hodler

27 May 2026, 13:55

Bitcoin Drops Below $75,000 for First Time in 2025 as Selling Pressure Intensifies

BitcoinWorld Bitcoin Drops Below $75,000 for First Time in 2025 as Selling Pressure Intensifies Bitcoin (BTC) has fallen below the $75,000 threshold for the first time since early 2024, according to data from Bitcoin World market monitoring. As of press time, BTC is trading at $74,986.13 on the Binance USDT market, marking a significant psychological breakdown for the world’s largest cryptocurrency by market capitalization. Market Context and Immediate Triggers The decline below $75,000 comes amid a broader sell-off in digital assets, driven by a combination of macroeconomic headwinds and regulatory uncertainty. Over the past 48 hours, Bitcoin has shed approximately 4.5% of its value, accelerating after breaking through key support levels near $76,500. Analysts point to renewed concerns about interest rate policy from the Federal Reserve, coupled with profit-taking by large holders, as primary catalysts for the move. Data from CoinGlass shows that over $200 million in long positions were liquidated across crypto derivatives exchanges in the last 24 hours, with Bitcoin accounting for nearly half of that total. The cascade of liquidations has amplified selling pressure, creating a feedback loop that pushed prices below the psychologically important $75,000 mark. Investor Sentiment and On-Chain Signals On-chain metrics indicate that short-term holders are offloading coins at a faster pace. The Spent Output Profit Ratio (SOPR) for short-term holders has dipped below 1, suggesting that many recent buyers are now selling at a loss. Meanwhile, long-term holders appear relatively unmoved, with the supply held by addresses that have not moved coins in over 155 days remaining stable. The Crypto Fear & Greed Index, a widely followed sentiment gauge, has fallen to 38, entering the ‘Fear’ zone for the first time in three months. This shift in sentiment could signal further downside risk, though historically, extreme fear readings have sometimes preceded market bottoms. What This Means for Traders and Investors For active traders, the breakdown below $75,000 opens the door to a test of the next major support zone near $72,000, a level that held during a sharp correction in October 2024. A failure to hold that level could see Bitcoin revisiting the $68,000 to $70,000 range. On the upside, BTC must reclaim $76,500 and then $78,000 to stabilize the current downtrend. For longer-term investors, the current price action may present a buying opportunity if they believe the fundamental thesis for Bitcoin remains intact. Factors such as continued institutional adoption via spot ETFs and the upcoming halving cycle in 2028 provide a contrasting narrative to the short-term bearish price action. Conclusion Bitcoin’s fall below $75,000 is a notable event that underscores the persistent volatility in cryptocurrency markets. While the immediate outlook appears bearish, driven by liquidations and macroeconomic uncertainty, the reaction of long-term holders and the potential for institutional accumulation at lower levels will be key factors to watch. As always, market conditions remain fluid, and investors are advised to exercise caution and conduct their own research. FAQs Q1: Why did Bitcoin drop below $75,000? The drop is attributed to a combination of macroeconomic concerns, including Federal Reserve interest rate expectations, and a cascade of long position liquidations that amplified selling pressure after key support levels broke. Q2: Is this a good time to buy Bitcoin? Market timing is uncertain. While some investors see lower prices as a buying opportunity, the short-term trend is bearish. It is important to assess personal risk tolerance and conduct thorough research before making any investment decisions. Q3: What is the next key support level for Bitcoin? The next major support level is near $72,000. If that level fails, Bitcoin could test the $68,000 to $70,000 range. Resistance is now at $76,500 and then $78,000. This post Bitcoin Drops Below $75,000 for First Time in 2025 as Selling Pressure Intensifies first appeared on BitcoinWorld .

27 May 2026, 13:45

Circle and Nium partner to enable USDC-powered cross-border payments

BitcoinWorld Circle and Nium partner to enable USDC-powered cross-border payments Circle Technology Services, a subsidiary of Circle Internet Group, has entered into a partnership with global cross-border payments platform Nium to expand the use of its USDC stablecoin for international settlements. The collaboration will see Nium join the Circle Payments Network (CPN) as a global payout partner, enabling financial institutions on the network to settle transactions in USDC and then disburse funds in local currencies to accounts, wallets, and cards. How the Circle Payments Network integration works The Circle Payments Network is designed to facilitate real-time, low-cost settlement between financial institutions using USDC, a dollar-pegged stablecoin. By adding Nium as a payout partner, the network gains access to Nium’s extensive payout infrastructure, which covers more than 190 countries and supports over 100 currencies. This allows CPN participants to convert USDC settlements into local currencies for final delivery to end users, bridging the gap between blockchain-based settlement and traditional payment rails. For financial institutions, this means they can leverage USDC’s 24/7 settlement capability without needing to build their own local payout connections. Nium handles the conversion and distribution, effectively acting as the on-ramp from digital dollars to local fiat currencies. Why this partnership matters for cross-border payments Cross-border payments have long been characterized by high fees, slow settlement times, and limited transparency. Traditional correspondent banking networks can take days to settle transactions, particularly in emerging markets. Stablecoins like USDC offer a potential alternative by enabling near-instant settlement at any time, including weekends and holidays. The partnership between Circle and Nium directly addresses one of the key friction points in stablecoin-based payments: the ability to convert digital dollars into local currencies that recipients can actually use. Without such payout partnerships, stablecoins remain largely within the crypto ecosystem, limiting their utility for real-world commerce and remittances. Implications for financial institutions and businesses Banks, payment processors, and fintech companies using the Circle Payments Network can now offer faster, cheaper cross-border payment services to their customers. The ability to settle in USDC and pay out in local currencies reduces the need for pre-funded accounts in multiple jurisdictions, lowering operational costs and capital requirements. For businesses that regularly send international payments — such as payroll providers, e-commerce platforms, and remittance services — this could translate into lower fees and faster delivery times. The partnership also opens the door for more innovative use cases, such as programmable payments and automated treasury management. Context and broader industry trends This announcement comes amid a broader push by Circle to expand the utility of USDC beyond cryptocurrency trading. The company has been actively building partnerships with payment networks, neobanks, and financial infrastructure providers to integrate stablecoins into mainstream financial services. Nium, for its part, has been expanding its own network of payout partners and digital asset capabilities. The company previously launched a virtual IBAN product and has been exploring blockchain-based solutions for cross-border payments. This partnership aligns with Nium’s strategy to offer more efficient settlement options to its institutional clients. The move also reflects a growing trend among traditional payment companies to incorporate stablecoins into their infrastructure. PayPal, Visa, and Mastercard have all announced initiatives involving stablecoins in recent years, signaling that digital dollars are becoming a more accepted part of the global payments landscape. Conclusion The partnership between Circle and Nium represents a practical step toward making stablecoins a viable tool for everyday cross-border payments. By connecting USDC settlement with Nium’s global payout network, the collaboration addresses a critical infrastructure gap and provides financial institutions with a more efficient alternative to traditional correspondent banking. As regulatory frameworks around stablecoins continue to evolve, partnerships like this will likely play a key role in determining how quickly digital dollars gain mainstream adoption. FAQs Q1: What is the Circle Payments Network? The Circle Payments Network (CPN) is a platform that enables financial institutions to settle transactions in USDC, a dollar-pegged stablecoin, in real-time and around the clock. It is designed to reduce the cost and time associated with traditional cross-border settlement systems. Q2: How does Nium’s role as a payout partner work? Nium acts as a global payout partner by converting USDC settlements received via CPN into local currencies and distributing them to end recipients through bank accounts, mobile wallets, or cards. This allows CPN participants to offer cross-border payments without needing their own payout infrastructure in every country. Q3: What are the benefits for businesses using this service? Businesses can expect faster settlement times, lower transaction costs, and greater transparency compared to traditional cross-border payment methods. The ability to settle in USDC also eliminates the need for pre-funded accounts in multiple currencies, reducing working capital requirements. This post Circle and Nium partner to enable USDC-powered cross-border payments first appeared on BitcoinWorld .

27 May 2026, 13:41

Tokenized Funds on Ethereum: Why ETH Still Leads the RWA Infrastructure Race

Tokenized funds have moved from pilot projects to production-grade products used by treasurers, family offices, and crypto-native DAOs. Among competing blockchains, Ethereum continues to be the default venue for issuance, custody, and settlement—especially when institutions are involved. This piece maps the tokenized fund landscape, explains why Ethereum still anchors the real-world asset (RWA) stack, and outlines how both issuers and investors can approach the market with clear-headed due diligence. We draw on public documentation from issuers and standards bodies. Market conditions and regulatory interpretations evolve, so treat this as guidance—not investment advice. PointDetails Ethereum’s edgeSecurity, compliance-ready standards, deep custody support, and the largest pool of onchain liquidity and developer tooling. Live case studiesBlackRock’s BUIDL on Ethereum mainnet; Ondo’s tokenized Treasuries; multiple providers using EVM-compatible networks for distribution. Standards that matterIdentity-gated tokens (e.g., ERC-3643), tokenized vaults (ERC-4626), and robust oracle/custody integrations reduce operational risk. Risks are layeredLegal transfer restrictions, liquidity fragmentation, smart contract bugs, and bridging or custody risks require controls. Issuer playbookDesign the fund wrapper, choose a transfer agent and standard, set KYC/KYB flows, integrate custody/oracles, plan secondary liquidity and L2 strategy. What tokenized funds are and why they matter Tokenized funds wrap traditional exposures—like short-term U.S. Treasuries, corporate bonds, or index products—into blockchain-native representations. Shares are recorded onchain, often as permissioned tokens that enforce compliance rules. The investment strategy typically remains off-chain and familiar to regulators; what changes is the registry, transfer mechanics, and settlement. For allocators, tokenized funds can compress operational timelines (T+0 settlement and 24/7 access), provide programmatic controls (allowlisting, transfer caps), and integrate with onchain treasury tooling. For issuers, they open new distribution channels and potentially reduce administrative overhead by using a single, auditable cap table on a public ledger. The design space spans: Fully onchain transfer books via a registered transfer agent. Permissioned ERC-style tokens that represent shares, sometimes with embedded transfer restrictions. Tokenized vaults where deposits map to off-chain assets and yield flows back to token holders. Ethereum’s real‑world asset stack explained Ethereum’s lead in tokenized funds isn’t about one killer app. It’s the compounding effect of standards, infrastructure partners, and institutional muscle memory built since 2017. Standards that encode compliance and composability ERC‑20 ubiquity: Baseline fungible token standard that every wallet, exchange, and custody provider supports. ERC‑3643 (formerly T‑REX): A framework for permissioned tokens that enforce identity checks and transfer rules at the token contract level ( erc3643.org ). ERC‑1400 family: Security token standard proposals focused on partitions and transfer restrictions. ERC‑4626: Tokenized vaults standard used for funds or vault-like products, improving integrations across DeFi ( EIP‑4626 ). These standards reduce bespoke code, accelerate audits, and make permissioned assets interoperable with analytics, reporting, and DeFi infrastructure where policies allow. Identity, transfer agents, and oracles Transfer agents and tokenization platforms like Securitize and Tokeny help issuers manage cap tables, KYC/KYB, and corporate actions on Ethereum. Oracles such as Chainlink Proof of Reserve are used by some issuers to attest to off-chain collateralization or to gate redemptions during anomalies. Custody and institutional connectivity Qualified custodians and institutional wallets— Fireblocks , Anchorage Digital , Coinbase Custody , and others—offer Ethereum-native connectivity, policy engines, and transaction approvals. Permissioned DeFi venues such as Aave’s institutional pools (commonly referred to as Aave Arc) and institutional credit platforms like Maple Finance and Clearpool Institutional are centered on Ethereum, giving tokenized funds controlled avenues for liquidity or financing. Pro tip: When evaluating a tokenized fund’s stack, ask for the token standard, the transfer agent (if any), oracle dependencies, and the custodian integration. These four items reveal most of the operational risk surface. Case studies: BlackRock, Ondo, and beyond The most credible way to understand why Ethereum leads is to look at what large issuers have shipped. BlackRock’s BUIDL on Ethereum In March 2024, BlackRock launched the BlackRock USD Institutional Digital Liquidity Fund (“BUIDL”) on Ethereum, with Securitize acting as the tokenization partner and transfer agent. Shares are represented onchain and distributed to qualified investors; the strategy invests in cash, U.S. Treasury bills, and repurchase agreements per public materials. BUIDL set a benchmark: an SEC-registered transfer agent, an Ethereum-native share registry, and institution-grade custody integrations out of the gate. Why it matters: it validated Ethereum mainnet for a flagship fund, and it showcased how permissioned tokens can coexist with public-chain settlement. Ondo’s tokenized Treasuries and yield tokens Ondo Finance issues tokens such as OUSG—offering exposure to U.S. Treasuries via an onchain share representation—primarily on Ethereum. Ondo also operates yield-bearing instruments and bridging to other EVM chains where permitted. The team publishes public documentation on structures, accreditation requirements, and redemption mechanics ( Ondo docs ). Other notable issuers Franklin Templeton OnChain U.S. Government Money Fund: One of the earliest tokenized share registers, originally using Stellar and later adding Polygon (an EVM-compatible chain) for broader interoperability. The fund demonstrates that EVM compatibility is often prioritized even when mainnet isn’t used for cost reasons ( Franklin Templeton ). Backed Finance: Issues tokenized exposures to public securities on Ethereum-compatible networks, with identity gating for eligible investors ( Backed ). Short-term T‑bill tokens: Providers like Matrixdock’s STBT and OpenEden’s TBILL operate on Ethereum with permissioned transfers and attestations ( Matrixdock STBT ; OpenEden TBILL ). Across these examples, even when secondary distribution occurs on alternative EVM chains, Ethereum remains the reference environment for custody, audits, analytics, and settlement liquidity. Market context: Independent dashboards and research outlets tracked tokenized U.S. Treasury products surpassing the billion‑dollar mark by 2024, reflecting real allocator demand for onchain cash equivalents. Exact figures vary by methodology, but the direction of travel is clear. Why ETH still leads despite competition Competing chains have compelling features. Yet, when the asset is a regulated fund share, Ethereum’s strengths line up with what issuers, transfer agents, and auditors need most. Security track record: Ethereum mainnet has the most battle‑tested consensus security among smart contract platforms, with the deepest bug‑bounty and auditor ecosystem. Institutional toolchain: Custodians, wallets with approval policies, and compliance platforms built their first and fullest integrations around Ethereum. Standards and mindshare: ERC‑series standards are well understood by regulators and service providers. This shortens legal and technical review cycles for new funds. Liquidity and distribution: Exchanges, OTC desks, and permissioned DeFi venues that matter for RWAs are predominantly Ethereum-first, easing secondary market formation for eligible investors. EVM gravity: Even when issuers choose lower‑cost networks, they frequently pick EVM‑compatible chains so they can reuse Ethereum tooling, auditors, and custody setups. Pro tip: Ask a prospective issuer where their primary cap table lives and which chain their transfer agent services by default. If it isn’t Ethereum or EVM, expect longer integration timelines with custodians and analytics vendors. Where other chains compete—and win Ethereum’s lead doesn’t mean monoculture. Several networks add genuine value for specific RWA use cases: Solana: High throughput and low fees benefit high‑frequency settlement and retail distribution. Some tokenized assets and payment rails prefer Solana for UX reasons. Avalanche: Subnets and institutional partnerships have been used for asset‑backed securities and bespoke issuance environments, balancing public settlement with configurable governance. Stellar: Longstanding asset‑issuance features and stable payments infrastructure made it attractive for early tokenized funds and fiat onchain rails. Permissioned or enterprise chains: For private placements or internal bank rails, permissioned chains offer privacy and policy control, with bridges to public networks for distribution. Multichain strategies are becoming common: keep the canonical share registry on Ethereum, then mirror or wrap on EVM L2s or alternative L1s for cost‑efficient distribution—subject to compliance and transfer‑restriction logic. DimensionEthereumAlt L1/L2 Security & audit familiarityHighest, longest track recordImproving, varies by chain Custody & wallet supportDeepest integration setGrowing but spottier Compliance toolingMature ERC standards, transfer agentsCase‑by‑case, fewer providers Fees & throughputHigher on L1; mitigated by L2sOften lower, better UX for retail DeFi connectivityRichest permissioned + public venuesSelective integrations Implementation playbook for issuers If you are evaluating a tokenized fund launch on Ethereum, structure the project like any regulated product—with an extra layer of onchain controls. Define the wrapper and jurisdiction: Money market fund, private credit note, or feeder vehicle? Choose a domicile where transfer‑agent and onchain record‑keeping are accepted. Select a transfer agent/tokenization partner: Platforms like Securitize or Tokeny can run KYC/KYB, manage cap tables, and implement transfer restrictions on Ethereum. Choose the token standard: ERC‑3643 or a security‑token framework for permissioned transfers; ERC‑4626 if a vault abstraction fits. Keep the code minimal and auditable. Design identity and permissions: Build allowlists for jurisdictions, investor types (retail vs qualified), and per‑address transfer limits. Map out emergency pause and redemption circuits. Integrate custody and wallets: Ensure qualified custodians used by your target LPs support your token’s standard and controls. Test MPC policy flows and whitelisting. Build oracle and attestation hooks: Use oracles (e.g., Proof of Reserve) if collateral attestations are critical. Establish procedures for stale data, downtime, and administrator overrides. Plan secondary liquidity: For eligible investors, consider permissioned pools, OTC arrangements, or listings in compliant venues. Document settlement and NAV strike policies. Decide on L2 or multichain: Gas‑sensitive distribution can occur on EVM L2s or sidechains, but keep the canonical registry and controls synchronized with Ethereum. Audit and monitor: Commission independent smart‑contract audits; set up onchain monitoring for supply, transfer events, and admin actions. Publish transparency dashboards. Pro tip: Draft a Chain Operations Manual that auditors can read: upgrade policy, key ceremonies, admin roles, pause conditions, and incident response. Treat it like an SRE playbook for finance. Risk lens for investors and treasurers Tokenized funds are still funds. The blockchain doesn’t remove core risks; it redistributes them across new layers. Legal and transfer restrictions: Many tokens are only for accredited or institutional investors. Transfers may be blocked to non‑allowlisted addresses; understand lockups and redemption windows. Smart contract risk: Even battle‑tested standards need careful implementation. Read audit reports and monitor for upgrades or admin key changes. Custody and key management: Using self‑custody for permissioned assets can create operational dead‑ends if allowlisting or redemptions require custodian attestations. Map the full redemption path. Oracle and data dependencies: NAV calculations, collateral attestation, or circuit‑breakers may hinge on third‑party data. Ask how failures are handled. Liquidity: Secondary markets for regulated fund shares can be thin. Don’t assume stablecoins‑like depth; test partial fills and slippage in realistic sizes. Bridging and multichain risks: Wrapped representations can introduce bridge risk and governance complexity. If you must bridge, prefer native issuer deployments on each chain over third‑party wraps. Regulatory change: Guidance evolves. Track updates from securities regulators and how the issuer adapts transfer logic as rules shift. Metrics to watch in the next phase To separate substance from headlines, focus on indicators that reflect durable adoption rather than hype. Onchain AUM and holders: Growth in unique allowlisted holders and onchain fund shares outstanding, not just TVL snapshots. Redemption throughput: Average and worst‑case redemption times; proportion of redemptions settled within stated SLAs. Custodian coverage: Number of qualified custodians that can hold and transfer the token seamlessly for clients. Audit transparency: Frequency of contract audits, attestations, and live monitoring dashboards. DeFi interoperability (permissioned): Availability of compliant venues for repo‑like financing or collateralization, with clear risk controls. Standards convergence: Adoption of ERC‑3643/4626 or similar frameworks across major issuers, reducing fragmentation. Public data hubs that track RWAs—such as rwa.xyz , research from 21.co , and category pages on DefiLlama —can help triangulate trends. Methodologies differ, so compare multiple sources. If you want level‑headed coverage of tokenization and onchain finance, Crypto Daily follows new filings, launches, and audit disclosures without the hype. Read more at Crypto Daily . Frequently Asked Questions Are tokenized funds the same as stablecoins? No. Stablecoins are typically claims on cash or cash‑equivalents with the goal of price stability at par. Tokenized funds are securities or fund shares with their own prospectuses, eligibility rules, and NAV that can move with rates and underlying assets. Why do many tokenized funds restrict transfers? Because securities laws require that sales and transfers comply with investor eligibility, jurisdictional rules, and lockup periods. Permissioned token standards on Ethereum can enforce these checks at the token level. Does using an L2 change the regulatory status? No. The legal status follows the fund structure and offering documents, not the chain. L2s can lower costs and improve UX, but the issuer must ensure the same transfer controls and record‑keeping integrity extend from Ethereum L1 to any L2 deployment. What happens if an oracle goes down? Well‑designed funds include circuit‑breakers and administrator procedures for stale data or oracle outages. Ask for documented failover plans and how redemptions are handled during incidents. Can tokenized fund shares be used as DeFi collateral? Sometimes, in permissioned venues or with strict allowlisting. General‑purpose public DeFi is usually off‑limits for regulated fund shares due to transfer restrictions and suitability rules. How do I verify a tokenized fund is legitimate? Check the issuer’s legal entity, offering documents, transfer agent registration, smart‑contract addresses from official websites, audit reports, and custodian integrations. Confirm eligibility before sending funds. Is Ethereum the only viable chain for RWAs? No, but it remains the most widely supported for institutional tooling and custody. Many issuers choose Ethereum as the canonical registry while using EVM‑compatible networks for distribution when cost and UX matter. Disclaimer: This article is provided for informational purposes only. It is not offered or intended to be used as legal, tax, investment, financial, or other advice.

27 May 2026, 13:30

'Price Is King': Peter Brandt Says Markets Are Never Wrong in Bitcoin Take

Legendary Trader Peter Brandt reiterates long held principle in technical analysis in relation to Bitcoin price as crypto community anticipates next move.

27 May 2026, 13:30

XRP MVRV Hits Lowest Level Since 2020 As Traders Sell Into Fear

XRP traders are sitting on deep short-term losses, with Santiment Intelligence saying the token’s 30-day MVRV has fallen to its lowest level since December 2020. The on-chain analytics firm framed the move as an “extreme undervalued zone” after months of selling pressure pushed recent buyers heavily underwater. The chart shared by Santiment tracks XRP Ledger’s price alongside its 30-day and 365-day MVRV ratios on Sanbase. It shows XRP’s 30-day MVRV at roughly minus 47%, while the 365-day reading also sits deeply negative at around minus 36%. Santiment’s visual marks the current area as an “opportunity” zone, contrasting it with prior elevated MVRV phases labeled as sell-risk territory. XRP Is In Extreme Undervalued Zone Santiment said the data suggests the average XRP trader active over the past month is now down sharply, a level that historically has coincided with periods of intense capitulation. Related Reading: XRP Crowd Fear Deepens As Santiment Points To Possible Rebound “The average XRP trader that has been active in the past 30 days is down a whopping -47% with many selling at the bottom,” Santiment wrote. “Historically, MVRV’s average trading returns will always average out to 0%, making this current time an extreme undervalued zone for XRP. The chart shows that XRP’s 30-day MVRV has now fallen to its lowest level since December, 2020, suggesting that fear and frustration among traders have reached rare extremes that have historically preceded strong rebounds.” MVRV, or market value to realized value, is commonly used by on-chain analysts to estimate whether holders are sitting on unrealized profits or losses. In Santiment’s framing, deeply negative short-term MVRV readings indicate that recent market participants have largely been washed out, reducing the amount of marginal selling pressure from traders who bought near local highs. Related Reading: XRP’s Utility Narrative Extends Beyond Conventional Market Cap Metrics That matters because XRP’s recent drawdown followed a strong rally in late 2024 and early 2025, according to Santiment. The firm said many traders entered near local tops before momentum cooled, leaving short-term holders exposed as repeated selloffs dragged the asset lower. The result is a market structure in which average recent buyers are no longer merely underwater, but deeply so. Santiment also tied the current setup to broader XRP narratives that remain active despite the retracement. The firm pointed to continued optimism among longer-term investors around regulatory progress, ETF speculation and Ripple’s adoption story, while noting that the token has lost more than half its market value since last summer. “Despite the major price retracement that has seen XRP lose over half its market value since last summer, patient investors still have optimism surrounding regulatory progress, ETF speculation, and Ripple’s long-term adoption narrative,” Santiment said. “XRP rallied aggressively in late 2024 and early 2025, which left many traders buying near local tops before momentum cooled off. But since then, repeated selloffs have pushed many short-term holders deeply underwater.” The key question is whether the negative MVRV reading marks exhaustion or simply reflects the severity of the downtrend. Santiment did not present the metric as a standalone timing signal. Instead, it argued that historically depressed MVRV levels tend to appear when retail traders have largely capitulated, creating conditions in which relatively modest positive news can have an outsized effect. “The deeply negative MVRV zone that we’re seeing for XRP now tends to appear when retail traders have largely given up, creating conditions where even small positive catalysts can trigger strong recoveries,” Santiment wrote. “While weak MVRV readings alone do not guarantee a reversal, they often signal that the majority of panic selling has already occurred and downside risk becomes more limited compared to potential upside.” At press time, XRP traded at $1.33. Featured image created with DALL.E, chart from TradingView.com

27 May 2026, 13:30

Bitcoin ETFs Lose $333M as HYPE and XRP Funds Continue Attracting Inflows

Crypto ETF flows were mixed on Tuesday, May 26, with bitcoin and ether ETFs losing a combined $368.75 million as both ETFs extended their outflow streaks. Altcoin products softened the blow, led by $20.45 million into HYPE ETFs and $1.55 million into XRP ETFs, while solana ETFs saw no trading activity. HYPE ETFs Pull $20M