hodler

9 Feb 2026, 05:10

Federal Reserve Confirmation Crisis: Bessent Urges Senate to Proceed with Warsh Hearing Amid Powell Investigation Standoff

BitcoinWorld Federal Reserve Confirmation Crisis: Bessent Urges Senate to Proceed with Warsh Hearing Amid Powell Investigation Standoff WASHINGTON, D.C., March 15, 2025 – A significant political confrontation now threatens the leadership transition at the world’s most powerful central bank. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent has publicly urged the Senate Banking Committee to immediately proceed with the confirmation hearing for Federal Reserve Chair nominee Kevin Warsh. This urgent call comes as Republican Senator Thom Tillis pledges to block the entire confirmation process until a congressional investigation into current Chair Jerome Powell concludes. Consequently, this standoff creates unprecedented uncertainty for U.S. monetary policy at a critical economic juncture. Federal Reserve Confirmation Process Faces Unprecedented Hurdle Secretary Bessent made his position clear during a recent interview with Fox News. He directly addressed Senator Tillis’s blockade strategy. “Senator Tillis himself has described Kevin Warsh as a very strong candidate,” Bessent noted. He then argued that the confirmation hearings should begin while lawmakers await the investigation’s progress. This approach, he suggested, would demonstrate procedural diligence without causing unnecessary delay. The Treasury Department views a timely transition as vital for market stability. However, Senator Tillis remains unwavering in his position. He publicly states he will not cooperate with any confirmation proceedings before the investigation concludes. His primary stated concern is protecting the Federal Reserve’s independence from political pressure. This principle, he argues, outweighs the need for expediency. The investigation into Chair Powell reportedly examines communications and policy decisions made during the 2023-2024 inflation cycle. Republicans hold 13 of the 24 seats on the Senate Banking Committee. A dissenting vote from Tillis would effectively give Democrats the deciding vote on the nominee. The Historical Context of Fed Nominations Political disputes over Federal Reserve leadership are not new, but this particular scenario presents unique complications. Historically, the Senate has confirmed Fed chairs from both parties with substantial bipartisan support. For instance, Jerome Powell received an 84-13 confirmation vote in 2018. The current blockade strategy, tying a nominee’s fate to an investigation of the sitting chair, breaks from established precedent. Experts note this could politicize the nomination process in a lasting way. Analyzing the Key Players and Their Stakes Understanding this impasse requires examining the motivations and backgrounds of the central figures. Kevin Warsh: The nominee is a former Fed Governor (2006-2011) and a visiting fellow at the Hoover Institution. He is known for his research on financial markets and monetary policy. His previous experience provides him with deep institutional knowledge. Senator Thom Tillis: The Republican from North Carolina sits on the Banking Committee. He has been a vocal critic of what he perceives as executive overreach and has emphasized oversight responsibilities. Secretary Scott Bessent: As Treasury Secretary, Bessent acts as the administration’s lead liaison on economic appointments. His push for a hearing reflects the executive branch’s priority for continuity. The table below outlines the immediate procedural implications: Scenario Committee Vote Outcome Likely Senate Floor Result Tillis votes with party 13-11 in favor Confirmation likely Tillis votes against or abstains 12-12 tie or 12-11 against Nomination stalled or fails Hearings proceed without Tillis Unclear procedural path Potential constitutional challenge Potential Impacts on Markets and Monetary Policy Financial markets typically react negatively to uncertainty surrounding central bank leadership. A prolonged vacancy or contested confirmation could influence investor confidence. The Federal Reserve is currently navigating a delicate balance between controlling inflation and supporting employment. Policy clarity from leadership is essential for this task. Analysts warn that a public political fight may undermine the perceived independence of the institution. This perception is a cornerstone of its credibility. Furthermore, international partners and foreign central banks monitor U.S. Fed appointments closely. Leadership stability affects global financial conditions and currency markets. A smooth transition is therefore in the interest of the international economic community. Past episodes of political friction over appointments have led to short-term market volatility. The longer this situation persists, the greater the risk of sustained economic effects. Expert Perspectives on Institutional Integrity Former Fed officials and policy scholars have weighed in on the dilemma. Dr. Sarah Bloom Raskin, a former Fed Governor and Deputy Treasury Secretary, recently commented on the situation. “The Federal Reserve’s authority derives from its operational independence and public trust,” she stated. “Process matters. While oversight is legitimate, the confirmation process should not be used as leverage in unrelated inquiries.” This view highlights the delicate balance between congressional oversight and preserving non-political monetary policy. Legal and Procedural Pathways Forward The Senate Banking Committee has several options, each with different ramifications. Chairman Sherrod Brown could schedule a hearing despite Senator Tillis’s objections, relying on majority support. Alternatively, he could delay until the Powell investigation reaches a conclusion, as Tillis demands. A third path involves negotiating a simultaneous process where hearings proceed while the investigation continues independently. This compromise would require significant bipartisan cooperation. The administration also has tools at its disposal. The President could consider a recess appointment if the Senate remains deadlocked during a break. However, this is a temporary solution and often viewed as confrontational. The White House has not indicated it is considering this route. Most observers believe a political compromise will be necessary to resolve the standoff. The coming weeks will test the Senate’s ability to manage this high-stakes procedural conflict. Conclusion The urgent call from Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent to proceed with the Federal Reserve Chair confirmation hearing underscores a critical moment for U.S. economic governance. The standoff between executive branch priorities and a senator’s demand for completed oversight creates substantial uncertainty. The outcome will set a precedent for how political scrutiny interacts with central bank independence. Ultimately, the resolution of this Federal Reserve confirmation process will signal much about the state of American political institutions and their capacity for functional governance in 2025. The stability of monetary policy depends on a clear and legitimate leadership path. FAQs Q1: Why is Senator Thom Tillis blocking the Fed Chair confirmation hearing? Senator Tillis has pledged to block the confirmation process for nominee Kevin Warsh until a congressional investigation into current Fed Chair Jerome Powell is complete. He cites the need to protect the Federal Reserve’s independence and ensure proper oversight. Q2: What is Kevin Warsh’s background? Kevin Warsh is a former member of the Federal Reserve Board of Governors, serving from 2006 to 2011. He is also a former advisor to President George W. Bush and currently a visiting fellow at the Hoover Institution at Stanford University, focusing on financial markets and monetary policy. Q3: How could this delay impact the economy and financial markets? Prolonged uncertainty over Federal Reserve leadership can lead to market volatility. It may also create ambiguity about future monetary policy direction, potentially affecting investment decisions, interest rates, and the Fed’s ability to respond decisively to economic conditions. Q4: What is the composition of the Senate Banking Committee? The Senate Banking Committee has 24 members. Currently, Republicans hold 13 seats and Democrats hold 11 seats. A dissenting vote from a Republican like Senator Tillis could tip the balance, giving Democrats a decisive influence on the nomination. Q5: Has a Fed Chair nomination ever been blocked like this before? While Fed nominations have faced political opposition and scrutiny, the specific strategy of blocking a nominee pending the investigation of the sitting chair is unprecedented in modern Fed history. It represents a new level of political entanglement in the central bank’s leadership process. This post Federal Reserve Confirmation Crisis: Bessent Urges Senate to Proceed with Warsh Hearing Amid Powell Investigation Standoff first appeared on BitcoinWorld .

9 Feb 2026, 02:03

Now Is The Hour To Buy Circle Internet Group

Summary Circle Internet Group is upgraded to Strong Buy as valuation falls below $60, offering compelling risk/reward for long-term investors. CRCL's profitability and scalability are driven by USDC volume and short-term interest rates, with recent Fed cuts posing near-term headwinds. Despite crypto market weakness and regulatory uncertainty, USDC's market cap remains resilient, and Circle's compliance and transparency give it leadership. Upcoming Q4 earnings will clarify the impact of USDC's growth and rate cuts, while long-term blockchain adoption provides structural tailwinds. Circle Internet Group ( CRCL ) is the stablecoin investment. Three times I've covered it, but I only rated it Buy in December when the valuation finally came below $100. With the recent fall under $60, I am here not only to reaffirm but to upgrade it my second Strong Buy ever. Recap of Previous Theses My previous discussions of Circle have been a rundown of its business model, how it creates earnings, and CRCL's price relative to the growth potential of those earnings. As investments related to crypto and blockchain go, Circle's stablecoin product, primarily USDC ( USDC-USD ), struck me as one of the most practical and economical. Slide from December thesis (Q3 2025 Company Presentation) I was impressed at their ability to scale and run profitably with only short-term interest rates on the dollars they tokenize. Screenshot from December thesis (Q3 2025 Form 10Q) Earnings (which I adjusted for depreciation, asset fluctuations, and tax benefits) annualized to $697.6M. I posited that CRCL would need to grow earnings by 17% annually for their market cap at the time to reflect a P/E of 10 by 2030, which I thought was possible as stablecoin has found more use cases in the aftermath of the GENIUS Act and as Circle's operating leverage demonstrates itself. Assessing Distress in Crypto and Stablecoin Since October 2025, crypto markets have been largely bearish. This is seen in the downward trend of Bitcoin ( BTC-USD ) from its highs in the middle of the year. CRCL's declines have not only followed this but been a bit larger overall. A key turning point was President Trump's Oct. 10 announcement of 100% tariffs on China, which provoked a negative reaction in markets generally and has especially sandbagged crypto since. 6M CRCL & BTC Price Changes (Seeking Alpha) In the past six months, CRCL is down about 66%, compared to BTC's 41%. Declines in BTC likely affected other coins by forcing traders into margin calls that liquidated their other positions, causing those to be sold off too and general bearishness in crypto. For a stock like CRCL to be down, this suggests the market views these things as harmful to the company. Two things that affect Circle's top line: Volume of USDC (and other Circle stablecoins) Short-term interest rates With a larger pile of USD or higher interest rates, their business produces more yield. A decline in either hurts revenue. USDC 6M Market Cap ( CoinMarketCap ) USDC's market cap (the supply of USDC) was $64.8B six months ago. Today it is $71.5B. We see that it generally held around $75B in late 2025. The decline to $70B, some of which has already recovered, only occurred recently. Overall, Circle's yield-bearing pile of USD is intact. The main impact in this period was the Federal Reserve's three consecutive rate cuts of 25 BPS each. This could lower their net revenue as much as 25%, and the impact from distribution costs could actually mean this is lower. These cuts were already known before the end of 2025, however. The market may be eyeballing the exit of Jerome Powell as Fed Chairman in May, with Trump already naming a replacement who seems likely to support further cuts. It's also worth remembering that CRCL's lock-up period after the IPO ended not long ago . Several Form 4s have been filed in 2026, indicating dispositions by insiders. In the context of fears around the crypto market, there is coincidental selling pressure from those looking to realize gains from positions held before the IPO. Clarity Act One area worth its own mention is the Clarity Act currently being debated in Congress. This bill is a follow-up to the GENIUS Act and provides "clarity" about interest rates on stablecoins. It was introduced early in the year, and one draft specifically limits stablecoin issuers in their ability to pay interest, per SA News: "In general — A digital asset service provider may not pay any form of interest or yield (whether in cash, tokens, or other consideration) solely in connection with the holding of a payment stablecoin," the 278-page document said. Activity-based rewards or incentives, including transaction, do not apply to this provision. Many have worried that such a limiting version of the bill would hurt the ability of stablecoin issuers to market their product. While USDC would provide liquidity on the blockchain, a lack of yield offered to customers would make it less appealing compared to a traditional bank account or money market position. Coinbase ( COIN ) CEO Brian Armstrong was critical of the main draft in mid-January, citing the restriction on interest as protecting banks from competition. Coinbase is one of Circle's major distribution partners and owns a modest stake in the stock. While this talk has spooked the market, it's already the case that stablecoin issuers are not allowed to pay interest, so Clarity would simply fail to change this. Circle does not depend on this change to make a profit or grow per se. Outlook and Impacts In my view, the market is fretting over matters that are short-term or marginal in nature. I don't worry about current rate policy, which is only near-term in impact. The fundamental question is whether one believes USDC will become a more prevalent asset in the future or not. Sufficient growth in stablecoins can overwhelm any near-term drop in revenue from rate policy. I previously mentioned industry projections about the growth of stablecoins, but I think there are other interesting trends to observe. One is the broader tokenization opportunity in all asset classes. I recently covered an upcoming SPAC merger ( CEPT ) for Securitize, Inc., which will be SECZ thereafter. It runs and operates an all-purpose tokenization platform. I made a key observation in that thesis that would concern CRCL: GENIUS provides a regulatory framework for stablecoins. Being cash on the blockchain, certainty on stablecoins makes the tokenization of other assets much more reliable and predictable for business purposes. I also rated CEPT a Buy for this opportunity, pointing to early adoption by financial institutions as customers. If we accept that more blockchain-based transactions will occur across asset classes, it follows that stablecoins (the cash in which these trades settle) will also grow in volume. This is a tailwind to Circle's revenue. This is a clear use case that does not depend on BTC whatsoever, and I think USDC's lack of a major collapse in market cap like that of BTC attests to this. Polymarket also announced it was entering a similar distribution partnership with Circle to promote USDC as the native stablecoin on the platform. As one of the largest prediction markets in the world, this is a major endorsement of their product and another demonstrated use case that does not depend on BTC. I continue to believe the CRCL is riding and accumulating long-term tailwinds to grow the base of its pyramid enough that it should overcome cyclical factors posed by rate policy at the Federal Reserve. USDT vs. USDC Market Caps ( CoinMarketCap ) Perhaps their main risk factor remains the competition posed by Tether's USD stablecoin ( USDT-USD ), which leads with a market cap of $185B over USDC's $72B. Circle is winning business because it does more to remain transparent and compliant, being the only one of the two with fully audited financials . Tether's main advantage was being a first mover. Less critically, aggressive cuts under the new Fed Chairman would sharply reduce earnings in the near term and require large growth to offset it. This could reduce the present value of CRCL's future earnings and depress the market cap further. Buyers should expect to hold a long time. Q4 2025 earnings ( scheduled for Feb. 25 ) will be an opportunity to gauge how much the rise of USDC's market cap into $70B benefits earnings, while also assessing the cumulative impact of the three cuts that occurred. Similarly, it will be a chance for management to assess the evolving industry and growth opportunity, whatever happens to rates starting in May. With CRCL at $57 per share, some of the lowest it's been since its IPO, the market cap comes to $14.5B. That's a P/E of about 21, using the annualized earnings of $698M I provided last time. It's a growth multiple, but Circle is growing, and it's been less than a year since GENIUS was passed. I believe management will confirm trends of growing use cases in their guidance later this month. Conclusion CRCL remains early in its growth. It is already profitable, scales well, and isn't burdened by debt. One simply has to bet that the most compliant USD stablecoin issuer will continue to win business and grow as more of finance becomes possible on the blockchain. With a significantly more attractive valuation provided by a cascade of market scares, I believe all the right boxes are checked and upgrade to Strong Buy.

9 Feb 2026, 00:25

Crypto Fear & Greed Index Plummets to 14: Navigating the Chilling ‘Extreme Fear’ Zone

BitcoinWorld Crypto Fear & Greed Index Plummets to 14: Navigating the Chilling ‘Extreme Fear’ Zone Global cryptocurrency markets entered a new week gripped by palpable anxiety, as the widely monitored Crypto Fear & Greed Index registered a sobering score of 14, firmly entrenched in the “Extreme Fear” territory. This critical sentiment gauge, published by data provider Alternative on April 7, 2025, represents a seven-point increase from the previous day’s reading but remains perilously close to zero—the threshold for maximum market pessimism. The index’s stubborn position highlights a period of significant stress and uncertainty for digital asset investors worldwide, prompting deeper analysis into the mechanics and implications of this powerful market barometer. Decoding the Crypto Fear & Greed Index Score of 14 The Crypto Fear & Greed Index serves as a composite thermometer for market psychology. Analysts calculate its value from 0 to 100 using a specific, weighted formula. A score of 14, while up from 7, unequivocally signals extreme fear. The index’s methodology is transparent and multi-faceted, designed to capture both on-chain and off-chain signals. Market volatility and trading volume each contribute 25% to the final score, reflecting raw price action and investor participation. Social media sentiment and survey data each account for 15%, gauging the crowd’s emotional pulse. Finally, Bitcoin’s dominance share of the total crypto market cap and relevant Google search trends each provide a 10% weighting, indicating market structure and public interest levels. This quantitative approach transforms subjective emotion into a tangible metric. Consequently, the current reading provides a data-backed confirmation of the nervous climate. Historically, prolonged periods with scores below 20 have often coincided with market capitulation or consolidation phases. However, they have also frequently preceded major buying opportunities for contrarian investors, a point many analysts emphasize during such downturns. Historical Context and Market Impact of Extreme Fear To understand the gravity of a score of 14, we must examine historical parallels. The index has dipped into “Extreme Fear” during several notable crypto winters and sharp corrections. For instance, it reached single digits during the market trough following the FTX collapse in late 2022 and again during the prolonged bear market of 2018-2019. These periods were characterized by high volatility, negative news cycles, and declining trading volumes—factors clearly present in the current calculation. The persistence of extreme fear directly impacts market behavior. Firstly, it often correlates with decreased liquidity as risk-averse traders move to the sidelines. Secondly, it can amplify sell-offs, as fearful investors rush to exit positions at any price, creating a negative feedback loop. Conversely, this environment typically sees a reduction in speculative “meme coin” mania and leverage, potentially laying a more stable foundation for future growth. The market’s structure often becomes healthier, albeit painfully, during these phases. Index Range Sentiment Label Typical Market Behavior 0-24 Extreme Fear Capitulation, high volatility, low volume 25-49 Fear Caution, consolidation, selective buying 50-74 Greed Growing confidence, increased speculation 75-100 Extreme Greed Euphoria, FOMO, potential market tops Expert Analysis on the Current Sentiment Climate Market strategists point to a confluence of factors sustaining the extreme fear reading. Macroeconomic headwinds, including persistent inflation concerns and hawkish central bank policies, continue to pressure risk assets globally. Within the crypto ecosystem, specific triggers include regulatory uncertainty in key jurisdictions and the maturation of the market post the 2021 bull run. As noted by several blockchain analysts, the current sentiment is not an anomaly but a recurring feature of the asset class’s volatile cycles. Furthermore, the seven-point daily increase to 14, while minor, may indicate initial signs of fear exhaustion. This subtle shift could stem from bargain-hunting by long-term investors or a reduction in panic selling. However, experts universally caution that a single day’s movement does not constitute a trend reversal. They advise monitoring for a sustained climb above the 25 threshold to signal a meaningful shift from “Extreme Fear” to mere “Fear.” The path forward likely depends on broader financial market stability and clear regulatory developments. The Role of Volatility and Social Media in the Index Volatility, a 25% component of the index, has been exceptionally pronounced. Sharp intraday price swings, particularly in Bitcoin and major altcoins, contribute directly to the low score. High volatility in a downtrend typically exacerbates fear, as investors struggle to find stable support levels. Simultaneously, social media analysis (15% of the index) reveals a predominance of negative or anxious commentary across platforms like X (formerly Twitter) and Reddit. The tone of discussion has shifted from price predictions to risk management and survival strategies, a classic hallmark of fear-dominated markets. Key metrics from this sector include: Negative Sentiment Ratio: The proportion of bearish to bullish social posts has widened significantly. Volume of “Fear” Keywords: Mentions of terms like “crash,” “sell,” and “bottom” have spiked. Survey Data: Retail investor surveys show a marked decline in short-term optimism. These digital footprints collectively paint a picture of a cautious and worried community, which the index quantitatively captures. Conclusion The Crypto Fear & Greed Index reading of 14 serves as a stark, data-driven reflection of the prevailing “Extreme Fear” in cryptocurrency markets. This metric, derived from volatility, volume, social sentiment, and search trends, provides invaluable context beyond simple price charts. While historically such depths of pessimism have presented long-term buying opportunities, they also signify periods of significant risk and potential further downside. For investors, the index is a crucial tool for gauging market psychology, reminding them that emotional extremes often mark turning points. Navigating the current landscape requires patience, rigorous risk assessment, and an understanding that market sentiment, as measured by indices like this, is inherently cyclical. FAQs Q1: What does a Crypto Fear & Greed Index score of 14 mean? A score of 14 indicates “Extreme Fear” in the market. The index ranges from 0 (maximum fear) to 100 (maximum greed). This low score suggests investors are highly pessimistic, which often occurs during sharp downturns or periods of high uncertainty. Q2: How is the Crypto Fear & Greed Index calculated? The index uses a weighted formula: volatility (25%), trading volume (25%), social media sentiment (15%), surveys (15%), Bitcoin’s market dominance (10%), and Google search trends (10%). These factors combine to create a single sentiment score. Q3: Has the index been this low before? Yes. The index has entered “Extreme Fear” (below 25) multiple times, notably during the 2018 bear market, the March 2020 COVID crash, and the late 2022 FTX collapse. These periods were followed by significant market recoveries, though timing varied greatly. Q4: Is extreme fear a good time to buy cryptocurrency? Contrarian investors often view extreme fear as a potential buying opportunity, as prices may be undervalued. However, it is not a timing signal. It indicates high risk and potential for further decline. Any investment should be based on personal research and risk tolerance. Q5: How often does the Crypto Fear & Greed Index update? The index updates daily. The data provider, Alternative, typically publishes the new score based on a 24-hour rolling analysis of its component metrics, giving a near real-time view of market sentiment. This post Crypto Fear & Greed Index Plummets to 14: Navigating the Chilling ‘Extreme Fear’ Zone first appeared on BitcoinWorld .

8 Feb 2026, 22:47

Lyn Alden: The Fed is Printing Money, What Will Happen to BTC?

Lyn Alden says the Fed will gradually print money, it won't be dramatic for BTC. Trump's Warsh candidacy shook the market, interest rate cut expectations dropped. BTC rose 15% (70.7k$), strong hold...

8 Feb 2026, 22:44

Anti-US shopping apps see 40,000 daily scans during Greenland crisis

Thousands of Danes grabbed their phones and started scanning grocery store shelves, hunting for American products to avoid after President Donald Trump ramped up his talk about taking Greenland. Two apps built to spot U.S. goods shot up the download charts in late January according to data from market intelligence firm Appfigures. Made O’Meter, created by 53-year-old Copenhagen resident Ian Rosenfeldt, pulled in about 30,000 new users in just three days when tensions hit their peak. That’s out of more than 100,000 total downloads since the app launched last March. Source: Appfigures Another tool called NonUSA crossed the 100,000 download mark in early February. On January 21 alone, its 21-year-old creator Jonas Pipper watched 25,000 people grab the app, with users scanning 526 products in a single minute at one point. Regular bar codes don’t tell you if a product is American or European. “Many people were frustrated and thinking, ‘How do we actually do this in practical terms,'” Rosenfeldt told the Associated Press. His app uses artificial intelligence to scan products and suggest European alternatives. Users can set their preferences, like blocking all U.S.-owned brands or only buying from EU companies. The app claims it’s more than 95% accurate. _*]:min-w-0 gap-3"> From 500 to 40,000 daily scans Made O’Meter was doing about 500 scans a day last summer. On January 23, that number exploded to nearly 40,000. It’s dropped since but still sits around 5,000 daily. The app now has more than 20,000 regular users in Denmark, plus people in Germany, Spain, Italy, and even Venezuela. Trump later backed off his tariff threats after talks with NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte. He said they’d reached a “framework” for a deal about access to Greenland’s minerals and Arctic security. As Cryptopolitan covered at the time, the EU had called emergency meetings and European leaders warned the tariffs would “undermine transatlantic relations.” Few details about Trump’s framework deal have come out since. U.S. and Danish officials started technical talks in late January about Arctic security, but Denmark and Greenland keep saying their sovereignty isn’t up for discussion. Boycott apps won’t put a dent in the U.S. economy Louise Aggerstrøm Hansen, an economist at Danske Bank, told Euronews that only about 1% of Danish food consumption comes directly from the United States. Rosenfeldt understand s hi s app won’t damage the American economy. His hope is different to send a message to grocery stores and encourage more reliance on European producers. “Maybe we can send a signal and people will listen and we can make a change,” he said. Pipper called his app “a weapon in the trade war for consumers.” His numbers show about 46,000 users in Denmark and 10,000 in Germany. Some users told hi m th e app lifted pressure off them. “They feel like the y ki nd of gained the power back in this situation.” The spread to other Nordic countries matters too. Beyond Denmark, NonUSA users include thousands in Norway, Sweden, and Iceland. Threats to one Nordic country can feel like threats to all. Whether larger companies will respond is the bigger question. Individual consumer choices might not move the needle much. But if Danish pension funds, institutional investors, or major retail chains start making decisions based on similar sentiments, the impact grows. AkademikerPension, a Danish pension fund, already sold $100 million in U.S. Treasury bonds in January over the Greenland situation. U.S. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent dismissed it, saying “Denmark’s investments in US Treasury bonds, like Denmark itself, is irrelevant.” That kind of talk might actually encourage more institutions to make symbolic moves. In the end, this isn’t really about apps or boycotts. It’s about what happens when people feel their government can’t protect them from bigger powers. They look for any tool available, even if they know it’s mostly symbolic. As Rosenfeldt put it, Danish citizens “love the American people, but we don’t like the way that the government is treating Europe and Denmark.” Join a premium crypto trading community free for 30 days - normally $100/mo.

8 Feb 2026, 22:15

Address poisoning attacks continue to plague the Ethereum ecosystem

Address poisoning attacks have become a persistent issue on Ethereum, and ironically, they have contributed to the recent record-breaking daily transaction counts. According to ScamSniffer, there has already been a victim of address poisoning this year, and that loss cost $12.25 million. It happened in January when the victim copied the wrong address from their transaction history, not noticing until it was too late. A similar story emerged in December when one user lost a whopping $50 million in the same way. That makes it two victims across two months with a total loss of $62 million. According to a ScamSniffer’s January report, signature phishing also went up, with a total of $6.27M stolen across 4,741 victims in January. The two cases involved a user losing $3.02M and another losing $1.08M and accounted for 65% of all phishing losses. Why address poisoning attacks have become rampant in recent months Address poisoning is a kind of scam that depends heavily on social engineering, where attackers monitor the target’s transaction histories, create lookalike addresses, and then send tiny amounts of ETH, called dust transactions, effectively poisoning the target’s history. What follows is a waiting game until the victim makes a mistake. The most important part of the whole operation, the dust transactions, were too expensive on Ethereum, so those address poisoning attacks were never as common before now. However, in late 2025, Ethereum’s Fusaka upgrade came through, and it improved scalability while reducing the transaction fees, causing gas costs to drop sharply. The upgrade has done many great things for the ecosystem, but it also made these low-value dust transactions economically viable for bad actors at scale for the first time. Address poisoning contributes to daily transaction record on Ethereum As earlier stated, address poisoning attacks depend heavily on dust transactions that the attackers send to poison the target’s history. These dust transactions are a prerequisite to the attack itself and are often numerous, and they are set like traps. But not all of them catch prey. Nevertheless, these dust transfers count as real transactions on-chain, and they have been inflating Ethereum’s metrics. Ethereum daily transaction chart. Source: Etherscan After the Fusaka upgrade, the network saw massive surges in activity that lasted into 2026. Daily transactions hit all-time highs, and active/new addresses spiked dramatically. However, analysts and researchers have pointed out that a substantial portion of the surge is linked to mass address poisoning campaigns rather than organic adoption or usage. The fact that the ETH price barely had a bullish reaction to all these new records further justifies talk of artificial inflation. However, the Ethereum maxis are not nitpicking over where the traffic is coming from. They have celebrated the new records, and the Fusaka upgrade has been widely hailed as a great implementation. Never mind that low-value spam transactions dominated the records or that many of the new active addresses received such qualification because they received tiny stablecoin transfers as their first activity. Claim your free seat in an exclusive crypto trading community - limited to 1,000 members.