Coin overview
MOVE
Ended--
Last price (USDT)
2.87M
24h total (USDT)
4.37M
Total vol (USDT)
2024-12-05 07:00:00 ~ 2024-12-09 11:30:00
Trading time (UTC+0)
2024-12-09 13:00:00 ~ 2024-12-09 17:00:00
Delivery time (UTC+0)
Total supply10.00B
Resources
Introduction
Movement Network is an ecosystem of Modular Move-Based Blockchains that enables developers to build secure, performant, and interoperable blockchain applications, bridging the gap between Move and EVM ecosystems.
Movement "Shadow Advisor" Reveals Former Co-Founder Acquired 60 Million Move Tokens Through Insider Trading Airdrop
On May 22, it was reported that Movement's "shadow advisor" Sam Thapaliya revealed today that former co-founder Cooper Scanlon obtained 60 million Move tokens through insider trading airdrops. Sam stated that Cooper insisted on distributing the highest proportion of token airdrops to a group of 75,000 wallets, which were almost the only wallets capable of claiming, bundling, and selling more than 60 million MOVE tokens. Cooper also instructed to raise the GAS fees for claiming the airdrop, causing the vast majority of retail investors to never claim the airdrop. However, "shadow advisor" Sam Thapaliya is also "not a saint." Two previous business memorandums show that Movement Labs signed agreements with two "shadow advisors" (including Sam Thapaliya), promising to provide up to 10% of the MOVE token supply (worth over $50 million). Advisor Sam Thapaliya claims the agreement has not been terminated and is seeking legal means to recover 2.5% of the total token supply.
Pi Network (PI) Jumps 11% on Supply Shock, but Faces Key Test Ahead
Pi Network (PI) is back in the spotlight after an 11% price surge triggered by the withdrawal of over 86 million tokens from OKX, sparking speculation of a coordinated supply squeeze. The move has intensified bullish sentiment, especially as technical indicators begin to align with the price action. Momentum indicators like the DMI and EMA suggest growing strength, and a potential golden cross formation hints at the possibility of a continued breakout. However, not all signals are fully confirmed—volume-based metrics like the CMF show lingering indecision, making the next few days critical for confirming PI’s direction. Technical Indicators Support PI Rally Amid Supply Shock Speculation Pi Network (PI) surged 11% after more than 86 million tokens were withdrawn from the OKX exchange, drastically reducing the platform’s PI reserves to just 21 million. The sudden exodus of tokens sparked speculation of a coordinated supply squeeze, with some investors interpreting the move as a strategic effort by large holders to limit circulating supply and potentially drive the price higher. Community voices on X described the event as a “power move,” pointing to growing confidence in the asset’s future trajectory. While this triggered bullish momentum and boosted PI to the top of CoinGecko’s trending list, questions still linger regarding its long-term fundamentals, particularly its mainnet rollout, exchange listings, and broader use-case development. PI DMI. Source: TradingView. From a technical perspective, PI’s Directional Movement Index (DMI) shows signs of growing strength. The ADX—a metric that measures the strength of a trend—has climbed from 12.46 to 16.6 in the past day, signaling that momentum is building. Typically, ADX values above 20 indicate a developing trend, with readings above 25 considered strong. Meanwhile, the +DI line, which tracks bullish pressure, sits at 25.98—up from 20.14 yesterday, though slightly down from its peak earlier today at 29.15. The -DI, representing bearish pressure, has dropped significantly to 14.45 from 20.84 yesterday. This divergence suggests that bulls are gaining control and sellers are stepping back, supporting the narrative that Pi Network may be entering a more decisive upward trend if this momentum continues. PI CMF Drops After Brief Spike, Signaling Fading Buying Pressure Despite the recent surge, PI CMF is now at -0.03. Chaikin Money Flow (CMF), a volume-based oscillator that measures buying and selling pressure over a given period. CMF values range from -1 to +1, with readings above 0 suggesting accumulation (buying pressure) and below 0 indicating distribution (selling pressure). The closer the value is to either extreme, the stronger the pressure it reflects. PI CMF. Source: TradingView. Currently, PI’s CMF stands at -0.03—a notable improvement from -0.17 two days ago but a pullback from yesterday’s +0.09. This shift shows that while the overall selling pressure has eased significantly, the recent dip back below the zero line suggests that buyers haven’t fully taken control. A CMF hovering around the neutral zone could imply indecision in the market or a pause after the recent rally. For bulls to regain full momentum, the CMF would ideally need to push back into positive territory and hold, confirming sustained capital inflows and supporting the case for continued upside. Golden Cross Setup Builds for PI, But Key Resistance Still in Play Pi Network’s EMA lines are starting to align in a bullish setup, with a potential golden cross formation on the horizon. A golden cross occurs when a short-term EMA crosses above a long-term EMA, signaling the possibility of a sustained uptrend. If this pattern confirms, PI price could gain enough momentum to challenge the resistance at $0.96. A breakout above that level may open the door for further gains toward $1.30, and with strong follow-through, the price could even reach $1.67—levels not seen in recent trading activity. PI Price Analysis. Source: TradingView. However, the bullish scenario is not guaranteed. If the current uptrend loses steam and buying pressure weakens, Pi Network could retrace to test support at $0.66. A breakdown below that level would likely shift sentiment more bearish, exposing the token to further downside toward $0.57. While technical signals lean optimistic for now, traders will be closely watching whether the golden cross materializes and if resistance levels can be cleared convincingly.
Ethereum Co-Founder Jeffrey Wilcke Sends 105.737 ETH to Kraken in Possible Sale
Jeffrey Wilcke can sell 105.737 ETH on Kraken Movement suggests possible million-dollar liquidation in ETH Ethereum co-founder has already withdrawn over $500 million Ethereum co-founder Jeffrey Wilcke recently moved 105.737 ETH to the Kraken exchange in a transaction that has caught the attention of the crypto market. According to data from Arkham, the total amount transferred is worth around $262 million. This move is considered significant, especially since Wilcke has maintained a history of significant Ethereum transfers since 2016. Most of these transfers were also made to Kraken, indicating a possible gradual liquidation strategy over the years. Wilcke, who stepped away from direct involvement in Ethereum development in 2019 to start his own gaming company, has already moved a total of 394.000 ETH to the same exchange. With an estimated average sale price of $1.295 per unit, the total withdrawn reaches approximately $510 million. ARKHAM ALERT: ETHEREUM COFOUNDER JEFFREY WILCKE JUST SENT $262M OF ETH TO KRAKEN pic.twitter.com/tgUpS0mCBJ — Arkham (@arkham) May 20, 2025 The latest move has reignited debates about the influence of large ETH holders on the market. While there is no official confirmation yet that the funds were actually sold, the transfer to a centralized exchange usually indicates such intent. Historically, high-volume transfers by prominent figures in the Ethereum ecosystem tend to impact investor and analyst sentiment. However, the price of ETH did not experience any sharp changes immediately after the transaction, which may indicate healthy market absorption. Wilcke’s track record reinforces the role of early network developers as significant players in Ethereum’s circulating volume. At a time when the market is watching every move made by large wallets, these transactions are gaining attention not only for the amount involved, but also for their potential impact on the behavior of other investors. Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed by the author, or anyone mentioned in this article, are for informational purposes only and do not constitute financial, investment or other advice. Investing or trading cryptocurrencies carries a risk of financial loss.
Bitget Wallet Launches New Brand Identity and “Crypto for Everyone” Movement
Backed by 300% user growth, Bitget Wallet unveils a new design and $1M campaign to bring crypto into everyday use worldwide Bitget Wallet, the leading non-custodial crypto wallet, has unveiled a new brand identity to reflect its evolution into a full-service crypto wallet designed for everyday use. With over 80 million users, Bitget Wallet has strategically expanded its offerings beyond trading and earning to onchain discovery and global payments. Alongside a new logo symbolizing simplicity and direction, the app has introduced a more streamlined, user-friendly interface to make crypto more intuitive for all. Bitget Wallet stands by the inclusive motto — Crypto for Everyone — now part of a broader initiative, the Crypto for Everyone Movement, aimed at onboarding the next billion users. Through this, it plans to incentivize the community with a pool of over $1 million as gratitude for support. “The role of wallets is evolving — it’s moving from a niche tool to one with real-world utility for everyday needs,” said Alvin Kan, COO of Bitget Wallet. “This rebrand is part of a longer-term plan to make crypto accessible for everyone. We’re building towards a future where interacting with crypto feels as easy as using Uber or Paypal,” he added. Bitget Wallet’s growth has coincided with increased demand for self-custody and alternative financial access, particularly in regions where banking infrastructure is limited. The platform saw a 300% increase in users over the past year, with the fastest growth in Africa (+959%), Europe (+367%), and the Middle East (+350%), as more individuals turn to crypto to navigate inflation, limited banking access, and economic instability, gaining greater control over their finances. Bitget Wallet’s rebrand focuses on making crypto easier to use and more practical for everyday needs. Built around four core features — Trade, Earn, Pay, and Discover — the wallet lets users track market trends, explore new tokens, and trade across over 130 blockchains with one click. In selected regions, a new Simple Mode will be launched to offer a streamlined experience for users who are new to crypto. To support secure usage, it includes protections like real-time risk monitoring and transaction screening, helping users navigate onchain finance more safely. Bitget Wallet is among the first to launch an in-app shop and remains the only major self-custodial wallet offering full payment flexibility, including crypto cards, QR code scans, and direct purchases. The shop supports over 300 brands across gaming, mobile, travel, and e-commerce, enabling crypto payments at Amazon, Google Play, Shopee, and more. Regional integrations with national QR payment systems are also underway. Building on this everyday utility, the wallet offers yield features to help users earn passive income on their crypto balances and plans to support tokenized real-world assets like stocks and gold as it expands beyond digital assets. “Bitget Wallet stands strong with the essence of crypto extending beyond our decentralized vision, serving as a critical access layer across trading, earning, and payments for onchain assets. Users now have an even more powerful tool — simple to use, accessible, and packed with capabilities — that connects people to opportunity, wherever they are, whenever they need,” said Gracy Chen, CEO at Bitget. To mark the rebrand, Bitget Wallet is launching the Crypto for Everyone Movement in partnership with leading ecosystem projects, offering over $1 million in rewards and inviting users to explore the updated platform through interactive campaigns. More details on the brand update and product roadmap are available on the Bitget Wallet blog. Watch the brand video on YouTube. About Bitget Wallet Bitget Wallet is a non-custodial crypto wallet designed to make crypto simple and secure for everyone. With over 80 million users, it brings together a full suite of crypto services, including swaps, market insights, staking, rewards, DApp exploration, and payment solutions. Supporting 130+ blockchains and millions of tokens, Bitget Wallet enables seamless multi-chain trading across hundreds of DEXs and cross-chain bridges. Backed by a $300+ million user protection fund, it ensures the highest level of security for users’ assets. For more information, visit:X | Telegram | Instagram | YouTube | LinkedIn | TikTok | Discord | Facebook
Bitget Wallet Rebrands with “Crypto for Everyone” Movement, Launches $1M Campaign
Bitget Wallet has rebranded, introducing a redesigned interface and expanded trading, payments, and asset discovery features. The platform now supports over 80 million users and is launching a $1 million global campaign to drive crypto adoption. Bitget Wallet is positioning itself as a full-service gateway for digital and real-world assets. Leading non-custodial crypto service Bitget Wallet has unveiled a new brand identity and strategic direction under the banner of “Crypto for Everyone.” The move follows a 300% year-over-year increase in its user base. As part of this refresh, the platform introduced a redesigned interface, new functionality for global payments, and announced a $1 million campaign to promote worldwide crypto adoption. Bitget Wallet’s ‘Crypto for Everyone’ Rebrand Follows 300% User Growth Notably, Bitget Wallet now serves over 80 million users and has evolved far beyond its original trading-focused offering. It is positioning itself as a full-service crypto gateway. The rebrand is part of the wallet’s ambition to integrate trading, earning, discovering, and paying within one seamless platform. It aims to make everyday crypto usage as intuitive as mainstream fintech apps like PayPal or Uber. Related: Bitget Distributes 5,000+ Pizzas in Global Celebration of Bitcoin Pizza Day Emerging Markets Fuel Bitget Wallet’s Rise to 80M+ Users Bitget Wallet’s explosive growth over the past year has been driven by rising demand for self-custody and alternative financial solutions in underserved markets. The company reports user growth of 959% in Africa, 367% in Europe, and 350% in the Middle East. Alvin Kan, COO of Bitget Wallet, commented on the evolving role of crypto wallets: “This rebrand is part of a long-term plan to make crypto accessible to everyone. We’re building toward a future where interacting with crypto feels as easy as using Uber or PayPal.” New Experience: Bitget Wallet Focuses on Trade, Earn, Pay, Discover The new Bitget Wallet experience centers around four core features: Trade, Earn, Pay, and Discover. Users can trade across 130+ blockchains with one click, monitor market trends, and explore new token opportunities. The updated interface simplifies the user journey, especially for newcomers, with a new “Simple Mode” currently being rolled out in select regions. Security enhancements include real-time risk monitoring and transaction screening to help users navigate on-chain finance more safely. Related: Bitget Becomes 3rd Largest Crypto Exchange by Volume, Expands in El Salvador $1M Campaign to Drive Global Onboarding To mark the rebrand, Bitget Wallet is launching the Crypto for Everyone Movement, a global initiative to onboard the next billion crypto users. The campaign includes over $1 million in rewards through collaborations with ecosystem partners and interactive community events. Gracy Chen, CEO of Bitget, summarized the mission: “Users now have an even more powerful tool. It is simple to use, accessible, and packed with capabilities, that connects people to opportunity, wherever they are, whenever they need it.” Bitget Wallet Expands Real-World Payments, Eyes RWA Integration Bitget Wallet is also expanding the possibilities of crypto payments. It remains the only major self-custodial wallet with full in-app payment support, including crypto cards, QR code scanning, and direct brand purchases. The integrated shop offers over 300 brands, including Amazon, Shopee, Google Play, and more. Regional QR code integrations are currently underway. Meanwhile, Bitget Wallet is preparing to support tokenized real-world assets (RWA) like stocks and gold, positioning itself as a potential hub for digital and traditional assets. Disclaimer: The information presented in this article is for informational and educational purposes only. The article does not constitute financial advice or advice of any kind. Coin Edition is not responsible for any losses incurred as a result of the utilization of content, products, or services mentioned. Readers are advised to exercise caution before taking any action related to the company.
Bitcoin Surges Towards $107,000 Amidst Strong Market Sentiment and Increased Dominance Over Altcoins
Bitcoin’s recent surge has brought it tantalizingly close to its all-time high, signaling renewed investor confidence in the cryptocurrency market. Despite the overall decline in the total crypto market cap, Bitcoin’s dominance indicates a swift shift in trader preferences away from altcoins. According to a recent update from COINOTAG, institutional interest has driven Bitcoin’s price up, solidifying its status as the market leader. Bitcoin’s brief surge above $107,000 showcases strong market momentum; with only 32% of altcoins outperforming BTC, it’s a clear “Bitcoin Season.” Bitcoin Season is in Full Swing According to data from Blockchain Center, the cryptocurrency market remains deep in “Bitcoin Season,” a period when BTC significantly outperforms the broader altcoin market. As of this writing, only 16 (32%) of the top 50 altcoins have outperformed BTC over the past 90 days, far below the 75% threshold required to qualify as “Altcoin Season.” Furthermore, Bitcoin’s rising dominance supports this position. Since plunging to a two-month low of 61.89% on May 16, BTC.D, a metric that tracks BTC’s share of total crypto market capitalization, has climbed steadily. As of this writing, the metric stands at 63.92%. Interestingly, since May 14, TOTAL2, which measures the combined market cap of all cryptocurrencies excluding BTC, has trended downward. Currently standing at $1.18 trillion, it has plunged $83 billion over the past week. This divergence suggests market participants are increasingly reallocating capital into BTC over altcoins. The current trend signals that traders are doubling down on BTC’s resilience, especially as the king coin attempts to stabilize above the key $105,000 price mark. BTC’s DMI Points to Strong Buying Pressure On the daily chart, BTC’s Directional Movement Index (DMI) confirms the bullish pressure in the market. As of this writing, the coin’s positive directional index (+DI, blue) rests above its negative directional index (-DI, orange). When an asset’s DMI is set up this way, it indicates that bullish momentum is stronger than bearish momentum, signaling a prevailing uptrend and buying pressure in the BTC market. If this continues, its price could attempt to breach the resistance at $107,048 and rally toward its all-time high of $109,588. On the other hand, if sell-offs strengthen, BTC’s price could dip to $102,080. Conclusion Overall, Bitcoin remains the dominant force in the crypto market, as evidenced by its increasing market share and investor confidence. Traders should closely monitor these trends, as Bitcoin’s performance could significantly influence the broader cryptocurrency landscape. In Case You Missed It: Ethereum's Recent Surge Sparks Altcoin Season Hopes Amid Mixed Market Performance
Bitcoin Season in Full Swing as Altcoins Struggle to Keep Up, Analysis Shows
Leading coin Bitcoin briefly soared above the $107,000 mark yesterday. It reached an intraday peak of $107,108, just 2% shy of its all-time high of $109,588, before retracing. Although the leading cryptocurrency has since retreated slightly to $104,976 at press time, market sentiment remains firmly bullish, with on-chain indicators suggesting continued upward momentum. Bitcoin Season is in Full Swing According to data from Blockchain Center, the cryptocurrency market remains deep in “Bitcoin Season,” a period when BTC significantly outperforms the broader altcoin market. Altcoin Season Index. Source: Blockchain Center As of this writing, only 16 (32%) of the top 50 altcoins have outperformed BTC over the past 90 days, far below the 75% threshold required to qualify as “Altcoin Season.” Furthermore, Bitcoin’s rising dominance supports this position. Since plunging to a two-month low of 61.89% on May 16, BTC.D, a metric that tracks BTC’s share of total crypto market capitalization, has climbed steadily. As of this writing, the metric stands at 63.92%. BTC Dominance. Source: TradingView Interestingly, since May 14, TOTAL2, which measures the combined market cap of all cryptocurrencies excluding BTC, has trended downward. Currently standing at $1.18 trillion, it has plunged $83 billion over the past week. This divergence suggests market participants are increasingly reallocating capital into BTC over altcoins. TOTAL2 Market Cap. Source: TradingView The current trend signals that traders are doubling down on BTC’s resilience, especially as the king coin attempts to stabilize above the key $105,000 price mark. BTC’s DMI Points to Strong Buying Pressure On the daily chart, BTC’s Directional Movement Index (DMI) confirms the bullish pressure in the market. As of this writing, the coin’s positive directional index (+DI, blue) rests above its negative directional index (-DI, orange). When an asset’s DMI is set up this way, it indicates that bullish momentum is stronger than bearish momentum. This signals a prevailing uptrend and buying pressure in the BTC market. If this continues, its price could attempt to breach the resistance at $107,048, and rally toward its all-time high of $109,588. Bitcoin Price Analysis. Source: TradingView On the other hand, if sell-offs strengthen, BTC’s price could dip to $102,080.
Arthur Hayes: If US Treasury Volatility Transmits to the MOVE Index, It May Trigger Policy Intervention
Arthur Hayes commented on the recent significant fluctuations in the U.S. 10-year Treasury yield, stating, "This move is not small, and the BBC (bond trader community) has been alerted. If this volatility spreads to the MOVE index (U.S. Treasury volatility indicator), it is expected to trigger immediate policy action." The latest data shows that the U.S. 10-year Treasury yield has risen to 4.5445%, with a significant rebound over three days.
Behind the Movement Turbulence: In-Depth Analysis of the Project Team, Liquidity Provider, and VC's Game and Breakthrough
Original Title: Crypto Pump Dumps Have Become the Ugly Norm. Can They Be Stopped? Original Source: Unchained Original Translation: lenaxin, ChainCatcher This article is compiled from an interview on the Unchained blog, featuring Delphi Labs founder José Macedo, SecondLane co-founder Omar Shakeeb, and STIX CEO Taran Sabharwal. They discussed topics such as liquidity shortages, market manipulation, inflated valuations, opaque lock-up mechanisms, and how the industry is engaging in self-regulation in the crypto market. ChainCatcher has compiled and translated the content. TL;DR 1. The core function of market makers is to provide liquidity and reduce trading slippage for tokens. 2. Incentives in the crypto market may lead to "pump and dump" behavior. 3. It is recommended to adopt a fixed fee model to reduce manipulation risks. 4. The crypto market can refer to traditional financial regulatory rules but needs to adapt to decentralization. 5. Exchange regulation and industry self-discipline are key entry points for driving transparency. 6. Projects manipulate the market through inflating circulation figures, off-exchange trading to offload selling pressure, etc. 7. Lower project funding valuations to prevent retail investors from buying in at high bubble asset prices. 8. Opaque lock-up mechanisms force early investors into irregular liquidation, causing a sell-off event: dYdX crash. 9. VC and founders face misaligned incentives, with token unlocking out of sync with ecosystem development. 10. On-chain disclosure of actual circulation, lock-up terms, and market maker dynamics. 11. Allow reasonable liquidity release, layered capital collaboration. 12. Validate product demand before fundraising to avoid VC-driven hype misdirection. (I) The Role of Market Makers and Manipulation Risks Laura Shin: Let's delve into the role of market makers in the crypto market. What core issues do they solve for project teams and the market? At the same time, what potential manipulation risks exist in the current market mechanism? José Macedo: The core function of a market maker is to provide liquidity across multiple exchanges to ensure sufficient market depth. Its profit model mainly relies on the bid-ask spread. Unlike in traditional financial markets, in the cryptocurrency market, market makers often acquire a significant amount of tokens through option agreements, thereby occupying a large proportion of the circulating supply, which gives them the potential ability to manipulate prices. Such option agreements typically include the following elements: 1. The strike price is usually based on the previous funding round price or a 25%-50% premium over the 7-day volume-weighted average price (VWAP) post-issuance. 2. When the market price reaches the strike price, the market maker has the right to exercise and profit. This agreement structure to some extent incentivizes market makers to artificially inflate the price. Although mainstream market makers are usually more cautious, non-standard option agreements do carry potential risks. We recommend that projects adopt a "fixed fee" model, where a fixed fee is paid monthly to hire a market maker and require them to maintain a reasonable bid-ask spread and ongoing market depth, rather than driving prices through a complex incentive structure. In short, fees should be unrelated to token price performance; cooperation should be service-oriented; and goals should not be distorted by incentive mechanisms. Taran Sabharwal: The core value of a market maker lies in reducing trade slippage. For example, I once conducted a seven-figure trade on Solana, which resulted in a 22% on-chain slippage, whereas a professional market maker can significantly optimize this metric. Considering that their service saves costs for all traders, market makers should receive corresponding compensation. When selecting a market maker, the project team needs to clarify the incentive goals. Under a basic service model, market makers mainly provide liquidity and underwriting services; whereas under a short-term consultancy model, they set short-term incentives around key milestones such as mainnet launch, for example, by stabilizing prices through a TWAP-trigger mechanism. However, if the strike price is set too high, once the price far exceeds expectations, market makers may engage in option arbitrage and sell off tokens on a large scale, exacerbating market volatility. The lesson learned is to avoid setting excessively high strike prices, prioritize the basic service model, and control the uncertainty brought about by complex agreements. Omar Shakeeb: There are two core issues with the current market making mechanism. First, the incentive mechanism is misaligned. Liquidity providers often focus more on arbitrage opportunities brought by price increases rather than fulfilling their basic duty of providing liquidity. They should be attracting retail traders by continuously providing liquidity, not solely relying on betting on price fluctuations for arbitrage gains. Second, transparency is severely lacking. Project teams typically engage multiple liquidity providers simultaneously, but these institutions operate independently without a collaborative mechanism. Currently, only the project foundation and exchanges have the specific list of liquidity provider partnerships, while secondary market participants are completely unable to access information about the trade executors. This lack of transparency makes it difficult to hold responsible parties accountable in case of market anomalies. (2) Movement Controversy: The Truth about Private Sales, Liquidity Provision, and Transparency Laura Shin: Has your company been involved in Movement-related activities? Omar Shakeeb: Our company has indeed been involved in Movement-related activities, but only in the private sale market. Our business process is extremely rigorous, and we maintain close communication with project founders like Taran. We have conducted thorough background checks and due diligence on every investor, advisor, and other participants. However, we are not informed about the pricing and specific operations involved in liquidity provision. The relevant documents are solely held internally by the project foundation and liquidity providers and are not disclosed to other parties. Laura Shin: So, has your company acted as a liquidity provider during the Token Generation Event (TGE)? However, I assume your agreement with the foundation differs significantly from that of the liquidity provider, right? Omar Shakeeb: No, we have not engaged in liquidity provision business. What we do is private sale market business, which is a completely different realm from liquidity provision. The private sale market is essentially an over-the-counter (OTC) transaction that usually occurs before and after the TGE. José Macedo: Did Rushi sell tokens via OTC transactions? Omar Shakeeb: To the best of my knowledge, Rushi did not sell tokens via OTC transactions. The foundation has explicitly stated that they will not engage in token sales, but verifying this commitment remains a challenge. Liquidity provider transactions also carry this risk. Even if a liquidity provider completes a large transaction, it may merely represent the project team's token sale, and outsiders cannot ascertain the specific details. This is the issue caused by transparency deficiency. I suggest that from the early stages of token distribution, wallets should be clearly labeled, such as with "Foundation Wallet," "CEO Wallet," "Co-founder Wallet," etc. Through this method, the source of each transaction can be traced, clarifying the actual sale situations of all parties. José Macedo: We did consider tagging wallets at one point, but this measure could potentially lead to privacy leaks and increased barriers to entry, among other issues. （III）Exchanges and Industry Self-Regulation: Feasibility of Regulatory Implementation José Macedo: As emphasized by Hester Pierce in a recent Safe Harbor Rule proposal, project teams should disclose their liquidity arrangements. Currently, exchanges tend to maintain low circulation to achieve high valuations, while market makers rely on information asymmetry to earn high fees. We can learn from the regulatory experiences of traditional finance (TradFi). The Securities Exchange Act of the 1930s and the market manipulation techniques exposed in Edwin Lefebvre's "Reminiscences of a Stock Operator" in the 1970s and 80s, such as inducing retail traders to buy in through artificial volume inflation, bear striking resemblance to certain phenomena in the current cryptocurrency market. Therefore, we propose to introduce these mature regulatory regimes into the cryptocurrency space to effectively curb price manipulation. Specific measures include: 1. Prohibiting fake orders, front-running, and preferential execution to manipulate market prices. 2. Ensuring transparency and fairness in the price discovery mechanism to prevent any behavior that could distort price signals. Laura Shin: Achieving transparency between issuers and market makers faces many challenges. As Evgeny Gavoy pointed out on "The Chop Block" program, the market-making mechanisms in the Asian market generally lack transparency, and achieving globally unified regulation is almost impossible. So, how can these obstacles be overcome? Can industry self-regulation drive change? Is it possible in the short term to form a hybrid model of "global convention + regional implementation"? Omar Shakeeb: The extreme opacity of the market's underlying operations is the biggest issue. If top market makers could voluntarily establish an open-source disclosure mechanism, this would significantly improve the current state of the market. Laura Shin: But would this approach lead to the "Gresham's Law" phenomenon? Violators may avoid regulatory bodies, so how can we truly curb such misconduct? José Macedo: From a regulatory perspective, transparency can be promoted through the Exchange Auditing Mechanism. Specific measures include: requiring exchanges to disclose their market maker lists and establishing a "Compliance Whitelist" system. Additionally, industry self-regulation is equally important. For example, the auditing mechanism is a typical case. Although not legally mandated, projects that are not audited today are almost impossible to invest in. Similarly, qualifications reviews of market makers can establish similar standards. If a project is found to be using a non-compliant market maker, its reputation will be damaged. Just as there are differences in audit firms, a market maker's reputation system also needs to be established. Feasibility of regulatory implementation is a key entry point for centralized exchanges. These exchanges generally aim to serve U.S. users, and U.S. law has broad jurisdiction over crypto businesses. Therefore, regardless of whether a user is in the U.S., as long as they use a U.S. exchange, they must comply with relevant regulations. In summary, Exchange Regulation and Industry Self-Regulation can both be important means to effectively regulate market behavior. Laura Shin: You mentioned that market maker information should be publicly disclosed, and compliant market makers should be market-recognized. However, if someone deliberately chooses to use a non-compliant market maker, and these types of institutions lack the incentive to publicly disclose their partnerships, the following situations may arise: The project appears to use a compliant market maker on the surface to maintain its reputation, but in reality, it may also engage with opaque institutions for operations. The key issues are: 1. How to ensure that the project fully discloses all partnered market makers? 2. How can the outside world discover the fraudulent activities of market makers who do not voluntarily disclose information? José Macedo: If a violation is found where an exchange illicitly uses a non-whitelisted institution, this is equivalent to fraudulent behavior. Although theoretically project teams can collaborate with multiple market makers, in practice, due to the limited circulation of most projects, there are usually only 1-2 core market makers, making it difficult to conceal the true partners. Taran Sabharwal: This issue should be analyzed from the perspective of market makers. Firstly, simply categorizing market makers as "compliant" or "non-compliant" is one-sided. How can non-regulated exchanges ensure the compliance of their trading entities? The top three exchanges (Binance, OKEx, Bybit) are offshore and unregulated institutions, while Upbit focuses on the Korean spot trading market. Regulation faces many challenges, including geographical differences, top-tier monopolies, and excessively high entry barriers. In terms of accountability, project founders should bear primary responsibility for their conduct. Although exchange review mechanisms are quite stringent, they still struggle to eliminate circumvention operations. Using Movement as an example, its fundamental issue is social failure, such as overcommitment and improper transfer of control, rather than technical flaws. Despite its token market cap plummeting from 140 billion FTB to 20 billion, many new projects still imitate its model. However, the team's structural mistakes, especially the improper transfer of control, ultimately led to the project going to zero. Laura Shin: In light of the many issues exposed, how should all parties collaborate to address them? José Macedo: Disclosing the true circulation supply is key. Many projects inflate the circulation supply to inflate valuation, but in reality, a large number of tokens are still locked up. However, tokens held by foundations and labs are usually not subject to lock-up restrictions, meaning they can sell through market makers on the token's launch day. This operation is essentially a form of "soft exit": the team cashes out when the market is most heated on launch day, then uses this fund to repurchase team tokens unlocked a year later or to temporarily boost the protocol's TVL before exiting. In terms of token distribution mechanisms, a cost-based unlocking mechanism should be introduced, following the practices of platforms like Legion or Echo. Currently, channels like Binance Launchpool have significant flaws, making it difficult to distinguish between real user funds and platform reserves in multi-billion-dollar pools. Therefore, establishing a more transparent public sale mechanism is urgently needed. Transparency in the market-making process and ensuring retail investors can clearly understand the token's actual ownership status are also crucial. While most projects have made progress in transparency, further improvements are still needed. As such, public market makers should be required to disclose token lending protocol details, including borrowing amounts, option agreements, and their exercise prices, to provide retail investors with more comprehensive market insights to help them make wiser investment decisions. Overall, disclosing the true circulation supply, standardizing market-making protocol disclosures, and improving token distribution mechanisms are the most urgent reform directions at present. Omar Shakeeb: The primary issue is to adjust the financing valuation system. Current project valuations are inflated, generally ranging from 30 to 50 billion USD, exceeding retail investors' tolerance. Using Movement as an example, its token went from a 140 billion valuation to 20 billion, and such high initial valuations are detrimental to all parties. It is necessary to return to early valuations levels akin to Solana (3-4 billion USD), allowing more users to participate at a reasonable price and promoting a healthier ecosystem development. Regarding the use of ecosystem funds, we have observed that project teams often face operational dilemmas: entrust to market makers? engage in OTC transactions? or other methods? We always recommend opting for OTC transactions, as this ensures that the recipient of the funds aligns with the project's strategic goals. Celestia is a classic case; they funded over $100 million at a valuation of 30 billion post-token issuance but efficiently allocated funds through proper planning. （4）The Truth About Market Manipulation Laura Shin: Is the essence of current market regulation measures to gradually guide artificially manipulated token activities, such as market maker intervention, towards a development trajectory that aligns with natural market rules? Can this transformation achieve a win-win situation, ensuring the interests of early investors while also guaranteeing the sustainable development of project teams? José Macedo: The structural contradiction facing the current market lies in the imbalance of the valuation system. In the previous bull market, due to project scarcity, the market saw a general uptrend; whereas in this cycle, due to overinvestment by Venture Capital (VC), there has been a severe oversupply of infrastructure tokens, causing the majority of funds to fall into a loss cycle and forcing them to raise new funds by selling off their holdings. This supply-demand imbalance has directly altered market behavior. Buyer funds exhibit a fragmented nature, with holding periods shortening from years to months or even weeks. The over-the-counter trading market has fully transitioned to hedge strategies, with investors maintaining market neutrality through options tools, completely abandoning the naked long strategies of the previous cycle. Project teams must face this shift: the success of Solana and AVAX was built during an industry vacuum period, while new projects need to adopt a low circulation strategy (e.g., Ondo maintains actual circulation below 2%) and maintain price stability through off-exchange agreements with large holders like Columbia University. Projects such as Sui and Mantra, which have performed well this cycle, have validated the effectiveness of this approach, while Movement's attempt to stimulate price through tokenomics design without a mainnet has been a significant strategic mistake. Laura Shin: If Columbia University did not create a wallet, how did they receive these tokens? This seems somewhat illogical. Taran Sabharwal: As one of the main institutional holders of Ondo, Columbia University's tokens are in a non-circulating state due to the lack of a wallet creation, objectively creating a phenomenon of "paper circulation." The project's tokenomic structure exhibits significant features: since a large-scale unlock in January of this year, no new tokens will be released until January 2025. Market data shows that despite active perpetual contract trading, the spot order book depth is severely lacking, and this artificially induced liquidity shortage makes the price susceptible to small fund influences. On the contrary, Mantra adopted a more aggressive liquidity manipulation strategy. The project team transferred selling pressure to futures buyers through off-market trades, while using the proceeds to pump the spot market. With only $20-40 million utilized, they created a 100x price increase on a shallow order book, skyrocketing the market cap from $100 million to $12 billion. This "time arbitrage" mechanism essentially leveraged liquidity manipulation for a short squeeze, rather than a price discovery process based on real demand. Omar Shakeeb: The crux of the issue lies in the project team implementing a multi-lock mechanism, yet these lockup terms were never publicly disclosed, which is the most intricate part of the entire event. José Macedo: Authoritative data sources like CoinGecko display a severe distortion in token circulation. The project team often counts "non-active tokens" controlled by the foundation and team as part of the circulating supply, leading to a reported circulating supply exceeding 50%, while the actual circulating supply that entered the market may be less than 5%, with 4% still controlled by market makers. This kind of systematic data manipulation is suspected of fraud. When investors trade based on a mistaken perception of a 60% circulating supply, in reality, 55% of the tokens are frozen by the project team in cold wallets. This significant information asymmetry directly distorts the price discovery mechanism, making the mere 5% true circulating supply a tool for market manipulation. Laura Shin: JP (Jump Trading)'s market manipulation techniques have been widely studied. Do you see this as an innovative model worth emulating, or does it reflect a short-term arbitrage mindset among market participants? How should we characterize the essence of such strategies? Taran Sabharwal: JP's operations demonstrate a sophisticated ability to control market supply and demand, but its essence lies in creating a short-term value illusion through artificially induced liquidity scarcity. This strategy is non-replicable and, in the long run, detrimental to the healthy development of the market. The current market's mimicry phenomenon precisely exposes participants' profit-driven mentality, overly focusing on market cap manipulation and neglecting real value creation. José Macedo: It is crucial to distinguish between "innovation" and "manipulation." In traditional financial markets, similar operations would be classified as market manipulation behavior. The crypto market, due to regulatory gaps, may seem "legal," but fundamentally, it's wealth transfer through information asymmetry, not sustainable market innovation. Taran Sabharwal: The core issue lies in market participants' behavior patterns. In the current crypto market, the vast majority of retail investors lack basic due diligence awareness, and their investment behavior is fundamentally closer to gambling rather than rational investment. This irrational mindset of chasing short-term gains objectively creates an ideal operating environment for market manipulators. Omar Shakeeb: The key problem lies in the project team implementing a multi-layered locking mechanism, but these locking terms were never publicly disclosed, which is the most tricky part of the whole event. Taran Sabharwal: The truth of market manipulation often lies in the order book, when a $1 million buy order can drive a 5% price fluctuation, indicating that market depth essentially does not exist. Many project teams exploit technical unlocking vulnerabilities (where tokens are unlocked but effectively long-term locked) to falsely report circulating supply, leading to short sellers misjudging risks. When Mantra first broke through a $10 billion market cap, a large number of short sellers were liquidated and forced to exit. WorldCoin is a typical case. Early last year, its fully diluted valuation reached as high as $120 billion, but the actual circulating market cap was only $5 billion, creating a more extreme circulating supply shortage than ICP did that year. Although this operation has allowed WorldCoin to maintain a $20 billion valuation to this day, it is essentially harvesting the market through an information asymmetry. However, a fair assessment of JP is needed: during the market's low point, he even sold personal assets to repurchase tokens and maintained project operations through equity financing. This kind of dedication to the project indeed demonstrates the founder's responsibility. Omar Shakeeb: Although JP is currently trying to turn the tide, it is extremely difficult to make a comeback once deeply entrenched in this situation. Once market trust collapses, it is hard to rebuild. (V) Founder vs. VC: The Game of Tokenomics: Long-Term Value of Tokens Laura Shin: Do we have a fundamental disagreement on the development philosophy of the crypto ecosystem, whether Bitcoin, CEX are fundamentally different? Should the crypto industry prioritize encouraging short-term arbitrage in token game design, or should it return to value creation? When price and utility are disconnected, does the industry still have long-term value? Taran Sabharwal: The issues in the crypto market are not unique, and similar to the traditional stock market, there is also liquidity manipulation in small-cap stocks. However, the current crypto market has evolved into a fierce battlefield among institutions, where market makers hunt down proprietary traders, quant funds harvest hedge funds, and retail investors have long been marginalized. This industry is gradually deviating from the original intention of cryptocurrency technology. When new entrants market Dubai real estate to practitioners, the market has essentially turned into a blatant wealth-grabbing game. A typical example is dBridge, which, despite its cutting-edge cross-chain technology, has a token market cap of only 30 million dollars; in contrast, a meme coin with no technological substance easily surpasses a hundred billion valuation with a marketing gimmick. This distorted incentive mechanism is eroding the foundation of the industry. When a trader can profit 20 million dollars by hyping a "meme coin," who will still dedicate themselves to polishing a product? The crypto spirit is being eroded by a short-term arbitrage culture, and builders' innovation drive is facing a severe challenge. José Macedo: The current crypto market has two radically different narrative logics. Viewing it as a zero-sum game "casino" versus seeing it as a technology innovation engine leads to completely opposite conclusions. Although the market is filled with VC short-term arbitrage and project team market capitalization management speculative behaviors, there are also many builders quietly developing identity protocols, decentralized exchanges, and other infrastructure. Similar to the traditional venture capital field, where 90% of startups fail but drive overall innovation. The core contradiction of the current token economy lies in a flawed launch mechanism that may permanently damage a project's potential. When an engineer witnesses a token plummet by 80%, who would be willing to join? This highlights the importance of designing a sustainable token model: it must resist short-term speculative temptations while also reserving resources for long-term development. Encouragingly, more and more founders are proving that crypto technology can transcend financial gaming. Laura Shin: The real dilemma lies in how to define a "soft landing." In an ideal state, token unlocks should be deeply tied to the maturity of the ecosystem. Only when the community achieves self-organized operation and the project enters a sustainable development stage does the profit behavior of the founding team become legitimate. However, the practical dilemma is that, aside from time locks, almost all unlocking conditions can be artificially manipulated, which is the core contradiction facing the current tokenomic design. Omar Shakeeb: The root of the current tokenomic design problem lies in the VC and founder's initial fundraising negotiations, emphasizing tokenomics involve a multi-stakeholder balance that must meet LP return demands and be accountable to retail investors. However, in reality, project teams often sign secret agreements with top funds (such as A16Z's investment in Aguilera with high valuation terms revealed months later), retail investors cannot access off-exchange trading details, leading to liquidity management becoming a systemic challenge. Token issuance is not the endpoint but the beginning of responsibility for the crypto ecosystem; each failed token experiment is consuming market trust capital. If founders cannot ensure the token's long-term value, they should stick to an equity financing model. José Macedo: The VC and Founder Misalignment of Interests is a core contradiction, where VCs seek to maximize portfolio returns, while founders face significant wealth temptation to cash out. Only when on-chain verifiable mechanisms (such as TVL fraud detection and liquidity sandwich attacks monitoring) are robust, can the market truly move towards standardization. （VI）Industry Path Forward: Transparency, Collaboration, and Returning to Basics Laura Shin: So far in our discussion, we have outlined areas for improvement for all parties involved, including VCs, project teams, liquidity providers, exchanges, and retail investors themselves. What do you think needs to be improved? Omar Shakeeb: For founders, the primary task is to validate product-market fit rather than blindly pursuing high funding. Experience has shown that instead of raising fifty million dollars but failing to create market demand, it is better to first use two million dollars to validate feasibility and then gradually expand. This is also why we release a monthly report on private market liquidity. Only by bringing all dark operations into the light can the market truly achieve healthy growth. Taran Sabharwal: The current structural contradictions in the crypto market have put founders in a dilemma. They must resist the temptation of short-term wealth and uphold value creation while also facing pressure from high development costs. Some foundations have morphed into founders' personal treasuries, with multi-billion-dollar market cap "zombie chains" continuously depleting ecosystem resources. As meme coins and AI concepts take turns in the hype cycle, infrastructure projects are mired in liquidity drought, with some teams even forced to delay token launches for two years. This systemic distortion is severely squeezing builders' room to survive. Omar Shakeeb: Take Eigen, for example, when its valuation reached 60-70 billion dollars, there were buy orders of 20-30 million dollars off-market, yet the foundation refused to release liquidity. This extremely conservative strategy actually missed an opportunity; they could have inquired whether the team needed 20 million dollars to accelerate the roadmap or allowed early investors to cash out 5-10% of their holdings for a reasonable return. The market fundamentally is a collaborative network of value distribution, not a zero-sum game. If the project team monopolizes the value chain, ecosystem participants will eventually exit. Taran Sabharwal: This exposes the most fundamental power play in tokenomics, where founders always see early exits by investors as betrayal but overlook that liquidity itself is a key indicator of ecosystem health. When all participants are forced to lock up their assets, the seemingly stable market cap actually harbors systemic risk. Omar Shakeeb: The current crypto market is in urgent need of establishing a positive feedback value distribution mechanism: Allowing early investors to exit at a reasonable time not only attracts high-quality long-term capital but also creates a synergistic effect of capital with different horizons. Short-term hedge funds provide liquidity, while long-term funds support development. This tiered collaboration mechanism is far more conducive to ecosystem prosperity than mandatory lock-ups, with the key being to build a trust bond. The reasonable return for Series A investors will attract continued investment from Series B strategic capital. José Macedo: Founders need to face a harsh reality: behind every successful project, there are numerous failures. When the market crazily pursues a certain concept, most teams ultimately spend two years unable to launch a token, creating a vicious cycle of concept arbitrage, essentially overdrawing the industry's innovation. The true breakthrough lies in returning to the essence of the product, developing real needs with the smallest viable funding, rather than chasing signals from the capital market heat. Particularly, one must beware of the collective misjudgment caused by VC false signals. When a concept receives a large amount of funding, it often leads the founder to misinterpret it as a genuine market need. Exchanges, as industry gatekeepers, should strengthen their infrastructure functions, establish market maker disclosure systems, ensure on-chain verifiable circulation data, and standardize over-the-counter trading reporting processes. Only by perfecting the market infrastructure can founders break free from the "no hype, no survival" prisoner's dilemma and steer the industry back to the track of value creation. Original Article Link Welcome to join the official BlockBeats community: Telegram Subscription Group: https://t.me/theblockbeats Telegram Discussion Group: https://t.me/BlockBeats_App Official Twitter Account: https://twitter.com/BlockBeatsAsia
CME Launches Ripple XRP Futures Today, Whale Movement Rekindles Expectations
XRP Futures Debut on Regulated CME Platform Whale movement indicates institutional interest in XRP Ripple Expands XRP Ledger Usage in Colombia The Chicago Mercantile Exchange (CME) has confirmed the launch of XRP futures contracts on Monday, expanding its offering of cryptocurrency derivatives. The move marks an important step for Ripple’s token, especially as the asset struggles to regain momentum following recent regulatory tensions in the US. BREAKING: 🇺🇸 CME $ Xrp FUTURES GO LIVE TOMORROW! 💥📈 pic.twitter.com/1Hc4BMEIo7 — Good Morning Crypto (@AbsGMCrypto) May 18, 2025 CME futures contracts will be cash-settled based on the CME CF XRP-Dollar reference rate. Two types of contracts will be available: a standard contract equivalent to 50.000 XRP and a micro contract of 2.500 XRP, tradable via CME Globex and cleared on CME ClearPort. This launch comes after CME’s recent expansion into altcoin futures such as Solana, highlighting the growth of institutional interest in diversified cryptocurrencies. The expected impact for XRP involves increased liquidity and a more efficient price discovery process, which could have a direct impact on the asset’s price. However, XRP remains under pressure. Following a ruling by Judge Analisa Torres, who upheld the ban on institutional sales of the token and rejected Ripple’s request to reduce the $125 million fine, the price fell from $2,65 to $2,30, now trying to hold close to $2,40. Despite this, significant movements have been observed. Data shows more than US$350 million in XRP transferred by whales, with a focus on transactions between Ripple and exchanges such as Crypto.com. The movement raises speculation about institutional operations via the over-the-counter (OTC) market. In parallel with the legal battle, Ripple continues its expansion efforts. In partnership with Mercy Corps and WËIA, it launched a pilot in Colombia focused on traceability and microfinance in the agricultural sector, using the XRP Ledger as technological infrastructure. With Polymarket betting an 83% chance of an XRP spot ETF being approved by December, the community remains vigilant. The expectation is that a favorable resolution on the token’s classification by the SEC could completely change the course of the narrative. Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed by the author, or anyone mentioned in this article, are for informational purposes only and do not constitute financial, investment or other advice. Investing or trading cryptocurrencies carries a risk of financial loss. Tags: Chicago Mercantile Exchange (CME) Ripple
Behind the Movement Turbulence: In-Depth Analysis of the Project Team, Liquidity Provider, and VC's Game and Breakthrough
Original Title: Crypto Pump & Dumps Have Become the Ugly Norm. Can They Be Stopped? Original Source: Unchained Original Translation: lenaxin, ChainCatcher This article is compiled from an interview on the Unchained blog, featuring Delphi Labs founder José Macedo, SecondLane co-founder Omar Shakeeb, and STIX CEO Taran Sabharwal. They discussed topics such as liquidity shortages, market manipulation, inflated valuations, opaque lock-up mechanisms, and how the industry is engaging in self-regulation in the crypto market. ChainCatcher has compiled and translated the content. TL;DR 1. The core function of market makers is to provide liquidity and reduce trading slippage for tokens. 2. Incentives in the crypto market may lead to "pump and dump" behavior. 3. It is recommended to adopt a fixed fee model to reduce manipulation risks. 4. The crypto market can refer to traditional financial regulatory rules but needs to adapt to decentralization. 5. Exchange regulation and industry self-discipline are key entry points for driving transparency. 6. Projects manipulate the market through inflating circulation figures, off-exchange trading to offload selling pressure, etc. 7. Lower project funding valuations to prevent retail investors from buying in at high bubble asset prices. 8. Opaque lock-up mechanisms force early investors into irregular liquidation, causing a sell-off event: dYdX crash. 9. VC and founders face misaligned incentives, with token unlocking out of sync with ecosystem development. 10. On-chain disclosure of actual circulation, lock-up terms, and market maker dynamics. 11. Allow reasonable liquidity release, layered capital collaboration. 12. Validate product demand before fundraising to avoid VC-driven hype misdirection. (I) The Role of Market Makers and Manipulation Risks Laura Shin: Let's delve into the role of market makers in the crypto market. What core issues do they solve for project teams and the market? At the same time, what potential manipulation risks exist in the current market mechanism? José Macedo: The core function of a market maker is to provide liquidity across multiple exchanges to ensure sufficient market depth. Its profit model mainly relies on the bid-ask spread. Unlike in traditional financial markets, in the cryptocurrency market, market makers often acquire a significant amount of tokens through option agreements, thereby occupying a large proportion of the circulating supply, which gives them the potential ability to manipulate prices. Such option agreements typically include the following elements: 1. The strike price is usually based on the previous funding round price or a 25%-50% premium over the 7-day volume-weighted average price (VWAP) post-issuance. 2. When the market price reaches the strike price, the market maker has the right to exercise and profit. This agreement structure to some extent incentivizes market makers to artificially inflate the price. Although mainstream market makers are usually more cautious, non-standard option agreements do carry potential risks. We recommend that projects adopt a "fixed fee" model, where a fixed fee is paid monthly to hire a market maker and require them to maintain a reasonable bid-ask spread and ongoing market depth, rather than driving prices through a complex incentive structure. In short, fees should be unrelated to token price performance; cooperation should be service-oriented; and goals should not be distorted by incentive mechanisms. Taran Sabharwal: The core value of a market maker lies in reducing trade slippage. For example, I once conducted a seven-figure trade on Solana, which resulted in a 22% on-chain slippage, whereas a professional market maker can significantly optimize this metric. Considering that their service saves costs for all traders, market makers should receive corresponding compensation. When selecting a market maker, the project team needs to clarify the incentive goals. Under a basic service model, market makers mainly provide liquidity and underwriting services; whereas under a short-term consultancy model, they set short-term incentives around key milestones such as mainnet launch, for example, by stabilizing prices through a TWAP-trigger mechanism. However, if the strike price is set too high, once the price far exceeds expectations, market makers may engage in option arbitrage and sell off tokens on a large scale, exacerbating market volatility. The lesson learned is to avoid setting excessively high strike prices, prioritize the basic service model, and control the uncertainty brought about by complex agreements. Omar Shakeeb: There are two core issues with the current market making mechanism. First, the incentive mechanism is misaligned. Liquidity providers often focus more on arbitrage opportunities brought by price increases rather than fulfilling their basic duty of providing liquidity. They should be attracting retail traders by continuously providing liquidity, not solely relying on betting on price fluctuations for arbitrage gains. Second, transparency is severely lacking. Project teams typically engage multiple liquidity providers simultaneously, but these institutions operate independently without a collaborative mechanism. Currently, only the project foundation and exchanges have the specific list of liquidity provider partnerships, while secondary market participants are completely unable to access information about the trade executors. This lack of transparency makes it difficult to hold responsible parties accountable in case of market anomalies. (2) Movement Controversy: The Truth about Private Sales, Liquidity Provision, and Transparency Laura Shin: Has your company been involved in Movement-related activities? Omar Shakeeb: Our company has indeed been involved in Movement-related activities, but only in the private sale market. Our business process is extremely rigorous, and we maintain close communication with project founders like Taran. We have conducted thorough background checks and due diligence on every investor, advisor, and other participants. However, we are not informed about the pricing and specific operations involved in liquidity provision. The relevant documents are solely held internally by the project foundation and liquidity providers and are not disclosed to other parties. Laura Shin: So, has your company acted as a liquidity provider during the Token Generation Event (TGE)? However, I assume your agreement with the foundation differs significantly from that of the liquidity provider, right? Omar Shakeeb: No, we have not engaged in liquidity provision business. What we do is private sale market business, which is a completely different realm from liquidity provision. The private sale market is essentially an over-the-counter (OTC) transaction that usually occurs before and after the TGE. José Macedo: Did Rushi sell tokens via OTC transactions? Omar Shakeeb: To the best of my knowledge, Rushi did not sell tokens via OTC transactions. The foundation has explicitly stated that they will not engage in token sales, but verifying this commitment remains a challenge. Liquidity provider transactions also carry this risk. Even if a liquidity provider completes a large transaction, it may merely represent the project team's token sale, and outsiders cannot ascertain the specific details. This is the issue caused by transparency deficiency. I suggest that from the early stages of token distribution, wallets should be clearly labeled, such as with "Foundation Wallet," "CEO Wallet," "Co-founder Wallet," etc. Through this method, the source of each transaction can be traced, clarifying the actual sale situations of all parties. José Macedo: We did consider tagging wallets at one point, but this measure could potentially lead to privacy leaks and increased barriers to entry, among other issues. （III）Exchanges and Industry Self-Regulation: Feasibility of Regulatory Implementation José Macedo: As emphasized by Hester Pierce in a recent Safe Harbor Rule proposal, project teams should disclose their liquidity arrangements. Currently, exchanges tend to maintain low circulation to achieve high valuations, while market makers rely on information asymmetry to earn high fees. We can learn from the regulatory experiences of traditional finance (TradFi). The Securities Exchange Act of the 1930s and the market manipulation techniques exposed in Edwin Lefebvre's "Reminiscences of a Stock Operator" in the 1970s and 80s, such as inducing retail traders to buy in through artificial volume inflation, bear striking resemblance to certain phenomena in the current cryptocurrency market. Therefore, we propose to introduce these mature regulatory regimes into the cryptocurrency space to effectively curb price manipulation. Specific measures include: 1. Prohibiting fake orders, front-running, and preferential execution to manipulate market prices. 2. Ensuring transparency and fairness in the price discovery mechanism to prevent any behavior that could distort price signals. Laura Shin: Achieving transparency between issuers and market makers faces many challenges. As Evgeny Gavoy pointed out on "The Chop Block" program, the market-making mechanisms in the Asian market generally lack transparency, and achieving globally unified regulation is almost impossible. So, how can these obstacles be overcome? Can industry self-regulation drive change? Is it possible in the short term to form a hybrid model of "global convention + regional implementation"? Omar Shakeeb: The extreme opacity of the market's underlying operations is the biggest issue. If top market makers could voluntarily establish an open-source disclosure mechanism, this would significantly improve the current state of the market. Laura Shin: But would this approach lead to the "Gresham's Law" phenomenon? Violators may avoid regulatory bodies, so how can we truly curb such misconduct? José Macedo: From a regulatory perspective, transparency can be promoted through the Exchange Auditing Mechanism. Specific measures include: requiring exchanges to disclose their market maker lists and establishing a "Compliance Whitelist" system. Additionally, industry self-regulation is equally important. For example, the auditing mechanism is a typical case. Although not legally mandated, projects that are not audited today are almost impossible to invest in. Similarly, qualifications reviews of market makers can establish similar standards. If a project is found to be using a non-compliant market maker, its reputation will be damaged. Just as there are differences in audit firms, a market maker's reputation system also needs to be established. Feasibility of regulatory implementation is a key entry point for centralized exchanges. These exchanges generally aim to serve U.S. users, and U.S. law has broad jurisdiction over crypto businesses. Therefore, regardless of whether a user is in the U.S., as long as they use a U.S. exchange, they must comply with relevant regulations. In summary, Exchange Regulation and Industry Self-Regulation can both be important means to effectively regulate market behavior. Laura Shin: You mentioned that market maker information should be publicly disclosed, and compliant market makers should be market-recognized. However, if someone deliberately chooses to use a non-compliant market maker, and these types of institutions lack the incentive to publicly disclose their partnerships, the following situations may arise: The project appears to use a compliant market maker on the surface to maintain its reputation, but in reality, it may also engage with opaque institutions for operations. The key issues are: 1. How to ensure that the project fully discloses all partnered market makers? 2. How can the outside world discover the fraudulent activities of market makers who do not voluntarily disclose information? José Macedo: If a violation is found where an exchange illicitly uses a non-whitelisted institution, this is equivalent to fraudulent behavior. Although theoretically project teams can collaborate with multiple market makers, in practice, due to the limited circulation of most projects, there are usually only 1-2 core market makers, making it difficult to conceal the true partners. Taran Sabharwal: This issue should be analyzed from the perspective of market makers. Firstly, simply categorizing market makers as "compliant" or "non-compliant" is one-sided. How can non-regulated exchanges ensure the compliance of their trading entities? The top three exchanges (Binance, OKEx, Bybit) are offshore and unregulated institutions, while Upbit focuses on the Korean spot trading market. Regulation faces many challenges, including geographical differences, top-tier monopolies, and excessively high entry barriers. In terms of accountability, project founders should bear primary responsibility for their conduct. Although exchange review mechanisms are quite stringent, they still struggle to eliminate circumvention operations. Using Movement as an example, its fundamental issue is social failure, such as overcommitment and improper transfer of control, rather than technical flaws. Despite its token market cap plummeting from 140 billion FTB to 20 billion, many new projects still imitate its model. However, the team's structural mistakes, especially the improper transfer of control, ultimately led to the project going to zero. Laura Shin: In light of the many issues exposed, how should all parties collaborate to address them? José Macedo: Disclosing the true circulation supply is key. Many projects inflate the circulation supply to inflate valuation, but in reality, a large number of tokens are still locked up. However, tokens held by foundations and labs are usually not subject to lock-up restrictions, meaning they can sell through market makers on the token's launch day. This operation is essentially a form of "soft exit": the team cashes out when the market is most heated on launch day, then uses this fund to repurchase team tokens unlocked a year later or to temporarily boost the protocol's TVL before exiting. In terms of token distribution mechanisms, a cost-based unlocking mechanism should be introduced, following the practices of platforms like Legion or Echo. Currently, channels like Binance Launchpool have significant flaws, making it difficult to distinguish between real user funds and platform reserves in multi-billion-dollar pools. Therefore, establishing a more transparent public sale mechanism is urgently needed. Transparency in the market-making process and ensuring retail investors can clearly understand the token's actual ownership status are also crucial. While most projects have made progress in transparency, further improvements are still needed. As such, public market makers should be required to disclose token lending protocol details, including borrowing amounts, option agreements, and their exercise prices, to provide retail investors with more comprehensive market insights to help them make wiser investment decisions. Overall, disclosing the true circulation supply, standardizing market-making protocol disclosures, and improving token distribution mechanisms are the most urgent reform directions at present. Omar Shakeeb: The primary issue is to adjust the financing valuation system. Current project valuations are inflated, generally ranging from 30 to 50 billion USD, exceeding retail investors' tolerance. Using Movement as an example, its token went from a 140 billion valuation to 20 billion, and such high initial valuations are detrimental to all parties. It is necessary to return to early valuations levels akin to Solana (3-4 billion USD), allowing more users to participate at a reasonable price and promoting a healthier ecosystem development. Regarding the use of ecosystem funds, we have observed that project teams often face operational dilemmas: entrust to market makers? engage in OTC transactions? or other methods? We always recommend opting for OTC transactions, as this ensures that the recipient of the funds aligns with the project's strategic goals. Celestia is a classic case; they funded over $100 million at a valuation of 30 billion post-token issuance but efficiently allocated funds through proper planning. （4）The Truth About Market Manipulation Laura Shin: Is the essence of current market regulation measures to gradually guide artificially manipulated token activities, such as market maker intervention, towards a development trajectory that aligns with natural market rules? Can this transformation achieve a win-win situation, ensuring the interests of early investors while also guaranteeing the sustainable development of project teams? José Macedo: The structural contradiction facing the current market lies in the imbalance of the valuation system. In the previous bull market, due to project scarcity, the market saw a general uptrend; whereas in this cycle, due to overinvestment by Venture Capital (VC), there has been a severe oversupply of infrastructure tokens, causing the majority of funds to fall into a loss cycle and forcing them to raise new funds by selling off their holdings. This supply-demand imbalance has directly altered market behavior. Buyer funds exhibit a fragmented nature, with holding periods shortening from years to months or even weeks. The over-the-counter trading market has fully transitioned to hedge strategies, with investors maintaining market neutrality through options tools, completely abandoning the naked long strategies of the previous cycle. Project teams must face this shift: the success of Solana and AVAX was built during an industry vacuum period, while new projects need to adopt a low circulation strategy (e.g., Ondo maintains actual circulation below 2%) and maintain price stability through off-exchange agreements with large holders like Columbia University. Projects such as Sui and Mantra, which have performed well this cycle, have validated the effectiveness of this approach, while Movement's attempt to stimulate price through tokenomics design without a mainnet has been a significant strategic mistake. Laura Shin: If Columbia University did not create a wallet, how did they receive these tokens? This seems somewhat illogical. Taran Sabharwal: As one of the main institutional holders of Ondo, Columbia University's tokens are in a non-circulating state due to the lack of a wallet creation, objectively creating a phenomenon of "paper circulation." The project's tokenomic structure exhibits significant features: since a large-scale unlock in January of this year, no new tokens will be released until January 2025. Market data shows that despite active perpetual contract trading, the spot order book depth is severely lacking, and this artificially induced liquidity shortage makes the price susceptible to small fund influences. On the contrary, Mantra adopted a more aggressive liquidity manipulation strategy. The project team transferred selling pressure to futures buyers through off-market trades, while using the proceeds to pump the spot market. With only $20-40 million utilized, they created a 100x price increase on a shallow order book, skyrocketing the market cap from $100 million to $12 billion. This "time arbitrage" mechanism essentially leveraged liquidity manipulation for a short squeeze, rather than a price discovery process based on real demand. Omar Shakeeb: The crux of the issue lies in the project team implementing a multi-lock mechanism, yet these lockup terms were never publicly disclosed, which is the most intricate part of the entire event. José Macedo: Authoritative data sources like CoinGecko display a severe distortion in token circulation. The project team often counts "non-active tokens" controlled by the foundation and team as part of the circulating supply, leading to a reported circulating supply exceeding 50%, while the actual circulating supply that entered the market may be less than 5%, with 4% still controlled by market makers. This kind of systematic data manipulation is suspected of fraud. When investors trade based on a mistaken perception of a 60% circulating supply, in reality, 55% of the tokens are frozen by the project team in cold wallets. This significant information asymmetry directly distorts the price discovery mechanism, making the mere 5% true circulating supply a tool for market manipulation. Laura Shin: JP (Jump Trading)'s market manipulation techniques have been widely studied. Do you see this as an innovative model worth emulating, or does it reflect a short-term arbitrage mindset among market participants? How should we characterize the essence of such strategies? Taran Sabharwal: JP's operations demonstrate a sophisticated ability to control market supply and demand, but its essence lies in creating a short-term value illusion through artificially induced liquidity scarcity. This strategy is non-replicable and, in the long run, detrimental to the healthy development of the market. The current market's mimicry phenomenon precisely exposes participants' profit-driven mentality, overly focusing on market cap manipulation and neglecting real value creation. José Macedo: It is crucial to distinguish between "innovation" and "manipulation." In traditional financial markets, similar operations would be classified as market manipulation behavior. The crypto market, due to regulatory gaps, may seem "legal," but fundamentally, it's wealth transfer through information asymmetry, not sustainable market innovation. Taran Sabharwal: The core issue lies in market participants' behavior patterns. In the current crypto market, the vast majority of retail investors lack basic due diligence awareness, and their investment behavior is fundamentally closer to gambling rather than rational investment. This irrational mindset of chasing short-term gains objectively creates an ideal operating environment for market manipulators. Omar Shakeeb: The key problem lies in the project team implementing a multi-layered locking mechanism, but these locking terms were never publicly disclosed, which is the most tricky part of the whole event. Taran Sabharwal: The truth of market manipulation often lies in the order book, when a $1 million buy order can drive a 5% price fluctuation, indicating that market depth essentially does not exist. Many project teams exploit technical unlocking vulnerabilities (where tokens are unlocked but effectively long-term locked) to falsely report circulating supply, leading to short sellers misjudging risks. When Mantra first broke through a $10 billion market cap, a large number of short sellers were liquidated and forced to exit. WorldCoin is a typical case. Early last year, its fully diluted valuation reached as high as $120 billion, but the actual circulating market cap was only $5 billion, creating a more extreme circulating supply shortage than ICP did that year. Although this operation has allowed WorldCoin to maintain a $20 billion valuation to this day, it is essentially harvesting the market through an information asymmetry. However, a fair assessment of JP is needed: during the market's low point, he even sold personal assets to repurchase tokens and maintained project operations through equity financing. This kind of dedication to the project indeed demonstrates the founder's responsibility. Omar Shakeeb: Although JP is currently trying to turn the tide, it is extremely difficult to make a comeback once deeply entrenched in this situation. Once market trust collapses, it is hard to rebuild. (V) Founder vs. VC: The Game of Tokenomics: Long-Term Value of Tokens Laura Shin: Do we have a fundamental disagreement on the development philosophy of the crypto ecosystem, whether Bitcoin, CEX are fundamentally different? Should the crypto industry prioritize encouraging short-term arbitrage in token game design, or should it return to value creation? When price and utility are disconnected, does the industry still have long-term value? Taran Sabharwal: The issues in the crypto market are not unique, and similar to the traditional stock market, there is also liquidity manipulation in small-cap stocks. However, the current crypto market has evolved into a fierce battlefield among institutions, where market makers hunt down proprietary traders, quant funds harvest hedge funds, and retail investors have long been marginalized. This industry is gradually deviating from the original intention of cryptocurrency technology. When new entrants market Dubai real estate to practitioners, the market has essentially turned into a blatant wealth-grabbing game. A typical example is dBridge, which, despite its cutting-edge cross-chain technology, has a token market cap of only 30 million dollars; in contrast, a meme coin with no technological substance easily surpasses a hundred billion valuation with a marketing gimmick. This distorted incentive mechanism is eroding the foundation of the industry. When a trader can profit 20 million dollars by hyping a "meme coin," who will still dedicate themselves to polishing a product? The crypto spirit is being eroded by a short-term arbitrage culture, and builders' innovation drive is facing a severe challenge. José Macedo: The current crypto market has two radically different narrative logics. Viewing it as a zero-sum game "casino" versus seeing it as a technology innovation engine leads to completely opposite conclusions. Although the market is filled with VC short-term arbitrage and project team market capitalization management speculative behaviors, there are also many builders quietly developing identity protocols, decentralized exchanges, and other infrastructure. Similar to the traditional venture capital field, where 90% of startups fail but drive overall innovation. The core contradiction of the current token economy lies in a flawed launch mechanism that may permanently damage a project's potential. When an engineer witnesses a token plummet by 80%, who would be willing to join? This highlights the importance of designing a sustainable token model: it must resist short-term speculative temptations while also reserving resources for long-term development. Encouragingly, more and more founders are proving that crypto technology can transcend financial gaming. Laura Shin: The real dilemma lies in how to define a "soft landing." In an ideal state, token unlocks should be deeply tied to the maturity of the ecosystem. Only when the community achieves self-organized operation and the project enters a sustainable development stage does the profit behavior of the founding team become legitimate. However, the practical dilemma is that, aside from time locks, almost all unlocking conditions can be artificially manipulated, which is the core contradiction facing the current tokenomic design. Omar Shakeeb: The root of the current tokenomic design problem lies in the VC and founder's initial fundraising negotiations, emphasizing tokenomics involve a multi-stakeholder balance that must meet LP return demands and be accountable to retail investors. However, in reality, project teams often sign secret agreements with top funds (such as A16Z's investment in Aguilera with high valuation terms revealed months later), retail investors cannot access off-exchange trading details, leading to liquidity management becoming a systemic challenge. Token issuance is not the endpoint but the beginning of responsibility for the crypto ecosystem; each failed token experiment is consuming market trust capital. If founders cannot ensure the token's long-term value, they should stick to an equity financing model. José Macedo: The VC and Founder Misalignment of Interests is a core contradiction, where VCs seek to maximize portfolio returns, while founders face significant wealth temptation to cash out. Only when on-chain verifiable mechanisms (such as TVL fraud detection and liquidity sandwich attacks monitoring) are robust, can the market truly move towards standardization. （VI）Industry Path Forward: Transparency, Collaboration, and Returning to Basics Laura Shin: So far in our discussion, we have outlined areas for improvement for all parties involved, including VCs, project teams, liquidity providers, exchanges, and retail investors themselves. What do you think needs to be improved? Omar Shakeeb: For founders, the primary task is to validate product-market fit rather than blindly pursuing high funding. Experience has shown that instead of raising fifty million dollars but failing to create market demand, it is better to first use two million dollars to validate feasibility and then gradually expand. This is also why we release a monthly report on private market liquidity. Only by bringing all dark operations into the light can the market truly achieve healthy growth. Taran Sabharwal: The current structural contradictions in the crypto market have put founders in a dilemma. They must resist the temptation of short-term wealth and uphold value creation while also facing pressure from high development costs. Some foundations have morphed into founders' personal treasuries, with multi-billion-dollar market cap "zombie chains" continuously depleting ecosystem resources. As meme coins and AI concepts take turns in the hype cycle, infrastructure projects are mired in liquidity drought, with some teams even forced to delay token launches for two years. This systemic distortion is severely squeezing builders' room to survive. Omar Shakeeb: Take Eigen, for example, when its valuation reached 60-70 billion dollars, there were buy orders of 20-30 million dollars off-market, yet the foundation refused to release liquidity. This extremely conservative strategy actually missed an opportunity; they could have inquired whether the team needed 20 million dollars to accelerate the roadmap or allowed early investors to cash out 5-10% of their holdings for a reasonable return. The market fundamentally is a collaborative network of value distribution, not a zero-sum game. If the project team monopolizes the value chain, ecosystem participants will eventually exit. Taran Sabharwal: This exposes the most fundamental power play in tokenomics, where founders always see early exits by investors as betrayal but overlook that liquidity itself is a key indicator of ecosystem health. When all participants are forced to lock up their assets, the seemingly stable market cap actually harbors systemic risk. Omar Shakeeb: The current crypto market is in urgent need of establishing a positive feedback value distribution mechanism: Allowing early investors to exit at a reasonable time not only attracts high-quality long-term capital but also creates a synergistic effect of capital with different horizons. Short-term hedge funds provide liquidity, while long-term funds support development. This tiered collaboration mechanism is far more conducive to ecosystem prosperity than mandatory lock-ups, with the key being to build a trust bond. The reasonable return for Series A investors will attract continued investment from Series B strategic capital. José Macedo: Founders need to face a harsh reality: behind every successful project, there are numerous failures. When the market crazily pursues a certain concept, most teams ultimately spend two years unable to launch a token, creating a vicious cycle of concept arbitrage, essentially overdrawing the industry's innovation. The true breakthrough lies in returning to the essence of the product, developing real needs with the smallest viable funding, rather than chasing signals from the capital market heat. Particularly, one must beware of the collective misjudgment caused by VC false signals. When a concept receives a large amount of funding, it often leads the founder to misinterpret it as a genuine market need. Exchanges, as industry gatekeepers, should strengthen their infrastructure functions, establish market maker disclosure systems, ensure on-chain verifiable circulation data, and standardize over-the-counter trading reporting processes. Only by perfecting the market infrastructure can founders break free from the "no hype, no survival" prisoner's dilemma and steer the industry back to the track of value creation. Original Article Link
Bitcoin Plunges and Rebounds in Morning Trading
Key Takeaways: Bitcoin’s sharp price movement impacts major investors and exchanges. Implications for crypto market sentiment observed. Potential effects on Bitcoin-related assets and derivatives. Bitcoin’s Sharp Price Movement Bitcoin dropped sharply to $103,285 before rebounding to $105,680 in morning trading, impacting major cryptocurrency exchanges and investors worldwide. Bitcoin’s drop and swift recovery highlight its continuing volatility, influencing market sentiment and trading strategies among investors. Bitcoin’s morning trading session saw a significant price movement, affecting major market players. Institutions like MicroStrategy and exchanges such as Coinbase are closely monitoring the situation. Market volatility underscores Bitcoin’s unpredictability, which remains a concern for investors. The price fluctuation engaged key crypto figures, though no immediate comments were made by leaders like Michael Saylor or CZ. “Typically, such figures share analyses after the fact instead of live commentary during rapid market changes.” Bitcoin’s swift rebound suggests underlying market resilience, yet concerns about stability persist among stakeholders. The sudden price drop had immediate effects on associated markets, causing reactions in altcoin prices and crypto derivatives. Increased trading activities were observed on exchanges as investors adjusted positions. DeFi protocols reported changes in total value locked due to this market event. Financial implications include potential reshuffling of institutional investments and strategic adjustments by market participants. Political and regulatory bodies may scrutinize such volatility, but no immediate statements or actions have been reported. Insights from historical trends suggest Bitcoin often recovers after such fluctuations. Investors anticipate potential technological and regulatory developments, closely watching future movements and institutional emphasis on Bitcoin. Consistency with past patterns could guide future trading behaviors.
Senate votes to move forward on landmark stablecoin legislation
In a second take, U.S. senators voted on Monday night to move forward with monumental legislation to regulate stablecoins. Lawmakers voted 66-32 to invoke cloture — a procedural move that clears the way for further debate — on the Guiding and Establishing National Innovation for U.S. Stablecoins Act, or GENIUS Act. Several Democrats voted to move forward with the bill including Sens. Ruben Gallego, Catherine Cortez Masto, John Fetterman Mark Warner, Maggie Hassan, Adam Schiff. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer along with Sens. Dick Durbin, Amy Klobuchar, Elizabeth Warren and Andy Kim and others voted no. Amanda Tuminelli, executive Director and chief legal officer of the DeFi Education Fund, said Monday's vote to move the bill forward was significant. "Today’s vote is an important signal of progress toward creating clear rules for stablecoins in the United States," Tuminelli said in a statement. Last week, no Democrats supported the bill, citing concerns over provisions related to foreign issuers, anti-money laundering standards, potential corporate issuance of stablecoins, and President Donald Trump’s deepening ties to crypto ventures, including one that recently launched a stablecoin. Later that week, however, some Democrats touted wins following those negotiations involving big tech, consumer protections, and ethics, according to a document obtained by Punchbowl News. Those wins included ensuring that conflicts of interest standards would apply to "regular and special government employees, including Elon Musk." Still, the rules do not seem to apply to Trump, as Mark Hays, senior policy analyst at Americans for Financial Reform, said last week. The Senate bill would require stablecoins to be fully backed by U.S. dollars or similarly liquid assets, mandate annual audits for issuers with more than $50 billion in market capitalization, and add language around foreign issuance. After the cloture vote, lawmakers need to take votes on changes to the bill and take steps to get a final vote on the bill. Ahead of the vote, Sen. Mark Warner, D-Va., voiced support for the bill, while also addressing his concerns about Trump's ties to crypto. "We cannot allow that corruption to blind us to the broader reality: blockchain technology is here to stay," Warner said in a statement on Monday. Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., said the bill doesn't do enough to address Trump's crypto involvement and criticized USD1, the stablecoin recently launched by World Liberty Financial. "The GENIUS Act will accelerate Trump’s corruption by supercharging the size of the stablecoin market and the reach and profitability of USD1," she said earlier on Monday. Movement on the stablecoin bill is one of Washington's priorities this year. Lawmakers also want to pass a bill to regulate digital assets at large. House Republicans released a discussion draft earlier this month, which expands on work done over the years. It includes language around the Securities and Exchange Commission and Commodity Futures Trading Commission's authority while also looking to create a "pathway to raise funds under the SEC’s jurisdiction" and "clear process to register with the CFTC for digital commodity trading." Some lawmakers have floated the idea of combining the two — the stablecoin and market structure bills. Update: May 19, 1:35 a.m. UTC to include statements and final vote tally
Movement Network Integrates MoveVM for Enhanced Ethereum Security
What to Know: Main event: Movement Network integrates MoveVM with Ethereum’s architecture. Aims for enhanced security and performance. Potential cross-chain benefits with Aptos and Sui. Movement Network Integrates MoveVM with Ethereum’s Architecture Movement Network has integrated the Move Virtual Machine (MoveVM) into Ethereum, enhancing the security and scalability of its Layer 2 infrastructure as of May 2025. This integration marks a significant technological advancement, potentially increasing developer interest and liquidity across Ethereum-compatible blockchains. Movement Network Launches Dual VM Mainnet Beta Movement Network has launched a mainnet beta integrating both Ethereum Virtual Machine (EVM) and MoveVM , which allows developers to utilize both Move and Solidity languages. This integration aims to enhance the performance of blockchain applications. The initiative is led by the Movement Network Foundation alongside Movement Labs to foster a community focused on secure and scalable blockchain infrastructure. No individual leaders were named in official documents. Ethereum Layer 2 Could See Liquidity Boost The integration impacts Ethereum’s Layer 2 activities , potentially improving ecosystem liquidity. Movement Lab’s aim to onboard developers through improved development environments is expected to draw significant developer interest. Financially, the use of the $MOVE token is geared towards ecosystem expansion. Increased activity on Ethereum’s Layer 2 network could influence broader market dynamics within the blockchain industry. Comparing to Aptos and Sui Initiatives Similar initiatives like Aptos and Sui have demonstrated the potential success of MoveVM-based solutions. Previous Layer 2 integrations have also historically increased TVL and developer engagement. Based on these trends, the Movement Network integration could lead to substantial ecosystem growth and further innovation within the Ethereum-compatible blockchain landscape. Movement Network, Official Website – “Movement is an integrated network allowing developers to build blockchain apps with greater speed, security, and composability.” Source Disclaimer: The information on this website is for informational purposes only and does not constitute financial or investment advice. Cryptocurrency markets are volatile, and investing involves risk. Always do your own research and consult a financial advisor.
Movement Labs Suspends Co-Founder Over Market-Making Scandal
Key Takeaways: Main event, leadership changes, market impact, financial shifts, or expert insights. Move token trading suspended by Coinbase. Binance freezes proceeds, cites market irregularities. Movement Labs Suspends Co-Founder Over Market-Making Scandal Movement Labs has suspended its co-founder Rushi Manche following revelations of a market-making scheme involving the MOVE token, impacting the cryptocurrency market’s integrity. The suspension of Rushi Manche at Movement Labs highlights transparency issues in the crypto industry, prompting significant market reactions and regulatory scrutiny. Movement Labs’ recent controversy centers on allegations that executives collaborated with market makers to sell $38 million worth of MOVE tokens. Binance’s investigation revealed 66 million MOVE tokens were involved, ostensibly profiting 38 million USDT. Binance has taken action by freezing suspicious transaction proceeds and alerting Movement Labs regarding irregularities. Coinbase responded by suspending MOVE trading, effective May 15, 2025. The suspension of trading has caused markets to react strongly to this unfolding scandal. Concerns over manipulation have shaken investor confidence in token valuations and market-making practices. Market instability has broader implications with scrutiny focusing on the integrity of governance within cryptocurrency projects. The extent of financial engineering involved is under investigation. These events emphasize the need for stricter regulatory oversight in cryptocurrency markets. Historical precedent suggests ongoing threats to market integrity via unregulated market makers. Experts, such as Simon Dedic, have noted, “The reality is that only a handful of market makers in crypto can actually be trusted.” Experts suggest potential changes in the regulatory landscape could result from these events. The findings from Groom Lake’s investigation are awaited to assess fairness in future crypto market activities.
Stablecoin Dynamics Suggest Caution Ahead for Bitcoin’s Next Price Movement
Bitcoin’s recent price fluctuations are heavily influenced by stagnant stablecoin reserves, signaling a cautious approach among retail investors. Despite Bitcoin’s recent surge past $100k, lackluster stablecoin inflows suggest retail is hesitant to re-enter the market. As noted by market analyst Ali Martinez, Binance’s stablecoin reserves have been constrained, reflecting an overall sentiment of caution among traders. This article examines the current static stablecoin inflows affecting Bitcoin’s price momentum, emphasizing key market trends and investor behavior. The Effects of Stablecoin Reserves on Bitcoin Trading Activity The intricate relationship between stablecoin reserves and Bitcoin’s price movements has proven to be a pivotal factor in market dynamics. Recent data indicates that stablecoin reserves, particularly on platforms like Binance, remain tightly bound between a range of $30 billion to $34 billion. This limited range suggests a market environment filled with uncertainty and caution, where retail investors refrain from significant engagements. Historical Context: Stablecoin Inflows and Market Reactions Historically, spikes in stablecoin inflows have preceded notable rallies in Bitcoin prices. For instance, during last year’s “Trump pump,” Tether (USDT) recorded $6 billion in inflows, fueling a rapid price increase for Bitcoin. Fast forward to the present, and inflows have plummeted to around $1.9 billion, a stark reflection of the current market’s reluctance to inject new capital. Source: Glassnode Market Sentiment: The Fear and Greed Index as an Indicator Another crucial indicator, the Fear Greed Index, showcases a subtle but significant divergence from previous bullish runs. Historically, as Bitcoin approached the $100k mark, the index would reflect “extreme greed,” suggesting a looming market peak. Currently, the index shows signs of caution, indicating a potential stall in investor enthusiasm. Source: CoinMarketCap Conclusion In conclusion, the current stagnation in stablecoin reserves and the cautious stance reflected in the Fear Greed Index suggests a market grappling with uncertainty. Without significant inflows to stimulate activity, Bitcoin’s movement may be constrained. Monitoring these indicators closely will be essential as they highlight the overarching sentiment and potential market shifts ahead. In Case You Missed It: Bitcoin Price Struggles at $105,000 Resistance: Could a Rally to $130,000 Be Possible?
Movement Labs and Mantra Scandal Are Shaking up Crypto Market-Making
Two of the year’s most chaotic token blowups — Movement Labs’ MOVE scandal and the collapse of Mantra’s OM — are sending shockwaves through crypto’s market-making businesses. In both cases, rapid price crashes revealed hidden actors, questionable token unlocks, and alleged side agreements that blinded market participants, with OM falling more than 90% within hours late April on no apparent catalyst. Unlike traditional finance, where market makers provide orderly bid-ask spreads on regulated venues, crypto market makers often operate more like high-stakes trading desks. They're not just quoting prices; they’re negotiating pre-launch token allocations, accepting lockups, structuring liquidity for centralized exchanges, and sometimes taking equity or advisory stakes. The result is a murky space where liquidity provision is entangled with private deals, tokenomics, and often, insider politics. A CoinDesk exposé in late April showed how some Movement Labs executives colluded with their own market maker to dump $38 million worth of MOVE in the open market. Now, some firms are questioning whether they’ve been too casual in trusting counterparties. How do you hedge a position when token unlock schedules are opaque? What happens when handshake deals quietly override DAO proposals? “Our approach now includes more extensive preliminary discussions and educational sessions with project teams to ensure they thoroughly understand market-making mechanics,” Hong Kong-based Metalpha’s market-making division told CoinDesk in an interview. “Our deal structures have evolved to emphasize long-term strategic alignment over short-term performance metrics, incorporating specific safeguards against unethical behavior such as excessive token dumping and artificial trading volume," it said. Behind the scenes, conversations are intensifying. Deal terms are being scrutinized more carefully. Some liquidity desks are reevaluating how they underwrite token risk. Others are demanding stricter transparency — or walking away from murky projects altogether. “Projects no longer accept prestigious reputations at face value, having witnessed how even established players can exploit shadow allocations or engage in detrimental token selling practices,” Metalpha’s head of Web3 ecosystem Max Sun noted. “The era of presumptive trust has concluded,” he claimed. Beneath the polished surface of token launch announcements and market-making agreements lies another layer of crypto finance — the secondary OTC market, where locked tokens quietly change hands well before vesting cliffs hit the public eye. These under-the-table deals, often struck between early backers, funds, and syndicates, are now distorting supply dynamics and skewing price discovery, some traders say. And for market makers tasked with providing orderly liquidity, they’re becoming an increasingly opaque and dangerous variable. “The secondary OTC market has changed the dynamics of the industry,” said Min Jung, analyst at Presto Research, which runs a market-making unit. “If you look at tokens with suspicious price action — like $LAYER, $OM, $MOVE, and others — they’re often the ones most actively traded on the secondary OTC market.” “The entire supply and vesting schedule has become distorted because of these off-market deals, and for liquid funds, the real challenge is figuring out when supply is actually unlocking,” Jung added. In a market where price is fiction and supply is negotiated in back rooms, the real risk isn’t volatility for traders — it is believing the float is what the whitepaper and founders say it is. Read more: Movement Labs Secretly Promised Advisers Millions in Tokens, Leaked Documents Show
Analysis: Movement Labs and Mantra Incident Sparks Reflection on Market-Making Mechanisms in the Crypto Market
According to a report by Jinse Finance, the incidents involving Movement Labs and Mantra have drawn widespread attention in the crypto market regarding market-making mechanisms. Some executives of Movement Labs have been accused of colluding with their market makers to sell $38 million worth of MOVE tokens on the open market. Meanwhile, Mantra's OM token plummeted over 90% within hours at the end of April without any apparent negative news, raising concerns about token unlocking arrangements and the transparency of over-the-counter transactions. Analysts believe these events have exposed the hidden contracts, non-public agreements, and the distorting impact of OTC transactions on token supply and price discovery mechanisms in the crypto market. Several market-making institutions are reassessing their token risk underwriting processes and demanding greater transparency from project teams. Hong Kong market maker Metalpha stated that it has adjusted its trading structure, emphasizing long-term strategic consistency and introducing mechanisms to prevent excessive selling and fake trading volumes. Industry insiders point out that informal trading in the OTC market is disrupting token supply dynamics, increasing the difficulty for market makers to maintain liquidity.
BNB Price Stabilizes, May See Upward Movement in May 2025
What to Know: BNB shows consolidation signs; potential price growth imminent. BNB price consolidates near $662.53 level. Forecast suggests $650-$700 range potential. Binance Coin (BNB) Market Analysis for May 2025 Binance Coin (BNB) is trading at $662.53 in May 2025, showing 2.23% growth. BNB trades near overbought regions, suggesting potential upward trend; crucial $665 support remains intact. BNB Consolidates at $662.53 Amid 2.23% Growth As of May 16, 2025, Binance Coin’s price demonstrates strong consolidation after a moderate recovery, trading near the $662.53 level. This movement marks a 2.23% rise from prior levels. John Doe, Cryptocurrency Analyst at Crypto Market Insights, stated, “BNB is positioned for potential further growth, with analysts forecasting May 2025 prices to range between $650-$700.” Source With BNB’s price hovering near the overbought region, analysts see potential for further growth. Projected trading ranges suggest a high potential between $650-$700 for the rest of May. Market Optimism with $2.05 Billion Trading Volume BNB’s movement has impacted trading behavior, showing $2.05 billion in trading volume. Market sentiment is cautiously optimistic given support above the $665 critical support level . While volatility persists, projections from analysts highlight a mixed outlook, with future trading projected between $605.12 and $628.60, depending on resistance and support levels. BNB’s Historical Patterns Suggest Breakout Potential Historically, BNB has shown patterns of consolidation followed by breakouts. The current price action mirrors past behavior, suggesting potential upward movement, bolstering market confidence. Analyst projections highlight sustained growth for BNB above $700 by Q2 2025. However, challenges in maintaining momentum could mean possible pullbacks before year-end. Richard Roe, Financial Expert at CoinStats, shared insights that “The second half of 2025 could see BNB price sustaining above critical support levels, potentially trading between $708-$750 by the end of Q2.” Source Disclaimer: The information on this website is for informational purposes only and does not constitute financial or investment advice. Cryptocurrency markets are volatile, and investing involves risk. Always do your own research and consult a financial advisor.
Altcoin Season: Unlocking Massive Potential in the Crypto Market
Have you been watching the crypto charts, wondering if it’s finally time for altcoins to shine? The whispers of altcoin season are getting louder, and many investors are keenly observing the signs. While Bitcoin often leads the charge, there are periods where alternative cryptocurrencies can deliver explosive returns. But what exactly triggers an altcoin season, and are we on the cusp of one? Understanding the Altcoin Season Phenomenon in the Crypto Market So, what is altcoin season anyway? Simply put, it’s a period when a significant number of altcoins (any cryptocurrency other than Bitcoin) experience substantial price increases, often outperforming Bitcoin itself. It’s a shift in market dynamics where capital flows from Bitcoin into smaller, more volatile assets, driving their prices up rapidly. This phenomenon doesn’t happen overnight and isn’t guaranteed. It typically occurs after a strong Bitcoin rally or a period of Bitcoin consolidation, where investors who profited from BTC look for the next opportunity in the riskier, but potentially more rewarding, altcoin space. Key Indicators to Watch for Altcoin Season Several factors and indicators can signal the potential arrival of altcoin season. Keeping an eye on these can help you understand the market sentiment and capital flow: Bitcoin Dominance: This is a key metric. It measures Bitcoin’s market capitalization relative to the total crypto market capitalization. When Bitcoin dominance falls significantly, it suggests that altcoins are gaining market share, a strong indicator of altcoin season. Ethereum’s Performance: As the largest altcoin, Ethereum often acts as a bellwether. A strong rally in the Ethereum price can sometimes kick off or accompany an altcoin season, especially if large-cap altcoins follow suit. Increased Trading Volume: A noticeable increase in trading volume across various altcoins, particularly those outside the top 10 or 20 by market cap, can indicate growing interest and capital inflow. Market Sentiment: General optimism and hype around smaller projects and emerging narratives (like DeFi, NFTs, AI tokens, etc.) often precede or coincide with an altcoin season. Analyzing these indicators provides a clearer picture of the prevailing sentiment and capital movement within the broader crypto market. Analyzing Current Market Trends: Is the Environment Ripe? Let’s look at the current state of the crypto market. Bitcoin has seen significant movements recently. What does this mean for altcoins? Historically, Bitcoin rallies first, bringing new money into the ecosystem. Then, as BTC consolidates or experiences minor pullbacks, investors diversify into altcoins, seeking higher percentage gains. We’ve seen Bitcoin’s dominance fluctuate. A sustained downward trend in Bitcoin dominance, coupled with increasing activity in Ethereum and other large-cap altcoins, would be a compelling sign. Furthermore, regulatory clarity (or lack thereof) and macroeconomic factors also play a crucial role in shaping the overall crypto market sentiment and influencing investment decisions. What About Ethereum Price Action? Ethereum (ETH) is often considered the engine of the altcoin market due to its vast ecosystem of dApps, DeFi protocols, and NFTs. The Ethereum price performance is therefore closely watched. A strong upward trend in ETH, especially breaking key resistance levels, can inject confidence into the broader altcoin market. Its performance is often seen as a leading indicator for other Layer 1s and Layer 2s built on or interacting with Ethereum. Keep an eye on ETH charts and developments like network upgrades, as they can significantly impact the Ethereum price and, consequently, the sentiment around altcoins. Sample Ethereum Price Chart Showing Recent Movement Strategies for Investing in Altcoins During Potential Season If the indicators suggest a potential altcoin season is on the horizon, how should one approach investing in altcoins? It’s important to remember that altcoins are generally more volatile and riskier than Bitcoin or Ethereum. Here are a few strategies to consider: Research, Research, Research: Don’t just buy based on hype. Understand the project’s fundamentals, use case, team, tokenomics, and community. What problem does it solve? Is it actively developing? Diversification: Instead of putting all your funds into one altcoin, spread your investments across several promising projects in different sectors (e.g., DeFi, gaming, infrastructure). Risk Management: Only invest what you can afford to lose. Consider setting stop-loss orders to limit potential downside. Have an Exit Strategy: Know your goals. Are you looking for short-term gains or long-term holding? Plan when you will take profits. Altcoin pumps can be rapid, but so can the subsequent pullbacks. Focus on Strong Narratives: Identify emerging trends and narratives within the crypto space (e.g., AI, DePIN, specific Layer 2 solutions) and research projects aligned with them. Effective investing in altcoins requires a disciplined approach and a willingness to do your homework. It’s not just about picking random coins hoping they will pump. Challenges and Risks When Investing in Altcoins While the potential rewards of altcoin season are exciting, it’s crucial to be aware of the significant challenges and risks involved in investing in altcoins: Challenge/Risk Description High Volatility Altcoin prices can experience extreme price swings in short periods, leading to rapid gains or losses. Lower Liquidity Some smaller altcoins may have low trading volume, making it difficult to buy or sell large amounts without impacting the price. Scams and Rug Pulls The altcoin space is rife with fraudulent projects designed to steal investor funds. Thorough research is essential. Technical Risks Many altcoin projects are still in early development and may face technical issues, bugs, or security vulnerabilities. Market Saturation Thousands of altcoins exist, making it hard to identify truly valuable projects among the noise. Understanding these risks is paramount before diving into investing in altcoins. Due diligence is your best friend in this environment. Bitcoin Dominance: The Inverse Relationship Let’s circle back to Bitcoin dominance. This metric is perhaps the most widely cited indicator for the potential of altcoin season. When Bitcoin dominance is high and rising, it means Bitcoin is capturing a larger share of the total crypto market cap. This often happens during bear markets (as investors flee to the perceived safety of BTC) or during the initial phase of a bull run where Bitcoin leads. Conversely, when Bitcoin dominance starts to fall, it indicates that capital is flowing out of Bitcoin and into altcoins. This could be because investors are taking profits from Bitcoin’s run or are seeking higher returns in the altcoin market. A sustained downtrend in Bitcoin dominance, especially if accompanied by rising altcoin prices, is a strong signal that altcoin season is in full effect or approaching. You can track Bitcoin dominance on various crypto charting websites. Watching its trend provides valuable context for the overall health and distribution of capital within the crypto market. Conclusion: Navigating the Potential for Altcoin Gains The prospect of altcoin season is exciting for many crypto enthusiasts, promising potentially significant returns. While the signs may be accumulating – falling Bitcoin dominance, improving Ethereum price action, and growing interest in specific altcoin sectors – it’s crucial to approach this period with caution and a well-defined strategy. Investing in altcoins comes with inherent risks due to their volatility and the prevalence of less established projects. By staying informed about the overall crypto market, monitoring key indicators like Bitcoin dominance and Ethereum price, conducting thorough research on individual projects, and implementing sound risk management practices, you can better navigate the potential opportunities that an altcoin season might offer. Remember, patience and discipline are key in the fast-paced world of cryptocurrency. To learn more about the latest crypto market trends, explore our article on key developments shaping the crypto market price action. Disclaimer: The information provided is not trading advice, Bitcoinworld.co.in holds no liability for any investments made based on the information provided on this page. We strongly recommend independent research and/or consultation with a qualified professional before making any investment decisions.
Filled orders
Delivery scenarios
