KITE surges 12% as liquidity spikes – Yet ONE hurdle remains!

KITE leads market gains as liquidity surges reshape positioning.

Elizabeth Warren’s Urgent Warning: US Government Must Avoid Crypto Bailouts That Burden Taxpayers

BitcoinWorld Elizabeth Warren’s Urgent Warning: US Government Must Avoid Crypto Bailouts That Burden Taxpayers WASHINGTON, D.C. – March 2025: Senator Elizabeth Warren has issued a forceful warning to federal agencies, urging them to resist pressure for cryptocurrency bailouts as digital asset markets experience significant volatility. The Massachusetts Democrat specifically addressed the Treasury Department and Federal Reserve, arguing that taxpayer funds should not rescue cryptocurrency investors during market downturns. Warren’s Direct Appeal Against Cryptocurrency Bailouts Senator Warren recently sent formal letters to Treasury Secretary and Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell. In these communications, she explicitly requested that both agencies avoid using public funds to support cryptocurrency entities. Warren emphasized that Bitcoin prices have declined approximately 60% from their October 2024 peak. Consequently, she believes any government intervention would create an unfair burden on American taxpayers. According to CNBC reporting, Warren specifically mentioned “crypto billionaires” in her correspondence. She expressed concern that bailouts could disproportionately benefit wealthy cryptocurrency investors. Additionally, Warren warned that such actions might inadvertently assist President Donald Trump’s cryptocurrency firm, World Liberty Financial (WLFI). The senator’s letters arrived during ongoing discussions about financial market stability. Historical Context of Government Financial Interventions Government responses to financial crises have evolved significantly over decades. For instance, the 2008 financial crisis prompted massive federal interventions in traditional banking institutions. Similarly, the COVID-19 pandemic triggered unprecedented economic support measures. However, cryptocurrency markets represent a fundamentally different challenge for regulators. The table below illustrates key differences between traditional and cryptocurrency bailout considerations: Traditional Financial Bailouts Cryptocurrency Bailout Considerations Established regulatory frameworks Evolving regulatory landscape Systemically important institutions Decentralized network structures FDIC insurance protections Limited investor protections Congressional oversight mechanisms Jurisdictional uncertainties Cryptocurrency markets operate with distinct characteristics compared to traditional finance. Specifically, they feature: 24/7 global trading without centralized closures Decentralized governance structures without traditional corporate hierarchies Volatility patterns that frequently exceed traditional asset classes Cross-border regulatory challenges that complicate intervention approaches Expert Perspectives on Government Crypto Intervention Financial policy experts have expressed varied opinions about potential cryptocurrency interventions. Dr. Michael Chen, former Federal Reserve economist, notes that “central banks globally face unprecedented challenges with digital assets.” Chen further explains that traditional monetary tools may prove ineffective for cryptocurrency markets. Meanwhile, cryptocurrency advocates argue that government support could legitimize the asset class. Professor Sarah Johnson of Stanford Law School highlights regulatory complexities. “The jurisdictional questions alone create significant hurdles,” Johnson states. She references ongoing debates about whether cryptocurrencies qualify as securities, commodities, or entirely new asset categories. These classification uncertainties complicate potential government responses during market stress. The Political Landscape Surrounding Cryptocurrency Regulation Senator Warren’s position reflects her longstanding skepticism toward cryptocurrency markets. As a member of the Senate Banking Committee, she has consistently advocated for stricter digital asset regulations. Warren previously introduced the Digital Asset Anti-Money Laundering Act, which sought to extend banking regulations to cryptocurrency participants. Political divisions have emerged around cryptocurrency policy. Some legislators support innovation-friendly approaches, while others prioritize consumer protection. The Biden administration has generally taken a cautious regulatory stance. Conversely, former President Trump has expressed more supportive positions toward cryptocurrency development. Warren specifically mentioned World Liberty Financial in her correspondence. This reference connects to broader political considerations. WLFI represents one of several cryptocurrency ventures associated with political figures. The senator’s warning suggests concerns about potential conflicts of interest in government responses to cryptocurrency market stress. Potential Impacts on Cryptocurrency Investors and Markets Warren’s letters arrive during a period of cryptocurrency market volatility. Bitcoin prices have declined substantially from recent highs. Other major cryptocurrencies have experienced similar downward pressure. Market analysts cite multiple contributing factors, including: Regulatory uncertainty in major economies Macroeconomic conditions affecting risk assets Technological developments in competing blockchain platforms Institutional adoption patterns that have progressed unevenly The senator emphasized alternative approaches to cryptocurrency market stability. Rather than direct interventions, Warren advocated for enhanced investor protections. She specifically recommended strengthening existing regulatory frameworks. Additionally, she suggested improving disclosure requirements for cryptocurrency projects. International Comparisons in Cryptocurrency Policy Global approaches to cryptocurrency regulation vary significantly. The European Union recently implemented comprehensive Markets in Crypto-Assets (MiCA) regulations. These establish consistent rules across member states. Meanwhile, Asian jurisdictions have adopted diverse strategies. Singapore maintains a licensing framework, while China has implemented broad restrictions. The United States has pursued a sector-specific regulatory approach. Different agencies claim jurisdiction based on cryptocurrency characteristics. The Securities and Exchange Commission focuses on investment-like tokens. Meanwhile, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission oversees derivatives products. This fragmented system complicates coordinated government responses during market stress. Conclusion Senator Elizabeth Warren’s opposition to cryptocurrency bailouts reflects broader debates about government intervention in emerging financial markets. Her letters to Treasury and Federal Reserve officials emphasize taxpayer protection priorities. Warren argues against direct purchases or liquidity support for cryptocurrency entities. Instead, she advocates for strengthened investor protections and regulatory clarity. These developments occur against a backdrop of cryptocurrency market volatility and evolving regulatory frameworks. The ongoing policy discussions will significantly influence cryptocurrency’s integration into mainstream finance. FAQs Q1: What specific actions did Senator Warren recommend against? The senator explicitly warned against direct cryptocurrency purchases by government agencies. She also opposed liquidity support measures that would use taxpayer funds to stabilize cryptocurrency markets during declines. Q2: How much has Bitcoin declined according to Warren’s letter? Warren referenced Bitcoin prices being down approximately 60% from their October 2024 peak. This decline provided context for her concerns about potential bailout pressures. Q3: Which government agencies received Warren’s letters? The Massachusetts senator addressed her correspondence to both the Treasury Department and the Federal Reserve. These agencies play crucial roles in financial stability and crisis response. Q4: What alternative approaches did Warren suggest? Rather than bailouts, Warren advocated for strengthening investor protections in cryptocurrency markets. She emphasized regulatory frameworks that would provide clearer guidelines and better disclosure requirements. Q5: Why did Warren mention President Trump’s cryptocurrency firm? The senator expressed concern that government interventions might inadvertently benefit specific cryptocurrency entities, including World Liberty Financial. This reference highlighted potential political dimensions to bailout decisions. This post Elizabeth Warren’s Urgent Warning: US Government Must Avoid Crypto Bailouts That Burden Taxpayers first appeared on BitcoinWorld .

BTCC Exchange Launches TradFi, Enabling Seamless Access to Global Traditional Markets with USDT

Crypto Fear & Greed Index Plummets to 9: Navigating the ‘Extreme Fear’ Abyss

BitcoinWorld Crypto Fear & Greed Index Plummets to 9: Navigating the ‘Extreme Fear’ Abyss Global cryptocurrency markets remain gripped by profound anxiety as the widely monitored Crypto Fear & Greed Index registers a meager score of 9, firmly entrenched in the “Extreme Fear” zone. This critical gauge of investor psychology, published by data provider Alternative.me, inched up by a single point from the previous day’s reading, offering little solace to traders navigating one of the most risk-averse environments in recent memory. The index’s stubborn position near its theoretical floor of 0 provides a stark, data-driven snapshot of prevailing market sentiment as of late 2024, reflecting a complex interplay of volatility, social chatter, and macroeconomic pressures. Decoding the Crypto Fear & Greed Index and Its 9-Point Reading The Crypto Fear & Greed Index serves as a behavioral finance barometer for digital asset markets. It quantifies the emotional state of investors on a scale from 0 to 100. A score of 0 represents maximum fear and potential capitulation, while 100 indicates extreme greed and possible market euphoria. Consequently, a reading of 9 sits just above the absolute nadir, signaling overwhelming pessimism. The index does not rely on a single metric; instead, it synthesizes data from six distinct sources to create a composite picture. Market volatility and trading volume each contribute 25% to the final score, acting as primary indicators of uncertainty and participation. Social media sentiment and ongoing market surveys each account for 15%, capturing the narrative and crowd psychology. Finally, Bitcoin’s dominance share of the total crypto market cap and relevant Google search trends each provide a 10% weighting, indicating asset concentration and public interest. The Mechanics Behind the Market Mood Analysts scrutinize each component for clues. For instance, high volatility often correlates with fear, as wild price swings deter consistent investment. Similarly, suppressed trading volume can signal a lack of conviction or capital flight. The current weighting suggests these traditional metrics are painting a bleak picture. Furthermore, social media analysis likely reveals a preponderance of negative or fearful commentary, while survey data confirms a cautious stance among retail and institutional participants alike. Bitcoin’s market cap dominance, hovering around 54% as of this period, suggests a “flight to safety” within the crypto ecosystem, with investors consolidating holdings into the flagship asset amid sector-wide uncertainty. Historical Context and the ‘Extreme Fear’ Threshold To understand the gravity of a score of 9, one must examine historical precedents. The index has dipped into “Extreme Fear” (a score below 25) during several major market crises. For example, it plummeted to similar levels during the COVID-19 market crash of March 2020, the crypto winter following the LUNA/UST collapse in mid-2022, and the FTX bankruptcy fallout in late 2022. However, persistence at this level is notable. Extended periods of extreme fear have historically preceded significant market bottoms, though timing such reversals remains notoriously difficult. The table below contrasts recent extreme fear periods: Event Approximate Index Low Duration in Extreme Fear Subsequent Market Action (6 Months) COVID-19 Crash (Mar 2020) 8 ~3 weeks Strong bull market initiation LUNA/UST Collapse (May 2022) 6 ~8 weeks Continued bear market FTX Bankruptcy (Nov 2022) 6 ~6 weeks Gradual basing, then recovery Current Period (Late 2024) 9 Ongoing To be determined This historical lens reveals that while extreme fear is a common feature of market troughs, it is not an immediate timing signal. The market often requires a fundamental catalyst to shift sentiment. Real-World Drivers of Persistent Fear in Late 2024 The current sentiment is not occurring in a vacuum. Several macroeconomic and crypto-specific factors are contributing to the sustained fear gauge reading. Firstly, global monetary policy remains restrictive, with central banks maintaining higher interest rates to combat inflation, which reduces the appeal of speculative assets like cryptocurrency. Secondly, regulatory uncertainty continues to loom over major economies, creating hesitation among institutional investors. Thirdly, on-chain data shows reduced activity from long-term holders and a focus on short-term trading, indicative of a nervous market. Key on-chain metrics currently reflecting this include: Spent Output Profit Ratio (SOPR): Often below 1, indicating coins are being moved at a loss. Exchange Netflow: Fluctuating, showing periods of accumulation and distribution. MVRV Ratio: Remains low, suggesting the market cap is near or below realized value. These technical factors combine with a news cycle that has emphasized security exploits, project failures, and regulatory scrutiny over technological breakthroughs or adoption milestones, further fueling negative sentiment. The Contrarian Perspective: Fear as a Potential Opportunity Seasoned market participants often reference the adage, “Be fearful when others are greedy, and greedy when others are fearful.” From this viewpoint, an Extreme Fear reading can signal a potential buying opportunity for risk-tolerant investors with a long-term horizon. The logic follows that when sentiment is overwhelmingly negative, much of the potential bad news may already be priced into asset values. However, experts uniformly caution against using the index as a standalone trading signal. It must be combined with rigorous fundamental analysis, clear risk management, and an assessment of broader financial conditions. The index is best used as a tool for understanding market psychology, not for predicting short-term price movements. Conclusion The Crypto Fear & Greed Index reading of 9 offers a quantitative confirmation of the severe risk-off sentiment pervading digital asset markets. This persistent state of Extreme Fear stems from a confluence of macroeconomic headwinds, regulatory shadows, and negative market structure signals. While historically, such depths of pessimism have sometimes marked cyclical lows, they also represent periods of significant stress and capital preservation. For investors, the index provides a crucial, emotionally detached framework for assessing market psychology amidst the noise. Moving forward, a sustained climb out of the extreme fear zone will likely require a shift in fundamental drivers—such as clearer regulation, macroeconomic easing, or a major adoption catalyst—rather than mere technical price rebounds. The market’s emotional barometer remains stuck in a storm, awaiting a change in the underlying pressure. FAQs Q1: What does a Crypto Fear & Greed Index score of 9 mean? A score of 9 indicates the market is experiencing “Extreme Fear.” It is very close to the minimum score of 0, suggesting investor sentiment is overwhelmingly negative, driven by factors like high volatility, low volume, and fearful social media discourse. Q2: Who creates the Crypto Fear & Greed Index and how is it calculated? The index is created by data provider Alternative.me. It is calculated using six factors: volatility (25%), market volume (25%), social media (15%), surveys (15%), Bitcoin dominance (10%), and Google Trends data (10%). Q3: Is extreme fear a good time to buy cryptocurrency? From a contrarian investment perspective, extreme fear can indicate that prices are depressed and potential downside may be limited. However, it is not a guaranteed buy signal. It signifies high risk and requires careful individual analysis, risk tolerance assessment, and a long-term outlook. Q4: How long can the market stay in ‘Extreme Fear’? Historically, periods of extreme fear have lasted from several weeks to several months, depending on the underlying causes. For example, it persisted for over two months following major industry crises like the LUNA collapse and FTX bankruptcy. Q5: What typically needs to happen for the Fear & Greed Index to rise significantly? A sustained rise out of extreme fear usually requires a change in market fundamentals. This can include positive regulatory developments, a shift to accommodative monetary policy, a reduction in macroeconomic uncertainty, or a major technological or adoption breakthrough within the crypto sector that renews investor confidence. This post Crypto Fear & Greed Index Plummets to 9: Navigating the ‘Extreme Fear’ Abyss first appeared on BitcoinWorld .

Capital Flees Crypto Markets as Bitcoin and Ethereum See Sharp Outflows

Glassnode reports rapid capital outflows from Bitcoin and Ethereum, echoing 2022 bear market conditions. Stablecoin growth has also stalled, reflecting critical liquidity shortages across crypto markets. Continue Reading: Capital Flees Crypto Markets as Bitcoin and Ethereum See Sharp Outflows The post Capital Flees Crypto Markets as Bitcoin and Ethereum See Sharp Outflows appeared first on COINTURK NEWS .

South Korea’s Hanwha makes a $13 million bet on ‘seedless’ crypto wallets

The South Korean financial firm backs the U.S.-based blockchain company to accelerate enterprise wallet technology and real-world asset tokenization.

JST Technical Analysis February 19, 2026: Weekly Strategy

While JST maintains its uptrend in a narrow range, the $0.0429 resistance is the week's main test. Cautious strategy under bearish BTC, accumulation phase intact.

AUD/JPY Surges as Critical RBA-BoJ Policy Divergence Reaches Breaking Point

BitcoinWorld AUD/JPY Surges as Critical RBA-BoJ Policy Divergence Reaches Breaking Point SYDNEY/TOKYO, March 2025 – The Australian Dollar continues its upward trajectory against the Japanese Yen, reaching significant technical levels as monetary policy divergence between the Reserve Bank of Australia and Bank of Japan creates powerful fundamental drivers for currency traders worldwide. AUD/JPY Technical Analysis and Current Market Position The AUD/JPY currency pair recently broke through the 98.50 resistance level, marking its highest point since November 2024. Market analysts observe consistent bullish momentum across multiple timeframes. Furthermore, the pair has maintained above its 200-day moving average for 15 consecutive trading sessions. Technical indicators show the Relative Strength Index hovering at 68, suggesting strong but not overbought conditions. Additionally, trading volume has increased by 42% compared to the monthly average, indicating heightened institutional interest. Several key technical factors support the current trend. First, the 50-day moving average crossed above the 100-day moving average in January 2025. Second, Fibonacci retracement levels from the 2024 high-low range show minimal resistance until the 101.20 level. Third, the Average Directional Index reading of 32 confirms a developing trend rather than ranging conditions. Market participants now watch the psychological 100.00 level as the next major test for the currency pair. Reserve Bank of Australia’s Hawkish Policy Stance The Reserve Bank of Australia maintains its commitment to combating persistent inflation through measured monetary tightening. In February 2025, the RBA kept its cash rate target at 4.35% but signaled potential further increases. Governor Michele Bullock emphasized the central bank’s data-dependent approach during recent parliamentary testimony. Specifically, she highlighted concerns about services inflation and wage growth exceeding productivity gains. Recent economic data supports the RBA’s cautious stance. Australia’s Consumer Price Index rose 4.2% year-over-year in the December quarter, exceeding the RBA’s 2-3% target band. Employment figures show unemployment remaining at 3.7% with strong job creation in mining and construction sectors. Moreover, business investment intentions survey indicates planned capital expenditure increasing by 8.3% for the 2025 fiscal year. These factors collectively suggest the Australian economy maintains sufficient momentum to withstand additional monetary tightening. Expert Analysis: RBA’s Inflation Fight Dr. Sarah Chen, Chief Economist at Sydney Financial Institute, provides crucial context. “The RBA faces a complex balancing act,” she explains. “While commodity exports support the Australian dollar, domestic consumption patterns show signs of strain. The central bank must consider both global demand for resources and local household debt levels exceeding 180% of disposable income.” Historical data reveals Australia has experienced 11 consecutive quarters of above-target inflation, creating pressure for sustained policy response. Bank of Japan’s Continued Accommodative Approach Meanwhile, the Bank of Japan maintains its ultra-accommodative monetary policy despite global tightening trends. Governor Kazuo Ueda recently confirmed the continuation of yield curve control measures targeting 10-year Japanese Government Bond yields around 0%. The central bank’s negative interest rate policy remains unchanged at -0.1% for excess reserves. This policy divergence creates what economists term “the carry trade revival,” where investors borrow in low-yielding yen to invest in higher-yielding Australian assets. Japan’s economic fundamentals present a contrasting picture to Australia’s. Core inflation excluding fresh food reached 2.3% in January 2025, but the BOJ views this as transitory. Wage growth negotiations, known as “shunto,” resulted in average increases of 3.2% for 2025. However, real wages continue declining for the 24th consecutive month. The Japanese economy contracted 0.4% quarter-over-quarter in Q4 2024, marking the third quarterly decline in two years. These conditions justify the BOJ’s cautious approach to policy normalization. Economic Impacts and Market Implications The widening policy divergence creates multiple economic effects across both nations. For Australia, the stronger AUD/JPY exchange rate affects several sectors differently: Export Competitiveness: Australian mining exports become more expensive for Japanese buyers Tourism Flows: Japanese tourism to Australia increases due to favorable exchange rates Investment Patterns: Japanese institutional investors increase Australian bond purchases seeking yield Corporate Hedging: Australian companies with Japanese operations face complex currency risk management For Japan, the weaker yen presents both challenges and opportunities. Manufacturing exporters benefit from increased competitiveness, particularly in automotive and electronics sectors. However, energy import costs rise significantly, contributing to trade balance pressures. The Ministry of Finance reports Japan’s trade deficit reached ¥1.2 trillion in January 2025, with energy imports accounting for 68% of the total. Historical Context and Policy Timeline The current policy divergence represents the widest gap since 2007. A comparative analysis reveals significant developments: Period RBA Policy Rate BOJ Policy Rate AUD/JPY Average 2019-2020 0.75% → 0.10% -0.10% 74.20 2021-2022 0.10% → 3.10% -0.10% 88.50 2023-2024 3.10% → 4.35% -0.10% 92.80 2025 Current 4.35% (hawkish bias) -0.10% (dovish bias) 98.50+ This historical perspective demonstrates how monetary policy paths have increasingly diverged post-pandemic. The interest rate differential now stands at 445 basis points, creating the largest yield advantage for Australian assets in nearly two decades. Global Macroeconomic Factors Influencing the Pair Beyond domestic policies, several global factors contribute to AUD/JPY movements. Commodity prices, particularly iron ore and liquefied natural gas, directly impact the Australian dollar’s valuation. China’s economic recovery pace significantly affects Australian export demand. Meanwhile, global risk sentiment influences yen flows as investors treat the Japanese currency as a traditional safe haven. Geopolitical developments also play a crucial role. Regional trade agreements and supply chain realignments affect both economies differently. Australia benefits from diversified export markets through agreements with India and Southeast Asian nations. Japan faces challenges from semiconductor export restrictions and technological competition. These factors create additional layers of complexity for currency valuation beyond pure monetary policy considerations. Risk Factors and Future Outlook Several potential developments could alter the current trajectory. The Bank of Japan has signaled eventual policy normalization, though timing remains uncertain. Market consensus suggests the BOJ might abandon negative rates in late 2025 or early 2026. Conversely, the RBA could pause its tightening cycle if economic data weakens significantly. Global recession risks or commodity price collapses would disproportionately affect the Australian economy. Technical analysts identify key support and resistance levels for monitoring. Immediate support rests at 96.80, representing the previous resistance-turned-support level. Major resistance awaits at 101.20, the 61.8% Fibonacci retracement of the 2022-2023 decline. Market participants should watch these technical levels alongside fundamental developments for directional clues. Conclusion The AUD/JPY currency pair demonstrates clear upward momentum driven primarily by widening RBA-BoJ policy divergence. This monetary policy gap creates fundamental support for the Australian dollar against the Japanese yen. However, multiple factors including commodity prices, global risk sentiment, and eventual policy normalization timelines will determine the pair’s trajectory through 2025. Market participants must monitor both domestic economic indicators and global macroeconomic developments when assessing future AUD/JPY movements. FAQs Q1: What causes the AUD/JPY to rise when policy divergence widens? The interest rate differential increases, making Australian assets more attractive for yield-seeking investors who borrow in low-yielding yen to fund their purchases, creating demand for AUD and supply of JPY. Q2: How long can this policy divergence continue? Most analysts expect divergence to persist through 2025, though the Bank of Japan has signaled eventual policy normalization, potentially beginning in late 2025 or early 2026 depending on economic conditions. Q3: What are the main risks to the current AUD/JPY trend? Key risks include sudden BOJ policy shifts, global recession reducing commodity demand, unexpected RBA dovish turns, or geopolitical events triggering safe-haven yen buying. Q4: How does this affect Australian and Japanese businesses? Australian exporters to Japan face reduced competitiveness, while Japanese importers pay more for Australian commodities. Japanese manufacturers gain export advantages, but face higher import costs for Australian raw materials. Q5: What technical levels should traders watch for AUD/JPY? Immediate support at 96.80, with major resistance at 101.20. The psychological 100.00 level represents a key test, while maintaining above the 200-day moving average (currently 94.20) suggests ongoing bullish momentum. This post AUD/JPY Surges as Critical RBA-BoJ Policy Divergence Reaches Breaking Point first appeared on BitcoinWorld .

Bitcoin Structure Weakens Below $72,000 Despite Tight Range

Bitcoin continues to trade within a tight range, but beneath the surface, structural weakness is becoming increasingly evident. With price holding below the key $72,000 level, now acting as resistance, the broader technical outlook remains fragile, and any short-term consolidation may simply be masking underlying downside risk. Bitcoin Enters Clear Corrective Phase Bitcoin has entered a clear corrective phase after peaking in the $120,000–$125,000 region. Crypto analyst Alejandro₿TC notes that the weekly structure has broken to the downside, with the latest leg unfolding impulsively, a sign that momentum currently favors sellers rather than buyers. Related Reading: Bitcoin Ready To Bounce Again? The Major Accumulation Trend You Should Be Aware Of The key level to watch is the $72,000–$74,000 zone. Previously acting as strong support, this area has now been lost and flipped into resistance. As long as Bitcoin continues to close below this range on the weekly timeframe, any upward movement should be viewed as a corrective bounce rather than confirmation of a sustained reversal. On the downside, the $50,000–$52,000 region stands out as the primary magnet. This zone represents a significant weekly demand area and the base of the prior impulsive rally. If bearish pressure persists, it becomes the most logical target for a deeper retracement. The upcoming monthly close in 11 days could be decisive. A close below $72,000 would confirm the breakdown and increase the probability of further downside. Structurally, the market remains weak beneath that level, while a decisive reclaim above $74,000 would mark the first meaningful signal that strength is returning. Compression Intensifies Near $68,000 With volatility compressing as price trades within an increasingly narrow band, Bitcoin continues to coil tightly around the $67,000–$68,000 region. The lack of decisive movement in either direction suggests that the market is building energy for a larger expansion move. Related Reading: Bitcoin Eyes Untapped Liquidity: $64,000 Support Could Be Next Target According to Columbus, liquidity continues to build above the $70,000 level, and notable bids remain layered between $64,000 and $66,000. With liquidity stacked on both sides, the market is effectively squeezed between opposing forces, waiting for a catalyst. The longer Bitcoin remains trapped inside this tightening structure, the more aggressive the eventual breakout tends to be. Compression phases like this typically end with strong displacement, as one side of the market is forced to unwind positions. From here, sustained acceptance above the $69,500–$70,000 area would likely open the door for momentum toward heavier liquidity zones overhead. On the other hand, failure to reclaim that threshold keeps downside probes into the mid-$60,000s firmly in play, especially if bids begin to thin out under pressure. The next decisive move will likely be driven by which side of liquidity gets targeted first. Featured image from Pixabay, chart from Tradingview.com

TRON price eyes $0.32 – Can institutional buying of 177K TRX save bulls?

Accumulation is back on the table but does TRX have the strength to follow through?