Solana spot exchange-traded funds saw net inflows of over $70 million on November 3, 2025.
The SOL spot ETF inflows hit a new daily high despite the token’s price dip.
Bulls target a flip to $200, but failure could push price to the psychologically important $100 mark.
While Solana price traded lower, exchange-traded funds (ETFs) tied to the token continued to attract significant investor interest.
On November 3, 2025, amid broader market uncertainties, Solana spot ETFs achieved $70 million in net inflows.
The mark was a record-breaking daily high that came as both Bitcoin and Ethereum spot ETFs witnessed notable outflows.
Solana spot ETFs see $70 million in daily inflows
Solana spot ETFs experienced a surge in inflows, reaching a new daily high of $70 million on November 3, 2025.
Meanwhile, the SOL token fell to a low of $166 on Monday and extended its decline to $155 by November 4.
Price declines reflect broader market jitters, possibly influenced by macroeconomic factors, including interest rates.
According to on-chain data, a significant number of bullish bets were liquidated amid the rot.
🚨New: As $SOL dipped below $165, Onchain protocols on Solana recorded $177 million in long positions liquidated, while centralized exchanges saw an additional $153 million worth of positions wiped out. pic.twitter.com/5MS5yTtNBW
Despite the ongoing dip in the price of SOL, the Solana spot ETFs are seeing an influx of capital.
That’s in contrast to the trends observed in Bitcoin and Ethereum ETFs.
On November 3, Bitcoin spot ETFs recorded net outflows of $187 million, marking the fourth consecutive day of capital withdrawal.
Similarly, Ethereum spot ETFs saw $136 million in net outflows, also extending to a fourth straight day.
In comparison, Solana spot ETFs posted $70.05 million in net inflows, with this the fifth consecutive day of positive flows for the top 10 altcoin.
Inflows highlight investor confidence in Solana’s ecosystem.
A higher proportion of the inflows flowed into Bitwise’s BSOL ETF, which accounted for $66.5 million of the total. Grayscale’s GSOL saw $4.90 million.
Overall, US Solana spot ETFs have attracted a total of over $269.2 million in net inflows and over $513 million in net assets.
Solana’s ability to attract funds despite price weakness indicates a maturing investor base that prioritizes long-term potential over short-term fluctuations.
SOL price outlook
As of November 4, 2025, SOL is trading near $161, down 8% in 24 hours.
This comes as bears push it further off its recent high above $200 at the end of October.
Over the past week, the token has declined by about 20%, and by 30% in the past month amid heightened downward pressure.
This short-term downturn extends October’s downturn and threatens to wipe out gains seen between April and September.
At the time, SOL prices jumped from lows of $105 to near $250.
While bullish forecasts see SOL hitting new all-time highs before the end of 2025, cautious expectations indicate a potential retest of lower levels before bulls take control.
Microsoft’s $9.7 billion contract with a Texas miner reveals the new math pushing crypto infrastructure toward AI, and what it means for the networks left behind.
IREN’s November 3 announcement collapses two transactions into a single strategic pivot. The first is a five-year, $9.7 billion cloud services contract with Microsoft, while the second is a $5.8 billion equipment deal with Dell to source Nvidia GB300 systems.
The combined $15.5 billion commitment converts roughly 200 megawatts of critical IT capacity at IREN’s Childress, Texas campus from potential Bitcoin mining infrastructure into contracted GPU hosting for Microsoft’s AI workloads.
IREN plans to scale its Childress AI capacity from 75 megawatts in late 2025 to 200 megawatts by the second half of 2026.
Microsoft included a 20% prepayment, roughly $1.9 billion upfront, signaling urgency around a capacity constraint the company’s CFO flagged as extending at least through mid-2026.
The deal’s structure makes explicit what miners have been calculating quietly. At the current forward hash price, every megawatt dedicated to AI hosting generates roughly $500,000 to $600,000 more in annual gross revenue than the same megawatt hashing Bitcoin.
That margin, an approximately 80% uplift, creates the economic logic driving the most significant infrastructure reallocation in crypto’s history.
The revenue math that broke
Bitcoin mining at 20 joules per terahash efficiency generates approximately $0.79 million per megawatt-hour when the hash price is $43.34 per petahash per day.
Even at $55 per petahash, which requires either sustained Bitcoin price appreciation or fee-spike activity, mining revenue climbs only to $1.00 million per megawatt-year.
AI hosting, by contrast, benchmarks around $1.45 million per megawatt-year based on Core Scientific’s disclosed contracts with CoreWeave. This equates to $8.7 billion in cumulative revenue across approximately 500 megawatts over a 12-year period.
At current hashprice levels, AI hosting generates approximately $500,000 to $650,000 more revenue per megawatt-year than Bitcoin mining at 20 J/TH efficiency.
The crossover point where Bitcoin mining matches AI hosting economics sits between $60 and $70 per petahash per day for a 20 joule-per-terahash fleet.
For the bulk of the mining industry, which runs 20-to-25 joule equipment, the hash price would need to rise 40% to 60% from current levels to make Bitcoin mining as lucrative as contracted GPU hosting.
That scenario requires either a sharp Bitcoin price rally, sustained fee pressure, or a meaningful drop in network hashrate, none of which operators can bank on when Microsoft offers guaranteed, dollar-denominated revenue starting immediately.
Bitcoin mining gross margins at 20 J/TH efficiency fall to break-even when power costs reach approximately $50 per megawatt-hour at the current hashprice.
Why Texas won the bid
IREN’s Childress campus is situated on ERCOT’s grid, where wholesale power prices averaged $27 to $34 per megawatt-hour in 2025.
These numbers are lower than the US national average of nearly $40 and significantly cheaper than those in PJM or other eastern grids, where data center demand drove capacity auction prices to regulatory caps.
Texas benefits from rapid solar and wind expansion, keeping baseline power costs competitive. But ERCOT’s volatility creates additional revenue streams that amplify the economic case for flexible compute infrastructure.
Riot Platforms demonstrated this dynamic in August 2023 when it collected $31.7 million in demand response and curtailment credits by shutting down mining operations during peak pricing events.
The same flexibility applies to AI hosting if contract structures are structured as a pass-through: operators can curtail operations during extreme pricing events, collect ancillary service payments, and resume operations when prices normalize.
PJM’s capacity market tells the other side of the story. Data center demand pushed capacity prices to administrative caps for forward delivery years, signaling constrained supply and multi-year queues for interconnection.
ERCOT operates an energy-only market with no capacity construct, meaning interconnection timelines compress and operators face fewer regulatory hurdles.
IREN’s 750-megawatt campus already has the power infrastructure in place; converting from mining to AI hosting requires swapping ASICs for GPUs and upgrading cooling systems rather than securing new transmission capacity.
The deployment timeline and what happens to miners
Data Center Dynamics flagged IREN’s “Horizon 1” module in the second half of 2025: a 75-megawatt, direct-to-chip liquid-cooled installation designed for Blackwell-class GPUs.
Reports confirmed that the phased deployment will extend through 2026, scaling to approximately 200 megawatts of critical IT load.
That timeline aligns precisely with Microsoft’s mid-2026 capacity crunch, making third-party capacity immediately valuable even if hyperscale buildouts eventually catch up.
The 20% prepayment functions as schedule insurance. Microsoft locks delivery milestones and shares some of the supply-chain risk inherent in sourcing Nvidia’s GB300 systems, which remain supply-constrained.
The prepayment structure suggests Microsoft values certainty over waiting for potentially cheaper capacity in 2027 or 2028.
If IREN’s 200 megawatts represents the leading edge of a broader reallocation, network hashrate growth moderates as capacity exits Bitcoin mining. The network recently surpassed one zettahash per second, reflecting steady increases in difficulty.
Removing even 500 to 1,000 megawatts from the global mining base, a plausible scenario if Core Scientific’s 500 megawatts combines with IREN’s pivot and similar moves from other miners, would slow hashrate growth and provide marginal relief on hash price for remaining operators.
Difficulty adjusts every 2,016 blocks based on actual hashrate. If aggregate network capacity declines or stops growing as quickly, each remaining petahash earns slightly more Bitcoin.
High-efficiency fleets with hash rates below 20 joules per terahash benefit most because their cost structures can sustain lower hash rate levels than older hardware.
Treasury pressure eases for miners that successfully pivot capacity to multi-year, dollar-denominated hosting contracts.
Bitcoin mining revenue fluctuates with price, difficulty, and fee activity; operators with thin balance sheets often face forced selling during downturns to cover fixed costs.
Core Scientific’s 12-year contracts with CoreWeave de-link cash flow from Bitcoin’s spot market, converting volatile revenue into predictable service fees.
IREN’s Microsoft contract achieves the same outcome: financial performance depends on uptime and operational efficiency rather than whether Bitcoin trades at $60,000 or $30,000.
This de-linking has second-order effects on Bitcoin’s spot market. Miners represent a structural source of sell pressure because they must convert some mined coins to fiat to cover electricity and debt service.
Reducing the mining base removes that incremental selling, marginally tightening Bitcoin’s supply-demand balance. If the trend scales to multiple gigawatts over the next 18 months, the cumulative impact on miner-driven selling becomes material.
The risk scenario that reverses the trade
Hash price doesn’t remain static. If Bitcoin’s price rallies sharply while the network’s hashrate growth moderates due to capacity reallocation, the hashprice could climb above $60 per petahash per day and approach levels where mining rivals AI hosting economics.
Add a fee spike from network congestion, and the revenue gap narrows further. Miners who locked capacity into multi-year hosting contracts can’t easily pivot back, since they’ve committed to hardware procurement budgets, site designs, and customer SLAs around GPU infrastructure.
Supply-chain risk sits on the other side. Nvidia’s GB300 systems remain constrained, liquid-cooling components face lead times measured in quarters, and substation work can delay site readiness.
If IREN’s Childress deployment slips beyond mid-2026, the revenue guarantee from Microsoft loses some of its immediate value.
Microsoft needs capacity when its internal constraints bite hardest, not six months later when the company’s own buildouts come online.
Contract structure introduces another variable. The $1.45 million per megawatt-year figure represents service revenue, and margins depend on SLA performance, availability guarantees, and whether power costs pass through cleanly.
Some hosting contracts include take-or-pay power commitments that protect the operator from curtailment losses but cap upside from ancillary services.
Others leave the operator vulnerable to ERCOT’s price fluctuations, creating margin risk if extreme weather drives power costs above pass-through thresholds.
What Microsoft actually bought
IREN and Core Scientific aren’t outliers, but rather the visible edge of a re-optimization playing out across the publicly traded mining sector.
Miners with access to cheap power, ERCOT or similar flexible grids, and existing infrastructure can pitch hyperscalers on capacity that’s faster and cheaper to activate than greenfield data center construction.
The limiting factors are cooling capacity, direct-to-chip liquid cooling requires different infrastructure than air-cooled ASICs, and the ability to secure GPU supply.
What Microsoft bought from IREN wasn’t just 200 megawatts of GPU capacity. It bought delivery certainty during a constraint window when every competitor faces the same bottlenecks.
The prepayment and five-year term signal that hyperscalers value speed and reliability enough to pay premiums over what future capacity might cost.
For miners, this premium represents an arbitrage opportunity: redeploy megawatts toward the higher-revenue use case while the hash price remains suppressed, then reassess when Bitcoin’s next bull cycle or fee environment changes the math.
The trade works until it doesn’t, and the timing of that reversal will determine which operators captured the best years of AI infrastructure scarcity and which ones locked in just before mining economics recovered.
Decred price jumped to highs of $65 before paring gains to a key support level.
Gains came as privacy coins Zcash and Dash also spiked to the defy broader market dump.
DCR could target $100 next after hitting the four-year highs.
As top coins slip to or below key levels, Decred (DCR) and a few others have bucked the trend with notable spikes.
The widespread cryptocurrency market slump has seen Bitcoin, Ethereum, and XRP fall sharply, yet Decred is soaring to heights not witnessed since 2021. All this comes as Zcash and Dash stand out amid the ongoing resurgence of privacy-focused assets.
Decred jumps to 4-year high of $65
Decred’s price exploded more than 150% in 24 hours to touch a four-year peak above $65, with this coming amid a broader crypto downturn.
The breakout follows bulls decisively breaching the resistance of a long-term falling wedge, with $40 a key level that allowed DCR to hit highs of $65.78. While the pattern remains in place on the longer term time frame, a little paring of gains has Decred price near $40 and risking profit taking flip.
What fueled the early Tuesday surge was a staggering increase in trading volume, which skyrocketed over 1,100% to over $172 million. It offered a glimpse of the sharp buyer interest in the coin as privacy coins see traction.
Zcash, Dash also surge
Decred’s gains mirrored a broader revival in the privacy coin sector, where Zcash (ZEC) and Dash (DASH) have recently defied bears. In October, Zcash and Dash both rose to key levels, the ZEC spike seeing the altcoin hit 7-year highs.
While Zcash has been the frontrunner in this pack, privacy coins such as DASH, Railgun, Horizon, Tornado Cash, and Verge have notched gains.
Can Decred price go to $100 next?
What privacy coins’ collective rally speaks to is a market rotation, with assets offering financial anonymity and robust fundamentals attractive.
In this case, Decred stands out for its hybrid proof-of-work and proof-of-stake model, which emphasizes decentralized governance and enhanced security.
The project recently highlighted its privacy credentials, noting non-custodial peer-to-peer mixing with post-quantum encryption. Users can mix coins while staking for untraceable histories and anonymous governance.
Also key is DCR’s finite 21 million coin cap, pointing to a potential supply shock as holdings on exchanges like Binance continue to decline.
Analyst Captain Faibik pointed to a potential spike in DCR price.
While currently trading at $40.24, Decred still has potential for strong upward momentum.
However, bulls have to show they are firmly in control by maintaining support above the $40 level. This could pave the way for further gains, potentially targeting $70 or beyond. Bulls hitting $65 means a fresh rally could bring $100 into play.
On the flipside, $32 and $25 could be key demand reload zones.
Decentralized finance (DeFi) researchers mapped out more than $284 million in stablecoin exposure and outstanding loans linked to Stream Finance, following the protocol’s collapse.
On Tuesday, a detailed post by DeFi group Yields and More (YAM) flagged dozens of lending markets and vaults, including platforms Euler, Silo, Morpho and Gearbox, that held positions connected to Stream’s synthetic assets, which include xUSD, xBTC and xETH.
The data highlighted the extent of the fallout. Exposure loops involving Elixir’s deUSD, Treeve’s scUSD and other assets suggested that at least $284.9 million in overall debt is owed to lenders across various markets. This excludes indirect exposure via secondary vaults and other lending strategies.
According to the post, DeFi funds and curators included TelosC, Elixir, MEV Capital, Varlamore and Re7 Labs. The post showed that TelosC has about $123 million in material exposure, while Elixir lent $68 million to Stream, which is estimated to be 65% of its stablecoin backing.
YAM said more vaults and stables were “likely affected”
Elixir claimed to have contractual redemption rights at $1 per deUSD. However, Stream Finance reportedly said that the repayment must wait until lawyers determine “who is owed what.”
The findings reinforce existing concerns about transparency in the DeFi ecosystem’s high-yield infrastructures.
The protocols involved had layered exposures through lending markets and derivative stablecoins, making it difficult to pinpoint who ultimately bears the losses.
“This is not an extensive list; there likely are more stables/vaults affected, and the information presented here is not guaranteed to be accurate,” YAM wrote.
The exposure map follows Stream Finance’s announcement that it had paused deposits and withdrawals after finding a $93 million loss attributed to an external fund manager.
The project stated that it had employed the services of the law firm Perkins Coie to investigate and recover assets. Still, it did not provide a timeline for resuming its normal operations.
Prior to the announcement, traders noticed unusual delays and discrepancies between the project’s reported total value locked (TVL) and figures listed by aggregator DefiLlama.
After the announcement, Staked Stream USD (xUSD) quickly depegged to about $0.50, striking fear among users. At the time of writing, CoinGecko data indicated that the asset was trading at $0.33.
The onchain transactions of the exploiter behind the $116 million Balancer hack point to a sophisticated actor and extensive preparation that may have taken months to orchestrate without leaving a trace, according to new onchain analysis.
Blockchain data shows the attacker carefully funded their account using small 0.1 Ether (ETH) deposits from cryptocurrency mixer Tornado Cash to avoid detection.
Conor Grogan, director at Coinbase, said the exploiter had at least 100 ETH stored in Tornado Cash smart contracts, indicating possible links to previous hacks.
“Hacker seems experienced: 1. Seeded account via 100 ETH and 0.1 Tornado Cash deposits. No opsec leaks,” said Grogan in a Monday X post. “Since there were no recent 100 ETH Tornado deposits, likely that exploiter had funds there from previous exploits.”
Grogan noted that users rarely store such large sums in privacy mixers, further suggesting the attacker’s professionalism.
“Our team is working with leading security researchers to understand the issue and will share additional findings and a full post-mortem as soon as possible,” wrote Balancer in its latest X update on Monday.
Balancer exploit was most sophisticated attack of 2025: Cyvers
The Balancer exploit is one of the “most sophisticated attacks we’ve seen this year,” according to Deddy Lavid, co-founder and CEO of blockchain security firm Cyvers:
“The attackers bypassed access control layers to manipulate asset balances directly, a critical failure in operational governance rather than core protocol logic.”
Lavid said the attack demonstrates that static code audits are no longer sufficient. Instead, he called for continuous, real-time monitoring to flag suspicious flows before funds are drained.
Lazarus Group paused illicit activity for months ahead of the $1.4 billion Bybit hack
The infamous North Korean Lazarus Group has also been known for extensive preparations ahead of their biggest hacks.
According to blockchain analytics firm Chainalysis, illicit activity tied to North Korean cyber actors sharply declined after July 1, 2024, despite a surge in attacks earlier that year.
North Korean hacking activity before and after July 1. Source: Chainalysis
The significant slowdown ahead of the Bybit hack signaled that the state-backed hacking group was “regrouping to select new targets,” according to Eric Jardine, Chainalysis cybercrimes research Lead.
“The slowdown that we observed could have been a regrouping to select new targets, probe infrastructure, or it could have been linked to those geopolitical events,” he told Cointelegraph.
It took the Lazarus Group 10 days to launder 100% of the stolen Bybit funds through the decentralized crosschain protocol THORChain, Cointelegraph reported on March 4.
President Donald Trump told 60 Minutes on November 2 that China poses a competitive threat in crypto, warning that “China is getting into it very big right now.”
The claim surfaces a paradox. Beijing banned crypto trading and mining in 2021, yet Trump frames the country as America’s principal rival in digital assets.
The disconnect likely isn’t about secret intelligence or a policy reversal that went unnoticed, but rather about conflating Hong Kong’s licensed market, Beijing’s central bank digital currency ambitions, and gray market stablecoin flows into a single “China” narrative.
The timing matters because Hong Kong’s Securities and Futures Commission announced, during Hong Kong FinTech Week, that it will relax rules allowing licensed virtual asset platforms to tap into global order books and liquidity pools, one day later.
The move deepens Hong Kong’s integration with international crypto markets while the mainland maintains its prohibition.
Trump’s statement, whether intentional or not, captures a real dynamic: “China” operates across multiple crypto fronts simultaneously, just not the ones most people assume.
Mainland ban remains operational
The People’s Bank of China declared all cryptocurrency transactions illegal on September 24, 2021, targeting both peer-to-peer trading and mining operations.
The ban prohibits domestic exchanges, criminalizes facilitation services, and blocks foreign platforms from serving users on the mainland. No major outlet or legal tracker reports a reversal of that framework as of press time.
The ban achieved its immediate goals, which were to drive exchanges offshore, collapse domestic mining operations, and restrict retail access to speculative tokens.
What it didn’t eliminate were the reasons people wanted crypto in the first place: capital mobility, cross-border settlement speed, and distrust of intermediaries.
Those forces relocated to Hong Kong’s licensed regime, moved into over-the-counter stablecoin channels, or found expression in Beijing’s own digital currency project.
Hong Kong as the permissive carve-out
Hong Kong’s regulatory approach runs in the opposite direction. The SFC launched a licensing framework for virtual asset trading platforms in June 2023, granting retail access to approved tokens on compliant exchanges.
By April 2024, Hong Kong had approved spot Bitcoin and Ethereum ETFs, products previously unavailable on the mainland, providing institutional investors with a regulated on-ramp.
The November 3 announcement extends that permissive stance further. Licensed platforms can now link to global liquidity sources rather than operating isolated Hong Kong-only order books.
The change erases a structural disadvantage, namely that Hong Kong’s domestic market alone cannot generate the depth or spreads competitive with Binance or Coinbase.
Connecting to international liquidity transforms licensed Hong Kong platforms into viable alternatives for sophisticated traders seeking regulatory cover without compromising execution quality.
This is the mechanism that makes Trump’s framing coherent even if technically imprecise. When he says “China,” he’s likely bundling a Special Administrative Region with de facto policy autonomy into the same mental category as the mainland.
Hong Kong’s moves, retail access, ETFs, and now global liquidity, create the appearance of “China” advancing in crypto, while Beijing’s trading ban remains in place.
The CBDC layer: digital money, not crypto
Beijing’s e-CNY pilot represents the world’s largest central bank digital currency deployment by transaction volume.
Cumulative transactions exceeded ¥7 trillion by mid-2024, according to reports, spanning retail payments, government disbursements, and corporate settlements.
Hong Kong began accepting e-CNY at local merchants in May 2024, linking the mainland’s digital currency infrastructure to an international financial hub.
The e-CNY functions as programmable state money, centralized, surveilled, and designed to strengthen rather than challenge Beijing’s monetary control.
It shares no philosophical DNA with Bitcoin or decentralized finance. Yet its scale and cross-border extension into Hong Kong contribute to the perception that “China” operates at the frontier of digital assets.
Trump’s remarks conflate this state-issued digital money with permissionless crypto, but the confusion tracks a genuine reality. China commands the most advanced retail CBDC in production, giving it credibility when claiming leadership in digital finance even as it bans decentralized alternatives.
Chinese regulators are studying offshore yuan-backed stablecoins issued through Hong Kong, aiming to capture cross-border settlement flows currently dominated by dollar-pegged tokens, according to reports from last year.
The proposal would let Beijing maintain capital controls on the mainland while offering exporters a compliant digital settlement tool abroad.
Gray market stablecoin adoption and hashrate
Enforcement gaps and economic incentives created a parallel system. Chinese exporters are increasingly accepting USDT for cross-border payments, thereby bypassing the slow process of bank transfers and capital controls.
The adoption isn’t centrally coordinated, but it’s widespread enough that Beijing can’t ignore it.
Stablecoin flows also increased in Russia-China trade channels as Western sanctions complicated traditional banking rails, making digital dollars a settlement layer for transactions that the formal financial system struggles to process.
This over-the-counter activity explains why the statement “China is big into crypto” feels true to traders and businesses, even when mainland retail trading remains banned.
The distinction between prohibited speculation and tolerated commercial usage creates space for stablecoins to function as infrastructure rather than investment assets.
Beijing hasn’t legalized this activity, but it hasn’t stamped it out either, creating a calculated ambiguity that allows cross-border commerce to continue. At the same time, the state studies how to channel those flows into manageable instruments.
Additionally, China’s hashrate didn’t fall to zero after the 2021 mining crackdown. Cambridge’s mining map indicates ongoing activity, likely stemming from operations that relocated to remote provinces or transferred hardware abroad while maintaining Chinese ownership.
More importantly, Chinese firms continue to manufacture the equipment that secures global cryptocurrency networks.
Bitmain, the dominant ASIC producer, operates out of Beijing and continues to expand its manufacturing capacity in Southeast Asia and North America.
Even if no Bitcoin mining were to occur in China, the country would remain deeply embedded in crypto infrastructure through its hardware supply chains.
Trump says ‘China is big into crypto’: what it likely means
Trump’s statement (probably) doesn’t reflect a mainland policy reversal or undisclosed intelligence. It reflects a strategic reality more complex than binary narratives allow.
The “China is big into crypto” remark collapses several distinct phenomena. Hong Kong’s licensed market is now linked to global liquidity, as Beijing’s over ¥7 trillion CBDC program extends into Hong Kong.
Exporters are settling trade in USDT despite capital controls, and Chinese hardware manufacturers are supplying global mining infrastructure.
The Hong Kong liquidity announcement is significant because it expands the channel through which Chinese capital can access crypto markets legally.
Licensed platforms connecting to Binance or Kraken order books provide mainland investors with offshore pathways that appear less like evasion and more like regulatory arbitrage.
The perception that “China” competes in crypto intensifies not because Beijing lifted its ban but because Hong Kong built a compliant alternative that achieves similar market access through a different legal architecture.
Trump campaigned on making America the crypto capital, framing the issue as a binary competition for primacy.
His remarks treat China as a unitary actor, when in reality, the country involves jurisdictional splits, state versus private initiatives, and retail bans coexisting with institutional access.
Yet the core concern holds: China maintains multiple positions in crypto despite its domestic prohibition.
The competitive landscape Trump describes exists, but it doesn’t take the form most assume.
The mainland ban remains intact. The threat originates from Hong Kong’s licensed alternative, Beijing’s CBDC infrastructure, and exporters utilizing stablecoins, rather than from a sudden Chinese adoption of decentralized finance.
What Trump called “getting into it very big” is less a policy shift than a recognition that China found ways to participate in crypto markets without legalizing the activity its regulators fear most, which is uncontrolled retail speculation in permissionless assets.
Bitcoin price is down 17% from its all-time high on Tuesday, dropping under $104,000.
Crypto liquidations totaled $1.3 billion in losses over the past 24 hours.
Traders say Bitcoin needs to quickly reclaim $105,000 to avoid a deeper correction toward $100,000.
Bitcoin (BTC) bears extended the sell-side activity into the European Trading session on Tuesday as the drop to $104,000 resulted in a large liquidation of leveraged positions across the crypto market.
BTC price fell as low as $104,130 on Tuesday, reversing Sunday’s spike to $111,000 as derivatives traders adopted a risk-off stance.
This extended the deviation from the Oct. 6 all-time high of $126,000 to 17% and was accompanied by massive liquidations across the derivatives market.
More than $1.21 billion in long positions were liquidated, with Bitcoin accounting for $377 million of that total. Ether (ETH) followed with $316.6 million in long liquidations.
Across the board, a total of $1.36 billion was wiped out of the market in short and long positions, as shown in the figure below.
The single biggest liquidation occurred on HTX, where a $47.87 million BTC-USDT long position was closed.
Large clusters of long liquidations can signal capitulation and potential short-term bottoms, while heavy short wipeouts may precede local tops as momentum flips.
Additional data from CoinGlass showed a 4% drop in Bitcoin’s futures open interest (OI) over the last 24 hours across all exchanges. The decline was more pronounced on the Chicago Mercantile Exchange, whose Bitcoin OI has fallen by 9% over the last 24 hours.
CME #Bitcoin open interest decreased by -9.39% in the past 24 hours.
Even though futures longs (buyers) and shorts (sellers) are always matched, declining OI suggests reduced leverage and market participation, potentially signaling weaker bullish sentiment.
For example, a 10% decrease in OI between Sept. 19 and Sept. 28 was accompanied by an 8% drop in BTC price.
“After a bunch of attempts, bears have finally forced their Bitcoin breakdown,” said popular trader Jelle in a Tuesday post on X.
According to Jelle, Bitcoin was required to reclaim the $105,000-$107,000 zone to avoid a deeper correction toward $100,000.
“The next area of support is $100K.”
BTC/USD daily chart. Source: Jelle
Bitcoin trader AlphaBTC stated that a daily candlestick close below yesterday’s low, around $105,300, could trigger a fresh downward leg below the $100,000 psychological level.
As Cointelegraph reported, bulls are expected to defend the $100,000 level aggressively, as a break below it may plunge Bitcoin into a new downtrend.
This article does not contain investment advice or recommendations. Every investment and trading move involves risk, and readers should conduct their own research when making a decision.
The company will issue 3.5 million STRE shares, each priced at €100 ($115).
Investors will receive a 10% annual dividend, paid quarterly beginning 31 December.
Strategy currently holds 641,205 BTC, valued at approximately $47.49 billion.
Strategy, the crypto treasury company known for its methodical accumulation of Bitcoin, has unveiled plans for a euro-denominated perpetual stock under the ticker STRE.
The initial public offering (IPO) signals a refined integration of traditional capital markets with the Bitcoin economy.
Strategy’s latest move extends its long-term model of raising capital through equity and debt to expand its Bitcoin reserves, consolidating its position as the largest corporate holder of the asset.
Euro-denominated IPO targets professional investors
The company plans to issue 3.5 million shares of STRE, each priced at €100 ($115), with a 10% cumulative annual dividend payable quarterly from 31 December.
Proceeds will be used to acquire additional Bitcoin (BTC), currently trading at $104,603, and for general corporate purposes.
Strategy stated that the shares will be available only to qualified investors in the EU and UK, excluding retail participants.
The structure reflects the company’s preference for institutional capital and adherence to regulated financial frameworks while maintaining exposure to digital assets.
Refining the Bitcoin corporate treasury model
Founded by Michael Saylor, Strategy adopted its Bitcoin-first balance sheet model in mid-2020.
The company raises capital through market instruments, converts it into Bitcoin, and holds the cryptocurrency as a strategic reserve.
This approach has made Strategy the largest Bitcoin-holding public company, with 641,205 BTC worth about $47.49 billion.
Earlier in November, it added 397 BTC to its holdings as part of its ongoing acquisition plan.
Saylor’s framework has influenced a wave of similar corporate treasury models, with firms issuing equity or credit to build crypto reserves.
Many now hold Bitcoin and Ether (ETH), trading at $3,502, as balance sheet assets.
Together, these companies have raised billions, indicating a shift in how institutions view cryptocurrencies: not as speculative bets, but as reserve assets with long-term strategic value.
Market competition and acquisition restraint
Analysts have warned that the rapid growth of the crypto treasury sector could lead to consolidation as new entrants compete for investor capital.
Some expect companies to acquire rivals to preserve scale and relevance.
However, Strategy has confirmed it will not pursue mergers or acquisitions, even where they might appear beneficial.
The firm intends to expand organically, focusing on disciplined balance sheet growth and direct communication with investors.
This stance separates Strategy from its peers. While others diversify or seek acquisitions, it remains committed to a singular mission of strengthening its Bitcoin position.
The company’s discipline and transparency have become central to its investor relations strategy.
Major banks back the offering
The IPO will be managed by global financial institutions including Barclays, Morgan Stanley, Moelis, and TD Securities.
Their participation underscores growing confidence among traditional finance players in Bitcoin-linked products.
The STRE stock represents a rare hybrid between fixed income and digital asset exposure.
It offers predictable returns while channelling proceeds into Bitcoin, effectively linking the traditional yield-seeking investor base with the cryptocurrency ecosystem.
As institutional participation in Bitcoin deepens, Strategy’s euro-based IPO may define a new template for corporate finance.
The company’s ability to merge compliance-driven capital markets with a decentralised asset base demonstrates how digital currencies are being absorbed into the core of global finance.
The bankruptcy estate of defunct crypto exchange FTX has abandoned a motion seeking to limit creditor distributions to “potentially restricted foreign jurisdictions.”
The FTX Recovery Trust on Monday filed a notice withdrawing its motion for entry of an order in support of the confirmed plan authorizing it to implement restricted jurisdiction procedures in potentially restricted foreign jurisdictions like China.
“If and when the FTX Recovery Trust seeks to renew the relief requested in the Motion, the FTX Recovery Trust shall file a motion and provide notice in accordance with the applicable rules,” the notice states, adding that the motion has been withdrawn without prejudice.
The trust filed the motion in early July, seeking the court’s authorization to freeze payouts to creditors in 49 countries such as China, Saudi Arabia, Russia and Ukraine, citing unclear or restrictive local crypto laws.
Do not celebrate too early, creditor warns
The withdrawal is a significant win for affected FTX creditors, but some say it’s too early to celebrate.
“This is a victory for all potentially affected creditors. But until you receive the compensation you’re owed, stay vigilant and keep acting together,” Weiwei Ji, a creditor known as Will on X, wrote in a post on Tuesday.
The estate’s decision to withdraw the motion came after intense pushback from creditors, with at least 70 objections filed in bankruptcy court within weeks of the motion’s submission.
Amid the objections in July, Ji warned that court approval of the FTX estate’s motion regarding restricted countries could have set a standard for future crypto bankruptcies.
“This motion isn’t just about FTX creditors. It sets a dangerous precedent that could destroy trust in the global crypto ecosystem,” he wrote at the time.
Its stablecoin, Staked Stream USD (XUSD), has fallen to $0.2975, according to CoinGecko data.
The depegging followed a $100 million exploit on Balancer, an automated market maker.
Stream Finance also faced questions about TVL discrepancies with DefiLlama’s figures.
Stream Finance, a decentralised finance (DeFi) platform specialising in yield-generating strategies, has paused all deposits and withdrawals after an external fund manager reported a $93 million loss in its managed assets.
The incident has triggered scrutiny across the DeFi ecosystem, raising questions about risk exposure and transparency among platforms offering high yields through complex strategies.
The Stream Finance team confirmed the loss in an X post on Monday, saying the fund manager disclosed it a day earlier.
The project has since hired lawyers from Perkins Coie to conduct an independent investigation into the matter.
Withdrawals suspended as Stream moves to recover assets
According to Stream Finance, it is currently withdrawing all liquid assets and expects the process to be completed soon.
The team stated that periodic updates will follow as more information becomes available.
While the investigation continues, the platform has suspended withdrawals and stopped processing any pending deposits, effectively freezing user funds until clarity is reached.
Stream Finance’s statement on X read, “We are actively withdrawing all liquid assets and expect this process to be completed in the near term.”
The platform said users would be kept informed through regular updates.
Stream stablecoin XUSD loses peg
Stream Finance operates as a “recursive looping” yield-focused protocol, and it also issues a collateralised stablecoin called Staked Stream USD (XUSD).
Before the team’s public announcement, XUSD had already started to depeg from its $1 target, signalling growing concern among users.
On Sunday, community members noticed that deposits and withdrawals had been paused without prior communication from the team.
As speculation intensified, XUSD slipped below its target range, plunging to as low as $0.51, according to CoinGecko data.
At the time of writing, XUSD is currently priced at $0.2975 and is down by 76.4% in the last 24 hours, marking one of the steepest single-day declines among stablecoins this year.
Omer Goldberg, founder of Labs, posted on X roughly 10 hours before Stream Finance’s official statement that XUSD had begun to depeg “materially below its target range.”
Goldberg linked the event to an over $100 million exploit on Balancer, an automated market maker platform.
The timing between the Balancer exploit and Stream Finance’s reported loss has prompted market observers to draw parallels between liquidity management vulnerabilities and asset exposure risks across DeFi platforms.
TVL discrepancies add to transparency concerns
On Friday, prior to the loss announcement, Stream Finance addressed community concerns regarding discrepancies between its total value locked (TVL) figures displayed on its website and those reported by DefiLlama.
Stream Finance explained on X that DefiLlama excluded recursive looping from its TVL calculations, stating, “DefiLlama has decided that recursive looping is not TVL per their own definitions.
We disagree with this, but to be transparent to users, the website now makes a distinction between user deposits (~$160M) and total assets deployed across strategies (~$520M).”
This clarification highlighted how variations in data methodology can create uncertainty in assessing DeFi protocol exposure.
Analysts have pointed out that mismatched reporting standards across DeFi platforms can obscure the true level of leverage in yield-generation models.
CoinDCX’s head of DeFi Ecosystem Growth, Minal Thurkal, commented that the case underlines the “critical importance of understanding exactly how protocols generate yield and the significant risks involved in complex DeFi strategies.”
She added that projects diverging from recognised metrics like DefiLlama’s TVL calculations can amplify transparency challenges for users and investors alike.
Broader DeFi implications
The Stream Finance incident comes amid growing regulatory attention to DeFi protocols and stablecoin risk management.
Depegging events, such as XUSD’s recent drop, often erode market confidence and prompt liquidity withdrawals across decentralised platforms.
As DeFi continues to expand beyond early adopters, incidents like this emphasise the fragility of complex yield structures and the urgent need for standardised transparency frameworks.
With Stream Finance’s investigation ongoing, the broader ecosystem will be closely monitoring how the project manages asset recovery and user compensation.
