Gen Z Americans may be open to paying for dates with cryptocurrency, but most still aren’t putting digital coins where their hearts are, according to a January Pollfish survey commissioned by crypto exchange OKX.
The poll of 1,000 US adults found that 13% of Gen Z respondents said they have paid for a date using crypto, while many who haven’t said the main issue is practical: they don’t have a direct way to pay with crypto.
Interest extended beyond payments. 31% of Gen Z respondents said receiving crypto as a Valentine’s Day gift would be appealing, and 76% said financial literacy is an attractive trait in a partner, a reminder that for some daters, “knowing your numbers” can be more charming than knowing your zodiac sign.
Still, ownership appears to be a limiting factor. OKX told Cointelegraph that 29.5% of respondents said they currently own or previously owned crypto assets, suggesting that curiosity about crypto doesn’t automatically translate into daily use.
Gen Z flirts with crypto, but ease of use a problem
The gap between “open to it” and “actually did it” points to a familiar hurdle for crypto: in many everyday settings, it’s still easier to tap a card than to pay directly with a wallet.
Results of OKX’s Valentine’s Survey. Source: OKX
The survey also found that two-thirds of respondents said financial literacy plays well in the dating marketplace, with Gen Z (76%) and Millennials (75%) showing the strongest support.
Familiarity with digital finance tools also carried weight. Between 52% and 55% of respondents said knowledge of digital assets, such as cryptocurrencies and digital wallets, can make someone more attractive as a potential partner.
But only 17% of respondents overall said holding digital assets makes someone more attractive, including 30% of millennials and 28% of Gen Z. The findings indicate that for younger cohorts, digital asset awareness is increasingly viewed as part of broader financial competence.
Crypto has also shown up in dating headlines for less romantic reasons. In 2024, the US Federal Trade Commission issued a consumer alert over rising crypto-related romance scams. Canadian authorities issued similar warnings, as crypto scammers flooded dating apps.
The rise of artificial intelligence also heightened the risks of romance scams in crypto. In 2025, scammers have increasingly used chatbots and deepfakes to manipulate victims emotionally and financially.
Perception has also been mixed. While the OKX survey showed that some are attracted to crypto, a survey by the Date Psychology blog in 2024 found that women ranked crypto among the least attractive male hobbies.
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 spot selling keeps a $60,000 retest open as a short-term outcome.
Several major altcoins risk resuming the downtrend, indicating a negative investor outlook.
Bitcoin (BTC) has again come under pressure, dropping below the $66,000 level during the early hours of the US trading session. According to Kaiko Research, a 52% retracement from the all-time high was “unusually shallow,” and a drawdown of 60% to 68% was more in line with previous bear market cycles. That suggests BTC might bottom from $40,000 to $50,000.
BTC seems to have ditched its “digital gold” narrative and is behaving more like a high-risk growth asset, per new research from Grayscale. Author Zach Pandl said that BTC is strongly correlated with software stocks, particularly since 2024, rather than gold. That shows a deeper integration into traditional financial markets, which is a part of BTC’s ongoing evolution, the report said.
Crypto market data daily view. Source: TradingView
A minor positive in favor of the bulls is that the BTC spot exchange-traded funds have witnessed inflows for the past three consecutive days, according to Farside Investors data. That suggests institutional investors are accumulating at lower levels.
Could BTC and the major altcoins resume their downtrend? Let’s analyze the charts of the top 10 cryptocurrencies to find out.
Bitcoin price prediction
BTC turned down from $72,271 on Sunday, indicating that the higher levels continue to attract selling by the bears.
If the Bitcoin price stays below $67,300, the BTC/USDT pair may slide to $62,345 and subsequently to $60,000. Buyers are expected to defend the $60,000 level with all their might, as a close below it may sink the pair to $52,500.
Buyers are likely to have other plans. They will attempt to swiftly push the price above the $72,271 resistance. If they do that, the pair may rally to the 20-day exponential moving average (EMA) ($76,275). Buyers will have to pierce the 20-day EMA to start a sustained recovery toward the 50-day simple moving average (SMA) ($85,832). Such a move suggests that the pair may have bottomed out in the near term.
Ether price prediction
Ether (ETH) turned down from $2,111, indicating that the bears are fiercely defending the level.
The ETH/USDT pair may slide to the crucial $1,750 support, where the buyers are expected to step in. A solid bounce off the $1,750 level might form a range in the near term.
Instead, if sellers sink the Ether price below $1,750, the next stop might be $1,537. The first sign of strength will be a close above $2,111. The pair may then climb to the 20-day EMA ($2,364). This is a critical level for the bears to defend, as a close above it might propel the pair to the 50-day SMA ($2,838).
BNB price prediction
The failure of the bulls to push BNB (BNB) above the 50% retracement level of $676 has started a pullback toward $570.
The bulls are expected to mount a strong defense at the $570 level, but if the bears prevail, the BNB/USDT pair may resume its downtrend and collapse toward the psychological support at $500.
Contrarily, if the BNB price turns up from the current level of $570, it suggests demand at lower levels. The bulls will then attempt to drive the pair above $669. If they manage to do that, the pair may rally to the 20-day EMA ($730).
XRP price prediction
Buyers have held XRP (XRP) above the support line of the descending channel pattern but failed to start a strong rebound.
That increases the likelihood of a drop below the support line. If that happens, the XRP/USDT pair might retest the $1.11 level. If the $1.11 level gives way, the pair may plunge to $1 and then to $0.75.
Buyers will have to drive the XRP price above the $1.61 level to signal that the selling pressure is reducing. The pair may then march toward the 50-day SMA ($1.85) and later to the downtrend line.
Solana price prediction
Solana’s (SOL) relief rally stalled just below the breakdown level of $95, indicating that the bears are trying to flip the level into resistance.
There is minor support at $77, but if the level is taken out, the SOL/USDT pair may plummet to the $67 level. Buyers are expected to aggressively defend the $67 level, as a break below it may extend the decline to $50.
The first sign of strength will be a break and close above the 20-day EMA ($100). That suggests the markets have rejected the breakdown below the $95 level. The Solana price may then ascend to the 50-day SMA ($121).
Dogecoin price prediction
Dogecoin (DOGE) turned down from the psychological level of $0.10, indicating that the bears are attempting to flip the level into resistance.
The DOGE/USDT pair might drop to the $0.08 level, which is likely to attract buyers. If the Dogecoin price turns up and breaks above the 20-day EMA, it suggests that the bearish momentum is weakening. The pair may then jump toward the breakdown level of $0.12.
Alternatively, if the price continues lower and breaks below $0.08, it signals the resumption of the downtrend. The pair may then plummet to $0.06.
Bitcoin Cash price prediction
Bitcoin Cash (BCH) continues to face stiff resistance at the 20-day EMA ($540), but a minor positive is that the bulls have not ceded much ground to the bears.
If the price turns up from the current level and breaks above the 20-day EMA, it suggests that the $443 level is acting as a solid floor. The BCH/USDT pair may then rally to the 50-day SMA ($583).
On the contrary, if the Bitcoin Cash price continues lower and skids below $497, it signals that the bears are attempting to retain control. The pair may then descend to $467 and eventually to the vital support at $443.
The 20-day EMA is flattening out, and the relative strength index (RSI) is just below the midpoint, signaling a possible range-bound action in the near term. The HYPE/USDT pair may swing between $35.50 and $20.82 for a few days.
Buyers will have to push and maintain the Hyperliquid price above the $35.50 level to indicate the start of a new up move. On the downside, a close below the $20.82 support may deepen the fall to $17.
Cardano price prediction
Cardano (ADA) has been gradually sliding toward the support line of the descending channel pattern, indicating that the bears continue to exert pressure.
Sellers will attempt to drag the price below the support line and Friday’s low of $0.22. If they can pull it off, the ADA/USDT pair may resume the downtrend. The next support on the downside is $0.20 and then $0.15.
The bulls will have to thrust the Cardano price above the 20-day EMA ($0.29) to retain the pair inside the channel for some more time. Buyers will be back in the driver’s seat on a close above the downtrend line.
Monero price prediction
Monero (XMR) reached the 38.2% Fibonacci retracement level of $361, where the bears are posing a strong challenge.
If the Monero price turns down and breaks below $309, it suggests that the bears remain in charge. The XMR/USDT pair may then slump to the $291 to $276 support zone.
Conversely, if the price turns up from the current level or the support zone and breaks above $361, the next stop is likely to be the 20-day EMA ($394). Sellers will again attempt to halt the recovery at the 20-day EMA, but if the buyers pierce the resistance, the pair may run toward the 50-day SMA ($464).
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.
Lombard said it plans to launch Bitcoin Smart Accounts, designed to allow Bitcoin held in institutional custody to be used as onchain collateral without moving the asset or transferring control to a third party.
According to an announcement shared with Cointelegraph, following a launch this quarter, custodied Bitcoin will be recognized onchain through a receipt token, BTC.b, enabling institutions to access lending and liquidity venues while retaining legal ownership and existing custody arrangements.
Lombard said the framework targets asset managers, corporate treasuries and other institutional holders whose Bitcoin (BTC) remains idle in qualified custody. Pilots are underway with select institutional clients, though Lombard has not disclosed customer names or transaction volumes.
Bitcoin does not natively offer yield, a constraint that has kept vast amounts of the token idle compared to proof-of-stake networks. That dynamic is beginning to shift as a growing set of protocols seek to put custodied Bitcoin to work onchain.
Seeking to unstick Bitcoin
Lombard co-founder Jacob Phillips told Cointelegraph that decentralized exchanges now account for a meaningful share of crypto trading activity, with about half of lending and borrowing already taking place onchain. Phillips said:
But Bitcoin has been stuck. You’ve got roughly $1.4 trillion in BTC sitting idle, with only about $40 billion active in DeFi. Until now, if you wanted to put your Bitcoin to work onchain, you had to wrap it or move it into centralized services, which meant giving up the custody security institutional holders require. That’s the problem we’re solving.
Morpho will serve as the initial liquidity partner, with additional onchain protocols and custodian integrations expected over time.
Phillips said Morpho was selected for its institutional-focused lending infrastructure and experience supporting isolated Bitcoin-backed lending, adding that Bitcoin Smart Accounts are designed as open infrastructure rather than a closed integration, allowing Lombard to support additional DeFi protocols as demand emerges.
Founded in 2024, Lombard develops Bitcoin-focused onchain infrastructure and tokenized assets, including LBTC and BTC.b, designed to enable Bitcoin to be used in DeFi without leaving custody, according to the company.
On May 1, US-based crypto exchange Coinbase launched the Coinbase Bitcoin Yield Fund, targeting non-US institutional investors with an expected annual net return of 4% to 8% on Bitcoin holdings.
A few months later, Solv Protocol launched a structured yield vault for institutional investors, designed to deploy idle Bitcoin across multiple yield strategies spanning decentralized finance, centralized finance and traditional markets. Solv’s BTC+ vault includes strategies such as protocol staking, basis arbitrage and exposure to tokenized real-world assets.
On Feb. 4, institutional crypto infrastructure provider Fireblocks said it would integrate Stacks to give institutional clients access to Bitcoin-based lending and yield.
Cointelegraph is committed to independent, transparent journalism. This news article is produced in accordance with Cointelegraph’s Editorial Policy and aims to provide accurate and timely information. Readers are encouraged to verify information independently. Read our Editorial Policy https://cointelegraph.com/editorial-policy
Blockchain transactions per second (TPS) numbers are often treated as a performance gauge, but they don’t tell the full story of whether a network can scale in practice.
Carter Feldman, founder of Psy Protocol and a former hacker, told Cointelegraph that TPS figures are often misleading because they ignore how transactions are actually verified and relayed across decentralized systems.
“Many pre-mainnet, testnet or isolated benchmarking tests measure TPS with only one node running. At that point, you might as well call Instagram a blockchain that can hit 1 billion TPS because it has one central authority validating every API call,” Feldman said.
Part of the issue is how most blockchains are designed. The faster they try to go, the heavier the load on every node and the harder decentralization becomes. That burden can be reduced by separating transaction execution from verification.
New projects advertise high TPS, though live network usage rarely approaches those ceilings. Source: MegaETH
TPS numbers ignore the cost of decentralization
TPS is a valid benchmark for blockchain performance. If a network has higher TPS, it can handle more real usage.
But Feldman argued most headline TPS figures represent ideal settings that don’t translate to real-world throughput. The impressive numbers don’t show how the system performs under decentralized conditions.
“The TPS of a virtual machine or a single node is not a measure of a blockchain’s real mainnet performance,” said Feldman.
“However, the number of transactions per second a blockchain can process in a production environment is still a valid way to quantify how much usage it can handle, which is what scaling should mean.”
Every full node in a blockchain must check that transactions follow the protocol’s rules. If one node accepts an invalid transaction, others should reject it. That’s what makes a decentralized ledger work.
Blockchain performance considers how fast a virtual machine executes transactions. But bandwidth, latency and network topology matter in the real world. So, performance also depends on how transactions are received and verified by other nodes across the network.
As a result, TPS figures published in white papers often diverge from mainnet performance. Benchmarks that isolate execution from relay and verification costs measure something closer to virtual machine speed than blockchain scalability.
EOS, a network on which Feldman was a former block producer, smashed initial coin offering records in 2018. Its white paper suggested a theoretical scale of around 1 million TPS. That remains an eye-popping figure even by 2026 standards.
EOS never reached its theoretical TPS target. Earlier reports claimed it could hit 4,000 transactions under favorable settings. However, research conducted by blockchain testers at Whiteblock found that in realistic network conditions, throughput fell to roughly 50 TPS.
In 2023, Jump Crypto demonstrated that its Solana validator client, Firedancer, reached what EOS couldn’t by testing 1 million TPS. The client has since been rolling out, with many validators running a hybrid version known as Frankendancer. Solana in live conditions today typically processes around 3,000-4,000 TPS. Roughly 40% of those transactions are non-vote transactions, which better reflect actual user activity.
Solana recorded 1,361 TPS without vote transactions on Feb. 10. Source: Solscan
Breaking the linear scaling problem
Blockchain throughput usually scales linearly with workload. More transactions reflect more activity, but it also means nodes receive and verify more data.
Each additional transaction adds computational burden. At some point, bandwidth limits, hardware constraints and synchronization delays make further increases unsustainable without sacrificing decentralization.
Feldman said that overcoming this constraint requires rethinking how validity is proven, which can be done through zero-knowledge (ZK) technology. ZK is a way to prove that a batch of transactions was processed correctly without making every node run those transactions again. Because it allows validity to be proven without revealing all underlying data, ZK is often pushed as a solution to privacy issues.
Feldman argues that it can ease the scaling burden as well via recursive ZK-proofs. In simple terms, that refers to proofs verifying other proofs.
“It turns out that you can take two ZK-proofs and generate a ZK-proof that proves that both of these proofs are correct,” Feldman said. “So, you can take two proofs and make them into one proof.”
“Let’s say we start with 16 users’ transactions. We can take those 16 and make them into eight proofs, then we can take the eight proofs and make them into four proofs,” Feldman explained while sharing a graphic of a proof tree where multiple proofs ultimately become one.
How several proofs become one. Source: Psy/Carter Feldman
In traditional blockchain designs, increasing TPS raises verification and bandwidth requirements for every node. Feldman argues that with a proof-based design, throughput can increase without proportionally increasing per-node verification costs.
That does not mean ZK eliminates scaling tradeoffs entirely. Generating proofs can be computationally intensive and may require specialized infrastructure. While verification becomes cheap for ordinary nodes, the burden shifts to provers that must perform heavy cryptographic work. Retrofitting proof-based verification into existing blockchain architectures is also complex, which helps explain why most major networks still rely on traditional execution models.
Performance beyond raw throughput
TPS is not useless, but it is conditional. According to Feldman, raw throughput figures are less meaningful than economic signals such as transaction fees, which provide a clearer indicator of network health and demand.
“I would contend that TPS is the number two benchmark of a blockchain’s performance, but only if it is measured in a production environment or in an environment where transactions are not just processed but also relayed and verified by other nodes,” he said.
LayerZero Labs unveiled its Zero chain and claimed it can scale to 2 million TPS by leveraging ZK tech. Source: LayerZero
Blockchain’s dominant and existing design also influenced investments. Those modeled around sequential execution can’t easily bolt on proof-based verification without redesigning how transactions are processed.
“In the very beginning, it was almost impossible to raise money for anything but a ZK EVM [Ethereum Virtual Machine],” Feldman said, explaining Psy Protocol’s former funding issues.
“The reason people didn’t want to fund it in the beginning is that it took a while,” he added. “You can’t just fork EVMs or their state storage because everything is done completely differently.”
In most blockchains, higher TPS means more work for every node. A headline figure alone does not show whether that workload is sustainable.
Cointelegraph Features and Cointelegraph Magazine publish long-form journalism, analysis and narrative reporting produced by Cointelegraph’s in-house editorial team and selected external contributors with subject-matter expertise. All articles are edited and reviewed by Cointelegraph editors in line with our editorial standards. Contributions from external writers are commissioned for their experience, research or perspective and do not reflect the views of Cointelegraph as a company unless explicitly stated. Content published in Features and Magazine does not constitute financial, legal or investment advice. Readers should conduct their own research and consult qualified professionals where appropriate. Cointelegraph maintains full editorial independence. The selection, commissioning and publication of Features and Magazine content are not influenced by advertisers, partners or commercial relationships.
XRP (XRP) has retraced nearly 63% from its multi-year high of $3.66 to trade at $1.36 on Wednesday, a technical setup that may have bearish implications for its price, according to a market analyst.
Key takeaways:
XRP appeared bearish below $1.40, with chart technicals pointing to a further drop toward $0.70-$1.
Persistent spot XRP ETFs inflows, whale accumulation and a surge in active addresses could invalidate the bearish outlook.
Where will XRP price bottom?
In a Tuesday post on X, Chart Nerd said that previous fractals from the monthly Gaussian Channel indicator suggest that XRP could drop lower over the coming weeks or months.
The Gaussian Channel is a technical analysis indicator used to identify trends, spot potential support/resistance levels, and overbought/oversold conditions.
The chart below shows that whenever the XRP price rallied, it has corrected to retest the upper regression band of the Gaussian Channel, which is currently at $1.16.
Historically, this has led to three to four months of “further decline towards the middle regression band of the Gaussian Channel before marking a foundation and continuing the trajectory higher,” the analyst said, adding:
“The middle regression band currently ties up around $0.70, which is also a previous year-long resistance level seen back in 2023/2024, and hasn’t been backtested for support.”
XRP/USD monthly chart depicting the Gaussian Channel. Source: Chart Nerd
Chart Nerd added that this scenario will be validated if the XRP drops below the local lows of $1.12, reached on Friday.
Meanwhile, analyst Crypto Patel said that while a drop to $1 would provide a good entry zone for XRP buyers, the “best accumulation zone” could be lower at $0.50-$0.70.
“Currently, XRP/USDT is ~70% down from the recent ATH. After a historical 96% drawdown from $3.28 to $0.1050 in 2018,” a similar crash is “unlikely,” the technical analyst said, adding:
As Cointelegraph reported, the odds of XRP falling below $1 increased once the price was rejected by the 200-week moving average around $1.40.
Is there hope for an XRP price recovery?
Despite XRP’s price weakness, institutional demand and whale accumulation continued.
Launched in late 2025, spot XRP ETFs have now reached $1.23 billion in cumulative net inflows. The $3.26 million inflows on Tuesday marked the fifth consecutive day of inflows, bringing the total assets under management to $1.01 billion.
Spot XRP ETFs flows table. Source: SoSoValue
“Institutional demand and XRP ETF inflows continue, with persistent spot ETF net inflows highlighting institutional confidence,” trader Levi said in a recent post on X.
XRP’s latest rebound to $1.50 from $1.12 came as speculators discussed whether the price would fall below $1, market intelligence platform Santiment said in a recent post on X.
Another hope for the bulls is that whales accumulated during the crash as transactions involving over $100,000 in XRP spiked to four-month highs of 1,389.
The number of active addresses on the XRP Ledger “suddenly ballooned to 78,727 in just one 8-hour candle — the highest in 6 months,” Santiment said, adding:
“These are both major signals of a price reversal for any asset.”
XRP daily active addresses and whale transactions. Source: Santiment
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.
AAVE trades at $106.24 in oversold territory with RSI at 29.99. Technical analysis suggests potential bounce from $101 support toward $130 resistance level.
Recent analyst predictions from late January 2026 painted a more optimistic picture for AAVE. Felix Pinkston projected “AAVE shows bullish potential toward $190-195 range by February 2026,” though current price action at $106.24 suggests these targets may need revision.
Peter Zhang provided a structured AAVE price prediction with “Short-term target (1 week): $182-184; Medium-term forecast (1 month): $190-195 range,” while Iris Coleman noted that “AAVE trades at $157.79 with analysts projecting $190-195 targets by February 2026.”
However, the current technical landscape shows AAVE has declined significantly from these earlier forecasts, trading nearly 33% below the levels referenced in recent analyst reports.
AAVE Technical Analysis Breakdown
The current AAVE price prediction relies heavily on oversold conditions signaling a potential reversal. With RSI at 29.99, AAVE sits firmly in oversold territory, historically a zone where bounce opportunities emerge.
AAVE trades below all major moving averages, with the 7-day SMA at $109.98 providing immediate resistance. The 20-day SMA at $131.03 represents a significant challenge, while the 200-day SMA at $223.35 shows the extent of the current downtrend.
The MACD histogram at 0.0000 suggests bearish momentum may be exhausting, though no clear bullish divergence has emerged. The Stochastic oscillator shows %K at 20.57 and %D at 16.46, both in oversold regions.
AAVE’s position at 0.18 on the Bollinger Bands scale places it near the lower band at $92.38, indicating potential support and mean reversion opportunity toward the middle band at $131.03.
Aave Price Targets: Bull vs Bear Case
Bullish Scenario
A successful defense of the $101.15 strong support could trigger an Aave forecast targeting $113.33 resistance initially. Breaking above this level opens the path to $131.03 (20-day SMA) and potentially $149.86 (50-day SMA) by March 2026.
The oversold RSI condition supports this bullish AAVE price prediction, as historical precedent shows strong bounces from similar levels. Volume confirmation above $15 million would strengthen the bullish case.
Bearish Scenario
Failure to hold $101.15 support exposes AAVE to further downside toward the Bollinger Band lower boundary at $92.38. A break below this level could target psychological support at $85-$90.
The bearish Aave forecast considers the alignment of all major moving averages above current price, creating significant resistance layers that could cap any recovery attempts.
Should You Buy AAVE? Entry Strategy
Based on current technical conditions, a staged entry approach appears prudent for this AAVE price prediction:
Primary Entry Zone: $101-$104 (current support cluster) Secondary Entry: $107-$109 on any bounce confirmation Stop Loss: Below $95 (clear break of Bollinger support) Target 1: $113.33 (immediate resistance) Target 2: $125-$130 (medium-term objective)
Risk management suggests limiting position size given the strong bearish trend structure. The 14-period ATR of $12.06 indicates significant volatility, requiring wider stop-loss levels.
Conclusion
This AAVE price prediction anticipates a technical bounce from current oversold levels, targeting $113-$118 in the near term and $120-$130 by March 2026. The Aave forecast relies on successful defense of $101.15 support and RSI divergence confirmation.
While earlier analyst predictions targeting $190-$195 appear overly optimistic given current market structure, the oversold technical setup provides a reasonable foundation for a 15-25% recovery from current levels.
Cryptocurrency price predictions involve significant risk and uncertainty. This analysis is for informational purposes only and should not constitute financial advice. Always conduct your own research and consider your risk tolerance before making investment decisions.
Lido DAO (LDO) trades at $0.33 with RSI at 25.70 in oversold territory. Technical analysis suggests potential bounce to $0.40-$0.45 range over next 4-6 weeks if key support holds.
Lido DAO (LDO) has declined significantly from its recent highs, currently trading at $0.33 with a 3.21% drop in the last 24 hours. However, oversold technical conditions suggest a potential recovery could be on the horizon for this liquid staking protocol token.
While specific analyst predictions are limited in recent days, historical forecasts from CoinCodex projected LDO reaching $0.65 by early 2026, while Blockchain.News suggested potential upside of 16-23% to the $0.66-$0.70 range within 4-6 weeks in late December 2025.
According to on-chain data from major exchanges, LDO has maintained consistent trading volume of over $2.2 million on Binance alone, indicating sustained institutional interest despite the recent price decline.
LDO Technical Analysis Breakdown
The technical picture for Lido DAO presents a mixed but potentially bullish setup for contrarian traders:
RSI Indicates Oversold Territory: At 25.70, LDO’s RSI has dropped well below the 30 threshold, suggesting the token is oversold and due for a technical bounce. This level historically marks significant buying opportunities for LDO.
MACD Shows Bearish Momentum Stalling: The MACD histogram at 0.0000 indicates bearish momentum is losing steam, with the MACD line (-0.0598) matching the signal line. This convergence often precedes trend reversals.
Bollinger Bands Signal Oversold Conditions: With LDO trading at just 15.48% of its Bollinger Band range, the token is hugging the lower band at $0.28, suggesting extreme oversold conditions and potential mean reversion toward the middle band at $0.43.
Moving Average Analysis: LDO trades significantly below all major moving averages, with the SMA 7 at $0.35 providing immediate resistance. The EMA 12 at $0.38 represents the first major technical hurdle for any recovery attempt.
Lido DAO Price Targets: Bull vs Bear Case
Bullish Scenario
In a bullish scenario for this LDO price prediction, a bounce from current oversold levels could target several key resistance zones. The immediate resistance at $0.34-$0.35 aligns with the 7-day simple moving average and represents the first hurdle.
A successful break above $0.35 could propel LDO toward the EMA 12 at $0.38, followed by the EMA 26 at $0.44. The ultimate bullish target sits at the SMA 20 around $0.43, which would represent a 30% gain from current levels.
Technical confirmation for the bullish case would require RSI breaking back above 30 and MACD histogram turning positive, along with volume expansion above the recent average.
Bearish Scenario
The bearish case for this Lido DAO forecast centers around a break below the critical $0.32 support level. Such a breakdown could trigger stop-losses and push LDO toward the Bollinger Band lower boundary at $0.28.
A deeper correction could see LDO test psychological support at $0.25, representing a 24% decline from current levels. This scenario would likely require broader crypto market weakness or specific negative developments affecting liquid staking protocols.
Risk factors include continued selling pressure from long-term holders, regulatory concerns around liquid staking, or broader DeFi sector weakness.
Should You Buy LDO? Entry Strategy
For risk-tolerant traders, the current oversold conditions present a potential entry opportunity with defined risk parameters. Consider a scale-in approach between $0.32-$0.33, with additional buying if LDO tests the $0.31 strong support level.
Initial position: $0.33 (current level)
Add on dips: $0.31-$0.32 range
Stop-loss: $0.29 (below Bollinger lower band)
First target: $0.38 (EMA 12)
Second target: $0.43 (SMA 20)
Risk management is crucial given LDO’s high volatility, with the daily ATR of $0.04 suggesting significant intraday price swings are likely to continue.
Conclusion
This LDO price prediction suggests that while bearish momentum has dominated recent trading, oversold technical conditions point to a potential recovery toward $0.40-$0.45 over the next month. The combination of extremely low RSI, Bollinger Band positioning, and MACD convergence creates a compelling contrarian setup.
However, any bullish thesis depends on LDO holding above the critical $0.31-$0.32 support zone and broader crypto market stability. Traders should maintain strict risk management given the high volatility environment.
Disclaimer: Cryptocurrency price predictions are highly 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 investing.
Bitcoin now responds more to liquidity than to rate cuts. While rate cuts once drove crypto rallies, Bitcoin’s recent price action reflects actual cash availability and risk capital in the system, not just borrowing costs.
Interest rates and liquidity are not the same. Rates measure the price of money, while liquidity reflects the amount of money circulating. Bitcoin reacts more when liquidity tightens or loosens, even if rates move in the opposite direction.
When liquidity is abundant, leverage and risk-taking expand, pushing Bitcoin higher. When liquidity contracts, leverage can unwind quickly, which has often coincided with sharp sell-offs across stocks and commodities.
Balance sheets and cash flows matter more than policy headlines. The Fed’s balance sheet policy, Treasury cash management and money market tools directly shape liquidity and often influence Bitcoin more than small changes in policy rates.
For years, US Federal Reserve interest rate cuts have been a key macro signal for Bitcoin (BTC) traders. Lower rates typically meant cheaper borrowing, boosted risk appetite and sparked rallies in crypto. However, that classic link between Fed rate cuts and Bitcoin trading has weakened in recent months. Bitcoin now responds more to actual liquidity levels in the financial system than to expectations or incremental changes in borrowing costs.
This article clarifies why anticipated rate cuts have not pushed up Bitcoin recently. It explains why episodes of liquidity constraint have triggered synchronized sell-offs across crypto, stocks and even precious metals.
Rates vs. liquidity: The key difference
Interest rates represent the cost of money, while liquidity reflects the quantity and flow of money available in the system. Markets sometimes confuse the two, but they can diverge sharply.
The Fed might lower rates, yet liquidity could still contract if reserves are drained elsewhere. For instance, liquidity can tighten through quantitative tightening or the US Department of the Treasury’s actions. Liquidity can also rise without rate cuts through other inflows or policy shifts.
Bitcoin’s price action increasingly tracks this liquidity pulse more closely than incremental rate adjustments.
Did you know? Bitcoin often reacts to liquidity changes before traditional markets do, earning it a reputation among macro traders as a “canary asset” that signals tightening conditions ahead of broader equity sell-offs.
Why rate cuts no longer drive Bitcoin as strongly
Several factors have diminished the impact of rate cuts:
Heavy pre-pricing: Markets and futures often anticipate cuts well in advance, pricing them in long before they happen. By the time a cut occurs, asset prices may already reflect it.
Context matters: Cuts driven by economic stress or financial instability can coincide with de-risking. In such environments, investors tend to reduce exposure to volatile assets even if rates are falling.
Cuts do not guarantee liquidity: Ongoing balance sheet runoff, large Treasury issuance or reserve drains can keep the system constrained. Bitcoin, as a volatile asset, tends to react quickly to these pressures.
Bitcoin as a liquidity-sensitive, high-beta asset
Bitcoin’s buyers rely on leverage, available risk capital and overall market conditions. Liquidity influences these factors:
In environments with abundant liquidity, leverage flows freely, volatility is more tolerated, and capital shifts toward riskier assets.
When liquidity is constrained, leverage unwinds, liquidations cascade, and risk appetite vanishes across markets.
This dynamic suggests Bitcoin behaves less like a policy rate trade and more like a real-time gauge of liquidity conditions. When cash becomes scarce, Bitcoin tends to fall in tandem with equities and commodities, regardless of the Fed funds rate.
What lies behind liquidity
To understand how Bitcoin reacts in various situations, it helps to look beyond rate decisions and into the financial plumbing:
Fed balance sheet: Quantitative tightening (QT) shrinks the Fed’s holdings and pulls reserves from banks. While markets can handle early QT, it eventually constrains risk-taking. Signals about potential balance sheet expansion can at times influence markets more than small changes in policy rates.
Treasury cash management: The US Treasury’s cash balance acts as a liquidity valve. When the Treasury rebuilds its cash balance, money moves out of the banking system. When it draws the balance down, liquidity is released.
Money market tools: Facilities like the overnight reverse repo (ON RRP) absorb or release cash. Shrinking buffers make markets more reactive to small liquidity shifts, and Bitcoin registers those changes rapidly.
Did you know? Some of Bitcoin’s sharpest intraday moves have occurred on days with no Fed announcements at all but coincided with large Treasury settlements that quietly drained cash from the banking system.
Why recent sell-offs felt macro, not crypto-specific
Lately, Bitcoin drawdowns have aligned with declines in equities and metals, pointing to broad liquidity stress rather than isolated crypto issues. This cross-asset synchronization underscores Bitcoin’s integration into the global liquidity framework.
Fed leadership and policy nuances: Shifts in expected Fed leadership, particularly views on balance sheet policy, add complexity. Skepticism toward aggressive expansion signals tighter liquidity ahead, which affects Bitcoin prices more intensely than small rate tweaks.
Liquidity surprises pack a bigger punch: Liquidity shifts are less predictable and transparent, and markets are not as adept at anticipating them. They quickly affect leverage and positioning. Rate changes, however, are widely debated and modeled. Unexpected liquidity drains can catch traders off guard, with Bitcoin’s volatility magnifying the effect.
How to think about Bitcoin’s macro sensitivity
Over long periods, interest rates shape valuations, discount rates and opportunity costs. In the current regime, however, liquidity sets the near-term boundaries for risk appetite. Bitcoin’s reaction becomes more volatile when liquidity shifts.
Key things to monitor include:
Central bank balance sheet signals
Treasury cash flows and Treasury General Account (TGA) levels
Stress or easing signals in money markets.
Rate cut narratives can shape sentiment, but sustained buying depends on whether liquidity supports risk-taking.
The broader shift
Bitcoin was long seen as a hedge against currency debasement. Today, it is increasingly viewed as a real-time indicator of financial conditions. When liquidity expands, Bitcoin benefits; when liquidity tightens, Bitcoin tends to feel the pain early.
In recent periods, Bitcoin has responded more to liquidity conditions than to rate cut headlines. In the current phase of the Bitcoin cycle, many analysts are focusing less on rate direction and more on whether system liquidity is sufficient to support risk-taking.
Cointelegraph maintains full editorial independence. The selection, commissioning and publication of Features and Magazine content are not influenced by advertisers, partners or commercial relationships.
Malicious MEV attacks pose a significant threat to traders on Ethereum. Our latest research shows that almost 2,000 sandwich attacks happen daily and more than $2 million is extracted from the network each month. Even traders who execute large WETH, WBTC or stable swaps remain at risk and can lose a substantial portion of their trades.
MEV thrives because of the transparent nature of blockchains, where transaction data is visible before transactions are executed and finalized. One path toward mitigating MEV is mempool encryption, particularly through the use of threshold encryption. In our earlier articles, we examined two different models for threshold-encrypted mempools. Shutter, one of the first projects to apply threshold encryption to protect the mempool, introduced a per-epoch setup. Batched threshold encryption (BTE), a newer model, decrypts multiple transactions with a single key to reduce communication costs and raise throughput.
In this piece, we analyze Flash Freezing Flash Boys (F3B) by H. Zhang et al. (2022), a newly proposed threshold encryption design that applies encryption on a per-transaction basis. We explore its mechanics, explain its scaling properties as concerns latency and memory, and discuss the reasons it has not yet been deployed in practice.
How Flash Freezing Flash Boys implements per-transaction encryption
Flash Freezing Flash Boys addresses limitations in early threshold encryption systems that relied on per-epoch setups. Projects such as FairBlock and the early versions of Shutter used a single key to encrypt every transaction within a selected epoch. An epoch is a fixed number of blocks, e.g., 32 blocks on Ethereum. This created a vulnerability where some transactions that fail to be included in the specified block ends would still be decrypted with the rest of the batch. This would expose sensitive data and open up MEV opportunities to validators, thus making them vulnerable to front-running.
F3B applies threshold encryption on a per-transaction basis, which ensures that each transaction remains confidential until it reaches finality. The general flow of the F3B protocol is shown in the figure below. The user encrypts the transaction with a key that only the designated threshold committee, known as the Secret Management Committee (SMC), can access. The transaction ciphertext and the encrypted key are sent to the consensus group as a pair (Step 1). Thus, nodes can store and order transactions while retaining all required decryption metadata for prompt post-finality reconstruction and execution. Meanwhile, the SMC prepares its decryption shares but withholds them until the consensus commits the transaction (Step 2). Once a transaction is finalized and the SMC releases enough valid shares (Step 3), the consensus group decrypts the transaction and executes it (Step 4).
Per-transaction encryption had long remained impractical due to its heavy computational load for encryption and decryption as well as the storage requirement from large encrypted payloads. F3B addresses this by threshold-encrypting only a lightweight symmetric key instead of the full transaction. The transaction itself is encrypted with this symmetric key. This approach can reduce the amount of data that needs to be asymmetrically encrypted by up to ~10 times for a simple swap transaction.
Comparison of different cryptographic implementations of F3B and their latency overhead
Flash Freezing Flash Boys can be implemented with one of two cryptographic protocols, either TDH2 or PVSS. The difference lies in who bears the setup burden and how often the committee structure is fixed, with corresponding advantages and disadvantages in flexibility, latency and storage overhead.
TDH2 (Threshold Diffie-Hellman 2) relies on a committee that runs a distributed key generation (DKG) process to produce individual key shares along with a collective public key. Then, a user creates a fresh symmetric key, encrypts their transaction with it, and encrypts that symmetric key to the committee’s public key. The consensus group writes this encrypted pair onto the chain. After the chain reaches the required number of confirmations, committee members publish partial decryptions of the encrypted symmetric key together with NIZK (Non-Interactive Zero-Knowledge) proofs, which are required to prevent chosen-ciphertext attacks, where attackers submit malformed ciphertexts to try to trick trustees into leaking information during decryption. NIZKs guarantee the user’s ciphertext is well-formed and decryptable, and also that trustees submitted correct decryption shares. Consensus verifies the proofs and, once a threshold of valid shares is available, reconstructs and decrypts the symmetric key, decrypts the transaction, and then executes it.
The second scheme, PVSS (Publicly Verifiable Secret Sharing), follows a different path. Instead of the committee running a DKG in every epoch, committee members each have a long-term private key and a corresponding public key, which is stored on the blockchain and accessible to any user. For each transaction, users pick a random polynomial and use Shamir’s secret sharing to generate secret shares, which are then encrypted for each chosen trustee using the respective public key. The symmetric key is obtained by hashing the reconstructed secret. The encrypted shares are each accompanied by an NIZK proof, which allows anyone to verify that all shares were derived from the same secret, along with a public polynomial commitment, a record that binds the share-secret relationship. The subsequent steps of transaction inclusion, post-finality share release, key reconstruction, decryption and execution are similar to those in the TDH2 scheme.
The TDH2 protocol is more efficient due to a fixed committee and constant-size threshold-encryption data. PVSS, by contrast, gives users more flexibility, since they can select the committee members responsible for their transaction. However, this comes at the cost of larger public-key ciphertexts and higher computational overhead due to per-trustee encryption. In the greater scheme of things, the prototype implementation of the F3B protocol on simulated proof-of-stake Ethereum showed that it has minimal performance overhead. With a committee of 128 trustees, the delay incurred after finality is only 197 ms for TDH2 and 205 ms for PVSS, which is equivalent to 0.026% and 0.027% of Ethereum’s 768-second finality time. Storage overhead is just 80 bytes per transaction for TDH2, while PVSS’s overhead grows linearly with the number of trustees due to per-member shares, proofs and commitments. These results confirm that F3B could deliver its privacy guarantees with negligible impact on Ethereum’s performance and capacity.
Incentives and punishments in the Flash Freezing Flash Boys protocol
F3B incentivizes honest behavior among Secret Management Committee trustees through a staking mechanism with locked collateral. Fees motivate trustees to stay online and maintain the level of performance the protocol requires. A slashing smart contract ensures that if anyone submits proof of a violation, which demonstrates that decryption was performed prematurely, the offending trustee’s stake is forfeited. In TDH2, such proof consists of a trustee’s decryption share that can be publicly verified against the transaction ciphertext. Meanwhile, in PVSS, the proofs consist of a decrypted share together with a trustee-specific NIZK proof that authenticates it. This mechanism penalizes provable premature disclosure of decryption shares, increasing the cost of detectable misbehavior. However, it does not prevent trustees from colluding privately off-chain to reconstruct and decrypt transaction data without publishing any shares. As a result, the protocol still relies on the assumption that majority of committee members behave honestly.
Because encrypted transactions cannot be executed immediately, another attack vector is for a malicious user to flood the blockchain with non-executable transactions to slow down confirmation times. This is a potential attack surface common to all encrypted mempool schemes. F3B requires that users make a storage deposit for every encrypted transaction, which makes spamming costly. The system deducts the deposit upfront and refunds only part of it when the transaction executes successfully.
Challenges to deploying F3B on Ethereum
Flash Freezing Flash Boys offers a comprehensive cryptographic approach to mitigating MEV, but it is unlikely to see real-world deployment on Ethereum due to the complexity of integration. Although F3B leaves the consensus mechanism untouched and preserves full compatibility with existing smart contracts, it requires modifications to the execution layer to support encrypted transactions and delayed execution. This would require a far broader hard fork than any other update introduced since The Merge.
Nevertheless, F3B represents a valuable research milestone that extends beyond Ethereum. Its trust-minimized mechanism for sharing private transaction data can be applied to both emerging blockchain networks and decentralized applications that require delayed execution. F3B-style protocols can be useful even on sub-second blockchains where lower block times already significantly reduce MEV, to fully eliminate mempool-based front-running. As an example application, F3B could also be used in a sealed-bid auction smart contract, where bidders submit encrypted bids that remain hidden until the bidding phase ends. Thus, bids can be revealed and executed only after the auction deadline, which prevents bid manipulation, front-running or early information leakage.
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. This article is for general information purposes and is not intended to be and should not be taken as, legal, tax, investment, financial, or other advice. The views, thoughts, and opinions expressed here are the author’s alone and do not necessarily reflect or represent the views and opinions of Cointelegraph. Cointelegraph does not endorse the content of this article nor any product mentioned herein. Readers should do their own research before taking any action related to any product or company mentioned and carry full responsibility for their decisions. 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 decline suggests the market has moved out of the euphoric post-halving phase and into what Kaiko described as a historically typical bear market period that lasts about 12 months before a new accumulation phase begins.
In a research note shared with Cointelegraph on Monday, Kaiko said Bitcoin’s 32% crash was the most significant correction since the 2024 Bitcoin halving and may mark the “halfway point” of the current bear market.
“Analysis of on-chain metrics and comparative performance across tokens reveals a market approaching critical technical support levels that will determine whether the four-year cycle framework remains intact,” Kaiko said.
Bitcoin halving cycles, all-time chart. Source: Kaiko Research
Kaiko’s report highlighted several emerging onchain bear market signals, including a 30% drop in aggregate spot crypto trading volume across the 10 leading centralized exchanges, from around $1 trillion in October 2025 down to $700 billion in November.
At the same time, combined Bitcoin and Ether (ETH) futures open interest declined from $29 billion to $25 billion over the past week, a 14% reduction that Kaiko said reflects ongoing deleveraging.
Open interest for BTC and ETH futures, top 10 exchanges. Source: Kaiko Research
While Bitcoin has realigned with the historical four-year halving cycle since the beginning of the year, determining the depth of the current bear market is complex, as “many catalysts that fueled BTC’s rally to $126,000 are still in effect,” said Shawn Young, chief analyst, MEXC Research.
“With oversold indicators emerging on multiple timeframes, the rebound conversation around BTC is more a question of when, not if,” Young said, adding that Bitcoin may be entering a new cycle that will only become clear over the next year.
The key question for investors is whether the dip to $60,000 represents the low of the current bear market. The level roughly aligns with Bitcoin’s 200-week moving average, which has historically acted as long-term support.
Still, more market volatility is expected in the absence of crypto-specific market catalysts, Nicolai Sondergaard, research analyst at crypto intelligence platform Nansen, told Cointelegraph, adding:
“With that said, it is still very hard to say if it means we are going back to the conventional 4-year cycle. I have seen many prominent figures in the space air the idea, but equally many who do not think so.”
However, Kaiko pointed to a 52% retracement from Bitcoin’s previous all-time high being “unusually shallow” compared to previous bear market cycles.
A 60% to 68% retracement would “align more closely” with historical drawdowns, which implies a Bitcoin cycle bottom around $40,000 to $50,000, Kaiko said.
Still, some market participants argue that $60,000 already marked a local bottom. Analyst and MN Capital founder Michaël van de Poppe called the crash to $60,000 the local market bottom for Bitcoin’s price, citing a record low in investor sentiment and a critical low in the relative strength index, which sank to values last seen in 2018 and 2020.
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
