hodler

4 Feb 2026, 18:30

Bitnomial launches first US-regulated Tezos futures, allowing retail exposure to XTZ

The listing follows Bitnomial’s January launch of Aptos futures, as the exchange continues expanding US-regulated derivatives beyond Bitcoin and Ether.

4 Feb 2026, 18:30

Jeffrey Epstein focused mostly on tech stocks

Newly released documents have revealed Jeffrey Epstein’s investments that contributed to his net worth of nearly $600 million at the time of his death. In-house trader and former JPMorgan private banker Paul Barrett served as the manager of his assets from 2017 to 2019. At the time of his death in 2019, Jeffrey Epstein was worth approximately $600 million. The millionaire was a self-proclaimed financial advisor to billionaires, to whom he offered investment, estate, and tax planning services. The then-millionaire banked his wealth with JPMorgan. Paul Barrett, who was a long-serving private banker at JPMorgan, took on the role of Jeffrey Epstein’s main coverage banker for years, even after Epstein pleaded guilty to sex-offense charges in 2008. JPMorgan later dropped Epstein as a client in 2013 due to reputational risk. However, Barrett continued to engage with him privately and later left JPM to be Epstein’s manager. “I left a great career at JPM to work with you We made a lot of money working together over the years…” Barrett wrote to Epstein later on. Jeffrey Epstein focused mostly on tech stocks In 2017, Barrett proposed creating a New York-based family office to manage Epstein’s money directly. He founded Alpha Group Capital, a multi-family office that traded stocks, bonds, derivatives, foreign exchange, and IPOs on Epstein’s behalf. Under the advisory agreement, Barrett was granted trading authority across asset classes with defined position limits and was set to earn roughly $500,000 per year. He later claimed a two-year deal worth about $1.1 million. In an email chain the following year, a senior banker noted that “Paul Barrett manages money for Jeffrey Epstein” and trades “across asset classes” . Epstein was focused on technology stocks and had owned a large stake in Apple for several years, the banker added. His portfolio also had shares in Apollo Global Management, a firm closely linked to Epstein through its co-founder Leon Black. In October 2017, Barrett told Epstein that Alpha Group held $8.4 million in stock, with gains of about $3.4 million. Barrett also traded currency options, credit derivatives, interest-rate swaps, and bonds, executing trades primarily through Deutsche Bank, where he had limited power of attorney over several Epstein-linked accounts. Barrett pitched trade ideas to Epstein, such as a 2018 proposal to buy $3mn of bonds in the heavily indebted French grocer Casino. In some instances, Epstein suggested trades to Barrett that he then executed. For instance, in June 2018, he requested to buy 25,000 shares apiece of online car dealership Carvana and Canadian plane manufacturer Bombardier. Besides stock markets, Epstein invested in crypto. As reported by Cryptopolitan, Epstein put $3 million into Coinbase in December 2014. The deal came through connections with Brock Pierce, who helped create Tether, and his investment company, Blockchain Capital. Barrett winds down Epstein-linked firm to join Citigroup Paul Barrett later acknowledged that profits fell short of expectations. He reported gains of roughly $126,000 early on, about $150,000 in 2018, and around $315,000 between October 2017 and September 2018. “I walked away from all my JPM stock and now my annual compensation is reduced by 66% until I can sign more clients,” Barrett wrote. These underwhelming results appeared to strain the relationship, with Epstein becoming increasingly unresponsive. Barrett continued to operate on Epstein’s behalf in early 2019. The trader sent a $29,000 invoice for a “monthly management fee” to the financier’s longtime accountant, Richard Kahn, in May 2019. The partnership effectively unraveled by late 2018, though records suggest Barrett continued operating on Epstein’s behalf into early 2019. Shortly afterward, Barrett accepted a senior role at Citigroup. Barrett terminated the SEC registration for Alpha Group the following month, weeks after Epstein died in federal prison while awaiting trial on sex trafficking charges. In its final statement to the SEC in January 2019, Alpha Group disclosed that it managed $252 million on behalf of 25 high-net-worth individuals. Citi later claimed it only became aware of Barrett’s deep involvement with Epstein shortly before terminating him in 2023 due to reputational risk. Claim your free seat in an exclusive crypto trading community - limited to 1,000 members.

4 Feb 2026, 17:55

Crypto Futures Liquidations: Staggering $116 Million Wiped Out in Volatile Hour

BitcoinWorld Crypto Futures Liquidations: Staggering $116 Million Wiped Out in Volatile Hour Global cryptocurrency markets experienced a dramatic surge in volatility today, resulting in a staggering $116 million worth of futures contracts liquidated within a single hour. This intense activity highlights the persistent risks within leveraged digital asset trading. Major exchanges worldwide reported this significant liquidation event, which contributed to a 24-hour total exceeding $879 million. Consequently, traders face substantial losses during this turbulent period. Crypto Futures Liquidations Signal Market Turbulence Futures liquidations represent forced closures of leveraged positions when traders cannot meet margin requirements. Exchanges automatically execute these liquidations to prevent further losses. The recent $116 million hourly wipeout primarily affected long positions betting on price increases. Market data reveals Bitcoin and Ethereum contracts dominated the liquidation figures. This event follows a pattern of increased volatility during quarterly expiries. Historical context shows similar liquidation clusters often precede major price movements. For instance, the March 2024 cycle saw comparable hourly figures. Analysts track these metrics as indicators of market leverage saturation. The current data suggests excessive bullish positioning met unexpected selling pressure. Transitioning to broader impacts, this volatility affects overall market stability. Understanding Leveraged Trading Mechanics Cryptocurrency futures allow traders to amplify positions using borrowed funds. Common leverage ratios range from 5x to 100x across different platforms. However, higher leverage increases liquidation risks exponentially. Margin calls occur when positions approach critical thresholds. Exchanges then automatically sell assets to repay borrowed funds. This process creates cascading effects during rapid price declines. Liquidation Price: The specific price triggering automatic position closure Margin Ratio: The collateral percentage required to maintain open positions Funding Rates: Periodic payments between long and short position holders Mark Price: The reference price exchanges use for liquidation calculations Recent platform updates have improved liquidation mechanisms to reduce market impact. Despite these improvements, sudden volatility still triggers massive position closures. The $879 million 24-hour total demonstrates how quickly losses accumulate. Market participants must understand these mechanics to navigate turbulent conditions effectively. Expert Analysis of Current Market Conditions Market analysts attribute the liquidations to several converging factors. First, overleveraged long positions created fragile market conditions. Second, macroeconomic announcements triggered risk-off sentiment across financial markets. Third, large institutional sell orders executed simultaneously across multiple exchanges. Fourth, options expiry events typically increase volatility during these periods. Data from analytics platforms shows liquidation distributions across exchanges. Binance handled approximately 40% of the total liquidations. OKX and Bybit accounted for another 35% collectively. Remaining liquidations occurred across smaller derivatives platforms. The concentration on major exchanges suggests widespread trader participation rather than isolated incidents. Recent Major Liquidation Events Comparison Date Hourly Liquidations 24-Hour Total Primary Trigger Current Event $116 million $879 million Leverage unwinding March 2024 $98 million $750 million Options expiry January 2024 $85 million $600 million ETF approval volatility November 2023 $105 million $800 million Exchange incidents Market Impact and Trader Psychology Significant liquidation events influence market psychology substantially. First, forced selling creates additional downward pressure on prices. Second, surviving traders often reduce leverage, decreasing market liquidity. Third, fear spreads through trading communities, potentially triggering further selloffs. Fourth, institutional players may exploit these conditions through strategic positioning. The $879 million 24-hour liquidation total represents one of 2025’s largest events. This scale suggests many traders underestimated volatility risks. Market structure analysis reveals most liquidations occurred within narrow price bands. Consequently, these clustered liquidations amplified price movements beyond typical ranges. Exchange systems generally handled the volume without major technical issues. Regulatory bodies monitor such events for systemic risk assessment. Recent frameworks require better risk disclosure from derivatives platforms. However, retail traders still face substantial challenges understanding complex products. Educational initiatives have increased but cannot eliminate all risks. Market participants must implement robust risk management strategies constantly. Historical Patterns and Future Implications Historical data reveals liquidation clusters often mark local price extremes. The current $116 million hourly event may signal capitulation before stabilization. Previous cycles show similar patterns preceding consolidation periods. However, each event possesses unique characteristics requiring careful analysis. Market fundamentals ultimately determine longer-term trajectories. Technology improvements have made liquidation processes more efficient recently. Isolated liquidations now create less market impact than previous years. Despite these advances, simultaneous large liquidations still disrupt orderly trading. The cryptocurrency market’s 24/7 nature compounds these challenges significantly. Global participants experience continuous exposure to volatility risks. Risk Management Strategies for Traders Professional traders employ multiple strategies to mitigate liquidation risks. First, position sizing remains crucial for managing leverage exposure. Second, stop-loss orders provide predefined exit points before liquidation thresholds. Third, portfolio diversification across assets reduces correlation risks. Fourth, monitoring funding rates helps anticipate market sentiment shifts. Advanced traders use hedging techniques across spot and derivatives markets. These approaches protect against unexpected volatility spikes. However, complex strategies require sophisticated understanding and monitoring. Retail traders should prioritize simpler risk management approaches. Education about liquidation mechanics represents the first essential step. Lower Leverage: Reducing position size decreases liquidation probability Multiple Exits: Staggered take-profit levels lock in gains progressively Correlation Awareness: Understanding how assets move together during stress Liquidity Monitoring: Tracking order book depth before entering positions Exchange improvements continue enhancing user protection features. Isolated margin modes now prevent cross-position contamination. Insurance funds cover some liquidation gaps during extreme volatility. Despite these developments, personal responsibility remains paramount for traders. The recent $116 million event demonstrates how quickly conditions can change. Conclusion The $116 million crypto futures liquidations within one hour underscore market volatility’s persistent reality. These events highlight the risks inherent in leveraged cryptocurrency trading. Market participants must understand liquidation mechanics and implement robust risk management. The $879 million 24-hour total demonstrates how quickly conditions can deteriorate. While technology improvements continue, personal responsibility remains essential for navigating these volatile markets successfully. FAQs Q1: What triggers futures liquidations in cryptocurrency markets? Exchanges automatically liquidate positions when traders’ collateral falls below maintenance margins. This occurs during rapid price movements against leveraged positions. Q2: How do liquidations affect overall market prices? Forced selling from liquidations creates additional downward pressure, potentially triggering cascading effects as multiple positions hit liquidation thresholds simultaneously. Q3: Which cryptocurrencies experienced the most liquidations recently? Bitcoin and Ethereum derivatives typically dominate liquidation statistics due to their high market capitalization and extensive derivatives trading volumes. Q4: Can traders prevent position liquidations? Traders can add collateral before hitting liquidation prices or close positions manually. Using lower leverage and setting stop-loss orders also reduces liquidation risks. Q5: How do exchanges handle liquidations during extreme volatility? Major exchanges use sophisticated risk engines, insurance funds, and partial liquidation systems to manage these events while maintaining market stability. This post Crypto Futures Liquidations: Staggering $116 Million Wiped Out in Volatile Hour first appeared on BitcoinWorld .

4 Feb 2026, 17:30

Bitcoin Quantum Panic Flares As Nic Carter And Developer Matt Corallo Clash

A fresh bout of “quantum panic” broke out across Bitcoin X on Tuesday after Castle Island’s Nic Carter and longtime Bitcoin developer Matt Corallo sparred over whether the ecosystem is treating post-quantum security as an urgent protocol priority or a speculative distraction. The exchange landed on a familiar Bitcoin fault line: decentralized development culture versus the market’s appetite for visible coordination and timelines. The flare-up began with a prompt from Kellan Grenier, who said he wished a “Tier 1 custodian” would partner with Castle Island to “spin up a Quantum Resistance BTC dev tiger team,” arguing there’s a “building wall of worry” that needs to be addressed “head on by reputable forces.” Corallo shot back that prominent Bitcoin developers have been “hard at work on QC for a while,” rejecting the premise that the space is asleep at the wheel. Post-Quantum Bitcoin Plan Debate Heats Up Carter disagreed sharply, arguing that scattered individual efforts don’t address the core bottleneck in Bitcoin upgrades: social consensus among the small set of developers and institutions who typically “set pace” for changes that actually ship and get adopted. He pointed to Bitcoin’s historical upgrade cadence, saying the last two major upgrades took “7–8 years from first proposal to meaningful adoption on chain,” and added that the only named Bitcoin Improvement Proposal he cited as “pertaining to quantum,” BIP360 , “has not been co-signed by any major dev,” describing it as “only a first of many, many steps that need to be made.” Carter’s central claim was that Bitcoin can’t afford to wait for cryptographically relevant quantum computers to be demonstrably real before mobilizing, because the migration burden is asymmetric and slow. “And no, you cannot just ‘wait until CRQCs are real’ to act,” he wrote. “You need to act with a 5–10 year lead time. So if you think QCs might exist in 2035, you need to start acting now.” He framed the risk in operational terms: custodians, exchanges, and individual holders would need to rotate keys across the entire network within a finite window or face catastrophic loss. He repeatedly linked to his essays arguing quantum timelines are accelerating and that Bitcoin developers should treat the threat proactively. Corallo rejected both the tone and the factual framing, accusing Carter of manufacturing fear and ignoring ongoing institutional work. “Man you seriously need to stop talking out of your ass,” Corallo wrote, disputing the characterization of post-quantum work as “minuscule” and “scattered.” He argued that “the top two Bitcoin developer institutions (Blockstream Research and Chaincode) each [have] several people working hard on what a post-quantum Bitcoin upgrade should look like,” and said he has not heard influential developers dismiss quantum as “only driven by investors” or “hype.” Sleepwalking Or FUD? The argument also rewound to 2021 debates around Taproot . Carter claimed quantum concerns were raised then and dismissed, calling the risk “far more urgent since.” Corallo countered that Carter was misrepresenting the earlier discussion: “The concern that was dismissed is that taproot made it materially worse, not that there was no risk and that there would never be any risk,” he wrote, adding that he still believes that narrower claim is correct. As the thread escalated, Carter argued that Bitcoin’s culture of obscured influence and informal governance makes accountability difficult even when the stakes are existential . “There has been turnover in core dev, there has been a deliberate attempt to disguise who is a core dev for liability reasons, and because the most influential bitcoin devs try to keep their importance obscure,” he wrote, suggesting that outsiders can’t easily verify where “consensus” actually sits. Corallo’s rebuttal was that the work exists, even if it doesn’t present as a public campaign. “That is what it looks like when devs take a problem seriously — research into available options, new cryptographic primitives that are better for Bitcoin than available standard PQC options,” he wrote, arguing that absence of conference-stage messaging is not evidence of inactivity. A key technical disagreement surfaced late in the exchange: whether post-quantum safety would require essentially every user to migrate . After Carter told another developer it was “a lot more complicated than a simple patch” because “every user individually” would need to migrate “in a finite period of time,” Corallo responded: “No it doesn’t. If you have a wallet derived from a seedphrase, that is actually fine (assuming unsafe spend paths are disabled).” Christine D. Kim, founder of Protocol Watch, jumped in to argue that Carter’s comparisons to councils and roadmaps in other ecosystems miss Bitcoin’s structure. Bitcoin “isn’t a company,” she wrote, and post-quantum discussions already occur through the usual venues — “the mailing list, IRC meetings, delving bitcoin”, adding that what Carter cited elsewhere can be “marketing… it’s just more centralized.” At press time, BTC traded at $76,268.

4 Feb 2026, 17:24

Attention Binance Users: Massive Malware Dataset Exposes 420,000 Accounts

A trove of 149 million stolen credentials, including login details for 420,000 Binance accounts, was discovered circulating among cybercriminals this week. The findings highlight a shift in crypto theft toward long-term malware infections that steal data directly from users’ devices, often long before any funds are moved. The Scale of the Threat According to an alert posted on February 4 by security firm Web3 Antivirus, the dataset was compiled from information-stealing malware installed on victim devices. Beyond exchange logins, the stolen data included passwords, private keys, API keys, and browser session tokens for email, social, and financial platforms. The firm noted that these “infostealers” capture data that can later be used for account takeovers and fund theft, emphasizing that prevention requires early detection at the device level since by the time suspicious activity appears on-chain, it is often too late. Furthermore, in a separate series of posts, Web3 Antivirus detailed how malicious AI skills on platforms like ClawHub are being used to steal crypto data. Per the security firm, these fraudulent skills, posing as wallet tools or trading bots, install information-stealing malware that can remain dormant until a victim’s crypto balance grows or specific actions are taken. This vulnerability represents a supply-chain risk that moves upstream “from wallets to the tools people trust to manage them.” A Persistent Challenge for Users and Platforms The gravity of losses resulting from crypto theft cannot be understated. A recent report from PeckShield noted that scams and hacks drained over $4.04 billion in 2025, with scams alone jumping 64% year-over-year. The firm observed a move toward targeting centralized exchanges and large organizations, which accounted for 75% of stolen funds in 2025. Meanwhile, Web3 Antivirus put the volume of 2025’s illicit crypto activity at approximately $158 billion, up from $64 billion in 2024. While the on-chain security provider partly attributed the increase to better tracking and more state-linked activity, the figures show that even small success rates for thieves can result in large losses at scale. The recent data thefts highlighted a gap between user and platform protection, with the company stating, “Scams don’t succeed because users ignore advice; they succeed because risk is only surfaced after execution is already possible.” The firm argued that platforms, which can see transaction approvals and behavioral patterns before users do, sit at “the last real control point” for preventing theft. One of the more common attack vectors is wallet drainers, which Web3 Antivirus stated had gotten worse, with 15,530 suspicious approvals across 11,908 wallets leading to $4.25 million in losses in January. These drainers usually enter through malicious transaction approvals, making pre-signature detection extremely important. The post Attention Binance Users: Massive Malware Dataset Exposes 420,000 Accounts appeared first on CryptoPotato .

4 Feb 2026, 17:20

Trend Research ETH Sale: Strategic Whale Moves $21.2 Million to Binance in Calculated Liquidation

BitcoinWorld Trend Research ETH Sale: Strategic Whale Moves $21.2 Million to Binance in Calculated Liquidation In a significant cryptocurrency market movement, blockchain analytics reveal Trend Research executed a substantial Ethereum transaction, depositing 10,000 ETH to Binance for a presumed sale valued at approximately $21.2 million. This strategic move follows closely behind the firm’s withdrawal of $30 million in USDT from the same exchange, reportedly for loan repayment purposes. Consequently, these coordinated actions highlight sophisticated portfolio management by institutional players in the volatile digital asset space. Market analysts now scrutinize the potential implications for Ethereum’s price stability and broader market sentiment. Trend Research ETH Sale: Analyzing the $21.2 Million Transaction Blockchain monitoring entity ai_9684xtpa first detected the transaction, noting the deposit of 10,000 ETH to a Binance wallet. The Ethereum blockchain’s transparent ledger confirms this movement. At prevailing market rates, this deposit equates to roughly $21.2 million. Typically, such direct deposits to major exchange wallets signal an intent to sell, converting crypto assets into stablecoins or fiat currency. This sale represents a notable liquidity event, especially considering the firm’s preceding activity. Trend Research initiated this sequence by withdrawing 30 million USDT from Binance just fifteen minutes prior. The firm likely used these funds to settle an outstanding loan obligation. Many institutional crypto investors utilize lending protocols or over-the-counter desks for leverage. Therefore, repaying debt often precedes or follows large asset sales to manage balance sheets. This two-step process demonstrates a clear financial strategy rather than a panic-driven sell-off. Context of Institutional Ethereum Movements Large-scale ETH transactions by entities like Trend Research warrant close examination. The firm maintains a reputation for strategic, data-driven investments. Their recent activity coincides with a period of relative consolidation for Ethereum’s price. Notably, other major holders have not mirrored this sale with similar volume. Market data suggests this is an isolated rebalancing act. However, the sheer size of the transaction commands attention from retail and institutional traders alike. Mechanics and Impact of Major Crypto Whale Transactions Whale transactions, involving transfers worth millions, directly influence market liquidity and price discovery. When a known entity like Trend Research moves assets, it creates observable on-chain signals. Analysts use these signals to gauge market sentiment and potential price pressure. The immediate market impact often depends on the execution method. A market sell order of 10,000 ETH could create temporary downward pressure. Alternatively, an over-the-counter (OTC) deal would minimize public market disruption. Exchange Deposit: Moving ETH to Binance typically precedes a sale on the open market or via the exchange’s OTC desk. Loan Repayment Cycle: The prior USDT withdrawal indicates active debt management, a common practice for leveraged positions. Market Sentiment: Such sales can be interpreted as bearish, but context is crucial—it may simply represent profit-taking or portfolio reallocation. Liquidity Effect: Large sell orders test market depth, potentially leading to increased volatility in the short term. Historical data shows that single transactions of this magnitude rarely dictate long-term trends. Instead, they often catalyze short-term reactions. The Ethereum network currently processes thousands of transactions per second. Therefore, one entity’s activity, while significant, operates within a vast, global market. The key for observers is to distinguish between strategic portfolio management and a fundamental loss of confidence in the asset. Expert Analysis on Debt Repayment Strategies Financial experts specializing in cryptocurrency emphasize the sophistication of this maneuver. Repaying a $30 million loan before or after a large sale mitigates counterparty risk and interest costs. This approach reflects mature treasury management. It contrasts sharply with the impulsive trading sometimes seen in retail markets. Trend Research appears to prioritize financial stability, using stablecoins like USDT as a strategic buffer between volatile crypto holdings and fiat obligations. Ethereum Market Dynamics and Whale Influence in 2025 The Ethereum ecosystem in 2025 continues to evolve with layer-2 scaling and broader institutional adoption. Whale activity remains a critical metric for analysts. Entities like Trend Research often act on proprietary research, making their moves a subject of intense study. The current macroeconomic climate, including interest rates and regulatory developments, also influences these decisions. A sale of this size could reflect a strategic shift in asset allocation rather than a negative outlook on Ethereum’s technology. Comparative data from analytics firms like Glassnode and Nansen provides context. The following table illustrates typical outcomes following large ETH exchange inflows: Transaction Size Range Typical Time to Sell Average Price Impact Common Motivation 1,000 – 5,000 ETH 2-6 hours -0.5% to -1.5% Profit-taking, Rebalancing 5,000 – 15,000 ETH 6-24 hours -1.0% to -3.0% Loan Repayment, Institutional Reallocation 15,000+ ETH OTC or Multi-day Minimal (if OTC) Corporate Treasury, Strategic Exit This framework suggests the Trend Research sale falls into a common institutional reallocation pattern. The prior loan repayment strongly supports this classification. Market watchers should monitor follow-on activity. A return to accumulating ETH at lower prices would signal a classic “sell high, buy back lower” strategy. Conversely, prolonged absence from buying may indicate a more cautious stance. Conclusion The presumed Trend Research ETH sale of 10,000 tokens, coordinated with a $30 million USDT loan repayment, exemplifies advanced cryptocurrency portfolio management. This event underscores the sophisticated strategies institutional players employ in digital asset markets. While the immediate sale may introduce modest selling pressure, the transaction primarily reflects responsible financial stewardship. The Ethereum market’s depth and resilience likely will absorb this movement without significant long-term distortion. Ultimately, this activity provides a real-world case study in blockchain transparency, allowing all market participants to observe and learn from the actions of major holders like Trend Research. FAQs Q1: Who is Trend Research and why is their transaction important? Trend Research is a recognized institutional actor in the cryptocurrency space. Their large-scale transactions are important because they provide insight into sophisticated market strategies and can influence short-term sentiment and liquidity due to the sheer volume of assets moved. Q2: Does selling 10,000 ETH mean Trend Research is bearish on Ethereum? Not necessarily. A single sale, especially when paired with a loan repayment, often indicates portfolio rebalancing or specific treasury needs rather than a fundamental bearish outlook. It is a tactical move, not always a strategic shift. Q3: How can the public see these transactions? All Ethereum transactions are recorded on the public blockchain. Analytics platforms and blockchain explorers like Etherscan allow anyone to view wallet addresses and transaction histories, providing transparency for major movements. Q4: What is the difference between selling on an exchange and an OTC deal? Selling on an exchange involves placing orders on the public order book, which can affect the market price. An Over-The-Counter (OTC) deal is a private negotiation between two parties, often used for large blocks to minimize market impact. Q5: Should retail investors worry when a whale sells? Retail investors should consider context. A single sale is one data point. Informed decisions require analyzing broader trends, network fundamentals, and multiple metrics rather than reacting to any single transaction, no matter how large. This post Trend Research ETH Sale: Strategic Whale Moves $21.2 Million to Binance in Calculated Liquidation first appeared on BitcoinWorld .