The Cryptonomist

Amid growing concern over the US economy, Robert Kiyosaki is once again drawing attention to bitcoin gold silver as tools for financial protection.

Kiyosaki warns on US debt and inflation

Author and investor Robert Kiyosaki, known for his 1997 book Rich Dad Poor Dad, is urging investors to seek safety in gold, silver, and Bitcoin. He argues that mounting economic pressures in the United States are eroding the purchasing power of the dollar.

Kiyosaki points specifically to the $38.43 trillion US national debt as a core risk for savers. Moreover, he notes that inflation running at 2.7 percent further undermines cash holdings, even when official figures appear moderate.

Real assets as protection against US national debt concerns

According to Kiyosaki, these macroeconomic trends make traditional savings less reliable over time. However, he believes that holding tangible or scarce assets, such as precious metals and Bitcoin, can help protect against inflation and currency debasement.

He repeatedly encourages people to buy gold and silver coins or bars rather than rely solely on bank deposits. In parallel, he promotes Bitcoin as a digital alternative that, in his view, offers long-term upside despite episodes of sharp volatility.

Kiyosaki frames his message as a real assets investment guide for ordinary savers who feel exposed to government debt policies. That said, he acknowledges that price swings in metals and cryptocurrencies can unsettle new investors and require a long-term mindset.

2026 as a key window for wealth building strategies

Beyond immediate risks, Kiyosaki argues that the coming years will open rare opportunities for wealth building strategies. In particular, he highlights 2026 as an important period in which investors who accumulate assets now could benefit from major price repricing.

He claims that buying bitcoin, gold, and silver during phases of volatility can position individuals for substantial gains later. However, he stresses that this approach requires discipline, patience, and the ability to ignore short-term market noise.

Supporters, critics, and risk considerations

Kiyosaki’s stance has attracted a strong following among those who fear long-term US national debt concerns and distrust central bank policies. Moreover, his books and public talks have made him one of the most visible advocates of alternative asset investing worldwide.

Yet critics often highlight his own business history, including a past bankruptcy and legal disputes linked to his training ventures. They argue that his track record complicates the credibility of his bold market calls and any broad kiyosaki investment advice.

For now, Kiyosaki continues to tell audiences to consider bitcoin gold silver as part of a broader plan to shield savings from currency erosion. While opinions on his views remain divided, his message underscores the growing global debate over debt, inflation, and how best to preserve wealth in uncertain times.

Falcon Finance, a pioneer in digital asset issuance, has announced the integration of USDf, its overcollateralized synthetic dollar, into Altery’s regulated payment infrastructure through a strategic partnership with Synterra Connect.

This collaboration marks a decisive step for USDf holders, enabling instant conversion into fiat currencies such as GBP, EUR, and USD, and access to fully regulated global payment services.

Instant Conversion and Access to Global Banking Services

Thanks to this integration, USDf holders can now transfer their tokens to a Synterra Connect address for conversion. The corresponding fiat balance is credited directly to the user’s Altery account.

From here, it is possible to leverage major banking channels, including SEPA transfers, international payments via SWIFT, local transfers, and card-linked products. At launch, the service supports GBP, EUR, and USD, also offering the possibility to send fiat funds directly to bank cards.

This solution serves as a concrete example of how activity on digital dollars can be routed through regulated payment infrastructures, in a context where specific frameworks for stablecoins are still evolving.

Flexibility for Crypto Treasuries and Trading Desks

According to Artem Tolkachev, Chief RWA Officer at Falcon Finance, “crypto trading desks and treasuries have long been requesting the ability to earn on-chain yields without sacrificing the capability to pay suppliers in euros or pounds. The integration provides this flexibility, eliminating the need to choose between DeFi yields and real-world operational needs.”

After conversion, fiat balances credited to Altery can be transferred through regulated payment channels, with client funds protected by Altery’s FCA regulatory framework. It is important to emphasize that Falcon Finance and USDf operate separately from regulated payment services, maintaining a clear distinction between on-chain management and fiat operations.

Overcoming the Barriers Between DeFi and Traditional Finance

In the past, companies and professionals active in digital asset markets faced significant obstacles when transitioning between on-chain treasury positions and traditional financial channels.

With this integration, a trading company or a Web3 treasury can maintain yield-bearing positions in Falcon’s sUSDf vault while simultaneously accessing fiat liquidity for salary payments, suppliers, or operational expenses, without having to completely abandon their on-chain strategy.

Robust and Transparent Regulatory Framework

Altery Ltd. is authorized by the United Kingdom’s Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) as an Electronic Money Institution (FRN 901037), ensuring the protection of client funds in accordance with FCA requirements.

From this regulated environment, converted funds can be transferred through local and international banking channels, access card-linked products, or facilitate payments in major currencies.

The crypto-to-fiat conversion is managed by Synterra Connect (Synterra Innovations Ltd), a company registered as a Money Services Business with FINTRAC in Canada. Falcon Finance and USDf remain independent from these regulatory frameworks, separating the on-chain issuance of the synthetic dollar from regulated fiat services and allowing each component to operate within its own compliance perimeter.

This partnership represents only the first phase of a broader collaboration among the three organizations, which are evaluating additional features, including card-linked solutions and payment services specific to certain jurisdictions.

Falcon Finance: innovation in onchain liquidity

Falcon Finance is building a universal collateralization infrastructure capable of transforming any liquid asset—including digital assets, currency-pegged tokens, and tokenized real assets—into onchain liquidity pegged to the dollar. By connecting onchain and offchain financial systems, Falcon enables institutions, protocols, and capital allocators to unlock stable, yield-bearing liquidity from assets already in their portfolio.

USDf is designed as an overcollateralized synthetic dollar, backed by a diversified mix of tokenized digital and real assets, including BTC, ETH, SOL, and tokenized government bonds, maintaining a stable 1:1 peg with the US dollar.

Unlike traditional fiat-backed stablecoins, USDf maintains its peg through active reserve management and delta-neutral strategies, with reserves exceeding the value of tokens in circulation. This structure allows institutional participants to manage exposure to underlying assets while maintaining dollar-denominated liquidity.

Altery and Synterra Connect: Regulated Infrastructures at the Service of Innovation

Altery is a group of licensed fintech companies offering a unified platform for the modern economy. The core of its offering is a cutting-edge multi-currency account that simplifies the management of money flows across currencies and borders, seamlessly integrating fiat and crypto services. In this way, Altery creates a transparent, controlled, and scalable bridge between traditional and digital payments.

Synterra Connect (Synterra Innovations Ltd), based in Canada, is registered with FINTRAC as a Money Services Business and specializes in the conversion between crypto and fiat, ensuring compliance with current regulations.

Towards a New Era for Digital Liquidity Management

The integration of USDf into Altery’s regulated infrastructure, thanks to the collaboration with Synterra Connect, represents a crucial step towards the convergence of decentralized finance and traditional payment systems. Companies and industry professionals can now benefit from a solution that combines the flexibility and yields of DeFi with the security and regulation of traditional banking services, overcoming the barriers that have so far limited institutional adoption of digital assets.

With this initiative, Falcon Finance, Altery, and Synterra Connect lay the groundwork for a more integrated, efficient, and compliant financial ecosystem, opening new opportunities for liquidity management and payments in the digital age.

In a signal of growing investor confidence in AI-driven finance, pennylane fintech has closed one of Europe’s largest software growth deals of early 2026.

Pennylane raises €175 million to scale AI and European reach

Paris-based Pennylane has raised €175 million to accelerate artificial intelligence capabilities and expand its presence across Europe. The funding round, announced on January 23, 2026, positions the French startup among the continent’s most heavily backed financial software players.

The round was led by growth investor TCV, with participation from Blackstone Growth and existing shareholders including Sequoia Capital, DST Global, CapitalG and Meritech Capital. Moreover, the caliber of these investors underscores how strategic AI infrastructure is becoming for financial services and compliance software across the region.

What makes this latest raise notable is not just the size of the cheque, though €175 million stands out in a selective European fintech funding environment, but also its purpose. Pennylane stresses that it did not need the capital to stay afloat; instead, it chose to raise now to double down on AI product development and prepare for a coming wave of consolidation in European financial software.

From accounting tool to financial operating system

Founded in 2020, Pennylane has been positioning itself as more than a traditional ledger or bookkeeping platform. The company describes its core product as a financial operating system for small and mid-sized businesses and the accountants who support them. That system unifies invoicing, payments, bookkeeping and cash-flow management inside a shared environment.

However, many European SMEs still rely on a patchwork of tools to manage their finances, often stitching together separate platforms for billing, banking and accounting. Pennylane’s unified approach aims to address that fragmentation by enabling both businesses and accounting firms to work from the same data and workflows, which can reduce errors and improve real-time visibility.

Central to this strategy is a more aggressive push into generative AI. The new capital will fund expanded R&D into intelligent assistants that help accountants interpret data, automate routine bookkeeping tasks, and deliver richer, more proactive insights to clients. That said, the company is positioning these features as productivity tools rather than replacements for professional judgment.

AI, regulation and product roadmap

The focus on AI comes as ai in accounting software moves from early experimentation to practical deployment in everyday workflows. For accountants handling multiple clients in different jurisdictions, automation and machine learning are becoming essential to keep pace with regulatory change and growing expectations for real-time reporting.

In parallel, Pennylane is preparing for shifting European rules, including electronic invoicing mandates rolling out across several EU countries. The company is also refining localisation for core markets such as Germany, where tax regimes, reporting standards and customer expectations differ from those in France. Consequently, its product roadmap increasingly blends regulatory compliance features with AI-driven automation.

This regulatory backdrop adds urgency to the current funding. As digital tax reporting and e-invoicing standards move from edge cases to default requirements, financial software providers must modernise rapidly. Pennylane’s decision to raise substantial capital now, even without immediate financial pressure, signals an intent to be a consolidator and central platform as these shifts accelerate.

Unicorn valuation and investor signal

Pennylane‘s latest round reportedly values the company at about $4.25 billion (€3.6 billion), firmly reinforcing its unicorn status and placing it among Europe’s higher-valued fintech startups. The valuation reflects a mix of investor confidence and tangible market traction: the platform is used by thousands of accounting firms and hundreds of thousands of businesses across several European markets.

The presence of heavyweight global investors such as TCV and Blackstone also highlights that international capital still sees significant upside in Europe’s SaaS and AI stack. Moreover, the structure of the deal reportedly allows Pennylane to maintain founder control and avoid excessive dilution, a notable outcome in a market where many late-stage companies have faced valuation pressure.

This financing round demonstrates how AI is now embedded in critical business infrastructure, not only in high-profile chatbots or large language models. Fintech tools, compliance platforms and productivity software increasingly weave machine learning and automation into workflows that were historically manual and time consuming for finance teams.

Strategic timing in a changing European landscape

Strategically, the timing of this pennylane fintech deal matters. European financial software providers are under mounting pressure to modernise as digital tax reporting, real-time data requirements and e-invoicing norms spread across jurisdictions. In that context, raising a large war chest in 2026 positions Pennylane to participate actively in potential market consolidation.

There is also a broader strategic question in Europe around how to balance diversification with consolidation in fintech. Investors backing Pennylane are effectively betting that the company can act as a common platform for accountants and SMEs across borders. However, that role becomes more complex as individual countries maintain distinct tax codes, compliance rules and business practices.

Generative AI, if deployed carefully, could help reconcile those differences by allowing the platform to adapt to local regulations and reporting formats without forcing teams into endless, repetitive configuration work. From Berlin to Barcelona, founders and investors are watching whether this latest bet on AI-powered financial tooling sets a new benchmark for how European software scales.

Implications for SMEs, accountants and European software

For small and mid-sized businesses, as well as the accounting firms that advise them, the surge of capital into AI-focused finance tools could translate into more seamless workflows and smarter decision-making. Moreover, as more European platforms embed automation into day-to-day accounting, the expectation for real-time dashboards, integrated billing and predictive cash-flow analysis is likely to become standard.

If Pennylane‘s vision succeeds, the impact could stretch beyond a single French unicorn. It would suggest that European software can innovate on its own terms, solving highly local pain points in regulation, taxation and financial operations while also competing on a global stage. In that scenario, the current €175 million funding round becomes not just a milestone for one company, but a broader signal of how AI and financial infrastructure in Europe are evolving.

In summary, Pennylane’s new capital, strategic investor roster and focus on AI and regulation-driven product development underscore how quickly Europe’s financial software stack is changing, with 2026 shaping up as a pivotal year for the region’s fintech and accounting ecosystems.

With its latest recognition on the Fortune 2026 ranking, the asus most admired status underscores how strategic design, AI leadership, and sustainability are reshaping the company’s global profile.

ASUS marks 11th appearance on Fortune’s 2026 list

On January 23, 2026, in Toronto, ASUS announced its eleventh inclusion on Fortune‘s World’s Most Admired Companies list. This recurring recognition highlights the company’s strength in managing assets, long-term investment strategy, and social responsibility, reinforcing its position as a global technology leader.

Moreover, the listing confirms ASUS as a benchmark for corporate excellence in the tech sector. It reflects sustained execution in key areas such as financial soundness, quality of management, and effectiveness in global business, all of which shape the company’s standing among peers.

Design Thinking and AI at the core of ASUS strategy

ASUS Chairman Jonney Shih welcomed the news, emphasizing the central role of Design Thinking in both product development and business operations. He stressed that in the era of AI, every decision is made with user experience and well-being at the forefront.

However, Shih also underlined that performance alone is not enough. He argued that AI must function as a responsible engine of innovation, creating meaningful value and driving long-term, sustainable growth for customers and the company alike.

This approach connects closely to the broader asus design thinking philosophy, which treats user-centricity as a framework for both hardware and service innovation. As a result, ASUS seeks to ensure that each technical choice is aligned with tangible benefits for end users.

Recognition of ASUS corporate reputation and innovation

The World’s Most Admired Companies list is compiled annually by Fortune in partnership with global consulting firm Korn Ferry. Their survey offers a comprehensive assessment of corporate reputations across multiple industries, based on feedback from executives, directors, and analysts.

That said, ASUS’s repeated inclusion demonstrates a solid asus corporate reputation built on technological progress and consistent product quality. The ranking signals that industry stakeholders view the company as a reliable innovator capable of sustaining competitive leadership.

Furthermore, the accolade reinforces ASUS’s profile among institutional partners and end customers. It supports the brand’s message that rigorous engineering, customer focus, and transparent governance can coexist within a fast-moving tech environment.

Building a comprehensive ASUS AI ecosystem

As a long-standing leader in consumer and professional technology, ASUS is recognized for user-centric innovation across AI, gaming, sustainability, and enterprise solutions. Over the past year, the company has advanced a comprehensive asus ai ecosystem under its “Ubiquitous AI. Incredible Possibilities.” vision.

Moreover, ASUS positioned itself among the first manufacturers to launch an extensive lineup of Copilot+ PCs. This move significantly broadened access to AI-powered personal computing and highlighted the company’s ambition to put advanced capabilities into mainstream devices.

At CES 2026, ASUS continued that momentum with several launches and refreshes. The showcase included the ASUS Zenbook DUO, ExpertBook Ultra, a revamped ROG Zephyrus gaming range, the latest Vivobook models, and a new portfolio of Chromebook laptops and commercial desktops.

Product innovation and user experience

These additions strengthened the company’s portfolio in premium ultraportables, professional notebooks, and gaming systems. However, they also illustrated how asus product innovation remains closely tied to real-world usability, from dual-screen workflows to lighter form factors and enhanced thermals.

Each new product line, from work-focused ExpertBook devices to performance-driven ROG systems, reflects a design language centered on intuitive interaction. Consequently, ASUS aims to provide seamless experiences across productivity, content creation, and entertainment scenarios.

That said, the company’s emphasis on user experience is not limited to hardware specifications. It also extends to firmware, software optimization, and intelligent features that leverage AI to customize and streamline daily tasks.

Sustainability and long-term vision

Alongside performance and innovation, ASUS highlights environmental responsibility as a core pillar of its strategy. The company states that every solution is designed to merge strong performance with reduced ecological impact, delivering value while minimizing resource use.

Moreover, ongoing asus sustainability efforts align with a longer-term goal to become a net zero enterprise. ASUS aims to help advance a circular economy through responsible supply-chain management and materials choices that create shared value.

The broader corporate vision includes reducing emissions, enhancing product energy efficiency, and extending device lifecycles. In turn, these initiatives support the brand’s ambition to be recognized not only for innovation but also for its contribution to global sustainability objectives.

ASUS profile and future outlook

ASUS positions itself as a global technology leader delivering innovative, intuitive devices and solutions that enhance everyday life. The company relies on a team of 5,000 in-house R&D experts and is widely known for reimagining core PC and component technologies.

Furthermore, its consistent appearance on Fortune World’s Most Admired Companies rankings underlines the asus most admired perception among business stakeholders. This recognition supports ASUS’s efforts to scale its AI strategy and deepen its presence across consumer, commercial, and gaming markets.

In summary, ASUS’s eleventh listing on Fortune’s World’s Most Admired Companies list for 2026 confirms how integrated design thinking, AI-driven products, and sustainability commitments continue to strengthen its position in the global technology landscape.

Investors will soon receive a detailed update on alico inc results as the company prepares to release its latest quarterly financial data and host a related conference call.

First quarter 2026 release timing

Alico, Inc. (Nasdaq: ALCO) announced from Fort Myers, Florida, on January 23, 2026, that it will publish financial results for the first quarter ended December 31, 2025 on Wednesday, February 4, 2026, after the market close. The update will cover the first full quarter following the company’s recent strategic changes, providing investors with fresh insight into operating performance.

Details of the Alico conference call

The Company will hold a live conference call on Thursday, February 5, 2026, at 8:30 am Eastern Time to discuss its quarterly performance and outlook. Interested participants in the United States may join by dialing 1-800-245-3047, while international callers can dial 1-203-518-9765. Moreover, the participant identification required to access the call is ALICO, which callers should provide to the operator.

During this earnings discussion, management is expected to address the latest alico financial results, recent corporate developments and ongoing strategic initiatives. That said, investors typically monitor this session for commentary on revenue trends, cost management and land-related activities.

Replay information for investors

A telephone replay of the call will be available starting Thursday, February 5, 2026, approximately three hours after the live event concludes, and will remain accessible through Thursday, February 19, 2026. Listeners in the United States may access the replay by dialing 1-844-512-2921, while international listeners can dial 1-412-317-6671. The required passcode for the playback service is 11160814, and investors can use it any time during the replay window.

Overview of Alico’s business and strategy

Alico, Inc. is a Florida-based agribusiness and land management company with more than 125 years of operating history. Following a strategic transformation completed in 2025, Alico now operates as a diversified land company with approximately 49,537 acres across 8 Florida counties as of September 30, 2025. However, the company continues to emphasize both agricultural production and real estate opportunities across its extensive portfolio.

The business focuses on strategic land development initiatives and diversified agricultural operations, seeking to leverage its large holdings to generate long-term value for shareholders. Moreover, Alico has highlighted its commitment to responsible land stewardship and conservation practices, aligning operational decisions with environmental and community considerations. The upcoming release of alico inc results will offer further context on how this strategy is progressing financially.

Investor relations contacts

For additional information ahead of the call or following the release, investors can reach the company’s designated contacts. On the external side, John Mills of ICR is available at (646) 277-1254 and via email at InvestorRelations@alicoinc.com. Furthermore, Alico’s Chief Financial Officer Brad Heine can be contacted directly at (239) 226-2000 or by email at bheine@alicoinc.com for further investor inquiries.

In summary, Alico’s scheduled first quarter 2026 release and follow-up call, combined with replay access and clear investor contact points, provide shareholders and analysts with multiple channels to assess performance, strategic execution and outlook.

As it reshapes its U.S. strategy, the rapidly growing fintech is betting that the current climate will favor streamlined approvals for revolut banking in the American market.

Revolut drops U.S. bank acquisition for standalone license

Revolut, the U.K. fintech known for its crypto trading features, has abandoned plans to buy a U.S. bank and will instead seek its own banking license in the United States, the Financial Times reported on Friday. The company is shifting course as it looks to expand in the world’s largest financial market without relying on a pre-existing chartered lender.

The London-based firm had previously explored acquiring a chartered U.S. lender to fast-track access to all 50 states. However, people familiar with the matter told the FT that management concluded the acquisition route would be slower and more complex than expected, especially given the operational obligations that come with a traditional bank purchase.

Moreover, a takeover would likely have forced Revolut to maintain physical branches, running counter to its digital-only model. That said, the revised plan underscores how the company aims to preserve its lean, app-centric infrastructure while still competing head-on with incumbent banks in the United States.

Betting on a de novo license under Trump administration

Instead of an acquisition, Revolut is now pursuing a de novo banking license from the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC). A de novo license is granted to new banks rather than those formed through mergers or purchases, and it could allow the firm to design its operations from scratch in line with its digital strategy.

Company insiders, cited by the FT, believe that a revamped OCC under the Trump administration may process applications more quickly than under previous leadership. As a result, executives view this regulatory environment as more favorable for a fresh license than for a complex acquisition process. This calculation is central to the current revolut banking roadmap in the U.S.

Revolut, which last year achieved a $75 billion valuation in a secondary share sale, has confirmed that the United States remains a “critical” market for its global ambitions. However, the company said it is still assessing “multiple routes” into the American banking system, including the de novo process, and emphasized that no final decision has been made.

Fragmented U.S. regulation but signs of a fintech-friendly tone

The U.S. regulatory landscape remains highly fragmented, with overlapping federal and state oversight for banks and digital asset firms. Nevertheless, recent approvals suggest a more open stance toward innovative financial players. For example, regulators have granted banking charters to crypto-focused firms such as Circle Internet, a stablecoin issuer, and Ripple, an international payments network.

These developments point to a more fintech-friendly tone from U.S. authorities, even as compliance expectations stay strict. Moreover, they provide a roadmap for other digital-first institutions seeking full banking status, potentially supporting Revolut’s ambitions to compete via a full-service license rather than limited partnerships.

Revolut’s accelerating crypto and European expansion

Alongside its U.S. banking push, Revolut continues to deepen its crypto services globally. Last month, the company announced a Trust Wallet partnership that enables instant cryptocurrency purchases in the European Union, with zero fees available in some cases. This move reinforces its strategy of integrating fast, low-cost digital asset access directly into its app.

Furthermore, Revolut has secured a MiCA license via Cyprus, giving it regulatory clearance to offer crypto services across the entire European Economic Area. That said, the combination of U.S. banking ambitions, EU-wide licensing, and expanding crypto functionality positions Revolut as one of the most aggressively scaling fintechs in both traditional finance and digital assets.

In summary, Revolut’s decision to drop its U.S. bank purchase plan and pursue a de novo license reflects a tactical bet on speed, regulatory alignment, and digital efficiency, while its push into crypto and European markets underscores a broader bid to become a global financial super-app.

Price action on Meteora crypto (MET/USDT) is stuck around a tight range at $0.27, with volatility compressed and market sentiment in Extreme Fear, suggesting a larger move is likely ahead.

MET/USDT — daily chart with candlesticks, EMA20/EMA50 and volume.

Main scenario for METEORA crypto from the daily chart: leaning neutral-to-bearish

Based on the daily (D1) data, the primary stance is neutral-to-bearish rather than outright bullish:

Price is well below the 200-day EMA at $0.35 – that is a classic sign of a market still trading inside a broader downtrend regime.

EMAs on the shorter side (20 and 50) are compressing around price, showing consolidation rather than trending behavior.

Momentum indicators (RSI, MACD) are basically flat – this is not a trending tape, it is a waiting room.

In other words, the bigger picture is still controlled by sellers. However, in the last few weeks they have stopped pressing, and the market is deciding whether $0.27 will become a base or just a temporary shelf before another leg lower.

Daily (D1) view – structure and key indicators on Meteora crypto

1. Trend and moving averages (EMA20, EMA50, EMA200)

Values (D1):
Close: $0.27
EMA20: $0.27
EMA50: $0.28
EMA200: $0.35

Price is sitting right on the 20-day EMA and just a hair under the 50-day EMA, while the 200-day EMA is still far above at $0.35.

How to read this: short term, MET is in sideways equilibrium around the 20-day average, which usually means the market is undecided. Moreover, the slightly lower 50-day versus 200-day setup, and price trading well under the 200-day, confirm that the macro trend remains down. Bulls are trying to stabilize, not trending higher yet. To flip the narrative, MET needs to reclaim and hold above the 50-day, then start closing the gap to the 200-day.

2. Daily RSI (14)

RSI14 (D1): 50.06

RSI right on 50 is about as neutral as it gets.

What this implies: there is no meaningful momentum edge to either side on the daily. Sellers have lost the upper hand they had during the prior down leg, but buyers have not taken control either. This is consistent with a consolidation after a decline – a place where markets either build a base or reload for another drop.

3. Daily MACD

MACD (D1):
Line: ~0.00
Signal: ~0.00
Histogram: 0.00

MACD is completely flat, hovering around the zero line.

What this implies: trend strength is absent on the daily timeframe. There is no clear bullish expansion or bearish acceleration. When MACD is this muted at the same time as RSI is dead center, it usually tells you the strong move already happened and the market is catching its breath. The next expansion move should be treated as important because it will likely define the next multi-week leg.

4. Bollinger Bands (D1) – volatility and range

Values (D1):
BB mid (20-period basis): $0.27
Upper band: $0.31
Lower band: $0.24

Price is glued to the middle band, with bands set roughly between $0.24 and $0.31.

What this implies: Meteora crypto is in a tight, mid-band consolidation. Price is neither pressing volatility to the upside nor testing the lower band. This is classic range behavior after a move. The band width (~$0.07) defines a first volatility envelope: breaks and daily closes near $0.31 would point to a volatility expansion higher, while daily closes near $0.24 would show volatility returning to the downside.

5. Daily ATR (14) – volatility magnitude

ATR14 (D1): 0.03

With MET/USDT at $0.27, an ATR of $0.03 means the average daily range is about 11–12% of price.

What this implies: relative to many altcoins, that level of ATR is moderate rather than explosive. The market has calmed down compared with peak volatility phases, aligning with the consolidation picture from Bollinger Bands. For traders, this means position sizing cannot assume ultra-low volatility. A normal day can still easily swing a few cents around the current price.

6. Daily pivot levels – short-term support/resistance map

Pivot Points (D1):
PP: $0.27
R1: $0.28
S1: $0.27 (effectively the same area as PP in this data set)

The main pivot (PP) is right at the current price, and the first resistance just above at $0.28. Support is effectively the same region, signaling a very tight daily range.

What this implies: the market is balanced intraday around $0.27. Any clean push above $0.28 with follow-through would be the first sign that short-term buyers are willing to pay up. Conversely, losing $0.27 on a convincing daily close would hint that the range is resolving lower. For now, these levels just frame a narrow battlefield rather than showing a directional edge.

Intraday context – H1 and M15 on MET/USDT

1-hour (H1) – micro trend and short-term momentum

Values (H1):
Close: $0.27
EMA20: $0.27
EMA50: $0.27
EMA200: $0.28
RSI14: 53.43
MACD: flat around 0.00
BB mid: $0.27 (bands roughly $0.26–0.28)
ATR14 (H1): 0.00 (effectively extremely low in the current data)

On the hourly chart, price is stacked right on top of the short EMAs, with the 200-hour EMA a little higher at $0.28. RSI sits slightly above 50, indicating a tiny bullish tilt, but MACD is again flat.

What this implies: the H1 timeframe is neutral with a slight intraday bullish lean. Buyers are doing just enough to keep MET from slipping, but not enough to break the higher timeframe structure. The very narrow Bollinger Bands and negligible ATR tell you liquidity is thin and the tape is slow. These are often conditions for a sudden, sharp move once a catalyst or larger flow hits.

15-minute (M15) – execution-level noise

Values (M15):
Close: $0.27
EMA20: $0.27
EMA50: $0.27
EMA200: $0.27
RSI14: 47.89
MACD: flat around 0.00
BB mid: $0.27 (bands essentially hugging price)
ATR14 (M15): 0.00 (range extremely compressed)

All the short EMAs are clustered at the same price and intraday volatility is almost non existent.

What this implies: on 15 minutes, MET/USDT is in pure chop mode. There is no reliable momentum and no clear micro trend. This is an environment where overtrading intraday swings typically leads to getting whipped around for nothing. M15 is useful here only to fine-tune entries around the broader scenarios, not to generate a stand-alone view.

Market environment – risk appetite and sentiment

The broader crypto market is showing:

BTC dominance around 57.5% – capital is relatively concentrated in bitcoin, a sign of defensive positioning.

Total market cap down about 0.4% in 24h, with volume down sharply (~-22%) – participation is muted.

Fear & Greed Index at 24 – officially Extreme Fear.

What this implies for Meteora: altcoins like MET are not operating in a risk-on environment. When BTC dominance is high and sentiment is fearful, liquidity prefers majors and stablecoins. That tends to cap upside on smaller names unless there is a strong, asset-specific catalyst. At the same time, extreme fear often coincides with value-building phases. Markets become asymmetric, where bad news can still push price lower, but good news can trigger outsized short-covering rallies.

Scenarios for Meteora crypto (MET/USDT)

Bullish scenario

For bulls, the bet is that $0.27 is forming a base within a broader downtrend, and that a relief rally is coming once fear eases.

What bulls want to see:

A daily close above $0.28, clearing the R1 pivot and pushing price above both the 20 and 50-day EMAs with some distance.

RSI on D1 nudging up from 50 towards the 55–60 zone, signaling that buyers are finally gaining directional control.

MACD turning slightly positive on D1, with the histogram ticking above zero – confirmation that the consolidation is breaking into a new upswing.

Price stretching towards the upper Bollinger Band near $0.31. A daily close near or above that band would indicate volatility expanding to the upside.

If that sequence plays out, the first logical targets sit around $0.31 (upper band and prior range resistance). Beyond that, the bigger psychological and technical area is the 200-day EMA at $0.35. Reaching anywhere close to that level would represent a meaningful relief rally inside the still-intact larger downtrend.

What would invalidate the bullish case: a decisive daily close below $0.27 with RSI rolling down under 45 and price drifting towards the lower band at $0.24. That would show that the current base failed and that MET is shifting from sideways digestion back into a directional down move.

Bearish scenario

For bears, the view is simpler: Meteora is trapped below a falling long-term trend, sentiment is fearful, and the current equilibrium is just a pause before another leg down.

What bears want to see:

MET slipping below $0.27 and starting to close daily candles towards $0.25–0.24, re-engaging the lower Bollinger Band.

RSI on D1 sliding under 45, confirming that selling pressure has returned.

MACD turning negative with the histogram printing red bars under zero, showing renewed bearish momentum after the flat phase.

On H1, price failing at or just below the $0.28 / EMA200 (H1) area repeatedly – acting as a ceiling rather than being reclaimed.

In that case, the first near-term downside zone is the $0.24–0.25 region, in line with the lower daily band. If those levels give way with strong volume, there is room for an extension lower, especially if broader market fear intensifies or BTC takes another hit.

What would invalidate the bearish case: a clean, sustained break above $0.31 on the daily. That would mean price has pushed beyond the upper band and away from the cluster of short EMAs, with momentum no longer favoring the downside. Bears would need to reassess if MET starts spending time above that band and gravitates towards the 200-day EMA.

Neutral / range-bound scenario

The most honest reading right now is that MET/USDT is already in a range, and it may simply keep oscillating while the broader market decides its next move.

A continued neutral scenario would look like:

Price holding roughly between $0.24 and $0.31 without decisive breaks on either side.

RSI hovering around the 45–55 band, MACD staying flat near zero.

EMAs (20 and 50) continuing to compress sideways around current levels.

In that environment, MET would behave more like a mean reversion instrument: fades near the edges of the range, nothing sustained. This is where intraday traders scalp and positional traders wait.

Positioning, risk, and how to think about Meteora here

Meteora crypto is sitting in a classic indecision pocket: under its long-term trend, in a compressed volatility regime, inside a fearful broader market. The signals across timeframes are not strongly aligned. D1 is neutral-to-bearish, H1 has a slight bullish lean, and M15 is pure noise. When timeframes disagree like this, conviction should be kept low and risk controlled.

For directional traders, the key is to anchor on daily levels:

$0.27 is the pivot battleground.

$0.24 to the downside and $0.31 to the upside mark the edges of the current volatility envelope.

The 200-day EMA at $0.35 is the line that separates a simple bounce from a more serious trend repair.

Volatility is currently compressed, but ATR and the band width tell you moves can still be meaningful once they start. In a market dominated by extreme fear, false breaks and sharp squeezes are common. Therefore, guarding against over leverage and respecting invalidation levels is more important than trying to predict the exact next tick.

To sum up, this analysis is meant as a structural and technical roadmap for MET/USDT, not as a signal to buy or sell. The key edge here is patience: let price show whether this $0.27 shelf becomes a springboard or a trap door, then align with the emerging direction rather than trying to guess it in advance.

Trading toolsIf you want to monitor markets with professional charting tools and real-time data, you can open an account on Investing using our partner link:

Open your Investing.com account

This section contains a sponsored affiliate link. We may earn a commission at no additional cost to you.

Disclaimer: The content above is for informational and educational purposes only. It is not investment, trading, or financial advice, and it should not be used as the basis for any investment decision. Cryptoassets are highly volatile and carry a significant risk of loss. Always conduct your own research and consider your risk tolerance before engaging in any trading activity.

After months of speculative narrative in the political meme sector, the Trump crypto theme is now facing a reality check as TRUMP cools off in a clear daily downtrend.

TRUMP/USDT — daily chart with candlesticks, EMA20/EMA50 and volume.

Main Scenario from the Daily Chart (D1): Bearish, But Near a Local Support Pocket

On the daily timeframe, the bias is clearly bearish for TRUMPUSDT.

Daily close: 4.87 USDT

Price is below the 20, 50, and 200-day EMAs

RSI is below 40

MACD is negative with a slightly widening bearish histogram

Price is hugging the lower half of its Bollinger Band range but slightly above the lower band

Put simply: the trend is down, momentum is soft, but the selloff is controlled rather than panicked. Price is sitting right on the daily pivot at 4.87, which is acting like a short-term balance point. The market is deciding whether this is a buyable dip or just a rest stop in a larger downtrend.

Daily Indicators: What the Market is Actually Telling Us

1. Trend Structure – Daily EMAs

Daily EMAs:
• EMA 20: 5.16
• EMA 50: 5.42
• EMA 200: 7.04
• Price (close): 4.87

Price is below all three major EMAs, and the short EMAs (20, 50) are already below the 200. That is a textbook downtrend structure: rallies are more likely to be sold, and any bounce into the 5.10–5.40 zone is, for now, just a move back into resistance.

In practice, this tells you the market is not yet ready to reward dip-buyers aggressively. The 5.16–5.42 band is the first heavy supply zone, and bulls need to reclaim that area before talking about any real trend change.

2. Momentum & Exhaustion – Daily RSI

Daily RSI 14: 38.16

RSI is below 40 but not yet in deep oversold territory. That is classic grind-down behavior: sellers are in control, but we are not at a capitulation extreme. The market is weak, not broken.

For TRUMP, this means there is room for both a further slow bleed lower or a minor relief bounce. There is no strong forced reversal signal from RSI yet. It is more a warning that buyers remain cautious and patient.

3. Trend vs. Momentum – Daily MACD

Daily MACD:
• Line: -0.11
• Signal: -0.06
• Histogram: -0.06

MACD is below zero with the line under the signal and a negative histogram. Downside momentum is present, but the magnitude is modest, with no violent selling impulse. This lines up with a controlled downtrend rather than a crash.

Translation: bears own the tape, but they are not steamrolling it. Unless the histogram starts to shrink (early sign of momentum loss) or we see a bullish cross back toward zero, the path of least resistance on the daily chart remains lower.

4. Volatility & Trading Range – Daily Bollinger Bands

Daily Bollinger Bands:
• Mid band: 5.29
• Upper band: 5.80
• Lower band: 4.78
• Price (close): 4.87

Price is sitting in the lower half of the band structure, slightly above the lower band at 4.78. That tells us two things:

The market acknowledges downside pressure, as we are trading near the bottom of the recent volatility envelope.

We are not riding the band aggressively, so this is more of a soft drift lower than a momentum collapse.

Practically, the 4.78–4.87 area is a short-term demand pocket. If price starts closing below the lower band, that would mark a shift into more aggressive selling. Until then, this lower-band zone can attract tactical mean-reversion buyers, but they are trading against the bigger downtrend.

5. Volatility & Risk – Daily ATR

Daily ATR 14: 0.23

With price at 4.87, a 0.23 ATR means the typical daily swing is about 4–5%. For a political meme token linked to Trump narratives, that is actually moderate. Volatility has cooled down from casino mode into something more tradable.

This decline in realized volatility fits the story: the big Trump headlines right now (Greenland, NATO, dollar moves, and the wider Trump crypto empire chatter) are moving macro markets more than they are driving explosive flows into TRUMP itself. Speculators are still here, but they are less aggressive.

6. Daily Pivot Levels – Near a Balance Point

Daily Pivot:
• PP: 4.87
• R1: 4.90
• S1: 4.84

Price is basically sitting right on the pivot point at 4.87. Intraday, that is the market’s reference line: above it, short-term traders try to lean slightly bullish. Below it, they lean slightly bearish.

The very tight R1/S1 band (4.84–4.90) shows a compressed immediate range. For now, the market is undecided intraday while still respecting a broader daily downtrend. A decisive break beyond this band, accompanied by volume, will likely set the tone for the next leg.

Lower Timeframes: Are We Basing or Just Pausing?

1-Hour Chart (H1): Neutral, Short-Term Balance Inside a Bearish Daily Trend

H1 snapshot:
• Price: 4.88
• EMA 20: 4.87
• EMA 50: 4.89
• EMA 200: 5.07
• RSI 14: 50.45
• MACD line/signal: around 0
• Bollinger mid: 4.87, bands tight (4.84–4.89)
• ATR 14: 0.02

On the 1-hour chart, TRUMP is neutral and range-bound:

Price is sitting essentially on the 20 and 50 EMAs, with RSI around 50, a textbook equilibrium print.

MACD is flat around zero, hinting at a lack of intraday directional conviction.

The 1H Bollinger Bands are very tight, and ATR is just 0.02, which is extremely low for this asset.

This is classic coil behavior: after a directional move on the daily, the intraday market is catching its breath. However, remember the hierarchy: the daily trend is still down. A flat H1 inside a bearish D1 is often a bearish continuation pattern unless bulls manage to turn that consolidation into a proper base and break meaningfully higher.

15-Minute Chart (M15): Micro Equilibrium, Execution-Only Context

M15 snapshot:
• Price: 4.88
• EMA 20: 4.87
• EMA 50: 4.87
• EMA 200: 4.88
• RSI 14: 52.42
• MACD: flat at 0
• Bollinger mid: 4.87, bands ultra-tight (4.86–4.88)
• ATR 14: 0.01

The 15-minute chart is perfectly in line with the 1H: ultra-tight range, EMAs stacked on top of each other, and momentum readings near neutral. This timeframe has no directional edge right now, and it is just noise inside a small box.

For traders, M15 only matters for execution. It is useful for picking entries closer to short-term support or resistance once a higher-timeframe bias is chosen. On its own, it is telling you very little beyond the fact that the market is waiting.

Market Context: Trump Narrative vs. Risk-Off Crypto Backdrop

Macro crypto risk sentiment is cold: total market cap is slightly down over 24 hours, volume has dropped more than 20%, and fear is elevated. That kind of backdrop generally punishes speculative narratives, even those as strong as the Trump crypto ecosystem that is now being spun up via ventures like American Bitcoin and broader Trump-branded projects.

We also have dollar strength in play after Trump’s Greenland and tariffs maneuvering, as reported by Reuters. A stronger dollar typically weighs on USD-quoted crypto pairs by tightening global liquidity. When the dollar is firm and the crypto complex is in extreme fear, it is harder for niche tokens like TRUMP to find fresh buyers, no matter how loud the headlines are.

Bottom line: the Trump narrative is still there in the news, but the actual tape on TRUMP looks like a risk-off repricing. Hype is cooling off, speculation is dialed back, and price is settling closer to where real demand is willing to step in.

Scenarios for TRUMP

Bias Summary

• Daily (macro bias): Bearish
• 1H (tactical): Neutral and coiling inside a downtrend
• 15m (execution): Neutral and compressed

Timeframes disagree on intensity but not direction. The daily says downtrend, while intraday says undecided and coiling. That usually resolves in the direction of the higher timeframe unless there is a strong catalyst to flip the narrative.

Bullish Scenario: Base, Then Squeeze

For a constructive bullish case, TRUMP needs to turn this consolidation into a genuine base, not just a pause.

What bulls want to see:

Price holding above the lower Bollinger Band and daily support around 4.78–4.84.

A clean move and hold above the daily pivot and H1 range highs, with sustained trading above 4.90.

On the daily, RSI pushing back above 45–50, signaling a shift from grind-down to mean reversion.

MACD histogram flattening and then turning higher, hinting that downside momentum has run its course.

On H1, EMAs start to fan out with price consistently above the 20 and 50 EMAs, turning them into support.

If that sequence plays out, the first upside target zone is the confluence of daily EMA 20 and 50 and the Bollinger mid band in the 5.15–5.45 area. That is where the downtrend will be seriously tested. A strong impulsive move through that band, backed by rising volume and a more benign macro backdrop, opens the door toward the upper Bollinger region near 5.80 and possibly higher.

What invalidates the bullish setup?
A sustained breakdown below the lower band region and daily support, especially daily closes under 4.75–4.78, would undercut the idea of a base and point to a fresh leg down. Likewise, if RSI stays stuck below 40 while price attempts to bounce, that is usually a sign of a weak, sellable rally rather than the start of a new uptrend.

Bearish Scenario: Continuation of the Downtrend

The bearish case is straightforward: the daily downtrend simply resumes after this intraday pause.

What bears want to see:

Price losing the intraday pivot area, with H1 candles starting to close below 4.84 (S1 and lower-band region).

Daily close edging closer to or below the 4.78 lower Bollinger Band, showing renewed selling pressure.

MACD on D1 staying negative or even expanding lower, with the histogram deepening rather than flattening.

RSI drifting from the high 30s down toward or below 30, turning a grind-down into a more aggressive risk-off move.

On H1, price failing every attempt to reclaim 4.90–4.95, forming a series of lower intraday highs.

In that scenario, the market would likely seek new lower support levels below the current band, with volatility potentially ticking back up as stops get triggered and liquidity thins out. Given the extreme fear backdrop and heavier Bitcoin dominance, capital would probably keep rotating away from TRUMP into larger, more liquid names or into stablecoins.

What invalidates the bearish setup?
The bearish structure starts to crack if TRUMP can reclaim and hold above the 5.15–5.45 zone (20 and 50-day EMAs and Bollinger mid). If that happens with improving momentum (RSI back above 50 and MACD curling up toward zero), then the downtrend is no longer the dominant framework. It becomes a completed correction instead of an ongoing one.

Positioning, Risk, and Uncertainty

TRUMP right now is caught between a clear macro downtrend and a very tight short-term coil. Daily structure says rallies are sellable, and intraday structure says traders are waiting for a break. In other words, trend traders will still lean bearish, while mean-reversion traders may try small tactical longs near support, fully aware they are fighting the bigger tide.

Volatility is modest relative to this asset’s reputation, but that can change rapidly around political headlines. This is especially true for anything that directly impacts the Trump crypto narrative or regulatory tone in the US.

Combined with an Extreme Fear sentiment reading across crypto, this is an environment where position sizing and risk limits matter more than bravado. The chart does not justify blind dip-buying or blind shorting; it rewards those who respect the daily downtrend but stay open to a base forming if price and momentum confirm it.

Trading ToolsIf you want to monitor markets with professional charting tools and real-time data, you can open an account on Investing using our partner link:

Open your Investing.com account

This section contains a sponsored affiliate link. We may earn a commission at no additional cost to you.

Disclaimer: This analysis is for informational and educational purposes only and is not investment, trading, or financial advice. Cryptoassets are highly volatile and can result in total capital loss. Always do your own research and consider your risk tolerance before making any trading decisions.

In summary, TRUMPUSDT is consolidating after a controlled selloff within a broader downtrend. The next decisive move will likely be dictated by macro crypto sentiment, dollar dynamics, and whether the current tight range resolves into a base or a continuation lower.

After a sharp risk-off move earlier this week, the Bitcoin (BTC) price is stuck in an uneasy pause just under $90,000 while broader sentiment remains fragile.

Bitcoin BTC — daily chart with candlesticks, EMA20/EMA50 and volume.

Daily Chart (D1) – Bears Own the Higher Time Frame

Bitcoin price (BTC) is trading around $89,422 on the daily, with a clear downside tilt. On the daily chart, the main scenario is bearish. Price is trading below all key moving averages, momentum has rolled over, and the structure has shifted from a trending advance into a corrective phase.

What matters at this moment is whether this turns into a deeper trend reversal or just a high-base shakeout before another leg up. The higher time frame still controls the bias, and right now that bias favors the sellers until evidence changes.

Trend & EMAs (20 / 50 / 200)

– Price: $89,422
– EMA 20: $91,486
– EMA 50: $91,923
– EMA 200: $98,797
– Regime: Bearish

Price is below the 20, 50, and 200-day EMAs, and all three are stacked above spot. That is a classic bearish alignment: short-term and medium-term trend have rolled over, while the long-term trend (200 EMA) is still much higher, signaling a maturing correction rather than a fresh breakout. In plain terms, buyers are on the back foot; rallies into the low $90Ks are more likely to be sold than chased until BTC can reclaim at least the 20-day EMA and hold above it.

RSI (Daily)

– RSI 14: 43.12

RSI sitting just below 50 and above 40 tells us this is controlled weakness, not a waterfall selloff. Momentum is negative but not oversold. There is still room for BTC to slide lower without triggering the kind of forced bounce conditions you get under 30. It means dip buyers are not under time pressure yet, and bears do not look exhausted.

MACD (Daily)

– MACD line: 5.58
– Signal line: 633.99
– Histogram: -628.41

The MACD histogram is deeply negative, reflecting a strong bearish momentum shift from prior highs. Even though the absolute numbers are skewed by the high BTC price level, the important part is the distance between line and signal. It confirms that downside momentum has been dominant for multiple sessions. Bears have had the initiative, and the rebound attempts so far have not been strong enough to flip that dynamic.

Bollinger Bands (Daily)

– Middle band: $92,345
– Upper band: $97,200
– Lower band: $87,490
– Price vs bands: $89,422, sitting in the lower half, above the lower band

BTC is trading in the lower half of the band range, but not hugging the lower band. That is consistent with a cool-down phase after a strong move down: volatility expanded, price moved lower, and is now consolidating without fresh panic. As long as price stays confined between about $87,500 and $92,300, this is a digestion zone rather than a new impulsive leg.

ATR (Daily)

– ATR 14: $2,284

A daily ATR around $2,300 is elevated but not extreme for Bitcoin at these levels. It tells you moves of 2–3% in a day are normal in the current regime. Practically, that means a $2,000 intraday swing does not mean trend change; it is just noise inside the current volatility envelope.

Pivot Levels (Daily)

– Pivot point (PP): $89,457
– R1: $90,054
– S1: $88,826

Spot is almost pinned on the daily pivot. That is a textbook indecision zone: bulls have defended sub-$89,000 so far, but they have not been able to push convincingly above $90,000. A daily close above R1 (~$90,054) would be the first small sign that buyers are willing to lean back in. A clean break and close below S1 (~$88,826) opens the door to a retest of the Bollinger lower band around $87,500.

1H Chart – Short-Term Still Bearish, But Momentum Is Flattening

The 1-hour chart backs the daily bearish bias but shows a market that is starting to base rather than cascade lower.

Trend & EMAs (1H)

– Price: $89,422
– EMA 20: $89,437
– EMA 50: $89,691
– EMA 200: $91,523
– Regime: Bearish

Price sits almost exactly on the 20 EMA, just below the 50 EMA, and well under the 200 EMA. Short-term, the market is trying to stabilize. Reclaiming the 20 EMA is step one, but staying capped under the 50 and 200 keeps the intraday trend technically down. This is what a potential base looks like before either a bounce back to the 200 EMA or another leg lower.

RSI (1H)

– RSI 14: 48.92

Momentum on the hourly is neutral. RSI holding around 50 confirms that neither side is really pressing at this exact moment. After prior downside, a flat RSI near midline is typical of consolidation. Shorts are taking some profit, but longs are not aggressively stepping in.

MACD (1H)

– MACD line: -102.77
– Signal line: -77.04
– Histogram: -25.73

MACD remains negative, but the histogram is relatively small. That is consistent with waning bearish momentum rather than fresh selling. Bears are no longer driving price down with force; instead, they are trying to defend lower highs while the market digests recent losses.

Bollinger Bands (1H)

– Middle band: $89,476
– Upper band: $90,027
– Lower band: $88,925
– Price vs bands: $89,422, very near the middle band

Sitting right near the middle band on the hourly tells us volatility has cooled and price is oscillating around a short-term equilibrium. There is no clear expansion yet, so short-term traders are mostly reacting within a range of roughly $89,000 to $90,000 rather than chasing breakouts.

ATR (1H)

– ATR 14: $334

Intraday swings of roughly $300 to $400 per hour are par for the course at the moment. For execution, that means tight stops right around obvious levels are at high risk of being run. Positioning needs to account for that hourly noise.

Pivot Levels (1H)

– Pivot point (PP): $89,362
– R1: $89,486
– S1: $88,298

Price is hovering on the hourly pivot as well, mirroring the daily. Intraday, $89,486 (R1) is the first resistance cap. Repeated failures there reinforce the idea of a weak bounce. A drop back below the hourly S1 and daily S1 cluster around the high $88,000s would show sellers regaining traction.

15-Minute Chart – Execution Context Only

The 15-minute view does not change the higher-timeframe story, but it tells you how the battle is playing out intraday.

Trend & EMAs (15m)

– Price: $89,422
– EMA 20: $89,283
– EMA 50: $89,403
– EMA 200: $89,634
– Regime: Neutral

On the 15-minute chart, price is slightly above the 20 EMA, basically on the 50 EMA, and under the 200 EMA. That is a short-term neutral posture within a broader downtrend. Short timeframe traders are trying to push a modest bounce, but the bigger picture sellers still sit above.

RSI (15m)

– RSI 14: 56.13

RSI on 15m is mildly bullish, suggesting short-term intraday buy flows are a bit stronger right now. It is more of a scalp-buy environment than a trend shift signal.

MACD (15m)

– MACD line: -41.39
– Signal line: -89.52
– Histogram: 48.13

The positive histogram with both lines still below zero shows a counter-trend bounce in a weak environment. Bulls are pushing back on very short timeframes, but they have not yet broken through the larger structural down move.

Bollinger Bands (15m)

– Middle band: $89,193
– Upper band: $89,429
– Lower band: $88,957
– Price vs bands: $89,422, basically at the upper band

Price is testing the upper band on 15m, signaling a short-term push higher inside the intraday range. For scalpers, that often marks the top of a micro-swing unless volatility kicks higher and bands start expanding.

ATR (15m)

– ATR 14: $135

On this timeframe, $100 to $150 candles are normal. Quick reversals within that size can happen without changing the intraday structure at all.

Pivot Levels (15m)

– Pivot point (PP): $89,404
– R1: $89,443
– S1: $89,384

Price is trading right at the 15m pivot and near R1, underscoring how balanced the micro-structure is. Very short-term flows are probing higher but running into resistance almost immediately.

Market Context: Risk-Off, Extreme Fear, and Shrinking Volume

Macro is the backdrop here. Recent headlines revolve around global tariff worries and broader risk asset selloffs. BTC’s dip below $90,000 happened alongside equity weakness, not in isolation.

Total crypto market cap is about $3.10T, down roughly 0.4% in 24 hours, while 24-hour volume is down more than 22%. That is a classic combination of hesitation and risk reduction rather than panic.

The Fear & Greed Index at 24 (Extreme Fear) tells you positioning is already defensive. Extreme fear can be fuel for a bottoming process, but only if price action shows actual demand. Right now, the indicators show cautious stabilization, not aggressive accumulation.

Bullish Scenario for Bitcoin (BTC) price

For a constructive bullish path, BTC needs to turn this pause into a proper base.

What bulls need to see:

1. Daily reclaim of $90,000–$92,000: A firm close above the daily R1 (~$90,054) and then the Bollinger mid-band and EMA cluster around $92,000–$92,500 would be step one. That would signal the market is willing to accept higher prices again instead of fading every bounce.
2. RSI back above 50 on D1: That would show momentum has flipped from controlled weakness to neutral-to-positive, supporting the idea that the recent drop was a correction, not a full-on reversal.
3. MACD histogram on D1 shrinking toward zero: A continued reduction in negative histogram bars would indicate bearish momentum is bleeding out, paving the way for a more sustainable advance.
4. 1H and 15m structure stepping up: Higher lows above $88,800–$89,000 with intraday EMAs flipping into support would give bulls better tactical entries and confirm buyers are absorbing dips.

If this path plays out, a reasonable upside zone is a retest of the daily EMA 50 and Bollinger mid near $92,000–$93,000 first, with potential extension toward the $95,000–$97,000 area if macro risk sentiment improves and volume returns.

What invalidates the bullish case?
A clean daily close back below $88,000, under both daily S1 and the lower Bollinger half, would show that buyers failed to build a base and that sellers remain firmly in control. A further drop toward or through the lower band near $87,500 without an immediate bounce would put the bullish recovery scenario on hold.

Bearish Scenario for Bitcoin (BTC) price

The base case from the daily chart is still bearish, so this is the path of least resistance unless price proves otherwise.

What bears want to see:

1. Rejection in the $90,000–$92,000 area: If BTC continues to stall around daily and intraday pivots while failing to reclaim the 20-day EMA near $91,500–$92,000, it signals rallies are being sold and liquidity above is used to exit, not build positions.
2. RSI drifting toward 40 or below: A slow grind lower in daily RSI from about 43 toward 40 and under would reflect persistent selling pressure without any strong reaction from buyers.
3. Fresh downside expansion on bands and ATR: A move back toward the lower Bollinger band (~$87,500) accompanied by a pickup in ATR would indicate the next leg down is underway, not just choppy range trade.
4. Hourly EMAs capping price: If the 1H 50 and 200 EMAs (currently about $89,700 and $91,500) continue to act as ceilings, with each test producing lower highs, bears will keep the short-term structure in their favor.

Under this scenario, a breakdown below $88,000 followed by acceptance below the lower band would open the way for a deeper correction, potentially targeting lower local support zones in the mid-$80,000s or below, depending on how aggressive the macro risk-off move becomes.

What invalidates the bearish case?
A decisive move that closes multiple daily candles back above the 20-day EMA (~$91,500) and holds would signal that the current dip is being absorbed. If that move is accompanied by a daily RSI reclaiming 50 or more and shrinking negative MACD histogram, it would flip the bias from sell rallies to at least neutral, wait and see, if not outright bullish.

How to Think About Positioning Right Now

We are in a market where the daily trend is down, intraday momentum is stabilizing, and sentiment is deeply fearful. That mix often produces sharp two-way volatility: sudden short-covering rallies that fail under resistance, followed by renewed downside when macro headlines turn sour again.

For directional traders, the key is timeframe consistency. If you are trading off the daily, the regime is still bearish until BTC can convincingly reclaim the $91,000–$92,000 band and hold it. Intraday longs based only on 15-minute or 1-hour bounces are trading against that higher timeframe and need tighter risk parameters and faster decision-making.

Volatility is high enough that a few thousand dollars of movement is normal noise, not a signal of regime change. Any strategy here has to respect that noise level and the uncertainty around macro risk. Tariffs, global risk sentiment, and liquidity conditions can all flip the tape quickly. In other words, assume whipsaws, size accordingly, and do not let short-term moves convince you the bigger narrative has changed until the daily chart confirms it.

Trading ToolsIf you want to monitor markets with professional charting tools and real-time data, you can open an account on Investing using our partner link:

Open your Investing.com account

This section contains a sponsored affiliate link. We may earn a commission at no additional cost to you.

Disclaimer: This article is for informational and educational purposes only. It is not investment, trading, or financial advice, and it should not be used as the basis for any investment decision. Markets involve risk, including the possible loss of capital. Always conduct your own research and consider your risk tolerance before making any trading decisions.

In summary, BTC is consolidating just below $90,000 with bears still holding the higher-timeframe advantage, while shorter-term charts hint at stabilization rather than a confirmed reversal.

At the World Economic Forum in Davos, a high-profile interview revealed how the planned Certik IPO may accelerate the connection between Web3 markets and traditional finance.

Ronghui Gu outlines Certik IPO ambitions in Davos

Today in Davos, Switzerland, Ronghui Gu disclosed that CertiK is preparing an initial public offering. The move aims to make the Web3 security pioneer the first publicly listed company dedicated solely to this segment. Moreover, the strategy highlights a broader institutional shift toward regulated exposure to decentralized infrastructure.

The CertiK founder shared these plans in an interview with CBS during the World Economic Forum. He argued that listing a core infrastructure firm focused on security could significantly improve how mainstream markets understand Web3. That said, the company must still navigate demanding regulatory and disclosure standards before ringing any opening bell.

The forthcoming listing follows a major investment from EZ Labs, formerly known as Binance Labs, which is now CertiK’s largest shareholder. The funding round delivered crucial capital for scaling the business and preparing for regulatory oversight. Additionally, it signaled growing confidence from established crypto investors in security-focused infrastructure.

From academic research to global Web3 security leader

CertiK’s trajectory reflects the rapid evolution of Web3 risk management. Founded by Gu, a former Yale professor and cybersecurity specialist, the company has audited more than 4,200 blockchain projects. These reviews safeguard over $340 billion in digital assets, illustrating the scale of value now dependent on smart contract reliability.

The firm’s technology stack combines real-time monitoring, transaction analysis, and advanced mathematical methods. Its flagship tools include Skynet, a real-time on-chain monitoring system, and SkyTrace, which visualizes and tracks blockchain transactions. Furthermore, CertiK deploys formal verification, a rigorous mathematical technique for proving the correctness of smart contracts, to reduce the risk of critical failures.

This multi-layered approach has positioned the company as a reference point for Web3 security assessments. As a result, the certik ipo is viewed not only as a capital-raising event but also as a market validation of its underlying methodology. However, translating technical leadership into public market confidence will require clear disclosures and sustainable financial metrics.

Navigating the institutional path to a blockchain security listing

Moving from private venture status to a listed entity involves a complex regulatory journey. A Web3 infrastructure float differs from a typical tech listing because it must address token ecosystems, on-chain data, and emerging digital asset rules. Companies need to prove durable, fiat-denominated revenue streams rather than relying primarily on token appreciation.

CertiK’s reported revenues come chiefly from audit services and subscription-based software products. This mix offers a clearer business model for traditional investors. Moreover, the backing from EZ Labs provides both capital and strategic credibility, particularly given its roots as the former venture arm of a major global exchange.

The timing is notable. Since 2022 and 2023, regulators worldwide have accelerated work on digital asset frameworks, responding to a wave of high-profile hacks and collapses. The European Union’s Markets in Crypto-Assets (MiCA) regime and evolving U.S. guidance are gradually building more predictable conditions for compliant offerings. Consequently, a successful CertiK deal could become a template for future blockchain security ipo candidates.

How a public CertiK could reshape the market

Market analysts say that a listing could effectively create a new equity segment centered on blockchain defense. Publicly traded security specialists would give investors targeted exposure to the infrastructure layer that underpins decentralized applications, without the same volatility profile as individual tokens or miners.

The revenue opportunity is tied to the overall expansion of decentralized finance, NFTs, and on-chain applications. Importantly, security firms can benefit from transaction growth even when token prices stagnate. Experts frequently compare this opportunity to successful cybersecurity floats such as CrowdStrike, where niche technical expertise eventually translated into mainstream market leadership.

In CertiK’s case, its emphasis on formal verification and specialized smart contract auditing creates a defensible competitive moat. Furthermore, being first to market as a dedicated Web3 security company on a major stock exchange could deliver brand and valuation advantages. However, investors will closely scrutinize customer concentration, regulatory risk, and the cyclicality of crypto markets.

Traditional vs Web3 security IPO models

The planned offering highlights how different Web3 security listings are from traditional cybersecurity deals. While both address digital risk, they operate in distinct environments and under evolving supervision. The table below summarizes key contrasts between conventional and Web3-focused transactions.

Aspect Traditional Cybersecurity IPO Web3 Security IPO (e.g., CertiK) Primary Market Enterprise IT networks Blockchain protocols & smart contracts Revenue Model Software licenses, subscriptions Audit fees, SaaS, ecosystem grants Regulatory Focus Data privacy, compliance standards Digital asset laws, smart contract liability Growth Driver Digital transformation Web3 adoption, DeFi, NFT expansion

These distinctions help explain why regulators and investors approach Web3 offerings cautiously. Nevertheless, clearer rules and battle-tested security practices are gradually lowering perceived risk for institutional participants.

Strategic backdrop and investor positioning

The announcement did not emerge in isolation. It follows years of escalating exploits between 2022 and 2023, when multiple large protocols suffered costly breaches. These incidents underscored that robust audits and continuous monitoring are prerequisites for serious capital deployment into decentralized platforms.

As a result, institutional investors began directing funds toward infrastructure providers rather than only token issuers. The substantial EZ Labs investment gave CertiK the means to expand engineering teams, strengthen compliance, and prepare internal controls tailored to public company standards. Additionally, it reinforced the perception that security vendors could be long-term beneficiaries of Web3 growth.

Gu’s academic record at Yale and Columbia University further supports the firm’s credibility. His work in secure systems and formal methods directly informs CertiK’s proprietary tools. Moreover, the company has built a client roster that includes major networks such as Binance Smart Chain, Terra, and Aave. Securing these ecosystems provides a verifiable track record that equity analysts can incorporate into their due diligence.

Potential ripple effects across the Web3 stack

A successful float could set a valuation benchmark for other infrastructure businesses. Security providers, oracle networks, and layer-2 scaling projects would gain a concrete example of how to translate on-chain traction into listed equity. Furthermore, quarterly reporting requirements would generate standardized financial data for a sector that has often been criticized for opacity.

This transparency might reduce the perception of decentralization as purely speculative. Instead, it would highlight recurring revenue, enterprise contracts, and long-term R&D investment. That said, public scrutiny could also expose weaknesses, forcing projects to tighten governance and risk management practices.

The shift from private capitalization to listed status entails new obligations. CertiK will need to choose an exchange, file detailed documentation with regulators such as the SEC, and complete extensive financial audits. Moreover, management must balance the expectations of its existing crypto-native community with those of future public shareholders.

Next steps on the road to public markets

Preparing for an offering in 2026 means aligning corporate strategy with a market cycle still shaped by past boom-and-bust periods. The company will need to demonstrate that its growth plans remain resilient, even if digital asset prices enter another downturn. Additionally, it must prove that security spending is becoming a non-discretionary line item for major protocols and enterprises.

Internally, building the capabilities expected of a listed firm will be critical. This includes strengthening board oversight, refining risk disclosures, and enhancing internal controls. However, if CertiK can meet these standards, its transition from venture-backed startup to public institution could mark a historic milestone for the decentralized technology sector.

In summary, the planned CertiK offering represents a decisive step toward institutional integration of Web3 security. Supported by EZ Labs capital, a significant audit track record, and advanced verification tools, the company is positioning itself as a bridge between on-chain innovation and traditional markets.

As the 2026 timeline approaches, investors and developers alike will watch closely to see whether a security-focused Web3 listing can set a sustainable precedent for the broader blockchain ecosystem.

Foreword

Drawing on years in traditional finance, Bitcoin markets, and portfolio management, this paper on bitcoin lending reflects firsthand experience rather than purely academic theory. It is written in my role as Bitcoin Strategy Advisor at Blockrise, together with a co-writer who serves as Portfolio Manager at the firm.

The analysis is informed by risks witnessed in the early era of Bitcoin-backed lending, when market structures were fragile and standards were immature. However, the lessons from those years now provide a foundation for a more robust credit market built around digital collateral.

My aim is twofold. First, I want lenders and borrowers to understand which risks emerged, which remain, and where the structural opportunity lies. Second, I seek to offer a framework for responsible participation in a market that can be transformative if approached with discipline.

There is a popular narrative in the Bitcoin community: “With Bitcoin-backed lending, you never have to sell your Bitcoin.” That sounds empowering. Yet it sits close to another reality: leverage creates forced sellers. The difference between freedom and ruin depends entirely on how structures are designed.

History shows this pattern is not unique to any asset class. The 1929 crash, the dot-com bubble, and the 2008 mortgage crisis all revealed how leverage that appears manageable in good times becomes catastrophic under stress. Moreover, seemingly safe instruments can devastate households and institutions when markets reverse.

Bitcoin-backed credit products are no exception. The asset is new, but the mechanics of risk are as old as finance itself. That said, understanding those mechanics allows investors to harness the upside while containing the downside.

This paper therefore sets out where opportunity exists for lenders and borrowers, how to value Bitcoin as collateral, which hurdles still limit mainstream adoption, and what can go wrong if structures are poorly designed. It also outlines how to prevent repeat failures.

We do not need to fear this market; we need to understand it. With understanding comes the ability to participate responsibly in what may become one of the most significant developments in modern credit markets.

, January 2026

The opportunity gap in Bitcoin-backed credit

The global fixed-income universe totals around $130 trillion in assets under management, spread across government bonds, corporate debt, mortgage-backed securities, and other credit instruments. These securities form the backbone of institutional portfolios worldwide.

By contrast, the Bitcoin-backed lending market in 2025 reached just $74 billion in total volume.1 Roughly $24 billion sits in centralized finance (CeFi), where regulated platforms lend to verified borrowers, while about $50 billion is deployed through decentralized finance (DeFi) protocols on public blockchains.

The CeFi segment represents the true institutional gateway. These platforms offer compliance frameworks, institutional-grade custody, and risk management practices that can be evaluated using traditional due diligence. Yet, even here, the scale remains modest relative to global credit.

A simple thought experiment illustrates the gap. A 1% allocation from the global fixed-income market into institutional Bitcoin-backed loans would amount to 54 times the current CeFi market. Moreover, this is not a speculative forecast, but a measure of the structural headroom if digital collateral is treated on par with other assets.

Two major blockers to broader adoption

Despite the clear opportunity, institutional adoption is constrained by two primary forces: regulatory capital rules and philosophical risk frameworks.

1. Regulatory barriers in banking

Under Basel III/IV, Bitcoin exposures receive a punitive 1,250% risk weight.2 In practical terms, if a bank wants to hold €1 million in loans collateralized by Bitcoin on its balance sheet, it must allocate €1 million in capital against that exposure.

By comparison, a standard residential mortgage requires only €22,400 in capital for the same €1 million exposure. This divergence makes holding loans secured by Bitcoin collateral economically unattractive for regulated banks and effectively blocks large-scale participation. Appendix A presents the exact capital calculations.

However, family offices, private debt funds, and other non-bank lenders are not bound to these Basel rules. They can evaluate Bitcoin on economic and technological merits instead of regulatory labels, and they are increasingly filling the gap left by traditional banks.

2. Philosophical risk assessment across all actors

Conventional credit models were built around assets with stable cashflows (rental income, coupons), decades of price history, and heavy legal anchoring such as land registries. Bitcoin fits none of these categories, so it scores poorly when judged solely through this lens.

This philosophical hurdle affects everyone, including sophisticated non-bank lenders. Overcoming it requires a new framework that values transparency, programmability, instant global liquidity, and digital verifiability. Chapter 6 explores this change in perspective in depth.

The thesis: from question of legitimacy to question of speed

The central debate is no longer whether Bitcoin qualifies as bank-grade collateral. Institutional moves in 2025 by JPMorgan, Goldman Sachs, Cantor Fitzgerald, and others have validated market demand.

In October 2025, Strategy (formerly MicroStrategy) received a B- issuer credit rating with a stable outlook from S&P Global, becoming the first Bitcoin-focused company to obtain such a rating.3 This was based on conventional metrics like balance sheet strength, cashflow, and risk profile.

The question now is how quickly institutional frameworks will evolve to recognize what markets have already priced in. This paper offers analysis, evidence, and a practical framework intended to accelerate that process for both lenders and borrowers.

In terms of scope, Chapter 2 dissects market drivers and upside potential, supported by scenario analysis in Appendix B. Chapter 3 reviews risks and historic failures. Chapter 4 defines the gold standard of prudent practices, with LTV calculations in Appendix C. Chapter 5 examines Bitcoin’s unique properties as collateral, backed by monetary data in Appendix D. Chapter 6 compares digital collateral with traditional assets from two different analytical perspectives. Chapter 7 outlines emerging products and the forward-looking opportunity set.

The explosion of Bitcoin-backed lending and its upside

The recent expansion of Bitcoin-secured credit is underpinned by five powerful drivers. Together they explain why this niche is quickly evolving from a retail product to an institutional asset class.

1. No sale, no tax

In many jurisdictions, selling Bitcoin triggers capital gains tax when gains are realized. An investor who bought at $10,000 and sells at $100,000 may owe tax on the $90,000 gain, depending on residency and holding period.

By borrowing against holdings instead of selling, investors can defer these tax obligations indefinitely while still accessing liquidity. Moreover, for long-term holders with large unrealized gains, the compounding benefit of deferral can be substantial. Borrowers must, of course, confirm applicable tax treatment with local advisors before implementing any strategy.

2. Liquidity without sacrificing exposure

Companies and high-net-worth individuals frequently need capital for expansion, real estate purchases, strategic investments, or cashflow management. Collateralized borrowing allows them to access fiat or stablecoins while maintaining exposure to Bitcoin.

In this structure, the asset base remains intact, while only liquidity moves. For investors with a strong conviction in Bitcoin’s long-term appreciation, this approach preserves upside potential while solving near-term funding needs.

3. Save in scarcity, spend in inflation

Bitcoin is the only asset with programmed absolute scarcity. Its supply is capped at 21 million coins, enforced by open-source code and validated by thousands of nodes worldwide. In contrast, fiat currencies like the US Dollar can be expanded at will by central banks.

US Dollar M2 money supply has grown by roughly 6-7% annually in recent years, a figure documented in Appendix D. By borrowing fiat against digital collateral, investors effectively finance spending in a depreciating currency while holding a scarce asset. This is a form of monetary arbitrage, although the outcome depends entirely on Bitcoin’s realized performance.

4. Institutional validation and product build-out

Strategy’s B- rating from S&P Global in October 2025 was a watershed moment, confirming that a balance sheet anchored in Bitcoin can meet traditional credit metrics.3 This was followed by moves from JPMorgan, Goldman Sachs, Cantor Fitzgerald, Tether, and Morgan Stanley, all of which launched or expanded credit products linked to Bitcoin.

Meanwhile, Bitcoin ETFs have surpassed $110 billion in assets under management.9 Such institutions do not enter new markets casually; cross-functional risk, legal, and compliance teams typically analyze for years before approval. Their participation signals that Bitcoin has passed multiple internal due diligence thresholds.

5. Asymmetric upside via conservative LTV

At a 30% loan-to-value (LTV) ratio, borrowers unlock liquidity while keeping significant upside exposure. If the asset appreciates, the loan shrinks relative to collateral value. For example, if price doubles, a 30% LTV effectively becomes 15%.

In many cases, borrowers roll loans at maturity rather than fully repaying them. Scenario analysis in Appendix B demonstrates how this asymmetry can benefit borrowers under various growth assumptions, including conservative and bearish paths.

Scenario analysis: five-year outcomes

The scenarios below compare a five-year Bitcoin-backed loan with an immediate sale alternative. The analysis assumes a 30% initial LTV, a $100,000 starting price, and an 8% interest rate compounded annually.

Key parameters include a $30,000 loan, 5-year horizon, and a direct-sale benchmark of selling 0.30 BTC immediately for the same liquidity. Table 1 in the original paper summarizes these inputs.

Table 2 then models four paths: Bear Case, Conservative (+15% CAGR), Realistic (+30% CAGR), and Historical (+60% CAGR). Outcomes are expressed in terms of Bitcoin needed to repay the loan, remaining holdings, and the difference versus just selling 0.30 BTC upfront.

In the Conservative scenario, the price reaches $201,135. The outstanding loan of $44,080 is repaid with 0.219 BTC, leaving 0.781 BTC versus 0.70 BTC in the direct-sale case; a net gain of 0.081 BTC. In the Historical path, the final balance is 0.958 BTC, or 0.258 BTC more than the sale alternative.

The Bear Case, however, shows the opposite. After a harsh sequence (+15%, then -60%, then modest recovery), the borrower ends with just 0.370 BTC, which is 0.330 BTC less than if they had sold 0.30 BTC at the outset. This underscores that leverage amplifies both gains and losses.

Bear case and the central role of LTV management

The Bear Case also highlights how timing of drawdowns interacts with LTV. In this path, the price collapses to $46,000 at the end of year 2, pushing LTV to 76% and triggering a margin call.

The borrower then faces two options to restore a healthy 60% LTV: add $12,320 of new collateral (about 0.27 BTC at crash prices) or repay $7,392 of principal. Importantly, if liquidation is avoided at this stage, the loan can later be refinanced.

By year 5, the price recovers to $69,960, with the loan balance at $44,079 and LTV at 63%. This is well within the range of acceptable levels for rolling the facility. Time is on the borrower’s side only if they remain above liquidation thresholds.

Figure 1 in the original paper visualizes this dynamic, with the Bitcoin price shown against LTV. The graph illustrates that margin calls are early-warning mechanisms. That said, if borrowers fail to act, forced liquidation is triggered above 85% LTV.

This is why LTV management is the core discipline in collateralized Bitcoin finance. Forced selling is disastrous for borrowers and suboptimal for lenders, as both are pushed to transact at market lows. Conservative starting LTVs, continuous monitoring, and pre-planned capital buffers are essential to avoid this outcome.

Risks of Bitcoin-backed loans and historical context

Before focusing on asset-specific risks, it is vital to understand that forced liquidation due to excessive leverage is a recurring theme in financial history. The pattern predates digital assets by centuries.

Table 4 in the paper surveys events from Tulip Mania (1637) through the South Sea Bubble (1720), the Wall Street Crash (1929), Black Monday (1987), the Subprime Crisis (2008), and the Crypto Winter (2022). In each case, high leverage combined with sudden market stress led to mass liquidations and wealth destruction.

In 2022 specifically, numerous platforms operated at 80-90% LTV and layered rehypothecation on top. When prices crashed, firms like Celsius, FTX, Three Arrows Capital, and Genesis collapsed, wiping out more than $15 billion in customer assets.

The critical point is that the core risk was not the nature of the collateral, but the leverage and opaque practices built around it. Forced liquidation at the bottom of the cycle is the most destructive possible outcome for all parties.

Evolution of the Bitcoin lending market (2014-2025)

The market has undergone a rapid evolution, moving from experimental pilots to professional infrastructure. Understanding this trajectory explains both the 2022 failures and the more conservative standards that followed.

From 2014 to 2016, early platforms such as Nebeus and SALT Lending, plus margin products at exchanges like Bitfinex, proved the basic concept: loans secured by Bitcoin could function. However, structures were rudimentary and largely unregulated.

Between 2017 and 2021, the sector entered a “Wild Growth” phase. Firms including BlockFi, Celsius, Nexo, and DeFi protocols like Aave and Compound pushed aggressive terms, offering 70-90% LTV and double-digit yields of 10-20%. Moreover, customer assets were often rehypothecated without adequate disclosure.

The inevitable crash came in 2022. With platforms such as Celsius, BlockFi, FTX, and 3AC going bankrupt, more than $15 billion in user assets were liquidated. Crucially, Bitcoin itself did not fail; the protocol continued to process blocks and transactions without interruption.

From 2023 to 2024, the market entered a “Professionalization” phase. Surviving platforms shifted to 30-50% LTV ranges, implemented Proof-of-Reserves, removed or strictly limited rehypothecation, and adopted multisignature custody. Only conservative and transparent operators remained viable.

By 2024-2025, the sector began to institutionalize. The EU’s MiCAR framework went live, the US SEC provided greater clarity on Bitcoin’s classification, Strategy secured its S&P rating, and global banks like JPMorgan, Goldman Sachs, and Cantor Fitzgerald launched products. Bitcoin now functions as institutional-grade collateral for selected use cases.

The overarching lesson is clear: the 2022 crisis was a failure of lending practices, not a failure of the Bitcoin network. Sound structures with conservative leverage, transparent reserves, and user-controlled keys survived; overextended, opaque platforms did not.

The gold standard for prudent Bitcoin-backed lending

From these failures and successes, a set of best practices has emerged. These are not arbitrary regulatory rules, but practical survival standards derived from real-world stress tests.

Table 6 defines five pillars: custody design, LTV policy, transparency, liquidation process, and rehypothecation. Platforms that respect these pillars have, so far, shown resilience. Those that ignore them reintroduce the same vulnerabilities that drove past collapses.

Custody and key control

Under the gold standard, borrowers hold one key in a 2-of-3 multisig setup, while the platform and an independent custodian each hold one additional key. No single party can move funds unilaterally, and the borrower retains meaningful control.

Historical practice often relied on platform-only custody, sometimes with large amounts stored in hot wallets. This centralization proved catastrophic in 2022 when several platforms became insolvent and users lost access to their coins.

LTV policy and alerts

Conservative structures cap starting LTV at 30% and provide real-time alerts as the ratio drifts upward. This buffer allows the position to survive a 65% price decline before hitting the 85% liquidation threshold.

By contrast, pre-2022 platforms routinely permitted 50% or higher LTV at origination and provided only delayed or inadequate warnings. This left borrowers with little time to respond when volatility surged.

Transparency and rehypothecation

Modern platforms publish 24/7 Proof-of-Reserves data, allowing depositors and auditors to verify that collateral exists and aligns with liabilities. Because Bitcoin’s ledger is public, such proofs can be independently checked.

In the old model, platforms provided partial or no disclosure. Assets were often lent out to third parties, producing hidden counterparty risk. The gold standard demands either no rehypothecation or explicit, opt-in consent from clients.

Fair liquidation mechanics

Under best practice, any liquidation event requires 2-of-3 multisig consensus rather than unilateral platform action. This ensures that no single party can trigger a forced sale without oversight and documentation.

This structure creates a more orderly process during stress, allowing borrowers to understand and, where possible, contest or remediate positions before collateral is sold.

LTV zones and risk classification

The relationship between starting LTV and liquidation risk is mechanical. Table 7 in the source document divides the spectrum into six zones: Gold Standard (0-30%), Conservative (30-50%), Moderate (50-60%), Elevated (60-75%), Critical (75-85%), and Liquidation (>85%).

Each zone implies a different operational posture. Optimal positions can withstand deep drawdowns with limited monitoring. Elevated and Critical zones demand immediate attention, additional capital, or partial repayments. Liquidation above 85% represents the point where lenders must sell to protect principal.

The mathematics of drop tolerance

Drop tolerance, the price decline before liquidation, is calculated as:

Drop Tolerance = 1 – (Starting LTV ÷ Liquidation LTV)

For a 30% starting LTV and an 85% liquidation threshold, the calculation is 1 – (0.30 ÷ 0.85) = 64.7%. In other words, the price can fall nearly 65% before forced sale is triggered.

Figure 2 visualizes how different starting LTVs generate different buffers. Historical drawdowns of Bitcoin are severe, but most of them unfold over months rather than hours, providing time for margin calls and remedial actions when structures are conservative.

Unique properties and considerations of Bitcoin as collateral

Bitcoin differs fundamentally from assets like property, equities, or bonds. Understanding these differences is essential for any institutional credit framework built around digital collateral.

Foundations: what Bitcoin is and why scarcity matters

Bitcoin is a digital bearer asset that exists on a decentralized peer-to-peer network. It is not issued by any central bank or corporation. Instead, its rules are enforced by software running on thousands of independent machines, and all transactions are recorded on a public blockchain.

The core innovation is provable digital scarcity. Before Bitcoin, digital files could be copied indefinitely. Bitcoin’s design ensures that each coin is unique and cannot be spent twice. This scarcity is enforced by math and cryptography rather than institutional guarantees.

Credit risk: no issuer, no default

Traditional collateral assets often embed credit risk. Corporate bonds depend on issuers remaining solvent, and even real estate relies on tenant health and legal enforcement. If the issuer fails, the collateral’s value can collapse.

Bitcoin has no issuer and no central entity that can default. Its value is set by global supply and demand, rather than by any single organization’s balance sheet. When Lehman Brothers failed in 2008, previously investment-grade bonds plunged in value overnight.

In 2022, customers of platforms like Celsius and BlockFi lost access to their coins because companies misused deposits. The Bitcoin protocol itself continued running flawlessly. The risk lay with custodians and intermediaries, not with the underlying asset. When held in self-custody or robust multisig structures, Bitcoin eliminates this particular form of credit risk.

Liquidity risk: 24/7 markets and instant settlement

Real estate can take months to sell. Bond markets often seize up during crises. Even equities cannot be traded outside market hours. In stark contrast, Bitcoin trades continuously, every day of the year, across exchanges worldwide.

Daily volumes usually range between $20 billion and $80 billion. For lenders, this means positions can be monitored in real time and adjusted at any moment. During a sudden weekend drawdown, a lender can issue margin calls and liquidate collateral within minutes if required, rather than waiting for markets to reopen.

Operational risk: low-cost custody and perfect divisibility

Physical collateral such as gold and property requires ongoing security, insurance, and maintenance. These operational overheads can be significant over time.

Bitcoin, by contrast, can be secured on a hardware wallet costing under $100, especially when embedded in multisig arrangements described in Chapter 4. Moreover, each coin is divisible into 100 million satoshis, enabling precise loan sizes, partial liquidations, and micro-adjustments that are impossible with indivisible assets like buildings.

Inflation risk: fixed supply and halving schedule

Fiat currencies lose purchasing power as central banks expand supply, particularly during crises. As discussed, US Dollar M2 has grown at around 6-7% per year in recent periods, with 2020 seeing a much larger one-off expansion in response to COVID-19.

Bitcoin’s supply is capped at 21 million. Roughly 19.8 million coins have already been mined. New issuance declines according to a preset halving schedule. In April 2024, the block subsidy was cut in half again, reducing annual inflation to about 0.8%. After the 2028 halving, this will fall to roughly 0.4%.

Appendix D compares Bitcoin’s emission profile with gold and major fiat currencies. The contrast is striking when viewed cumulatively: while fiat expands permanently, Bitcoin’s inflation rate converges toward zero.

The scarcity advantage as a new benchmark

When collateral is denominated in a predictably scarce unit, both lenders and borrowers share a stable reference point for long-term value. Bitcoin thus functions not only as an asset, but increasingly as a measuring stick for other assets.

In an environment where central banks can create money at will, a fixed-supply digital bearer asset offers a radically different foundation for credit contracts. This is one reason why some institutions now treat it as strategic collateral.

Key considerations: volatility, capital rules, and regulation

Despite these advantages, Bitcoin presents challenges that prudent investors must address. Table 9 in the paper summarizes three major considerations: volatility, credit rating/Basel treatment, and regulation, along with their mitigation and trajectory.

Price volatility remains elevated at 35-55% annually,15 far above conventional assets. However, this figure has declined meaningfully from over 80% in 2017. Conservative 30% LTV ratios, real-time monitoring, and hedging tools help contain this risk for lenders.

On the regulatory side, Basel III/IV still assigns a 1,250% risk weight to Bitcoin.2 That said, the network now has more than 16 years of uninterrupted uptime, trillions of dollars of settled value, and over $110 billion in ETF assets.9 These facts are slowly re-shaping perceptions among policymakers and regulators.

Regulation remains fragmented globally. The EU’s MiCAR framework became fully effective in 2024, offering detailed rules for crypto-asset providers.19 In the US, the SEC has refrained from labeling Bitcoin a security, while the CFTC treats it as a commodity.16 China maintains strict prohibitions on cryptocurrency trading.17 However, developments such as the CFTC’s 2025 recognition of tokenized collateral and JPMorgan’s decision in June 2025 to accept Bitcoin ETFs as loan collateral show clear progress.820

Bitcoin versus traditional collateral: two scorecards

Traditional lending models and modern digital-native frameworks approach collateral very differently. This leads to contrasting assessments of the same asset.

Traditional bank and regulator view

From the vantage point of banks and supervisors, stable cashflows, long track records, and legal clarity dominate. When these metrics are applied, real estate and long-established equity markets score highly, while Bitcoin appears risky.

Table 10 in the paper scores Bitcoin, real estate, stocks, and gold on liquidity, volatility, average LTV, custody risk, historical data, regulatory clarity, and Basel capital requirements. Bitcoin scores well only on liquidity, yet very poorly on volatility and regulatory clarity.

Basel III/IV’s 1,250% risk-weighting is the culmination of this perspective. It encodes skepticism about high-volatility assets into formal capital rules, regardless of technological properties like transparency and programmability.

Modern family office and debt fund view

Family offices, private funds, and specialized lenders are less constrained by Basel formulas. They often prioritize 24/7 liquidity, on-chain verifiability, settlement speed, storage costs, counterparty risk, and global portability.

On this scorecard, Bitcoin excels. It receives top marks for real-time transparency, divisibility, low storage costs, and censorship resistance. Real estate, by contrast, scores highly on price stability but poorly on portability, verifiability, and settlement speed.

Table 12 consolidates these characteristics into a numerical matrix. Bitcoin attains perfect scores in six of eight categories, lagging only in price stability and regulatory clarity. Importantly, both of those weaker points have been improving over time.

The divergence between the two frameworks shows that evaluation methods, not just assets, must modernize. Those who continue to appraise Bitcoin solely through a 20th-century lens will likely underestimate its collateral potential.

Conclusion: from niche product to structural pillar

For family offices, private debt funds, and institutional lenders, the building blocks for responsible digital collateral markets now exist. The CeFi segment of institutional Bitcoin-backed credit, currently around $24 billion, stands adjacent to a $130 trillion fixed-income universe.1

Entering this space today with conservative structures is not a speculative punt; it is participation in a structural revaluation of what qualifies as high-quality collateral. Volatility, regulatory uncertainty, and operational complexity are real, but they are increasingly quantifiable and manageable.

The gold standard outlined here—30% LTV, continuous Proof-of-Reserves, multisig custody, no undisclosed rehypothecation, and 24/7 monitoring—defines an institutional-grade framework. Within that framework, risks can be modeled, stress-tested, and priced.

Borrowers should test every platform they consider against these criteria. They should ask who holds the keys, what maximum LTV is allowed, whether reserves are independently verifiable, and how liquidations are executed. Any lender unable or unwilling to answer clearly is not ready for institutional capital.

Lenders, for their part, need rigorous due diligence and a clear view of how platforms approach custody, collateral management, and communication with borrowers during stress. Those who build expertise now will be positioned to lead when regulatory treatment eventually catches up with technological reality.

Regulatory frameworks currently reflect an era before Bitcoin existed. But with more than 16 years of network uptime, over $110 billion in ETF assets, and growing participation from global banks, recalibration is likely. When capital rules are updated, the wall separating digital collateral from mainstream balance sheets will begin to come down.

New products are already on the horizon, including multi-collateral pools, non-liquidation insurance, and income-generating structures secured by Bitcoin. These innovations show that the market is not static but evolving rapidly as demand from sophisticated investors grows.

The traditional financial system has long relied on trust in intermediaries. Bitcoin introduces an alternative rooted in verification, cryptography, and open data. In a world of expanding fiat supply, a fixed-supply digital asset is becoming more than just another piece of collateral; it is emerging as a reference measure for value itself.

The question facing investors and institutions is no longer whether Bitcoin belongs in credit markets. The question is how they will position themselves as this new standard for digital collateral continues to develop.

In a move that could reshape digital asset investment options for wealthy investors, UBS crypto ambitions are starting to take clearer form within its global wealth business.

UBS prepares a new digital-asset offering

UBS Group AG, the world’s largest wealth manager, is preparing to offer cryptocurrency investing to selected private banking clients. According to people familiar with the matter, the Swiss bank is exploring a dedicated wealth management crypto offering rather than a broad retail product.

The Zurich-based institution, which managed about $4.7 trillion in wealth assets as of Sept. 30, is currently in the process of choosing external partners to support the service. However, the bank has not yet finalized the structure of the platform, and internal discussions remain ongoing.

Selective access for private banking clients

Sources indicate that any crypto trading for clients would initially target a limited segment of UBS’s private banking base, focusing on larger and more sophisticated investors. Moreover, the initiative is framed as a controlled expansion into digital assets, consistent with the firm’s traditionally cautious approach to new financial products.

The talks have been underway for several months, suggesting that UBS is taking a methodical stance on issues such as crypto custody for clients, regulatory compliance, and risk management. That said, people close to the process stressed that the bank could still adjust the scope or timing before any launch.

Strategic positioning in Swiss digital finance

The prospective move would strengthen institutional crypto access Switzerland by adding a major global player to the competitive landscape. For UBS, the development appears aimed at ensuring it can meet rising client demand without compromising its risk standards.

While the bank has not commented publicly, the internal work shows that ubs crypto planning is no longer exploratory only, but has entered a concrete evaluation phase. However, no final go-ahead has been given and details such as the asset range, trading venues, and fee model remain under consideration.

In summary, UBS is edging closer to offering structured crypto trading for clients within its private banking division, reflecting growing institutional interest in digital assets while maintaining a deliberately cautious rollout strategy.

Users of the popular exchange can now access advanced AI crypto insights directly inside the Binance wallet, simplifying how they track tokens and narratives.

Three new AI tools integrated into the Binance wallet

Binance Wallet has introduced three artificial intelligence-powered features designed to make onchain research faster and more intuitive. The tools focus on social trends, capital flows, and real-time token data, allowing users to study market activity without leaving the wallet interface.

The three new features are called Social Hype, Topic Rush, and AI Assistant. Together, they aim to streamline crypto trend monitoring and reduce the friction of switching between external analytics platforms. Moreover, they package complex datasets into simple, visual insights.

Social Hype: ranking tokens by sentiment and attention

The Social Hype feature ranks tokens based on how much attention they receive on social media. It analyzes data points such as mentions, engagement levels, and sentiment across multiple platforms to highlight which assets are currently in focus.

At launch, Social Hype supports tokens on BNB Smart Chain (BSC), Solana (SOL), and Base. However, support may expand over time as more chains gain traction. The tool presents leaderboards and mindshare charts that show which tokens are gaining or losing attention among online communities.

In practice, this allows users to quickly compare tokens by their social momentum, without manually scanning posts or channels. That said, social popularity does not replace fundamental analysis, but it can complement it inside a single wallet interface.

Topic Rush: tracking narratives and capital inflows

Topic Rush shifts the focus from individual tokens to broader market narratives. Instead of looking only at single assets, it classifies tokens into themes and then tracks capital inflows linked to each narrative. This gives users a clearer view of where liquidity is moving.

The feature labels each narrative with lifecycle tags: Early – Starting out, Rising – Gaining traction, and Viral – High impact and emphasis. Moreover, these labels help users understand whether a trend is just emerging, building momentum, or already in a high-impact phase.

By viewing this data directly in the wallet, users can see the status of a theme before deciding whether to explore the underlying tokens. However, the lifecycle view is informational and does not guarantee future performance.

AI Assistant: quick token summaries inside the wallet

The AI Assistant component focuses on rapid token research. Within the Binance web3 wallet, users can request concise summaries that highlight the main characteristics of a specific asset, reducing the time needed to gather basic information.

The assistant provides a short overview of the token, its present version and sentiment, and key insights at a glance. Moreover, it is optimized for quick checks, so traders and investors can get a snapshot before conducting deeper due diligence on external sources.

This experience keeps research, portfolio management, and discovery within one environment. However, users should still verify any strategic decision with additional tools and official project documentation.

AI crypto insights at the center of the Binance wallet experience

With Social Hype, Topic Rush, and the AI Assistant, the binance wallet is positioning AI-powered analytics as a core part of its onchain offering. These tools are built to help users identify trends, follow narratives, and access token information without leaving their wallet.

Together, the new Binance wallet features transform the interface into more than a simple storage solution. Instead, they turn it into a research hub that combines social metrics, narrative lifecycle tracking, and instant token summaries for a more informed user experience.

Overall, these additions aim to lower the barrier to onchain activity analysis, offering a unified environment where users can move from discovery to action while maintaining a clear view of market dynamics.

Swiss wealth clients are poised to gain broader exposure to digital assets as the UBS crypto strategy moves deeper into mainstream finance.

UBS opens crypto trading for private banking clients

UBS, the Swiss banking giant that managed $4.7 trillion in wealth assets as of late 2025, is preparing to offer cryptocurrency trading to select private banking customers in Switzerland. The move will initially focus on high-net-worth individuals, reflecting growing demand for digital asset exposure within traditional wealth management.

These private banking clients will be able to trade spot Bitcoin and Ethereum, alongside a range of crypto derivatives. However, the bank is expected to take a cautious, regulated approach, targeting sophisticated investors who already operate within established risk frameworks.

From Swiss pilot to global expansion plans

UBS is considering extending the new service to wealthy customers in Asia-Pacific and the US once its Swiss rollout proves stable. Moreover, the initiative signals how major global banks now view digital assets as a core part of cross-border wealth strategies, rather than a peripheral speculation trend.

The expansion aligns with the bank’s broader digital asset roadmap. That said, internal risk controls, regulatory approvals, and client suitability assessments are likely to shape the precise timetable for any international deployment.

UBS Tokenize, Chainlink, and Swift pilots

The trading initiative builds on recent UBS Tokenize experiments with Chainlink and the messaging network Swift, as the bank tests tokenized funds and digital cash solutions. These pilots aim to connect traditional securities infrastructure with public and permissioned blockchains, enabling more efficient settlement and asset servicing.

The tokenized funds pilot highlights how on-chain representations of mutual funds or other investment products could streamline subscriptions, redemptions, and reporting. Moreover, by working within the chainlink swift collaboration, UBS is exploring interoperability between banks, custodians, and blockchain networks at a global scale.

Institutional crypto momentum gathers pace

UBS’s leadership has signaled that its digital asset push is strategic rather than experimental. In Davos, CEO Sergio Ermotti stated that blockchain technology will transform traditional banking, underscoring the bank’s commitment to long-term integration rather than short-lived hype.

This stance places UBS alongside institutions such as JPMorgan and BNY Mellon, which have also embraced institutional crypto adoption through custody, tokenization, and settlement platforms. However, each bank is tailoring its approach to fit its client base, regulatory environment, and core business lines.

Wealth management and digital assets

The introduction of digital asset trading for private clients reinforces a wider trend in wealth management digital assets solutions. High-net-worth and ultra-high-net-worth investors increasingly expect access to cryptocurrencies, tokenized products, and blockchain-based yield opportunities within a single banking relationship.

Moreover, the planned expansion into crypto derivatives shows that UBS aims to offer hedging and structured exposure, not just simple spot positions. This could help clients integrate digital assets into broader portfolio strategies, from diversification to tactical trading.

Private bank crypto access and market positioning

With growing private bank crypto access, UBS is positioning itself as a major gateway between traditional finance and blockchain-based markets. The combination of spot bitcoin ethereum trading, derivatives, and tokenization pilots provides a multi-layered offering for sophisticated investors.

That said, regulatory scrutiny, market volatility, and ongoing infrastructure development will all influence the pace and scope of future services. For now, the focus remains on select Swiss private banking clients as UBS refines its crypto capabilities.

In summary, the latest ubs crypto initiative marks a significant step in bringing digital assets into mainstream private banking, supported by tokenization pilots and a clear strategic vision from the bank’s top management.

Global exchanges are accelerating their plans to comply with new EU crypto rules, and the binance mica license move in Greece highlights how competitive that race has become.

Binance targets Greece for EU-wide MiCA authorization

Binance, the world’s largest cryptocurrency exchange by trading volume, has confirmed it has filed for a Markets in Crypto-Assets license in Greece. The step comes as crypto firms across Europe intensify efforts to secure regulatory approval before the MiCA transitional period ends in June 2026.

The application adds Greece to the growing list of EU member states being evaluated by major digital asset platforms seeking to preserve access to the bloc’s single market. Moreover, once MiCA’s licensing regime fully applies, only authorized providers will be able to serve clients across all 27 EU countries under the new rules.

Engagement with the Hellenic Capital Market Commission

A company spokesperson told CryptoNews that Binance has formally submitted its MiCA application and opened talks with the Hellenic Capital Market Commission (HCMC), Greece’s financial watchdog. The regulator will assess whether the exchange meets the stringent prudential, governance and consumer-protection standards set out under the EU framework.

“We have submitted our MiCA application and are actively engaging with the Hellenic Capital Market Commission (HCMC),” the spokesperson said. That said, the approval process is expected to be rigorous as national regulators align their supervisory approaches under the new common rulebook.

The spokesperson added that the company views MiCA as “an important milestone for the crypto industry, bringing regulatory clarity, stronger consumer safeguards, and a clearer framework for responsible innovation.” Moreover, Binance said it welcomes collaboration with Greek authorities as the EU-wide regime is rolled out and signaled its intention to support the long-term development of Europe’s digital finance ecosystem.

How the MiCA regulatory framework is reshaping the EU market

The MiCA regulatory framework is designed to create a harmonized system for crypto-asset service providers operating inside the European Union, replacing the patchwork of national regimes that currently exist. Instead of dozens of different local registration schemes, MiCA sets common standards for authorization, conduct of business and investor protection.

Once licensed in any member state, a firm will be able to use EU passporting rights to offer services across the entire bloc. However, with compliance deadlines approaching, exchanges and custodians face increasing pressure to complete their applications, overhaul internal controls and demonstrate they can meet the new supervisory expectations.

For policymakers, MiCA represents one of the most comprehensive regulatory systems for crypto-assets globally. It aims to provide legal certainty for businesses, reinforce investor safeguards and support innovation in the rapidly evolving digital finance landscape. In this context, the binance mica license application in Greece underscores how global players are aligning with the bloc’s long-term regulatory architecture.

France increases scrutiny of crypto firms

Binance’s push in Greece comes as regulators in France step up oversight of the digital asset sector. In October, French authorities launched anti-money laundering inspections covering dozens of registered crypto firms, including Binance and domestic exchange Coinhouse, as part of a broader review of compliance standards.

The inspections were led by the country’s prudential supervisor, the Autorité de Contrôle Prudentiel et de Résolution (ACPR). Moreover, the authority is examining which of more than 100 locally registered entities will ultimately qualify for EU-wide authorization under MiCA once the new regime fully takes effect.

As MiCA reshapes Europe’s crypto regulatory landscape, the outcome of licensing applications over the next several months will be crucial. However, only platforms that secure approval and adapt to the strengthened oversight framework are likely to maintain full access to one of the world’s most significant digital asset markets.

In summary, Binance’s decision to seek authorization in Greece under MiCA illustrates how leading exchanges are positioning themselves for the post-transition era, where regulatory compliance, investor protection and cross-border market access will be tightly intertwined across the European Union.

Lawmakers in Topeka are pushing a bold digital asset plan, with the kansas bitcoin reserve proposal aimed at turning crypto from a taxable novelty into a long-term state asset.

Senate Bill 352 and the creation of a state crypto treasury

The state of Kansas has entered the digital asset race after state senator Craig Bowser introduced Senate Bill 352, a measure to create a digital asset and crypto treasury at the level of the state treasury. The bill recommends that Bitcoin and other digital assets be deposited into state reserves and managed directly by the government.

Moreover, the initiative marks a clear shift from passive oversight to active participation in the crypto economy. Instead of treating digital assets purely as taxable items, the state would hold and operate them as long-term financial instruments within a dedicated treasury structure.

The proposal effectively establishes a state bitcoin treasury, signaling that Kansas is no longer content to stand on the sidelines while other jurisdictions experiment with institutional-grade crypto holdings.

How the strategic reserve would work

The bill authorizes Kansas to collect crypto associated with unclaimed property, on-chain distributions such as airdrops, and staking rewards, and then retain those assets in a special treasury fund. However, the design is explicitly strategic rather than focused on short-term trading gains or speculative timing.

Under this framework, the kansas bitcoin reserve would operate as a locked, long-term asset pool held alongside more traditional financial reserves. That said, the approach aligns with the broader idea of a bitcoin reserve model in which public institutions accumulate, rather than frequently trade, their digital holdings.

Furthermore, the use of unclaimed crypto, network incentives, and bitcoin staking rewards as reserve inputs allows the state to build exposure without directly competing with retail investors in the open market.

Legal framework and regulatory clarity

From a legal standpoint, Senate Bill 352 amends and expands existing Kansas unclaimed property laws to formally recognize cryptocurrencies as financial assets. This provides much-needed clarity for wallet providers, custodians, and exchanges operating within the state, which have often faced uncertainty over how such assets fit into traditional property rules.

Additionally, the bill makes it easier for the government to receive, store, and manage digital assets without operating in a legal grey area. By expressly integrating crypto into state law, Kansas reduces regulatory friction for future blockchain initiatives and signals that the asset class is being normalized in public finance.

However, as the legal framework matures, the state will still need robust custody, cybersecurity, and auditing standards to manage a growing portfolio of state digital assets in a secure and transparent way.

Kansas in the wider race for public bitcoin reserves

Kansas joins a small but growing group of US states exploring public-sector bitcoin reserve strategies. States such as Texas and Arizona have already floated or implemented frameworks for holding BTC at the state level, creating early case studies in government crypto adoption.

These moves feed into ongoing national debates over a potential US Strategic Bitcoin Reserve, even as federal policy remains fragmented. As Washington hesitates, states are taking independent action to position themselves early on the institutional adoption curve and to experiment with new treasury management options.

Moreover, this bottom-up pressure could ultimately accelerate federal agencies’ work on clearer crypto frameworks, as a patchwork of state-level reserves raises questions about standards, coordination, and systemic risk.

Market sentiment and community reaction

Historically, governments have not chased speculative hype cycles, and that conservative behavior often lends greater credibility to their eventual participation. The Kansas initiative arrives in a market still shaped by alternating phases of retail enthusiasm and fear, where price downturns frequently contrast with continued institutional accumulation.

That said, the Kansas proposal reinforces a narrative that strategic public actors are less focused on short-term volatility and more interested in multi-year positioning. For the crypto community, the bill is seen as another signal that government crypto adoption is steadily moving from discussion to implementation.

Furthermore, the move highlights a growing divide between individual traders reacting to daily price action and public entities that frame bitcoin exposure as part of broader macro and fiscal strategy.

Long-term implications for public finance

If Senate Bill 352 passes, the Kansas framework could become a reference model for how governments approach digital asset reserves. It recasts Bitcoin from a purely taxable innovation into a competitive financial instrument that can coexist with bonds, commodities, and other reserves on a public balance sheet.

Over time, this could normalize state-level crypto reserves as part of standard public finance infrastructure, particularly if early adopters demonstrate robust governance and risk controls. However, the real impact is unlikely to be measured by near-term price moves.

In the long run, the significance lies in the institutional legitimacy conferred by policies like the Kansas bill, which embed crypto assets into formal treasury operations rather than treating them as a passing speculative trend.

Growing investor appetite for security-focused crypto companies is pushing the planned ledger ipo into the spotlight as attacks and fraud continue to rise globally.

Ledger targets US IPO at multibillion-dollar valuation

French hardware wallet maker Ledger is preparing an initial public offering in the United States that could value the company at more than $4 billion, according to the Financial Times. The report says the firm is working with bankers at Goldman Sachs, Jefferies and Barclays on a potential New York listing.

Moreover, people familiar with the discussions told the FT that the talks are at a preparatory stage, with details such as timing and structure still to be finalized. The company has not yet publicly filed documents with US regulators, and the report did not specify any provisional ledger ipo date under consideration.

Strategy shifts from Europe to New York

In November 2025, Ledger CEO Pascal Gauthier signaled that the group was weighing a fundraising or listing in New York. At the time, he argued that capital for crypto firms was “certainly not in Europe,” indicating an early strategic preference for a US market debut.

However, Ledger has since declined to confirm the latest FT report when contacted by Cointelegraph, maintaining a cautious public stance. The lack of official comment suggests that plans remain fluid, even as advisers explore options for a possible US IPO at a multibillion-dollar valuation.

Record 2025 for Ledger amid surge in hacks

Founded in Paris in 2014, Ledger has grown into one of the world’s largest manufacturers of crypto hardware wallet devices. These USB-like tools store private keys offline, helping users protect digital assets from online breaches, malware and exchange failures.

Against a backdrop of rising cybercrime, Ledger recorded a “record year” in 2025, with revenue reaching “triple-digit millions.” Moreover, the global cost of breaches remains high: more than $3.4 billion in crypto was stolen in 2025, Chainalysis data shows, highlighting intensifying rising crypto hacks across centralized platforms and DeFi protocols.

Gauthier warned in late 2025 that “we’re being hacked more and more every day […] hacking of your bank accounts, of your crypto, and it’s not going to get better next year and the year after that.” That said, this gloomy security outlook is directly supporting hardware wallet demand as retail and institutional investors seek safer self-custody options.

Investor interest grows after BitGo’s NYSE debut

The momentum behind the ledger ipo also reflects a broader investor pivot toward security and custody players. The FT report landed just one day after BitGo, one of the world’s largest crypto custody providers, completed its bitgo nyse listing on the New York Stock Exchange.

BitGo shares, trading under the ticker BTGO, opened on Thursday at $22.40, a jump of 24% from the IPO price of $18. They then surged to as high as $24.50 during the first session, underscoring robust demand for regulated digital asset custody exposure on public markets.

Moreover, YZi Labs, a venture capital firm linked to former Binance CEO Changpeng Zhao, quickly announced a strategic investment in BitGo’s offering. The move signaled confidence from one of the industry’s most closely watched investors, potentially setting a benchmark for other security-focused listings.

What a US listing could mean for Ledger

If completed, the ledger ipo valuation north of $4 billion would place Ledger among the most highly valued dedicated crypto wallet manufacturers. A successful float could also reinforce market confidence in the broader hardware wallet for crypto segment as on-chain risks continue to mount.

However, market conditions, regulatory scrutiny and tech valuations will all influence whether the deal proceeds on its current terms. For now, the combination of a record revenue year in 2025, soaring theft figures and the high-profile debut of BitGo on the NYSE is creating favorable conditions for Ledger’s US ipo plans.

In summary, Ledger’s potential New York listing at a valuation above $4 billion would cap a record 2025 for the Paris-based company, while underscoring how worsening hacks and fresh custody listings like BitGo’s are reshaping the market for secure crypto storage.

In a move with broad implications for derivatives markets, Nasdaq crypto options are set for a major structural shift after a new rule filing with the US regulator.

Nasdaq proposal to lift caps on Bitcoin and Ethereum ETF options

Nasdaq has formally asked the Securities and Exchange Commission to eliminate position limits on options tied to spot Bitcoin and Ethereum exchange-traded funds listed on its venue. The proposal removes the 25,000-contract ceiling that previously capped how many options a single market participant could hold.

The rule change covers options linked to spot Bitcoin ETF and Ether ETF products from major issuers including BlackRock, Fidelity, Bitwise, Grayscale, ARK/21Shares, and VanEck. All of these ETFs trade on Nasdaq and had been subject to identical contract caps.

Nasdaq filed its proposal on January 7. However, the SEC chose to waive its standard 30-day waiting period and allowed the rule change to become effective immediately on January 22, accelerating implementation for the crypto options market.

The regulator can still suspend the amendment within 60 days of that date if it determines that extended review is warranted. Moreover, the agency has opened a public comment period and expects to issue a final determination by late February, leaving a window for further regulatory input.

Equal treatment with other commodity-based ETF options

Options give traders the right, but not the obligation, to buy or sell an underlying asset at a specified price before a set expiration date. Historically, exchanges applied position limits to such contracts to curb excessive speculation and reduce the risk of market manipulation.

Nasdaq argues that removing the cap on these digital asset-linked contracts will align them with options on other commodity-based ETFs, which typically do not face similar position limits. The exchange says this consistent treatment across asset classes improves market efficiency without increasing systemic risk.

According to the filing, the change is designed to advance fair and orderly markets, uphold just trading principles, and support an open, competitive environment. Furthermore, Nasdaq claims the updated framework does not impose any undue burden on competition and will instead enhance investor choice in crypto-linked derivatives.

The move also builds on the exchange’s earlier regulatory approvals. In late 2025, Nasdaq secured permission to list options on single-asset crypto ETFs structured as commodity-based trusts. That earlier decision allowed trading in Bitcoin and Ether ETF options but left position and exercise limits in place at the time.

Previous efforts to expand Bitcoin ETF options capacity

Before the blanket removal of position limits, Nasdaq had already sought incremental flexibility for specific products. In November, the exchange filed a separate proposal to raise the position limit on BlackRock‘s iShares Bitcoin Trust options, trading under the ticker IBIT, from 250,000 contracts to 1 million contracts.

That earlier request cited rising institutional and retail demand for bitcoin etf options. It also argued that the existing cap constrained effective hedging, particularly for large liquidity providers and professional firms seeking to manage risk in rapidly growing spot Bitcoin ETFs.

Market participants expect other US options venues to follow Nasdaq’s approach and pursue comparable filings. However, any parallel proposals will also require SEC review, and a coordinated framework would help standardize how crypto ETF regulation is applied across exchanges for these products.

Market impact and options open interest data

The impact of the new framework is already visible in trading metrics. BlackRock‘s Bitcoin ETF (IBIT) options currently rank 11th among all US-listed assets by options open interest, reflecting a significant build-up in institutional activity.

OpenCharts data shows that options tied to IBIT now account for more than 5.3 million contracts in open interest. That said, IBIT-listed derivatives still sit below gold and silver ETFs, highlighting that traditional commodity funds remain ahead in overall options depth despite the rapid rise of crypto-linked products.

Flows into the underlying spot ETFs have been mixed. Over the last three days, US Bitcoin ETFs recorded net outflows totaling $1.58 billion, signaling some profit-taking or repositioning by investors. Moreover, these flows arrived even as derivatives activity continued to expand.

BlackRock’s IBIT led redemptions with $356.6 million withdrawn over that period, while Fidelity‘s FBTC saw outflows of $287.7 million. Despite this, the robust options market suggests that hedging and speculative strategies around these funds remain in high demand.

Bitcoin and Ethereum price backdrop

The derivatives changes come against a backdrop of renewed volatility in underlying crypto prices. As of the latest available data, Bitcoin traded near $90,000, up 1% over the previous 24 hours, reflecting a continued bullish tone in spot markets.

Ethereum also gained 1% to trade around $3,000 after having fallen more than 11% over the preceding week. However, the rebound suggests some traders are rebuilding positions, which could further support liquidity in both spot and ether etf options markets.

Market structure specialists note that higher volatility often boosts demand for calls and puts as traders seek leverage or protection. Consequently, removing position limits may allow larger institutional strategies that previously faced operational constraints on Nasdaq’s options platform.

Broader implications for Nasdaq crypto options infrastructure

The latest Nasdaq rule change forms part of a broader effort by the exchange to expand its digital asset infrastructure. Over recent years, Nasdaq has launched initiatives around tokenized equities and unified crypto indexes, reinforcing its ambition to be a central venue for regulated crypto-linked products.

In this context, the decision to remove position limits on nasdaq crypto options tied to Bitcoin and Ethereum ETFs signals a maturation of the asset class inside mainstream financial market plumbing. Moreover, it underscores the growing alignment between traditional equity and commodity derivatives rules and their digital asset counterparts.

Looking ahead, analysts expect this framework to support larger institutional participation, more sophisticated hedging, and tighter spreads in bitcoin etf options and related products. If the SEC’s final decision in late February confirms the current relief, Nasdaq could further cement its role as a key hub for regulated crypto derivatives in the United States.

In summary, the SEC’s swift handling of Nasdaq’s filing, the rapid growth in IBIT open interest, and the evolving spot flows in Bitcoin and Ethereum ETFs collectively highlight how fast crypto-linked markets are converging with traditional derivatives infrastructure.

In a still fragile market context, the Uniswap (UNI) price remains under pressure today, but the technical area of $4.60–$4.80 continues to play a decisive role in the short term.

Underlying Trend on D1: Structural Downtrend, Rebound Still Fragile

Currently, the Uniswap price (UNI) against USDT hovers around $4.84, in a clearly weak phase on the daily chart but with an attempt at short-term stabilization. The main outlook remains bearish, however, the movement is compressing right on an important technical area: here it will be decided whether to see a base of accumulation or a further leg down.

The dominant force, for now, is that of a downward trend in a slowing phase: the seller pressure is less aggressive, but buyers have yet to demonstrate control. We are in a typical context of a possible “bottom in formation” but not yet confirmed.

Looking at the daily chart, the trend of Uniswap remains bearish:

UNI Price Today (close D1): $4.84

EMA 20: $5.29

EMA 50: $5.63

EMA 200: $6.66

Interpretation: UNI is trading well below all major averages. This usually indicates that any rebound, as long as it remains below $5.30–$5.60, is more likely to be sold rather than turn into a structural reversal. To discuss a medium-term trend change, at least a stable recovery above the 50-day moving average ($5.63) would be needed, followed by a reconnection towards $6.50–$6.70.

The D1 regime is labeled as bearish: sellers still hold the positional advantage, although the gap between the price and the averages begins to suggest a market already quite “exhausted” on the downside in the short term.

RSI Daily: Weakness, but No Capitulation

RSI 14 D1: 35.39

Interpretation: the RSI is in a low but not extreme zone. We are below 40, so the momentum remains on the sellers’ side, but there is not yet a classic oversold excess. This scenario supports the idea of an “orderly” bearish trend, without panic, where rebounds may occur but, for now, are opportunities for a breather within a descending trend.

Daily MACD: Bearish Pressure Easing

MACD line: -0.24

Signal: -0.18

Histogram: -0.07

Interpretation: both values are negative, so the underlying signal remains bearish. However, the histogram is slightly below zero, indicating that the downward momentum is weakening. In practice, sellers no longer dominate as they did in strongly directional phases, but buyers have not yet enforced any real reversal.

Bollinger Bands daily: UNI resting on the lower band

Central band: $5.40

Upper band: $6.18

Lower band: $4.63

Price relative to the bands: $4.84, near the lower end

Interpretation: The UNI price today is moving in the lower part of the channel, just above the lower band ($4.63). This confirms that the market is in a zone of bearish pressure, but the fact that the price is not glued to the lower band leaves the door open for technical rebounds in case of demand influx or short covering.

ATR daily: contained volatility, slow but treacherous movements

ATR 14 D1: $0.27

Interpretation: an average fluctuation around $0.27 on a daily basis indicates non-explosive volatility. We are not in a panic phase, but rather in a gradual slide where movements may seem small, but accumulated over time “weigh”. This type of context is treacherous because it can encourage premature counter-trend entries without real confirmation.

Daily Pivot Point: $4.80–$4.90 Area as Short-term Center

Pivot Point (PP): $4.86

Resistance R1: $4.89

Support S1: $4.80

Interpretation: the calculated levels narrow the very short-term trading range between $4.80 and $4.89. The price is practically on the pivot ($4.84–$4.86), indicating a precarious balance: it takes little to shift intraday control towards buyers (above $4.89) or trigger a correction (below $4.80).

H1: Weakness on Hold, Tight Micro-Range

Moving to the hourly chart, the price of Uniswap shows an attempt at stabilization.

Close H1: $4.84

EMA 20 H1: $4.86

EMA 50 H1: $4.89

EMA 200 H1: $5.08

Interpretation: even in the short term, the price remains below all hourly averages, but the distance is minimal compared to the 20 and 50. This usually precedes a phase of compression: the market is preparing to choose a direction after a pause. The H1 regime remains labeled as bearish, however, there is no vertical drop, but rather a low consolidation.

RSI 14 H1: 45.63

Interpretation: The hourly RSI has returned to the neutral zone, slightly below 50. Sellers are no longer dominating as before, but buyers have yet to take control. It is the classic scenario of a consolidation phase following a bearish push.

MACD H1: line -0.01, signal -0.01, histogram 0

Interpretation: values are practically flat, indicating a lack of true directionality in the very short term. Here the market is taking a breather and accumulating energy, but the direction of the next move is not yet determined.

Bollinger H1: average $4.85, upper band $4.89, lower band $4.81

Interpretation: the bands are very tight, with the price near the center. This type of configuration often anticipates a volatility breakout. The breakout side (above $4.89 or below $4.81) will provide the first intraday trading signal.

ATR 14 H1: $0.04

Interpretation: reduced hourly volatility, typical of a waiting phase. Sudden movements, in these contexts, tend to “weigh” more because they originate from a previous compression.

M15: market on hold, micro-sideways just below the averages

Dropping to the 15-minute timeframe, useful for the Uniswap chart for those engaging in scalping or very tactical entries:

Close M15: $4.84

EMA 20 M15: $4.86

EMA 50 M15: $4.86

EMA 200 M15: $4.89

Interpretation: price slightly below the “cluster” of averages, all compressed between $4.86 and $4.89. This is the classic micro-range of distribution/accumulation: the market is deciding whether to use this area to reload shorts or, conversely, to build a base for a rebound.

RSI 14 M15: 42.66

Interpretation: a slight weakness prevails, but there is no sign of excess. This is very consistent with a low consolidation, where buyers intervene only defensively, not yet offensively.

MACD M15: line 0, signal 0, histogram 0

Interpretation: complete neutrality in the very short term. Here, the chart is not indicating a direction, but merely a pause.

Bollinger M15: average $4.87, upper band $4.91, lower band $4.83

Interpretation: UNI fluctuates in the lower half of the channel, between $4.83 and $4.87. As long as it remains in this area, the pressure remains slightly against the buyers. A stable close above $4.90–$4.91 would be the first indication that something is changing even on the micro-timeframe.

ATR 14 M15: $0.02

Interpretation: minimal volatility in the very short term. Intraday breakouts, when they occur, will tend to appear abrupt compared to the current calm.

Macro Context and Sentiment: Extreme Fear, but UNI Holds on DeFi Fundamentals

Crypto Fear & Greed Index: 24 (Extreme Fear)

Interpretation: the overall market sentiment is one of extreme fear. Historically, these phases are often associated with compressed prices and long-term opportunities, but in the short term, they can still lead to forced sales or local capitulations. For Uniswap, this means that macro pressure is not helpful, and rebounds may be hindered by low risk appetite.

On the DeFi side, however, Uniswap remains very solid in terms of fees:

Uniswap V3: ~$922M in average daily fees over the past year, +30.8% over 7 days, +30.2% over 30 days

Uniswap V4: ~351M$ in average daily fees, with a 60.5% growth over 30 days

Interpretation: in terms of actual protocol usage, Uniswap continues to generate volumes and fees, with an improving trend over the past month. However, the UNI token does not yet fully reflect these fundamentals: the market is still pricing in macro fear and regulatory uncertainty more than the operational growth of the DEX.

Bullish Scenario for Uniswap Price: What is Needed to Discuss a Credible Rebound

For those looking at short-term price predictions for Uniswap, the bull scenario is currently secondary, but not to be ruled out. Key points:

First H1/M15 signal: closures above $4.89–$4.91, meaning above the upper H1 band and the upper M15 band, with a decisive recovery of the short EMAs.

Confirmation on H1: consolidation above $5.00–5.05 and subsequent attack on the $5.20–5.30 area (20-day EMA).

Short-term target: a return to the $5.40–$5.60 area, which coincides with the central band of the daily Bollinger and the 50 EMA.

Operational interpretation: as long as UNI remains trapped below $4.90–$5.00, the bullish scenario remains merely hypothetical. However, a breakout with volume in that area could trigger a short squeeze in the short term, fueled by the fact that the market is positioned defensively (Extreme Fear). In that case, rebounds can be swift, but they would still be against a primary trend that remains weak.

Key level that strengthens the bullish scenario: daily closes above $5.30. This would indicate that the market is beginning to absorb the recent phase of weakness.

Bearish Scenario for Uniswap: How Far Can the Decline Extend

The scenario consistent with the current framework remains one of a bearish prevalence, with potential downward extensions if the current support fails.

Immediate support: daily lower band area and extended S1, in the $4.60–$4.70 zone.

Intraday weakness signal: decisive break of $4.80 on H1/M15, with selling pressure intensifying and RSI sliding back towards 30 on lower timeframes.

Extension: in the absence of a strong reaction from buyers, the price could move towards a cluster of potential supports between $4.40 and $4.50, a psychological zone and an area where many traders might look for “bottom catching”.

Operational interpretation: in a scenario of crypto market in Extreme Fear, a break of recent lows can fuel emotional selling. UNI, despite solid DeFi fundamentals, is not immune to these dynamics. Here, the risk is of false breakdowns: breaking below $4.60 with an immediate recovery. Those working with leverage in this context must consider violent spikes and potential sudden squeezes.

Level that partially invalidates the short-term bearish scenario: stable recovery above $5.00–$5.05 on H1 and M15, and especially above $5.30 on D1. As long as these levels remain intact, every bounce should be approached with caution and viewed as a potential “sell the rip”.

How to Interpret the Current Context on UNI: Weak Trend, Risk of Traps in Both Directions

What does all this mean for those looking at Uniswap today and considering entry points?

The daily trend is bearish, with the price below all EMAs and momentum still favoring the sellers.

The intraday timeframes (H1, M15) however, show a phase of compression: low volatility, narrow bands, neutral indicators. It’s fertile ground for false breakouts.

The macro sentiment (Extreme Fear) increases the risk of sudden emotional movements, both downward (panic sell) and upward (short squeeze).

For a trader, this context suggests caution: those seeking aggressive long entries are attempting to anticipate a possible “bottom,” but they are doing so against a still bearish trend. On the other hand, those following the short trend should avoid chasing prices downward within tight micro-ranges, where squeezes can be violent.

In practice, the areas to monitor on the Uniswap chart are:

$4.60–$4.80: defensive area for buyers. Holding this range can support rebound scenarios.

$4.90–$5.00: first “front line” for intraday buyers. A break and hold above this area changes the short-term tone.

$5.30–$5.60: watershed area on the daily (EMA 20 and 50). Only above this level can we discuss a more significant reversal and not just a technical rebound.

The main risk in the upcoming sessions is being lured by premature signals: a single intraday breakout, without multi-timeframe confirmation and without volume, has a high probability of turning into a trap. In such a context, it often pays more to wait for the market to clearly show which direction it wants to go, rather than trying to guess the bottom or the top.

Disclaimer: The information contained in this article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute financial advice or investment solicitation in any way. Trading cryptocurrencies is highly risky and can result in the total loss of capital. Always conduct your own research and, if necessary, consult a licensed professional.

In a pivotal year for the electric vehicle leader, tesla california performance weakened even as the company pushed ahead with fully driverless robotaxis in Austin.

Market share decline in a key US stronghold

Tesla saw its share of California‘s new car market contract sharply in 2025, underscoring mounting pressure in one of its most important regions. The brand’s market share slipped to 9.9% from 11.6% in 2024, according to Experian data shared by the California New Car Dealers Association.

This decline pushed Tesla down to third place among all car brands sold in the state, after previously holding second position behind only Toyota. Moreover, the drop was more than three times larger than the reduction experienced by Dodge, owned by Stellantis, highlighting how sharply the company lost ground.

In absolute terms, the number of vehicles registered in California fell to fewer than 180,000, down from almost 203,000 in 2024. That shift contributed to a broader pullback in the state’s zero-emission segment, with total registrations of all electric vehicles falling by roughly 7,300 units to just over 378,000.

Legacy models, policy shifts and political backlash

The company’s struggles in California mirror challenges it faces in other global markets. Tesla is working with an aging product lineup and a Cybertruck that has not met early sales expectations. Meanwhile, legacy automakers are bringing new electric models to market that directly challenge its long-dominant offerings.

Moreover, the expiration of federal tax credits for many buyers of electric vehicles has removed a key financial incentive, weighing on demand that was already slowing. On top of these economic factors, some customers have distanced themselves from the brand over the CEO’s high-profile political involvement, which has added another layer of headwind.

The state’s top-selling models still underline Tesla’s presence despite the contraction. The Model Y sport utility vehicle remained California‘s best-selling electric vehicle and became the number one light truck overall. The Model 3 sedan finished as the state’s second most popular passenger car, coming in just behind the Toyota Camry, a long-standing benchmark in the segment.

Policy response and incentives for buyers

In response to the softer zero-emission market, Governor Gavin Newsom is seeking $200 million to restore tax rebates for residents purchasing electric vehicles. The proposal aims to revive demand in the california electric market and support the state’s emissions goals. However, it remains to be seen how quickly such incentives could offset broader economic and competitive pressures.

Robotaxi service goes fully driverless in Austin

While the company wrestles with a shrinking foothold in California, it is moving more aggressively on autonomous mobility in Texas. In Austin, Tesla robotaxis are now providing rides without human safety drivers, a major operational shift for the service launched seven months ago. Previously, staff were required to sit in the front seats to monitor the vehicles.

The CEO announced the change on X, posting a video from a former Tesla artificial intelligence engineer to showcase the development. Last month, he had already disclosed that testing without any occupants in the front seats was underway, signaling that a wider deployment was imminent.

Ashok Elluswamy, who leads Tesla’s AI division, said that “a few” vehicles in the Austin robotaxi fleet would initially run without direct supervision. However, he indicated that the number of cars operating without safety monitors is expected to grow over time as the company gains more confidence in the system.

Safety record and market reaction

The move toward unsupervised operations is designed to strengthen public confidence in the technology and demonstrate progress in real-world autonomy. That said, Tesla disclosed to regulators that its limited fleet of driverless cars in Texas’s capital city was involved in eight crashes over a six-month period last year.

Financial markets responded quickly to the update. Tesla’s stock rose as much as 4% by mid-afternoon in New York following the announcement. In contrast, shares of Uber Technologies and Lyft fell more than 3% during the session before staging a partial recovery later in the day.

Missed timelines and limited geographic reach

Throughout 2025, the CEO repeatedly assured investors and customers that the company would begin offering unsupervised rides before year-end. In July, he even suggested that as many as half of Americans might gain access to autonomous rides in Tesla vehicles by the close of the year. However, those predictions have not yet materialized on a national scale.

At present, Austin is still the only city where the full tesla california robotaxi austin experience is available, even though the brand began a taxi service in the San Francisco Bay Area last year. The company has not requested permission to operate fully driverless tests in California, where regulations for autonomous vehicles are more established and often stricter.

Meanwhile, Tesla remains behind Alphabet‘s Waymo, which introduced paid, driverless rides in Phoenix back in late 2018. Waymo now charges passengers for autonomous trips across thousands of vehicles deployed in Austin, Los Angeles, San Francisco, Atlanta and Miami, underscoring the competitive gap in large-scale deployment.

Overall, Tesla enters the next phase of its strategy balancing a pronounced market share drop in California with aggressive bets on driverless technology in Texas, as regulators, rivals and investors closely watch whether the company can convert its autonomous vision into sustainable growth.