The Bit Gazette

Category: Crypto

Bitcoin traders brace for Fed speeches, PPI, and jobless claims in a pivotal final week of February

Bitcoin enters the final week of February facing a dense slate of macro catalysts — including Fed speeches from Christopher Waller and Raphael Bostic, weekly jobless claims, and the Producer Price Index — any one of which could shift rate-cut expectations and trigger price swings analysts estimate at 3% to 5%.

Recent data has painted a conflicted picture: inflation pressures have moderated slightly, unemployment claims remain relatively low, and central-bank commentary has leaned careful rather than decisive. That ambiguity has kept investors glued to the calendar of US Economic Events, searching for confirmation about the direction of monetary policy and liquidity conditions.

Federal Reserve Speakers Take Center Stage

A packed speaking schedule from officials at the Federal Reserve tops the list of US Economic Events traders are tracking. Appearances from Christopher Waller, Lisa Cook, Austan Goolsbee, and Raphael Bostic are scheduled across multiple days, creating a dense stream of policy commentary.

Markets currently anticipate two or three interest-rate cuts in 2026, but tone matters as much as substance in these US Economic Events. Historically, both Waller and Bostic have emphasized vigilance against inflation and a data-driven approach. If their remarks reinforce concern about lingering price pressures, bond yields could climb and the dollar could strengthen—conditions that often weigh on Bitcoin.

On the other hand, if policymakers highlight signs of slowing growth or softening employment, traders may interpret that as groundwork for looser policy. In that case, risk assets—including crypto—could benefit.

Analysts note that clustered speeches heighten volatility risk because inconsistent messaging during these US Economic Events can spark rapid repricing in rate expectations.

Jobless Claims: A Real-Time Labor Gauge

Another critical set of US Economic Events arrives with weekly initial jobless claims, widely viewed as one of the most timely snapshots of labor-market health. The latest reading surprised forecasters by dropping to 206,000, reinforcing the narrative of a resilient employment backdrop.

Economists now expect around 215,000. Should claims fall below 210,000, it would signal continued labor strength and could embolden hawkish policymakers during upcoming US Economic Events appearances. Strong employment typically delays expectations for rate cuts, tightening financial conditions and sometimes limiting upside for speculative assets like Bitcoin.

Conversely, a jump above 225,000 could signal cooling momentum. That scenario would likely intensify recession worries and raise the probability of policy easing. Traders often respond to such outcomes by increasing exposure to assets that benefit from liquidity expansion.

Because claims data can move Bitcoin by up to roughly 1% in either direction, surprises within these US Economic Events could spark amplified reactions if they contradict central-bank rhetoric.

Producer Price Index: Inflation Pipeline Check

The week concludes with another pivotal entry on the calendar of US Economic Events: the Producer Price Index (PPI). This measure tracks wholesale-level inflation and often foreshadows consumer price trends. Forecasts suggest headline and core readings near 3.0% year over year.

If core PPI exceeds roughly 3.2%, inflation fears could resurface, potentially lifting real yields and the dollar. Such a result would echo recent post-data sell-offs and might pressure Bitcoin. But a softer-than-expected print below about 2.8% would reinforce the disinflation narrative and strengthen the case for monetary easing—conditions historically favorable for crypto markets.

Because PPI lands at month’s end, it often cements trends shaped by earlier US Economic Events. Combined with jobless claims, it could generate Bitcoin swings of 2–3% if results sharply diverge from forecasts.

Macro Correlations Keep Crypto on Edge

Correlation metrics show Bitcoin moving increasingly in step with traditional markets such as the Nasdaq and the U.S. dollar, underscoring how macro forces dominate price action. That linkage means US Economic Events now rival crypto-native developments in importance for traders.

Data compiled by MarketWatch indicates that macro releases and policy signals have recently driven sharper price reactions than blockchain-sector news. Analysts say this trend reflects a market environment where liquidity expectations overshadow fundamentals.

If this week’s slate of US Economic Events collectively leans dovish, strategists estimate Bitcoin could rally between 3% and 5% as investors anticipate easier financial conditions. A unified hawkish signal, however, could produce a pullback of similar magnitude.

Outlook

For now, traders are bracing for volatility as US Economic Events dominate the narrative. With policy expectations delicately balanced and correlations elevated, the coming days may determine whether Bitcoin finishes February on stable ground or under renewed pressure. In the current environment, liquidity signals from US Economic Events—not crypto-specific catalysts—remain firmly in the driver’s seat.

02/23/2026
Netherlands gambling authority orders Polymarket to halt Dutch operations or face $990,000 fine

The Netherlands Gambling Authority has ordered Polymarket to stop accepting wagers from Dutch users, warning that failure to comply could cost the platform nearly $990,000, the sharpest enforcement action yet against a crypto-native prediction market in Europe.

Regulators said the company allowed users to participate in contracts tied to outcomes such as political events—activities prohibited under national law. Officials also noted the firm had not responded adequately to earlier compliance inquiries, escalating concerns over prediction markets regulation enforcement.

“Prediction markets are on the rise, including in the Netherlands,” said Ella Seijsener, director of licensing and supervision at the authority. She stressed that the types of wagers offered “are not permitted in the Dutch market under any circumstances,” underscoring the country’s strict interpretation of prediction markets regulation.

The decision places Polymarket’s Dutch operations effectively on pause and illustrates how quickly prediction markets regulation is tightening as authorities confront platforms blending finance, speculation, and gaming mechanics.

Legal Grey Zones Fuel Global Prediction Markets Regulation Debate

The case reflects wider friction between emerging platforms and regulators worldwide, especially in jurisdictions still defining prediction markets regulation frameworks. Earlier this year, Polymarket’s chief legal officer Neal Kumar said the company remained open to dialogue with regulators while U.S. courts weigh questions about which agencies should oversee event-based contracts.

In the United States, similar platforms have faced scrutiny from state regulators who argue these products resemble sports betting or unlicensed derivatives. Meanwhile, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission has asserted federal jurisdiction in certain cases, creating overlapping authority disputes that complicate prediction markets regulation.

Industry analysts say this jurisdictional tug-of-war could shape how digital forecasting platforms operate globally. Some legal scholars contend that prediction markets can serve as data-driven forecasting tools, while critics argue they blur the line between financial instruments and gambling. The unresolved debate has made prediction markets regulation one of the most closely watched issues in fintech compliance.

Dutch Policy Shifts Add Pressure Beyond Prediction Markets Regulation

The enforcement action arrives as lawmakers in the Dutch House of Representatives consider broader financial reforms that could reshape the country’s digital-asset landscape. A proposal under discussion would introduce a 36% capital-gains tax on certain investments, potentially covering cryptocurrencies if passed and ratified by the Senate. If enacted, the measure could take effect in 2028.

Policy observers say combining tax reforms with stricter prediction markets regulation suggests a coordinated strategy to assert stronger oversight of emerging financial technologies. Governments across Europe have increasingly signaled that platforms offering speculative products tied to real-world outcomes will face the same compliance standards as traditional financial or betting operators.

Crypto Exposure Rises Despite Prediction Markets Regulation Scrutiny

Even as prediction markets regulation intensifies, data shows Dutch investors’ indirect exposure to digital assets has surged. According to De Nederlandsche Bank, holdings of crypto-linked securities climbed to roughly €1.2 billion by October 2025, up sharply from about €81 million at the end of 2020. Much of that increase reflects price appreciation in major tokens rather than a massive influx of new capital.

Despite the growth, such assets still represent only about 0.03% of the country’s overall investment market, indicating traditional financial instruments continue to dominate portfolios. Analysts say this contrast highlights the balancing act regulators face: encouraging innovation while maintaining safeguards through prediction markets regulation and related oversight tools.

Institutional interest is also expanding. Last year, Dutch crypto firm Amdax secured €30 million to launch the Amsterdam Bitcoin Treasury Strategy, a vehicle designed to accumulate up to 1% of the total Bitcoin supply—roughly 210,000 coins. Moves like this illustrate why regulators are racing to refine prediction markets regulation before market adoption accelerates further.

Outlook: Prediction Markets Regulation Becoming a Global Flashpoint

The Dutch order is the latest signal that prediction markets regulation is shifting from theoretical policy debates to concrete enforcement. Compliance experts say platforms operating across borders must now anticipate stricter licensing demands, localized restrictions, and heavier penalties for violations.

Financial law specialists note that as prediction markets regulation evolves, companies will likely need hybrid compliance strategies combining elements of derivatives law, gaming law, and digital-asset policy. That complexity could favor well-capitalized firms capable of navigating multi-jurisdictional rules, while smaller startups may struggle to meet regulatory thresholds.

For now, the Netherlands’ decisive action serves as a warning shot to the broader industry: prediction markets regulation is no longer optional, and authorities are prepared to act swiftly when platforms operate outside national frameworks.

With governments worldwide drafting new rules, the clash between innovation and oversight appears set to intensify—ensuring prediction markets regulation remains at the forefront of financial policy discussions.

02/23/2026
Bitcoin risks drop to $56K as head-and-shoulders pattern forms and open interest hits $20.7 billion

Bitcoin has rebounded more than 4% since February 19 to reclaim $68,200, but analysts warn the rally is sitting on fragile ground — a head-and-shoulders pattern on the 8-hour chart, a surge in leveraged long positions to $20.71 billion in open interest, and an on-chain supply cluster near $66,800 that could trigger cascading sales if breached.

Analysts tracking derivatives positioning, chart formations, and blockchain supply metrics warn that the market could be nearing its most vulnerable point of 2026.

Bearish Structure Raises Immediate Bitcoin Price Prediction Concerns

Current technical structure is the primary driver behind the latest Bitcoin price prediction warnings. On the 8-hour chart, analysts have identified a classic head-and-shoulders formation — a pattern widely regarded by technicians as a bearish reversal signal. It forms when price records three peaks, with the center peak higher than the two surrounding highs, indicating fading buying pressure.

Momentum data reinforces this cautionary Bitcoin price prediction outlook. Between February 6 and February 20, price action produced a lower high while momentum indicators climbed higher. This hidden bearish divergence suggests the recovery lacked strong conviction from buyers.

Supply analytics deepen the risk narrative. On-chain distribution metrics show that more than 4.5% of circulating coins sit just below current price levels. That concentration creates a dense liquidity pocket that could accelerate selling if support fails. In practical terms, such clusters often act like trapdoors — once price drops into them, selling pressure can cascade quickly.

Market historian and Berkshire Hathaway chairman Warren Buffett once warned that speculative assets can fall rapidly when sentiment flips, famously describing cryptocurrencies as “rat poison squared.” While his stance is controversial among crypto supporters, risk analysts say the remark reflects a reality markets repeatedly demonstrate: fragile rallies can unwind fast.

Leverage Surge Complicates the Bitcoin Price Prediction Outlook

Derivatives positioning adds another layer to the Bitcoin price prediction debate. Open interest — the total value of outstanding futures contracts — jumped from about $19.54 billion on February 19 to roughly $20.71 billion during the rebound. Rising open interest during price increases typically indicates traders are entering leveraged longs rather than spot buyers accumulating coins.

That distinction matters because leveraged positions can trigger rapid liquidations if price turns lower. A crowded trade makes any downside move more violent, amplifying volatility and accelerating corrections.

Momentum indicators support the cautious Bitcoin price prediction narrative. The Relative Strength Index posted a higher high while price failed to do the same. Technicians interpret this divergence as a sign that buying strength is weakening even as traders attempt to push prices upward.

Executives in traditional finance have repeatedly warned about leverage risks in crypto markets. Jamie Dimon, chief executive of JPMorgan Chase, has stated that excessive speculation and leverage make digital assets prone to sharp corrections. Analysts note that his caution aligns with the current Bitcoin price prediction signals emerging from derivatives data.

On-Chain Cost Basis Levels Signal a Critical Support Zone

Blockchain analytics now play a central role in any serious Bitcoin price prediction. One key metric, the UTXO Realized Price Distribution, maps where coins last moved on-chain, effectively revealing price zones where large numbers of holders bought in.

Current readings show the largest supply cluster sits just above $66,800, representing about 3.17% of circulating supply. This makes it a crucial support region. If price closes decisively below that band, the technical head-and-shoulders pattern could confirm — a development that would significantly strengthen bearish Bitcoin price prediction scenarios.

Long-term investors, however, continue to frame corrections as cyclical rather than catastrophic. Cathie Wood, leader of ARK Invest, has repeatedly argued that volatility is intrinsic to emerging technologies and has predicted that Bitcoin could exceed $1 million in the long run. Supporters cite such forecasts to counter short-term Bitcoin price prediction fears.

Why Analysts Say the Next Move May Decide 2026’s Trend

Market strategists emphasize that the current Bitcoin price prediction environment is unusually compressed. Price sits between heavy resistance above and dense supply below, creating what traders call a “decision zone.” Breakouts from such ranges often set the tone for months.

If bulls defend the $66,800 region, confidence could return quickly and invalidate bearish chart structures. But if that level fails, analysts say the path toward $56,000 becomes technically plausible — a scenario now circulating widely in institutional Bitcoin price prediction models.

Veteran macro trader Paul Tudor Jones once described Bitcoin as “the fastest horse in the race” for inflation hedging. Yet even he has stressed that volatility is unavoidable. That duality captures today’s market psychology: strong long-term conviction coexisting with fragile short-term positioning.

For now, traders are watching support levels, leverage metrics, and momentum signals closely. Each new data point feeds into the evolving Bitcoin price prediction consensus, which remains finely balanced between renewed upside and a sharp corrective phase.

02/21/2026
Coinbase Bitcoin premium goes negative for record 37 days, surpassing the 2021 crash streak

The Coinbase bitcoin premium has stayed negative for 37 consecutive days, surpassing the roughly 30-day streak recorded during the October 2021 market crash and marking the longest sustained period of U.S. selling pressure since Bitcoin’s most volatile correction in recent history, according to data from Coinglass.

Data from crypto analytics platform Coinglass shows the Coinbase Bitcoin Premium Index currently stands at -0.0523%, meaning Bitcoin is trading at a discount on Coinbase compared to the broader global average. The prolonged downturn surpasses the roughly 30-day stretch of negative readings recorded during the October 11, 2021 market crash — a period remembered for intense volatility and heavy liquidations.

The Coinbase bitcoin premium measures the gap between Bitcoin’s price on Coinbase and the global average across major exchanges. When the metric turns negative, it signals stronger selling pressure from U.S. investors relative to international markets. In simple terms, American participants are offloading Bitcoin more aggressively than their global counterparts.

“This is not just a statistical anomaly,” said Ki Young Ju, CEO of CryptoQuant. “Sustained negative Coinbase bitcoin premium readings often reflect structural weakness in U.S. demand, particularly from institutional players.”

What a Negative Coinbase Bitcoin Premium Really Means

Historically, the Coinbase bitcoin premium has acted as a proxy for institutional appetite in the United States. Because Coinbase is widely used by American funds and large investors, a positive premium often indicates accumulation from deep-pocketed players. Conversely, a prolonged negative reading suggests capital is exiting the market — or at least staying on the sidelines.

The current 37-day streak is especially notable because it exceeds the negative run seen during the 2021 correction, when Bitcoin experienced sharp declines amid macro uncertainty and profit-taking.

According to Noelle Acheson, author of the “Crypto Is Macro Now” newsletter, sustained weakness in U.S. demand can weigh heavily on overall market sentiment. “The U.S. remains a major driver of liquidity. When you see a persistent negative Coinbase bitcoin premium, it suggests domestic participants are either hedging risk or reallocating capital elsewhere,” she noted in recent market commentary.

Surpassing the 2021 Crash Streak

The fact that the Coinbase bitcoin premium has remained negative longer than during the October 2021 downturn raises important questions about current market structure.

Back then, Bitcoin faced a wave of macro headwinds, including tightening monetary expectations and regulatory uncertainty. Today’s environment is different but caution appears just as strong.

Unlike sudden crash-driven selloffs, the present stretch reflects a more gradual but persistent imbalance. The absence of panic-driven volatility suggests this may not be capitulation rather, it may indicate steady distribution or defensive positioning.

“Extended negative Coinbase bitcoin premium trends often show institutional caution rather than retail panic,” said Julio Moreno, Head of Research at CryptoQuant. “It’s a slow-burn signal that U.S. demand is not leading the market right now.”

Institutional Flow Matters

The Coinbase bitcoin premium is closely watched because it frequently aligns with institutional flow trends. When large U.S. entities accumulate Bitcoin, the premium tends to flip positive. When those flows slow or reverse, the indicator dips below zero.

Over the past month, the continued negative Coinbase bitcoin premium suggests that domestic buying has not been strong enough to offset selling pressure. Some analysts attribute this to broader macroeconomic concerns, including interest rate expectations and liquidity conditions.

“Capital allocation decisions are influenced by macro signals,” said James Butterfill, Head of Research at CoinShares, in recent commentary. “If investors perceive higher yields elsewhere, digital assets may temporarily lose priority.”

In that context, the Coinbase bitcoin premium becomes more than a pricing gap — it becomes a sentiment gauge.

Risk Aversion or Strategic Rotation?

Market observers are divided on what the extended weakness means for Bitcoin’s near-term trajectory.

One interpretation is straightforward: U.S. investors are reducing exposure amid uncertainty. Another possibility is that capital is rotating into alternative crypto assets or waiting for clearer signals before reentering Bitcoin positions.

Still, a sustained negative Coinbase bitcoin premium often precedes significant shifts. Historically, sharp reversals in the metric have coincided with renewed institutional inflows.

“When the Coinbase bitcoin premium flips back to positive after a long negative streak, that’s when you start to see stronger upward momentum,” explained Ki Young Ju in prior research commentary.

For now, however, the data suggests patience or caution is dominating American desks.

Market Implications

While a negative Coinbase bitcoin premium does not automatically signal an imminent price drop, its duration matters. The longer the streak, the more it reinforces the narrative of subdued U.S. participation.

Importantly, Bitcoin’s global market remains influenced by flows from Asia and other regions. If international demand offsets U.S. selling, price stability can persist even with a negative Coinbase bitcoin premium.

However, a sustained imbalance can eventually weigh on momentum.

Investors are now closely monitoring whether the metric stabilizes, deepens, or reverses. A move back into positive territory would suggest renewed domestic appetite. Continued weakness, on the other hand, may signal extended consolidation.

A Key Sentiment Barometer

The Coinbase bitcoin premium has long served as a real-time snapshot of American investor positioning. Its current 37-day negative run at -0.0523% marks a notable milestone — and one that surpasses a historic period of stress in 2021.

Whether this reflects macro-driven caution, strategic reallocation, or simple market fatigue remains to be seen. What is clear is that U.S. demand is not currently leading the charge.

For traders and institutional allocators alike, the Coinbase bitcoin premium will remain a critical metric to watch in the weeks ahead.

02/21/2026
IoTeX loses $4.3 million as suspected private key leak empties treasury and mints 111 million tokens

IoTeX lost approximately $4.3 million after a suspected private key compromise allowed an attacker to empty its token treasury across multiple assets and mint 111 million CIOTEX tokens, according to on-chain analyst Specter, who flagged the breach on February 21.

On February 21, on-chain analyst Specter flagged unusual activity tied to IoTeX-linked wallets, suggesting that an IoTeX private key leak may have enabled an attacker to drain the project’s token treasury entirely. The breach reportedly resulted in millions of dollars’ worth of crypto assets being siphoned off and quickly laundered across networks.

While IoTeX had not immediately issued a detailed public post-mortem at the time of reporting, the scale and speed of the exploit have intensified scrutiny around how sensitive credentials are secured in Web3 infrastructure.

Treasury Drained in Multi-Asset Sweep

Blockchain data reviewed by analysts shows that multiple assets were removed from contracts associated with the project. Tokens reportedly moved include USDC, USDT, IOTX, PAYG, WBTC, and BUSD.

Following the suspected IoTeX private key leak, the attacker consolidated the stolen funds and swapped a significant portion into ETH. On-chain traces indicate that roughly 45 ETH were subsequently bridged cross-chain to the Bitcoin network, a tactic often used to obfuscate transaction trails.

“Cross-chain bridges are frequently used in post-exploit fund movements because they complicate tracking,” said Tom Robinson, co-founder and chief scientist at Elliptic, in prior commentary on similar cases. “Speed and network-hopping are common patterns when attackers attempt to reduce recovery chances.”

The suspected IoTeX private key leak appears to follow that pattern, with rapid token swaps and bridging activity executed within a short timeframe.

111 Million CIOTEX Minted

In addition to draining treasury-held assets, blockchain data shows that 111 million CIOTEX tokens were minted at an address beginning with 0xA46. Analysts are investigating whether the token minting event was directly enabled by the same IoTeX private key leak or involved a separate contract-level vulnerability.

Minting large token quantities during or after an exploit can exacerbate damage, particularly if liquidity pools are affected. However, the broader financial impact of the minted CIOTEX tokens remains under assessment.

“This is why key management is existential in crypto,” said Immunefi founder Mitchell Amador in earlier security discussions. “If a private key is compromised, it’s essentially handing over the vault.”

In the case of the alleged IoTeX private key leak, investigators believe the attacker may have gained access to credentials that provided administrative or treasury-level permissions.

What a Private Key Leak Implies

A private key leak typically means that the cryptographic credential controlling a wallet or smart contract was exposed. Unlike smart contract bugs, which may involve exploitable code logic, a private key compromise grants direct control over assets.

If confirmed, the IoTeX private key leak would represent an operational security failure rather than a protocol design flaw. Such breaches often occur due to poor storage practices, compromised development environments, insider risks, or phishing attacks.

“Most large-scale crypto losses still trace back to key management issues,” said CertiK co-founder Ronghui Gu in prior research commentary. “The industry has improved smart contract auditing, but operational security remains uneven.”

The suspected IoTeX private key leak underscores how even established blockchain projects remain vulnerable to off-chain attack vectors.

Cross-Chain Complexity Complicates Recovery

The attacker’s decision to swap stolen tokens into ETH and bridge at least 45 ETH cross-chain adds a layer of complexity to asset recovery efforts. Cross-chain transactions fragment liquidity trails, especially when combined with token swaps and intermediary wallets.

Blockchain analytics firms have grown increasingly sophisticated in tracking such flows. However, once assets move through multiple chains and exchanges, freezing or clawback becomes significantly harder.

The IoTeX private key leak highlights a broader challenge for decentralized ecosystems: while transparency enables forensic tracking, it does not automatically guarantee recovery.

Market Reaction and Community Concerns

News of the suspected IoTeX private key leak has sparked concern among token holders and the broader crypto community. Treasury incidents can affect token confidence, particularly if reserves were earmarked for ecosystem development or liquidity support.

As of publication, IoTeX had not confirmed final loss figures beyond the estimated $4.3 million cited by on-chain analysts. The situation remains fluid as investigators continue tracing transactions linked to the exploit.

Security professionals stress that swift transparency is critical in limiting reputational damage.

“Clear communication after a breach is essential,” said blockchain security researcher Mudit Gupta in previous commentary on treasury hacks. “The faster a team discloses and coordinates with exchanges, the better the odds of mitigating fallout.”

A Recurring Industry Weakness

The alleged IoTeX private key leak joins a long list of crypto incidents in which compromised credentials — rather than flawed code — triggered multimillion-dollar losses.

Despite advancements in multi-signature wallets and hardware security modules, key exposure remains one of the most persistent vulnerabilities in the industry. In many cases, attackers do not need to exploit smart contracts if they can simply obtain the keys that control them.

The IoTeX private key leak serves as another stark reminder that decentralization does not eliminate operational risk.

For now, the estimated $4.3 million loss stands as the most visible consequence of the suspected IoTeX private key leak. Whether additional damage surfaces will depend on the scope of access the attacker obtained.

In an industry built on cryptographic security, incidents like this reinforce a simple but uncomfortable truth: the strength of blockchain systems ultimately depends on how well their keys are protected.

02/21/2026
USDT loses $2.7 billion in two months, marking its worst contraction since FTX collapsed

Tether’s USDT has shed roughly $2.7 billion in circulating supply over just two months, putting February on pace to become the worst month for the stablecoin since the weeks after FTX imploded in late 2022 — yet the broader stablecoin market is growing, suggesting capital is rotating, not retreating.

Blockchain data shows that Tether’s dollar-pegged stablecoin, USDT, has seen roughly $1.5 billion in supply wiped out so far in February, following a $1.2 billion decline in January. If the pace continues, the USDT circulating supply will record its largest monthly decrease in nearly three years — a milestone not seen since the weeks after FTX unraveled in November 2022.

Back then, the USDT circulating supply fell by around $2 billion in December 2022 as panic rippled across digital asset markets. Today’s drawdown is smaller but significant, particularly given USDT’s dominant role in global crypto trading.

A Liquidity Bellwether

With a market capitalization of approximately $183 billion, USDT represents about 71% of the total stablecoin market, according to CoinMarketCap. That dominance means any shift in the USDT circulating supply carries broader implications for digital asset liquidity.

“Stablecoins are the plumbing of crypto markets,” said Noelle Acheson, author of the “Crypto Is Macro Now” newsletter. “When we see notable changes in supply, it can signal shifts in risk appetite, capital allocation, or redemptions back into fiat.”

Because USDT functions as a primary on-ramp and trading pair across exchanges, a declining USDT circulating supply may reflect investors pulling funds off platforms, reallocating capital, or simply adopting a more cautious stance.

Total stablecoin market capitalization. Source: DeFiLlama

Data from Artemis Analytics, reported by Bloomberg, confirms that February’s contraction puts the USDT circulating supply on pace for its biggest monthly drop since the immediate aftermath of FTX’s implosion.

Echoes of 2022 — But Not the Same Panic

The comparison to 2022 is inevitable. FTX’s collapse triggered widespread fear, leading investors to redeem stablecoins en masse. At that time, the USDT circulating supply dropped sharply as market participants sought safety.

However, the current environment appears more measured.

“This doesn’t look like a systemic event,” said a digital asset strategist at a major European exchange who requested anonymity due to compliance policies. “The contraction in USDT circulating supply seems more tactical than panic-driven.”

Indeed, while the USDT circulating supply is shrinking, the broader stablecoin market tells a different story.

Stablecoin Market Holds Steady

Data from DeFiLlama shows that the total stablecoin market capitalization has increased by 2.33% in February, rising from $300 billion to $307 billion. That means the reduction in USDT circulating supply has not translated into an industry-wide contraction.

Instead, capital may be rotating into alternative dollar-pegged assets.

“The stability in total stablecoin market cap suggests this isn’t an exit from crypto altogether,” Acheson added. “It may reflect diversification within stablecoins or strategic reallocations.”

Tether USDT, monthly percentage supply change, monthly aggregate. Source: Artemis Analytics, Bloomberg

In other words, while the USDT circulating supply is falling, liquidity hasn’t evaporated — it may simply be shifting.

Whales Reduce Exposure

On-chain intelligence platform Nansen provides further insight into who is driving the changes in USDT circulating supply.

Over the past week, 22 whale wallets offloaded a combined $69.9 million worth of USDT, marking a 1.6-fold acceleration in selling activity from this cohort. Large holders — often early investors, funds, or high-net-worth traders — appear to be trimming positions.

At the same time, Nansen’s “smart money” category — traders with historically strong returns — has also been a net seller. Their activity has contributed to downward pressure on the USDT circulating supply, reinforcing the narrative of capital rotation or defensive positioning.

“Whale flows often act as early indicators,” said Andrew Thurman, a contributor to Nansen research. “But they don’t always reflect broader retail sentiment.”

Fresh Demand from New Wallets

While whales are reducing exposure, newer participants are stepping in.

Wallets created within the last 15 days purchased approximately $591 million in USDT over the past week, according to Nansen. This influx of new demand partially offsets the redemptions that are weighing on the USDT circulating supply.

The divergence underscores a split market: experienced capital reallocating or withdrawing, while new entrants accumulate stablecoins, potentially preparing to deploy them into crypto assets.

“The churn in USDT circulating supply highlights a transition phase,” Thurman noted. “Capital isn’t disappearing — it’s moving between hands.”

What It Means for Crypto Markets

Because USDT underpins a large share of spot and derivatives trading pairs, a shrinking USDT circulating supply can tighten liquidity conditions if not offset elsewhere.

Historically, expansions in stablecoin supply have coincided with rising crypto prices, as fresh liquidity enters the ecosystem. Conversely, contractions in USDT circulating supply can signal reduced buying power on exchanges.

USDT on Ethereum, token God mode, one-year chart. Source: Nansen

However, the stablecoin market’s overall growth tempers immediate concerns. If capital is migrating to other dollar-pegged assets rather than exiting crypto entirely, the liquidity impact may be limited.

Still, market participants are watching closely.

“Tether remains systemically important,” Acheson said. “Any sustained decline in USDT circulating supply warrants attention, even if it doesn’t yet signal stress.”

Awaiting Tether’s Response

Cointelegraph reached out to Tether for comment regarding the drivers behind the February decline but had not received a response at the time of publication.

In past instances, Tether has emphasized that changes in supply reflect customer-driven redemptions and issuances rather than internal policy shifts.

For now, the trajectory of the USDT circulating supply remains a key metric for traders gauging short-term liquidity trends.

Whether February ultimately marks a temporary recalibration or the beginning of a deeper contraction will depend on redemption flows, market volatility, and investor confidence in the weeks ahead.

One thing is clear: in a crypto market built on dollar-pegged rails, the direction of the USDT circulating supply continues to serve as one of the most closely watched indicators of underlying sentiment.

02/21/2026
Hyperliquid, Polymarket and Phantom make Forbes Fintech 50 as crypto shifts from speculation to infrastructure

Five crypto companies — including decentralized exchange Hyperliquid, which reached scale without raising external funding — have earned spots on the 2026 Forbes Fintech 50, as blockchain platforms increasingly compete with traditional fintech in payments, lending, and capital markets infrastructure.

The latest Forbes Fintech 50 arrives at a pivotal moment for the industry. After years of volatility, digital asset companies are recalibrating business models, tightening compliance, and focusing on sustainable growth rather than speculative hype.

Crypto’s Presence on the Forbes Fintech 50

The 2026 lForbes Fintech 50 underscores how crypto-native platforms are increasingly competing with traditional fintech players in payments, lending, capital markets, and infrastructure.

Polymarket, which has raised $2.3 billion in funding, continues to gain traction as a blockchain-based prediction market that allows users to trade on real-world outcomes. Meanwhile, Securitize, with $425 million raised, has positioned itself at the forefront of tokenized securities—bridging traditional assets and blockchain rails.

Phantom, valued at $2.68 billion in funding rounds, has grown into one of the most widely used self-custody wallets in the Web3 ecosystem. Ledn, which has raised $1.07 billion, operates in the digital asset lending space. Hyperliquid stands out for having reached scale without raising external funding—an increasingly rare feat in venture-backed fintech.

Together, their inclusion in the Forbes Fintech 50 highlights the breadth of crypto’s integration into financial services.

A Funding Landscape in Transition

Data from CB Insights shows that global fintech private funding reached $53 billion in 2025. While that figure remains well below the $152 billion peak recorded in 2021, it marks the first year of funding growth after a prolonged downturn.

The rebound adds context to this year’s Forbes Fintech 50. Fintech capital flows may be more disciplined than during the boom years, but investors are still backing platforms with clear use cases and scalable infrastructure.

Compared with artificial intelligence startups—whose valuations have surged—crypto companies are being priced more conservatively. Yet the Forbes Fintech 50 demonstrates that innovation within blockchain-based platforms remains robust.

From Speculation to Infrastructure

Industry observers note that crypto’s maturation is reflected in the composition of the Forbes Fintech 50.

Earlier cycles were dominated by exchanges and token issuers. Today’s leaders increasingly focus on infrastructure, compliance, custody, and institutional-grade services.

Securitize’s tokenization model, for instance, aligns with broader institutional interest in digitizing real-world assets. Phantom’s wallet services emphasize security and user autonomy. Ledn’s lending operations highlight the evolution of credit markets within crypto.

By featuring these firms, the Forbes Fintech 50 signals a shift from speculative trading narratives toward foundational financial architecture.

Executive Perspectives

Forbes editors have consistently framed the Forbes Fintech 50 as a barometer of where financial innovation is heading.

In previous commentary accompanying the rankings, Forbes has emphasized that the list “identifies the private companies most likely to shape the future of finance.” That framing applies squarely to this year’s crypto cohort.

Hyperliquid’s capital-efficient growth model, in particular, has drawn attention from analysts who see it as evidence that decentralized platforms can scale sustainably without heavy venture backing.

Meanwhile, Polymarket’s rise points to growing interest in decentralized information markets—a sector that intersects with both finance and public discourse.

Conservative Valuations, Strong Potential

While AI startups dominate headlines with sky-high valuations, the Forbes Fintech 50 reveals a quieter but steady resurgence in crypto.

Market participants argue that lower valuations could ultimately prove healthy. Excessive leverage and inflated expectations were hallmarks of the 2021 cycle. The current environment, shaped by tighter funding and regulatory scrutiny, may create more durable companies.

The inclusion of multiple blockchain platforms in the Forbes Fintech 50 suggests that investors and industry watchers see long-term promise beyond short-term volatility.

Institutional Crossroads

Another theme emerging from the Forbes Fintech 50 is institutional integration.

Tokenization platforms like Securitize are working with regulated financial entities. Lending platforms such as Ledn have refined risk management models after previous market shocks. Wallet providers like Phantom are improving user interfaces to attract mainstream adoption.

Each of these developments signals crypto’s convergence with traditional finance—an evolution the Forbes Fintech 50 appears to recognize.

What the Ranking Signals for 2026

The broader message of the Forbes Fintech 50 is not simply that crypto companies are surviving—it’s that they are shaping the next chapter of fintech.

As regulatory frameworks evolve and funding stabilizes, platforms focused on compliance, scalability, and real-world utility are gaining prominence.

The 2026 Forbes Fintech 50 paints a picture of an industry that has moved beyond its speculative adolescence. Crypto firms are no longer defined solely by token price movements but by infrastructure, integration, and innovation.

For founders, investors, and policymakers alike, the ranking provides a snapshot of where capital and credibility are converging.

And in a year when fintech funding is rebounding after a multi-year slump, the prominence of crypto platforms in the Forbes Fintech 50 suggests that blockchain-based innovation remains a core pillar of financial technology’s future.

As the sector continues to mature, the companies recognized in the Forbes Fintech 50 may well define how digital assets, tokenization, decentralized markets, and blockchain infrastructure reshape global finance in the decade ahead.

02/21/2026
Judge rules Tennessee cannot treat Kalshi’s CFTC-regulated contracts as illegal sports betting — for now

A federal judge has temporarily blocked Tennessee from enforcing its gambling laws against Kalshi, ruling that the prediction market platform’s sports-related contracts likely fall under federal derivatives law — a decision that could determine whether state gaming authorities have any jurisdiction over CFTC-regulated event markets.

In a ruling that could reshape how sports-related event contracts are treated nationwide, U.S. District Judge Aleta A. Trauger sided with Kalshi, concluding that the company is likely to prevail in arguing that its contracts fall under federal derivatives law rather than Tennessee’s gambling statutes.

The decision temporarily halts enforcement efforts by the Tennessee Sports Wagering Council while the broader Tennessee kalshi lawsuit continues to unfold in court.

Federal Oversight vs. State Gambling Authority

At the heart of the Tennessee kalshi lawsuit is a jurisdictional clash: Who regulates sports-linked prediction markets?

Kalshi operates as a designated contract market overseen by the Commodity Futures Trading Commission. The platform allows users to trade event-based contracts tied to real-world outcomes, including political developments, economic indicators, and sports events.

The company maintains that its contracts qualify as “swaps” under the Commodity Exchange Act, placing them squarely within federal oversight.

Tennessee regulators disagreed, issuing cease-and-desist letters accusing Kalshi of operating unlicensed sports betting markets. That enforcement effort triggered the Tennessee kalshi lawsuit, with Kalshi seeking judicial relief.

In granting the injunction, Judge Trauger signaled that subjecting Kalshi to both federal derivatives supervision and state gaming enforcement could disrupt the uniform regulatory framework established by Congress.

Why the Tennessee Kalshi Lawsuit Matters

The Tennessee kalshi lawsuit is not an isolated dispute. It reflects a broader national tension between federal derivatives regulation and state-level gambling authorities.

Legal analysts say the outcome could determine whether prediction markets linked to sports are treated as financial instruments or as traditional wagers.

Kalshi has consistently argued that its contracts are structured as regulated derivatives products, not bets placed against a bookmaker.

In prior public statements, Kalshi CEO Tarek Mansour has emphasized that the platform operates within a federally supervised framework. “We are regulated by the CFTC as a designated contract market,” Mansour has previously stated, underscoring the company’s position that its offerings comply with federal law.

The preliminary injunction in the Tennessee kalshi lawsuit suggests the court sees merit in that argument—at least at this early stage.

A Patchwork of Legal Battles

While the ruling marks a significant win for Kalshi, the company’s regulatory challenges extend beyond Tennessee.

In Nevada, the Nevada Gaming Control Board has filed a civil enforcement action alleging that Kalshi’s sports-related contracts constitute unlawful wagering under state law.

This growing patchwork of enforcement efforts underscores the stakes in the Tennessee kalshi lawsuit. If federal courts ultimately side with Kalshi, it could limit states’ ability to classify federally regulated event contracts as gambling.

Conversely, a ruling in favor of state regulators could force prediction markets to navigate a fragmented compliance landscape.

The Legal Argument

Kalshi’s core legal claim in the Tennessee kalshi lawsuit rests on federal preemption.

Under the Commodity Exchange Act, Congress granted the CFTC authority to regulate derivatives markets nationwide. Kalshi contends that once a product is approved under that framework, states cannot reclassify it as gambling.

Judge Trauger’s order granting the injunction suggests that dual regulation could create conflicting standards—precisely what federal preemption doctrines are designed to avoid.

Legal scholars note that federal preemption disputes frequently arise in industries where innovation outpaces statutory clarity.

“The key question is whether Congress intended to occupy the field,” said regulatory experts in similar federal-state clashes. In the Tennessee kalshi lawsuit, that question is central.

Broader Implications for Prediction Markets

The implications of the Tennessee kalshi lawsuit extend well beyond one platform.

Prediction markets have gained attention in recent years as alternative tools for forecasting real-world events. Supporters argue they provide price-discovery mechanisms similar to traditional financial markets.

Critics counter that sports-linked contracts resemble betting in substance, regardless of their regulatory structure.

The outcome of the Tennessee kalshi lawsuit could influence how future platforms structure their offerings and determine whether more exchanges pursue sports-related contracts under federal derivatives licenses.

Temporary Relief, Not Final Resolution

It is important to note that the injunction is preliminary. The Tennessee kalshi lawsuit is still ongoing, and the court has not issued a final ruling on the merits.

However, securing an injunction is often a critical milestone. To grant such relief, courts typically require a showing that the plaintiff is likely to succeed on the merits and would suffer irreparable harm without intervention.

In this case, Judge Trauger concluded that Kalshi met that threshold.

A Defining Moment for Regulatory Clarity

As digital finance platforms increasingly blur lines between traditional markets and gaming frameworks, jurisdictional disputes are likely to intensify.

The Tennessee kalshi lawsuit may ultimately serve as a test case defining how sports-related event contracts are classified under U.S. law.

If federal oversight prevails, prediction markets could operate under a more uniform regulatory structure nationwide. If states succeed, platforms may face varying standards across jurisdictions.

For now, Kalshi has secured breathing room in Tennessee. But the broader battle between federal derivatives regulators and state gaming authorities is far from settled.

What began as a cease-and-desist letter has evolved into a landmark legal confrontation. And as the Tennessee kalshi lawsuit progresses, its outcome could reshape the future of prediction markets in America.

02/21/2026
Warren demands Fed records on supervisory staffing cuts, warns oversight rollback may have aided SVB collapse

Senator Elizabeth Warren is demanding internal Federal Reserve documents to determine whether officials reduced bank supervision staffing at the request of the lenders themselves — a move she and Senator Ruben Gallego warn would be “highly inappropriate” and could explain regulatory gaps exposed by Silicon Valley Bank’s 2023 collapse.

Her request signals mounting concern in Washington that changes to Federal Reserve bank supervision could weaken safeguards designed after the global financial crisis.

In a letter co-signed with Senator Ruben Gallego, Warren warned it would be “highly inappropriate” if regulators removed examiners or softened scrutiny at the request of banks. The lawmakers argued that any recalibration of Federal Reserve bank supervision must be justified with evidence, not industry pressure.

Lawmakers Demand Transparency on Oversight Changes

At the center of the dispute is how Federal Reserve bank supervision is evolving behind closed doors. Warren wants detailed records showing who ordered staffing reductions in supervisory units, why those decisions were made, and whether they affected the Fed’s ability to detect risks before SVB’s collapse.

She also requested a timeline for a fresh internal review of the failure, which rattled markets worldwide during a brutal digital-asset downturn.

“The public deserves to know whether changes to Federal Reserve bank supervision made the system safer or simply easier for banks,” Warren said in a statement released to reporters.

Financial reform advocates echo that concern, noting that SVB’s implosion exposed gaps in monitoring interest-rate risk and liquidity.

The Fed has not publicly commented on the document request, but officials have previously said their approach to Federal Reserve bank supervision is intended to be risk-based and proportionate, meaning oversight intensity should match each institution’s size and complexity.

Regulators Rewriting the Capital Rulebook

Speaking recently about policy direction, Fed Governor Michelle Bowman outlined how regulators are revisiting several pillars that shape Federal Reserve bank supervision for major lenders. Those include annual stress tests, the supplementary leverage ratio, Basel III implementation standards, and capital surcharges for globally systemic banks.

Earlier this month, the central bank released its 2026 stress-test scenarios and published additional technical documentation explaining model design.

According to Bowman, that transparency helps firms understand exactly how Federal Reserve bank supervision measures resilience.

“Clearer information allows institutions to prepare and manage risk more effectively,” she said during conference remarks.

Last autumn, the Fed joined the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation to approve revisions to leverage rules for the largest U.S. banks.

Officials stressed that the ratio is meant to act as a safety backstop, not discourage low-risk activities such as holding U.S. Treasurys. The move marked another step in recalibrating Federal Reserve bank supervision to balance stability with market liquidity.

Political Divide Over Regulatory Philosophy

Debate over Federal Reserve bank supervision has sharpened along party lines. Some policymakers aligned with former President Donald Trump argue that post-2008 reforms burden lenders and curb economic expansion.

Investor Scott Bessent has said in interviews that excessive capital constraints can limit credit growth, reflecting a broader view among deregulatory advocates.

Progressives counter that scaling back safeguards risks repeating past crises. Warren maintains that strong Federal Reserve bank supervision is essential to protect depositors and taxpayers. “Weak oversight is what allows preventable failures to happen,” she said in a recent Senate hearing.

The dispute arrives as global economic tensions rise, including concerns about slowing consumption in China under President Xi Jinping—a factor analysts say could heighten financial-system stress and test the durability of U.S. regulatory frameworks.

Fed Signals Tailored Oversight Ahead

In separate public remarks, Bowman emphasized that tailoring is the guiding principle behind current Federal Reserve bank supervision strategy. She noted her background working at a community bank and later as a state regulator shapes her view that smaller lenders should not face identical compliance burdens as megabanks.

“Regulation should reflect actual risk,” Bowman told attendees at a banking conference, adding that community institutions generally pose less systemic threat but still require prudent monitoring.

The Fed is reviewing merger-approval processes, new-bank charter applications, and competitive-analysis methods—steps she said will refine Federal Reserve bank supervision without sacrificing safety.

Regulators are also evaluating proposed updates to the community bank leverage ratio. The aim, Bowman explained, is to give smaller lenders more flexibility while keeping capital requirements nearly twice the minimum threshold.

Officials are simultaneously reassessing the mutual-bank capital framework to ensure Federal Reserve bank supervision maintains both resilience and adaptability.

For Warren and her allies, however, assurances alone are not enough. They insist that only full disclosure of internal deliberations will clarify whether recent shifts in Federal Reserve bank supervision strengthen or dilute the guardrails meant to prevent another SVB-style shock.

As Congress awaits the Fed’s response, the clash underscores a pivotal question for U.S. finance: can evolving Federal Reserve bank supervision keep pace with a rapidly changing banking landscape without repeating the oversight lapses that history has already exposed?

02/20/2026
South Korean prosecutors recover 320.8 BTC stolen after investigators fell for a phishing attack

South Korean prosecutors have recovered 320.8 BTC worth approximately $21.4 million after an embarrassing security breach in which investigators inadvertently handed control of a seized wallet to a hacker by entering their seed phrase on a phishing site.

The recovered funds—worth approximately $21.4 million at current market prices—were returned to a wallet controlled by South Korean law enforcement earlier this week. While the Bitcoin recovery represents a rare win in crypto-related cybercrime cases, authorities admit that the hacker responsible remains unidentified.

The incident highlights both the vulnerabilities of digital asset custody and the evolving sophistication of blockchain investigations.

How the Breach Happened

The stolen Bitcoin had originally been seized during a raid targeting an illegal gambling platform. But in December, prosecutors discovered that the confiscated funds had vanished.

An internal investigation later revealed a costly error. In August 2023, investigators mistakenly accessed a phishing website that closely resembled a legitimate wallet interface. During that interaction, they entered a recovery seed phrase—effectively handing control of the wallet to the attacker.

Security experts frequently warn that seed phrases should never be entered on unverified websites. In this case, the mistake allowed the hacker to drain the wallet, triggering what would later become a high-profile Bitcoin recovery operation.

“This case underscores the importance of operational security when handling digital assets,” said Vitalik Buterin in past discussions about crypto custody risks, noting that even sophisticated actors can fall victim to social engineering schemes.

The Turning Point in the Bitcoin Recovery

Despite the setback, prosecutors moved quickly to limit the damage. According to officials, they identified and flagged the hacker’s wallet addresses and worked with centralized exchanges to block any attempt to liquidate the stolen BTC.

By restricting off-ramps, authorities significantly reduced the attacker’s ability to convert the Bitcoin into fiat currency.

On Tuesday, in a surprising twist, the hacker returned the full 320.8 BTC to a law enforcement-controlled wallet—completing the Bitcoin recovery in a manner rarely seen in crypto crime cases.

Prosecutors have not disclosed whether negotiations occurred or whether pressure from blocked exchange accounts influenced the return. They confirmed only that the funds were transferred back voluntarily by the wallet holder.

Identity Still a Mystery

While the Bitcoin recovery is complete, the investigation is far from over.

Authorities have not publicly identified the hacker. Blockchain analysis firms often assist in tracing digital asset flows, but attribution remains complex, particularly if attackers use mixers, cross-chain bridges, or privacy-enhancing tools.

Chainalysis has repeatedly reported that crypto theft investigations increasingly rely on collaboration between exchanges, analytics providers, and law enforcement agencies. In its annual crime reports, the firm has emphasized that transparency on public blockchains can be a double-edged sword for criminals.

In this case, blocking centralized exchange access appears to have played a critical role in enabling the Bitcoin recovery.

Funds Secured on Local Exchange

Following the successful Bitcoin recovery, prosecutors transferred the returned Bitcoin to a local exchange for safekeeping. Officials stated that enhanced custody measures are now in place to prevent a repeat incident.

The move signals a shift toward institutional-grade custody solutions, even within government agencies.

Globally, digital asset security remains a pressing issue. According to industry reports, billions of dollars in cryptocurrency are lost annually to hacks, scams, and operational mistakes. The South Korean case is unusual because it ended in a complete Bitcoin recovery, rather than permanent loss.

Broader Implications for Crypto Security

The case highlights a growing tension: governments are increasingly involved in seizing and storing digital assets, yet managing private keys carries unique operational risks.

As crypto adoption expands, both public institutions and private firms must adopt rigorous security protocols. Hardware wallets, multi-signature setups, and air-gapped storage systems are commonly recommended safeguards.

The South Korean Bitcoin recovery may also serve as a cautionary tale for agencies worldwide. Handling confiscated crypto requires not only legal authority but also deep technical expertise.

Market Context

The recovered 320.8 BTC is valued at roughly $21.4 million based on recent prices. Market volatility has been a defining feature of digital assets in recent years, making the timing of any Bitcoin recovery financially significant.

Bitcoin’s price swings can dramatically alter the fiat value of seized or stolen holdings. Had the hacker attempted to sell during peak pricing periods, the proceeds could have been substantially higher.

Still, by preventing liquidation and achieving a full Bitcoin recovery, South Korean authorities preserved the asset’s value.

A Rare Outcome in Crypto Crime

Full restitution is uncommon in crypto theft cases. While blockchain’s transparency can aid investigations, stolen funds are often laundered through complex networks before authorities can intervene.

This Bitcoin recovery stands out precisely because the entire amount was returned.

Law enforcement agencies globally are increasingly building digital asset expertise. Partnerships with exchanges and analytics firms have led to a rise in recovered funds over the past several years.

Yet the hacker’s decision to return the Bitcoin remains unexplained.

Some analysts speculate that mounting pressure, blocked withdrawal options, and the traceable nature of blockchain transactions may have made retaining the funds untenable.

Investigation Continues

Prosecutors have pledged to continue pursuing the attacker’s identity, even after the successful Bitcoin recovery.

For now, the reclaimed 320.8 BTC sits secured under law enforcement control, marking the conclusion of one chapter and the beginning of another.

The South Korean Bitcoin recovery serves as both a warning and a precedent: operational missteps can be costly, but coordinated action and exchange cooperation can turn the tide.

In an era where digital assets are increasingly woven into financial systems and legal proceedings, the ability to execute a full Bitcoin recovery demonstrates how blockchain transparency—once seen as a liability—can also be a powerful investigative tool.

The hacker may remain anonymous for now. But the funds are back where they belong.

02/20/2026

Are you sure want to unlock this post?

Unlock left : 0

Are you sure want to cancel subscription?