Russia spent a record 44% of its federal budget on the military in the first half of 2026, according to calculations published by Janis Kluge, a research fellow at the German Institute for International and Security Affairs, based on data from Russia’s Finance Ministry. Direct military spending totaled 10.7 trillion rubles, about $125 billion at […]Most Web3 teams that close a raise treat the full amount as runway from day one. The money is there to fund the build, so keeping all of it liquid seems like the obvious choice.
But the money usually isn’t spent that way.
A project with six to nine months of development ahead doesn’t deploy the full raise immediately. Spending happens gradually, while a larger part of the capital may only be needed later, when the product moves into scaling.
That means part of the raise can sit untouched for months simply because its planned expense hasn’t arrived yet.
Keeping enough capital available for near-term expenses makes sense. Keeping the entire raise in the same liquid position is a different decision, especially when the project already has a rough schedule for when larger spending begins.
The near-term runway stays liquid. This is the capital the team expects to use for operating expenses and other costs coming up soon.
The tranche that won’t be needed for several months can be matched to that later spending date through a term deposit. Instead of treating money needed next month and money needed in six months exactly the same way, each part of the raise follows its own timeline.
The point isn’t to lock as much capital as possible or chase the longest term. It’s to stop treating capital that won’t be used for months as though it needs to be available next week.
There is also a trade-off. If the roadmap accelerates and the project needs committed capital earlier than planned, the terms of an early exit matter. That needs to be understood before choosing where and for how long the funds are placed.
Once the spend schedule is clear, the next step is comparing what different institutional platforms actually offer.
Zero Hash provides yield and staking infrastructure as part of a broader digital asset stack covering trading, stablecoin payments and tokenization through a single API. The platform has settled $65B+ in total volume across 7M+ end customers, with stablecoin transaction volume growing 690% year over year. In June 2026, it launched Staking-as-a-Service for brokerages and banks, with Interactive Brokers and Morgan Stanley among the initial launch partners.
WhiteBIT Yield-as-a-Service supports institutional placements starting from 600K USDT, with allocation across multiple currencies and terms ranging from 10 days to a few years. Its API can be integrated into existing settlement processes, while an early exit moves a committed tranche to the applicable flexible rate if the original schedule changes.
Coinchange Yield-as-a-Service delivers daily-priced yield portfolios across stablecoins and digital assets through a single API integration, with no minimum placement requirements and no long-term lockups. Compliance coverage spans FATF, MiCA and SEC-aligned frameworks, and the underlying allocation runs across multiple actively managed strategies rather than a single yield source. Partners including Kanga Exchange and Utila have integrated the infrastructure into their existing products.
These products address different treasury requirements. The relevant comparison depends on what assets the company holds, when the capital will be needed, and how much flexibility the treasury requires during that period.
The issue isn’t whether the full raise counts as runway. Of course it does.
The question is whether every part of that runway needs the same level of liquidity at the same time.
If one portion covers near-term operations while another won’t be used until several months later, those two tranches don’t necessarily have to be managed in the same way. The spend schedule gives the team a way to separate what needs to remain immediately available from what has a later job.
The raise arrives at once. The expenses arrive over quarters.
Treasury planning can follow the same schedule.
Disclaimer: This is not financial or investment advice. DYOR before making any decisions. Use at your own risk.
The Part of the Raise You Won’t Spend for Months Deserves Its Own Plan. was originally published in Coinmonks on Medium, where people are continuing the conversation by highlighting and responding to this story.
Crypto didn’t lose its story. The story just grew up.
Crypto markets have always been driven by narratives.
A crypto narrative is a theme that tells the market where to look: what’s worth building, what’s worth buying, and what the next big opportunity is. Narratives are what turn a complicated technology into something people can actually invest in.
For years, one narrative after another has defined the market.
DeFi Summer in 2020 was built around the rapid expansion of decentralised lending, borrowing, trading, and yield farming. All of a sudden, market participants could earn interest, trade, and borrow without a bank, and token prices moved on the promise of an entirely new financial system.
Then came the NFT boom in 2021.
NFTs moved beyond a relatively narrow blockchain use case into digital art, collectibles, gaming and online communities.
During that period, buying a JPEG felt like buying into the future.
Then came a wave of newer stories:
The AI – crypto narrative that gained significant attention in 2024 focused on the potential intersection between artificial intelligence and blockchain, including decentralised computing, data, AI agents and related infrastructure.
There was also the rise of play-to-earn gaming, memecoins, restaking and numerous other themes with each one pulling in capital and attention, at least for a while.
Different assets, different years, same underlying question:
What new things can we create with crypto?
That question hasn’t gone away.
However, the market conversation appears to be changing.
Increasingly, the conversation is moving toward the infrastructure that allows digital assets to function within a broader financial system.
Liquidity, Collateral, Stablecoins, Tokenisation, Custody, Regulation, Institutional participation, On-chain financial markets.
This does not mean speculative narratives have disappeared. Memecoins can still attract enormous attention, and crypto markets remain highly speculative.
The change is more subtle.
The conversation is increasingly extending beyond what can be built on blockchain to how blockchain-based infrastructure can perform recognisable economic and financial functions.
Stablecoins are perhaps the clearest example of this.
A stablecoin is a cryptocurrency pegged to a stable asset, for example, fiat currency – one coin is designed to maintain the value of the underlying asset.
Stablecoins initially became popular partly because they allowed crypto users to move between volatile digital assets without immediately converting back into fiat currency.
However, their role has expanded.
Stablecoins are now used for trading, collateral, remittances, payments, corporate treasury management, and settling transactions across on-chain markets.
The Federal Reserve reported that stablecoin market capitalisation grew substantially during 2025, alongside increased transaction activity and DeFi usage.
The significance of this development goes beyond market capitalisation. Stablecoin isn’t just another token competing for attention anymore – it’s becoming the plumbing that connects different parts of the crypto economy.
That changes the way the asset is understood.
That is also attracting traditional financial institutions.
A 2026 institutional investor survey by Coinbase and EY found that institutions were using stablecoins for activities including cash management, moving money and near-real-time settlement, while regulated products had become an important route into digital-asset exposure.
The important point is not that traditional finance has suddenly discovered crypto.
It is that some crypto-native infrastructure is becoming useful to traditional financial activity.
Institutional participation is another part of this shift.
The emergence of spot ETFs, asset managers, custodians, banks and digital-asset treasury companies has created new channels through which institutional capital can access digital assets. This does not make institutional investors inherently long-term, nor does it eliminate speculation.
It changes the environment in which digital assets are evaluated.
Once a digital asset becomes part of an institutional investment strategy, questions around custody, liquidity, market structure, regulatory compliance, counterparty risk and portfolio construction become increasingly important.
Now the question is:
Those are infrastructure questions and they matter more the more institutional money is in the room.
DeFi hasn’t stopped being experimental, and it certainly hasn’t stopped being speculative.
But alongside that, it’s developed functions that look a lot like traditional finance: lending and borrowing, trading, derivatives, liquidity provision, collateral management, stablecoin settlement, on-chain credit and yield markets.
The evolution is therefore not from “speculation” to “no speculation.”
It’s a shift from an ecosystem where speculative experimentation dominated the conversation to one where the financial infrastructure itself has become part of the story.
This is an important distinction.
A lending protocol does not need to introduce a completely new concept of lending to be useful. The novelty is increasingly found in how financial functions are delivered, rather than simply in the creation of entirely new financial categories.
The growing interest in tokenisation reflects a similar development.
Tokenisation involves representing assets or rights digitally through blockchain or other distributed-ledger infrastructure.
The underlying asset might be a bond, fund interest, real estate interest, deposit, commodity, or another financial or real-world asset. The interesting question is whether placing these assets on the blockchain will improve their issuance, transfer, settlement, liquidity, programmability, or accessibility.
That is a different kind of narrative.
It connects blockchain technology to existing economic activity rather than creating an entirely separate digital economy.
It did not disappear.
It fragmented, evolved and, in some cases, became infrastructure.
DeFi developed into a collection of financial functions. Stablecoins expanded from crypto trading instruments into settlement and payment infrastructure. Tokenisation began connecting blockchain infrastructure with traditional financial assets. Institutional participation created new channels through which capital could enter digital assets.
Some earlier narratives lost relevance after their speculative cycles while others continue to evolve and new narratives will undoubtedly emerge.
The difference is that the market is increasingly asking a different question.
Earlier crypto cycles often centred on:
What can blockchain enable that did not exist before?
The newer question is:
What financial functions can blockchain infrastructure perform, and does it perform them effectively?
That is a different investment narrative and it also creates a different standard for evaluating projects. A protocol promising a new financial primitive may now have to demonstrate more than technological novelty.
Investors may also look at liquidity, revenue, collateral, risk management, regulatory exposure, integration and actual economic demand. The same applies to stablecoins, tokenised assets and other forms of on-chain infrastructure.
The crypto market is still capable of producing the next meme cycle, NFT boom or speculative frenzy. However, beneath those cycles, something else is happening.
Crypto-native infrastructure is increasingly being judged by the financial functions it can perform, rather than simply by the novelty of what it can create.
Perhaps that is what happened to the crypto-native narrative.
It did not disappear.
It became part of the infrastructure.
If you enjoy analytical commentary on digital asset regulation, crypto markets, and emerging financial technologies, consider subscribing to my newsletter where I share additional research, commentary, and industry insights.
https://samuel-ayodeji.kit.com/profile
Also, if your company, startup, or publication needs clear, well-researched content on blockchain, digital assets, fintech, or emerging technology law, my inbox is always open.
What Happened to the Crypto-Native Narrative? was originally published in Coinmonks on Medium, where people are continuing the conversation by highlighting and responding to this story.
Read more of this story at Slashdot.
An honest look at what digital assets deliver – and what they don’t.
Digital assets are increasingly presented as a tool for financial inclusion.
A smartphone and internet connection can, in principle, give someone access to digital assets without opening a traditional bank account or visiting a bank branch. In countries where large portions of the population remain underbanked – and where access to international financial services is limited or expensive – that has obvious appeal.
However, access to a digital wallet is not the same as meaningful financial inclusion.
Digital assets can remove some traditional barriers while creating new ones. This results in a shift in where the barriers to financial participation exist.
Traditional financial systems typically require a bank account, identification documents, physical infrastructure, and access to regulated institutions. These requirements exclude a significant share of the global population – particularly in emerging markets.
Digital assets can reduce some of these friction points. A person can create a self-custodial wallet without opening a conventional bank account. Depending on the asset and network, they can receive and transfer value across borders without relying entirely on traditional correspondent banking systems that are slow, expensive, and often unavailable in lower-income regions.
Stablecoins have created a particularly meaningful form of access. A person in a country experiencing significant local-currency depreciation may use a dollar-pegged stablecoin to hold an asset whose value is linked to the US dollar. For freelancers, small businesses, and people receiving money from abroad, digital assets can also provide alternative ways to receive and transfer value.
Cross-border transactions can sometimes be faster and cheaper than traditional alternatives, particularly where stablecoins reduce the number of intermediaries involved.
These use cases help explain why digital assets have gained attention as a potential financial inclusion tool, particularly in emerging markets. However, the ability to access an asset is only the first stage.
Creating a digital wallet can be relatively easy. The key consideration is whether the user can make meaningful use of what is in it.
Liquidity is one of the most immediate issues.
A person may hold cryptocurrency or a stablecoin, but that does not automatically mean they can use it to pay for everyday expenses. They may still need an exchange, payment provider or P2P market to convert the asset into local currency. If liquidity is limited, conversion is expensive, or there are few businesses willing to accept the asset, the practical value of holding it is reduced.
The same tension applies to on-ramps and off-ramps.
Digital assets can reduce dependence on traditional financial institutions for certain transactions – but users frequently still rely on intermediaries when moving between the crypto ecosystem and the conventional financial system. The intermediary hasn’t disappeared; it has just changed form.
There is also a knowledge barrier specific to digital assets – though its significance depends heavily on who is using them.
For someone already familiar with wallets, networks, transaction fees, and private keys, these are routine considerations. For an ordinary person accustomed to conventional banking, they represent a fundamentally different set of responsibilities.
A typical bank customer doesn’t need to understand payment infrastructure to send money. They select a recipient, enter an amount, and confirm. If they lose access to their banking app, there are established procedures for recovery. If a fraudulent transaction occurs, the bank may be able to investigate, freeze an account, or provide some form of dispute mechanism.
Self-custodial digital assets work differently. Users must select the correct blockchain network, verify wallet addresses carefully, account for transaction fees, and protect their private keys or seed phrases. Blockchain transactions are also generally final once confirmed – there is no equivalent of calling the bank.
A single mistake of sending an asset to the wrong address, choosing the wrong network, losing a private key, or approving a malicious transaction can result in permanent loss of funds with little or no practical recourse.
The obvious counterpoint is that crypto exchanges can remove much of this complexity.
A user can hold assets on an exchange and interact with them through an interface that resembles online banking, with the exchange managing wallets, keys, and transaction infrastructure on their behalf.
However, that solution comes with a trade-off. The more accessible the system becomes for an ordinary user, the more it depends on an intermediary. The technical risks of self-custody may fall away, but the user becomes dependent on the exchange for custody, access, withdrawals, and compliance – a different kind of trust relationship, not the absence of one.
This produces two distinct models of participation.
Self-custody shifts responsibility toward the user. Custodial platforms shift some of that responsibility back to an intermediary.
Neither eliminates the underlying knowledge and trust requirements. They distribute them differently.
For someone comfortable with crypto, these distinctions feel routine. For someone whose entire experience of financial services has involved a bank that manages the technical infrastructure and provides recovery mechanisms when things go wrong, they represent a meaningful shift in how financial responsibility is allocated – and who bears the consequences when it isn’t.
Stablecoins illustrate both the potential and the limitations of digital assets as a financial inclusion tool.
A dollar-pegged stablecoin can give individuals and businesses access to dollar-denominated value without requiring a conventional US bank account. This can be particularly useful in economies where the local currency is volatile or access to foreign currency is restricted.
However, the use case for stablecoins is still developing.
Much of their activity today is connected to trading, transfers between exchanges, cross-border payments and other digital-asset activities rather than everyday purchases.
Their broader use as a means of payment, particularly for ordinary consumer transactions, is still evolving, and understanding this distinction matters when assessing their contribution to financial inclusion.
Giving someone access to a dollar-denominated digital asset does not automatically give them access to the financial services or economic opportunities they need.
For example, a user may be able to acquire USDT or USDC but still depend on an exchange, P2P market or other intermediary to convert it into local currency. If local liquidity is limited or there are few practical ways to spend the asset, its usefulness outside the digital-asset ecosystem may be restricted.
This does not undermine the financial inclusion potential of stablecoins. It simply means that their impact should be assessed against their actual and emerging use cases rather than assuming that access to a stablecoin is equivalent to access to a dollar bank account or a conventional payment system.
Stablecoin adoption is expanding beyond trading and into payments, remittances, and other financial activities, their contribution to financial inclusion may become more significant. For now, the extent of that contribution depends heavily on whether users can move between the digital-asset ecosystem and the wider economy.
Regulation affects who can participate and on what terms. Clear rules can provide consumer protection, establish standards for service providers and give legitimate businesses greater certainty.
Poorly designed regulation can have the opposite effect. Rules that are unclear, excessively restrictive or disproportionately expensive to comply with may reduce the number of regulated providers serving ordinary users. At the same time, weak regulation can expose users to fraud, poor custody practices and other forms of abuse.
In either case, the people with the fewest alternatives may bear the greatest consequences.
The regulatory challenge is whether regulation can provide protection without making legitimate access unnecessarily difficult.
Creating access is only the first step.
For digital assets to contribute meaningfully to financial inclusion, users must also be able to make practical use of them.
That means looking beyond wallet creation and considering several dimensions that determine whether participation is real:
Usability – can ordinary users understand and operate the technology without taking on risks they don’t fully understand?
Liquidity – can they convert or spend their assets when they need to, at a cost that makes sense for their circumstances?
Consumer protection – what recourse exists when an exchange fails, an account is compromised, or a transaction goes wrong?
Regulatory clarity – can legitimate users and businesses operate within a predictable legal framework, or does uncertainty push activity into poorly regulated channels?
These question also reveal an important distinction between access and inclusion.
A person may be able to open a wallet and receive cryptocurrency but if they cannot easily convert it, don’t understand the risks involved, have limited recourse when something goes wrong, or operate in a market without regulatory clarity, that access has limited practical value.
Digital assets can reduce certain traditional barriers to financial participation but they don’t eliminate barriers altogether. They move them – and in some cases, they create new ones for the people least equipped to navigate them.
It’s important to explore where the remaining barriers exist, who is affected by them, and how effectively the system facilitates meaningful financial participation for the people it aims to serve.
Digital assets have genuine potential to promote financial inclusion. They offer alternative payment channels, facilitate cross-border transfers, provide access to dollar-denominated value, and allow people to participate in financial networks without depending entirely on traditional banking infrastructure.
However, they do not eliminate financial barriers. They redistribute them.
The traditional financial system places barriers around bank accounts, documentation, physical branches, and financial intermediaries. Digital assets can shift those barriers toward digital literacy, liquidity, on- and off-ramp access, consumer protection, and regulatory clarity.
That distinction matters when evaluating whether digital assets are actually advancing financial inclusion.
The number of wallets created is not, by itself, a meaningful measure of inclusion. A more useful measure is whether people can access digital assets, understand how they work, use them effectively, convert or spend them when necessary, and have meaningful protection when things go wrong.
Digital assets can contribute to financial inclusion. However, the effectiveness of access depends on the surrounding ecosystem, which includes regulation, infrastructure, education, liquidity, and consumer protections that facilitate meaningful participation.
If you enjoy analytical commentary on digital asset regulation, crypto markets, and emerging financial technologies, consider subscribing to my newsletter where I share additional research, commentary, and industry insights.
https://samuel-ayodeji.kit.com/profile
Also, if your company, startup, or publication needs clear, well-researched content on blockchain, digital assets, fintech, or emerging technology law, my inbox is always open.
Financial Inclusion or Exclusion? Are Digital Assets Solving or Creating New Divides? was originally published in Coinmonks on Medium, where people are continuing the conversation by highlighting and responding to this story.
Read more of this story at Slashdot.
Read more of this story at Slashdot.
Read more of this story at Slashdot.
Read more of this story at Slashdot.
Read more of this story at Slashdot.
For most people, money is something they use every day but almost never study.
Regulators keep saying crypto is not legal tender. That statement is technically true and almost beside the point.
Crypto has outgrown the point where governments can ignore it.
What started as a technological experiment is now a global market spanning cryptocurrencies, stablecoins, tokenized assets, decentralised finance, and an increasingly sophisticated payments infrastructure.
Yet, every time a central bank or regulator addresses the topic, one line shows up almost on cue:
“Cryptocurrency is not legal tender.”
At first glance, it seems like a clear-cut statement. But look deeper, and you’ll find it falls short of addressing the real question on everyone’s minds:
Does it even matter?
Bitcoin doesn’t need legal-tender status for people to trade it. A stablecoin can move money across borders without being legal tender. Two parties can settle a deal in crypto even when their government refuses to recognise it as official money.
So what is legal tender actually for, and why do regulators keep reaching for it?
Legal tender is a narrow legal concept.
It describes money the law recognises for settling debts and monetary obligations.
The exact mechanics differ by country, but the core idea holds everywhere: legal tender is a legal status, not a description of what people happen to use as money.
That distinction does a lot of work.
Something can function as a payment method without ever acquiring legal-tender status. A freelancer can invoice in Bitcoin. A retailer can accept a stablecoin. Two companies can settle a contract in a digital asset.
None of that makes the asset legal tender.
Legal tender tells you about legal recognition, it does not by itself, say anything about whether an asset works as a medium of exchange in practice.
This is where most of the public conversation goes sideways. When a central bank says Bitcoin isn’t legal tender, it is not saying Bitcoin is illegal.
Those are different claims entirely.
A cryptocurrency can be legal to own, legal to trade, taxable, regulated as a financial or digital asset, usable for certain transactions, and still not be legal tender – all at once.
This has become more relevant, not less, as governments build dedicated digital-asset frameworks instead of outright bans. Regulators are licensing exchanges, custodians, stablecoin issuers, and brokers. The asset itself can sit outside the legal-tender system while operating firmly inside the regulatory one.
Not legal tender does not mean not legal.
If crypto can be legal without being legal tender, why the constant reminder?
Three reasons stand out.
States guard control over their national currencies. A privately issued or decentralised asset that becomes widely used as money starts to compete with that currency.
The disclaimer draws a line: the state has not adopted this asset as its official monetary instrument. People can use it voluntarily, but the government isn’t backing its value.
Someone unfamiliar with crypto might assume that because an asset trades widely, it carries some form of government guarantee. Saying Bitcoin isn’t legal tender is partly a way of saying: the state isn’t standing behind this the way it stands behind the national currency.
Legal tender also matters when determining how monetary obligations can be discharged.
If an asset has legal-tender status, its legal treatment in relation to debts and payment obligations can be different from an asset that parties merely agree to accept. This isn’t really about buying coffee with Bitcoin – it’s about what the law will treat as valid settlement of a debt.
For most digital assets, No.
Bitcoin doesn’t need legal-tender status for people to hold it as an investment.
A governance token doesn’t need it for people to use a protocol. An NFT doesn’t need it to represent a digital asset. Even a stablecoin can function as a payment and settlement tool without it.
The better question is what function the asset is actually performing. An investment asset barely needs the legal-tender conversation.
A medium of exchange raises it.
Something functioning as widely used money raises the stakes considerably.
These three terms get used interchangeably, and that’s part of the confusion.
Money performs several functions – medium of exchange, unit of account, store of value.
A medium of exchange is simply whatever people use to transact.
Legal tender is a legal designation layered on top of all that.
Two parties can agree to trade goods for Bitcoin without Bitcoin ever needing legal-tender status – their agreement is what gives the transaction its commercial footing.
That’s why the absence of legal-tender status doesn’t stop crypto from being used in payments. It just means the asset hasn’t been granted the specific legal status reserved for official money.
This is where things get genuinely interesting. Stablecoins are the clearest case.
Unlike Bitcoin, which has no issuer maintaining a fixed value, most major stablecoins are issued by identifiable companies and backed by reserves. They’re used for cross-border payments, remittances, trading, settlement, digital commerce, and DeFi.
That creates a different kind of regulatory problem. A stablecoin used at scale for payments starts to resemble privately issued digital money.
The question stops being “is this legal tender?” and becomes “can privately issued digital money coexist with sovereign money?”
That question touches monetary policy, banking liquidity, payment systems, and financial stability – which is exactly why stablecoins have drawn so much more regulatory attention than crypto generally.
There’s no single global playbook, but three broad approaches have emerged.
This is becoming the default model. A country declines to recognise crypto as legal tender while building rules for exchanges, custodians, brokers, and stablecoin issuers. The national currency stays sovereign; digital assets get regulated according to their actual function and risk.
Some jurisdictions take a harder line – not necessarily because the technology is illegal, but because of concerns around capital flows, monetary policy, financial stability, or illicit finance. Here, the legal-tender distinction is one piece of a broader effort to protect the domestic monetary system.
El Salvador’s adoption of Bitcoin alongside the US dollar remains the standout example.
It proves legal-tender status is ultimately a political decision – a government can grant monetary recognition to an asset it didn’t create.
However, it also raises hard questions: what happens to monetary policy, how is volatility managed, how do businesses account for it, and – maybe most importantly – what does legal-tender status actually achieve if people don’t choose to use the asset anyway?
The legal-tender debate matters most when digital assets start competing directly with sovereign currencies. Picture an economy where businesses routinely accept dollar-backed stablecoins, workers get paid partly in them, and consumers use them for everyday purchases. The stablecoin still isn’t legal tender – but it’s doing most of what money does.
That’s the real regulatory challenge:
a government can technically preserve its national currency’s legal-tender status while a privately issued digital instrument quietly becomes central to everyday economic life.
The question now is whether private digital money can operate at scale alongside sovereign money.
I think the legal-tender debate around crypto is often given more importance than it deserves.
For most digital assets, legal-tender status is not the issue.
The questions should focus on :
What is the asset legally?
What rights does the holder have?
Can it legally be used for payment?
Can businesses accept it?
What happens when a transaction goes wrong?
How is it treated for tax purposes?
What happens if the intermediary holding it becomes insolvent?
Who regulates the issuer or service provider?
Where the asset is used as money:
What happens when it begins competing with sovereign currency?
These questions tell us much more about the relationship between crypto and the financial system than simply asking whether Bitcoin or another digital asset is legal tender.
Legal-tender status is only one point on a much larger spectrum.
A digital asset can move from being an investment, to a medium of exchange, to a payment instrument, and potentially toward functioning as money without necessarily passing through a formal legal-tender designation.
That is why regulation should not stop at the question of whether an asset is legal tender.
If you enjoy analytical commentary on digital asset regulation, crypto markets, and emerging financial technologies, consider subscribing to my newsletter where I share additional research, commentary, and industry insights.
https://samuel-ayodeji.kit.com/profile
Also, if your company, startup, or publication needs clear, well-researched content on blockchain, digital assets, fintech, or emerging technology law, my inbox is always open.
Does Crypto Really Need to Be Legal Tender? was originally published in Coinmonks on Medium, where people are continuing the conversation by highlighting and responding to this story.
The market may look calm, but trading a range can be more difficult than trading a strong uptrend or downtrend.
This is the most important thing you need to know about buying Bitcoin.
Even the best indicators can remain oversold longer than investors expect. Historical patterns can repeat imperfectly. Macroeconomic conditions can change. And Bitcoin’s market structure continues to evolve with every cycle.
That’s why I don’t think investors should ask:
“Has Bitcoin officially bottomed?”
Instead, I think the better question is:
“How many characteristics of previous Bitcoin bottoms are appearing right now?”
That’s a much more useful framework.
Think about it like trying to identify a storm.
You don’t look at one cloud and declare that a hurricane is coming.
You watch the pressure.
The wind.
The temperature.
The radar.
Bitcoin is similar.
The bottom becomes more convincing when multiple independent signals begin pointing in the same direction.
The first thing I would watch is momentum.
During a Bitcoin bear market, momentum tends to deteriorate gradually.
The market makes lower highs.
Rallies become weaker.
Selling pressure increases.
Eventually, however, something strange can happen.
Bitcoin continues making new lows, but momentum indicators don’t.
This is known as bullish divergence.
That doesn’t guarantee the bottom is in.
But it tells us something important:
The sellers may be losing momentum even though price hasn’t fully recovered.
The strongest bottoms aren’t necessarily formed when Bitcoin suddenly explodes higher.
Sometimes they’re formed when selling pressure simply stops getting stronger.
Bitcoin has historically exhibited powerful cyclical behavior.
That doesn’t mean every cycle follows an identical calendar.
It means investors should pay attention to where Bitcoin is within the broader market cycle.
Historically, Bitcoin has experienced major periods of accumulation following large market drawdowns.
The exact timing has varied.
The market doesn’t care about our preferred schedule.
That’s why cycle timing should never be used by itself.
Instead, it should act as a framework.
If Bitcoin is approaching a historically important stage of its cycle and momentum is weakening on the downside and sentiment is becoming extremely pessimistic, the combination becomes much more interesting.
One signal can be noise.
Several signals agreeing with one another are harder to ignore.
Here’s another uncomfortable question:
How far does Bitcoin actually need to fall before investors should start thinking about a bottom?
Bitcoin’s history provides some useful context.
Major bear markets have produced enormous drawdowns.
That is important because investors often make the mistake of comparing the current decline to the previous market cycle without considering how dramatically Bitcoin’s market structure has changed.
A 50% decline sounds catastrophic.
For Bitcoin, historically, it hasn’t necessarily been.
A 60% decline can still occur during a broader bear market.
Even larger drawdowns have occurred during previous major cycles.
But there is an important distinction:
A large drawdown doesn’t automatically mean Bitcoin is cheap.
Price can fall substantially and continue falling.
That’s why drawdown should be treated as context — not confirmation.
The question isn’t simply:
“How much has Bitcoin fallen?”
It’s:
“How does the current drawdown compare with the behavior we’ve historically seen near major cycle lows?”
That’s a much more useful question.
Then there is perhaps the most interesting indicator of all:
What are people saying?
During Bitcoin bull markets, investors tend to extrapolate.
Bitcoin goes up 30%, and people expect another 30%.
It goes up again, and suddenly everyone has a $500,000 price target.
Eventually, expectations become extreme.
Bear markets work in the opposite direction.
The narrative changes.
Bitcoin isn’t going to recover.
Crypto is dead.
The cycle is over.
Everyone who bought is trapped.
Nobody wants to hear another bullish argument.
That psychological shift matters.
Markets don’t bottom because everyone becomes optimistic.
They often bottom when optimism has already disappeared.
But again, extreme pessimism isn’t enough.
Bitcoin can remain hated while falling another 20%.
Sentiment becomes powerful when it confirms what we’re seeing elsewhere.
If sentiment is extremely negative while momentum begins stabilizing, selling pressure decreases, and Bitcoin approaches historically significant valuation or cycle levels, the setup becomes considerably more interesting.
This might be the signal I care about most.
Eventually, the chart has to prove something.
A Bitcoin bottom isn’t really a bottom until buyers start demonstrating that they can defend lower prices.
That doesn’t necessarily mean Bitcoin needs to immediately launch into a new all-time high.
The first sign can be much simpler:
Bitcoin stops making lower lows.
Then perhaps it establishes a higher low.
Then a higher high.
Then another higher low.
Suddenly the structure has changed.
That’s important.
A market that was previously characterized by:
Lower high → lower low → lower high → lower low
begins transitioning toward:
Higher low → higher high → higher low
That is the kind of structural change that can transform a theoretical bottom into an increasingly credible one.
This is where things get interesting.
Suppose Bitcoin experiences:
Would that guarantee the bottom?
No.
Nothing guarantees it.
But I would argue that this is a dramatically more compelling setup than simply saying:
“Bitcoin has fallen a lot, so it must be near the bottom.”
That’s the difference between trying to predict the market and trying to measure it.
Instead of asking for certainty, we’re looking for confluence.
That’s the million-dollar question.
And the honest answer is:
Nobody knows with certainty.
Anyone claiming to know the exact Bitcoin bottom before the market confirms it is making a prediction — not reporting a fact.
But investors don’t necessarily need certainty.
They need a framework.
At Gordon Trading Co., I make frameworks for a living so i know that the most interesting Bitcoin bottoms tend to emerge when several things happen simultaneously:
Price becomes historically depressed.
Momentum stops confirming new lows.
Sentiment becomes extremely pessimistic.
The broader cycle reaches a historically significant stage.
And eventually, price structure begins to improve.
The more of these conditions that appear together, the more compelling the bottoming thesis becomes.
And that’s what I will be watching.
Not one magical indicator.
Not one price target.
Not one analyst’s prediction.
The convergence of repeatable signals.
High quality signals.
This is another area where investors often get caught off guard.
The bottom itself may be relatively boring.
Bitcoin doesn’t necessarily go from a bear market straight into another euphoric bull market.
There can be weeks or months of sideways trading.
False breakouts.
Retests.
Sharp rallies followed by equally sharp declines.
This is why accumulation periods can be psychologically difficult.
Investors spend months waiting for the bottom.
Then when the market finally stabilizes, they become impatient because nothing exciting is happening.
But historically, that’s exactly when the market can begin changing underneath the surface.
The headlines are still negative.
The average investor is still skeptical.
Yet the underlying structure is gradually improving.
By the time everyone agrees that the bottom is in, a significant portion of the recovery may already have happened.
Perhaps the biggest lesson from previous cycles is psychological.
Investors often imagine buying the bottom as an exciting experience.
In reality, it may feel terrible.
The news may still be negative.
Your friends may still be telling you crypto is finished.
The chart may still look ugly.
There may be no confirmation that your investment will work.
That’s precisely why bottoms are so difficult to identify in real time.
If the bottom felt obvious, everyone would buy it.
And if everyone bought it, it probably wouldn’t be the bottom.
The opportunity often exists in the uncomfortable gap between “Bitcoin could still fall” and “Bitcoin is beginning to show evidence that the worst may be behind it.”
That gap is where investors need to pay attention.
The most useful question isn’t:
“What price will Bitcoin bottom at?”
It’s:
“What would Bitcoin need to do to convince me that a bottom is forming?”
For me, that means watching the evidence.
Momentum.
Cycle timing.
Drawdown.
Sentiment.
Price structure.
None of these signals is perfect.
But together, they can create something much more valuable than a prediction:
a probability framework.
Bitcoin doesn’t ring a bell at the bottom.
There isn’t an announcement.
There isn’t a candle on the chart that says, “The bear market is officially over.”
The bottom has to reveal itself through behavior.
And if the market is beginning to transition from capitulation → stabilization → accumulation → recovery, investors who are paying attention may see the transition long before the headlines do.
The question isn’t whether we can know the exact bottom.
We can’t.
The question is whether we’re watching the right signals closely enough to recognize one when it begins to form.
That is what matters now.
Is Bitcoin’s Bottom Finally In? Don’t drink the tea just yet. was originally published in Coinmonks on Medium, where people are continuing the conversation by highlighting and responding to this story.
Login