The key point is that most of the potentially exposed bitcoin isn’t sitting in a handful of giant, juicy targets. It’s scattered across more than 32,000 separate wallets.
BitcoinWorld BTC Perpetual Futures Long/Short Ratios Reveal Crucial Market Sentiment Across Top Exchanges Market analysts closely monitor BTC perpetual futures long/short ratios across major exchanges as these metrics provide essential insights into trader positioning and potential price direction. Recent data from the world’s three largest cryptocurrency futures platforms reveals a nuanced picture of market sentiment. The overall 24-hour ratio shows 50.96% long positions versus 49.04% short positions, indicating a slight but meaningful bullish bias among derivatives traders. This balanced yet positive tilt suggests cautious optimism in the Bitcoin derivatives market as institutional and retail participants position themselves for potential movements. Understanding BTC Perpetual Futures Long/Short Ratios BTC perpetual futures represent sophisticated financial instruments that allow traders to speculate on Bitcoin’s price movements without expiration dates. These contracts maintain their value through funding rate mechanisms that balance long and short positions. The long/short ratio specifically measures the percentage of open interest held by traders expecting price increases versus those anticipating declines. Market participants analyze these ratios because they often precede significant price movements. Exchange data provides real-time sentiment indicators that professional traders incorporate into their strategies. The ratios reflect collective market psychology across different trading platforms. Cryptocurrency derivatives markets have matured substantially since their inception in 2016. Today, perpetual futures dominate Bitcoin trading volumes globally. Major exchanges report billions in daily open interest across these instruments. The long/short ratio serves as a crucial sentiment gauge because it reveals how traders are positioning themselves relative to current prices. Historical analysis demonstrates that extreme readings often correlate with market turning points. Moderate ratios like current levels typically indicate balanced market conditions without excessive speculation in either direction. The Mechanics of Perpetual Futures Trading Perpetual futures differ from traditional futures contracts through their lack of expiration dates. Traders maintain positions indefinitely by paying or receiving funding rates every eight hours. These funding payments ensure the contract price tracks the underlying spot price closely. The long/short ratio emerges from the aggregate positions of all traders on a given exchange. When more traders hold long positions, the ratio exceeds 50%. Conversely, dominance by short positions pushes the ratio below 50%. Market makers and institutional traders monitor these metrics continuously to identify potential liquidity shifts. Exchange-Specific Analysis of BTC Perpetual Futures Ratios Detailed examination of individual exchange data reveals important variations in trader behavior across platforms. Each major cryptocurrency derivatives exchange attracts different trader demographics and geographic concentrations. These differences manifest in distinct long/short ratio patterns that experienced analysts interpret carefully. The current data shows all three major platforms maintaining slightly bullish ratios, though with meaningful variations between them. BTC Perpetual Futures Long/Short Ratios by Exchange Exchange Long Percentage Short Percentage Binance 52.22% 47.78% OKX 51.44% 48.56% Bybit 52.53% 47.47% Overall 50.96% 49.04% Bybit currently shows the most bullish sentiment with 52.53% long positions, followed closely by Binance at 52.22%. OKX maintains the most balanced ratio at 51.44% long positions. These variations likely reflect different trader demographics across platforms. Bybit traditionally attracts more retail traders who often exhibit stronger directional biases. Binance serves both retail and institutional clients, creating a more diverse trading population. OKX has strong institutional participation that typically employs more balanced, market-neutral strategies. The consistency across all three platforms suggests genuine, widespread sentiment rather than exchange-specific anomalies. Geographic and Regulatory Influences Exchange ratios frequently reflect regional trading patterns and regulatory environments. Asian trading hours often produce different sentiment readings than European or American sessions. Regulatory developments in specific jurisdictions can temporarily skew ratios on exchanges serving those regions. The current balanced ratios across all major platforms indicate globally synchronized sentiment rather than region-specific positioning. This synchronization strengthens the signal’s reliability because it represents consensus across diverse trader populations. Historical Context and Market Implications Current BTC perpetual futures long/short ratios exist within important historical patterns that provide context for interpretation. During Bitcoin’s 2021 bull market peak, long ratios frequently exceeded 65% across major exchanges. Conversely, the 2022 bear market bottom saw short ratios approaching 60% during capitulation events. The current moderate readings suggest neither extreme greed nor fear dominates the derivatives market. This balanced sentiment often precedes consolidation periods before significant directional moves. Seasoned traders recognize that moderate long/short ratios typically indicate healthy market conditions. Extreme readings often signal potential reversals as positions become overcrowded. The current 50.96% overall long ratio falls within the neutral range that has historically preceded both bullish and bearish movements. Market technicians therefore watch for ratio divergences from price action. For instance, rising prices with declining long ratios might indicate weakening bullish conviction. Conversely, stable prices with increasing long ratios could suggest accumulation by informed participants. Funding Rate Correlations BTC perpetual futures long/short ratios maintain important relationships with funding rates across exchanges. When long positions dominate significantly, funding rates typically turn positive as longs pay shorts to maintain their positions. Currently moderate ratios correspond with generally neutral funding rates across major platforms. This alignment confirms that positioning hasn’t reached extreme levels that would pressure funding mechanisms. The equilibrium suggests sustainable market conditions without excessive leverage on either side. Methodological Considerations in Ratio Analysis Professional analysts approach long/short ratio interpretation with methodological rigor to avoid common pitfalls. Different exchanges calculate and report these metrics using varying methodologies that can affect comparability. Some platforms include market maker positions in their calculations while others exclude them. Timeframe selection significantly impacts ratio interpretation, with shorter timeframes showing more volatility than longer averages. The 24-hour timeframe provides current sentiment while weekly averages smooth temporary fluctuations. Data Collection Methods: Exchanges use different sampling techniques and update frequencies Position Classification: Definitions of “long” versus “short” can vary between platforms Leverage Considerations: Highly leveraged positions exert disproportionate influence on ratios Institutional vs. Retail: Different trader types exhibit distinct behavioral patterns Analysts typically examine ratios alongside other metrics for comprehensive assessment. Open interest totals provide context for ratio significance, as larger open interest makes ratios more meaningful. Trading volume relative to open interest indicates position turnover rates. Funding rate trends confirm whether ratios reflect genuine sentiment or temporary positioning. Combining these metrics creates robust market analysis that informs trading decisions and risk management strategies. Comparative Analysis with Traditional Markets BTC perpetual futures long/short ratios function similarly to commitment of traders reports in traditional commodity markets. Both metrics reveal how different market participants are positioned relative to current prices. However, cryptocurrency derivatives provide more frequent and transparent data than traditional markets’ weekly reports. This transparency allows real-time sentiment tracking that wasn’t previously available in financial markets. The innovation represents a significant advancement in market analysis capabilities for both retail and institutional participants. Practical Applications for Traders and Investors BTC perpetual futures long/short ratios serve multiple practical functions for market participants across experience levels. Retail traders use these metrics to gauge overall market sentiment before entering positions. Institutional traders incorporate ratio analysis into algorithmic trading strategies and risk management frameworks. Long-term investors monitor ratios to identify potential market extremes that might signal entry or exit opportunities. Each participant group applies ratio analysis differently based on their specific objectives and time horizons. Contrarian traders often look for extreme ratio readings as potential reversal signals. When long ratios exceed historical norms, these traders might consider short positions anticipating correction. Conversely, extreme short ratios might prompt contrarian long positions. Trend-following traders use moderate, stable ratios to confirm existing market direction. The current balanced ratios support neither strong contrarian nor trend-following signals, suggesting range-bound trading conditions. Position traders therefore maintain flexible strategies adaptable to changing ratio dynamics. Risk Management Implications BTC perpetual futures long/short ratios provide crucial risk management information for derivatives traders. High long ratios during price rallies indicate potential overcrowding that increases liquidation risks if prices reverse. Similarly, extreme short ratios during declines create short squeeze vulnerabilities. Current moderate ratios suggest balanced risk conditions without pronounced crowding on either side. Prudent traders nevertheless maintain appropriate position sizing and stop-loss orders regardless of ratio readings, recognizing that sentiment can shift rapidly in volatile markets. Conclusion BTC perpetual futures long/short ratios across Binance, OKX, and Bybit reveal a market in balanced equilibrium with slight bullish bias. The overall 50.96% long ratio indicates cautious optimism among derivatives traders without excessive speculation. Exchange-specific variations reflect different trader demographics while maintaining consistent directional bias. Historical context suggests current ratios represent healthy market conditions rather than extreme sentiment. Traders should monitor these metrics alongside price action, funding rates, and open interest for comprehensive market analysis. The BTC perpetual futures market continues providing valuable sentiment data that informs trading decisions across participant categories. FAQs Q1: What do BTC perpetual futures long/short ratios measure? These ratios measure the percentage of open interest held by traders with long positions versus short positions across cryptocurrency derivatives exchanges. Q2: Why are BTC perpetual futures ratios important for traders? The ratios provide real-time sentiment indicators that often precede price movements, helping traders gauge market psychology and position themselves accordingly. Q3: How do BTC perpetual futures differ from traditional futures contracts? Perpetual futures have no expiration date and use funding mechanisms to track spot prices, while traditional futures have set expiration dates and settle periodically. Q4: What constitutes an extreme BTC perpetual futures long/short ratio? Historical analysis suggests ratios above 65% long or below 35% long often indicate overcrowded positioning that may precede market reversals. Q5: How frequently should traders monitor BTC perpetual futures ratios? Professional traders typically monitor these metrics continuously, though meaningful analysis requires examining trends across multiple timeframes rather than single readings. This post BTC Perpetual Futures Long/Short Ratios Reveal Crucial Market Sentiment Across Top Exchanges first appeared on BitcoinWorld .
BitcoinWorld FDIC Lawsuit Loss Exposes Shocking Crypto ‘Pause Letters’ in Major Transparency Victory WASHINGTON, D.C. – In a significant legal defeat for federal banking regulators, the U.S. Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) has effectively lost a lawsuit concerning its refusal to release controversial ‘pause letters.’ These documents allegedly pressured banks to halt services for cryptocurrency firms. Consequently, the FDIC agreed to pay all legal costs for the plaintiff, History Associates Inc., and to modify specific Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) operating practices. This pivotal FDIC lawsuit over crypto pause letters marks a crucial moment for transparency in the ongoing debate about ‘debanking’ the digital asset industry. FDIC Lawsuit Unpacks the ‘Pause Letters’ Controversy The core of the legal dispute involved so-called ‘pause letters.’ According to court filings and reporting by Decrypt, the FDIC issued these communications to various financial institutions. The letters reportedly urged banks to temporarily stop providing services to cryptocurrency companies. Furthermore, History Associates Inc., a historical research firm, filed the original FOIA request seeking these documents. Notably, the firm acted on behalf of the major cryptocurrency exchange Coinbase. The FDIC’s initial refusal to release the letters prompted the lawsuit, which has now concluded with a clear outcome for greater regulatory transparency. This legal development directly connects to wider allegations of a coordinated effort against the crypto sector. Many industry advocates label this effort ‘Operation Choke Point 2.0.’ The original Operation Choke Point was a controversial Obama-era initiative. That program aimed to discourage banks from servicing industries deemed high-risk, such as payday lenders. Similarly, critics argue that current regulators are using informal pressure—like the disputed pause letters—to achieve similar goals with digital assets. This lawsuit provides the first major legal window into those tactics. The Legal Mechanics and Immediate Outcome The settlement terms are straightforward yet impactful. Primarily, the FDIC will cover all attorney fees and legal costs incurred by History Associates. More importantly, the agency committed to revising certain internal FOIA procedures. These changes should theoretically make it harder to withhold similar documents in the future. While the specific contents of the pause letters remain undisclosed pending their eventual release, the legal precedent is now set. Government agencies must carefully justify withholding documents related to regulatory guidance, especially when such guidance impacts entire industries. Understanding the ‘Operation Choke Point 2.0’ Allegations The term ‘Operation Choke Point 2.0’ is not an official government program. Instead, it is a descriptor used by cryptocurrency proponents, legal scholars, and some lawmakers. They use it to describe a perceived pattern of behavior across multiple federal agencies. The alleged strategy involves using regulatory pressure and supervisory guidance to discourage banks from partnering with crypto firms. This creates a ‘chokepoint’ by severing access to the traditional banking system, which is essential for payroll, transactions, and liquidity. Key agencies often mentioned in these allegations include: The Federal Reserve: For scrutiny on master account applications from crypto-focused banks. The Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC): For rescinding previous guidance that allowed banks to engage with crypto custodians. The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC): For enforcement actions that create legal uncertainty for banking partners. The FDIC’s alleged pause letters fit neatly into this framework. By informally directing banks to ‘pause’ relationships, regulators could sidestep formal rulemaking. This approach lacks public comment periods and judicial review. The recent lawsuit challenges the secrecy of such informal actions, forcing them into the public domain. Historical Context: From Choke Point 1.0 to Crypto Comparing the current situation to the original Operation Choke Point is instructive. Launched in 2013, the first initiative involved the Department of Justice and banking regulators. It sought to cut off banking access to businesses operating in legal but morally scrutinized sectors. The program faced intense criticism for overreach and for punishing legal businesses without due process. It was officially discontinued, but its legacy shapes today’s debates. Comparison: Operation Choke Point vs. Alleged ‘2.0’ Tactics Aspect Operation Choke Point (2013) Alleged ‘Choke Point 2.0’ Tactics Primary Target Payday lenders, firearms sellers, coin dealers Cryptocurrency exchanges, stablecoin issuers, blockchain firms Method DOJ subpoenas & regulatory scrutiny letters FDIC ‘pause letters’, OCC guidance reversals, SEC enforcement Legal Basis Bank fraud & ‘reputation risk’ to banks Consumer protection, anti-money laundering, securities law Transparency Low; revealed through investigations Low; revealed through lawsuits like this FDIC case The key similarity is the use of banking access as a regulatory tool. The key difference lies in the technological and financial complexity of the new target: the cryptocurrency ecosystem. Broader Impacts on Crypto Banking and Regulation The outcome of this FDIC lawsuit carries substantial implications. First, it grants the crypto industry a tangible victory in its quest for regulatory clarity and fair treatment. Access to banking services—known as ‘fiat on-ramps and off-ramps’—is the lifeblood of any financial business. Without it, companies cannot hold customer funds, process payments, or operate efficiently. The debanking of crypto firms creates significant operational hurdles and pushes activity into less regulated or offshore spaces, potentially increasing risk. Second, the case reinforces the importance of FOIA as a tool for corporate and public accountability. By successfully challenging the FDIC, History Associates and Coinbase have set a legal benchmark. Other firms and journalists can now cite this case when seeking similar documents from financial regulators. This could lead to a wave of new information requests, shedding more light on how policies are formed and communicated behind closed doors. Finally, the settlement may influence ongoing congressional debates. Several bills currently in the U.S. House and Senate aim to establish clear rules for crypto markets. Lawmakers critical of regulatory overreach will likely point to this lawsuit as evidence of opaque and potentially unfair tactics. Conversely, regulators may argue that such letters are a necessary, prudent tool for managing emerging risks in a rapidly evolving sector. Expert Perspectives on Regulatory Strategy Legal and financial experts note the strategic importance of the lawsuit’s outcome. “This isn’t just about a few letters,” explains a former federal banking attorney who requested anonymity due to ongoing client work. “It’s about the process. Regulators have broad supervisory powers, but using informal ‘winks and nods’ to shape entire industry relationships tests the limits of that authority. This lawsuit forces that process to become more formalized and transparent, which is better for everyone involved.” Other analysts highlight the risk management perspective. Banks themselves face a dilemma: they must comply with regulator expectations while also seeking profitable business lines in fintech. Ambiguous guidance puts them in a difficult position, potentially leading to overly conservative behavior that stifles innovation. Clear, public rules allow banks to make informed risk assessments and serve compliant crypto businesses legally. Conclusion The resolution of this FDIC lawsuit over crypto pause letters represents a landmark moment for transparency in financial regulation. By compelling the agency to pay costs and amend its FOIA practices, the court has affirmed the public’s right to understand informal regulatory pressures. This case directly illuminates the mechanics behind the alleged ‘Operation Choke Point 2.0’ and the debanking of crypto firms. Moving forward, the released documents will provide critical evidence in the ongoing debate. They will help shape a more open and equitable framework for integrating digital assets with the traditional U.S. banking system. The outcome underscores that even in complex financial regulation, transparency remains a paramount and enforceable principle. FAQs Q1: What exactly are the ‘pause letters’ at the center of the FDIC lawsuit? The ‘pause letters’ are confidential communications the FDIC allegedly sent to certain banks. They urged those institutions to temporarily halt or reconsider providing banking services to cryptocurrency-related businesses. Their exact wording remains undisclosed until the FDIC releases them per the lawsuit settlement. Q2: Who filed the lawsuit against the FDIC, and why? The lawsuit was filed by History Associates Inc., a historical research firm. They filed the suit after the FDIC denied their Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request for the pause letters. History Associates was acting on behalf of the cryptocurrency exchange Coinbase, which sought the documents to understand regulatory pressures affecting its banking partnerships. Q3: What is ‘Operation Choke Point 2.0’? ‘Operation Choke Point 2.0′ is an unofficial term used by critics. It describes an alleged coordinated effort by multiple U.S. financial regulators to restrict cryptocurrency companies’ access to banking services. This is done through informal pressure, guidance revisions, and enforcement actions, rather than through formal, public rulemaking. Q4: What did the FDIC agree to in the lawsuit settlement? The FDIC agreed to two main terms. First, it will pay all legal costs and attorney fees for the plaintiff, History Associates Inc. Second, it will modify specific internal procedures governing how it processes and responds to certain types of FOIA requests, potentially making it easier to obtain similar documents in the future. Q5: How does this lawsuit outcome affect the average cryptocurrency user or company? For crypto companies, the outcome is a positive step toward clearer ‘rules of the road.’ It challenges opaque regulatory pressure that can suddenly cut off essential banking services. For users, greater transparency and stability in crypto-banking relationships can lead to more reliable services, better consumer protection, and a healthier, more compliant industry overall. This post FDIC Lawsuit Loss Exposes Shocking Crypto ‘Pause Letters’ in Major Transparency Victory first appeared on BitcoinWorld .
Bitcoin mining difficulty has plummeted to 125.86 T following a major "miner capitulation.".
Coinbase’s TV spot at the Super Bowl divided opinion online, but the crypto exchange says conversations about it were the point.
Australia has signaled a bold AI ambition, with plans to roll out nearly 6 gigawatts of data-centre capacity worth about A$150 billion ($105 billion), indicating that this year’s installed capacity would be three times as much by 2030, according to a statement from the Commonwealth Bank of Australia (CBA). The region is emerging as a major global hub for artificial intelligence infrastructure, driven by a massive expansion in data centres and record investment commitments that put it among the world’s top destinations for AI-related computing and digital infrastructure. Following this announcement , recent reports highlighted that Australia has solidified its position as a key player in the AI ecosystem, securing the third-largest position after the United States and China in terms of AI investment. With this significant milestone in place, analysts projected that the country’s economic growth would rise substantially, offsetting the current weak growth rate and rising inflation. Australia’s heightened interest in AI sparks hope for the country’s economic growth The Reserve Bank reported that, among developed nations , Australia has the weakest economic growth, expressing concerns about the risk of inflation if it surpasses the bank’s 2% target. In attempts to address this issue, the central bank increased interest rates this year. Regarding this move, Luke Yeaman, the head of Commonwealth Bank’s economics and markets research team, stressed that, “If AI can consistently boost productivity and raise GDP growth by up to 1 percentage point each year, it would significantly enhance economic and market results.” To further emphasize his argument, Yeaman argued that if this were to succeed, AI could boost the country’s growth rate to around 3% in the years to come. Meanwhile, sources noted that a surge in Australia’s AI investment comes just after Michele Bullock, the Governor of the Reserve Bank of Australia, highlighted the importance of boosting productivity growth to stabilize inflation and keep it at lower levels. Considering its advantages, reports highlighted that the government intends to issue a budget by May this year. Consequently, officials noted the heightened pressure to reduce spending and to enact measures to improve productivity. The officials’ statement prompted the country’s Productivity Commission to forecast that labor productivity linked to AI would expand by 0.4 percentage points annually, placing Australia at the Bottom of growth predictions. Firmus intends to initiate the next phase of its Project Southgate While the government forecasts that labor productivity linked to AI would expand, recent reports highlighted that Firmus, the Australian artificial intelligence company, announced a $10 billion debt funding package from the global private equity firm Blackstone and Coatue Management, an American technology-focused investment management firm. With this funding, Firmus intends to initiate the next phase of its Project Southgate. The primary goal of this initiative is to establish AI training and inference infrastructure comprising data centers throughout Australia. Moreover, the company made public its collaboration with CDC Data Centres and Nvidia, an American technology company headquartered in Santa Clara, California. This partnership aims to achieve a capacity of 1.6 gigawatts within three years. John Watson, a senior managing director in Blackstone’s Tactical Opportunities Group, stated, “The tools driving the AI revolution are one of our key investment focuses, and we are thrilled to support Firmus’ ongoing growth.” Claim your free seat in an exclusive crypto trading community - limited to 1,000 members.
Dogecoin’s low acquisition cost and steady holders put the $0.11 liquidity zone firmly in focus.
Bitcoin's Sharpe ratio declined to -10, reaching bear market bottom levels. Darkfost notes that the risk/reward balance has deteriorated. BTC recovered 15%, at 70k$, but Garrett Jin's 5000 BTC inve...
China’s Montage Technology shares surged more than 50% in their Hong Kong trading debut on Monday after a highly oversubscribed share sale that raised HK$7.04 billion for Chinese memory interconnect chipmaker. The shares opened trading at HK$168, rising to an intraday high of HK$171 before settling at about HK$160. Montage Technology reported a turnover of HK$2.32 billion on roughly 14.75 million shares, among the most actively traded stocks by Monday morning. Montage Technology IPO boosts Hong Kong AI chip market Montage Technology manufactures data center memory interface chips that facilitate faster data transfer between memory and processors in artificial intelligence computer networks. The China-based company offered 65.9 million shares in Hong Kong at a maximum offer price of HK$106.89 per share. According to its prospectus, the funds raised will be utilized for operating capital, strategic investments or acquisitions, and commercialization in addition to R&D. The company’s release of the allocation results on Friday revealed that the foreign tranche was more than 37 times oversubscribed, and the retail portion of the offering was more than 700 times oversubscribed. The offering included 17 cornerstone investors, such as UBS Asset Management, Yunfeng Capital, and JPMorgan Asset Management. These investors contributed approximately $450 million to the offering. Winston Ma, an adjunct professor at NYU School of Law and former head of North America for CIC, China’s sovereign wealth fund, stated that the strong lineup of global cornerstone buyers suggests that Chinese AI-related IPOs are attracting institutional investors back to the HKEX market again. He also explained that the U.S sanctions that restricted China’s access to advanced chips like those made by Nvidia were speeding up regulatory and financial backing for China’s domestic semiconductor value chain, which included “middleware” chip designers like Montage. Ma further stated that Montage’s Hong Kong debut highlighted how China’s AI chip ecosystem is progressing “up the stack” from basic components to specialized chips that link processors and memory in data centers. Montage Technology’s listing also comes as Hong Kong recorded its strongest start to the year since 2021. IPOs and second listings raised roughly $5.5 billion in January, the biggest since 2021 when IPOs raised $7.6 billion. Hong Kong reclaims top IPO spot as listings surge The Hong Kong Exchanges and Clearing (HKEX) said in its annual report that Hong Kong was the world’s leading IPO (initial public offering) destination in 2025, with fundraising levels significantly higher than the previous year. HKEX announced that the number of new listings in 2025 reached over 100. According to statistics, the number of new listings increased by 52 percent to 93 in the first 11 months of 2025 from 61 in the same time period the previous year. Initial public offerings raised HK$259.4 billion (about $33.33 billion), a 228 percent increase over the HK$79.1 billion raised the previous year. The total fundraising amounted HK$575 billion, a 240 percent increase over the HK$169 billion raised during the same time last year. China Daily Hong Kong reported that IPO issuers are also becoming more diverse as the bourse accepted listings from businesses based in Kazakhstan, Singapore, Thailand, and the United Arab Emirates last year. The report said that since the HKEX established the Technology Enterprises Channel in collaboration with the Securities and Futures Commission, it has strengthened its support for innovative listings. The report cited that 88 biotech and specialist technology companies are listed on the Hong Kong Stock Exchange following the implementation of Chapters 18A and 18C of the listing rules. Against this backdrop of expanding issuer diversity and regulatory support, PwC said the region’s initial public offering (IPO) market is anticipated to continue growing in 2026, with funds predicted to reach $320 billion to $350 billion. The projection came after a strong 2025 performance of $285.8 billion in funds raised across 119 IPOs. PwC also noted that new-economy enterprises, retail, consumer goods, services, IT, and biotech were the main drivers of IPO growth in 2025, with 55 firms raising $1 billion or more. Sharpen your strategy with mentorship + daily ideas - 30 days free access to our trading program
Citing a 99% drop in gas fees and upcoming Ethereum scaling, the project will now deploy its ENSv2 upgrade directly on Ethereum.