AAVE trades at $116.24 with analysts targeting $137.53 by February 28. Technical indicators show neutral RSI at 42.62, suggesting potential upside momentum as price approaches key resistance levels.
While specific analyst predictions from major KOLs are currently limited, recent market analysis provides valuable insights into AAVE’s trajectory. According to CoinCodex’s February 23rd assessment, AAVE is expected to reach $137.53 by February 28, 2026, representing a potential 19.78% price increase over the next five days.
Earlier analysis from February 20th highlighted that AAVE faced some obstacles, with the DeFi token experiencing a 3.57% decline that underperformed both the broader cryptocurrency market and Bitcoin. However, technical recovery patterns suggest these headwinds may be temporary.
On-chain data suggests that DeFi protocols like Aave continue to show resilience despite short-term price volatility, with lending and borrowing metrics remaining robust across major blockchain networks.
AAVE Technical Analysis Breakdown
Currently trading at $116.24, AAVE shows mixed technical signals that lean toward potential recovery. The RSI reading of 42.62 places the token in neutral territory, suggesting neither oversold nor overbought conditions – a position that often precedes directional moves.
The MACD configuration presents interesting dynamics with the MACD line at -5.0678 and signal line also at -5.0678, resulting in a histogram reading of 0.0000. This convergence suggests bearish momentum may be weakening, potentially setting up for a bullish crossover.
Bollinger Bands analysis reveals AAVE trading at 0.41 position between the bands, with the upper band at $130.14 and lower band at $106.40. The current price sits below the middle band (SMA 20) at $118.27, but the positioning suggests room for upward movement without hitting overbought conditions.
Moving averages paint a complex picture: while short-term SMAs (7-day at $117.11 and 20-day at $118.27) trade relatively close to current levels, longer-term averages show significant gaps. The 50-day SMA at $138.78 aligns closely with analyst targets, while the 200-day SMA at $211.63 represents longer-term recovery potential.
Aave Price Targets: Bull vs Bear Case
Bullish Scenario
The path to $137.53 requires AAVE to break through immediate resistance at $122.39, followed by strong resistance at $128.53. A successful break above $128.53 would likely trigger momentum toward the $137-$140 range, supported by the 50-day SMA at $138.78.
Technical confirmation for this Aave forecast would include RSI climbing above 50, MACD histogram turning positive, and sustained trading above the Bollinger Band middle line. Daily volume exceeding the current $23.7 million would provide additional bullish validation.
The bullish case gains strength if AAVE can reclaim the $118.27 level (20-day SMA) as support, potentially setting up a run toward the upper Bollinger Band at $130.14.
Bearish Scenario
Downside risks emerge if AAVE fails to hold immediate support at $112.05. A breakdown below this level could accelerate selling toward strong support at $107.85, representing the lower Bollinger Band region.
The bearish scenario would be confirmed by RSI dropping below 40, sustained MACD divergence, and daily closes below the 20-day moving average. Given the Average True Range of $8.38, volatility could amplify any downward moves.
Critical support failure at $107.85 could open the door to deeper corrections, though such scenarios would likely present attractive entry opportunities for longer-term investors.
Should You Buy AAVE? Entry Strategy
Based on current technical positioning, the optimal AAVE price prediction strategy involves staged entries. Conservative investors might wait for a clear break above $118.27 (20-day SMA) with volume confirmation before establishing positions.
Aggressive traders could consider entries near current levels around $116-$117, with stop-losses below $112.05 to limit downside risk. The risk-reward ratio appears favorable given the proximity to support levels and analyst targets suggesting 19% upside potential.
For those following the $137.53 target, position sizing should account for the daily ATR of $8.38, allowing for normal volatility without premature stop-loss triggers. A tiered approach with initial entries at current levels and additional buying on any dip toward $112-$114 could optimize entry pricing.
Conclusion
The AAVE price prediction points toward moderate bullish potential over the next week, with the $137.53 target representing realistic upside based on current technical setup. While momentum indicators show neutral to slightly bearish readings, the proximity to support levels and analyst forecasts suggest favorable risk-reward dynamics.
This Aave forecast carries moderate confidence given the neutral RSI positioning and convergent MACD readings that often precede directional moves. However, investors should remain cautious of broader market conditions that could impact DeFi token performance.
Disclaimer: Cryptocurrency price predictions are inherently speculative and subject to high volatility. This analysis is for informational purposes only and should not be considered financial advice. Always conduct your own research and consider your risk tolerance before making investment decisions.
Bitcoin bulls have pushed the price above $69,000, signaling solid dip buying at lower levels.
Several major altcoins have turned up sharply, suggesting that selling pressure is reducing.
Bitcoin (BTC) bulls purchased Tuesday’s dip and are attempting to sustain the price above $69,000 on Wednesday. According to SoSoValue data, BTC exchange-traded funds recorded net inflows of $257.7 million on Tuesday, the largest inflows since Feb. 6. That suggests investors are viewing the dips near $60,000 as a buying opportunity.
Santiment said in a post on X that BTC’s correlation with stocks has broken down in the past six months. The S&P 500 rose 7% during the period, while BTC fell 43%. However, the onchain data provider added that the disconnection is unlikely to continue. If BTC follows its historical pattern of tracking equities during economic expansions, then “it may have significant room to catch up.”
Crypto market data daily view. Source: TradingView
Not everyone is bullish on BTC’s prospects in the short term. Glassnode said in a post on X that BTC’s realized profit/loss ratio (90-day moving average) slipped below 1. Historically, breaks below 1 have resulted in at least six months of loss realization before the level was reclaimed.
Could BTC and select major altcoins break above their overhead resistance levels? Let’s analyze the charts of the top 10 cryptocurrencies to find out.
Bitcoin price prediction
BTC has risen sharply from the $62,510 level on Tuesday, indicating that the bulls are vigorously defending the $60,000 level.
Buyers will attempt to thrust the Bitcoin price above the 20-day exponential moving average (EMA) ($69,375). If they succeed, the BTC/USDT pair may rally to the breakdown level of $74,508, where the bears are again expected to mount a strong defense.
Sellers will have to successfully defend the 20-day EMA if they want to retain the advantage. If the price turns down sharply from the 20-day EMA, the $60,000 support may be at risk of breaking down. If that happens, the pair may plummet to $52,500.
Ether price prediction
Ether (ETH) turned up from the $1,800 level on Tuesday, indicating that the bulls are attempting to retain the price inside the $1,750 to $2,111 range.
The relief rally is expected to face selling at the $2,111 level. If the Ether price turns down sharply from $2,111, the ETH/USDT pair may extend its stay inside the range for a few more days.
Alternatively, if buyers propel the price above the $2,111 level, it suggests that the bears are losing their grip. The pair may then surge to the 50-day simple moving average (SMA) ($2,540), where the bears are again expected to step in.
XRP price prediction
XRP (XRP) turned up sharply and has reached the 20-day EMA ($1.46), indicating that the bulls are attempting a comeback.
If the XRP price closes above the 20-day EMA, the XRP/USDT pair may rally to the 50-day SMA ($1.70) and eventually to the downtrend line. Buyers will have to clear the hurdle at the downtrend line to signal a potential trend change.
Sellers are likely to have other plans. They will attempt to defend the moving averages and pull the price below the support line. If they can pull it off, the pair may nosedive to the Feb. 6 low of $1.11 and then $1.
BNB price prediction
BNB (BNB) has risen sharply from $577, indicating that the bulls are aggressively defending the $570 level.
Buyers will have to swiftly drive the price above the 20-day EMA ($641) to strengthen their position. If they manage to do that, the BNB/USDT pair may rise to $669 and eventually to $730.
Contrary to this assumption, if the BNB price turns down and breaks below $570, it indicates that the bears are in control. The pair may then resume the downtrend toward the psychological level at $500.
Solana price prediction
Solana (SOL) dipped below the $76 support on Tuesday, but the bears could not maintain the lower levels.
The SOL/USDT pair is attempting a recovery, which is expected to face selling at the 20-day EMA ($87). If the price turns down sharply from the 20-day EMA, the possibility of a break below the $76 level increases. The Solana price may then tumble to the Feb. 6 low of $67.
Instead, if bulls push the price above the 20-day EMA, the relief rally may reach the $95 level. This is a crucial level to watch out for, as a close above $95 suggests that the bulls are back in the game. The pair may then rally toward $117.
Dogecoin price prediction
Dogecoin (DOGE) turned up sharply from the $0.09 level, and the bulls are attempting to drive the price above the 20-day EMA ($0.10).
Sellers are unlikely to give up easily and will strive to defend the 20-day EMA. If the Dogecoin price turns down from the 20-day EMA, it increases the likelihood of a drop to the $0.08 support. Buyers are expected to fiercely defend the $0.08 level, as a close below it may start the next leg of the downtrend to the $0.06 level.
Buyers will have to maintain the price above the 20-day EMA to indicate that the bears are losing their grip. The DOGE/USDT pair may then march toward the breakdown level of $0.12.
Bitcoin Cash price prediction
Bitcoin Cash (BCH) turned down sharply from the 50-day SMA ($564) and fell below the $500 support on Monday.
The 20-day EMA has started to turn down, and the relative strength index (RSI) is in negative territory, indicating an advantage to the bears. That suggests the relief rally to the 20-day EMA is likely to be sold into. If the Bitcoin Cash price turns down from the 20-day EMA, the possibility of a drop to the $443 level increases.
The first sign of strength will be a close above the moving averages. The BCH/USDT pair may then rise to $580 and subsequently to $600.
Buyers are striving to push the price back above the moving averages but are likely to face stiff resistance from the bears. If the Hyperliquid price turns down from the moving averages, the HYPE/USDT pair may drop to the solid support at $20.82.
Contrarily, if the price closes above the 20-day EMA ($29.31), it suggests buying at lower levels. The pair may then ascend to $32.50 and later to the stiff resistance at $36.77. The next trending move is expected to begin on a close above $36.77 or below $20.82.
Cardano price prediction
The bears failed to pull Cardano (ADA) to the support line of the descending channel pattern, indicating a lack of selling at lower levels.
The buyers are attempting to make a comeback by sustaining the Cardano price above the 20-day EMA ($0.28). If they manage to do that, the ADA/USDT pair may rally to the downtrend line.
If the price turns down sharply from the downtrend line and breaks below the 20-day EMA, it suggests that the pair may remain inside the channel for a while. The bulls will have to secure a close above the downtrend line to gain the upper hand.
Monero price prediction
Monero (XMR) fell below the immediate support at $309 on Monday, but the bears could not sustain the lower levels.
The bulls are attempting a relief rally, which is expected to face selling at the 20-day EMA ($346) and then at the breakdown level of $360. If the Monero price turns down from the overhead resistance, it suggests a range-bound action between $360 and $300 for some time.
The advantage will tilt in favor of the bulls if they push and maintain the XMR/USDT pair above the $360 level. If they do that, the pair may surge toward the 50-day SMA ($435).
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.
A governance dispute inside the Aave ecosystem intensified after two detailed reports offered contrasting interpretations of the protocol’s past funding and contributions ahead of a vote on a proposed $50 million package for Aave Labs.
Aave Chan Initiative (ACI) founder Marc Zeller on Wednesday published what he called a transparency report reviewing Aave Labs’ historical funding and applied a return-on-investment framework to past DAO grants. Hours earlier, Aave Labs released its own contributions report outlining its role in building the protocol since 2017.
The dispute centers on the “Aave Will Win” framework, a proposal asking tokenholders to approve funding worth up to $42.5 million in stablecoins and 75,000 AAVE (AAVE) tokens. In return, Aave Labs would route 100% of revenue from Aave-branded products to the Aave DAO treasury under a DAO-funded operating model, according to the proposal and related forum posts.
The debate has broadened beyond the size of the funding request to include questions about accountability standards, revenue attribution and who maintains the protocol’s core infrastructure.
Zeller’s report said Aave Labs has received about $86 million in lifetime capitalization, including its 2017 initial coin offering (ICO) proceeds, venture funding and DAO payments.
He argued that future DAO grants should be evaluated using measurable revenue impact and clearer disclosure standards.
ACI, a service provider to the Aave DAO and not a neutral party in the debate, questioned whether governance votes should be unbundled to separate funding, revenue alignment and V4 ratification.
Zeller wrote that funding decisions should be tied to performance benchmarks and transparent reporting.
Aave Labs, in its contributions report, highlighted its role in designing and shipping Aave V1, V2 and V3, and highlighted features it said underpin the protocol’s current revenue model, including flash loans, the Safety Module and Efficiency Mode.
Aave Labs argued that counting governance proposals or forum posts does not reflect the full scope of research, development, security and infrastructure work required to maintain a protocol used by millions of users.
Under the “Aave Will Win” framework, Aave Labs would transition to a DAO-funded operating model while directing product-level revenue, including from aave.com and planned consumer-facing products, to the DAO.
The proposal also seeks ratification of Aave V4 as the protocol’s long-term technical foundation and outlines plans for a new foundation to steward the Aave brand.
Some community members have previously raised concerns about the size of the funding package and the inclusion of 75,000 AAVE tokens, which carry voting power.
On Feb. 13, critics called for clearer definitions of revenue and greater transparency around governance holdings.
The Snapshot vote, scheduled for Thursday, is an initial offchain vote that gauges community sentiment before any binding onchain proposal is submitted.
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’s recovery Wednesday aligns closely with similar rebounds in the US stock market, with AI and tech stocks leading the market higher.
Source: The Kobeissi Letter
The tech-focused Nasdaq led the recovery with 1.05% daily gains, while the S&P 500 rose 0.68%. The Dow locked in a 421-point gain, closing the trading day on Tuesday 0.86% higher.
The swift recovery of US equity markets appears to have played a role in easing negative pressure on crypto investors looking to cut risk asset exposure.
This is evidenced by the Bitcoin Coinbase Premium Index, a metric that tracks the price difference between BTC on Coinbase and Binance, which has flipped positive for the first time since Jan. 15.
This means “US buyers are stepping in,” said analyst Nic in a post on Wednesday, adding that the index needs to stay positive to ensure sustained buying pressure.
Bitcoin, which is often viewed as a risk asset in the short term, has frequently moved in tandem with the stock market, particularly the S&P 500.
The past six months have seen a sustained period of this correlation breaking. The daily correlation coefficient index between BTC price and the US benchmark index, the S&P 500 index, is currently 0.32, and -0.45 with gold.
Bitcoin vs. S&P 500’s and gold daily correlation coefficient. Source: Cointelegraph/TradingView
“Since late August, gold has surged +51%, the S&P 500 has gained +7%, and Bitcoin has fallen -43%,” onchain data provider Santiment said in a recent post on X.
This marks the weakest correlation between Bitcoin and stocks since the FTX chaos in late 2022.
“Historically, when an asset that is usually correlated breaks away in this dramatic fashion, it typically does not stay disconnected forever,” Santiment said, adding:
“In the long term, this unusual separation actually argues for significant upside for Bitcoin and altcoins.”
Bitcoin correlation with stocks and gold. Source: Santiment
If Bitcoin returns to its historical pattern of tracking equities during economic expansions, “it may have significant room to catch up,” Santiment concluded.
This view was echoed by the founder and CIO of trading company QCP Capital, Darius Sit, who argued that the “Bitcoin vs. gold” debate is often misread as a price contest, when the “more important driver is liquidity and market structure.”
The divergence between stocks and BTC “reflects position unwinds and leverage-driven flows, not a failure of Bitcoin’s longer-term narrative,” Sit said, adding:
“Bitcoin still behaves like a long-term inflation hedge and an increasingly legible form of collateral.”
As Cointelegraph reported, Bitcoin’s adoption by institutions, banks, merchants, public companies and nation-states surged in 2025, confirming it as a maturing asset class for investors.
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 recovery Wednesday aligns closely with similar rebounds in the US stock market, with AI and tech stocks leading the market higher.
Source: The Kobeissi Letter
The tech-focused Nasdaq led the recovery with 1.05% daily gains, while the S&P 500 rose 0.68%. The Dow locked in a 421-point gain, closing the trading day on Tuesday 0.86% higher.
The swift recovery of US equity markets appears to have played a role in easing negative pressure on crypto investors looking to cut risk asset exposure.
This is evidenced by the Bitcoin Coinbase Premium Index, a metric that tracks the price difference between BTC on Coinbase and Binance, which has flipped positive for the first time since Jan. 15.
This means “US buyers are stepping in,” said analyst Nic in a post on Wednesday, adding that the index needs to stay positive to ensure sustained buying pressure.
Bitcoin, which is often viewed as a risk asset in the short term, has frequently moved in tandem with the stock market, particularly the S&P 500.
The past six months have seen a sustained period of this correlation breaking. The daily correlation coefficient index between BTC price and the US benchmark index, the S&P 500 index, is currently 0.32, and -0.45 with gold.
Bitcoin vs. S&P 500’s and gold daily correlation coefficient. Source: Cointelegraph/TradingView
“Since late August, gold has surged +51%, the S&P 500 has gained +7%, and Bitcoin has fallen -43%,” onchain data provider Santiment said in a recent post on X.
This marks the weakest correlation between Bitcoin and stocks since the FTX chaos in late 2022.
“Historically, when an asset that is usually correlated breaks away in this dramatic fashion, it typically does not stay disconnected forever,” Santiment said, adding:
“In the long term, this unusual separation actually argues for significant upside for Bitcoin and altcoins.”
Bitcoin correlation with stocks and gold. Source: Santiment
If Bitcoin returns to its historical pattern of tracking equities during economic expansions, “it may have significant room to catch up,” Santiment concluded.
This view was echoed by the founder and CIO of trading company QCP Capital, Darius Sit, who argued that the “Bitcoin vs. gold” debate is often misread as a price contest, when the “more important driver is liquidity and market structure.”
The divergence between stocks and BTC “reflects position unwinds and leverage-driven flows, not a failure of Bitcoin’s longer-term narrative,” Sit said, adding:
“Bitcoin still behaves like a long-term inflation hedge and an increasingly legible form of collateral.”
As Cointelegraph reported, Bitcoin’s adoption by institutions, banks, merchants, public companies and nation-states surged in 2025, confirming it as a maturing asset class for investors.
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.
Anthropic releases third version of Responsible Scaling Policy, separating company commitments from industry-wide recommendations after 2.5 years of testing.
Anthropic has released the third iteration of its Responsible Scaling Policy, marking a significant restructuring of how the AI company approaches catastrophic risk mitigation after two and a half years of real-world implementation.
The update, published February 24, 2026, introduces three major changes: a clear separation between what Anthropic can achieve alone versus what requires industry-wide action, a new Frontier Safety Roadmap with public accountability metrics, and mandatory external review of Risk Reports under certain conditions.
What Actually Changed
The most notable shift? Anthropic is now openly admitting that some safety measures simply cannot be implemented by a single company. The previous RSP’s higher-tier safeguards (ASL-4 and beyond) were left intentionally vague—turns out that wasn’t just caution, it was because achieving them unilaterally may be impossible.
A RAND report cited by Anthropic states that “SL5” security standards aimed at stopping top-tier cyber threats are “currently not possible” and “will likely require assistance from the national security community.”
Rather than water down these requirements to make compliance easy, Anthropic chose to restructure entirely. The new RSP now explicitly maps out two tracks: commitments the company will meet regardless of external factors, and recommendations it believes the entire AI industry needs to adopt.
The Honest Assessment
Anthropic’s post-mortem on RSP versions 1 and 2 is refreshingly candid. What worked: the policy forced internal teams to treat safety as a launch requirement, and competitors like OpenAI and Google DeepMind adopted similar frameworks within months. ASL-3 safeguards were successfully activated in May 2025.
What didn’t work: capability thresholds proved far more ambiguous than anticipated. Biological risk assessment provides a telling example—models now pass most quick tests, making it hard to argue risks are low, but results aren’t definitive enough to prove risks are high either. By the time wet-lab trials complete, more powerful models have already shipped.
The political environment hasn’t helped. Federal safety-oriented discussions have stalled as policy focus shifted toward AI competitiveness and economic growth.
New Accountability Mechanisms
The Frontier Safety Roadmap introduces specific, publicly-graded goals including “moonshot R&D” projects for information security, automated red-teaming systems that exceed current bug bounty contributions, and comprehensive records of all critical AI development activities—analyzed by AI for insider threats.
Risk Reports will publish every 3-6 months, explaining how capabilities, threat models, and mitigations fit together. External reviewers with “unredacted or minimally-redacted access” will publicly critique Anthropic’s reasoning.
The company is already running pilots despite current models not yet triggering the external review requirement.
Industry Implications
This restructuring arrives as AI governance frameworks face increasing scrutiny. California’s SB 53, New York’s RAISE Act, and the EU AI Act’s Codes of Practice have all begun requiring frontier developers to publish catastrophic risk frameworks—requirements Anthropic addresses through its existing Frontier Compliance Framework.
Whether competitors follow Anthropic’s lead on separating unilateral commitments from industry recommendations remains to be seen. The approach essentially acknowledges that voluntary self-regulation has limits, while positioning the company to advocate for coordinated government action without appearing to demand rules it can’t follow itself.
For the broader AI sector, Anthropic’s transparent acknowledgment of what single companies cannot achieve alone may prove more influential than the technical policy details themselves.
Intercontinental Exchange (ICE)’s blockchain-based initiative is about upgrading market infrastructure, not adopting cryptocurrencies. It intends to use blockchain for improving settlement, reconciliation and collateral efficiency.
Onchain delivery-vs.-payment settlement could significantly reduce counterparty risk and free up capital tied up in margins. It also shifts risk toward real-time liquidity needs and continuous funding requirements.
While 24/7 trading may expand global access, it does not necessarily solve deeper market-structure issues. It could introduce liquidity fragmentation, wider spreads and noisier price discovery during low-volume periods.
Stablecoins in this model act as institutional settlement rails rather than speculative assets. Their use inside regulated markets will require bank-grade custody, liquidity and compliance safeguards.
When Intercontinental Exchange (ICE), the parent company of the New York Stock Exchange (NYSE), announced it was developing a blockchain-based platform for tokenized securities, some observers interpreted it as traditional finance fully integrating crypto.
However, the initiative is just a strategic redesign of market infrastructure. The focus is on utilizing distributed ledgers to optimize collateral management and eliminate delays in legacy settlement systems.
ICE has indicated that the platform would enable 24/7 trading, incorporate onchain settlement elements, support stablecoin-based funding and feature tokenized versions of regulated securities, subject to regulatory approval. If rolled out at scale, this would represent one of the most significant efforts by a major exchange operator to weave blockchain technology into market operations.
This article explores how the NYSE is integrating blockchain to segregate execution from settlement, why onchain settlement becomes critical, the importance of 24/7 trading and stablecoins as institutional funding rails. It discusses how tokenization is becoming a part of mainstream finance, hurdles in the integration of blockchain technology with legacy systems and issues regarding adaptation.
How the NYSE is using blockchain technology to separate execution from settlement
The platform maintains a clear separation between trading and settlement. ICE plans to continue using the existing NYSE Pillar matching engine, which already manages high-volume equity trading, as the primary trading layer. Blockchain technology would primarily enhance post-trade processes, such as settlement, record-keeping and reconciliation.
This distinction is important, as inefficiencies in financial markets generally stem not from price discovery during trading but from delays and complexities in clearing, settlement, cross-party reconciliation and collateral handling.
Tokenized securities refer to regulated assets like stocks or exchange-traded funds (ETFs) whose ownership is recorded on a blockchain for greater efficiency. The underlying legal rights continue to be governed by existing securities laws and corporate regulations.
Why onchain settlement likely matters more than 24/7 trading
Even with faster settlement cycles in US equities, most trades still depend on multiple intermediaries, such as clearinghouses, custodians and agents, that reconcile records across parties. This creates layers of operational complexity and lingering counterparty risk during the settlement window.
Onchain settlement changes this fundamentally by enabling near-simultaneous transfer of ownership and payment on a shared, immutable ledger. This process, also called delivery-vs.-payment (DvP), sharply reduces counterparty exposure and minimizes reconciliation errors. DvP could free up capital tied up in margins or buffers for more productive uses. It tackles the core inefficiencies and risks in post-trade infrastructure.
Faster settlement, however, is not without trade-offs. It eliminates the time buffers that currently allow markets to resolve errors, unwind failed trades or handle liquidity squeezes. Risk simply shifts toward real-time liquidity demands, requiring participants to fund positions continuously rather than leaning on intraday credit. From a broader view, this redistributes rather than removes systemic risk.
What 24/7 trading may (and may not) achieve
Continuous trading appeals to global investors familiar with round-the-clock crypto or futures markets. For US equities, extended hours already exist, but they typically feature lower liquidity, wider spreads and higher volatility compared with core sessions.
Fully 24/7 markets could offer better access for international participants and potentially smoother reactions to off-hour news. Yet several concerns remain:
Liquidity could thin out during quieter periods, forcing market makers to widen quotes or increase trading costs.
Overnight or low-volume trading might amplify price swings, particularly around major global events.
Price discovery could stay concentrated in traditional hours, with off-hours reflecting noisier or less representative signals rather than true efficiency gains.
Whether continuous trading truly enhances market quality or just spreads activity more thinly across time zones is still an open question.
Onchain settlement addresses deeper structural frictions in how trades are finalized, reducing risk and unlocking efficiency, while 24/7 trading mainly extends availability without necessarily fixing those underlying issues.
Did you know? Some stock exchanges already use microsecond-level timestamp synchronization from atomic clocks to track trade sequences. This means blockchain systems must integrate with ultra-precise time standards to avoid disputes over transaction ordering.
Stablecoins as institutional funding rails, not speculative plays
A key element in ICE’s proposal is the use of stablecoins to handle the cash side of trades. This would let funds settle 24/7, aligning with any move toward continuous securities trading and bypassing traditional bank-hour limitations. The process results in quicker, lower-friction movement of cash across borders and between counterparties.
If stablecoins are embedded in regulated market infrastructure, they are certain to face stringent compliance requirements. These include real-time compliance monitoring, high-grade custody arrangements, robust liquidity buffers and other safeguards on par with traditional settlement banks.
Stablecoins function strictly as wholesale settlement tools for institutions, not as retail payment or speculative instruments.
Tokenization steadily moving into mainstream finance
The NYSE-related efforts are part of a broader trend. Major asset managers, banks and market infrastructure providers are actively piloting or seeking approval to tokenize conventional assets. These include US Treasury bills, money market fund shares, ETF units and similar instruments.
Regulatory filings demonstrate that tokenization is expanding into areas traditionally seen as conservative and infrastructure-heavy. The objective is operational efficiency rather than innovation for its own sake. Advantages include accelerated settlement, programmable conditions, reduced manual reconciliation and potentially wider participation.
If tokenized versions of multiple asset classes become commonplace, post-trade processes could converge toward shared, interoperable ledger architectures. This would reduce overlap and duplication across today’s fragmented ecosystem of clearinghouses, custodians, transfer agents and registrars. However, to facilitate such an outcome, institutions and regulators need to align on standards, interoperability and risk controls.
Did you know? In traditional markets, a single stock trade can trigger a string of back-office messages between brokers, custodians and clearing agents, which is a key reason financial firms spend billions annually on post-trade IT systems.
Custody, records and legal ownership still the hardest hurdles
The biggest barrier to tokenized markets isn’t the blockchain technology itself. There is legal ambiguity regarding ownership. Traditional finance relies on clear, well-established rules for beneficial ownership, shareholder rights, voting, dividends and who maintains the definitive record.
In a tokenized world, regulators will need to decide what counts as the authoritative source of truth, whether it is the onchain ledger, the transfer agent’s registry, the broker-dealer’s books or some hybrid. Each choice affects investor protections, how corporate actions are handled, how disputes are resolved and who bears liability.
Custody adds another layer of difficulty. Even in permissioned, institutional-grade blockchains, managing private keys or equivalent controls requires robust answers on asset segregation, key recovery in case of loss, bankruptcy remoteness and operational continuity. These issues demand new frameworks that match or exceed existing standards.
These legal and operational questions are likely to slow adoption more than any technical limitations.
Clearinghouses and the shift to real-time risk management
ICE has also indicated interest in bringing tokenized deposits or similar mechanisms into clearinghouse operations. It has suggested integrating blockchain-based settlement tools with clearing infrastructure.
Clearinghouses have a role to play in neutralizing counterparty risk. Shorter or near-instant settlement windows can shrink exposure periods and lower overall risk. However, they also result in less time to detect and respond to defaults, collateral deficiencies or sudden liquidity stress.
This pushes clearing participants and operators toward continuous position monitoring, automated intraday margin calls, dynamic collateral valuation and well-tested playbooks for outages, cyber events or technology failures.
From a regulatory perspective, resilience in always-on, 24/7 environments becomes critical. Traditional markets have scheduled downtime. Continuous systems cannot afford unplanned interruptions without risking cascading outages.
Did you know? The NYSE once shortened its trading day during World War I and even shut down completely for four months in 1914. This shows that market “hours” have always evolved with technology, geopolitics and infrastructure limits.
Who stands to gain and who might need to adapt
If onchain market infrastructure demonstrates reliability and receives regulatory approval, several participants could see meaningful advantages:
Global investors who want uninterrupted access to trading and settlement
Institutions that could unlock more efficient use of collateral and reduce trapped capital
Issuers interested in streamlined distribution channels and potentially broader reach.
On the flip side, intermediaries whose revenues rely heavily on today’s multi-step settlement workflows may face strong pressure to evolve or risk losing relevance. These include clearing agents, custodians and certain reconciliation services. Compliance teams would also shift from periodic, market-hours reporting to continuous oversight, adding complexity in the short term.
Whether these operational savings translate into lower costs for retail and institutional end investors depends on the level of efficiency passed through by exchanges, clearinghouses and other infrastructure providers.
A modernization effort, not a leap into crypto
The NYSE’s work on blockchain-based systems is an attempt to upgrade core financial infrastructure, including faster settlement, better collateral mobility and improved market access. In this case, blockchain serves as a technology layer for post-trade operations, not as an asset class. Success hinges on meeting the stringent requirements of regulated markets, including proven scalability, high operational resilience, full compliance alignment and broad institutional buy-in.
The success of this endeavor by the NYSE depends on several parameters, such as regulatory approvals, operational reliability and institutional willingness to migrate. The initiative signals that traditional exchanges are no longer treating tokenization as an experimental side project. Instead, they are evaluating whether blockchain-based systems can support the scale, stability and compliance demands of mainstream financial markets. This is a much higher bar than most crypto-native platforms have faced.
Cointelegraph maintains full editorial independence. The selection, commissioning and publication of Features and Magazine content are not influenced by advertisers, partners or commercial relationships.
Crypto payment provider Oobit has launched crypto-to-bank transfers that settle into bank accounts via local payment rails, expanding its app beyond in-store spending and peer-to-peer (P2P) transfers.
In an announcement shared with Cointelegraph, Oobit said users could send supported digital assets from self-custody wallets and have funds deposited into bank accounts through networks including the Single Euro Payments Area (SEPA) in Europe, the Automated Clearing House (ACH) in the United States and Mexico’s Sistema de Pagos Electrónicos Interbancarios (SPEI).
Settlement currencies include US dollars, euros, Mexican pesos and Philippine pesos, while supported assets include Bitcoin (BTC), Ether (ETH) and a range of stablecoins such as Tether (USDT), USDC (USDC), EURC and EURR, along with other tokens including XRP (XRP), BNB (BNB), Solana (SOL), Cardano (ADA) and Dogecoin (DOGE).
Oobit said that users could see the crypto amount leaving their wallet and the fiat equivalent arriving in the recipient’s account before confirming the transactions.
It described the system as routing transactions through local payment rails instead of traditional correspondent banking channels.
Unlike checkout-based providers that redirect users to third-party interfaces, Oobit said the transfer flow is embedded natively inside its app, without redirecting users to an external off-ramp provider.
Crypto off-ramps heating up
The rollout highlights growing competition in crypto off-ramping, where exchanges and fintech companies allow users to convert digital assets into fiat deposits.
Oobit’s stated differentiator is its focus on self-custody wallets, positioning the app as a payments layer that connects onchain assets to bank accounts without requiring users to hold funds on a centralized exchange.
DTR tie-up and Bakkt acquisition
Oobit says that the feature is powered by infrastructure from Distributed Technologies Research (DTR), which connects Oobit’s wallet interface to domestic payment networks.
DTR recently entered into an agreement to be acquired by Bakkt, a US-listed digital asset platform launched by the Intercontinental Exchange (ICE) in 2018.
Akshay Naheta, DTR founder and CEO of Bakkt, said in the release that infrastructure connecting digital asset platforms with traditional financial systems was “foundational to broader adoption.”
Amram Adar, co-founder and CEO of Oobit, told Cointelegraph the company’s model differs from traditional off-ramp providers in both custody structure and user flow. “The end-user relationship, wallet custody and transaction experience remain entirely within Oobit,” Adar said.
According to Adar, user funds are initially held within Oobit’s wallet infrastructure. When a bank transfer is initiated, funds are debited and transferred to DTR strictly for payout execution. DTR forwards the funds to the recipient bank account and does not hold funds for investment or discretionary purposes.
Oobit performs the initial crypto-to-USD conversion, after which the USD-equivalent value is transferred in USDT to DTR. DTR then executes the foreign exchange conversion into local fiat currency before settlement into the designated bank account, Adar said.
Oobit has previously disclosed backing from Tether, the issuer of USDT, linking the app to the largest stablecoin operator by market capitalization.
Adar said the service is fully live across all countries supported by DTR, with no pilot corridors currently in place. US dollar transfers are limited to domestic US flows.
Minimum transfers range from a roughly 10 euro ($11.70) to $100 equivalent, depending on the corridor, while maximum limits can reach about a $50,000 equivalent.
Total fees consist of components charged by both Oobit and DTR. Oobit applies the greater of a fixed fee, currently contemplated at $1, or a 1% transaction fee, along with an estimated 0.5% spread on crypto-to-USD conversions.
DTR applies either a fixed fee, generally between about 0.65 cents and 2 euro depending on the currency, or a percentage-based fee ranging from about 0.65% to 1%, according to the company.
The integration comes as banks and fintech firms deepen efforts to embed blockchain-based assets into regulated payment systems.
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 price dropped 25% in 2022 and 50% in 2018 after similar on-chain loss signals, a warning sign for BTC’s next move.
Bitcoin (BTC) traders are selling at a loss for the first time since 2022, raising odds that the biggest cryptocurrency’s ongoing price correction may deepen in the coming weeks.
Key takeaways:
Bitcoin is witnessing loss-driven selling that has historically lasted six months or more.
These signals surfaced during previous bear markets, preceding sharp downtrends each time.
The drop indicated that traders were dumping their BTC holdings at a loss, which is often linked to panic selling, margin pressure, or broader risk-off conditions.
BTC realized profit/loss ratio (90-day moving average). Source: Glassnode
Historically, breaks below 1 preceded at least six months of loss realization, according to on-chain data resource Glassnode. Meanwhile, a move back above 1 usually suggests that selling pressure is easing.
Traders often sell at a loss when they expect the downtrend to continue. In prior bear markets, loss-taking typically accelerated midway through the cycle, followed by more downside in Bitcoin’s price.
During the 2022 bear market, for instance, BTC declined 25% six months after its realized profit/loss ratio dropped below 1. In 2018, it plunged by over 50% in five months under similar conditions, as shown below.
BTC realized profit/loss ratio (90-day moving average). Source: Glassnode
The BTC price may continue its downtrend for another five months or more if history repeats. That will confirm “a full transition into an excess loss-realization regime,” Glassnode wrote.
Bitcoin price may bottom around $44,000
Bitcoin’s rising loss-realization may, therefore, drag the BTC price into its “extreme low” valuation zones.
These lows exist within the MVRV Pricing Bands metric, which maps where Bitcoin reaches extreme unrealized profit or loss zones. Historically, its lowest band (the blue line) has coincided with Bitcoin bear market bottoms.
BTC MVRV pricing bands. Source: Glassnode
As of February, the extreme low was around $43,760, a potential downside target by August if BTC’s price decline continue further.
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.
LDO trades at oversold RSI levels of 27, presenting potential bounce opportunity toward $0.35 resistance as Lido DAO shows signs of bottoming near critical support zones.
While specific analyst predictions are limited for the current market conditions, historical forecasts from late December 2025 provide some context. CoinCodex had projected LDO reaching $0.65 by early January 2026, while MEXC News suggested upside potential to the $0.75-$0.85 range within 30 days based on bullish MACD signals and oversold recovery opportunities.
However, these earlier predictions have not materialized as expected, with LDO currently trading significantly below those targets at $0.29. According to on-chain data, the token has experienced sustained selling pressure that has pushed it into deeply oversold territory.
LDO Technical Analysis Breakdown
The current technical landscape for Lido DAO presents a mixed but potentially constructive picture for contrarian investors. The RSI reading of 27.12 indicates severely oversold conditions, historically a zone where bounces often occur.
LDO’s position relative to its Bollinger Bands tells a compelling story. Trading with a %B position of -0.0292, the token sits just below the lower Bollinger Band at $0.30, suggesting potential mean reversion toward the middle band at $0.34.
The moving average structure remains bearish across all timeframes, with LDO trading below its 7-day SMA ($0.32), 20-day SMA ($0.34), 50-day SMA ($0.46), and significantly below its 200-day SMA ($0.82). This creates a clear resistance staircase that any recovery must navigate.
MACD momentum indicators show a flatlining histogram at 0.0000, suggesting the recent selling momentum may be exhausting itself. The Stochastic oscillator at 5.72 (%K) reinforces the oversold narrative, indicating potential for a relief rally.
Lido DAO Price Targets: Bull vs Bear Case
Bullish Scenario
In an optimistic Lido DAO forecast, LDO could target the immediate resistance at $0.31 within the next week, representing a 7% upside from current levels. This move would require sustained buying interest and a break above the recent trading range high.
The medium-term bullish target sits at $0.35, aligning with the area between the 20-day EMA ($0.33) and the upper Bollinger Band ($0.37). A successful reclaim of this zone would signal a potential trend reversal and could open the door for further gains toward $0.46 (50-day SMA).
For this LDO price prediction to materialize, we need to see RSI break above 30, confirming an exit from oversold conditions, and MACD histogram turning positive.
Bearish Scenario
The bearish case for Lido DAO centers around a breakdown below the current support confluence at $0.29. This level represents both immediate support and the recent intraday low, making it technically significant.
A sustained break below $0.29 could trigger additional selling toward the strong support level, also at $0.29 according to the technical data. Given the limited downside support levels identified, any breakdown could potentially test psychological levels around $0.25.
The bearish scenario would be confirmed by RSI remaining below 30 for extended periods and MACD histogram turning more negative.
Should You Buy LDO? Entry Strategy
For traders considering LDO positions, the current oversold conditions present both opportunity and risk. A prudent entry strategy would involve waiting for initial signs of stabilization above $0.29 before initiating positions.
Conservative traders might wait for a break above $0.31 (immediate resistance) with volume confirmation before entering, targeting the $0.34-$0.35 range. This approach sacrifices some potential upside but reduces the risk of catching a falling knife.
Stop-loss levels should be placed below $0.28, representing approximately 3-4% downside risk from current levels. Position sizing should account for LDO’s daily ATR of $0.02, indicating moderate intraday volatility.
Risk management becomes crucial given the token’s position below all major moving averages. Consider scaling into positions rather than committing full size immediately.
Conclusion
This LDO price prediction suggests cautious optimism based on oversold technical conditions. The combination of RSI at 27.12 and positioning below Bollinger Bands indicates potential for a relief rally toward $0.31-$0.35 over the coming weeks.
However, the broader trend remains bearish with LDO trading significantly below all moving averages. Any recovery will likely face substantial resistance, making this more of a tactical bounce opportunity rather than a major trend reversal.
Confidence level: Moderate (60%) for the short-term bounce to $0.31, Lower (40%) for sustained recovery above $0.35.
Disclaimer: Cryptocurrency price predictions are speculative and subject to extreme volatility. This analysis is for informational purposes only and should not be considered financial advice. Always conduct your own research and consider your risk tolerance before making investment decisions.
