Florida lawmakers are advancing a proposal that would allow the state to create a strategic cryptocurrency reserve, narrowing earlier efforts to a framework that would effectively limit holdings to Bitcoin.
According to Florida’s legislative records, Senate Bill (SB) 1038, sponsored by Republican Senator Joe Gruters, was filed on Dec. 30 and was referred to the Appropriations Committee on Agriculture, Environment, and General Government on Wednesday, where it must clear hearings and votes before advancing to the Senate floor.
The bill would establish a Florida Strategic Cryptocurrency Reserve, managed by the state’s chief financial officer (CFO), which would allow the office to purchase, hold, manage and liquidate cryptocurrency under a standard similar to those governing public trust assets.
While the legislation does not explicitly cite Bitcoin (BTC), it restricts eligible purchases to crypto that maintained an average market cap of at least $500 billion in the last two years, a threshold that only Bitcoin meets.
A Senate-led attempt after broader efforts stalled
The new Senate proposal follows and significantly diverges from Florida’s earlier attempts to authorize state-level crypto investments.
On Oct. 17, 2025, Republican Party Representative Webster Barnaby filed House Bill (HB) 183, which sought to allow the state and certain public entities to invest up to 10% of their funds in a broad range of digital assets, including Bitcoin, crypto exchange-traded products (ETPs), crypto securities, non-fungible tokens (NFTs) and other blockchain-based products.
HB 183 was a revised version of HB 487, which was withdrawn in June after failing to advance out of a House operations subcommittee. While Barnaby’s revised proposal added stricter custody, documentation and fiduciary standards, the broad asset scope and potential exposure of pension and trust funds faced pushback from lawmakers.
SB 1038 removes pension and retirement funds entirely and places oversight directly under the CFO through a standalone reserve structure.
Its market-cap eligibility rule mirrors approaches adopted in states like New Hampshire and Texas, both of which enacted more narrowly defined Bitcoin reserve frameworks in 2025.
SB 1038 is contingent on companion legislation establishing the necessary trust-fund mechanics for the reserve. This means it cannot take effect unless related bills are also enacted during the same legislative session.
A House companion measure, HB 1039, was also filed, signaling coordinated Senate and House backing.
If the legislation advances, the CFO would be mandated to submit reports to legislative leaders starting in December 2026, detailing the reserve’s holdings, value and management actions.
Whether the proposal advances will depend on whether lawmakers view the narrower, Bitcoin-focused structure as sufficiently distinct from earlier efforts that failed to gain traction.
Opinion by: Igor Mandrigin, co-founder and chief technology and product officer of Gateway.fm
For years, private distributed ledger systems, like Hyperledger, have provided banks with a secure means to explore blockchain technology without venturing into public networks. These frameworks delivered privacy, permissioned access and a sense of institutional control — qualities that undoubtedly appealed to traditional finance players when the crypto market was still viewed as the Wild West.
The environment has changed fundamentally since then, as tokenized assets, stablecoin settlements and institutional crypto exposure have quickly become the standard. The closed, permissioned models that once spoke to the risk-averse tendencies of banks now hold them back. At this critical geopolitical and macroeconomic juncture, financial institutions need to move beyond legacy frameworks and adopt public, permissioned layer 2 infrastructure built with zero-knowledge (ZK) proofs.
The rationale is straightforward. These newer systems maintain the privacy and compliance standards regulators demand, but they also offer the interoperability and scalability that modern finance requires.
Some readers, especially those in regulatory or enterprise IT roles, might bristle at this contention, possibly arguing that public chains are too volatile, too transparent or too “ungovernable” to meet enterprise standards. Others may argue that traditional distributed ledger technology (DLT) is already effective and that migrating would create unnecessary operational and compliance risks. This dated view underestimates how rapidly global finance is moving onchain and how expensive it will be for institutions to remain isolated in closed systems.
The shift from control to connectivity
A decade ago, blockchain adoption was primarily about control. Enterprises wanted distributed systems, but only within walled gardens could they manage internally. That made sense when public blockchains were slow, expensive and lacked privacy. In that environment, Hyperledger and its peers offered predictability, vetted participants and centralized governance and were able to satisfy auditors without revealing transaction data to the world.
Today’s financial landscape is radically different. Tokenized money markets are scaling up to billions in daily transaction volume, while stablecoins are being integrated into global settlement systems at a rapid rate. Layer 2 solutions are bringing low-cost, high-speed, privacy-enhanced functionality to public chains. ZK technology now makes it possible to prove compliance or creditworthiness without revealing sensitive data.
The trade-off between privacy and openness that once justified private blockchains has dissolved.
Isolation is now a liability
The danger isn’t that private blockchains will fail technically. The danger is that they’ll fail strategically. Ultimately, legacy DLT stacks were never built for cross-chain communication, global liquidity, or real-time asset settlement. They operate as digital islands, disconnected from the growing onchain ecosystem where tokenized assets, collateralized lending and instant settlement are converging.
That isolation comes at a cost. Liquidity is increasingly aggregating on public infrastructure, where decentralized finance (DeFi) protocols, tokenized treasuries and institutional stablecoin markets interact seamlessly. A private network, no matter how compliant, can’t tap into that liquidity. It can only watch it move elsewhere.
The longer banks wait to connect to open, interoperable infrastructure, the harder it becomes to catch up. Institutions that build on closed systems risk becoming like legacy clearinghouses in an era of automated settlement.
The case for public, permissioned L2s
Thankfully, the right middle ground already exists. Public, permissioned layer 2 networks — enhanced with zero-knowledge cryptography — enable financial institutions to retain privacy and control while operating within a composable, open ecosystem.
This can help with selective disclosure, where banks can demonstrate regulatory compliance, like Anti-Money Laundering (AML) and Know Your Customer (KYC) checks, using ZK-proofs, without revealing transaction data to the public. Layer 2s built on Ethereum or similar base layers can directly connect with stablecoin issuers, tokenized money markets and real-world asset protocols.
This doesn’t require banks to sacrifice their security posture. It simply allows them to build within the same ecosystem as everyone else, using infrastructure that scales, communicates and settles in real time.
SWIFT has begun testing an onchain version of its global messaging infrastructure using Linea, an Ethereum layer 2 network. This signals to banks that, if the backbone of global interbank communication is moving toward blockchain integration, traditional institutions can’t ignore it.
Lessons from the market
We’re already seeing the gap widen between institutions that embrace open infrastructure and those that don’t. Payment networks like Visa and Stripe are experimenting with stablecoin settlements on public chains. Meanwhile, tokenized US treasuries and institutional DeFi protocols are attracting capital from hedge funds and asset managers who want yield onchain, not in permissioned silos.
This convergence of tokenized finance is becoming the new standard for capital markets, and banks that rely on outdated DLT models risk losing their role as intermediaries in this next generation of settlement infrastructure. Conversely, those that transition to public L2s can become the new gateways for programmable, composable financial services.
If large financial institutions begin building on open, ZK-powered layer 2s, the impact would be profound. Liquidity would consolidate across networks, improving efficiency and reducing friction between traditional and crypto-native markets. Tokenized assets could flow seamlessly between institutions, driving adoption of onchain treasuries, credit markets and consumer payments.
For crypto markets, this shift would bring legitimacy and volume from traditional finance. For banks, it would unlock new fee structures and business models, including custody, compliance-as-a-service and programmable deposits while reducing settlement costs and counterparty risks.
The opposite scenario is also clear: Banks that refuse to evolve will find themselves operating on isolated rails, unable to interact with global liquidity. They’ll become spectators to a financial ecosystem that’s increasingly open and programmable.
Moving from private to public infrastructure will not be easy. It will require new security models, updated compliance frameworks and a willingness to collaborate with regulators and technologists. Clinging to systems that can’t scale or interoperate is far riskier.
Modernization and compliance do not have to be a zero sum game. lnstitutions don’t need to abandon privacy or compliance to make progress in this new direction. What they need to leave is the assumption that “private” equals “safer.”
In the new era of tokenized finance, isolation is the real threat.
Opinion by: Igor Mandrigin, co-founder and chief technology and product officer of Gateway.fm.
This opinion article presents the contributor’s expert view and it may not reflect the views of Cointelegraph.com. This content has undergone editorial review to ensure clarity and relevance, Cointelegraph remains committed to transparent reporting and upholding the highest standards of journalism. Readers are encouraged to conduct their own research before taking any actions related to the company.
This opinion article presents the contributor’s expert view and it may not reflect the views of Cointelegraph.com. This content has undergone editorial review to ensure clarity and relevance, Cointelegraph remains committed to transparent reporting and upholding the highest standards of journalism. Readers are encouraged to conduct their own research before taking any actions related to the company.
TRON trades at $0.30 while outperforming Bitcoin by 2.6%, driven by Coinbase integration and Visa payment infrastructure launch that could reshape mainstream adoption.
TRON has decoupled from Bitcoin’s recent weakness, posting modest gains while the broader crypto market retreated 2.6%. The altcoin’s resilience stems from two major partnership announcements that position it as a serious contender in institutional payment infrastructure.
Infrastructure Plays Drive Momentum
The timing couldn’t be better for TRON’s strategic pivot. According to data from Binance, TRX climbed 0.2% to $0.30 while Bitcoin slumped, marking one of the few altcoins to maintain positive momentum during yesterday’s broader selloff. This divergence signals that institutional partnerships are beginning to matter more than pure speculation.
TRON’s integration with Coinbase’s Base Layer 2 network via LayerZero represents a significant technical milestone. The cross-chain bridge allows seamless asset transfers between TRON and Ethereum’s fastest-growing Layer 2 solution, potentially unlocking millions in bridged liquidity. More importantly, the Visa partnership establishes TRON as payment rail infrastructure for traditional banking, connecting the network to global financial institutions.
The numbers support the narrative shift. TRON’s network revenue surged 30.5% quarter-over-quarter to $1.2 billion in Q3 2025, according to on-chain analytics. That growth rate outpaces most Layer 1 competitors and suggests genuine utility rather than speculative trading volume.
Technical Picture Points Higher
TRON’s daily chart shows textbook bullish consolidation. The price sits at the upper Bollinger Band with a %B reading of 0.85, indicating strong momentum without immediate overbought conditions. Technical indicators suggest this breakout has legs.
The MACD histogram reading of 0.0012 confirms bullish momentum, while the RSI at 61.99 provides room for additional upside before hitting overbought territory. This combination typically precedes sustained moves rather than quick reversals.
Key resistance emerges at $0.30 – precisely where TRX currently trades. A clean break above this level opens the door to test the 52-week high of $0.37, representing 23% upside potential. Support holds firm at $0.28, with stronger backing near $0.27 if bears regain control.
What Analysts Are Watching
Market participants note the stark contrast between TRON’s institutional focus and other altcoins still dependent on retail speculation. “The Visa integration isn’t just another partnership announcement,” explains one institutional trader who requested anonymity. “It’s actual infrastructure that processes real transactions.”
Technical analysts point to similar patterns from TRON’s 2023 rally, when enterprise partnerships preceded a 180% price surge over six weeks. If history rhymes, the current setup suggests a target of $0.45-$0.50 by mid-February.
However, skeptics warn that TRON’s centralization concerns haven’t disappeared despite the recent partnerships. Critics argue that founder Justin Sun’s outsized influence creates regulatory risks that could derail institutional adoption just as momentum builds.
The Trade Setup
Bulls have a clear setup here. Entry at current levels around $0.30 offers an attractive risk-reward profile, with initial targets at $0.33 (10% gain) by late January and $0.37 (23% gain) by month-end. Stop-loss placement below $0.28 limits downside to 7%.
Bears should watch for failure to hold above $0.30 on any retest. A decisive break below $0.28 would signal that partnership momentum has stalled, potentially triggering a retreat to $0.25 support levels.
Volume patterns from Binance spot data show institutional accumulation rather than retail FOMO, suggesting this move has staying power. The 24-hour trading volume of $78.9 million remains elevated but not excessive, indicating organic demand rather than speculative bubbling.
Bottom Line
TRON’s fundamental shift toward payment infrastructure creates a compelling bull case that extends beyond typical altcoin speculation. The technical setup supports a move to $0.37 within four weeks, with partnership catalysts providing fundamental backing for the advance. Watch $0.30 as the make-or-break level that determines whether institutional adoption translates to sustained price momentum.
Bitcoin turned down from its overhead resistance but is expected to find support at the moving averages.
Select major altcoins are facing selling near their overhead resistance levels, but the shallow pullback suggests the recovery may continue.
Bitcoin (BTC) is under pressure as bears attempt to sustain the price below $91,500. BTC exchange-traded funds recorded outflows of $243.2 million on Tuesday after attracting $1.16 billion in inflows in the first two trading days of the new year, according to Farside Investors’ data. That shows caution at higher levels.
Still, a positive sign for BTC is that whales and sharks have accumulated 56,227 BTC since mid-December, according to Santiment. The onchain analytics platform added that cryptocurrency markets “typically follow the path of key whale and shark stakeholders, and move in the opposite direction of small retail wallets.”
Crypto market data daily view. Source: TradingView
Another bullish voice is that of Miller Value Partners chief investment officer Bill Miller IV, who said on CNBC that BTC is putting a higher base than it did in the spring of 2025. He expects BTC to “break out to a higher high than its all-time high from the fall.”
Could BTC and the major altcoins rebound off their support levels and resume their recovery? Let’s analyze the charts of the top 10 cryptocurrencies to find out.
Bitcoin price prediction
BTC turned down from $94,789 on Monday, indicating that the bears are attempting to retain the price inside the range.
The pullback is expected to find support at the 20-day exponential moving average (EMA)($90,022). If the Bitcoin price rebounds off the 20-day EMA with force, it increases the possibility of a break above the $94,589 resistance. The BTC/USDT pair may then ascend to the psychological level of $100,000 and subsequently to $107,500.
Contrary to this assumption, a break below the moving averages suggests that the Bitcoin price may extend its stay inside the range for some more time. Sellers will be back in control if they sink the pair below $84,000.
Ether price prediction
Ether (ETH) broke above the resistance line of the symmetrical triangle pattern on Tuesday, but the bulls failed to sustain the higher levels.
The Ether price has re-entered the triangle, with the next support at the moving averages. If the price rebounds off the moving averages, the ETH/USDT pair could soar to $3,659 and then to $4,000.
The advantage will tilt in favor of the bears if the price continues lower and plunges below the support line. That suggests the break above the resistance line may have been a bull trap. The pair could plummet to $2,623 and then to $2,111.
XRP price prediction
XRP (XRP) reached the downtrend line of the descending channel pattern on Tuesday, which is expected to act as a stiff resistance.
The moving averages are on the verge of a bullish crossover, and the relative strength index (RSI) is in the positive zone, signaling an advantage to buyers. A short-term trend change will be signaled if the bulls achieve a close above the downtrend line. The XRP/USDT pair may then climb toward $2.70.
The moving averages are expected to act as solid support on the way down. Sellers will have to yank the XRP price below the moving averages to retain the pair inside the descending channel for a few more days.
BNB price prediction
Sellers are attempting to halt BNB’s (BNB) recovery at the $928 level, but the bulls are likely to have other plans.
The 20-day EMA ($877) has started to turn up gradually and the RSI is in positive territory, indicating that the bulls have the upper hand. A close above the $928 level will complete a bullish ascending triangle pattern, which has a target objective of $1,066.
Alternatively, if the BNB price continues lower and breaks below the moving averages, it suggests that the BNB/USDT pair could swing from $790 to $928 for some time. The bears will be back in command below the $790 level.
Solana price prediction
Solana’s (SOL) recovery is facing selling near $147, but a positive sign is that the bulls have not ceded much ground to the bears.
If the price turns up from the moving averages, it signals a change in sentiment from selling on rallies to buying on dips. That enhances the possibility of a break above the $147 resistance. The SOL/USDT pair may then jump to $172.
Conversely, if the price breaks below the moving averages, it suggests that the bulls have given up. The Solana price could then decline to $116. A solid rebound off the $116 level could signal a possible range formation in the near term.
Dogecoin price prediction
Dogecoin (DOGE) is facing selling near $0.16, but the pullback is expected to find support at the moving averages.
If the price bounces off the moving averages, it shows that the bulls are viewing the dips as a buying opportunity. That improves the prospects of a rally above the $0.16 resistance. The DOGE/USDT pair may then ascend to $0.19.
This positive view will be invalidated in the near term if the Dogecoin price continues lower and skids below the moving averages. That suggests the bears remain sellers on rallies. The pair may then drop to $0.13 and later to $0.11.
Cardano price prediction
Cardano (ADA) climbed above the 50-day simple moving average (SMA) ($0.40) on Monday, but the bulls could not build upon the breakout.
On the way down, the bulls are expected to fiercely defend the zone between the 20-day EMA ($0.38) and the $0.37 level. If the Cardano price rebounds off the support zone, the ADA/USDT pair could rally toward the breakdown level of $0.50.
Contrarily, a drop below the $0.37 level signals that the bears remain active at higher levels. That heightens the risk of a break below the $0.33 level. The pair may then slump to the Oct. 10 low of $0.27.
If the Bitcoin Cash price turns up from the $631 level or the 20-day EMA ($609), it indicates that the bulls remain in charge. The BCH/USDT pair could rally to $651 and eventually to the stiff overhead resistance at $720.
The first sign of weakness on the downside is a break below the 20-day EMA. That suggests the buyers are booking profits and the market has rejected the break above the $631 level. The pair may then slump toward $518.
Chainlink price prediction
Chainlink (LINK) has been range-bound from $11.61 to $14.98, indicating buying near the support and selling close to the resistance.
If the price turns up from the moving averages, the LINK/USDT pair could surge above the $14.98 resistance. If that happens, the Chainlink price could rally to $16.80 and subsequently to $17.66.
Contrarily, if the price breaks below the moving averages, it suggests that the pair may remain inside the range for some more time. The next leg of the downtrend could begin on a close below $10.94.
Hyperliquid price prediction
Hyperliquid’s (HYPE) relief rally reached the 50-day SMA ($29), where the bears are mounting a strong defense.
The 20-day EMA ($26.34) is the crucial support to watch out for on the downside. If the Hyperliquid price bounces off the 20-day EMA, the possibility of a break above the 50-day SMA increases. The HYPE/USDT pair could then rally to the breakdown level of $35.50.
On the contrary, if the price slips below the 20-day EMA, it suggests that the bears continue to exert pressure. The pair may tumble to $23.64 and thereafter to the $22.19 support.
This article does not contain investment advice or recommendations. Every investment and trading move involves risk, and readers should conduct their own research when making a decision. While we strive to provide accurate and timely information, Cointelegraph does not guarantee the accuracy, completeness, or reliability of any information in this article. This article may contain forward-looking statements that are subject to risks and uncertainties. Cointelegraph will not be liable for any loss or damage arising from your reliance on this information.
This article does not contain investment advice or recommendations. Every investment and trading move involves risk, and readers should conduct their own research when making a decision. While we strive to provide accurate and timely information, Cointelegraph does not guarantee the accuracy, completeness, or reliability of any information in this article. This article may contain forward-looking statements that are subject to risks and uncertainties. Cointelegraph will not be liable for any loss or damage arising from your reliance on this information.
The December 2025 Trust Wallet hack shows that vulnerabilities in crypto tools can affect crypto-friendly SMEs, even when attacks target individual users rather than businesses.
Supply-chain risks, such as compromised browser extensions or stolen API keys, can bypass traditional security defenses and lead to rapid financial losses in a very short time.
The incident also revealed how weak or unprepared verification processes can overwhelm compensation efforts, increasing operational strain and delaying legitimate reimbursements.
Heavy reliance on hot wallets remains a significant risk factor for SMEs, as convenience often comes at the cost of greater exposure to malware, malicious updates and private-key theft.
The Trust Wallet hack in December 2025, which resulted in losses of about $7 million, provides security-relevant insights for small and medium enterprises (SMEs) that use cryptocurrencies. Although Trust Wallet primarily serves individual users, the mechanics of the attack highlight common vulnerabilities that also affect crypto-friendly SMEs, including fintech firms and decentralized autonomous organizations (DAOs).
Alongside the direct financial damage, the incident showed how gaps in user verification created complications during the compensation process. For crypto-facing SMEs, the case highlights common vulnerabilities and underscores the importance of addressing them before incidents occur.
This article discusses how the Trust Wallet hack happened, its impact on the crypto community and the challenges the wallet faced during the compensation process. It also explores vulnerabilities SMEs commonly face during crypto-related hacks, potential remedial measures and the prevailing regulatory environment surrounding such incidents.
What occurred in the Trust Wallet hack
From Dec. 24 to Dec. 26, 2025, attackers targeted Trust Wallet’s Chrome browser extension by distributing a malicious update that affected users running version 2.68. The attack resulted in the theft of cryptocurrency worth about $7 million, impacting 2,596 verified wallet addresses. Nearly 5,000 reimbursement claims were later filed by users.
Trust Wallet advised users to update immediately to version 2.69, which removed the malicious code and prevented further attacks. During the reimbursement process, Trust Wallet CEO Eowyn Chen emphasized the importance of accurate user verification to prevent fraudulent claims.
Security experts later determined that attackers had inserted malicious JavaScript into the extension, allowing them to steal recovery phrases and private keys during normal wallet use. The attack likely involved a stolen Chrome Web Store API key, which enabled the malicious update to be distributed through official channels rather than relying solely on phishing.
Once private keys were compromised, funds were rapidly withdrawn and routed through centralized exchanges and cross-chain bridges, making recovery difficult. The incident demonstrated how trusted software update mechanisms can fail in critical ways.
In the aftermath of the theft, Trust Wallet disabled the compromised extension version, opened a refund portal and established a verification process for claims.
Did you know? The largest crypto hacks often do not involve breaking blockchains themselves but instead exploit wallets, bridges or user interfaces, showing that human-facing layers are often weaker than the underlying cryptography.
Immediate effects on the cryptocurrency community
Although Trust Wallet promised refunds, the incident briefly weakened confidence in browser-based wallets. Experts noted that many victims were unaware that browser extensions function as hot wallets, leaving them exposed to malware and supply-chain threats despite their convenience.
The attack also renewed debate around self-custody, with many commentators pointing to hardware wallets and offline storage as lower-risk options, particularly for larger holdings.
Beyond Trust Wallet, the attack raised broader concerns about the distribution and update mechanisms of cryptocurrency tools. Browser extensions, APIs and external libraries are widely used in cryptocurrency payroll systems, treasury management and SME-focused fintech services. The case showed that risks outside a company’s core systems can still cause significant harm.
The process of verification and claims handling
A key insight from the Trust Wallet hack became apparent during the post-attack phase. Nearly 5,000 claims were submitted for just over 2,500 affected addresses, highlighting the risk of duplicate, incorrect or fraudulent submissions.
Without robust verification procedures, refund processes can become overwhelmed, delaying legitimate payments and increasing operational risk. For crypto-using SMEs that manage payroll, reimbursements or client funds, this creates an additional vulnerability during emergency situations.
Trust Wallet required claimants to submit wallet addresses, transaction records, attacker addresses and other supporting details to verify losses.
For SMEs, the lesson from the Trust Wallet hack is straightforward: Verification processes must be prepared in advance, not developed during an incident.
Companies that handle cryptocurrency payments need established frameworks for identity, access and transaction checks well before any attack occurs. This preparation helps preserve stakeholder confidence under pressure.
Did you know? Hackers frequently move stolen crypto within minutes using automated scripts, routing funds through centralized exchanges, mixers and cross-chain bridges to reduce traceability before investigators can respond.
Vulnerabilities SMEs face during crypto hacks
SMEs often operate in environments where a single oversight can lead to significant asset losses. Threat actors exploit the following vulnerabilities in these businesses:
Supply-chain and update risks: The primary insight from the Trust Wallet hack is the threat posed by supply-chain attacks. SMEs frequently rely on browser extensions, software development kits, APIs and cloud services for efficiency. Each added component increases the attack surface, making continuous checks and validation essential.
Excessive dependence on hot wallets: The Trust Wallet hack exposed the risks of storing large amounts of cryptocurrency in hot wallets. While browser wallets offer convenience, they remain vulnerable to malware, malicious updates and private-key theft.
Social engineering and phishing follow-ups: After a hack, phishing domains and impersonation attempts typically increase, targeting users seeking reimbursement or recovery information. Attackers exploit confusion during these periods. For SMEs, training staff and users is a critical defense against such threats.
Security measures for crypto-friendly SMEs
In light of the Trust Wallet case, SMEs can take several security measures:
Cold storage for major assets: Storing private keys offline can significantly reduce exposure to malware and online attacks. Hot wallets should be limited to small balances needed for daily operations.
Mandatory multi-factor authentication (MFA):MFA should be enforced across all systems that access wallets, controls or approval workflows.
Incident response preparation: SMEs need clear, regularly updated plans for identifying, containing and recovering from attacks. Preparedness shortens response times and limits potential damage.
External security reviews: Independent audits can identify weaknesses that internal teams may miss and help ensure alignment with current security standards.
Strong access controls and supplier monitoring: Restricting access, whitelisting withdrawal addresses and assessing supplier security practices can help reduce risk.
Training for users and employees: Educating staff and users to recognize phishing attempts and impersonation messages helps prevent additional losses during high-stress incidents.
Did you know? Many crypto hacks are detected not by companies but by onchain analysts who spot unusual transaction patterns and wallet movements before official announcements are made.
Regulatory environment after the hack
Although no immediate regulatory action followed the Trust Wallet incident, it occurred amid tightening global oversight of the crypto sector. Regulators are increasingly expecting enterprises to implement strong controls around custody, incident reporting and consumer protection.
For crypto-friendly SMEs, this means security failures may lead not only to reputational damage but also to compliance-related consequences. Staying aligned with regulatory expectations has become as important for SMEs as maintaining technical resilience.
This article does not contain investment advice or recommendations. Every investment and trading move involves risk, and readers should conduct their own research when making a decision. While we strive to provide accurate and timely information, Cointelegraph does not guarantee the accuracy, completeness, or reliability of any information in this article. This article may contain forward-looking statements that are subject to risks and uncertainties. Cointelegraph will not be liable for any loss or damage arising from your reliance on this information.
Caroline Crenshaw has left the US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), leaving the agency solely comprising Republicans. As a result, nothing stands in the way of pro-crypto rulemaking.
Republicans in Washington have generally been friendlier toward the crypto industry than their Democratic counterparts. The SEC made a 180-degree turn last year, after President Donald Trump entered office and Congress moved on landmark crypto legislation.
Now, just one week into 2026, the Senate is set for a markup vote on the crypto market structure bill — and there is an entirely Republican SEC.
The commission is still constrained by how it makes crypto regulations. Notice-and-comment rulemaking has certain processes that must be observed, lest the SEC risk legal action in the future.
But still, observers expect another banner year for crypto from the SEC.
“Highly unusual” Republican SEC set for banner year
Crenshaw was the last remaining crypto-skeptic commissioner left at the SEC, issuing a dissent on the commission decision to allow Bitcoin (BTC) exchange-traded funds (ETFs) in January 2024. She said the decision “put us on a wayward path that could further sacrifice investor protection.”
Caroline Crenshaw was confirmed to the SEC in August 2020. Source: SEC
The Senate Banking Committee canceled a vote to renominate Crenshaw in December 2025. This reportedly came after intense lobbying from the crypto industry, which wanted to see the crypto-skeptic commissioner removed.
When operating at a full complement, the SEC has five commissioners. As of publishing time, it has three, all of whom are Republican: Chair Paul Atkins, Hester Peirce and Mark Uyeda.
By law, the SEC is a bipartisan agency, meaning that at least two of the commissioners must be from another party. The majority partisanship of the agency often reflects whoever is holding office in the White House.
Carol Goforth, distinguished professor and the Wylie H. Davis Centennial Professor of Law at the University of Arkansas (Fayetteville) School of Law, described the situation as “highly unusual.”
She told Cointelegraph that she could find “no example of a situation where all the sitting SEC commissioners were from a single party. In fact, the only examples for any bipartisan agency with members from a single party that I found all involve the current [Trump] administration.”
“Usually,” she said, “there is slow and steady turnover in these positions.” Commissioners serve five-year terms, and chairs generally resign when there is a change in administration. This has “usually worked fairly consistently to preserve the bipartisan nature of these agencies.”
Past administrations even considered minority-party commissioners advantageous, according to Aaron Brogan, founder of Brogan Law — a law firm specializing in crypto and emerging tech.
He told Cointelegraph that the administration could appoint more ideologically aligned opposition commissioners that would “extend policy priorities into the next administration, when, typically, minority commissioners would stay on in the new majority for some time.”
“But the Trump administration is a new paradigm,” Brogan said.
“While I have heard rumors that there are stakeholders internally pushing for minority commissioner appointments, it could certainly extend indefinitely.”
This doesn’t necessarily mean that the commission will make a run on new crypto rules. As Goforth noted, the Federal Administrative Procedures Act requires public notice, a period for comment and detailed consideration of said comments. The agency has to explain its reasoning as well as include “specific information about the costs and benefits of the proposed regulation.”
Rules that fail to adhere to these requirements can end up getting overturned in court, particularly if there’s a failure to consider relevant factors or the rule is found to be outside of the agency’s scope.
But even with these rules in place, the SEC is set to make major changes, according to Brogan.
“2026 will be a massive year at the SEC. I expect real, fleshed out, exemptive relief through notice-and-comment rulemaking.”
Republicans dominate federal agencies
The SEC is not the only federal regulatory agency run solely by Republicans. Since Sept. 3, 2025, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission has been run by a single commissioner. First, it was Acting Chair Caroline Pham, a Republican.
On Dec. 22, 2025, after a lengthy nominations process, the Senate confirmed the Trump administration’s pick of Michael Selig, who replaced Pham as chair. This has left the CFTC with one Republican commissioner.
Goforth noted that “since there are no quorum requirements” for the CFTC, it can “continue to operate with a single commissioner, and there are no provisions or procedures for forcing a president to nominate additional commissioners.”
There’s a similar situation at the Federal Trade Commission, where Trump fired Democratic Commissioner Rebecca Slaughter in March 2025, as her continued service was “inconsistent with [the] Administration’s priorities.”
Slaughter sued Trump and the remaining three commissioners, arguing that Trump failed to offer a statutory cause for her removal. On Dec. 8, the Supreme Court heard arguments in the case Trump v. Slaughter, and now, per Goforth, “there are signs that a majority could side with President Trump, even though that would mean overruling an earlier precedent.”
Trump also fired three Democratic commissioners at the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC). The decision was blocked by the US District Court for Maryland on June 13, 2025, in the case Trump v. Boyle, but the Supreme Court stayed the order on July 23. This allowed the Trump administration to continue with the dismissals as they’re challenged in court. As of the beginning of 2026, the CPSC has one commissioner, Republican Acting Chair Peter Feldman.
Goforth said she would call this an “unprecedented effort at concentrating control over administrative agencies by this president.”
Associate Justice of the Supreme Court Elena Kagan told Solicitor General John Sauer in arguments in Trump v. Slaughter, “The result of what you want is that the president is going to have massive, unchecked, uncontrolled power.”
In that case, Department of Justice lawyers representing the president have leaned on unitary executive theory to bolster their arguments. This is a conservative legal theory positing that the president has sole authority over all aspects of the executive branch, including federal agencies.
Conservative legal organizations like the Heritage Foundation support the Trump administration’s arguments. Source: Heritage Foundation
Amit Agarwal, a special counsel for the nonprofit Protect Democracy arguing on behalf of Slaughter, said that allowing the president to replace the heads of federal agencies at whim means “everything is on the chopping block.”
The SEC will still have to abide by rule-making procedures as it moves ahead on crypto laws in the next year. But it does so on the background of unprecedented single-party support.
Dfns, a digital wallet infrastructure provider and a partner of tech giant IBM, has integrated Concordium’s layer-1 (L1) blockchain to launch an identity-verified Web3 wallet solution.
Concordium’s privacy-preserving identity layer is now part of Dfns’ wallet-as-a-service (WaaS) platform, the companies announced Wednesday in a joint statement shared with Cointelegraph.
“This integration enables financial institutions and enterprises to instantly deploy compliant, privacy-preserving wallets without building complex identity infrastructure from scratch,” Dfns CEO Clarisse Hagège said.
The move follows the recent collaboration of Dfns with IBM to launch IBM Digital Asset Haven in October, a platform designed to help financial institutions and governments securely manage and scale their digital asset operations.
Solving the “compliance bottleneck” preventing institutional adoption
Through Dfns’ WaaS technology, organizations can create and manage wallets for their users without exposing them to technical complexities or the risks of handling a seed phrase, Hagège told Cointelegraph.
“Combined with Concordium’s built-in identity layer, this means every wallet can be directly and verifiably tied to a real-world identity in a way that supports regulatory compliance while preserving user privacy,” she added.
The result is a simplified and compliant path for banks and fintech platforms to onboard users to tokenized assets, stablecoins and on-chain financial services without compromising on security, user experience or trust, Hagège noted, adding:
“This solves the immediate ‘compliance bottleneck’ preventing institutional adoption of Web3. As global regulations tighten, enterprises are under urgent pressure to verify user identities without compromising privacy or user experience.”
USDC issuer Circle among Dfns clients
Founded in 2020, Dfns boasts more than 130 clients in banking, custody, tokenization and trading, including Dutch bank ABN Amro, investment firm Fidelity International, Standard Chartered’s Zodia Custody and USDC (USDC) issuer Circle, among others.
A spokesperson for the platform noted that, including testnets, Dfns has integrated with around 120 blockchain networks to date.
Concordium has also entered into partnerships with major crypto wallet providers like Ledger, Bitcoin.com, Safle and Coin98.
“Dfns is the gold standard for secure, scalable wallet infrastructure, and this integration puts Concordium’s built-in identity layer directly into the hands of enterprises and builders who crave compliance without complexity,” Concordium CEO Boris Bohrer-Bilowitzki said.
Aave trades at $173.14 after a 4-year SEC probe ends with no enforcement action, sparking fresh institutional interest through Bitwise’s ETF filing.
Aave’s price action tells a story of institutional validation that crypto markets have been waiting years to hear. The DeFi lending protocol closed at $173.14, marking a 0.72% gain while Bitcoin slipped 0.45%, as news broke that the Securities and Exchange Commission concluded its four-year investigation with no enforcement action—a rare regulatory victory that’s already attracting fresh institutional capital.
Regulatory Clouds Lift as Institutional Money Circles
The timing couldn’t be more significant. Bitwise’s filing for 11 altcoin ETFs, including AAVE, arrived just as regulatory uncertainty evaporated, according to data from legal filings reviewed by industry analysts. This one-two punch of regulatory clarity and institutional product development has fundamentally shifted Aave’s investment thesis from speculative DeFi play to potential mainstream financial infrastructure.
Aave founder Stani Kulechov’s unveiling of a 2026 master plan immediately following the SEC probe’s conclusion signals the protocol’s readiness to capitalize on this regulatory tailwind. The plan, while light on specific details, positions Aave to expand beyond its current DeFi lending niche into broader financial services—a move that could justify significantly higher valuations if executed successfully.
Yet the ecosystem metrics paint the picture of a protocol already firing on multiple cylinders. Aave’s total value locked reached $35 billion by January 1, 2025, surpassing previous records, while protocol fees jumped to over $474 million in the last 12 months. These aren’t speculative numbers—they represent real revenue from real users in an increasingly competitive DeFi landscape.
Technical Indicators Flash Mixed Signals
The charts present a more nuanced picture than the headline narrative might suggest. Aave’s RSI sits at 54.27, firmly in neutral territory, while the MACD histogram shows bullish momentum at 3.5959, according to Binance spot market data. The token trades well above its 7-day and 20-day moving averages but remains significantly below the 200-day average at $248.31.
Most telling is Aave’s position within the Bollinger Bands at 0.79, suggesting the recent rally still has room to run before hitting technically overbought levels. The immediate resistance level at $187.58 represents the first major test, with stronger resistance waiting at $207.16—levels that coincide with institutional accumulation zones identified by on-chain analysts.
However, the whale activity data reveals a concerning undercurrent. A $37 million sell-off by large holders counters the strategic accumulation narrative, suggesting some institutional players may be taking profits rather than building positions. This mixed signal deserves attention from traders positioning for the next leg up.
The Bull Case Meets Reality
Morgan Creek Digital’s recent analysis points to AAVE as a potential beneficiary of the “infrastructure trade” in crypto, with the regulatory clarity providing a foundation for sustained institutional adoption. Their price target of $250 within six months assumes continued DeFi growth and successful ETF approval, representing a 44% upside from current levels.
Yet veteran DeFi analyst Chris Blec offers a sobering counterpoint: “Regulatory approval doesn’t automatically translate to user adoption or revenue growth. Aave still faces intense competition from newer protocols offering higher yields and better user experiences.” His skepticism highlights a key risk—that regulatory victory might already be priced in while operational challenges remain underappreciated.
The technical setup supports both narratives. Bulls should watch for a clean break above $187.58, which could trigger momentum buying toward the $207 resistance level within the next two to three weeks. A stop-loss below $165 would limit downside while maintaining exposure to potential ETF-driven rallies.
Bears, meanwhile, should monitor the 20-day moving average at $159.89 as a critical support level. A break below this level, similar to the pattern seen in October 2024 before Aave’s previous correction, could signal a deeper pullback toward $143.63.
The Verdict
Aave’s current position resembles a coiled spring, with regulatory clarity providing the fundamental backdrop for a sustained rally while technical indicators suggest the immediate upside may be limited to the $187-$207 range. The protocol’s strong fundamentals and growing institutional interest support a bullish medium-term outlook, but traders should expect volatility as the market digests these developments.
The key level to watch is $187.58—a break above this resistance within the next two weeks would validate the institutional adoption thesis and likely trigger algorithmic buying programs. Until then, Aave remains a show-me story trading on potential rather than proven institutional demand.
Gold and silver, both seen as “stores of value,” briefly retook their positions as the two biggest assets by market cap. Bitcoin sits in the eighth position.
Gold and silver briefly reclaimed their spots as the two biggest assets by market capitalization as the new year rolled in with uncertainty.
According to data from analytics platform CompaniesMarketCap, gold currently has a market cap of $31.1 trillion, sitting at the top spot.
Silver, which has been trading places with Nvidia for second place since December, flipped Nvidia briefly, only to be overtaken again by the time of publication.
There has been a flight to precious metals over the past year, with investors seeking out the traditional stores of value for safety amid global conflicts and trade disputes.
Investors are also expecting potentially significant rate cuts from the US Federal Reserve under its new chair, which is also likely driving investors to commodities such as gold and silver.
The increased demand has seen gold and silver recently tag new all-time highs of around $4,500 and $80, respectively, and while this momentum hasn’t yet swung to Bitcoin and crypto, there is a sense that it might not be far off.
In a recent interview, Owen Lau, the managing director of Clear Street, argued that the Fed’s monetary policy decisions in 2026 will be “one of the key catalysts for the crypto space.”
Lau asserted that lower rates would spark a hunger among retail and institutional investors for risk assets, such as “digital gold.”
Bitcoin’s (BTC) sharp 7.4% rebound kick-started the first week of January and has shifted market focus back to futures positioning, where liquidation data suggests the price action may be asymmetric.
Key takeaways:
Over $10.6 billion in long liquidations sit below $84,000, versus just $2 billion in shorts above $104,000.
Retail positioning on Hyperliquid shows shorts are more vulnerable to upside squeezes than longs to downside moves.
Bitcoin must reclaim the $100,000 cost basis to confirm a structural trend reversal.
Liquidation imbalance raises volatility risk for BTC
According to data from CoinGlass, about $10.65 billion in leveraged long positions will be liquidated if Bitcoin revisits $84,000. In contrast, only around $2 billion in short positions face liquidation if BTC rallies to $104,000.
BTC Liquidation Map. Source: CoinGlass
This imbalance matters because liquidations can act as forced market orders. A downside move toward $84,000 risks long liquidations, accelerating selling pressure. On the upside, however, fewer shorts mean less fuel for a squeeze, unless positioning changes rapidly.
However, on Hyperliquid, the outlook is different. Crypto trader ChimpZoo highlighted that retail traders were disproportionately short, noting that a rally could liquidate about 6,000 BTC worth of retail shorts, compared with only 2,000 BTC of retail longs on a similar downside move.
Calling the setup “absurd,” the trader argued that such positioning could propel Bitcoin to new highs at a rapid pace. However, a closer look at the data suggested a more balanced risk profile. While the exchange still shows a net short bias, liquidation exposure on a $10,000 price move is relatively symmetrical.
BTC liquidation map on Hyperliquid. Source: CoinGlass
On such a move, about 3,860 BTC in long positions would be liquidated on a downside swing, compared with roughly 4,100 BTC in short positions on an upside move.
$100,000 level remains the decisive structural test
Despite liquidation-driven momentum, Analyst Crypto Dan cautioned that a straight-line move to new all-time highs is unlikely. First, Bitcoin must reclaim its six-to-12 month holder cost basis to confirm a trend reversal.
Bitcoin realized price-UTXO age bands and cost basis. Source: CryptoQuant
That level currently stands at about $100,000. A sustained break above it would signal a shift back to a bullish market structure and open room for further upside. Rejection would suggest the broader downtrend remains intact despite recent initial strength.
From a technical standpoint, short-term risks also persist below current prices. Bitcoin may retest CME gaps formed over the weekend from $90,600 to $91,600, with another gap still unfilled lower down between $88,170 and $88,700.
If BTC rejects near $96,000 resistance, these gaps could come back into play as the month progresses.
This article does not contain investment advice or recommendations. Every investment and trading move involves risk, and readers should conduct their own research when making a decision. While we strive to provide accurate and timely information, Cointelegraph does not guarantee the accuracy, completeness, or reliability of any information in this article. This article may contain forward-looking statements that are subject to risks and uncertainties. Cointelegraph will not be liable for any loss or damage arising from your reliance on this information.
This article does not contain investment advice or recommendations. Every investment and trading move involves risk, and readers should conduct their own research when making a decision. While we strive to provide accurate and timely information, Cointelegraph does not guarantee the accuracy, completeness, or reliability of any information in this article. This article may contain forward-looking statements that are subject to risks and uncertainties. Cointelegraph will not be liable for any loss or damage arising from your reliance on this information.
