How Cardano plans to use $30M to bring real liquidity to the network


Cardano is entering a very important phase in its development, as its founding institutions are attempting to deliver the core infrastructure that every major blockchain already treats as standard.

On Nov. 27, a new proposal sought community approval to allocate 70 million ADA tokens (worth about $30 million) to onboard tier-one stablecoins, custody providers, cross-chain bridges, pricing oracles, and institutional analytics.

The effort is backed jointly by Input Output, EMURGO, the Cardano Foundation, Intersect, and the Midnight Foundation, an unusually coordinated coalition for a network often criticized for slow alignment and decentralized drift.

The central message behind this collaboration is unmistakable: Cardano wants to enter 2026 with the economic plumbing it has lacked for years.

Why the Cardano pivot matters

The integrations push arrives at a moment when Cardano’s economic base is still relatively shallow.

For context, DefiLlama data shows that the Charles Hoskinson-led network has about $248 million in TVL and roughly $40 million in stablecoins, as well as a limited pool for lending, liquidity provision, and RWA issuance compared with ecosystems that treat these assets as foundational utilities.

Cardano's DeFi
Screengrab showing Cardano’s key DeFi metrics on Nov. 29, 2025 (Source: DeFiLlama)

In comparison, Ethereum alone carries more than $170 billion in stablecoins, reflecting the scale gap Cardano is trying to close.

So, without deep stablecoin reserves, liquidity pathways, or institutional tooling, Cardano would continue to struggle to generate the network effects that make a blockchain economically relevant.

The network’s fragility came into focus earlier this month when it experienced a brief chain split.

While the disruption was resolved quickly, it intensified scrutiny on Cardano’s operational maturity, particularly its limited real-time analytics, monitoring, and other safeguards expected in institutional-grade environments.

The budget set up for the integration aims to systematize the onboarding of top-tier vendors, including milestones, audits, service-level agreements, and transparent delivery tracking.

So, instead of one-off deals or ad hoc negotiations, supporters say the fund would create a formal, accountable pipeline for onboarding the infrastructure Cardano has historically lacked. Tim Harrison, a director at Input Outputs, said:

“This is the kind of unity and focus that will accelerate growth across DeFi, DePIN and RWA.”

Why these integrations might not be sufficient for Cardano

The integrations push comes after Hoskinson had spoken about what truly limits Cardano’s DeFi growth.

Last month, the Cardano founder acknowledged the network’s DeFi gap but pushed back against the notion that landing USDC, USDT, or other fiat-backed stablecoins would “magically” transform adoption.

According to him:

“No one’s ever made the argument and explained how the existence of one of these larger stablecoins is magically going to make Cardano’s entire DeFi problem go away, make the price go up, massively improve our MAUs, our TVL, and all these other things.”

Instead, he points to a behavioral bottleneck by noting that millions of ADA holders participate in staking and governance, but few make the leap into DeFi. He also added that the network faces coordination and accountability challenges.

Hoskinson argued that this creates a classic chicken-and-egg problem, in which the network’s current low liquidity discourages integrations, and the lack of integrations keeps liquidity low.

Considering this, Hoskinson’s roadmap ties the network DeFi growth to Bitcoin interoperability and the Midnight privacy network. He believes these integrations could channel “billions” in volume into Cardano-native stablecoins and lending protocols if executed well.

That framing matters for the new budget.

If the challenge Cardano is facing is organizational, stemming from fragmented efforts, slow vendor onboarding, and the absence of a structured pathway for stablecoins and custody providers, then a community-mandated integrations program could provide the governance mechanism the ecosystem lacks.

However, even with a coordinated onboarding framework, the budget will only shift outcomes if it ultimately mobilizes passive ADA holders into active liquidity and attracts issuers with market makers willing to support real volume.

The 2026 stress test

Next year will test whether Cardano’s governance and new vendor pipeline can translate its integrations budget into measurable economic growth.

So, if even one major fiat-backed stablecoin arrives with market-maker depth, Cardano’s $40 million stablecoin base could plausibly expand into the low-hundreds-of-millions, a range consistent with early adoption phases on other L1s.

Moreover, Cardano’s $248 million DeFi TVL could reach $500 million if the network secures credible custody and analytics platforms. Notably, this is a level at which lending, RWAs, and liquidity routing begin to compound rather than stall.

Also, bridges, pricing oracles, and institutional wallets remain significant integrations necessary for the network’s growth.

Without them, liquidity will continue to circulate elsewhere. With them, Cardano enters 2026 with the minimum infrastructure required to compete for regulated DeFi pilots, RWA issuance, and BTC–ADA liquidity flows tied to its Bitcoin interoperability roadmap.

Mentioned in this article



Source link

Why Ripple’s RLUSD stablecoin thrives on Ethereum over XRPL


Ripple’s RLUSD stablecoin is rapidly expanding on Ethereum rather than the company’s native XRP Ledger (XRPL).

According to CryptoSlate data, RLUSD’s total circulating supply has surged to $1.26 billion within 12 months of its launch. Of this, roughly $1.03 billion, or 82% of the total supply, resides on Ethereum, while the $235 million balance is on XRPL.

Ripple RLUSD Supply
Graph showing Ripple RLUSD supply on Ethereum and XRPL from November 2024 to November 2025 (Source: DeFiLlama)

These numbers show that the market seems to favor the deep liquidity and composability of the Ethereum Virtual Machine over the more compliance-focused architecture of the XRPL.

Why RLUSD is growing on Ethereum

The primary driver of this disparity is the maturity of the underlying financial stack.

On Ethereum, RLUSD entered an environment where dollar liquidity is already entrenched. Data from DeFiLlama confirms that Ethereum continues to lead all chains in total value locked (TVL) and stablecoin supply, providing a turnkey ecosystem for new assets.

Ethereum DeFiEthereum DeFi
Screengrab showing Ethereum’s key DeFi metrics on Nov. 29, 2025 (Source: DeFiLlama)

So, any new stablecoin that can plug into major DeFi protocols like Aave, Curve, and Uniswap immediately benefits from existing routing engines, collateral frameworks, and risk models.

RLUSD’s presence on Aave and Curve confirms this. The USDC/RLUSD pool on Curve now holds approximately $74 million in liquidity, ranking it among the larger stablecoin pools on the platform.

For institutional treasuries, market makers, and arbitrage desks, this depth is non-negotiable. It ensures low-slippage execution for trades in the tens of millions, facilitating basis trades and yield-farming strategies that drive modern crypto capital markets.

On the other hand, the XRPL is still in the nascent stages of building a DeFi foundation. Its protocol-level automated market maker (AMM) went live only in 2024. So all RLUSD-related pools on the ledger, such as the USD/RLUSD pair created in January 2025, still suffer from shallow depth and limited follow-through.

Moreover, the XRPL AMM design has not yet attracted the liquidity provider density seen in EVM ecosystems.

Consequently, a dollar of RLUSD placed on XRPL presently finds far fewer venues for swaps, leverage, or yield than the same dollar deployed on Ethereum.

RLUSD’s growing user base on Ethereum

Critics might argue that RLUSD’s Ethereum supply is merely “vanity metrics,” large sums minted but sitting idle.

However, a deeper analysis of on-chain transfer data refutes this. RLUSD is showing a genuine product-market fit with Ethereum, characterized by high velocity and recurring usage.

According to Token Terminal, weekly RLUSD transfer volume on Ethereum now averages approximately $1.0 billion, a dramatic increase from the $66 million average seen at the start of the year.

RLUSD Trading VolumeRLUSD Trading Volume
Chart showing RLUSD’s trading volume in 2025 (Source: Token Terminal)

The data shows an apparent structural shift of a steady upward trend through the first half of 2025, followed by a “re-basing” to a significantly higher floor in the second half.

Crucially, recent weeks show activity clustering around this elevated level rather than spiking and reverting. In market structure terms, a rising baseline typically signals a transition from a distribution phase to a utility phase.

This implies that the token is being used in ongoing, recurring flows, such as institutional settlement and commercial payments, rather than isolated speculative events.

Transfer counts support this thesis. Weekly transactions on Ethereum now average 7,000, up from 240 in January.

The fact that transfer counts are rising in parallel with volume is a critical health indicator. If volume were rising while counts remained flat, it would suggest a market dominated by a few whales moving massive sums. Instead, the concurrent rise points to broader participation.

Furthermore, the holder data suggest a healthy dispersion of risk. According to data from Etherscan, Ripple’s RLUSD has attracted roughly 6,400 on-chain holders on Ethereum as of late November 2025, up from just 750 at the start of the year.

RLUSD Holders on EthereumRLUSD Holders on Ethereum
Graph showing the number of RLUSD holders on Ethereum in 2025 (Source: Token Terminal)

While the supply growth has been driven by “chunky” batch issuances rather than drip minting, the holder count has followed a smooth upward curve.

The friction between RLUSD and XRPL

The structural divergence between the two networks explains why the “permissionless” growth loop has favored Ethereum.

On Ethereum, RLUSD functions as a standard ERC-20 token. Wallets, custodians, accounting middleware, and DeFi aggregators are already optimized for this standard.

Once a protocol like Curve “wires in” a token, it becomes part of the standard dollar-pair universe alongside USDC and USDT, accessible to any address without prior authorization.

On the other hand, XRPL’s design choices, while technically robust, impose significantly higher friction on the user.

To hold RLUSD on the native ledger, users generally must maintain an XRP balance to satisfy reserve requirements and configure a specific trustline to the issuer. If the issuer enables the `RequireAuth` setting, which is a feature designed for strict compliance and granular control, accounts must be explicitly allow-listed before they can receive tokens.

So, while Ripple notes that these features appeal to banks that require explicit control, they act as a brake on organic adoption.

Essentially, the compliance tools that make XRPL attractive to regulated entities are the same features that slow down wallet-to-wallet distribution.

In a market where capital seeks the path of least resistance, the operational burden of trustlines renders XRPL less competitive for the high-frequency, automated flows that define DeFi.

RLUSD’s path to growth

Despite the ledger imbalance, the overall trajectory of RLUSD puts Ripple within striking distance of a major market tier.

Token Terminal has stated that Ripple would cement itself as the third-largest stablecoin issuer globally, behind only the incumbents Tether and Circle, if RLLUSD’s market cap were to grow 10x from current levels.

Considering this, RLUSD’s growth depends heavily on whether Ripple can leverage its Ethereum success to eventually jumpstart its native chain.

A base-case projection for the next six months sees RLUSD’s Ethereum supply climb from roughly $1.0 billion to a range of $1.4 billion to $1.7 billion. This assumes that Curve liquidity remains in the $60 million to $100 million band and that CEX and OTC demand continues to grow.

Under this path, XRPL would likely see its pools accumulate more liquidity over time but remain a small fraction of the aggregate issuance.

Meanwhile, a more aggressive “catch-up” scenario for XRPL would require deliberate market intervention. If Ripple or its partners commit to multi-month AMM reward programs and successfully mask trustline configurations behind single-click wallet interfaces, the native ledger could begin to erode Ethereum’s lead.

With these levers, XRPL liquidity could plausibly reach $500 million and claim up to 25% of the total supply.

However, the downside risk for the native ledger is real. If Ethereum cements its lead and the Curve USDC/RLUSD pool expands beyond $150 million, the network effects may become insurmountable. In that scenario, Ethereum could retain 80% to 90% of the supply indefinitely.

For now, Ripple finds itself in a paradoxical position: to succeed in its ambition to become a top-tier stablecoin issuer, it must rely on the infrastructure of its biggest rival.

Mentioned in this article



Source link

Prediction markets are coming to your brokerage



If you open your brokerage this year and a “Markets” tab seems to be sprouting unfamiliar yes/no questions (“Will the Fed cut rates in March?”, “Will a major ETF get approved this quarter?”), you wouldn’t necessarily be hallucinating. The recent regulatory green-light for Polymarket via a cleared path under its newest acquisition of an exchange and its clearinghouse means those kinds of event-contracts might soon appear inside mainstream trading apps.

Meanwhile, a court in Nevada has tightened the lines around what counts as “financial trading” vs. “gambling,” complicating the view on sports or athlete-based markets.

Prediction markets plug into brokerage

Polymarket’s comeback doesn’t arrive on the strength of hype or speculation alone. Earlier this year, the firm acquired QCX LLC and QC Clearing, entities already licensed under the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC). That maneuver laid a firm regulatory foundation for their bold expansion plans.

In September 2025, the CFTC then issued a no-action letter that provided relief to QCX/QC Clearing under certain recordkeeping and reporting exemptions for event contracts. That relief effectively restored a legal avenue for Polymarket to serve US customers under the traditional exchange and clearing framework.

Finally, in late November 2025, Polymarket received an “Amended Order of Designation,” formally permitting it to operate in the US as a regulated exchange. Under this order, brokerages and futures commission merchants (FCMs) can list and clear Polymarket contracts.

That path is critical, as it launches Polymarket from a niche, quasi-black-market website into the orbit of mainstream finance, meaning familiar apps your friends use for stocks or ETFs could theoretically integrate these event-based bets.

Brokers won’t need to build entirely new infrastructure to enable the well-loved and frequently-used prediction markets we know in crypto; they just tap into existing derivatives clearing and custody rails. It slots into what’s already there for everything from user experience to back-office plumbing. For someone casually checking markets, including portfolio values, yield products, and crypto quotes, a binary prediction contract could soon appear as just another instrument.

Betting or hedging? The fine, fine, fine shifting line

That said, not all event markets travel the same regulatory terrain. Federal approval doesn’t equal universal acceptance. A freshly issued ruling from a judge in Nevada has cast a sharp shadow over sports- or athlete-based prediction contracts, even on platforms run by federally regulated exchanges such as Kalshi.

In a November 2025 decision, US District Judge Andrew Gordon found that sports-outcome contracts are not “swaps” under the federal law that governs derivatives (the “Commodity Exchange Act”). That means they fall outside the CFTC’s regulatory domain, exposing them instead to state gambling laws, even if offered through a CFTC-designated exchange.

One consequence of that is that the Nevada Gaming Control Board (NGCB) has clearly stated that sports event contracts constitute wagering activity under state law, regardless of whether a platform is federally registered.

That disconnect splits prediction markets into two broad classes:
Macro, political, financial-policy bets (rates, CPI, earnings, elections): These retain a good claim to federal oversight and may flow through brokerages generally unimpeded.

Sports, prop bets, athlete outcomes: These run into a patchwork of state gambling regimes. States such as Nevada may block their availability entirely or subject them to licensing requirements that many prediction platforms may not satisfy.

So even as Polymarket readies its relaunch, what appears in your brokerage might depend heavily on your state.

What this means if you trade on your phone

You might soon scroll past “Stocks,” “Crypto,” and “Options,” and find binary yes/no contracts on macroeconomic events (e.g., rate decisions, inflation surprises), earnings beats, or even political outcomes.

These differ from traditional options as payout is all-or-nothing (or fixed fraction), with clearly defined maximum loss (the amount invested), but possibly higher take-rates by the platform.
Liquidity could be thin, especially early on, and price swings may feel jumpier than a well-traded stock or even a popular option.

If you live in a state that deems “sports/event contracts = gambling,” such instruments might be geofenced or blocked entirely. Brokerages and FCM partners may need to implement KYC/AML, suitability checks, and state-level compliance.

The outlook: steady bets, fractured states

What could success look like for Polymarket and other event-contract platforms?

If enough brokerages integrate via QCX/QC Clearing rails, and focus remains on macro, policy, or finance events rather than sports or prop bets, the model might flourish. Election cycles, central-bank decisions, regulatory headlines, and macro inflection points naturally generate demand for binary outcome bets. People want to hedge uncertainty or stake conviction, and binary contracts meet that itch cleanly.

Yet the fractured legal landscape remains a wildcard. Nevada’s ruling may embolden other states to assert even more jurisdiction over sports-outcome contracts. That would force platforms to design around state-by-state restrictions, geofence certain event categories, or build compliance, rather than assume universal access.

Meanwhile, traditional bookmakers and sportsbooks might not cede ground easily. From their perspective, prediction markets represent competitive pressure on sports-betting revenue. A regulatory or legal pushback could win favor with incumbent stakeholders.

For casual users, especially those who log into their brokerage app without much fanfare, event contracts could become a new frontier: a hybrid between market speculation and betting. The financial-market rails offer structure, limits, and clearing. The state-by-state overlay imposes hurdles, especially around sports. What emerges might be a narrow but growing corridor, where macro and political wagers are delivered through familiar apps, while more controversial sports or props stay fringe or blocked.

When you tap “Markets” in your brokerage app and see a binary contract on “Will the central bank raise rates next meeting?,” it might no longer be a fringe novelty. It could be part of an expanding offering that’s shaped by federal rulings, strategic acquisitions, and shifting regulatory boundaries.

Mentioned in this article



Source link

Polymarket war bets collide with the maps civilians use to survive


The first thing many Ukrainians check in the morning is not Instagram or email, it is a war map. DeepStateMap.Live, a volunteer-built OSINT project, shows which villages are under occupation, where Ukrainian advances hold, and where the front looks fragile. It’s a survival tool as much as a news product, funded by donations and backed by a cooperation agreement with the Ministry of Defense to keep its view of the battlefield accurate.

Now imagine that same map, draped over a glossy 3D globe called PolyGlobe, with little icons marking Polymarket contracts like “Will Russia capture Huliaipole by December 31?” When you hover over the bet, the exact neighborhood lights up. The area where someone’s parents live is the area where someone else has “Yes” odds priced to three decimal places.

That’s the dichotomy this story lives in: a wartime public good on one side, and a crypto prediction platform with real-money wagers on captured towns on the other.

In late November, a Ukrainian tech outlet reported that Pentagon Pizza Watch, the pseudonymous team behind PolyGlobe, had integrated DeepState’s API directly into its war-betting dashboard without permission. The map, the article said, was being pulled into a Polymarket visualization tool so that traders could see shaded control zones, unit icons, and attack arrows directly under their war bets, a “first-of-its-kind OSINT market tracker” built on top of someone else’s wartime infrastructure.

polymarket bets polyglobe ukraine war bets
Screengrab of the Polyglobe website showing an interactive world map with live locations for open bets on Polymarket on Nov. 28, 2025 (Source: Poly.globe)

DeepState UA, the group behind the map, reacted within hours. In a public statement relayed through local media and social channels, they said they had never authorized any betting service to plug into DeepStateMap and called the use of their work in war gambling unacceptable, adding that third parties were probably accessing the data through a free API intended for humanitarian and military needs or via scrapers.

Pentagon Pizza Watch apologized and removed the integration, claiming they assumed a public endpoint was fair game. While relatively brief, the issue opened a deeper question that goes well beyond one plugin: what happens to open wartime tools when crypto markets start treating them as raw material for bets, while both Ukrainian and Russian families bury the dead from drone strikes and artillery fire?

When the frontline becomes a futures contract

Polymarket has leaned hard into geopolitical and war markets. According to reporting from dev.ua, in November, there were roughly 100 active contracts tied to the Russia–Ukraine war, from whether Russian troops would capture Pokrovsk or Myrnohrad by year’s end to when a ceasefire might finally hold, with about 97 active war bets and nearly $96.8 million in volume. A trader clicking into these markets finds language that looks more like a rules appendix than a forum about human lives.

In multiple contracts, Polymarket explicitly names the Institute for the Study of War’s interactive Ukraine map as the primary resolution source and DeepStateMap.Live as a backup if ISW becomes unavailable. If both maps go offline, the plan is to fall back to a “consensus of credible reporting.” In other words, the frontline map millions of Ukrainians use to understand whether their village is under occupation is written into the fine print of an on-chain casino as a kind of oracle of record.

Supporters of prediction markets will say this is the point. Their pitch is that you crowdsource probabilities from people willing to put money on the line, the markets digest all available information, including live OSINT feeds, and what comes out is a cleaner read on the future than any political pundit can deliver. For long-term macro questions or election odds, that argument at least fits the usual “wisdom of crowds” story.

But war is a different category. Someone checking Polymarket to see if a ceasefire has a 5% or 10% price this month is consuming a financial product. Someone checking DeepStateMap to see whether Russian artillery is near their town is trying to decide if they can drive their kids to school, just as someone in Kursk or Belgorod is trying to figure out whether Ukrainian drones are going to hit a fuel depot near their apartment.

This is a conflict that has already left tens of thousands of civilians dead. Different sources report different numbers, but the consensus is that there are more than 50,000 recorded civilian casualties in Ukraine alone, and likely well over a million soldiers on both sides killed or wounded. One side of the market is taking risks voluntarily, while the other is exposed to violence forcefully. When the two collapse into the same stack of tools, some of the distance that normally separates speculation from real-world harm disappears.

The PolyGlobe integration pushed that logic to its natural endpoint. The dev.ua report quotes the Pentagon Pizza Watch team saying that geographic war markets “constantly confuse people,” and that draping DeepState’s map over their globe would clear that up by letting users hover over a region and see “the exact area of the transaction where it is being resolved.” No more quibbling over whether a station really counts as “captured,” just zoom in and watch the map repaint in near-real time as troops move. It’s a neat little UX trick for a trader, and a stomach-turning one if that shaded district happens to be where someone you know is serving.

russia ukraine polymarket betsrussia ukraine polymarket bets
Screengrab of all open Polymarket’s bets on Russia capturing various Ukrainian regions on Nov. 28, 2025 (Source: Polymarket)

To be clear, Polymarket didn’t write the PolyGlobe code and never claimed to be scraping DeepState’s API. Its war markets, though, sit at the center of an orbit of tools and plugins that are, and the platform sets the basic incentive structure that makes those tools profitable.

When a third-party dashboard wraps humanitarian OSINT around Polymarket markets, it’s doing so to increase trading volume, attract more users, and make the gambling smoother for people speculating on the capture of Ukrainian towns or the fall of another Russian-held village.

That’s not an accidental side effect of an innocent tool, just the business model doing exactly what it was designed to do.

When public goods meet private odds

DeepStateMap is a high-traffic, high-stakes information source: by early 2024, the map had been viewed more than a billion times, with daily traffic in the hundreds of thousands, and its team works with the Ukrainian military to cross-check frontline information so civilians and soldiers can see where the fighting actually is.

While most of the focus is on Ukrainian territory, the same war has brought drone and missile attacks to border regions in Russia, Crimea, and the Black Sea, killing and injuring civilians there as well; the UN has documented hundreds of civilian casualties in Western Russia and occupied Crimea linked to this conflict, even without full access to Russian-controlled areas.

It’s funded by a mix of donations and government support, and its API is intentionally oriented toward humanitarian uses, journalists, and civil defense. When DeepState UA says that “systematic attempts at unauthorized use” are forcing them to tighten API access, move to individualized keys, and spend time on intellectual property enforcement, they aren’t only talking about the annoyance of a scrape.

Every hour spent policing degens is an hour not spent improving the map, hardening it against DDoS, or building better overlays for air raid patterns and artillery range on either side of the border. It pushes a volunteer-heavy team into gatekeeping mode, reviewing requests and yanking keys, instead of treating their data as a shared public utility.

The bigger risk here is that, under enough abuse, projects like DeepState conclude that open endpoints are more trouble than they are worth. They can lock the API behind closed partnerships, slow down refresh rates, or degrade granularity in the public version. That might be rational self-defense for the team, but it looks very different if you are an NGO field worker, a local journalist, or a family trying to make route decisions based on where the front appears to be.

Polymarket’s own record doesn’t make this tension easier to swallow. Earlier this year, the platform dealt with a $7 million controversy over a market on whether Donald Trump would secure a mineral deal with Ukraine. The contract settled “Yes” even though no such agreement materialized, after a large holder of UMA governance tokens reportedly used their voting power to push through that outcome. If huge financial stakes can twist a niche geopolitical market about a hypothetical Trump deal, it is not hard to imagine similar games around war contracts that rely on subtle frontline changes.

That doesn’t mean prediction markets have no place in conflict analysis. Academics and policy types have experimented with war-related contracts for years, often inside controlled, low-stakes environments, to gauge expectations about outcomes like peace agreements or sanctions.

The Polymarket version of this is different in at least two ways: the money is big, with almost $100 million traded across Russian–Ukrainian war markets in a single month according to Ukrainian press, and the experience has been tuned for retail gamblers. The result is a hybrid product that borrows the language of “information markets” but feels, to the people whose lives sit under those price charts, like a sportsbook, just with better branding.

There is a more basic question hiding underneath all of this. Whose consent matters when turning a public map of a war into infrastructure for financial bets? The company that made it? Ukrainians? Russians?

DeepState UA built its project to help Ukrainians orient themselves in a conflict that has displaced millions and killed tens of thousands of civilians, while Russians are also losing relatives and friends to a war launched in their name that now sends Ukrainian drones toward their homes. The team has made it very clear that they do not want to be part of a wagering economy around territorial loss.

Polymarket and its satellite tools, by contrast, operate from a crypto culture where everything that can be priced will be, and where “degen” is worn as a badge rather than a slur. For one set of communities, war is an existential reality; for the other, it is a volatility source with an RSS feed.

The episode with PolyGlobe will fade from the news cycle. Pentagon Pizza Watch has already taken down the DeepState integration and promised not to touch the data without explicit permission. Polymarket’s war markets will keep trading, with their references to ISW and DeepState sitting in the rulebooks, and a fresh crop of users will keep discovering that they can bet on the fate of towns they have never heard of.

The real question is what gets left behind when prediction markets move from “Who wins the election” to “Who loses their home this quarter,” while Russia keeps firing cruise missiles at Ukrainian apartment blocks and Ukraine keeps launching drones into Russian cities that were once far from any front line.

If humanitarian mapping projects decide that betting platforms are parasitic, the likely move is to retreat: more friction, more locked-down data, fewer open feeds. That may frustrate degens, but they will find something else to gamble on. The people who cannot route around that withdrawal are the civilians who depend on clean, fast, open intelligence to navigate their days in their war-forsaken towns.

War betting defenders will say that markets only mirror reality, that odds on a ceasefire or a breakthrough in Donbass are just numbers. But those numbers are painted over their real places where real people live, and every bet written against that backdrop feels like one more small cut to the fragile trust that keeps civilians sharing information and volunteers updating maps. The dark side of Polymarket’s war games is the slow corrosion of a digital commons created to help people survive a war, now forced to spend its time protecting itself from those who would turn that war into a game.

Mentioned in this article



Source link

Ardoino on building rails that won’t snap



When crypto sells off, the market doesn’t so much walk down the stairs as it slips on the first step and discovers there never were any handrails. Everyone knows why: perps are a stadium, options are a side alley, and insurance in a storm is hard to buy.

Paolo Ardoino, the CTO of Bitfinex, knows what the missing handrails are: credit, clearing, margin, and products professional traders actually use when it’s raining. In an exclusive interview with CryptoSlate, he argued that real hedging is a distribution problem masquerading as a philosophy debate.

“If we make sophisticated tools more accessible and connected, institutions can operate with greater efficiency.”

Seatbelts for a market that loves speed

Options are supposed to be the seatbelts of volatile markets, but in the crypto industry, they’ve mostly been decorative. There are, of course, the inevitable bursts of liquidity around expiring strikes, a few large players playing calendar chess. But when the tape turns red, spreads widen, size disappears, and everyone reaches for the exits at once.

The result is the spiral we’ve all become familiar with: protection is scarce, so risk is cut with blunt instruments, which deepens the drawdown, which then makes protection even scarcer. Ardoino’s view is that the fix starts with giving serious desks a familiar toolkit, wired into rails that don’t snap under stress.

“Market makers need advanced tools to hedge and manage risk, and they will gravitate toward platforms that help build a more stable market,” he said.

This is why Bitfinex has been rolling out instruments that speak to how risk is actually managed: not just directional bets, but volatility itself. Volatility perpetuals, contracts that track the forward-looking choppiness of BTC and ETH, are the sort of thing pros reach for when they don’t want to bet on “up or down” but “how wild?”

“Our new offerings, like our BTC and ETH volatility perpetuals, cater specifically to advanced traders who want to hedge or trade around market turbulence.”

He explained that this is exactly what clients wanted during rough markets:

“During periods of market turbulence, the primary needs from our sophisticated clients always revolve around execution reliability and robust risk management tools.”

Bitfinex doesn’t seem to be all talk, as it’s growing its derivatives business where the rules match the experiment. The company relocated Bitfinex Derivatives to El Salvador, a bet on regulatory clarity that, in Ardoino’s words, is less about ideology and more about permission to build boring, useful infrastructure at speed. He told CryptoSlate that policy alignment matters because it anchors long-horizon work:

“Ultimately, for this growth to take off, the market needs the backing of forward-looking jurisdictions. Our move to relocate Bitfinex Derivatives to El Salvador is a prime example of aligning with a regulatory environment that is open to crypto innovation. This clarity supports the long-term goal of building out the necessary institutional infrastructure and serving underserved regions, especially in Latin America.”

A core piece of that plumbing is the “universal account.” In a typical options setup, collateral sits in silos: futures in one bucket, options in another, spot in a third. The risk engine treats these positions separately, so traders over-post margin, withdraw to move funds, and lose precious time during market chaos.

A universal account solves this fragmentation. One wallet funds spot, perps, options, and structured products, and a single risk engine sees offsets across the whole portfolio. Ardoino believes that this is a powerful concept that can fundamentally change capital efficiency by reducing the amount of idle collateral. He explained that it also comes paired with risk-based margining:

“If they can use a universal account with a risk-based margining system like portfolio margin, they are no longer forced to silo excessive collateral for every individual position.”

In his view, the payoff here is market-wide:

“This approach helps improve market maturity. It allows institutional players to hedge more effectively, which in turn leads to a more stable and orderly market overall, benefiting both institutional and retail participants.”

Plumbing, not hype

There’s a reason options participation skews to a small set of venues: onboarding, fragmentation, and the cognitive tax of managing risk across a dozen partial solutions.

Bitfinex’s goal, through its integration with Thalex, is to treat convenience is a liquidity strategy. If traders can route into an options venue without a second round of paperwork, they won’t feel like they’re margin trapped on one island. Distribution and access are the real product here, at least according to Bitfinex’s vision.

Thalex is a dedicated crypto options venue focused on BTC and ETH, built around a low-latency matching engine and portfolio-aware risk. Bitfinex integrated Thalex to give its customers direct access to listed options without separate onboarding. The companies have since announced a merger to bring Thalex’s options stack under the Bitfinex umbrella, aligning accounts, settlement, and risk so that options, perps, and spot can sit behind one set of rails. In practice, that means a single login and a unified margin system across a broader product set.

“Our partnership with Thalex means customers can use their existing accounts and verification, making it more straightforward to access a wider product set,” he explained. The aim is to reduce frictions so capital can commit. “When we offer familiar financial structures adapted for crypto, along with easy accessibility, it lowers the barrier for big, credible market makers to engage.”

While phrases like “stable settlement” and “predictable risk engines” might sound like empty branding, they’re actually what keeps market makers quoting through stress. Ardoino’s repeated emphasis here is on the institutional fit:

“Attracting truly credible balance sheet is about providing a stable, mature, and efficient trading environment.”

The rest follows from shipping what pros need:

“Crypto derivative products, such as stablecoin-settled futures and options instruments, are critical to ensuring a more rounded market.”

The other axis of legitimacy is the US, where listed products have a habit of setting the tone for everyone else. Asked whether US instruments, including CME listings and ETF options, will siphon the flow away from offshore venues, Ardoino flips the frame.

“In a broad sense, US-listed instruments will act as a catalyst. They legitimize the asset class globally, bringing in institutional investors and large pools of capital that were previously on the sidelines.”

And for Bitfinex’s role in that expansion, the strategy is explicit:

“For Bitfinex, the focus is on positioning ourselves as a long-term player that can support the new forms of capital raising and institutional investment this global shift enables.”

What changes if hedging gets easy

Imagine another sell-off like the one we’ve seen last week, but this time with better plumbing. A miner that wants crash insurance can buy puts that actually fill in size, funded against the rest of its book in a single account. A basis desk can lean into skew without sacrificing its inventory to margin silos. A market maker can quote through the shock because its risk engine recognizes offsets instead of punishing them.

None of that will make prices go up, though, but it will make the path down significantly less painful. Wicks shorten when insurance is available at a known price, and forced sellers become optional sellers. If BTC and ETH are going to shake the “cliff dive, dead cat, doom loop” pattern, it starts with a margin system that rewards hedge discipline and a product set that lets traders express risk cleanly.

This is also how options grow from a curiosity to a habit. You probably won’t see venues that win this race for options advertised on crypto arenas. The venues that position themselves at the very top of this market will most likely look like nothing more than basic trading infrastructure. That means being boring about uptime during chaos and opinionated about product design when it counts.

Bitfinex’s roadmap, which now includes volatility products, stablecoin-settled instruments, universal accounts, and regulatory posture tuned for building, looks like an operator’s answer to a trader’s week.

The test is whether market makers answer the call and whether the venue can prove, day after day after day, that execution and risk are handled like a utility, not a casino. Ardoino emphasized again that attracting truly credible balance sheet depends on providing a stable, mature, and efficient trading environment.

So if crypto wants to trade like the asset class it insists it is, this checklist is now long overdue.

Mentioned in this article



Source link

If Bitmain gets hit, what breaks first in the US mining machine?



The US government has opened a security review into Bitmain, the Beijing-based manufacturer that sells most of the world’s Bitcoin mining rigs. A months-long federal investigation, known internally as Operation Red Sunset, has been probing whether Bitmain’s machines can be remotely steered for spying or used to interfere with the American power grid. The question sounds abstract, the kind of thing that belongs in a classified memo. But the answers land in very ordinary places: repair benches in North Dakota, shipping yards in Oklahoma, and the upgrade calendars of every miner who depends on Chinese hardware.

Before you can follow what breaks, you have to understand what Washington is actually doing.

Inside Operation Red Sunset

According to documents reviewed by Bloomberg and people familiar with the matter, Red Sunset has been running across several agencies for roughly two years. Homeland Security is in the lead, with support from the National Security Council. The goal of the investigation is to determine if Bitmain rigs can be controlled from the outside in a way that makes them useful for espionage or sabotage.

Federal agents have already gotten touchy with hardware. Some Bitmain shipments were stopped at US ports and pulled apart on inspection tables, their chips and firmware examined for hidden capabilities. Officials also looked at tariff and import questions, blending security worries with more routine trade enforcement.

In an emailed statement to Bloomberg, the company called it “unequivocally false” to say it can remotely control machines from China, and said it complies with US law and doesn’t engage in activity that threatens national security. It also said it has no awareness of any investigation called Operation Red Sunset and that past detentions of its hardware were tied to Federal Communications Commission concerns, where “nothing out of the ordinary was found.”

Officials are not debating this in a vacuum. A Senate Intelligence Committee report has already flagged Bitmain devices as vulnerable and open to manipulation from China. A few years ago, researchers found Antminer firmware that allowed remote shutdown; Bitmain framed that as an unfinished anti-theft feature and later patched it, but the episode left a mark.

Red Sunset also sits on top of a concrete case. In 2024, the US government forced a Chinese-linked mining operation near a missile base in Wyoming to shut down because of national security risks tied to thousands of rigs at that site. The hardware was similar, the geography far more sensitive.

So the government is looking at Bitmain as more than a vendor. It is treating the company as an infrastructure player that lives close to the grid and sometimes close to strategic locations. That is how you end up with an ASIC manufacturer in the same document set as telecom companies and power equipment.

And all of this is unfolding while Bitmain deepens its ties to a very visible American client.

America’s mining machine is full of Bitmain metal

In March, a small, relatively unknown listed firm announced it would spin out a new Bitcoin mining venture with Eric and Donald Trump Jr. as investors. The new business, called the American Bitcoin Corp, wants to be the “world’s largest, most efficient pure-play Bitcoin miner” and plans to run 76,000 machines across Texas, New York, and Alberta. To get that insane number of miners, it turned to Bitmain.

Corporate filings show American Bitcoin agreed to buy 16,000 Bitmain rigs for $314 million. Instead of paying cash or tapping traditional debt, the company pledged 2,234 BTC to secure the hardware. The structure is unusual enough that a former SEC enforcement attorney told Bloomberg the terms probably belong in more detailed disclosure.

That one deal captures the dependency problem in miniature. A high-profile miner, tied to the president’s family, is staking thousands of Bitcoin and ambitious growth targets on a Chinese supplier that sits inside a national security investigation. Officials already worry that the arrangement creates conflicts of interest for an administration that wants to turn the US into the “crypto capital of the world.”

But, despite the crazy amount of power they want to put into mining Bitcoin, the president’s sons are just a drop in a very, very large sea. Over the last decade, US miners have installed hundreds of thousands of Bitmain units across the country. The business of creating new Bitcoin in North America rests almost entirely on the shoulders of Antminers, powered by chips and code that were never designed with this level of geopolitical heat in mind.

So when you ask what happens “if Bitmain gets hit,” you are really asking what happens when the central vendor in that stack runs into federal policy, not just market risk.

What breaks first if Washington swings

Every serious miner runs a pipeline of dead hardware. Because fans fail, power supplies blow, and hashboards burn. Some of that can be handled in-house, but a large chunk is pushed through authorized repair centers that live inside the Bitmain ecosystem. The company lists overseas and regional repair hubs that cover the US market, with shipping lanes that loop through places like Arkansas, North Dakota, and Oklahoma.

That pipe is very fragile and the most likely to break first. If the US government opts for hard measures, such as putting Bitmain or key affiliates on an entity list or imposing targeted sanctions, the easiest lever to pull is at the border. Spare parts could sit in temporary warehouses until they get to customs for “review.” A process that used to take days could stretch into weeks while lawyers and compliance teams sort through new rules.

For a single mining operation, the effect will show up slowly. Availability would drop a few points as more machines sit dark waiting for parts, and the on-site pile of failed units would continue to grow. Operators with deep pockets will, of course, be able to stockpile spares and hedge with a second vendor. But smaller miners, who bought a few containers of rigs with structured financing and do not have a warehouse full of backup boards, will be the ones to feel real stress real fast.

Next in line would be the headline orders.

If Red Sunset ends with softer measures, such as additional licensing for specific chips or mandatory export reviews, Bitmain might still ship S21 and T21 orders into the US, just on a slower schedule. A miner who expected six-week lead times could easily face three or more months for delivery, plus paperwork. If the outcome is tougher, and Bitmain ends up restricted from supplying certain US buyers, those orders could easily turn from scheduled capacity into open questions.

Because the sector is heavily financed, time wasted is not just time wasted: it’s time plus interest, covenants, and equity guidance. A public miner that has told investors it would reach a certain exahash number by a specific quarter now has to explain why the gear is stuck somewhere between Shenzhen and Houston.

As soon as uncertainty hits the new-machine pipeline, the secondhand market lights up. Older Antminers that were being run down toward retirement suddenly look attractive, as long as their efficiency is not too far off the curve. MicroBT and Canaan, Bitmain’s main competitors, watch their sales teams get very busy very fast.

But they don’t have a magic warehouse full of high-efficiency gear either. They have their own production bottlenecks, chip allocations, and promised deliveries. If US miners try to pivot en masse, lead times on alternative hardware extend as well. Some of that gap will be filled with gray routes, rigs shipped through third countries, or bought from intermediaries that can still access Bitmain stock without tripping US rules.

Three paths from here

From the outside, it’s tempting to think in binary terms: either Bitmain is banned or nothing happens. In practice, there are three broad paths.

In the first, Red Sunset fades quietly. DHS keeps watching, maybe files some internal recommendations, and the government decides that the current industrial security practices, network segmentation, and firmware audits are enough to manage the risk. Bitmain remains politically awkward but commercially available. Miners diversify a bit more into MicroBT and Canaan, yet the basic structure of the US fleet stays intact, and hash rate growth keeps following something close to its current course.

In the second, Bitmain is pushed into a managed box. That could mean formal mitigation agreements where the company has to meet strict firmware attestation standards, submit to third-party audits, and confine certain repair and assembly work to vetted onshore partners. Exports might require extra licenses, and high-risk sites, such as those near sensitive grid infrastructure or military facilities, could face special rules.

That version is annoying rather than catastrophic for miners. Lead times will stretch, legal costs rise, and engineers spend more time proving that their operations meet whatever new security bar Washington sets. Hardware will still flow, of course, just with more friction and a higher all-in cost per installed terahash.

The third path is the one everyone in operations dreads: sanctions or an entity list designation that bites directly into sales, firmware support, and dollar clearing. In that world, Bitmain equipment becomes toxic for regulated US buyers almost overnight. Repair centers struggle to move parts across borders. Software updates are frozen in a legal gray area. Existing fleets can still run, but their owners have to think very hard about how long they want to stay dependent on a vendor that can’t service or upgrade their machines.

Hash rate wouldn’t collapse, because this isn’t not Huawei in the core network. But growth plans would bend. Quite a bit of capacity that was supposed to plug into American grids during the next two quarters would slip or move abroad, and the narrative that Bitcoin mining is becoming a US-heavy, grid-friendly industry would start to look a little thinner.

Why this matters beyond mining Twitter

On the surface, this is a niche story about customs holds, but underneath, it’s a test of how the US treats the physical infrastructure of Bitcoin.

Washington has already decided that mining locations can matter, as Wyoming learned when its Chinese-linked facility near a missile base was shut down. It has a live probe into Bitmain’s hardware, with agents tearing down rigs and lawyers debating whether Chinese-made ASICs should be treated more like telecom gear than gaming cards. And it has a presidential family whose flagship mining venture is tied, by contract, to that same supplier.

If the government backs away or leaves with just a slap on the wrist, the message is that Bitcoin’s industrial layer can live with high scrutiny but still function inside a global hardware market. If it pushes Bitmain into a restricted box, the message is very different. Miners will read it as the start of a broader campaign to localize or at least de-risk key parts of the mining stack.

For everyone else, the stakes sit one abstraction higher. The security budget that protects Bitcoin is paid through these machines. The more expensive, complicated, and politically fraught it becomes to operate them in the US, the more of that budget shifts somewhere else.

The headline question is what breaks first inside the mining machine if Bitmain gets hit. The quieter question is whether the US wants those machines humming along its own power grid or prefers to push them back out into someone else’s backyard.

Mentioned in this article



Source link

$36 million Upbit hack revives the quiet truth about hot-wallet ‘insurance’



When Upbit detected unauthorized withdrawals of roughly $36 million in Solana tokens from a hot wallet on Nov. 27, CEO Oh Kyung-seok went on record within hours. He stated:

“The entire amount will be covered by Upbit’s holdings, with no impact on customer assets.”

Six years earlier, Upbit said the same thing after losing 342,000 ETH, worth around $50 million at the time, to North Korea-linked hackers. Both times, customers saw no losses, and both times, the exchange absorbed the hit from its own treasury.

This is the hot wallet insurance model, where exchanges warehouse counterparty risk so that platform-level breaches don’t haircut users.

The system might have three forms: self-insurance from corporate reserves, dedicated emergency funds like Binance’s SAFU, and third-party crime policies with named limits.

The model has become standard practice at Tier 1 centralized exchanges, turning what would have been Mt. Gox-style insolvencies into operational losses that reopen within days.

But “users don’t lose” doesn’t mean markets don’t react. Even when deposits are ultimately safe, immediacy and liquidity are not. Hacks still freeze withdrawals, collapse order-book depth, widen spreads, and trigger reflexive pullbacks by market-makers.

The insurance model changes who eats the loss and how fast platforms can credibly reopen. It doesn’t erase counterparty risk.

Upbit: self-insurance from hacks as a corporate balance sheet

Upbit’s approach is, in effect, self-insurance with no explicit policy limit. The promise depends entirely on the exchange’s solvency and access to capital.

In both the 2019 Ethereum hack and the 2025 Solana breach, Upbit treated hot-wallet losses as operational expenses absorbed by Dunamu, its parent company.

The 2025 incident moved fast. Around 4:42 a.m. local time, roughly 54 billion won in various tokens from the Solana ecosystem tokens drained to an unknown address.

Upbit froze all Solana deposits and withdrawals, shifted remaining assets to cold storage, and froze a portion of the stolen LAYER tokens on-chain.

The exchange said it was working with projects and law enforcement to freeze even more of them, but the core commitment was immediate: no customer losses.

That commitment is credible because Upbit is large and liquid. But it’s not a statutory guarantee. There is no external insurer backstopping the promise, no deposit insurance scheme, and no formal reserve ratio that regulators audit.

The model works until it doesn’t: until a hack is large enough relative to equity that full reimbursement strains or breaks the balance sheet.

Binance and SAFU: a formalized internal fund

Binance created the Secure Asset Fund for Users in July 2018, diverting about 10% of trading fees into dedicated publicly visible cold wallet addresses.

Binance has repeatedly said SAFU is meant for “unexpected extreme cases” such as major hacks. As of press time, the fund was valued at around $1 billion.

When Binance suffered its May 2019 hot wallet breach, resulting in the loss of 7,000 BTC, it paused withdrawals and announced that all affected accounts would be made whole from SAFU, with no user losses.

Internal figures indicate that only about 2% of total exchange funds are in the compromised hot wallet, making it feasible to socialize the loss across the SAFU pool rather than push it to customers.

SAFU is an internal insurance fund: ring-fenced, pre-funded from fees, with an implicit commitment to cover large platform-level hacks, but it’s not a statutory guarantee.

If a breach exceeded the fund balance and Binance’s equity, customers would take losses. But the public visibility of the fund and the fee-funding mechanism make the promise more transparent than Upbit’s balance-sheet approach.

Crypto.com: mixing self-insurance with third-party cover

On Jan. 17, 2022, Crypto.com detected unauthorized withdrawals on a subset of user accounts and halted all withdrawals for about 14 hours.

Later disclosures put the loss at roughly $34 million in BTC, ETH, and other tokens, affecting 483 accounts. The exchange stressed that “no customers experienced a loss of funds” because it either blocked the unauthorized withdrawals in time or fully reimbursed affected users.

Subsequent communications highlighted a new protection program offering coverage of up to $250,000 per account in the event of certain third-party breaches.

Public reporting notes that exchanges like Crypto.com and Coinbase carry crime policies that pay out if the platform itself is hacked, but not if an individual loses funds due to their own credential compromise.

The distinction matters. Crime policies typically cover platform-wide breaches, insider theft, or fraudulent transfers involving the exchange’s own systems. They do not cover phishing, SIM-swaps, or users losing private keys.

Coverage is finite and conditional, with named limits and exclusions that can leave customers exposed if a breach falls outside policy terms or exceeds the limit.

Third-party policies and captive structures for hacks

Coinbase has long disclosed a crime insurance policy with a $255 million limit on its hot wallet balances, placed through Aon with Lloyd’s syndicates.

The policy is designed to cover platform-wide breaches but explicitly excludes losses from someone compromising an individual user’s login.

Gemini took the captive route, launching “Nakamoto Ltd.” in Bermuda to provide $200 million in coverage for Gemini Custody, topping up what the commercial market would offer.

Newer regulated exchanges now market “100% hot wallet insurance” as a selling point. HashKey Global says user assets are protected by comprehensive insurance, including 100% hot wallet insurance, with 90% kept in cold storage.

The spectrum runs from implicit promises backed only by equity and retained earnings, to ring-fenced internal funds, to formal insurance contracts with named limits and exclusions.

The market is maturing: recent research estimates the crypto exchange hot wallet insurance segment at about $1.4 billion in 2024, with projected growth to roughly $12 billion by 2033 as exchanges, custodians, and regulators push for more formalized loss mitigation.

Markets still react when users don’t lose

Even when users are made whole, hacks change how traders price counterparty risk. Bybit’s February 2025 $1.5 billion hack illustrates this perfectly.

Bitcoin market depth on Bybit collapsed from normal levels to about $100,000 immediately after the incident, then recovered to roughly $13 million by the end of the first quarter, in line with pre-hack conditions.

Spreads widened across BTC and the top 30 altcoins, only to tighten again over several weeks as market-makers returned.

Coinlaw data from November 2025 noted that even a technical KRW transfer suspension on Upbit coincided with an estimated 70% drop in liquidity and a sharp fall in Upbit’s share of global top 10 volumes, highlighting how quickly capital can step back from a single venue.

The pattern is consistent: frozen withdrawals, wider spreads, thinner depth, and a reflexive liquidity provider pullback. Even when deposits are ultimately safe, immediacy is not.

Traders who need to move capital or hedge positions face hours or days of illiquidity. Market-makers who provide depth pull back until they are confident the platform is stable.

What the model does and doesn’t solve

Hot wallet insurance greatly reduces the odds that a single exchange hack wipes out customer coins. It changes who eats the loss and how fast platforms can credibly reopen.

Upbit, Binance, and Crypto.com all absorbed platform-level breaches from reserves or internal funds and reopened within days, avoiding the years-long insolvency proceedings that followed Mt. Gox.

But coverage is finite and conditional. It often applies only to platform-level breaches, not to phishing or SIM swaps.

A sovereign guarantee doesn’t back it, the way bank deposits are. And it does nothing to stop the short-term fallout that actually moves markets: frozen withdrawals, wider spreads, thinner depth, and a reflexive pullback of liquidity.

The lesson is that hot wallet insurance is real and functional, but it’s not deposit insurance. It depends on the exchange’s solvency and liquidity, the adequacy of internal funds or external policies, and the platform’s willingness to honor promises when reserves are tested.

For users, the model means counterparty risk is lower than it was in the Mt. Gox era, but it’s not zero. For markets, it means hacks still dominate headlines and price action even when every customer ends up whole.

Mentioned in this article



Source link

Bitcoin ETFs end brutal November with a late $70M inflow


US-listed Bitcoin ETFs capped their second-heaviest month of redemptions with a rare late-month shift back into positive flows.

According to SoSo Value data, the 12 US-listed spot Bitcoin funds recorded net creation of roughly $70 million in the final days of November, after four weeks of relentless selling pressure that totalled more than $4.3 billion in net outflows.

US Bitcoin ETF Flow
Chart showing the net inflows and outflows for spot Bitcoin ETFs in the US from Oct. 31 to Nov. 28, 2025  (Source: SoSo Value)

Despite the modest nominal reversal, the timing of this brief respite from outflows suggests a critical exhaustion of seller momentum.

Considering this, the market enters December in a fragile equilibrium, caught between a constructive supply shock and a disjointed macroeconomic calendar that threatens to leave policymakers and traders flying blind.

Bitcoin ETFs and their poor November

November served as an actual structural stress test for the mature ETF complex, confirming what the market has long believed: these products are now the unequivocal price-setters for the asset class.

Last month, Bitcoin ETFs recorded $3.48 billion in net outflows, the deepest negative print since February.

The composition of the exit suggests a broad-based tactical retreat rather than a fundamental capitulation.

BlackRock’s IBIT, which is typically the sector’s liquidity vacuum, led the outflows, shedding $2.34 billion. This marks a significant rotation for a fund that has dominated inflows for most of the year.

US Bitcoin ETFs FlowUS Bitcoin ETFs Flow
Chart showing the inflows and outflows for Spot Bitcoin ETFs in 2025 (Source: Trader T)

Fidelity’s FBTC saw $412.5 million in redemptions, while Grayscale’s GBTC continued its slow bleed with $333 million in outflows. Ark Invest’s ARKB and VanEck’s HODL also saw capital flight, recording exits of $205.8 million and $121.9 million, respectively.

Yet, the bearish impulse revealed a silver lining regarding market depth.

Despite a nearly $3.5 billion monthly exit, Bitcoin price action defended the mid-$80,000s, refusing to break market structure to the downside. This resilience implies that while tactical capital retreated to lock in year-to-date gains, underlying demand remained sticky.

Still, the cumulative net inflows for spot Bitcoin ETFs since January 2024 sit at a robust $57.71 billion, and the funds collectively hold approximately $120 billion in assets.

The multiplier effect

The significance of the late-November stabilization is best understood through the mechanics of network issuance, which gives ETFs outsized leverage in price discovery.

Following the 2024 Bitcoin halving, the network’s block subsidy dropped to 3.125 BTC per block, capping daily coin issuance at roughly 450.

At current valuations, this equates to roughly $38 million to $40 million in daily new sell pressure from miners. In this supply-constrained environment, even a “trickle” of ETF inflows can act as a powerful lever.

So, net creations in the $50 million to $100 million daily range are sufficient to absorb the entire daily issuance multiple times over. This means that when flows turn positive, market makers are forced to bid up spot inventory to satisfy creation units, as there is no structural surplus of new coins to dampen the demand.

Conversely, this leverage works against the price during periods of liquidation. The sustained $100 million-plus daily outflows seen throughout November forced issuers to return Bitcoin to the market, requiring liquidity providers to absorb not only the 450 new coins minted daily but also thousands of coins from unwinding ETF baskets.

If the $70 million net inflow seen last week continues, the supply-demand dynamics shift back in favor of price support, removing the artificial supply overhang that defined November.

December’s macro visibility gap

While the internal market structure appears to be healing, the external macro environment presents a unique risk for December.

Bitcoin investors are preparing for an unusual disconnect in the economic calendar as the Federal Reserve’s Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) meets on Dec. 9–10.

Still, the next Consumer Price Index (CPI) reading will not be released until Dec. 18, following the shutdown-related cancellation of October’s data collection.

This sequence creates a “blind flight” scenario. The Federal Reserve will be forced to set the tone for interest rates and update its economic projections without the most critical data point markets use to anchor inflation expectations.

This is a dangerous ambiguity for Bitcoin, which remains highly correlated to global liquidity conditions and real rates.

Market participants will be forced to extrapolate policy intent from guidance rather than hard numbers. A hawkish tilt from Chair Jerome Powell could rapidly tighten financial conditions, especially if it is delivered without the counter-narrative of inflation data.

In a scenario where the Fed signals “higher for longer” to hedge against the missing data, the conditions that drove November’s drawdown could quickly re-emerge, punishing risk assets before the CPI print can validate or refute the central bank’s stance.

Meanwhile, the macro disconnect is further complicated by seasonality.

December liquidity typically thins significantly as hedge funds and institutional desks lock in annual performance and reduce gross exposure heading into the holiday season. In a thin market, order books become shallower, meaning smaller flow numbers can trigger outsized price moves.

Bitcoin ETFs flow equation

Considering the above, market participants are increasingly framing December through flow bands rather than directional price targets, reflecting how tightly ETF activity now anchors Bitcoin’s trading range.

If net creations hold in the $50 million to $100 million band, the complex would absorb roughly 11,500 BTC for every $1 billion in inflows at an $86,800 reference price, equivalent to 25 to 50 times daily issuance.

Flow Band (Daily Net Flows) Monthly Impact BTC Absorption (per $1B inflows at $86,800/BTC) Issuance Multiple Market Implication
+$150M to +$200M +$3B to +$4B ~11,500 BTC per $1B 25x–50x Strong upward pressure; liquidity tightens across venues
+$50M to +$100M +$1B to +$2B ~11,500 BTC per $1B 25x–50x Structural support; ETFs absorb multiples of daily issuance
–$50M to –$150M –$1B to –$3B N/A (net selling) N/A Recreates November’s dynamic; market makers forced to source BTC; elevated volatility
0 to +$50M Flat to +$1B Modest absorption Slightly > issuance Neutral to mildly supportive; stability depends on macro tone
Below –$150M Worse than –$3B N/A N/A Severe liquidity stress; accelerates downside in thin year-end markets

However, a move back into outflows within the $50 million to $150 million zone would recreate November’s pressure, but in a market contending with even thinner year-end liquidity.

In that setting, policy uncertainty and reduced market depth tend to amplify volatility, leaving ETF flows as the dominant force shaping Bitcoin’s direction into the new year.

Mentioned in this article



Source link

Bitcoin drops below $87k on Japan yield shock


Bitcoin price erased recent gains, shedding nearly 5% to below $87,000 in early Asian trading hours on Dec. 1.

This came as a surge in Japanese government bond yields triggered a broad risk-off sentiment, shattering a fragile, low-volume market structure.

According to CryptoSlate data, BTC fell from a consolidation range near $91,000, wiping out approximately $150 billion in total crypto market capitalization.

Bitcoin Price Performance
Screengrab showing Bitcoin’s performance between Nov. 30 and Dec. 1, 2025 (Source: The Kobeissi Letter)

Japan’s carry-trade repricing set the decline in motion, but trading volume data showed that the selloff worsened due to a market running on minimal liquidity

According to 10x Research, the crypto market had just delivered one of its lowest-volume weeks since July, leaving order books dangerously thin and unable to absorb institutional selling pressure.

So, Bitcoin’s decline wasn’t just a reaction to headlines but a structural failure at a key resistance level.

The volume vacuum

Beneath the surface of Bitcoin’s $3.1 trillion market cap, which rose 4% week-over-week, liquidity seems to have evaporated.

Data from 10x Research indicates that average weekly volumes have plummeted to $127 billion. Bitcoin volumes specifically were down 31% at $59.9 billion, while ETH volumes collapsed 43%.

This lack of participation turned what could have been a pretty standard technical correction into a liquidity event.

Timothy Misir, head of research at BRN, told CryptoSlate that this was “not a measured correction.” Instead, he painted it as a “liquidity event driven by positioning and macro repricing.”

He further observed that momentum “abruptly flipped” after a messy November, creating a deep gap lower that flushed leveraged longs. November was Bitcoin’s worst-performing month this year, losing nearly 18% of its value.

Bitcoin Monthly PerformanceBitcoin Monthly Performance
Table showing Bitcoin’s monthly performance since January 2020 (Source: CoinGlass)

As a result, the shallow market depth meant that what might have been a 2% move during a high-volume week turned into a 5% rout during the illiquid weekend window.

A tale of two leverages

The current price decline has led to a significant number of liquidations, with nearly 220,000 crypto traders losing $636.69 million.

Crypto Market LiquidationCrypto Market Liquidation
Screenshot showing crypto market liquidations on Dec. 1, 2025 (Source: CoinGlass)

Still, the selloff also exposed a dangerous divergence in how traders are positioned across the two most significant crypto assets.

10x Research reported that Bitcoin traders have been de-risking, while ETH traders have been aggressively adding leverage. This has created a lopsided risk profile in the derivatives market.

According to the firm, Bitcoin futures open interest decreased by $1.1 billion to $29.7 billion leading up to the drop, with funding rates rising modestly to 4.3%, placing it in the 20th percentile of the last 12 months.

This suggests the Bitcoin market was relatively “cool” and that exposure was unwinding.

On the other hand, ETH is now flashing warning signals.

Despite network activity being essentially dormant, with gas fees sitting in the 5th percentile of usage, speculative fervor has overheated.

Funding rates surged to 20.4%, placing the cost of leverage in the 83rd percentile of the past year, while open interest climbed by $900 million.

This disconnect, where Ethereum is seeing “frothy” speculative demand despite a collapsing network utility, suggests the market is mispricing risk.

Macro triggers

While market structure provided the fuel, the spark arrived from Tokyo.

The 10-year Japanese government bond (JGB) yield climbed to 1.84%, a level unseen since April 2008, while the two-year yield breached 1% for the first time since the 2008 Global Financial Crisis.

Japan 2-Year YieldJapan 2-Year Yield
Graph showing the yield for Japan’s 2-year note on Dec. 1, 2025 (Source: Simply Bitcoin)

These moves have repriced expectations for the Bank of Japan’s (BOJ) monetary policy, with markets increasingly pricing in a rate hike for mid-December. This threatens the “yen carry trade,” where investors borrow cheap yen to fund risk assets.

Arthur Hayes, co-founder of BitMEX, noted that the BOJ has “put a December rate hike in play,” strengthening the yen and raising the cost of capital for global speculators.

Bitcoin Japanes Yen Bitcoin Japanes Yen
Graph comparing the performance of Bitcoin and the Japanese Yen on Dec. 1, 2025 (Source: Arthur Hayes)

But the macro anxiety isn’t limited to Japan.

BRN’s Misir points to Gold’s continued rally to $4,250 as evidence that global traders are hedging against persistent inflation or rising fiscal risks. He noted:

“When macro liquidity tightens, crypto, a high-beta asset, often retests lower bands first.”

With US employment data and ISM prints due later in the week, the market faces a gauntlet of “event risk” that could further strain the already low liquidity.

Retail distress and on-chain reality

The fallout has damaged the technical picture for Bitcoin, pushing the price below the “short-term holder cost basis,” a critical level that often distinguishes between bull market dips and deeper corrections.

On-chain flows paint a picture of distribution from smart money to retail hands.

According to BRN analysis, accumulation by long-term holders and large wallets has decelerated. In their place, retail cohorts holding less than 1 BTC have been buying at “distressed levels.”

While this indicates some demand, the absence of whale accumulation suggests institutional investors are waiting for lower prices.

Misir said:

“The main takeaway is that supply has shifted closer to stronger hands, but supply-overhang remains above key resistance bands.”

However, there is quite a bit of “dry powder” on the sidelines. Stablecoin balances on exchanges have risen, signaling that traders have capital ready to deploy. But with Bitcoin futures traders unwinding and ETFs largely offline during the weekend drop, that capital has yet to step in aggressively.

Considering this, the market is now looking at the mid-$80,000s for structural support.

However, a failure to reclaim the low-$90,000s would signal that the weekend’s liquidity flush has further to run, potentially targeting the low-$80,000s as the unwinding of the yen carry trade ripples through the system.

Mentioned in this article



Source link

Why Pro Traders Choose Crypto Prop Firms


Disclosure: This is a paid article. Readers should conduct further research prior to taking any actions. Learn more ›

The digital asset landscape has matured significantly over the past several years. Simple spot holding is no longer the only viable strategy for generating substantial returns. Today’s market rewards precision, algorithmic discipline, and above all else, liquidity.

For skilled traders, the barrier to entry is rarely knowledge. Instead, it is capitalization. A trader may possess a strategy with a high Sharpe ratio and disciplined risk management, yet find their growth stunted by a personal account size that renders the math irrelevant.

This disconnect between skill and capital has given rise to a sophisticated ecosystem of crypto proprietary trading. The concept extends far beyond simply borrowing funds. It represents access to institutional-grade infrastructure that bridges the gap between retail speculation and professional execution.

The Capital Efficiency Paradox

Why do profitable traders fail to scale?

The answer often lies in mathematics rather than market movement. A trader operating with a 5,000 USDT personal account must take outsized risks to generate a livable income. This frequently leads to over-leveraging positions to the point of ruin. In contrast, a trader managing a funded account of 200,000 USDT can target conservative, low-variance moves and still generate substantial returns.

This dynamic creates what we might call the efficiency paradox: having more capital allows a trader to take less risk while making more money. By utilizing a proprietary firm’s resources, the focus shifts from desperate account flipping to sustainable wealth generation. The pressure to hit “home runs” evaporates entirely, replaced by the professional pursuit of consistent base hits.

Psychological Detachment as an Edge

When personal savings are on the line, emotional attachment distorts decision-making in profound ways. The fear of loss triggers the amygdala, causing traders to cut winners early. Even worse, it often leads to revenge trading after a loss. Proprietary trading constructs a firewall between the trader’s lifestyle and their trading capital, fundamentally changing the psychological equation.

In a funded environment, the downside is capped at a defined level. A trader might face a drawdown limit, but they are not risking their mortgage payment or emergency savings. This psychological freedom allows for the execution of strategies with cold, calculated precision. When the risk is systemic rather than personal, the trader can finally operate with the objectivity required to extract value from volatile markets.

Evaluating the Execution Environment

Not all funding models are created equal, and the differences matter significantly. In the early days of prop trading, firms were largely focused on Forex. They treated crypto as an afterthought, offering poor spreads and artificial slippage. The modern crypto trader requires a specialized environment built specifically for digital assets. If the underlying technology does not mirror live exchange conditions, the strategy is doomed to fail regardless of its theoretical merit.

A robust trading infrastructure must offer direct access to order books without intermediaries. Whether a trader is scalping Bitcoin perpetuals or navigating complex options strategies, the execution must be instantaneous.

This is where the distinction between a simulation and a career-building platform becomes evident. Identifying the best crypto prop trading firm requires careful examination of the execution model. The key is looking for firms like HyroTrader that route through major liquidity providers like ByBit or Binance rather than internal dealing desks that trade against their clients.

The Importance of True Market Data

A chart is only as good as its data feed, and this principle cannot be overstated. Artificial “wicks” designed to stop out retail traders are a hallmark of inferior platforms that prioritize their own profit over trader success. Professional prop firms utilize real-time data streams that ensure what a trader sees on the chart matches the global order book with complete accuracy.

For algorithmic traders and those utilizing automated bots, this transparency is non-negotiable. Strategies that rely on technical levels or high-frequency inputs cannot function properly if the price feed is manipulated or delayed. The ability to integrate tools like TradingView or connect via API directly to the exchange liquidity is what separates a gamified experience from a professional trading operation.

Meet HyroTrader

Founded in 2022 and based in Prague, HyroTrader is a proprietary trading firm specializing in cryptocurrency for traders. The company offers funded accounts of up to 200,000 USDT, which can be scaled to 1 million USDT with consistent performance.

Traders utilize real-time data to trade on ByBit or Binance through CLEO, ensuring authentic trading conditions. Profit sharing begins at 70% and can increase to 90%, with payouts made in USDT or USDC within 12-24 hours after earning $100 in profit.

Unlike many competitors, HyroTrader provides unlimited evaluation periods and refunds the challenge fee after the first payout, lowering entry costs. With over $2 million paid out and a global community, it offers a legitimate opportunity for skilled crypto traders to access institutional capital without risking personal funds.

Navigating Risk and Drawdown Constraints

The primary critique of proprietary trading is often the strictness of risk rules. However, these constraints are actually the training wheels of professionalism when viewed through the right lens. A 5% daily drawdown limit or a 10% maximum loss ceiling is not a trap designed to fail traders. It is a standard institutional risk parameter used by professionals worldwide. No hedge fund manager in the world is permitted to lose 20% of a portfolio in a single afternoon, and for good reason.

Learning to navigate these parameters is what refines a gambler into a genuine risk manager. The best environments offer unlimited time for evaluation, recognizing that quality trading cannot be rushed. The artificial pressure of a “30-day challenge” often forces traders to violate their own risk management rules just to beat the clock. Removing the time limit allows the trader to wait patiently for the highest probability setups, aligning their activity with market conditions rather than an arbitrary calendar deadline.

Scaling: The Path to Seven Figures

The trajectory for a crypto prop trader should not end at the initial funding stage. The true goal is scalability over time. A static account size eventually limits potential regardless of skill level, whereas a dynamic scaling plan rewards consistency and discipline.

Consider a roadmap that begins at 200,000 USDT. Through consistent performance, avoiding significant drawdowns, and hitting modest profit targets, a trader can see their allocation grow to 1,000,000 USDT. At this level, a profit split of 80% or 90% becomes genuinely life-changing, transforming trading from a side pursuit into a legitimate wealth-building vehicle.

The Cash Flow Advantage

Liquidity is king in any trading endeavor. In traditional finance, waiting 30 days for a wire transfer is standard practice. In the crypto ecosystem, money moves at the speed of the blockchain itself. Traders who live off their market returns require agility. They need the ability to request a withdrawal on a Sunday and receive USDT or USDC within hours rather than weeks.

This fluidity turns trading from a speculative venture into a reliable business operation with predictable cash flows. When profits can be realized and withdrawn immediately upon hitting a threshold, the feedback loop of success is powerfully reinforced. It allows the trader to compound their personal net worth steadily while leaving the firm’s capital at work in the markets.

The Future of Decentralized Opportunity

The convergence of cryptocurrency volatility and proprietary capital offers a unique moment in financial history. It allows individuals with skills to act as institutional players, regardless of their geographic location or personal net worth. The playing field has never been more level for talented traders seeking meaningful opportunities.

Whether employing high-frequency trading bots, executing manual price-action strategies, or hedging with options, the vehicle matters as much as the driver. By leveraging significant capital without personal risk, utilizing direct exchange execution, and operating within professional risk parameters, traders can unlock the full potential of the crypto markets. The era of the undercapitalized retail trader is ending. The era of the funded professional has arrived.

Disclaimer: This is a sponsored post. CryptoSlate does not endorse any of the projects mentioned in this article. Investors are encouraged to perform necessary due diligence.

Mentioned in this article