hodler

26 Mar 2026, 12:05

Russia to obligate export firms to convert crypto proceeds into rubles.

The finance ministry in Moscow has made it clear it may soon obligate Russian companies to convert their cryptocurrency revenues into local fiat. The department also announced that the long-awaited legislation to regulate the country’s crypto market will be filed with the parliament next week. The bill must be passed by the summer, with Russia’s first legal cryptocurrency transactions expected to take place as early as this year. Minfin eyes return of Russian crypto earnings from abroad The Russian Ministry of Finance is considering ways to repatriate cryptocurrency received by firms engaged in foreign economic activities. It has just supported proposals to expand the rules requiring companies to sell their foreign currency earnings for Russian rubles to cover crypto revenues. A regulation mandating the repatriation and sale of foreign fiat expires in May, and the Minfin wants it renewed, Deputy Finance Minister Ivan Chebeskov told Russian media. Speaking to reporters at the State Duma, the lower house of parliament, the high-ranking government official confirmed this week: “Our position has always been that it makes sense to extend this decree, and to keep it in effect.” Quoted by the Interfax news agency, he also stressed that the mechanism allows Russia’s financial intelligence body, Rosfinmonitoring, to keep a close eye on such flows. Asked whether it’s also reasonable to widen its scope and include cryptocurrency transactions, the role of which has been growing in cross-border settlements under sanctions, Chebeskov remarked: “It’s quite possible … there’s definitely some logic to it.” The decree was issued in October 2023 to ensure stable exchange rates for the Russian ruble and sustain the country’s financial market. It was mainly focused on companies exporting products from the fuel and energy sector, metallurgy, the chemical and forestry industries, as well as grain farming. They were initially required to deposit no less than 40% of the foreign currency received into accounts with authorized banks and sell at least 90% of it on the domestic market. In mid-August 2025, the Russian government lowered these thresholds, but the head of the Minfin’s Financial Policy Department, Alexey Yakovlev, stated in September these could be revised, if needed. The finance ministry has been a strong proponent of the decree, repeatedly highlighting its positive impact on the forex market. “We observed a stabilization of the ruble exchange rate, meaning the mechanism demonstrated its effectiveness,” Yakovlev said at the time. Russia to regulate its crypto market this spring Meanwhile, the Ministry of Finance also announced that a draft law designed to regulate Russia’s crypto market will be filed within days. Speaking at Crypto Summit , Russia’s main cryptocurrency event held March 25 – 26, Alexey Yakovlev revealed: “A government meeting is expected, and the bill will be submitted to the State Duma next week.” The legislation has been developed in collaboration with the Central Bank of Russia (CBR) and is based on its regulatory concept released in December 2025. The monetary authority wants to see it adopted during the spring session of the house, said Ekaterina Lozgacheva, director of the bank’s Financial Market Strategy Department. That means Russia should have a comprehensive framework for digital assets in place by July 1, 2026, at the latest, as indicated in earlier statements by its representatives. Quoted by Interfax, Lozgacheva also emphasized: “By the end of the year, the first legal [crypto] transactions will be possible.” She added that the CBR is prepared to issue all necessary additional regulations in the second half of 2026 to give market participants the clear rules they need. The law will introduce a “relatively simple” licensing regime for crypto exchanges, Lozgacheva unveiled, and these will be required to comply with anti-money laundering regulations. Crypto transactions will be processed by traditional financial market players, too, such as stock exchanges, brokers, and trustees under their existing licenses. Crypto depositories will have to obtain a separate license as their activity is associated with specific management requirements due to cybersecurity and information risks. Bank of Russia’s policy document envisages recognizing cryptocurrencies and stablecoins as “monetary assets” that can be bought and sold, but may not be used for payments. Besides qualified investors, ordinary Russians will be granted access to major digital currencies like Bitcoin, although their purchases will be limited to 300,000 rubles a year (less than $4,000). If you're reading this, you’re already ahead. Stay there with our newsletter .

26 Mar 2026, 12:01

BTC Price Stuck in Tight $68K–$71K Consolidation: Upward or Downward Breakout Ahead? (March 26 Update)

The Bitcoin price has been stuck in a sideways consolidation for the last three days, since breaking out of a falling wedge. Will the current trading pattern send the price down to the bottom of the bear flag, or can the measured move out of the falling wedge still take the $BTC price towards the top of the bear flag? Bearish head and shoulders about to cancel out bullish falling wedge? Source: TradingView The above short-term time frame chart reveals that a battle of patterns is playing out. When the $BTC price broke out of the falling wedge , the measured move was to the top of the green arrow, to which level the price can still go. However, there is also the possibility of a smaller M pattern playing out, which if it breaks to the downside, could take the price to the very bottom of the bear flag. Looking out a bit further, if the price does rise again from the bottom of the flag, or even if it doesn’t, a far bigger head and shoulders pattern is looming ominously. The extent of the measured move to the downside from this pattern is to around $58,600. The major horizontal support at $69,000 is once again going to be critical, but not far below this at $67,800 is the ‘point of control’ of the Volume Profile Visible Range indicator (VPVR) . This is the level at which most trading activity occurs, so the bulls will need to defend this line at all cost. Daily indicators starting to break down Source: TradingView Moving out into the daily time frame, things do not look any better. The horizontal resistance at $71,300 proved to be too tough this time around for the bulls, and a rejection looks to be taking shape from this level. There is some good support below, as already mentioned, so we are not at the end of the line just yet. Be that as it may, the Stochastic RSI indicators look to be crossing back down, and worse still, the RSI indicator has fallen out of the channel , has confirmed the breakdown, and appears to be making its way down from there. Bearish macro trend in firm control Source: TradingView Finally, observing the $BTC price in the weekly time frame, one can note that the bearish macro trend looks to be in total control. There is perhaps the possibility of one more spurt to the top of the bear flag , but it is perhaps looking more likely that the price may start to break down from here. At time of going to press, the $BTC price is down nearly 3%. Every time there is some sort of rally, it always seems to be suppressed before there is the merest chance of a breakout. Yes, the price has made several higher highs and higher lows, but in the grand scheme of things this is just painting the picture of a bear flag, and the price is probably reaching the end of that flag. At the bottom of the chart, the Stochastic RSI is still looking good, and the RSI shows the tiniest hint of the indicator line above the downtrend , but if the negative price action continues into the end of this week, next week could witness the first signs of a major breakdown. $60,000 looks like a strong support line, bolstered by the 200-week SMA, but the bearish momentum of the price falling out of the bear flag could be enough to break this support. Look out below if it does. 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.

26 Mar 2026, 11:10

Nvidia Faces Landmark Class-Action Lawsuit Over Concealed Crypto Mining Revenue

BitcoinWorld Nvidia Faces Landmark Class-Action Lawsuit Over Concealed Crypto Mining Revenue A U.S. federal court in Northern California has certified a landmark class-action lawsuit against technology giant Nvidia, a ruling that could expose the company to significant financial liability. The lawsuit, filed by a group of investors, alleges Nvidia deliberately concealed the massive extent of its revenue derived from cryptocurrency mining during the historic crypto boom of 2017 and 2018. This pivotal decision, reported by Cointelegraph, allows thousands of investors who purchased Nvidia stock between August 10, 2017, and November 15, 2018, to collectively pursue their claims. The court’s certification represents a critical procedural victory for the plaintiffs, moving the case from allegations toward a potential trial on the merits. Nvidia Class-Action Lawsuit Centers on Revenue Disclosure The core allegation in the Nvidia class-action lawsuit hinges on securities fraud. Investors contend that Nvidia’s leadership knowingly misled the market about the true driver of its surging Graphics Processing Unit (GPU) sales. During quarterly earnings calls and in official Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) filings, company executives reportedly attributed the unprecedented demand primarily to its core gaming segment. Consequently, they downplayed the substantial role of cryptocurrency miners, who were purchasing consumer-grade GPUs in bulk to build mining rigs for currencies like Ethereum. This alleged omission, the plaintiffs argue, painted a misleading picture of the company’s sustainable growth and exposed shareholders to undisclosed risk. When the cryptocurrency market corrected sharply in late 2018, the bubble in GPU demand popped almost instantly. Nvidia subsequently reported a significant revenue shortfall and a large inventory of unsold GPUs, causing its stock price to plummet. The investors now claim this crash was a direct result of the company’s earlier failure to properly disclose its reliance on the volatile crypto-mining sector. The certified class period specifically covers the time when these optimistic statements were made and ends just after the company corrected its financial guidance, acknowledging the crypto-related downturn. The 2017-2018 Crypto Boom and GPU Market Dynamics To understand the lawsuit’s context, one must examine the unique market forces of 2017-2018. Cryptocurrency prices, particularly Ethereum, skyrocketed, making GPU-based mining highly profitable. This created an insatiable secondary market for GPUs, far beyond what gamers or professional users typically demanded. Retail prices for cards often doubled or tripled, and supply vanished from shelves. Nvidia’s financial performance during this period was spectacular, with record-breaking revenues quarter after quarter. The central legal question is whether the company had a duty to specifically quantify and warn investors that this extraordinary growth was tethered to an asset class known for extreme volatility, rather than the more stable gaming industry. Legal Precedents and Securities Law Implications The court’s ruling to certify the class is a procedural step, not a judgment on the lawsuit’s ultimate outcome. However, it signals that the judge found the plaintiffs’ claims substantial enough to proceed as a group. This case touches on established securities law principles regarding material misrepresentation and omission . For a statement to be materially misleading, it must significantly alter the total mix of information available to a reasonable investor. The plaintiffs will need to prove that Nvidia’s statements about demand drivers were false or misleading and that the company acted with scienter , a legal term meaning intent or knowledge of wrongdoing. Similar cases have involved companies in emerging tech sectors where distinguishing between sustainable and speculative demand is challenging. The defense will likely argue that Nvidia discussed cryptocurrency as a demand factor, that the market was broadly aware of the mining boom, and that predicting the precise timing and severity of a market correction was impossible. The outcome could set a precedent for how publicly traded companies in the tech sector disclose revenue from nascent, high-risk adjacent markets. Timeline of Key Events in Nvidia Crypto Mining Lawsuit Date Event Aug 2017 – Nov 2018 Class Period: Investors who bought NVDA stock in this window are included. Late 2018 Cryptocurrency market crash leads to plummeting GPU demand and NVDA inventory glut. November 2018 Nvidia revises Q4 revenue guidance down by $500M, citing weak crypto demand. 2020 Initial lawsuit filed by investors in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. 2025 Federal Judge certifies the investor class, allowing the case to proceed collectively. Potential Financial and Reputational Impact on Nvidia The financial stakes of the Nvidia class-action lawsuit are potentially enormous. While the exact damages are unspecified, they would be calculated based on the stock’s decline following the November 2018 guidance correction, applied to all shares traded during the class period. Beyond the direct financial penalty, a loss at trial could damage Nvidia’s reputation for transparency with investors. Furthermore, the discovery process could force the public release of internal documents, emails, and financial analyses showing how company executives internally discussed the crypto mining revenue. This case also arrives as Nvidia has again become central to another technological paradigm shift: artificial intelligence. Its current dominance in AI chips makes its historical disclosure practices a point of heightened scrutiny for future investors. Broader Industry Context and Investor Protection This lawsuit extends beyond Nvidia alone. It highlights a recurring tension in fast-moving technology sectors: how companies report revenue from explosive but unpredictable trends. The case underscores the importance of forward-looking statements and risk factor disclosures in SEC filings. For the broader tech and crypto industries, the court’s final decision may clarify the disclosure standards required when a company’s products become essential to a volatile secondary market. Regulatory bodies like the SEC may also view the outcome as informative for future guidance on corporate reporting related to cryptocurrency exposure. For retail and institutional investors, the case reinforces the critical need for due diligence. It demonstrates how understanding a company’s underlying demand drivers, not just its headline revenue numbers, is essential for assessing risk. The allegations suggest that even industry-leading, blue-chip tech firms can face significant legal peril if the market perceives a failure to adequately warn about concentration risk in a speculative area. Conclusion The certification of this Nvidia class-action lawsuit marks a serious escalation in a long-running legal battle over crypto mining revenue disclosure. While Nvidia has not been found liable, it must now defend its past statements in a consolidated trial representing a large class of investors. The proceedings will scrutinize the fine line between corporate optimism and material misrepresentation during a period of unprecedented market disruption. The final verdict will carry weight not only for Nvidia’s balance sheet but also for establishing clearer disclosure benchmarks at the intersection of traditional technology manufacturing and the volatile world of cryptocurrency. This case serves as a stark reminder of the legal and financial obligations public companies bear when communicating with the investment community. FAQs Q1: What exactly did Nvidia allegedly do wrong? Investors allege that during earnings calls and SEC filings from 2017-2018, Nvidia executives misleadingly attributed soaring GPU sales primarily to the gaming market, while knowingly downplaying the massive, volatile demand from cryptocurrency miners. This allegedly concealed the true risk to the company’s revenue stream. Q2: What does “certifying a class-action” lawsuit mean? Certification means a federal judge has ruled that the claims of the individual investors are sufficiently similar to be tried together as a single group, or “class.” This allows all affected investors to be represented collectively, making the lawsuit more efficient and powerful. Q3: Has Nvidia been found guilty of securities fraud? No. The court’s certification decision is a procedural step, not a ruling on the merits of the case. It simply allows the lawsuit to proceed to the next stages, which include discovery and potentially a trial where Nvidia will present its defense. Q4: Who is included in the class of investors? The class includes all persons and entities who purchased or otherwise acquired Nvidia (NVDA) common stock between August 10, 2017, and November 15, 2018, and who were allegedly damaged by the company’s statements. Q5: What are the potential consequences for Nvidia if it loses? Nvidia could be required to pay significant financial damages to the investor class, calculated based on losses from the stock price drop. A loss could also lead to reputational harm and influence how the company and the broader tech industry disclose exposure to volatile adjacent markets in the future. This post Nvidia Faces Landmark Class-Action Lawsuit Over Concealed Crypto Mining Revenue first appeared on BitcoinWorld .

26 Mar 2026, 10:30

Cardano Founder Says This Midnight Deal Could Bring Billions In TVL

Cardano founder Charles Hoskinson says Midnight’s new partnership with Monument Bank could become one of the biggest commercial wins yet for the privacy-focused network, after the UK lender unveiled plans to put retail customer deposits on a public blockchain. In a post on X, the Cardano founder wrote : “This is one of the largest deals we’ve ever done and could bring hundreds of millions to billions of TVL to the Midnight ecosystem. I’m extremely proud of Fahmi Syed and his team at the Midnight Foundation for the hard work they put into the negotiations with Monument. Midnight is the home of Web 2.5 ventures.” Why The Cardano So Enthusiastic Monument, a UK digital bank serving the mass-affluent segment, said it plans to become the first UK bank to tokenize retail customer deposits on a public blockchain, with Midnight providing the underlying network and privacy-preserving architecture. The first phase is concrete. Monument said it is targeting up to £250 million in tokenized deposits, with each token representing a one-to-one claim on funds held at the bank. Those deposits are intended to remain interest-bearing, redeemable in pounds sterling and protected within the existing regulatory framework, including the Financial Services Compensation Scheme. Monument says it currently serves more than 100,000 clients and has over £7 billion in savings deposits, giving the project a real balance-sheet base rather than a purely experimental starting point. That setup is central to Midnight’s pitch . The tokenized deposits are not being framed as a new synthetic asset or an offshore wrapper, but as a blockchain mirror of traditional bank deposits. According to the release, transaction data on Midnight will be shielded and visible only to Monument and its customers, an architecture aimed at preserving the confidentiality banks need while still using public-chain rails. Midnight Foundation President Fahmi Syed used the deal to make a broader point about institutional blockchain adoption. Financial firms, he said, have struggled with the tension between openness and banking-grade confidentiality. Midnight, in his words, is designed to “represent assets on public networks” while protecting “sensitive financial information,” and Monument’s rollout is meant to show that regulated products can move on-chain without stepping outside existing compliance and consumer-protection frameworks. The longer-term roadmap explains why Hoskinson is talking in terms of billions rather than the initial £250 million. Phase two would expand beyond tokenized deposits into tokenized investment products delivered through the Monument app, including access to private equity, commodity funds and structured products. Phase three would introduce Lombard-style lending, allowing clients to borrow against investments without selling them. Monument also said its technology affiliate aims to extend tokenized-deposit functionality to other institutions through its Banking-as-a-Service platform. In that sense, Hoskinson’s TVL projection reads less like a claim about day-one inflows and more like a statement about the size of the pipeline if the rollout expands as planned. The hard figure disclosed so far is £250 million in the first phase. But if Monument can move from deposit tokenization into investment products, lending and third-party enablement, Midnight would be competing for balance-sheet-linked activity that is structurally different from mercenary DeFi liquidity . For Midnight, the partnership is also a live test of its core thesis : that privacy-enhancing infrastructure can make public blockchains usable for regulated finance. If Monument executes beyond the pilot, the deal would give the Cardano-linked network something many crypto projects still lack, a banking use case tied to real deposits, real customers and a product roadmap built to stay inside the guardrails of traditional finance. At press time, Cardano traded at $0.26.

26 Mar 2026, 09:45

EF mandate signing triggers backlash within Ethereum Foundation

The Ethereum Foundation is causing a rift in the community with its recently published EF mandate document. The document outlines the future of Ethereum, but has caused controversy through its language and concepts. The Ethereum Foundation has been vocal about its active engagement with the future of Ethereum. Recently, the Foundation started tracking its progress toward making Ethereum quantum-resistant . The Foundation has also set out to make Ethereum the backbone of on-chain finance, with the ambitious goal of carrying $1T in assets. Its other objectives, related to privacy, self-sovereignty, and security, are causing controversy. Members of the Ethereum Foundation asked to sign document or be fired All members of the Ethereum Foundation were asked to sign the Mandate document or be fired effective immediately. This has sparked a discussion on the overwhelming pressure for alignment and agreement, to the potential detriment of building real Ethereum upgrades. The document focuses on diverse points, but leans toward censorship resistance as a core value. “ Censorship Resistance: No actor can selectively exclude valid use or break functionality, including by gaining durable, non-competitive control of any critical mechanisms,” states the Mandate. The Ethereum Foundation will support unstoppable work, with no centralized intermediaries or kill switches. This approach may clash with the current practice, where necessity has led to the decision to freeze some assets and offer at least some modicum of control when carrying significant value within protocols. Mandate document causes rift between the Milady community and Go Ethereum Some of the controversy around the Ethereum Foundation mandate stems from the clash between the Milady community and Go Ethereum. Miladies, as they are known on social media, use the NFT collection as their avatars and rally around their own vision of Ethereum. Ethereum’s co-founder, Vitalik Buterin, is also a self-professed Milady, signaling loyalty to the online community. Milady NFT owners have been one of the main supporters for adding almost esoteric language to Ethereum’s objectives and development. At the same time, Go Ethereum, one of the major node clients , has spoken for a more pragmatic approach to running the network. [x] milady’s core product is larp with the goal of growing the cult, it’s entirely inward-facing. the entirety of the lore is self-referential and the gap between self-ascribed importance and actual influence is vast. the philosophy hasn’t traveled any serious distance [..] https://t.co/RyBUX7BULZ — ً (@lightclients) March 25, 2026 The recent EF mandate document further sharpened the battle between Go Ethereum and the Milady community. The rift revealed Milady’s preferences for using the Foundation as the vehicle for cypherpunk ideas. Those ideas were set against the attempt to use Ethereum for its economic value and reliable products. The Ethereum Foundation mandate was heavily influenced by Milady community ideas and esthetic, while others pointed out the EF has been influenced too much by the NFT community, with the support of Vitalik Buterin. | Source: Ethereum Foundation . The Milady controversies are relatively unknown to those users of Ethereum who have seen the chain as a decentralized computer, suitable for financial operations. For some, the inclusion of Milady imagery in the EF mandate is worrying, sending a message beyond the text points. For some, the recent EF mandate is a form of ‘ ideological babble ’, and even the NFT and styling may harm the brand in an attempt to build a ‘fun’ social media culture. The Milady fraction influence is significant for Ethereum, and the community is in charge of spending what remains of the still-significant Ethereum Foundation treasury. The Milady NFT owners have also launched a Milady Cult Coin ( CULT ), which is now 97% down from its peak. The current social media discussion may signal a deeper rift for Ethereum, potentially creating problems for future development. The Ethereum Foundation has also been accused of overspending and selling too much ETH, only lately agreeing to stake some of the coins. Despite this, the Foundation deployed another 20,000 ETH in February and is left with 209K ETH . Ethereum may be promising, but the Ethereum Foundation’s approach may be closely watched for turning into a cultish expression and swaying future development decisions. If you're reading this, you’re already ahead. Stay there with our newsletter .

26 Mar 2026, 09:20

Michael Saylor’s Strategy dominates DAT bitcoin buying as treasury demand collapses

Strategy accounted for nearly all recent BTC digital-asset treasury purchases, with other firms’ share dropping from 95% to about 2%, CryptoQuant data show.