The ESMA says crypto companies without MiCA authorization must stop serving EU clients from July 1, even if their licence applications remain under review.

The whale is now backing Arthur Hayes’ favored HYPE, ZEC and NEAR plays, signaling a sharp pivot toward momentum-led crypto bets.

NEAR Intents' rapid growth and integration with major chains highlight its potential as a key player in the evolving crypto infrastructure.

The post NEAR Intents surpasses $20B in all-time transaction volume appeared first on Crypto Briefing.

The plunge in Partners Group's shares highlights growing investor anxiety in private markets, potentially impacting future capital deployment.

The post Partners Group caps redemptions, shares plunge 17% amid private credit fears appeared first on Crypto Briefing.

Crypto analyst Tony, who predicted the Bitcoin crash from the local top of around $82,000, has revealed what’s next for the leading crypto. He also explained why BTC is likely to set new lows over the coming months before potentially bottoming in this bear cycle. 

Analyst Who Predicted The Bitcoin Crash Reveals What’s Next

In an X post, Tony stated that Bitcoin crashed from $82,000 for a reason, as the 200 MA has always been an important resistance level during bear markets. He also pointed to the 0.5 and 0.618 Fibonacci levels, where BTC was trading at. As for what’s next, the analyst indicated that Bitcoin is likely to decline further, noting a high probability it will set a new low during the summer months. 

He also pointed to an alternative trap scenario where Bitcoin sees a fake breakout above $85,000 to lure retail traders in, followed by the same dump and a break to new lows. Whatever scenario plays out, Tony noted, it will not change the fact that BTC is in a bear cycle and will make new lows this year. 

His accompanying chart showed that Bitcoin could still drop to around $50,000 by July, and also signaled that BTC could decline below $40,000 before it bottoms in this cycle. Meanwhile, in another X post commenting on the current price action, Tony noted that BTC has broken the ascending channel and is trading below the Ichimoku Cloud, a bearish signal. 

Tony said that he is expecting a bounce from the $67,000 region into the $74,000 area, followed by a move to make new lows below $60,000. He further remarked that the bear trap is likely over and that the main trend is still down, which is why he expects new lows this year. He added that short-term bounces are possible, but a bull market is unlikely to happen anytime soon. 

A Short-Term Bounce Could Occur Around This Region

In an X post, crypto analyst Colin stated that the range between $65,000 and $66,000 appears to be a reasonable support level for a short-term bounce. He noted that the bounce duration could be for weeks or a couple of months. However, the analyst added that BTC retesting $60,000 is still highly likely and that breaking low this year is still a possibility. 

Colin stated that the February low of $60,000 is unlikely to be Bitcoin’s bottom in this bear cycle. He explained that BTC has always suffered losses of over 70% in past bear cycles, but the leading crypto has yet to record such a loss in this cycle from its October high of $126,000. 

At the time of writing, the Bitcoin price is trading at around $66,300, down over 6% in the last 24 hours, according to data from CoinMarketCap.

Charles Hoskinson warned that Cardano could face a broader “wave of failures” across its ecosystem after TapTools said it is preparing to wind down operations over the next two weeks, citing leadership departures and difficult platform economics.

The June 2 livestream marked one of Hoskinson’s sharpest public interventions on Cardano’s current governance and commercialization debate. Responding to TapTools’ shutdown statement, the Cardano founder framed the episode not as an isolated project failure, but as a symptom of deeper funding, coordination and incentive problems inside the ecosystem.

TapTools, a widely used Cardano data, analytics and discovery platform, said it had become difficult to responsibly keep operating after the departure of multiple senior team members. According to the statement read by Hoskinson, two co-founders, including the CTO and COO, had left earlier this year. A back-end developer had stepped into the CTO role, but that person has now also decided to move on.

“The technical knowledge required to responsibly operate and maintain TapTools cannot be replaced overnight,” the team said. “At the same time, the economics of running a platform like this remain challenging. Infrastructure costs are real. Development costs are real. Support costs are real.”

TapTools said it had served more than one million users, supported hundreds of projects through its API, published hundreds of articles, generated hundreds of millions of social impressions and helped bring visibility to builders across Cardano. The team said it would remain open to acquisition talks or other resources that could allow the platform to continue sustainably.

Hoskinson Says More Cardano Projects Could Follow

Hoskinson said TapTools had been part of his “daily ritual” and argued that its exit reflected a problem he had warned about earlier in the year: ecosystem projects running out of runway in poor market conditions.

“This is where we’re at as an ecosystem,” Hoskinson said. “I said at the beginning of the year, we’re going to see a lot of people collapse because the markets are really bad and we need some way to bail out our ecosystem and get them the lifeblood that they need to get to the next level.”

He pointed to JPEG Store and TapTools as examples of projects already affected, adding that he expects more failures in the second half of the year. “I would suspect others are coming very soon,” he said. “There’s going to be a wave of failures in the ecosystem.”

Hoskinson said he had previously proposed several mechanisms to address the issue, including a Cardano sovereign wealth fund, an ecosystem index and strategic acquisitions. He argued that these ideas either failed to gain sufficient support or were criticized as attempts to centralize the ecosystem. He cited his acquisitions of Nami and Blockfrost as examples of infrastructure he had tried to preserve and commercialize, while saying similar interventions often drew backlash.

The broader frustration, according to Hoskinson, is that Cardano governance has not yet produced an effective mechanism for deploying treasury resources into commercial infrastructure. He said Draper had received a large amount of ADA, but suggested that venture capital funding would likely flow mostly into new ventures rather than distressed existing platforms that may not be in an investable state.

Governance, Treasury And Commercialization

Hoskinson repeatedly rejected the idea that he has unilateral control over Cardano’s direction. He said he does not have governance keys, cannot initiate a hard fork or protocol parameter change, does not control the treasury and does not own the Cardano trademark.

“I’d really like to understand what my agency is here,” he said. “I don’t have any special powers with Cardano. I don’t have any governance keys. I don’t have any ability to even initiate a hard fork, much less a protocol parameter change.”

The livestream then turned into a wider critique of Cardano’s political culture. Hoskinson accused parts of the ecosystem of opposing commercialization while also blaming leadership when commercial infrastructure fails. He directed much of his message at DReps and delegators, arguing they need to evaluate whether their representatives are enabling growth or blocking it.

“You need to pick a leader. You need to pick a vision. You need to pick a strategy and fix it,” Hoskinson said. “You need to or you cannot and let it die. That’s your choice.”

He also floated more extreme options, including constitutional changes, treasury reform, changes to executive function and, at the outer edge, a new Cardano launched through a proof-of-burn mechanism. Hoskinson described that as the “nuclear option,” while presenting it as one of several possible responses if the current governance structure cannot support builders.

At press time, ADA traded at $0.2177.

Mt. Gox moved more than $700 million worth of Bitcoin while the market was already under stress, giving traders a familiar reason to ask whether old bankruptcy coins are moving closer to new supply.

The estate-linked wallets moved 10,422 BTC on June 2, worth roughly $739 million at the time of the transfer. Most of the stack, 10,306 BTC, went to a fresh address beginning with 14FEEM, while 116 BTC moved to a known Mt. Gox hot wallet.

The transfer occurred in Bitcoin block 952,072 at around 04:47 UTC, months before the current repayment deadline of Oct. 31, 2026.

So, it seems that Mt. Gox is active again, while immediate sell pressure remains unconfirmed, as no onward movement to a custodian, exchange, liquidity provider, or creditor distribution venue was reported at the time of the initial report.

The transfer revived an old supply problem

Mt. Gox remains one of Bitcoin‘s longest-running market overhangs because the estate still controls a large BTC balance more than a decade after the exchange collapsed. The June 2 transfer carried weight because it reminded the market that a known pool of old coins can still move with little warning.

The remaining estate balance was reported at roughly 34,504 BTC after the move. The visible activity is split across multiple transfers rather than a single visible sell order, and direct exchange-bound flow remains unconfirmed.

Still, a balance of that size is enough to keep traders watching every large estate-linked movement for signs of distribution.

The official trustee process gives that concern a concrete calendar. In an Oct. 27, 2025 notice, the Mt. Gox Rehabilitation Trustee extended the deadline for several repayment categories from Oct. 31, 2025 to Oct. 31, 2026 with court permission.

The notice said many creditors still had not received repayments because some had not completed required procedures or because processing issues remained.

That language points to a drawn-out process rather than a single clean market event. It also explains why wallet movement can be meaningful before immediate selling is visible.

Coins may move for internal wallet management, repayment preparation, custody setup, or liquidity routing before any creditor receives BTC or any exchange sees flow.

The next signal is onward routing

The practical threshold is simple: the transfer becomes stronger evidence of sell pressure when the coins move from estate-linked wallets toward venues that can distribute, custody, or sell them.

That is why Arkham's Mt. Gox entity page carries more weight than the headline dollar value alone. On-chain labels, destination clustering, and counterparties can indicate whether the fresh address remains part of the estate's wallet structure or begins interacting with exchange and repayment infrastructure.

The distinction is practical. A large internal transfer can still shake sentiment because it changes market expectations for the timeline. But a wallet reorganization is different from coins arriving at a venue where they can be sold or handed to creditors.

The former is a warning light. The latter is closer to actual supply.

The June 2 routing, as reported at the initial deadline, sat on the warning-light side of that line. The coins had moved, the process was live, and the repayment deadline was visible.

Yet the key downstream signal was still absent: no confirmed move into a custodian or exchange had been shown in the initial reporting.

The market may care about the transfer even without proof of sale, especially during a weak trading window. It still needs proof of onward routing before treating the move as immediate supply hitting Bitcoin order books.

The timing made the movement feel larger. On June 2, Bitcoin fell more than 5% below $68,000, and nearly $400 million in leveraged positions were liquidated within an hour.

That backdrop carries weight because leveraged markets can turn a wallet alert into a sentiment catalyst.

The evidence supports timing, not causation. The Mt. Gox transfer occurred around 04:47 UTC, while the liquidation story describes same-day market pressure.

The cleaner conclusion is that Bitcoin was already vulnerable, and the Mt. Gox movement added another reason for traders to think about supply.

CryptoSlate market data on June 3 showed BTC trading at $66,737, down 3.76% over 24 hours, with $57.34 billion in 24-hour volume.

The broader CryptoSlate coin rankings showed a $2.3 trillion crypto market, $137 billion in 24-hour volume, and 57.9% Bitcoin dominance.

Those numbers cut in both directions. Bitcoin is deep enough that a staggered repayment process does not automatically overwhelm the market.

At the same time, a high-leverage selloff can make any large potential supply source feel more urgent than it would during calmer trading.

That puts the focus on whether a measurable path has opened from the estate to liquid supply. As of the initial reports, that path had not been shown.

Mt. Gox is now a process overhang

CryptoSlate's prior Mt. Gox coverage framed the 2026 repayment extension as a shift from a single-date shock to a recurring process overhang. That remains the best way to read the June 2 movement.

The deadline tells traders when the estate process is supposed to finish. The wallets tell traders whether that process is moving. The exchange, custodian, liquidity provider, or creditor endpoints indicate to traders whether the movement is shifting toward market supply.

Until those later signals appear, the most defensible answer is restrained. The June 2 transfer showed that a bankruptcy estate still holding tens of thousands of BTC is active again, even as Bitcoin is under pressure.

It also left the most important question about sell pressure unanswered.

That distinction is what keeps the move from becoming either complacency or panic. Mt. Gox has enough BTC left to remain a meaningful watch item, and the repayment process has a live deadline.

But the market signal to watch is not the first move into a fresh wallet. It is whether funds move from that wallet toward an exchange, custodian, liquidity provider, or repayment route.

The post Mt. Gox-linked wallets moved 10,422 BTC, worth roughly $739 million as BTC price slides appeared first on CryptoSlate.

Vitalik Buterin is challenging one of DeFi's most familiar safety mechanisms: the automatic liquidation that closes a debt-backed position when collateral falls below the required backing for the loan.

In a June 1 Ethereum Research post, Buterin proposed building synthetic, index-tracking assets on top of options, with collateralized debt removed from the base design.

The idea would remove the hard liquidation trigger from the base design and replace it with a slower form of risk: the user's exposure drifts away from the target unless the position is rebalanced.

That distinction is important because the old mechanism is still showing up in market stress. Bitcoin‘s fall below $68,000 triggered about $394 million in one-hour liquidations on June 2, including roughly $87 million in ETH positions, as leveraged bets were force-closed across the market.

The flash crash came one day after Buterin's post and serves as a market reminder: when price moves hit crowded leverage, automatic closures can turn a drop into a wider market event.

The proposal is research-stage architecture: a design argument separate from any protocol launch, Ethereum roadmap commitment, or direct replacement for Aave, Maker, or existing stablecoins. It shifts the focus from collateral buffers and faster price feeds to a more fundamental design choice: whether instant liquidation should remain DeFi's central means of surviving a crash.

Why the safety switch can amplify stress

Most DeFi lending systems are built around the same basic problem. A user locks in collateral, borrows against it, and must keep the position above a required safety level.

In Aave's borrowing documentation, that level is expressed through a health factor. When it falls below 1, the position can be liquidated: a liquidator repays debt on the borrower's behalf and receives collateral plus a bonus.

That structure protects the protocol's solvency, but it also concentrates action at the worst possible moment. If ETH or another collateral asset falls fast enough, users do not choose when to sell. The system chooses for them.

Liquidators compete to close eligible positions, and the collateral can be pushed into markets already short on liquidity.

The record supports that concern. An OECD working paper on DeFi liquidations found a positive relationship between liquidation activity and post-liquidation price volatility across major decentralized exchange pools.

The paper also emphasized that liquidators rely on available liquidity during stress, which means the mechanism designed to restore balance can run into the same liquidity shortage as everyone else.

CryptoSlate has previously covered the operational version of that risk. A 2025 Chainlink-related oracle dispute led to more than $500,000 in liquidations on Euler Finance and revived questions about how protocols should interpret pricing data in illiquid markets.

Separately, a 2025 ETH decline put nearly $320 million in Ethereum-based DeFi loans within 20% of liquidation, with MakerDAO and Compound exposure concentrated near key price levels.

The common thread is the cliff. DeFi needs a way to handle undercollateralized positions, but the current method often waits until a number is breached and then requires immediate action.

That creates a crowded moment for borrowers, liquidators, oracle feeds, and liquidity providers simultaneously. It also gives sophisticated actors a clear trigger to watch, because the protocol rule announces when a position becomes profitable to close.

For users, the practical consequence is straightforward. A liquidation system can protect a lending pool while still giving the individual borrower the worst possible execution window.

The user may have intended to keep long-term ETH exposure, hedge a cash need, or wait out a sharp wick. Once the threshold is crossed, the system's priority becomes solvency, and the user's timing preference disappears.

How options turn a cliff into drift

Buterin's alternative starts by changing the primitive. A position that can become undercollateralized gives way to a split ETH claim: the proposal divides 1 ETH into two option-like assets, called P and N, tied to a price index, strike price, and maturity date.

At maturity, an oracle resolves the index value and determines how much of the ETH claim each side receives.

The key property is simple: P and N always add back up to 1 ETH. Because the system is dividing a fixed ETH claim between two sides, it can avoid seizing collateral from a borrower to close a deficit.

In Buterin's framing, the design removes the liquidation event by construction.

For a user trying to hold synthetic dollar exposure, the practical experience differs from a debt-backed stablecoin. In the debt model, a user can appear fully hedged until the collateral threshold is breached, at which point the position is force-closed.

In the options model, the holder avoids the sudden close, but the position can gradually stop behaving as the user intended.

Buterin's example uses a user who wants some level of dollar exposure while ETH is trading around $2,500. The user could buy a deep option tied to a lower strike, such as $1,500, and rotate into lower-strike options if ETH falls toward the original strike.

If the user does not rebalance, the exposure drifts. The user keeps a claim, but the hedge becomes less exact.

That is the central tradeoff. The design keeps risk in the system, and changes who controls the timing and what form the damage takes.

Liquidation-based systems outsource the decision to a protocol rule and liquidator bots. The options-based design pushes more of that decision toward users, wrappers, market makers, or automated rebalancing systems.

Buterin also acknowledged a limit for stablecoin use. A medium amount of annualized drift may be acceptable for someone seeking price stability relative to future expenses.

It is much less useful for an accounting stablecoin, where users want to treat the token as a dollar for payments, bookkeeping, or tax reporting.

The oracle tradeoff

The oracle argument may be the proposal's most important protocol-design claim.

Debt-backed liquidations depend on real-time price feeds. A protocol needs a binding price quickly enough to determine when a position is unsafe and to allow liquidators to act.

Buterin argues that this constraint makes real-time oracles hard to secure because they rely on automated actors watching live signals and leave little room for slower dispute resolution.

Options move the critical oracle call to maturity. Oracle risk remains, but the time pressure changes.

If a system can wait to resolve a contract, it can use slower, more contestable mechanisms, including prediction-market-style approaches or expensive fallback oracles that would be impractical for instant liquidation.

That is why the proposal is more than a stablecoin tweak. It shifts DeFi's risk architecture away from a single live price that can trigger irreversible action.

Recent research on liquidation dynamics in DeFi shows why that surface is central: liquidation mechanics can create incentives around price manipulation, MEV, and oracle-extractable value when a profitable closure depends on a market price crossing a trigger.

The benefit still depends on implementation. A wrapper that automatically rebalances for users could make the product easier to hold, but it could also recreate visible timing rules that sophisticated traders can anticipate.

A purely local user agent could hide some timing choices, but would raise its own usability and execution questions. An onchain DAO wrapper would need deterministic rules and deep markets to avoid becoming another predictable target.

Slow oracles help only if the rest of the design avoids forcing the same problem elsewhere. That is the tension Buterin's post leaves for builders.

A slower oracle can give a system more time to settle disputed information, but users still need markets deep enough to rotate exposure and rules strong enough to avoid turning every rebalance into an exploitable signal.

The comparison with prior oracle disputes is useful here because the risk arises when bad data meets a rule that must act immediately.

The options design reduces the need for that instant decision, while builders still have to decide who watches the index, who provides liquidity, and who absorbs losses when the market moves faster than the hedge.

What developers still have to prove

The next test is whether the market structure around Buterin's idea can be competitive with the debt systems it would challenge.

The proposal itself flags slippage as a major risk. Rebalancing through ordinary automated market makers could be expensive, especially if users need to rotate option exposure repeatedly during volatile periods.

Buterin suggested that rebalancing might need a different market structure, closer to patient one-sided market making than an instant sell.

That requirement is the adoption test. If users avoid liquidation but bleed too much value through drift, slippage, or operational complexity, the model becomes elegant research rather than useful DeFi infrastructure.

If builders can make rebalancing cheap and less exposed to attack, the idea could become a serious alternative for users who want price stability without signing up for a liquidation cliff.

The same test applies to stablecoin framing. The proposal is most defensible when described as a way to hold a stability-oriented exposure or personal hedge.

It becomes weaker if marketed as a simple dollar replacement. A token that drifts away from its target and needs periodic rotation is a different user promise from a redeemable dollar, an overcollateralized stablecoin, or a conventional CDP-backed synthetic.

For Ethereum, the significance is that one of its most influential designers is treating liquidation as an architectural choice rather than an unavoidable fact of DeFi.

The next signal is whether any protocol team turns the options model into a tested wrapper, simulation, or live market with sufficient liquidity to demonstrate the trade-off in practice.

Until then, the proposal is best read as a direct challenge to DeFi's crash mechanics: the industry can keep trying to make liquidations faster and better collateralized, or it can test designs built without sudden forced sales.

The post Vitalik wants DeFi price crashes to stop triggering automatic liquidations appeared first on CryptoSlate.

BlackRock and the Winklevoss twins moved more than 7,000 BTC into exchange wallets within hours on June 2. The large Bitcoin (BTC) transfers fueled speculation about institutional selling.

Blockchain analytics firm Arkham flagged both moves. They landed as spot Bitcoin exchange-traded funds extended a long run of net outflows and prices fell sharply.

BlackRock Sends 6,005 BTC to Coinbase Prime

BlackRock routed 6,005 BTC worth about $403 million to Coinbase Prime, according to on-chain tracker Solid Intel. The coins moved in quick batches from IBIT wallets.

Coinbase serves as the official custodian for IBIT. Flows like these often support fund creation and redemption rather than open-market sales.

The activity followed weeks of spot Bitcoin ETF outflows that pulled more than $2 billion from the funds since mid-May.

Winklevoss Twins’ Bitcoin Transfers Land in Gemini Custody

The Winklevoss twins sent 1,000 BTC, roughly $67.5 million, from Gemini custody into a Gemini hot wallet. Arkham noted that moves to a hot wallet can precede selling.

Follow us on X to get the latest news as it happens

Because the brothers founded Gemini, the transfer stayed inside their own infrastructure.

The pattern echoes earlier Winklevoss BTC transfers in March, which preceded some sales.

Arkham data shows their entity still holds about 8,328 BTC. The twins also stepped up Winklevoss Capital Bitcoin buying earlier this year.

“The Winklevoss Twins owned around 1% of the BTC circulating supply in 2014. They made over $1 Billion on Bitcoin all-time. Currently, they still hold $692 Million. What a trade,” Arkham remarked.

Neither transfer confirms a sale, since the coins remain on exchange wallets. With Bitcoin trading near $66,973 and down 11% on the week, the moves add to fears about major holders reducing exposure.

The story recalls last week, when Bitcoin dropping below $70,000 followed another whale-scale move.

Follow-up outflows could signal genuine selling.

The post Bitcoin Sell-Off Fears Rise as BlackRock and Winklevoss Twins Move 7,000 BTC appeared first on BeInCrypto.

Bitcoin (BTC) trades near $67,002, and on-chain data from Glassnode shows the long-term holder cohort is signaling more downside before this bear market prints a cycle low.

Three Glassnode charts point in the same direction. Holders carrying coins for over 155 days appear stressed. Yet they have not reached the pain levels that historically marked the floor of past Bitcoin cycles.

Long-Term Holder NUPL Slides Into the Historical Bottom Zone

Bitcoin Long-Term Holder Net Unrealized Profit and Loss (LTH NUPL) sits near 0.25 (red circle). That reading marks the upper edge of the orange band that has framed every prior cycle floor.

Historically, every prior touch of this zone aligned with the lowest BTC prices of the cycle (blue zones). The 2012, 2015, 2019, and 2022 bottoms all formed inside the orange band.

Meanwhile, the signal has not flipped to accumulation yet. NUPL must push deeper into the orange or red band, similar to past cycle bottoms.

Long-Term Holder Supply Just Hit a New All-Time High

While NUPL signals near-term pain, the supply held by long-term holders has quietly printed a fresh all-time high. The cohort now controls roughly 15 million BTC, the highest figure on record.

This pattern repeats in every cycle. During the mid-phase of a Bitcoin bear market, long-term holders absorb coins from short-term sellers.

They then distribute that supply into the next uptrend, often months or years later. The current rhythm of accumulation suggests the cohort sees value here, even as price corrects further.

However, this same setup confirms the broader market is still in the bearish leg. Long-term holders rarely sell into weakness. The current selling pressure is coming from a younger, less conviction-driven cohort.

BTC Price Could Test $56,000 Before True Capitulation

The third Glassnode chart frames the magnitude question. Bitcoin LTH Relative Unrealized Loss sits at 15.5%. Roughly 15 cents of every dollar in long-term holder portfolios is underwater.

Cycle bottoms in 2019 and 2022 pushed this metric above 50%. Therefore, the distance between today’s reading and that historical floor signals the bear has further to run. Glassnode wrote on X:

“At $69.5k, LTH Relative Unrealized Loss sits at 15.5%. For every dollar long-term holders’ bags are worth today, they are carrying roughly 15 cents in unrealized loss. At cyclical extremes, that number has exceeded 50 cents on the dollar. Stress is present, but the long-term holder base remains far from the levels of pain that have historically marked cycle lows.”

A drawdown into the $56,000 zone would lift relative unrealized loss toward 30 to 40%. That area marks a critical long-term support cluster and would put on-chain stress in line with early phases of past capitulations.

A deeper flush to the $44,000 area cannot be ruled out if NUPL slides into the red zone. Reclaiming $105,000 would invalidate this bearish thesis by pushing long-term holders back into broad profit. Such a move would echo the rare signal seen at past cycle reversals.

BTC trades down 11.6% over the past week and 36.3% over the past year. Based on long-term holder data, the path of least resistance points lower before higher.

The post Every Bitcoin Bottom Since 2012 Hit This Zone: We’re Not There Yet. appeared first on BeInCrypto.

Bitcoin, the largest cryptocurrency by market capitalization, plunged 3.3% before the opening bell in the U.S. market on Tuesday, currently trading at $68,836. The sell-off can be linked to several catalysts, including geopolitical tension, ETF outflow, and institutions selling. Market data also highlighted cascading liquidation and breakdown below key support as additional pressure in the Bitcoin price correction.

Key Reasons Why Bitcoin Price Extended Correction below $70k

Within a month, the Bitcoin price has tumbled from $82,458 to its current trading value of $69,336, accounting for a loss of 15.74%. Consequently, the asset’s market cap dropped to $1.39 trillion. The pullback gained its momentum due to a couple of reasons, mentioned below:

Institutional Demand Weakens Amid 11-Day ETF Selling Streak

A primary catalyst behind this directional downtrend is constant outflow from the spot Bitcoin exchange-traded funds (ETFs), indicating a slowdown in institutional demand and direct selling pressure. The market suffered 11 consecutive trading days of net outflows heading into June, draining a massive $3.45 billion in liquidity from the system. This has shaken the reliable institutional buy wall that had previously sustained higher prices.

Middle East Tensions Trigger Risk-Off Sentiment in Crypto

Another factor that triggered a sudden shift in market sentiment is escalating geopolitical tension in the Middle East. Just yesterday, Iran announced that they are ending all negotiations with the U.S., following the constant violation of ceasefire agreements, including Israel’s attack on Lebanon.

The decision pushed Brent crude oil futures back to $95 per barrel on Monday, triggering energy inflation concerns and a more hawkish rate decision from the Federal Reserve.

Michael Saylor-Led Strategy Sells 32 BTC Worth $2.5 Million

In a recent regulatory filing, Michael Saylor-led Strategy disclosed the sale of 32 Bitcoin valued at approximately $2.5 million. The amount sold is just a fraction of the company’s massive 843,000 BTC reserves, the largest corporate Bitcoin holding in the world to date. 

Although the sale was relatively small, it caught market participants off guard because it was Saylor’s first Bitcoin divestment announced since 2022, which created uncertainty among investors used to the firm’s accumulation-first mentality.

Mt. Gox Wallet Activity Sparks Fresh Selling Pressure Fears

Bitcoin linked to the Mt. Gox bankruptcy estate was reactivated after 116.3 BTC worth of about $8.25 million was moved from a dormant cold wallet to a wallet address where transactions are processed. 

The on-chain data also showed there was a smaller transaction launched to cryptocurrency exchange Bitstamp, which is seen as a sign of a larger fund transfer. The most recent transfer comes as the continuity of the trustee’s role to manage the repayment of creditors, with around 34,500 BTC remaining in estate-controlled wallets. 

These transfers are being closely followed by market participants, as former transfers to Mt. Gox reserve addresses have frequently been followed by inflows of bitcoins to exchanges, increasing the circulating supply of the tokens.

Bitcoin Price Breakdown Below a Multi-Month Recovery Trend.

Today, the Bitcoin price plugged 3.3%, triggering a long liquidation of roughly $270 million, according to Coinglass data. This price drop offered a suitable follow-up to yesterday’s breakdown below a support trendline of the channel pattern in the daily timeframe chart. 

Since early February 2026, the Bitcoin price activity resonated within the channel’s two parallel trendlines, maintaining a steady recovery trend. However, the recent breakdown suggests that the previous recovery acted as a temporary relief rally before the sellers regroup to extend the prevailing downtrend.

With sustained selling, the Bitcoin price could slip to $65,204, followed by its next support at $59,867.

On June 1, House of Doge, the official corporate arm of the Dogecoin Foundation, announced a partnership with Paxos that will open a door for Dogecoin to list on Paxos’s crypto brokerage and custody platform.

Paxos is a leading regulated platform for blockchain and tokenization-based services. According to the official announcement, this new partnership will allow Paxos clients to integrate Dogecoin-based services, including buying, selling, holdings, and others. The list of Paxos clients includes platforms such as PayPal, Venmo, Interactive Brokers, and Mercado Libre.

House of Doge Secures Paxos Brokerage Partnership to Boost Dogecoin Utility

In the digital asset sector, Paxos is responsible for handling all the uphill tasks, such as following compliance, ensuring the safety of funds, liquidity, and operations.

This partnership will allow major financial technology companies to integrate DOGE without creating any additional infrastructure.

The partnership between Paxos and House of Doge is reaffirming their recent efforts to boost their utility amid the growth in the digital asset sector.

Paxos is the leading brokerage solution that will allow its clients to integrate DOGE into their existing infrastructure without any problem.

House of Doge is also developing a new crypto wallet app, which is known as Such. This new wallet has launched a beta version in late May 2026. The platform is planning to make Such more user-friendly, which includes features like QR-based payments, e-commerce tools, and the ability for users to hold their own private keys.

Apart from this, it is also working on Doge Connect, which is a bridging technology powered by the Qubic network. This platform will provide business to develop application programming interfaces and solutions for merchants to accept Dogecoin.

Marco Margiotta, CEO of House of Doge, stated in the press release, “This partnership with Paxos represents a major step forward in accelerating global access for Dogecoin. By integrating with Paxos’ trusted and regulated infrastructure, we are creating a powerful pathway for leading global fintech platforms to make Dogecoin accessible to their users.” 

Nick Robnett, Head of Crypto Business at Paxos, said that, “Paxos is committed to enabling safe and responsible access to digital assets through our regulated infrastructure. We are thrilled to support the availability of Dogecoin on our platform and look forward to working with our enterprise clients as they evaluate expanding their digital asset offerings.” 

Despite its launch as a meme coin, Dogecoin is holding one of the biggest loyal communities in the digital asset sector. At the time of writing, it is the biggest memecoin. According to CoinMarketCap, DOGE is trading at around $0.09836 with a drop of 9.84% in a month. However, it is still holding a staggering market capitalization of around $15.17 billion.

However, in the new era of memecoins, the DOGE community is now focusing on providing more utilities to boost its adoption. The main purpose of this memecoin is to make it a more accepted decentralized global currency for payments and daily transactions.

House of Doge has recently announced integration with merchants through partners like MoonPay to explore tokenized real-world assets. At the beginning of this year, DOGE witnessed the launch of the first exchange-traded funds, such as TDOG and TXXD, in partnership with 21Shares.

Bitcoin’s latest pullback has prompted renewed speculation about whether the market is witnessing a period of institutional accumulation rather than a fundamental shift in sentiment. While prices have trended lower in recent weeks, some analysts argue that the decline may be creating an attractive entry point for larger investors looking to build positions before the next major catalyst emerges.

How Large Investors Typically Approach Bitcoin Volatile Markets

Bitcoin’s recent weakness may be part of a broader accumulation phase rather than a sign of deteriorating long-term fundamentals. An analyst known as Ash Crypto on X stated that institutions are intentionally pushing the price lower to accumulate at a lower price before the Clarity Act is signed into law.

This perspective draws a similar pattern. In August 2022, BlackRock filed for a private BTC trust, and the BTC price later dropped by roughly 36% before forming a bottom. Less than a year ago, in June 2023, BlackRock filed for the first Spot BTC ETF, an event that preceded a powerful 95% rally. By January 2024, when spot ETFs were officially approved, BTC hit a new high of $126,000.

While there is no public evidence proving that institutions are intentionally driving prices lower, the narrative highlights growing expectations that institutions are repeating the same strategy with the Clarity Act.

BlackRock’s aggressive selling of Bitcoin highlights exactly what is happening behind the scenes in the market right now. Crypto trader and investor EliZ has noted that this is another demonstration of how the market is often driven by liquidity rather than investor sentiment.

If the selling pressure were to continue, the market could simply be experiencing a distribution phase aimed at pushing the price downward, raising cash, and creating fear in the market. These types of cycles are not new; they are dynamics that have played out before. According to EliZ, when market sentiment reaches an extreme bottom, and most traders have lost confidence, that is when big money returns to accumulate, driving the market towards new highs.

For now, patience and disciplined risk management remain essential during these periods. Rather than rushing to anticipate every move, understanding that the broader market moves in phases, and this could be one of many.

What Negative ETF Flows Could Mean For BTC’s Next Move

May marked a notable shift in Bitcoin outflows from ETFs. Analyst Darkfost revealed this trend after examining the chart that compares the number of BTC held by ETFs between the beginning and end of the year, showing a sharp decline in net holdings growth.

Within a single month, net ETF holdings reportedly moved from more than 57,000 BTC earlier in the year to less than 6,940 BTC, pushing the metric back into negative territory compared to the start of the year. Currently, a correlation with the price can be observed, but ETF flow dynamics this year are starting to diverge from those of 2024 and 2025.

The Bitcoin price has suffered a significant crash, falling from above the psychological $70,000 this week. Crypto pundit Nobler cited why the leading crypto was crashing, while analyst Chiefy revealed what to expect next from BTC. 

Why The Bitcoin Price Is Crashing

In an X post, Nobler revealed that the USDT issuer Tether was liquidating some of its BTC holdings, which was contributing to the Bitcoin price crash. He noted that this was the first time they had sold directly from their BTC reserve wallet. The pundit added that things were not looking good for crypto. 

On-chain data showed that Tether moved 204 BTC from its wallet to the Bitfinex exchange, sparking concerns of a sell-off. Tether is among a host of entities believed to have dumped BTC recently, sparking the Bitcoin price crash. The defunct crypto exchange Mt. Gox also transferred 10,422 BTC, worth almost $740 million. 

Furthermore, Bitcoin ETFs are contributing to the massive sell-off in BTC, with these funds on a 12-day streak of net outflows. They recorded a net outflow of $519 million yesterday, according to SoSoValue data. During these 12 days, these funds also recorded a net outflow of $733 million on May 27.  

Meanwhile, it is worth noting that the Bitcoin price crash began earlier this week, as Michael Saylor’s Strategy revealed in its SEC filing that it had sold 32 BTC. This was the first time that the Bitcoin treasury firm had sold BTC since 2022. This has raised concerns about what this could mean and how much more BTC the company could sell moving forward. 

The Bitcoin price has also crashed due to macro factors such as the U.S.-Iran war, with a peace deal looking unlikely anytime soon. BTC is also battling for liquidity amid upcoming IPOs, such as Elon Musk’s SpaceX, which is expected to go public this year. 

What Is Next For BTC

In an X post, crypto analyst Chiefy, who had predicted the Bitcoin price crash to $67,000, revealed what is next for BTC. He stated that a relief bounce would come next, giving market participants false hope before an even bigger leg down. The analyst added that structurally, this is one of the weakest setups that BTC has seen in this bear cycle. 

The analyst’s accompanying chart showed that the Bitcoin price could still crash to as low as $60,000, reaching its February low. Crypto analyst Tony echoed a similar sentiment, predicting that BTC could still drop to $60,000, although he expects a short-term relief bounce. 

Related Reading: Bitcoin Trend That Has Held For 15 Years Shows When To Expect The Bottom And When $400,000 Will Happen

At the time of writing, the Bitcoin price is trading at around $66,700, down over 5% in the last 24 hours, according to data from CoinMarketCap.