Bitcoin’s start of year rally ran into stiff resistance near $93,000, triggering a pullback that has shifted the market’s focus back to key support levels. While the higher-time-frame (HTF) structure still looks fragile, the lower time frame (LTF) signal suggests bulls may yet have room to regain control if critical levels hold.
Key takeaways:
Bitcoin rejected at $93,000 for the third time, slipping back toward weekly lows near $89,250.
Rising open interest during the dip suggests shorts are building positions near $90,000.
Strong passive bids around $90,000 could act as a springboard, or fail and open the door to the $86,000 to $87,000 range.
Bitcoin bulls need to hold $90,000
After an 8% surge to $93,000, Bitcoin (BTC) printed a swing failure pattern (SFP) at the same resistance level for the third time. The rejection pushed BTC down to weekly lows near $89,250, reviving the risk of consolidation or bearish continuation in line with the broader HTF trend.
Still, the LTF structure leaves room for a bullish response. Bitcoin is currently testing a key order block between $89,200 and $90,500, the first area of interest where bulls could attempt fresh long entries if momentum flips positive.
Adding to this support, BTC continues to hold above the monthly rolling VWAP (volume-weighted average price), which turned bullish again at the start of 2026.
In the near term, Bitcoin could chop sideways into the weekly close. A decisive bullish engulfing recovery above $91,666 would mark the first confirmation of bullish continuation, forming a higher low on the LTF trend and potentially trapping late shorts positioned from $90,000 to $92,000.
Bitcoin open interest and price. Source: Coinalyze
Open interest data strengthens this setup. As BTC dipped to $90,000 from $92,000, open interest climbed sharply, a sign that short positions are building. If BTC can defend $90,000, a short squeeze becomes likely. A strong daily close above $91,700 would be the first signal, opening the path for another test of $93,000.
However, failure to hold above $89,000 would quickly expose internal liquidity from $86,000 to $87,000, giving sellers a clear downside target.
Data from CoinGlass shows the aggregated order book liquidity delta flashing strong passive bids at about $90,000. Over the past two weeks, similar bid absorption has preceded short-term recoveries, a pattern that could repeat if buyers continue to defend this zone.
Bitcoin order book liquidity delta chart. Source: CoinGlass
That being said, futures trader Byzantine General cautioned that rising open interest cuts both ways. The analyst said:
“Liquidations data suggests that there’s a good amount of vulnerable longs in there. I could see a little bounce here at 90k, but ultimately it makes sense to me that it takes out those local lows around 86k.”
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.
Korea’s crypto bill is stalled over stablecoin issuer rules.
The central bank wants banks to remain in control, often framed as a “51%” threshold.
Regulators and lawmakers fear a bank-only model would limit competition.
Firms are lining up, with Toss planning a won-backed stablecoin once rules are finalized.
South Korea’s next major crypto law is being held up by a seemingly simple question: Who gets to issue a won-backed stablecoin?
The proposed Digital Asset Basic Act has slowed as regulators clash over whether stablecoins should be treated as bank-like money or as a licensed digital-asset product.
At the center is the Bank of Korea’s push for a “banks-first” model, ideally through bank-led consortia with at least 51% bank ownership, arguing that stablecoins could, in their view, spill over into monetary policy, capital flows and financial stability if they scale too quickly.
The Financial Services Commission and lawmakers, meanwhile, are wary that a bank-dominated regime could materially limit competition and slow innovation.
The standoff is now expected to push the bill into 2026.
Why Korea cares about won-stablecoins
Stablecoins in South Korea are already important to local traders who move value into crypto markets, often via dollar-pegged tokens to access offshore liquidity. If stablecoin use scales, it could amplify cross-border flows and complicate foreign-exchange management, especially in a market where crypto participation and retail exposure are unusually high.
That is why the Bank of Korea continues to frame issuer rules as a “financial stability” decision. Officials argue that a cautious, staged rollout, starting with tightly regulated banks, reduces the risk of sudden outflows or a loss of control over how “private money” circulates.
At the same time, policymakers who want more companies to be allowed to issue won-backed stablecoins view the issue as one of competitiveness. If Korea does not build a trusted local option, users will continue to rely on foreign stablecoins, leaving the country with less regulatory visibility and fewer opportunities to grow a domestic stablecoin industry.
Did you know? In the 12 months through June 2025, stablecoin purchases denominated in Korean won totaled about $64 billion in South Korea, according to Chainalysis.
The regulatory backdrop
South Korea’s first major crypto regulatory act was the Act on the Protection of Virtual Asset Users. It is built around market safety, including the segregation and custody of customer funds, with banks designated as custodians for user deposits. The framework also mandates cold-wallet storage, criminal penalties for unfair trading and insurance or reserve requirements to cover hacks and system failures.
However, that “phase 1” framework is mainly focused on how exchanges and service providers protect users. The unresolved dispute lies in the next step, the proposed Digital Asset Basic Act, where lawmakers and regulators aim to define stablecoin issuance, supervision and issuer eligibility.
This is precisely where the bill is bogging down. When Korea tries to answer the question of who can issue stablecoins, the Bank of Korea and the financial regulator diverge.
Did you know? South Korea’s crypto rules require licensed service providers to keep at least 80% of customer assets in offline cold wallets to protect against hacks and theft.
Three institutions, three incentives
South Korea’s stablecoin standoff is ultimately a dispute over which institution should have primary responsibility when private money becomes systemically important.
The Bank of Korea is approaching won-backed stablecoins as a potential extension of the payments system and, therefore, as a monetary policy and financial stability issue. Its senior leadership has argued for a gradual rollout that begins with tightly regulated commercial banks and only later expands to the broader financial sector to reduce the risk of disruptive capital flows and knock-on effects during periods of market stress.
The Financial Services Commission views the same product as a regulated financial innovation that can be supervised through licensing, disclosure, reserve standards and ongoing enforcement, without hard-wiring the market to banks as the default winners.
That is why the FSC has pushed back against the idea that issuer eligibility should be determined mainly by ownership structure and why leaked and proposed approaches have reportedly examined multiple models rather than treating bank control as the only safe option.
Then there are lawmakers and party task forces, who are weighing political promises, industry pressure and the optics of competitiveness.
Some proposals have contemplated relatively low capital thresholds for issuers, which the central bank has described as increasing instability risks. Others argue that a bank-first regime could simply delay product market fit and push activity toward offshore dollar stablecoins.
Even the “51% rule” debate has a local twist. The Bank of Korea has warned that allowing non-bank corporates to take the lead could collide with Korea’s long-standing separation between industrial and financial capital.
Did you know? Major Korean exchanges such as Bithumb and Coinone added USDT/KRW trading pairs starting in December 2023, making stablecoins easier to access directly with the won.
The “51% rule”: What it is, why it exists and why it’s controversial
In its strictest form, the Korean media-dubbed “51% rule” suggests that a won-backed stablecoin issuer should be a consortium led by commercial banks, with banks holding at least a 51% ownership stake. This structure would effectively ensure that banks control governance, risk management and, crucially, redemption operations.
The logic is that if stablecoins begin functioning like money at scale, they can influence monetary policy transmission, capital flows and financial stability. A bank-led structure is intended to import prudential discipline from day one, including capital standards, supervisory culture, Anti-Money Laundering (AML) controls and crisis management, rather than attempting to bolt those safeguards on after a non-bank issuer has already reached systemic size.
The opposition is just as direct. The Financial Services Commission and pro-industry lawmakers argue that hard-wiring bank control into the rules could reduce competition, slow experimentation and effectively shut out capable fintech or payments firms that might deliver better distribution and user experience.
Critics also point out that mandatory ownership thresholds are an indirect way to regulate risk and not the only one, given the availability of reserve requirements, audits, redemption rules and supervisory powers.
It’s not just about who issues stablecoins
Even if South Korea ultimately allows non-banks to issue won-backed stablecoins, regulators still have plenty of levers to prevent the product from exhibiting shadow-bank-like risk characteristics.
The government’s draft approach has focused on reserve quality and segregation, steering issuers toward highly liquid, low-risk backing such as bank deposits and government debt. Reserves would be held through third-party custody and structurally separated from the issuer to reduce bankruptcy spillover.
Then there is the “money-like” principle of quick redemption at par. Publicly discussed proposals include clear redemption rules and tight timelines, which are designed to prevent a stablecoin from turning into a gated fund during periods of market stress.
Korea’s broader regulatory posture already points in this direction. The Financial Services Commission has been building a user-protection regime around custody standards and strict operational requirements, such as offline storage thresholds for customer assets, showing that regulators are comfortable setting concrete technical guardrails rather than relying solely on licensing decisions.
Industry pressure and what to watch in 2026
There is urgency. The regulatory standoff is unfolding while the market is already preparing for won-backed stablecoins.
Major commercial banks are gearing up for a bank-led model, while large consumer platforms and crypto-native players are exploring how they could issue or distribute a won-pegged token if the rules allow it. Multiple banks and major companies are reportedly positioning for this market even as the policy debate drags on.
Fintech firms, however, do not want to operate inside a bank-controlled consortium. Toss is a clear example. The company has said it is preparing to issue a won-based stablecoin once a regulatory framework is in place, treating legislation as the gate that determines whether the product can launch.
This push and pull is why delays matter. The longer Korea debates issuer eligibility, the more everyday stablecoin activity defaults to offshore, dollar-based infrastructure, and the harder it becomes to argue that the slow pace reflects a deliberate choice rather than lost time.
So, what happens in 2026? Scenarios under consideration include:
Staged licensing, with banks first and broader participation later, is an approach the Bank of Korea has publicly supported.
Open licensing with a “systemic” tier, where larger issuers face heavier requirements.
Bank-led consortia that are allowed but not mandatory, easing the fight over the “51% rule.”
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.
2026 could mark the clearest break yet from everything investors thought they understood about Bitcoin cycles.
For more than a decade, markets have leaned on the four-year halving model to predict peaks, crashes and recoveries.
Under that framework, 2025 should have marked the top, with 2026 shaping up as a painful down year. But a growing number of analysts now say that model is no longer reliable, and the next phase of crypto may look very different.
In a new Cointelegraph video, we break down fresh outlooks from four major crypto companies: Grayscale, Galaxy Digital, Bitwise and 21Shares, to explore what 2026 may hold.
Some forecasts are surprisingly bullish. Grayscale argues Bitcoin (BTC) could reach new all-time highs in the first half of 2026, driven by macro forces like rising global debt, fiat debasement and accelerating institutional adoption through exchange-traded products. If that happens, it would effectively invalidate the classic four-year cycle narrative.
Others urge caution. Galaxy describes the year ahead as “too chaotic to predict,” citing wide price ranges in options markets and looming uncertainties such as the US midterm elections and shifting monetary policy, even as it remains optimistic about the longer term.
Beyond Bitcoin’s price, the reports converge on several powerful trends shaping crypto’s next chapter: explosive growth in stablecoins, the rise of prediction markets tied to real-world events and increasing demand for privacy tools as crypto integrates deeper into mainstream finance.
To get the full breakdown including key data points, company-by-company predictions and the narratives most likely to define 2026, watch the complete video now on the Cointelegraph YouTube channel. And remember to like, subscribe and join the conversation in the comments.
In 2026, scarcity is being repriced through narratives, market access and financial structures rather than simple supply limits.
Bitcoin’s scarcity is increasingly mediated by ETFs and derivatives, reshaping how it is accessed and priced in financial markets.
Gold’s scarcity is tied less to mining output and more to trust, neutrality and reserve management.
Silver’s scarcity reflects its dual role as both an investment metal and an industrial input.
In 2026, scarcity has taken on a different meaning. It is no longer defined solely by limited supply or production constraints. Instead, it increasingly depends on how narratives are constructed and combined, shaping how investors perceive value.
Bitcoin (BTC), gold and silver each assert scarcity in distinct ways. However, investors now tend to evaluate them not only by how rare they are but by how they function within modern financial markets. Considerations increasingly include narrative pricing, market structure and ease of access.
This article explores how the manner in which investors discuss Bitcoin, gold and silver is undergoing change. It discusses the role of different factors in determining the repricing of scarcity.
Repricing of scarcity: A framework
Repricing scarcity does not involve forecasting which asset will outperform others. Instead, it refers to how market participants reassess the meaning of scarcity and determine how much they are willing to pay for its different forms.
In past decades, scarcity was commonly understood as a physical constraint, and gold and silver naturally aligned with this definition. Bitcoin, however, introduced a new concept: scarcity enforced by programmable code rather than geological limits.
In 2026, scarcity is evaluated through three interconnected perspectives:
Credibility: Is the mechanism that enforces scarcity considered trustworthy?
Portability: How easily can the value be transferred across systems and borders?
Each of these perspectives influences Bitcoin, gold and silver in distinct ways.
Bitcoin: From self-sovereign asset to financial instrument
Bitcoin’s scarcity narrative relies on fixed, preset rules. Its supply schedule is transparent and resistant to arbitrary change. This makes Bitcoin’s scarcity framework clear, allowing investors to see precisely how coin issuance will unfold years in advance.
In 2026, Bitcoin’s scarcity and demand are increasingly influenced by financial products, particularly spot exchange-traded funds (ETFs) and regulated derivatives. These instruments do not alter Bitcoin’s core rules, but they do reshape how scarcity is perceived in markets.
Many investors now access Bitcoin not on its blockchain but through associated products such as ETFs. This shift has contributed to a reframing of Bitcoin’s narrative, from a primarily self-sovereign digital asset toward a more financialized scarce instrument. While the underlying scarcity remains fixed, pricing increasingly reflects additional factors, including liquidity management and hedging activity.
Did you know? Bitcoin’s issuance schedule is capped at 21 million units, with new supply decreasing over time through programmed halvings.
Gold’s evolution from metal to global collateral
Gold has a long-standing reputation for scarcity. Mining it requires significant investment, and known reserves are well documented. In 2026, however, gold’s value depends less on mining output and more on the trust it inspires.
Central banks, governments and long-term investment managers continue to regard gold as a neutral asset, unlinked to any single country’s debt or monetary policy. The metal is traded in various forms, including physical bars, futures contracts and ETFs.
Each form responds differently to scarcity. Physical gold emphasizes secure storage and reliable settlement, while paper gold prioritizes ease of trading and broader portfolio strategies.
During periods of geopolitical tension or policy uncertainty, markets often revalue gold based on its perceived role as reliable collateral. Investors are not always seeking higher prices. Instead, they value gold’s ability to remain functional when other financial systems face strain.
Did you know? Central banks have been net buyers of gold in recent years, reinforcing gold’s role as a reserve asset rather than a purely speculative instrument.
Why silver defies traditional scarcity models
Silver occupies a distinct position in discussions of scarcity. Unlike gold, it is deeply integrated into industrial supply chains. Unlike Bitcoin, its scarcity is not governed by a fixed issuance schedule.
In 2026, silver’s scarcity narrative is shaped by its dual-use nature. It functions as both a monetary metal and an industrial input for electronics, solar panels and advanced manufacturing. This dual role complicates scarcity pricing. Industrial demand can constrain supply even when investor sentiment is weak, while financial flows can amplify volatility despite relatively modest physical shortages.
Silver’s market structure also plays an important role. Compared with gold, silver markets are smaller and more sensitive to futures positioning and inventory shifts. As a result, silver’s scarcity often manifests through sharp repricing events.
Did you know? Silver demand is split between investment and industrial use, with industrial applications accounting for more than half of annual consumption.
The role of ETPs in reframing scarcity
One of the most significant developments influencing scarcity narratives across all three assets is the growth of exchange-traded products (ETPs).
ETPs do not change an asset’s underlying scarcity. Instead, they expand access and allow market sentiment to drive investment flows more rapidly, influencing how prices adjust.
For Bitcoin, ETPs bring a digitally native asset into traditional financial systems.
For gold and silver, ETPs transform physical scarcity into instruments that behave like stocks and respond quickly to broader economic signals.
This indicates that scarcity is influenced not only by long-term holders but also by short-term traders, arbitrage strategies and portfolio adjustments. As a result, scarcity increasingly functions as a market attribute that can be traded or hedged, rather than simply held.
Did you know? Bitcoin ETFs allow investors to gain BTC exposure without holding private keys, meaning many now “own Bitcoin” through brokerage accounts that resemble stock portfolios rather than crypto wallets.
Navigating the derivatives-driven scarcity gap
Another factor complicating the repricing of scarcity is the role of derivatives markets. Futures and options contracts allow investors to gain exposure to an asset without owning it directly. This can create an impression of abundance even when the underlying physical or protocol-level scarcity remains unchanged.
In Bitcoin markets, derivatives often play a significant role in short-term price movements. In precious metals markets, futures trading volumes regularly exceed the flow of physical supply.
These dynamics do not eliminate scarcity, but they do influence how it is reflected in prices. In 2026, investors increasingly recognize that true scarcity can coexist with high leverage and extensive derivatives activity. The key question is no longer simply “Is this asset scarce?” but rather “How does its scarcity manifest within a given market structure?”
A comparison: Bitcoin vs. gold vs. silver in 2026
This table compares how Bitcoin, gold and silver are viewed as scarce assets in 2026, focusing on narratives and market structure rather than price performance.
Scarcity vs. certainty: The investment trade-off of 2026
An emerging theme in investment circles is the distinction between scarcity and certainty. Bitcoin offers strong certainty about its future supply but less certainty around regulatory treatment across jurisdictions. Gold provides less certainty regarding future mining costs but greater certainty in terms of legal status and institutional acceptance. Silver sits between these two extremes.
This trade-off shapes how different investors interpret scarcity. Some place greater value on mathematical predictability, others on institutional reliability and still others on practical real-world use.
In 2026, scarcity is no longer viewed as a single, uniform concept. Instead, it is understood as a blend of factors, each dependent on context.
Bitcoin, gold and silver: Why every scarce asset has a role
The primary insight from this repricing process is that markets are not merely selecting one scarce asset over another. Instead, they are assigning distinct roles to each: Bitcoin, gold and silver.
Bitcoin’s scarcity is increasingly linked to portability and rule-based certainty. Gold’s scarcity is tied to neutrality and trust in settlement. Silver’s scarcity is connected to industrial demand and sensitivity to supply changes.
None of these narratives guarantees superior performance. However, they shape how capital flows into each asset, which in turn affects liquidity, volatility and overall market behavior.
In this regard, 2026 is less about determining which scarce asset emerges as the winner and more about the ongoing redefinition of scarcity itself.
Cointelegraph maintains full editorial independence. The selection, commissioning and publication of Features and Magazine content are not influenced by advertisers, partners or commercial relationships.
Tether introduces Scudo, a new unit for Tether Gold (XAU₮), aiming to simplify gold transactions and enhance accessibility in the digital economy.
Tether has unveiled Scudo, a novel unit of account for its Tether Gold (XAU₮) token, as announced on January 6, 2026. This initiative aims to reinstate gold as a practical means of payment, making it more accessible amid soaring global interest and record-high prices, according to Tether.
Gold’s Rising Prominence
In 2025, gold prices surged to unprecedented levels due to inflation concerns, interest-rate uncertainties, and increased demand for safe-haven assets. This trend has been further fueled by substantial central bank purchases, prompting many investors to turn to gold for preserving purchasing power.
Tether Gold (XAU₮) has already digitized physical gold, offering a groundbreaking solution in today’s fast-paced digital economy. Complementing this, Tether has introduced the WDK technology layer, enabling developers and companies to create self-custodial wallets that support XAU₮, various stablecoins, and Bitcoin across multiple platforms.
Introducing Scudo
Scudo addresses the challenge of using gold for everyday transactions by introducing a simpler unit of account. This unit, akin to Bitcoin’s “Satoshi,” is defined as one-thousandth of a troy ounce of gold. This simplification facilitates clearer pricing and easier transactions, allowing users to engage in everyday commerce with gold-backed value.
The introduction of Scudo enhances the usability of gold, transforming it from a mere store of value to a practical medium of exchange. Goods and services can now be priced in Scudo, making gold more accessible in daily economic activities.
Strategic Implications
Paolo Ardoino, CEO of Tether, highlighted that Scudo lowers the entry barrier for owning and transacting with gold, making it easier for users to manage even small fractions of this historically trusted asset. Tether Gold remains fully backed by physical gold, with ownership verifiable on-chain.
This move aligns with Tether’s broader strategy to modernize access to traditional assets via blockchain infrastructure, making gold more inclusive and usable in the digital economy. The introduction of Scudo does not alter the backing of XAU₮ but simplifies the way gold value is measured and transacted.
As of December 2025, Tether Gold has seen a significant increase in adoption among individuals seeking long-term wealth preservation and portfolio diversification, with its market cap doubling in a short span. This reflects a growing trend of investors seeking exposure to gold without traditional storage and custodial complexities.
Florida lawmakers are advancing a proposal that would allow the state to create a strategic cryptocurrency reserve, narrowing earlier efforts to a framework that would effectively limit holdings to Bitcoin.
According to Florida’s legislative records, Senate Bill (SB) 1038, sponsored by Republican Senator Joe Gruters, was filed on Dec. 30 and was referred to the Appropriations Committee on Agriculture, Environment, and General Government on Wednesday, where it must clear hearings and votes before advancing to the Senate floor.
The bill would establish a Florida Strategic Cryptocurrency Reserve, managed by the state’s chief financial officer (CFO), which would allow the office to purchase, hold, manage and liquidate cryptocurrency under a standard similar to those governing public trust assets.
While the legislation does not explicitly cite Bitcoin (BTC), it restricts eligible purchases to crypto that maintained an average market cap of at least $500 billion in the last two years, a threshold that only Bitcoin meets.
A Senate-led attempt after broader efforts stalled
The new Senate proposal follows and significantly diverges from Florida’s earlier attempts to authorize state-level crypto investments.
On Oct. 17, 2025, Republican Party Representative Webster Barnaby filed House Bill (HB) 183, which sought to allow the state and certain public entities to invest up to 10% of their funds in a broad range of digital assets, including Bitcoin, crypto exchange-traded products (ETPs), crypto securities, non-fungible tokens (NFTs) and other blockchain-based products.
HB 183 was a revised version of HB 487, which was withdrawn in June after failing to advance out of a House operations subcommittee. While Barnaby’s revised proposal added stricter custody, documentation and fiduciary standards, the broad asset scope and potential exposure of pension and trust funds faced pushback from lawmakers.
SB 1038 removes pension and retirement funds entirely and places oversight directly under the CFO through a standalone reserve structure.
Its market-cap eligibility rule mirrors approaches adopted in states like New Hampshire and Texas, both of which enacted more narrowly defined Bitcoin reserve frameworks in 2025.
SB 1038 is contingent on companion legislation establishing the necessary trust-fund mechanics for the reserve. This means it cannot take effect unless related bills are also enacted during the same legislative session.
A House companion measure, HB 1039, was also filed, signaling coordinated Senate and House backing.
If the legislation advances, the CFO would be mandated to submit reports to legislative leaders starting in December 2026, detailing the reserve’s holdings, value and management actions.
Whether the proposal advances will depend on whether lawmakers view the narrower, Bitcoin-focused structure as sufficiently distinct from earlier efforts that failed to gain traction.
Opinion by: Igor Mandrigin, co-founder and chief technology and product officer of Gateway.fm
For years, private distributed ledger systems, like Hyperledger, have provided banks with a secure means to explore blockchain technology without venturing into public networks. These frameworks delivered privacy, permissioned access and a sense of institutional control — qualities that undoubtedly appealed to traditional finance players when the crypto market was still viewed as the Wild West.
The environment has changed fundamentally since then, as tokenized assets, stablecoin settlements and institutional crypto exposure have quickly become the standard. The closed, permissioned models that once spoke to the risk-averse tendencies of banks now hold them back. At this critical geopolitical and macroeconomic juncture, financial institutions need to move beyond legacy frameworks and adopt public, permissioned layer 2 infrastructure built with zero-knowledge (ZK) proofs.
The rationale is straightforward. These newer systems maintain the privacy and compliance standards regulators demand, but they also offer the interoperability and scalability that modern finance requires.
Some readers, especially those in regulatory or enterprise IT roles, might bristle at this contention, possibly arguing that public chains are too volatile, too transparent or too “ungovernable” to meet enterprise standards. Others may argue that traditional distributed ledger technology (DLT) is already effective and that migrating would create unnecessary operational and compliance risks. This dated view underestimates how rapidly global finance is moving onchain and how expensive it will be for institutions to remain isolated in closed systems.
The shift from control to connectivity
A decade ago, blockchain adoption was primarily about control. Enterprises wanted distributed systems, but only within walled gardens could they manage internally. That made sense when public blockchains were slow, expensive and lacked privacy. In that environment, Hyperledger and its peers offered predictability, vetted participants and centralized governance and were able to satisfy auditors without revealing transaction data to the world.
Today’s financial landscape is radically different. Tokenized money markets are scaling up to billions in daily transaction volume, while stablecoins are being integrated into global settlement systems at a rapid rate. Layer 2 solutions are bringing low-cost, high-speed, privacy-enhanced functionality to public chains. ZK technology now makes it possible to prove compliance or creditworthiness without revealing sensitive data.
The trade-off between privacy and openness that once justified private blockchains has dissolved.
Isolation is now a liability
The danger isn’t that private blockchains will fail technically. The danger is that they’ll fail strategically. Ultimately, legacy DLT stacks were never built for cross-chain communication, global liquidity, or real-time asset settlement. They operate as digital islands, disconnected from the growing onchain ecosystem where tokenized assets, collateralized lending and instant settlement are converging.
That isolation comes at a cost. Liquidity is increasingly aggregating on public infrastructure, where decentralized finance (DeFi) protocols, tokenized treasuries and institutional stablecoin markets interact seamlessly. A private network, no matter how compliant, can’t tap into that liquidity. It can only watch it move elsewhere.
The longer banks wait to connect to open, interoperable infrastructure, the harder it becomes to catch up. Institutions that build on closed systems risk becoming like legacy clearinghouses in an era of automated settlement.
The case for public, permissioned L2s
Thankfully, the right middle ground already exists. Public, permissioned layer 2 networks — enhanced with zero-knowledge cryptography — enable financial institutions to retain privacy and control while operating within a composable, open ecosystem.
This can help with selective disclosure, where banks can demonstrate regulatory compliance, like Anti-Money Laundering (AML) and Know Your Customer (KYC) checks, using ZK-proofs, without revealing transaction data to the public. Layer 2s built on Ethereum or similar base layers can directly connect with stablecoin issuers, tokenized money markets and real-world asset protocols.
This doesn’t require banks to sacrifice their security posture. It simply allows them to build within the same ecosystem as everyone else, using infrastructure that scales, communicates and settles in real time.
SWIFT has begun testing an onchain version of its global messaging infrastructure using Linea, an Ethereum layer 2 network. This signals to banks that, if the backbone of global interbank communication is moving toward blockchain integration, traditional institutions can’t ignore it.
Lessons from the market
We’re already seeing the gap widen between institutions that embrace open infrastructure and those that don’t. Payment networks like Visa and Stripe are experimenting with stablecoin settlements on public chains. Meanwhile, tokenized US treasuries and institutional DeFi protocols are attracting capital from hedge funds and asset managers who want yield onchain, not in permissioned silos.
This convergence of tokenized finance is becoming the new standard for capital markets, and banks that rely on outdated DLT models risk losing their role as intermediaries in this next generation of settlement infrastructure. Conversely, those that transition to public L2s can become the new gateways for programmable, composable financial services.
If large financial institutions begin building on open, ZK-powered layer 2s, the impact would be profound. Liquidity would consolidate across networks, improving efficiency and reducing friction between traditional and crypto-native markets. Tokenized assets could flow seamlessly between institutions, driving adoption of onchain treasuries, credit markets and consumer payments.
For crypto markets, this shift would bring legitimacy and volume from traditional finance. For banks, it would unlock new fee structures and business models, including custody, compliance-as-a-service and programmable deposits while reducing settlement costs and counterparty risks.
The opposite scenario is also clear: Banks that refuse to evolve will find themselves operating on isolated rails, unable to interact with global liquidity. They’ll become spectators to a financial ecosystem that’s increasingly open and programmable.
Moving from private to public infrastructure will not be easy. It will require new security models, updated compliance frameworks and a willingness to collaborate with regulators and technologists. Clinging to systems that can’t scale or interoperate is far riskier.
Modernization and compliance do not have to be a zero sum game. lnstitutions don’t need to abandon privacy or compliance to make progress in this new direction. What they need to leave is the assumption that “private” equals “safer.”
In the new era of tokenized finance, isolation is the real threat.
Opinion by: Igor Mandrigin, co-founder and chief technology and product officer of Gateway.fm.
This opinion article presents the contributor’s expert view and it may not reflect the views of Cointelegraph.com. This content has undergone editorial review to ensure clarity and relevance, Cointelegraph remains committed to transparent reporting and upholding the highest standards of journalism. Readers are encouraged to conduct their own research before taking any actions related to the company.
This opinion article presents the contributor’s expert view and it may not reflect the views of Cointelegraph.com. This content has undergone editorial review to ensure clarity and relevance, Cointelegraph remains committed to transparent reporting and upholding the highest standards of journalism. Readers are encouraged to conduct their own research before taking any actions related to the company.
TRON trades at $0.30 while outperforming Bitcoin by 2.6%, driven by Coinbase integration and Visa payment infrastructure launch that could reshape mainstream adoption.
TRON has decoupled from Bitcoin’s recent weakness, posting modest gains while the broader crypto market retreated 2.6%. The altcoin’s resilience stems from two major partnership announcements that position it as a serious contender in institutional payment infrastructure.
Infrastructure Plays Drive Momentum
The timing couldn’t be better for TRON’s strategic pivot. According to data from Binance, TRX climbed 0.2% to $0.30 while Bitcoin slumped, marking one of the few altcoins to maintain positive momentum during yesterday’s broader selloff. This divergence signals that institutional partnerships are beginning to matter more than pure speculation.
TRON’s integration with Coinbase’s Base Layer 2 network via LayerZero represents a significant technical milestone. The cross-chain bridge allows seamless asset transfers between TRON and Ethereum’s fastest-growing Layer 2 solution, potentially unlocking millions in bridged liquidity. More importantly, the Visa partnership establishes TRON as payment rail infrastructure for traditional banking, connecting the network to global financial institutions.
The numbers support the narrative shift. TRON’s network revenue surged 30.5% quarter-over-quarter to $1.2 billion in Q3 2025, according to on-chain analytics. That growth rate outpaces most Layer 1 competitors and suggests genuine utility rather than speculative trading volume.
Technical Picture Points Higher
TRON’s daily chart shows textbook bullish consolidation. The price sits at the upper Bollinger Band with a %B reading of 0.85, indicating strong momentum without immediate overbought conditions. Technical indicators suggest this breakout has legs.
The MACD histogram reading of 0.0012 confirms bullish momentum, while the RSI at 61.99 provides room for additional upside before hitting overbought territory. This combination typically precedes sustained moves rather than quick reversals.
Key resistance emerges at $0.30 – precisely where TRX currently trades. A clean break above this level opens the door to test the 52-week high of $0.37, representing 23% upside potential. Support holds firm at $0.28, with stronger backing near $0.27 if bears regain control.
What Analysts Are Watching
Market participants note the stark contrast between TRON’s institutional focus and other altcoins still dependent on retail speculation. “The Visa integration isn’t just another partnership announcement,” explains one institutional trader who requested anonymity. “It’s actual infrastructure that processes real transactions.”
Technical analysts point to similar patterns from TRON’s 2023 rally, when enterprise partnerships preceded a 180% price surge over six weeks. If history rhymes, the current setup suggests a target of $0.45-$0.50 by mid-February.
However, skeptics warn that TRON’s centralization concerns haven’t disappeared despite the recent partnerships. Critics argue that founder Justin Sun’s outsized influence creates regulatory risks that could derail institutional adoption just as momentum builds.
The Trade Setup
Bulls have a clear setup here. Entry at current levels around $0.30 offers an attractive risk-reward profile, with initial targets at $0.33 (10% gain) by late January and $0.37 (23% gain) by month-end. Stop-loss placement below $0.28 limits downside to 7%.
Bears should watch for failure to hold above $0.30 on any retest. A decisive break below $0.28 would signal that partnership momentum has stalled, potentially triggering a retreat to $0.25 support levels.
Volume patterns from Binance spot data show institutional accumulation rather than retail FOMO, suggesting this move has staying power. The 24-hour trading volume of $78.9 million remains elevated but not excessive, indicating organic demand rather than speculative bubbling.
Bottom Line
TRON’s fundamental shift toward payment infrastructure creates a compelling bull case that extends beyond typical altcoin speculation. The technical setup supports a move to $0.37 within four weeks, with partnership catalysts providing fundamental backing for the advance. Watch $0.30 as the make-or-break level that determines whether institutional adoption translates to sustained price momentum.
Bitcoin turned down from its overhead resistance but is expected to find support at the moving averages.
Select major altcoins are facing selling near their overhead resistance levels, but the shallow pullback suggests the recovery may continue.
Bitcoin (BTC) is under pressure as bears attempt to sustain the price below $91,500. BTC exchange-traded funds recorded outflows of $243.2 million on Tuesday after attracting $1.16 billion in inflows in the first two trading days of the new year, according to Farside Investors’ data. That shows caution at higher levels.
Still, a positive sign for BTC is that whales and sharks have accumulated 56,227 BTC since mid-December, according to Santiment. The onchain analytics platform added that cryptocurrency markets “typically follow the path of key whale and shark stakeholders, and move in the opposite direction of small retail wallets.”
Crypto market data daily view. Source: TradingView
Another bullish voice is that of Miller Value Partners chief investment officer Bill Miller IV, who said on CNBC that BTC is putting a higher base than it did in the spring of 2025. He expects BTC to “break out to a higher high than its all-time high from the fall.”
Could BTC and the major altcoins rebound off their support levels and resume their recovery? Let’s analyze the charts of the top 10 cryptocurrencies to find out.
Bitcoin price prediction
BTC turned down from $94,789 on Monday, indicating that the bears are attempting to retain the price inside the range.
The pullback is expected to find support at the 20-day exponential moving average (EMA)($90,022). If the Bitcoin price rebounds off the 20-day EMA with force, it increases the possibility of a break above the $94,589 resistance. The BTC/USDT pair may then ascend to the psychological level of $100,000 and subsequently to $107,500.
Contrary to this assumption, a break below the moving averages suggests that the Bitcoin price may extend its stay inside the range for some more time. Sellers will be back in control if they sink the pair below $84,000.
Ether price prediction
Ether (ETH) broke above the resistance line of the symmetrical triangle pattern on Tuesday, but the bulls failed to sustain the higher levels.
The Ether price has re-entered the triangle, with the next support at the moving averages. If the price rebounds off the moving averages, the ETH/USDT pair could soar to $3,659 and then to $4,000.
The advantage will tilt in favor of the bears if the price continues lower and plunges below the support line. That suggests the break above the resistance line may have been a bull trap. The pair could plummet to $2,623 and then to $2,111.
XRP price prediction
XRP (XRP) reached the downtrend line of the descending channel pattern on Tuesday, which is expected to act as a stiff resistance.
The moving averages are on the verge of a bullish crossover, and the relative strength index (RSI) is in the positive zone, signaling an advantage to buyers. A short-term trend change will be signaled if the bulls achieve a close above the downtrend line. The XRP/USDT pair may then climb toward $2.70.
The moving averages are expected to act as solid support on the way down. Sellers will have to yank the XRP price below the moving averages to retain the pair inside the descending channel for a few more days.
BNB price prediction
Sellers are attempting to halt BNB’s (BNB) recovery at the $928 level, but the bulls are likely to have other plans.
The 20-day EMA ($877) has started to turn up gradually and the RSI is in positive territory, indicating that the bulls have the upper hand. A close above the $928 level will complete a bullish ascending triangle pattern, which has a target objective of $1,066.
Alternatively, if the BNB price continues lower and breaks below the moving averages, it suggests that the BNB/USDT pair could swing from $790 to $928 for some time. The bears will be back in command below the $790 level.
Solana price prediction
Solana’s (SOL) recovery is facing selling near $147, but a positive sign is that the bulls have not ceded much ground to the bears.
If the price turns up from the moving averages, it signals a change in sentiment from selling on rallies to buying on dips. That enhances the possibility of a break above the $147 resistance. The SOL/USDT pair may then jump to $172.
Conversely, if the price breaks below the moving averages, it suggests that the bulls have given up. The Solana price could then decline to $116. A solid rebound off the $116 level could signal a possible range formation in the near term.
Dogecoin price prediction
Dogecoin (DOGE) is facing selling near $0.16, but the pullback is expected to find support at the moving averages.
If the price bounces off the moving averages, it shows that the bulls are viewing the dips as a buying opportunity. That improves the prospects of a rally above the $0.16 resistance. The DOGE/USDT pair may then ascend to $0.19.
This positive view will be invalidated in the near term if the Dogecoin price continues lower and skids below the moving averages. That suggests the bears remain sellers on rallies. The pair may then drop to $0.13 and later to $0.11.
Cardano price prediction
Cardano (ADA) climbed above the 50-day simple moving average (SMA) ($0.40) on Monday, but the bulls could not build upon the breakout.
On the way down, the bulls are expected to fiercely defend the zone between the 20-day EMA ($0.38) and the $0.37 level. If the Cardano price rebounds off the support zone, the ADA/USDT pair could rally toward the breakdown level of $0.50.
Contrarily, a drop below the $0.37 level signals that the bears remain active at higher levels. That heightens the risk of a break below the $0.33 level. The pair may then slump to the Oct. 10 low of $0.27.
If the Bitcoin Cash price turns up from the $631 level or the 20-day EMA ($609), it indicates that the bulls remain in charge. The BCH/USDT pair could rally to $651 and eventually to the stiff overhead resistance at $720.
The first sign of weakness on the downside is a break below the 20-day EMA. That suggests the buyers are booking profits and the market has rejected the break above the $631 level. The pair may then slump toward $518.
Chainlink price prediction
Chainlink (LINK) has been range-bound from $11.61 to $14.98, indicating buying near the support and selling close to the resistance.
If the price turns up from the moving averages, the LINK/USDT pair could surge above the $14.98 resistance. If that happens, the Chainlink price could rally to $16.80 and subsequently to $17.66.
Contrarily, if the price breaks below the moving averages, it suggests that the pair may remain inside the range for some more time. The next leg of the downtrend could begin on a close below $10.94.
Hyperliquid price prediction
Hyperliquid’s (HYPE) relief rally reached the 50-day SMA ($29), where the bears are mounting a strong defense.
The 20-day EMA ($26.34) is the crucial support to watch out for on the downside. If the Hyperliquid price bounces off the 20-day EMA, the possibility of a break above the 50-day SMA increases. The HYPE/USDT pair could then rally to the breakdown level of $35.50.
On the contrary, if the price slips below the 20-day EMA, it suggests that the bears continue to exert pressure. The pair may tumble to $23.64 and thereafter to the $22.19 support.
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.
This article does not contain investment advice or recommendations. Every investment and trading move involves risk, and readers should conduct their own research when making a decision. While we strive to provide accurate and timely information, Cointelegraph does not guarantee the accuracy, completeness, or reliability of any information in this article. This article may contain forward-looking statements that are subject to risks and uncertainties. Cointelegraph will not be liable for any loss or damage arising from your reliance on this information.
The December 2025 Trust Wallet hack shows that vulnerabilities in crypto tools can affect crypto-friendly SMEs, even when attacks target individual users rather than businesses.
Supply-chain risks, such as compromised browser extensions or stolen API keys, can bypass traditional security defenses and lead to rapid financial losses in a very short time.
The incident also revealed how weak or unprepared verification processes can overwhelm compensation efforts, increasing operational strain and delaying legitimate reimbursements.
Heavy reliance on hot wallets remains a significant risk factor for SMEs, as convenience often comes at the cost of greater exposure to malware, malicious updates and private-key theft.
The Trust Wallet hack in December 2025, which resulted in losses of about $7 million, provides security-relevant insights for small and medium enterprises (SMEs) that use cryptocurrencies. Although Trust Wallet primarily serves individual users, the mechanics of the attack highlight common vulnerabilities that also affect crypto-friendly SMEs, including fintech firms and decentralized autonomous organizations (DAOs).
Alongside the direct financial damage, the incident showed how gaps in user verification created complications during the compensation process. For crypto-facing SMEs, the case highlights common vulnerabilities and underscores the importance of addressing them before incidents occur.
This article discusses how the Trust Wallet hack happened, its impact on the crypto community and the challenges the wallet faced during the compensation process. It also explores vulnerabilities SMEs commonly face during crypto-related hacks, potential remedial measures and the prevailing regulatory environment surrounding such incidents.
What occurred in the Trust Wallet hack
From Dec. 24 to Dec. 26, 2025, attackers targeted Trust Wallet’s Chrome browser extension by distributing a malicious update that affected users running version 2.68. The attack resulted in the theft of cryptocurrency worth about $7 million, impacting 2,596 verified wallet addresses. Nearly 5,000 reimbursement claims were later filed by users.
Trust Wallet advised users to update immediately to version 2.69, which removed the malicious code and prevented further attacks. During the reimbursement process, Trust Wallet CEO Eowyn Chen emphasized the importance of accurate user verification to prevent fraudulent claims.
Security experts later determined that attackers had inserted malicious JavaScript into the extension, allowing them to steal recovery phrases and private keys during normal wallet use. The attack likely involved a stolen Chrome Web Store API key, which enabled the malicious update to be distributed through official channels rather than relying solely on phishing.
Once private keys were compromised, funds were rapidly withdrawn and routed through centralized exchanges and cross-chain bridges, making recovery difficult. The incident demonstrated how trusted software update mechanisms can fail in critical ways.
In the aftermath of the theft, Trust Wallet disabled the compromised extension version, opened a refund portal and established a verification process for claims.
Did you know? The largest crypto hacks often do not involve breaking blockchains themselves but instead exploit wallets, bridges or user interfaces, showing that human-facing layers are often weaker than the underlying cryptography.
Immediate effects on the cryptocurrency community
Although Trust Wallet promised refunds, the incident briefly weakened confidence in browser-based wallets. Experts noted that many victims were unaware that browser extensions function as hot wallets, leaving them exposed to malware and supply-chain threats despite their convenience.
The attack also renewed debate around self-custody, with many commentators pointing to hardware wallets and offline storage as lower-risk options, particularly for larger holdings.
Beyond Trust Wallet, the attack raised broader concerns about the distribution and update mechanisms of cryptocurrency tools. Browser extensions, APIs and external libraries are widely used in cryptocurrency payroll systems, treasury management and SME-focused fintech services. The case showed that risks outside a company’s core systems can still cause significant harm.
The process of verification and claims handling
A key insight from the Trust Wallet hack became apparent during the post-attack phase. Nearly 5,000 claims were submitted for just over 2,500 affected addresses, highlighting the risk of duplicate, incorrect or fraudulent submissions.
Without robust verification procedures, refund processes can become overwhelmed, delaying legitimate payments and increasing operational risk. For crypto-using SMEs that manage payroll, reimbursements or client funds, this creates an additional vulnerability during emergency situations.
Trust Wallet required claimants to submit wallet addresses, transaction records, attacker addresses and other supporting details to verify losses.
For SMEs, the lesson from the Trust Wallet hack is straightforward: Verification processes must be prepared in advance, not developed during an incident.
Companies that handle cryptocurrency payments need established frameworks for identity, access and transaction checks well before any attack occurs. This preparation helps preserve stakeholder confidence under pressure.
Did you know? Hackers frequently move stolen crypto within minutes using automated scripts, routing funds through centralized exchanges, mixers and cross-chain bridges to reduce traceability before investigators can respond.
Vulnerabilities SMEs face during crypto hacks
SMEs often operate in environments where a single oversight can lead to significant asset losses. Threat actors exploit the following vulnerabilities in these businesses:
Supply-chain and update risks: The primary insight from the Trust Wallet hack is the threat posed by supply-chain attacks. SMEs frequently rely on browser extensions, software development kits, APIs and cloud services for efficiency. Each added component increases the attack surface, making continuous checks and validation essential.
Excessive dependence on hot wallets: The Trust Wallet hack exposed the risks of storing large amounts of cryptocurrency in hot wallets. While browser wallets offer convenience, they remain vulnerable to malware, malicious updates and private-key theft.
Social engineering and phishing follow-ups: After a hack, phishing domains and impersonation attempts typically increase, targeting users seeking reimbursement or recovery information. Attackers exploit confusion during these periods. For SMEs, training staff and users is a critical defense against such threats.
Security measures for crypto-friendly SMEs
In light of the Trust Wallet case, SMEs can take several security measures:
Cold storage for major assets: Storing private keys offline can significantly reduce exposure to malware and online attacks. Hot wallets should be limited to small balances needed for daily operations.
Mandatory multi-factor authentication (MFA):MFA should be enforced across all systems that access wallets, controls or approval workflows.
Incident response preparation: SMEs need clear, regularly updated plans for identifying, containing and recovering from attacks. Preparedness shortens response times and limits potential damage.
External security reviews: Independent audits can identify weaknesses that internal teams may miss and help ensure alignment with current security standards.
Strong access controls and supplier monitoring: Restricting access, whitelisting withdrawal addresses and assessing supplier security practices can help reduce risk.
Training for users and employees: Educating staff and users to recognize phishing attempts and impersonation messages helps prevent additional losses during high-stress incidents.
Did you know? Many crypto hacks are detected not by companies but by onchain analysts who spot unusual transaction patterns and wallet movements before official announcements are made.
Regulatory environment after the hack
Although no immediate regulatory action followed the Trust Wallet incident, it occurred amid tightening global oversight of the crypto sector. Regulators are increasingly expecting enterprises to implement strong controls around custody, incident reporting and consumer protection.
For crypto-friendly SMEs, this means security failures may lead not only to reputational damage but also to compliance-related consequences. Staying aligned with regulatory expectations has become as important for SMEs as maintaining technical resilience.
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.
