Anthropic releases third version of Responsible Scaling Policy, separating company commitments from industry-wide recommendations after 2.5 years of testing.
Anthropic has released the third iteration of its Responsible Scaling Policy, marking a significant restructuring of how the AI company approaches catastrophic risk mitigation after two and a half years of real-world implementation.
The update, published February 24, 2026, introduces three major changes: a clear separation between what Anthropic can achieve alone versus what requires industry-wide action, a new Frontier Safety Roadmap with public accountability metrics, and mandatory external review of Risk Reports under certain conditions.
What Actually Changed
The most notable shift? Anthropic is now openly admitting that some safety measures simply cannot be implemented by a single company. The previous RSP’s higher-tier safeguards (ASL-4 and beyond) were left intentionally vague—turns out that wasn’t just caution, it was because achieving them unilaterally may be impossible.
A RAND report cited by Anthropic states that “SL5” security standards aimed at stopping top-tier cyber threats are “currently not possible” and “will likely require assistance from the national security community.”
Rather than water down these requirements to make compliance easy, Anthropic chose to restructure entirely. The new RSP now explicitly maps out two tracks: commitments the company will meet regardless of external factors, and recommendations it believes the entire AI industry needs to adopt.
The Honest Assessment
Anthropic’s post-mortem on RSP versions 1 and 2 is refreshingly candid. What worked: the policy forced internal teams to treat safety as a launch requirement, and competitors like OpenAI and Google DeepMind adopted similar frameworks within months. ASL-3 safeguards were successfully activated in May 2025.
What didn’t work: capability thresholds proved far more ambiguous than anticipated. Biological risk assessment provides a telling example—models now pass most quick tests, making it hard to argue risks are low, but results aren’t definitive enough to prove risks are high either. By the time wet-lab trials complete, more powerful models have already shipped.
The political environment hasn’t helped. Federal safety-oriented discussions have stalled as policy focus shifted toward AI competitiveness and economic growth.
New Accountability Mechanisms
The Frontier Safety Roadmap introduces specific, publicly-graded goals including “moonshot R&D” projects for information security, automated red-teaming systems that exceed current bug bounty contributions, and comprehensive records of all critical AI development activities—analyzed by AI for insider threats.
Risk Reports will publish every 3-6 months, explaining how capabilities, threat models, and mitigations fit together. External reviewers with “unredacted or minimally-redacted access” will publicly critique Anthropic’s reasoning.
The company is already running pilots despite current models not yet triggering the external review requirement.
Industry Implications
This restructuring arrives as AI governance frameworks face increasing scrutiny. California’s SB 53, New York’s RAISE Act, and the EU AI Act’s Codes of Practice have all begun requiring frontier developers to publish catastrophic risk frameworks—requirements Anthropic addresses through its existing Frontier Compliance Framework.
Whether competitors follow Anthropic’s lead on separating unilateral commitments from industry recommendations remains to be seen. The approach essentially acknowledges that voluntary self-regulation has limits, while positioning the company to advocate for coordinated government action without appearing to demand rules it can’t follow itself.
For the broader AI sector, Anthropic’s transparent acknowledgment of what single companies cannot achieve alone may prove more influential than the technical policy details themselves.
Intercontinental Exchange (ICE)’s blockchain-based initiative is about upgrading market infrastructure, not adopting cryptocurrencies. It intends to use blockchain for improving settlement, reconciliation and collateral efficiency.
Onchain delivery-vs.-payment settlement could significantly reduce counterparty risk and free up capital tied up in margins. It also shifts risk toward real-time liquidity needs and continuous funding requirements.
While 24/7 trading may expand global access, it does not necessarily solve deeper market-structure issues. It could introduce liquidity fragmentation, wider spreads and noisier price discovery during low-volume periods.
Stablecoins in this model act as institutional settlement rails rather than speculative assets. Their use inside regulated markets will require bank-grade custody, liquidity and compliance safeguards.
When Intercontinental Exchange (ICE), the parent company of the New York Stock Exchange (NYSE), announced it was developing a blockchain-based platform for tokenized securities, some observers interpreted it as traditional finance fully integrating crypto.
However, the initiative is just a strategic redesign of market infrastructure. The focus is on utilizing distributed ledgers to optimize collateral management and eliminate delays in legacy settlement systems.
ICE has indicated that the platform would enable 24/7 trading, incorporate onchain settlement elements, support stablecoin-based funding and feature tokenized versions of regulated securities, subject to regulatory approval. If rolled out at scale, this would represent one of the most significant efforts by a major exchange operator to weave blockchain technology into market operations.
This article explores how the NYSE is integrating blockchain to segregate execution from settlement, why onchain settlement becomes critical, the importance of 24/7 trading and stablecoins as institutional funding rails. It discusses how tokenization is becoming a part of mainstream finance, hurdles in the integration of blockchain technology with legacy systems and issues regarding adaptation.
How the NYSE is using blockchain technology to separate execution from settlement
The platform maintains a clear separation between trading and settlement. ICE plans to continue using the existing NYSE Pillar matching engine, which already manages high-volume equity trading, as the primary trading layer. Blockchain technology would primarily enhance post-trade processes, such as settlement, record-keeping and reconciliation.
This distinction is important, as inefficiencies in financial markets generally stem not from price discovery during trading but from delays and complexities in clearing, settlement, cross-party reconciliation and collateral handling.
Tokenized securities refer to regulated assets like stocks or exchange-traded funds (ETFs) whose ownership is recorded on a blockchain for greater efficiency. The underlying legal rights continue to be governed by existing securities laws and corporate regulations.
Why onchain settlement likely matters more than 24/7 trading
Even with faster settlement cycles in US equities, most trades still depend on multiple intermediaries, such as clearinghouses, custodians and agents, that reconcile records across parties. This creates layers of operational complexity and lingering counterparty risk during the settlement window.
Onchain settlement changes this fundamentally by enabling near-simultaneous transfer of ownership and payment on a shared, immutable ledger. This process, also called delivery-vs.-payment (DvP), sharply reduces counterparty exposure and minimizes reconciliation errors. DvP could free up capital tied up in margins or buffers for more productive uses. It tackles the core inefficiencies and risks in post-trade infrastructure.
Faster settlement, however, is not without trade-offs. It eliminates the time buffers that currently allow markets to resolve errors, unwind failed trades or handle liquidity squeezes. Risk simply shifts toward real-time liquidity demands, requiring participants to fund positions continuously rather than leaning on intraday credit. From a broader view, this redistributes rather than removes systemic risk.
What 24/7 trading may (and may not) achieve
Continuous trading appeals to global investors familiar with round-the-clock crypto or futures markets. For US equities, extended hours already exist, but they typically feature lower liquidity, wider spreads and higher volatility compared with core sessions.
Fully 24/7 markets could offer better access for international participants and potentially smoother reactions to off-hour news. Yet several concerns remain:
Liquidity could thin out during quieter periods, forcing market makers to widen quotes or increase trading costs.
Overnight or low-volume trading might amplify price swings, particularly around major global events.
Price discovery could stay concentrated in traditional hours, with off-hours reflecting noisier or less representative signals rather than true efficiency gains.
Whether continuous trading truly enhances market quality or just spreads activity more thinly across time zones is still an open question.
Onchain settlement addresses deeper structural frictions in how trades are finalized, reducing risk and unlocking efficiency, while 24/7 trading mainly extends availability without necessarily fixing those underlying issues.
Did you know? Some stock exchanges already use microsecond-level timestamp synchronization from atomic clocks to track trade sequences. This means blockchain systems must integrate with ultra-precise time standards to avoid disputes over transaction ordering.
Stablecoins as institutional funding rails, not speculative plays
A key element in ICE’s proposal is the use of stablecoins to handle the cash side of trades. This would let funds settle 24/7, aligning with any move toward continuous securities trading and bypassing traditional bank-hour limitations. The process results in quicker, lower-friction movement of cash across borders and between counterparties.
If stablecoins are embedded in regulated market infrastructure, they are certain to face stringent compliance requirements. These include real-time compliance monitoring, high-grade custody arrangements, robust liquidity buffers and other safeguards on par with traditional settlement banks.
Stablecoins function strictly as wholesale settlement tools for institutions, not as retail payment or speculative instruments.
Tokenization steadily moving into mainstream finance
The NYSE-related efforts are part of a broader trend. Major asset managers, banks and market infrastructure providers are actively piloting or seeking approval to tokenize conventional assets. These include US Treasury bills, money market fund shares, ETF units and similar instruments.
Regulatory filings demonstrate that tokenization is expanding into areas traditionally seen as conservative and infrastructure-heavy. The objective is operational efficiency rather than innovation for its own sake. Advantages include accelerated settlement, programmable conditions, reduced manual reconciliation and potentially wider participation.
If tokenized versions of multiple asset classes become commonplace, post-trade processes could converge toward shared, interoperable ledger architectures. This would reduce overlap and duplication across today’s fragmented ecosystem of clearinghouses, custodians, transfer agents and registrars. However, to facilitate such an outcome, institutions and regulators need to align on standards, interoperability and risk controls.
Did you know? In traditional markets, a single stock trade can trigger a string of back-office messages between brokers, custodians and clearing agents, which is a key reason financial firms spend billions annually on post-trade IT systems.
Custody, records and legal ownership still the hardest hurdles
The biggest barrier to tokenized markets isn’t the blockchain technology itself. There is legal ambiguity regarding ownership. Traditional finance relies on clear, well-established rules for beneficial ownership, shareholder rights, voting, dividends and who maintains the definitive record.
In a tokenized world, regulators will need to decide what counts as the authoritative source of truth, whether it is the onchain ledger, the transfer agent’s registry, the broker-dealer’s books or some hybrid. Each choice affects investor protections, how corporate actions are handled, how disputes are resolved and who bears liability.
Custody adds another layer of difficulty. Even in permissioned, institutional-grade blockchains, managing private keys or equivalent controls requires robust answers on asset segregation, key recovery in case of loss, bankruptcy remoteness and operational continuity. These issues demand new frameworks that match or exceed existing standards.
These legal and operational questions are likely to slow adoption more than any technical limitations.
Clearinghouses and the shift to real-time risk management
ICE has also indicated interest in bringing tokenized deposits or similar mechanisms into clearinghouse operations. It has suggested integrating blockchain-based settlement tools with clearing infrastructure.
Clearinghouses have a role to play in neutralizing counterparty risk. Shorter or near-instant settlement windows can shrink exposure periods and lower overall risk. However, they also result in less time to detect and respond to defaults, collateral deficiencies or sudden liquidity stress.
This pushes clearing participants and operators toward continuous position monitoring, automated intraday margin calls, dynamic collateral valuation and well-tested playbooks for outages, cyber events or technology failures.
From a regulatory perspective, resilience in always-on, 24/7 environments becomes critical. Traditional markets have scheduled downtime. Continuous systems cannot afford unplanned interruptions without risking cascading outages.
Did you know? The NYSE once shortened its trading day during World War I and even shut down completely for four months in 1914. This shows that market “hours” have always evolved with technology, geopolitics and infrastructure limits.
Who stands to gain and who might need to adapt
If onchain market infrastructure demonstrates reliability and receives regulatory approval, several participants could see meaningful advantages:
Global investors who want uninterrupted access to trading and settlement
Institutions that could unlock more efficient use of collateral and reduce trapped capital
Issuers interested in streamlined distribution channels and potentially broader reach.
On the flip side, intermediaries whose revenues rely heavily on today’s multi-step settlement workflows may face strong pressure to evolve or risk losing relevance. These include clearing agents, custodians and certain reconciliation services. Compliance teams would also shift from periodic, market-hours reporting to continuous oversight, adding complexity in the short term.
Whether these operational savings translate into lower costs for retail and institutional end investors depends on the level of efficiency passed through by exchanges, clearinghouses and other infrastructure providers.
A modernization effort, not a leap into crypto
The NYSE’s work on blockchain-based systems is an attempt to upgrade core financial infrastructure, including faster settlement, better collateral mobility and improved market access. In this case, blockchain serves as a technology layer for post-trade operations, not as an asset class. Success hinges on meeting the stringent requirements of regulated markets, including proven scalability, high operational resilience, full compliance alignment and broad institutional buy-in.
The success of this endeavor by the NYSE depends on several parameters, such as regulatory approvals, operational reliability and institutional willingness to migrate. The initiative signals that traditional exchanges are no longer treating tokenization as an experimental side project. Instead, they are evaluating whether blockchain-based systems can support the scale, stability and compliance demands of mainstream financial markets. This is a much higher bar than most crypto-native platforms have faced.
Cointelegraph maintains full editorial independence. The selection, commissioning and publication of Features and Magazine content are not influenced by advertisers, partners or commercial relationships.
Crypto payment provider Oobit has launched crypto-to-bank transfers that settle into bank accounts via local payment rails, expanding its app beyond in-store spending and peer-to-peer (P2P) transfers.
In an announcement shared with Cointelegraph, Oobit said users could send supported digital assets from self-custody wallets and have funds deposited into bank accounts through networks including the Single Euro Payments Area (SEPA) in Europe, the Automated Clearing House (ACH) in the United States and Mexico’s Sistema de Pagos Electrónicos Interbancarios (SPEI).
Settlement currencies include US dollars, euros, Mexican pesos and Philippine pesos, while supported assets include Bitcoin (BTC), Ether (ETH) and a range of stablecoins such as Tether (USDT), USDC (USDC), EURC and EURR, along with other tokens including XRP (XRP), BNB (BNB), Solana (SOL), Cardano (ADA) and Dogecoin (DOGE).
Oobit said that users could see the crypto amount leaving their wallet and the fiat equivalent arriving in the recipient’s account before confirming the transactions.
It described the system as routing transactions through local payment rails instead of traditional correspondent banking channels.
Unlike checkout-based providers that redirect users to third-party interfaces, Oobit said the transfer flow is embedded natively inside its app, without redirecting users to an external off-ramp provider.
Crypto off-ramps heating up
The rollout highlights growing competition in crypto off-ramping, where exchanges and fintech companies allow users to convert digital assets into fiat deposits.
Oobit’s stated differentiator is its focus on self-custody wallets, positioning the app as a payments layer that connects onchain assets to bank accounts without requiring users to hold funds on a centralized exchange.
DTR tie-up and Bakkt acquisition
Oobit says that the feature is powered by infrastructure from Distributed Technologies Research (DTR), which connects Oobit’s wallet interface to domestic payment networks.
DTR recently entered into an agreement to be acquired by Bakkt, a US-listed digital asset platform launched by the Intercontinental Exchange (ICE) in 2018.
Akshay Naheta, DTR founder and CEO of Bakkt, said in the release that infrastructure connecting digital asset platforms with traditional financial systems was “foundational to broader adoption.”
Amram Adar, co-founder and CEO of Oobit, told Cointelegraph the company’s model differs from traditional off-ramp providers in both custody structure and user flow. “The end-user relationship, wallet custody and transaction experience remain entirely within Oobit,” Adar said.
According to Adar, user funds are initially held within Oobit’s wallet infrastructure. When a bank transfer is initiated, funds are debited and transferred to DTR strictly for payout execution. DTR forwards the funds to the recipient bank account and does not hold funds for investment or discretionary purposes.
Oobit performs the initial crypto-to-USD conversion, after which the USD-equivalent value is transferred in USDT to DTR. DTR then executes the foreign exchange conversion into local fiat currency before settlement into the designated bank account, Adar said.
Oobit has previously disclosed backing from Tether, the issuer of USDT, linking the app to the largest stablecoin operator by market capitalization.
Adar said the service is fully live across all countries supported by DTR, with no pilot corridors currently in place. US dollar transfers are limited to domestic US flows.
Minimum transfers range from a roughly 10 euro ($11.70) to $100 equivalent, depending on the corridor, while maximum limits can reach about a $50,000 equivalent.
Total fees consist of components charged by both Oobit and DTR. Oobit applies the greater of a fixed fee, currently contemplated at $1, or a 1% transaction fee, along with an estimated 0.5% spread on crypto-to-USD conversions.
DTR applies either a fixed fee, generally between about 0.65 cents and 2 euro depending on the currency, or a percentage-based fee ranging from about 0.65% to 1%, according to the company.
The integration comes as banks and fintech firms deepen efforts to embed blockchain-based assets into regulated payment systems.
Cointelegraph is committed to independent, transparent journalism. This news article is produced in accordance with Cointelegraph’s Editorial Policy and aims to provide accurate and timely information. Readers are encouraged to verify information independently. Read our Editorial Policy https://cointelegraph.com/editorial-policy
Bitcoin price dropped 25% in 2022 and 50% in 2018 after similar on-chain loss signals, a warning sign for BTC’s next move.
Bitcoin (BTC) traders are selling at a loss for the first time since 2022, raising odds that the biggest cryptocurrency’s ongoing price correction may deepen in the coming weeks.
Key takeaways:
Bitcoin is witnessing loss-driven selling that has historically lasted six months or more.
These signals surfaced during previous bear markets, preceding sharp downtrends each time.
The drop indicated that traders were dumping their BTC holdings at a loss, which is often linked to panic selling, margin pressure, or broader risk-off conditions.
BTC realized profit/loss ratio (90-day moving average). Source: Glassnode
Historically, breaks below 1 preceded at least six months of loss realization, according to on-chain data resource Glassnode. Meanwhile, a move back above 1 usually suggests that selling pressure is easing.
Traders often sell at a loss when they expect the downtrend to continue. In prior bear markets, loss-taking typically accelerated midway through the cycle, followed by more downside in Bitcoin’s price.
During the 2022 bear market, for instance, BTC declined 25% six months after its realized profit/loss ratio dropped below 1. In 2018, it plunged by over 50% in five months under similar conditions, as shown below.
BTC realized profit/loss ratio (90-day moving average). Source: Glassnode
The BTC price may continue its downtrend for another five months or more if history repeats. That will confirm “a full transition into an excess loss-realization regime,” Glassnode wrote.
Bitcoin price may bottom around $44,000
Bitcoin’s rising loss-realization may, therefore, drag the BTC price into its “extreme low” valuation zones.
These lows exist within the MVRV Pricing Bands metric, which maps where Bitcoin reaches extreme unrealized profit or loss zones. Historically, its lowest band (the blue line) has coincided with Bitcoin bear market bottoms.
BTC MVRV pricing bands. Source: Glassnode
As of February, the extreme low was around $43,760, a potential downside target by August if BTC’s price decline continue further.
This article does not contain investment advice or recommendations. Every investment and trading move involves risk, and readers should conduct their own research when making a decision. While we strive to provide accurate and timely information, Cointelegraph does not guarantee the accuracy, completeness, or reliability of any information in this article. This article may contain forward-looking statements that are subject to risks and uncertainties. Cointelegraph will not be liable for any loss or damage arising from your reliance on this information.
LDO trades at oversold RSI levels of 27, presenting potential bounce opportunity toward $0.35 resistance as Lido DAO shows signs of bottoming near critical support zones.
While specific analyst predictions are limited for the current market conditions, historical forecasts from late December 2025 provide some context. CoinCodex had projected LDO reaching $0.65 by early January 2026, while MEXC News suggested upside potential to the $0.75-$0.85 range within 30 days based on bullish MACD signals and oversold recovery opportunities.
However, these earlier predictions have not materialized as expected, with LDO currently trading significantly below those targets at $0.29. According to on-chain data, the token has experienced sustained selling pressure that has pushed it into deeply oversold territory.
LDO Technical Analysis Breakdown
The current technical landscape for Lido DAO presents a mixed but potentially constructive picture for contrarian investors. The RSI reading of 27.12 indicates severely oversold conditions, historically a zone where bounces often occur.
LDO’s position relative to its Bollinger Bands tells a compelling story. Trading with a %B position of -0.0292, the token sits just below the lower Bollinger Band at $0.30, suggesting potential mean reversion toward the middle band at $0.34.
The moving average structure remains bearish across all timeframes, with LDO trading below its 7-day SMA ($0.32), 20-day SMA ($0.34), 50-day SMA ($0.46), and significantly below its 200-day SMA ($0.82). This creates a clear resistance staircase that any recovery must navigate.
MACD momentum indicators show a flatlining histogram at 0.0000, suggesting the recent selling momentum may be exhausting itself. The Stochastic oscillator at 5.72 (%K) reinforces the oversold narrative, indicating potential for a relief rally.
Lido DAO Price Targets: Bull vs Bear Case
Bullish Scenario
In an optimistic Lido DAO forecast, LDO could target the immediate resistance at $0.31 within the next week, representing a 7% upside from current levels. This move would require sustained buying interest and a break above the recent trading range high.
The medium-term bullish target sits at $0.35, aligning with the area between the 20-day EMA ($0.33) and the upper Bollinger Band ($0.37). A successful reclaim of this zone would signal a potential trend reversal and could open the door for further gains toward $0.46 (50-day SMA).
For this LDO price prediction to materialize, we need to see RSI break above 30, confirming an exit from oversold conditions, and MACD histogram turning positive.
Bearish Scenario
The bearish case for Lido DAO centers around a breakdown below the current support confluence at $0.29. This level represents both immediate support and the recent intraday low, making it technically significant.
A sustained break below $0.29 could trigger additional selling toward the strong support level, also at $0.29 according to the technical data. Given the limited downside support levels identified, any breakdown could potentially test psychological levels around $0.25.
The bearish scenario would be confirmed by RSI remaining below 30 for extended periods and MACD histogram turning more negative.
Should You Buy LDO? Entry Strategy
For traders considering LDO positions, the current oversold conditions present both opportunity and risk. A prudent entry strategy would involve waiting for initial signs of stabilization above $0.29 before initiating positions.
Conservative traders might wait for a break above $0.31 (immediate resistance) with volume confirmation before entering, targeting the $0.34-$0.35 range. This approach sacrifices some potential upside but reduces the risk of catching a falling knife.
Stop-loss levels should be placed below $0.28, representing approximately 3-4% downside risk from current levels. Position sizing should account for LDO’s daily ATR of $0.02, indicating moderate intraday volatility.
Risk management becomes crucial given the token’s position below all major moving averages. Consider scaling into positions rather than committing full size immediately.
Conclusion
This LDO price prediction suggests cautious optimism based on oversold technical conditions. The combination of RSI at 27.12 and positioning below Bollinger Bands indicates potential for a relief rally toward $0.31-$0.35 over the coming weeks.
However, the broader trend remains bearish with LDO trading significantly below all moving averages. Any recovery will likely face substantial resistance, making this more of a tactical bounce opportunity rather than a major trend reversal.
Confidence level: Moderate (60%) for the short-term bounce to $0.31, Lower (40%) for sustained recovery above $0.35.
Disclaimer: Cryptocurrency price predictions are speculative and subject to extreme volatility. This analysis is for informational purposes only and should not be considered financial advice. Always conduct your own research and consider your risk tolerance before making investment decisions.
HBAR trades at $0.09 with RSI at 42.90 showing neutral momentum. Technical analysis suggests potential test of $0.10-$0.11 resistance zone within 4 weeks.
Hedera (HBAR) is currently trading at $0.093338, down 0.03% from yesterday’s close, as the token consolidates within a tight range. With RSI indicators showing neutral momentum and mixed technical signals, our HBAR price prediction focuses on key resistance and support levels that will determine the next directional move.
While specific analyst predictions are limited for the past 24 hours, recent technical commentary from Blockchain.News on February 23rd noted that “HBAR trades at $0.10 with RSI at 45.96 signaling neutral momentum. Technical analysis suggests potential test of $0.11 resistance with $0.09 support holding key.”
This assessment aligns with current on-chain data showing HBAR maintaining stability above the $0.09 psychological support level. According to platform data, the token has established a clear trading range with defined technical boundaries that traders are closely monitoring.
HBAR Technical Analysis Breakdown
The current technical picture for Hedera presents a neutral-to-slightly-bearish setup based on key momentum indicators:
RSI Analysis: At 42.90, HBAR’s RSI sits in neutral territory, neither oversold nor overbought. This reading suggests limited directional pressure in the immediate term, supporting our Hedera forecast of continued consolidation.
MACD Signals: The MACD histogram at 0.0000 indicates minimal momentum, while the MACD line at -0.0012 remains slightly below the signal line. This bearish momentum divergence suggests buyers lack conviction at current levels.
Moving Average Structure: All short-term moving averages (SMA 7, 20, 50, and EMA 12, 26) converge at $0.10, creating a significant resistance cluster. The 200-day SMA at $0.16 remains well above current price action, indicating the longer-term trend requires substantial recovery.
Bollinger Bands: HBAR trades at 0.42 position within the bands, with the upper band at $0.11 and lower band at $0.08. This positioning suggests room for movement in either direction without reaching extreme levels.
Hedera Price Targets: Bull vs Bear Case
Bullish Scenario
For an upside breakout in our HBAR price prediction, the token needs to decisively break above the $0.10 resistance cluster where multiple moving averages converge. A successful breach would target the Bollinger Band upper limit at $0.11, representing a 17% gain from current levels.
Technical confirmation for this bullish scenario would require:
– Daily close above $0.10 with volume expansion
– RSI moving above 50 to confirm momentum shift
– MACD histogram turning positive
The 24-hour high of $0.09647 shows recent rejection at these levels, making a breakout challenging without fresh catalysts.
Bearish Scenario
Downside risks center on the $0.09 support level, which aligns with both the pivot point and immediate support identified in technical analysis. A break below this level could trigger selling toward the Bollinger Band lower boundary at $0.08, representing a 13% decline.
Key risk factors include:
– MACD remaining in bearish territory
– Low trading volume of $9.68 million suggesting limited buyer interest
– Broader crypto market weakness potentially pressuring altcoins
The daily ATR of $0.01 indicates relatively low volatility, suggesting any moves may be gradual rather than sharp.
Should You Buy HBAR? Entry Strategy
Based on our Hedera forecast, the current price action offers defined risk parameters for strategic entries:
Conservative Entry: Wait for a pullback to $0.092-$0.093 range with RSI testing oversold levels below 40. This approach maximizes risk-reward ratio given the neutral technical setup.
Aggressive Entry: Current levels around $0.093 offer reasonable entry with tight stop-loss at $0.089 (below daily low and support cluster). Target initial resistance at $0.096-$0.10.
Stop-Loss Levels: Place stops below $0.089 to limit downside risk to approximately 5%. This level represents a break of both technical support and the recent trading range.
Risk management remains crucial given the mixed technical signals and limited momentum in either direction.
Conclusion
Our HBAR price prediction anticipates continued consolidation within the $0.09-$0.11 range over the next month, with a slight bias toward testing the upper boundary. The neutral RSI reading and lack of strong momentum suggest patience is required for clearer directional signals.
While the technical setup doesn’t favor immediate explosive moves, the defined support and resistance levels provide clear parameters for risk management. Traders should monitor volume expansion and RSI momentum shifts for confirmation of any breakout attempts.
Disclaimer: Cryptocurrency price predictions involve significant risk and uncertainty. This analysis is for informational purposes only and should not be considered financial advice. Always conduct your own research and consider your risk tolerance before making investment decisions.
Russian authorities have opened a criminal investigation into Telegram co-founder and CEO Pavel Durov, according to state media reports.
Durov is being investigated in Russia as part of a criminal case involving allegations of facilitation of terrorist activities, official state publication Rossiyskaya Gazeta reported on Tuesday, citing the Federal Security Service (FSB).
Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov reportedly confirmed the investigation, saying the news reports were based on materials from the FSB, which was “carrying out its functions.”
The latest news adds to an ongoing pressure campaign against Telegram in Russia since state media regulator Roskomnadzor tightened messenger restrictions in early February.
Telegram had not responded to the reports by the time of publication. Cointelegraph contacted Telegram for comment but did not immediately receive a response.
Telegram refuses to cooperate with Russian authorities
The reported investigation builds on Telegram’s refusal to comply with Roskomnadzor’s demands to remove what it said was extremist-linked content.
According to the state-linked Komsomolskaya Pravda, Telegram has not removed almost 155,000 channels, chats and bots flagged for illegal or harmful content locally.
The largest categories include 104,093 channels containing false information, 10,598 promoting extremism, 4,168 justifying extremist activity and 3,771 related to drugs.
The investigation could lead to the entire platform being labeled as extremist, former Russian presidential internet adviser German Klimenko reportedly warned. He said that could criminalize payments for Telegram Premium subscriptions and advertising on the platform.
Durov accuses Russia of attacking Telegram to promote state-owned messenger
Durov has previously said the pressure is aimed at steering users toward a new state-backed messenger called MAX.
He added that other countries, including Iran, have attempted similar strategies and failed. “Despite the ban, most Iranians still use Telegram and prefer it to surveilled apps,” Durov wrote on his Telegram channel on Feb. 10.
“Restricting citizens’ freedom is never the right answer. Telegram stands for freedom of speech and privacy, no matter the pressure,” Durov added.
The Russian investigation comes as Durov remains under scrutiny abroad. Durov is also part of an ongoing inquiry in France since his arrest in August 2024.
Cointelegraph is committed to independent, transparent journalism. This news article is produced in accordance with Cointelegraph’s Editorial Policy and aims to provide accurate and timely information. Readers are encouraged to verify information independently. Read our Editorial Policy https://cointelegraph.com/editorial-policy
Bitcoin’s (BTC) weakness extended into the weekly open as major stocks sold off in response to US President Donald Trump’s threat to enforce a 15% global tariff after the Supreme Court ruled that his IEEPA tariffs were illegal.
Market sentiment remains fragile, as the Crypto Fear & Greed Index at 5 out of 100 remains in the “extreme fear” zone. Pseudonymous trader and investor BitcoinHyper said in a post on X that the index has been in the extreme fear zone for nearly three weeks, the longest since 2022.
Traders on the prediction market Polymarket have increased the odds of BTC falling below $55,000 to 72%. The prediction market expectations matches several analysts and financial institutions who expect a fall near or below $55,000.
Crypto market data daily view. Source: TradingView
While a bottom may not have formed, expectations are that BTC will eventually recover and move higher. Economist Timothy Peterson said in a post on X that BTC has been positive 50% of the time in the past 24 months. Using a statistical model, Peterson estimated that there is an 88% chance that BTC “will be higher 10 months from now.”
Could buyers defend the support levels in BTC and the major altcoins? Let’s analyze the charts of the top 10 cryptocurrencies to find out.
S&P 500 Index price prediction
The S&P 500 Index (SPX) has been trading between 6,775 and 7,002 for several days, indicating a balance between supply and demand.
The flat moving averages and the relative strength index (RSI) near the midpoint do not give a clear advantage either to the bulls or the bears. Buyers will have to achieve a close above the 7,002 resistance to signal the resumption of the uptrend. The index may then ascend to the 7,290 level.
This bullish view will be invalidated in the near term if the price turns down and breaks below the 6,775 level. The index may then tumble to the solid support at the 6,550 level.
US Dollar Index price prediction
The US Dollar Index (DXY) turned down from the 50-day simple moving average (97.95) on Friday, indicating that the bears are aggressively defending the level.
Sellers are attempting to sink and maintain the index below the 20-day exponential moving average (97.48). If they manage to do that, the index might slide to the 96.21 to 95.55 support zone.
Buyers are likely to have other plans. They will attempt to halt the pullback and push the price above the 50-day SMA. If they can pull it off, the index may jump toward the 99.50 level and subsequently to the 100.54 resistance.
Bitcoin price prediction
BTC fell below the $65,118 support on Monday, but the bulls are attempting to defend the level on a closing basis.
Any relief rally is expected to face selling at the 20-day EMA ($70,185). If the Bitcoin price turns down sharply from the 20-day EMA, it increases the likelihood of a drop to the vital $60,000 support. Buyers will have to defend the $60,000 level with all their might, as a break below it may sink the BTC/USDT pair to $52,500.
Buyers will have to propel the price above the 20-day EMA to signal demand at lower levels. The pair may then march to the $74,508 level, where the bears are again likely to pose a strong challenge.
Ether price prediction
Ether (ETH) fell below the nearby support at $1,897 on Monday, opening the doors for a retest of the $1,750 level.
The downsloping moving averages and the RSI near the oversold territory heighten the risk of a breakdown. If the $1,750 level is taken out, the ETH/USDT pair may resume the downtrend toward the next support at $1,537.
Contrarily, if the Ether price turns up sharply from $1,750, it suggests demand at lower levels. That may keep the pair inside the $1,750 to $2,111 range for a while longer. A close above $2,111 will be the first sign of strength, clearing the path for a rally to the 50-day SMA ($2,593).
XRP price prediction
XRP (XRP) has been trading between the support line of the descending channel pattern and the 20-day EMA ($1.47) for the past few days.
The downsloping 20-day EMA and the RSI in the negative territory indicate that the bears remain in control. If the support line cracks, the XRP/USDT pair may retest the Feb. 6 low of $1.11. A break and close below the $1.11 level may extend the decline to psychological support at $1.
Buyers have an uphill task ahead of them. They will have to swiftly propel the XRP price above the downtrend line to signal a potential trend change.
BNB price prediction
BNB (BNB) fell below the immediate support at $587 on Monday, but the long tail on the candlestick shows buying at lower levels.
The bulls will attempt to start a recovery, which is expected to face selling at the 20-day EMA ($651). If the price turns down from the 20-day EMA, the bears will again strive to pull the BNB/USDT pair below the $570 level. If they manage to do that, the BNB price may start the next leg of the downtrend to psychological support at $500.
Contrary to this assumption, if buyers pierce the 20-day EMA, the pair may rally to the breakdown level of $730.
Solana price prediction
The failure of the bulls to push Solana (SOL) to the breakdown level of $95 signals that the bears are active at higher levels.
Sellers will attempt to strengthen their position by pulling the Solana price below the $76 level. If they succeed, the SOL/USDT pair may fall to the Feb. 6 low of $67, which is a critical support to watch out for. If the level gives way, the pair may slump to $60.
Any relief rally is expected to face resistance at the 20-day EMA and then at the $95 level. A close above the $95 level suggests that the sellers are losing their grip. The pair may then surge to $117.
The bulls are expected to fiercely defend the $0.08 level, as the failure to do so may start the next leg of the downward spiral toward $0.06.
The 20-day EMA remains the immediate near-term resistance to watch out for. A close above the 20-day EMA will be the first sign that the selling pressure is reducing. The DOGE/USDT pair may then ascend to the breakdown level of $0.12, where the bears are expected to mount a strong defense.
Bitcoin Cash price prediction
Buyers pushed Bitcoin Cash (BCH) above the 50-day SMA ($571) on Sunday but could not sustain the higher levels.
The bears sold aggressively and have pulled the Bitcoin Cash price below the 20-day EMA ($551). If the price maintains below $538, the BCH/USDT pair might plummet to the strong support at $500. Buyers are expected to aggressively defend the $500 level, as a close below it may sink the pair to $443.
Buyers will have to drive and maintain the price above the 50-day SMA to signal strength. The pair may then climb to $600.
Cardano price prediction
Despite repeated attempts, buyers failed to push and maintain Cardano (ADA) above the 20-day EMA ($0.28) in the past few days.
That increases the likelihood of a drop to the support line of the descending channel pattern. If the price rebounds off the support line and breaks above the 20-day EMA, it suggests that the ADA/USDT pair may remain inside the channel for some more time.
Instead, if the Cardano price continues lower and breaks below the support line, it indicates the resumption of the downtrend. The pair may then plunge toward $0.15. A short-term trend change will be signaled after buyers clear the overhead hurdle at the downtrend line.
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.
New research from $380B-valued Anthropic shows users are 5.2% less likely to verify AI outputs when creating artifacts, raising questions about automation risks.
Anthropic’s latest research reveals a troubling pattern: the more polished AI outputs look, the less users bother to verify them. The finding comes from the company’s new AI Fluency Index, which analyzed 9,830 Claude.ai conversations during January 2026.
When Claude produces artifacts—code, documents, interactive tools—users are 5.2 percentage points less likely to identify missing context and 3.1 percentage points less likely to question the AI’s reasoning. Essentially, a slick-looking output lulls users into complacency.
The Iteration Gap
The $380 billion company’s research team, led by Kristen Swanson, tracked 11 observable behaviors across thousands of conversations to measure what they call “AI fluency.” The methodology draws from a framework developed with Professors Rick Dakan and Joseph Feller.
The strongest signal? Users who iterate—treating AI responses as starting points rather than final answers—demonstrate 2.67 additional fluency behaviors compared to those who accept first responses. That’s roughly double the engagement. These iterative users are 5.6 times more likely to question Claude’s reasoning and 4 times more likely to spot missing context.
But only 85.7% of conversations showed this iterative behavior. The remaining 14.3% essentially accepted whatever Claude produced on the first try.
The Artifact Paradox
Here’s where it gets interesting for anyone building with AI tools. In the 12.3% of conversations involving artifact creation, users actually became more directive upfront—clarifying goals (+14.7pp), specifying formats (+14.5pp), providing examples (+13.4pp). They put in the work at the start.
Then they dropped their guard. Fact-checking declined by 3.7 percentage points in these same conversations. The researchers note this aligns with patterns from their recent coding skills study, suggesting the phenomenon isn’t limited to casual users.
“As AI models become increasingly capable of producing polished-looking outputs, the ability to critically evaluate those outputs will become more valuable rather than less,” the report states.
Why This Matters Now
Anthropic isn’t some scrappy startup raising concerns. Fresh off a $30 billion Series G round in February 2026—the second-largest venture funding deal ever—the company now commands a $380 billion valuation with $14 billion in annual run-rate revenue. When they publish research suggesting their own product creates verification blind spots, it carries weight.
The company acknowledges limitations: the sample skews toward early adopters, behaviors like mental fact-checking go unobserved, and the findings are correlational rather than causal. They also can’t see when users test code or verify outputs outside the chat interface.
Still, the practical takeaway is clear. Only 30% of users explicitly tell Claude how they want it to interact with them—instructions like “push back if my assumptions are wrong” or “tell me what you’re uncertain about.” The research suggests this simple habit could reshape entire conversations.
Anthropic plans cohort analyses comparing new and experienced users, plus qualitative research on behaviors invisible in chat logs. For now, their advice to users is blunt: when AI output looks finished, that’s precisely when you should start asking questions.
Measuring real Bitcoin payments is difficult because many transactions go through intermediaries, crypto cards or instant conversions.
Surveys show that a sizable minority of crypto holders have used crypto to buy goods or services at least once but rarely distinguish Bitcoin from other assets.
El Salvador’s experience suggests that making Bitcoin legal tender does not automatically lead to everyday retail use, especially when existing payment systems remain convenient.
Payment processor data indicates that crypto payments are more common in online and high-value categories like travel, electronics and digital services.
When Satoshi Nakamoto conceptualized Bitcoin, they thought of it as digital money. However, a question stands today: How many people really use Bitcoin to buy things?
The answer is not simple. Payment data is fragmented, many transactions go through intermediaries, and a rising portion of crypto payments now use stablecoins instead of Bitcoin (BTC). Still, exploring surveys, payment processors, app ecosystems and country-level experiments will help you develop a clearer view.
This picture reveals that, while Bitcoin hasn’t yet attained widespread everyday adoption, it is used in situations where it solves practical problems better than traditional payment methods.
This article explores what makes measuring Bitcoin payments so complex, what surveys indicate about spending behavior and what the El Salvador experiment reveals about Bitcoin payments. It also discusses what payment processors demonstrate about usage and when Bitcoin payments make sense in real terms.
Why measuring Bitcoin payments is harder than it seems
There are no global statistics disclosing a record of Bitcoin used at checkout. Instead, when it comes to measuring Bitcoin payments, analysts depend on indirect indicators:
Consumer surveys that ask whether people have ever paid with crypto
Payment processor data showing merchant transaction volumes
State-level efforts that aim to make Bitcoin legal tender
App-based systems that support Lightning payments.
Lightning payments are a way to send Bitcoin instantly for a negligible fee. It works like a high-speed express lane on top of the main Bitcoin network, making it suitable for small everyday purchases.
Various factors explain why measuring Bitcoin payments is so complicated:
Merchants usually do not hold the Bitcoin they receive. Payment processors often convert BTC to local currency right away so merchants can avoid associated price risks. From the buyer’s viewpoint, they paid with Bitcoin, but on the merchant’s end, it resembles a regular bank payment.
Crypto cards make the distinction between Bitcoin payments and regular payments less clear. When someone uses a Visa card backed by crypto, the merchant receives fiat through normal channels. This is spending funded by crypto but not a true Bitcoin payment.
Stablecoins tend to be used more predominantly in crypto payment flows. Tokens linked to fiat currencies, particularly dollars, make up a large share of transaction volume, whether for business payments or cross-border transfers.
For this reason, it is useful to distinguish three separate cases:
Paying directly with Bitcoin onchain or through the Lightning Network
Paying with Bitcoin that is converted to fiat in the background
Paying with other crypto assets, such as stablecoins.
Did you know? In 2010, 10,000 BTC was used to buy two pizzas, marking the first known commercial Bitcoin transaction and proving that the network could be used for real-world trade, not just peer-to-peer transfers.
What surveys suggest about spending habits
Among those who own crypto, spending is not uncommon, but it is not regular either.
A 2025 National Cryptocurrency Association survey found that 39% of crypto holders reported using cryptocurrency to shop for goods and services.
According to GM Global Cryptocurrency Insights, conducted in 2024, 11% of respondents reported actively using crypto for purchases, while 19% expressed interest in using crypto for everyday transactions.
These surveys indicate that a sizable minority of crypto holders have used crypto to make purchases at least once. Yet these surveys tend not to separate Bitcoin from other assets, and they do not track how often it happens.
This difference is important. A person who used crypto once to buy a flight or an online service counts the same as someone who uses it often even though their actions differ greatly in terms of payment adoption.
El Salvador: A real-world test for Bitcoin payments
El Salvador is the only country to have made Bitcoin legal tender nationwide, creating a natural testing ground for everyday payment use.
Despite early incentive programs following the official adoption of Bitcoin as legal tender in 2021, retail adoption in the country did not grow significantly. Only a fraction of citizens used it for regular transactions, and most businesses that accepted BTC reported very low volumes.
Several reasons explain this:
Volatility made pricing difficult for buyers and sellers.
Many users quickly converted government incentives to cash.
Merchants had no compelling reason to encourage Bitcoin payments.
Usability problems persisted for non-technical users.
El Salvador’s experience demonstrates that legal status by itself does not build consumer payment habits, especially when existing payment options function well.
The country initially made accepting Bitcoin payments mandatory for private businesses. However, in early 2025, businesses were allowed to decide whether to accept Bitcoin payments as part of an agreement with the International Monetary Fund (IMF). Bitcoin payments continue to be legal for obligations such as taxes and state bills.
Did you know? In certain countries, Bitcoin kiosks allow users to pay utility bills by converting BTC into local payment networks, turning crypto into an indirect but practical payment bridge.
What payment processors show about actual usage
Crypto payment processors act as a window into merchant activity. Some consistent patterns are visible:
Transaction volumes are higher in online commerce than in physical retail.
Average purchase amounts are often larger than typical retail purchases.
Categories such as travel, luxury goods, digital services and electronics appear more frequently.
These patterns align with basic economic logic. Crypto payments are more attractive for large cross-border payments.
Another emerging trend is that stablecoins account for a major part of crypto payments. Merchants find receiving dollar-pegged tokens simpler to record and convert into their operating currency than holding Bitcoin.
While crypto payments are rising in merchant systems, Bitcoin’s share of this activity may not be the largest, whether in business-to-business (B2B) or peer-to-peer (P2P) transactions.
Lightning and app-based payment systems
If Bitcoin is to work as everyday money, the Lightning Network is essential. Lightning enables near-instant, low-cost payments, making small transactions feasible.
But Lightning also brings new measurement difficulties. Many transactions remain off the main blockchain, so total volumes are hard to track.
What you can see instead is platform activity.
You can use apps that facilitate Lightning, allowing users to pay merchants without directly holding Bitcoin. In some setups:
The user pays in local currency.
The app converts it to Bitcoin behind the scenes.
The merchant receives Bitcoin via Lightning.
To the merchant, this counts as a Bitcoin payment. To the user, it may simply feel like a normal QR code scan.
This approach blurs the usual meaning of paying with Bitcoin, but it is significant because it lowers friction.
Did you know? Nonprofits have started using Bitcoin donations to receive funds globally within minutes, especially when traditional wire transfers or card payments face regional shutdowns.
Where Bitcoin payments actually make sense today
Data sets and case studies suggest that Bitcoin payments appear mainly in specific economic niches rather than in everyday consumer spending:
Cross-border small business payments: Exporters, online merchants and freelancers sometimes choose Bitcoin to bypass international bank delays, currency controls or high intermediary fees. Fast settlement and finality matter more than volatility since funds are converted quickly.
Travel and high-value online purchases: Airline tickets, hotel bookings and electronics often appear in crypto payment reports. These are cases where card fees add up and international buyers are common.
Donations and censorship-resistant funding: Nonprofits, activists and humanitarian groups use Bitcoin when traditional payment systems are unreliable or politically restricted.
Remittances in certain corridors: Stablecoins lead most crypto remittance flows, but Bitcoin still plays a role where local on-ramps exist and recipients can convert easily.
Gift card and voucher systems: Many people use Bitcoin by buying gift cards or prepaid vouchers indirectly. This is not direct merchant acceptance, but it is a real way consumers spend.
Local circular economies: Small communities around Bitcoin meetups, tourism areas or coworking spaces can demonstrate local usage. These cases are genuine but remain small in scale.
So, how many people actually pay with Bitcoin?
There is no exact global number for Bitcoin payments, and any precise user count should be viewed with caution.
The evidence supports the following points:
Among crypto holders, a substantial minority has used crypto for payments, though not always regularly.
Everyday Bitcoin payment use has remained low, even in countries that encouraged it.
Merchant acceptance exists, but payment volumes are concentrated in certain sectors and regions rather than broad retail.
A rising portion of crypto payments now uses stablecoins instead of Bitcoin, particularly for business transactions.
Bitcoin functions today more as specialized payment infrastructure than as universal consumer money.
Practical milestones for Bitcoin adoption
Future adoption of Bitcoin as a payment method will likely depend less on theory and more on the development of infrastructure layers.
Key indicators to watch include:
Apps that hide crypto wallets and private keys from users
Merchant tools that add Lightning without added complexity
Clear regulations on crypto payment settlement and accounting
Competition between Bitcoin systems and stablecoin networks.
If paying with Bitcoin becomes as easy as scanning a QR code in a familiar app, usage may increase, depending on regulatory and market conditions.
