分类： Bitcoin

Bitcoin dropped below $106,505.22 on Nov. 3, down 3.6% in 24 hours, as a strengthening US dollar and sustained ETF outflows pressured crypto across the board. As of press time, Bitcoin has lost that key support level, now trading below $104,000 for the first sustained time since June.

Ethereum trades at $3,490, falling 9%, while Solana declined 13% to $159. XRP, Cardano, Dogecoin, and BNB each posted double-figure losses.

The DXY dollar index traded at 99.886 as of press time, up 0.2% and near a three-month high following a 0.8% weekly gain.

The dollar’s strength typically weighs on Bitcoin because crypto functions as a non-yielding alternative asset. When the dollar rises, investors shift toward dollar-denominated instruments that offer positive real yields, thereby reducing demand for Bitcoin and other digital assets.

Additionally, traders positioned defensively ahead of this week’s US economic data releases, following the Federal Reserve’s hawkish tone in its latest policy statement.

The week features several high-impact reports. ISM manufacturing data is released on Nov. 3, and services PMI and ADP employment numbers are released on Nov. 5.

The week closes on Nov. 7 with the nonfarm payrolls report, the most closely watched indicator of the labor market.

University of Michigan consumer sentiment data, also due Nov. 7, rounds out a data-heavy schedule that will inform Federal Reserve policy expectations and dollar direction.

Adding to the selling pressure, US spot Bitcoin ETFs recorded $1.15 billion in cumulative outflows from October. From Oct. 29 through Oct. 31, according to Farside Investors’ data. This added selling pressure as November opened.

Those redemptions removed a structural support layer that had absorbed selling from crypto-native participants during earlier market declines, as ETF flows function as demand stabilizers.

Derivatives liquidations compounded the decline. CoinGlass data shows nearly $1.15 billion in long positions liquidated in the past 24 hours, with approximately $330 million concentrated in Ethereum futures after ETH fell below the $3,900 threshold.

Liquidations occur when leveraged traders’ positions close automatically as prices move against them, creating forced selling that accelerates downward momentum.

The combination of macroeconomic headwinds, dollar strength tied to the Fed’s hawkishness, and market structure pressures from ETF outflows and derivatives liquidations created conditions where selling reinforced itself across spot and futures markets.

This week’s US economic data releases will determine whether the dollar sustains its recent strength. Any reversal in DXY would ease pressure on Bitcoin and broader crypto markets.

Until then, the absence of ETF inflows and the overhang from liquidated leveraged positions leave digital assets vulnerable to continued volatility.

Bitcoin is having a strangely quiet year on-chain. After a wave of speculative flows in 2024, the network now moves with near-clockwork efficiency.

The average block size has contracted, daily fees are less than half what they were in January, and the fee-to-reward ratio has dropped toward levels last seen in the year before the Ordinals and Inscription booms.

Price, however, hasn’t followed the same rhythm. It’s been grinding sideways for weeks, struggling to hold above $110,000.

A look under the hood shows a network running cold even as its market tries to stay warm. Total daily fees have fallen from roughly 4.7 BTC in early January to just over 2 BTC this month, a 56% slide since the beginning of the year.

Every moving average tells the same story. The 30-day and 90-day EMAs have been pointing down since March, with only brief upticks around isolated bursts of inscription activity.

The fee-to-reward ratio, a clean measure of how much of a miner’s income comes from users rather than subsidies, has slipped from 1.35% in Q1 to 0.78% over the last three months.

The ratio matters because it shows us how Bitcoin’s security is funded. When users pay higher fees, they effectively share in the cost of maintaining the network. When fees thin out, that burden shifts back to the subsidy: the 3.125 BTC created with every block. With the block reward fixed, miners rely more on the BTC/USD exchange rate itself. At $110,000, the network remains profitable, but the correlation is obvious: a soft tape in price now translates directly into pressure on miner margins.

The on-chain lull has other consequences. The average block size has decreased by about 10% since Q1, to around 1.53 MB, while mempool congestion has all but disappeared, except for a few brief spikes.

This is positive for traders. Cheaper, predictable settlement shortens confirmation windows for exchanges, ETF creations, and market makers managing flows across venues. Individual users also see transactions clearing faster at a lower cost. In practice, Bitcoin’s base layer is performing like a low-latency settlement network rather than a crowded auction.

Yet, the same data also shows a structural shift.

The 30-day correlation between fees and price has been negative for most of the year. Historically, rising prices tended to come with busier mempools as new users piled in. This cycle, liquidity seems to have moved elsewhere: aggregated, batched, or off-chain. This decoupling shows that Bitcoin’s market microstructure has evolved. Activity that was once visible on-chain now disperses through exchanges and custodians, leaving the blockchain itself quieter, even as the market cap expands.

This is risky business for miners. The decline in fee volume we’ve seen since the beginning of the year, from roughly $576,000 a day in Q1 to around $410,000 now, shows that the buffer against falling prices is getting thinner. If Bitcoin drops below $100,000, revenues could compress sharply. That could turn the halving-era economy into a more levered bet on spot price, especially while fee contribution stays low.

Still, there’s an upside to this. The network’s current state is stable, predictable, and inexpensive to use. Average fees remain low even at high throughput, which means Bitcoin’s appeal as a settlement layer remains unscathed. If the market continues to consolidate near $110,000 without new fee spikes, it could mark a new equilibrium for Bitcoin, making it a rare asset that trades at an institutional scale, underpinned by an unusually efficient base layer.

Whether that lasts depends on demand. A resurgence in inscription-level traffic or another retail inflow could list the fee averages back toward their Q1 levels. For now, though, the blockchain is quiet. The mempool runs quietly, the blocks are smaller, and the network is steady, while its price, at least for the moment, is anything but.

For years, Balancer stood as one of DeFi’s most reliable institutions, a protocol that had survived several bear markets, audits, and integrations without scandal.

However, that credibility collapsed on Nov. 3, when the blockchain security firm PeckShield reported that Balancer and several of its forks were under an active exploit spreading across multiple chains.

Within hours, more than $128 million was gone, leaving a trail of drained pools, frozen protocols, and shaken investors.

PeckShield data showed the platform’s protocol on Ethereum suffered the heaviest losses of about $100 million. Berachain followed with $12.9 million, while Arbitrum, Base, and smaller forks such as Sonic, Optimism, and Polygon recorded lower but still significant thefts.

As the drain unfolded, Balancer acknowledged a “potential exploit impacting Balancer v2 pools,” stating that its engineering and security teams were investigating the issue with high priority.

However, the acknowledgment did little to slow withdrawals across integrators and forks.

By the end of the day, DeFiLlama data showed that Balancer’s total value locked (TVL) had decreased by 46% to approximately $422 million from $770 million as of press time.

What happened?

Preliminary forensics from blockchain security firm Phalcon indicated that the attacker targeted Balancer Pool Tokens (BPT), which represent user shares in liquidity pools.

According to the firm, the vulnerability stemmed from how Balancer calculated pool prices during batch swaps. By manipulating that logic, the exploiter distorted the internal price feed, creating an artificial imbalance that let them withdraw tokens before the system corrected itself.

Crypto analyst Adi wrote:

“Improper authorization and callback handling allowed the attacker to bypass safeguards. This enabled unauthorized swaps or balance manipulations across interconnected pools, draining assets in rapid succession (within minutes).”

Meanwhile, Balancer’s composable vault architecture, which is long praised for its flexibility, amplified the damage. Because vaults could reference each other dynamically, the distortion rippled through interconnected pools.

Interestingly, Coinbase’s Conor Grogan pointed out that the attacker’s approach suggested professional sophistication.

Grogan noted that the attacker’s address was initially funded with 100 ETH from Tornado Cash, implying the funds likely originated from earlier exploits.

“People don’t typically park 100 ETH in Tornado Cash for fun,” he wrote, suggesting the transaction pattern reflected an experienced and previously active hacker.

DeFi trust collapse

While the exploit itself was technical, its impact was psychological.

Balancer had long been regarded as a conservative venue for liquidity providers, a place to park assets and earn modest, steady yield. Its longevity, audits, and integrations across leading DeFi platforms fostered the illusion that endurance equaled safety. The Nov. 3 breach destroyed that narrative overnight.

Lefteris Karapetsas, founder of the crypto platform Rotki, called it “a trust collapse” and not just a hack of the DeFi platform.

He decried the fact that:

“A protocol live since 2020, audited and widely used, can still suffer a near-total TVL loss. That’s a red flag for anyone who believes DeFi is ‘stable.’”

That reaction captured the broader sentiment. In a market that prizes self-custody and verifiable code, confidence had quietly replaced trust as the hidden foundation of DeFi.

Balancer’s failure showed that even mathematically sound systems are vulnerable to unforeseen complexity.

Robdog, the pseudonymous developer of Cork Protocol, said:

“Whilst [DeFi] foundations are becoming safer and safer, the sad reality is smart contract risk is all around us.”

Implications for DeFi

The Balancer exploit hit at a delicate point for decentralized finance, shattering a brief period of calm. In October, total losses from hacks dropped to a yearly low of just $18 million, according to PeckShield.

However, with a single incident in November, the figure has already surged past $120 million, making it the third-worst month for DeFi breaches in 2025.

Meanwhile, this attack highlights a fundamental paradox at the heart of DeFi: composability, the feature that enables protocols to connect and build upon one another, also amplifies systemic risk.

When a core protocol like Balancer breaks, the impact ripples instantly through the networks that depend on it.

On Berachain, validators paused block production to prevent contagion. Other protocols followed with temporary suspensions of lending and bridging functions.

These quick reactions limited losses, but they also underscored a broader truth showing that DeFi operates without the coordination mechanisms that steady traditional finance.

In this space, there are no regulators, central banks, or mandated backstops. Instead, crisis management relies heavily on developers and auditors working in tandem, often within minutes, to contain the fallout.

Considering this, Robdog said:

[This is] a good reminder why we need to develop better risk management infrastructure.”

Beyond the immediate technical loss, the damage to trust may be harder to repair.

Each major exploit erodes confidence in DeFi’s promise of self-regulating code. For institutional investors considering exposure to the industry, the repeated failures signal that decentralized markets remain experimental.

Karapetsas noted:

“No serious capital allocates into systems that are this fragile.”

That perception is already shaping policy in major economies globally.

Suhail Kakar, a prominent web3 developer, highlighted a sobering reality in the aftermath of the Balancer exploit: even multiple, high-profile security audits can’t guarantee safety in DeFi.

As he noted, Balancer underwent more than ten audits, with its core vault contract reviewed by several independent firms; yet, the protocol still suffered a major breach.

Kakar’s point highlights a growing sentiment in the industry that “audited by X” is no longer a mark of infallibility; rather, it reflects the inherent complexity and unpredictability of decentralized systems where even well-tested code can harbor unseen vulnerabilities.

Authorities in the United States are developing frameworks that would introduce regulations on DeFi protocols. Industry observers expect the Balancer exploit to accelerate these efforts, as policymakers grapple with the growing risk of continued integration between crypto and the traditional financial industry.

For most of 2025, Bitcoin’s floor looked unshakable, supported by an unlikely alliance of corporate treasuries and exchange-traded funds.

Companies issued stock and convertible debt to buy the token, while ETF inflows quietly soaked up new supply. Together, they created a durable demand base that helped Bitcoin defy tightening financial conditions.

Now, that foundation is beginning to shift.

In a Nov. 3 post on X, Charles Edwards, founder of Capriole Investments, stated that his bullish outlook has weakened as the pace of institutional accumulation has waned.

He noted:

“For the first time in 7 months, net institutional buying has DROPPED below daily mined supply. Not Good.”

According to Edwards, this was the key metric that had kept him optimistic, even as other assets outperformed Bitcoin.

However, with the current situation, he noted that there are now roughly 188 corporate treasuries that hold sizable Bitcoin positions, many with limited business models beyond their token exposure.

Bitcoin treasury purchases slowdown

No company defines the corporate Bitcoin trade more than MicroStrategy Inc., which recently shortened its name to Strategy.

The Michael Saylor-led software maker, which has transformed into a Bitcoin treasury company, now holds more than 674,000 BTC, solidifying its position as the largest single corporate holder.

Its buying rhythm, however, has slowed sharply in recent months.

For context, Strategy added about 43,000 BTC in the third quarter, which is its lowest quarterly purchase this year. This number is unsurprising considering the firm saw some of its Bitcoin purchases drop to only a few hundred coins during the period.

CryptoQuant analyst J.A. Maarturn explained that the slowdown could be linked to the Strategy’s falling NAV.

According to him, investors once paid a hefty “NAV premium” for every dollar of Bitcoin on Strategy’s balance sheet, effectively rewarding shareholders with leveraged exposure to BTC’s upside. That premium has compressed since mid-year.

With fewer valuation tailwinds, issuing new shares to buy Bitcoin is no longer as accretive, dulling the incentive to raise capital.

Maarturn noted:

“Capital is harder to raise. Equity issuance premiums have dropped from 208% [to] 4%.”

Meanwhile, the cooling extends beyond MicroStrategy.

Metaplanet, a Tokyo-listed firm that modeled itself on the US pioneer, recently traded below the market value of its own Bitcoin holdings after a steep drawdown.

In response, it authorized a share buyback while introducing new guidelines for raising capital to grow its Bitcoin treasury. The move signaled confidence in its balance sheet but also highlighted waning investor enthusiasm for “digital-asset treasury” business models.

In fact, the slowdown in Bitcoin treasury acquisitions has resulted in a merger between some of these firms.

Last month, asset management firm Strive announced its acquisition of Semler Scientific, a smaller BTC treasury company. This deal would allow these firms to hold nearly 11,000 BTC at a premium that is effectively becoming a scarce resource in the sector.

These examples reflect a structural constraint rather than a loss of conviction. When equity or convertible issuance no longer commands a market premium, capital inflows dry up, naturally slowing corporate accumulation.

ETF flows?

Spot Bitcoin ETFs, long viewed as automatic absorbers of new supply, are showing similar fatigue.

For much of 2025, these financial investment vehicles dominated net demand, with creations consistently exceeding redemptions, especially during Bitcoin’s surge to record highs.

But by late October, their flows have turned choppy. Some weeks saw a shift to negative territory as portfolio managers rebalanced positions and risk desks trimmed exposure in response to shifting interest-rate expectations.

That volatility marks a new phase in the behavior of Bitcoin ETFs.

The macro backdrop has tightened, and hopes for rapid rate cuts have faded; real yields have risen, and liquidity conditions have cooled.

Nonetheless, demand for Bitcoin exposure remains firm, but it now arrives in bursts instead of steady waves.

Data from SoSoValue illustrates this shift. In the first two weeks of October, the digital-asset investment products attracted nearly $6 billion in inflows.

However, by the end of the month, a portion of those gains had been reversed as redemptions increased to more than $2 billion.

The pattern suggests that Bitcoin ETFs have matured into genuine two-way markets. They still provide deep liquidity and institutional access, but they no longer behave as one-directional accumulation vehicles.

When macro signals wobble, ETF investors can exit just as quickly as they enter.

Market implications for Bitcoin

This evolving scenario doesn’t automatically spell a downturn, but it does imply greater volatility. With corporate and ETF absorption softening, Bitcoin’s price action would be increasingly driven by shorter-term traders and macro sentiment.

In such situations, Edwards argues that fresh catalysts, such as monetary easing, regulatory clarity, or the return of equity-market risk appetite, could reignite the institutional bid.

However, as the marginal buyer looks more cautious for now, this leaves price discovery more sensitive to global liquidity cycles.

As a result, the effect is twofold.

First, the structural bid that once acted as a floor is weakening.

During periods of under-absorption, intraday swings can amplify because fewer steady buyers exist to dampen volatility. The April 2024 halving mechanically reduced new supply, but without consistent demand, scarcity alone doesn’t guarantee higher prices.

Second, Bitcoin’s correlation profile is shifting. As balance-sheet accumulation cools, the asset may again track the broader liquidity cycle. Rising real yields and strong dollar phases could pressure prices, while easing conditions might restore its leadership in risk-on rallies.

In essence, Bitcoin is re-entering its macro-reflexive phase and behaving less like digital gold and more like a high-beta risk asset.

Meanwhile, none of this negates Bitcoin’s long-term narrative as a scarce, programmable asset.

Rather, it reflects the growing influence of institutional dynamics that once insulated it from retail-driven swings. The same mechanisms that lifted Bitcoin into mainstream portfolios are now binding it more tightly to the gravity of capital markets.

The coming months will test whether the asset can sustain its store-of-value appeal without automatic corporate or ETF inflows.

If history is any guide, Bitcoin tends to adapt: when one demand channel slows, another often emerges—be it from sovereign reserves, fintech integrations, or renewed retail participation during macro easing cycles.

On Oct. 31, 2025, the Radiant exploiter transferred approximately 5,411.8 ETH to Tornado Cash, a move worth roughly $20.7 million.

Nine days earlier, the same cluster had moved approximately 2,834.6 ETH, equivalent to $10.8 million, after staging funds across chains and through swaps before the mixer.

Neither burst looked hurried. Both looked like a careful operator testing liquidity and compliance timing, parceling deposits into common Tornado denominations that are inexpensive to blend and annoying to trace.

How the Radiant hack happened

Radiant’s story begins on Oct. 16, 2024, when its lending pools on Arbitrum and BNB Chain were drained of about $50 million to $58 million. Early technical post-mortems converged on a simple but devastating point.

The breach was due to an operational compromise involving keyholders and approvals that allowed an attacker to push malicious transactions through a multi-signature process. Security firms described signers being induced to approve the wrong calls.

The project had a three-out-of-eleven scheme for sensitive actions. That broad signer set improved availability but widened the target area for device compromise and social engineering. Analysis from Halborn and others reconstructed how approvals and device hygiene created windows that the attacker exploited, while Radiant’s own incident updates fixed the timeline and scale.

Later reporting suggested that a state-backed group used impersonation to gain access, a claim Radiant echoed as the dust settled.

CryptoSlate covered the fallout at the time through a crime trend lens. The report noted that October’s total exploit losses fell to approximately $116 million, and that Radiant’s incident accounted for nearly half of that monthly figure, placing an outsized share of the pain in one place.

That framing matters because it shows how a single cross-chain breach can significantly impact a month’s risk profile, even when the broader environment appears calm.

What followed over the next year set the pattern visible today. Funds moved out of L2s and back to Ethereum through bridges where liquidity is deepest. Swaps consolidated balances into ETH to prepare for the mixing process.

The October 22-23, 2025, tranche provides a clear example. CertiK flagged 2,834.6 ETH in Tornado deposits and noted that 2,213.8 ETH had arrived via the Arbitrum bridge from EOA 0x4afb, with the remainder sourced from DAI conversions.

The Oct. 31 burst increased the running total by another 5,411.8 ETH, with modular deposits that match Tornado pool norms. The chain is public, the route is predictable, and the incentives encourage patience over spectacle.

What the new laundering bursts reveal

The recent mixer activity reads like a slow bleed strategy rather than a single exit. Bridge hops from Arbitrum or BNB Chain bring balances into the deepest pools on mainnet. DEX rotations set the inventory in ETH for the most efficient Tornado entries.

Batching into standard denominations fractures the public graph into fragments that are costly to stitch together. Compliance teams still see a lot despite that. They cluster addresses around shared gas patterns and timing, match deposits to withdrawal windows, and watch for telltale peel chains that start small, spread wide, then aggregate near a target venue.

The posture is pragmatic because the legal environment rewards pragmatism. Courts have narrowed the government’s broadest theories regarding the sanctioning of decentralized software. Prosecutors have won and lost various cases related to mixers.

The result is a gray zone where privacy tools continue to operate, and exchanges rely on behavior-driven controls rather than blanket labels. Investigations still catch exits. The friction just shifts from software to process.

For users and builders, the lesson is concrete. Design choices carry cash outcomes. Bridges and routers concentrate value and failure modes, which is precisely why exploiters use them on the way out. Multi-chain apps require muscle memory for halts, allowlist flips, and liquidity snapshots, rather than ad hoc improvisation in the hour after a breach.

Radiant’s documentation shows how the response tightened over time. The costs of that learning curve were real because the attacker had the initiative. The current flows through Tornado Cash are the tail of the same distribution.

The operator keeps moving because the rails continue to operate. The proper response is hardened keyholder procedures, narrower approvals, real-time bridge monitoring, and a culture that treats signer devices like crown jewels.

The Radiant exploiter will likely continue to employ the same playbook until conditions change. More Tornado deposits will arrive in familiar sizes. More bridge activity will appear from addresses linked to the October 2024 paths. A clean exit will eventually ping a regulated venue, and desks will weigh timing and heuristics against customer narratives.

The consequence for the market is predictable. Every patient exit like this reduces confidence in cross-chain abstractions and pushes teams to audit not just code but operations. Users chase yield across networks because the experience feels seamless. The most skilled thieves know precisely where that seam is hidden.

In the span of one frenetic week, France unveiled seemingly opposing policy tracks.

On Oct. 31, the French National Assembly adopted a first-reading amendment rebranding the country’s real estate-only wealth tax into a broader “tax on unproductive wealth” that now explicitly covers digital assets.

At the same time, the right-wing Union des droites pour la République (UDR) introduced a bill to establish a national bitcoin reserve of approximately 420,000 BTC, aiming to hold 2% of Bitcoin’s total supply over the next seven to eight years.

One measure treats crypto holdings as idle ballast to be taxed; the other elevates them as national reserve assets. Taken together, they capture France’s conflicted but consequential stance toward crypto, caught between fiscal caution and monetary ambition.

The new wealth tax: crypto as “unproductive” capital

Under the amendment drafted by MoDem MP Jean-Paul Mattei and revised by Socialist MP Philippe Brun, a flat tax of 1% would apply to net taxable wealth exceeding €2 million. Crucially, the tax base now widens to include assets traditionally exempt, such as collectible cars, fine art, luxury vessels, and “actifs numériques” (digital assets), including cryptocurrencies.

The explanatory note specifies that previously excluded “tangible movable property … digital assets … life insurance policies for funds not allocated to productive investment” are now covered under the “unproductive” category.

A French resident with a substantial crypto portfolio could therefore face an annual tax, even if they do not sell. Critics argue that this amounts to taxing latent gains rather than realized income and risks penalizing investment in digital finance. The measure has drawn sharp backlash across France’s crypto industry, with executives warning it will drive trading desks and asset-management arms toward more lenient jurisdictions.

The bitcoin reserve: state stacking meets sovereignty

In parallel, the UDR, led by Éric Ciotti, has tabled a “proposition de loi” establishing a public body charged with building a national Bitcoin reserve of 420,000 BTC.

Reports describe a blueprint involving state-funded mining, the acquisition of seized coins, and an option to pay taxes in crypto. The bill presents Bitcoin as a strategic asset that links energy, monetary independence, and digital infrastructure. Its authors invoke the language of sovereignty, portraying Bitcoin as “digital gold” that can fortify national reserves in an era of de-dollarisation.

Although the proposal faces long odds in a fragmented parliament, it reflects a growing trend within Europe’s right-leaning parties that views bitcoin not as speculation but as a form of statecraft.

What’s less discussed is how far the text goes in sketching the mechanics of accumulation. The bill instructs the newly created public entity, Réserve stratégique de bitcoins, to acquire 2% of the total Bitcoin supply (approximately 420,000 BTC) within seven to eight years, and to do so without incurring any direct cost to the state budget.

It lists potential funding channels such as mining with state-owned surplus electricity, transferring confiscated crypto from judicial proceedings, and even reallocating dormant public deposits like those in the Livret A savings scheme.

The proposal would also authorize French citizens to pay certain taxes in Bitcoin and introduce a €200-per-day exemption for euro-stablecoin payments, embedding crypto use at both the treasury and retail level. These details indicate that the bill’s ambition extends far beyond symbolism, as it envisions Bitcoin integrated into France’s fiscal and monetary architecture, from energy monetization to everyday payments.

At first glance, the two initiatives appear to be in conflict, with one penalizing private crypto accumulation and the other encouraging public hoarding. Legally, however, they can coexist.
The wealth-tax amendment targets individual balance sheets, while the reserve bill concerns the state’s. Public holdings would likely be exempt from the tax regime, leaving private holders to bear annual valuation and reporting duties. In practice, the tension would surface through market effects.

Taxing crypto holdings raises the cost of private accumulation and could shrink domestic supply, which in turn raises acquisition costs for the reserve. Conversely, aggressive state accumulation would tighten liquidity and inflate the taxable base for private investors, forcing the government to navigate the feedback loop it created.

Between policy paradox and precedent

France’s approach places it at the crossroads of two global models. Wealth-based taxation of crypto already exists in Switzerland, Spain, and Norway, where digital assets are declared and valued annually. Those systems tax the stock of wealth, not realized gains, and France’s new framework follows that lineage.

In contrast, the idea of a sovereign Bitcoin reserve situates Paris alongside experiments like El Salvador’s, though filtered through a European lens of institutional management rather than presidential decree.

Industry reaction in France has been swift and unflattering. Start-ups and exchanges warn that the amendment treats crypto as decorative wealth rather than working capital, equating it with yachts and watches. Annual mark-to-market obligations, they say, create liquidity strain and valuation uncertainty.

When it comes to policymakers, the counterargument rests on precedent: wealth taxes have long targeted unproductive capital, and modern tax law already applies mark-to-market accounting to some financial instruments.

Industry reaction in France has been swift and unflattering. Start-ups and exchanges warn that the amendment treats crypto as decorative wealth rather than working capital, equating it with yachts and watches. Annual mark-to-market obligations, they say, create liquidity strain and valuation uncertainty.

Politically, the contrast is just as sharp. The wealth tax amendment advanced with an unusual coalition of centrists, socialists, and far-right deputies. At the same time, the UDR reserve bill originates from a small conservative bloc with little parliamentary leverage.

If only the tax passes, France will tighten its grip on private holdings while shelving the reserve dream. If both advance, the result would be paradoxical: private crypto treated as taxable luxury, state-held Bitcoin elevated to sovereign wealth. Each could function independently, yet together they would change how France values and controls digital assets.

For now, both proposals remain in flux. The wealth-tax text heads to the Senate, where lawmakers may refine the definition of “actifs numériques” or introduce carve-outs for productive use. The Bitcoin reserve bill awaits committee referral and debate.

Whatever their legislative fate, they have already set the tone for France’s next chapter in digital finance: a nation ready to tax crypto like art while contemplating stacking it like gold.

XRP can serve as short-term working capital for currency exchanges, as transactions typically take only a few minutes to complete.

Orders move through central exchanges, and if any money needs to be held briefly, companies can hedge that risk using XRP futures.

The idea is to use local liquidity at both ends of a transaction while using XRP as a bridge in between. This approach keeps the time money is held to a minimum, helping prevent price differences from building up.

The October 10 deleveraging event, where order-book depth vanished within minutes across majors, served as a live-fire reminder that execution is path-dependent and inventory can become stuck during stress.

The hedging toolset improved this year, with the CME Group listing XRP and Micro-XRP futures on May 19, and more than $19 million of notional trading on day one. The combination shifts the calculus for treasurers who could not access a regulated delta hedge in 2024.

The working path today is straightforward.

Source fiat to XRP on the most liquid venues in the origin market, atomize across books using TWAP or VWAP, transfer and settle, then convert XRP back to fiat at the destination, keeping XRP exposure to minutes.

If any non-zero hold is unavoidable, open a short CME XRP future concurrent with the spot buy and unwind against the destination leg. Residuals remain, including futures-spot basis and intraday liquidity on the specific expiry, but a listed contract reduces onboarding friction for regulated balance sheets.

[Editor’s Note: The methodology below is for educational and analytical purposes only in relation to institutional FX trading and should not be considered FX trading advice for retail investors.]

Time in inventory dominates basis risk, which rises non-linearly with hold time.

A 95 percent one-tailed VaR model across annualized volatility bands of 40, 55, and 70 percent shows how tight the window must be to keep drift inside treasury tolerances.

To keep VaR at or below 10 basis points, allowable holds compress to approximately 1.2 minutes at a 40 percent volume, 0.7 minutes at a 55 percent volume, and 0.4 minutes at a 70 percent volume.

For a 25 basis-point band, the window expands to roughly 7.5, 4.0, and 2.5 minutes, respectively. At 50 basis points, a treasury has about 30.2 minutes at 40 percent, 16.0 minutes at 55 percent, and 9.9 minutes at 70 percent before inventory P&L becomes material.

These thresholds precede fees, spreads, and slippage, so operational buffers should be smaller.

Local liquidity remains the constraint.

Kaiko’s mid-year depth work ranked XRP among the top altcoins by 1 percent market depth across vetted exchanges, which supports just-in-time execution when orders are split and routed.

Depth is pair and venue specific, so routing should bias toward USDT, USD, and KRW books that routinely carry larger sizes, with care taken around time-of-day effects.

XRPL’s native DEX, including the AMM introduced with XLS-30, provides last-mile fills but not primary size. DeFi Llama shows XRPL DEX volumes in the single-digit millions over 24 hours and approximately $178 million over 30 days at the time of capture, which is helpful for small clips but not a replacement for major CEX liquidity. Treasurers should be takers, not LPs, given price impact and impermanent loss on AMMs.

The corridor view illustrates how execution relies on venue choice at the endpoints. USD and USDT legs typically route through Binance and Coinbase, where XRP books consistently have a depth of 1 percent or more.

EUR legs commonly use Bitstamp and other European venues, with intraday variability that supports TWAP for larger clips.

KRW legs concentrate on Upbit’s retail-driven market, where XRP often ranks among the top pairs by volume, but weekend and off-hours liquidity can thin, according to Kaiko’s Korea market report.

For U.S.–Mexico, Bitso remains a canonical MXN endpoint referenced in Ripple materials. XRPL DEX can assist as a supplementary path for local fills.

Corridor	Primary venues	Depth or volume signals	Caveats
USD ↔ EUR	Coinbase, Binance, Bitstamp	XRP among top altcoins by 1% depth on vetted exchanges	Depth varies intraday, favor TWAP for larger clips
USD ↔ KRW	Upbit	XRP frequently a top KRW pair by volume	Retail-led flows, watch spreads and weekend liquidity
USD ↔ MXN	Bitso	Established endpoint in Ripple corridors	Pair-specific depth varies, confirm book before routing
On-chain last mile	XRPL DEX, AMM	~6.7 million 24h, ~178 million 30d volumes	Supplement only for size, price impact and IL for LPs

Hedging practices are straightforward to operationalize.

Spot-only just-in-time conversion can work for micro-windows under 10 to 15 minutes during USD, EUR, and KRW liquidity hours, especially when splitting across venues and pairs with strong 1 percent depth.

A micro-hedged overlay opens the short CME XRP future at the time of the spot buy, which compresses delta exposure during transit and can be unwound against the destination leg.

Offshore perpetuals introduce funding costs and counterparty considerations that many treasuries cannot accept, whereas listed CME contracts mitigate these hurdles. XRPL AMM can assist with last-mile coverage where CEX books are thin, but operational design should keep treasuries out of LP roles.

Failure modes should be treated as design constraints rather than exceptions.

1. First, order-book evaporation can turn a minute-scale inventory into an hour if deleveraging hits mid-clip, a dynamic observed on Oct. 10.
2. Second, hedge liquidity can mismatch the spot leg during stress, widening the futures-spot basis intraday.
3. Third, venue-specific regimes matter, including KRW retail flows that introduce premiums and spread variability.
4. Fourth, protocol and SDK incidents remain part of the operational risk set, including XRPL’s AMM bug after launch and the XRPL.js SDK backdoor later disclosed.
5. Finally, balance-sheet costs weigh on bank participation.

Basel’s crypto standards classify unbacked crypto, such as XRP, in Group 2 with punitive capital, and the EBA’s draft technical standards align the EU prudential regime with Basel, which raises the cost of warehousing XRP inventory on regulated balance sheets.

The decision framework collapses to three cases.

If both ends can convert within roughly 5 to 10 minutes, spot-only just-in-time conversion on deep CLOBs can keep 95 percent VaR inside roughly 25 to 50 basis points, contingent on realized volatility.

If the operation requires up to about an hour, overlay a futures hedge and split execution across multiple venues to limit basis drift and execution slippage.

If routine holds stretch to multi-hour windows, XRP does not serve as a low-basis working capital rail today because inventory carry, capital costs, and event risk dominate.

What comes next is measurable. CME XRP futures need to sustain open interest and ADV so that hedgers can rely on intraday depth and tighter basis, and a build-out would lower residual basis risk for listed hedges.

Kaiko’s post-October debriefs will show whether depth metrics recover or if fragility persists into the fourth quarter. The EBA’s final technical standards will establish the European prudential framework for bank inventory, which will shape the practical scope for just-in-time strategies within regulated treasuries.

Practical implications for FX markets

At a practical level, pairing local liquidity with global payment rails is effective when operations teams minimize settlement time, route orders through the deepest books, and deploy a listed hedge whenever inventory cannot be compressed to just minutes.

Global FX spot averages $7–8 T/day, so even at $5 B/day, XRP would represent roughly 0.06% of global FX turnover. This is small in macro terms but massive in the crypto context.

For context, $5 billion per day would place XRP’s utility-driven flow on par with smaller fiat corridors (e.g., MXN-CLP) and 10 times current ODL peaks that Ripple has hinted at in public filings.

Using this “just-in-time working-capital” strategy, XRP could realistically intermediate $3–8 billion/day of cross-currency settlement volume under current liquidity conditions, and perhaps exceed $10 billion/day if CME and regulatory infrastructure mature.

Scenario	Description	Estimated XRP throughput
Baseline (current liquidity)	Select corridors (USD-KRW, USD-MXN, USD-EUR) using CEX routing	$2–4 B/day
Expanded (with CME hedge adoption, improved depth)	Wider participation from banks using listed hedges	$5–8 B/day
Optimistic (regulatory convergence, Basel clarity)	Regulated treasuries re-enter crypto rails	$10 B/day+

Bitcoin has treated $106,400 as a pivot across the current cycle, acting as both resistance and support.

Price has repeatedly clustered near the level, cleared it on retests, and expanded toward the next channel bands, while breaks below the level often required a repair phase before any advance.

My charts below show price channels that have been most influential to Bitcoin since the start of 2024, with $106,400 highlighted by the solid yellow line.

In mid-December 2024, the price first broke $106,000 after a steady climb from sub-$100,000 areas. Once the level cleared, the price pressed to $107,800 before failing a retest of $106,400 and falling back into the mid-$90,000s.

Late January 2025 brought a similar pattern with more back-and-fill. Bitcoin met $106,400 from below, then stalled. Follow-through carried the intraday price into the $108,300 range before again failing the retest.

Even with noise inside the channel grid, the inflection at $106,400 organized the action, with the market repeatedly checking the level before moving back down. The consistency of this behavior across weeks is what makes the line useful for risk management.

By late May 2025, the relationship flipped. The price tested $106,400 twice from below and then twice more from above before using this level as support several more times.

Bounces carried to $111,900 and $110,300, then momentum faded on the sixth retest, and a grind lower began.

During this period, $106,400 behaved like a floor. As long as closes held above it, sellers failed to press the next lower bands in size. Once that floor finally gave way by the end of the month, recovery took longer, reinforcing the idea that losing the pivot changes the tempo.

June 2025 illustrated the support and resistance function again.

After dipping below the level in mid-month and subsequently being rejected four more times (with one intraday breakout above), Bitcoin eventually reclaimed $106,400 at the end of the month, held multiple intraday highs, and advanced to $108,300 and $109,400.

The response after each retest was orderly, which is typical when a widely watched pivot is respected. Traders who waited for confirmation at the line had explicit invalidation if the price fell back through $106,400, and clear targets in the upper bands if it held.

This saw Bitcoin crack into price discovery territory and eventually reach its cycle high of $126,000. We did not see $106,400 tested again until the Trump trade tariff $19 billion wipeout on October 10.

The sequence from October to early November 2025 shows the other side.

A decisive drop from higher levels wicked down to $106,400 before surging back toward $115,000. Bitcoin has attempted to hold the pivot several times, and as of press time, it is about to mark its eighth test.

So far, each time $106,400 has been tested since we hit $126,000, the price immediately bounced back toward $110,000 – $115,000.

Ominously, Bitcoin has never held $106,400 after eight retests before.

These repeated interactions matter because they compress a complex set of variables into a single reference.

$106,400 aligns with the middle of the current channel pack on the displayed framework, which means it sits near a fair-value axis where both buyers and sellers find liquidity.

When the price is accepted above this level, the path of least resistance shifts to the next upper cluster. When the price rejects or loses its level, the market often has to rebuild participation below before buyers regain control again.

The pattern across the screenshots can be summarized as follows.

Date window	Interaction with $106,400	Immediate outcome	Next band(s) reached/tested
Dec 16–22, 2024	First breakout above $106,000; failed retest of $106,400	Rejection and drop into mid-$90,000s	$107,800
Jan 20–27, 2025	Approach from below, stall, then failed retest after intraday push higher	Consolidation beneath the pivot	$108,300
May 19–31, 2025	Flip from resistance to support; held several times, then lost floor late-month	Bounces then grind lower after breakdown	$111,900 and $110,300 before slipping under
Jun 9–30, 2025	Reclaimed and held after multiple failed mid-month tests	Orderly advance and confirmation of pivot	$108,300 and $109,400
Jul–Sep 2025	Consolidation above; not retested during rally to cycle high	Cycle high formation	$126,000 peak (no contact with pivot)
Oct 10–21, 2025	Tariff shock wick to $106,400, sharp rebound	Bounce toward $115K	$110,000-$115,000
Oct 22–Nov 3, 2025	Repeated retests of $106,400 (approaching eighth as of press time)	Still holding intraday, but risk of loss rising	Rebounds toward $110K-$115K

For traders who map decisions to levels, the playbook is straightforward.

When price clears $106,400 and confirms on a retest, attention naturally shifts to the next overhead clusters around $107,800, $108,300, $109,400, and $110,500, which line up with the dashed yellow rungs on the displayed ladder.

Failure back through the pivot returns focus to the downside stack around $105,500, $104,500, and $103,800, where the market has repeatedly found liquidity during breakdowns.

This framework does not predict direction; it defines areas where execution quality tends to improve and where invalidation is unambiguous.

This level also helps reconcile conflicting signals from momentum or funding.

During periods when momentum turns but price still sits above $106,400, the path to higher bands often remains open as long as the pivot holds.

During periods when derivative positioning appears crowded, yet the market cannot reclaim its level, the burden of proof remains with buyers until acceptance returns. The outcome is a practical approach to managing exposure without overfitting to short-term indicators.

None of these assigns special status to a single number beyond its repeated use in the current structure. Markets evolve, and pivots migrate as distributions shift.

However, the charted channels have depicted intraday support and resistance levels for almost 2 years at this point.

The value of $106,400 lies in the tape that keeps returning to it, the reactions that form around it, and the clarity it offers for planning the next trade.

Thus, $106,400 appears to be functioning as the cycle’s balance point, and price continues to treat it accordingly..

Quantum computing is no longer just science fiction or the stuff of cypherpunk paranoia; it’s officially a front-page threat for the world’s first stateless money. If you ever thought Satoshi’s creation was immune to existential risk, think again. The latest round of Bitcoiners and cryptographers in the Human Rights Foundation (HRF)’s latest report would like a word.

Quantum computing is the ‘biggest risk’ to Bitcoin

The HRF’s detailed breakdown discusses how Bitcoin represents far more than a speculative plaything. It’s a lifeline for activists, journalists, and dissidents facing financial repression in authoritarian regimes. Bitcoin’s decentralization, privacy, and permissionless access are what keep donation flows alive and savings out of reach from government seizures.

But all that magic depends on solid cryptography. And quantum computing is the only technological leap with the power to shatter those invisible shields.​ Quantum computing puts nearly $700 billion in Bitcoin at risk. Another 4.49 million are only safe if their owners act fast and migrate to quantum-resistant addresses.

While researchers rush to roll out quantum-secure upgrades, nothing is quick in Bitcoin land. That means fierce debates about whether to “burn” unmovable coins (and stick a fork in Bitcoin’s neutrality), or risk quantum thieves looting them.

To top it off, quantum-proof transactions would bloat the blockchain, taking Bitcoin’s scaling problem from a mild headache to a crushing migraine. It’s not just a technical puzzle either; it’s a test of the network’s willingness to evolve without breaking what made Bitcoin special in the first place. Coin Metrics cofounder and Bitcoin advocate Nic Carter put it bluntly in his own recent writing:

“Quantum computing is, in my opinion, the biggest risk to Bitcoin. It’s a big looming problem for a lot of financial systems, and for various other blockchains too, but it’s kind of a uniquely big and intractable problem for Bitcoin.”

How much Bitcoin is at risk?

HRF’s report revealed that roughly 6.5 million Bitcoin (almost one-third of all BTC) are currently vulnerable to “long-range” quantum attacks. Those attacks target old or reused address types. Of these, owners could, in theory, secure 4.49 million coins by migrating their balances to quantum-resistant addresses.

The catch? That leaves 1.7 million BTC, including Satoshi’s legendary 1.1 million, frozen in time and wide open for quantum bandits when the day comes.​ The quantum threat boils down to two main attack vectors: “long-range attacks” and “short-range attacks.”

Long-range attacks target dormant and reused addresses, exploiting exposed public keys. Short-range attacks exploit the transaction window, swiping funds before confirmation if attackers can calculate private keys in real time.

“Burn” or be burned: protocol politics

Bitcoin’s decentralized upgrade process is its greatest asset and its biggest weakness here. Unlike Apple’s latest OS update, Bitcoin doesn’t get automatic security fixes. Consensus means drama, often measured in years, not weeks.

The “burn or steal” debate is heating up: Should developers try to burn quantum-vulnerable coins, freeze them, or let quantum thieves drain lost wallets? Nobody agrees, which isn’t surprising for a project obsessed with property rights, censorship resistance, and anti-governance. As the report concludes:

“Upgrading Bitcoin to withstand quantum threats is as much a human challenge as a cryptographic one. Any successful soft fork integrating quantum-resistant signature schemes will necessitate user education, thoughtful user interface design, and coordination across a global ecosystem that includes users, developers, hardware manufacturers, node operators, and civil society.”

Brave new algorithms, larger blocks, and new headaches

Moving to quantum-proof algorithms isn’t just a technical sidebar. HRF highlights two classes of solutions: lattice-based and hash-based signature schemes, each with different trade-offs. Larger keys mean bulkier transactions, fewer transactions per block, heavier full nodes, and likely an entire new chapter in Bitcoin’s scaling wars.​

For reference, lattice-based signatures are about ten times larger than current signatures, while the most compact hash-based alternatives are 38 times bigger. Every technical fix will require wallet redesigns, updated hardware, node operator re-training, and user education on a global scale.

The community must coordinate across coders, wallet builders, advocacy groups, and millions of skeptical holders (many of whom don’t even know their coins are vulnerable). History shows even friendly upgrades can take years to pass, and with quantum computing timelines still unclear, the window for action may slam shut faster than expected.​

What’s next: resilience or ruin?

Any durable fix will require grassroots buy-in, not just GitHub commits. The fate of forgotten Bitcoins (and perhaps the ecosystem’s legitimacy) hangs on how the network navigates these political, technical, and social battles in the coming decade.

For Bitcoin’s rebels, cypherpunks, and involuntary exiles, the message is clear. Keep educating, keep upgrading, and don’t assume Satoshi’s armor is permanently bulletproof. As Bitcoin security expert, core dev, and Casa cofounder, Jameson Lopp, warned, even more than quantum computing, the biggest threat to Bitcoin is apathy:

“If people are apathetic about continuing to talk about improving Bitcoin, that’s when it becomes weak and more vulnerable to new threats that can emerge.”

The following is a guest post and opinion from Shane Neagle, Editor In Chief from The Tokenist.

It is no secret that large language models (LLMs) crossed the capability threshold by harvesting vast amounts of public and private data. Combined with breakthroughs in transformer architectures and compute power, this data scraping led to concerns about intellectual property (IP) rights.

Intellectual property frameworks exist to incentivize innovation and creative spark, protecting creators and businesses. In turn, the entire society benefits from that incentive structure. Eventually, IP protections typically expire, at which point IP becomes integrated into the public domain.

The global harmonizing IP framework is the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS Agreement) under the World Trade Organization (WTO) umbrella, together with the World Intellectual Property Organisation (WIPO).

However, with AI rapidly blurring the line between human and machine creativity, the foundational assumptions of the IP system are under strain. Without explicit consent and compensation, LLMs are routinely trained on copyrighted works, eroding the important incentive structure.

Over time, it is not difficult to see digital oligopolies entrenching their power with the largest compute power and data access, while barring smaller players from large-scale data scraping.

Yet, once again when it comes to data flows, a potential solution can arise from the blockchain ecosystem. Specifically, with layer-1 Camp Network (CAMP) blockchain.

How Does Camp Network Tackle IP Incentivization Erosion?

Just as Bitcoin mainnet immutably registers the transfer of value, Camp Network aims to immutably register the transfer and attribution of people’s work. With a permanent and verifiable record of ownership, creators can automatically enforce licensing terms – through smart contracts – whenever AI models use this registered content.

To accomplish this, Camp Network uses the proof-of-provenance (PoP) protocol, which handles IP origin and licensing terms. On top of this core protocol, Camp Network uses BaseCAMP as a global IP registry and SideCAMPs tailored for dApps pertaining to IP enforcement in various sectors such as music, books, or gaming.

Specifically, creators and organizations could register IP as non-fungible tokens (NFTs), which have already pioneered a form of on-chain royalties system, despite the market deflation since late 2021. Although this was an important proof of concept, royalties enforcement relies more on marketplace cooperation, not the blockchain itself.

Case in point, there was a period of ‘royalty wars’ between OpenSea and other marketplaces like Blur, in which marketplaces introduced a royalties-optional model opting for token incentivization instead. Eventually, this led to a fragmented and voluntary NFT royalty ecosystem, exacerbated by faulty metadata.

Building on these lessons, Camp Network is embedding royalty logic at the protocol layer, instead of relying on marketplaces. This means that royalties would not just apply to content, but to data usage – ideal for scenarios when LLMs train on registered datasets.

Camp Network’s Registration and Monetization Process

With its purpose-built layer-1 blockchain, Camp Network is foremost aimed at individual creators across all digital content categories. Whether it is a music track or a digital image, the process is as follows:

• Using Origin Framework, creators register their work on-chain, during which they embed licensing terms and royalty range tied into the asset’s smart contract.

• On the other hand, when an AI developer uses mAltrix Framework to train an AI agent, it taps into content from Camp’s registry.

• As AI uses a registered asset, to either generate new content or for training, Camp Network’s proof-of-provenance tracks its usage. Accordingly, smart contracts automatically execute the creator’s pre-defined terms, distributing CAMP payment to the wallet.

To put it differently, Camp Network is better understood as add-on infrastructure rather than another protocol. On its portal, users can even transfer native ETH from Ethereum, which holds the highest number of dApps and developers.

At present, Camp Network’s ecosystem spans 141 dApps. This is unsurprising given that the protocol is fully compatible with the Ethereum Virtual Machine (EVM), making for easy dApp migration.

To support Ethereum-Camp interoperability in a secure manner, Camp Network uses Decentralized Verifier Network (DVN), powered by the native token CAMP for the purpose of staking within the CAMP Vault.

Moreover, each dApp runs its own SideCAMP in order to avoid traffic congestion. And because SideCAMPs support different runtime environments, different ecosystems can onboard the Camp ecosystem. This blockchain network interoperability is extremely important for Camp Network to gain traction, ensuring that content maintains its traceable origins across chains.

CAMP Tokenomics

Having launched relatively recently in late August 2025, there are 10 billion CAMP tokens available to secure and monetize the network, of which 2.1 billion are in circulation. Early backers hold the most tokens, at 29%.

For ecosystem and foundation, 3% of CAMP tokens are unlocked at token generation events (TGE) each. The remaining tokens are vested monthly over 60 months for the purpose of supporting airdrops, grants, staking rewards, and community engagement. In many ways, these yield-style incentives mirror the recurring payouts investors receive from dividend stocks, but in a decentralized, blockchain-native form.

Protocol developers gain CAMP tokens gradually over 4 years after a 1-year initial waiting period. Likewise, after waiting for one year, early backers gain a 2-year period of linear vesting to three years total.

The Bottom Line

Following early October’s crypto crash, now is a good time to consider investing in assets that are likely to gain merit-based traction. Alongside Ethereum, Camp Network belongs in this consideration category, at least to watch for CAMP’s future airdrop campaigns.

At the end of the line, Camp Network addresses a fast-growing problem of AI devouring data without giving anything in return. One could even see Google’s AI Overview eroding website traffic, as it summarizes different websites for user queries.

By embedding royalty and usage logic at the protocol layer, Camp Network ensures digital content is transformed into verifiable, monetizable assets. And the longer we are in the AI era, the longer the demand for transparent, on-chain provenance and automated compensation will grow.