cryptocurrency exposure into traditional financial products, potentially broadening market appeal.

The post BlackRock partners with Delaware Life to bring Bitcoin into fixed index annuities appeared first on Crypto Briefing.

A governance vote that moved this week has left many WLFI holders upset. Some feel they were shut out while a small group pushed the plan through. The divide is loud online and on chain.

Locked Tokens Leave Many Without A Voice

Reports say about 80% of WLFI tokens sold to investors remain locked, which meant most holders could not take part in the vote over the treasury move.

That gap in voting access has become the focus of criticism. People who bought early and still cannot trade their tokens say it is unfair for the project to spend community assets without broad participation.

Social posts and forum threads show growing calls for a clear unlock plan and more transparent rules on governance.

Concentrated Votes From Few Wallets

Data pulled from the vote and coverage indicate that a small number of addresses carried much of the weight in the decision. Reports note the top nine wallets controlled nearly 60% of the voting power, and one large address alone held a significant share.

The governance proposal to use a portion of the unlocked treasury to incentivize USD1 adoption has passed with 77.75% of the vote in favor.

This happened because the community showed up, evaluated the proposal, and made a clear decision about the direction of the WLFI ecosystem.…

— WLFI (@worldlibertyfi) January 4, 2026

At the same time, the official vote tally posted by the project showed the proposal passed with strong support among those who could vote.

According to a public update, around 77.75% of cast votes were in favor. That result has done little to calm critics who point to the locked-token issue as the root cause of the dispute.

The plan approved allows use of a slice of the unlocked WLFI treasury to support USD1, the project’s stablecoin. The proposal language and the project’s governance page say the allocation would not exceed 5% of unlocked treasury holdings.

Supporters argue these incentives and partnerships could help USD1 gain more use and push activity across the network.

Opponents worry about spending before solving token access and governance fairness. Some also point to past price swings after partial unlocks as a reason to slow down spending from the treasury.

Haven’t seen anyone else talk about this yet, so I wanted to bring up an alarming governance vote by World Liberty Fi this month that appears to be the start of a slow extraction of value from WLFI holders by the team:

What you see above appears to be a rigged vote, where the… pic.twitter.com/CGsj7vVUUk

— DeFi^2 (@DefiSquared) January 20, 2026

The controversy has put pressure on the team to respond. Calls for a clear timetable for unlocking the remaining tokens are widespread.

There are also requests for a review of voting rules so that major economic decisions have broader buy-in from holders who are affected by the outcomes.

US President Donald Trump and members of his family have previously been linked to WLFI through investment and advisory roles.

Reports note that their involvement has drawn additional media attention to the project, with some observers questioning whether high-profile ties influence governance decisions and treasury allocations.

Their connection adds another layer of scrutiny as the controversy over locked tokens and concentrated voting continues.

Featured image from Gina Ferazzi/Los Angeles Times, chart from TradingView

On-chain data shows Bitcoin short-term holders have extended their underwater streak, with BTC continuing to trade under their cost basis.

Bitcoin Short-Term Holders Are Still Holding Net Losses

In a new post on X, on-chain analytics firm Glassnode has talked about the latest trend in the Net Unrealized Profit/Loss (NUPL) for Bitcoin short-term holders. This indicator measures, as its name suggests, the net amount of profit or loss that BTC investors as a whole are carrying.

The metric finds the net profit/loss in USD terms, but as capital stored in the cryptocurrency is following an upward trajectory, the absolute value of profits and losses is also ballooning. To normalize across cycles, the indicator compares the net profit/loss against the asset’s market cap.

When the value of the NUPL is positive, it means the BTC investors as a whole are in a state of net unrealized profit relative to the market cap. On the other hand, the metric’s value being under the zero mark suggests the overall network is underwater. In the context of the current topic, the NUPL of a specific part of the blockchain is of interest: short-term holders (STHs). This cohort includes the BTC investors who purchased their coins within the past 155 days.

Now, here is the chart shared by Glassnode that shows the trend in the Bitcoin STH NUPL over the last several years:

As displayed in the above graph, the Bitcoin STH NUPL has been negative recently, indicating that the recent buyers of the asset have been holding a net unrealized loss.

The group first went underwater back in November when the cryptocurrency’s price witnessed its crash. BTC steadied course in December and has seen some recovery in January, but even at the peak of the surge, the STHs couldn’t return to profits.

“A recovery above ~$98K appears to be the minimum threshold required to return this cohort to a net profitable state,” explained the analytics firm. It now remains to be seen whether the unrealized loss streak of the STHs will extend further in the near future or if BTC will reclaim its cost basis.

The NUPL provides information about the profits and losses that Bitcoin investors have yet to capture. Another metric called the Net Realized Profit/Loss covers the profits and losses that BTC holders are “harvesting” through their transactions.

As CryptoQuant head of research, Julio Moreno, has pointed out in an X post, the 30-day value of the Bitcoin Net Realized Profit/Loss has been negative recently, a sign that loss-taking has outweighed profit-taking. This is the first time since October 2023 that loss realization has dominated this timeframe, as the chart below shows.

BTC Price

At the time of writing, Bitcoin is trading around $90,900, down more than 2% over the past week.

NYSE said it is developing a platform for trading and on-chain settlement of tokenized securities, and will seek regulatory approvals for a proposed new NYSE venue powered by that infrastructure.

According to the owners, ICE, the system is designed to support 24/7 operations, instant settlement, orders sized in dollar amounts, and stablecoin-based funding. It combines NYSE’s Pillar matching engine with blockchain-based post-trade systems that have the capability to support multiple chains for settlement and custody.

ICE did not name which blockchains would be used. The company also framed the venue and its features as contingent on regulatory approvals.

The scope ICE described is U.S.-listed equities and ETFs, including fractional share trading. It said tokenized shares could be fungible with traditionally issued securities or natively issued as digital securities.

ICE said tokenized shareholders would retain traditional dividends and governance rights. It also said distribution is intended to follow “non-discriminatory access” for qualified broker-dealers.

The forward-looking market-structure implication sits less in the token wrapper and more in the decision to pair continuous trading with immediate settlement.

Under that design, the binding constraint shifts from matching orders during a session to moving money and collateral across time zones and outside banking hours (inference based on settlement and operating-hour constraints described by regulators and ICE).

U.S. markets only fairly recently completed the move from T+2 to T+1 settlement, effective May 28, 2024, a project the SEC tied to updated rules for clearing agencies and broker-dealers. FINRA has also issued reminders that even a one-day compression requires coordinated changes in trade reporting and post-trade workflows.

Always-on trading raises settlement and funding demands

Pressure for longer trading windows is also building in listed equities, with Nasdaq publicly described as seeking SEC approval for a 23-hour, five-day trading schedule. ICE’s proposal extends the concept by pairing always-available trading with a settlement posture it labeled “instant.”

That approach would require market participants to pre-position cash, credit lines, or eligible on-chain funding at all times (inference grounded in the “instant settlement” and 24/7 features, and the post-trade funding constraints reflected in the T+1 migration).

For broader context on how quickly tokenization is spreading in finance, see CryptoSlate’s coverage of tokenized assets.

ICE made the funding and collateral angle explicit, describing the tokenized securities platform as one component of a broader digital strategy. That strategy also includes preparing clearing infrastructure for 24/7 trading and potential integration of tokenized collateral.

ICE said it is working with banks including BNY and Citi to support tokenized deposits across ICE’s clearinghouses. It said the goal is to help clearing members transfer and manage money outside traditional banking hours, meet margin obligations, and accommodate funding requirements across jurisdictions and time zones.

That framing aligns with DTCC’s push around tokenized collateral. DTCC has described collateral mobility as the “killer app” for institutional blockchain use, according to its announcement of a tokenized real-time collateral management platform.

A near-term data point for how quickly tokenized cash-equivalents can scale sits in tokenized U.S. Treasuries. RWA.xyz displays the total value of $9.33 billion as of press time.

ICE’s emphasis on tokenized deposits and collateral integration creates a path where similar assets become operational inputs for brokerage margin and clearinghouse workflows. That scenario is an inference grounded in ICE’s stated clearing strategy and DTCC’s collateral thesis, including the focus on mobility.

Stablecoins, tokenized deposits, and collateral mobility

For crypto markets, the bridge is the settlement asset and the collateral workflow. ICE explicitly referenced stablecoin-based funding for orders and separately referenced tokenized bank deposits for clearinghouse money movement.

One base-case scenario is a settlement-asset race where stablecoins and bank-issued tokenized deposits compete for acceptance in brokerage and clearing operations. That could push more institutional treasury activity into on-chain rails while keeping the compliance perimeter centered on broker-dealers and clearing members.

A second scenario is collateral mobility spillover, where tokenized collateral becomes a primary tool for intraday and overnight margining in a 24/7 environment. That shift could increase demand for tokenized cash-equivalents such as Treasury tokens that can move in real time under defined eligibility rules.

In that design, the operational question becomes which chains, custody arrangements, and permissioning models satisfy broker-dealer requirements. ICE said only that the post-trade system has the capability to support multiple chains and did not identify any specific network.

A third scenario reaches Bitcoin through cross-asset liquidity. Always-available equities and ETFs, paired with faster settlement expectations, could compress the boundary between “market hours” and “crypto hours,” making funding conditions a more continuous input into BTC positioning (scenario inference anchored to ICE’s 24/7 equities and ETF scope and the mechanics of TradFi access via ETF wrappers).

Farside data shows large daily net flows into U.S. spot Bitcoin ETFs on several early-January sessions, including +$697.2 million on Jan. 5, 2026, +$753.8 million on Jan. 13, 2026, and +$840.6 million on Jan. 14, 2026.

That channel transmits equity-like allocation decisions into BTC exposure, alongside other flow drivers covered in CryptoSlate’s ETF inflows reporting.

Why macro and regulation will shape the rollout

Macro conditions set the incentive gradient for these plumbing changes because collateral efficiency matters more when rate policy and balance-sheet costs shift. The OECD’s baseline projects the federal funds rate will remain unchanged through 2025 and then be lowered to 3.25–3.5% by the end of 2026.

That path can reduce carry costs while leaving institutions focused on liquidity buffers and margin funding as trading windows lengthen (analysis tied to OECD rates and ICE’s 24/7 clearing focus). Under a 24/7 regime with instant settlement as a design goal, margin operations can become more continuous.

That dynamic can pull attention toward programmable cash movement, tokenized deposits, and tokenized collateral as tools for meeting obligations outside bank cutoffs.

For more on one of the key collateral-like building blocks, see CryptoSlate’s deep dive on tokenized Treasuries.

For crypto-native venues, the nearer-term implication is less about NYSE listing tokens and more about whether regulated intermediaries normalize on-chain cash legs for funding and collateral management. That can affect demand for stablecoin liquidity and short-duration tokenized instruments even if the trading venue remains permissioned (scenario inference based on ICE’s stated objectives).

DTCC’s positioning of collateral mobility as an institutional blockchain use case offers a parallel track where post-trade modernization proceeds through constrained implementations rather than open-access markets. That approach can shape where on-chain liquidity forms and which standards become acceptable for settlement and custody.

ICE did not provide a timeline, did not specify eligible stablecoins, and did not identify which chains would be used. The next concrete milestones are likely to center on filings, approval processes, and published eligibility criteria for funding and custody.

NYSE said it will seek regulatory approvals for the platform and the proposed venue.

The post Wall Street’s secret blockchain platform is coming for your dividends and it’s using stablecoins to do it appeared first on CryptoSlate.

Strategy (formerly MicroStrategy) acquired an additional 22,305 Bitcoin for approximately $2.13 billion between Jan. 12 and Jan. 19, continuing an aggressive accumulation campaign that has absorbed 3.38% of the top crypto's total supply.

That works out to 3.55% of the circulating supply of 19.97 million coins.

The purchases were executed at an average price of $95,284 per bitcoin, according to a Jan. 20 8-K filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC).

The latest acquisition brings Strategy’s total Bitcoin holdings to 709,715 BTC, a hoard worth roughly $64 billion. The company’s cost basis for the total stack is approximately $53.92 billion, or an average of $75,979 per bitcoin, implying around $10.5 billion in paper gains at current prices.

How Strategy is funding its Bitcoin purchases

While the headline number highlights the company’s relentless buying, the mechanics behind the purchase reveal a significant shift in how Strategy funds its operations.

These latest acquisitions were funded using proceeds from the firm's at-the-market sales of its Class A common stock (MSTR), its perpetual Stretch preferred stock (STRC), and the Series A Perpetual Strike Preferred Stock (STRK).

According to the SEC filing, the Michael Saylor-led Strategy sold 10,399,650 MSTR shares for approximately $1.8 billion last week. It still has about $8.4 billion worth of shares to fund future BTC purchases.

However, the preferred channel is seeing increased activity.

The filing showed Strategy sold 2,945,371 STRC shares for around $294.3 million (with $3.6 billion shares remaining) and 38,796 STRK shares for $3.4 million (with $20.3 billion shares remaining).

This increased bet shows that the company's attempt to turn its bitcoin treasury strategy into a repeatable “yield SKU” that can sit quietly in brokerage accounts and income portfolios is yielding significant interest.

Notably, this financial engineering has produced four distinct exposure tiers that trade on the Nasdaq exchange. This means investors do not need any BTC know-how to invest, as they can simply buy them through a regular brokerage account.

The product lineup is segmented by risk appetite, offering four distinct ways to play the Strategy trade.

The headline act is the Variable Rate Series A Perpetual Stretch Preferred Stock, or STRC. Marketed explicitly as “short duration high yield credit,” this security currently pays an 11.00% annual dividend in monthly cash installments.

Unlike a standard bond where market forces dictate the yield, STRC is an issuer-managed product. Strategy retains the policy power to adjust the dividend rate to ensure the stock trades near its $100 par value.

Data from STRC.live shows that the firm has accumulated 27,000 BTC from the STRC fundraiser.

Below STRC sits a tiered structure of fixed-rate perpetuals.

For the investor who wants a piece of the equity upside, there is STRK (“Strike”). It pays an 8% annual dividend and is non-cumulative (meaning missed payments are lost forever).

However, it functions as a hybrid, offering convertibility to stock that captures about 40% of the gains if Strategy’s common shares rally.

For the risk-averse income seeker, the company offers STRF (“Strife”). This 10% perpetual preferred cannot be converted to stock, but it sits higher in the capital structure.

It is cumulative, meaning the company must make up any missed dividend payments later. With $1.6 billion remaining in capacity, it represents the most conservative tier.

There is also the STRD (“Stride”) instrument, which matches the 10% yield of STRF but removes the safety net. It is non-cumulative and non-convertible.

If Strategy skips a payment, the investor has no recourse, giving STRD the sharpest risk-reward profile among the fixed-rate options. It has $1.4 billion remaining.

Meanwhile, the company has even opened a European front. Last November, Strategy introduced the Series A Perpetual Stream Preferred (STRE), a euro-denominated security that carries a 10% annual dividend paid quarterly.

This instrument carries sharp teeth regarding non-payment. The dividend is cumulative and increases by 100 basis points per missed period, up to a maximum of 18%.

Institutional investors turn to Strategy's preferred

Strategy's financial engineering product list has successfully courted a demographic that typically shuns crypto: the income tourist.

Data from several institutional filings show that high-income and preferred-focused funds are populating the STRC holders list. The roster includes the Fidelity Capital & Income Fund (FAGIX), Fidelity Advisor Floating Rate High Income (FFRAX), and the Virtus InfraCap U.S. Preferred Stock ETF (PFFA).

Meanwhile, the most striking validation comes from BlackRock. The BlackRock iShares Preferred and Income Securities ETF (PFF) is a massive fund that tracks an index usually dominated by sleepy bank and utility preferreds.

As of Jan. 16, the fund held $14.25 billion in net assets. Inside that conservative portfolio, Strategy’s Bitcoin-linked paper has established a beachhead.

The ETF disclosed a position of approximately $210 million in Strategy’s STRC. It holds another ~$260 million across STRF, STRK, and STRD. In total, BlackRock’s ETF exposure to Strategy preferreds sits at roughly $470 million (or 3.3% of the total fund).

Valentin Kosanovic, a deputy director at Capital B, views this as a watershed moment for digital credit.

According to him:

“This is another clear, factual, unquestionable demonstration of the materialization of the wave of institutionalized legacy BTC-pegged financial products.”

Risks?

The machinery required to sustain these dividends creates a unique set of risks. Strategy is not paying these yields from operating profits in the traditional sense. It is funding them through the capital markets.

The company’s prospectus for STRC states that cash dividends are expected to be funded primarily through additional capital raising, including at-the-market stock offerings.

This creates a circular dependency: Strategy sells securities to buy Bitcoin and then pays dividends on those securities.

Considering this, Michael Fanelli, a partner at RSM US, highlighted several risks associated with this model, including Bitcoin price crashes, the lack of insurance coverage, and the fact that the products are unproven in recessions. He also noted that the perpetual products have no maturity date.

However, Bitcoin analyst Adam Livingston countered that the products are a “mind-bender” for traditional analysts. He argued that “STRC is quietly turning Strategy into a private central bank for the yield-starved world.”

According to him:

“STRC is a coupon-bearing ‘credit rail’ that can absorb fixed-income demand, convert it into BTC at scale, then feed the equity premium that makes the next raise easier, cheaper, and faster. That is a flywheel with a bid inside it.”

The post Strategy just crossed 700k BTC but its “circular” Bitcoin funding loop risks a massive high-yield credit disaster appeared first on CryptoSlate.

Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, a hedge fund veteran who spent decades trading currencies and bonds, has emerged as the Trump administration’s chief crisis manager in global markets—accurately diagnosing Japan’s historic bond selloff while strategically framing the narrative to shield the White House from blame over its aggressive Greenland campaign.

The playbook reveals how the former hedge fund manager is turning Asia’s two largest US allies into very different chess pieces—one to absorb blame, the other to deliver investment.

Hedge Fund Veteran Spots Japan’s “Six-Standard-Deviation Move”

In an interview on January 20, Bessent pointed to extraordinary volatility in Japan’s bond market as the primary driver of global market turmoil.

“I think it’s very difficult to disaggregate the market reaction from what’s going on endogenously in Japan,” Bessent said. “Japan over the past two days has had a six standard deviation move in their bond market. That would be the equivalent of a 50 basis point move in US 10-year.”

The assessment was grounded in reality. Japan’s 40-year government bond yield had surged above 4% for the first time since its introduction in 2007, while 10-year yields hit levels not seen since 1999. The selloff intensified after Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi announced a snap election for February 8 and confirmed plans to suspend Japan’s 8% sales tax on food for two years—fueling investor concerns about Japan’s high 200% debt-to-GDP ratio and rising yields.

Bessent made clear he expected Japanese authorities to act. “I’ve been in touch with my economic counterparts in Japan and I am sure that they will begin saying the things that will calm the market down,” he said.

Tokyo Delivers, Markets Stabilize

Japanese Finance Minister Satsuki Katayama appeared to answer Bessent’s call at the World Economic Forum in Davos on Tuesday.

Katayama pledged that Japan’s debt-to-GDP ratio could be reduced through “wise spending” and “strategic fiscal measures” to boost potential growth. “This will bring about the sustainability of public finances and ensure trust from the markets,” she said.

The market response was immediate. JGB yields retreated across all maturities on January 21, with the 20-year bond seeing the sharpest decline at 12.1 basis points. The 40-year yield eased to 4.15% from its peak above 4.2%.

The sequence validated Bessent’s approach: identify the pressure point, demand verbal intervention, and let Japanese officials do the heavy lifting.

Convenient Timing: Deflecting From Greenland Fallout

Yet Bessent’s framing served a dual purpose. By attributing market volatility to Japan’s bond rout, he effectively deflected attention from the Trump administration’s escalating confrontation with European allies over Greenland.

“I think that the Japan situation—that the market there again had a six standard deviation move—and that that was happening before any of the Greenland news,” Bessent said.

That same week, President Trump had threatened 10% tariffs on eight European countries—Denmark, Norway, Sweden, France, Germany, the United Kingdom, the Netherlands, and Finland—over their opposition to the US acquisition of Greenland. European leaders issued a joint statement condemning the threats, while Danish officials boycotted Davos entirely.

By centering Japan as the source of market stress, Bessent constructed a narrative that insulated Trump’s aggressive diplomacy from immediate market accountability.

Korea: A Study in Contrast

Bessent’s approach to South Korea has been notably different, despite both countries having major investment commitments to the US. Japan agreed to a $550 billion investment deal, larger than Korea’s $350 billion package. Yet Tokyo faces relentless pressure while Seoul receives verbal support.

On January 15, Bessent offered rare backing for the Korean won, which had fallen to near 17-year lows against the dollar. The Treasury Department said Bessent “emphasized that excess volatility in the foreign exchange market is undesirable” and noted the won’s decline “was not in line with Korea’s strong economic fundamentals.”

The won initially responded, strengthening from around 1,477 to 1,462 per dollar in the days following Bessent’s remarks. But the rally proved short-lived—by January 21, the currency had weakened back to 1,478, erasing most of its gains.

The contrast suggests Bessent’s calculus isn’t simply about investment dollars. Japan’s bond market turmoil offered a convenient scapegoat for global volatility, allowing him to deflect from the Greenland controversy. Korea presented no such opportunity—and no such utility.

The Hedge Fund Playbook

Bessent knows Japan. In 2013, while serving as chief investment officer at Soros Fund Management, he made $1.2 billion in three months betting against the Japanese yen. A decade later, he’s deploying that same expertise—not to profit from Tokyo’s pain, but to use it as political cover.

With Japan, he identified a genuine market dislocation and leveraged it as both a policy tool and a political shield. With Korea, he’s providing verbal support to protect a major investment commitment, while with Europe, the administration has chosen direct confrontation.

The approach marks a departure from the traditional Treasury doctrine of avoiding comment on specific exchange rates. Instead, Bessent is running a country-by-country playbook, calibrating pressure and support based on US strategic interests.

Whether this strategy proves sustainable depends on factors beyond Bessent’s control—including whether Japan’s fiscal trajectory actually improves, or whether markets eventually connect Trump’s trade threats to broader financial instability.

For now, the former macro trader has bought the administration time, using Tokyo’s bond crisis as cover while keeping Seoul on side. It’s classic hedge fund risk management: isolate the variables you can control, and find someone else to blame for the rest.

The post How Bessent Played Japan: A Hedge Fund Veteran’s Guide to Deflecting Blame appeared first on BeInCrypto.

Bitcoin has surrendered its 2026 gains, falling approximately 4% in the past 24 hours to around $88,850 as of Wednesday morning Asia time.

The price now sits almost exactly where it closed in 2025, erasing a three-week rally that had briefly pushed the cryptocurrency above $97,000. At the time of writing, the token is attempting to rebound after touching a session low of $87,901.

A Disappointing Year-End for 2025

Bitcoin closed 2025 at approximately $87,000-$88,000, down about 30% from its October all-time high of $126,000 and posting a roughly 6% annual loss. December proved particularly brutal, with the cryptocurrency falling about 22% for its worst monthly performance since December 2018.

The much-anticipated “Santa rally” never materialized. Thin holiday liquidity and a lack of fresh catalysts left the market drifting into the final session of the year. The repeated attempts to reclaim key resistance levels were met with selling pressure.

New Year Rebound: Inflation Relief and Regulatory Hopes

Sentiment shifted dramatically in early 2026. On January 14, the Bureau of Labor Statistics released an inflation report showing prices stabilizing, prompting Bitcoin to surge more than 4% over 24 hours and break above $97,000, levels not seen since mid-November.

Breaking above the $95,000 level, a zone that carries both technical and psychological significance, suggested further upside potential. Optimism around the Clarity Act, which would establish a broad regulatory framework for digital assets, also supported sentiment. However, the Senate postponed its planned markup of the bill to the last week of January, signaling it had not yet secured the necessary votes.

Geopolitical Risk Returns

On January 21, President Donald Trump’s push to acquire Greenland and threats of new tariffs on European allies sent shockwaves through global markets. US benchmark stock indexes sank more than 2%, the VIX touched its highest level since November, and the dollar slid against most major currencies.

Shiyan Cao at hedge fund Winshore Capital told Bloomberg the situation “opened up a tail risk—that people don’t want US assets,” adding that investors must now price in a political risk premium.

The selloff echoed fears from April 2025, when Trump’s sweeping tariff announcement triggered a deep slump in US markets and a massive spike in volatility.

Outlook: Volatility Here to Stay

Bitcoin has now completed a round trip, erasing its year-to-date gains and returning to 2025 closing levels. Additional volatility looms on Wednesday as the Supreme Court hears arguments over Trump’s bid to fire Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook.

A deal may eventually defuse the Greenland tension, but it could take months—leaving markets facing heightened volatility in the interim.

For now, the cryptocurrency appears to be stabilizing above $88,000 as traders assess whether this represents a buying opportunity or the start of a deeper correction.

The post Bitcoin Erases Three-Week Rally, Retreating to Year-End Levels appeared first on BeInCrypto.

XRP price extended losses and traded below $1.950. The price is now consolidating and might decline further if it remains below $2.00.

• XRP price started a fresh decline below the $1.950 zone.
• The price is now trading below $1.9350 and the 100-hourly Simple Moving Average.
• There is a bearish trend line forming with resistance at $2.00 on the hourly chart of the XRP/USD pair (data source from Kraken).
• The pair could continue to move down if it stays below $2.00.

XRP Price Dips Sharply

XRP price failed to stay above $2.050 and started a fresh decline, like Bitcoin and Ethereum. The price declined below $2.00 and $1.950 to enter a short-term bearish zone.

The price even spiked below $1.880. A low was formed at $1.8681, and the price is now consolidating losses. There was a recovery wave above $1.90. The price even tested the 23.6% Fib retracement level of the downward move from the $2.028 swing high to the $1.8681 low, but the bears remained active.

The price is now trading below $1.920 and the 100-hourly Simple Moving Average. If there is a fresh upward move, the price might face resistance near the $1.950 level and the 50% Fib retracement level of the downward move from the $2.028 swing high to the $1.8681 low.

The first major resistance is near the $2.00 level and the trend line. A close above $2.00 could send the price to $2.050. The next hurdle sits at $2.10. A clear move above the $2.10 resistance might send the price toward the $2.120 resistance. Any more gains might send the price toward the $2.150 resistance. The next major hurdle for the bulls might be near $2.20.

More Losses?

If XRP fails to clear the $1.95 resistance zone, it could start a fresh decline. Initial support on the downside is near the $1.880 level. The next major support is near the $1.850 level.

If there is a downside break and a close below the $1.850 level, the price might continue to decline toward $1.820. The next major support sits near the $1.80 zone, below which the price could continue lower toward $1.7650.

Technical Indicators

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

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

Major Support Levels – $1.880 and $1.850.

Major Resistance Levels – $1.950 and $2.00.

After a tumultuous conclusion to 2025, characterized by heightened volatility and the impactful October 10 crypto crash, Hyperliquid (HYPE), one of the market’s largest decentralized exchanges (DEXs), faced significant challenges as it entered 2026. 

With less than two weeks remaining in January, market research firm GLC released an interesting report assessing Hyperliquid’s current standing and evaluating its recovery metrics.

Post-October 10 Downturn

The report highlights that Hyperliquid’s trading volume and open interest suffered a considerable decline following the liquidation event on October 10, marking the onset of a downtrend for the platform. 

Since that date, trading volume has decreased by 44.3%, dropping from $10.17 billion to $5.66 billion. Open interest has also experienced a decline of 35.7%, falling from $14.75 billion to $9.48 billion. 

However, there are signs of recovery. Notably, since December 1, 2025, trading volume on the platform has seen a slight decrease of 3.2%, while open interest has surged by 45.6%.

Year-to-date metrics reveal a more optimistic picture: trading volume has increased by 59.2%, rising from $3.56 billion to $5.66 billion, and open interest has grown by 24.7%, going from $7.60 billion to $9.48 billion. 

While open interest has started to recover since the October event, trading volume has not rebounded at the same rate. This disparity has caused the volume-to-open interest (OI) ratio to decline from 0.90 on December 1 to 0.60 as of mid-January, likely due to decreased market volatility, which has dampened trading activity.

Despite these challenges, there is a positive trend indicating that traders are beginning to open larger positions on Hyperliquid, and the recovery in volume on a year-to-date basis is promising. 

The report suggests that open interest is a more reliable indicator of trader confidence and long-term positioning, while trading volume tends to be influenced by broader market conditions. Although current metrics remain below pre-October 10 levels, the trend indicates that recovery is underway.

Will 2026 Mark A Surprising Resurgence For Hyperliquid?

The recent volume and open interest data are said to be bullish, with the 7-day average volume increasing by over 130% year-to-date, primarily driven by one active deployer, XYZ, which accounts for roughly 80% of that volume. The 7-day average open interest has also risen by more than 60%.

Moreover, Hyperliquid is regaining market share from centralized exchanges (CEXs) as seen in the chart below, with its open interest currently representing about 14.6% of Binance’s, gaining momentum against platforms like Bybit and OKX.

Another key factor that could further contribute to the platform’s recovery this year is the rollout of portfolio margin. Currently live on testnet, this feature will enable traders to borrow and lend against their collateral, unlocking numerous new use cases. 

Historical evidence from other exchanges, such as Bybit, suggests that introducing portfolio margin can be a significant growth catalyst, potentially translating to a substantial increase in trading volume for Hyperliquid.

Overall, core metrics are gradually improving, and several catalysts lie ahead, such as the growing adoption of equity perpetuals and the introduction of portfolio margin. GLC’s report asserts: 

…If improving market conditions are combined with the catalysts outlined above, and potentially another S3 season bringing in new traders, Hyperliquid will surprise the market once again.

At the time of writing, the platform’s HYPE token is trading at around $21.84. This represents a significant 9% retracement within the last 24 hours alone, placing the altcoin 63% below its all-time high of $59.30.

Featured image from OpenArt, chart from TradingView.com