CoinRank

American Bitcoin Corp., a mining company backed by the #Trump family, increased its holdings by 416 BTC.
Federal Reserve mouthpiece: The Fed is expected to pause interest rate cuts; the path to resuming rate cuts remains unclear.
$USD1 becomes the fastest-growing tokenized asset on #Solana .
A Spanish municipality was attacked by ransomware; hackers demanded a $5,000 ransom in #Bitcoin .
The Arizona legislature is moving forward with a proposal to exempt crypto assets from property tax.
#CoinRank #GN

The Fed's interest rate meeting may lose focus; the nomination of the new chairman may become the core of market attention.
#Kalshi opens a new office in Washington, D.C., to strengthen his lobbying efforts in the U.S.
#ClawdBot founder: Github account hijacked by crypto scammers
#Tether increases its gold reserves by approximately 27 tons in Q4 2025
#Polymarket launches Bitcoin and Ethereum volatility prediction market
#CoinRank

Stablecoin issuance is commoditized at the token layer, but not at the outcome level where compliance, liquidity, and integration matter most.

 

Buyers face far fewer real choices than it appears, as regulatory, operational, and liquidity constraints quickly narrow viable issuers.

 

Long-term pricing power is more likely to come from bundled rails and network effects than from token creation itself.

Stablecoin issuance is becoming commoditized at the token level, but real competition now centers on compliance, liquidity, distribution, and bundled services that determine real-world outcomes.

 

EVERYONE IS ISSUING STABLECOINS

 

Stablecoins are evolving into application-level financial infrastructure. Following the introduction of the GENIUS Act and the emergence of a clearer regulatory framework, brands such as Western Union, Klarna, Sony Bank, and Fiserv are shifting away from simply “integrating USDC” toward launching “their own dollars” through white-label issuance partnerships.

 

This shift is being driven by the rapid rise of issuance-as-a-service platforms. A few years ago, Paxos was almost the default choice. Today, depending on the type of project, there are more than 10 viable issuance paths, ranging from newer platforms like Bridge and MoonPay, to compliance-first providers such as Anchorage, and industry heavyweights like Coinbase.

 

The growing number of options makes stablecoin issuance appear increasingly commoditized—at least at the level of the token’s underlying architecture. But commoditization depends on who the buyer is and what problem they are trying to solve. Once token mechanics are separated from liquidity management, regulatory posture, and the surrounding infrastructure—such as on- and off-ramps, treasury orchestration, account systems, and card programs—the market no longer resembles a simple price competition. Instead, it becomes a layered contest, where pricing power concentrates around outcomes that are genuinely difficult to replicate.

 

In other words, while core issuance capabilities are converging, providers are far from interchangeable when it comes to compliance, redemption efficiency, time-to-launch, and bundled services—areas where operational outcomes matter most.

 

 

>>> More to read: What is “GENIUS Act”? Can Stablecoins Really Save the Dollar?

WHY DO COMPANIES LAUNCH THEIR OWN BRANDED STABLECOINS?

 

It’s a fair question. In practice, companies are driven by three main motivations:

 

✅Economic upside.
By retaining more customer funds and balances, companies capture greater value from money flows while unlocking adjacent revenue streams such as treasury management, payments, lending, and card programs.

 

✅Behavioral control.
Branded stablecoins allow firms to embed customized rules and incentive mechanisms—such as loyalty or rewards programs—and to determine their own settlement paths and interoperability choices, aligning the currency more closely with their product design and user journeys.

 

✅Faster time to market.
Stablecoins enable teams to roll out new financial experiences globally without having to rebuild a full banking stack from scratch.

 

Importantly, most branded stablecoins do not need to reach USDC-scale to be considered successful. In closed or semi-open ecosystems, the key metric is often not market capitalization, but improvements in ARPU (average revenue per user) or unit economics—namely how much incremental revenue, retention, or operational efficiency the stablecoin functionality brings to the core business.

 

>>> More to read: What is Stablecoin ? Stable Virtual Assets

MARKET STRATIFICATION: WHETHER ISSUANCE IS COMMODITIZED DEPENDS ON WHO THE BUYER IS

 

Commoditization refers to a service becoming so standardized that switching providers does not change the outcome, shifting competition from differentiation to price.

 

If changing issuers would alter the outcomes you care about, then issuance has not been commoditized for you.

 

At the token-infrastructure level, switching issuers usually does not affect results in a meaningful way, which is why this layer is becoming increasingly interchangeable. Most providers can hold similar Treasury-backed reserves, deploy audited mint-and-burn contracts, offer basic control features such as freezing or pausing, support major blockchains, and expose broadly comparable APIs.

 

But brands are rarely purchasing a “simple token deployment.” They are buying outcomes—and the outcomes required depend heavily on the type of buyer. At a market-wide level, issuance has split into several distinct clusters, each with a point at which substitutability breaks down. Within each cluster, teams typically end up with only a small number of truly viable options in practice.

 

Enterprises and financial institutions are driven by procurement processes and optimize primarily for trust. Substitutability breaks down around regulatory credibility, custody standards, governance structures, and the reliability of 24/7 redemptions at scale—often involving hundreds of millions of dollars. In practice, this is a “risk committee–style” purchase: issuers must withstand formal scrutiny on paper and operate in production environments that are stable, predictable, and even deliberately boring.

 

🔍 Representative providers: Paxos, Anchorage, BitGo, SoFi.

 

Fintech companies and consumer wallets are product-led, with an emphasis on delivery and distribution. Alternatives fail on time-to-launch, depth of integration, and the value-added rails that allow stablecoins to function in real business workflows, such as on- and off-ramps. In practice, this is a “ship within the current iteration cycle” procurement strategy: the winning issuer is the one that minimizes coordination around KYC, fiat rails, and treasury flows, and gets the full experience—not just the stablecoin—into production fastest.

 

🚩 Representative providers: Bridge, Brale (MoonPay and Coinbase may also fall into this category, though public information is limited).

 

DeFi and investment platforms are on-chain–native applications that prioritize composability and programmability, including yield-maximizing structures designed around different risk trade-offs. Substitutability weakens around reserve design, liquidity dynamics, and on-chain integration. In practice, this is a “design-constraint tradeoff”: teams are often willing to accept alternative reserve models if they improve composability or returns.

 

🔍 Representative projects: Ethena Labs, M0 Protocol.

 

 

Issuers therefore cluster along two dimensions: enterprise-grade compliance posture and customer access model. Enterprises and financial institutions sit in the lower right, fintech and wallets occupy the middle, and DeFi lies in the upper left.

 

Differentiation is increasingly moving up the stack—most visibly in the fintech and wallet segment. As issuance itself becomes a feature, issuers are competing by bundling more complete service stacks to deliver full outcomes and support distribution. These bundles often include compliant on- and off-ramps with virtual accounts, payment orchestration, custody, and card issuance. By changing time-to-market and operational outcomes, these services help issuers retain pricing power.

 

 

Viewed through this lens, the commoditization question becomes clear.

 

Stablecoin issuance is commoditized at the token level, but not at the outcome level—because buyer constraints make providers difficult to replace.

 

Over time, issuers serving each cluster may converge toward a similar capability set required by that market. But the ecosystem has not reached that point yet.

WHERE COULD DURABLE ADVANTAGES COME FROM?

 

If the token layer has already become the cost of entry, and differentiation at the edges is gradually eroding, the obvious question is whether any issuer can build a lasting moat. For now, this looks more like a customer-acquisition game, with retention driven by switching costs. Changing issuers affects reserve and custody operations, compliance workflows, redemption mechanisms, and downstream system integrations—issuers are not something you can “swap out with a single click.”

 

Beyond bundled services, the most plausible source of long-term moats is network effects. If branded stablecoins increasingly require seamless 1:1 convertibility and shared liquidity, value may accrue to the issuer or protocol layer that becomes the default interoperability network. What remains unclear is whether that network will be controlled by issuers themselves (enabling strong value capture) or evolve into a neutral standard (supporting broader adoption but weaker value capture).

 

A key trend to watch is whether interoperability becomes a commoditized feature—or the primary source of pricing power.

CONCLUSION

 

At present, the core of token issuance is commoditized, while differentiation lives at the margins. Token deployment and basic controls are converging, but outcomes still diverge meaningfully across operations, liquidity support, and system integration.

 

For any buyer, the market is far less crowded than it appears. Real-world constraints quickly narrow the shortlist, and the number of “credible options” is usually only a handful—not dozens.

 

Pricing power comes from bundled services, regulatory posture, and liquidity constraints. The value is not in “creating a token,” but in the full stack of rails that make a stablecoin function.

 

Which moats will endure over the long term remains uncertain. Network effects built around shared liquidity and redemption standards are a plausible path, but as interoperability matures, it is still unclear who will ultimately capture the value.

 

The next question to watch is whether branded stablecoins converge onto a small number of redemption networks, or whether interoperability ultimately becomes a neutral standard. Either way, the conclusion is the same: tokens are just the foundation—the business model is the core.

 

▶ Read the original article

 

 

ꚰ CoinRank x Bitget – Sign up & Trade!

Looking for the latest scoop and cool insights from CoinRank? Hit up our Twitter and stay in the loop with all our fresh stories!

〈Where Stablecoins Really Compete: Regulation, Liquidity, and Reach〉這篇文章最早發佈於《CoinRank》。

Prediction Markets can resemble gambling, but their true nature depends on how participants use them.

 

Beyond speculation, Prediction Markets enable hedging existing risks and managing uncertainty.

 

Arbitrage in Prediction Markets focuses on pricing inefficiencies, not event outcomes, making them closer to financial markets than casinos.

Are Prediction Markets gambling or financial tools? Explore how they work beyond betting, and how speculation, hedging, and arbitrage shape their role in risk management and price discovery.

 

ARE PREDICTION MARKETS SIMPLY A FORM OF GAMBLING?

 

At first glance, many people perceive Prediction Markets as little more than a casino-style system. Users buy YES or NO shares on whether an event will happen, wait for the outcome, and then settle profits or losses. Framed this way, Prediction Markets can easily look like betting on predictions—essentially wagering on who wins and who loses.

 

This impression is not entirely unfounded. At their core, Prediction Markets turn the question of “will an event happen?” into a tradable asset. Participants use money to express their belief about an outcome, and market prices reflect the implied probability of that event occurring. If someone is simply betting on isolated events—such as whether it will rain tomorrow or which team will win a championship—and then waiting for the final result to cash out, the experience does resemble traditional gambling.

 

However, this is only one way Prediction Markets can be used—and it is far from the whole picture.

 

What distinguishes Prediction Markets from a pure gambling environment is the breadth and flexibility of the events they cover. Markets can be created around politics, economics, financial outcomes, policy decisions, and broader sources of uncertainty. Depending on how participants engage, Prediction Markets can take on very different roles. In some cases, they function more like an insurance mechanism for transferring risk. In others, they resemble financial instruments that allow for structured trading and even arbitrage opportunities.

 

As a result, Prediction Markets do not have a single fixed identity.

 

For some participants, Prediction Markets are a source of entertainment and excitement—effectively a betting venue.
For others, they look much closer to insurance products or financial markets.

 

The real distinction lies in the motivation for participation.

 

If someone enters the market purely to guess outcomes and profit from being right, then Prediction Markets operate much like gambling.

But if a participant is already exposed to the risk of a specific event, Prediction Markets become a way to price, trade, and potentially transfer that risk.

 

In this sense, whether Prediction Markets feel like a casino has less to do with YES or NO contracts themselves, and more to do with whether participants are speculating on outcomes—or managing uncertainty that already exists.

 

>>> More to read: What is Crypto Prediction Market? A Complete Beginner’s Guide

3 WAYS TO USE PREDICTION MARKETS

 

✅Speculative Betting

 

The most intuitive way to participate in Prediction Markets—and the reason they are often mistaken for gambling—is speculative betting.
In this approach, participants actively take on the risk of being wrong by placing trades based on their belief about how an event will ultimately unfold.

 

If the prediction is correct, returns depend on the entry price and can range from modest gains to several times the initial stake. If the prediction is wrong, the position may lose its entire value.

 

At its core, this method is a direct bet on the outcome of an event, where profits and losses are entirely determined by whether the forecast proves accurate.

✅Hedging Existing Risk

 

The second use case moves Prediction Markets away from the idea of a casino and closer to a risk management or insurance-like tool.
Here, participants are not primarily seeking profit, but instead aim to reduce or offset a risk they are already exposed to.

 

Hedging typically involves taking positions on outcomes the participant would prefer not to see occur.

If the unfavorable scenario does materialize, gains from Prediction Markets can partially compensate for losses in the participant’s main assets.
If the event does not occur, losses on the hedge function much like an insurance premium—an accepted cost paid to reduce downside risk.

 

In this context, Prediction Markets are used to stabilize outcomes rather than amplify returns.

✅Arbitrage

 

The third approach treats Prediction Markets as a venue where pricing inefficiencies can emerge.

Arbitrage-focused participants face relatively low risk, as they do not directly bet on the final outcome of an event, aside from platform and execution risks.

 

This strategy relies on discrepancies in market pricing.

When the same event is priced inconsistently across time, across platforms, or within a single market, arbitrageurs can establish multiple positions to capture the price spread and profit as prices converge.

 

Because individual profit margins are usually small, arbitrage depends on scale—executing many trades to accumulate meaningful returns.

In this role, Prediction Markets function much like traditional financial markets that facilitate price discovery and correct mispricings.

 

>>> More to read: How Prediction Markets Work on Blockchain?

CONCLUSION

 

Taken together, these three approaches show why Prediction Markets cannot be defined by a single label.

Speculative betting, hedging, and arbitrage all exist within the same market structure, yet they reflect fundamentally different motivations, risk exposures, and behaviors.

 

When used for speculation, Prediction Markets resemble betting on outcomes, where profit depends entirely on being right. When used for hedging, they function as a tool for transferring and managing existing risk, closer in spirit to insurance than gambling. And when used for arbitrage, Prediction Markets operate as a pricing mechanism, allowing participants to profit from inefficiencies rather than event outcomes themselves.

 

The distinction, therefore, lies not in the YES or NO contracts, but in why participants enter the market.

Prediction Markets are not inherently a casino—they are a flexible financial mechanism. Whether they feel like gambling, insurance, or a trading venue depends entirely on how risk is approached, priced, and managed by those who use them.

 

 

ꚰ CoinRank x Bitget – Sign up & Trade!

Looking for the latest scoop and cool insights from CoinRank? Hit up our Twitter and stay in the loop with all our fresh stories!

〈3 Ways to Use Prediction Markets in 2026〉這篇文章最早發佈於《CoinRank》。

Bitcoin is a decentralized, scarce digital asset designed for long-term value storage and market-driven price discovery.

 

Stablecoins prioritize price stability through peg mechanisms, making them ideal for payments, trading, and risk management.

 

Bitcoin and stablecoins are complementary tools—one absorbs volatility for returns, the other minimizes volatility for liquidity.

Bitcoin and stablecoins explained: how decentralized digital money differs from price-pegged crypto, their use cases, risks, and why both play complementary roles in the crypto ecosystem.

 

WHAT IS BITCOIN?

 

Bitcoin is the world’s first decentralized digital currency, introduced in 2009 by an anonymous creator known as Satoshi Nakamoto. Its defining feature is that it operates without any central authority. Instead of relying on banks or governments, Bitcoin uses blockchain technology to record and verify transactions in a transparent, secure, and tamper-resistant way.

 

Within the Bitcoin network, transactions are grouped into blocks and linked together chronologically to form a blockchain. This structure allows anyone to verify transaction records while making it extremely difficult to alter historical data. As a result, Bitcoin achieves trust not through centralized control, but through open verification and decentralized consensus.

 

From a monetary design perspective, Bitcoin has a fixed maximum supply of 21 million coins. This hard cap gives Bitcoin a built-in sense of scarcity. Because its supply cannot be adjusted by policy decisions and its price is determined entirely by market demand, Bitcoin tends to experience higher price volatility compared to traditional currencies.

 

Over time, the role of Bitcoin has continued to evolve. Beyond being viewed as a speculative investment, Bitcoin is increasingly regarded as a long-term store of value and, by some, a hedge against monetary uncertainty. At the same time, it has seen growing use in cross-border transfers and limited merchant payment scenarios, highlighting its practical applications beyond price speculation.

 

Decentralization
Bitcoin operates without any central authority. Transactions are validated by a distributed network, giving users true financial sovereignty over their assets.

 

Scarcity:
Bitcoin has a hard-coded maximum supply of 21 million coins. This fixed limit prevents arbitrary issuance and gives Bitcoin a built-in scarcity that many view as supportive of long-term value.

 

Security:
Through cryptographic principles and a globally distributed miner network, Bitcoin maintains a highly secure transaction system where records are extremely difficult to alter.

 

💡 The value of Bitcoin does not come from technology alone, but from the combination of scarcity, shared market consensus, and a decentralized architecture.

 

>>> More to read: What is Bitcoin: A Comprehensive Overview

WHAT ARE STABLECOINS?

 

Stablecoins are a type of cryptocurrency designed to maintain a stable value by being pegged to a fiat currency, most commonly the U.S. dollar (USD) at a 1:1 ratio. The original purpose of Stablecoins was to address the sharp price fluctuations seen in assets like Bitcoin, allowing cryptocurrencies to function more reliably as tools for payments and transfers.

 

Unlike highly volatile digital assets, Stablecoins are not designed to capture price appreciation. Instead, their primary goal is value stability. This makes Stablecoins especially useful in everyday crypto activity, where users need a predictable unit of account to move funds, settle transactions, or temporarily step away from market volatility without leaving the blockchain ecosystem.

 

The price stability of Stablecoins is maintained through what is known as a peg mechanism. Depending on the design, this mechanism may rely on real-world fiat reserves, crypto asset collateral, or algorithmic supply adjustments to keep the market price aligned with its reference value. These structures allow Stablecoins to remain closely anchored to their target price under normal market conditions.

 

Because of their low volatility and high usability, Stablecoins have become some of the most liquid assets in the crypto market. They are widely used as trading pairs, settlement assets, and short-term risk management tools during periods of heightened market uncertainty. Within the broader crypto ecosystem, Stablecoins function less like speculative assets and more like digital cash—bridging traditional finance and on-chain markets.

 

Value Stability:
Stablecoins are designed to maintain a relatively stable price, making them well-suited for trading, transfers, and short-term value storage.

 

Ease of Integration:
Because Stablecoins are typically pegged to fiat reserves, they can be more easily integrated into existing financial systems, bridging traditional finance and on-chain markets.

 

Low Volatility:
Unlike highly volatile cryptocurrencies, Stablecoins offer a practical hedge against extreme price fluctuations and are commonly used during periods of market uncertainty.

 

>>> More to read: What is Stablecoin ? Stable Virtual Assets

BITCOIN & STABLECOINS: 5 KEY DIFFERENCES EXPLAINED

 

1️⃣ Price Volatility

The most visible difference between Bitcoin and Stablecoins lies in price behavior.

Bitcoin is priced entirely by free market supply and demand, resulting in significant price fluctuations. Stablecoins, by contrast, are pegged to fiat currencies such as the U.S. dollar and typically experience minimal price movement under normal conditions.

2️⃣ Issuance and Mechanism

Bitcoin and Stablecoins are created through fundamentally different processes.

Bitcoin is issued through mining, following a predefined and decentralized protocol. Stablecoins are usually issued by institutions or smart contracts according to specific peg mechanisms.

3️⃣ Use Case and Functional Role

In practice, Bitcoin and Stablecoins serve different purposes.
Stablecoins are commonly used for payments, settlements, capital transfers, and hedging. Bitcoin, on the other hand, is more often used for investment, value storage, and long-term positioning against inflation.

4️⃣ Sources of Risk

The risk profiles of Bitcoin and Stablecoins differ in nature.
Bitcoin mainly carries market volatility risk, along with technical and security considerations. Stablecoins face risks related to issuer reserves and potential regulatory changes.

5️⃣ Investment Characteristics

From an investment perspective, Bitcoin and Stablecoins sit at opposite ends of the risk spectrum.

 

Bitcoin is generally considered a high-risk, high-reward asset, while Stablecoins are low-volatility instruments designed for stability and liquidity rather than capital appreciation.

 

✏️ Overall, Bitcoin and Stablecoins are not competing assets but complementary tools within the crypto ecosystem. Bitcoin absorbs volatility in exchange for potential long-term returns, while Stablecoins minimize volatility to keep capital mobile and predictable.

 

>>> More to read: What’s the Difference Between Blockchain and Bitcoin?

WHY DON’T STABLECOINS EXPERIENCE SHARP PRICE SWINGS?

 

For many people, the first thing they notice when encountering Stablecoins is how their prices “barely move.” This is not a coincidence. From the very beginning, Stablecoins were deliberately designed with one core objective: price stability.

 

The key reason lies in the pricing control logic behind Stablecoins, commonly known as the peg mechanism. This mechanism automatically adjusts supply to keep the market price of Stablecoins anchored close to 1 U.S. dollar over time.

 

In practice, the logic behind Stablecoins is relatively straightforward and can be summarized in two scenarios:

 

✅ When the price rises above $1
The system issues additional Stablecoins, increasing market supply and naturally pushing the price back down through supply–demand dynamics.

 

✅ When the price falls below $1
The system removes or burns a portion of Stablecoins, reducing supply and helping the price move back toward its target level.

 

Through this supply adjustment process, Stablecoins are able to maintain relatively stable prices even during periods of extreme market volatility. This is also one of the key differences between Stablecoins and highly volatile crypto assets such as Bitcoin.

 

However, it’s important to understand that “stability” does not mean “zero risk.” If an issuer lacks sufficient reserves, fails to provide transparent disclosures, or relies on a flawed algorithmic design, the peg mechanism can break. In such cases, Stablecoins may lose their price anchor and even collapse entirely.

 

The most well-known example is the UST collapse in 2022. Once market confidence in that Stablecoin eroded, the system was unable to remove enough supply to restore the peg. As a result, the price adjustment mechanism failed, leading to a complete breakdown and the token ultimately falling to zero.

 

>>> More to read: 

Understanding Tether USDT

What is USD Coin (USDC)? 

USE CASES & PRACTICAL APPLICATIONS

 

📌 Bitcoin Use Cases

 

Investment Purpose:
Bitcoin is often described as “digital gold.” Investors use Bitcoin as a hedge against inflation and as a long-term store of value.

 

Transaction Use:
Bitcoin enables fast and secure cross-border transactions without relying on intermediaries such as banks or payment processors.

 

📌 Stablecoin Use Cases

 

Trading and Risk Management:
During periods of high market volatility, investors use Stablecoins to exit volatile crypto positions without converting back to fiat currency.

 

Remittance Services:
Stablecoins offer a cost-effective and efficient solution for cross-border money transfers compared to traditional remittance systems.

 

Lending and Borrowing:
In decentralized finance (DeFi), Stablecoins are widely used to facilitate lending and borrowing using a relatively stable unit of account.

 

>>> More to read: Cryptocurrency vs Virtual Currency | How to Distinguish Them?

BITCOIN VS STABLECOINS FAQ

 

Q1. Can Bitcoin and Stablecoins—especially Stablecoins—collapse?

 

Yes, but the probability is relatively low. As long as a Stablecoin issuer maintains sufficient reserves and provides transparent disclosures, the price can usually remain close to 1 USD. However, the 2022 UST collapse showed that when algorithmic designs or reserve mechanisms fail, a stablecoin can lose its peg. This is why major Stablecoins such as USDT and USDC are generally considered lower risk.

Q2. Are Bitcoin and Stablecoins—specifically Stablecoins—safer than Bitcoin?

 

If “safety” refers to price volatility, Stablecoins are indeed much more stable than Bitcoin, as their prices rarely fluctuate.
However, in terms of overall risk, Stablecoins are still exposed to regulatory changes, policy risk, and issuer credibility. Bitcoin, while highly volatile, is decentralized and not controlled by any single entity—its safety largely depends on how users store and manage it.

Q3. Which is better for investment: Bitcoin and Stablecoins?

 

It depends on your objective:

 

For short-term risk management or temporarily parking capital, Stablecoins are more suitable.

 

For long-term investment and potential returns, Bitcoin is often preferred.

 

In practice, many investors hold Bitcoin and Stablecoins together—using Stablecoins as an intermediate asset and gradually buying Bitcoin during market downturns to spread risk.

Q4. Can Bitcoin and Stablecoins be held at the same time?

Yes—and it’s very common. Stablecoins can be treated as a “cash reserve,” providing flexibility during market volatility, while Bitcoin functions as a long-term asset position aimed at growth. Holding Bitcoin and Stablecoins together allows investors to balance stability and return potential.

 

 

 

ꚰ CoinRank x Bitget – Sign up & Trade!

Looking for the latest scoop and cool insights from CoinRank? Hit up our Twitter and stay in the loop with all our fresh stories!

〈Bitcoin vs Stablecoins: What Is the Key Difference?〉這篇文章最早發佈於《CoinRank》。

Sharp fluctuations in the Japanese yen forced carry traders to unwind positions, triggering declines in BTC, ETH and risk assets while safe havens like gold surged.

U.S. political gridlock and rising probability of a government shutdown stalled crypto market structure legislation, intensifying regulatory uncertainty and amplifying market volatility.

Long-term Bitcoin holders sold at losses amid systemic risk, highlighting shifting sentiment toward traditional safe havens and probing potential support levels for buying opportunities.

Analysis of sharp crypto market drops driven by Japanese yen volatility and rising U.S. government shutdown risk, weighing macro pressures and investor sentiment.

“Black Monday” has made a comeback.

 

OKX market data shows that in the early hours of January 26, BTC dropped from $88,945 to a low of $86,090, with a maximum decline of 3.21%; ETH also fell from $2,942 to $2,786, a maximum drop of 5.3%; SOL dropped from $126.99 to $117.16, a maximum decline of 7.74%. As of the evening of the 26th, the market saw a slight rebound, with BTC temporarily at $88,200, ETH at $2,915, and SOL at $123.

 

In stark contrast to the gloom enveloping the crypto market, gold and silver prices have repeatedly hit new all-time highs recently. COMEX data shows that the international silver price reached a high of 109.560 USD per ounce within 24 hours, with an intraday gain of 8.03%; international gold also strengthened simultaneously, rising to 5059.7 USD per ounce, a daily increase of 1.65%. Furthermore, the Japanese Yen performed strongly in the foreign exchange market. Data shows that USD/JPY touched 154, hitting a new low since November of last year, with an intraday drop of 1.11%.

 

On social media, the phrase “Anything But Crypto” succinctly captures the frustration of crypto investors.

 

Trigger 1: Volatility in the Japanese Yen Forex Market

 

Today, the Japanese Yen experienced a sharp fluctuation in the foreign exchange market, with the USD/JPY rate surging from 158.4 to 153.9 at one point, a gain of over 4 yen. Behind this change, the market widely speculates that Japan and the US may have already begun joint intervention in the exchange rate, or at least engaged in “rate checking,” a precursor to foreign exchange intervention.

 

The sharp volatility in the Yen’s exchange rate is not sudden. As early as January 23, the USD/JPY rate in the Tokyo forex market experienced a significant short-term surge.

 

The Federal Reserve’s rare “rate checking” move is considered a preparatory stage for forex intervention, signaling the US government’s heightened attention to the Yen’s depreciation. According to a Xinhua News Agency report, rate checking typically occurs in the preliminary stage of exchange rate intervention. It is an action where financial and monetary authorities, through the central bank, inquire with banks about the current exchange rate and market conditions, representing a more direct market operation signal than verbal intervention.

 

In fact, since 1996, the US has only intervened in the foreign exchange market on three separate occasions, the last being in 2011 after the Great East Japan Earthquake, when it sold Yen in conjunction with G7 nations to stabilize the market. Precisely because of this, the market views this sharp Yen fluctuation as a signal of potential joint intervention by Japan and the US, an action likely an emergency response to the Yen’s sharp decline. For the crypto market, this means market liquidity and risk sentiment could be significantly impacted, especially amid heightened global macroeconomic uncertainty.

 

Why Does a Stronger Yen Exacerbate Bitcoin’s Decline?

 

For a long time, Japan’s low-interest-rate policy has attracted global investors to the carry trade of borrowing Yen to invest in higher-yielding assets. This so-called “Yen carry trade” has been a crucial component of global market liquidity. Carry traders borrow low-interest Yen, convert it into other high-yield assets like US dollars, and invest in risk assets such as Bitcoin and stocks. However, when the Yen’s exchange rate appreciates sharply, carry traders typically face pressure from rising funding costs, forcing them to unwind their positions and sell Bitcoin to repay debts.

 

Take August 2024 as an example. The Yen surged sharply due to the Bank of Japan’s unexpected rate hike and market expectations for currency intervention. This triggered a collapse in carry trades, causing Bitcoin to plummet from $65,000 to $50,000 within a few days.

 

Now, with the Yen surging sharply again, similar carry trades in the market may be forced to unwind once more, further exacerbating Bitcoin price volatility.

 

 

Furthermore, those familiar with global financial markets know that the Yen is not just Japan’s currency; it is also seen as a barometer of global economic risk. Whenever global market uncertainty intensifies, funds often flow into the Yen as a “safe-haven currency.” This phenomenon is particularly evident during periods of global economic crisis or financial turmoil. However, the Yen’s exchange rate fluctuations reflect not only the health of the Japanese economy but also changes in global risk sentiment.

 

This is why frequent fluctuations in the Yen’s exchange rate, especially when the global macroeconomy faces uncertainty, directly affect the prices of risk assets like Bitcoin. When the Yen’s exchange rate continues to fluctuate and intensify, global market risk aversion rises, and risk assets (including Bitcoin) often experience corrections, while safe-haven assets like gold and silver may see gains. Particularly against the backdrop of potential joint forex intervention by the US and Japan, a short-term correction in Bitcoin’s price has become an inevitable market reaction.

 

It is worth noting that the negative correlation between Bitcoin and the US Dollar Index (DXY) is particularly significant. When the dollar strengthens, investors tend to shift funds to dollar-denominated assets, reducing demand for high-risk assets like Bitcoin, putting downward pressure on Bitcoin. Conversely, when the dollar weakens, Bitcoin may find opportunities for gains. If this US-Japan intervention succeeds, causing the USD/JPY rate to fall significantly, the DXY will be suppressed, providing upward support for Bitcoin, which is primarily priced in US dollars.

 

However, looking at it dialectically, while exchange rate intervention may push Bitcoin prices higher in the short term, if it does not change the market’s fundamentals, price increases are often difficult to sustain. Past exchange rate intervention events show that government intervention is only temporary; changes in market trends depend more on the fundamentals of the global economy.

 

Trigger 2: Increased Probability of Another US Government Shutdown, Crypto Market Structure Bill Potentially Stalled Again

 

Following another deadly law enforcement shooting in Minnesota, the risk of a US government shutdown has sharply increased. According to the latest data from Polymarket, market predictions for a government shutdown have surged to 82%.

 

 

This situation was triggered by a fatal shooting incident in Minneapolis on January 24. Alex Pretti, a 37-year-old emergency room nurse, was killed during a confrontation with federal law enforcement officers. After the incident, federal and local law enforcement agencies gave conflicting accounts of what happened. The shooting itself sparked widespread public outrage and quickly became a trigger for political maneuvering.

 

Democratic leader Chuck Schumer explicitly stated that if the controversy over the Department of Homeland Security’s (DHS) law enforcement actions is not resolved, Democrats will do everything to block the progress of the budget bill. Since the Senate requires 60 votes to pass legislation, this political deadlock will directly impact government operations. It is worth noting that the government has fallen into another shutdown “deadlock” just two months after the last 43-day shutdown.

 

This political predicament not only means the US government faces the threat of a shutdown but also directly impacts the regulatory progress of the crypto industry. The crypto market structure bill review meeting originally scheduled for January had to be delayed due to controversy. However, the intensification of this political battle means the bill, which should have continued to advance, may have fallen into deadlock again.

 

While consensus seems relatively high on the “market structure” part of the crypto bill, disputes over issues like stablecoin yields, DeFi compliance, and the SEC’s regulatory tools in the tokenized securities space present significant political obstacles to the bill’s progress.

 

As Alex Thorn, Head of Research at Galaxy Digital, pointed out, this delay highlights deep-seated disagreements between Congress and the crypto industry on several key issues, particularly regarding stablecoin yield mechanisms and DeFi-related provisions. Alex Thorn further mentioned that within just 48 hours, over 100 amendments were submitted, with stakeholders continuously discovering new points of contention at the last minute, significantly increasing the difficulty of political coordination. For the crypto market, policy uncertainty exacerbates market volatility, and a government shutdown means unpredictable regulatory policies in the short term, filling investors with uncertainty and anxiety about the future. (Recommended reading: “CLARITY Review Suddenly Delayed, Why Are Industry Divisions So Severe?”)

 

Conclusion

 

In this macro game, gold has reasserted its market dominance with a “retro” posture. When the international gold price first broke through $5,000, the flow of safe-haven funds became evident. Meanwhile, Bitcoin, once hailed as “digital gold,” delivered a dismal performance in this systemic shock—for the first time since October 2023, long-term holders (LTH) have exited the market on a large scale while in a state of loss, “cutting their losses.” This is not just a price collapse but a collapse of trust in Bitcoin’s role during a genuine financial crisis. The market at this moment is choosing not innovation, but stable safe-haven assets, as evidenced by gold’s surge.

 

All this reveals a harsh reality: under the shadow of a financial crisis, the market tends to favor “stability” over “narrative.” Gold, as a safe-haven asset, has solidified its position as a harbor during sovereign credit crises, while Bitcoin’s weakness exposes its still-fragile foundation of trust within the mainstream financial system. The million-dollar bet on Polymarket about “whether gold or ETH would reach $5,000 first” has been settled. Gold’s decisive victory not only marks a decisive price breakthrough but also symbolizes a “return to traditional aesthetics” in the market.

 

Although traditional assets have regained dominance, emerging assets are still groping in the fog for the market’s genuine trust. However, market shifts are not without opportunity. The crypto market, having broken the “four-year cycle” pattern, still harbors opportunities for buying the dip.

 

As Placeholder VC partner Chris Burniske stated, from a buyer’s perspective, BTC price levels worth watching include: around $80,000 (the November 2025 low, the current cycle’s stage low); around $74,000 (the April 2025 low, formed during the tariff panic); around $70,000 (near the 2021 bull market peak); around $58,000 (near the 200-week moving average); and $50,000 and below (the lower bound of the weekly range, holding strong psychological significance; a break below could trigger “Bitcoin is dead” discussions).

〈Double Whammy: Yen Exchange Rate Volatility + Potential Government Shutdown, Where is the Bottom of the Crypto Market?〉這篇文章最早發佈於《CoinRank》。

Clawdbot gateway exposed, hundreds of API keys and private chat logs vulnerable to attack

The surge in gold and silver prices has masked the strengthening fundamentals of cryptocurrencies

The decline in stablecoin market capitalization indicates that funds are flowing into gold and silver, rather than Bitcoin

The scalability hierarchy of blockchain consists of computation, data, and state

Welcome to CoinRank Daily Data Report. In this column series, CoinRank will provide important daily cryptocurrency data news, allowing readers to quickly understand the latest developments in the cryptocurrency market.

Clawdbot gateway exposed, hundreds of API keys and private chat logs vulnerable to attack

 

SlowMist’s Chief Information Security Officer, 23pds, issued a warning stating that the Clawdbot gateway is exposed, with hundreds of API keys and private chat logs vulnerable to attack. Unauthenticated instances are exposed online, and multiple code flaws exist that could lead to credential theft and remote code execution.

 

The surge in gold and silver prices has masked the strengthening fundamentals of cryptocurrencies

 

Bitmine Chairman Tom Lee posted on the X platform, stating, “The parabolic surge in gold and silver is masking the continued strengthening of the intrinsic fundamentals of cryptocurrencies, especially Ethereum and Bitcoin.

 

As emphasized at the Davos 2026 forum, financial institutions have clearly identified Ethereum and smart blockchain platforms as the foundation for building their future financial infrastructure.

 

When fundamentals show an ‘upward climb,’ it’s only a matter of time before prices rise accordingly.”

 

The decline in stablecoin market capitalization indicates that funds are flowing into gold and silver, rather than Bitcoin

 

Crypto analytics platform Santiment points out that the total market capitalization of stablecoins has decreased by $2.24 billion in the past 10 days, potentially indicating an outflow of funds from the crypto ecosystem or delaying market recovery.

 

The agency analyzes that this capital appears to have shifted to traditional safe-haven assets such as gold and silver, driving their prices to new highs, while Bitcoin, the overall crypto market, and stablecoin market capitalization have seen a correction.

 

Santiment stated that the decline in stablecoin market capitalization reflects investors converting to fiat currency rather than preparing to buy on dips, while increased demand for precious metals indicates a market shift towards safe-haven assets.

 

Historical data shows that strong recovery in the crypto market often begins with a rebound in stablecoin market capitalization, signifying new capital inflows and restored confidence.

 

Prior to this, altcoins and other risk assets may continue to face pressure. While Bitcoin has been relatively resilient, the shrinking supply of stablecoins will still limit overall upside potential.

 

The scalability hierarchy of blockchain consists of computation, data, and state

 

Ethereum co-founder Vitalik Buterin explained the scalability hierarchy of blockchain as computation, data, and state. He stated that computation is relatively the easiest to scale, achievable through parallel processing, requiring “hints” from block builders, or directly replacing large amounts of computation with proofs.

 

Data resides in the intermediate layer. If data availability is guaranteed, this requirement cannot be circumvented, but it can be split using techniques such as sharding and erasure coding (e.g., PeerDAS), allowing for graceful degradation (e.g., a node can still produce blocks of 1/10th the size even with only 1/10 of the data capacity).

 

State is the most difficult to extend. To ensure the verifiability of a single transaction, the complete state must be obtained. If the state is replaced with a tree and only the root hash is retained, updating the root still requires the complete state. Although methods for splitting the state exist, these methods typically involve architectural changes and lack general applicability.

 

Therefore, he concludes that if a solution can replace state with data, or data with computation, without introducing new centralized risks, it should, in principle, be seriously considered.

〈CoinRank Daily Data Report (1/27)｜Clawdbot gateway exposed, hundreds of API keys and private chat logs vulnerable to attack〉這篇文章最早發佈於《CoinRank》。

#Coinbase Derivatives launched copper and platinum futures trading early this morning.
#Santiment : The decline in stablecoin market capitalization indicates funds are flowing into gold and silver, not Bitcoin.
#Ripple partners with a division of Saudi bank Riyad Bank for blockchain payments and custody services.
#SlowMist 's Chief Information Security Officer: Clawdbot gateway exposure puts a large number of API keys and private chat logs at risk.
North Korean hackers use AI-generated deepfake video calls to attack crypto professionals.
#CoinRank

Clawdbot marks a real shift from conversational AI to agentic AI, where systems are no longer limited to explaining tasks but are trusted to execute them continuously and independently.

By running locally with system level access, Clawdbot reframes AI as personal infrastructure rather than a cloud service, returning execution power and long term control to individual users.

The risks exposed by Clawdbot are not design flaws but early signals of an unavoidable future, where users must choose between restricted safety and full autonomy in AI driven workflows.

For much of the recent AI boom, the story looked predictable. Each new model promised better reasoning, stronger writing, and faster responses. People tested the same prompts, compared outputs, and argued about benchmarks. At first, those gains felt like a breakthrough. Over time, the excitement started to fade. Many users reached the same conclusion in different words. AI sounded smarter, but it did not change their day in a reliable way.

 

The reason was simple. Most AI stayed inside a chat box.

 

 

A chat box is great for answers. It is weaker for outcomes. Real work does not end when a reply appears. It continues across files, tabs, tools, logins, forms, and follow ups. It also continues when you stop watching. That is where most AI still failed. It could tell you what to do, but it could not carry the task across the messy steps that make the task real.

 

Clawdbot went viral because it crossed that boundary.

 

It did not become popular because it used a magical new model. It became popular because it treated AI as an agent that can act, not only speak. It stayed online. It touched the local system. It kept state. It moved tasks forward when the user was not typing. For many people, this was the first time an AI tool felt like it was doing work rather than talking about work.

 

That is why Clawdbot became a lightning rod. Some people felt relief because it matched what they wanted AI to be. Others felt discomfort because it looked risky. Both groups shared it. That is how a tool escapes the developer niche and turns into a wider moment.

 

WHY CLAWDBOT SUDDENLY FELT DIFFERENT

 

Clawdbot arrived when users had already learned the limits of conversation based AI. They had used assistants for writing, summarizing, and coding help. They had also learned a pattern. The assistant would give good guidance, then hand the messy part back to the user. The user still had to open the terminal, run the command, copy the output, retry the failed step, and fix the environment. The assistant was smart, but the user remained the operator.

 

In contrast, the appeal of Clawdbot was immediate and concrete. It promised a system that can operate where the work actually happens. That means the file system, the shell, and the browser. Those are the places where daily workflows live. When an AI tool enters those places, it stops being a writing partner and starts becoming a coordinator.

 

This shift also matched a broader trend. Many people no longer want more content. They want fewer loops. They want fewer repeated steps. They want fewer times where they must translate an idea into a sequence of clicks and commands. Agentic tools promise to reduce those loops. Clawdbot became a symbol of that promise.

 

The timing mattered too. Model quality had reached a point where the main barrier was not language. The barrier was integration and control. The question changed from, can AI think, to, can AI do. Clawdbot looked like an answer that did not wait for a platform company to bless it.

 

HOW CLAWDBOT WENT VIRAL IN PRACTICE

 

Clawdbot spread in a way that often signals real adoption rather than marketing. It spread through demonstrations and replications. People did not only read about it. They watched someone run it, then tried it themselves, then posted what they built.

 

The first wave came from technical communities. Users shared short clips or threads that showed an AI completing multi step tasks. Some examples looked simple, yet they felt different from chat outputs. The AI would read a folder, find the right file, modify it, run tests, see failures, and iterate. In other demos, it would open a browser, navigate a workflow, fill forms, and gather the final output. Viewers did not only see reasoning. They saw execution.

 

These demos changed the unit of value. In a chat model, value is an answer. In an agent model, value is a finished state. The finished state might be a merged pull request, a deployed service, a cleaned spreadsheet, or a weekly report delivered on time. Once people see that, they evaluate AI differently.

 

The second wave came from people who did not want to learn automation tooling. In the past, you had to know scripts, cron jobs, and API glue to build personal automation. You also had to maintain it. Clawdbot offered a different promise. You could describe the task and let the agent build the glue. Even if this promise was not perfect, it lowered the psychological barrier.

 

 

The third wave came from a kind of social proof that matters in technical culture. When a few respected builders say, I am running this locally and it helps, others pay attention. The system also made for good storytelling. A tool that feels like a personal Jarvis is easier to share than a tool described as an automation framework.

 

As a result, Clawdbot did not go viral as a meme. It went viral as a workflow artifact. People shared screenshots of their setups, their logs, and their machine choices. That style of sharing created a feedback loop. More setups led to more use cases, which led to more demand for better guides, safer defaults, and new extensions.

 

WHAT CLAWDBOT IS AT A SYSTEM LEVEL

 

At a high level, Clawdbot is a self hosted personal AI agent that runs on your own machine or on a server you control. It acts as a gateway between large language models and the tools that matter in daily work. Those tools include the shell, the file system, and the browser. It also connects to messaging channels so you can control it from places you already use.

 

This framing matters because it changes what the tool optimizes for. Most chat products optimize for user experience inside the chat window. Clawdbot optimizes for operating your environment. That is why people describe it as a tool that has hands, not only words.

 

Clawdbot is also model flexible. The name may make people assume a specific model. In practice, the design can support different model providers. This flexibility is a core reason it spread among builders. People want control over latency, cost, and privacy. A tool that forces a single model choice will lose users quickly. A tool that treats the model as a replaceable brain will gain user trust.

 

Another key system trait is persistence. Clawdbot stores memory and configuration locally. It does not treat each chat as a disposable session. It keeps a long term record of tasks, preferences, and results. It can also maintain logs that you can inspect. This creates accountability and debugging possibilities that chat products often lack.

 

Finally, Clawdbot is not limited to one interface. It can be controlled through chat apps and messaging platforms. That matters because work happens across contexts. Sometimes you want to ask your agent to do something while you are away from your desk. When an agent lives behind a message thread, it becomes easier to treat it like a worker that you can ping.

 

WHY LOCAL FIRST IS NOT A SMALL DETAIL

 

Local first is often described as a privacy preference. For Clawdbot, it is more than that. It is the foundation of the agent model.

 

When an AI agent runs locally, it can access local files directly. It can operate the tools you already have. It can keep a stable environment. It can also avoid sending everything through a third party platform. These traits change what tasks are possible. For example, a local agent can maintain a working directory, run commands that require your environment variables, and manage the dependencies that your projects use.

 

 

Local first also shifts the trust relationship. With cloud AI, users depend on a provider to handle memory, permissions, and data retention. Users must accept policies and hope the system behaves. With local first, users can inspect what is stored. They can edit it. They can delete it. They can also isolate the agent in a dedicated machine or sandbox.

 

That does not eliminate risk. It changes who holds the keys.

 

In addition, local first makes persistence cheaper and more natural. A cloud assistant often limits memory for safety and cost. A local agent can store long term notes and logs without asking a provider to host them. This allows new workflows. For example, an agent can maintain a daily journal of events, parse it, and generate weekly summaries without needing a paid memory tier.

 

As a result, local first is not only about security. It is about autonomy and continuity.

 

WHY THE AGENTIC MODEL FEELS LIKE A PHASE CHANGE

 

To understand why Clawdbot felt like a turning point, it helps to separate two layers of AI progress.

 

The first layer is model intelligence. Better models produce better text and better plans. That layer has advanced quickly.

 

The second layer is operational integration. This includes permissions, tools, memory, scheduling, and verification. This layer has advanced slower, partly because it is risky and hard to productize. Clawdbot pushed on this second layer.

 

When the operational layer improves enough, the user experience changes abruptly. Users stop asking, what do you think, and start asking, can you do this. They also start judging the agent by whether the task completes, not by how good the explanation sounded.

 

This is why some people describe the moment as a phase change. It feels less like a better assistant and more like a new class of software. The agent becomes an execution surface. It sits between you and the system, translating intent into action.

 

In that sense, the agent is not only a tool. It is a new interface to computing.

 

WHAT PEOPLE ACTUALLY BUILT WITH CLAWDBOT

 

Clawdbot went viral because the use cases were practical. They were not only demos.

 

Many early adopters used it for developer workflows. They asked it to manage issue triage, generate pull request drafts, run tests, and propose fixes. Some users treated it as a local version of coding assistants, but with stronger integration. Instead of copying code between windows, they let the agent modify the codebase directly and run the toolchain.

 

Other users used it for research workflows. The agent could monitor sources, pull updates, summarize changes, and package information into a report. The key value was continuity. The agent could run this process daily without being prompted. It could also store the outputs in a local archive.

 

Another group used it for personal administration. They asked it to track calendars, reminders, and repeated tasks. They also connected it to messaging apps, which made it feel like a secretary that can be reached from anywhere. In this setup, the agent is less about intelligence and more about follow through.

 

The most interesting use cases combined all three. A user could ask the agent to monitor a market signal, update a spreadsheet, and then send a message when a threshold is crossed. This is not new as an abstract idea. Yet people rarely built it because it required too much glue. The agent model reduces the glue burden by letting natural language serve as the control plane.

 

WHY MAC MINI BECAME PART OF THE STORY

 

The Mac mini phenomenon is not a joke. It is a signal.

 

Agentic software changes hardware requirements. A chat assistant can be used on any device because it runs in the cloud. A local agent needs a machine that can stay online and remain stable. It also needs quiet operation, low power consumption, and high reliability.

 

This is why small efficient machines became popular choices. People did not need a gaming PC. They needed a box that can run for weeks. They also wanted a machine that would not heat up a room or make noise. In addition, a stable operating system environment reduces friction. Developers care about this because a broken environment breaks the agent.

 

The hardware trend reflects a deeper shift. Personal compute is becoming infrastructure again. Many users had stopped thinking about owning a server. Cloud services made it unnecessary. A local agent makes it useful again.

 

This does not mean cloud is going away. It means the balance is shifting. Some tasks will remain cloud based. Yet more users will keep an always on box for personal automation. That changes what software companies can assume about their users.

 

WHY CLAWDBOT THREATENS THE SaaS GLUE ECONOMY

 

For years, many automation products built a business around connecting services. They offered triggers, workflows, and integrations. These products solved real problems. However, they also produced a certain style of limitation. Users could only automate what the platform supported. Complex workflows often required paid tiers and brittle setups.

 

A local agent changes this dynamic.

 

If an agent can read documentation, call APIs, and operate a browser, it can replace many glue workflows. It can also handle edge cases by reasoning, not only by following a fixed template. As a result, some automation tasks may shift away from SaaS platforms and toward personal agents.

 

This does not destroy the SaaS category. It forces a change in value. SaaS products may need to offer deeper guarantees, better reliability, and safer permissions. They may also become tool providers for agents rather than the main interface. In that future, the agent becomes the user, and the SaaS is an API.

 

This is why Clawdbot is not only a tool story. It is a distribution story. It suggests that the next interface may not be a web app. It may be a local agent that talks to many services.

 

HOW THIS HITS THE APP STORE MODEL

 

Another consequence of agentic software is that it changes what an app is.

 

Many apps exist to provide a narrow function through a dedicated interface. If an agent can perform that function by controlling the web interface or calling the API, the need for a dedicated app may shrink. In addition, an agent can compose functions across apps in a way a single app cannot.

 

This creates a challenge. App ecosystems rely on users switching context. Agents reduce context switching. If the agent can do the job through one conversation, the app becomes a backend.

 

This does not mean apps disappear. Yet it does suggest a shift. Apps that rely on simple workflows may face pressure. Apps that provide deep capabilities and strong primitives may remain essential. Over time, more apps may become modules that agents call.

 

As a result, agentic software may push the market toward primitives and APIs rather than interfaces.

 

SECURITY IS NOT A SIDE ISSUE, IT IS THE CORE ISSUE

 

Clawdbot became popular partly because it looked powerful. It also became controversial because power carries risk.

 

When an AI agent can run shell commands and access files, the attack surface expands. The biggest fear is not that the agent will hallucinate text. The fear is that it will execute the wrong action. This can happen through user mistakes, model errors, or malicious manipulation.

 

Prompt injection is one category. If the agent reads untrusted content and treats it as instruction, an attacker can try to steer the agent into harmful actions. In a chat setting, this might produce a bad answer. In an agent setting, it can produce a bad command.

 

Exposure of the gateway is another category. If a user deploys the agent and exposes it to the public internet without strong authentication, it can become a target. An attacker does not need to exploit the model. They can exploit the control plane.

 

Privilege concentration is a third category. Agents often hold API keys, tokens, and credentials. They also hold access to personal data. If the agent is compromised, the damage can spread quickly across services. This makes agent security different from typical application security. It is closer to securing a human operator account.

 

As a result, security must be treated as a first order design constraint, not as an optional add on.

 

WHAT SAFE OPERATION LOOKS LIKE IN PRACTICE

 

The practical path forward is not to avoid agents. It is to operate them with strong boundaries.

 

One approach is network isolation. Users should avoid exposing an agent directly to the public internet. Instead, they can use private networking tools and secure tunnels. This reduces scanning risks and prevents casual discovery.

 

Another approach is permission scoping. The agent should not run with unlimited system privileges. It should operate within a restricted environment. For example, a separate user account, a container, or a dedicated machine can reduce blast radius. If the agent can only access a specific folder and a specific set of tools, mistakes are less damaging.

 

A third approach is high risk step approval. Some actions should require human confirmation. Examples include sending money, deleting large files, changing security settings, or emailing external recipients. The goal is not to slow the agent down. The goal is to prevent irreversible mistakes.

 

Logging and audit are also essential. Users should be able to see what commands ran and why. Good logs turn a scary black box into a debuggable system. They also make it easier to detect abuse.

 

Finally, users should treat the agent as a sensitive endpoint. That means regular updates, careful credential handling, and least privilege by default.

 

These practices are not glamorous. Yet without them, agentic tools will face predictable failures.

 

WHY CLAWDBOT STILL MATTERS EVEN IF IT NEVER BECOMES MAINSTREAM

 

Clawdbot does not need to win market share to change the industry. Its main contribution is proof.

 

It proves that personal agents can be operational today. It proves that users are willing to trade some safety for more control. It proves that people want AI to execute, not only advise.

 

It also proves that a local first agent can generate its own ecosystem. Once a tool becomes a platform for extensions, it can grow beyond its original scope. Developers build connectors, safer defaults, and new workflows. That creates compounding value.

 

Most importantly, Clawdbot changes expectations. After people see an agent do real work, they judge other assistants differently. They ask why the assistant cannot maintain state across days. They ask why it cannot run tasks on a schedule. They ask why it cannot take the final step.

 

Once these questions spread, the assistant model feels incomplete.

 

WHO WILL ADOPT AGENTS FIRST AND WHY

 

The first adopters of personal agents are not random. They share traits.

 

They have repeated workflows that are expensive in time. They also have enough technical comfort to host and manage a system. Developers, traders, researchers, founders, and operators fit this profile. They can measure time saved. They also face constant context switching. Agents reduce that friction.

 

The next wave will come from teams and small businesses. They often cannot hire enough staff for back office tasks. A reliable agent can cover scheduling, reporting, and routine coordination. In this setting, the agent is not a novelty. It is a labor substitute for low risk tasks.

 

Large enterprises will adopt slower, mainly because of compliance and security. Yet they will face another dynamic. Employees will bring agents into work through personal setups. This creates shadow AI, similar to shadow IT. Companies will need policies, tooling, and safe internal agent platforms to respond.

 

As a result, adoption will not be linear. It will come in waves driven by incentives and constraints.

 

WHAT THIS MEANS FOR THE FUTURE OF WORKFLOWS

 

Agentic AI changes workflows in two main ways.

 

First, it reduces the need for manual coordination. Many jobs include a large fraction of work that is not deep thinking. It is moving information between systems, following up, compiling updates, and keeping tasks on track. Agents are well suited for this layer.

 

Second, it changes the skill that matters. In a chat model, skill is asking the right question. In an agent model, skill becomes defining the right goal, setting the right boundaries, and verifying the outcome. This is closer to management than to typing.

 

Over time, people who can manage agents effectively will produce more output with less effort. That can create a new productivity gap. It can also create new risks if people delegate too much without verification.

 

Therefore, the future is not only about smarter models. It is about better operational discipline.

 

WHY THIS MOMENT FEELS LIKE A FORK

 

Clawdbot sits at a fork in AI product design.

 

One path keeps AI inside strict safety walls. It focuses on answers, not actions. It scales through platforms. It trades autonomy for predictability.

 

The other path pushes AI into execution. It treats AI as infrastructure. It relies on local control and user responsibility. It trades predictability for power.

 

Both paths will exist. Yet the existence of the second path changes the first path. Once users know autonomy is possible, they pressure products to move closer to it. Platform companies will respond carefully, but the direction is set.

 

This is why Clawdbot feels like a turning point. It is not the final form. It is a demonstration that the path exists and that people will walk it.

 

WHAT TO WATCH NEXT

 

If you want to track where this trend goes, a few signals matter.

 

Watch how agent frameworks improve permission control. Safe autonomy depends on permission systems that are easy to configure. If the ecosystem builds strong defaults, adoption will expand.

 

Watch how tooling improves verification. The hardest part of delegation is knowing whether the agent did the right thing. Systems that provide clear proofs, audits, and rollbacks will build trust.

 

Watch how marketplaces evolve. If agents can discover and install skills safely, they will become platforms. This can reshape software distribution.

 

Watch how enterprises respond. Policies and internal agent stacks will reveal how serious the shift is. A strict ban often signals fear. A structured adoption strategy signals acceptance.

 

Finally, watch the hardware layer. If more users keep always on personal machines, personal infrastructure becomes normal again. That will change what products assume about the environment.

 

Clawdbot became popular because it did something that many people wanted AI to do but had not seen in a practical form. It moved AI from conversation to execution. It made AI persistent. It made AI local. It also made AI risky in a way that forces real choices.

 

This is not only a story about one open source project. It is a story about shifting expectations and shifting control. It suggests a future where the main interface to software is not an app, but an agent. It also suggests a future where users hold more autonomy, but also carry more responsibility.

 

Clawdbot may not be the destination. Yet it marked a moment. It showed that AI can stop talking about work and start doing it.

〈Clawdbot and the Turning Point of Personal AI Agents〉這篇文章最早發佈於《CoinRank》。

The proposed ETF would hold physical Bitcoin while using covered call options to create additional income.

 

Option premiums, primarily from calls written on IBIT shares, are intended to provide regular yield at the cost of limited upside.

 

The filing highlights growing demand for income-oriented crypto ETFs alongside traditional spot Bitcoin products.

BlackRock has filed for an iShares Bitcoin Premium Income ETF that combines spot Bitcoin exposure with an actively managed covered call strategy to generate yield.

 

BLACKROCK PLANS A BITCOIN PREMIUM INCOME ETF

 

Major asset manager BlackRock plans to launch the “iShares Bitcoin Premium Income ETF,” expanding its lineup of Bitcoin investment products. The fund aims to provide direct spot Bitcoin exposure while also generating income.

 

SEC FILING AND STRUCTURE

 

According to filings submitted on Friday to the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), the new fund, like BlackRock’s existing spot Bitcoin ETF IBIT, will primarily track the price of Bitcoin by holding physical Bitcoin. At the same time, it will generate income through an actively managed covered call strategy.

 

HOW THE COVERED CALL STRATEGY WORKS

 

To produce income, the fund’s investment adviser will actively sell call options, primarily on IBIT fund shares, though at times the options may reference other Bitcoin-tracking ETP indices. The option premiums collected will serve as the fund’s income source.

 

POSITIONING AMONG CRYPTO INCOME PRODUCTS

 

The fund has not yet announced a ticker and, once launched, will join a growing group of covered call crypto investment products. Such products are structured to generate monthly income by giving up part of the upside, earning option premiums in exchange for agreeing to sell at a predetermined strike price.

 

Original Article

〈BlackRock Files Bitcoin Premium Income ETF Using Covered Calls〉這篇文章最早發佈於《CoinRank》。

Tether increased its gold exposure by roughly 27 metric tons in the fourth quarter, reinforcing XAUT’s one-to-one physical gold backing.

 

XAUT now represents just over half of the global gold-token market, far ahead of its closest competitor.

 

Rising gold prices, geopolitical risk, and accelerating RWA tokenization are driving rapid growth in gold-backed digital assets.

Tether added another 27 metric tons of gold in Q4 2025, strengthening XAUT’s position as the dominant gold-backed token with over 50% market share amid surging demand for on-chain safe-haven assets.

 

TETHER RELEASES Q4 ATTESTATION FOR TETHER GOLD

 

Stablecoin issuer Tether released its fourth-quarter attestation report for Tether Gold ($XAUT) on Monday. As of December 31, its total gold reserves stood at approximately 520,089 troy ounces, with a total market value of about USD 2.25 billion. In addition, Tether-affiliated funds increased their gold exposure by roughly 27 metric tons in the fourth quarter of 2025, broadly in line with analysts’ estimates of around 26 metric tons purchased in the third quarter.

 

XAUT SUPPLY AND BACKING DETAILS

 

According to Tether’s statement, each XAUT token is backed by one ounce of physical gold. Current circulating supply stands at 522,089 tokens, of which 110,871 are available for sale. This indicates that Tether has pre-allocated additional token inventory that has not yet been formally distributed.

 

 

GOLD PRICE SURGE AND TOKENIZED GOLD GROWTH

 

Following a 64% surge in 2025, gold has risen a further 18% year-to-date, breaking above the USD 5,000-per-ounce threshold. Tether noted that demand for real-world asset (RWA) tokenization is accelerating, with gold-backed tokens expanding rapidly in 2025, growing in total market capitalization from roughly USD 1.3 billion to more than USD 4 billion.

 

DRIVERS BEHIND THE EXPANSION

 

The company attributed this growth to record-high gold prices, increasing geopolitical fragmentation, and rising demand from both institutions and digitally native users for “assets that function as hedges while remaining fully on-chain.”

 

TETHER EMERGES AS A MAJOR INSTITUTIONAL GOLD BUYER

 

Tether added that its gold-backed tokenization strategy has made it a significant institutional gold buyer. The company wrote:

 

“Based on data from the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and a report published by Jefferies at the end of 2025, Tether now ranks among the world’s top 30 holders of gold, surpassing countries such as Greece, Qatar, and Australia. In the fourth quarter of 2025 alone, Tether Gold Investments (including Tether International Limited and TG Commodities Limited) increased the fund’s gold exposure by approximately 27 metric tons, exceeding the amount purchased by most individual central banks during the same period.”

 

Tether CEO Paolo Ardoino said in the statement: “Our current operating scale allows the Tether Gold Investment Fund to stand alongside sovereign-level gold holders, and that comes with real responsibility.”

 

CENTRAL BANK COMPARISON

 

By comparison, the National Bank of Poland was the most aggressive buyer among central banks that publicly report gold purchases, adding 35 metric tons to its reserves in the fourth quarter, bringing total holdings to 550 metric tons.

 

XAUT MARKET SHARE LEADERSHIP

 

According to data from The Block, as of January 25, XAUT’s market capitalization stood at approximately USD 2.61 billion, accounting for about 51% of the global gold-backed token market. The second-largest is Paxos-issued PAXG, with a market share of around 40%.

 

Original Article

〈Tether Adds 27 Tons of Gold in Q4, XAUT Tops 50% Market Share〉這篇文章最早發佈於《CoinRank》。

The USD1 airdrop on Binance appears less attractive than headline figures suggest, with rapid supply growth and token price risk likely pushing effective yields toward the high single digits.

 

Onchain strategies currently offer higher nominal returns, led by OpenEden’s PRISM pre-deposit incentives and ListaDAO’s U/USDT LP program, though a significant portion of yield is driven by token rewards rather than base yield.

 

Across all options, investors must weigh headline APY against dilution, liquidity constraints, and incentive sustainability, as elevated yields largely reflect short-term promotional dynamics rather than structural carry.

A comparative snapshot of current passive yield opportunities across exchanges and onchain strategies, assessing USD1 airdrop returns alongside higher-APY DeFi options from ListaDAO, OpenEden, and Buidlpad.

 

EXCHANGE-BASED YIELD

 

At the moment, the most talked-about yield opportunity is undoubtedly Binance’s newly renewed USD1 holding subsidy program.

 

On January 23, Binance announced an airdrop campaign for eligible users holding USD1 on the platform. The campaign runs from January 23 to February 20, with a total reward pool equivalent to USD 40 million in WLFI. Eligible users must hold a USD1 balance in any Binance account category, including spot accounts, funding accounts, margin accounts, and USD-M futures accounts, with margin and futures balances receiving a 1.2× reward multiplier. During the campaign period, WLFI rewards will be distributed weekly to USD1 holders. The first airdrop will take place on February 2, covering rewards accrued from January 23 at 08:00 to January 30 at 08:00, with subsequent distributions occurring every Friday.

 

A simple yield calculation suggests that the results may not fully align with general market expectations. Overall, there are two key variables: the total value of the WLFI reward pool, and the total amount of USD1 held on Binance.

 

Starting with the first variable, the WLFI reward pool was initially expected to be a fixed USD 40 million. However, earlier today, World Liberty Financial transferred 235 million USD1—worth approximately USD 40 million—from its treasury address to Binance. This transfer is likely to constitute the total reward pool for this airdrop campaign. As a result, over the coming one-month period, the actual value of the reward pool will fluctuate with WLFI’s market price. Given the current downward market trend and the natural sell pressure associated with airdropped tokens, it is reasonable to expect some degree of value erosion in the pool.

 

As for the total amount of USD1 on Binance, current total issuance has reached 4.9 billion USD1, with approximately 4.22 billion held on the Binance platform. Based on this static snapshot, the average annualized yield of the campaign would be around 12%. However, since Binance announced the campaign, USD1 supply growth has been unusually rapid—nearly 700 million new USD1 have been issued since January 23, with most of the new supply flowing directly into Binance. This dynamic will inevitably accelerate yield dilution.

 

 

Taking both variables into account, it is reasonable to expect the average yield of this campaign to fall below 10% relatively quickly, with a final level around 8% being a more realistic outcome. Under this assumption, unless one already holds USD1 (or other stablecoins with higher premiums than USDT, such as USDC), entering the position at a premium—such as converting USDT into USD1 at current market premiums—no longer appears particularly attractive from a cost-performance perspective.

 

ON-CHAIN STRATEGY ONE: LISTADAO U/USDT LP INCENTIVES (21.29% APY)

 

Earlier today, the leading BSC lending protocol ListaDAO announced a U-denominated LP deposit incentive program in collaboration with Binance Wallet.

 

 

Users must participate through Binance Wallet, with the campaign running from January 26 at 08:00 to February 9 at 08:00 (Beijing time). Participation involves depositing U/USDT LP into ListaDAO via smart lending, meaning users deposit both U and USDT simultaneously. ListaDAO is allocating 240,000 LISTA tokens as incentives, corresponding to a current annualized yield of approximately 21.29%.

 

ON-CHAIN STRATEGY TWO: OPENEDEN PRISM PRE-DEPOSIT (26.4% APY)

 

On January 23, OpenEden announced on X that it is partnering with FalconX and Monarq to launch a tokenized yield investment portfolio called PRISM. The product aims to deliver stable returns across market cycles through a multi-strategy quantitative model actively managed by Monarq, while maintaining low correlation with broader crypto price movements.

 

 

PRISM is scheduled to officially launch in February, but pre-deposits are already open. The pre-deposit cap is USD 50 million, with USD 14.43 million currently deposited, leaving ample remaining capacity. OpenEden is offering 4.7 million EDEN tokens as incentives for pre-deposit participants, resulting in a current real-time annualized yield of approximately 26.4%, primarily driven by additional token rewards.

 

ON-CHAIN STRATEGY THREE: BUIDLPAD VAULT PHASE TWO (8% APY)

 

On January 24, Buidlpad announced the launch of Phase Two of its DeFi fixed-term deposit product, Buidlpad Vault, offering a fixed yield of 8%. Deposits opened at 08:00 UTC on January 25, with a total cap of USD 20 million. Supported assets include ETH and USDT on Ethereum, as well as BNB and USDT on BSC.

 

 

As of the time of writing, approximately USD 18.7 million has already been deposited, leaving a limited remaining allocation available for participation.

 

Original Article

〈Passive Yield Snapshot: USD1 Airdrop ROI and OpenEden’s 26.4% APY〉這篇文章最早發佈於《CoinRank》。

The attack exploited unchecked external calls and broad token approvals, a recurring DeFi vulnerability that has persisted since early router-based exploits.

 

Multi-chain deployment amplified losses, showing how composability can magnify risk when core contract assumptions fail.

 

Beyond technical fixes, the incident highlights a deeper trust challenge for DeFi, where sustainable growth depends on changing risk culture, not just patching code.

ApertureFinance’s $17.4 million exploit underscores how long-known router and approval risks continue to threaten DeFi as protocols expand across multiple chains without proportionate security discipline.

 

WHAT ACTUALLY HAPPENED

 

In the latest reminder that smart-contract risk remains the defining fragility of decentralized finance, Aperture Finance suffered a multi-chain exploit that resulted in losses exceeding $17.4 million, after attackers abused an arbitrary external call vulnerability embedded in un-audited, non-open-source contracts linked to its routing infrastructure, a flaw that allowed malicious calls to drain funds from user wallets that had previously granted token approvals to the protocol’s router.

According to on-chain alerts and post-incident disclosures by security firms including GoPlus Security and HashDit, the exploit impacted assets across Ethereum, BNB Chain, Arbitrum, and Base, underscoring how shared contract logic and cross-chain deployment can amplify losses once a single execution path is compromised, even when the exploit itself is conceptually simple rather than technically exotic.

 

 

THE RECURRING “ROUTER RISK” PROBLEM

 

While the scale of the loss has drawn attention, the mechanics of the attack place it squarely within a long-standing class of DeFi exploits centered on unchecked external calls and over-permissive token approvals, a pattern that has repeatedly surfaced since early incidents such as the 2021 BadgerDAO front-end compromise and later approval-drain attacks during the 2022–2023 DeFi downturn.

In this case, the affected contracts allowed arbitrary calls without sufficient validation, meaning that once users had approved the router to spend tokens, attackers could effectively hijack that trust relationship, turning a convenience feature into a liability, a structural weakness that continues to persist despite years of industry warnings and post-mortems.

 

WHY THIS STILL KEEPS HAPPENING

 

The uncomfortable reality exposed by the ApertureFinance incident is that the industry’s security failures are rarely the result of unknown vulnerabilities, but rather the repeated deployment of known-risk patterns under competitive pressure to ship products quickly across multiple chains.

Security researchers have long noted that un-audited or partially audited routing contracts, especially those handling delegated approvals, represent an asymmetric risk surface: they concentrate value, interact with many external protocols, and rely on users maintaining broad, long-lived permissions, creating ideal conditions for attackers once a single validation check is missed.

That this exploit occurred simultaneously on several major networks highlights how composability, often celebrated as DeFi’s greatest strength, also functions as a force multiplier for loss when defensive assumptions fail.

 

 

MARKET REACTION AND TRUST DYNAMICS

 

The immediate market response reflected this deeper trust shock rather than simple loss accounting, as alerts from GoPlus Security and HashDit spread rapidly across social platforms, triggering visible panic among users and a surge in discussion questioning not only ApertureFinance’s code quality but the broader safety of router-based abstractions.

Although the affected contracts have reportedly been patched and ApertureFinance has attempted on-chain communication with the attacker to negotiate potential recovery, the reputational impact is likely to outlast the technical fix, because in DeFi, confidence is not restored by remediation alone, but by the perception that risk culture itself has changed.

 

A HISTORICAL LESSON DEFI STILL HASN’T LEARNED

 

Viewed in historical context, the ApertureFinance exploit fits into a repeating cycle that has defined every DeFi expansion phase: rapid innovation, capital inflows, abstraction layers designed to simplify user experience, followed by exploits that expose how complexity without proportional security review transfers risk onto end users.

Despite billions of dollars lost across protocols since 2020, many projects continue to rely on implicit user trust rather than explicit, verifiable guarantees around permission scope, contract immutability, and audit coverage, a gap that becomes increasingly untenable as DeFi seeks institutional relevance.

If DeFi is to evolve from a high-velocity experimental arena into durable financial infrastructure, incidents like this will need to become exceptions rather than recurring milestones, not through reactive patching, but through a fundamental shift in how protocols treat user approvals, external calls, and the trade-off between speed and safety.

 

Read More：

Four.meme’s latest security scare shows why “airdrop season” is a hacker’s favorite market regime

〈Aperturefinance exploit exposes a familiar defi security fault line〉這篇文章最早發佈於《CoinRank》。

Smart money capitalized on AXS’s bAXS mechanism announcement, entering at $1.66 after technical confirmation on January 21st and exiting near $2.90 for 75% gains.

The bAXS tokenomics change locked 20-30% of circulating supply, creating artificial scarcity that smart traders identified through fundamental quantitative analysis and on-chain verification.

This supply shock arbitrage strategy is replicable across crypto markets by monitoring narrative catalysts, confirming technical setups, and exiting when retail enthusiasm peaks.

 Smart money earned 75% returns on AXS by timing the bAXS supply shock perfectly. Learn the systematic strategy behind this tokenomics arbitrage play.

The cryptocurrency market witnessed a remarkable price surge in Axie Infinity’s AXS token recently, with prices climbing from $1.65 to nearly $2.90 within just a matter of days. While retail investors scratched their heads wondering what drove this sudden rally, smart money had already positioned themselves days earlier, capitalizing on what many call a “supply shock arbitrage” opportunity. The catalyst? A fundamental shift in AXS tokenomics through the introduction of bAXS, a mechanism that essentially locked up 20-30% of circulating supply overnight.

 

What makes this case particularly fascinating isn’t just the impressive returns, but rather the precision timing that separated professional traders from the retail crowd. Smart money didn’t chase the bottom on January 20th when prices hit $1.65. Instead, they waited patiently until January 21st for technical confirmation before deploying capital. By January 24th, when mainstream media began covering the AXS rally and retail traders rushed in, these sophisticated players were already exiting their positions near $2.90. This wasn’t luck – it was a calculated play built on information asymmetry and fundamental quantitative analysis.

 

UNDERSTANDING THE BAXS TOKENOMICS: HOW AXS SUPPLY SHOCK CREATED SMART MONEY OPPORTUNITY

 

Understanding the smart money playbook starts with grasping what bAXS actually represents. Think of regular AXS as cash in your wallet – liquid, tradable, and immediately available. The new bAXS (Bonded AXS), however, functions more like a locked certificate of deposit or non-transferable voucher. When Axie Infinity announced this mechanism on January 18th, they fundamentally altered the game’s reward structure.

 

Previously, AXS rewards were distributed directly to players with full liquidity, meaning recipients could immediately sell these tokens on the open market. The introduction of bAXS changed everything. A significant portion of rewards now gets converted into bAXS, which remains locked within user accounts. These tokens cannot be traded on exchanges. Instead, they can only be used for in-game upgrades, staking, or unlocking higher-tier benefits within the Axie ecosystem.

 

The brilliance of this mechanism, from a tokenomics perspective, lies in its supply control. By converting rewards that would typically flood the market into locked, non-tradable assets, the protocol artificially manufactured scarcity. Essentially, 20-30% of AXS that could have created selling pressure was suddenly locked away in a digital vault. For traders who understood the supply-demand dynamics, this spelled one thing: upward pressure on price.

 

SMART MONEY AXS ENTRY STRATEGY: WHY TIMING BEATS BOTTOM FISHING

 

Here’s where professional trading diverges sharply from amateur speculation. Many retail investors see a significant price drop and immediately think “bargain hunting opportunity.” When AXS touched $1.65 on January 20th, amateur traders were salivating at what appeared to be a bottom. Smart money, however, remained on the sidelines.

 

The difference comes down to what traders call “left-side” versus “right-side” entry. January 20th represented a left-side risk zone – essentially trying to catch a falling knife. Sure, the price looked attractive at $1.65, but the downtrend hadn’t confirmed a reversal yet. There was genuine risk that prices could break lower, invalidating any bullish thesis. At that moment, entering felt more like gambling than calculated risk-taking.

 

January 21st told a completely different story. When prices retested the $1.66 level and then bounced with significant volume, technical analysts recognized a crucial pattern: a successful double bottom formation, also known as a Change of Character (ChoCh) in market structure. The price might have been slightly higher than the previous day’s low, but something far more valuable had occurred – confirmation of support and the establishment of upward momentum.

 

This distinction matters enormously. The January 20th entry would have required nerves of steel and tolerance for potential further drawdowns. The January 21st entry, meanwhile, offered what professionals value most: confirmation. Yes, you might pay a few cents more per token, but you’re buying into confirmed momentum rather than hoping a falling trend reverses. The slightly higher entry price represented insurance against catastrophic loss, and for smart money, that trade-off makes perfect sense.

 

AXS

 

AXS SMART MONEY EXIT STRATEGY: RECOGNIZING WHEN THE SUPPLY SHOCK PLAY PEAKS

 

If entry timing separated professionals from amateurs, exit timing revealed the true masters of the craft. By January 24th, AXS had surged to $2.90, representing a spectacular 75% gain from the $1.65 low. The media caught wind of the rally, headlines proliferated, and retail traders started piling in with FOMO (fear of missing out). This was precisely when smart money headed for the exit.

 

Three key factors informed this decision. First, the psychological barrier at $3.00 loomed large. Round numbers create powerful resistance in markets, and experienced traders know that $2.90-$2.95 represents the last opportunity to exit before hitting that wall. Rather than hoping to squeeze out the final 3-5%, professionals took their 75% gains and moved on.

 

Second, technical indicators likely showed extreme conditions. When the Relative Strength Index (RSI) pushes above 80, it signals overbought territory where short-term momentum becomes exhausted. Smart money doesn’t fight these indicators – they respect them and act accordingly.

 

Third, and perhaps most importantly, the narrative had fully played out. The January 18th announcement had spent a week percolating through the market. By January 24th, every crypto news outlet was reporting on AXS’s dramatic surge. When mainstream coverage reaches saturation and retail investors start flooding in, institutional players recognize the classic “sell the news” moment. The smart money that bought the rumor was now selling into the euphoria.

 

REPLICATING THE SMART MONEY AXS STRATEGY: TOOLS AND WORKFLOW FOR SUPPLY SHOCK TRADING

 

Executing this type of play requires integrating information across multiple dimensions. It’s not enough to read an announcement and blindly buy – successful traders follow a systematic workflow.

 

The first phase involves narrative hunting. This means actively monitoring project teams’ social media accounts, GitHub repositories, and governance proposals. Tools like RSS3 track on-chain activities, while Twitter provides direct access to core developers’ thinking. Arkham Intelligence allows traders to monitor project multi-signature wallets, revealing capital movements before they become public knowledge.

 

Phase two demands fundamental quantitative analysis. When a tokenomics change occurs, traders must calculate the actual impact on circulating supply. This involves examining token unlock schedules, inflation changes, and staking ratios. Platforms like TokenUnlocks provide raw data on unlock dates, while spreadsheet modeling or Python scripts help quantify supply shock magnitude. The goal is transforming qualitative announcements into quantifiable price impacts.

 

The third phase provides on-chain verification. Before committing capital, smart money verifies whether large holders are accumulating or distributing. Are whales depositing tokens to decentralized exchanges like Katana? Are they withdrawing from centralized exchanges? Tools like Nansen identify “smart money” wallet addresses and track their behavior, while blockchain explorers specific to each network (like Ronin Explorer for Axie) monitor overall activity levels.

 

Why Gold Is Surging: Central Banks, Sanctions, and Trust-1

Messari 2026 Crypto Theses: Why Speculation Is No Longer Enough (Part 1)

 

BEYOND AXS: APPLYING THE SUPPLY SHOCK STRATEGY TO OTHER CRYPTO OPPORTUNITIES

 

This strategy isn’t unique to AXS – it represents a repeatable pattern called “supply shock arbitrage.” Consider the Polygon case from 2024-2025, where MATIC transitioned to POL with new staking and burning mechanisms.

 

Following the initial upgrade announcement, market reaction remained muted. Most participants didn’t immediately grasp the implications. Smart money, however, calculated the new deflationary dynamics and observed rising staking rates, indicating reduced available supply. As major exchanges announced support for the token conversion, prices began their march upward.

 

The entry point for sophisticated traders came 2-3 days before exchanges formally announced conversion support. During this window, technical charts typically showed sideways consolidation – accumulation disguised as boredom. The exit point arrived on conversion completion day, when the “sell the news” effect took hold as the fundamental catalyst was fully priced in.

 

The same framework applies to numerous scenarios across cryptocurrency markets. Token burn announcements, major staking mechanism introductions, significant unlock events, and protocol upgrade migrations all create similar supply shock dynamics. Each presents opportunities for traders who combine fundamental analysis with technical timing and on-chain verification.

 

KEY TAKEAWAYS FROM THE AXS SMART MONEY PLAYBOOK

 

The AXS bAXS case study reveals that successful cryptocurrency trading isn’t about predicting the future or getting lucky. It’s about systematic information processing, disciplined timing, and understanding how fundamental changes ripple through market microstructure. Smart money didn’t achieve 75% returns through superior intelligence – they achieved it through superior process.

 

The framework is surprisingly straightforward: identify narrative catalysts that create measurable supply changes, wait for technical confirmation before entry, and exit when retail enthusiasm reaches fever pitch. Yet simplicity doesn’t mean ease. Executing this strategy requires patience to wait for confirmation rather than chase bottoms, discipline to exit at predetermined targets rather than hoping for more, and the emotional fortitude to act when positioning feels uncomfortable.

 

For traders looking to replicate this approach, the opportunity set remains abundant. Cryptocurrency markets continuously present similar supply shock scenarios through token burns, staking mechanism changes, major unlocks, and protocol upgrades. The question isn’t whether these opportunities exist – it’s whether you have the framework to identify them and the discipline to execute when they appear.

 

The AXS case ultimately teaches us that in markets driven by information flow and supply dynamics, the greatest edge comes not from being first, but from being right. Sometimes that means entering a day late but with conviction, and exiting before the crowd realizes the party’s ending. Smart money understands that perfect timing isn’t about catching absolute bottoms or tops – it’s about maximizing probability-adjusted returns through systematic execution.

 

The above viewpoints are referenced from Ace

〈How Smart Money Turned $1.65 AXS Into a 75% Gain: Decoding the bAXS Supply Shock Strategy〉這篇文章最早發佈於《CoinRank》。

Bitwise’s onchain vault represents a new model for institutional DeFi adoption, where asset managers design and oversee strategies while user funds remain fully non-custodial and onchain.

 

Morpho’s over-collateralized lending infrastructure is increasingly positioning itself as core financial plumbing capable of supporting conservative, cash-management-style yield strategies.

 

The move highlights how DeFi’s next growth phase is likely to be driven less by speculative leverage and more by integration with institutional mandates, compliance expectations, and real-world asset strategies.

Bitwise’s launch of a non-custodial onchain vault on Morpho signals a structural shift toward institution-grade DeFi, blending transparent blockchain execution with professional risk management.

 

FROM ETFS TO ONCHAIN YIELD

 

The boundary between traditional crypto asset management and decentralized finance narrowed meaningfully this week when Bitwise Asset Management announced the launch of its first onchain vault through Morpho, positioning the product as a non-custodial, USDC-based strategy targeting yields of up to 6% via over-collateralized lending markets.

Unlike earlier institutional forays into DeFi that relied on opaque wrappers, third-party custody, or indirect exposure through structured products, Bitwise’s vault keeps assets fully onchain and non-custodial at all times, while centralizing strategy design and real-time risk management under a familiar institutional brand, a combination that reflects how professional allocators increasingly want exposure: programmable transparency paired with accountable governance.

 

 

WHY MORPHO IS BECOMING INFRASTRUCTURE

 

Morpho’s selection as the execution layer is not incidental, as the protocol has steadily repositioned itself from a yield-optimization tool into a modular lending backbone capable of supporting institution-grade strategies without sacrificing DeFi’s core primitives.

According to public protocol data and reporting by The Block, Morpho’s architecture allows capital to be routed into over-collateralized lending pools with configurable parameters, minimizing reliance on reflexive leverage and reducing exposure to liquidation cascades that have historically deterred institutional capital from onchain credit markets.

By anchoring the initial vault to USDC and conservative collateralization thresholds, Bitwise is implicitly acknowledging that institutional adoption of DeFi will begin not with exotic yield, but with predictable cash-management-style returns that resemble money-market or repo-like behavior, only executed on public blockchain rails.

 

 

INSTITUTIONAL DEFI WITHOUT CUSTODY RISK

 

What distinguishes this launch from earlier “CeFi-meets-DeFi” experiments is the deliberate avoidance of custody intermediation, a design choice shaped by the post-2022 regulatory environment in which asset segregation, transparency, and operational control have become non-negotiable for fiduciaries.

Bitwise’s role as strategy manager, rather than asset holder, mirrors how traditional asset managers oversee mandates without directly holding client funds, while Morpho’s smart contracts enforce execution rules onchain, creating a separation of duties that aligns closely with expectations from regulators, auditors, and institutional investment committees.

In this sense, the vault does not attempt to make DeFi simpler by abstracting it away, but instead makes it investable by framing it in structures that institutions already understand, where risk is defined, monitored, and constrained rather than hidden behind yield narratives.

 

THE SIGNAL FOR RWA AND BEYOND

 

Bitwise executives have already indicated that the onchain vault model is intended to expand beyond USDC lending to additional stablecoins, crypto assets, and eventually real-world-asset strategies, a roadmap that mirrors broader industry momentum toward tokenized credit, treasuries, and onchain collateral management.

As highlighted in recent coverage by CoinDesk and The Block, institutional interest in RWA-linked DeFi has accelerated alongside clearer regulatory frameworks in jurisdictions such as the EU and Hong Kong, where onchain transparency is increasingly viewed as complementary rather than antagonistic to compliance.

If successful, Bitwise’s Morpho vault may come to be seen less as a yield product and more as a prototype for how asset managers interface with decentralized protocols in the future, not by replacing banks or funds, but by turning DeFi into a programmable extension of modern asset management infrastructure.

 

A QUIET BUT STRUCTURAL SHIFT

 

While the headline yield of up to 6% will inevitably draw attention, the deeper significance of Bitwise’s move lies in what it suggests about the next phase of DeFi’s evolution, where growth is driven less by speculative leverage and more by integration with institutional balance sheets, mandates, and risk frameworks.

By choosing a non-custodial, over-collateralized, and transparently governed design, Bitwise is effectively testing whether DeFi can function as a trust-minimized financial substrate rather than a parallel casino, a distinction that will shape how capital flows into the sector over the next market cycle.

If that experiment succeeds, Morpho’s role may ultimately resemble that of core financial plumbing rather than a standalone protocol, quietly reinforcing the idea that institutional DeFi adoption is not about reinventing finance overnight, but about making decentralized systems legible, accountable, and durable enough to matter.

 

Read More：

Bitwise: Why Crypto Is Moving Beyond the Four-Year Cycle

What is Morpho (MORPHO)? DeFi Lending Revolution

〈Bitwise’s onchain vault marks a turning point for institutional defi〉這篇文章最早發佈於《CoinRank》。