Most institutional investors remain bullish on Bitcoin despite brutal fourth-quarter volatility that erased nearly a third of the asset’s value from recent peaks.

A new Coinbase Institutional and Glassnode survey found 70% of institutions view BTC as undervalued, even after the token dropped from above $125,000 in early October 2025 to trade around $90,000 by year-end, while 60% of non-institutional investors share that conviction.

The findings come from a quarterly poll of 148 global investors, split between 75 institutions and 73 non-institutions, conducted between December 10, 2025, and January 12, 2026.

Despite the October liquidation event that shook altcoin markets and compressed leverage across derivatives platforms, most respondents held or added to crypto positions rather than retreating.

Around 62% of institutions and 70% of non-institutions either maintained existing allocations or increased net long exposure since October.

Bearish Sentiment Rises, But Doesn’t Dominate Positioning

Perceptions of the market cycle shifted noticeably during the quarter.

Around 26% of institutions and 21% of non-institutions now believe crypto has entered the bear-market markdown phase, up sharply from just 2% and 7%, respectively, in the prior survey.

That shift exposes the weight of October’s deleveraging event, which saw the Altcoin Season Index plummet and mid-cap tokens struggle to recover their third-quarter gains despite the launch of several spot altcoin ETFs in the US.

Still, the uptick in bearish views did not translate into widespread selling. Most investors stuck with their positions, and sentiment toward Bitcoin specifically remained constructive.

“We have a constructive view for 1Q26,” Coinbase Global Head of Research David Duong wrote in the report. “We believe that crypto markets are entering 2026 in a healthier state, with excess leverage having been flushed from the system in Q4.“

Bitcoin dominance held relatively steady through the turbulence, rising only marginally from 58% to 59% over the quarter, a sign that institutional capital continued to favor the largest digital asset even as smaller tokens faced sustained selling pressure.

Open interest in BTC options overtook perpetual futures as market participants sought downside protection, with the 25-day put-call skew staying positive across 30-day, 90-day, and 180-day expiries.

Coinbase Survey Points to Macro Support and Policy Progress

Several factors underpinned the optimistic outlook. Inflation held steady at 2.7% in December’s Consumer Price Index reading, and the Atlanta Fed’s GDPNow model projected robust 5.3% real GDP growth for the fourth quarter as of January 14.

While the future direction of monetary policy remained uncertain, Duong said the firm still expects the Federal Reserve to deliver two rate cuts totaling 50 basis points currently priced into Fed funds futures, “which should provide a tailwind for risk assets broadly and crypto specifically.“

Questions about comprehensive crypto market structure legislation persist, but confidence in eventual regulatory clarity stayed firm.

“We’re confident that we will eventually see a set of rules that allows the industry to reach its full potential,” the report stated, noting that major policy progress in the US, particularly around the proposed CLARITY Act, could boost investor sentiment further.

Beyond the survey, separate data shows institutional engagement deepening across channels.

A recent Bitwise and VettaFi poll found 32% of financial advisors allocated to crypto in client accounts during 2025, up from 22% in 2024, with registered investment advisors leading at 42%.

Similarly, a separate Coinbase survey found that younger US investors now allocate 25% of their portfolios to non-traditional assets, compared with 8% among older cohorts.

Risks Remain, But Long-Term Trajectory Holds

The Coinbase report acknowledged headwinds. While the economy appears solid, the jobs market cooled in 2025, with the US adding just 584,000 positions, down from 2 million in 2024, partly due to increased AI adoption.

Geopolitical tensions have flared in several regions, and any escalation that disrupts energy markets could dampen investor appetite.

“A meaningful uptick in inflation, a spike in energy prices, or a significant flare up of geopolitical tensions could warrant a more cautious approach to risk assets,” the report warned.

Still, onchain metrics improved after October’s shakeout. Bitcoin supply moved within three months, surged 37% in the fourth quarter, while coins unmoved for over a year fell 2%, indicating short-term distribution that likely cleared weaker hands.

Ethereum’s Net Unrealized Profit/Loss ratio swung sharply through 2025, hitting capitulation in the first quarter, then rising to optimism in the third quarter, and settling back into fear territory by year-end.

Despite recent ETF outflows totaling $1.62 billion over four trading days and Bitcoin slipping below $90,000, institutional conviction appears durable. As Duong put it, “crypto markets are entering 2026 in a healthier state.”

The post 70% of Institutions Say Bitcoin is Undervalued Despite 30% Crash – Bitcoin About to Rally? appeared first on Cryptonews.

The crypto market is down today again. The cryptocurrency market capitalisation decreased by 0.8% over the past 24 hours, now standing at $3.05 trillion. At the time of writing, 93 of the top 100 coins recorded price drops. The total crypto trading volume stands at $139 billion.

Crypto Winners & Losers

We started the new week very much in the red. As of Monday morning (UTC), all top 10 coins per market capitalisation have posted price drops over the past 24 hours.

Bitcoin (BTC) fell by 0.7%, currently trading at $87,860. This is the smallest drop on the list,

Bitcoin (BTC)

24h7d30d1yAll time

Ethereum (ETH) decreased by 1.5%, changing hands at $2,892.

The highest fall among the top 10 is Solana (SOL)’s 3.3% to the price of $122.

It’s followed by Dogecoin (DOGE)’s drop of 1.6%, now trading at $0.1213.

At the same time, Tron (TRX) fell the least: 0.4% to $0.2953.

Moreover, of the top 100 coins per market cap, 93 have seen their price drop today.

MYX Finance (MYX) fell the most. It’s down 14%, now trading at $5.86.

Monero (XMR) follows, with a decrease of 5.4%, currently standing at $466.

Of the green coins, River (RIVER) stands at the top, having jumped by 43% to the price of $84.7.

The next on the list is Algorand (ALGO), which saw an increase of 2.3% to $0.1189.

The rest are up 1.3% and less per coin.

Macro uncertainty triggered over $550 million in crypto liquidations as BTC and ETH came under pressure.

Meanwhile, the UK’s Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) moved into the final stage of consultations on a set of proposed crypto regulations. The FCA said it is seeking feedback on 10 proposed rules, describing this as the “final step” in the consultation process.

“These proposals continue our progress towards an open, sustainable and competitive crypto market that people can trust,” the regulator said.

BTC May See Belated Reaction

Gadi Chait, Investment Manager at Xapo Bank, commented that recent weakness in Bitcoin follows a brief recovery last week, “set against a backdrop of macroeconomic developments that have influenced risk assets broadly.”

A convergence of factors drives volatility across markets. These include heightened geopolitical tensions and ongoing conflicts. Renewed focus on US strategic positioning toward Greenland and Donald Trump’s address at Davos “added to an already unsettled global environment.”

Regulatory uncertainty, especially in the US, and macroeconomic pressures add to this. “Central bank policy divergence, including expectations around further tightening by the Bank of Japan and the continued reduction of liquidity by the US Federal Reserve, continues to shape market behaviour.”

Chait says that, “amid this uncertainty, traditional commodities have rallied, while Bitcoin has underperformed. The reasons for this divergence are not yet clear, though such sequencing across asset classes is not without precedent.”

“It remains possible that Bitcoin’s response emerges later, particularly as volatility subsides. For long-term participants, however, short- to medium-term price fluctuations remain a familiar feature rather than a signal of impaired fundamentals,” Chait concluded.

Moreover, Petr Kozyakov, Co-Founder and CEO at Mercuryo, argued that as a speculative asset, BTC has come under sustained selling pressure, and altcoins have followed suit.

“While the fortunes of the digital asset space will always be viewed through a lens fixated on token prices, the bigger picture is one of continued stablecoin adoption and the steady development of payment infrastructure,” he says.

He continues: “The evolution of the digital token space is being driven by merger and acquisition activity, alongside the inherent efficiencies of blockchain-based technology and its ability to operate around the clock, at speed and at lower cost.”

“This reality is increasingly unavoidable for financial institutions still reliant on technology that dates back to the 1960s. Away from daily price movements, a quiet revolution is most definitely afoot,” Kozyakov concluded.

Levels & Events to Watch Next

At the time of writing on Monday morning, BTC was changing hands at $87,860. While the coin begun the day at the intraday high of $88,800, it relatively swiftly dropped to the low of $86,126. It has recovered somewhat since.

Over the past seven days, BTC decreased by 5.1%, trading in the $86,319–$93,252 range. It’s now 30% away from its all-time high of $126,080.

Failing to hold the current level risks additional pullbacks towards the $85,000 level, followed by $84,300 and $83,800.

At the same time, Ethereum was trading at $2,892. Earlier in the day, it traded at the intraday high level of $2,941. However, it then plunged to the intraday low of $2,787. It managed to shift course and move higher following this drop.

In a week, ETH fell 9.2%, moving between $2,801 and $3,222. Moreover, it decreased 41% from its ATH of $4,946.

Currently, the price risks a fall toward $2,670 and $2,520 in the near term.

Ethereum (ETH)

24h7d30d1yAll time

Additionally, according to Bloomberg Intelligence Senior Commodity Strategist Mike McGlone, it is more likely that ETH will revisit the $2,000 level than push upwards and above $4,000.

ETH has been stuck in the $2,000–$4,000 range since 2023. However, it is leaning toward the lower end of this range.

Meanwhile, the crypto market sentiment exited the neutral zone a week ago, and it has continued falling lower within the fear zone since.

The crypto fear and greed index decreased further over the weekend, currently standing at 29, compared to 34 seen over the weekend.

Unsurprisingly, given the market conditions, the sentiment reflects the overall worry and caution. It is now possible that the metric will drop further.

ETFs Continue The Red Streak

The US BTC spot exchange-traded funds (ETFs) posted another day of outflows on Friday, totalling $103.57 million. This is the fifth consecutive day of negative flows.

The total net inflow has pulled back yet again and now stands at $56.49 billion.

Of the twelve ETFs, two recorded outflows, and none saw inflows. BlackRock let go of $101.62 million, and Fidelity followed with $1.95 million in outflows.

Moreover, the US ETH ETFs posted outflows as well on 22 January, with $41.74 million – a similar level as the day earlier. With this fourth consecutive red day, the total net inflow now stands at $12.3 billion.

Of the nine funds, two ETH ETFs posted outflows, and two saw inflows. BlackRock recorded $44.49 million in outflows, followed by Grayscale’s $10.8 million.

At the same time, Grayscale Mini Trust took in 9.16 million, followed by Fidelity’s $4.4 million in inflows.

Meanwhile, Japan’s Financial Services Agency is reportedly planning to add cryptocurrencies to the list of assets eligible for spot ETF products.

Japan would likely approve its first set of spot crypto ETFs as early as 2028, ending the agency’s ban on spot crypto ETFs.

Quick FAQ

1. Did crypto move with stocks today?

The crypto market has seen yet another drop over the past day. Meanwhile, the US stock market closed the week with a mixed picture. That said, it also posted a second consecutive red week. By the closing time on Friday, 23 January, the S&P 500 was up 0.033%, the Nasdaq-100 increased by 0.34%, and the Dow Jones Industrial Average fell by 0.58%. Due to high volatility, investors are shifting their money into safe-haven assets, particularly gold.

2. Is this drop sustainable?

For now, the drops may continue in the near- to mid-term, pushed by macroeconomic developments. Occasional smaller and brief jumps are expected, intersecting the current trend.

The post Why Is Crypto Down Today? – January 26, 2026 appeared first on Cryptonews.

January 2026 has delivered a blunt message to investors: the playbook has changed. Gold is trading above $5,000 an ounce for the first time. Bitcoin is stuck below $88,000 and cannot hold the $90,000 level it briefly reclaimed. This gap is not just a weird market moment. It looks like a reset in how capital behaves when geopolitics heats up, and policy direction gets messy.

The numbers underline the shift. Gold rose 64% in 2025 and is already up more than 17% in the first weeks of 2026. Bitcoin, meanwhile, sits roughly 11% below its December 2024 all-time high near $108,000. Over one weekend in late January, total crypto market cap dropped by about $56 billion to roughly $2.92 trillion. This is not random noise. It reflects two different investor instincts playing out in real time.

The Safe-Haven Rush: Why Gold Owns the Narrative Right Now

Gold’s run is not coming from one single driver. It is coming from several forces stacking on top of each other.

Central banks, especially in emerging markets, have been buying gold at a pace that looks more like crisis-era behavior than normal reserve management. ETF inflows have reinforced that demand. Retail and institutions are doing the same thing for the same reason: they want a hedge against currency risk, policy mistakes, and the kind of uncertainty that makes investors second-guess everything.

The geopolitical backdrop is not helping. Trade tensions have moved from headlines into concrete threats and real negotiation pressure. President Donald Trump’s administration has floated 100% tariffs on Canadian goods tied to China-related trade developments, plus potential 200% levies on French wines and champagne. That kind of language changes behavior fast because markets do not wait for policy to become law. They price the risk now.

Currency markets are reflecting the same mood. The Japanese yen strengthened to 153.89 per dollar, its strongest level since November 2025, as traders speculated about possible coordination between U.S. and Japanese authorities. Japan’s top currency diplomat kept timing vague, which tends to make uncertainty worse, not better. The euro pushed to a four-month high near $1.1898 as traders cut dollar exposure ahead of the Fed’s next signals and the possibility of new leadership chatter.

These moves matter because they signal something deeper than FX positioning. They suggest investors are questioning stability and coordination at the top of the global monetary system. When people get nervous about reserve currencies, they often reach for gold. Gold does not pay yield. It does not grow cash flow. It holds value because it still functions as a trust asset when confidence in other systems starts to wobble.

History helps frame the moment. In 2008, gold climbed from roughly $800 to about $1,900 by 2011 as central banks flooded the system with stimulus. In 2020, gold hit new highs above $2,000 during peak pandemic fear. This rally is bigger in both percentage terms and absolute levels, which suggests the market is pricing something more structural than a single shock.

Bitcoin’s Reality Check: Why “Digital Gold” Is Not Acting Like Gold

Bitcoin has spent years carrying the “digital gold” label. This month has exposed how fragile that comparison can be when stress hits.

Gold is absorbing defensive flows. Bitcoin is absorbing selling from people who bought higher and now want out. That difference matters because it changes how rallies behave. When gold rallies in a risk-off environment, it often pulls in more buyers. When Bitcoin rallies in the same environment, it often runs into sellers looking to exit.

Technically, Bitcoin has been trapped in a structure that has not offered easy upside. Price action has struggled around $87,619 after losing $90,000 during weekend trading. Support sits around $84,698 with resistance near $89,241. If support fails, downside pressure toward $84,000 becomes the obvious target. If resistance holds, $90,000 stays a psychological ceiling rather than a launchpad.

More important than the chart is the behavior underneath it. CryptoQuant data shows Bitcoin holders selling at a loss for the first time since October 2023. That is a shift in tone. In strong bull phases, holders usually ride volatility because they expect higher prices ahead. When people start locking in losses, they are not thinking in bull-market terms. They are managing pain and uncertainty.

Glassnode analysis adds another problem: a heavy supply overhang above $100,000. Many holders are sitting in positions bought between current levels and six figures. When price approaches their entry zones, they sell to break even or limit damage. That creates a supply wall that is hard to clear without fresh demand and strong momentum.

This is not how Bitcoin behaved in 2020 to 2021. Back then, conviction and institutional narratives pushed price from $10,000 to $69,000 in about a year. Today’s structure feels more like rotation and digestion than acceleration. Futures volumes are compressed. Leverage is subdued. Traders are not leaning into upside the way they do when they truly believe the move is imminent.

Prediction markets reflect the change in psychology. Polymarket odds have shown more confidence in gold holding above $5,500 through mid-year than Bitcoin setting new highs over the same window. That is the opposite of the mood in late 2024 when crypto optimism ran hot after Bitcoin crossed $100,000.

The deeper takeaway is uncomfortable for some investors: Bitcoin is not acting like a safe haven right now. It is acting like a high-volatility asset that depends on liquidity, confidence, and risk appetite. That does not kill the long-term thesis, but it changes how investors should frame it in the short term.

Altcoins Under Stress: What Happens When Speculation Hits a Wall

Bitcoin’s weakness looks mild compared to what is happening in altcoins.

Kaia (KAIA) is a clean example. It fell nearly 20% in 24 hours to around $0.0762 after breaking support near $0.0797 and briefly dipping below $0.0721. It held above its 50-day EMA, which offers some technical comfort, but the drop shows how fast liquidity disappears when sentiment cracks.

Altcoins are built for leverage to mood. In bull phases, capital moves from Bitcoin into Ethereum, then into larger alts, then into smaller speculative tokens as investors chase bigger multiples. In corrections, the flow reverses and the weakest assets get hit first. That creates a brutal reality: altcoins can look unstoppable on the way up and untradeable on the way down.

Ethereum has not offered much shelter either. Ether traded near $2,867 in late January, down 2.6% while Bitcoin fell 1.3%. That underperformance signals that investors are not rotating into higher-beta crypto exposure. Thin spot volume and muted derivatives activity support the same conclusion.

The question now is whether this is a pause before another risk cycle or a deeper structural shift. Several factors argue for caution. U.S. regulation is moving, but it still has open questions around token classification and how securities law will apply. Japan may approve crypto ETFs by 2028, with firms like Nomura and SBI expected to launch products on the Tokyo Stock Exchange, but a two-year timeline does not help the next few months.

There is also a credibility problem. Reports of a U.S.-linked crypto theft scandal involving alleged misuse of access to seizure wallets have rattled confidence. ZachXBT has traced funds linked to thefts spanning 2024 and 2025. Incidents like this do not just hurt sentiment for a week. They raise uncomfortable questions about custody, oversight, and the real-world weak points in the ecosystem.

What Institutions Are Actually Doing Right Now

Retail narratives dominate crypto chatter, but institutional behavior usually tells the cleaner story.

Central banks are voting with their balance sheets, and they are choosing gold. Many of them are not willing, or not able, to justify holding an asset that can drop 15% in a week. Their gold buying creates a steady baseline bid that crypto does not have.

Hedge funds and family offices have also turned cautious. Leverage in crypto derivatives remains compressed compared to peak cycles. Open interest in Bitcoin futures exists, but it has not expanded in the way you would expect if large players were building a new bullish stance.

Corporate treasury adoption has not restarted in a meaningful way. During 2020 to 2021, it was easier to sell boards on Bitcoin exposure because liquidity was abundant and narratives were clean. Today, when gold is up 17% year-to-date and Bitcoin is chopping sideways, that boardroom pitch becomes harder.

Pension funds and sovereign wealth funds remain mostly on the sidelines. They move slowly and demand strong regulatory certainty. The U.S. may get there, but it is not there yet.

Right now, institutional money looks like it is waiting, not charging in. That is the simplest read, and it matters because those investors have the best access to research, infrastructure, and policy visibility.

The Fed Variable: Why This Week Can Move Everything

The late-January Federal Reserve meeting matters more than people want to admit. Not because the market expects a surprise rate hike or cut, but because guidance sets tone and liquidity expectations.

If the Fed signals confidence that inflation is easing and hints at future cuts, risk assets usually respond well. Lower rates reduce the opportunity cost of holding gold, and they tend to weaken the dollar, which supports commodity pricing. Crypto would benefit too, mostly through improved liquidity and renewed risk appetite.

If the Fed stays hawkish and emphasizes inflation risk, the market hears “higher for longer.” That hurts speculation. It also pressures gold through higher real yields, though safe-haven demand can sometimes overpower yield dynamics when fear becomes the bigger driver.

Politics adds another layer. Trump has criticized Jerome Powell publicly, and any credible talk of leadership changes introduces a market question about central bank independence. If markets interpret leadership shifts as more accommodative and more political, both gold and Bitcoin could rally on the same narrative: long-term trust risk in fiat management.

FX moves leading into the meeting show the tension. Traders have been trimming dollar exposure. That positioning can unwind quickly after Fed messaging, which would ripple into correlated assets.

Geography Is Not Background Noise in 2026

Regional differences are starting to matter more.

Asia has been mixed. China’s Shanghai index rose slightly while Japanese equities fell on yen strength. That split reflects different policy priorities and economic conditions across the region.

Japan’s currency strength is a headwind for exporters, but the medium-term ETF discussion positions Japan as a potential regulated gateway for crypto exposure, even if the timeline stretches to 2028. Europe has its own stress points, including trade friction with the U.S. The euro’s strength helps imports but hurts export competitiveness. The ECB has moved more dovishly than the Fed, which further changes cross-border capital flows.

The U.S. still dominates crypto market structure, liquidity, and innovation, even with regulatory uncertainty. Any real legislative breakthrough will matter globally because U.S. clarity tends to set the tone for institutions everywhere.

Emerging markets sit at the center of the gold move. They feel currency risk hardest and often have the strongest incentive to seek alternatives. But in practice, gold is still simpler and more accessible than crypto for most investors in those regions, which helps explain why gold is absorbing flows first.

Portfolio Positioning: What Discipline Looks Like in Uncertain Markets

This environment punishes overconfidence.

Gold’s role is straightforward. It is doing what it has historically done in messy periods. A 5% to 10% allocation to physical gold or gold-backed ETFs can make sense for many investors with multi-year horizons. It should protect the portfolio without taking over the entire strategy.

Crypto needs a different label. It is closer to a venture-style exposure to technology adoption than a pure safe haven. That means sizing should be conservative. A 1% to 3% allocation can keep investors engaged in long-term upside without turning short-term volatility into a lifestyle risk.

This is also a moment where patience often beats activity. Large shifts based on short-term moves tend to destroy value. Rebalancing rules matter more than predictions. If gold has grown far beyond its target weight, trimming back to plan can be smarter than chasing the next headline.

Dollar-cost averaging can work for crypto investors who believe in long-term adoption but do not trust the next six weeks. Small, scheduled buys remove emotion and reduce timing risk.

Leverage is the trap. Borrowing to amplify crypto exposure remains one of the fastest ways to blow up in a market like this. Volatility compression often precedes violent expansion. Liquidations do not care about your thesis.

Scenarios for the Next Six Months

Several paths remain plausible through mid-2026.

One scenario is the most boring and arguably the most consistent with current structure: gold keeps rising on safe-haven demand while crypto chops sideways. Gold could press toward $5,500 as tensions and central bank buying persist. Bitcoin could range between $80,000 and $95,000, supported by long-term holders but capped by overhead supply and cautious institutions.

A second scenario requires alignment: easing geopolitical tension plus Fed rate cuts. That would likely rotate capital out of gold and back into risk, lifting crypto meaningfully. Bitcoin could reclaim $100,000 if market structure improves and leverage returns, while gold could pull back but remain elevated above $4,500.

A third scenario is the darker one: economic conditions deteriorate materially. Gold could push toward $6,000 while crypto faces forced liquidations and deeper downside, with Bitcoin potentially testing $70,000 or lower.

A fourth scenario depends on policy competence: a clear U.S. regulatory breakthrough that unlocks institutional capital at scale. It is possible, but the near-term probability remains lower than crypto bulls want.

The most realistic outcome may look like a mix: partial easing in some geopolitical zones, new flashpoints elsewhere, gradual Fed shifts, and crypto alternating between relief rallies and pullbacks without clean direction.

Risk Management Rules That Still Matter

When correlations move and narratives break, basics protect capital.

Position sizing is the first filter. Overallocating to a single theme is the most common failure. Crypto should be sized so that total loss would not change your life. Gold should be sized so it protects the portfolio without trapping you in defensive posture if equities rebound.

Diversification only works when it is real. Ten cryptocurrencies do not diversify if they all move with Bitcoin. Two forms of gold exposure can also behave differently: physical gold, gold ETFs, and miners each carry distinct risks.

Liquidity matters more than people admit. Assets that trade cleanly in calm markets can become thin in stress. Holding enough cash or liquid reserves to avoid forced selling remains a timeless rule.

Discipline is the edge. Volatility is designed to trigger bad decisions. Rules around rebalancing and allocation prevent emotional reactions. Writing down your principles during calm periods and following them during stress is not just advice. It is a practical survival tool.

Taxes also become more important as volatility increases. Crypto gains and losses can be managed strategically through loss harvesting, holding periods, and timing. Gold can have special tax treatment in some jurisdictions. Investors should not wing it.

What Past Divergences Tell Us

This is not the first time asset relationships have shifted.

In 2013’s taper tantrum, gold fell while risk assets also struggled. Safe-haven flow went into dollars, not gold. That episode shows safe haven behavior changes depending on what investors fear.

In 2018, Bitcoin collapsed while gold stayed rangebound, because macro fear was muted. That period shows gold does not automatically benefit from crypto weakness.

In 2020, both rallied after the initial crash because stimulus and inflation fears dominated. That environment is not today’s environment. Today looks more like geopolitical stress plus constrained liquidity, which tends to favor gold over speculative assets.

The lesson is simple: correlations are not laws. They are temporary relationships shaped by the dominant fear in the room.

The Ethereum Problem: Why Number Two Looks Stuck

Ethereum’s underperformance is not just a chart issue. It points to a broader question about smart contract platforms and real adoption.

DeFi activity is down from peak levels. NFT volumes have collapsed. Layer-2 scaling has reduced fees, which is good for users, but it has also fragmented liquidity and attention across multiple networks. That can weaken Ethereum’s network effects, even if the technology continues to improve.

Solana and other platforms have gained share, but they have also struggled during broad risk-off conditions. So this is not just an Ethereum-specific problem. It is a demand problem across crypto applications.

The bigger concern for Ethereum bulls is the application gap. Ethereum has proven it can work. What it has not proven is that it can deliver mainstream use cases that compete with web2 experiences at scale. Many on-chain apps still feel like tools for crypto-native users rather than products built for the public.

Without clear demand drivers, ETH valuation stays tied to speculative appetite. In a market where investors are reducing risk, that is not a great setup.

Regulation: The One Catalyst That Can Reprice Everything

Even with weak price action, regulation remains the biggest potential reset.

U.S. legislative progress is focusing on custody rules, stablecoin frameworks, and exchange registration. Real clarity on token classification would be the unlock. It would reduce existential risk for projects, give institutions rules they can follow, and lower the odds of surprise enforcement events that shake markets.

International coordination is improving too. FATF standards have pushed most major jurisdictions toward common baselines for exchanges and wallet providers. The EU’s MiCA rules bring structure across a large economic bloc. Some elements are heavy, but clear rules often matter more than perfect rules.

Japan’s ETF discussion suggests growing acceptance of crypto as an investment asset class, even if the pace is slow. China remains restrictive on trading, but it continues to pursue blockchain applications and central bank digital currency research.

Regulation will not fix market structure overnight, but it can change who is allowed to participate. That is how market regimes shift.

The CBDC Wildcard

Central bank digital currencies sit in a strange place. They validate the concept of digital money while competing with private crypto rails.

CBDCs are permissioned and controlled. They do not offer the decentralization or supply constraints that define Bitcoin. They can also enable deeper state-level visibility into transactions, which raises privacy concerns.

Still, their development signals something important: central banks agree that the future of money is digital. The question is whether CBDCs simply replicate existing payment rails, or whether they introduce programmable money that could replace some stablecoin and DeFi use cases.

If CBDCs expand surveillance and control, some users may move toward crypto as an opt-out alternative. If CBDCs remain limited and functional, they may coexist without materially disrupting crypto adoption.

The timeline remains unclear. Technical scaling, interoperability, and political pushback will shape how fast democracies move. Authoritarian systems may move quicker, but that experience may not translate cleanly to the U.S. or Europe.

Conclusion: Dealing With Markets That Do Not Follow Narratives

Early 2026 is forcing investors to separate slogans from reality.

Gold is behaving like gold. It is absorbing defensive flows during uncertainty. Bitcoin is behaving like a high-volatility asset that depends on liquidity and confidence. That does not destroy the long-term crypto thesis, but it does change how investors should frame it right now.

Investors should position for the market they have, not the market they want. Gold deserves a role as insurance. Crypto deserves a smaller, deliberate role as a high-upside, high-risk exposure to long-term adoption. Diversification, disciplined sizing, and patience remain the cleanest strategy in a regime where trends are not cooperating.

The next months will reveal whether crypto consolidates before a new growth phase or whether this marks a deeper shift in how capital treats digital assets during stress. Investors who stay disciplined and realistic will be fine either way. Investors who overextend on conviction or trade emotionally will likely learn the same lesson markets teach every cycle.

Markets humble confidence. This divergence is a reminder that assets do not owe anyone the behavior that narratives promised. The investors who accept that and manage risk accordingly will be in the best position for whatever 2026 delivers.

Frequently Asked Questions

1. Why is gold outperforming Bitcoin in early 2026?

Gold is benefiting from geopolitical tension, central bank buying, and currency uncertainty. Bitcoin is behaving like a risk asset, not a safe haven, and is facing selling pressure from recent buyers.

2. Is Bitcoin still considered “digital gold”?

In theory, yes. In practice, not right now. Bitcoin is trading more like a speculative asset that depends on liquidity and risk appetite rather than a defensive store of value.

3. Why did gold cross $5,000 per ounce?

Central banks accelerated gold purchases, investors sought safety amid trade and policy uncertainty, and currency volatility increased demand for non-fiat stores of value.

4. Why are altcoins falling more than Bitcoin?

Altcoins carry higher risk and lower liquidity. When markets turn risk-off, capital exits speculative tokens first, leading to sharper and faster declines.

5. Is Ethereum underperforming Bitcoin in 2026?

Yes. Ethereum has lagged Bitcoin due to weaker demand for DeFi and NFTs, fragmented liquidity from layer-2 solutions, and lack of strong new mainstream applications.

6. What role is the Federal Reserve playing in these markets?

Fed guidance affects liquidity, dollar strength, and risk appetite. Uncertainty around rates and potential leadership changes has increased volatility across gold, crypto, and currencies.

7. Are institutions buying crypto right now?

Most large institutions are cautious. Central banks are buying gold, while hedge funds, pensions, and corporates are largely waiting for clearer regulation and better risk-reward setups.

8. Is now a good time to invest in Bitcoin?

That depends on time horizon and risk tolerance. Short-term conditions favor caution, while long-term investors may prefer small, disciplined allocations using dollar-cost averaging.

9. How much gold or crypto should a portfolio hold in 2026?

Many investors consider 5–10% in gold for protection and 1–3% in crypto for upside exposure, sized according to personal risk tolerance and financial goals.

10. What could change the outlook for crypto in 2026?

Clear U.S. regulation, Fed rate cuts, easing geopolitical tensions, or renewed institutional adoption could improve sentiment. Until then, crypto is likely to remain volatile and range-bound.

Gold Shines But Bitcoin Faces the Music: What 2026 Has in Store for Investors? was originally published in Coinmonks on Medium, where people are continuing the conversation by highlighting and responding to this story.

Investors are showing a steady faith in Bitcoin even as money moves elsewhere. According to Coinbase’s Charting Crypto Q1 2026 report, many big players think the current price is a bargain. The mood is cautious, but the view among large institutions leans toward holding for the long run.

Institutional Confidence And Behavior

Reports say about 71% of institutional investors view Bitcoin as undervalued when it sits between $85,000 and $95,000. Independent investors are not far behind, with 60% sharing that view.

A quarter of institutions felt the price was fair, and only a small share thought it was too high. These numbers show a strong tilt toward belief in future gains.

Gold And Silver Are Doing Very Well

Gold has climbed sharply, and silver has more than doubled since last October. That flow into metals has come as investors seek shelter while worries over global tensions rise.

Stocks have not surged as much; the S&P 500 has posted modest gains. The contrast is clear: some money went into traditional hedges instead of crypto.

Reports note renewed tariff threats from US President Donald Trump and rising strain between the US and parts of the Middle East.

Such moves have been linked to market nervousness. If energy supply or trade routes are hit, risk assets often wobble. That makes Bitcoin more sensitive than usual to headlines.

Bitcoin has been trading in the high $80,000s. It briefly tried to hold above $90K but slipped back, touching nearer $86,000 at times.

Volatility has returned, and liquidations were seen after the big October move. Still, many technical analysts keep longer-term targets on their charts, arguing that the broader trend is not necessarily broken.

Reports say 80% of those large investors would either keep their stakes or add more if prices fell another 10%. More than 60% have already held or raised their positions since October’s peak.

Over half think the market is in an accumulation phase or still in a bear cycle, which explains why many prefer to buy on weakness rather than sell.

Coinbase expects the Federal Reserve to cut rates twice in 2026, an outlook that could help risk assets if it comes to pass. Consumer inflation has been steady and GDP growth looked strong in the last quarter. These conditions could nudge sentiment back toward risk-taking, though timing is far from sure.

The story is not simply bullish or bearish. On one hand, large investors show clear conviction and are willing to act on dips.

On the other, safe-haven flows and geopolitical shocks keep a lid on rapid re-rating. The near-term path is likely choppy, while the longer view depends on whether macro calm returns and whether demand for crypto picks up again.

Featured image from Unsplash, chart from TradingView

Japanese Bitcoin treasury firm Metaplanet reported a 104.6 billion yen ($680 million) impairment on its Bitcoin holdings, reflecting the impact of last year’s market downturn on the value of its digital asset portfolio.

In a press release issued Monday, the company said the impairment was recorded as a non-operating expense and does not affect cash flows or day-to-day operations.

Even so, the accounting charge is expected to weigh heavily on reported results for the fiscal year ended December 2025.

Metaplanet Forecasts Up to $640M Loss Following Bitcoin Write-Down

Including the Bitcoin-related write-down, Metaplanet now expects to post a consolidated ordinary loss of 98.56 billion yen ($640 million) and a consolidated net loss of 76.63 billion yen ($498 million).

The company also forecast a comprehensive loss attributable to shareholders of 54.02 billion yen ($351 million). Final earnings are scheduled for release on Feb. 16.

“While short-term accounting volatility is inherent to our business model, our medium-to-long-term BTC accumulation and capital strategy remain on track,” Metaplanet said, underscoring its commitment to maintaining Bitcoin as a core treasury asset.

The scale of the impairment reflects the company’s rapid accumulation of Bitcoin over the past year. By the end of 2025, Metaplanet held 35,102 BTC, up sharply from 1,762 BTC a year earlier.

According to a previous disclosure from Chief Executive Simon Gerovich, the firm spent $451.06 million during the fourth quarter of 2025 to expand its holdings, paying an average price of $105,412 per Bitcoin.

Bitcoin was trading near $87,500 at the end of December.

Despite the headline loss, Metaplanet raised its full-year 2025 guidance, pointing to stronger-than-expected performance in its Bitcoin income generation business.

That segment, which relies on derivatives and options strategies, has become a growing contributor to revenue.

The company now expects full-year revenue of 8.9 billion yen ($57.8 million), up 31% from its prior forecast, while operating income is projected at 6.3 billion yen ($41 million), representing a 33.8% increase.

Metaplanet cited more diversified funding, including the issuance of Series B perpetual convertible preferred stock and access to a $500 million credit facility, as key drivers of the upward revision.

Metaplanet Targets Strong 2026 Growth Despite Share Price Drop

Looking ahead, Metaplanet forecast revenue of 16 billion yen ($104 million) and operating income of 11.4 billion yen ($74 million) for fiscal 2026, with the Bitcoin income generation unit expected to account for the bulk of that growth.

Shares of Metaplanet listed in Tokyo fell 7.03% on Monday to 476 yen, while the company’s US-traded shares closed higher on Friday.

Last month, Metaplanet shareholders approved five proposals at an extraordinary meeting, clearing the way for two new classes of preferred shares designed to fund Bitcoin purchases while delivering fixed monthly and quarterly dividends to investors.

The Tokyo-listed company is now positioned to raise capital through dividend-paying securities rather than further diluting common stockholders.

The post Japan’s Metaplanet Takes $680M Accounting Hit on Bitcoin Holdings appeared first on Cryptonews.

Gold’s rally is showing little sign of slowing as global markets head into 2026 with investors increasingly looking for refuge in traditional safe-haven assets amid geopolitical uncertainty.

According to Gracy Chen the CEO of crypto exchange Bitget says gold continues to act as “the world’s ultimate insurance policy,” as demand remains firm while broader financial markets adjust to shifting macroeconomic risks.

“Technically, the market is still in expansion mode,” Chen said pointing to Fibonacci extension levels that suggest gold could climb toward the $5,325–$5,400 range in the months ahead.

She added that strong buying interest holding around $4,830 indicates the current move is part of a sustained trend rather than a topping pattern.

Gold Remains the Anchor in Uncertain Markets

Gold has benefited during periods of heightened global instability and Chen believes the current environment will continue to support its role as a defensive asset.

With many investors reassessing risk exposure across equities and emerging markets, the precious metal is once again being positioned as a portfolio hedge against inflation, geopolitical shocks and currency volatility.

The resilience of demand at key technical support levels suggests that gold’s rally is being driven by structural factors rather than short-term speculation.

Bitcoin Undervalued Despite Macro Headwinds

Chen also drew parallels between gold’s trajectory and Bitcoin’s outlook arguing that the world’s largest cryptocurrency remains undervalued relative to its long-term potential.

“Bitcoin is on a similar trajectory considering it is an undervalued asset currently,” she said.

While Bitcoin remains sensitive to macroeconomic events Chen highlights several forces that could support an increasingly bullish breakout over the next year.

ETF Inflows and US Regulation Fuel Bullish Setup

The key catalysts Chen points to continued institutional demand through spot Bitcoin ETFs which have provided steady inflows and reinforced Bitcoin’s growing role in mainstream portfolios.

She also notes that Bitcoin volatility has declined compared to major tech stocks showing maturation in the asset class.

In the policy arena ongoing progress on a US crypto market structure bill could also provide greater regulatory clarity, potentially unlocking further institutional participation.

Bitcoin Could Reach $180K by End of 2026?

Chen believes Bitcoin’s current market cycle may also be diverging from historical norms with structural adoption and regulatory momentum creating conditions for sustained upside.

“If these forces persist Bitcoin has a credible path toward $150,000–$180,000 by the end of 2026,” she said.

Traditional Safety Meets Digital Upside

Chen’s outlook shows a broader theme emerging across global markets: investors are increasingly balancing traditional stores of value like gold with digital alternatives such as Bitcoin.

As geopolitical risks continue to linger and financial systems evolve both assets may continue to benefit from their roles as hedges—one rooted in centuries of history – the other driven by institutional adoption and technological change.

The post Bitget’s Gracy Chen Says Gold’s Bull Run Isn’t Over — Bitcoin May Be Undervalued appeared first on Cryptonews.

Crypto markets entered the new week on the back foot as a wave of macro uncertainty sparked heavy liquidations across major digital assets.

After trading in a tight range over the weekend, prices slid during early Asian hours, triggering more than $550 million in leveraged long liquidations, according to market data cited by QCP Asia.

Bitcoin briefly dipped to the $86,000 level before stabilizing, while Ethereum fell toward the $2,785 area.

The pullback stood in contrast to traditional safe havens, with gold and silver extending their recent rally as investors rotated into lower-risk assets.

Tariff Threats, Shutdown Fears, and FX Uncertainty Weigh on Markets

Market participants point to a cluster of macro developments driving the move, according to QCP.

Chief among them were comments from President Donald Trump on the possibility of imposing 100% tariffs on Canadian imports, renewed concern over a looming partial shutdown of the US government, and ongoing uncertainty around potential US-Japan coordination to arrest further weakness in the yen.

Currency markets remain a key pressure point. A “rate check” on USD/JPY by the New York Fed late last week signaled growing sensitivity to yen depreciation, with the 160 level widely viewed as a threshold that could prompt intervention.

While the pair has since pulled back, it continues to trade near two-month highs around 154, prompting investors to unwind short-yen positions rather than risk sudden policy action.

US domestic politics are adding another layer of tension. Although broader risk sentiment found some relief after Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney said Ottawa has no plans to pursue a free trade deal with China, fiscal negotiations in Washington remain unresolved.

House Republicans have advanced spending bills that include roughly $64.4 billion for border security and the Department of Homeland Security, while Senate Democrats have indicated they will block the measures.

With current government funding set to expire on January 30, failure to reach an agreement would result in a partial shutdown.

Markets appear to be taking that risk seriously. Polymarket odds currently imply roughly a 75% chance of a shutdown by January 31, a dynamic that echoes last autumn’s fiscal standoff, which coincided with a sharp drawdown in crypto prices.

Bitcoin Options Signal Rising Downside Protection as Volatility Climbs

Derivatives markets are already reflecting a more cautious stance. Put skews and implied volatility have risen across maturities, with traders rolling downside protection in bitcoin options from the 88,000 level toward 85,000, according to QCP.

Alongside ongoing geopolitical and fiscal headlines, markets face a busy week that includes major technology earnings and a Federal Reserve policy decision.

While the Fed is expected to hold rates steady, investors will be watching closely for any shift in Chair Jerome Powell’s guidance.

“With multiple macro risks unresolved, crypto prices are likely to chop around in the near term, pending greater clarity, particularly around the risk of a US government shutdown,” QCP said.

The post Macro Fears Trigger $550M Crypto Liquidations – What’s Really Going On? appeared first on Cryptonews.

Digital asset investment products saw sharp outflows last week with investors pulling $1.73 billion, the largest weekly decline since mid-November 2025, according to CoinShares report authored by head of research James Butterfill.

CoinShares notes that the wave of redemptions reflects persistent bearish sentiment, driven by fading expectations for interest rate cuts, negative price momentum and growing disappointment that digital assets have not yet benefited from the broader “debasement trade.”

Outflows were heavily concentrated in the United States, which accounted for nearly $1.8 billion, while sentiment was more mixed across Europe and Canada.

Bitcoin and Ethereum Lead Weekly Redemptions

Bitcoin products recorded outflows of $1.09 billion, the largest since mid-November 2025, showing that investor confidence has yet to recover following the October 2025 price crash.

Ethereum followed with $630 million in outflows while XRP investment products saw an additional $18.2 million exit the market — highlighting broad-based weakness across major assets.

Butterfill addes that minor inflows into short-Bitcoin products — totalling just $0.5 million — suggest bearish positioning remains limited, but overall sentiment has not meaningfully improved.

Solana was also a notable exception attracting $17.1 million in inflows and bucking the wider negative trend. Smaller altcoins such as Binance-linked products ($4.6 million) and Chainlink ($3.8 million) also posted modest gains.

Regional Flows Diverge Outside the US

While the US dominated the outflows, CoinShares reports that other regions saw investors take advantage of price weakness to add to long positions.

Switzerland recorded inflows of $32.5 million, Canada added $33.5 million, and Germany saw $19.1 million in inflows. Sweden and the Netherlands both posted smaller outflows of $11.1 million and $4.4 million respectively.

The divergence suggests that while US-based investors are reducing exposure some international allocators continue to view pullbacks as entry opportunities.

Long-Term Adoption Model Points to $317K Bitcoin Floor by 2029

Despite near-term bearishness in fund flows CoinShares Research maintains a bullish long-term outlook based on its updated adoption-based valuation model.

The framework models Bitcoin as a global savings asset competing with deposits, gold, real estate, and bonds. Using conservative assumptions — including sub-1% disposable income allocation and a reduced flow-to-market-cap multiple of 3.5x — CoinShares projects Bitcoin ownership could rise from roughly 560 million owners in 2025 to 1.16 billion by 2029.

Under this scenario Bitcoin’s valuation floor could reach approximately $317,000 by 2029 implying a potential 3.2x return from mid-November 2025 levels, notes the firm.

CoinShares stressed that the model is designed to estimate price-supporting bottoms rather than speculative cycle peaks with ETF growth and emerging-market adoption continuing to accelerate global participation.

The post Crypto Funds Shed $1.73B as Bearish Sentiment Deepens: CoinShares appeared first on Cryptonews.

A new Bitcoin price prediction has been put forward following a long-term technical analysis shared on the social media platform X by crypto analyst Leshka.eth. The analysis compares Bitcoin’s current structure on the weekly timeframe to the 2021 market peak, showing how price behavior is repeating an identical pattern. 

Based on how Bitcoin has interacted with a rising multi-year channel in previous cycles, the analysis proposes a projection as to how Bitcoin could be setting up for a powerful corrective move that sends the price back to as low as $30,000.

Bitcoin Weekly Structure About To Break

Technical analysis of Bitcoin’s price action on the weekly candlestick timeframe chart shows that the leading cryptocurrency has been trading with higher highs and higher lows since 2018. Interestingly, this trend of higher highs has led to repeated interaction with a rising resistance trendline that has defined every major cycle top.

As shown in the chart below, Bitcoin pushes into this upper boundary during each bull market, only to be rejected once momentum fades. These rejection points are clearly marked across multiple cycles, including the 2017 and 2021 peaks. This repeated failure is a defining feature of Bitcoin’s macro cycles of exhaustion after prolonged upside expansion.

Bitcoin once again rallied into this same long-term trendline when it broke to new all-time highs in October 2025 before stalling and rolling over. Bitcoin’s price failed to hold above the trendline and has corrected by about 30% since then. The leading cryptocurrency is now trading below $90,000, and this technical outlook introduces the possibility that the current pullback is not yet complete and could extend further.

Bitcoin Weekly Candlestick Chart. Source: @leshka_eth on X

Bitcoin Crash Extension To $30,000?

The chart also highlights the depth of prior bear market declines once Bitcoin was rejected at this long-term structure. After the 2017 cycle top, Bitcoin fell roughly 84.99% from peak to trough. Following the 2021 high, Bitcoin once again declined by about 77.47% before finding a bottom near the lower boundary of the broader rising channel. 

Based on the current setup, the projected downside move marked on the chart measures approximately 72.86%. Applying a drawdown of that magnitude from the recent cycle high places Bitcoin’s potential bottom around $30,000.

Interestingly, Grok AI offered a more optimistic interpretation of Bitcoin’s near-term outlook based on responses to questions under the same technical post. According to Grok, aggregated views from sources such as CNBC, Reddit, and Forbes suggest that the probability of Bitcoin dropping into the $30,000 to $40,000 range is relatively low, estimated at around 15% to 25% by bearish cycle models.

On the other hand, many analysts instead expect higher price floors, often above $50,000. Some long-term projections extend over $200,000, with names like Binance co-founder Changpeng Zhao predicting $200,000 and Tom Lee predicting $250,000 in 2026.

A severe Arctic blast sweeping across the United States has forced Bitcoin miners to take more than 110 exahashes per second of computing power offline, temporarily slowing block production to 12 minutes as operators curtail operations to ease strain on regional power grids, according to The Miner Mag.

The widespread shutdowns mark one of the largest coordinated mining curtailments since the 2021 Texas grid crisis, with FoundryUSA’s hashrate dropping nearly 60% since Friday.

Real-time data from Mining Pool Stats shows FoundryUSA’s hashrate fell from approximately 340 EH/s to roughly 242 EH/s over the weekend, while Luxor recorded a similar decline from about 45 EH/s to around 26 EH/s.

Smaller reductions appeared across Antpool and Binance Pool, though these pools serve less U.S.-concentrated operations, suggesting total curtailments may exceed the initial 110 EH/s estimate, The Miner Mag reported.

Grid Operators Report Stability Despite Extreme Cold

The hashrate pullback coincided with a severe Arctic air mass pushing subfreezing temperatures, snow, and ice deep into the central and eastern United States.

Grid operators across multiple states issued conservation alerts as heating demand surged, yet Texas’s grid operator ERCOT reported on Friday that conditions remained stable despite the cold weather.

The stability contrasts sharply with February 2021, when Winter Storm Uri triggered widespread outages and prolonged blackouts across the state.

Since that crisis, Texas has added substantial large-load capacity, much of it tied to Bitcoin mining and data center operations.

Unlike traditional industrial loads, many Bitcoin miners participate in demand response programs, allowing them to rapidly curtail consumption during periods of grid stress.

As noted by The Miner Mag, this flexible-load model represents a dynamic shift from the 2021 scenario, when such infrastructure did not exist to support grid balancing during extreme weather events.

Singapore-based miner Bitdeer, which operates over 293,000 rigs globally, including facilities in Texas, said in a statement that it does not anticipate major disruptions from the storm.

A company spokesperson explained that the Electric Reliability Council of Texas considers Bitcoin miners “large flexible loads,” meaning they can curtail electricity usage on request, unlike other industrial users with firm electrical demands.

“Bitdeer stands ready to fully support the grid should supply constraints occur,” the spokesperson added.

The curtailments come as Bitcoin’s seven-day average network hashrate had already declined to about 992 EH/s, down roughly 13.7% from the all-time high of above 1.15 ZH/s reached in October, according to data reported by The Miner Mag last week.

The moderation follows Bitcoin’s market price falling nearly 30% from its October peak, prolonging pressure on mining economics by keeping competition for block rewards elevated even as revenues per unit of computing power fell.

Storm Threatens 60 Million People Across 1,800 Miles

The massive winter storm extends for 1,800 miles from far west Texas to the mid-Atlantic coast, threatening to affect upwards of 60 million people across more than a dozen states, according to AccuWeather.

AccuWeather Senior Vice President Evan Myers warned that the combination of snow, ice, and bitter cold across such a large area would “stall daily life for days,” with some power outages lasting through extended periods as Arctic air charges in behind the storm.

About 60 million people will experience icing conditions, with potentially 1 million people without power for an extended period, AccuWeather estimated.

AccuWeather Chief Meteorologist Jon Porter noted that many areas hit hard by Hurricane Helene in September 2024 still have temporary power lines that “may come down more easily than permanent lines,” potentially stretching recovery resources and personnel to the limit across North Carolina and other affected states.

The storm’s intensity has already prompted thousands of flight cancellations across the region as airlines deal with displaced aircraft and crews.

AccuWeather Storm Warning Meteorologist William Clark cautioned that “entire supply chains may break down from prolonged days of extensive interstate closures,” warning that critical supplies, including pharmaceuticals and basic necessities, may become scarce in the hardest-hit areas.

The United States controls nearly 38% of the global Bitcoin hashrate according to estimates from Hashrate Index, making American mining operations critical to network security.

The post Massive US Storm Forces Bitcoin Miners Offline – What Does That Mean for Bitcoin Holders? appeared first on Cryptonews.

How to hack Bitcoin? How does the blockchain calculate time? How does mining difficulty change? What happens if two miners mine a block simultaneously? Where are transactions stored before confirmation, how are fees calculated, and is it possible to send a transaction with zero fee? What types of nodes exist in the blockchain, and how do they differ? When can you use mining rewards?

Here I provide deeper answers to these questions because popular materials about Bitcoin either don’t explain these things at all or do so very superficially. To understand this article, you need a minimal understanding of how blockchain works, which you can get here: https://vas3k.com/blog/blockchain/

TL;DR

• How to hack Bitcoin?
  A quantum computer will only be able to derive a private key from a public key after a transaction has been sent. If no transaction has occurred, the wallet is protected.
  A 51% attack only provides the ability to cancel your own or others’ transactions to double-spend your own coins; gaining control over others’ coins is impossible.
• How does mining difficulty change?
  Difficulty is recalculated every ~2 weeks based on the mining time of the previous two weeks.
• What happens if two miners mine a block at the same time?
  The chain temporarily splits until one branch becomes longer. The longer branch becomes the main one.
• When can mining rewards be used?
  After 100 blocks.
• How does the blockchain calculate time?
  Based on the median time of the past 11 blocks and the system time of the nodes.
• Where are transactions stored before confirmation, how is the fee calculated, and can you send without one?
  They’re stored on nodes for no more than two weeks. A zero-fee transaction is theoretically possible but practically almost impossible to get confirmed.
• What nodes are in the blockchain and how do they differ?
  Full nodes — hold the blockchain data and enforce the rules.
  Miners — query full nodes for data and build new blocks.
  Light nodes — often used in wallets on weak devices; they query full nodes for what they need.

What’s the point of Bitcoin (besides speculation), in plain English

Bitcoin is an alternative financial system that does not require user trust. When using traditional banks, we must trust them not to steal or lose our money, and if that happens, we must trust the state to be able to return it. We also have to hope that money won’t be blocked at the whim of authorities or bank employees.

The point of Bitcoin is the opposite: everything is tied to strict mathematics that removes the probability of all these potential problems (or drastically reduces), provided you store Bitcoin in a personal non-custodial wallet.

Non-custodial wallet: A wallet controlled only by whoever has the private key; essentially just a small file/program that stores keys and signs transactions.

Custodial wallet: An account on an exchange that controls your assets and stores your funds in its own non-custodial wallets. This allows the exchange to block or seize your funds if you violate its rules or national laws, though the exchange offers more convenient and expanded functionality in return.

Interesting fact: A Bitcoin wallet is not an object inside the blockchain, but a program that stores keys and signs transactions.

The blockchain stores UTXOs (Unspent Transaction Outputs). Each UTXO is “locked” by a condition (program), usually tied to an address (practically, a hash of a public key).

To spend a UTXO, the wallet creates a transaction referencing that UTXO as an input and adds a signature. Network nodes verify the signature and the script’s execution. As a result, the old UTXO becomes spent, and the transaction creates new outputs — new UTXOs for the recipients.

A private key is a number. A public key can be calculated if you have the private key, but the reverse is practically impossible (how that’s attacked is discussed later in the “attacks” section). Using a private key, you can sign data, but this signature cannot be forged with a public key. Meanwhile, the public key can verify that the signature was produced by the corresponding private key.

In early versions, the wallet address was the public key. But later, addresses derived as a hash/encoding of the key or script began to be used. This is a crucial point for the section on quantum computer attacks.

Once a transaction is signed, it must be embedded in a block. First, it goes into a general pool of unconfirmed transactions (mempool), where any miner can take it to create a block.

But a transaction can exist only once in the blockchain, so the network can’t allow every miner to create their own block with the same set of transactions and have them all accepted.

Block Header

Each block has a header containing version data, the previous block’s hash, the merkle root (hash of all transactions in the current block), time, bits (mining difficulty), and a nonce.

Here’s an example (block 900K)
• version: 0x20aba000
• previous block hash: 0000000000000000000196400396be46d0816dc462df4c3450972f589f4d7d24
• merkle root: 0cfb54e522b07bd1a381adc774ec1851590ef4c3add83958135106534569f970
• time (unix): 1749188499 _(2025–06–06 06:41:39 UTC)_
• bits (nBits): 0x17023774
• nonce: 0x925fd07a

All of these fields are combined and then hashed via SHA-256.

SHA-256 is a hashing technology: take some data and turn it into a different set of numbers that you can’t convert back into the original data if you only know the hash. But you _can_ verify it, because for a fixed input X the result is always the same output Y. So knowing X gives you Y; knowing Y does not practically give you X back — even with a quantum computer.

You can try hashing any data here.
SHA-256 is also one of the core tools in the HTTPS connections we use every day, and it plays a key role in hundreds of internet protocols.

The nonce is needed to find out whose block to record. Miners change the nonce so the header’s hash is less than the target. In our example, the hash has 19 zeros.

Finding such a hash is hard. It takes roughly ~10 minutes of the entire Bitcoin network’s mining power. Blocks should appear roughly every 10 minutes — that’s how Satoshi Nakamoto designed it.

Why exactly this many zeros, and how does mining difficulty change?

It’s not actually about the zeros, but about the **target**. The target determines mining difficulty: the smaller the target, the higher the difficulty. A valid block header hash must be ≤ the target. Because small target numbers in hexadecimal start with zeros, hashes often appear with many leading zeros (e.g., ~19 or more). The smaller the target, the rarer it is for a random hash to land below it, so mining becomes harder.

Difficulty Calculation Hack: If the difficulty increases by 16 times, the required threshold becomes 16 times lower— often resulting in one additional leading hex-zero.

Difficulty adjustments (retarget) occur every 2016 blocks (roughly 2 weeks, 1 block ~10 minutes). The blockchain uses a simple formula:

Target_new= target_old*T_act/T_exp, 4Texp

Target_new = new target (new difficulty)
Target_old = old target
T_act = actual time it took to mine the last 2016 blocks
T_exp = expected time for 2016 blocks: 2016*600 seconds (10 min = 600 sec)
4T_exp= The change is limited: difficulty can’t shift more than 4× either way.

If, since the last difficulty retarget, the network’s total hash rate (the combined power of all miners) has increased over the past 2,016 blocks, then with near-certainty the average time to mine a block will decrease. That means the actual time to produce those 2,016 blocks T_act will be less than the expected time T_exp, so T_act/T_exp < 1. As a result, the new target Target_new will go down: and the lower the target, the higher the difficulty and the harder it is to mine.

But what to do if two different miners mine a block at the same time?

That happens,and there’s a safety mechanism for it.

In theory, they can make practically identical blocks if the same transactions in the same order fall into each block. But blocks still won’t be identical because the first transaction in every block is the coinbase (the miner reward), and it pays to the miner’s address — so two miners can’t have the exact same block because their addresses differ.

But it is possible that two miners almost simultaneously mine different blocks. If the delay between the creation of a block and its distribution among nodes is 2 seconds, then this means that after the creation of the first block, there is a two-second gap in which a second block can be created. The longer this time, the higher the probability, but with each year this time is reduced. The probability of creating three blocks is almost negligible, but the protection system is the same.

If two blocks are created, they are saved in nodes, and these two chains are passed further. Miners then choose which block to build on — usually the one they saw first. And when they find the next block for one of the chains, it is distributed further and the nodes agree with it, and the shorter version is forgotten. This is the rule of the longer chain. Even if 2, 3, or more blocks in a row are formed in two chains, sooner or later one branch outpaces the other.

Transactions have 3 probable paths:

1. Fall into the chain that wins, then they remain in the blockchain.
2. Fall into both chains, then only the version in the winning chain remains relevant.
3. Fall into the chain that loses, then they go again into the pools of unconfirmed transactions (more on this below).

A few numbers:

• Approx. probability of a fork given ~1s delay: 0.17%
• A second block on the same competing branch: 0.00028%
• Third: 4.6*10^⁻⁹
• Fourth: 7.7*10^⁻¹²

That’s why exchanges don’t credit your deposit after 1 confirmation. Typically they wait for 6 confirmations — ~1 hour on average (6 blocks × 10 minutes).

There is no limit to the length of the second/third chain because they disappear quickly. Not counting these two cases:

• Reorganization through 53 blocks due to a bug in the software (source).
• Another incident with reorganization through 24 blocks (source).

And there is also the possibility of an attack through a second chain, but about this at the very end.

From this follows the next question:

Since the miner receives a reward for mining a block, what happens when two blocks are mined?

Simple: a miner can spend the reward only after 100 blocks.

If you are a miner and mined block № 1000, you will be able to use the reward for this block only starting from block №1100. This looks like a time-lock transaction, but technically it is not one. I will write about the time-lock technology next time, this is already turning into too much text.

Miners add transactions to the blockchain, receiving a fee for this. And from this follow a few more questions:

Where and for how long are unconfirmed transactions stored, and can a transaction with a zero fee pass in theory?

The fee in Bitcoin depends not on the number of tokens sent in the transaction, but on the size of the transaction and the occupancy of the network at the given moment. After sending your transaction from a non-custodial wallet, it goes to the nearest node(s), these nodes decide based on several characteristics whether to accept your transaction or not:

1. Does it comply with the rules and did you not assign yourself non-existent tokens or something else?
2. Is the specified transaction fee sufficient?

If the answer to one of these questions is no, the node will not take the transaction and it will not fall into the blockchain, and your balance will not change. It turns out that a zero fee, in most cases, will not pass into the blockchain, although theoretically a miner can include such a transaction in a block, it is extremely unlikely.

How does a node assign a fee?

The node has a certain amount of memory where it stores such unconfirmed transactions after receiving them, but until the moment they are recorded in the blockchain.

By default, it is limited to 300 MiB of RAM memory and 336 hours of storage. However, if the blocksonly setting is enabled in Bitcoin-Core 25.0, the RAM memory will be reduced to 5 MiB; this is often done for validating the blockchain.

All these data can be changed when setting up the node, but this is often not done, as for most it would be a simple waste of extra resources.

And what will happen if you send a transaction with the minimum allowable fee?

If the node does not throw it out after adoption due to overflow, and if miners will not take this transaction due of small fee, it will be deleted after 336 hours = 2 weeks.

After the transaction is accepted, nodes distribute it to other nodes, and miners insert transactions with the highest fees into the block.

Considering the limits on transaction size of 400,000 weight units ≈ 100KB (but it could be more with SegWit, but those are already too small details). A maximum of 10 such large transactions can fit into 1 block, and ≈ 10,000 of the smallest. But on average it comes out to 2500 transactions per 1 block.

The fee itself is calculated by the formula: fee (sat) = vsize (vB) * feerate (sat/vB)

• fee = commission.
• vsize = transaction size.
• sat = satoshi, in one Bitcoin there are 100,000,000 satoshis.
• vB = Virtual Byte.

Your wallet can find out the minimum feerate from the nodes, but this is the lower boundary of whether the transaction will be distributed, not a guarantee of its confirmation. To estimate how much you need to pay now, wallets use mempool statistics and confirmation history.

An average transaction weighs 150vB; if at the given moment the average sat/vB = 2, then the transaction will cost 300 sat. And it will cost $0.27.

The highest sat/vB was in April 2024 during the halving and was from 1795 to 2751 sat/vB (source). On that day, an average transaction would have already cost from $160 to $245, depending on how quickly it needed to be processed.

The busier the network, the higher sat/vB. If you want your transaction to get confirmed faster, you set sat/vB above the current average.

Nodes define the fee as: fee = sum(inputs) — sum(outputs), then they look at the transaction size to check if it fits their internal policies.

Don’t forget about UTXO: if over time you received 10 separate incoming transactions, and now you want to send the entire balance in one transaction, the blockchain sees that as 10 inputs — meaning the transaction is larger and therefore more expensive.

To save on fees in the future, it is useful to sometimes do “consolidation” — sending yourself all small remnants in one transaction when the network is calm and sat/vB is minimal.

Returning to the first topic and the block header, the following question may arise:

How does the blockchain know that ~10 minutes passed, and that miners aren’t lying?

The blockchain receives information about the time from miners and nodes (nodes that store information but do not mine) in UTC format.

Miners write the time in the block header. Nodes have their own clocks and verify the median time received from other nodes.

Bitcoin is a closed system, so the blockchain cannot connect to ntp.org to check if the miners are writing the truth in the block header and the nodes or not.

How can the blockchain check if the nodes and especially the miners aren’t lying?

For this, there is MTP — Median Time Past.

Not the average, but precisely the median.

It is calculated from the last 11 blocks arranged in order. For example:

18, 2, 12000 (liar), 14, 6, 20, 10, 4, 16, 12, 8

If we take the average value, then we need to sum all these numbers and divide by 11, we get 1100. Because of the liar who put 12000, everything has changed a lot.

But if we take the median, then first we arrange them in order:

2, 4, 6, 8, 10, 12, 14, 16, 18, 20, 12000 (liar)

And we take the value from the middle, that is, 12. This is how MTP is calculated.

The time of a new block is always greater than the MTP; otherwise, the block will not be accepted by other miners/nodes and will not be inserted into the blockchain.

But if someone wants to go to the future, at what time gap should blocks be rejected?

In the past Bitcoin used NAT — Network Adjusted Time (time adjusted by the network), which compared median time from peers. Later NAT was removed as a consensus component.

Now nodes use their own system UTC time to check how far “into the future” a new block is. If a block’s timestamp is more than 2 hours ahead of a node’s local time, that node rejects it.

If some node’s time differs significantly from other nodes, then NAT warns about it — that’s basically the only remaining use.

Miners and other nodes, how do they differ and why are they needed?

There are 3 main types of nodes in Bitcoin: a full node with two variations (archival and pruned), a light node, and a miner.

The other nodes are superstructures on top of these three pillars of the blockchain.

• Full archival node: a server that has all the information about the blockchain for all time. Validates or rejects blocks in accordance with the rules of the blockchain.
• Full pruned node: also checks blocks but does not store all data, only the UTXO and part of the last blocks.
• Relay node: a superstructure on top of a full node, which is connected to other nodes with a large number of peers for fast distribution of information. Like torrent seeders.
• Light node: stores only block headers to check their hashes. For transactions, it ask information from full node. Great for phone wallets or weak devices where storing dozens/hundreds of GB is inconvenient.
• Miner: takes information from a full node or is one; based on this information, searches for a nonce to produce a valid block, then broadcasts it to the network.

If you need a non-custodial wallet on a PC, then perhaps a full pruned node for this would be the best option. You can choose the one you need here: bitcoin.org/en/choose-your-wallet?step=1

How to hack Bitcoin?

There are many possible attack vectors. If I described all of them, the article would be longer than it already is. But someday I will write. For now, let’s briefly look at two hack variants that are often talked about.

Quantum Computer VS Bitcoin

A quantum computer could derive a private key from a public key — but there’s already partial protection. If you’ve never spent from your address, your wallet is protected because outsiders see only the hash of your public key, not the public key itself.

Even with a quantum computer, it is practically impossible to brute-force the hash of a public key. But after the first outgoing transaction, the public key becomes visible to everyone. Therefore, to protect against quantum attacks, you should use addresses once.

However, there’s still a possible “interception” scenario: if a quantum computer could, after you broadcast a transaction but before it’s confirmed, derive your private key from your revealed public key — it would have very little time, but that’s the idea.

But there are wallets (outputs) of old formats, where the public key is visible immediately, and such wallets can be hacked even if there was not a single transaction from them.

And there are also many “lost” wallets; transactions were made from some, but that was many years ago. And with the help of quantum computers, coins from these wallets will probably fall back into circulation and possibly crash the Bitcoin price. But let’s leave these speculations to analysts who were perfectly described by one satirical channel:

”Last week’s target for Bitcoin at 34 thousand dollars has been revised and now stands at 240 thousand.”

So, a quantum computer will not destroy Bitcoin in this way.

But they are already thinking about creating a reusable quantum-protected wallet. This will require a soft-fork (change of rules), which has been done more than once.

A couple of texts on this topic: BIP 0347 and BIP 360.

51% Attack

If 1 person has more than 51% of the mining power, it will be easy for him to create a second chain of blocks as he wants. In this case, he will be able to cancel transactions and rewrite the history of his spending.

But even in this case, he will not be able in any way to steal someone else’s coins that were never on his wallet. The older the transactions that need to be rewritten, the longer and harder it will be, and there is no 100% guarantee that it will work and he will be able to make his chain longer and faster than the other 49%.

Such an attack is possible even with 30% and 40%, but the probability is much lower.

How much money will be needed for such an attack?
If we attack from scratch, then we essentially have to have a power 0.5% more than the entire power of Bitcoin miners. The hashrate today is approximately 1 ZH/s = 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 SHA-256 hash findings per second.

Modern ASICs (mining devices) have a power of approximately 200 TH/s, meaning 5,000,000 of them will be needed. Their efficiency is ≈ 17–20 J/TH. Multiply by 10⁹ and you get 17–20 GW. A bit less than the power of the largest hydroelectric dam in the world.

To this, we add the prices for the ASICs themselves, which comes out to ≈ $7.5 billion. Not counting extra infrastructure which will also be very expensive.

Even all these costs will lead at most to double spending of own coins in the blockchain and censorship of transactions. And even then, it will be visible to everyone and the price will probably crash and the game will not be worth the candle.

If you are interested in diving deeper into WEB 3.0 technologies, subscribe to my X (x.com/Paolo3Web) where there will be more content, far from always so long, but no less interesting.

Deep Dive into Bitcoin: Answers to the Questions You Rarely Ask was originally published in Coinmonks on Medium, where people are continuing the conversation by highlighting and responding to this story.

On-chain investigator ZachXBT says a $40 million-plus theft from US government crypto seizure wallets may trace back to John Daghita, an alleged threat actor who goes by “Lick,” and a contractor relationship tied to Daghita’s family.

The $40 Million+ Govt Crypto Wallet Robbery

In a Jan. 25 post, ZachXBT pointed to Command Services & Support (CMDSS), describing it as a firm with “an active IT government contract in Virginia,” and alleging it was “awarded a contract to assist the USMS in managing/disposing of seized/forfeited crypto assets.” ZachXBT added: “It still remains unclear at this point how John obtained access from his dad.”

In case you are curious how John Daghita (Lick) was able to steal $40M+ from US government seizure addresses.

John’s dad owns CMDSS, which currently has an active IT government contract in Virginia.

CMMDS was awarded a contract to assist the USMS in managing/disposing of… https://t.co/lzR2a1aidA pic.twitter.com/PV0IkSuhVy

— ZachXBT (@zachxbt) January 25, 2026

The allegation lands against a backdrop of earlier tracing work published Jan. 23, where ZachXBT linked wallet activity and recorded chats to the same persona. “Meet the threat actor John (Lick), who was caught flexing $23M in a wallet address directly tied to $90M+ in suspected thefts from the US Government in 2024 and multiple other unidentified victims from Nov 2025 to Dec 2025,” ZachXBT wrote.

ZachXBT’s thread centers on a dispute in a Telegram group chat between “John” and another threat actor, Dritan Kapplani Jr., in what the community calls “band for band (b4b)”, an on-the-spot contest to prove who controls more funds. ZachXBT said the interaction was “fully recorded,” and claims the footage includes screen-shared wallet balances and contemporaneous transfers that help establish control.

According to the thread, the recording shows John screen-sharing an Exodus wallet displaying a Tron address holding $2.3 million. In a second segment, ZachXBT said “another $6.7M worth of ETH” moved into an Ethereum address while the argument continued.

3/ In part 1 of the recording Dritan mocks John however John screenshares Exodus Wallet which shows the Tron address below with $2.3M: TMrWCLMS3ibDbKLcnNYhLggohRuLUSoHJg pic.twitter.com/jvcjIVEpaE

— ZachXBT (@zachxbt) January 23, 2026

ZachXBT framed the key evidentiary point as ownership continuity across addresses: “The recording captures that John clearly controls both addresses. Additional addresses can likely be found in the recordings. I then began tracing backwards to verify the source of funds.”

That tracing, ZachXBT said, connects the cluster to a March 2024 transfer of $24.9 million from a US government address tied to the Bitfinex crypto hack seizure. He also claimed $18.5 million “currently sits” at a cited address.

Beyond that 2024 linkage, ZachXBT asserted the primary address he tracked was tied to “$63M+ inflows from suspected victims and government seizure addresses in Q4 2025,” listing multiple transactions and chains, and separately flagged an additional 4.17K ETH ($12.4 million) flow from MEXC into the same cluster.

The Jan. 25 post attempts to explain a potential access path: if CMDSS was involved in US Marshals Service crypto asset management, the question becomes whether contractor-side systems, credentials, or processes provided an opening, intentionally or otherwise. ZachXBT stressed that the exact mechanism remains unknown.

Shortly after the post, ZachXBT said CMDSS’s X account, website, and LinkedIn “were all just deactivated,” and claimed Daghita “began trolling again on Telegram.”

On X, the claims drew sharp reactions from prominent Bitcoin commentators. Nakamoto Inc. CEO David Bailey wrote: “The son of the CEO of the company hired by the US Marshalls to safeguard the nation’s Bitcoin, stole $40m from it and now appears to be running. Treasury must secure the private keys from the Justice Department ASAP before more is stolen.”

Prominent Bitcoin advocate and co-founder of the Satoshi Nakamoto Institute Pierre Rochard framed the situation in national-security terms, posting, “This is a national security crisis,” and urging Congress to pass the BITCOIN Act.

At press time, Bitcoin traded at $87,847.

The cryptocurrency market faced a sharp correction in the early hours of January 26, with BTC erasing its entire monthly progress. After peaking at $97,000 on January 14, Bitcoin slid approximately 10.9% to briefly dip below the $87,000 mark. This volatility has pushed the January return to -0.5%, reflecting a broader “risk-off” sentiment across the digital asset space. The pullback is being attributed largely to rising uncertainty around U.S. government shutdown, alongside broader risk-off sentiment across global markets.The GameFi sector bore the brunt of the sell-off, dropping nearly 5%, led by double-digit losses in Axie Infinity (AXS). While Ethereum fell below $2,900, some assets showed resilience; notably, River (RIVER) surged 30% and Beam (BEAM) rose 19%, suggesting that despite the macro-level decline, specific project catalysts continue to drive isolated pockets of growth.

But what else is happening in crypto news today? Follow our up-to-date live coverage below.

The post [LIVE] Crypto News Today: Latest Updates for Jan. 26, 2026 – BTC Slumps 11% From Monthly High Below $87K Amid Market Wide Slump appeared first on Cryptonews.

Bitcoin dipped under $88,000 as Asia opened to mixed trade, with investors leaning into safety and pushing gold to a record above $5,000 an ounce.

In China, stocks moved in different directions. The Shanghai index rose 0.12%, and China A50 gained 0.49%, while the SZSE Component slid 0.74% and DJ Shanghai eased 0.09%. Hong Kong’s Hang Seng edged up 0.04%.

Gold extended a rally that has reshaped the commodity market. Spot gold rose 1.79% to $5,071.96 an ounce by 0159 GMT after touching $5,085.50 earlier, and US gold futures for February delivery gained 1.79% to $5,068.70.

Market snapshot

• Bitcoin: $87,781, down 1.3%
• Ether: $2,867, down 2.6%
• XRP: $1.89, down 0.6%
• Total crypto market cap: $3.04 trillion, down 1.4%

Greenland Tariff Threat Rolled Back As Trade Risks Linger

Investors have treated the metal as a refuge through shifting policy expectations and geopolitical stress. Prices surged 64% in 2025, and they have gained more than 17% this year, supported by safe-haven demand, expectations of easier US monetary policy, central bank buying and ETF inflows.

President Donald Trump’s trade threats stayed in focus. He abruptly stepped back on Wednesday from threats to impose tariffs on European allies as leverage to seize Greenland, and he said over the weekend he would impose a 100% tariff on Canada if it followed through on a trade deal with China.

He has also threatened to hit French wines and champagnes with 200% tariffs in an apparent effort to pressure French President Emmanuel Macron into joining his “Board of Peace” initiative.

Some observers fear the board could undermine the United Nations’ role as the main global platform for conflict resolution, though Trump has said it will work with the UN.

US Futures Ease After Volatile Week Marked By Trade Risks

Currency markets also turned volatile. The yen jumped to more than a two-month high on speculation that coordinated intervention by US and Japanese authorities could be imminent, and Tokyo’s top currency diplomat left that prospect open while keeping markets guessing.

The yen rose as much as 1.2% to 153.89 per dollar, its strongest since November. The euro hit a four-month high of $1.1898 and was last up 0.4% at $1.18665, as traders trimmed dollar positions ahead of the Federal Reserve meeting and watched for a possible announcement by the Trump administration of a new Fed chairman.

Wall Street faces another busy week after a rocky stretch. US stock index futures fell modestly on Sunday evening as markets braced for the Fed decision on Wednesday and a wave of corporate earnings, after last week’s pullback tied to geopolitical strains and trade uncertainty.

The post Asia Market Open: Bitcoin Dips Under $88K, Gold Hits Record Above $5K As Yen Hits Two-Month Peak appeared first on Cryptonews.