BTC — Short-term (3–5 months): BTC at $66,646 (+1.91%) did the thing yesterday’s edition said would convert a tag into a breakout: it went through $65,000 and kept going, passing $66,000 to a one-month high on a range-breakout attempt #1 and then closing in on $67,000 #2 — a seven-week high #3. The wall is behind it. That resets the map: $65K flips from ceiling to the floor the breakout has to defend, and a daily close back below it would mark the move a failed break rather than a trend change. The next real overhead sits at $70K. $62K remains the level whose loss confirms a lower low, but it is now two full support shelves away rather than one.
BTC — Long-term (1–3 years): The multi-year case is arithmetic, not momentum. Twenty-one million coins is the entire supply that will ever exist, issuance halves on a fixed schedule, and the float available on exchanges keeps thinning as coins move into custody and corporate treasuries that have shown no appetite for selling. Buying at $66.6K is buying verifiable scarcity from a market whose sentiment gauge is reading Extreme Fear — a combination that has historically been the uncomfortable half of the cycle rather than the expensive half. A regional war and a tariff schedule set this quarter’s number; neither changes the supply curve.
ETH — Short-term: ETH at $1,931.57 (+1.99%) matched Bitcoin’s move and pushed further above the $1,900 line it reclaimed yesterday, extending the repair off the $1,800 weekly-close shelf. That shelf is still the whole test — a weekly close holding above $1,800 is what keeps the death-cross repair alive, and nothing this session changed that. What has changed is the character of the bid: ETH is now leading on days when the treasury buyers who carried it are stepping back, which means the demand is coming from somewhere broader than one balance sheet.
ETH — Long-term: Ethereum is where regulated finance actually puts tokenized assets when it moves them on-chain — stablecoin float, tokenized funds, staking collateral. That demand compounds on usage rather than on price, and it accrues whether the token is at $1,900 or $4,000. At current levels you are paying for the settlement layer in the lower third of its multi-year range while the plumbing keeps getting laid underneath it. Over a multi-year horizon, the usage curve is what has set direction.
ADA — Short-term: ADA at $0.1749 (+4.86%) was the strongest major on the board, and for once the catalyst is not speculative — Cardano’s Van Rossem hard fork went live as the first upgrade in the network’s history activated by community vote rather than by a company #4. Yesterday’s question was whether the fork would convert into anything. The price answered on day one. The harder question is day thirty: Cardano upgrade pops have a documented habit of fading inside 48 hours because the market prices ADA on throughput, not governance milestones. Watch whether transaction counts and fee revenue hold the gain after the headline clears.
ADA — Long-term: Over a multi-year horizon ADA is a wager on a gap closing between what the network processes and what its roughly $6.5 billion market cap implies. Run the numbers yourself — daily transactions, fee revenue, stablecoin float, active addresses — and set them against the cap. Then decide whether the market is pricing years of execution risk or simply not watching. Van Rossem is the sort of event that could start narrowing that gap, but the narrowing has to show up in on-chain data, not in a fork announcement. Size accordingly.
SOL / BNB / XRP: The tail split. XRP at $1.15 (+3.99%) ran hard, with traders watching a triangle breakout toward $1.35 #5. But SOL at $78.12 (+0.72%) and BNB at $574.98 (+0.24%) barely moved while BTC added nearly 2%. That is a narrow breakout, not a broad one — the money went into Bitcoin, XRP and a fork story, and left the rest of the high-beta complex alone. Narrow leadership is how breakouts start; it is also how they stall.
A regulatory headline did what a month of price action couldn’t. The proximate cause of the break is legislative, not technical. Odds on the Clarity Act passing in 2026 jumped roughly eleven points to 43% on Polymarket after unverified reports that Trump agreed to an ethics deal #6 — the sticking point that had stalled the bill. Crypto markets rallied on the Clarity progress report alongside an Asian chip-stock rebound #7. Note what that means: the asset broke a month-long ceiling on a probability estimate moving from 32% to 43%, sourced to reports nobody has verified. Ask who is pushing and why — this is a market that has been starved of a bullish catalyst long enough to buy an unconfirmed one.
The war got worse and everyone ignored it. This is the part that should make you uncomfortable. The United States launched fresh strikes on Iran while Trump warned of retaliation for dead American soldiers, and Iran said it hit two ships in the Strait of Hormuz plus targets in Bahrain and Jordan #8. Yesterday’s ten-day ceasefire proposal, the one that vented $3 off the barrel, is functionally dead. Saudi Arabia condemned a Houthi naval blockade threatening oil flows to its importers #9, and ASEAN diplomats voiced “serious concern” over the energy crisis caused by the Hormuz closure #10. Brent went back to $91.60 (+2.67%). Equities and crypto rallied straight through all of it.
And the tariff clock is running. Trump imposed 50% tariffs on Canada #11, and the US Trade Representative signalled fresh duties on some 60 trading partners as the existing temporary tariffs expire Friday #12. A 50% duty on the second-largest US trading partner and a 60-country tariff reset three days out is an inflation input, and the bond market is already pricing it — ten-year Treasury yields are up 60 basis points since the Iran war began #13. Equities are trading the chip rebound; the bond market is trading the war and the tariffs. Those two are not reconcilable indefinitely.
Fear collapsed while price broke out. Here is the session’s real anomaly. On a day the whole board went green and BTC hit a seven-week high, the Fear & Greed Index fell from 29 to 25 — out of Fear and into Extreme Fear #14. Yesterday sentiment refused to follow price up. Today it went the other way entirely. A breakout that drives the crowd deeper into fear is a breakout nobody is positioned for — which is either the most bullish configuration available, because there is no crowd left to sell, or a signal that the people who watch this market closely think the rally is borrowing against a war and a tariff deadline it hasn’t priced. Both readings are live. Gold at $4,079.60 (+1.73%) suggests at least some money is taking the second one seriously.
The flow story finally turned. Bitcoin ETFs have now posted two consecutive weeks of inflows, ending the worst sustained outflow streak in the products’ history #15. That is the single most durable bullish data point in this window — more durable than a Polymarket line, because it is settled money rather than a probability. The caveat in the same reporting is worth keeping: two green weeks against a multi-month outflow streak is a stabilisation, not a reversal. The rally also had broad-based support from institutions, whales and options traders #16 — which is what distinguishes a break through a defended level from a wick at it.
The counterweight is the treasury complex coming apart. Tether’s three-way Bitcoin merger collapsed, Strike walked, and Jack Mallers stepped down as CEO of Twenty One Capital — XXI shares fell nearly 18% #17. Read the divergence carefully: Bitcoin closed near a seven-week high on the same day one of the loudest corporate Bitcoin vehicles lost its founder and its merger. The coin and the companies built to hold the coin are decoupling — and the equity wrapper is the side that broke. Meanwhile the packaging business keeps expanding regardless, with CoinShares listing a Bitcoin mining UCITS ETF on Deutsche Börse Xetra #18.
On flow mechanics: when a level that held for a month breaks in a single session, the size that broke it did not clear on the exchange feed you were watching. Blocks that move a defended line route through OTC desks and dark venues and print later, if at all. The visible green candle is the echo. If you are trying to judge whether $65K holds as support, watch whether the ETF inflows continue next week — that is the flow you can actually verify.
$65K is now support, and that is the whole test. The month-long ceiling has become the floor. A daily close back below $65K marks this a failed break and puts $62K back in play; holding it opens the run toward $70K. Everything else in this edition is context for that one line.
The Clarity Act headline is unverified. The break was catalysed by reports of a Trump ethics deal that nobody has confirmed, moving a prediction-market line to 43% — still under even odds. If the reports are denied or the bill stalls again, the catalyst evaporates and the breakout has to survive on flow alone. This is crypto as a policy-risk asset: the legislative window is narrower than the price action implies, and it does not stay open past this Congress.
Friday’s tariff expiry is the near-term macro event. Duties on roughly 60 trading partners reset in three days, on top of a fresh 50% on Canada. A risk asset that ignored an escalating war can ignore a tariff headline too — right up until the bond market forces the issue, and yields are already 60bp higher since the war started.
Retire the volmageddon and Brandt flags — with one note. Both were flagged yesterday as vol-shock warnings under a rejected ceiling. The ceiling broke instead, and the shock resolved upward. Neither signal fired in the direction advertised; both are closed here rather than carried forward.
The invalidation levels. $65K is BTC’s new floor and a daily close below it invalidates the break; $62K confirms a lower low; $1,800 remains ETH’s weekly-close shelf. And watch the fear gauge — if Extreme Fear persists into a second week of higher prices, the divergence itself becomes the story.
The setup is a genuine breakout through a level that rejected price for a month, on a legislative headline nobody has confirmed, into a war that escalated the same day and a tariff deadline three days out — with the crowd more frightened than it was yesterday. That is a market worth owning and not worth chasing.
Hold actual coins. Not ETF shares, not equity proxies.
This is how I’d think about it. Make your own call.
Asset Price 24h
──────────────────────────────────────
Bitcoin (BTC) $66,646 +1.91%
Ethereum (ETH) $1,931.57 +1.99%
Cardano (ADA) $0.1749 +4.86%
Solana (SOL) $78.12 +0.72%
BNB $574.98 +0.24%
XRP $1.15 +3.99%
Fear & Greed: 25 — Extreme Fear (was 29 yesterday)
S&P 500: +0.66% · Nasdaq: +1.30% · DXY: 101.14 (+0.15%) · Gold: $4,080 (+1.73%) · Brent: $91.60 (+2.67%)
Chain of Thought is a daily crypto and macro market digest. Not financial advice.
The Wall Broke and the Fear Got Worse was originally published in Coinmonks on Medium, where people are continuing the conversation by highlighting and responding to this story.
Most people still associate crypto with price charts: when $BTC moves 10% in a day, it becomes the headline. When nothing dramatic happens, the industry tends to disappear from mainstream conversations.
The funny thing is that some of crypto’s biggest developments happen when nobody is paying attention.
Ten years ago, crypto products existed almost entirely within the crypto industry. Today, millions of people interact with blockchain technology without necessarily knowing it.
Stablecoins are being used for international payments, financial institutions are experimenting with tokenized assets, and fintech companies are integrating crypto services directly into their products. For many businesses, blockchain is slowly becoming infrastructure rather than a standalone industry.
The companies benefiting the most from this shift may not even describe themselves as crypto companies in the future.
For years, crypto products were built primarily for crypto-native users. Setting up wallets, understanding seed phrases, and moving assets across networks became almost a rite of passage.
That approach is changing. The conversation has shifted from “How decentralized is this?” to “Can someone use this without reading a 20-minute tutorial?”
The products that simplify complexity are often the ones that achieve mainstream adoption. Most users don’t care which blockchain powers an application. They care whether it solves a problem quickly and safely.
The next stage of crypto adoption probably won’t look like the previous one. It won’t necessarily be driven by retail investors opening exchange accounts for the first time.
Instead, adoption is increasingly coming from businesses, financial institutions, and consumer applications quietly integrating crypto functionality into products people already use.
The most interesting question in crypto today isn’t whether blockchain technology will survive. It’s how invisible it will become once it succeeds.
Ironically, crypto may finally become mainstream when people stop talking about crypto altogether.
Why the Most Interesting Thing About Crypto in 2026 Isn’t the Price was originally published in Coinmonks on Medium, where people are continuing the conversation by highlighting and responding to this story.
I went down a rabbit hole to understand how companies really adopt blockchain. What I found completely changed how I think about the technology and it might change how you see it too.
Naked Market breaks down macro finance, blockchain infrastructure, AI systems, and automated trading to help you understand the future of global finance before the mainstream catches up.
Two companies. Same Tuesday. Watch what they do.
Company A sends out a glossy press release: “Were thrilled to announce our bold new Web3 blockchain initiative!” Theres a logo. Theres a buzzword. The stock ticks up, LinkedIn applauds, and an executive gives a talk at a conference with very uncomfortable chairs.
Company B says… nothing. Not a word. But deep inside its finance department, one quiet employee just moved a large payment to the other side of the world and watched it settle in seconds, a thing that used to take three days and a stack of fees.
Fast forward one year. Company As “Web3 initiative” is quietly dead, buried in a slide deck nobody opens. Company B is saving millions, doing it every single day, and its rivals still havent noticed.
Now which of those two companies actually “adopted blockchain”?
Thats the whole thing I want to unpack today, because the answer surprises almost everyone. Adopting blockchain first almost never looks the way you picture it. Its not a headline. Its a plumber, not a press conference. And once you see how it really happens, youll never read a splashy tech announcement the same way again wherever in the world you are.
When most people hear “a company is adopting blockchain,” this is the picture in their head: the big announcement. The stage. The word “revolutionary” used four times in one sentence.
And heres the uncomfortable truth about that version: its usually theatre. A lot of loud blockchain announcements arent really about solving a problem at all, theyre about looking innovative, giving the share price a little nudge, or keeping up with a competitor who just did the same. The tell is simple. If a company leads with the technology (“we are using blockchain!”) instead of a problem (“we fixed this expensive, annoying thing”), the project is usually months away from a quiet funeral.
The real thing looks completely different. So lets follow how it actually begins.
Real adoption doesnt start in the boardroom with a vision. It starts with one tired person and a boring, expensive problem.
Picture a woman in the finance team of some ordinary global company. Every week, she has to send money to suppliers or subsidiaries in other countries. And every week, the same nonsense: the payment takes two or three days to arrive, it passes through a chain of middlemen who each take a cut, and half the time she cant even see where the money is while its in transit. Its slow, its costly, and its been that way her entire career.
She isnt looking for a “bold Web3 future.” She just wants the money to move faster and cost less. And that — a real, recurring, money-wasting pain — is the doorway blockchain actually walks through. Not as a revolution. As an aspirin.
Heres the magic trick, and its almost embarrassingly simple. That payment that took three days? On blockchain rails, it can settle in seconds.
This isnt a hypothetical. One of the biggest banks in the world quietly built its own blockchain system, and its now handling trillions of dollars. But look at how it actually got going: its early clients werent chasing hype at all. One of them, a company that services loans, simply used it to turn a two-day settlement wait into something near-instant. Thats it. No stage, no buzzword — the finance team just… stopped waiting.
Why does blockchain do this? In plain words: normally, when money moves between companies, each side keeps its own separate records and they slowly reconcile with each other, passing paperwork back and forth through intermediaries which takes days. A blockchain is just a shared notebook that everyone writes into at the same time. One record, visible to all the right people at once. When theres only one shared copy, theres nothing to reconcile and no paperwork to pass around — so the payment just… clears. Days collapse into seconds.
Boring? Maybe. But “we turned three days into three seconds and cut the fees” is the single most powerful sentence in enterprise technology. That one sentence is how blockchain gets its foot in the door.
Heres the next thing people get backwards. Real blockchain adoption doesnt start in the marketing department. It starts in the basement — the unglamorous back-office functions where money and data actually move.
Treasury. Payments. Settlement. Supply-chain tracking. These are the corners where the old way is slowest and most painful, which means theyre where a faster way pays off immediately. So a quiet pilot starts down there, proves it saves real money, and only then once it already works does it climb up through the company. By the time anyone in leadership is talking about it publicly, the thing has been running in the background for a year. The announcement, if it ever comes, is the last step, not the first.
The smart first-movers dont try to “move the company onto blockchain.” That would be insane, like rewiring an entire skyscraper while people are still working in it. Instead, they pick one small, high-value corner and start there.
One payment route between two offices. One type of transaction. One product. They keep it narrow, they keep it low-risk, and they let it prove itself before they expand. Almost every real success story you can find started as one tiny, unglamorous pilot that worked — and then quietly grew.
If I stopped here, youd think this is easy. Its not. And I promised youd get the real story, so here it is: the graveyard of failed corporate blockchain projects is enormous. And these werent silly little startups.
The most famous was TradeLens — a giant shipping tracker built by the worlds largest container line, Maersk, together with IBM. Serious companies. Hundreds of partners. It shut down. Australias stock exchange spent years trying to rebuild its core settlement system on blockchain and scrapped it after writing off around a quarter of a billion dollars. A whole string of bank-backed trade networks names like we.trade, B3i, Marco Polo, Contour all launched with fanfare, all collapsed.
Now heres the fascinating part. In almost every one of these failures, the technology worked fine. The blockchain wasnt the problem. So what killed them? Look closely, because the pattern is identical every single time and its the most important lesson in this whole piece.
Every one of those doomed projects made the same bet: they tried to get a whole industry full of fierce rivals to share one ledger together. And that is where it always dies.
Remember, a blockchain is a shared notebook thats its superpower. But its also the trap. Because who on Earth wants to write their secret, business-critical data into a notebook thats half-owned by their biggest competitor? Thats exactly why TradeLens failed: rival shipping lines flatly refused to route their private data through a platform co-owned by Maersk, the giant they compete with every day. The tech was ready. Human nature wasnt.
The ledger was never the hard part. Getting enemies to hold hands and share it — that was the hard part.
Which points straight at the answer. (Its also why the “let one company privately control the shared ledger” idea is so tricky we pulled that apart in public vs private blockchains.) The projects that actually work are the ones a single company can adopt on its own, for its own benefit, without needing to herd a hundred suspicious rivals into the same room. One firm, one problem, one win. No hand-holding required.
Put it all together and the recipe for adopting blockchain first is refreshingly clear and almost the exact opposite of the big splashy version.
They solve one real, expensive pain not a vision. They start in the back office and keep it small. They pick something that moves money (payments, settlement, treasury) over something that moves a brand (marketing stunts). They do it alone, so theyre not stuck waiting for competitors to agree. And they stay quiet about it — because while the loud company is giving a speech, the quiet company is banking the savings and building a lead. The silence isnt shyness. Its strategy.
Heres how the story ends and why it matters far beyond any one company.
One firm quietly proves the boring thing works and starts saving real money. Then a rival notices its competitor is suddenly faster and cheaper, and panics. Then another. Then the whole industry lurches onto the new rails at once, terrified of being left behind. Its happening right now: that same bank is up to trillions in blockchain payments, the messaging network that underpins global banking just switched on a blockchain system with dozens of major banks, and companies are quietly paying contractors in digital dollars across dozens of countries. By the time all of this becomes a mainstream headline, the first-movers will have been winning for years.
And thats the deeper thing this whole newsletter keeps pointing at. The shared global money rails arent being built by some grand announcement or world summit. Theyre being built quietly, one company at a time, each one just trying to fix its own boring, expensive problem until one day you look up and the entire economy is running on them. Thats how the future actually arrives: not with a bang, but with a thousand finance teams that simply stopped waiting.
So the next time you see a company shout about a shiny new blockchain project, dont get swept up and dont sneer either. Just quietly run it through four questions. This little test cuts through almost all the noise.
1. Does anyone actually depend on it? Or is it a demo nobody would miss?
2. Would real work grind to a halt if it disappeared tomorrow? If it vanished and nobody noticed, it was never real.
3. Is it moving actual value or just recording information? Moving money and assets is where blockchain genuinely shines. “Putting records on the blockchain” is usually where a normal database would have been fine.
4. Did it solve a real, painful problem or just win a headline? Follow the pain, not the press release.
If the honest answers are “no one, no, just recording, just a headline” its theatre, and it will probably be dead within a year. Real adoption quietly passes all four.
Which brings me, as always, to the one idea this whole newsletter is really about.
When it comes to a big shift like this, there are two kinds of company — and honestly, two kinds of person. The rich one chases the headline. It wants to be seen adopting the new thing: the announcement, the applause, the little bump. The wealthy one ignores all that and quietly rewires its own plumbing where it actually hurts and wins before anyone even realises the race has started. One wants to look like the future. The other just quietly becomes it.
You dont need to run a company for this to matter to you. The lesson works everywhere: the rich watch the announcements, the wealthy watch the plumbing. And right now, all over the world, the real adoption of blockchain isnt happening on a stage. Its happening in a back office youll never see, where somebody just turned three days into three seconds and didnt tell a soul.
Im not telling you to buy anything just to see clearly. Learn to look past the loud front door and notice the quiet back one. Because thats where the future almost always sneaks in.
If you want to keep reading finance this way — subscribe.
One clear breakdown at a time, for readers all over the world.
Subscribe to Naked Market →
-More soon
I Studied How Companies Actually Adopt Blockchain was originally published in Coinmonks on Medium, where people are continuing the conversation by highlighting and responding to this story.
Bitcoin Magazine
Nasdaq-listed Zhibao Technology to Take 3,500 Bitcoin in Proposed PIPE Financing
Zhibao Technology, a Shanghai-based insurance-technology firm listed on the Nasdaq, said Wednesday it has signed a non-binding term sheet for a stock sale that would be paid for in bitcoin — some 3,500 coins, worth near $220 million at current prices.
The deal, a private investment in public equity known as a PIPE, would have a buyer named Joyertech and Information OPC subscribe for Zhibao shares with consideration the company expects to include about 3,500 BTC.
The figure remains subject to final valuation, custody arrangements, an audit, regulatory review, and definitive agreements. Zhibao stressed that the term sheet binds no one, and that the transaction may change or fall through.
The structure hints at a familiar move. Zhibao (NASDAQ: ZBAO), which pioneered a “2B2C” embedded-insurance model in China and launched the country’s first digital insurance brokerage platform in 2020, would keep running its existing business at first.
Yet the buyer would name a majority of the board at closing, a control transition that would hand the newcomers the steering wheel while the current team minds the legacy operation until a later “separation, disposition, or other restructuring.”
In plain terms, a modest insurance-tech company would become a home for a large pile of bitcoin, with new owners in charge. Rather than raise cash and buy coins on the market, Zhibao would take the bitcoin itself as payment, a swap that seats a treasury on its balance sheet from day one.
It is the kind of reinvention that has swept public markets over two years, as firms remake themselves around a bitcoin treasury and corporate holdings climb to records. Zhibao’s stock jumped near 24% on the news.
Behind ZBAO are employees, insurance clients, and a founding team that built something new in a crowded market, and the term sheet would fold that story into a treasury vehicle shaped by people who may value the shell as much as the business.
For the current staff, the promise is continuity “until the separation” — words that carry their own uncertainty.
The wager holds warning signs. Analysts have called the treasury boom a bubble, and some treasury firms have started selling their coins under market pressure this year.
This post Nasdaq-listed Zhibao Technology to Take 3,500 Bitcoin in Proposed PIPE Financing first appeared on Bitcoin Magazine and is written by Micah Zimmerman.
Bitcoin Magazine
Crypto’s US Workforce Is Tiny, But Industry Punches Above Its Weight: Report
The crypto industry may be relatively small in terms of employers — but the economic contribution is big.
That’s according to a new report published by the National Cryptocurrency Association and the Pragmatic Policy Group, which reveals that while only 34,000 people are employed by crypto companies, the industry will contribute $55 billion in 2026 to the U.S. economy.
The report, “Crypto at Work”, which claims to be the first to comprehensively analyze the crypto industry’s footprint in the U.S. labor market, said that jobs in the space also average $133,000 a year — more than double the $64,000 national median wage, and ahead of average pay in tech of and manufacturing.
“Crypto creates many jobs outside the tech industry and directly supports more jobs than key manufacturing industries,” the report said.
Using a standard input-output economic model, PPG calculated that every direct crypto job supports roughly six additional jobs elsewhere in the economy — at suppliers, and at businesses where crypto workers spend their paychecks.
Stacking those indirect and induced jobs on top of the direct total produces a figure of 232,000 jobs in total that the industry supports.
By raw headcount, though, crypto remains a small employer. The report itself benchmarks its 34,000 direct jobs against coffee and tea manufacturing (28,400 jobs) and tobacco manufacturing (10,600 jobs) — hardly the scale of a major American industry.
The industry’s footprint is also geographically lopsided: California, New York, and Texas account for 60% of all crypto jobs, with 57,600, 53,800, and 26,500 respectively.
Heartland states—Iowa, Kansas, Nebraska, and the Dakotas among them — together support just over 17,000 jobs. The report singles out Colorado and North Dakota as rising hubs, pointing to Colorado’s crypto-friendly tax policy and firms like Riot Platforms and Crusoe Energy, and North Dakota’s flare-gas mining operations and a pilot stablecoin from the state-owned Bank of North Dakota.
PPG describes the study as the first comprehensive, economy-wide look at crypto’s labor market impact, built on 2024 Bureau of Economic Analysis and Bureau of Labor Statistics data.
The firm also flagged a limitation in its own approach: because “a dedicated crypto workforce profile does not yet exist,” it modeled crypto’s financial activities using the occupational mix of broader technology industries rather than traditional finance.
NCA, which funded the research, said it hopes the findings give policymakers “an evidence-based understanding of the sector’s economic contribution.” The nonprofit launched in 2025 to promote what it describes as safe, informed cryptocurrency adoption in the U.S.
This post Crypto’s US Workforce Is Tiny, But Industry Punches Above Its Weight: Report first appeared on Bitcoin Magazine and is written by Mathew Di Salvo.
Bitcoin Magazine
Winklevoss Twins Donated $10 Million From Bitcoin Sale to Trump Super PAC
Crypto entrepreneurs Tyler and Cameron Winklevoss donated over $10 million after liquidating Bitcoin to American super PAC MAGA Inc., which supports President Donald Trump.
A Tuesday filing shows each twin — the founders of the public crypto exchange, Gemini — donated over $5 million each.
The donation comes about one month after the U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission asked a judge to vacate the agency’s $5 million penalty against Gemini.
The twins back in 2024 announced that they had donated 30.94 Bitcoin, valued at over $2 million at the time, to President Trump’s campaign, claiming it would “put an end to the Biden Administration’s war on crypto.”
During the Biden Administration, regulators cracked down hard on crypto exchanges — including Gemini — but since President Trump took office, a number of lawsuits have been scrapped.
MAGA Inc. has raised over $400 million in fresh cash ahead of November’s midterm elections.
The Winklevoss Twins — who claimed they played a part in the creation of Facebook — founded crypto exchange Gemini in 2014 after being early Bitcoin backers.
Crypto industry observers have long speculated that the twins are two of the biggest Bitcoin holders in the space.
The twins have long praised President Trump’s pro-Bitcoin and pro-business stance, claiming it’s crucial for the future of the crypto industry in the country.
Tyler in particular emphasized the need for a political shift to prevent further harm to the industry and to restore an environment conducive to innovation and economic growth.
“President Donald J. Trump is the pro-Bitcoin, pro-crypto, and pro-business choice,” he said back in 2024. “This is not even remotely open for debate. Anyone who tells you otherwise is severely misinformed, delusional, or not telling the truth.”
Back in May, Gemini shares jumped over 20% in after-hours trading after the Winklevoss twins announced a $100 million Bitcoin-funded investment in the company alongside Q1 earnings showing 42% year-over-year revenue growth.
The quarter’s results included a narrowed net loss of $109 million and a sharp rise in services and credit card revenue, though trading volumes had fallen from a year earlier following Bitcoin’s crash from its October peak.
The rally followed months of turmoil for Gemini, including layoffs, executive departures, shareholder lawsuits, and a stock price that had dropped more than 89% from its IPO high, partly offset by a CFTC derivatives license granted in April.
This post Winklevoss Twins Donated $10 Million From Bitcoin Sale to Trump Super PAC first appeared on Bitcoin Magazine and is written by Mathew Di Salvo.
Bitcoin Magazine
Bitcoin ETFs Take in Nearly $1B in New Money — But What Will the Price Do?
American investors have thrown fresh cash at Bitcoin exchange-traded funds over the past six days, helping the price of the top cryptocurrency to rise again.
Data from Farside Investors shows that close to $1 billion has been pumped into the funds since Tuesday last week.
The price of Bitcoin was recently trading at nearly $65,860, down slightly over the past 24 hours but up 1% over a seven-day period. The leading cryptocurrency touched a weekly high yesterday of $66,891.
Funds managed by BlackRock, Morgan Stanley, and Grayscale have taken in over $930 million in the six-day streak after weeks of lacklustre flows and sloppy price action.
Bitcoin is currently nearly 50% below its October record of $126,080 after a massive liquidation event, war in the Middle Eastern and inflation all weighed the cryptocurrency down.
Analysts remain wary of digital assets’ future price path as markets reckon with a re-escalation of the Trump administration’s war with Iran and inflation.
European asset management firm CoinShares last week said that while investors are back at putting fresh cash in Bitcoin via the exchange-traded products, other factors may hold digital asset markets from going higher.
“We have said for some time that Bitcoin has probably reached, or is close to, its floor,” James Butterfill, head of research at CoinShares, wrote. “But we see no significant upside potential from here.”
Current macroeconomic headwinds, such as the US bombing Iran and rising oil prices, could see inflation go up again. The price of Bitcoin has typically done well on news that inflation is coming down because investors expect interest rates to come down.
And another report by NYDIG last week claimed that the asset’s current slump is down to supply mechanics rather than risk sentiment.
The report revealed that Bitcoin’s year-to-date performance makes it the worst-performing asset — losing out against US treasuries, silver, and currencies like the Swiss Franc.
It added that if Bitcoin’s price action were to match other drawdowns — like the bear market of 2022 — a “potential cycle low near $38k-$39k” was possible.
This post Bitcoin ETFs Take in Nearly $1B in New Money — But What Will the Price Do? first appeared on Bitcoin Magazine and is written by Mathew Di Salvo.
Login