Bitcoin Holdings Turn Profitable After Three Years – Historical Data Highlights Impact of Long-Term Strategy

Key Takeaways

Historical Cycle Data Shows Sharp Contrast Between Two and Three-Year Holding Periods

Bitcoin’s price history since 2017 shows a consistent pattern in how entry timing and holding duration affect returns. Investors who purchased Bitcoin near major cycle peaks experienced significant drawdowns within the following two years. However, extending the holding period to three years materially changed the outcome in most cases.

During the 2017 market peak, investors who bought at high levels recorded a 48.6 percent loss after two years, as the 2018 bear market unfolded. When the same position was held for three years, the loss converted into a 108.7 percent gain.

A comparable development occurred in the next cycle. Buyers who entered near the 2021 high saw a 43.5 percent loss after two years. By the third year, that position showed a 14.5 percent profit.

These figures underline that two-year holding periods historically exposed investors to high volatility, especially when purchases were made near market tops. In contrast, extending exposure to three years has, in past cycles, shifted most positions into positive territory.

For you as a market participant, this distinction between shorter and longer time frames is critical. Historical data suggests that Bitcoin’s volatility has had a different impact depending on how long positions were maintained.

Bear-Market Entries Produced the Strongest Multi-Year Gains

The data also shows that buying near bear-market lows resulted in substantially higher returns over similar holding periods.

Investors who entered close to the 2019 bottom recorded returns of 871 percent after two years and 1,028 percent after three years. A similar pattern followed the 2022 cycle low. Positions initiated near that period generated roughly 465 percent returns after two years and about 429 percent after three years.

In both cases, bottom entries delivered significantly stronger percentage gains than positions opened near cycle highs. While three-year holding periods improved outcomes for high-level entries, the largest expansions occurred when purchases were made during deep market drawdowns.

Taken together, the cycle comparisons indicate two recurring characteristics: short-term exposure around peaks has historically carried higher downside risk, and accumulation during depressed price phases has been associated with stronger multi-year growth.

Onchain Realized Price Metrics Identify Historical Accumulation Zones

Onchain valuation metrics provide additional context for where long-term accumulation has historically occurred. One such metric is Bitcoin’s realized price, which reflects the average acquisition price of coins based on their last onchain movement.

Deeper market drawdowns have frequently extended toward what is known as the shifted realized price. This forward-adjusted metric smooths price data and has highlighted stronger value zones over time.

Since 2015, realized price bands have repeatedly coincided with cycle lows. Recoveries from these zones have historically marked the beginning of multi-year rallies. At present, Bitcoin’s realized price is near 55,000 US dollars, while the shifted realized price stands around 42,000 US dollars.

Historically, investors who accumulated when Bitcoin traded around or below these valuation bands were positioned near bear-market lows. These entry points align with the earlier data showing that bottom buyers captured the most substantial returns over two to three years.

For users evaluating long-term exposure to Bitcoin, realized price metrics have served as reference points for identifying past accumulation phases.

Probability of Loss Declines Sharply Over Longer Time Horizons

Research cited by Bitwise further quantifies how holding duration has influenced risk. A review of Bitcoin data from July 2010 through February 2026 found that the probability of loss drops to 0.7 percent when Bitcoin is held for three years. Over a five-year period, that risk falls to 0.2 percent. Across ten-year holding periods, the data shows zero instances of loss.

Shorter time frames show materially higher uncertainty. Day traders have historically faced a 47.1 percent chance of losses. Even over one-year holding periods, the probability of being underwater stands at 24.3 percent.

Separate research cited by Bitwise chief information officer Matt Hougan indicates that adding Bitcoin to a traditional 60 40 portfolio increased cumulative and risk-adjusted returns in every three-year period studied. The win rate across two-year periods was 93 percent, with an allocation of roughly 5 percent producing the strongest balance between return and risk in the study.

These findings do not eliminate volatility, but they quantify how risk exposure has shifted across different time frames in past data.

Implications for Crypto Users Monitoring Market Cycles

Bitcoin’s double-digit drawdowns have often deterred new buyers, particularly those entering during late-stage rallies. The historical record since 2017 shows that such entries frequently led to temporary losses over two-year windows.

However, the same data demonstrates that extending the investment horizon to at least three years has, in prior cycles, significantly reduced the probability of loss and increased the likelihood of positive returns. Bottom entries, particularly those near realized price bands, have historically produced the strongest gains.

For users who interact with crypto markets through trading, long-term holding, or as part of broader portfolio strategies, these time-based differences are central to understanding past performance patterns.

Our Assessment

The data presented shows a consistent historical pattern: two-year holding periods exposed Bitcoin investors to substantial drawdowns when buying near market highs, while three-year or longer horizons significantly reduced the probability of loss. Entries near bear-market lows generated the strongest multi-year returns, often aligning with realized price valuation bands. Statistical reviews from 2010 to 2026 indicate that the likelihood of loss declines sharply as holding periods extend, with the lowest historical risk observed over five to ten years.

MARA Rejects Claims of Bitcoin Treasury Sell-Off – Filing Clarifies Flexibility Without Mandated Liquidation

Key Takeaways

Executive Response to Sell-Off Claims

MARA Holdings, one of the world’s largest Bitcoin mining companies, has publicly rejected assertions that it is preparing to offload most of its Bitcoin reserves. The clarification was issued by Robert Samuels, MARA’s vice president for investor relations, in response to claims circulating on social media.

The claims originated from SwanDesk adviser Jacob King, who stated that MARA had shifted toward a sell-down strategy. King cited filings with the US Securities and Exchange Commission as the basis for his interpretation. His post drew more than 325,000 views at the time of reporting, amplifying the narrative that the company was preparing a significant reduction of its Bitcoin holdings.

Samuels responded by pointing to the company’s 2026 10-K filing. According to him, the document states that MARA expanded its treasury strategy to allow for potential sales of Bitcoin held on its balance sheet. He emphasized that this change does not represent a commitment to sell the majority of the company’s reserves.

What the 2026 10-K Filing States

The 2026 10-K filing authorizes discretionary transactions involving Bitcoin based on market conditions and capital allocation priorities. The language provides the company with flexibility to sell Bitcoin when management deems it appropriate.

However, the filing does not require or mandate a reduction of the company’s treasury holdings. The distinction, as outlined by Samuels, lies between maintaining optionality and committing to a material drawdown of reserves. In other words, the policy change broadens the company’s operational flexibility without signaling an immediate or large-scale liquidation plan.

For market participants, this difference is significant. A mandated sell-off would imply structural changes to the company’s treasury management. A discretionary framework, by contrast, allows management to respond to evolving financial conditions without predefining the scale or timing of any transactions.

MARA’s Bitcoin Treasury Position

Bitcoin remains central to MARA’s balance sheet. The company currently holds 53,822 BTC, valued at approximately $3.7 billion. This makes MARA the largest publicly traded Bitcoin miner by treasury size.

Data from BitcoinTreasuries.net shows a one-year history of MARA’s Bitcoin holdings, underscoring the scale and continuity of its reserve strategy. Among public companies overall, only Michael Saylor’s Strategy holds more Bitcoin, with over 720,000 BTC accumulated to date.

MARA has historically positioned itself as a long-term Bitcoin holder. Because of this positioning, any perceived adjustment to its treasury approach attracts attention from investors and market observers. Publicly listed mining companies with substantial Bitcoin reserves often see their treasury policies scrutinized, particularly when filings introduce new language around asset sales.

Diversification Efforts Alongside Core Bitcoin Exposure

While Bitcoin remains central to MARA’s financial structure, the company has broadened its operational footprint in recent years. In February, MARA acquired a 64 percent stake in Exaion, a France-based computing infrastructure company focused on high-performance computing and blockchain services.

This move reflects diversification beyond pure Bitcoin mining operations. Even so, the company’s balance sheet remains heavily tied to Bitcoin exposure. The scale of its holdings means that treasury decisions can influence how investors assess its financial flexibility and risk profile.

The combination of diversification initiatives and continued large-scale Bitcoin reserves indicates that MARA is expanding operationally while maintaining a substantial digital asset position.

Why Treasury Policy Matters for Market Participants

For investors and industry observers, the management of corporate Bitcoin treasuries carries broader implications. Large miners with significant reserves can affect market sentiment when they signal potential changes in holding or selling strategies.

In this case, the public discussion was triggered by interpretations of regulatory filings. MARA’s response clarifies that expanding authorization to sell Bitcoin does not equate to a declared sell-off strategy. Instead, it formalizes the company’s ability to execute sales if management considers them appropriate under prevailing market conditions.

Given MARA’s position as the largest publicly traded Bitcoin miner by treasury size, statements regarding its reserve management are closely monitored. The clarification aims to distinguish between regulatory language that enables flexibility and narratives suggesting a fundamental shift in strategy.

Our Assessment

MARA Holdings has stated that its updated 2026 10-K filing expands its ability to sell Bitcoin but does not mandate a majority liquidation of its reserves. The company continues to hold 53,822 BTC, valued at about $3.7 billion, and remains the largest publicly traded Bitcoin miner by treasury size. The clarification addresses social media claims and underscores that the revised policy provides discretionary flexibility rather than signaling a structural change in its Bitcoin treasury approach.

Bitcoin Treasury Companies Face Shareholder Revolt While Stablecoin Firms Report Strong Earnings – Market Tensions Reshape Corporate Crypto Strategies

Key Takeaways

Empery Digital Faces Shareholder Pressure Over Bitcoin Treasury Strategy

Empery Digital is facing a public challenge from one of its largest shareholders over its Bitcoin focused treasury model. A nearly 10% shareholder, Tice P. Brown, has called for sweeping changes, including the sale of the company’s roughly 4,000 Bitcoin holdings and the resignation of its chief executive officer and board.

In a letter to management, Brown argued that the company’s strategy of holding Bitcoin on its balance sheet has failed to maximize shareholder value. He demanded that capital be returned to investors instead of being tied up in digital assets.

Empery rejected these claims and defended its approach. The company transitioned its legacy business into a Bitcoin treasury model last year and has since accumulated 4,081 BTC. According to BitcoinTreasuries.NET data cited in the report, this places Empery among the top 25 largest public holders of Bitcoin.

The dispute highlights growing tension between activist investors and publicly listed firms that have adopted Bitcoin as a core balance sheet asset. After months of declining digital asset prices, companies with significant crypto exposure are facing renewed scrutiny from shareholders focused on capital allocation and volatility risks.

For investors evaluating companies with crypto treasury exposure, this case underscores how balance sheet strategies tied to digital assets can become central governance issues during market downturns.

Circle Reports Revenue Growth and Expanding USDC Supply

While Bitcoin treasury firms face pressure, stablecoin issuer Circle reported stronger than expected financial results for the fourth quarter. The company generated $770 million in revenue, marking a 77% increase compared to the same period a year earlier. Net income reached $133.4 million, or 43 cents per share, exceeding analyst expectations.

A key driver was the continued growth of USDC. By year end, the dollar backed stablecoin’s supply had risen 72% to $75.3 billion. The expansion reflects sustained demand for onchain dollar liquidity, even as broader crypto market conditions weakened.

For the full year, Circle reported $2.7 billion in revenue and a net loss of $70 million. The annual loss was largely attributed to stock based compensation tied to its initial public offering.

Following the earnings release, Circle’s shares rose more than 20%. The stock reaction reflected investor focus on revenue growth and the expanding stablecoin base.

The figures indicate that stablecoins continue to play a central role in digital asset markets. For users of crypto platforms, including those involved in trading or online betting, stablecoin liquidity remains a core component of transaction flows and onchain settlement.

PayPal Draws Takeover Interest Amid Ongoing Restructuring

Legacy payments company PayPal is reportedly attracting early stage takeover interest after a prolonged decline in its share price. According to Bloomberg, some potential buyers are evaluating a full acquisition, while others may seek specific business segments.

Discussions remain preliminary, and no formal offer has been announced. Stripe, described as a Bitcoin friendly payments company, later emerged as one of the interested parties.

PayPal’s stock rallied following the takeover reports, yet it remains down 37% over the past 12 months. The development comes as PayPal continues restructuring efforts and expands further into digital assets, including its proprietary stablecoin, PayPal USD.

For market participants, the situation reflects the competitive pressure facing established payment providers as they integrate digital asset services. Strategic interest in PayPal suggests that crypto related initiatives are increasingly intertwined with broader consolidation trends in digital payments.

$500 Million Stablecoin Initiative Connects DeFi Liquidity With Mortgage Lending

In a separate development, mortgage lender Better and Framework Ventures are launching a $500 million initiative designed to channel stablecoin liquidity into US mortgage lending.

Under the structure outlined in the report, Better will continue underwriting and issuing home loans, while funding is sourced through a stablecoin ecosystem. The arrangement aims to connect blockchain based liquidity with traditional real estate finance.

Tokenized real world assets have long been discussed within crypto markets. This initiative represents a large scale attempt to deploy stablecoin capital into housing finance, even as broader digital asset prices remain volatile.

For crypto users, the structure illustrates how stablecoins are being positioned not only as trading instruments but also as funding tools for conventional financial products.

Our Assessment

The developments show diverging dynamics within the crypto related corporate landscape. Empery Digital’s shareholder dispute highlights governance risks for companies that rely heavily on Bitcoin as a treasury asset during periods of price weakness. At the same time, Circle’s revenue growth and expanding USDC supply point to sustained demand for stablecoin based liquidity. PayPal’s reported takeover interest and the $500 million mortgage initiative further demonstrate how digital asset strategies are influencing both traditional payment firms and real world finance structures. Together, these events reflect how corporate crypto exposure is increasingly scrutinized by investors while stablecoin infrastructure continues to expand into new use cases.

WLFI Proposes 180-Day Governance Staking and USD1 Incentives – Token Holders Face Lock-Up Requirements for Voting Rights

Key Takeaways

WLFI Seeks to Introduce 180-Day Governance Staking Model

World Liberty Financial has presented a proposal to modify its governance structure by introducing a staking requirement for voting participation. Under the plan, token holders would need to lock their WLFI tokens for at least 180 days in order to take part in governance decisions.

According to the proposal, the objective is to ensure that voting power remains with participants who demonstrate long-term alignment with the protocol. The framework is designed to reduce the influence of short-term holders or speculative participants.

Voting power would be calculated based on two factors: the number of tokens staked and the remaining time in the lock-up period. Token holders who lock their tokens would retain the ability to vote during the staking period.

For the governance vote to be valid, at least one billion voting tokens must participate. A majority vote in favor would be required for the proposal to pass. CoinGecko lists more than 27 billion WLFI tokens currently in circulation.

2% Annual Reward Tied to Active Governance Participation

The proposed staking model includes a financial incentive. Token holders who stake their WLFI for the 180-day period would receive a 2% annual percentage rate. However, eligibility for this reward would depend on active governance participation.

Specifically, stakers must take part in at least two governance votes during the lock-up period to qualify for the yield. This condition links financial rewards directly to voting activity rather than passive token holding.

Such a structure combines governance engagement with token incentives. Participation becomes both a voting mechanism and a yield-generating activity, provided that users meet the defined criteria.

Additional Incentives to Drive USD1 Stablecoin Usage

Beyond governance changes, the proposal also outlines measures to promote adoption of WLFI’s stablecoin, USD1. The company has previously introduced rewards programs and formed partnerships with institutional platforms and other protocols to increase usage.

Under the new plan, users who stake WLFI tokens would gain additional benefits tied to USD1 activity. USD1 deposits made on WLFI Markets, the project’s trading and lending platform, would qualify for unspecified incentives from the decentralized finance protocol Dolomite.

The structure links staking activity with stablecoin utilization. By connecting governance participation to USD1 usage, WLFI aims to integrate its token and stablecoin ecosystems more closely.

USD1 currently ranks as the fifth-largest stablecoin by market capitalization at $4.7 billion. In comparison, the overall stablecoin market exceeds $309 billion, according to data from DefiLlama. Tether’s USDT holds the largest share with more than $183 billion and a market dominance of 59%. Circle’s USDC follows with a market capitalization of $75 billion.

Node and Super Node Structure Introduces Conversion and Off-Ramp Access

The proposal also defines additional privileges for large token holders categorized as “Nodes” and “Super Nodes.”

Holders with at least 10 million WLFI tokens would qualify as Nodes. These participants would gain access to service providers offering 1:1 conversion of other major stablecoins such as USDC and USDT into USD1. They would also have access to a direct off-ramp into fiat currency.

Super Nodes, defined as holders with more than 50 million WLFI tokens, would receive access to the same features. In later phases of the rollout, Super Nodes are expected to gain access to partnership opportunities and a revenue-sharing framework.

The rollout would take place in three phases if the proposal is approved. The first phase would introduce staking rewards and USD1 deposit incentives. The second phase would activate the 1:1 stablecoin conversion feature. The final phase would provide partnership access and implement the revenue-sharing structure for Super Nodes.

Stablecoin Market Context and Competitive Position

The proposal comes at a time when the stablecoin market is concentrated among a small number of large issuers. With a market capitalization of $4.7 billion, USD1 remains significantly smaller than USDT and USDC.

USDT’s market capitalization exceeds $183 billion, while USDC stands at $75 billion. Together, these two stablecoins account for the majority of the more than $309 billion total stablecoin market.

Within this competitive landscape, WLFI’s strategy combines governance incentives, staking rewards, and utility features such as stablecoin conversion and fiat off-ramps. The structure ties token holding, governance participation, and stablecoin adoption into a single framework.

Our Assessment

World Liberty Financial’s proposal introduces a mandatory 180-day staking period for governance voting, combined with a 2% annual reward linked to active participation. The plan also connects governance staking with incentives for using the USD1 stablecoin and introduces tiered privileges for large token holders, including stablecoin conversion and fiat off-ramp access.

If approved by the required one billion voting tokens and majority support, the measures would be implemented in three phases. The proposal integrates governance rules, staking rewards, and stablecoin utility within WLFI’s existing ecosystem, where USD1 currently ranks as the fifth-largest stablecoin by market capitalization.

SBC Digital to Host 2026 FIFA World Cup Event as Sportsbooks Prepare for Operational Pressure

Key Takeaways

SBC Digital Announces World Cup 2026 Focused Event

SBC Digital is preparing a dedicated event titled SBC Digital – World Cup 2026 to address the operational and commercial challenges sportsbooks are expected to face during the 2026 FIFA World Cup. According to the announcement, the event will convene senior leaders from global operators and suppliers.

The stated objective is to provide a practical view of profitability in the context of a tournament that is expected to test infrastructure, trading models, compliance frameworks, and customer acquisition strategies. By concentrating specifically on the World Cup, SBC Digital positions the event as a forum for decision makers to evaluate readiness ahead of what is described as an ultimate industry challenge.

World Cup 2026 Described as an Unprecedented Stress Test

The 2026 FIFA World Cup is characterized as placing unprecedented pressure on sportsbooks. The scale of the event, combined with evolving market dynamics, is expected to intensify both operational and financial demands.

For operators, major international tournaments typically concentrate betting activity into a defined period. In this case, the language used by SBC Digital underscores that the 2026 edition will go beyond routine peak traffic and represent a structural stress test. The focus is not only on handling increased betting volume but also on maintaining profitability under changing market conditions.

The description of the tournament as the industry’s ultimate challenge reflects a convergence of multiple pressures rather than a single operational hurdle.

Rising Acquisition Costs and Compliance Demands

One of the core issues identified is rising acquisition costs. As competition intensifies around major sporting events, operators often compete aggressively for new customers. Higher acquisition expenses can directly affect margins, particularly if promotional spending increases while retention rates remain uncertain.

At the same time, tighter compliance rules are cited as an additional burden. For international operators and suppliers, regulatory expectations can shape everything from onboarding processes to marketing practices and risk controls. Stricter compliance requirements typically require investment in monitoring systems, reporting structures, and internal controls.

The combination of higher customer acquisition spending and stricter compliance obligations creates a dual cost structure. For sportsbooks, this means that scaling up for a global event like the World Cup is not only a question of demand but also of regulatory alignment and cost efficiency.

AI Assisted Bettors and In Play Volatility

SBC Digital also points to AI assisted bettors as a significant factor. The increasing use of automated tools and data driven strategies by customers can affect trading models and risk management frameworks. For operators, this development requires constant monitoring of betting patterns and pricing strategies.

In parallel, extreme in play volatility is highlighted as a specific challenge. In play betting involves continuously updated odds during live matches. Rapid shifts in game dynamics can trigger large swings in liability exposure within short time frames. When combined with higher traffic during a global tournament, volatility can test the resilience of trading teams and automated systems.

The reference to both AI assisted bettors and in play volatility signals that the pressure extends beyond infrastructure capacity. It also touches on analytical capabilities, algorithmic pricing, and real time risk controls.

Senior Industry Leaders to Discuss Profitability and Risk

The event will bring together senior leaders from global operators and suppliers. This suggests participation from executives responsible for trading, compliance, technology, and commercial strategy.

The emphasis on providing a practical view of profitability indicates that discussions are expected to focus on measurable business outcomes rather than general industry trends. Topics are likely to include cost management, regulatory alignment, and strategies to handle increased betting activity without eroding margins.

For suppliers, the World Cup represents a test of platform stability, data feeds, and service reliability. For operators, it is a moment to evaluate whether technology partners can support peak demand while maintaining performance standards.

Why This Matters for International Betting Users

For users of crypto betting platforms, sportsbooks, and other iGaming services, operational pressure on operators can translate into tangible effects. High traffic events may influence platform stability, odds responsiveness, and the availability of certain markets.

Compliance adjustments can also affect onboarding requirements, identity verification processes, and geographic availability. As operators adapt to tighter rules and increased scrutiny, user experiences may change accordingly.

The focus on AI assisted bettors and in play volatility is relevant for customers who rely on live betting markets. Pricing speed, limit adjustments, and risk controls may become more dynamic during peak tournament phases.

By addressing these issues in advance of the 2026 FIFA World Cup, SBC Digital frames the event as part of the industry’s broader preparation cycle.

Our Assessment

SBC Digital – World Cup 2026 is positioned as a targeted industry forum ahead of the 2026 FIFA World Cup. The event focuses on rising acquisition costs, tighter compliance rules, AI assisted betting activity, and extreme in play volatility as key pressure points for sportsbooks. By convening senior leaders from global operators and suppliers, the initiative centers on practical approaches to profitability and operational resilience during a high intensity global sporting event.

Crypto Capital Shifts From Token Launches to Listed Stocks – New Data Shows Most 2025 Tokens Trade Below TGE Price

Key Takeaways

Majority of 2025 Token Launches Trade Below Listing Price

Research referenced by market maker DWF Labs indicates that most token launches in 2025 have struggled to maintain their initial valuations. Drawing on data from Memento Research that covers hundreds of token launches across major centralized and decentralized exchanges, DWF reports that more than 80% of projects now trade below their token generation event price.

The token generation event price is the exchange-listed opening price set before launch. According to DWF Labs managing partner Andrei Grachev, most tokens reach a peak within the first month after listing and then trend downward as selling pressure builds. The data show that typical declines range between 50% and 70% within roughly 90 days of listing.

The analysis focuses on structured launches linked to projects with products or protocols, rather than meme coins. Identified sources of selling pressure include airdrops and early investor token unlocks. These mechanisms increase circulating supply shortly after listing, which can weigh on market prices when demand does not keep pace.

For you as a market participant, the data highlight that initial exchange pricing has not translated into sustained market support for most newly issued tokens in 2025.

IPO Fundraising and M&A Activity Increase in the Same Period

While token performance has weakened, capital formation in traditional financial markets tied to the crypto sector has accelerated. According to figures cited by DWF, fundraising for crypto-related initial public offerings reached about $14.6 billion in 2025. This marks a sharp increase from the prior year.

Merger and acquisition activity in the sector also rose significantly, surpassing $42.5 billion. That represents the highest level in five years, based on the data referenced in the report.

Grachev described the development as a rotation of capital rather than an exit from the sector. He pointed to the simultaneous rise in IPO funding and M&A activity as evidence that investor money remains within the broader crypto ecosystem, but is shifting from token-based exposure to equity stakes in publicly listed companies.

For international users evaluating crypto businesses, these figures indicate that institutional and corporate transactions are taking place at scale, even as many token markets face post-listing declines.

Valuation Gap Between Listed Crypto Companies and Token Projects

DWF compared publicly listed crypto companies including Circle, Gemini, eToro, Bullish and Figure with tokenized projects using trailing 12-month price-to-sales ratios. According to the report, public equities trade at multiples ranging from roughly 7 to 40 times sales. Comparable tokenized projects trade at lower multiples, between about 2 and 16 times sales.

The firm attributes this valuation gap primarily to accessibility. Many institutional investors, such as pension funds and endowments, are restricted to regulated securities markets. Public shares can also be included in indexes and exchange-traded funds, which can create automatic buying through passive investment products.

Tokens, by contrast, often require additional custody approvals and policy adjustments within institutional frameworks. As a result, equity instruments may fit more easily into existing portfolio rules and compliance structures.

Market Participants Distinguish Between Tokens and Businesses

Maksym Sakharov, co-founder and group CEO of WeFi, confirmed that he has observed a capital rotation away from token launches. He stated that when risk appetite tightens, investors seek clearer ownership structures, disclosure standards and enforceable rights.

According to Sakharov, capital is moving toward businesses that function as infrastructure, including custody, payments, settlement, brokerage and compliance services. He noted that the equity structure aligns with licensing, audits, partnerships and distribution channels, which are features of operating companies rather than standalone tokens.

Sakharov also emphasized that the market increasingly treats tokens and businesses as separate entities. A token without sustained user activity, transaction volume and revenue may be priced primarily on expectations. This dynamic can lead to strong initial performance followed by later declines if operational metrics do not meet market assumptions.

Listed crypto equities are not necessarily described as safer, but they offer standardized reporting, governance frameworks and legal claims. These characteristics can make them easier to evaluate within established investment processes.

Structural Shift Rather Than Short-Term Volatility

Grachev characterized the development as structural rather than cyclical. In his view, tokens will continue to play roles in network incentives and governance, but institutional capital is increasingly favoring equity-based exposure.

He described the situation as a bifurcation in which protocols with demonstrable revenue may continue to attract support, while a larger group of speculative launches faces a more challenging environment.

For users of crypto platforms, including those active in adjacent sectors such as digital payments or online services that integrate tokens, this shift underscores a broader differentiation in how capital markets evaluate digital assets compared with regulated corporate entities.

Our Assessment

The data presented by DWF Labs show a clear divergence in 2025 between token market performance and capital flows into publicly listed crypto companies. Most new token launches trade below their initial listing price, often with significant drawdowns within three months. At the same time, IPO fundraising and M&A volumes in the crypto sector have reached multi-year highs. The figures indicate that capital remains active in the sector but is increasingly directed toward equity structures rather than newly issued tokens.

US Senators Call for CFIUS Review of $500M UAE Stake in World Liberty Financial – Treasury Asked to Assess National Security Risks

Key Takeaways

Senators Request Treasury Review of Foreign Investment in Crypto Firm

Two US senators have formally urged the Treasury Department to examine a reported foreign investment in World Liberty Financial, a cryptocurrency venture linked to the Trump family. In a letter dated Friday and addressed to Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, Massachusetts Senator Elizabeth Warren and New Jersey Senator Andy Kim asked whether the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States should review the transaction.

According to the lawmakers, a United Arab Emirates backed investment vehicle agreed to acquire a 49% stake in World Liberty Financial for approximately $500 million. The letter states that the transaction reportedly took place days before Donald Trump’s inauguration and would make the foreign fund the company’s largest shareholder and its only publicly known outside investor.

Warren and Kim requested confirmation that CFIUS was notified of the deal. If it was not, they asked Bessent, who chairs the committee, to initiate what they described as a comprehensive, thorough, and unbiased investigation. They set a deadline of March 5 for a response.

Details of the Reported UAE Backed Transaction

The senators’ letter describes the investment vehicle as being backed by Sheikh Tahnoon bin Zayed Al Nahyan, the UAE’s national security adviser. It also alleges that the agreement directed about $187 million to entities linked to the Trump family.

In addition, the reported arrangement would grant two board seats to executives connected to G42, a technology company that has previously been scrutinized by US intelligence agencies over concerns about ties to China, according to the letter.

If completed as described, the deal would significantly shape the ownership structure of World Liberty Financial. A 49% stake would place the UAE backed vehicle just below majority control, while making it the largest known external shareholder.

Concerns Over Access to Financial and Personal Data

A central issue raised by the senators is the potential access to sensitive data. In their letter, Warren and Kim argued that the structure of the transaction could enable a foreign government to exert influence over a US company that handles financial and personal information.

They pointed to the firm’s privacy disclosures, which indicate that World Liberty Financial collects data including wallet addresses, IP addresses, device identifiers, approximate location data and certain identity records through service providers.

CFIUS is responsible for reviewing foreign investments in US businesses when those transactions could result in control or access to sensitive technologies or personal data of US citizens. The senators’ request focuses on whether the reported stake and governance rights could fall within that scope.

For crypto users, including those active on trading or betting platforms, the handling of wallet addresses, IP data and identity information is directly relevant. Any review by CFIUS would therefore center on governance and data oversight rather than token price movements or platform features.

Previous Scrutiny of World Liberty Financial

The current request follows earlier inquiries related to World Liberty Financial. In November, Senator Warren and Senator Jack Reed wrote to the Justice Department and the Treasury Department regarding alleged links between the company’s token sales and sanctioned foreign actors.

In that letter, the senators cited claims that governance tokens issued by World Liberty Financial were purchased by blockchain addresses tied to North Korea’s Lazarus Group, as well as entities linked to Russia and Iran. The outcome of those inquiries was not detailed in the current report, but the reference underscores ongoing attention from US lawmakers.

Separately, media reports referenced in the coverage state that the Trump family’s World Liberty Financial has plans for a foreign exchange and remittance platform. The scope and status of those plans were not elaborated on in the letter.

President Trump Says Family Handles Investment Matters

Earlier this month, US President Donald Trump addressed questions about the reported investment. Speaking to reporters, he said he was unaware of the multimillion dollar investment tied to an Abu Dhabi royal and entities connected to the crypto platform.

Trump stated that he had no direct role in the deal and that his sons were handling matters related to the investment. He added that his family manages such arrangements and that they receive investments from different people.

These remarks form part of the broader political context in which the Treasury review has been requested, but the senators’ letter focuses specifically on national security, foreign influence and data access concerns.

Our Assessment

Based on the information provided, two US senators have formally requested that the Treasury Department determine whether a reported $500 million UAE backed investment in World Liberty Financial should undergo review by CFIUS. The concerns center on potential foreign influence, board representation and access to sensitive financial and personal data collected by the crypto firm.

The matter remains at the stage of a request for review, with a response from the Treasury Department expected by March 5. No findings or enforcement actions have been announced at this time.

Coinbase Shares Fall as Analysts Cut Targets and CEO Sells Stock – Crypto Market Downturn Adds Pressure Ahead of Earnings

Key Takeaways

Coinbase Shares Under Pressure Amid Broader Crypto Sell-Off

Coinbase, the largest publicly traded crypto exchange in the United States, is facing renewed selling pressure as digital asset prices continue to decline. The company’s stock opened Thursday at around $153, nearly 10% below its intra-week highs. Since the beginning of 2026, shares have fallen roughly 34%.

The weakness in Coinbase’s share price comes as the broader crypto market has retraced significantly from late 2025 levels. Bitcoin has declined about 30% over the past month. After trading above $100,000 in October 2025, it has followed a downward trajectory since December and is now changing hands near $66,000 following a recent sell-off that briefly pushed prices toward $60,000.

Major altcoins have recorded even steeper losses. Lower asset prices have translated into reduced trading volumes across the sector, directly affecting one of Coinbase’s core revenue drivers: transaction fees generated from spot trading activity.

Analysts Revise Targets as Trading Activity Slows

Several Wall Street firms have adjusted their outlooks on Coinbase in response to the market environment.

Monness Crespi & Hardt downgraded Coinbase from buy to neutral. The firm set a price target of $120, implying more than 20% downside from recent trading levels. The downgrade was tied to downside risks associated with weakening crypto market conditions.

JPMorgan reduced its price target by 27%. In its note, the bank cited lower global spot trading volumes, declining overall crypto market capitalization, and weaker stablecoin activity, including softer circulation of USDC. Analysts at JPMorgan also highlighted the fragmented nature of global crypto spot trading. They noted that numerous smaller players could challenge Coinbase’s market share and warned that the company may not maintain the position it has held as the only major publicly traded crypto exchange for several years.

Other firms have also trimmed expectations while maintaining relatively constructive longer-term ratings. Cantor Fitzgerald lowered its target price from $277 to $221 but kept an overweight rating. Citi reduced its target from $505 to $400 while maintaining a buy stance.

According to the data cited, Coinbase currently holds a consensus rating of Moderate Buy. Nineteen analysts rate the stock as a buy, twelve assign a hold, and one issues a sell. The average price target stands near $332.

CEO Brian Armstrong Sells More Than 1.5 Million Shares

In addition to market-related headwinds, insider selling has drawn attention. Matthew Sigel, head of digital assets research at VanEck, reported that Coinbase CEO Brian Armstrong sold more than 1.5 million shares between April 2025 and January 2026. Based on Bloomberg pricing data, the transactions were valued at approximately $545 million.

The largest single sale occurred on June 25, when Armstrong disposed of 336,265 shares at roughly $355 per share.

Armstrong addressed the sales publicly on X. He described the transactions as diversification after more than a decade with most of his wealth tied to a single company. He stated that retaining nearly all of his net worth in one stock would be impractical and added that he remains “super long” on Coinbase. According to his statement, he has used part of the proceeds to start new companies.

Earnings Expectations in Focus as Market Weakness Persists

Attention is also turning to Coinbase’s upcoming earnings report. H.C. Wainwright analyst Mike Colonnese warned that the company could miss expectations on net revenue and adjusted EBITDA due to soft digital asset prices and unrealized crypto losses.

Colonnese also flagged the possibility of a large reported net loss linked to Coinbase’s crypto holdings and its stake in Circle. He noted that a significant headline loss could weigh on the stock’s performance following the earnings release, although he maintained a buy rating.

For users of crypto trading platforms and crypto-enabled betting services, the current market environment is relevant because exchange revenues are closely tied to trading activity. Lower volatility and reduced spot volumes can affect the financial performance of publicly listed exchanges such as Coinbase. At the same time, movements in Bitcoin and major altcoins directly influence the value of crypto balances used for trading, deposits, and withdrawals across platforms.

Our Assessment

Coinbase shares have declined sharply in early 2026 alongside a broader downturn in digital asset prices. Multiple analysts have reduced their price targets, citing weaker trading volumes, lower market capitalization, and softer stablecoin activity. Insider share sales by CEO Brian Armstrong have added to investor scrutiny ahead of the company’s earnings report. The combination of falling crypto prices, reduced spot activity, and revised earnings expectations defines the current environment surrounding Coinbase’s stock performance.