CoinRank

EU launches investigation into X's AI chatbot #Grok
The probability of a new US government shutdown by the end of this month is close to 80%
Sumitomo Mitsui Trust Group holds 606,629 shares of Strategy (MSTR) stock
Valour receives approval from UK regulators to list $BTC and $ETH ETP on the London Stock Exchange
The total market capitalization of tokenized gold and tokenized silver sectors both hit new highs;
#CoinRank #GN

South Korea postpones the passage of the second phase of its Virtual Assets Act due to controversy over stablecoins and other terms.
SBI applies for a dual-asset crypto #ETF in Japan, encompassing Bitcoin and XRP.
#Coinbase Commerce hackers transfer $5.9 million in assets after a year of silence.
#NEO founder Erik Zhang's negotiations with Da Hongfei break down; Zhang accuses Zhang of distorting facts.
Aperture Finance V3/V4 contracts suffer vulnerability attack.
#CoinRank

South Korea Delays Passage of Second Phase of Virtual Asset Law Due to Controversy Over Stablecoin Clauses

Optimism Releases Quantum-Resistant Roadmap for Superchain: ECDSA EOAs to be Phased Out Over 10 Years

The probability of another US government shutdown before the end of this month is close to 80%

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

 

South Korea Delays Passage of Second Phase of Virtual Asset Law Due to Controversy Over Stablecoin Clauses

 

According to Techinasia, the legislative process for South Korea’s second phase of the Virtual Asset Law has been delayed due to controversy over key clauses.

 

The bill aims to comprehensively regulate digital assets, including stablecoins. The main points of contention are twofold: first, the issuer qualifications for Korean won stablecoins—whether they should be led by banks or authorized companies; and second, whether to relax restrictions on the separation of financial and virtual asset businesses to encourage innovation.

 

Furthermore, the bill proposes a 15%-20% cap on shareholdings by major shareholders in exchanges, which critics argue is too restrictive.

 

Due to the legislative delay, discussions on related issues such as spot virtual asset ETFs and the trading of virtual assets by listed companies have also been put on hold. Negotiations are still ongoing among government agencies, industry participants, and political groups.

 

Optimism Releases Quantum-Resistant Roadmap for Superchain: ECDSA EOAs to be Phased Out Over 10 Years

 

According to official news, Optimism has released a quantum-resistant roadmap for Superchain, the core of which is the announcement of a ten-year phase-out of External Owners (EOAs) based on ECDSA signatures.

 

Specifically, by January 2036, EOA transactions using ECDSA signatures on the Optimism mainnet and Superchain will be deprecated. All such accounts will need to delegate their key management to smart contract accounts that support post-quantum signatures.

 

This roadmap covers both user and consensus levels. At the user level, using account abstraction technology and standards such as EIP-7702, EOAs will gradually delegate signing authority to smart accounts capable of verifying post-quantum signatures.

 

At the consensus level, L2 orderers and bulk committers will migrate to post-quantum signatures. It also calls on Ethereum itself to develop a timeline for migrating validators from BLS signatures and KZG commitments to post-quantum algorithms.

 

The entire upgrade process will be coordinated through a hard fork, providing the ecosystem with ten years for a smooth transition. 

 

The probability of another US government shutdown before the end of this month is close to 80%

〈CoinRank Daily Data Report (1/26)｜South Korea Delays Passage of Second Phase of Virtual Asset Law Due to Controversy Over Stablecoin Clauses〉這篇文章最早發佈於《CoinRank》。

Tariffs and U.S.–Iran tensions are increasing macro uncertainty, pushing investors toward caution and reducing short-term appetite for liquidity-sensitive crypto assets.

With markets expecting no Fed rate cut, crypto prices are reacting more to policy tone and forward guidance than to the decision itself.

Bitcoin and Ethereum remain tied to liquidity cycles, underperforming traditional safe havens until macro risks ease and monetary conditions become clearer.

Tariffs, U.S.–Iran tensions, and Fed rate expectations are reshaping global risk sentiment. This analysis explains how macro forces are influencing Bitcoin, Ethereum, and crypto markets.

TARIFFS AND CRYPTO MARKETS: TRADE POLICY AS A MACRO RISK FACTOR

 

Over the past week, tariff-related headlines have re-entered the market narrative at a sensitive moment for global risk assets. While tariffs are not new, their reappearance reminds investors that trade policy remains an active macro lever rather than a closed chapter.

 

Tariffs influence markets through a dual channel. On one hand, they raise uncertainty around global growth by disrupting supply chains and corporate planning. On the other, they can introduce renewed inflation pressure if higher import costs are passed through to consumers. Even when markets assume negotiations may soften final outcomes, the interim uncertainty alone is enough to alter positioning.

 

For crypto markets, tariffs do not trigger direct price reactions. Instead, their influence is indirect but meaningful. When tariffs raise doubts about growth stability or inflation control, investors often reduce exposure to assets perceived as liquidity-sensitive. In such environments, Bitcoin and Ethereum tend to trade more like high-beta risk assets than defensive hedges.

 

U.S.–IRAN CONFLICT AND CRYPTO: GEOPOLITICS, ENERGY RISK, AND SENTIMENT

 

At the same time, tensions between the United States and Iran have escalated rhetorically and militarily. Reports of U.S. naval deployments and warnings from Iranian officials have pushed geopolitical risk back into focus, even without direct confrontation.

 

Markets typically respond to Middle East tensions by reassessing energy risk. The possibility of supply disruption alone can support higher oil prices, which in turn feed inflation expectations. For investors, this combination creates a familiar dilemma: rising uncertainty with unclear policy responses.

 

Crypto markets sit awkwardly within this framework. While digital assets are often described as borderless or censorship-resistant, real-world trading behavior tells a different story. During periods of heightened geopolitical stress, crypto is frequently sold alongside equities as part of a broader reduction in risk exposure.

 

This does not negate long-term narratives around financial sovereignty or decentralization. Rather, it highlights the reality that in the short term, crypto prices are still shaped by portfolio-level risk management decisions rather than ideological positioning.

 

FED INTEREST RATE EXPECTATIONS AND CRYPTO LIQUIDITY DYNAMICS

 

Overlaying tariffs and geopolitics is monetary policy, specifically the Federal Reserve’s January meeting. Market expectations are unusually aligned: investors broadly anticipate no interest rate cut this week.

 

When consensus is this strong, the focus naturally shifts from the decision itself to the messaging. Investors are listening for clues about how policymakers interpret inflation progress, labor market resilience, and external risks such as trade tensions and energy prices.

 

For crypto, this distinction matters. A rate hold is already priced in, but any shift in tone can reshape liquidity expectations. If the Fed emphasizes patience and optionality, markets may interpret this as a path toward easing later in the year. If, however, policymakers stress renewed inflation risks, expected rate cuts could be pushed further out, tightening financial conditions.

 

In recent cycles, crypto has proven highly sensitive to these expectations. Even without immediate policy changes, shifts in forward guidance can influence capital flows into and out of digital assets.

 

 

https://www.cmegroup.com/markets/interest-rates/cme-fedwatch-tool.html?utm_source=chatgpt.com

 

BITCOIN AND ETHEREUM PERFORMANCE UNDER MACRO PRESSURE

 

Against this backdrop, the behavior of major cryptocurrencies has been relatively consistent. Bitcoin has largely traded within a range, reflecting hesitation rather than conviction. Despite its reputation as “digital gold,” Bitcoin has not consistently attracted safe-haven flows during this period.

 

This divergence highlights a structural reality. Gold is a long-established hedge against geopolitical and monetary instability. Bitcoin, by contrast, still occupies a hybrid position. In moments of acute uncertainty, it is often treated as a volatile asset rather than a defensive one.

 

Ethereum has shown similar dynamics, often amplifying Bitcoin’s moves. As a higher-beta asset with deeper ties to risk appetite, Ethereum tends to underperform when investors prioritize capital preservation over growth. This pattern does not reflect Ethereum-specific weakness, but rather its sensitivity to broader liquidity conditions.

 

 

Gold

 

GOLD, SILVER, AND THE MESSAGE FROM TRADITIONAL SAFE HAVENS

 

While crypto has traded cautiously, traditional safe havens have attracted renewed attention. Gold and silver have benefited from the same forces weighing on risk assets: geopolitical uncertainty, inflation concerns, and doubts about the near-term policy path.

 

The contrast is telling. When precious metals strengthen while crypto remains range-bound, it suggests that investors are hedging risk rather than expressing confidence in reflation or growth. In this environment, crypto rallies typically require either a clear improvement in liquidity expectations or a powerful asset-specific catalyst.

 

CONCLUSION: MACRO UNCERTAINTY, LIQUIDITY TIMING, AND CRYPTO’S NEXT MOVE

 

Taken together, tariffs, U.S.–Iran tensions, and a widely expected no-cut Fed meeting form a single macro narrative rather than three separate stories. All point toward uncertainty around inflation, growth, and the timing of policy easing.

 

In the near term, this environment favors caution. As long as crypto remains closely tied to liquidity conditions, sustained upside is difficult when investors are pricing geopolitical risk and delayed monetary easing simultaneously.

 

However, this also creates asymmetric potential. Should tensions ease and the Federal Reserve maintain flexibility in its outlook, risk appetite could recover quickly. Crypto markets have historically responded rapidly once uncertainty recedes and liquidity expectations stabilize.

 

For now, the market is less focused on bold narratives and more focused on timing. In that sense, the current phase is not about conviction, but about patience.

 

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

Galaxy Research 2026: Bitcoin, Solana, and Value Capture-1

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

〈Macro Pressure Builds: Tariffs, Iran Tensions, and Crypto〉這篇文章最早發佈於《CoinRank》。

River shifts cross chain stablecoins from asset transfer to yield generation by allowing collateral to stay on the source chain while stablecoins are minted and used natively elsewhere.

Omni CDP and satUSD form a cross chain debt engine that upgrades stablecoins from simple payment tools into revenue generating infrastructure.

TRON expansion and the Vault product line will determine whether River can move from a sound mechanism to real world scale adoption.

WHY COLLATERAL BEING STUCK ON ONE CHAIN IS NO LONGER ACCEPTABLE

 

For years, cross chain stablecoins looked like a solution. In reality, they only solved transport. Assets were moved from Chain A to Chain B through bridges, wrapped tokens, and message layers. Each extra step added cost, delay, and risk.

 

The deeper problem never disappeared. Collateral often lives on chains that are secure and liquid, such as Bitcoin related assets or major LSTs. But stablecoin demand lives elsewhere. Trading, liquidity pools, yield strategies, and new applications are spread across many chains.

 

This separation creates structural inefficiency. The same capital must be rebuilt again and again in different ecosystems. Liquidity becomes fragmented. Yield opportunities stay isolated. Capital efficiency stays low.

 

River targets this exact problem. It separates collateral from usage. Users lock assets on the source chain and mint satUSD natively on the destination chain. Collateral does not move. Stablecoin utility does.

 

Instead of asking how to move assets more safely, River asks a different question. How can one unit of collateral generate value across multiple chains at the same time.

 

OMNI CDP AND SATUSD AS A CROSS CHAIN DEBT ENGINE

 

River’s core system is Omni CDP. Collateral is deposited on one chain. satUSD is minted on another chain as a native asset. This is not a bridge plus swap flow. It is a single debt position expressed across chains.

 

The system uses LayerZero OFT standards to support native multi chain issuance. satUSD exists directly on each supported chain without wrapping. This reduces friction and shortens the user path.

 

 

River also lowers the entry barrier. satUSD can be swapped one to one with USDT USDC and USD1. Users can start using satUSD without learning CDP mechanics first. The system handles complexity in the background.

 

satUSD is an over collateralized stablecoin. Collateral includes BTC ETH BNB and LST assets. Peg stability relies on liquidation and arbitrage mechanisms. The key difference is that the debt layer itself is cross chain by design.

 

Traditional CDP protocols face high expansion costs. Each new chain needs its own pools, liquidation liquidity, and demand side integration. River treats debt as a global layer first. Application growth then feeds back into collateral demand.

 

Around satUSD, River introduces staking. Users stake satUSD to receive satUSD plus. Rewards come from protocol revenue such as minting redemption and liquidation fees. satUSD is not just a medium of exchange. It becomes a yield bearing asset.

 

This turns stablecoin growth into a value loop. More usage creates more protocol revenue. Revenue flows back to long term participants. Growth relies less on external subsidies.

 

SMART VAULT AND PRIME VAULT AS RISK LAYERS

 

Omni CDP is the engine. Vaults are the consumer interface.

 

Smart Vault targets users who want yield without managing debt. Users deposit BTC ETH USDT or USDC. The protocol mints and stakes satUSD internally. satUSD never enters the user wallet. Users face no liquidation risk.

 

From the user side, this feels like a single step yield product. From the protocol side, it still feeds the satUSD debt engine. Complexity is absorbed by the system instead of the user.

 

Prime Vault targets institutions. Assets stay in custodial wallets. satUSD is minted and used internally by the protocol. Users do not directly hold debt. The design focuses on custody control and perceived compliance.

 

This is a CeDeFi style structure. Its success depends on details. Custodian quality. Asset segregation. Transparency of yield sources. Settlement behavior in extreme markets.

 

If these are unclear, Prime Vault becomes marketing. If they are solid, River may attract non native capital that DeFi protocols usually cannot reach.

 

Swap modules support one to one conversion between satUSD and major stablecoins. This supports peg stability and usability. River4FUN handles growth. On chain actions and social contributions generate River Points. Points later convert into governance aligned incentives.

 

TRON EXPANSION AND TOKEN FLYWHEEL AS THE REAL TEST

 

River’s recent expansion into the TRON ecosystem is a major signal. Reports show strategic investment from TRON DAO Ventures and plans to integrate satUSD into core TRON protocols.

 

TRON is one of the most active stablecoin ecosystems. If satUSD gains real liquidity and usage there, River moves from concept validation to market validation.

 

Funding reports also mention a larger strategic round involving multiple major crypto funds. Expansion plans include Ethereum BNB Chain Base Arbitrum Tron and Sui.

 

 

These signals matter because River positions itself as a debt layer that can scale across ecosystems. But they also concentrate risk.

 

Cross chain messaging risk is the first concern. If state synchronization fails, collateral and debt can diverge. This is a tail risk that affects system credibility.

 

Oracle risk is second. Different chains rely on different price feeds. Delays or failures are common causes of CDP incidents.

 

Liquidation and stability pool performance must be tested under congestion and MEV pressure. Recovery Mode logic must work across chains, not just locally.

 

Governance incentives are another sensitive area. Community discussions already show concerns about unlock order and staking dynamics. For a stablecoin system, trust is not optional.

 

Vault yield sources also require scrutiny. DeFi CeDeFi and RWA strategies need clear disclosure. Without transparency, the market will price them conservatively.

 

Stablecoin competition is no longer about who issues more tokens. It is about who uses collateral more efficiently.

 

 

River proposes a clear answer. One unit of collateral should work across chains at the same time. Omni CDP provides the mechanism. TRON expansion tests distribution. Vaults and token design test sustainability.

 

The next phase depends on execution. Are cross chain mint paths truly shorter and safer. Can satUSD liquidity hold one to one under stress. Does protocol revenue support long term incentives.

 

If any of these fail, chain abstraction becomes added risk. If they succeed, River may represent a new class of stablecoin infrastructure that turns fragmented liquidity into a unified system.

 

〈River Turns Cross Chain Stablecoins From Transfer Into Yield The Real Battle Of Chain Abstraction Starts Here〉這篇文章最早發佈於《CoinRank》。

Bitcoin’s risk adjusted returns have deteriorated sharply, with the Sharpe ratio falling into negative territory similar to the 2018–2019 and 2022 market downturns.

Despite a pullback from recent highs, volatility remains elevated, suggesting the current market is repricing risk rather than signaling a clear bottom.

Historically, negative Sharpe ratios can persist for extended periods, indicating that risk reward conditions remain unfavorable ahead of any potential trend reversal.

 

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

PERPETUAL PREFERRED EQUITY OFFERS BLUEPRINT TO EASE STRATEGY’S LONG DATED DEBT RISK

 

Bitcoin treasury firm Strive is using perpetual preferred equity to retire convertible debt, a structure that could provide a reference framework for Strategy as it manages more than $8 billion in outstanding leverage.

 

Strive priced its Variable Rate Series A Perpetual Preferred Stock SATA at $90 per share, upsizing the follow on offering beyond the initially announced $150 million to allow issuance of up to 2.25 million shares through a mix of public issuance and privately negotiated debt exchanges.

 

The company said proceeds will be used to pay down Semler Scientific’s 4.25% Convertible Senior Notes due 2030, with roughly $90 million of principal expected to be exchanged directly for newly issued SATA shares.

 

Unlike traditional refinancing, the transaction converts fixed maturity debt into perpetual preferred equity carrying a variable dividend currently set at 12.25%, with no maturity or conversion feature, reducing refinancing risk and improving reported leverage metrics.

 

Strategy has approximately $8.3 billion in convertible notes outstanding, including a $3 billion tranche due June 2028 with a $672.40 conversion price, which analysts say could potentially be addressed using a similar preferred equity approach.

 

SOLANA SHIFTS FROM SPECULATIVE HYPE TOWARD FINANCIAL INFRASTRUCTURE FOCUS

 

Solana’s latest development phase is increasingly centered on financial infrastructure rather than speculative applications, according to Backpack CEO Armani Ferrante.

 

Ferrante said the Solana ecosystem has spent the past year refocusing on decentralized finance, trading and payments after earlier cycles dominated by NFTs, gaming and social tokens.

 

He described the shift as a sign of network maturity, with Solana positioning itself as a high throughput onchain settlement and trading layer, sometimes referred to as an emerging “internet capital markets” model.

 

Ferrante noted that while crypto native sentiment remains cautious, institutional interest in areas such as tokenization, stablecoins and onchain settlement has strengthened.

 

He emphasized that broader adoption will depend on integration with regulatory frameworks, arguing that compliance and legal clarity are prerequisites as blockchains move closer to real world financial infrastructure.

 

BITCOIN FALLS BELOW $88,000 AS MACRO RISK AND POSITIONING PRESSURE MARKETS

 

Bitcoin slipped below $88,000 in thin weekend trading, extending a weeklong pullback amid macro uncertainty and fragile market sentiment.

 

BTC traded around $87,800 in U.S. afternoon hours, down roughly 2% over 24 hours, while ether and other major tokens posted losses of between 3% and 5%.

 

The move triggered $224 million in liquidations over the past 24 hours, led by bitcoin and ether futures, reflecting continued leverage unwinds following recent volatility.

 

Traders are closely watching potential Japanese yen intervention, U.S. political uncertainty around a possible government shutdown, and a heavy week of major technology earnings.

 

On prediction market Polymarket, traders are currently pricing a 76% probability of a U.S. government shutdown by the end of the month.

 

FED RATE DECISION SEEN AS STEADY, POWELL’S GUIDANCE EXPECTED TO DRIVE MARKETS

The Federal Reserve is widely expected to keep interest rates unchanged at its upcoming meeting, with attention focused on Chair Jerome Powell’s post meeting press conference.

 

CME FedWatch data indicates a roughly 96% probability that rates will remain in the 3.5% to 3.75% range, following three consecutive quarter point cuts last year.

 

Markets are assessing whether the pause signals a hawkish stance, emphasizing inflation risks, or a dovish pause that leaves room for rate cuts later in the year.

 

Analysts say Powell’s commentary on inflation, financial conditions, and policy uncertainty could influence both the U.S. dollar and risk assets such as bitcoin.

 

Powell may also face questions related to housing affordability policies, tariffs and recent bond market volatility, factors that could contribute to near term market swings.

 

〈CoinRank Daily Data Report (1/26)｜Bitcoin Risk-Reward Deteriorates, Echoing 2022 Market Conditions〉這篇文章最早發佈於《CoinRank》。

#Optimism Releases Superchain's Quantum-Resistant Roadmap: ECDSA EOA to be Phased Out Over 10 Years
#BlockSec : Two Blockchain Developers Attacked, Contract Vulnerability Causes $17 Million Loss
#MoonPay Signs Tens of Millions of Dollars Title Sponsorship Agreement with X Games
#Coinbase : Completes Solana Chain Integration and Opens Trading
Matcha Meta: SwapNet Security Incident Does Not Involve 0x Core Contract, Aggregator Direct Limit Setting Functionality Removed

#CoinRank

Mox Bank’s entry demonstrates how virtual assets are being integrated into mainstream banking via clear licensing, segregated custody, and institutional-grade compliance rather than informal partnerships.

 

Limiting initial support to USD-denominated Bitcoin and Ethereum reflects regulators’ cautious sequencing, prioritizing liquidity, risk control, and operational stability.

 

Hong Kong’s approach contrasts with fragmented U.S. oversight, signaling a rule-based pathway that could position the city as a leading hub for bank-mediated crypto adoption in Asia.

Mox Bank’s upgraded license marks a pivotal moment in Hong Kong’s crypto strategy, bringing Bitcoin and Ethereum trading directly into the regulated banking system through a fully compliant, bank-led model.

 

A BANK ENTERS THE CRYPTO PIPELINE

 

Hong Kong’s regulated crypto experiment crossed a meaningful threshold on January 26, 2026, when Mox Bank, a licensed virtual bank backed by Standard Chartered, announced that it had received regulatory approval to upgrade its Type 1 license, enabling it to offer virtual asset trading directly through its integrated banking accounts, initially supporting U.S. dollar–denominated trading in Bitcoin and Ethereum only, with execution provided by HashKey Exchange and custody handled by HashKey Custody.

Unlike earlier crypto-bank partnerships that relied on referrals or segregated platforms, Mox’s model allows clients to hold fiat balances and execute crypto trades within a single regulated banking interface, a structural shift that effectively collapses the distance between traditional deposit accounts and digital asset exposure while remaining fully inside Hong Kong’s supervisory perimeter, as defined by the Securities and Futures Commission’s licensing framework.

 

 

WHY REGULATORY DESIGN MATTERS

 

This development is best understood not as a standalone product launch, but as the consequence of a multi-year regulatory architecture that Hong Kong has been deliberately assembling since 2022, in which virtual asset trading platforms are required to operate under clear licensing rules while financial institutions are encouraged to integrate with them through defined compliance roles rather than informal workarounds.

HashKey Exchange’s earlier approvals under Type 1 and Type 7 licenses, followed by its retail upgrade in August 2023, established a compliant execution layer, while the separation of custody into HashKey Custody reflects global regulatory preferences for asset segregation, a structure aligned with standards promoted by IOSCO and increasingly mirrored in Europe and Singapore.

By inserting a bank directly into this pipeline, Hong Kong regulators are signaling that crypto access is no longer viewed as a peripheral fintech experiment, but as a service that can be delivered through deposit-taking institutions provided that risk, custody, and disclosure are cleanly partitioned.

 

 

THE BUSINESS MODEL BEHIND THE MOVE

 

Mox’s initial restriction to Bitcoin and Ethereum, traded only in U.S. dollars, underscores the conservative sequencing embedded in the approval, as both assets account for the majority of global spot liquidity and are widely referenced in institutional risk frameworks, while dollar settlement reduces foreign-exchange complexity during the early phase of rollout.

The tiered fee structure, ranging from 1.25% for Basic clients to 0.5% for Elite users, closely resembles private-banking and brokerage pricing rather than crypto-native exchange incentives, reinforcing the idea that this product is aimed less at high-frequency traders and more at affluent retail and mass-affluent clients seeking compliant exposure within a familiar banking environment.

Crucially, because Mox operates as a bank rather than a standalone platform, its crypto offering is embedded within existing KYC, AML, and transaction-monitoring systems, which materially lowers onboarding friction for users who would otherwise hesitate to move funds to external exchanges.

 

 

HONG KONG’S STRATEGIC SIGNAL TO GLOBAL MARKETS

 

At a macro level, Mox’s license upgrade fits into a broader pattern in which Hong Kong is positioning itself as a jurisdiction that favors rule-based integration over enforcement-driven deterrence, a contrast often drawn with the fragmented U.S. approach where banks remain cautious amid overlapping federal and state oversight.

From tokenized real-world assets to stablecoin consultation papers and now bank-mediated crypto trading, Hong Kong’s policy trajectory suggests an ambition to make virtual assets part of its mainstream financial infrastructure rather than a parallel system, an approach that could prove particularly attractive to international capital seeking regulatory clarity in Asia.

If replicated across other licensed banks, this model may gradually normalize crypto exposure as just another asset class within diversified portfolios, not by loosening standards, but by embedding digital assets inside institutions that already define trust, compliance, and systemic stability.

 

Read More：

Hong Kong Web3 Festival 2026 Set for 20-23 April at HKCEC

〈Mox bank’s license upgrade marks a new phase for bank-led crypto access in hong kong〉這篇文章最早發佈於《CoinRank》。

Gold and silver are being repriced as primary geopolitical hedges amid credible military escalation risk and tariff-driven uncertainty, while Bitcoin remains constrained by leverage unwinds and liquidity sensitivity.

 

The sharp divergence between precious metals and BTC underscores that, in crisis regimes, markets still favor assets with long-standing monetary credibility and central-bank demand.

 

Polymarket’s rising odds of Bitcoin revisiting $85,000 reflect a shift toward downside protection and macro-driven positioning rather than speculative upside, signaling a market bracing for prolonged uncertainty.

Escalating U.S.–Iran tensions, Trump’s renewed geopolitical brinkmanship, and tightening liquidity have pushed gold above $5,000 while exposing Bitcoin’s vulnerability as markets increasingly price conflict risk over “digital gold” narratives.

 

WHEN SAFE HAVENS ARE STRESS-TESTED

 

In late January 2026, markets were forced to price a risk mix that is unusually toxic for “growth-like” assets: a renewed escalation premium around Iran alongside a second, separate credibility premium tied to Washington’s tariff signaling and alliance bargaining, which together pushed investors toward assets that behave well under uncertainty rather than assets that merely benefit from liquidity. Reuters reported spot gold surging past $5,000/oz for the first time, printing an intraday record around $5,085.50, with analysts explicitly linking the move to safe-haven demand under geopolitical instability and policy unpredictability. The same burst of defensive positioning also lifted silver into historically rare territory, with Reuters coverage around the same window describing silver breaking above $100/oz amid a speculative frenzy and safe-haven demand. This context matters because it explains why the “gold bid” looked structural rather than headline-driven: central-bank buying, ETF flows, and the perception that policy risk is no longer a tail event but a baseline assumption all reinforce gold’s role as the asset of last resort when investors want duration-free insurance.

 

 

WHY GOLD AND SILVER SURGE

 

Gold’s 2026 breakout has not required a perfect macro setup; it has thrived precisely because the setup is messy, since the metal tends to benefit when confidence in policy coherence weakens and when geopolitical uncertainty increases the value of portability and neutrality. Reuters described gold’s move as being supported not only by geopolitics but also by expectations of U.S. monetary policy easing, ETF inflows, and central-bank purchases (with China highlighted in the reporting), which is the combination that turns a “fear trade” into a sustained trend rather than a one-day spike. Silver, meanwhile, has behaved less like a pure monetary hedge and more like a crowded momentum trade layered on top of a tightness narrative, which is why it can overshoot violently: Reuters noted silver’s rapid acceleration to/through the triple-digit threshold, a level that psychologically pulls in trend-followers and retail reflex bids. Even the equity “fear gauge” responded in a way that fits the same regime shift: the VIX jumped to around 20 in the Greenland-tariff tension window, signaling a broad repricing of uncertainty rather than a single-asset story. If that sounds like a classic “risk-off tape,” it is—except the twist is that the geopolitical premium was not only Middle East related; it was also entangled with tariff threats and alliance bargaining over Greenland, where Reuters reported Trump first threatening levies and later withdrawing them after outlining a framework with NATO.

 

BITCOIN UNDER LIQUIDITY PRESSURE

 

Bitcoin’s underperformance in this specific kind of stress does not automatically disprove the “digital gold” thesis, but it does clarify its conditionality: BTC can resemble an inflation hedge or a debasement narrative when liquidity is expanding and positioning is patient, yet it often behaves like a high-beta, 24/7 risk asset when the market needs instant liquidity and leverage must be cut first. CoinDesk documented bitcoin sliding back into the high-$80,000s in late January, with additional reporting framing the move as a give-back of earlier-year gains and a reflection of weakened risk appetite even as precious metals ripped higher. The mechanics are straightforward and brutally non-ideological: because BTC trades continuously and has deep derivatives venues, it becomes one of the fastest assets to de-risk when headlines shift the probability mass toward adverse outcomes, and once key levels break, liquidations accelerate the move in a way that gold’s largely unlevered spot market structure typically does not. CoinDesk’s Asia morning briefing earlier in the month described a separate but instructive flush where bitcoin’s drop below $93,000 triggered roughly $680 million in long liquidations, underscoring how quickly leverage can turn a pullback into a cascade. In other words, gold rallies because it is the destination of fear, while bitcoin often sells off because it is the funding source of fear—until the forced selling ends and long-horizon buyers step in.

 

GEOPOLITICS VS POLICY RISK

 

The market’s Iran pricing has been driven by a familiar channel—higher perceived probability of disruption, sanctions escalation, and second-order inflation risks via energy—but the more corrosive ingredient for risk assets is policy volatility, because it raises the discount rate investors apply to almost everything that depends on stable rules. Reuters reported Trump saying he and the U.S. military were weighing “strong options” on Iran, which naturally thickens the geopolitical tail and keeps safe-haven demand bid. At the same time, the Greenland tariff episode created a separate line of uncertainty about trade policy and alliance bargaining, first via the threat itself and then via the reversal, which can calm markets for a day while still reinforcing the belief that policy paths are discontinuous rather than gradual. This dual-premium environment is exactly where gold can look “clean” and bitcoin can look “messy”: gold does not require stable institutions to function, while bitcoin’s institutional bid—spot ETFs, corporate treasury narratives, prime-broker access—still depends on the smooth functioning of financial plumbing and risk tolerance, both of which tighten when volatility rises and macro catalysts cluster.

 

WHAT POLYMARKET IS PRICING IN

 

 

Prediction markets have become a shadow dashboard for how traders are translating headlines into probabilities, and the usefulness is not that they are always right, but that they quantify the distribution of expectations in real time in a way that social media cannot. On Polymarket’s crypto markets page, the contract referencing bitcoin dipping to $85,000 in January showed the probability rising to roughly 49% during the spike in macro uncertainty, which is effectively the market saying: “a deeper drawdown is no longer a fringe scenario; it is close to a coin flip.” The analytical value is that this probability can move faster than traditional research notes or daily closes, and it tends to react immediately to the same catalysts that drive liquidation clusters—geopolitical escalation headlines, tariff reversals, volatility spikes—so it often behaves like a high-frequency sentiment seismograph. In a regime where gold is breaking milestones and silver is sprinting through psychological levels, the signal from prediction markets is not simply bearishness on BTC; it is a reminder that bitcoin’s path is still governed by market microstructure—leverage, liquidity, and positioning—at least as much as by the long-run store-of-value narrative, which is why the “digital gold” story can be directionally true over cycles yet disappoint precisely when the tape turns into a forced-deleveraging event.

 

Read More：

Gold keeps breaking records while bitcoin stalls — why “digital gold” is lagging

〈Gold breaks $5,000 while bitcoin wobbles — why “digital gold” is failing the stress test〉這篇文章最早發佈於《CoinRank》。