Former Alameda Research CEO Caroline Ellison and former FTX executives Gary Wang and Nishad Singh will be barred from assuming company leadership roles for eight to 10 years following a court judgment.
In a Friday notice, the US Securities and Exchange Commission said that it had obtained final consent judgments against Ellison, Wang and Singh for their roles in the misuse of investor funds at FTX from 2019 to 2022.
The former Alameda CEO consented to a 10-year officer-and-director bar, while Wang and Singh consented to eight-year officer-and-director bars each. All three are also subject to five-year ”conduct-based injunctions,” according to the SEC.
“In reality, as alleged in the complaints, [Sam] Bankman-Fried, Wang, and Singh, with Ellison’s knowledge and consent, had exempted Alameda from the risk mitigation measures and provided Alameda with a virtually unlimited ‘line of credit’ funded by FTX’s customers,” said the SEC. “The complaints also alleged that Wang and Singh created FTX’s software code that allowed FTX customer funds to be diverted to Alameda, and that Ellison used misappropriated FTX customer funds for Alameda’s trading activity.”
Former FTX CEO Sam “SBF” Bankman-Fried received a 25-year sentence for his role in the exchange’s collapse. He is awaiting the results of an appeal in the US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, where a hearing was held on Nov. 4.
Ellison was sentenced to two years as part of a plea deal in which she testified against Bankman-Fried. Wang and Singh testified against SBF at his criminal trial and were sentenced to time served in 2024.
Ellison will soon be released from custody
The former Alameda CEO, who largely stayed out of the public spotlight between FTX’s collapse and her testimony at SBF’s trial in October 2023, was recently transferred from prison to a Residential Reentry Management field office in New York City.
According to the Federal Bureau of Prisons, she is scheduled to be released on Feb. 20, about nine months before the end of her two-year sentence. The timing suggested she may have been eligible for good-conduct credits to reduce her prison time.
The Blockchain Association, a non-profit crypto advocacy organization, wrote a letter to the US Senate Committee on Banking, signed by over 125 crypto industry groups and companies, opposing the ban on third-party service providers and platforms offering customer rewards to stablecoin holders.
Expanding the prohibition on stablecoin issuers sharing yield directly with customers, outlined in the GENIUS stablecoin regulatory framework, to include third-party service providers stifles innovation and leads to “greater market concentration,” the letter said.
The letter compared the rewards offered by crypto platforms to those offered by credit card companies, banks and other traditional payment providers.
The letter opposes efforts to stop crypto platforms from sharing yield with customers. Source: The Blockchain Association
Prohibiting crypto platforms from offering similar rewards for stablecoins gives an unfair advantage to incumbent financial service providers, the Blockchain Association said.
“The potential benefits of payment stablecoins will not be realized if these types of payments cannot compete on a level playing field with other payment mechanisms. Rewards and incentives are a standard feature of competitive markets.”
The Blockchain Association has issued several statements and letters pushing back against efforts to prohibit crypto platforms from sharing yield-bearing opportunities with customers, arguing that these rewards help consumers offset inflation.
FDIC paves the way for banks to issue stablecoins, industry group says stables aren’t a threat
The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC), the US regulatory agency that oversees and insures the banking sector, published a proposal on Tuesday that would allow banks to issue stablecoins through subsidiaries.
Under the proposal, both the bank and its stablecoin subsidiary would be subject to FDIC rules and assessments for financial fitness, including reserve requirements.
The FDIC proposal to allow banks to issue stablecoins. Source: FDIC
“Evidence does not support claims that stablecoin rewards threaten community banks or lending capacity,” the Blockchain Association said, adding that it is difficult to make the case that bank lending is actually constrained by customer deposits.
Bitcoin is attempting a recovery from the $84,000 level, but the bears continue to sell on rallies.
Several major altcoins are struggling to start a recovery, but Bitcoin Cash looks strong in the near term.
Bitcoin (BTC) rose above $89,000 after the Bank of Japan (BoJ) hiked its rates to about 0.75% on Friday, but the bulls are struggling to hold onto the higher levels. Although a BoJ rate hike is generally considered negative for risk assets, BitMEX co-founder Arthur Hayes told his X followers not to fight the BoJ as negative real rates was the explicit policy. Hayes projected the dollar/yen to reach the 200 level and “BTC to a milly.”
While the long-term picture remains bullish, the near-term remains uncertain. The big question on investors’ minds is whether the rallies should be sold into or is this a good buying opportunity. Fidelity director of global macroeconomic research Jurrien Timmer said in a post on X that BTC may have topped out at $125,000, marking the end of its four-year cycle halving phase. He expects BTC to witness an off-year in 2026, with support in the $65,000 to $75,000 zone.
Crypto market data daily view. Source: TradingView
In another projection for 2026, Tether CEO Paolo Ardoino said BTC might not witness “sharp corrections of 80%, like we saw in 2022 or early 2018.” However, he said that BTC could be impacted by the so-called AI bubble due to its close correlation with the capital markets.
What are the crucial support and resistance levels to watch out for in BTC and major altcoins? Let’s analyze the charts of the top 10 cryptocurrencies to find out.
Bitcoin price prediction
Buyers are attempting to defend the $84,000 support, but the recovery is expected to face selling at the moving averages.
The downsloping 20-day exponential moving average (EMA) ($89,369) and the relative strength index (RSI) in the negative territory suggest that bears have a slight edge. If the price turns down sharply from the 20-day EMA, the likelihood of a break below $84,000 increases. The BTC/USDT pair may then slump to $80,600.
Buyers will have to drive and maintain the Bitcoin price above the $94,589 resistance to signal a potential trend change in the near term. The pair could then rally to $100,000 and subsequently to $107,500.
Ether price prediction
Ether (ETH) is attempting a relief rally from the support near $2,700, indicating buying on dips.
The bears are unlikely to give up easily and will fiercely defend the zone between the 50-day simple moving average (SMA) ($3,161) and $3,450. If the Ether price turns down sharply from the overhead resistance, the ETH/USDT pair could retest the $2,700 to $2,623 support zone. If the zone breaks down, the pair may plummet to $2,250.
This negative view will be invalidated in the near term if the price turns up and breaks above the $3,450 resistance. The pair could then ascend to $3,918.
BNB price prediction
BNB (BNB) is attempting to bounce off the uptrend line, but higher levels are likely to attract sellers.
If the BNB price turns down sharply from the moving averages, the possibility of a drop to the $790 support increases. Buyers are expected to defend the $790 level with all their might, as a break below it could sink the BNB/USDT pair to $730.
On the contrary, a break and close above the $928 resistance will complete an ascending triangle pattern. That suggests the corrective phase has ended, opening the gates for a rally to the target objective of $1,066.
XRP price prediction
XRP (XRP) is attempting to bounce off the support line of the descending channel pattern, indicating demand at lower levels.
The downsloping moving averages and the RSI in the negative territory indicate an advantage to bears. If the price turns down from the moving averages, the bears will try to sink the XRP/USDT pair to the $1.61 support.
Instead, if the XRP price continues higher and breaks above the 50-day SMA ($2.15), it suggests that the pair may remain inside the channel for some more time. The bulls will gain the upper hand on a close above the downtrend line.
Solana price prediction
Solana (SOL) fell below the $121 level on Thursday, but the bears are struggling to maintain the lower levels.
The recovery is expected to face selling at the 20-day EMA ($131) and then at the 50-day SMA ($142). If the price turns down from the moving averages, the bears will again try to tug the SOL/USDT pair below $121. If they manage to do that, the Solana price could drop to $110 and then to the $95 support.
On the contrary, if buyers drive the pair above the $147 resistance, it suggests a short-term trend change. The pair could then rally to $172.
Dogecoin price prediction
Dogecoin (DOGE) remains below the $0.14 level, but the bulls are attempting to start a relief rally.
The RSI is showing a positive divergence, indicating that the bearish momentum is weakening. The bulls will have to push and maintain the DOGE/USDT pair above the $0.16 level to signal a comeback.
Sellers are likely to have other plans. They will try to halt the relief rally at the breakdown level of $0.14. If they do that, it suggests that the $0.14 level has flipped into resistance. That heightens the risk of a decline to the Oct. 10 low of $0.10.
Cardano price prediction
Cardano (ADA) fell below the $0.37 support on Wednesday, but the bulls are trying to reclaim the level on Friday.
The positive divergence on the RSI suggests that the selling pressure is reducing. Buyers will try to push the price above the 20-day EMA ($0.40). If they can pull it off, the ADA/USDT pair may rally to the breakdown level of $0.50. Sellers will attempt to defend the $0.50 level, flipping it into resistance.
On the downside, a break and close below $0.34 signals the resumption of the downtrend. The Cardano price may then slump to the $0.27 level.
The bulls will try to strengthen their position by pushing the Bitcoin Cash price above the $615 resistance. If they manage to do that, the BCH/USDT pair could resume the up move. The pair could rally to $651 and thereafter to $720.
Conversely, if the price turns down sharply from $615 and dips below the 50-day SMA, it suggests that the pair could consolidate inside the large range between $443 and $615 for a few days.
Hyperliquid price prediction
Hyperliquid (HYPE) has turned up from $22.19, signaling that the bulls are aggressively defending the Oct. 10 low of $20.82.
The relief rally could reach the 20-day EMA ($28.86), which is a crucial overhead resistance to watch out for. If the price turns down sharply from the 20-day EMA, it indicates that the bears continue to sell on rallies. That increases the risk of a break below the $20.82 support. If that happens, the HYPE/USDT pair could plummet to $16.90.
On the other hand, a break above the 20-day EMA suggests that the bears are losing their grip. The Hyperliquid price could then climb to the breakdown level of $35.50.
Chainlink price prediction
The bulls are attempting to halt Chainlink’s (LINK) slide in the $11.61 to $10.94 support zone.
The recovery is expected to face resistance at the 50-day SMA ($13.99). If the Chainlink price turns down from the 50-day SMA, the $10.94 support may come under pressure. If the level cracks, the LINK/USDT pair could tumble to the Oct. 10 low of $7.90.
On the other hand, a break and close above the $15 level indicates that the bulls are fiercely defending the $10.94 support. That clears the path for a rally to $16.80 and then to $19. That brings the large $10.94 to $27 range into play.
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 price prediction targets $0.66-$0.70 range over next month as oversold conditions and key support at $0.49 create potential reversal setup despite bearish momentum.
Lido DAO (LDO) is showing mixed signals at current levels of $0.54, presenting an intriguing setup for traders seeking the next major move. With the token trading 64.73% below its 52-week high of $1.54, our LDO price prediction analysis suggests a tactical bounce is likely in the coming weeks, though longer-term headwinds remain.
LDO Price Prediction Summary
• LDO short-term target (1 week): $0.58-$0.60 (+7-11% from current levels)
• Lido DAO medium-term forecast (1 month): $0.66-$0.70 range (+22-30% upside potential)
• Key level to break for bullish continuation: $0.66 (immediate resistance)
• Critical support if bearish: $0.49 (strong support coinciding with 52-week low)
Recent Lido DAO Price Predictions from Analysts
Despite limited recent analyst coverage over the past three days, the technical setup for LDO suggests institutional attention may be warranted. The absence of fresh predictions creates an information vacuum that often precedes significant price movements. Historical patterns show that when major DeFi tokens like Lido DAO trade near yearly lows with improving technical conditions, contrarian opportunities often emerge.
The lack of bullish consensus among analysts may actually support our moderately optimistic Lido DAO forecast, as overcrowded trades typically fail while overlooked setups can deliver surprising results.
LDO Technical Analysis: Setting Up for Tactical Bounce
The Lido DAO technical analysis reveals a compressed trading range that appears ready for expansion. At $0.54, LDO sits just above the critical $0.49 support level, which has held as both the 52-week low and current strong support.
The RSI reading of 39.85 places LDO in neutral territory but trending toward oversold conditions, suggesting downside momentum may be exhausting. More significantly, the Bollinger Bands position at 0.23 indicates LDO is trading in the lower portion of its recent range, often a precursor to mean reversion moves.
While the MACD histogram shows bearish momentum at -0.0014, the relatively small magnitude suggests the selling pressure is not overwhelming. The convergence between the MACD line (-0.0426) and signal line (-0.0412) hints that momentum may be stabilizing.
Volume analysis shows healthy participation at $7.13 million over 24 hours, providing sufficient liquidity for any breakout move. The daily ATR of $0.05 suggests normal volatility levels, neither suppressed nor elevated.
Lido DAO Price Targets: Bull and Bear Scenarios
Bullish Case for LDO
Our primary LDO price target focuses on the $0.66 immediate resistance level, representing a 22% gain from current prices. This level aligns with previous support-turned-resistance and sits just below the Bollinger Band upper limit of $0.67.
A break above $0.66 would trigger our extended LDO price prediction target of $0.70, bringing the token closer to its SMA 50 at $0.68. This scenario requires sustained buying pressure and broader DeFi sector momentum.
The path to $0.70 becomes more credible if LDO can reclaim its SMA 20 at $0.59, which would signal the beginning of trend reversal. Volume expansion above 10 million daily would provide additional confirmation of genuine buying interest.
Bearish Risk for Lido DAO
Failure to hold the $0.49 support level would invalidate our bullish Lido DAO forecast and open the door to deeper losses. The next significant support doesn’t appear until the $0.42-$0.45 range, representing potential downside of 15-22%.
A break below $0.49 on heavy volume would likely trigger algorithmic selling and test the resolve of long-term LDO holders. The bearish scenario gains credibility if broader crypto markets enter a sustained correction phase.
Should You Buy LDO Now? Entry Strategy
Based on our LDO price prediction analysis, a staged entry approach offers the best risk-reward profile. Initial positions can be established at current levels around $0.54, with additional buying on any dip toward $0.50-$0.51.
The optimal entry strategy involves placing stop-losses below $0.48 to limit downside risk while targeting the $0.66-$0.70 range for profit-taking. This setup offers a potential 2:1 to 3:1 reward-to-risk ratio, making it attractive for tactical traders.
Position sizing should remain conservative given the mixed technical signals. Allocating 1-3% of portfolio value allows participation in the potential bounce while limiting exposure to downside risks.
LDO Price Prediction Conclusion
Our LDO price prediction carries medium confidence for the short-term bounce to $0.58-$0.60 over the next week, with the extended target of $0.66-$0.70 within four weeks rated at medium-low confidence.
Key indicators to watch include RSI breaking above 45 for momentum confirmation, MACD histogram turning positive, and daily volume consistently exceeding 8 million. Invalidation signals include a decisive break below $0.49 or failure to reclaim $0.56 within the next five trading sessions.
The timeline for our Lido DAO forecast spans the next 4-6 weeks, with the first phase targeting $0.60 by year-end and the extended move toward $0.70 expected by late January 2026. Success depends on broader market stability and continued support from DeFi sector fundamentals.
WIF price prediction shows potential rally to $0.42 short-term target, but must hold critical $0.32 support. dogwifhat forecast depends on MACD momentum shift.
WIF Price Prediction Summary
• WIF short-term target (1 week): $0.42 (+20% from current levels)
• dogwifhat medium-term forecast (1 month): $0.38-$0.48 trading range
• Key level to break for bullish continuation: $0.39 pivot resistance
• Critical support if bearish: $0.32 immediate support, $0.31 strong support
Recent dogwifhat Price Predictions from Analysts
Current analyst sentiment around WIF price prediction shows cautious optimism despite mixed technical signals. Blockchain.News and MEXC News both target the $0.42-$0.45 range within 7-10 days, representing the most bullish dogwifhat forecast among recent predictions. Their analysis focuses on momentum indicators suggesting a potential reversal, with MEXC specifically highlighting the MACD histogram’s potential positive turn.
More conservative predictions from Hexn.io and Bitget suggest minimal upside to $0.3581-$0.3715, representing only modest gains of 0.41-6% from current levels. This creates an interesting divergence in the WIF price target consensus, with aggressive bulls seeing 25%+ upside while conservative analysts expect sideways action.
The key differentiator appears to be how analysts interpret the current technical setup. Bulls focus on oversold conditions and potential momentum shifts, while bears emphasize the ongoing downtrend and weak moving average structure.
WIF Technical Analysis: Setting Up for Potential Reversal
The dogwifhat technical analysis presents a mixed but potentially constructive picture for the WIF price prediction. Currently trading at $0.35, WIF sits precisely at its identified pivot point, creating a critical decision zone for the token’s near-term direction.
The RSI reading of 42.23 places WIF in neutral territory, avoiding oversold extremes that might suggest further downside. However, the MACD histogram at -0.0028 indicates continued bearish momentum, though the relatively small negative reading suggests this momentum may be waning. The Stochastic indicators at %K 17.56 and %D 8.17 show oversold conditions that could support a bounce.
Bollinger Bands analysis reveals WIF trading near the lower band support with a %B position of 0.1609, suggesting the token is approaching potential reversal territory. The current price of $0.35 sits below all major moving averages, with the SMA 20 at $0.38 representing immediate resistance.
Volume analysis shows healthy activity at $22.07 million over 24 hours, providing adequate liquidity for any potential WIF price target moves. The daily ATR of $0.04 indicates normal volatility levels, suggesting any breakout move could see meaningful percentage gains.
dogwifhat Price Targets: Bull and Bear Scenarios
Bullish Case for WIF
The primary WIF price prediction for the bull case targets $0.42 within one week, aligning with recent analyst forecasts. This level represents the convergence of multiple technical factors: the upper Bollinger Band resistance and a key Fibonacci retracement level from the recent decline.
For this dogwifhat forecast to materialize, WIF must first reclaim the $0.39 pivot level, which would trigger stop-loss covering from short positions. A successful break above $0.39 with volume confirmation could accelerate the move toward $0.42, representing a 20% gain from current levels.
Extended bullish targets include the $0.45-$0.48 range, where the SMA 50 and immediate resistance converge. However, reaching these levels would require sustained momentum and broader market cooperation, making them secondary targets for the current WIF price prediction cycle.
Bearish Risk for dogwifhat
The bear case for WIF hinges on a failure to hold the critical $0.32 support level identified in today’s trading range. A decisive break below this level would trigger the next leg down toward $0.31 strong support, representing a potential 11% decline from current prices.
More concerning would be a break below $0.31, which could expose WIF to a retest of the 52-week low at $0.33. Given the token’s proximity to these levels, the downside risk appears limited in percentage terms but could trigger significant technical damage to the chart structure.
The bearish dogwifhat forecast would be confirmed by increasing MACD divergence and RSI breaking below 40, indicating a resumption of the primary downtrend.
Should You Buy WIF Now? Entry Strategy
Based on the current dogwifhat technical analysis, the optimal entry strategy involves a layered approach around key technical levels. The immediate question of “buy or sell WIF” depends on individual risk tolerance and technical bias.
Conservative buyers should wait for a clear break above $0.39 with volume confirmation before establishing positions, targeting the $0.42 WIF price target. This approach reduces risk but may miss the initial move if the reversal proves genuine.
Aggressive traders might consider accumulating near current levels around $0.35, using the $0.32 support as a stop-loss level. This provides a favorable 2:1 risk-reward ratio targeting $0.42, though it requires tolerance for potential short-term weakness.
Position sizing should reflect the high-risk nature of meme tokens, with most analysts recommending no more than 2-3% portfolio allocation to speculative altcoins like WIF.
WIF Price Prediction Conclusion
The dogwifhat forecast for the next week shows potential for a rally to $0.42, representing our primary WIF price target with medium confidence. This prediction relies on the token maintaining support above $0.32 and showing signs of MACD momentum improvement.
Key indicators to watch include RSI movement above 45, MACD histogram turning positive, and volume expansion on any move above $0.39. Failure to hold $0.32 support would invalidate the bullish WIF price prediction and suggest further downside toward $0.31.
The timeline for this prediction spans 7-10 days, aligning with the short-term focus of current analyst forecasts. While the technical setup shows promise, investors should remember that meme token predictions carry inherent volatility risks that can quickly invalidate technical analysis.
These developments point to a growing anxiety across crypto. Investors argue that dismissal of quantum risk by influential voices is weighing on Bitcoin’s (BTC) price, which has dropped 24% over the past three months.
While altcoin blockchains are experimenting with post-quantum protections through opt-in upgrades and test networks, Bitcoin remains divided over how publicly and urgently it should address quantum risks.
Some investors say dismissing quantum risk is affecting Bitcoin’s price. Source: CoinGecko
How blockchains are preparing without sounding the alarm
Ethereum has been clear about why quantum computing is now being treated as an engineering problem rather than a distant hypothetical.
Ethereum co-founder Vitalik Buterin has argued that even a low-probability outcome demands early preparation when the cost of failure is high and the time required to migrate global systems is measured in years.
Citing forecasting models, he has said there is roughly a 20% chance that quantum computers capable of breaking today’s public-key cryptography could emerge before 2030, with a median estimate closer to 2040. Buterin reportedly said no machines exist today that can break Bitcoin or Ethereum, but waiting for certainty is itself risky, as migrating a global network to post-quantum schemes can take years.
Prediction models forecast a 20% chance that powerful quantum computers are about five years away. Source: Vitalik Buterin
That framing has begun to echo across other major blockchains, particularly those that can experiment without reopening foundational debates.
Aptos has proposed adding post-quantum signature support at the account level through an opt-in upgrade that would leave existing accounts untouched. The proposal relies on a hash-based signature scheme and is positioned as future-proofing rather than a reaction to an imminent threat. Users can adopt the new scheme if they choose, without forcing a network-wide migration.
Solana has taken a similar posture through testing rather than deployment. In partnership with post-quantum security firm Project Eleven, the network recently ran a dedicated testnet using quantum-resistant signatures to assess whether such schemes can be integrated without undermining performance or compatibility.
Quantum resistance is increasingly being treated as a due diligence consideration by investors. Source: Solana/Austin Federa
Bitcoin’s quantum debate is really about trust
Bitcoin relies on elliptic curve cryptography to verify ownership. Control over funds is proven through a private key, while only the corresponding public key is revealed onchain.
In theory, a sufficiently powerful quantum computer running Shor’s algorithm could work backwards from a public key to recover the private one, allowing an attacker to spend funds without triggering any obvious signs of theft. From the network’s perspective, those coins would simply move as if their owner had decided to transact.
Even proponents of post-quantum upgrades generally acknowledge that cryptographically relevant machines are still years away. But the dispute in Bitcoin’s community is about how Bitcoin should respond to a risk that is distant, uncertain and difficult to detect once it materializes.
On one side, developers and longtime Bitcoin cryptographers argue that framing quantum computing as an urgent concern does more harm than good.
Despite the online debates, Bitcoin researchers are actively studying post-quantum schemes. Source: Jonas Nick
Blockstream CEO Adam Back has repeatedly dismissed near-term quantum fears, stressing that practical quantum attacks remain decades out. He claimed that amplifying quantum risks fuels panic and encourages markets to price in a threat that does not yet exist.
On the other side, investors and researchers argue that even a low-probability outcome matters for an asset whose value depends on long-term confidence. Castle Island Ventures partner Nic Carter has described the outright dismissal of quantum risk by influential developers as bearish.
Nic Carter outlines why quantum risks make investors paranoid. Source: Nic Carter
Craig Warmke of the Bitcoin Policy Institute has similarly warned that perceived complacency is pushing some capital to diversify away from Bitcoin regardless of whether the underlying technical fears are precisely articulated.
That tension explains why proposals such as Bitcoin Improvement Proposal 360, which would introduce quantum-resistant signature options, provoke outsized reactions despite their early and tentative status.
Supporters see early work as a way to reduce uncertainty and signal preparedness. Critics see the same discussion as legitimizing a speculative threat and inviting confusion about Bitcoin’s resilience.
Why quantum uncertainty matters differently for Bitcoin
Quantum computers today cannot break Bitcoin or any major blockchain. What is already happening is that uncertainty around quantum risk is influencing how different networks choose to communicate and how investors interpret those choices.
Outside Bitcoin, post-quantum work has been framed as infrastructure. Opt-in upgrades and test networks allow blockchains to signal preparedness without forcing users or markets to reassess present-day security assumptions. That approach limits the reputational cost of early preparation while preserving flexibility if timelines change.
Bitcoin operates under different constraints. Because its value is closely tied to long-term assurances about security and durability, discussions about future-proofing its cryptography tend to attract immediate scrutiny. What might be treated as routine contingency planning elsewhere is more easily read as a comment on Bitcoin’s fundamentals.
Influential voices related to Bitcoin worry that emphasizing distant risks invites misunderstanding and panic. Investors worry that minimizing those risks signals a lack of contingency planning. Both sides are responding to how confidence is shaped in the absence of clear timelines.
The quantum debate suggests that for Bitcoin, managing how long-term risks are discussed may matter as much as managing the risks themselves.
These developments point to a growing anxiety across crypto. Investors argue that dismissal of quantum risk by influential voices is weighing on Bitcoin’s (BTC) price, which has dropped 24% over the past three months.
While altcoin blockchains are experimenting with post-quantum protections through opt-in upgrades and test networks, Bitcoin remains divided over how publicly and urgently it should address quantum risks.
Some investors say dismissing quantum risk is affecting Bitcoin’s price. Source: CoinGecko
How blockchains are preparing without sounding the alarm
Ethereum has been clear about why quantum computing is now being treated as an engineering problem rather than a distant hypothetical.
Ethereum co-founder Vitalik Buterin has argued that even a low-probability outcome demands early preparation when the cost of failure is high and the time required to migrate global systems is measured in years.
Citing forecasting models, he has said there is roughly a 20% chance that quantum computers capable of breaking today’s public-key cryptography could emerge before 2030, with a median estimate closer to 2040. Buterin reportedly said no machines exist today that can break Bitcoin or Ethereum, but waiting for certainty is itself risky, as migrating a global network to post-quantum schemes can take years.
Prediction models forecast a 20% chance that powerful quantum computers are about five years away. Source: Vitalik Buterin
That framing has begun to echo across other major blockchains, particularly those that can experiment without reopening foundational debates.
Aptos has proposed adding post-quantum signature support at the account level through an opt-in upgrade that would leave existing accounts untouched. The proposal relies on a hash-based signature scheme and is positioned as future-proofing rather than a reaction to an imminent threat. Users can adopt the new scheme if they choose, without forcing a network-wide migration.
Solana has taken a similar posture through testing rather than deployment. In partnership with post-quantum security firm Project Eleven, the network recently ran a dedicated testnet using quantum-resistant signatures to assess whether such schemes can be integrated without undermining performance or compatibility.
Quantum resistance is increasingly being treated as a due diligence consideration by investors. Source: Solana/Austin Federa
Bitcoin’s quantum debate is really about trust
Bitcoin relies on elliptic curve cryptography to verify ownership. Control over funds is proven through a private key, while only the corresponding public key is revealed onchain.
In theory, a sufficiently powerful quantum computer running Shor’s algorithm could work backwards from a public key to recover the private one, allowing an attacker to spend funds without triggering any obvious signs of theft. From the network’s perspective, those coins would simply move as if their owner had decided to transact.
Even proponents of post-quantum upgrades generally acknowledge that cryptographically relevant machines are still years away. But the dispute in Bitcoin’s community is about how Bitcoin should respond to a risk that is distant, uncertain and difficult to detect once it materializes.
On one side, developers and longtime Bitcoin cryptographers argue that framing quantum computing as an urgent concern does more harm than good.
Despite the online debates, Bitcoin researchers are actively studying post-quantum schemes. Source: Jonas Nick
Blockstream CEO Adam Back has repeatedly dismissed near-term quantum fears, stressing that practical quantum attacks remain decades out. He claimed that amplifying quantum risks fuels panic and encourages markets to price in a threat that does not yet exist.
On the other side, investors and researchers argue that even a low-probability outcome matters for an asset whose value depends on long-term confidence. Castle Island Ventures partner Nic Carter has described the outright dismissal of quantum risk by influential developers as bearish.
Nic Carter outlines why quantum risks make investors paranoid. Source: Nic Carter
Craig Warmke of the Bitcoin Policy Institute has similarly warned that perceived complacency is pushing some capital to diversify away from Bitcoin regardless of whether the underlying technical fears are precisely articulated.
That tension explains why proposals such as Bitcoin Improvement Proposal 360, which would introduce quantum-resistant signature options, provoke outsized reactions despite their early and tentative status.
Supporters see early work as a way to reduce uncertainty and signal preparedness. Critics see the same discussion as legitimizing a speculative threat and inviting confusion about Bitcoin’s resilience.
Why quantum uncertainty matters differently for Bitcoin
Quantum computers today cannot break Bitcoin or any major blockchain. What is already happening is that uncertainty around quantum risk is influencing how different networks choose to communicate and how investors interpret those choices.
Outside Bitcoin, post-quantum work has been framed as infrastructure. Opt-in upgrades and test networks allow blockchains to signal preparedness without forcing users or markets to reassess present-day security assumptions. That approach limits the reputational cost of early preparation while preserving flexibility if timelines change.
Bitcoin operates under different constraints. Because its value is closely tied to long-term assurances about security and durability, discussions about future-proofing its cryptography tend to attract immediate scrutiny. What might be treated as routine contingency planning elsewhere is more easily read as a comment on Bitcoin’s fundamentals.
Influential voices related to Bitcoin worry that emphasizing distant risks invites misunderstanding and panic. Investors worry that minimizing those risks signals a lack of contingency planning. Both sides are responding to how confidence is shaped in the absence of clear timelines.
The quantum debate suggests that for Bitcoin, managing how long-term risks are discussed may matter as much as managing the risks themselves.
RMJDT is a ringgit stablecoin pitched for payments and cross-border trade.
Its treasury and validator setup is designed to make onchain settlement function like reliable infrastructure.
Across Asia, stablecoins are being brought under licensing and reserve and redemption rules.
Tokenized assets are increasing demand for tokenized settlement in local currencies, not just USD.
RMJDT is being pitched as a ringgit-pegged token tied to Johor’s Crown Prince. It was launched by his company, Bullish Aim, and issued on Zetrix, a network connected to Malaysia’s national blockchain infrastructure.
The token is intended for payments and cross-border trade settlement, with the project also announcing a 500 million Malaysian ringgit ($121 million) Zetrix-token treasury to support the network’s day-to-day operations.
Across Asia, there is a broader shift toward regulated tokenized money, including stablecoins with clearer reserve and redemption rules and onchain settlement systems built for trade and tokenized assets. RMJDT is one example of that trend.
What is RMJDT?
RMJDT is being marketed as a straightforward product, a ringgit-pegged stablecoin issued on the Zetrix blockchain by Bullish Aim, a company chaired and owned by Johor Regent Tunku Ismail Ibni Sultan Ibrahim.
The token is designed for everyday payments and cross-border trade. It also aims to make the ringgit easier to use in a world where more commerce is happening online and across borders.
What is said to distinguish RMJDT is its structure. According to project disclosures and reporting, RMJDT is expected to be backed by ringgit cash and short-term Malaysian government bonds, a conservative reserve model that regulators and larger financial institutions tend to prefer because it is easier to explain and, in theory, easier to redeem.
The other half of the picture is a new Digital Asset Treasury Company (DATCO), funded with 500 million ringgit worth of Zetrix tokens, with plans to expand that to 1 billion ringgit.
The project says this pool is intended to help keep transaction costs more stable and to support the network by staking tokens linked to up to 10% of validator nodes.
Put plainly, the goal is to make using RMJDT resemble the characteristics of a dependable payment system and less like something that changes character every time the crypto market becomes noisy.
Did you know? Bank Negara Malaysia has already worked with the BIS Innovation Hub on Project Dunbar, which built prototypes for cross-border settlement using multiple central bank digital currencies with Australia, Singapore and South Africa.
Why now for a ringgit stablecoin: Tokenized assets need tokenized settlement
A ringgit stablecoin makes more sense when you look at what Malaysia is trying to build next.
Bank Negara Malaysia has been laying the groundwork for asset tokenization within the regulated financial sector. RMJDT fits into that step-by-step approach, which begins with familiar instruments such as deposits, loans and bonds, and aims to bring tokenized products into regulated markets from 2027 if the roadmap stays on track.
However, a recurring problem appears in nearly every tokenization pilot. It is difficult to scale tokenized assets if the money leg of the trade still has to leave the chain.
Issuers can place a bond, fund unit or invoice onchain, but if settlement keeps reverting to bank transfers, the promise of instant settlement breaks down amid integration work, cut-off times and reconciliation.
This is why regional projects such as Singapore’s Project Guardian keep returning to the same point. The choice of settlement asset, whether stablecoins, tokenized deposits or other forms of regulated onchain money, can determine whether tokenized markets actually take off.
In this sense, RMJDT represents Malaysia testing what onchain settlement looks like in ringgit terms and mapping out what it may seek to tokenize next.
Licensing the issuer, not the token
Regulators in Asia are increasingly deciding who is allowed to issue stablecoins and under what reserve rules, redemption terms and supervisory frameworks.
Hong Kong offers a clear example. Under the Stablecoins Ordinance, fiat-referenced stablecoin issuance became a regulated activity on Aug. 1, 2025, and issuers are required to hold an HKMA license. The HKMA has also established a public register for licensed issuers. The first licenses are expected to be issued only in an initial batch later, with authorities warning the market not to move ahead of the regulatory process.
Singapore is taking a similar foundation-first approach, but it is framing stablecoins as one part of a broader tokenized system. The Monetary Authority of Singapore is preparing stablecoin legislation that emphasizes sound reserves and reliable redemption, while also piloting tokenized MAS bills and settlement experiments that combine bank liabilities, regulated stablecoins and wholesale central bank digital currency (CBDC) initiatives.
Japan’s approach channels stablecoin-like instruments through regulated structures such as trust beneficiary interest stablecoins, with issuance and redemption tied to trust banks and trust companies and subject to supervisory notification. It also treats the handling of certain stablecoins as part of regulated electronic payment instrument services.
Did you know? Thailand and Malaysia have linked their real-time payment systems, PromptPay and DuitNow, through an official cross-border payment connection.
Malaysia’s regulatory backdrop
Digital asset activity already sits within a defined framework overseen by the Securities Commission. The SC’s Guidelines on Digital Assets set requirements for regulated players across areas such as exchanges and custody, and the SC also operates a dedicated Digital Assets hub that directs operators to the recognized market operator pathway and custodian registration process.
Bank Negara Malaysia has also elevated tokenization on its agenda through a formal discussion paper on asset tokenization and a phased roadmap running from 2025 to 2027. The focus is on testing real financial sector use cases before anything is deployed at scale.
Against this backdrop, RMJDT appears to be positioned as part of a broader approach to regulated experimentation.
Did you know? Malaysia is the world’s largest sukuk market, representing around one-third of outstanding global sukuk. Sukuk are Islamic financial certificates similar to bonds, structured to provide returns without charging interest and backed by underlying assets or cash flows.
Risks and open questions
Reserves and redemptions
The first question is the unglamorous one that determines whether anything else matters: how RMJDT handles reserves and redemptions in practice.
Public messaging leans on a regulated sandbox framing and a reserve model intended to appear conservative, but the market will still seek clarity on fundamentals such as disclosure frequency, who verifies the backing and how operations function if redemptions spike.
Governance and neutrality
RMJDT is launching alongside a treasury vehicle that is explicitly intended to support network economics and stake tokens to back a meaningful share of validator capacity.
This can be framed as stability, but it also raises a clear question about where the line sits between infrastructure support and influence over the system itself.
Adoption
Cross-border trade settlement sounds compelling in a press release, but it ultimately depends on integration: who holds RMJDT, who provides liquidity, how FX conversion works and whether counterparties actually want ringgit exposure onchain rather than sticking with US dollars.
Malaysia’s own tokenization roadmap makes clear that this is intended to be a staged journey with pilots and feedback, not something that will happen overnight.
Regulatory hurdles
Finally, RMJDT arrives in a region where regulators are tightening oversight of stablecoin issuance.
Hong Kong’s regime is now live and places strong emphasis on licensing and transparency. This serves as a reminder of what mainstream stablecoins increasingly look like in Asia: supervised issuers, clear rules and little tolerance for vague promises.
What the “royal stablecoin” reveals
So, what can be learned?
First, it is another sign that local currency stablecoins are being treated as infrastructure. The messaging around RMJDT focuses on trade settlement and payments, and the project is being packaged with a treasury structure designed to keep the network usable and predictable.
Second, it highlights the sequencing emerging across Asia: Tokenized assets tend to come first in the policy conversation, with tokenized settlement following. Malaysia’s central bank is explicitly running a multi-year tokenization roadmap for the financial sector, and a ringgit-denominated settlement token fits naturally into that direction of travel.
Third, it shows how the region is drawing a line between crypto and money. Hong Kong has moved stablecoin issuance into a licensing regime, Singapore is pairing stablecoin rules with tokenized bill trials, and Japan’s framework routes stablecoin-style instruments through regulated issuer structures. RMJDT fits into that same environment, where credibility, reserves, redemption and governance matter at least as much as the technology.
RMJDT shows how the conversation in Asia has shifted. Stablecoins are being brought toward the same standards as other payment instruments, and tokenization is increasingly treated as market infrastructure.
When a ringgit-pegged token appears with a reserve model built around cash and government securities and a treasury designed to keep the system operating smoothly, it suggests what the region may be prioritizing: regulated onchain settlement for tokenized assets.
Libya’s cheap, subsidized electricity made it profitable to run even older, inefficient Bitcoin miners.
At its peak, Libya is estimated to have generated around 0.6% of the global Bitcoin hash rate.
Mining operates in a legal grey zone, with hardware imports banned but no clear law governing mining itself.
Authorities now link illegal mining farms to power shortages and are ramping up raids and criminal cases.
In November 2025, Libyan prosecutors quietly handed down three-year prison sentences to nine people caught running Bitcoin miners inside a steel factory in the coastal city of Zliten.
The court ordered their machines seized and the illegally generated profits returned to the state, the latest in a series of high-profile raids that have swept from Benghazi to Misrata and even netted dozens of Chinese nationals operating industrial-scale farms.
Yet these crackdowns are targeting an industry that, until recently, most outsiders did not even know existed. In 2021, Libya, a country better known for oil exports and rolling blackouts, accounted for around 0.6% of the global Bitcoin hash rate. That put it ahead of every other Arab and African state and even several European economies, according to estimates from the Cambridge Centre for Alternative Finance.
This unlikely rise was driven by cheap, heavily subsidized electricity and a long period of legal and institutional ambiguity that allowed miners to spread faster than lawmakers could react.
In the sections that follow, we will unpack how Libya became a covert mining hotspot, why its grid is now under severe strain and what the government’s escalating crackdown means for Bitcoin (BTC) miners operating in fragile states.
Did you know? Since 2011, Libya has had more than a dozen rival governments, militias or political centers of power, creating long periods in which no single authority could enforce national-level energy or economic policy.
The economics of “almost free” electricity
Libya’s mining boom starts with a number that looks almost unreal. Some estimates put the country’s electricity price at around $0.004 per kilowatt-hour, among the lowest in the world. That level is only possible because the state heavily subsidizes fuel and keeps tariffs artificially low, even as the grid struggles with damage, theft and underinvestment.
From an economic perspective, such pricing creates a powerful arbitrage for miners. They are effectively buying energy far below its real market cost and converting it into Bitcoin.
For miners, this changes the hardware equation completely. In high-cost markets, only the latest, most efficient ASICs stand a chance of staying profitable. In Libya, even older-generation machines that would be scrap metal in Europe or North America can still generate a margin, as long as they are fed with subsidized power.
That, naturally, makes the country attractive for foreign operators willing to ship in used rigs and accept legal and political risk.
Regional analyses suggest that, at its peak around 2021, Bitcoin mining in Libya may have consumed roughly 2% of the country’s total electricity output, about 0.855 terawatt-hours (TWh) a year.
In a wealthy, stable grid, that level of consumption might be manageable. In Libya, where rolling blackouts are already part of daily life, diverting that much subsidized power into privately run server rooms is a serious issue.
On the global mining map, the US, China and Kazakhstan still dominate in absolute hash rate, but Libya’s slice stands out precisely because it is achieved with a small population, damaged infrastructure and cheap electricity.
Did you know? Libya loses up to 40% of its generated electricity before it ever reaches homes because of grid damage, theft and technical losses, according to the General Electricity Company of Libya (GECOL).
Inside Libya’s underground mining boom
On the ground, Libya’s mining boom looks nothing like a glossy data center in Texas or Kazakhstan. Reports from Tripoli and Benghazi describe rows of imported ASICs crammed into abandoned steel and iron factories, warehouses and fortified compounds, often on the outskirts of cities or in industrial zones where heavy electricity use does not immediately raise eyebrows.
Did you know? To dodge detection, some operators in Libya reportedly pour cement over parts of their setups to blur heat signatures, making it harder for authorities to spot them using thermal imaging.
The timeline of enforcement shows how quickly this underground economy has grown. In 2018, the Central Bank of Libya declared virtual currencies illegal to trade or use, citing money laundering and terrorism-financing risks.
Yet by 2021, analysts estimated Libya was responsible for around 0.6% of the global Bitcoin hash rate, the highest share in the Arab world and Africa.
Since then, raids have revealed how deep the activity runs. In April 2024, security forces in Benghazi seized more than 1,000 devices from a single hub thought to be earning about $45,000 a month.
A year earlier, authorities arrested 50 Chinese nationals and reportedly confiscated around 100,000 devices in one of the continent’s largest crypto busts.
In late 2025, prosecutors secured three-year prison sentences against nine people who had turned a Zliten steel factory into a covert mining farm (the inspiration for this article).
Legal experts quoted in local media say operators are gambling that rock-bottom electricity prices and fragmented governance will keep them one step ahead. Even if a few large farms are taken down, thousands of smaller rigs scattered across homes and workshops are far harder to find and collectively add up to a serious load on the grid.
Banned, yet not exactly illegal
On paper, Libya is a country where Bitcoin should not exist at all. In 2018, the Central Bank of Libya (CBL) issued a public warning that “virtual currencies such as Bitcoin are illegal in Libya” and that anyone using or trading them would have no legal protection, citing risks of money laundering and terrorism financing.
Seven years later, however, there is still no dedicated law that clearly outlaws or licenses crypto mining. As legal expert Nadia Mohammed told The New Arab, Libyan law has not explicitly criminalized mining itself. Instead, miners are usually prosecuted for what surrounds it: illegal electricity consumption, importing banned equipment or using proceeds for illicit purposes.
The state has tried to close some gaps. A 2022 Ministry of Economy decree prohibits the import of mining hardware, yet machines continue to enter via grey and smuggling routes.
The country’s cybercrime law goes further by defining cryptocurrency as “a monetary value stored on an electronic medium… not linked to a bank account,” effectively acknowledging digital assets without stating whether mining them is lawful.
That ambiguity stands in contrast to regional peers. Algeria has moved to a blanket criminalization of crypto use, trading and mining, while Iran operates a patchwork of licensing and periodic crackdowns tied to its subsidized electricity and power shortages.
For Libya, the result is classic regulatory arbitrage. The activity is risky and frowned upon but not clearly banned, making it extremely attractive to miners willing to operate in the shadows.
When miners and hospitals share the same grid
Libya’s Bitcoin boom is plugged into the same fragile grid that keeps hospitals, schools and homes running, often just barely. Before 2022, parts of the country saw blackouts lasting up to 18 hours a day, as war damage, cable theft and chronic underinvestment left demand far ahead of reliable supply.
Into that system, illegal mining farms add a constant, energy-hungry load. Estimates cited by Libyan officials and regional analysts suggest that, at its peak, crypto mining was consuming roughly 2% of national electricity output, about 0.855 TWh a year.
The New Arab notes that this is power effectively diverted from hospitals, schools and ordinary households in a country where many people are already used to planning their day around sudden outages.
Officials have sometimes put eye-catching numbers on individual operations, claiming that large farms can draw 1,000-1,500 megawatts, the equivalent of several mid-sized cities’ demand. Those figures may be exaggerated, but they reflect a real concern within the electricity company: “Always-on” mining loads can undo recent improvements and push the network back toward rolling blackouts, especially in summer.
There is also a broader resource story. Commentators link the crypto crackdown to a wider energy and water crisis, where subsidized fuel, illegal connections and climate stress already strain the system.
Against that backdrop, every story about clandestine farms turning cheap, subsidized power into private Bitcoin income risks deepening public resentment, particularly when people are left in the dark while the rigs keep running.
Regulate, tax or stamp it out?
Libyan policymakers are now split over what to do with an industry that clearly exists, clearly consumes public resources but technically lives in a legal vacuum.
Economists quoted in local and regional media argue that the state should stop pretending mining does not exist and instead license, meter and tax it. They point to Decree 333 from the Ministry of Economy, which banned the import of mining equipment, as proof that authorities already recognize the sector’s scale and suggest that a regulated industry could bring in foreign currency and create jobs for young Libyans.
Bankers and compliance officers take the opposite view. For them, mining is too tightly bound up with electricity theft, smuggling routes and money laundering risks to be safely normalized.
Unity Bank’s systems director has called for even tougher rules from the Central Bank, warning that rapidly growing crypto use — an estimated 54,000 Libyans, or 1.3% of the population, already holding crypto in 2022 — is outpacing existing safeguards.
That debate extends beyond Libya. Across parts of the Middle East, Africa and Central Asia, the same formula appears again and again: cheap energy, weak institutions and a hungry mining industry.
Analysts at CSIS and EMURGO Africa note that without credible regulation and realistic energy pricing, mining can deepen power crises and complicate relationships with lenders like the International Monetary Fund, even if it looks like easy money on paper.
For Libya, the real test is whether it can move from ad hoc raids and import bans to a clear choice: either integrate mining into its energy and financial strategy or shut it down in a way that actually sticks.
