Invest ideasNews
25 May 2026, 13:06
Buterin says Ethereum Foundation controls just 0.16 percent of ETH
🚨 Buterin reveals the Ethereum Foundation holds just 0.16 percent of all $ETH. The Foundation focuses on research and decentralization, not ETH price jumps. Continue Reading: Buterin says Ethereum Foundation controls just 0.16 percent of ETH The post Buterin says Ethereum Foundation controls just 0.16 percent of ETH appeared first on COINTURK NEWS .
25 May 2026, 13:02
The Infamous $50 XRP Candle On Gemini Wasn’t Just A Glitch
On August 10, 2023, XRP briefly reached an astonishing price of $50 on the Gemini exchange, despite trading near $0.63 across the broader crypto market. At the time, many retail traders dismissed the event as a technical malfunction or charting error. However, crypto enthusiast Ledger Man recently revisited the incident and argued that the move was not a software glitch, but a genuine market execution caused by extreme illiquidity and severe slippage. The event occurred shortly after Gemini reopened XRP trading following Judge Analisa Torres’ July 2023 ruling that programmatic XRP sales on public exchanges did not constitute securities transactions. The decision triggered a wave of XRP relistings across U.S.-based exchanges, and Gemini’s launch of XRP spot trading attracted immediate market attention. According to Ledger Man, the now-infamous candle exposed deeper structural weaknesses within newly opened crypto markets and demonstrated how thin liquidity can produce extreme price distortions within seconds. The infamous $50 XRP candle on Gemini in 2023 wasn’t just a glitch — it was caused by extreme illiquidity and massive slippage. pic.twitter.com/JfFtjqijQu — Ledger Man (@strivex_) May 24, 2026 How a Thin Order Book Allowed XRP to Reach $50 The explanation behind the sudden spike centers on market depth and the mechanics of order execution. When Gemini launched XRP trading, market makers had not yet fully funded accounts or deployed sufficient automated liquidity systems. As a result, the exchange’s sell-side order book remained unusually shallow. Analysts noted that it initially took only around $37,000 in trading volume to move XRP’s price significantly higher on Gemini. This revealed how fragile the market structure was in the first hours of trading. The situation escalated when a buyer reportedly submitted a large market order. Unlike a limit order, a market order purchases assets immediately at the best available prices. Because there were very few sell orders between XRP’s prevailing market value and much higher price levels, the order rapidly consumed available liquidity. The trade swept through sell orders at prices near $0.63, $1, and even several dollars higher before eventually matching with a resting limit sell order placed at $50. That transaction was officially printed on Gemini’s order book, making the $50 candle a legitimate execution event rather than a visual error. Slippage, Liquidity, and the Fast Correction Ledger Man’s commentary emphasized the role of catastrophic slippage in the incident. Slippage refers to the difference between the expected execution price of a trade and the actual executed price. In highly liquid markets, slippage remains minimal. In thin markets, however, even moderate orders can trigger violent price swings. The XRP candle corrected almost immediately because arbitrage traders and automated bots quickly identified the pricing imbalance. As fresh sell orders entered the market near global spot prices, XRP rapidly returned to normal trading levels. Gemini later adjusted historical chart displays, flattening the spike and causing many observers to believe the move had been purely graphical. However, supporters of the liquidity-event thesis maintain that the transaction itself genuinely occurred on the exchange. We are on X, follow us to connect with us :- @TimesTabloid1 — TimesTabloid (@TimesTabloid1) June 15, 2025 Why the Event Still Matters for Institutional Crypto Adoption Ledger Man also connected the Gemini incident to broader discussions surrounding institutional crypto infrastructure. The event demonstrated how fragile public exchange liquidity can become when large orders interact with shallow books. Analysts argue that if relatively small retail-sized trades could trigger such an extreme move, large-scale institutional transfers involving billions of dollars would require significantly deeper liquidity systems. This concern becomes especially relevant in discussions surrounding Ripple’s cross-border payment ambitions and On-Demand Liquidity services. The Gemini XRP candle ultimately highlighted a critical issue facing the digital asset industry: large-scale adoption cannot rely solely on thin public order books. Institutions may require dedicated liquidity pools or far greater market depth to avoid destabilizing price swings during high-volume transactions. Disclaimer : This content is meant to inform and should not be considered financial advice. The views expressed in this article may include the author’s personal opinions and do not represent Times Tabloid’s opinion. Readers are advised to conduct thorough research before making any investment decisions. Any action taken by the reader is strictly at their own risk. Times Tabloid is not responsible for any financial losses. Follow us on X , Facebook , Telegram , and Google News The post The Infamous $50 XRP Candle On Gemini Wasn’t Just A Glitch appeared first on Times Tabloid .
25 May 2026, 13:00
Ethereum Market Structure Is Sending A Confusing Signal: Hidden Sellers Are In Control
Ethereum is struggling to stay above $2,100 as the market shows indecision that has left bulls and bears in a standoff without a clear resolution. A brief recovery arrived when President Trump stated that the Strait of Hormuz would be opened following talks with Middle Eastern leaders about Iran and regional peace efforts — markets interpreted the comments as a potential easing of geopolitical tensions, and both Bitcoin and Ethereum rebounded in response. The relief was real but short-lived. XWIN Research Japan has examined Ethereum’s internal market structure during the recovery and found something that complicates the straightforward interpretation of the recent price weakness considerably. The data that normally identifies a healthy market is present. Spot Taker CVD remains positive — buyers are still outpacing sellers in the order flow. Funding rates are still above zero — derivatives participants are paying to stay long rather than paying to stay short. Exchange Netflow shows ETH continuing to leave exchanges — coins moving into self-custody rather than toward the sell side. By every conventional bullish signal , Ethereum should not be trading where it is. The asset fell from approximately $2,375 on May 11 to nearly $2,031 on May 23 — a 14% decline that occurred while every internal market indicator was pointing in the opposite direction. XWIN Research Japan’s analysis identifies the force that explains the contradiction — and it is not visible in any of the metrics that have been signaling strength. Hidden Sellers, Macro Headwinds and a Market That Looks Strong but Keeps Falling The XWIN Research Japan report identifies the mechanism behind the contradiction with precision. Hidden liquidity is the structural explanation for how positive CVD, positive funding, and exchange outflows can coexist with a falling price. Large sell orders placed by market makers and whales sit in the order book absorbing aggressive buying without announcing themselves in the metrics that retail participants monitor. The surface signals look bullish because the buyers are genuinely present. The price falls because the sellers are larger, more patient, and invisible to conventional flow analysis. The macro environment compounds the structural pressure. Despite the CLARITY Act initially improving sentiment around digital assets, markets have quickly refocused on inflation risks and the higher-for-longer interest rate environment that continues to define Federal Reserve policy. For a high-beta asset like Ethereum — which amplifies both upside and downside moves relative to broader risk sentiment — that macro backdrop remains a persistent headwind that no amount of on-chain improvement can fully neutralize while it persists. The derivatives picture adds the final layer. Healthy bullish trends require rising open interest, stable funding, and expanding long positioning simultaneously. What the current data shows instead is short covering and deleveraging, driving recent price bounces — mechanical moves rather than genuine demand returning to build new directional exposure. Technically, Ethereum is approaching support zones at approximately $1,984 and $1,937 — levels that the report identifies as potentially significant if macro conditions stabilize and real spot demand returns. At those prices, the asset could eventually be viewed as genuinely undervalued relative to its network fundamentals. Whether that reassessment arrives before a test of deeper levels depends entirely on whether the hidden selling pressure exhausts itself before the technical support does. Ethereum Faces Critical Support Test Ethereum continues to trade in a fragile structure as price struggles to reclaim the key resistance zone between $2,250 and $2,350. After briefly recovering into that supply area earlier this month, ETH faced repeated rejections that triggered a steady decline back toward the $2,100 region. The chart now shows a market trapped between weakening bullish momentum and critical support levels that buyers must defend to avoid a deeper retrace. Technically, ETH is trading directly around the 50-day moving average, which has flattened after weeks of recovery. This level is acting as immediate short-term support, but the inability to establish acceptance above the 100-day moving average near $2,250 reflects continued weakness in broader market momentum. Meanwhile, the 200-day moving average remains far above current price action and continues sloping downward, confirming that Ethereum has not yet transitioned back into a confirmed macro bullish trend. The highlighted resistance zone around $2,300 has become structurally important. Every attempt to break above it has been absorbed by sellers, creating a sequence of lower highs that now pressures the market toward the lower support range between $1,820 and $1,880. Volume has also declined during the recent pullback, suggesting uncertainty rather than panic-driven capitulation. However, if ETH loses the $2,080–$2,100 region decisively, selling pressure could accelerate quickly toward the February demand zone. Featured image from ChatGPT, chart from TradingView.com
25 May 2026, 13:00
Ethereum whale dumps $72mln: Assessing if ETH support holds at $2k
Traders increased bearish bets as ETH struggled to regain momentum above key resistance levels.
25 May 2026, 12:58
Top on-chain analyst reveals price levels that can make or break Bitcoin
After a notable rally through most of April, Bitcoin ( BTC ) again entered a consolidation phase in May with levels near $76,000 serving as a center of gravity. Under the circumstances, Ali Martinez, a top on-chain analyst on X , reflected on the state of the world’s premier cryptocurrency and its likely next moves. Specifically, the expert noted that the market has been able to slowly build liquidity with BTC trading within a relatively predictable channel through most of the month, creating fertile ground for a substantial move. Martinez noted that derivatives traders are particularly positioning for a breakout with funding rates reaching 0.4%: a two-month high. On the flip side, the analyst noted that a bullish move is not guaranteed as institutional investors used the recent Bitcoin performance to rebalance their portfolios, including by selling significant quantities of BTC. 1/5 These two price levels will determine whether Bitcoin $BTC launches into its next major expansion phase, or if it extends its current value reset to offer a premier buying opportunity. Let’s look at the data. 🧵⬇️ — Ali Charts (@alicharts) May 25, 2026 For example, BlackRock sold more than $170 million worth of the cryptocurrency earlier in the month amidst mounting bearish concerns, as Finbold reported on May 18. Key price levels that will determine if Bitcoin price soars or crashes by June Under the circumstances, Ali Martinez highlighted that Bitcoin’s recent performance placed it firmly between a strong support and a robust resistance level, identifying the two as $75,733 and $78,258, respectively. Therefore, the analyst opined that while a major move appears relatively imminent, its direction will be determined by which of the two pivotal prices is reached and breached first. The expert then added that a rise above the resistance could lead to a rally to $84,569, while a fall below the support would likely generate a correction down to $66,898. 5/5 This supply consolidation has placed $BTC between resistance at $78,258 and support at $75,733. Flipping that resistance could trigger a rally to $84,569, while breaking support could push Bitcoin to $66,898. https://t.co/6r6LpVf33A — Ali Charts (@alicharts) May 25, 2026 Is Bitcoin price about to break out above the resistance zone? Considering that Bitcoin is, at press time on May 25, changing hands at $77,284 – 3.74% above the May 23 lows near $74,500 – a test of the resistance level appears like the next step for the cryptocurrency. Bitcoin price one-month chart. Source: Finbold Still, it is worth noting that throughout 2026, Bitcoin has remained volatile, with two rallies eventually leading to either a reset or a deeper plunge, despite beginning with upriges of 10% and 18%, respectively. Featured image via Shutterstock The post Top on-chain analyst reveals price levels that can make or break Bitcoin appeared first on Finbold .
25 May 2026, 12:56
Cryptopolitan Report: 37% Of Our Readers Say “Nope” To Consulting AI On Life Decisions. So Who Actually Is?
A little over a year ago, Sam Altman highlighted that Gen Z do not tend to make major life calls without consulting them over ChatGPT. He went onto say that while the older generation treat the tool as a “google replacement”, the younger populace in their 20’s and 30’s use it like a “life advisor”. That comment has aged almost like a cultural diagnosis rather than a prediction. Our newsletter poll, conducted last week as the conversation picked up again, suggests our audience is far less convinced with what was said. The Comment That Set This Off OpenAI CEO Sam Altman made a comment at Sequoia Capital’s AI Ascent event last year that made the rounds across newsrooms and social media. His assertion was that different age groups and generations used ChatGPT for various purposes. This did not come as a warning but rather as what he saw in the data. Older people, he said, use ChatGPT like a smarter version of Google. Meanwhile, people in their 20s and 30s used it more as a tool akin to a life advisor. College students, in his words, use it like an operating system, embedded into how they study, plan, write and make calls about their day. The initial reaction to these comments were not even to say the least. Some people saw it as evidence that this tool is finding its native users. Others on the other hand read it as a subtle warning or danger that an entire cohort or generation was using a machine for judgement even though it runs the risk of sounding confident even when it’s wrong. The truth is probably somewhere in the middle, and our poll suggests that even among readers who follow this space closely, the jury is still out. How Big Has This Behaviour Actually Become? A report published by OpenAI in September 2025 showed that nearly half of ChatGPT messages now come from users below the age of 26, making younger adults the dominant demographic. Younger users are pulling in even quicker. A Pew Research Center survey of 1,391 U.S. teens, conducted between September and October 2024, found that 26% of teens aged 13 to 17 had used ChatGPT for schoolwork, double the 13% recorded the year before. The pattern is even more pronounced among older students: 31% of 11th and 12th graders reported using it. Pew’s more recent 2026 follow-up survey shows the shift has moved beyond homework. According to that survey, 57% of teens now use chatbots for information searches, 54% for schoolwork, and 16% for casual conversation. Around 12% say they use these tools for emotional support or advice. That last number is the one worth sitting with. It is small, but it suggests that the line between “tool” and “confidant” is already being crossed in measurable ways. What The Poll Actually Tells Us As mentioned in our previous poll , these are readers who track AI developments closely and many of them follow OpenAI and Anthropic releases the day they drop. The average age of our newsletter audience sits at around 30, which places this cohort squarely within the “life advisor” group Altman described in his Sequoia talk. If anyone in a general audience would be expected to lean on AI for personal decisions, it would be this group. The fact that the leading response is “Nope” is therefore the most interesting part of the result. Note: The 30-year-old average is based on internal Cryptopolitan estimates and is provided as directional context. It has not been formally surveyed and individual respondents will fall on either side of that figure. Nope (36.76%): Around a third of responses in the poll do not ask AI for any sort of life decisions. It provides a clear view on how this cohort views the utility of AI, perhaps for more technical and productive tasks for work, code research or even thinking out loud. That said, certainly not for the kind of decision that has personal weight behind it. The line being drawn is not anti-AI. It is anti-outsourcing. Yes (~36%): Almost identical in size to the “Nope” cohort. Just over one in three respondents say they do consult AI before life decisions. This is the group most aligned with the behaviour Altman described back in 2025, and it is sizeable. The split between this group and the “Nope” cohort is essentially even, which is itself the story. Even in a tech-forward audience that demographically maps onto the cohort he was talking about, there is no consensus on whether AI belongs in the room when something important is being decided. Occasionally (~27.2%): Roughly one in four respondents sit in the middle. They will use it when it helps, but they are not running every choice through the chatbot. This is probably the most honest answer for most people, and it is a group worth watching. As AI tools improve, this cohort is the one most likely to drift toward the “Yes” column. Combine the “Yes” and “Occasionally” responses and you get just under 63% of readers using AI for personal decisions at least some of the time. That number lines up reasonably well with the broader behavioural trend Altman pointed to. What the poll adds is the texture underneath it, a clear segment of people who have looked at this technology, understood what it can do and then decided that some calls don’t require AI intervention and it’s theirs to make. The Quieter Trend Under The Headline The discussion about AI and decision-making usually splits into two camps. One worries about cognitive atrophy and the slow erosion of judgement. The other points to all the small, useful ways AI already helps people think more clearly. Both are right, depending on the type of decision. What our poll suggests is that the question may already be sorting itself out at the user level. Roughly equal portions of the audience are landing in three different places, and the largest of the three is the one drawing a line. That is not what you would expect to see if AI advice was simply replacing human judgement across the board. It looks more like people are learning where it helps and where it does not, and that calibration is happening in real time. The cohort to watch is still the one Altman described, the students who arrived on campus in 2022 with ChatGPT already in their pocket and never knew an academic environment without it. They are graduating now. The data on what happens when an entire working generation makes decisions with an AI assistant in the loop does not exist yet, because they are the first ones generating it. The next few years will tell us whether this is the smartphone moment for cognition, or something more complicated. Our poll suggests that even among people who follow this space for a living, the answer is still being worked out. The smartest crypto minds already read our newsletter. Want in? Join them .
