CoinRank

Yield-bearing stablecoins challenge banks by reshaping deposit composition, not by draining total deposits from the banking system.

 

Stablecoins keep funds inside banks, but shift profits away from zero-cost transactional deposits toward market-priced liabilities.

 

Banks oppose yield-bearing stablecoins because they threaten interest spreads and payment fee monopolies, not financial stability.

The CLARITY Act battle centers on yield-bearing stablecoins, not deposit outflows but shifting deposit structures that threaten banks’ zero-cost funding and payment fee dominance.

 

Amid ongoing market debates, the core point of contention surrounding the CLARITY Act has increasingly converged on so-called “yield-bearing stablecoins.”

 

Specifically, in order to secure support from the banking sector, the GENIUS Act passed last year explicitly prohibited yield-bearing stablecoins. However, the law only stipulates that stablecoin issuers themselves are not allowed to pay holders “any form of interest or yield.” It does not restrict third parties from offering returns or rewards on top of stablecoins.

 

This perceived “workaround” has drawn strong opposition from the banking industry, which is now seeking to revisit the issue through the CLARITY Act by banning all forms of yield-generation mechanisms related to stablecoins. Such efforts, however, have met fierce resistance from segments of the crypto industry, most notably Coinbase.

BANK DEPOSIT OUTFLOWS? A MISLEADING NARRATIVE

 

In opposing yield-bearing stablecoins, the most frequently cited argument from banking industry representatives is the fear that stablecoins could trigger large-scale deposit outflows from banks. Last Wednesday, Bank of America CEO Brian Moynihan stated during an earnings call that “as much as $6 trillion in deposits (roughly 30% to 35% of all U.S. commercial bank deposits) could migrate into stablecoins, thereby constraining banks’ ability to lend to the broader U.S. economy… and yield-bearing stablecoins could further accelerate this outflow.”

 

However, anyone with a basic understanding of how stablecoins actually function can immediately see that this argument is highly misleading.

 

When $1 flows into a stablecoin system such as USDC, that dollar does not disappear from the financial system. Instead, it is placed into the reserve treasury of the issuer—such as Circle—and ultimately flows back into the banking system in the form of cash deposits or other short-term liquid assets, such as U.S. Treasury bills.

 

 

The reality is therefore quite clear: stablecoins do not cause a net outflow of bank deposits. Funds ultimately return to the banking system and remain available for credit intermediation. This outcome depends on the business model of the stablecoin, not on whether it is yield-bearing.

 

The real issue lies elsewhere—specifically, in how the structure of deposits changes after those funds flow back into the system.

 

>>> More to read: Why the “Clarity Act” Turned From a Bullish Catalyst Into a Risk

THE CASH COW OF AMERICA’S MEGA BANKS

 

Before examining this structural shift in more detail, it is worth briefly outlining how major U.S. banks generate yield from deposits.

 

Van Buren Capital general partner Scott Johnsson, citing a paper from the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA), notes that since the 2008 financial crisis severely damaged trust in the banking system, U.S. commercial banks have gradually diverged into two fundamentally different models when it comes to deposit gathering: high-rate banks and low-rate banks.

 

 

These terms are not formal regulatory classifications, but rather widely used market descriptors. In practice, the interest rate spread between high-rate and low-rate banks has exceeded 350 basis points (3.5%).

 

Why does the same dollar of deposits earn such drastically different returns? The reason lies in business models. High-rate banks are typically digital banks or institutions whose operations are more heavily oriented toward wealth management and capital markets (such as Capital One). They rely on higher deposit rates to attract funds in order to support lending or investment activities.

 

By contrast, low-rate banks are dominated by national systemically important institutions such as Bank of America, JPMorgan Chase, and Wells Fargo. These banks command the real pricing power in the industry. With massive retail customer bases and entrenched payment networks, they can rely on customer stickiness, brand strength, and branch convenience to maintain extremely low deposit costs—without competing on interest rates.

 

From a deposit composition perspective, high-rate banks tend to rely primarily on non-transactional deposits, meaning funds held mainly for savings or yield. These deposits are more interest-rate sensitive and therefore more expensive for banks to fund. Low-rate banks, on the other hand, are dominated by transactional deposits, used primarily for payments, transfers, and settlement. Such deposits are highly sticky, turn over frequently, and earn minimal interest—making them the most valuable form of bank liabilities.

 

 

According to the latest data from the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC), as of mid-December 2025, the average annual interest rate on U.S. savings accounts stood at just 0.39%.

 

Importantly, this figure already includes the influence of high-rate banks. Since the dominant U.S. banks overwhelmingly operate under a low-rate model, the actual interest they pay to depositors is far below this average. Mike Novogratz, founder and CEO of Galaxy, stated bluntly in a CNBC interview that large banks pay depositors almost nothing—roughly 1 to 11 basis points—while the Federal Reserve’s benchmark rate during the same period stood between 3.50% and 3.75%. This spread alone generates enormous profits for banks.

 

Coinbase Chief Policy Officer Faryar Shirzad offered an even clearer breakdown: U.S. banks earn approximately $176 billion annually from the roughly $3 trillion they hold on deposit at the Federal Reserve, and an additional $187 billion per year from transaction fees charged to depositors. From deposit spreads and payment-related activity alone, banks generate over $360 billion in annual revenue.

THE REAL SHIFT: DEPOSIT STRUCTURE AND THE REDISTRIBUTION OF PROFITS

 

Returning to the core question, how does the stablecoin system reshape bank deposit structures—and how do yield-bearing stablecoins accelerate this shift? The logic is actually straightforward. What are stablecoins primarily used for? Payments, transfers, settlements, and related functions. Sound familiar?

 

As discussed earlier, these functions are precisely the core utility of transactional deposits. They also represent the dominant deposit category for large banks—and the most valuable form of bank liabilities. This is where the banking industry’s true concern lies: stablecoins, as a new transactional medium, directly compete with transactional deposits on a functional level.

 

If stablecoins did not offer yield, the threat would be limited. Given the friction of onboarding and the marginal interest advantage of bank deposits—however small—stablecoins would be unlikely to pose a serious challenge to large banks’ core deposit base.

 

However, once stablecoins are allowed to generate yield, interest rate differentials begin to matter. Under these conditions, an increasing share of funds may migrate from transactional deposits into stablecoins. While these funds ultimately still flow back into the banking system, stablecoin issuers—driven by profitability—would allocate the majority of their reserves into non-transactional deposits, retaining only a limited amount of cash to meet daily redemption needs.

 

This is the essence of the deposit structure shift. The money remains within the banking system, but banks face materially higher funding costs as interest margins compress, while revenues from transaction fees decline sharply.

 

At this point, the nature of the problem becomes clear. The banking industry’s fierce opposition to yield-bearing stablecoins has never been about whether total deposits leave the banking system. It is about changes in deposit composition—and the resulting redistribution of profits.

 

Before stablecoins—and especially before yield-bearing stablecoins—U.S. large commercial banks firmly controlled transactional deposits, a funding source with near-zero or even negative cost. They captured risk-free income from the spread between deposit rates and benchmark rates, while continuously collecting fees from payments, settlements, and clearing services. This formed an exceptionally stable closed-loop system, one that required almost no sharing of returns with depositors.

 

The emergence of stablecoins fundamentally disrupts this loop. On one hand, stablecoins closely mirror transactional deposits in function, covering payments, transfers, and settlement use cases. On the other hand, yield-bearing stablecoins introduce returns into the equation, allowing transactional funds—previously insensitive to interest rates—to be repriced.

 

Throughout this process, funds do not exit the banking system. What changes is banks’ control over the profits derived from those funds. Liabilities that were once nearly cost-free are forced to become market-priced. Payment fees once monopolized by banks are now partially diverted to stablecoin issuers, wallets, and protocol layers.

 

This is the transformation banks simply cannot accept. And once this is understood, it becomes easy to see why yield-bearing stablecoins have emerged as the most contentious—and least negotiable—battleground in the CLARITY Act’s legislative journey.

 

 

 

 

▶ 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!

〈Why Stablecoin Yields Are a Red Line for Banks〉這篇文章最早發佈於《CoinRank》。

Tariff-driven uncertainty often pressures crypto prices in the short term as investors shift toward lower-risk assets.

 

Higher Tariffs can fuel inflation and tighter monetary policy, indirectly reducing liquidity available for crypto investments.

 

Over the long run, Tariff-induced currency stress may strengthen Bitcoin’s appeal as a potential store of value.

Tariff policies reshape inflation, investor sentiment, and capital flows. This article explains how Tariffs influence crypto markets, Bitcoin pricing, mining costs, and adoption dynamics.

 

WHAT IS A TARIFF?

 

A Tariff is a tax imposed by governments on imported goods or services. In practice, Tariff policies are commonly used to protect domestic industries, generate government revenue, or respond to what policymakers view as unfair trade practices by other countries.

 

While Tariff measures can offer short-term advantages to certain domestic sectors, they often come with broader economic trade-offs. Higher import costs tend to push prices up for consumers and businesses, increasing operating expenses and contributing to inflationary pressure. When Tariff policies escalate or trigger retaliation, they can also intensify trade frictions and disrupt economic stability.

 

In a highly globalized economy, the impact of a Tariff extends far beyond the industries directly targeted. Tariff changes influence supply chains, inflation expectations, and investor sentiment, creating ripple effects across financial markets. As these pressures filter through the system, they can affect currencies, commodities, and ultimately the crypto markets as well—reshaping risk appetite and capital flows.

 

>>> More to read: How Are Crypto Assets Taxed? A Country-by-Country Overview

HOW TARIFFS CAN IMPACT THE CRYPTO MARKETS

 

The impact of a Tariff on financial markets—and on crypto markets in particular—can vary widely depending on how the policy is calculated, announced, and ultimately implemented. Market reactions often differ sharply between the short term and the long term, reflecting changing expectations rather than a single, fixed outcome.

 

In the short run, markets may react negatively as fear, uncertainty, and doubt increase. However, a negative initial response does not necessarily mean investors will remain bearish over time. Longer-term outcomes depend on multiple factors, including how clearly governments communicate their Tariff policies and how effectively those measures are executed in practice.

 

✅ 1. Investor Sentiment and Market Volatility

 

A Tariff can increase economic uncertainty, leading to heightened volatility across financial markets. Cryptocurrencies—especially Bitcoin—are often treated as higher-risk assets. When trade tensions escalate, market sentiment may deteriorate, prompting investors to rotate capital away from crypto assets and into perceived safe havens such as gold or government bonds.

 

✏️ For example, when the United States announced higher Tariff levels on Chinese imports in 2025, Bitcoin experienced a sharp price decline. This suggests that, in the short term, rising Tariff uncertainty can put downward pressure on crypto prices as investors adopt a more risk-averse stance.

✅ 2. Inflation, Interest Rates, and Crypto Prices

 

Higher Tariff levels typically raise the cost of imported goods. Companies often pass these additional costs on to consumers, making everyday products more expensive and contributing to inflation.

 

To control inflation, central banks—including the U.S. Federal Reserve—may respond by raising interest rates. Higher interest rates increase borrowing costs and reduce liquidity, leaving less capital available for investment, including investments in cryptocurrencies.

 

That said, the dynamic can shift under extreme conditions. If inflation becomes severe enough to erode trust in traditional fiat currencies, individuals may turn to cryptocurrencies—particularly Bitcoin—as a way to preserve purchasing power. This pattern has already appeared in countries experiencing hyperinflation or prolonged economic weakness.

 

Over the long term, the impact of a Tariff-driven inflation cycle depends on how aggressively central banks respond and whether crypto investors increasingly view Bitcoin as a store of value comparable to gold.

✅ 3. Rising Costs for Crypto Mining

 

Many crypto mining operations rely heavily on imported hardware, especially from China, which produces a significant share of ASIC miners and GPUs.

 

If the United States raises Tariff rates on Chinese technology products, the cost of mining equipment could rise, making mining operations more expensive to run. This may encourage miners to relocate to regions with lower operating costs and fewer trade restrictions.

 

The impact could be even more pronounced if Tariff measures target semiconductor chips, which are essential components in mining hardware.

✅ 4. Currency Devaluation and Crypto Adoption

 

In some cases, trade wars and elevated Tariff levels can weaken national currencies, increasing the appeal of cryptocurrencies as alternative stores of value. In countries experiencing rapid currency depreciation, citizens often turn to Bitcoin and stablecoins to protect their savings.

 

For instance, during periods of economic instability in Argentina and Turkey, crypto adoption surged as residents sought alternatives to weakening local currencies. If Tariff policies contribute to similar economic stress in affected countries, crypto adoption could increase over the long term.

 

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

IS BITCOIN A SAFE HAVEN OR JUST ANOTHER RISK ASSET?

 

Some investors view Bitcoin as a “safe-haven” asset—particularly early adopters who see it as protection against inflation and monetary debasement. Others, however, continue to treat Bitcoin as a speculative investment, behaving much like equities and other risk assets.

 

Historically, Bitcoin has often moved in tandem with stock markets during periods of economic stress. When equity markets sell off due to rising Tariff tensions, Bitcoin has frequently declined as well. This pattern suggests that, in many short-term scenarios, Bitcoin is still traded as a risk asset rather than a defensive one.

 

That said, the narrative can change under more severe global economic conditions. If economic deterioration deepens, Bitcoin may begin to take on a more “gold-like” role, attracting investors looking to hedge against inflation and currency devaluation. In such environments, the appeal of Bitcoin as an alternative store of value can strengthen.

 

Ultimately, the long-term impact of a Tariff-driven environment on Bitcoin depends on whether the market continues to view it primarily as a speculative asset or increasingly as a tool for hedging broader macroeconomic risks.

🔍 Conclusion

 

Although a Tariff is formally applied to goods and services, its consequences extend far beyond trade flows. Tariff policies can undermine investor confidence, raise crypto mining costs, and even accelerate the shift toward digital assets in certain regions. Trade decisions influence how investors allocate capital, where companies choose to operate, and which forms of money people ultimately trust.

 

In the short term, rising uncertainty tends to push investors away from risk assets, leading to price declines across both traditional and crypto markets. Over the medium to long term, however, Bitcoin’s role as a potential store of value may become more compelling—especially if Tariff pressures contribute to sustained inflation or currency instability.

 

 

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!

〈How Can Tariffs Impact the Crypto Markets?〉這篇文章最早發佈於《CoinRank》。

Public Blockchain prioritizes openness and censorship resistance, trading off speed and scalability for strong security guarantees.

 

Private Blockchain focuses on performance and control, making it suitable for enterprise environments with known participants.

 

Consortium Blockchain balances efficiency and shared governance, ideal for multiple organizations needing trusted collaboration.

Understand the differences between public, private, and consortium Blockchain models, including access control, decentralization, performance trade-offs, and ideal use cases for each.

 

PUBLIC BLOCKCHAIN

 

If you have ever used cryptocurrencies, you have almost certainly interacted with a public Blockchain. In practice, the majority of modern distributed ledger systems are built on public Blockchain architectures.

 

The term “public” refers to the open and transparent nature of these networks. Anyone can view transactions recorded on the Blockchain, and participation is not restricted by approvals or centralized authorities. As long as the required software is installed, users can freely join the network and interact with the Blockchain directly.

 

Public Blockchain networks are commonly described as “permissionless.” This means there is no central gatekeeper controlling who can participate. Any individual can contribute to the consensus process—such as through mining or staking—and receive rewards based on the role they play in securing and maintaining the Blockchain.

 

Because participation is open and incentives are aligned with consensus contributions, public Blockchain systems are expected to form highly decentralized network structures. This decentralization reduces reliance on trusted intermediaries and is one of the core characteristics that distinguishes public Blockchain networks from private or restricted systems.

 

Public Blockchain platforms are also generally considered more resistant to censorship. Since anyone can join the network, the protocol must include mechanisms that prevent anonymous malicious actors from gaining unfair advantages. These protections are essential for preserving security and fairness across the Blockchain.

 

However, this openness comes with trade-offs. Many public Blockchain networks face scalability constraints, as large numbers of nodes can create performance bottlenecks and limit transaction throughput. In addition, introducing protocol upgrades while keeping the network unified can be difficult, as achieving simultaneous agreement among all participants is inherently challenging.

 

>>> More to read: Public Blockchain vs. Private Chain

PRIVATE BLOCKCHAIN

 

In sharp contrast to the permissionless nature of public Blockchain networks, a private Blockchain operates under clearly defined access rules. These rules determine who is allowed to read from and write to the Blockchain, making private Blockchain environments permissioned by design.

 

Unlike public systems, private Blockchain networks are not decentralized in the strict sense. Control is organized through an explicit hierarchical structure rather than distributed consensus among anonymous participants. However, they are still distributed systems. Multiple nodes maintain copies of the Blockchain on their own machines, ensuring data redundancy and operational resilience.

 

Private Blockchain architectures are particularly well suited for enterprise use cases. Many organizations want to leverage the benefits of Blockchain technology—such as data integrity, traceability, and shared ledgers—without exposing their systems to unrestricted external access. A private Blockchain allows companies to retain control while still adopting distributed ledger principles.

 

Within certain private Blockchain environments, proof-of-work (PoW) is unnecessary under the existing security model. While PoW has proven essential in open and permissionless Blockchain networks, it does not play the same role in private systems. This is because all participants in a private Blockchain are known entities, and access is manually managed rather than open to the public.

 

In these conditions, more efficient approaches can be used. A common alternative involves designated validators—specific nodes selected to perform transaction validation and assume defined responsibilities within the Blockchain network. Typically, these validators are required to sign each block, providing clear accountability.

 

If a validator behaves maliciously, it can be quickly identified and removed from the network. This top-down control structure within a private Blockchain simplifies coordination and governance, making system management and protocol enforcement significantly easier compared to open Blockchain networks.

 

>>> More to read: What is Blockchain and How Does It Work?

CONSORTIUM BLOCKCHAIN

 

A consortium Blockchain sits between public and private Blockchain models, combining elements from both. The most notable distinction lies in how consensus is structured. Instead of allowing anyone to validate blocks, as in a public Blockchain, or assigning block production to a single controlling entity, as in a private Blockchain, a consortium Blockchain designates a limited group of participants with equal authority to act as validators.

 

These validators jointly maintain the network, forming a semi-decentralized governance structure. Validation rights are shared among multiple trusted parties rather than being fully open or fully centralized, which creates a balance between control and collaboration within the Blockchain system.

 

From this foundation, system rules become highly flexible. Visibility of the Blockchain can be configured in different ways—restricted to validators only, extended to authorized participants, or made accessible to all users. As long as consensus is reached among the validators, changes to network rules or parameters can be implemented relatively easily.

 

In terms of functionality, the consortium Blockchain remains stable as long as participating entities act honestly and meet predefined trust thresholds. Under these conditions, the system can operate smoothly without the coordination challenges often seen in fully open Blockchain networks.

 

Consortium Blockchain models are particularly well suited for environments where multiple organizations operate within the same industry and require shared infrastructure for transactions or information exchange. In such scenarios, a consortium Blockchain offers an effective solution by enabling cooperation without forcing participants to relinquish full control.

 

Joining a consortium Blockchain can also provide strategic benefits. Participating organizations gain the ability to share industry-level insights, align standards, and improve coordination with peers—all while leveraging the core advantages of Blockchain technology.

 

>>> More to read: What Are Real-World Assets (RWA) in DeFi & Crypto?

WHICH TYPE OF BLOCKCHAIN HAS THE ADVANTAGE?

 

At a fundamental level, public, private, and consortium Blockchain models are not in conflict with one another. Instead, they represent different technical approaches designed to address different needs and constraints.

 

✏️ A well-designed public Blockchain typically excels in censorship resistance. This comes from its open participation model and decentralized structure. However, the trade-off is lower transaction speed and throughput. For applications where strong security guarantees are required—such as transaction settlement or smart contract execution—public Blockchain networks often provide the highest level of assurance.

 

✏️ Private Blockchain systems, by contrast, can prioritize performance. Since they do not face the same systemic risks as public Blockchain networks, they can operate with higher speed and lower latency. In practice, private Blockchain deployments are most effective when operated within environments where infrastructure is controlled by individuals or organizations and sensitive information must remain confidential.

 

✏️ Consortium Blockchain models offer a middle ground. By removing single-entity control, they reduce counterparty risk commonly found in private Blockchain systems. At the same time, their relatively small number of validator nodes allows them to operate more efficiently than public Blockchain networks. Consortium Blockchain architectures are particularly well suited for groups of organizations that need ongoing coordination and data exchange with one another.

🔍 Conclusion

 

For individuals and enterprises engaged in a wide range of activities, there is no shortage of Blockchain options available. Even within the categories of public, private, and consortium Blockchain systems, user experiences can vary significantly depending on complexity, governance structure, and implementation design.

 

Rather than seeking a universally “best” Blockchain, users should evaluate their actual use cases and objectives. By aligning technical characteristics with real-world requirements, they can select the Blockchain model that best supports their goals.

 

 

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!

〈Private, Public, & Consortium Blockchains: A Complete Guide〉這篇文章最早發佈於《CoinRank》。

US Treasury Secretary Bessenter: Federal Reserve appointments expected as early as next week
#MakinaFi advises users to withdraw liquidity from the DUSD Curve pool and has activated security mode to address the vulnerability incident.
#Ethereum network activity surge may be related to address poisoning attacks, resulting in $740,000 in losses.
South Korea plans to remove the "one exchange, one bank" restriction, promoting the legalization of crypto derivatives trading with corporate accounts.
#Coinbase CEO to attend the World Economic Forum to discuss market structure and tokenization issues.
#CoinRank

Ethereum’s record-breaking 2.9 million daily transactions may be primarily driven by an “address poisoning” attack

Elon Musk: X Algorithm Open Source, Still Needs Significant Improvement

South Korea Plans to Remove “One Exchange to One Bank” Restriction, Promoting Legalization of Crypto Derivatives and Corporate Account Trading

MegaETH Mainnet Launches on January 22nd, Initiating Global Stress Testing

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.

Ethereum’s record-breaking 2.9 million daily transactions may be primarily driven by an “address poisoning” attack

 

According to CoinDesk, Ethereum network activity has recently surged, reaching a new high of 2.9 million transactions in a single day. However, the ETH price has reacted tepidly, suggesting this may be due to a large-scale “address poisoning” attack rather than genuine user demand growth.

 

Research found that approximately 80% of the abnormal increase in new addresses was related to stablecoins, and about 67% of newly active addresses made their first transfers of less than $1, consistent with “dust attacks.”

 

In the analyzed sample, approximately 3.86 million addresses received “poisoned dust” in their first stablecoin transaction. Attackers used smart contracts to send small amounts of stablecoins to hundreds of thousands of addresses, polluting users’ transaction history and inducing them to mistakenly transfer large sums of money to fake, similar addresses.

 

The significant drop in transaction fees following the Fusaka upgrade in early December last year made such low-cost attacks feasible.

 

This suggests that Ethereum’s record-breaking transaction volume may be exaggerated by spam transactions, weakening its credibility as a signal of increased network demand, and the market has not viewed it as a positive catalyst for ETH prices.

 

Elon Musk: X Algorithm Open Source, Still Needs Significant Improvement

 

Elon Musk stated on the X platform that while the X recommendation algorithm still has many issues, the team is working hard to improve it and has open-sourced the new algorithm, allowing the public to monitor the adjustment process in real time.

 

This algorithm is based on the same Transformer architecture as xAI’s Grok model.

 

South Korea Plans to Remove “One Exchange to One Bank” Restriction, Promoting Legalization of Crypto Derivatives and Corporate Account Trading

 

According to the Korea Herald, South Korean financial authorities are working to reform the digital asset regulatory system, planning to abolish the “one exchange – one bank” binding restriction, allowing the issuance of crypto derivatives and participation in trading by corporate accounts, in order to break the current market monopoly structure and promote liquidity.

 

Regulators believe that although this restriction is not legally mandatory, it has long existed due to anti-money laundering requirements, limiting competition among exchanges and user choice.

 

Subsequent policies will be included in the second phase of legislation for the Digital Asset Basic Law, and both parties in the National Assembly have reached a consensus on some aspects of regulatory deregulation.

 

PANews Note: South Korea’s “one exchange, one bank system” means that each exchange can only sign a real-name verification agreement for deposit and withdrawal accounts with one bank, and vice versa. This system naturally evolved to strengthen anti-money laundering (AML) and accountability. Currently, financial authorities have initiated discussions and procedures to abolish or significantly relax this system.

 

MegaETH Mainnet Launches on January 22nd, Initiating Global Stress Testing

 

According to MegaETH’s official announcement, its mainnet will launch on January 22nd, initially undergoing a 7-day global stress test, aiming to process 11 billion transactions and achieve 15,000 to 35,000 TPS.

 

During the test, multiple on-chain interactive applications will be launched to verify the system’s stability under high load. The mainnet will then officially open, initially integrating USDM-driven DeFi and consumer applications.

〈CoinRank Daily Data Report (1/20)｜Ethereum’s record-breaking 2.9 million daily transactions may be primarily driven by an “address poisoning” attack〉這篇文章最早發佈於《CoinRank》。

#CertiK Alert: SynapLogicon-related contracts suffer suspicious transactions; attackers use flash loans to mint 16,000 $SYP.
A new account bets $40,000 on Rick Rieder becoming the next Federal Reserve Chairman.
#Coinbase CEO arrives in Davos to push for crypto legislation and tokenization of capital markets.
Bermuda announces plans to build the world's first fully on-chain national economic system.
#Powell to attend Supreme Court hearing to defend Fed independence.
#CoinRank #GM

Bitcoin is transitioning from a halving-driven cycle to a macro-sensitive asset, increasingly shaped by liquidity conditions, political risk, and institutional capital behavior in 2026.

U.S. midterm election timing and a peak in AI capital expenditure could tighten liquidity, keeping Bitcoin range-bound and volatile rather than driving sustained upside.

Prediction markets show declining probabilities for Bitcoin upside in January, reinforcing expectations of consolidation rather than breakout despite long-term structural support.

Bitcoin’s 2026 outlook reflects macro liquidity, U.S. politics, and AI capital cycles. Prediction markets show limited near-term upside and rising consolidation risk.

Gold and silver are sending an unmistakable macro signal. Gold has surged to around 4,700, while silver has approached 94, both reaching new historical highs. These moves reflect late-cycle hedging behavior amid persistent monetary uncertainty and rising political risk. Bitcoin, by contrast, is still absorbing the impact of a recent flash crash and is currently stabilizing near 92,000, well below the psychological 100,000 level.

This divergence is not coincidental. Instead, it highlights Bitcoin’s evolving role within the global macro system. Bitcoin is no longer trading purely on internal crypto narratives, but increasingly responds to liquidity conditions, political incentives, and cross-asset capital rotation. In this context, selected insights from Galaxy’s 2026 outlook, combined with macro signals from prediction markets, offer a useful framework for understanding Bitcoin’s near- to medium-term trajectory.

 

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

Gold Front-Runs QE as Bitcoin Waits for Liquidity-2

 

BITCOIN MACRO TRANSITION AND THE FADING FOUR-YEAR CYCLE

 

For much of its history, Bitcoin price behavior was interpreted through a relatively simple four-year halving cycle. Supply shocks, speculative leverage, and reflexive narratives drove dramatic boom-and-bust patterns. As Bitcoin’s market capitalization expanded and institutional participation increased, this framework began to lose explanatory power.

 

Bitcoin’s growing integration into traditional financial infrastructure—including spot ETFs, institutional custody, and regulated trading venues—has gradually compressed volatility. Peak drawdowns in recent cycles have been smaller than those seen in earlier eras, while liquidity during stress events has improved. These developments suggest that Bitcoin is transitioning from a purely reflexive asset toward one that behaves more like a macro-sensitive risk asset.

 

As a result, Bitcoin increasingly trades in line with broader liquidity conditions, often showing higher correlation with technology-heavy equity indices during tightening or easing phases. This shift does not eliminate volatility, but it changes its drivers.

 

BITCOIN PRICE STRUCTURE IN 2026: A GOLD-LIKE PATTERN

 

A useful analogy for Bitcoin’s current position is gold during periods of macro transition. Historically, when real interest rates begin to decline but uncertainty remains elevated, gold often experiences an initial drawdown or prolonged consolidation before resuming its longer-term uptrend.

 

Applying this pattern to Bitcoin suggests that short-term risks remain skewed to the downside or sideways. Galaxy’s analysis highlights a critical zone between 100,000 and 105,000. Without a sustained break and consolidation above this range, Bitcoin may remain trapped in a post-halving correction phase throughout much of 2026.

 

Such phases are typically characterized by choppy price action, fading speculative interest, and declining leverage rather than abrupt collapses. In previous cycles, these environments lasted many months, during which prices stabilized well before narratives recovered.

 

BITCOIN, POLITICS, AND THE 2026 U.S. MIDTERM ELECTION

 

One of the most underappreciated macro variables shaping Bitcoin’s 2026 outlook is U.S. domestic politics. The U.S. midterm elections are scheduled for November 3, 2026, and financial markets rarely wait for election outcomes before adjusting exposure.

 

In 2025, the crypto industry benefited from a relatively favorable policy environment, with regulatory restructuring and clearer legislative signals supporting institutional confidence. However, as the midterms approach, the risk of political reversal or legislative gridlock increases.

 

Historically, institutional investors begin reducing exposure to policy-sensitive assets three to six months ahead of midterm elections. If this pattern repeats, mid-2026 could see systematic de-risking across speculative assets, including crypto. This process is often driven less by fundamentals than by risk management constraints, reinforcing Galaxy’s view that 2026 may be dull and volatile rather than strongly directional.

 

BITCOIN AND MACRO LIQUIDITY: THE AI CAPITAL EXPENDITURE CYCLE

 

Beyond politics, global liquidity dynamics—particularly those tied to artificial intelligence—represent another key constraint. Major financial institutions have projected that global capital expenditure on AI infrastructure will peak in 2026, following several years of aggressive investment in data centers and supercomputing capacity.

 

Over the past two years, AI has absorbed a disproportionate share of global risk capital, diverting funds that might otherwise have flowed into crypto. As this infrastructure build-out matures, market focus is shifting from investment scale to monetization and returns.

 

A peak in capital expenditure is not inherently negative, but it often coincides with tighter liquidity. If revenue growth fails to justify prior spending, valuation compression and balance-sheet pressure can follow, leading capital to rotate back toward cash and government bonds.

 

BITCOIN, BALANCE SHEETS, AND RISK ASSET CORRELATION

 

An important secondary effect of the AI investment boom is accounting-driven. Large hardware investments made in 2024 and 2025 will begin generating significant depreciation charges in 2026. Even if these are non-cash expenses, they can materially impact reported earnings and investor sentiment.

 

During periods of balance-sheet stress, correlations across risk assets tend to rise. Bitcoin, despite its distinct narrative, is unlikely to be immune. Until it is widely treated as a cash-flow-generating asset, its price will remain sensitive to broader liquidity contractions.

 

BITCOIN PRICE EXPECTATIONS IN PREDICTION MARKETS

 

These macro dynamics are increasingly reflected in prediction markets. On Polymarket, January Bitcoin price contracts have seen a sharp repricing following the recent volatility spike. The probability of Bitcoin touching 100,000 during January has dropped into the mid-teens percentage range, while higher targets such as 105,000 or 110,000 are priced in the low single digits.

 

Unlike sentiment surveys or analyst forecasts, prediction markets force participants to express views under strict settlement rules. In this case, outcomes depend on whether Bitcoin reaches specific price levels, even briefly, based on Binance BTC/USDT one-minute highs. This structure penalizes vague optimism and rewards realistic assessments of volatility and liquidity.

 

The current probability distribution suggests that traders expect range-bound behavior, with downside wicks seen as more plausible than upside extensions. This does not imply a structural bear market, but it does reinforce the view that early 2026 is more likely to be defined by consolidation than breakout.

 

What price will Bitcoin hit in January?

 

BITCOIN IN 2026: FROM NARRATIVE TO PROBABILITY

 

Taken together, macro signals, Galaxy’s framework, and prediction market pricing form a coherent picture. Precious metals breaking to new highs reflect late-cycle risk hedging. Bitcoin stabilizing below 100,000 suggests constrained risk appetite. Prediction markets confirm that, when forced to quantify expectations, traders see limited near-term upside.

 

This convergence does not invalidate the long-term Bitcoin thesis. Instead, it refines the timeline. Bitcoin appears to be transitioning into a phase where patience, balance-sheet awareness, and macro context matter more than narrative momentum. In that sense, the current environment may feel uncomfortable, but it is structurally consistent with a maturing asset class.

 

Betting on Clarity: How Prediction Markets Are Pricing the Digital Asset Market Clarity Act in 2026

〈Bitcoin 2026 Outlook: Macro Risks and Prediction Markets Signal Caution〉這篇文章最早發佈於《CoinRank》。

Citigroup expects the Bank of Japan could raise rates up to three times in 2026 if the yen remains weak, potentially doubling the current policy rate.

 

Persistent negative real interest rates are increasingly viewed as the core driver of yen depreciation, elevating currency stability as a key policy priority.

 

A more aggressive BOJ tightening cycle could reshape global capital flows by reducing yen-funded carry trades and increasing volatility across risk assets.

Citigroup warns that persistent yen weakness could force the Bank of Japan into multiple rate hikes in 2026, signaling a potential structural shift in Japan’s monetary stance.

 

A SHIFT IN EXPECTATIONS

 

In late January 2026, market expectations around Japan’s monetary policy took a notable turn after senior executives at Citigroup publicly suggested that persistent yen weakness could force the Bank of Japan into a significantly more aggressive rate-hiking cycle than investors had previously anticipated, potentially raising rates as many as three times within the year and effectively doubling the current policy rate, a scenario that would mark a sharp departure from Japan’s decades-long reputation for ultra-loose monetary conditions.

 

Akira Hoshino, head of Japan markets at Citigroup, stated in interviews that if the U.S. dollar–yen exchange rate were to break above the 160 level and remain there, the Bank of Japan could respond as early as April with a 25-basis-point hike in the uncollateralized overnight call rate to around 1%, with further hikes in July and potentially later in the year if currency pressures fail to ease, a path that would place exchange-rate stability at the center of Japan’s policy reaction function rather than domestic growth alone.

 

 

THE YEN PROBLEM

 

The yen’s prolonged weakness has increasingly become a macroeconomic constraint rather than a mere byproduct of global rate differentials, particularly as Japan’s real interest rates remain deeply negative when adjusted for inflation, creating persistent downward pressure on the currency even as other major central banks have either paused or begun cautiously easing policy.

 

Hoshino’s assessment frames the issue bluntly: yen depreciation is fundamentally driven by negative real rates, and without addressing that imbalance, verbal intervention or incremental policy tweaks are unlikely to produce durable exchange-rate stabilization, a view echoed by a growing number of global banks that now see currency defense, rather than domestic demand management, as the primary catalyst for further normalization by the Bank of Japan.

 

 

A DIFFERENT KIND OF TIGHTENING

 

Unlike rate hikes in the United States or Europe, which are typically framed around inflation control or labor-market overheating, prospective tightening by the Bank of Japan would represent a structural recalibration of Japan’s role in global capital flows, because higher domestic rates would reduce incentives for yen-funded carry trades that have long fueled risk-taking across global bond, equity, and emerging-market assets.

 

If the policy rate were to rise toward or above 1% through multiple hikes, as Citigroup’s scenario suggests, the resulting repricing of Japanese yields could trigger capital repatriation, raise funding costs for leveraged global strategies, and alter correlations that markets have relied on for years, particularly at a time when global liquidity conditions remain fragile and sensitive to policy surprises.

 

MARKET IMPLICATIONS

 

Currency markets have already begun to price a wider trading range for the yen, with Citigroup projecting fluctuations between the high-140s and mid-160s against the dollar in 2026, a range that reflects both uncertainty over U.S. monetary policy and the conditional nature of Bank of Japan tightening tied explicitly to exchange-rate thresholds rather than a fixed policy calendar.

 

For global investors, this conditionality introduces a new layer of risk, as sudden currency moves could now prompt policy action rather than merely rhetorical responses, increasing volatility across rates, equities, and cross-asset positioning, while also raising the possibility that Japan, long viewed as a source of excess liquidity, could gradually become a contributor to global tightening pressures instead.

 

A STRUCTURAL TURN

 

The significance of Citigroup’s warning lies less in the precise number of hikes and more in what it reveals about shifting priorities at the Bank of Japan, where exchange-rate credibility and real-rate normalization appear to be gaining weight relative to growth accommodation, signaling that Japan’s exit from extraordinary monetary policy may be driven as much by external pressures as by domestic conditions.

 

If realized, a three-hike scenario in 2026 would not simply mark another incremental step toward normalization, but would represent a structural turning point in Japan’s monetary stance, with implications that extend far beyond the yen itself, reshaping global liquidity dynamics and challenging long-standing assumptions about Japan’s role as the world’s most reliable source of cheap capital.

 

Read More：

Wall Street’s Big Bet on the Yen: Rebound or Another Mirage?

What is Metaplanet? Why It’s Called Japan’s MicroStrategy

〈Yen Weakness Puts BoJ Tightening Back on the Table〉這篇文章最早發佈於《CoinRank》。

NYSE’s tokenization initiative would extend U.S. stock and ETF trading to a continuous 24/7 model while preserving 1:1 linkage and shareholder rights under existing securities law.

 

By exploring on-chain settlement and stablecoin-based cash legs, the exchange is addressing long-standing inefficiencies in clearing and capital lock-up rather than pursuing speculative crypto use cases.

 

While regulatory approval and gradual rollout limit near-term impact, the move strengthens the long-term case for blockchain as core financial market infrastructure rather than peripheral technology.

The NYSE’s plan to launch a 24/7 tokenized trading and on-chain settlement platform signals a structural shift in market infrastructure that could reshape how equities, cash, and blockchain interact.

 

THE ANNOUNCEMENT

 

The New York Stock Exchange, the world’s largest equity marketplace by listed market capitalization, has confirmed that it is developing a 24/7 tokenized securities trading and on-chain settlement platform, a move that immediately drew intense attention across both traditional finance and crypto markets because it signals, for the first time at the exchange level, a willingness to re-architect how U.S. equities and ETFs could trade, clear, and settle in a continuously operating digital environment rather than within fixed trading windows and multi-day settlement cycles.

 

According to publicly reported details, the proposed platform would allow tokenized representations of stocks and exchange-traded funds to trade around the clock, with settlement occurring on-chain and potentially using stablecoins as a cash leg, while maintaining a 1:1 linkage between tokenized shares and their underlying securities, preserving economic rights such as dividends and corporate actions under existing legal frameworks, subject to regulatory approval.

 

 

WHY NYSE MATTERS

 

Unlike crypto-native trading venues or pilot projects launched by fintech startups, the NYSE occupies a uniquely systemic position within global capital markets, hosting companies whose combined market value exceeds $25 trillion, which means that even a partial shift toward tokenized infrastructure carries implications that extend well beyond incremental innovation and into the core mechanics of market liquidity, custody, and post-trade settlement.

 

Historically, tokenization efforts have been concentrated in private markets, money-market funds, or isolated pilots involving Treasuries and repo instruments, whereas the NYSE’s involvement introduces the possibility that public equities, the deepest and most liquid asset class in the world, could eventually operate in a hybrid structure where traditional securities law coexists with blockchain-based settlement rails.

 

 

FROM T+1 TO REAL-TIME

 

One of the most consequential dimensions of the announcement lies in settlement. U.S. equities only recently transitioned from T+2 to T+1 settlement, a change that required years of coordination across clearinghouses, brokers, and custodians, yet still leaves capital tied up overnight and exposes participants to counterparty and operational risk that real-time settlement could, in theory, materially reduce.

 

A tokenized, on-chain settlement model—if approved—would compress settlement latency from days to minutes, reshaping how margin, collateral, and liquidity are managed across the financial system, and potentially freeing up trillions of dollars in capital currently immobilized by settlement buffers, while also forcing regulators and market participants to rethink risk management in an environment where trades finalize almost instantaneously.

 

STABLECOINS AS SETTLEMENT RAILS

 

The proposal’s reference to stablecoins as a settlement medium is particularly notable, because it positions regulated digital dollars not as speculative instruments, but as infrastructure components that could function alongside traditional cash in institutional workflows, a narrative that has been gaining traction as major banks and asset managers explore deposit tokens and tokenized money-market funds.

 

If implemented under regulatory supervision, stablecoin settlement could allow atomic delivery-versus-payment, reducing reconciliation complexity and operational cost, while simultaneously bringing crypto-native liquidity mechanisms into the heart of equity markets, blurring the historical boundary between “crypto rails” and “Wall Street plumbing.”

 

ACCESS AND CONTROL

 

Crucially, the NYSE has emphasized that the platform would initially be restricted to broker-dealers and institutional participants, with retail investors accessing tokenized securities only through compliant intermediaries, underscoring that this initiative is not about bypassing regulation, but about modernizing infrastructure within it.

 

This constraint highlights a broader reality: tokenization at the exchange level is less about democratizing access overnight and more about improving efficiency, resilience, and interoperability for regulated market participants, even if downstream benefits eventually reach retail investors through tighter spreads, faster settlement, and extended trading hours.

 

REGULATORY DEPENDENCE

 

The platform remains contingent on approval from U.S. regulators, particularly the Securities and Exchange Commission, and would need to align with existing securities laws governing custody, transfer agents, shareholder rights, and market surveillance, meaning that its rollout is likely to be incremental rather than disruptive in the near term.

 

Yet the mere fact that the NYSE is investing resources into such a system suggests a growing institutional consensus that tokenization is no longer a speculative experiment, but a credible path toward modernizing financial market infrastructure, especially as global competitors and foreign exchanges explore similar models.

 

IMPLICATIONS FOR CRYPTO MARKETS

 

For crypto markets, the announcement is significant not because it promises an immediate influx of retail traders or speculative capital, but because it strengthens the structural case for blockchain as a settlement layer for real-world assets, reinforcing narratives that have underpinned recent growth in tokenized Treasuries, on-chain funds, and institutional DeFi applications.

 

By anchoring tokenization to one of the most trusted brands in global finance, the NYSE effectively de-risks the concept in the eyes of conservative allocators, which could, over time, support higher institutional participation across crypto infrastructure providers, stablecoin issuers, and Layer-2 networks positioned to support high-throughput, compliant settlement.

 

 

IS THIS A BULL CATALYST

 

Whether the NYSE’s move becomes a catalyst for a broader crypto bull market depends less on price mechanics and more on timeline and execution, because infrastructure shifts of this magnitude unfold over years rather than weeks, and their impact is felt through adoption curves, regulatory clarity, and capital efficiency rather than sudden speculative bursts.

 

However, history suggests that markets often price structural change well before it materializes, and the symbolism of the NYSE embracing tokenization—however cautiously—adds to a growing body of evidence that blockchain is being integrated into the core of global finance, not relegated to its periphery.

 

CONCLUSION

 

The NYSE’s plan to build a 24/7 tokenized trading and on-chain settlement platform does not mark an instant transformation of equity markets, nor does it guarantee a new crypto bull run on its own, but it represents a profound signal that the world’s most established financial institutions are preparing for a future where securities, cash, and settlement increasingly coexist on digital rails, a shift that, once underway, is difficult to reverse and likely to redefine how capital moves across markets in the decade ahead.

 

Read More:

Circle IPO: Usdc Issuer Debuts on NYSE, Marking a New Chapter for Stablecoins

〈Nyse’s tokenization push reopens the question of market structure〉這篇文章最早發佈於《CoinRank》。

Viral profit stories in prediction markets can be engineered through sybil accounts and selective disclosure, making headline returns unreliable indicators of real trading skill.

Prediction markets that rely on short time price windows and external spot prices are vulnerable to low cost manipulation, especially during periods of weak liquidity.

The growing presence of automated market making bots on platforms like Polymarket increases liquidity but also creates predictable behaviors that sophisticated traders can systematically exploit.

Prediction markets are one of the few crypto sectors that have kept rising since the start of the year. Stories of sudden wealth appear again and again.

 

Yet behind these “miracles,” the key question remains. Are they the result of sharp judgment and disciplined execution, or carefully staged illusions built on deception and structural loopholes?

 

In recent days, two controversial cases on Polymarket pushed this question into the spotlight. One involved a trader who claimed to turn $12 into over $100,000 through an “8,300x miracle,” only to be accused of using hundreds of sybil accounts to fabricate results. The other involved a trader who manipulated the spot price of XRP to harvest prediction market bots, earning over $230,000 in a single operation.

 

In a market where outcomes are reduced to yes or no, some dance with lies, while others exploit rules with precision. There is no unbeatable strategy. There are only adaptable ones.

 

FROM 12 DOLLARS TO 100,000 DOLLARS THE 8,300X MIRACLE OR A CAREFULLY STAGED ILLUSION

 

The story began with a post that spread quickly across X. A trader named ascetic claimed he had turned $12 into more than $100,000 in profit on Polymarket. According to his account, he achieved this by making sixteen consecutive bets on short term Bitcoin price movements, doubling his capital each time.

 

He framed the journey as a test of conviction. He also stated that he had openly shared his betting logic and reasoning throughout the process.

 

Soon after, ascetic posted a link to his Polymarket account in the comments. He emphasized that such a wealth miracle could only happen on Polymarket. The language felt familiar. Similar claims have appeared before across platforms such as OpenSea, Blur, Pump.fun, Hyperliquid, and others.

 

The response was immediate. The comment section filled with praise and celebration. Some community members treated the story as proof that prediction markets reward courage and skill. Even Polymarket’s global growth lead LeGate congratulated him publicly and mentioned a Polymarket trader badge.

 

At first glance, it looked like a standard viral success story. That impression did not last long.

 

FROM MIRACLE TO FABRICATION DOUBTS AROUND THE 8,300X RETURNS

 

On the same day, a trader named Moses publicly challenged ascetic’s claims. Moses described himself as ranked 515 among Polymarket traders in 2025. His criticism was direct and detailed.

 

Moses pointed out that in ascetic’s first post, the account balance already showed around $3,000. According to Moses, this was not the result of a clean run from $12. Instead, he alleged that ascetic operated a large sybil network. Hundreds of accounts were created, each funded with $10 to $20. Once one account reached around $2,900, ascetic began promoting it publicly.

 

From that point on, the promoted account made seven trades, all winners. Moses argued that this behavior was a red flag. Real traders do not go all in on every trade. This pattern suggested performance chasing and narrative building rather than risk management.

 

Moses also claimed that when liquidity was insufficient, ascetic appeared to use other accounts to create artificial fills in order to reach desired prices. He warned readers not to blindly trust viral traders and shared screenshots of failed sybil accounts that had only reached about $1,000 in profit.

 

He later added more details. All of the suspected accounts were created seven months earlier. They traded random markets for months. Then, two months ago, all of them began the same challenge on the same day. According to Moses, the entire “$10 to $100,000” story was fiction.

 

He shared several account links as examples.

 

 

Despite these accusations, ascetic denied any connection to the listed wallets and accounts. Some members of the ZSC DAO, a Polymarket trader community, also defended him and described the accusations as online harassment.

 

Still, observers noticed similarities between ascetic’s Polymarket activity, bot replies on X, and other accounts with overlapping behavior patterns. These links significantly weakened the credibility of the so called miracle.

 

Some commenters noted the irony. Even seven consecutive successful bets would already be an impressive achievement. Others suggested the entire setup looked like a bot driven spray strategy rather than genuine skill.

 

Adding another layer of irony, Moses’ own profile described a journey from $1 to $1 million. Whether that line reflected real results or personal ambition remained unclear.

 

Compared with this murky case, the next example is far easier to verify and far more instructive.

 

MANIPULATING XRP TO DRAIN BOTS A 230,000 DOLLAR OPERATION

 

On January 18, a Polymarket trader known as PredictTrader revealed a striking case of market manipulation. According to his analysis, a trader labeled a4385 earned approximately $233,000 by exploiting prediction market bots. The operation unfolded over just a few hours and initially escaped broad attention.

 

The timing was carefully chosen. It was a Saturday night, when overall market liquidity was thin. Liquidity on Binance spot markets was also weaker than usual.

 

The target market was an XRP prediction event. The question was whether XRP would rise or fall within a 15 minute window, from 12:45 to 1:00 PM Eastern Time on January 17.

 

Trader a4385 aggressively bought “up” shares on Polymarket. His counterparties were mostly personal market making bots. On Polymarket, market making is relatively simple. The barrier to entry for individual developers is low. As a result, trading bots are widespread.

 

Ten minutes into the event, XRP was down about 0.3 percent from the opening price. Despite this, the price of “up” shares was pushed to 70 percent. Bots detected what appeared to be a profitable imbalance and began selling more “up” shares to a4385.

 

By the end of this phase, a4385 had accumulated about $77,000 worth of “up” shares at an average price of 48 percent.

 

Two minutes before settlement, a wallet on Binance bought roughly $1 million worth of XRP on the spot market. This purchase pushed the price up by about 0.5 percent. Seconds after the prediction market settled, the same spot position was sold.

 

The cost structure of the manipulation was simple. It consisted mainly of spot market slippage and fees. The estimated one way slippage was around 0.25 percent, plus trading fees.

 

Using a Binance VIP level 4 account with fees of 0.06 percent, which is relatively easy to obtain, and assuming 0.25 percent slippage in both directions, the total cost was about $6,200. The actual cost may have been even lower.

 

By repeating this strategy and taking advantage of weak weekend liquidity, the trader drained multiple bot wallets. Some bots were shut down in time. Others reacted too slowly and lost all their funds. One bot operator, known as aleksandmoney, reportedly lost an entire year of profits, around $160,000.

 

WHAT THESE CASES REVEAL ABOUT PREDICTION MARKETS

 

These two incidents expose different but related weaknesses in prediction markets. The first highlights how easily performance narratives can be fabricated through sybil behavior and selective disclosure. The second shows how mechanical strategies and shallow liquidity can be exploited through external price manipulation.

 

Information on prediction markets is not always what it seems. Results can be staged. Signals can be gamed. Platform rules and settlement standards are human designed systems, not neutral truths.

 

For traders who thrive on the thrill of binary outcomes, separating appearance from reality is essential. In prediction markets, truth is often less important than how truth is defined and enforced.

〈Prediction Markets and False Gods of Fortune: Exposing the 8,300x Miracle and a $230,000 Price Manipulation〉這篇文章最早發佈於《CoinRank》。