ZRX

0x

There has been a lot of talk about an impending XRP breakout lately as the asset has been stuck in a relatively tight range since the early February crash. Although each attempt has been met with immediate selling pressure, analysts are still hopeful that the token will overcome its most crucial resistance levels soon and head toward new peaks. The Levels XRP Has to Surpass In May alone, the cross-border token has already initiated three consecutive attempts to escape the captivity of its own consolidation. Although it was stopped almost instantly after each try, the good news is that it managed to mark higher highs before the subsequent rejections. On May 6, it went from under $1.40 to $1.45 before it dumped back down to its starting point. However, it kept grinding and soared past $1.50 last Sunday before the bears stepped up once again. It managed to remain above $1.42, and Thursday’s attempt pushed it north to a two-month high of $1.55 before it was halted once again. According to popular analyst EGRAG CRYPTO, XRP needs to overcome two major resistance levels before it goes on a more profound and sustainable run. The first is the one that stopped it in May at $1.51. If it falls, the second is located at $1.82, a level not seen since late January. If the bulls managed to push XRP decisively above those lines, it would solidify the asset’s transition into a bullish Wave 5 expansion within the Elliott Wave structure. The analyst added that the most challenging parts of Elliott Wave are “NEVER Wave 3 or Wave 5;” instead, they point to fake breakouts, deep retracements, emotional traps, and complex structures. “But once the correction is identified correctly: Wave 3 and Wave 5 become the easiest and most powerful moves to capitalize on,” EGRAG concluded . We Still Play Range Crypto Tony also mentioned XRP’s range between $1,30 and $1.55, in which the asset has remained for the past three and a half months. The analyst said he can look for more exposure once the asset breaks out in either direction, but until then, he will keep playing this range. Fellow analyst CW added that XRP has liquidated a lot of short positions on its way up on Thursday, while the size of longs is “not large.” This would provide a more sustainable price rally structure if high-leveraged positions remain low. Almost short positions in $XRP have been liquidated. In addition, the size of long positions is not large. Most high-leverage positions in the $XRP futures market have been liquidated. pic.twitter.com/3WFZA0xMN3 — CW (@CW8900) May 15, 2026 The post XRP’s Next Bullish Wave Depends on These Crucial Price Levels: Analyst appeared first on CryptoPotato .

Dogecoin is pressing against short-term resistance after a turbulent week, with CoinMarketCap placing DOGE at $0.1143 , up 7% on the weekly chart, a recovery signal traders are watching closely. The 7-day chart tells a different story: an 11.80% drawdown that left bulls searching for a floor. Whether this week’s bounce has conviction or collapses back toward $0.11 support is the question defining DOGE’s near-term fate. Dogecoin (DOGE) 24h 7d 30d 1y All time Sentiment remains mixed, with the Fear & Greed Index sitting at 49, squarely in “Fear” territory. Broader crypto markets are cautious but active, with Bitcoin ETF flows and altcoin rotation continuing to influence risk appetite across the meme coin sector. The technical setup now becomes the deciding factor. Can Dogecoin Price Hit $0.13 Before Mid-2026? DOGE is sitting in a compressed consolidation zone with the technical structure pointing cautiously higher. Immediate resistance stacks at $0.1147, $0.1166, and $0.1190. Support floors sit at $0.1104, $0.1080, and $0.1061. A clean break above $0.1190 would represent a meaningful technical shift that has not materialized yet but looks increasingly plausible if volume holds. CoinCheckup’s longer-range projection reaches $0.1333 by June 14, modest upside on a 12-month horizon but directionally bullish given the current base. Source: DOGEUSD / Tradingview Clear $0.1190 on sustained volume and DOGE eyes $0.1244 resistance next, building toward the $0.13 target range. Fail to break it, and consolidation continues between $0.1104 and $0.1166, weekly target acting as the near-term ceiling. Lose $0.1061 on a daily close, and the structure resets, opening the door to a retest of sub-$0.10 territory. Daily volume at $3 billion is healthy for this price range. Institutional appetite tends to trickle down to large-cap meme coins like DOGE with a lag, and ETF flow dynamics remain a macro headwind worth monitoring. The setup is constructive. Conviction is still missing. The Memecoin of this Cycle Might Not Be Dogecoin, But His Gym-Bro Maxi Doge DOGE’s projected path to $0.1333 over 12 months is a reasonable trade, but traders chasing larger asymmetric returns at this market cap are doing the math and finding it difficult to get excited. That calculus is exactly why early-stage presales in the meme coin vertical keep drawing attention from the same crowd watching DOGE charts. (It’s a familiar rotation: consolidation in the large-cap, speculation in the small-cap.) Maxi Doge (MAXI) is one presale capturing that spillover energy. Built on Ethereum, the project has raised $4,778,593.32 at a current token price of $0.0002818. The concept is unapologetically on-brand for meme coin culture: a 240-lb canine embodying 1000x leverage trading energy, built around holder-only trading competitions with leaderboard rewards, a Maxi Fund treasury for liquidity management, and viral gym-bro marketing that has clearly resonated; nearly $4.8 million raised is not noise. Dynamic staking APY provides a passive yield layer for holders between trading competition cycles. As with any early-stage presale, capital risk is significant, and full due diligence is essential before committing funds. VISIT MAXI DOGE HERE The post Dogecoin Is Pressing Against Resistance After a Brutal Week: Does the $3Bn Volume Signal a Real Recovery? appeared first on Cryptonews .

Onchain activity shows that Dritan Kapllani Jr. has transferred funds into unfreezeable assets in a new wallet, a few days after ZachXBT identified him as a US-based threat actor allegedly tied to $19 million in social engineering thefts from crypto holders. ZachXBT was also the one who flagged the latest move, writing on his Telegram channel , “Earlier today the threat actor ‘Dritan Kapllani Jr’ transferred $2.59M (1.99M DAI, 259 ETH) three hops from: 0x4487db847db2fc99372a985743a26f46e0b2bba6 to: 0x67ec1d405e53ed13a19eb77a9db19186723d125d where stolen funds currently sit dormant.” Dritan’s latest actions are raising questions about whether he is preparing to go into hiding as his co-conspirators face federal charges. Similar exposures by ZachXBT have led to arrests in the past, with one of them also linked to Dritan. That one is John “Lick” Daghita , who was arrested in Saint Martin in March 2026 after allegedly stealing $46 million from US government-controlled wallets. FBI agents reportedly found Daghita with hardware wallets, USB drives, and a metal briefcase of cash after French tactical units helped apprehend him on the Caribbean island. ZachXBT traces $19 million in alleged thefts to Dritan ZachXBT’s investigation, published on X , linked Dritan’s Ethereum wallet to the theft of 185 BTC, worth roughly $13 million, on March 14. One day later, $5.3 million from the stolen funds landed in Dritan’s Exodus wallet, according to Zach’s on-chain tracing. The exposure came after Dritan joined a “band-for-band” contest on Discord on April 23, where scammers compared wallet balances on screen. During the call, he allegedly displayed $3.68 million inside an Exodus wallet, according to Cryptopolitan’s earlier reporting. By the time ZachXBT published his findings, about $1.6 million had already been withdrawn from the wallet. Beyond the 185 BTC theft, ZachXBT traced an older wallet address back to Dritan through a deleted Telegram post by Daghita. That wallet allegedly connected to more than $5.85 million across five additional social engineering thefts in 2025, with Bitcoin addresses spanning August through October of that year. Other associates, such as Trenton Richard David Johnston and Brandon Michael Tardibone , are facing federal charges over the same 185 BTC theft, with Johnston facing up to 40 years in prison and Tardibone 30 years. ZachXBT identified Dritan as a co-conspirator 1 in Johnston’s case. A familiar playbook The connection between Dritan and Daghita predates both investigations. The two engaged in their own band-for-band wallet comparison, ZachXBT said, which was part of what triggered the January 2026 probe into Daghita’s government wallet theft. In both cases, showing off stolen wealth on social media provided the onchain breadcrumbs that investigators followed. ZachXBT noted that Dritan has “tons of plot armor,” pointing out that multiple associates from groups known as ACG and 41/RM Boyz have been arrested while Dritan has avoided prosecution. Since Dritan was recently a minor, ZachXBT suggested that law enforcement may have delayed charges on that basis. With Johnston and Tardibone now facing decades in federal prison and Daghita awaiting extradition from Saint Martin, the question for investigators is whether Dritan’s apparent fund movements signal a plan to follow Daghita’s exit strategy before charges catch up. The smartest crypto minds already read our newsletter. Want in? Join them .

BitcoinWorld Whale Places $13.2M Short on HYPE on Hyperliquid, Faces $187K Unrealized Loss A significant short position has been opened on the Hyperliquid platform, with a whale initiating a 10x leveraged short of 300,000 HYPE tokens, valued at approximately $13.2 million. The trade was reported by on-chain analyst ai_9684xtpa, highlighting the scale of the position and its current performance. Details of the Short Position The whale entered the short at an average price of $43.3 per HYPE. At the time of reporting, the position is showing an unrealized loss of roughly $187,000, indicating that HYPE’s price has moved against the trader since the position was opened. The use of 10x leverage amplifies both potential gains and losses, making the trade highly sensitive to price fluctuations. Context and Implications Hyperliquid is a decentralized perpetual exchange known for its high-leverage trading options and active whale activity. This particular trade adds to a growing pattern of large, directional bets on the platform, which can influence market sentiment and liquidity. For other traders, such moves serve as a signal of bearish conviction from a well-capitalized participant, though the current unrealized loss suggests the market is not immediately following the whale’s thesis. What This Means for the Market While a single whale position does not determine market direction, it does add to the overall order book depth and can trigger stop-losses or liquidations if the price moves significantly. The $187,000 unrealized loss is relatively small compared to the $13.2 million position size, but if HYPE continues to rise, the whale may face margin calls or be forced to close at a loss. Conversely, if HYPE declines, the trade could become highly profitable. Conclusion The opening of a $13.2 million short on HYPE via Hyperliquid reflects the high-stakes environment of leveraged crypto trading. The trade’s outcome will depend on near-term price action, and its progress will be closely watched by market participants for clues about whale sentiment and potential volatility. FAQs Q1: What is Hyperliquid? Hyperliquid is a decentralized exchange (DEX) that specializes in perpetual futures trading with high leverage, popular among professional traders and whales for its deep liquidity and low fees. Q2: What does 10x leverage mean for this trade? 10x leverage means the whale controls a position size 10 times larger than their actual collateral. A 10% move against the position would result in a 100% loss of collateral, while a 10% favorable move would double the collateral. Q3: How reliable is the data from ai_9684xtpa? ai_9684xtpa is a known on-chain analyst who tracks whale movements and large transactions. While the data is generally accurate, it is based on publicly available blockchain information and may not capture all aspects of the trade, such as partial closures or hedging. This post Whale Places $13.2M Short on HYPE on Hyperliquid, Faces $187K Unrealized Loss first appeared on BitcoinWorld .

Crypto prop traders are realizing that a good trading platform is no longer enough. Discover the key differences between traditional trading platforms and modern crypto prop trading terminals, and why they have become essential for achieving consistent results in high volatility crypto trading, especially when evaluating the best crypto prop firm with TradingView integration. Traditional Trading Platforms Struggle in Crypto Prop Firms Professional trading in 2026 is no longer reserved for institutions and hedge funds. Traders operating from home offices or small setups now demand the same speed, precision, and professional grade tools once available only to large players. This shift has dramatically raised expectations. Yet most traditional trading platforms, designed for an older era, are struggling to handle the extreme volatility, 24/7 nature, and high leverage demands of modern crypto markets. As the prop trading industry matures, funded traders have evolved from retail speculators into professional capital allocators managing large positions in the crypto market, where every tick counts. This evolution has created a clear divide between traditional trading platforms and modern crypto native trading environments such as the CoinProp CPX crypto prop trading terminal , which is purpose built to improve execution efficiency, unify trading workflows, and meet the real time demands of funded traders. Forex Era Infrastructure in Modern Crypto Trading Most trading platforms were built for forex markets with 24/5 hours and lower volatility. In contrast, crypto markets run 24/7 with fast liquidity shifts and extreme volatility, which exposes the limits of legacy infrastructure. Synthetic Pricing vs Real Market Conditions Many traditional platforms use synthetic or aggregated pricing that doesn’t fully reflect real order book depth. In fast moving crypto markets, this can cause slippage and execution gaps, especially during volatility spikes or liquidation events. MT5 and cTrader in Crypto Prop Trading: Where They Fit, and Where They Don’t Many crypto prop traders still use MT5 and cTrader, but their effectiveness depends on trading style and crypto market demands. Why MT5 Became Dominant in Prop Trading MT5 became widely used in prop trading due to its strong presence in forex markets. It offers: Advanced backtesting and strategy testing tools Support for Expert Advisors (EAs) and automated trading Multi asset functionality and solid analysis tools Familiar interface for forex traders Its dominance comes more from widespread adoption and infrastructure support than crypto specific optimization. Where cTrader Offers a More Modern Experience cTrader is often seen as a more modern and intuitive alternative, especially for active trading. Key advantages include: Cleaner and more user friendly interface Advanced charting and smoother drawing tools Faster execution in many environments Better depth of market (DOM) visibility with real time liquidity More flexible order management options Forex CFDs vs Crypto Liquidity The main limitation of both platforms is their origin in forex CFD markets. Crypto markets behave very differently: 24/7 trading with extreme volatility Funding rates and perpetual mechanics Higher leverage (50x–125x) Faster liquidations and cascading moves Different risk dynamics driven by open interest Because of this, forex optimized platforms don’t always perform well in crypto prop trading, especially under strict drawdown conditions. The Shift From Trading Platforms to Trading Workflows Successful crypto prop traders in 2026 are no longer focused on finding better platforms. Instead, they focus on building complete trading workflows that improve speed, execution, and consistency. This marks a clear shift in how professional trading tools are used. Why Modern Traders Need More Than Charting + Workflow Efficiency Charting is important, but not enough on its own. Funded traders need a unified system for fast execution, risk control, and decision making under pressure. In prop trading, even small delays or fragmented tools can reduce performance and increase mistakes. Efficient workflows help traders: Execute trades faster with fewer steps Manage risk in real time Track exposure across positions Reduce emotional and operational errors Modern trading systems now combine execution, charting, and analytics in one workspace. This gives traders real time visibility into PnL, drawdown, exposure, and risk levels. Crypto Prop Trading Terminal Explained A crypto prop trading terminal is an all in one workspace built for professional crypto traders in prop firm environments. Unlike traditional trading platforms, it is designed for fast decision making, advanced execution, and unified trading workflows. Direct Liquidity Trading Environment Modern terminals connect directly to major crypto exchanges such as Bybit, Binance, and Hyperliquid via low latency systems, providing: Real time order book and depth of market (DOM) data Support for funding rates, open interest, and other crypto native mechanics Fast execution with reduced slippage during volatility Advanced order types like Post Only, TWAP, Iceberg, and Trailing Stop This creates a trading environment closer to real market conditions compared to CFD style platforms. Unified Execution, Analytics, and Risk Tracking The main advantage of a prop trading terminal is unification. Everything is handled in one workspace: Multi chart layouts and execution tools Hotkey and one click order placement Real time risk and drawdown tracking Trade analytics and journaling features Position sizing and risk calculators This reduces platform switching and helps traders execute faster with fewer errors. Crypto Prop Firms Are Investing in Proprietary Trading Infrastructure Many crypto prop firms still use white-label platforms designed for other markets, limiting control over execution, workflows, and development, while proprietary systems improve trading experience, analytics, and risk management overall. The Limitations of White Label Trading Platforms White label solutions are quick to deploy and cost efficient, but come with key drawbacks: Limited customization of execution and risk systems Generic workflows not optimized for crypto markets Slower adaptation to trader feedback and market changes Shared infrastructure that can create performance issues during volatility Long Term Infrastructure vs Short Term Marketing Some prop firms are shifting focus from aggressive marketing and bonuses toward infrastructure development. While promotions and high profit splits attract attention, long term success depends on delivering a reliable trading environment. Better infrastructure directly improves trader performance, retention, and payout consistency. Why Proprietary Infrastructure Signals Commitment For newer firms, infrastructure is becoming a stronger trust signal than marketing claims or payout screenshots. Building a prop native ecosystem requires significant technical investment. Firms that develop their own systems show long term commitment to trader success, rather than acting as intermediaries relying on third party platforms. This builds credibility and attracts serious, long term traders. CPX Terminal: Inside a Modern Crypto Prop Trading Environment CPX Terminal is a modern crypto prop trading terminal built around TradingView integration, crypto derivatives execution, and prop focused workflow design. Unlike traditional trading platforms originally adapted from forex markets, CPX is purpose built for crypto traders operating in funded trading programs and perpetual futures environments. TradingView Advanced Integration CPX Terminal is built on TradingView’s charting infrastructure, giving traders a familiar, chart-first workflow inside a prop trading environment. Key features include: Native TradingView charting Multi chart layouts and saved workspaces Support for Pine Script indicators and community tools Chart based order execution workflows This setup allows traders to analyze, execute, and manage positions within a single interface, removing the need to switch between separate charting and execution tools. Bybit Liquidity Connectivity CPX Terminal connects directly to Bybit liquidity through an execution layer optimized for crypto trading workflows. Traders gain access to more than 550 crypto trading pairs with market based pricing and execution conditions tailored for active perpetual futures trading. The platform also includes fee structures starting from 0.01% maker fees and 0.03% taker fees, along with zero swap fees and zero funding charges across supported environments. This design helps replicate real market conditions more accurately compared to synthetic CFD based trading setups. Built in Prop Trading Workflow CPX Terminal combines charting, execution, and account management into a unified trading workspace. The platform includes: Custom hotkeys and order templates Advanced order types such as Post Only, TWAP, and Trailing orders Position management and exposure tracking tools Seamless workflow between analysis and execution This structure reduces platform switching and allows traders to focus on execution during volatile market conditions. Evaluation Tracking Inside the Terminal The terminal integrates prop evaluation metrics directly into the trading environment, allowing traders to monitor: Daily and maximum drawdown levels Profit target progress Risk thresholds and account status Performance metrics aligned with prop firm rules Having these metrics embedded in the execution interface reduces reliance on external dashboards and manual tracking. Multi Account Management and Analytics CPX Terminal also supports traders managing multiple funded accounts or evaluation phases at the same time. Features include: Multi account monitoring Centralized performance dashboards Trade statistics and analytics Risk allocation visibility across accounts This reflects a broader shift toward unified trading systems designed for execution efficiency and real time risk awareness. Final Perspective This evolution highlights a clear shift in crypto prop trading toward fully integrated environments where execution, analytics, and risk management operate within a single workflow. Instead of fragmented tools, modern traders are moving toward terminals built for speed, precision, and real time decision making in funded trading conditions. Disclaimer : This content is meant to inform and should not be considered financial advice. The views expressed in this article may include the author’s personal opinions and do not represent Times Tabloid’s opinion. Readers are advised to conduct thorough research before making any investment decisions. Any action taken by the reader is strictly at their own risk. Times Tabloid is not responsible for any financial losses. The post Crypto Prop Trading Terminal vs Trading Platform: What Serious Traders Actually Need appeared first on Times Tabloid .

Cardano founder Charles Hoskinson signaled renewed momentum behind Leios, the network’s next major consensus upgrade, as Input Output moved a ₳27.7 million funding proposal toward DRep approval. The proposal seeks to mature Leios from an early public testnet prototype into a mainnet-ready release candidate, positioning the upgrade as a central piece of Cardano’s 2030 scaling strategy. “Leios is coming,” Hoskinson wrote on X, quoting Sebastian Nagel, who said: “Cardano, if your governance permits, we’ll ship Leios.” The short exchange framed the next phase of Cardano’s scaling roadmap as both a technical delivery question and a governance decision. Cardano’s Biggest Scaling Bet The proposal , authored by Carlos Lopez de Lara and Nagel, asks DReps to approve a treasury withdrawal of ₳27,714,342 to fund six to nine months of development. The work is intended to move Leios from its current prototype and testnet phase toward a release candidate suitable for mainnet integration. According to the proposal, each milestone would be independently assured, while undisbursed ada would be returned to the treasury. Leios is designed to enhance, rather than replace, Ouroboros Praos, Cardano’s existing consensus protocol. The proposal says the upgrade introduces endorser blocks and committee-based validation to increase transaction capacity while preserving Praos’s security model. IO frames the design as a way to scale Cardano without undermining decentralization or making stake pool operations economically unviable. “Cardano needs a step change in throughput to meet its 2030 ambitions, and Leios is how it gets there. This proposal funds the path from public testnet to a mainnet-ready release candidate — delivering a 10–65x increase in transaction capacity ,” the proposal states. “Why this scale matters: Cardano’s 2030 strategy targets growth from roughly 800,000 monthly transactions to over 27 million.” That 2030 target is a key justification for the funding request. The proposal argues that sustainable utilization at that level would require at least 6x current capacity, while Leios is expected to deliver 10x or more under validated parameter settings. Elsewhere, the accompanying IO article says Leios could support a phased throughput increase from 2x to 30x current capacity on mainnet, with full capacity demonstrated on testnet before broader rollout. The work is organized around three objectives. The first is a release candidate, including a substantial rewrite of consensus components, implementation of the Leios block structure for the Dijkstra era, conformance testing against the Agda formal specification, and integration into the primary node by the fourth quarter of 2026. The second is “high confidence,” built through parameter exploration, continuous load testing, adversarial testing, red-team exercises, and an updated threat model. The third is hard-fork enablement, covering client interfaces, technical documentation, SPO and developer workshops, support for adjacent infrastructure such as DB-Sync, Mithril and Blockfrost , testnet hard forks, governance artifacts and contingency procedures. The proposal is careful to separate work within IO’s control from external dependencies. A mainnet hard fork would still depend on broader ecosystem readiness, governance action submission and a community vote. The document explicitly describes those as risks rather than promises. Funding would be administered through Intersect’s treasury reserve smart contract framework, with milestone-based disbursements and third-party assurance. The budget allocates ₳23.83 million, or 86%, to development, with smaller portions assigned to infrastructure, security and audits, legal and compliance, ecosystem support, operations, governance and other costs. The risk section is direct. It identifies community readiness, hard-fork timing, final cardano-node integration and possible governance constraints as factors that could delay or limit activation. It also notes technical limitations, including potential higher operational costs for SPOs, greater chain growth, and high-throughput assumptions tied to adversarial stake conditions. At press time, ADA traded at $0.2661.

In the latest news, Ethereum co-founder Vitalik Buterin transferred 50.25 ETH, approximately $113,000 at current prices, through Privacy Pools , the compliance-aware privacy protocol he co-authored in a 2023 research paper, publicly validating the tool with real capital rather than white-paper advocacy. The move comes weeks after 0xbow.io launched the protocol on Ethereum mainnet on March 31, 2025, positioning it as a regulatory bridge between user privacy and AML obligations. Buterin putting skin in the game is a signal, not a transaction. Bullish signal for compliant privacy infrastructure on Ethereum. Source: Arkham The amount is deliberately modest relative to Buterin’s holdings; this is a functional demonstration and a public statement, not a liquidity event. The central question the transaction raises is whether Privacy Pools can thread the needle that Tornado Cash could not: preserving meaningful Ethereum privacy while satisfying the on-chain security and regulatory standards that led to its predecessor’s sanction. Discover: The best pre-launch token sales How Privacy Pools Work Mechanically, and Why the Zero-Knowledge Architecture Changes the Compliance Calculus The mechanism here is worth understanding precisely. Privacy Pools uses zero-knowledge proofs to allow a user to demonstrate that their withdrawal belongs to an approved “association set”, a curated subset of deposits filtered by off-chain analysis and encoded on-chain, without revealing which specific deposit was theirs. The user proves the fund’s cleanliness without surrendering their identity. Those are not the same thing as full disclosure, and the distinction matters enormously for the regulatory argument. Tornado Cash, sanctioned by OFAC in August 2022, offered no such selectivity. Every deposit was mixed indiscriminately, which meant honest users shared anonymity sets with wallets tied to North Korea’s Lazarus Group and other sanctioned actors, and regulators had no mechanism to distinguish between them. Privacy Pools encodes the distinction on-chain from the start. @0xprivacypools v2 public testnet is now live! you can now make private transfers within the pool that don't reveal any details! @0xmikemcc , product lead at @0xbowio has been interviewed by @mdoorfard at @EthCC in Cannes. Watch the interview on YouTube: https://t.co/vuk2hUdfcA pic.twitter.com/CorrQlkro1 — coinix (@coin_ix) May 14, 2026 The 0xbow implementation adds a semi-permissive operational layer: initial deposits are capped at 1 ETH per address, and the team retains the ability to pause new association sets if clear sanctions or AML issues emerge, while keeping withdrawals permissionless. As of launch week, the protocol recorded more than 21 ETH across 69 individual deposits, including Buterin’s. The anonymity set is small but growing. The white paper argues that regulators could require users to produce proofs derived from “good” association sets rather than demanding full transaction histories, making compliance audits more targeted and less invasive than current surveillance-first approaches to Ethereum privacy. Ethereum news: Why Buterin’s Privacy Pools Move Matters Beyond the $113K Transaction The post-Tornado Cash landscape left Ethereum’s privacy infrastructure in an awkward position: the most widely used privacy tool was sanctioned, and no credible replacement existed. Privacy Pools is the most architecturally serious attempt to fill that gap, and Buterin’s public use of it shifts it from a research proposal to a live, endorsed protocol in a single transaction. The broader ecosystem context matters here. The CLARITY Act faces more than 100 amendments as legislators continue debating the regulatory perimeter around digital assets, including privacy tools. How Congress and OFAC ultimately treat selective-disclosure protocols will determine whether Privacy Pools becomes infrastructure or a footnote. 0xbow has backing from Number Group, BanklessVC, and Public Works, Coinbase Venture signaling VC conviction that regulation-friendly privacy is a distinct infrastructure category worth building toward. 0xbow Funding Rounds / Source: Cryptorank The roadmap includes extending support for ERC-20 assets and integrating wallet and compliance dashboard tooling, which would dramatically expand the protocol’s reach beyond ETH-native users. Meanwhile, Ethereum ecosystem activity continues to carry meaningful financial stakes for institutions watching on-chain developments closely. If regulators treat Privacy Pools-style proofs as a valid compliance mechanism, the protocol becomes a template for the next generation of privacy tooling across DeFi. If OFAC applies the same blanket logic it used against Tornado Cash, it forecloses the compliant privacy thesis entirely and pushes privacy tooling back underground. The cryptography is settled. The regulatory verdict is not. Buterin’s 50.25 ETH transfer is the most credible public endorsement Privacy Pools has received. The association-set governance question is the variable that determines whether it survives regulatory scrutiny. That question runs directly through OFAC, and through whatever framework emerges from the current congressional markup. Discover: The best crypto to diversify your portfolio with The post Ethereum News: Vitalik Buterin ‘Puts Skin in the Game’ with $113K Privacy Pools Transfer appeared first on Cryptonews .

BitcoinWorld 0x Co-CEO Will Warren Steps Down, Remains on Board Will Warren, co-founder and co-CEO of 0x Labs, the company behind the 0x protocol, has announced his resignation from the day-to-day leadership role. Warren will remain on the company’s board of directors as a major ...

For 67 straight days, traders shorting Bitcoin through perpetual futures were charged a fee every eight hours. That came to 201 separate payments. K33 Research data, cited by CoinDesk on May 8, confirmed the run had broken the previous record of 62 days set during the COVID crash of 2020. Crypto media framed it as a sentiment story. What largely went unexamined was more fundamental: some traders paid hundreds of dollars in fees across that stretch, while others running the same trade paid nothing at all. A record that outlasted the Covid crash benchmark The 67-day run eclipsed a mark that had stood for five years. The K33 Research findings , pointing to the streak as evidence of entrenched bearish positioning in Bitcoin derivatives. Negative funding, in its basic form, signals that short interest has grown heavy enough to flip the market's built-in balancing mechanism. Under normal conditions, long traders pay a periodic fee to shorts, keeping perpetual contract prices anchored to spot. When sentiment turns decisively bearish, that reverses. Shorts start paying longs. Over a few days, the cost is small. Over 201 consecutive settlement windows, it adds up in ways that most traders did not model before entering the position. Anton Palovaara, founder of Leverage.Trading noted that "most traders didn't know they had a choice. Some found out when they got liquidated." The streak has since ended. But the record it set, and the quiet cost it imposed on a specific type of trader, raised a structural question that most coverage skipped over entirely. Perpetual futures vs quarterly contracts: same trade, different Bill Not every Bitcoin short carries a funding obligation. Dated futures, or quarterly contracts, settle at a fixed expiry and do not use a rolling funding rate to stay tethered to spot. A trader who shorted Bitcoin through a quarterly contract at any point during the 67-day streak paid zero in funding fees across all 201 settlement windows. The gap that is created is not marginal. At a conservative average rate of 0.01% per eight-hour period, a $10,000 short in a perpetual contract would have generated $201 in funding charges over the course of the streak. The same $10,000 directional bet placed through a quarterly futures contract would have generated none. Same market view, same exposure to Bitcoin's price movement, a $201 difference in cost before a single tick of price action is counted. "Run the math: a $10,000 short in perpetuals at a conservative 0.01% per period paid $201 in funding over 67 days. The same position in a quarterly contract paid zero," stated Anton Palovaara. Leverage.Trading's analysis of how funding costs accumulate across perpetual and dated contracts outlines the mechanics behind this divergence. The split is structural, not specific to this cycle or this streak. How funding fees drain margin before price even moves The $201 figure looks manageable in isolation. Set against actual margin, the picture shifts considerably. On a $1,000 margin account at 10x leverage, those funding charges represent 20% of the total capital deployed, drawn down by the cost of holding the position rather than by any movement in price. Bitcoin could stay completely flat and a perpetual short trader would still lose a fifth of their margin over the streak's duration. That is the mechanism that makes extended negative funding cycles more dangerous than they first appear. Fees accrue on a fixed schedule, independent of price. A trader may believe they are managing directional risk carefully while the account balance falls toward a liquidation threshold driven entirely by accumulated funding costs. "That's 20% of a $1,000 margin account, gone, with no price move required," Anton highlighted. Quarterly contract holders carried none of that exposure. The risk does not distribute evenly across instrument types. It sits entirely with perpetual traders during every negative funding period, regardless of how the trade performs directionally. What the data shows as the streak ends The 67-day streak is over. The structural split it exposed is not. Perpetual contracts dominate Bitcoin derivatives trading by volume across most major exchanges. Quarterly futures are available on the same platforms, but draw a smaller share of short interest, in part because their mechanics are less familiar to a broad base of retail traders. When funding turns negative again, as it has done repeatedly across Bitcoin's market history, the same asymmetry applies from the first settlement. Perpetual shorts pay. Quarterly shorts do not. The record streak made that difference visible at a scale not seen since the COVID crash, across more than two months of continuous charges. Bitcoin was trading at $79,446.23 at press time, according to CoinGecko. BTC was down 1.30% over the last day and 2.69% over the past week. The daily trading volume stood at $42,735,487,178. The post Why some Bitcoin shorts paid 201 funding fees in 67 days — and others paid zero appeared first on Invezz