IOTA Foundation forms Expert Advisory Board with customs and logistics leaders to guide TWIN trade infrastructure development, focusing on UK operations.
The IOTA Foundation has assembled a six-member Expert Advisory Board to steer development of its Trade Worldwide Information Network (TWIN), recruiting senior figures from customs, logistics, and trade policy to ensure the blockchain-based infrastructure actually works in real-world shipping environments.
The board brings combined experience exceeding 150 years across international trade operations. Mark Johnson, who advised the UK government during Brexit negotiations and spent decades at logistics giant Kuehne+Nagel, joins alongside John Lucy, founder of John Lucy International and board member at both the Road Haulage Association and World Free Zones Organisation.
Dr. Anna Jerzewska rounds out the policy expertise. She serves as customs rapporteur for EuroCommerce and sits on the Windsor Framework Independent Monitoring Panel—directly relevant given TWIN’s UK focus and post-Brexit trade complexities.
Why This Matters for TWIN
TWIN launched through its own foundation in May 2025 at the AfCFTA Digital Trade Forum in Zambia. The initiative targets a massive inefficiency: the World Economic Forum estimates digital trade facilitation could slash global trade costs by 25%. That’s the prize IOTA is chasing.
The platform already has live implementations. The Trade and Logistics Information Pipeline (TLIP) operates in East Africa, and UK Cabinet Office border trade demonstrations have tested the technology. But scaling from pilots to production requires navigating customs regulations, port systems, and government compliance frameworks—exactly where the new advisors operate daily.
Daniel Shelcot brings 17 years at Maritime Cargo Processing running border compliance systems. Gavin Johnson designed temperature-controlled logistics tracking at Mobius Technology. Sangeeta Khorana has advised governments on free trade agreements for over two decades.
The UK Angle
IOTA specifically noted the board will focus on UK trade operations. Post-Brexit Britain faces unique customs friction with its largest trading partner, making it both a testing ground and potential showcase for digital trade infrastructure. Several board members maintain active UK government relationships that could accelerate regulatory acceptance.
The foundation emphasized all advisors participate in personal capacity—their employers haven’t endorsed TWIN. That’s standard legal language, but it also signals these aren’t corporate partnerships. IOTA is buying expertise, not logos.
A TWIN whitepaper dropped earlier this month alongside new partnership announcements. With advisory infrastructure now in place, the next milestone to watch is whether IOTA can convert pilot projects into sustained commercial deployments before competitors in the blockchain trade space gain ground.
Bitcoin infrastructure company Voltage has announced the launch of Voltage Credit, a programmatic revolving line of credit designed to let businesses send payments with Lightning-style instant finality while still repaying the credit line in US dollars from a standard bank account or in Bitcoin.
In a Thursday release shared with Cointelegraph, the company, which provides enterprise-grade solutions for regulated businesses, said it was targeting chief financial officers and treasurers who wanted “send now, pay later” flexibility on the fastest payment rails available, without having to hold crypto on their balance sheet.
Rather than positioning it as just another Lightning-backed loan, Voltage pitched the product as an embedded piece of the payment flow, and the “first revolving line of credit that delivers instant payment finality and the capability to settle entirely in USD.”
CEO Graham Krizek told Cointelegraph that while players like Stripe and Block blended faster payments with working capital, they didn’t embed a revolving credit facility directly into Lightning payments in the way Voltage does, adding that Stripe did not support Lightning at all.
In the Block model, he said, Lightning and credit remain separate workflows, whereas Voltage lets businesses originate credit and immediately use it to send or receive Lightning and stablecoin payments in real time, without pre-funding or manual treasury movements.
Underwriting against payment flows, not static BTC collateral
Voltage said it departs from traditional crypto lending by underwriting against payment flows rather than static Bitcoin (BTC) collateral.
Because Voltage already powers the underlying Bitcoin and Lightning infrastructure, it can size and adjust credit limits based on the volume a business processes through its platform.
“Voltage Credit is the lender of record in our platform,” Krizek said, noting that the company originated all loans itself and was not relying on a bank, card network or third-party fintech to fund the lines.
Krizek said the platform carries a 12% annual percentage yield (APY) that accrues daily on outstanding balances, with a flat platform fee design intended to avoid transaction-based pricing that gets more expensive as volumes scale.
He said that revolving lines of credit themselves are not new, but what is new is bringing that “familiar financial construct” into an environment where Bitcoin and Lightning move money instantly and globally.
“We are effectively modernizing the revolving credit model so it operates at internet speed, rather than at the pace of legacy banking and card networks,” he said.
From $1 million pilot to institutional Lightning rails
The launch builds on Voltage’s recent role supporting a $1 million Lightning Network payment between Secure Digital Markets and Kraken on Feb. 5, a pilot that was framed as the biggest publicly reported transaction on the network.
Krizek said that episode was meant to test Lightning’s suitability for institutional-sized flows and that the network “is capable of handling massive payment volumes and is ready for institutional-scale use.”
$1 million in a single Lightning transaction. Source: SDM
Voltage Credit is initially available to qualified US‑headquartered businesses, Krizek said, saying the company can currently serve all US states except California, Nevada, North Dakota, Vermont and Washington, D.C., as a registered commercial lender.
Early traction, he added, has come from exchanges, Bitcoin miners, gaming platforms and payment processors looking to reduce idle working capital, avoid forced BTC liquidations and bridge Bitcoin‑denominated revenue with US dollar‑denominated expenses without relying on unpredictable off‑ramps.
The Lightning Network reached an all-time capacity high in December 2025 of 5,606 BTC amid increased adoption from major crypto exchanges and functionality improvements. Demand has stalled somewhat since then, falling to 5,121 BTC as of Monday.
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
Blockchain transaction data tied to cryptocurrency payments may provide an early signal of emerging drug crises, according to a new report from blockchain analytics firm Chainalysis.
The study, which examined illicit market activity across darknet drug and fraud ecosystems, found that crypto flows connected to darknet markets reached nearly $2.6 billion in 2025, showing that online drug markets continue to operate at scale despite repeated law-enforcement takedowns. Vendors typically receive payments from personal wallets and centralized exchanges.
Beyond measuring criminal activity, Chainalysis argued that the data can track real-world health outcomes. Crypto payments to suppliers of fentanyl precursor chemicals declined sharply beginning in mid-2023. Months later, overdose deaths also fell in the United States and Canada after peaking in 2023.
According to the report, monitoring transactions linked to precursor suppliers could provide three to six months of advance warning before overdose trends appear in official public-health statistics.
Darknet market flows. Source: Chainalysis
Crypto drug purchases linked to higher hospitalizations
The analysis also compared transaction data with Canadian hospital records. Small payments of less than $500 showed no clear relationship with emergency visits or deaths. Larger transfers were associated with rising stimulant-related hospitalizations and fatalities, suggesting the transactions likely reflect bulk purchasing or redistribution rather than personal consumption.
“Money moves before the crisis hits. People buy drugs before they redistribute them, and users consume them before they overdose and require medical care,” the report said, adding that since blockchain records update instantly, they can serve as a high-fidelity “early warning system.”
Crypto transactions provide an early signal of emerging drug crises. Source: Chainalysis
The report also revealed that following the closure of Abacus Market in July 2025, activity quickly migrated to successor platforms such as TorZon. It said that vendors routinely resupply across platforms and relocate after disruptions.
Fraud marketplaces showed a different trend. Onchain volumes fell from about $205 million to $87.5 million year-over-year after infrastructure takedowns, but activity shifted toward wholesale operations, particularly Chinese-language networks operating on Telegram that handle large bulk sales of stolen payment data.
Chainalysis reported Friday that crypto transactions linked to suspected human-trafficking networks rose 85% in 2025, reaching hundreds of millions of dollars. The activity was largely tied to Southeast Asia and closely connected to scam compounds, online casinos and Chinese-language money-laundering groups, per the report.
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
Polymarket’s federal lawsuit against Massachusetts could determine whether prediction markets are regulated solely by the CFTC or also by states.
The dispute centers on whether event contracts qualify as financial derivatives under the Commodity Exchange Act or as gambling under state laws.
The lawsuit followed state-level actions against platforms like Kalshi, with Massachusetts and Nevada moving to restrict sports-related prediction contracts.
A ruling in favor of Polymarket could establish uniform national oversight and prevent a patchwork of differing state regulations.
Prediction markets are platforms where people trade contracts based on the outcomes of future events. Recently, they have been in the news due to a major legal battle in the US over regulatory authority. Central to the dispute is Polymarket’s federal lawsuit against Massachusetts. The outcome of this case could determine whether these markets are regulated exclusively at the federal level or whether states can also enforce their own rules.
This article explores Polymarket’s federal lawsuit against Massachusetts. It examines the broader legal clash over whether prediction markets fall under the exclusive authority of the US Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) or under state gambling laws. It also analyzes how the case could reshape regulatory control, market access and the future of US event-based trading platforms.
A federal lawsuit with broad implications
In February 2026, Polymarket filed suit in the US District Court for the District of Massachusetts to preempt enforcement by state regulators that would require it to comply with Massachusetts gambling laws. The company contends that Congress has granted exclusive authority over “event contracts,” the core products of prediction markets, to the CFTC. According to Polymarket, this renders state efforts to stop or limit its operations unlawful.
Polymarket chief legal officer Neal Kumar argues that the dispute involves national markets and that the relevant legal questions should therefore be resolved in federal court. The company opposes piecemeal enforcement by individual states. He said that restricting markets could hinder industry development.
Where it all started: State actions against Kalshi
The lawsuit’s timing was deliberate. It came shortly after Massachusetts courts acted against rival platform Kalshi, blocking sports-related contracts under state gambling laws. A judge upheld a preliminary injunction requiring Kalshi to prevent residents from accessing certain markets without a gaming license. The court directed that these markets be treated as unlicensed sports wagers.
Massachusetts’ approach to prediction markets has received support from similar state-level actions elsewhere. In Nevada, regulators obtained a temporary restraining order against Polymarket’s sports-related offerings, arguing that they violated the state’s sports betting regulatory framework.
Did you know? Corporations have used prediction markets to forecast product launches and internal project deadlines. Some companies quietly rely on employee-based markets because aggregated crowd opinions often outperform traditional executive forecasts.
What is at stake: Federal vs. state authority
The lawsuit centers on a jurisdictional dispute. Polymarket claims its event contracts, whether covering elections, economics or sports, are financial derivatives under the CFTC’s Commodity Exchange Act. In this view, federal law supersedes state gambling statutes, preventing states from independently banning or regulating these markets.
Massachusetts and other states argue that when prediction markets resemble gambling, particularly in the context of sports, they must comply with state gambling frameworks to safeguard consumers and maintain local licensing and age requirements.
If federal courts side with Polymarket, it could strengthen the case for uniform national oversight, preventing a “patchwork” of varying state-level rules or prohibitions. Conversely, upholding state authority would allow states to apply their own gambling laws to platforms operating nationwide.
Did you know? Prediction markets sometimes rival opinion polls in forecasting election outcomes. Universities have studied them for decades as tools for measuring collective intelligence and information efficiency.
Why Polymarket’s lawsuit matters
Prediction markets have experienced growth, with rising trading volumes and visibility. Data tracked by Dune showed that prediction markets recorded about $3.7 billion in trading volume in a single week in January 2026, an all-time high.
As platforms like Polymarket and Kalshi gain mainstream traction, states are pushing to apply protections comparable to those governing traditional gambling. This dynamic has prompted action by multiple states.
The CFTC’s stance has added complexity to the issue. While the federal agency has long regulated derivatives markets, including certain event contracts, it has faced pressure to stay out of specific disputes or to restrict prediction contracts involving war or terrorism.
Did you know? Prediction markets are structured using blockchain smart contracts, automatically settling trades once an outcome is verified. This automation reduces counterparty risk but raises new regulatory and oracle-related challenges.
How jurisdictional disputes are reshaping event contracts
Polymarket’s legal action represents just one element of the broader legal and regulatory disputes surrounding prediction markets across the United States. Courts in jurisdictions such as Massachusetts and Nevada are currently examining the limits of state authority, while federal officials and legislators deliberate over comprehensive guidelines. The outcomes of these proceedings will likely influence how companies structure and offer event contracts.
Whether courts ultimately uphold Polymarket’s federal argument or affirm state authority, the decision will have long-lasting implications for the growth of prediction markets. It will shape user access to these platforms and the balance regulators strike between innovation and consumer protection.
Cointelegraph maintains full editorial independence. The selection, commissioning and publication of Features and Magazine content are not influenced by advertisers, partners or commercial relationships.
Robinhood’s Ethereum layer-2 network processed 4 million transactions in its first week of public testnet activity, according to CEO Vlad Tenev.
In a Thursday post on X, Tenev said developers have begun experimenting with applications on the L2 network, which was built for tokenized real-world assets (RWAs) and blockchain-based financial services. “The next chapter of finance runs onchain,” he wrote.
The trading platform launched the Robinhood Chain testnet last week as an Ethereum layer 2 built using Arbitrum technology. The launch followed about six months of private testing and is intended to serve as a high-throughput environment for financial applications.
According to the company, the chain is designed to support tokenized equities, exchange-traded funds (ETFs) and other traditional financial instruments. Infrastructure partners include Alchemy, LayerZero and Chainlink.
A mainnet launch for Robinhood Chain is planned later this year. In the meantime, the testnet will host experimental assets, including stock-style tokens and tighter connections with the company’s crypto wallet.
The move comes as Robinhood is expanding its crypto footprint beyond trading. The company has already tokenized nearly 500 US stocks and ETFs on Arbitrum as part of a wider real-world asset strategy.
Robinhood reported $1.28 billion in Q4 2025 net revenue, a 27% year-on-year increase but below analyst expectations of $1.34 billion, as crypto income weakened. Revenue from cryptocurrency trading fell 38% to $221 million after a market downturn in October, contributing to a 34% drop in net income to $605 million, even as earnings per share slightly exceeded forecasts.
The tokenized RWA market continues to grow, with about $24.83 billion in assets issued directly on-chain, increasing about 10% over the past month, according to data from RWA.xyz. The broader category of digitally represented assets now totals around $372.97 billion, while the number of wallets holding tokenized financial products has reached about 850,558, up more than 33% in 30 days.
Overview of RWA market. Source: RWA.xyz
Meanwhile, stablecoins hold $296.69 billion in value across 236 million users. Although total stablecoin value slipped slightly over the month, the number of holders continued to rise.
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
Address poisoning exploits behavior, not private keys. Attackers manipulate transaction history and rely on users mistakenly copying a malicious lookalike address.
Cases such as the 50-million-USDT loss in 2025 and the 3.5 wBTC drain in February 2026 demonstrate how simple interface deception can lead to massive financial damage.
Copy buttons, visible transaction history and unfiltered dust transfers make poisoned addresses appear trustworthy within wallet interfaces.
Because blockchains are permissionless, anyone can send tokens to any address. Wallets typically display all transactions, including spam, which attackers use to plant malicious entries.
Most crypto users believe that their funds stay secure as long as their private keys are protected. However, as a rising number of scams show, this is not always the case. Scammers have been using an insidious tactic, address poisoning, to steal assets without ever accessing the victim’s private key.
In February 2026, a phishing scheme targeted a Phantom Chat feature. Using an address poisoning tactic, attackers successfully drained roughly 3.5 Wrapped Bitcoin (wBTC), worth more than $264,000.
In 2025, a victim lost $50 million in Tether’s USDt (USDT) after copying a poisoned address. Such incidents have highlighted how poor interface design and everyday user habits can result in massive losses.
Prominent crypto figures like Binance co-founder Changpeng “CZ” Zhao have publicly urged wallets to add stronger safeguards following address poisoning incidents.
This article explains how address poisoning scams exploit user behavior rather than private key theft. It details how attackers manipulate transaction history, why the tactic succeeds on transparent blockchains and what practical steps users and wallet developers can take to reduce the risk.
What address poisoning really involves
Unlike traditional hacks that target private keys or exploit code flaws, address poisoning manipulates a user’s transaction history to deceive them into sending funds to the wrong address.
Usually, the attack proceeds in the following way:
Scammers identify high-value wallets via public blockchain data.
They create a wallet address that closely resembles one the victim often uses. For example, the attacker may match the first and last few characters.
They send a small or zero-value transaction to the victim’s wallet from this fake address.
They rely on the victim copying the attacker’s address from their recent transaction list later.
They collect the funds when the victim accidentally pastes and sends them to the malicious address.
The victim’s wallet and private keys remain untouched, and blockchain cryptography stays unbroken. The scam thrives purely on human error and trust in familiar patterns.
Did you know? Address poisoning scams surged alongside the rise of Ethereum layer-2 networks, where lower fees make it cheaper for attackers to mass-send dust transactions to thousands of wallets at once.
How attackers craft deceptive addresses
Crypto addresses are lengthy hexadecimal strings, often 42 characters on Ethereum-compatible chains. Wallets usually show only a truncated version, such as “0x85c…4b7,” which scammers take advantage of. Fake addresses have identical beginnings and endings, while the middle portion differs.
Legitimate address (example format):
0x742d35Cc6634C0532925a3b844Bc454e4438f44e
Poisoned lookalike address:
0x742d35Cc6634C0532925a3b844Bc454e4438f4Ae
Scammers use vanity address generators to craft these near-identical strings. The fake one appears in the victim’s transaction history thanks to the dusting transfer. To users, it looks trustworthy at a glance, especially since they rarely verify the full address string.
Did you know? Some blockchain explorers now automatically label suspicious dusting transactions, helping users spot potential poisoning attempts before interacting with their transaction history.
Why this scam succeeds so well
There are several intertwined factors that make address poisoning devastatingly effective:
Human limitations in handling long strings: Because addresses are not human-friendly, users rely on quick visual checks at the beginning and end. Scammers exploit this tendency.
Convenient but risky wallet features: Many wallets offer easy copy buttons next to recent transactions. While this feature is helpful for legitimate use, it becomes risky when spam entries sneak in. Investigators such as ZachXBT have pointed to cases where victims copied poisoned addresses directly from their wallet UI.
3. No need for technical exploits: Because blockchains are public and permissionless, anyone can send tokens to any address. Wallets usually display all incoming transactions, including spam, and users tend to trust their own history.
The vulnerability lies in behavior and UX, not in encryption or key security.
Why keys aren’t enough protection
Private keys control authorization, meaning they ensure only you can sign transactions. However, they cannot verify whether the destination address is correct. Blockchain’s core traits — permissionless access, irreversibility of transactions and trust minimization — mean malicious transactions get permanently recorded.
In these scams, the user willingly signs the transfer. The system functions exactly as designed, and the flaw lies in human judgment.
Underlying psychological and design issues involve:
Routine habits: People tend to repeatedly send funds to the same addresses, so they copy from their transaction history instead of reentering addresses.
Cognitive strain: Transactions involve multiple steps, such as addresses, fees, networks and approvals. Many users find scrutinizing every character tedious.
Truncated displays: Wallet UIs hide most of the address, leading to partial checks.
Did you know? In certain cases, attackers automate address lookalike generation using GPU-powered vanity tools, allowing them to produce thousands of near-identical wallet addresses within minutes.
Practical ways to stay safer
While address poisoning exploits user behavior rather than technical vulnerabilities, small changes in transaction habits can significantly reduce the risk. Understanding a few practical safety measures can help crypto users avoid costly mistakes without requiring advanced technical knowledge.
For users
Simple verification habits and transaction discipline can significantly reduce your chances of falling victim to address poisoning scams.
Build and use a verified address book or whitelist for frequent recipients.
Verify the full address. Use a checker or compare it character by character before making payments.
Never copy addresses from recent transaction history. Instead, reenter addresses or use bookmarks.
Ignore or report unsolicited small transfers as potential poisoning attempts.
For wallet developers
Thoughtful interface design and built-in safeguards can minimize user error and make address poisoning attacks far less effective.
Filtering or hiding low-value spam transactions
Similarity detection for recipient addresses
Pre-signing simulations and risk warnings
Built-in poisoned address checks via onchain queries or shared blacklists.
Cointelegraph maintains full editorial independence. The selection, commissioning and publication of Features and Magazine content are not influenced by advertisers, partners or commercial relationships.
The Ethereum Foundation has announced it is targeting faster transactions, smarter wallets, better cross-chain interoperability, and quantum-resistant security as its “protocol priorities” in 2026.
In a statement published on Wednesday, the Ethereum Foundation outlined several goals, including continuing to scale the gas limit — the maximum amount of computational work a block can handle — “toward and beyond” 100 million, a major topic of discussion among the Ethereum community in 2025.
Some members of the Ethereum community anticipate that the gas limit will increase significantly this year. In November, Ethereum educator Anthony Sassano said that the goal of significantly increasing Ethereum’s gas limit to 180 million in 2026 is a baseline, not a best-case scenario.
“Post-quantum readiness” is a focus for Ethereum
The foundation highlighted the Glamsterdam network upgrade, scheduled for the first half of 2026, as a major priority. It also emphasized long-term post-quantum readiness as part of its broader security initiative.
On Jan. 24, Ethereum researcher Justin Drake said in an X post that the foundation had “formed a new Post-Quantum (PQ) team.”
“Today marks an inflection in the Ethereum Foundation’s long-term quantum strategy,” Drake said.
The Ethereum Foundation said it will also focus on improving user experience in 2026, with an emphasis on enhancing smart wallets through native account abstraction and enabling smoother interactions between blockchains via interoperability.
“The goal remains seamless, trust-minimized cross-L2 interactions, and we’re getting closer day by day. Continued progress on faster L1 confirmations and shorter L2 settlement times directly supports this.”
The foundation said that 2025 was one of the “most productive years,” citing two major network upgrades, Pectra and Fusaka, and the community raising the gas limit from 30 million to 60 million between the upgrades, for the first time since 2021.
Buterin’s big plans for Ethereum and AI
Ethereum Foundation’s Mario Havel said in an X post on Wednesday: “It took us a while to push out the announcement because we were preparing the biggest curriculum so far.”
It comes just days after Ethereum co-founder Vitalik Buterin shared his latest vision for Ethereum’s intersection with artificial intelligence on Feb. 10. Buterin explained that he sees the two working together to improve markets, financial safety and human agency.
Buterin said his broader vision for the future of AI is to empower humans rather than replace them, though he said the short term involves much more “ordinary” ideas.
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 remains under pressure, and the downside might accelerate if the $65,118 level is breached.
Several major altcoins are attempting a recovery, but the bears remain sellers on rallies.
Bitcoin (BTC) bulls are attempting to hold the price above $67,000, but the bears have continued to exert pressure. A positive sign for the bulls is that select analysts believe BTC may be bottoming out.
Analyst Jelle said in a post on X that all but one of BTC’s major bottoms had formed between the 200-week simple moving average ($58,371) and the 200-week exponential moving average ($68,065). BTC trading near the 200-week EMA suggests that the bottom formation process may have begun.
Similarly, Matrixport said in a post on X that BTC may be making a durable bottom. Matrixport said that when the 21-day moving average of its daily sentiment indicator dips below zero and starts to turn up, it suggests that the selling pressure is getting exhausted. Although that doesn’t rule out a decline in the near term, the readings indicate that BTC could be approaching another inflection point.
Crypto market data daily view. Source: TradingView
Another positive projection for BTC came from Wells Fargo analyst Ohsung Kwon. In a note seen by CNBC, Kwon said additional savings from tax refunds, mostly from high-income consumers, could flow into equities and BTC, bringing back the “YOLO” trade.
Could BTC and the major altcoins overcome the overhead resistance levels? Let’s analyze the charts of the top 10 cryptocurrencies to find out.
Bitcoin price prediction
BTC has been making higher lows in the short term, but the bulls have failed to push the price above the breakdown level of $74,508.
Buyers are likely to make another attempt to pierce the overhead resistance at the 20-day EMA ($72,282) and the $74,508 level. If they can pull it off, the BTC/USDT pair may rally to the 50-day SMA ($83,129).
Sellers are likely to have other plans. They will attempt to defend the 20-day EMA and pull the Bitcoin price below the immediate support at $65,118. If they manage to do that, the pair might tumble to solid support at $60,000.
Ether price prediction
The bulls have maintained Ether (ETH) above the immediate support at $1,897, indicating buying on dips.
Buyers will again attempt to clear the overhead hurdle at the 20-day EMA ($2,183). If they succeed, the ETH/USDT pair may start a stronger recovery toward the 50-day SMA ($2,707).
Contrarily, if the Ether price turns down and breaks below $1,897, it suggests that the bears are attempting to take charge. The pair may then drop to the critical support at $1,750. Buyers are expected to protect the $1,750 level with all their might, as a close below it may sink the pair to $1,537.
XRP price prediction
XRP (XRP) has been trading just below the 20-day EMA ($1.52), indicating that the bulls continue to exert pressure.
That improves the prospects of a break above the 20-day EMA and the breakdown level of $1.61. The XRP price may then climb to the 50-day SMA ($1.80), signaling the XRP/USDT pair may remain inside the channel for some more time.
Buyers will have to thrust the price above the downtrend line to indicate a potential short-term trend change. On the contrary, a deeper fall might begin if the price turns down and plunges below the support line.
BNB price prediction
BNB (BNB) has been trading in a narrow range for the past few days, signaling indecision between the bulls and the bears.
If the BNB price turns down and plummets below the $570 support, it indicates the resumption of the downtrend. The BNB/USDT pair may then extend the decline to the psychological level at $500.
Buyers will have to push and maintain the price above the 20-day EMA ($676) to suggest that the selling pressure is reducing. The pair may then rally to $730 and subsequently to $790.
Solana price prediction
Solana (SOL) is facing resistance near the breakdown level of $95, indicating that the bears are active at higher levels.
The bears will attempt to strengthen their position by pulling the Solana price below the $76 support. If they manage to do that, it suggests that the bears have flipped the $95 level into resistance. The pair may then retest the Feb. 6 low of $67.
Buyers will have to overcome the $95 overhead hurdle to signal a comeback. If they can pull it off, the SOL/USDT pair may ascend to the 50-day SMA ($116), where the sellers are expected to mount a strong defense.
Dogecoin price prediction
Dogecoin (DOGE) has been trading just below the 20-day EMA ($0.10), indicating a lack of selling at lower levels.
That increases the likelihood of a rally above the 20-day EMA. The DOGE/USDT pair may then climb to the 50-day SMA ($0.12). Sellers will attempt to halt the recovery at the $0.12 level, but if the bulls overcome the resistance, the Dogecoin price may soar to the $0.16 level.
Instead, if the price turns down from the $0.12 resistance, it suggests a possible range formation in the near term. The pair might swing between $0.08 and $0.12 for a few days.
Bitcoin Cash price prediction
Bitcoin Cash (BCH) has been stuck between the moving averages, indicating uncertainty about the next directional move.
The upsloping 20-day EMA ($547) and the RSI just above the midpoint suggest a possible upside breakout. If that happens, the Bitcoin Cash price might rally to $600 and, after that, to $630.
Contrary to this assumption, if the price turns down and breaks below the 20-day EMA, it signals that the bears have overpowered the bulls. That might start a correction toward the next support at $500.
Buyers will attempt to maintain the Hyperliquid price above the 50-day SMA ($27.74), but if the bears prevail, the HYPE/USDT pair may tumble toward the solid support at $20.82. The flattish 20-day EMA and the RSI just below the midpoint suggest a range-bound action between $20.82 and $35.50 for some time.
The first sign of strength for the bulls is a close above the $32.50 level. That opens the doors for a rally to the $35.50 to $38.42 resistance zone.
Cardano price prediction
Cardano (ADA) has been clinging to the 20-day EMA ($0.29), indicating that the bulls have kept up the pressure.
The possibility of a break above the 20-day EMA remains high. If that happens, the ADA/USDT pair may climb toward the downtrend line, which is expected to act as a stiff resistance. If buyers pierce the downtrend line, the Cardano price may rally to $0.44 and then to $0.50.
Sellers will have to tug the price below the support line to regain control. If they manage to do that, the pair might slump toward $0.15.
Monero price prediction
Monero (XMR) remains below the breakdown level of $360, but a positive sign is that the bulls have not allowed the price to slip below the immediate support at $309.
Buyers will have to thrust the Monero price above the 20-day EMA ($366) to gain the upper hand. The XMR/USDT pair may then climb to the 50-day SMA ($449), where the bears are expected to step in.
On the downside, a break and close below the $309 level indicates that the bears remain in control. The pair may then retest the crucial $276 support. A strong rebound off the $276 level might result in a range-bound action for a few days.
This article does not contain investment advice or recommendations. Every investment and trading move involves risk, and readers should conduct their own research when making a decision. While we strive to provide accurate and timely information, Cointelegraph does not guarantee the accuracy, completeness, or reliability of any information in this article. This article may contain forward-looking statements that are subject to risks and uncertainties. Cointelegraph will not be liable for any loss or damage arising from your reliance on this information.
The European Union, often criticized for prioritizing rulemaking over innovation, is pointing to the European Blockchain Sandbox as an example of how regulation can boost innovation.
After three cohorts of confidential dialogues, the initiative has produced a 230-page best practices report and drawn in nearly 125 regulators and authorities.
The European Commission tapped law firm Bird & Bird and its consortium partners to lead the initiative, which matches blockchain use cases with regulators for confidential dialogues aimed at clearing legal challenges.
Marjolein Geus, a partner at Bird & Bird, told Cointelegraph that the process has shown compliance need not be a deterrent.
“For use case owners, it helps them better understand the relevant regulations and how those rules apply to their projects,” she said. “It allows regulators and authorities to deepen their understanding of how those technologies interact with the regulatory frameworks within their areas of competence.”
In the latest cohort, “mature” use cases were increasingly operational and embedded in sectors such as energy, healthcare and artificial intelligence, bringing along more complex compliance discussions.
Projects entering the dialogue discussed how existing regulatory frameworks apply to their use cases. Source: European Commission
How MiCA became a test of regulatory timing for blockchain
The brain drain narrative predates crypto. European founders have often incorporated in jurisdictions perceived as having a lighter touch.
USDT is still the largest stablecoin in the world despite pulling back from the EU. Source: CoinGecko
Similar fears surfaced when the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) took effect in 2018. Businesses complained of interpretive confusion and administrative burden. Some foreign firms scaled back EU exposure. However, the GDPR has since become a global reference point, with many multinationals aligning operations to its standards.
The criticism that Europe “regulates first and innovates later” rests on the idea that legal certainty follows market development. MiCA was adopted before the crypto sector reached institutional maturity. In theory, that sequencing risks locking rapidly developing tech into rigid categories too early.
But the sandbox advanced a counterpoint, suggesting that early legislation combined with regulatory dialogue can enhance clarity and accelerate compliance. In the third cohort, 77% of respondents described the sandbox as having a crucial or valuable impact on innovation and regulation, and none reported no impact.
While the EU opted for early codification and dialogue, the world’s largest economy, the US, lacks a comprehensive federal framework for digital assets despite presidential pledges to become a global hub. Its proposed Digital Asset Market Clarity Act has stalled after key industry figures withdrew support over provisions, including restrictions on stablecoin yield.
Smart contracts and the limits of decentralization
While the best practices report spans over 20 chapters across multiple regulatory domains, its sections on smart contracts and decentralization focus on how blockchain systems are structured at the code and governance level.
“Virtually all blockchain DLT use cases use smart contracts. They are subject to regulation, with security requirements often relevant, as well as obligations under the GDPR,” Geus said.
The dialogues examined how those contracts interact with existing EU frameworks, not just MiCA. Depending on their function and the degree of control retained by identifiable actors, smart contracts may trigger obligations ranging from cybersecurity source code reviews to operational resilience testing and conformity declarations.
“The question then becomes how to ensure those smart contracts are secure and GDPR compliant and how to test whether they meet the applicable regulatory frameworks. That is an area where further clarification, harmonization and standardization are needed,” Geus said.
Another focal point of the third cohort report is the qualification of services provided “in a fully decentralized manner without any intermediary” under MiCA.
MiCA references the term “fully decentralized” but doesn’t define it.
Like smart contracts, determining full decentralization in Europe requires further clarification. The report did attempt to lay out a checklist within the limits of how MiCA and the Markets in Financial Instruments Directive are structured.
Many popular DeFi protocols display characteristics that disqualify them from being “fully decentralized.” Source: Bird & Bird, OXYGY/European Commission
Among those are identifiable fee recipients or entities capable of modifying the protocol, which may suggest the existence of an intermediary. Where such influence exists, MiCA is likely to apply, and authorization as a crypto service provider may be required.
The European Blockchain Regulatory Sandbox’s participation neither implies legal endorsement or regulatory approval nor does it grant derogations from applicable law.
By the third cohort, dialogues increasingly engaged horizontal legislation such as the GDPR and the Data Act. Projects were assessed not as isolated crypto experiments, but as embedded digital systems interacting with financial, cybersecurity and data governance frameworks.
Johannes Wirtz, partner at Bird & Bird’s finance regulation group, observed that regulators involved in the dialogues demonstrated deeper familiarity with crypto than expected.
“This was actually something which surprised me in certain regards because you always had this assumption that they are more or less bound to the old world, but they have their innovation departments, which are really good at identifying the issues,” Wirtz said.
If the early criticism of European policy assumed that law would constrain experimentation, Bird & Bird representatives claimed that structured dialogue clarifies how that perimeter applies in practice.
Cointelegraph Features and Cointelegraph Magazine publish long-form journalism, analysis and narrative reporting produced by Cointelegraph’s in-house editorial team and selected external contributors with subject-matter expertise. All articles are edited and reviewed by Cointelegraph editors in line with our editorial standards. Contributions from external writers are commissioned for their experience, research or perspective and do not reflect the views of Cointelegraph as a company unless explicitly stated. Content published in Features and Magazine does not constitute financial, legal or investment advice. Readers should conduct their own research and consult qualified professionals where appropriate. Cointelegraph maintains full editorial independence. The selection, commissioning and publication of Features and Magazine content are not influenced by advertisers, partners or commercial relationships.
AAVE shows potential for 11-15% gains to $140-145 range despite current bearish MACD momentum, with key resistance at $133.63 acting as crucial breakout level.
Aave (AAVE) is currently trading at $126.35 with mixed technical indicators painting a complex picture for short-term price action. Despite bearish MACD momentum, the token shows resilience above key support levels, setting up potential upside targets in the coming weeks.
Recent analyst predictions remain cautiously optimistic for AAVE’s trajectory. Felix Pinkston projected bullish potential toward the $190-195 range by February 2026, though this target appears ambitious given current market conditions. Peter Zhang’s more conservative outlook suggested short-term targets of $182-184, while Iris Coleman highlighted mixed signals with support concerns around $155 levels.
However, these predictions were made when AAVE was trading significantly higher. Current on-chain metrics suggest a more measured approach is warranted given the token’s recent consolidation phase.
AAVE Technical Analysis Breakdown
The current technical landscape for AAVE presents a mixed but potentially constructive setup. With AAVE trading at $126.35, the token sits comfortably above its 20-day SMA of $120.39 and 7-day SMA of $123.99, indicating short-term bullish sentiment despite broader market pressures.
The RSI reading of 46.88 places AAVE in neutral territory, suggesting neither overbought nor oversold conditions. This provides room for upward movement without immediate reversal pressure. However, the MACD histogram at 0.0000 with a negative MACD of -6.2204 indicates bearish momentum that could limit near-term gains.
Bollinger Band analysis shows AAVE positioned at 0.67 within the bands, closer to the upper band at $138.31 than the lower band at $102.47. This positioning suggests underlying strength, though traders should monitor for potential resistance near the upper band.
The Average True Range of $10.12 indicates moderate volatility, providing opportunities for both short-term traders and longer-term position builders.
Aave Price Targets: Bull vs Bear Case
Bullish Scenario
In the bullish case, AAVE price prediction points to initial resistance at $129.99 followed by the critical breakout level at $133.63. A successful breach of this strong resistance could propel AAVE toward the upper Bollinger Band at $138.31, with further upside potential to $140-145.
The bullish thesis relies on AAVE maintaining support above $123.49 while building momentum through the neutral RSI zone. Increasing trading volume above the current $19.6 million would provide additional confirmation of bullish intent.
Bearish Scenario
The bearish scenario sees AAVE testing immediate support at $123.49, with a break potentially leading to stronger support at $120.63. A failure to hold these levels could see the Aave forecast deteriorate toward the lower Bollinger Band at $102.47.
The primary risk factor remains the bearish MACD momentum, which could intensify if broader DeFi sentiment weakens. Additionally, AAVE’s position significantly below its 50-day SMA of $146.00 and 200-day SMA of $218.11 indicates longer-term technical damage that needs repair.
Should You Buy AAVE? Entry Strategy
For traders considering AAVE positions, the current price around $126.35 offers a reasonable risk-reward setup. Conservative entries could target the $123.49-$124.27 range, utilizing the recent 24-hour low as a reference point.
Stop-loss levels should be placed below the strong support at $120.63, limiting downside risk to approximately 5%. Profit-taking opportunities emerge at $133.63 (initial resistance) and $138.31 (upper Bollinger Band).
Position sizing should account for AAVE’s $10.12 daily ATR, allowing for normal price fluctuations while maintaining disciplined risk management.
Conclusion
The AAVE price prediction suggests cautious optimism with targets of $140-145 over the next month, representing potential gains of 11-15% from current levels. While technical indicators present mixed signals, the token’s ability to hold above key moving averages provides a foundation for recovery.
However, traders should remain vigilant of the bearish MACD momentum and broader market conditions. The Aave forecast depends heavily on maintaining support above $120.63 while building volume for a sustained breakout above $133.63.
Disclaimer: Cryptocurrency price predictions are speculative and subject to high volatility. This analysis is for educational purposes only and should not be considered financial advice. Always conduct your own research and consider your risk tolerance before investing.
