Michael Saylor’s Strategy, the world’s largest public Bitcoin holder, blasted past 700,000 BTC in holdings with its latest large-scale purchase.
Strategy bought 22,305 Bitcoin (BTC) for $2.13 billion last week, according to a US Securities and Exchange Commission filing on Monday.
The purchases were made at an average price of $95,284 per BTC, with Bitcoin briefly rising past $97,000 on Wednesday, according to CoinGecko data.
The acquisition brought Strategy’s total Bitcoin holdings to 709,715 BTC, purchased for about $53.92 billion at an average price of $75,979 per coin.
Strategy’s biggest Bitcoin buy since February 2025
Strategy’s latest Bitcoin acquisition marks a sharp acceleration in buying pace compared with most of 2025, and is the company’s largest purchase since February last year, when it bought 20,356 BTC for around $2 billion.
Strategy’s Bitcoin purchases since November 2025. Source: Strategy
The purchase came amid a slight uptick in Strategy shares (MSTR), with the stock surging past $185 on Wednesday, coinciding with Bitcoin’s multi-month high of above $97,000, according to TradingView data.
In acquiring 709,715 BTC, Strategy now holds about 3.37% of the total 21 million BTC supply, and 3.55% of the 19.98 million BTC currently in circulation, according to data from Blockchain.com.
The accelerated buying by Strategy comes after a period of uncertainty for digital asset treasuries (DATs) following a summer 2025 rally that many described as a bubble.
James Butterfill, head of research at CoinShares, said the market is now set to re-evaluate which DATs will survive by genuinely fitting the accumulation model.
“The future of DATs lies in returning to fundamentals: disciplined treasury management, credible business models, and realistic expectations about the role of digital assets on corporate balance sheets,” he said in a December 2025 update.
Cointelegraph is committed to independent, transparent journalism. This news article is produced in accordance with Cointelegraph’s Editorial Policy and aims to provide accurate and timely information. Readers are encouraged to verify information independently. Read our Editorial Policy https://cointelegraph.com/editorial-policy
World Liberty Financial (WLFI) is facing criticism following a governance vote that approved a USD1 growth proposal, despite objections from the community over the lack of voting access for locked WLFI holders.
Onchain voting data shows that the largest “FOR” votes were cast by top wallets flagged as team-linked or strategic partner addresses, according to pseudonymous crypto trader and researcher DeFi^2.
The top nine wallets accounted for about 59% of total voting power, giving a small cluster of big holders effective control over the outcome of the USD1 growth proposal. The largest wallet contributed 18.786% of the total voting power based on the snapshot vote for WLFI governance.
“This is in contrast to the real voters lower in the screenshot, who have all been locked from accessing their WLFI tokens since TGE, and unable to vote on an unlock until the team allows it,” DeFi^2 claimed on X.
Top wallets push through USD1 growth proposal. Source: WLFI
USD1 proposal contrasts with WLFI tokenholder incentives
According to DeFi^2, the project’s focus on the USD1 growth proposal raises questions about why governance was used to expand the protocol rather than address restrictions affecting a large share of investors.
“The real motivation becomes clear when you recall the fine print that WLFI holders are not entitled to ANY protocol revenue at all,” the researcher wrote, adding that the project’s Gold Paper states that 75% of net income is allocated to entities linked to the Trump family and the remaining 25% to entities associated with the Witkoff family.
One tokenholder who voted against the proposal said the measure would further dilute investors without offering any clear benefit in return. The user argued that World Liberty Financial had previously used more than nine figures of investor capital to build a treasury of assets including Bitcoin (BTC), Ether (ETH) and Chainlink (LINK), yet WLFI holders received no direct upside from those holdings.
“World Liberty Financial could easily liquidate their alt assets to support their USD1 incentives instead of diluting investors even more,” the user wrote.
Cointelegraph reached out to WLFI for comment, but had not received a response by publication.
Earlier this month, World Liberty Financial applied for a national trust banking charter in the US to bring issuance, custody and conversion of its USD1 stablecoin under one regulated entity. The move would allow the firm to mint and redeem USD1 without third-party providers, offer fee-free conversions between dollars and USD1, and expand its services to institutional users.
Last week, the firm also launched World Liberty Markets, a new onchain lending and borrowing platform built around its USD1 stablecoin and WLFI governance token.
Cointelegraph is committed to independent, transparent journalism. This news article is produced in accordance with Cointelegraph’s Editorial Policy and aims to provide accurate and timely information. Readers are encouraged to verify information independently. Read our Editorial Policy https://cointelegraph.com/editorial-policy
Aave trades at $161 with analyst targets of $190-195 by February 2026. Technical indicators show neutral RSI at 43.83 but bearish MACD momentum creates mixed outlook.
Aave (AAVE) is currently trading at $161.04, down 0.74% in the last 24 hours, as the decentralized finance protocol faces mixed technical signals heading into the final weeks of January 2026. Despite recent price weakness, several analysts maintain bullish medium-term outlooks for the DeFi lending token.
Recent analyst predictions suggest significant upside potential for AAVE despite current price consolidation. Felix Pinkston noted on January 16 that “AAVE shows bullish potential toward $190-195 range by February 2026, with current price at $173.76 offering entry opportunity despite neutral RSI and bearish MACD momentum.”
Peter Zhang provided a comprehensive Aave forecast on January 17, stating: “AAVE Price Prediction Summary: Short-term target (1 week): $182-184; Medium-term forecast (1 month): $190-195 range; Bullish breakout level: $184.75; Critical support: $164.51.”
Rebeca Moen’s analysis from January 15 reinforced this bullish sentiment: “AAVE price prediction shows bullish momentum toward $190-195 by February despite mixed signals. Technical analysis reveals key resistance at $184 with strong support holding.”
AAVE Technical Analysis Breakdown
Current technical indicators present a mixed picture for Aave’s near-term price action. The RSI sits at 43.83, indicating neutral momentum with room for movement in either direction. However, the MACD histogram at 0.0000 suggests bearish momentum, while the MACD line at -0.1016 remains below the signal line.
Aave’s position within the Bollinger Bands shows the token trading at 0.25 of the band range, closer to the lower band at $154.40 than the upper band at $181.13. This positioning typically indicates oversold conditions and potential for upward movement toward the middle band at $167.77.
The moving average structure shows AAVE trading below all major short-term averages, with the 7-day SMA at $170.46 and 20-day SMA at $167.77 providing immediate resistance levels. The 200-day SMA at $242.23 highlights the significant distance to long-term trend support.
Key support levels include the immediate support at $159.12 and strong support at $157.19, while resistance appears at $164.58 and the more significant level at $168.11.
Aave Price Targets: Bull vs Bear Case
Bullish Scenario
The bullish case for AAVE centers on breaking above the $168.11 resistance level, which would open the path toward the $184.75 breakout level identified by analysts. A sustained move above this threshold could trigger momentum toward the $190-195 target range by February.
Technical confirmation for the bullish scenario would require the RSI moving above 50 and the MACD generating a bullish crossover. Additionally, reclaiming the 20-day SMA at $167.77 would provide crucial technical validation for higher prices.
Bearish Scenario
The bearish case involves a breakdown below the critical support at $157.19, potentially leading to a test of the Bollinger Band lower bound at $154.40. Further weakness could see AAVE declining toward psychological support levels around $150 or lower.
Risk factors include continued bearish MACD momentum, failure to reclaim moving average support, and broader cryptocurrency market weakness that could pressure DeFi tokens.
Should You Buy AAVE? Entry Strategy
For those considering AAVE positions, the current price around $161 offers a potential entry point given analyst targets substantially higher. However, risk management remains crucial given the mixed technical signals.
Conservative entry strategies might wait for a break above $168.11 to confirm bullish momentum before establishing positions. Aggressive traders could consider current levels with tight stop-losses below $157.19 to limit downside exposure.
Position sizing should account for the high volatility indicated by the 14-day ATR of $8.26, suggesting daily price swings of approximately 5% are common for AAVE.
Conclusion
The AAVE price prediction for the coming weeks suggests potential upside toward $184-190, supported by multiple analyst forecasts targeting the $190-195 range by February 2026. However, current technical indicators show mixed signals that warrant caution in the near term.
While the medium-term Aave forecast appears constructive based on analyst expectations, traders should monitor key technical levels closely and employ appropriate risk management strategies. The cryptocurrency remains highly volatile, and price predictions should be considered alongside individual risk tolerance and market conditions.
Disclaimer: Cryptocurrency price predictions are speculative and should not constitute financial advice. Always conduct your own research and consider your risk tolerance before making investment decisions.
Hong Kong Monetary Authority warns public about fraudulent social media accounts impersonating the regulator and Chief Executive Eddie Yue. Police investigating.
Hong Kong’s central banking authority has issued an urgent warning about fraudulent social media accounts impersonating both the regulator and its top official, marking the latest in a series of scam alerts from the financial watchdog.
The Hong Kong Monetary Authority announced on January 20 that fake accounts are circulating on social media platforms, falsely claiming to represent the HKMA and Chief Executive Eddie Yue. The regulator has reported the incident to Hong Kong Police for investigation.
Official Channels Only
The HKMA emphasized that legitimate news and policy updates are distributed exclusively through its official website at www.hkma.gov.hk and verified social media accounts. Any other accounts or pages claiming HKMA affiliation are fraudulent, the authority stated.
“The public should disregard any information disseminated on suspicious websites, social media accounts or pages,” the regulator warned.
Pattern of Escalating Fraud Attempts
This warning comes amid a broader wave of financial fraud targeting Hong Kong residents. Just one day earlier, on January 19, the HKMA issued a separate scam alert related to banks. Earlier this month, the authority flagged phishing messages linked to Bank of China (Hong Kong) on January 7.
The frequency of these warnings suggests scammers are increasingly targeting Hong Kong’s financial infrastructure and the institutions that regulate it. Impersonating a central bank authority represents a significant escalation—these scams typically aim to lend false credibility to investment schemes or extract personal financial information from victims.
What This Means for Crypto Investors
For crypto market participants in Hong Kong, the warning carries particular relevance. The HKMA has been actively involved in shaping the city’s digital asset regulatory framework, making it a prime target for impersonation by bad actors promoting fraudulent crypto schemes.
Investors should verify any regulatory announcements through official HKMA channels before acting on them. The regulator does not solicit investments or request personal information via social media direct messages.
Hong Kong Police are investigating the fraudulent accounts. The HKMA has not disclosed how many fake accounts were identified or which platforms they appeared on.
Bitcoin may remain under pressure as the US-EU trade war may create a risk-off environment in the short term.
Most major altcoins have turned down from their overhead resistance levels, signaling that the bears remain in command.
Bitcoin’s (BTC) pullback is attempting to find support near $92,000, but the bears have kept up the pressure. Several crypto analysts told Cointelegraph that a US-EU trade war may create a risk-off mood in the markets.
The uncertainty has boosted gold and silver to new all-time highs, while BTC languishes. However, network economist Timothy Peterson said BTC will eventually catch up with gold’s rally. He said in a post on X that both gold and BTC are headed to the same place but are just taking different paths.
Crypto market data daily view. Source: TradingView
While the long term looks bullish, the short term is sketchy. Trader CrypNuevo said in an X analysis thread that BTC may witness downside pressure due to uncertainty. The 2026 yearly open of about $87,000 and the range lows of $80,500 are the critical levels to watch out for.
Could BTC and the major altcoins bounce off their support levels? Let’s analyze the charts of the top 10 cryptocurrencies to find out.
S&P 500 Index price prediction
The S&P 500 Index (SPX) is facing selling near the 7,000 level, but a positive sign is that the bulls have not ceded much ground to the bears.
The first sign of weakness will be a break below the 20-day exponential moving average (EMA) (6,909). That suggests the bulls are booking profits. Buyers are expected to defend the 50-day simple moving average (SMA) (6,829), as a break below it may deepen the correction to 6,720.
Contrarily, if the price rebounds off the moving averages, the bulls will attempt to resume the uptrend. If buyers thrust the price above the 7,000 resistance, the index may soar to the 7,290 level.
US Dollar Index price prediction
The US Dollar Index (DXY) rose above the 50-day SMA (98.99) on Monday, but the higher levels are attracting sellers.
If the price skids below the moving averages, the index may remain inside the 97.74 to 100.54 range for some time.
Contrary to this assumption, if the price rebounds off the moving averages with strength, it signals buying on dips. The bulls will then again attempt to drive the price to the 100.54 overhead resistance. Sellers are expected to defend the 100.54 level with all their might, as a close above it signals the start of a new up move.
Bitcoin price prediction
BTC’s pullback has reached the 20-day EMA ($92,625), which is a critical near-term support to watch out for.
If the price rebounds off the 20-day EMA with strength, it suggests a positive sentiment. That increases the possibility of a break above the $97,924 level. The BTC/USDT pair may then rally to $100,000 and later to $107,500.
On the other hand, a break and close below the moving averages suggests that the bulls are losing their grip. The Bitcoin price may then oscillate inside the $84,000 to $97,924 range for a few days.
Ether price prediction
Ether (ETH) remains stuck inside the symmetrical triangle pattern, signaling uncertainty about the next directional move.
The slightly upsloping 20-day EMA ($3,190) and the and the relative strength index (RSI) near the midpoint do not indicate a clear advantage either to the bulls or the bears. If the price closes below the 20-day EMA, the ETH/USDT pair may extend its stay inside the triangle.
The advantage will tilt in favor of the bulls if the Ether price closes above the resistance line. The pair may march toward $3,569 and subsequently to $4,000. On the downside, a close below the support line may sink the pair to $2,623.
XRP price prediction
XRP’s (XRP) break below the 50-day SMA ($2) indicates that the bears are back in the game.
The bears will attempt to strengthen their position by pulling the price to the solid support zone between $1.61 and the support line. If the price rebounds off the support zone with strength, it indicates that the XRP/USDT pair may stay inside the channel for some more time.
The downside is likely to pick up momentum on a close below the support line. The par may then plummet to the Oct. 10 low of $1.25.
Buyers will have to kick the XRP price above the downtrend line to signal a potential trend change.
BNB price prediction
Sellers pulled the BNB (BNB) price below the 20-day EMA ($912) on Monday, but the long tail on the candlestick shows buying at lower levels.
The bulls will have to push the BNB price above the $960 level to signal the start of an up move toward the pattern target of $1,066.
Sellers are likely to have other plans. They will attempt to defend the overhead resistance and pull the BNB/USDT pair below the 50-day SMA ($884). If they do that, it suggests that the market rejected has the breakout above the $928 level. The pair may then slump to the uptrend line and eventually to $790.
Solana price prediction
Solana (SOL) turned down from the $147 resistance and has reached the 50-day SMA ($132), indicating that the bears are active at higher levels.
Both moving averages are flattening out, RSI is just below the midpoint, indicating that the SOL/USDT pair may continue to consolidate between $117 and $147 for some more time.
Buyers will have to drive the Solana price above the $147 level to signal the start of a new up move. The pair may then rally to $172. On the contrary, a break below $117 may sink the pair to $95.
The long tail on the candlestick shows that the bulls are defending the $0.12 level. There is resistance at the moving averages, but if the bulls overcome it, the DOGE/USDT pair may continue to swing inside the $0.12 to $0.16 range for a few more days.
Instead, if the Dogecoin price continues lower or turns down from the moving averages and breaks below $0.12, it signals the resumption of the downtrend. The pair may then retest the Oct. 10 low of $0.10.
Cardano price prediction
Cardano (ADA) broke below the moving averages on Sunday and is heading toward the $0.33 support.
If the price rebounds off the $0.33 level with strength, the bulls will again attempt to propel the ADA/USDT pair above the downtrend line. If they succeed, the Cardano price may reach the breakdown level of $0.50.
Alternatively, if the price breaks the $0.33 support, the next stop is likely to be the support line of the descending channel pattern. Buyers are expected to protect the support line, which is near the Oct. 10 low of $0.27.
Bitcoin Cash price prediction
Bitcoin Cash (BCH) closed below the 50-day SMA ($594) on Saturday, indicating that the bears are attempting to take charge.
The 20-day EMA ($608) has started to turn down, and the RSI is in the negative territory, indicating that the bears have the upper hand. The bounce off the $563 level is expected to face selling at the 20-day EMA. If the Bitcoin Cash price turns down sharply from the 20-day EMA, the likelihood of a break below the $563 support increases. The BCH/USDT pair may then nosedive to $518.
The first sign of strength will be a break above the 20-day EMA. The pair may then rise to the $631 level, where the bears are expected to step in.
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.
Bitcoin’s quantum risk centers on exposed public keys and signature security.
BTQ’s testnet explores post-quantum signatures in a Bitcoin-like environment.
Post-quantum signatures significantly increase transaction size and block space demands.
“Old BTC risk” is concentrated in legacy output types and address reuse patterns.
BTQ Technologies said it had launched a Bitcoin Quantum testnet on Jan. 12, 2026, a Bitcoin-like network designed to trial post-quantum signatures without touching Bitcoin mainnet governance.
The idea is that BTQ would replace Bitcoin’s current signature scheme with ML-DSA, the module-lattice signature standard formalized by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) as Federal Information Processing Standard (FIPS) 204, for post-quantum security assumptions.
It is worth remembering that in most Bitcoin quantum-threat models, the key precondition is public-key exposure. If a public key is already visible onchain, a sufficiently capable future quantum computer could, in theory, attempt to recover the corresponding private key offline.
Did you know? BTQ Technologies is a research-focused firm working on post-quantum cryptography and blockchain security. Its Bitcoin Quantum testnet is designed to study how quantum-resistant signatures behave in a Bitcoin-like system.
What quantum changes?
Most Bitcoin quantum-risk discussions focus on digital signatures, not on Bitcoin’s coin supply or the idea that a quantum computer could magically guess random wallets.
The specific concern is that a cryptographically relevant quantum computer (CRQC) could run Shor’s algorithm to solve the discrete logarithm problem efficiently enough to derive a private key from a known public key, undermining both the Elliptic Curve Digital Signature Algorithm (ECDSA) and Schnorr-based signing.
Chaincode Labs frames this as the dominant quantum threat model for Bitcoin because it could enable unauthorized spending by producing valid signatures.
The risk can be separated into long-range exposure, where public keys are already visible onchain for some older script types or due to reuse, and short-range exposure, where public keys are revealed when a transaction is broadcast and awaits confirmation, creating a narrow time window.
Of course, no quantum computer today poses an immediate risk to Bitcoin, and mining-related impacts should be treated as a separate and more constrained discussion compared with signature breakage.
Did you know? Shor’s algorithm already exists as mathematics, but it requires a large, fault-tolerant quantum computer to run. If such machines are built, they could be used to derive private keys from exposed public keys.
What BTQ built and why it’s interesting
BTQ’s Bitcoin Quantum testnet is essentially a Bitcoin Core-based fork that swaps out one of Bitcoin’s most important primitives, signatures.
In its announcement, BTQ said the testnet replaces ECDSA with ML-DSA, the module-lattice signature scheme standardized by the NIST as FIPS 204 for post-quantum digital signatures.
This change forces a set of engineering trade-offs. ML-DSA signatures are roughly 38-72 times larger than ECDSA, so the testnet raises the block size limit to 64 mebibytes (MiB) to make room for the additional transaction data.
The company also treats the network as a full lifecycle proving ground, supporting wallet creation, transaction signing and verification, and mining, along with basic infrastructure such as a block explorer and mining pool.
In short, the testnet’s practical value is that it turns post-quantum Bitcoin into a performance and coordination experiment.
Where old BTC risk concentrates
When analysts talk about “old BTC risk” in a post-quantum context, they are usually referring to public keys that are already exposed onchain.
A future CRQC capable of running Shor’s algorithm could, in theory, use those public keys to derive the corresponding private keys and then produce valid spends.
There are three output types immediately vulnerable to long-range attacks, specifically because they place elliptic-curve public keys directly in the locking script (ScriptPubKey): Pay-to-Public-Key (P2PK), Pay-to-Multi-Signature (P2MS) and Pay-to-Taproot (P2TR).
The distribution is uneven:
P2PK is a tiny share of today’s unspent transaction outputs (UTXOs), around 0.025%, but it locks a disproportionate share of BTC value, about 8.68% or 1,720,747 Bitcoin (BTC), mostly dormant Satoshi-era coins.
P2MS accounts for about 1.037% of UTXOs, but reports estimate that it secures only around 57 BTC.
P2TR is common by count, around 32.5% of UTXOs, yet small by value in the same snapshot, about 0.74% or 146,715 BTC. Its exposure is tied to Taproot’s key-path design, where a tweaked public key is visible onchain.
Address reuse can also turn what would otherwise be “spend-time” exposure into long-range exposure because once a public key appears onchain, it remains visible.
BTQ’s own messaging uses this exposed-key framing to argue that the potentially affected pool is large. It cites 6.26 million BTC as exposed, which is part of why the company says testing post-quantum signatures in a Bitcoin-like environment is worth doing now.
What’s next for Bitcoin?
In the near term, the most concrete work is observability and preparedness.
As explored, the signature threat model is driven by public-key exposure. This is why discussions often center on how Bitcoin’s existing wallet and scripting practices either reveal public keys early, as with some legacy script types, or reduce exposure by default, as with common wallet behavior that avoids reuse.
“Old BTC risk” is therefore largely a property of historical output types and reuse patterns and not something that suddenly applies evenly to every coin.
The second, more practical constraint is capacity. Even if a post-quantum migration were socially agreed upon, it would still be a blockspace and coordination problem.
River’s explainer summarizes academic estimates showing how sensitive timelines are to assumptions. A theoretical scenario in which all transactions are migrations can compress timelines dramatically, while more realistic blockspace allocation stretches a transition into years, even before accounting for governance and adoption.
BTQ’s testnet fits into that bucket. It lets engineers observe the operational costs of post-quantum signatures, including larger data sizes and different limits, in a Bitcoin-like setting, without claiming that Bitcoin is imminently breakable.
Did you know? The biggest factor holding quantum computers back is noise, or errors. Today’s qubits make mistakes frequently, so fault-tolerant error correction is required. This means using many physical qubits to produce a small number of reliable “logical” qubits before running the long computations needed to break real-world cryptography.
What Bitcoin-level mitigation might look like
At the protocol level, quantum preparedness is often discussed as a sequenced path.
Post-quantum signature schemes tend to be much larger than elliptic-curve signatures, which have knock-on effects for transaction size, bandwidth and verification costs; the same kinds of trade-offs BTQ is surfacing by experimenting with ML-DSA.
That is why some Bitcoin proposals focus first on reducing the most structural exposure within existing script designs, without committing the network to a specific post-quantum signature algorithm immediately.
A recent example is Bitcoin Improvement Proposal (BIP) 360, which proposes a new output type called Pay-to-Tapscript-Hash (P2TSH). P2TSH is nearly identical to Taproot but removes the key-path spend, the path that relies on elliptic-curve signatures, leaving a tapscript-native route that can be used in ways intended to avoid that key-path dependency.
Related ideas have circulated on the Bitcoin developer mailing list under the broader “hash-only” or “script-spend” Taproot family, often discussed as Pay-to-Quantum-Resistant-Hash (P2QRH)-style constructions. These proposals again aim to reuse Taproot’s structure while skipping the quantum-vulnerable key spend.
Importantly, none of this is settled. The main point is that Bitcoin’s likely response, if it moves, is debated as an incremental coordination problem that balances conservatism, compatibility and the cost of changing the transaction format.
The BTQ testnet is quite revealing
BTQ’s Bitcoin Quantum testnet does not settle the quantum debate, but it does make two points harder to ignore.
First, most credible threat models focus on where public keys are already exposed, which is why “old coin” patterns keep appearing in analyses.
Second, post-quantum Bitcoin is an engineering and coordination problem. BTQ Technologies’ own design choices, such as moving to ML-DSA and lifting block limits to accommodate much larger signatures, illustrate those trade-offs.
Ultimately, the testnet is a sandbox for measuring costs and constraints and should not be seen as proof that Bitcoin is imminently breakable.
Cointelegraph maintains full editorial independence. The selection, commissioning and publication of Features and Magazine content are not influenced by advertisers, partners or commercial relationships.
Bitcoin mining produces large amounts of heat that are typically treated as waste. In cold regions, this thermal output is now being tested as a useful resource.
A pilot project in Manitoba is integrating Bitcoin mining with greenhouse farming, reusing server heat as a supplemental source of agricultural heating.
Liquid-cooled mining systems are generally associated with higher and more stable heat capture, making recovered thermal energy suitable for industrial heating applications.
Reusing mining heat may lower operating costs for both miners and greenhouse operators by improving energy efficiency and reducing dependence on fossil fuels.
Bitcoin (BTC) mining faces criticism for consuming large amounts of electricity and generating significant heat that is typically treated as waste and must be cooled or removed. In colder regions, that heat is now being tested as a potentially useful byproduct.
In the province of Manitoba, Canada, a pilot project is examining whether heat produced by Bitcoin mining can be reused to support greenhouse farming. Integrating Bitcoin mining with greenhouse agriculture offers a practical way to repurpose heat generated during the mining process.
This guide discusses the Manitoba pilot project and explores how thermal waste from digital infrastructure can be reused. It also outlines how improving thermal efficiency may help reduce Bitcoin mining operating costs while discussing emerging mining-integrated heating models and their limitations.
Repurposing thermal waste from digital infrastructure
Bitcoin mining relies on specialized equipment that performs a large volume of calculations to secure the network and confirm transactions. This continuous processing generates substantial heat, similar to data centers but often at a higher power density.
Traditionally, miners use fans or cooling systems to remove this heat. In colder climates, this creates a paradox. Electricity is used to generate heat, and then additional electricity is consumed to dissipate it. Even in regions where nearby buildings require heating for much of the year, simply discarding the heat can appear inefficient.
This has led some mining companies to ask a simple question: Why not reuse the heat instead of venting it? This line of thinking underpins efforts to integrate Bitcoin mining with greenhouse agriculture.
Did you know? In parts of Finland and Sweden, waste heat from conventional data centers is used to warm entire residential districts through municipal heating grids.
The Manitoba pilot: Canaan and Bitforest collaborate
The pilot project in Manitoba brings together hardware maker and mining company Canaan with Bitforest Investment, a firm focused on sustainable infrastructure and agriculture.
The project operates at about 3 megawatts (MW) of mining capacity and is planned as a 24-month proof of concept. Its goal is not only to demonstrate technical feasibility but also to collect data that can help determine whether the model can scale to larger agricultural or industrial applications.
Instead of typical air-cooled mining machines, the system uses liquid-cooled servers from Canaan’s Avalon series. Around 360 mining units are installed and connected to a closed-loop heat exchange system that transfers heat into the greenhouse’s water-based heating infrastructure.
Rather than fully replacing existing heating systems, the mining heat is used to preheat incoming water. This can reduce the energy required from conventional boilers, particularly during colder months.
The synergy between Bitcoin mining and greenhouse agriculture
Greenhouses require steady, continuous heating, particularly in northern regions where winter temperatures can be extremely low. Tomatoes and other year-round crops are sensitive to temperature fluctuations, making reliable heat essential for consistent production.
From an engineering perspective, this constant energy demand aligns well with Bitcoin mining, which produces predictable and continuous heat. When captured efficiently, a significant portion of the electricity consumed by mining equipment can be converted into usable thermal energy.
Liquid cooling plays a key role in this process. Compared with air cooling, liquid-cooled systems capture heat at higher and more stable temperatures, making them suitable for industrial heating applications rather than simple space heating.
Did you know? Some companies sell Bitcoin mining rigs designed to function as household space heaters, allowing owners to heat rooms while mining cryptocurrency.
Reducing operational costs through thermal efficiency
Heating represents a significant operating cost for greenhouse operators. Any reduction in fossil fuel use has the potential to improve profitability while also lowering carbon emissions.
For miners, reusing heat can improve overall energy efficiency. It may help make marginal sites more viable, especially in regions where heating demand is consistent and electricity prices remain reasonable.
This is why heat recovery is attracting interest beyond agriculture, including applications in home heating, industrial drying and district heating networks.
While heat reuse does not eliminate mining’s energy footprint, it can significantly improve how efficiently that energy is used.
New operational models in digital mining
The Manitoba initiative is not an isolated case. Across the sector, operators are testing different ways to reduce costs and improve community relations as mining complexity and industry competition have increased in recent years.
Some mining companies have relocated operations closer to renewable energy sources such as hydroelectric dams, wind farms and solar plants. Others are developing modular facilities designed to make use of excess energy production.
Heat reuse adds another layer to this strategy, positioning miners as partners in local infrastructure rather than standalone industrial sites. This approach also mirrors trends in modern data center design, where waste-heat recovery is increasingly incorporated into urban planning, particularly in colder European cities.
Establishing a replicable model for cold-climate heat recovery
Canaan’s primary goal is not just to heat a single greenhouse but to develop a model that can be applied in other cold-climate regions.
It involves gathering operational data on:
Heat capture efficiency
Reliability of liquid-cooled mining systems
Integration with existing greenhouse heating equipment
Maintenance and operational complexity
Overall cost savings compared with conventional heating.
If the economics prove sustainable over time, similar systems could be deployed in northern US states, parts of Europe and other agricultural regions that rely heavily on heated greenhouses.
Did you know? Several French municipalities have piloted public swimming pools heated partly by server waste heat from nearby facilities.
Limitations of mining-integrated heating
Despite its potential, waste-heat reuse is not a solution for every situation:
The upfront cost of liquid-cooled systems and heat-exchange equipment is higher than that of standard mining setups. Without steady, long-term heating demand, these costs may not be justified.
Not every location has suitable nearby partners that can use the heat efficiently. Because heat cannot be transported over long distances without significant losses, close proximity between mining facilities and heat users is required.
Farming operations depend on reliable uptime. Any interruption in mining could affect heating consistency, so backup systems must remain in place.
Heat reuse does not address broader questions about energy sources. The environmental benefits are greatest when mining operations rely on low-carbon electricity.
Why this matters for Bitcoin’s long-term story
Bitcoin’s energy debate has increasingly shifted from total consumption figures to how and where that energy is used.
Projects such as the Manitoba greenhouse pilot suggest that mining infrastructure can be designed to align with local energy and heating needs, rather than compete with them.
If these models demonstrate commercial viability, they could help position mining as part of regional energy systems. Bitcoin mining would no longer appear as an isolated digital sector but as an infrastructure layer that supports other economic activities.
Whether integrated heating becomes mainstream will depend on engineering performance, cost trends and long-term reliability.
Cointelegraph maintains full editorial independence. The selection, commissioning and publication of Features and Magazine content are not influenced by advertisers, partners or commercial relationships.
India’s central bank, the Reserve Bank of India (RBI), has reportedly proposed an initiative linking BRICS central bank digital currencies (CBDCs) to facilitate cross-border trade and tourism payments.
A Reuters report citing two anonymous sources claimed that the recommendation would place the idea of CBDC interoperability on the agenda for the 2026 BRICS summit, which India is scheduled to host.
Reuters reported that the proposal, if accepted by the Indian government and BRICS partners, would be the first formal consideration of CBDCs within the bloc, which includes Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa.
While the proposal aims to reduce friction and cost in cross-border payments, the sources told Reuters that the discussions are at an early stage and would depend on agreements on technology, governance and settlement arrangements.
RBI proposal builds on earlier BRICS payment talks
Linking CBDCs among BRICS nations would mark a substantial step in the evolution of sovereign digital assets, even if it stops short of creating a unified currency.
The 2025 BRICS summit in Brazil set the stage for enhanced payment interoperability, reflecting the members’ interest in streamlining settlement systems for trade and tourism.
For India, the proposal aligns with its broader push to integrate its digital currency, the e-rupee, into international transaction flows.
The e-rupee has attracted millions of users since launch, and the RBI publicly signaled interest in linking the e-rupee with other CBDCs to expedite settlement.
While the RBI stressed that its efforts are primarily focused on efficiency and adoption rather than explicit de-dollarization, the move reflects growing interest among emerging economies in settlement efficiency.
Officials from BRICS member states have repeatedly pushed back against claims that the bloc is attempting to replace the US dollar or launch a rival reserve currency.
In January 2025, Russia responded to US President Donald Trump’s tariff threats by asserting that BRICS was not seeking a dollar alternative and was not planning a common currency. Kremlin spokesperson Dmitry Peskov said at the time that cooperation within BRICS was focused on mutual investment and economic coordination.
That position has been echoed by Brazil, which has been central to past speculation around a potential “BRICS currency.” On May 19, Brazil’s central bank downplayed the idea that BRICS could create assets that would rival US dollar dominance.
Cointelegraph is committed to independent, transparent journalism. This news article is produced in accordance with Cointelegraph’s Editorial Policy and aims to provide accurate and timely information. Readers are encouraged to verify information independently. Read our Editorial Policy https://cointelegraph.com/editorial-policy
Bitcoin faces rising downside risk as macro pressure and weak technicals point to a possible drop toward $80,000 on a rising-wedge breakdown.
Bitcoin (BTC) witnessed its lowest Coinbase Premium Gap (CPG) in a year, a sign that US-based investors were applying strong selling pressure relative to global markets.
Key takeaways:
US selling pressure spiked as the Coinbase Premium Gap hit a one-year low during a market holiday.
$80,000 downside risk grows if Bitcoin breaks down from its rising-wedge pattern.
Holiday selling a bad omen for BTC price
As of Monday, Bitcoin’s 30-day average CPG fell to about −63.85, its lowest level since January 2025. That reading preceded a BTC price drop to roughly $78,350 from above $102,000 in just four months.
Bitcoin’s Coinbase Premium Gap vs. BTC price. Source: CryptoQuant
The CPG tracks the price difference between Bitcoin’s USD pair on Coinbase and its USDT pair on Binance.
When the gap turns deeply negative, it means Bitcoin is trading at a lower price on Coinbase, suggesting US traders are selling more aggressively than their offshore counterparts. When the gap is positive, it typically signals stronger US buying demand.
The CPG low formed during a US market holiday, when spot Bitcoin ETFs were inactive. It showed that the selling pressure did not come from spot Bitcoin ETFs, but from US whales operating outside of traditional funds, according to analyst Mignolet.
“It’s one of the traditional selling patterns we’ve seen repeatedly in the past,” he wrote in a Monday post.
Nasdaq futures vs. gold and silver daily chart. Source: TradingView
At the same time, traditional safe-haven assets such as gold and silver rallied, signaling capital rotation away from risk.
Bitcoin technicals raise odds of decline below $90,000
Bitcoin’s daily chart also showed a rising wedge formation, a pattern that often signals weakening upside momentum during corrective rebounds.
Price printed higher lows, but within narrowing trendlines, reflecting shrinking buying conviction. The structure increased the risk of a downside breakdown if macro pressure persists and pushes the CPG deeper into negative territory.
BTC/USD daily chart. Source: TradingView
A confirmed loss of wedge support would likely trigger a measured downside move, as is typical in rising-wedge breakdowns, exposing Bitcoin to accelerated selling toward prior demand zones.
Based on the pattern’s height and recent historical reactions, the $80,000–$78,000 area emerges as the primary downside target.
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.
Opinion by: Kadan Stadelmann, chief technology officer of Komodo Platform
Crypto didn’t get wrecked by regulators or some shadowy conspiracy. The industry did this to itself. It handed control of cross-chain liquidity to a handful of intermediaries, who it called “bridges,” wrapped assets in slick tickers, and pretended that was decentralization.
Every time one of these house-of-cards systems collapses, billions vanish, and the rest of the industry shrugs, as if these were isolated accidents instead of warning sirens blaring across the ecosystem.
Multichain’s collapse was a mess. The Ronin hack was one of the biggest crypto heists in history. More than $2.8 billion has been drained through bridge exploits to date, accounting for roughly 40% of all funds stolen in Web3.
These aren’t freak accidents; they’re the predictable result of trusting centralized choke points and calling them “innovation.”
The wrapped-asset system is a fragile illusion
Wrapped assets were sold as a way to connect fragmented ecosystems. In practice, they concentrated risk into a few validators, custodians or multisig groups. Bridges rely on intermediary chains, external consensus layers or a small number of operators to maintain coherence.
That’s not decentralized, and it’s even something Vitalik Buterin has discussed at length. It’s a centralized infrastructure wearing a mask. One breach, one compromised key, one exploit in a validator set, and the entire system can implode. The trust assumptions are huge, but most people barely understand them.
The consequences ripple out far beyond the bridge itself. When one of these systems fails, it doesn’t just affect a single token. Lending markets seize up, liquidity dries out, and entire decentralized finance (DeFi) ecosystems lose their backbone overnight.
Consider how much DeFi relies on wrapped Bitcoin (BTC), wrapped Ether (ETH) or wrapped stablecoins on non-native chains. These wrapped assets are treated like the real thing. Protocols are built upon them. Behind the scenes, they’re IOUs backed by a fragile set of actors who have repeatedly shown they can fail.
What makes this worse is that the industry saw it coming and did nothing about it. We ignored the warning signs after every exploit. Instead of fixing the core problem, we doubled down. We built higher on quicksand. Venture capitalists and projects funneled more liquidity into bridges. Exchanges listed more wrapped assets. Builders prioritized speed and liquidity over resilience. It was easier to pretend the problem didn’t exist than to rethink the infrastructure from the ground up. Everyone celebrated volume milestones, while the structural rot spread underneath.
Native trading is the infrastructure that crypto should have built all along
Native trading has been here all along. It’s not a marketing slogan. It refers to moving real assets directly between users, wallet to wallet, on their origin chains, without wrapped representations or custodial intermediaries.
That approach is not without limitations. Native swaps and atomic swap systems have historically faced challenges around liquidity depth, asset coverage and user experience, which is why bridge-based designs proliferated in the first place. Those constraints remain real — but they do not negate the systemic risks introduced by concentrating cross-chain trust in a small number of operators.
No wrapped IOUs, no pools, no intermediaries. When a swap fails, funds return to the users, not to a custodian that might disappear tomorrow.
Atomic swaps and hash time-locked contracts have existed for years, but they were difficult to build a user experience around. Instead of doing the hard work, the industry chased shiny wrappers. Bridges felt fast and modern, and the narrative drowned out the reality.
Consider a scenario where a major bridge, holding billions in wrapped assets, collapses during peak market conditions. Liquidity that props up dozens of DeFi protocols vanishes overnight. Markets that depend on wrapped BTC freeze. Lending protocols face cascading liquidations. Traders rush to unwind exposure.
Fear spreads faster than any hack. We’ve seen a similar version before. When FTX collapsed, contagion ripped through every corner of the industry. Bridges have that same potential — maybe worse because they’re so deeply embedded in cross-chain liquidity. One or two big bridge failures at the wrong time could trigger a liquidity crisis on par with FTX.
Regulators are circling, and institutions are paying attention. If the industry continues to outsource trust to a few multisigs and validator sets, regulators will step in with solutions that won’t align with crypto’s values. Or worse, users and institutions will lose faith altogether. The damage wouldn’t just be financial; it would be reputational. DeFi would appear to be a gimmick built on duct tape, and mainstream trust would evaporate.
This industry doesn’t survive without a return to first principles
The ethos that built this space wasn’t about speed at all costs. It was about removing middlemen, trusting code over custodians and building systems that don’t rely on a few operators to behave perfectly forever. That ethos has been sidelined in favor of convenience. Native trading and trust-minimized protocols aren’t optional upgrades; they’re the return path to the foundation on which crypto was supposed to be built.
The next bull run won’t be defined by which memecoin pumps the hardest or which layer 2 runs the flashiest incentives; it will be defined by credibility. Users, institutions and regulators are watching closely. They’ve seen the bridge hacks, they’ve seen the collapses, and they won’t accept another cycle built on the same infrastructure. The industry has a choice to make. Keep pretending wrapped assets are “good enough,” keep ignoring the failure points and wait for the next black swan to force a reckoning. Or rebuild now on real, trust-minimized infrastructure that doesn’t blow up when the pressure hits.
The clock is ticking. The bridge problem isn’t some distant risk. It’s here, it’s embedded, and it’s growing. One more major exploit could set the entire industry back years. If builders don’t take this seriously, the market will, and the consequences won’t be pretty.
Opinion by: Kadan Stadelmann, chief technology officer of Komodo Platform.
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.
