The post Cardano’s Bitcoin DeFi Push Faces Its First Delivery Test appeared first on Coindoo.

Key Takeaways

Cardano founder Charles Hoskinson is backing Pogun, a development initiative intended to bring Bitcoin liquidity into Cardano-based credit and yield markets.

Led by Omer Husain and the team behind Input Output’s open-source Cardinal bridge specification, Pogun plans to combine a non-margin credit market, a yield application and a trust-minimized Bitcoin bridge.

The project’s central test is not whether Cardano can advertise access to Bitcoin’s market value. It is whether Pogun can launch a useful credit market, attract borrowers and lenders, and give BTC holders a reason to cross the bridge when it becomes available.

The $1.6 Trillion Bitcoin Claim Needs Context

Pogun’s official proposal describes Bitcoin as a vast pool of capital that is “almost entirely idle.” The phrase refers to Bitcoin’s limited use in native decentralized lending and credit markets, not to every BTC sitting unused.

Some coverage has rounded the opportunity to $1.6 trillion, while Pogun’s own governance proposal described Bitcoin as a roughly $1.5 trillion asset. Either figure is a time-sensitive estimate of Bitcoin’s total market capitalization which as of 19 July, 2026, is around $1.3T, not an amount that Pogun has secured or expects to move into Cardano in full.

Bitcoin is already used through self-custody, exchanges, corporate treasuries, exchange-traded products and centralized lending arrangements. Pogun’s argument is narrower: only a relatively small portion of that capital participates in decentralized credit and yield markets without relying on a centralized custodian.

Pogun is therefore competing for the subset of Bitcoin holders willing to use BTC as collateral or deploy it into financial strategies. It is not integrating Bitcoin’s entire market value into Cardano.

Pogun Plans to Build the Market Before the Bridge

Pogun’s published roadmap contains three connected stages:

Pogun’s sequence is deliberate. The credit market is intended to establish demand, the yield application would make that market easier to access, and the bridge would then introduce Bitcoin as additional collateral and liquidity.

That gives incoming BTC an intended use from the beginning, but it also creates dependency between the milestones. Delays or weak adoption in the first two products could reduce the reason for Bitcoin holders to use the bridge when it arrives.

The First Roadmap Deadline Has Passed

The proposal stated that the non-margin credit market would launch on Cardano’s mainnet in the second quarter of 2026 after completing a formal security audit.

That quarter ended on June 30.

As of July 19, Pogun’s official website continues to describe the platform as “coming soon.” The official project pages reviewed for this article do not provide a public mainnet announcement, deployed contract address or completed audit report.

That does not establish that development has stopped. It means the Q2 milestone cannot yet be treated as publicly delivered based on the evidence currently available.

In a June 11 video, Hoskinson said work had not been paused after the project failed to secure treasury funding and described Pogun as a commercial initiative that could continue without the proposed community investment.

His comments indicate that development is continuing, but they do not establish that the credit market has launched publicly or completed the formal audit described in the original proposal.

The Cardano Treasury Did Not Fund Pogun

Pogun requested ₳12.29 million from the Cardano Treasury, valued at approximately $2.95 million when the proposal was prepared.

The proposed funding was divided into milestone-based tranches. Later bridge funding would have depended on verified progress in the credit market, while the proposal included provisions for returning undisbursed funds if milestones failed, the team dissolved or the bridge was found to be technically infeasible.

Pogun also proposed returning 20% of EBITDA to the Cardano Treasury until the original investment had been repaid, followed by 5% of EBITDA from Cardano-related products in perpetuity.

That arrangement was never activated.

The onchain governance action expired on May 24, 2026, without receiving the support required for ratification. No ₳12.29 million treasury withdrawal was approved for Pogun.

The failed vote did not remove money that had already been granted. It meant that this specific treasury withdrawal was never authorized.

If Pogun continues as a privately funded commercial initiative, the Cardano Treasury will not automatically receive the proposed revenue share unless a separate agreement is approved in the future.

How Pogun’s Credit Market Is Supposed to Work

Pogun’s first planned product differs from the pooled, overcollateralized lending markets commonly found across DeFi.

Smart contracts would enforce those agreed terms. According to Pogun, the model would not depend on external price oracles or automatic margin calls, meaning temporary market volatility would not by itself liquidate a borrower’s collateral.

The structure resembles fixed-term private credit more closely than a continuously rebalanced DeFi lending pool.

Active loan positions would be represented by transferable Bond Tokens issued as Cardano native assets. That could allow a lender to transfer or sell exposure before a loan matures, creating the foundation for a secondary market in tokenized debt positions.

Removing automatic price-based liquidation does not remove financial risk.

A borrower can still default, collateral can lose value before it is recovered, and Bond Tokens may have little secondary-market liquidity. Smart-contract vulnerabilities, weak borrower assessment and disputes involving real-world counterparties could add further risk.

The model exchanges the danger of rapid oracle-driven liquidation for longer-duration credit, liquidity and enforcement risks. Its usefulness will depend on how clearly those risks are disclosed and priced.

The Bridge Is Trust-Minimized, Not Trustless

Pogun’s final stage is intended to move Bitcoin into the Cardano environment without placing the underlying BTC under the control of a single custodian.

The roadmap describes a 1-of-N security model. Under that design, a fraudulent withdrawal can be blocked as long as at least one verifier in the operator set remains honest and available.

Although the proposal labels the component a BitVM-powered bridge, a later technical explanation from Input Output says the team moved toward a custom implementation based on BABE after identifying production constraints in the BitVM family of designs.

At a high level, the design is intended to prove what happened on Cardano, compress that evidence into a smaller cryptographic proof and make the result verifiable through a Bitcoin-side mechanism without giving one custodian control of the underlying BTC.

Mithril certificates allow external systems to verify authenticated information about Cardano without independently replaying the entire blockchain. Pogun intends to use proofs built over that certificate chain to establish what occurred on Cardano before a corresponding Bitcoin-side action is accepted.

The architecture is technically detailed, but a design document is not proof of production security.

Bridge implementations can be exposed to software bugs, proof-system failures, operator outages, configuration errors and weaknesses in the applications holding bridged assets. Public code, independent audits, testnet performance and the composition of the verifier set will matter as much as the cryptographic design.

Calling the bridge trust-minimized is therefore more accurate than calling it trustless.

Why Cardano Sees an Architectural Fit With Bitcoin

Cardano argues that it is a natural environment for Bitcoin-based finance because the two networks share a related accounting structure.

As Cardano’s official documentation explains, Bitcoin and Cardano both use versions of the Unspent Transaction Output model. Bitcoin transactions consume existing outputs and create new ones, while Cardano extends that structure through its EUTXO model to support programmable conditions, native assets and smart contracts.

That shared lineage can make some financial logic easier to express across the two systems. It does not mean that Cardano can control native Bitcoin directly or that other smart-contract networks cannot support Bitcoin-based applications through different architectures.

Pogun still requires a bridge to connect two separate ledgers. Its success will depend on implementation quality, security and market demand rather than the UTXO connection alone.

READ MORE:

 

FTX Sets $900 Million Creditor Payout for July 31

 

What Pogun Could Mean for Cardano and ADA

Pogun is partly an attempt to expand Cardano’s relatively small DeFi economy.

At the time of writing, DefiLlama records approximately $72 million in total value locked across Cardano applications. Even a modest amount of BTC deployed into Cardano-based credit markets could therefore be material relative to the ecosystem’s present size.

That possibility should not be confused with a guarantee that billions of dollars will arrive.

Claims that Pogun could push Cardano’s TVL to $10 billion or $15 billion are not supported by the project’s formal proposal. Its own end-of-2027 scenarios projected approximately:

• $100 million in Pogun TVL under a bearish scenario;
• $450 million under its base scenario;
• $765 million under its bullish scenario.

Those are project forecasts rather than assured outcomes. Actual adoption will depend on bridge security, borrowing demand, available returns, liquidity, regulatory access and competition from other Bitcoin DeFi platforms.

The effect on ADA also needs careful framing.

Under Cardano’s current rules, ADA is accepted as payment for network fees. Pogun activity executed on Cardano could therefore generate additional transaction-fee demand.

The scale of that effect would depend on transaction volume, fee levels and whether applications require users to hold ADA directly or abstract the payment process on their behalf. Bridged Bitcoin sitting inactive in a contract would not create the same recurring network demand as an actively used credit market.

Pogun could add utility to Cardano, but publishing a roadmap does not by itself create substantial or sustainable demand for ADA.

What Would Confirm the Bitcoin DeFi Thesis

The strongest evidence will come from delivered products and measurable usage rather than the total market value of Bitcoin.

The thesis would become more credible if Pogun provides:

For now, Pogun remains a development initiative rather than evidence that significant Bitcoin liquidity has entered Cardano.

The next decisive proof point is a publicly verifiable launch of the credit market, followed by its audit results and measurable lending activity. Only then will the planned yield layer and Bitcoin bridge have an operating market to connect to.

This article is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute financial, legal or investment advice.

The post Cardano’s Bitcoin DeFi Push Faces Its First Delivery Test appeared first on Coindoo.

Check our Market Overview 

Source: https://coindoo.com/cardanos-bitcoin-defi-push-faces-its-first-delivery-test/

The post Bitcoin’s Valuation Outruns Onchain Growth – What’s Driving It appeared first on Coindoo.

Bitcoin’s Valuation Is Moving Faster Than Its Network

João Wedson, founder and CEO of Alphractal, summarized the signal directly: Bitcoin’s valuation is outpacing network adoption.

The Metcalfe Ratio attempts to compare Bitcoin’s market value with activity across its network. A reading near 3.23 does not provide a precise estimate of fair value, but it indicates that market capitalization has increased more quickly than the adoption measure underlying the model.

Alphractal’s official API documentation lists the Metcalfe Ratio among its Bitcoin market indicators, alongside separate measures for network maturity, adoption and valuation.

The ratio remains a model-specific signal rather than a universally accepted measure of Bitcoin’s fair value. Its interpretation depends on the network inputs, historical relationships and methodology used to construct it.

That distinction matters. A rising price accompanied by equally strong network growth suggests that economic activity is expanding alongside valuation. When price moves much faster, the market is paying in advance for adoption that has not yet appeared in the same proportion.

The strongest conclusion is therefore narrower than declaring Bitcoin overvalued. The chart shows that the demand supporting the current market capitalization is not being matched by the same rate of growth in the onchain activity measured by Alphractal’s model.

Corporate Demand May Not Appear in Onchain Adoption

Onchain activity and economic adoption are no longer interchangeable.

A new self-custody user may create an address and generate transactions that appear directly in network data. A company, exchange-traded product or institutional investor can acquire a much larger position through a custodian while producing relatively little identifiable activity on Bitcoin’s base layer.

The same compression occurs when thousands of investors gain exposure through one investment vehicle. Their capital remains economically relevant to Bitcoin, but it may be represented onchain by only a small number of consolidated wallets and transactions.

Michael Saylor’s corporate-adoption argument connects with the Alphractal signal.

Saylor argues that companies allow people and capital to organize under a legal structure with greater scale, continuity, transparency and access to credit. For Bitcoin to succeed as a global monetary network, he wrote, corporate adoption is “necessary, inevitable, and welcome.”

Companies enable people to organize under law around a shared mission with greater efficiency, transparency, creditworthiness, scale, resilience, and continuity.

For Bitcoin to succeed as a global monetary network, corporate adoption is necessary, inevitable, and welcome.

— Michael Saylor (@saylor) July 18, 2026

The argument is that companies can move Bitcoin beyond a market driven primarily by individual ownership. Corporations can raise money, issue securities, access credit and maintain acquisition strategies at a scale that most individual buyers cannot reproduce.

That may help explain how Bitcoin’s market value can rise faster than conventional network indicators. One large corporate purchase can introduce more capital than thousands of small onchain users while creating far less visible activity.

It does not make the Metcalfe divergence irrelevant.

Corporate demand is more concentrated than broad user adoption and can depend on financing conditions, executive decisions, shareholder support and access to capital markets. A small number of large buyers can have a powerful effect while they are accumulating, but the market also becomes more sensitive to any slowdown in their purchases.

Saylor’s position is therefore a thesis rather than proof that the valuation gap has already been justified. Corporate adoption could provide the missing demand, but companies must continue allocating real capital for that explanation to hold.

Why Visser Thinks AI Changes the Bitcoin Comparison

In a recent discussion with Anthony Pompliano on The Pomp Podcast, Jordi Visser approached the same market from a different direction.

Visser is a veteran macro investor with more than 30 years of experience. His longer-term Bitcoin thesis is built partly around the effect artificial intelligence could have on public companies and traditional business models.

AI may increase productivity, but it can also weaken the competitive advantages on which corporate valuations depend. Software can be replicated, operating costs can collapse, products can become easier to reproduce and established industries can be reorganized by new competitors.

Bitcoin does not operate like a conventional company. It has no management team, profit margins or commercial business model for an AI competitor to disrupt.

For Visser, that makes Bitcoin the only asset whose competitive “moat” he does not have to worry about AI attacking.

The argument does not mean Bitcoin is protected from market risk. Its price can still fall because of leverage, liquidity, regulation, changing investor demand or broader risk reduction. Visser’s point is more specific: technological disruption that damages a company’s expected earnings does not attack Bitcoin through the same channel.

That distinction became more important during the recent unwinding of leveraged positions in AI-related stocks.

Using the volatility figures cited in the discussion, Visser said volatility in the broader AI thematic trade had moved toward 100, while Bitcoin volatility remained near 30. On a simple volatility-adjusted basis, that would theoretically allow a portfolio to hold roughly three times more Bitcoin exposure than AI exposure without increasing its measured volatility.

The comparison should not be treated as a portfolio recommendation. Volatility scaling does not fully account for sudden drawdowns, liquidity conditions, changing correlations or the possibility that historical relationships break during a market shock.

It nevertheless supports a broader observation. Bitcoin became comparatively easier to hold while another major speculative theme was being deleveraged.

That relative resilience could attract investors searching for a new source of market exposure after the sharp rise in AI-related volatility. Visser said he remained considerably more heavily weighted toward crypto than toward the semiconductor positions he had recently begun rebuilding.

His crypto exposure consisted of Bitcoin, Ethereum and shares in Strategy, formerly known as MicroStrategy.

Cooler Inflation Improves the Short-Term Backdrop

The immediate macro environment has also become less hostile.

The U.S. Consumer Price Index fell 0.4% in June, its largest monthly decline since April 2020. Energy prices fell 5.7% and were the largest contributor to the drop.

Headline inflation remained at 3.5% over the previous 12 months, while the index excluding food and energy was unchanged in June and increased 2.6% over the year.

Visser interpreted the report as evidence that inflation may become less important to financial markets during the remainder of the year. The softer reading also reduced expectations that the Federal Reserve would need to raise interest rates again, which he views as positive for crypto and the broader debasement trade.

That interpretation goes beyond what the official data alone can establish. One monthly decline does not guarantee that inflation has been defeated, particularly when much of the drop came from energy prices that can reverse quickly.

The Federal Reserve also remains more cautious. At its June meeting, the central bank maintained the federal funds target range at 3.5% to 3.75% and continued to describe inflation as elevated relative to its 2% goal.

Bitcoin’s relative stability during the recent momentum unwind was encouraging for Visser, but he acknowledged that crypto prices had not yet reflected the full potential benefit of falling rate-hike expectations.

That leaves the short-term case supportive but incomplete. Cooler inflation removes one source of pressure, but it does not automatically create the sustained buying needed to close the gap between Bitcoin’s valuation and visible network adoption.

The Fiscal Deficit Is the Longer-Term Anchor

The deeper foundation of Visser’s crypto position is not one inflation report or one Federal Reserve decision. It is the structural U.S. fiscal deficit.

The Congressional Budget Office projects a federal deficit of approximately $1.9 trillion in fiscal 2026, equal to 5.8% of gross domestic product.

Federal outlays are projected to reach 23.3% of GDP, compared with revenues equal to 17.5%. Debt held by the public is expected to reach 101% of GDP during the year and continue rising over the following decade.

That persistent gap is the basis of the debasement argument.

Large deficits do not produce an automatic or immediate increase in Bitcoin’s price. They do, however, require continued government borrowing and contribute to concerns about debt sustainability and the long-term purchasing power of government-issued currencies.

Bitcoin’s fixed supply allows investors to express those concerns through an asset outside the conventional monetary system.

Visser’s position is therefore not that each new deficit dollar flows directly into crypto. It is that persistent fiscal expansion creates a continuing reason for corporations, institutions and macro investors to seek assets whose supply cannot be increased in response to government financing needs.

That long-term argument also helps connect his view with Saylor’s.

Visser explains why investors may want a scarce monetary asset. Saylor explains how companies and financial structures could channel capital into it at scale.

Together, their arguments raise the question at the center of the current market: can corporate and institutional capital validate a Bitcoin price that has already moved ahead of visible onchain adoption?

Bitcoin Is Pricing In a Different Kind of Adoption

Bitcoin’s price is effectively betting that adoption is changing shape.

The onchain data says valuation has moved ahead of the activity visible in Alphractal’s model. Saylor argues that companies can provide the capital, scale and continuity required to extend Bitcoin’s monetary network, while Visser explains why AI disruption and persistent fiscal deficits could give portfolios a reason to make that allocation.

The thesis remains conditional.

If corporate and institutional demand continues to expand, the gap between valuation and network activity may reflect adoption migrating into custodial products, corporate balance sheets and concentrated investment vehicles.

In that scenario, conventional onchain indicators would still describe an important part of the network, but they would capture only part of the capital supporting Bitcoin’s market value.

If those flows weaken while network activity remains subdued, the same divergence becomes harder to defend. Bitcoin would then rely increasingly on speculation and expectations of future demand rather than adoption already taking place.

The next test is therefore not only whether more people transact directly on Bitcoin. It is whether corporations, funds and macro investors can turn a less visible form of adoption into durable demand.

The price is already anticipating that transition. The capital now has to confirm it.

This article is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute financial or investment advice.

The post Bitcoin’s Valuation Outruns Onchain Growth – What’s Driving It appeared first on Coindoo.

Check our Market Overview 

Source: https://coindoo.com/bitcoins-valuation-outruns-onchain-growth/

The post Bitcoin May Be Pricing In a CLARITY Act Failure, Galaxy CEO Says appeared first on Coindoo.

During a conversation with SkyBridge founder and managing partner Anthony Scaramucci, Michael Novogratz said he expects Bitcoin to trade above $70,000 before it falls below $60,000.

“Bullish. Crypto is trading better,” he said when Scaramucci asked which level Bitcoin would reach first.

The prediction was measured rather than aggressively optimistic. Novogratz acknowledged that he could not clearly identify the source of the stronger price action and did not describe the market as being driven by an explosive wave of institutional buying.

“It’s not trading with explosive energy. It’s just trading a little bit better.”

Bitcoin Is Holding Up Without an Obvious New Buyer

Bitcoin has maintained a firm bid even though some of the market’s most visible buyers have not been actively adding to their positions. Scaramucci also pointed to the asset’s resilience during an unfavorable news cycle.

Together, those observations suggest that the improvement may be coming from less aggressive selling rather than a sudden increase in demand. A market can strengthen because buyers become more active, but it can also rise when existing holders become less willing to sell at lower prices.

The interview did not include exchange-flow, ETF or order-book data that could confirm seller exhaustion. Bitcoin’s price action is nevertheless more consistent with an easing of sell-side pressure than with a major breakout powered by obvious new capital.

That type of market may require less fresh demand to move higher, particularly if an unexpected catalyst forces investors to adjust their positioning. Novogratz sees U.S. crypto legislation as the clearest candidate.

The CLARITY Act Creates an Uneven Market Bet

Novogratz believes Bitcoin’s position in the mid-$60,000 range reflects skepticism that Congress will complete work on crypto market-structure legislation.

“In the mid-60s, Bitcoin is a sign that the market doesn’t think it’s going to pass,” he said.

The legislation under discussion is the Digital Asset Market Clarity Act, commonly known as the CLARITY Act. Its broader purpose is to establish a federal framework for digital assets and draw clearer jurisdictional lines between the Securities and Exchange Commission and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission.

The House approved an earlier version in July 2025. Following months of negotiations, the Senate Banking Committee advanced its negotiated text by a 15–9 vote on May 14, 2026, sending the measure toward consideration by the full Senate.

Committee approval does not guarantee enactment. The bill still needs sufficient support on the Senate floor, and any differences from the House version would have to be resolved before it could be sent to the president.

Novogratz said the remaining political window is narrowing. Failure to reach an agreement soon could delay the legislation for a considerably longer period, removing a catalyst that parts of the industry have expected for more than a year. A legislative failure could push Bitcoin back toward $60,000. Because the market already appears to assign a high probability to delay or defeat, however, part of that disappointment may be reflected in the current price.

Passage would represent the larger surprise and could trigger a broader repricing across Bitcoin, Ethereum, XRP and other major crypto assets. Bitcoin would benefit from greater certainty around exchanges, brokers and institutional market access, while ETH and XRP may be more sensitive to rules defining the boundary between securities and digital commodities.

The bill would not automatically classify every token favorably or eliminate regulatory risk. Its potential market impact comes from replacing part of the existing uncertainty with a statutory process for disclosures, registration and regulatory oversight.

Passage also remains politically difficult. Senate Banking Committee minority staff have argued that the legislation leaves gaps that could be exploited for illicit finance. Senator Elizabeth Warren has also criticized the absence of provisions addressing political conflicts of interest connected to crypto businesses.

Those objections help explain why progress through one committee has not yet translated into a completed law.

READ MORE:

U.S. Government Moves $297M in Crypto to Coinbase: Sale or Custody?

Crypto Access Is Expanding Faster Than Investor Discipline

The conversation then moved from Bitcoin’s immediate setup to a broader problem developing across retail markets. Novogratz distinguished between giving ordinary investors access to financial assets and encouraging them to behave like professional traders. Easier access has lowered barriers, but it has also blurred the line between investing and gambling.

“We have an almost irrational bull market in young kids, sports betting, trading stocks, trading crypto,” he said.

His criticism was directed at speculative behavior rather than crypto as an asset class. Professional trading firms operate with faster technology, deeper liquidity data, specialist teams and risk systems built across multiple market cycles. Retail participants pursuing rapid, oversized returns are competing against those firms while often absorbing the costs of poor timing, spreads and excessive trading.

A few successful trades can reinforce the belief that the advantage is repeatable. Over longer periods, frequent trading exposes inexperienced participants to leverage, emotional decisions and low-probability bets that increasingly resemble gambling.

Scaramucci agreed that investors are generally better served by taking a longer-term approach instead of constantly searching for trades capable of producing enormous returns within days. His own company’s history illustrates that distinction. Scaramucci said SkyBridge changed direction roughly five years ago and became a more crypto-focused business.

“About five years ago, we flipped into a more crypto-centric business.”

That was a strategic shift in capital, research and company resources rather than a sequence of short-term directional bets. SkyBridge was adapting its business model around a long-term view of digital assets while continuing to develop its conference and investment operations.

The interview ultimately draws a line between adoption and speculation. Companies such as Galaxy and SkyBridge are building businesses around asset management, market infrastructure and long-term crypto adoption, while many retail participants approach the same market through leverage and rapid bets.

Washington may influence Bitcoin’s next move by delivering or delaying a clearer regulatory framework. Legislation cannot, however, prevent investors from overtrading or mistaking easier access for a durable advantage.

The longer-term outcome would might depend on whether market participants use crypto as financial infrastructure and an investable asset class, or primarily as another casino operating around the clock.

The post Bitcoin May Be Pricing In a CLARITY Act Failure, Galaxy CEO Says appeared first on Coindoo.

Check our Market Overview 

Source: https://coindoo.com/bitcoin-pricing-clarity-act-failure-galaxy-ceo/

The post Morgan Stanley Opens Crypto Trading for BTC, ETH and SOL appeared first on Coindoo.

According to the official information from the company, clients do not need to fund a separate crypto balance manually. Cash in the linked brokerage account provides the buying power, with funds moving between the accounts when a trade settles.

Morgan Stanley reported 8.7 million self-directed households as of June 30, 2026. That figure describes the service’s potential distribution network rather than the number of immediate crypto users. Clients must still qualify for and open a separate non-brokerage account provided by Zero Hash.

The Distribution Is More Important Than the Asset List

Bitcoin and Ethereum are increasingly standard additions to institutional crypto products. Solana’s inclusion is more notable because E*TRADE launched with only three supported assets, placing SOL beside the two largest cryptocurrencies rather than introducing it through a broader catalogue.

The immediate advantage is reduced friction. An investor who already holds cash or securities at E*TRADE can add direct crypto exposure without opening and funding an account at a dedicated exchange. Crypto positions can also be viewed alongside the rest of the investor’s portfolio.

That convenience could expand demand for all three assets, but the size of E*TRADE’s customer base should not be treated as expected trading volume. Morgan Stanley has not disclosed how many households have opened crypto accounts, how much volume the service has processed, or how activity is divided between BTC, ETH, and SOL.

What the 0.50% Fee Costs Against Rivals

According to E*TRADE’s official crypto pricing, every transaction carries a commission equal to 0.50% of its notional value. E*TRADE says there is no additional spread fee or markup.

The comparison with other platforms is less straightforward. Coinbase Advanced varies its maker and taker fees according to order type and 30-day trading volume, so some users may pay less than 0.50% and others more.

Robinhood does not charge a separately stated commission under its default market-maker routing, but the execution spread still creates a cost. In Robinhood’s own example, a $100 purchase with a 0.96% buy spread carries $0.96 in spread cost. Applied to a $1,000 order, the same illustrative spread would equal $9.60, although the actual spread changes with the asset and market conditions.

For an occasional investor, E*TRADE’s advantage is predictability: a $1,000 order costs $5 before any later sale. Frequent traders should calculate both sides of the transaction, because buying and later selling $1,000 of crypto would produce approximately $10 in commissions if the value remained unchanged.

What Customers Can and Cannot Do

The service is currently available through the main E*TRADE website and mobile application. Support for Power E*TRADE is still listed as coming soon.

According to E*TRADE’s crypto account documentation, the main trading conditions are:

Who Is E*TRADE Crypto Actually For?

The service is most useful for investors who already manage stocks, funds, and cash through E*TRADE and want a small allocation to BTC, ETH, or SOL without opening and funding a separate crypto exchange account.

The product is therefore closer to an integrated brokerage service than a full crypto platform. Its strongest feature is convenience, while its main limitation is the lack of control and utility available through a self-custodied wallet.

How Existing E*TRADE Clients Activate Crypto Trading

E*TRADE clients do not receive crypto trading automatically. They must open a separate Zero Hash account and link it to an eligible individual brokerage account.

According to E*TRADE’s official account and trading walkthrough, an existing client follows this route:

On the web platform, users open Trading and select Crypto. In the mobile application, they tap Trade, select Crypto under Security Type, and choose BTC/USD, ETH/USD, or SOL/USD.

The order ticket supports market and limit orders. Before submission, the preview screen displays the estimated commission, total cost, selected quantity, and available purchasing power.

Crypto Taxes Are Easier to Track, but Not Automatic

Trading through a traditional brokerage interface does not place crypto outside US tax rules. Selling BTC, ETH, or SOL for dollars generally creates a reportable capital gain or loss based on the difference between the sale proceeds and the investor’s adjusted cost basis.

E*TRADE states that Zero Hash will furnish Form 1099-DA and make it available through the E*TRADE Tax Center. The form reports proceeds from digital-asset dispositions and may also include cost-basis information where applicable.

That should make record collection easier than trading across several exchanges and wallets, but it does not calculate the investor’s final tax liability. The IRS requires taxpayers to report their digital-asset income, gains, and losses even when a form is missing or does not contain all the necessary basis information.

For a simple buy-and-hold investor, the process may remain relatively manageable. Frequent buying and selling can produce many separate taxable disposals, making the transaction history, acquisition dates, commissions, and cost basis important at tax time.

The 0.50% trading fee also affects the calculation. Transaction costs may be included when determining the acquisition basis or the amount realized on a sale, depending on the transaction. Investors with substantial activity should confirm the treatment with a qualified US tax professional.

No Withdrawals Means No Onchain Control

E*TRADE clients can buy, sell, and hold the three supported assets, but they cannot currently transfer them to an external wallet. In plain English, customers receive economic exposure to the assets without direct control over their private keys.

Solana’s inclusion is still notable because E*TRADE launched with only three assets, placing SOL beside Bitcoin and Ethereum. For now, however, that creates brokerage demand rather than direct activity across Solana applications, staking protocols, decentralized exchanges, or payment services.

The assets are held in the customer’s separate Zero Hash account rather than being custodied by Morgan Stanley. They are not covered by FDIC insurance or SIPC protection.

Morgan Stanley expects transfer functionality to launch later in 2026, but final details such as withdrawal limits, supported wallet types, transfer fees, and eligibility requirements have not yet been published.

Until transfers become available, the service is best understood as a convenient way to trade crypto prices inside E*TRADE, not as a replacement for a wallet or a full crypto exchange.

READ MORE:

How Stablecoins Could Become AI’s Native Payment Rail

Morgan Stanley Is Building More Than a Trading Feature

The E*TRADE rollout is one part of a broader digital-asset strategy.

In April, Morgan Stanley Investment Management launched the Morgan Stanley Bitcoin Trust with a 0.14% sponsor fee. Later that month, it introduced a Stablecoin Reserves Portfolio designed for regulated issuers that need eligible reserve assets.

Morgan Stanley’s announcement states that the E*TRADE digital-asset service is eventually expected to transition from Zero Hash to Morgan Stanley Digital Trust, National Association, which remains in organization. Until that transition takes place, Zero Hash continues to provide the crypto account, execution infrastructure, and custody.

What Would Make the Rollout Material

The launch expands access, but access alone does not establish adoption. The next evidence should come from disclosed account openings, trading volume, client assets, and the share of activity generated by each supported cryptocurrency.

The rollout’s importance will ultimately be measured by activated accounts, trading volume, client assets, and whether Morgan Stanley expands the service beyond basic buying and selling. E*TRADE has opened a large distribution channel for crypto, but the size of its customer base alone does not establish adoption.

The post Morgan Stanley Opens Crypto Trading for BTC, ETH and SOL appeared first on Coindoo.

Check our Market Overview 

Source: https://coindoo.com/morgan-stanley-crypto-trading-btc-eth-and-sol/

The post Bitcoin and Ethereum Jump on Softer CPI – Key Risks Remain appeared first on Coindoo.

The initial move pushed Bitcoin to above $63,500 and Ethereum to $1,820, with both assets reached technical resistance. The next test is whether softer inflation produces a durable policy repricing before Federal Reserve Chair Kevin Warsh’s congressional testimony.

Key Takeaways

Core Inflation Changes the July Debate

The Bureau of Labor Statistics reported that headline CPI declined 0.4% month over month in June after rising 0.5% in May. Economists had expected a smaller 0.1% decrease. The annual rate slowed from 4.2% to 3.5%, below the 3.8% consensus estimate.

Energy drove much of the reversal. The energy index fell 5.7% during the month, including a 9.7% decline in gasoline, after energy costs had increased sharply during the previous three months.

The core data gave the report greater policy weight. CPI excluding food and energy was unchanged, compared with forecasts for a 0.2% increase and May’s 0.2% gain. Annual core inflation eased from 2.9% to 2.6%. Shelter increased only 0.1%, its smallest monthly rise since January 2021.

The combination weakens the case for an immediate rate increase because both headline and underlying inflation slowed. It does not create a clear case for a cut. Inflation remains above the Federal Reserve’s 2% longer-run objective, and one softer month cannot establish that the improvement will persist.

FedWatch Removes Most of the Immediate Hike Risk

The first measurable policy response appeared in federal-funds futures. CME FedWatch data captured at 7:35 a.m. Central Time, six minutes after the release, assigned an 83.4% probability that the Fed would keep its target range at 3.50%–3.75% on July 29.

The probability of a 25-basis-point hike to 3.75%–4.00% fell to 16.6%, while the chance of a cut remained at 0%.

One day earlier, the market had priced only a 58.3% probability of no change and a 41.7% chance of a hike. The CPI report therefore moved the hold probability higher by 25.1 percentage points and reduced the hike probability by the same amount.

That repricing explains the immediate crypto response. Lower expected policy rates reduce the relative appeal of cash and short-term government debt while easing pressure on assets that do not generate conventional income. The market is pricing patience, not monetary easing.

Bitcoin Tests a Two-Layer Resistance Zone

The crypto market moved broadly higher within the first hour. A CoinMarketCap market snapshot showed:

On the daily chart, Bitcoin remains inside an ascending channel and continues to form higher highs and higher lows. Price is testing the 0.236 Fibonacci retracement near $63,600, followed by a stronger resistance area around $64,500, where a horizontal level converges with the 50-day simple moving average.

Breaking through the full $63,600–$64,500 resistance cluster and holding it on a retest would strengthen the short-term recovery. Failure to clear the area would leave the ascending channel intact, with its lower trendline serving as the first dynamic support.

The monthly chart presents a wider test. Bitcoin continues to hold above a key horizontal support area and the 50-month SMA, preserving its long-term bullish foundation, but the price remains below the former ascending channel.

Resistance near $70,000 aligns with the 0.618 Fibonacci retracement and the previous lower boundary of that long-term channel. Reclaiming the level and defending it as support could signal a return to the broader uptrend, while another rejection could renew selling pressure and keep Bitcoin beneath its former channel structure.

Ethereum Breaks Above $1,820 Resistance

Ethereum had been consolidating above a support zone formed by the 0.236 Fibonacci retracement and the 50-day simple moving average, where buyers repeatedly prevented a deeper decline.

The softer-than-expected U.S. CPI report improved risk sentiment and pushed ETH above resistance near $1,820. Holding the breakout through the daily close and defending the level on a retest could open the way toward the 0.382 Fibonacci retracement near $1,872.

A return below $1,820 probably will weaken the move and bring the 50-day SMA and 0.236 retracement back into focus as the primary support zone.

What Could Reverse the Crypto Reaction

The main risk is that investors treat one softer CPI report as confirmation of a lasting policy shift. Tomorrow’s producer price index could challenge that interpretation if pipeline inflation remains firm, while a further escalation between the United States and Iran, or a renewed multiday closure of the Strait of Hormuz, could push oil higher and feed into future inflation readings. The Federal Reserve may also retain a hawkish stance if officials consider June’s improvement temporary and remain concerned about energy costs or broader price pressures.

Crypto markets face a separate policy catalyst from the Clarity Act. A Senate vote could strengthen sentiment by reducing regulatory uncertainty, while a postponement or failure to advance the legislation before the August recess could disappoint investors expecting near-term progress. Rising Treasury yields, renewed rate-hike expectations, or rejection at Bitcoin’s and Ethereum’s resistance levels would indicate that the initial rally was a short-term reaction rather than the beginning of a sustained move.

READ MORE:

76 Banking Groups Urge Senate to Close Clarity Act ‘Loophole’

Warsh’s Testimony Is the Next Repricing Risk

Investors are waiting for Warsh’s semiannual testimony before the House Financial Services Committee at 10:00 a.m. Eastern Time. His interpretation could determine whether the futures-market adjustment survives the session.

Treating June as evidence that underlying inflation is cooling would support the higher probability of a July hold and give Bitcoin and Ethereum more room to challenge resistance. Emphasizing that headline inflation remains at 3.5%, or warning that one report is insufficient, could restore part of the hike premium.

The CPI release removed much of the immediate tightening risk; it did not settle the direction of policy. For crypto, confirmation now requires both a stable policy repricing and closes above the resistance levels.

The post Bitcoin and Ethereum Jump on Softer CPI – Key Risks Remain appeared first on Coindoo.

Check our Market Overview 

Source: https://coindoo.com/bitcoin-and-ethereum-jump-on-softer-cpi-key-risks-remain/

The post Strategy CEO Details Long-Term Bitcoin Buying Plan appeared first on Coindoo.

The distinction is central to Strategy’s latest evolution. Michael Saylor established Bitcoin as the company’s defining asset; management is now building a financial structure intended to preserve that position through bear markets rather than depending on uninterrupted capital raising.

Key Takeaways

The Recent Pause Was a Liquidity Decision

Strategy held 843,775 BTC as of July 12, acquired for an aggregate $63.69 billion, according to its July 13 filing with the SEC. The company made no purchases during the previous week, instead selling 4.8 million MSTR shares for approximately $466.7 million and increasing its U.S. dollar reserve to $3 billion.

The pause followed the sale of 3,588 BTC for a combined $216 million between June 29 and July 5. Those proceeds were used to fund preferred-stock distributions and replenish cash, not to reduce the company’s long-term exposure as part of a bearish market call.

In a July 14 Bloomberg interview, Le said his objective is for Strategy to remain the largest Bitcoin buyer for the foreseeable future. He also expects future common and preferred-stock issuance to finance additional purchases once market conditions make that capital attractive.

The message does not restore the company’s former implied promise of one-way accumulation. Strategy can now sell Bitcoin when management considers monetization more advantageous than issuing undervalued equity. Its commitment is therefore better understood as maintaining and expanding Bitcoin exposure over time, not refusing to sell under every circumstance.

I joined @kgreifeld and @RomaineBostick on Bloomberg today to discuss Strategy’s evolution into a Digital Capital platform, our $3B cash reserve, $STRC, balance sheet resilience, and our long-term commitment to Bitcoin.

01:17 – Strategy’s evolution from Bitcoin Treasury Company… pic.twitter.com/V1g23i1vkk

— Phong Le (@phongle) July 14, 2026

The $3 Billion Reserve Buys Time

Strategy’s Digital Credit Capital Framework restricts the cash reserve to preferred dividends and interest on outstanding debt unless the board approves another use. The policy also requires at least 12 months of coverage for those obligations.

When the framework was announced on June 29, Strategy estimated annual preferred dividends and interest expense at approximately $1.76 billion. Assuming that run rate has not materially changed, the expanded reserve would cover roughly 20 months without requiring new securities issuance or further Bitcoin sales.

That buffer changes the bear-market equation. Bitcoin can decline sharply without immediately forcing the company to issue MSTR at an unattractive valuation simply to meet cash obligations. Strategy can instead use the reserve while waiting for stronger conditions in its common stock, preferred securities or the underlying asset.

Le said management currently considers the balance sheet resilient and would only begin reassessing debt risk more seriously if Bitcoin fell toward approximately $8,000 to $10,000. That threshold is management’s assessment rather than a guaranteed liquidation level, but it illustrates the scale of decline the capital structure is designed to absorb.

Saylor Supplied the Conviction, Le Built the System

The strategy began with a much less developed thesis. In an earlier Prof G Markets interview, Saylor said he discovered Bitcoin in 2020 while frustrated by MicroStrategy’s stagnant valuation and limited growth prospects after three decades as a software company.

His conviction developed in three stages. He first treated Bitcoin as an opportunistic treasury allocation, then as an investment in a dominant digital monetary network. The final step was his conclusion that a decentralized commodity could not be controlled, diluted or corrupted in the same manner as a corporation or banking institution.

Saylor now describes Bitcoin as both digital capital and a global settlement network capable of preserving purchasing power. Whether that broader monetary thesis proves correct remains dependent on adoption, regulation and Bitcoin’s ability to sustain security and liquidity at scale. Inside Strategy, however, the belief has already moved beyond executive rhetoric.

The company issues common equity, variable-rate preferred stock and other securities with different risk profiles, then directs part of the capital toward Bitcoin. The cash reserve and monetization program add defensive tools to that accumulation engine. Saylor explains why the asset remains central; Le’s role is to prevent the financing structure around it from breaking during periods of severe volatility.

READ MORE:

Interactive Brokers Expands Crypto Trading and Transfers

MSTR Must Create More Than Bitcoin Exposure

Le said Strategy’s objective is for MSTR to outperform Bitcoin over time. The mechanism depends partly on the company issuing shares above the net asset value of its holdings and using the proceeds to increase the amount of Bitcoin attributable to each share.

Investors paying that premium are not valuing MSTR as a static pool of BTC. They are assigning additional worth to management’s ability to access capital, design new securities and execute transactions that increase Bitcoin per share. This can amplify returns during favorable markets, but the same structure exposes shareholders to dilution, financing costs and deeper drawdowns when Bitcoin falls.

A sustained contraction of MSTR’s premium would weaken the model. Common-stock issuance becomes less accretive near net asset value, while preferred dividends remain recurring cash obligations. Under those conditions, Strategy may have to slow purchases, raise more expensive capital or monetize part of its reserve.

Bitcoin Remains Larger Than Its Biggest Corporate Holder

Le rejected the idea that Strategy controls Bitcoin’s price, noting that the company holds roughly 4% of the asset’s maximum supply while daily trading volume reaches approximately $30 billion to $40 billion. He pointed to the recent sale of about $216 million in BTC, during which the market moved higher rather than lower.

One transaction cannot establish the precise market impact of Strategy’s activity, but it shows the company is still a participant in a global market rather than its sole source of liquidity. Its importance lies more in the corporate financing model it has created than in an ability to determine Bitcoin’s daily direction.

The stronger long-term thesis is therefore not simply that Saylor remains convinced. Bitcoin has become the foundation of Strategy’s treasury policy, securities architecture and shareholder proposition, while the $3 billion reserve gives management time to defend that system through another downturn. The test is whether those financing tools can continue increasing Bitcoin per share without allowing dividend obligations, dilution or weak market access to overwhelm the underlying asset exposure.

The post Strategy CEO Details Long-Term Bitcoin Buying Plan appeared first on Coindoo.

Check our Market Overview 

Source: https://coindoo.com/strategy-ceo-details-long-term-bitcoin-buying-plan/

The post Bitcoin Faces Key Test After Wedge Breakout – What to Watch Next appeared first on Coindoo.

Key Takeaways

Three Levels Converge Around Bitcoin’s Retest

BTC trades near $64,780 at the time of writing, placing it directly against a cluster formed by former wedge resistance, the June range ceiling and the declining 50-day moving average.

According to analysis, published by Coindoo’s owner Filip Vantchev, the 0.236 Fibonacci retracement sits near $63,662, almost directly beneath the 50-day simple moving average at approximately $64,111. The same area previously capped Bitcoin’s June recovery attempts, making the current move more than a routine break of a diagonal trendline.

For the breakout to gain credibility, former resistance must begin functioning as support after successful retest. Two daily closes above roughly $64,100 during the next three to five days for example would show that buyers can hold the level beyond an intraday push.

The daily Relative Strength Index has risen to 55.4 and remains above both its signal line and the neutral 50 level. Momentum is constructive without being overextended, leaving room for continuation if price confirms the retest.

A successful hold would expose the 0.382 Fibonacci level near $67,340. The next target around $70,312 is more difficult because it sits close to the declining 100-day moving average near $70,600. Above that, the 0.618 retracement at approximately $73,284 converges with the 200-day average around $73,515, creating a heavier resistance ceiling.

Cooler Inflation Reduced the Rate-Pressure Headwind

The breakout developed after the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics reported that headline consumer prices declined 0.4% in June after rising 0.5% in May. Core CPI, which excludes food and energy, was unchanged for the month, while the annual headline and core rates stood at 3.5% and 2.6%, respectively.

Lower inflation reduces the immediate pressure on the Federal Reserve to raise interest rates. That is supportive for Bitcoin because higher cash and Treasury yields increase the opportunity cost of holding an asset that produces no contractual income. A softer rate outlook weakens that competition, although one CPI release cannot determine the Fed’s next decision on its own.

The timing is therefore consistent with improving macro sentiment, but price still needs to prove that the reaction produced durable spot demand rather than a short-lived repricing of interest-rate expectations.

READ MORE:

76 Banking Groups Urge Senate to Close Clarity Act ‘Loophole’

Whales Return After Selling Into June Weakness

On-chain positioning provides a second supportive signal. Santiment reported that wallets holding between 10 and 10,000 BTC accumulated approximately 11,000 BTC over the past week. The cohort includes large holders that the analytics firm says has historically tracked Bitcoin’s broader price direction relatively closely.

The reversal is notable because the same group had been reducing its exposure during the previous market decline. Renewed accumulation suggests larger holders are absorbing supply near the lower end of Bitcoin’s recent range rather than waiting for a deeper correction.

Small wallets holding less than 0.01 BTC are also adding coins. That makes the signal less decisive than a classic capitulation setup in which whales accumulate while retail investors sell. Both groups are currently buying, so the data supports demand but does not yet show a transfer of supply from weaker to stronger hands.

The Breakout Is Moving Into Supply, Not Beyond It

The bearish argument begins with the location of the move. Bitcoin has cleared the wedge but remains below three declining major moving averages. Price is therefore breaking into a series of resistance levels rather than emerging into an open technical range.

The area between approximately $63,600 and $65,000 has also rejected several previous rallies. Failure to hold it could leave the latest advance as another lower high within the decline from May’s $82,900 peak.

A daily close below $63,000 will probably weaken the breakout, while a return beneath roughly $62,000 would place price clearly back inside the former wedge. That failure might re-expose the psychological support at $60,000 and the June low near $57,800.

The next several daily candles should separate the two scenarios. Holding above the 50-day average can combine improving momentum, softer inflation and whale accumulation into a more credible recovery setup. Losing the breakout zone may show that those tailwinds were insufficient to absorb the supply still positioned above Bitcoin’s current price.

The post Bitcoin Faces Key Test After Wedge Breakout – What to Watch Next appeared first on Coindoo.

Check our Market Overview 

Source: https://coindoo.com/bitcoin-faces-key-test-after-wedge-breakout/

The post Bitcoin’s Bottom Is Still Building, Glassnode Says appeared first on Coindoo.

Price has moved above the 50-day moving average for the first time during the latest recovery attempt, although the available technical and onchain data does not yet confirm that a durable bottom is in place.

Glassnode data shows that long-term holder losses have started easing and buyers absorbed supply around the June lows. Bitcoin now faces a more demanding test between $66,000 and $68,400, where options positioning, profit-taking and the average cost basis of recent buyers converge.

Bitcoin’s bottom is still building, but its character is shifting.

That is Glassnode’s assessment, rather than confirmation that the cycle low is already established. The shift refers to cooling long-term holder capitulation, broad buying around the June lows and Bitcoin’s advance toward key cost-basis resistance, while the lack of sustained spot demand remains the missing confirmation.

Key Takeaways

Bitcoin Reclaims the 50-Day Average

Bitcoin was trading near $64,850 at the time of writing, slightly above its declining 50-day simple moving average at approximately $64,115. A daily close above that level would mark an early technical improvement because the average has acted as resistance during the recovery from June’s low.

The daily Relative Strength Index stood near 55.7, above both the neutral 50 level and its signal line around 50.7. Momentum has therefore shifted in buyers’ favor without reaching overbought conditions, leaving room for further upside if demand continues.

The current move does not yet establish a broader trend reversal. Bitcoin remains below the falling 100-day average near $70,600 and the 200-day average around $73,500, creating substantial overhead resistance even if price clears the immediate $66,000-$68,400 cost-basis zone.

The distinction is important: reclaiming the 50-day average would confirm that the short-term structure is improving, while holding above $68,400 would show that the average recent buyer has moved back into profit. Bitcoin would need both developments to materially strengthen the case that the June low could become a durable market floor.

Four Signals Make a Bitcoin Bottom More Plausible

The first improvement came from Bitcoin’s response to the macro environment. Between July 9 and July 15, BTC gained approximately 5.1%, compared with roughly 1.3% for the S&P 500 and 0.4% for the Euro Stoxx 50. Crypto led the reaction rather than simply following equities.

The move accelerated after the U.S. Consumer Price Index declined 0.4% in June, while core prices were unchanged. The softer signal was reinforced by producer-price data released on July 15, which showed final-demand prices falling 0.3% after a 0.6% increase in May, while the annual rate slowed from 6.5% to 5.5%. Together, the reports reduced the immediate pressure for additional Federal Reserve tightening, although a 0.2% rise in service-sector producer prices showed that inflation had not weakened uniformly.

One inflation report cannot establish a lasting change in monetary conditions. Bitcoin’s stronger response nevertheless indicates that sellers had become less aggressive and that investors were prepared to add exposure when the macro backdrop improved.

The second signal comes from the Entity-Adjusted Long-Term Holder Realized Loss. The metric climbed above $390 million per day around its cycle peak before beginning to ease in the latest data.

A decline does not mean long-term holders have stopped selling. It means losses realized by that cohort are no longer accelerating at the same rate, reducing one of the main sources of supply that repeatedly interrupted Bitcoin’s earlier recovery attempts.

Bitcoin also remains above its realized price near $52,900. This metric estimates the market-wide cost basis by valuing each coin at the price when it last moved onchain. Trading above it suggests the aggregate supply remains in profit, separating the current structure from deeper capitulation phases in which BTC falls below the average cost basis of the entire network.

The realized price is a valuation reference rather than guaranteed support. Exchange activity, internal wallet transfers and Glassnode’s entity-clustering methodology mean it should not be treated as an exact record of what every investor paid.

The fourth signal is Bitcoin’s proximity to the aggregated options max-pain level at $66,000. BTC was trading approximately 2% below that threshold, placing price close to a level that Glassnode says has historically aligned with shifts toward a more constructive derivatives regime when sustainably reclaimed.

Max pain is not permanent resistance. It changes as options expire and traders adjust their positions, so its value lies in showing the current concentration of derivatives exposure rather than predicting where Bitcoin must settle.

June Buyers Are Supplying the Recovery

The principal counter-signal comes from short-term holders. Their realized profit on a 24-hour average has risen toward $4.5 million per day, reaching volumes last seen around the May market high. Long-term investors are still realizing losses at the same time, leaving two different cohorts selling into the recovery for different reasons.

The short-term holder activity appears contradictory because the average recent buyer remains underwater. Bitcoin was trading near $65,000, while the short-term holder cost basis stood around $68,400.

The profitable sellers are therefore not representative of every coin acquired during the previous 155 days. They are more likely concentrated among investors who bought near the June lows around $60,000 and can now lock in gains of roughly 8% before BTC reaches the broader cohort’s break-even level.

This connects the bullish and bearish readings. Buyers who absorbed supply during the June decline helped stabilize the market, but part of that same group is now returning coins to circulation. Their earlier demand supported the rebound; their profit-taking becomes additional resistance before underwater buyers are made whole.

Early buyers realizing gains is normal during a recovery and does not invalidate the possibility of a durable low. The question is whether new demand can replace them quickly enough to prevent their selling from exhausting the advance.

Three Seller Groups Sit Above Bitcoin

The resistance between current price and the upper cost-basis levels is not one technical barrier. Each stage is associated with a different source of potential supply:

• $66,000: The aggregated max-pain level, where current options positioning may affect short-term price behavior.
• $68,400: The short-term holder cost basis, where the average recent buyer returns to break-even.
• $76,400: The True Market Mean, which estimates the acquisition cost of economically active supply.

The structure is asymmetric from an onchain cost-basis perspective. Several significant holder and derivatives levels are positioned above BTC, while the market-wide realized price remains much farther below near $52,900.

That does not mean there is no support between $65,000 and the realized price. Previous range levels, trading volume and fresh accumulation can create demand around $60,000 or elsewhere. It means the cost-basis models do not identify an equally important aggregate holder threshold immediately beneath the market.

READ MORE:

Strategy CEO Details Long-Term Bitcoin Buying Plan

What Would Strengthen the Bottoming Scenario

A sustained daily close above $66,000 would clear the immediate options threshold. The stronger confirmation would be a subsequent reclaim of $68,400, followed by price holding that level as support.

Moving above the short-term holder cost basis would shift the average recent buyer from an unrealized loss into profit. It would also demonstrate that the market can absorb both profit-taking from June dip buyers and loss realization from investors who entered near the cycle highs.

A weekly close above the zone, supported by stronger spot volume and sustained spot Bitcoin ETF inflows, would make the bottoming interpretation more credible. Glassnode’s data shows that derivatives traders are reducing bearish exposure, but closing shorts and allowing downside hedges to expire is not equivalent to new spot capital entering the market.

The scenario would weaken if short-term holder profit-taking remains near May-peak levels while Bitcoin is rejected again around $66,000. Renewed acceleration in long-term holder losses would add a second warning that the available demand cannot absorb both seller groups.

Under that outcome, the recovery could become another lower high rather than the start of a trend reversal. The $52,900 realized price would remain the principal market-wide valuation anchor below, although Bitcoin could encounter intermediate support before reaching it.

Taken together, the data makes the possibility of a Bitcoin bottom more credible than it appeared during the June selloff, but the evidence remains incomplete. Selling pressure is no longer intensifying, the market remains above its aggregate cost basis and favorable macro news is attracting demand. The decisive test is whether BTC can reclaim the $66,000–$68,400 zone without the rally being exhausted by the investors who bought the June lows.

The post Bitcoin’s Bottom Is Still Building, Glassnode Says appeared first on Coindoo.

Check our Market Overview 

Source: https://coindoo.com/bitcoins-bottom-still-building-glassnode/

The post Bitcoin Breaks Its Channel as US-Iran Strikes Lift Oil 4% appeared first on Coindoo.

Key Takeaways

The Rejection Came Before the News It Was Waiting For

The setup resolved in the direction the failed test implied. Bitcoin never printed a daily close above the 50-day average, and the pullback that followed has now cut through both the lower boundary of the rising channel that carried the recovery from $57,800 and the 0.236 Fibonacci retracement at $63,700 that served as the structure’s horizontal floor. What was support through two weeks of higher lows becomes the overhead problem: $63,700 is first resistance, with the 50-day just above at $64,605 and still falling.

The daily RSI at 48 has slipped back below its midline, erasing the momentum edge the channel had built. Below the current price, the reference points are the $60,000 area where the July advance accelerated and the June low at $57,820, the level that anchors the entire retracement grid. The 0.382 level at $67,342 that served as the breakout target now requires reclaiming two broken supports before it re-enters the conversation.

The Weekend Repriced One Fear

The catalyst did not wait for Monday’s calendar. According to Washington Post, US Central Command said American forces struck Iran in response to an attack on a container ship, and the status of the Strait of Hormuz was left unclear, with Washington denying Tehran’s statement that the waterway would close “until further notice.”

The moves priced a single chain of consequences: a wider war keeps oil elevated, elevated oil feeds inflation, and sticky inflation could force the Federal Reserve to hold rates higher for longer. WTI crude jumped 3.71% to $74 and Brent gained 3.75% to $78.8, per OilPrice. Gold, the instinctive war hedge, instead slid as much as 1.6% to trade near $4,057 at the time of writing, with silver down 1.4% at $58.2, because the rates leg of the trade dominated the safety leg: higher-for-longer lifts real yields, and real yields are the enemy of non-yielding assets, precious metals and Bitcoin alike. The Fed’s June meeting minutes gave that fear a paper trail: a few policymakers argued for a rate increase before ultimately siding with a hold.

That framing might explain why Bitcoin sold off alongside gold rather than catching any haven bid. It looks like the market is not treating the strikes as a flight-to-safety event but as as an inflation event, and in an inflation event every asset priced against the dollar’s forward path loses at once.

READ MORE:

Bitcoin’s Bottom Hunt: What 4 Market Signals Show

The Catalysts Are Still Coming, Into a Weaker Chart

The irony of the timing is that the week’s scheduled variables remain live, and they now land on a broken structure instead of a coiled one. Strategy’s disclosure window opens today. US CPI arrives July 14, the same day Fed Chair Kevin Warsh begins two days of congressional testimony, and an oil-driven upside surprise in the coming months is now the explicit risk the weekend created.

The levels do the summarizing. Reclaiming $63,700 and then the 50-day near $64,600 on daily closes could repair the breakdown and mark the sell-off as a geopolitical overreaction, the pattern Bitcoin printed twice already this month around Iran headlines. Failing that, a test of $60,000 comes first, and a hot CPI on top of $74 oil can put the June low at $57,820 back in play. The channel gave the recovery its shape; without it, every bounce is unstructured until proven otherwise.

The post Bitcoin Breaks Its Channel as US-Iran Strikes Lift Oil 4% appeared first on Coindoo.

Check our Market Overview 

Source: https://coindoo.com/bitcoin-breaks-channel-us-strikes-iran-lift-oil/

The post Is Strategy’s Accumulation Paused? The SEC Filing Data appeared first on Coindoo.

Key Takeaways

According to the company’s July 13 Form 8-K filing with the SEC, it made no Bitcoin purchases during the period, leaving its holdings at 843,775 BTC following the previous week’s sale of 3,588 BTC. Its US dollar reserve increased by $450 million to $3 billion.

Strategy has increased its USD Reserve by $450 million. As of 7/12/2026, we hodl ₿843,775 in our BTC Reserves and $3.0 billion in our USD Reserves. $MSTR $STRC https://t.co/OdFbjLuCTP

— Michael Saylor (@saylor) July 13, 2026

The Proceeds Went Toward Liquidity, Not Bitcoin

All of the disclosed proceeds came from MSTR common stock. Strategy sold no shares of its STRF, STRC, STRK, or STRD preferred securities during the week.

The increase in the company’s cash reserve was only $16.7 million below the amount raised through the share sale. While the filing does not provide a dollar-for-dollar breakdown, the close relationship between the two figures indicates that most of the capital was likely retained as liquidity rather than deployed into digital assets.

Strategy also retained approximately $23.79 billion of additional MSTR issuance capacity. That gives the company substantial room to raise more common equity without immediately relying on Bitcoin sales or additional preferred-stock issuance.

For shareholders, the decision might create a trade-off. Issuing common stock dilutes existing ownership, but holding the proceeds in cash strengthens Strategy’s ability to meet dividends, interest payments, and other obligations without reducing its Bitcoin position further.

Saylor’s “Orange Dots” Post Had a Broader Meaning

The filing arrived one day after Executive Chairman Michael Saylor shared Strategy’s Bitcoin acquisition chart with the message: “Orange dots tell only part of the story.”

Orange dots tell only part of the story. pic.twitter.com/HFZd2z7fus

— Michael Saylor (@saylor) July 12, 2026

The orange dots represent the company’s historical Bitcoin purchases, leading some investors to speculate that another acquisition could be announced. The disclosure instead showed a capital-management move centered on common-stock issuance and cash accumulation.

Saylor did not explain the post directly, but the timing is consistent with Strategy’s expanding treasury model. The company is no longer managing only the number of Bitcoin purchases. It must also balance cash reserves, preferred dividends, debt interest, equity issuance, potential securities repurchases, and the conditions under which selling BTC becomes preferable to raising new capital.

The Reserve Now Provides a Larger Buffer

Strategy introduced its Digital Credit Capital Framework on June 29, requiring the company to maintain enough cash to cover at least 12 months of estimated preferred-stock dividends and debt interest.

Those annual obligations were estimated at approximately $1.76 billion. Based on that figure, the new $3 billion reserve would provide roughly 20.5 months of coverage, compared with about 17.4 months when the reserve stood at $2.55 billion.

The larger buffer reduces the immediate pressure to sell Bitcoin when distributions or interest payments become due. It does not eliminate that option, as the framework allows BTC sales to fund obligations, replenish the reserve, and support authorized repurchases of Strategy securities.

The recent Bitcoin sale demonstrated how the company can use its digital assets when liquidity is needed. The latest MSTR offering shows the alternative: raising capital from shareholders while preserving the remaining BTC balance.

The latest activity does not establish that Strategy has ended its Bitcoin accumulation strategy. It shows that buying BTC is no longer the automatic use of every new capital raise.

READ MORE:

Galaxy’s Novogratz: Crypto Improves as AI Trade Loosens Its Grip

The next disclosure will show whether the larger cash reserve is a temporary step before Strategy resumes accumulation or evidence that balance-sheet protection has moved ahead of adding more Bitcoin.

The post Is Strategy’s Accumulation Paused? The SEC Filing Data appeared first on Coindoo.

Check our Market Overview 

Source: https://coindoo.com/is-strategys-accumulation-paused-sec-filing-data/