hodler

17 Apr 2026, 09:24

Bitcoin BCMI Drops Into Historic Undervaluation Zone: Is a Major Pivot Forming?

After a strong week, Bitcoin (BTC) is trading just above $75,000, as risk assets moved higher on hopes the US may reach a deal with Iran. Against the backdrop of a much-anticipated respite, new data revealed that the asset is currently testing a “major historical pivot zone.” “Value-Accumulation Zone” Bitcoin’s Combined Market Index (BCMI) is nearing an important historical support level after plunging into the 0.2-0.3 range. This area has previously defined periods when the leading crypto asset was significantly undervalued, even though it does not point to an instant rebound, according to the latest report by CryptoQuant. The index, which combines multiple on-chain and sentiment indicators such as MVRV, NUPL, SOPR, and Fear & Greed, shows that the recent correction has brought both market valuation and investor mood back to levels last seen in early 2023. At the same time, the 90-day moving average continues to trend lower, which essentially indicates that downward pressure has not fully eased. A CryptoQuant analyst suggests waiting for this trend to stabilize before confirming that selling activity has run its course. Current data points to reduced downside risk relative to potential long-term gains. As a result, the market appears to be entering a “value-accumulation” phase. Meanwhile, analyst Ali Martinez said most Bitcoin traders are now betting to the upside. In his recent update, he noted that the latest leg up triggered a liquidation of almost $80 million in short positions. With those shorts cleared, the market is beginning to lean long as traders chase the rally. The analyst pointed out that “biggest” clusters of long positions are now located at $70,000, $65,000, and $57,000. These levels, he said, could act as liquidity magnets, and potentially flush out late leverage and reset the market before the next relief rally. “Max Pain” Ahead? Some analysts expect a more pronounced correction. An early BTC advocate, Davinci Jeremie, for one, warned that despite the recent recovery, the market may not have reached its cycle bottom yet. He highlighted similarities between the recent drop below $60,000 and the decline seen in June 2022. According to him, the “max pain” is still ahead, as well as the possibility of another capitulation event before the asset finds its lowest level. He compared this potential scenario to the FTX collapse, which triggered massive liquidations and briefly pushed Bitcoin below $16,000 at the time. The post Bitcoin BCMI Drops Into Historic Undervaluation Zone: Is a Major Pivot Forming? appeared first on CryptoPotato .

17 Apr 2026, 09:02

This Ripple’s Bombshell Reply to X Employee Excites XRP Holders

A new product rollout on X has placed financial tagging and real-time data directly into user timelines. Nikita Bier, Head of Product at X, announced the introduction of Cashtags in the US and Canada on iPhone. The feature links posts and searches tied to financial symbols and contract addresses with live charts and related discussion. In response to the announcement, Ripple’s official account replied with “$XRP”, a move that quickly became a focal point within the XRP community. Archie (@Archie_XRPL) followed with a detailed post connecting the Cashtags rollout, X Money features, and Ripple’s engagement with XRP. His commentary sits at the center of discussion among XRP supporters. XRP ARMY… LET THIS SINK IN X MONEY + CASHTAGS ACTIVATED + RIPPLE JUST REPLIED $XRP Elon’s X dropped Smart Cashtags (real-time charts + finance in the timeline) And Ripple’s official account just replied with a clean $XRP under the announcement. The signal we’ve been… https://t.co/nIls0xEkWS pic.twitter.com/AsNcZ4kaDw — Archie (@Archie_XRPL) April 15, 2026 XRP’s Position in X’s Ecosystem Archie placed the strongest emphasis on the significance of the rollout in relation to XRP. He highlighted the combination of X Money features, Cashtags, and Ripple’s reply as a connected development rather than isolated actions. Archie described X Money as a full financial system inside the platform. He referenced a fiat wallet with APY yield, a Visa debit card with cashback, instant peer-to-peer transfers, and more. He also connected infrastructure providers to the rollout. Archie referenced Cross River Bank as the banking partner tied to X Money and noted its long-standing involvement with Ripple-related payment rails. There has been speculation that Elon Musk will integrate XRP into X’s payment system , and Archie used the connection between Ripple and Cross River Bank to position XRP within the existing payment and settlement layer in parts of the financial system. Expanded Financial Visibility on X Archie’s central argument focuses on scale and distribution. He highlights X as a platform with 550 million users where financial assets gain direct exposure through Cashtags and embedded charts. In this environment, XRP appears alongside other major assets within a unified tagging system that brings price data and discussion into the same interface. We are on X, follow us to connect with us :- @TimesTabloid1 — TimesTabloid (@TimesTabloid1) June 15, 2025 He also ties this structure to a competitive shift in financial apps. The combination of wallet features, payments, and trading access inside X positions the platform as a direct rival to existing fintech and trading apps. Archie describes this as a system where traditional platforms like Robinhood, Venmo, and Cash App face pressure from a single integrated experience. Within this flow, XRP benefits from visibility at scale . What to Expect from XRP? XRP now sits inside a rapidly evolving information and finance environment on X, where asset discovery and interaction occur in real time. The current rollout signals a shift in how financial content is handled on major platforms, and assets like XRP, which offer many advantages , could see increased attention and adoption as visibility rises. 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 This Ripple’s Bombshell Reply to X Employee Excites XRP Holders appeared first on Times Tabloid .

17 Apr 2026, 09:00

Bitcoin Derivatives Are The Earliest Signal Of A Quantum Selloff: Joshua Lim

Bitcoin’s quantum risk may show up in derivatives markets well before any compromised coins move on-chain, according to FalconX co-head of markets Joshua Lim, who used an X thread on April 16 to map out what he sees as the most tradable signals around a potential “q-day” event. Lim’s core argument is that the market problem is not simply whether Bitcoin can migrate to post-quantum cryptography. It is also whether the network can politically resolve what to do with Satoshi Nakamoto’s coins and other old outputs that may never participate in such a migration. Quantum Risk Could Hit Bitcoin Through Derivatives Lim framed the issue as two separate questions. The first is technical: how Bitcoin could move away from elliptic curve cryptography used to secure private keys. The second is more fraught. “How to deal with the fundamentally non-mathematical and wholly sociopolitical question of what to do with Satoshi’s coins,” he wrote, arguing that the largest risk around quantum computing is not just cryptographic breakage but the governance crisis that could follow. He said a migration path for most of Bitcoin’s UTXOs is at least conceivable, pointing to BIP 361 as one example of a proposal that addresses both post-quantum migration and the handling of Satoshi-era coins. But that only solves part of the problem. Lim estimated that Satoshi’s holdings amount to roughly 1.1 million BTC, while other old or lost coins in pay-to-public-key addresses could push the total exposed supply to as much as 1.7 million BTC, which he called a “$127bn question.” Related Reading: 9 Reasons Why The Bitcoin Bottom May Already Be In: Expert Those coins, he argued, are different because they likely would not participate in any community-led migration unless Satoshi is still active and willing to move them. That creates two outcomes, neither comfortable for markets. “EITHER Satoshi is still around and can move coins pre q-day, in which case BTC price will tank because the market will re-price the probability of those coins being sold in the future,” Lim wrote. “OR Satoshi is not around and someone will decide to steal the coins via a sufficiently powerful QC.” That is why, in Lim’s telling, Satoshi’s coins are “not a math problem.” The available responses are political. One option would be to burn those coins through governance, a move he said would raise serious questions around immutability, sovereignty, and precedent. The other would be a hard fork that lets the market choose between a chain that neutralizes the coins and one that preserves the current ruleset, even if that leaves open the eventual risk of a quantum-enabled seizure. Lim suggested that even an attempt at the first path could lead to the second. “Our only prophylactic is to EITHER A) burn Satoshi’s coins via governance,” he wrote, before outlining the trade-off, “OR B) create a hard fork and allow for the market to decide which is the true BTC.” In his view, that likely becomes a political contest over Bitcoin’s identity as much as a security response. He added that the most likely quantum thief, if such a scenario emerged, would be “a state-level actor.” From there, Lim shifted from theory to market structure. He contrasted any future fork with Bitcoin’s August 2017 split, which produced BTC and BCH. Back then, he noted, Bitcoin was a roughly $45 billion, mostly retail market, and many holders welcomed the fork because it effectively created an additional asset. Today’s market is different: around $1.5 trillion, far more institutional, and wrapped in ETFs, listed futures, and options. That changes how risk would likely transmit. “A hard fork today, or even the prospect of one, would be an entirely different beast,” Lim wrote. “It would result in extreme volatility and likely downward price action: a large gap down and massive cascading liquidations.” He added that if the community were close to evenly split on whether to burn exposed coins, institutional investors might have a mandate to de-risk ahead of the event, amplifying downside pressure. Related Reading: Bitcoin Bulls Eye $78,000, But Glassnode Urges Caution That is where derivatives come in. Lim argued the earliest warning signs of q-day risk are most likely to emerge in long-dated options skew, forward basis, and the distribution of open interest across traditional and crypto-native venues. He pointed out that long-dated BTC put skew is near multi-year highs, with downside protection relatively expensive compared with calls, and said the last comparable elevation came around the Three Arrows Capital and FTX collapses in 2022. He also flagged long-dated basis, noting that Bitcoin futures are trading near multi-year lows relative to spot. In Lim’s framework, q-day risk should compress or even invert basis because market participants hedge for downside while others position for a possible fork-related “airdrop,” similar in concept to 2017. Since the timing of any quantum breakthrough would be uncertain, he expects those signals to appear farther out on the curve. Still, he stopped short of saying the market is already pricing an imminent quantum event. Some signals are “flashing red,” he wrote, but they can also be explained by broader systemic risks or secular shifts, including growing institutional participation through venues such as CME and IBIT options. For now, Lim described the picture as mixed. His broader point was simpler: if q-day ever begins to look real, traders likely will not first see it in dormant coins moving. They will see it in derivatives. At press time, Bitcoin traded at $75,024. Featured image created with DALL.E, chart from TradingView.com

17 Apr 2026, 09:00

Bithumb Delisting Watchlist Reversal: XVS Secures Crucial Reprieve on Major Korean Exchange

BitcoinWorld Bithumb Delisting Watchlist Reversal: XVS Secures Crucial Reprieve on Major Korean Exchange SEOUL, South Korea – March 2025 – In a significant development for the decentralized finance (DeFi) sector, the prominent South Korean cryptocurrency exchange Bithumb has officially removed the Venus (XVS) token from its delisting watchlist. This decisive action follows a period of scrutiny and indicates the exchange’s renewed confidence in the project’s operational and compliance standing. Consequently, this move carries substantial implications for XVS holders and the broader DeFi landscape within one of Asia’s most regulated crypto markets. Bithumb Delisting Watchlist: A Mechanism of Market Oversight Major cryptocurrency exchanges like Bithumb employ delisting watchlists as a critical risk management tool. These lists flag digital assets that exhibit potential issues, which may include concerns about a project’s development activity, liquidity levels, communication transparency, or compliance with evolving regulatory standards. Placement on such a watchlist serves as a formal warning to the project team and its community. It signals that specific deficiencies must be addressed within a defined timeframe to avoid permanent removal from the trading platform. For traders and investors, a watchlist designation often triggers increased market volatility and uncertainty. Therefore, the removal of an asset from this list represents a positive resolution. It demonstrates that the exchange has verified the remediation of previously identified problems. This process underscores the growing maturity of the crypto industry, where exchanges actively police their ecosystems to protect users and maintain market integrity. The Initial Concerns Surrounding Venus (XVS) While Bithumb’s official announcement did not detail the specific “issues” initially flagged, industry analysts point to common evaluation criteria. These typically involve: Protocol Security and Audits: Following any significant updates or incidents, exchanges reassess the technical robustness of DeFi protocols. Development Activity and Roadmap Adherence: Consistent progress and delivery on project milestones are closely monitored. Market Liquidity and Trading Volume: Sustained, healthy trading activity is essential for an asset’s viability on a major exchange. Regulatory and Compliance Posture: Especially in South Korea, alignment with financial regulations is paramount. The Venus protocol, a leading lending and borrowing platform on the BNB Chain, has undergone several upgrades and governance changes. Bithumb’s decision to remove XVS from the watchlist suggests satisfactory progress in these key areas. Venus Protocol’s Path to Resolution The removal of the XVS token from Bithumb’s watchlist is not an isolated event. It appears to be the culmination of concerted efforts by the Venus development team and community. Over recent months, the protocol has implemented several strategic initiatives aimed at strengthening its foundation and market position. Key developments likely scrutinized by Bithumb include enhanced risk management parameters for its lending markets, successful execution of governance proposals to improve tokenomics, and increased transparency in operational reporting. Furthermore, the protocol’s ability to maintain stable operations amidst broader market fluctuations would have been a critical factor. For a DeFi protocol, demonstrating resilience and proactive governance is essential for maintaining listings on top-tier exchanges. Comparative Timeline: XVS Watchlist Status Period Event Market Context Q4 2024 XVS placed on Bithumb Delisting Watchlist Increased regulatory scrutiny in South Korea Q1 2025 Venus protocol enacts governance upgrades DeFi sector shows recovery signs March 2025 Bithumb removes XVS from watchlist Exchange confirms resolved issues Impact on the South Korean Crypto Ecosystem Bithumb’s action carries weight beyond the XVS token itself. As one of South Korea’s largest digital asset exchanges, Bithumb’s compliance and listing decisions are closely watched. They often set a precedent for the domestic market. This positive outcome for Venus reinforces a message of collaboration between innovative DeFi projects and established exchanges. It shows that through dialogue and demonstrable improvement, projects can navigate regulatory expectations and maintain access to vital liquidity pools. For South Korean investors, this decision provides greater certainty. It allows them to continue trading XVS on a major domestic platform without the overhang of imminent delisting risk. This stability is crucial for fostering a healthy investment environment. Moreover, it signals to other global DeFi projects that the South Korean market remains accessible, provided they adhere to high standards of operation and transparency. Broader Implications for DeFi and Exchange Relations The dynamic between decentralized protocols and centralized exchanges (CEXs) like Bithumb is complex and evolving. This event highlights a maturing relationship. Exchanges are no longer passive gateways; they are active stakeholders requiring assurance on security, compliance, and project health. Conversely, successful DeFi protocols must engage constructively with these centralized entities to ensure broad asset distribution and user access. The resolution also underscores the importance of robust project governance. The Venus DAO (Decentralized Autonomous Organization), which governs the protocol, likely played a central role in addressing Bithumb’s concerns. Effective on-chain governance allows a project to adapt quickly, implement necessary changes, and provide verifiable proof of those actions to external partners like exchanges. This case study may encourage other DeFi projects to strengthen their governance frameworks, viewing them not just as community tools but as essential components for institutional and exchange relations. Conclusion Bithumb’s decision to remove Venus (XVS) from its delisting watchlist marks a positive conclusion to a period of uncertainty. It validates the Venus protocol’s efforts to address exchange concerns and reinforces its standing within the competitive DeFi sector. For the market, this event illustrates the ongoing maturation of the cryptocurrency industry, where proactive compliance and transparent communication between projects and platforms lead to stable outcomes. The resolution benefits XVS holders, strengthens Bithumb’s risk-managed ecosystem, and sets a constructive example for the entire digital asset industry. FAQs Q1: What does it mean to be on a Bithumb delisting watchlist? A delisting watchlist is a warning status Bithumb assigns to cryptocurrencies that may have issues with compliance, liquidity, security, or project development. It gives the project team time to resolve these problems before the exchange considers permanent removal. Q2: Why was Venus (XVS) originally placed on the watchlist? Bithumb has not publicly specified the exact reasons, but common factors include concerns about a project’s development progress, market liquidity, communication with the exchange, or adherence to regulatory standards. The removal indicates these issues are now resolved. Q3: How does this affect current XVS holders on Bithumb? The removal is positive news for holders. It eliminates the immediate risk of the token being delisted from the exchange, allowing for continued trading, deposits, and withdrawals of XVS on the Bithumb platform without restriction. Q4: Does this decision impact XVS trading on other exchanges? While directly affecting only Bithumb, the decision can influence market sentiment positively. Other exchanges may view Bithumb’s due diligence and subsequent approval as a positive signal regarding the Venus protocol’s health. Q5: What is the Venus (XVS) protocol? Venus is a decentralized finance (DeFi) protocol operating on the BNB Chain. It allows users to supply, borrow, and earn interest on digital assets, using its native governance token, XVS, for community-led decision-making. This post Bithumb Delisting Watchlist Reversal: XVS Secures Crucial Reprieve on Major Korean Exchange first appeared on BitcoinWorld .

17 Apr 2026, 08:55

Bitcoin Mining’s Critical AI Pivot Sparks Intense Debate on Hash Rate Versus Profitability

BitcoinWorld Bitcoin Mining’s Critical AI Pivot Sparks Intense Debate on Hash Rate Versus Profitability The cryptocurrency industry faces a pivotal moment as Bitcoin mining companies increasingly pivot toward artificial intelligence infrastructure, sparking intense debate about network security implications versus profitability concerns in early 2025. Bitcoin Mining’s AI Infrastructure Shift Raises Security Questions Major Bitcoin mining operations now actively diversify revenue streams beyond cryptocurrency validation. This strategic shift toward AI infrastructure business models presents complex challenges for blockchain security fundamentals. Industry analysts monitor these developments closely because network integrity depends heavily on consistent mining participation. The transition reflects broader technological convergence trends affecting multiple sectors simultaneously. Charles Edwards, founder of Capriole Investments, recently highlighted significant concerns via social media platform X. He projected dramatic revenue composition changes for leading mining firms. Currently, mining generates approximately 90% of total revenue for these companies. However, Edwards anticipates this percentage will plummet to around 30% within the next two to three years. This projection suggests fundamental business model transformations across the mining sector. Hash Rate Decline and Quantum Computing Concerns Edwards expressed particular concern about Bitcoin’s hash rate trajectory. The hash rate represents the total computational power securing the Bitcoin network. This metric serves as the foundational security layer preventing double-spending attacks. Network participants observe concerning hash rate declines coinciding with mining equipment investment reductions. Many miners reportedly halted new mining hardware deployments throughout 2024. This development becomes especially significant considering emerging quantum computing threats. Quantum computers theoretically could break current cryptographic standards protecting blockchain networks. While practical quantum attacks remain years away, security experts emphasize the importance of maintaining robust hash rates today. A strong security foundation provides crucial time for developing quantum-resistant cryptographic solutions. Economic Equilibrium Arguments Counter Security Concerns Blockstream CEO Adam Back presented contrasting economic perspectives regarding the mining transition. He argued that market forces naturally correct hash rate imbalances through profitability adjustments. When hash rates decrease, mining difficulty automatically adjusts downward through Bitcoin’s protocol design. This adjustment increases profitability for remaining mining operations. Back suggested this economic mechanism creates natural equilibrium between mining and AI conversion profits. The veteran cryptographer further explained potential positive feedback loops. Higher mining profitability typically reduces selling pressure from miners. Miners often sell Bitcoin to cover operational expenses like electricity and hardware costs. Reduced selling pressure can create upward price momentum for Bitcoin. This dynamic potentially initiates virtuous cycles benefiting both network security and cryptocurrency valuation. Historical Context and Industry Evolution The current debate continues longstanding discussions about Bitcoin mining centralization risks. Mining operations historically concentrated in regions with cheap electricity and favorable regulations. China’s 2021 mining ban demonstrated how geographic concentration creates systemic vulnerabilities. The subsequent mining migration to North America and Central Asia diversified geographic distribution temporarily. Now, economic diversification introduces new centralization dimensions. Large publicly-traded mining companies possess capital advantages for AI infrastructure investments. Smaller mining operations lack comparable financial resources for similar transitions. This disparity potentially accelerates industry consolidation around diversified technology conglomerates. The table below illustrates key differences between traditional mining and AI infrastructure business models: Business Aspect Bitcoin Mining AI Infrastructure Revenue Model Block rewards + transaction fees Compute leasing + service contracts Capital Intensity High initial investment Extremely high investment Operational Focus Energy efficiency optimization Compute performance optimization Market Volatility Direct Bitcoin price exposure AI demand cyclicality Regulatory Environment Evolving cryptocurrency rules Established data center regulations Technical Infrastructure Overlap and Divergence Bitcoin mining and AI infrastructure share significant technical commonalities. Both require: High-performance computing hardware optimized for specific workloads Advanced cooling systems managing substantial heat generation Reliable power infrastructure supporting continuous operations Network connectivity ensuring data transmission reliability However, critical technical divergences create conversion challenges. Bitcoin mining utilizes application-specific integrated circuits (ASICs) designed exclusively for cryptographic hashing. AI infrastructure typically employs graphics processing units (GPUs) or tensor processing units (TPUs) optimized for parallel computation. Facility retrofitting requires substantial capital investment beyond simple hardware swaps. Energy Market Implications The mining transition significantly impacts global energy markets. Bitcoin mining operations historically located near renewable energy sources or stranded power assets. These strategic locations provided competitive electricity pricing advantages. AI infrastructure demands differ substantially regarding power quality and reliability requirements. Many AI workloads cannot tolerate intermittent power availability common with some renewable sources. This technical requirement potentially redirects investment toward traditional grid-connected locations. The energy market shift could affect renewable energy project economics previously supported by mining demand. Energy analysts closely monitor these developing patterns throughout 2025. Network Security Metrics and Monitoring Blockchain analysts employ multiple metrics for assessing network security implications: Hash rate distribution across mining pools and geographic regions Mining difficulty adjustment frequency and magnitude Block propagation times and orphan rate statistics Mining pool concentration using Herfindahl-Hirschman Index calculations These metrics provide early warning signals about potential security vulnerabilities. The Bitcoin network has demonstrated remarkable resilience throughout its history. Previous hash rate fluctuations followed predictable recovery patterns. However, the current transition represents unprecedented scale regarding mining business model diversification. Regulatory Considerations and Compliance Regulatory frameworks evolve differently for cryptocurrency mining versus AI infrastructure operations. Mining operations face increasing scrutiny regarding energy consumption reporting and environmental impact assessments. Several jurisdictions implemented specific cryptocurrency mining regulations throughout 2024. These regulations often focus on energy sourcing transparency and grid stability contributions. AI infrastructure operations encounter different regulatory considerations. Data privacy regulations like GDPR and emerging AI governance frameworks apply to these operations. Compliance requirements differ substantially between the two business models. Mining companies transitioning toward AI infrastructure must navigate complex regulatory landscapes simultaneously. Investment Community Perspectives Public market investors express divided opinions about the mining transition. Some analysts praise diversification strategies reducing Bitcoin price correlation risks. Other investors question strategic focus dilution away from core competencies. Mining company stock performance reflects these conflicting perspectives throughout early 2025. Institutional investors increasingly consider environmental, social, and governance factors. AI infrastructure potentially offers improved ESG profiles compared to cryptocurrency mining. This consideration influences capital allocation decisions among pension funds and endowment managers. The investment landscape continues evolving as transition strategies demonstrate concrete financial results. Technological Innovation Responses Bitcoin protocol developers monitor mining transitions for potential protocol adjustments. The network’s security model assumes sufficient economic incentives for honest validation participation. Significant mining participation reductions might necessitate protocol parameter reconsideration. However, Bitcoin’s conservative development philosophy favors minimal changes to core protocol mechanics. Alternative approaches include layer-two scaling solutions reducing mainchain validation requirements. The Lightning Network and other second-layer technologies continue expanding throughout 2025. These innovations potentially mitigate security concerns by distributing transaction validation across multiple layers. The broader ecosystem development provides additional security redundancy beyond mining incentives alone. Conclusion The Bitcoin mining industry’s pivot toward AI infrastructure represents a complex technological and economic transition with significant network security implications. Expert opinions diverge regarding hash rate sustainability versus natural market equilibrium mechanisms. The evolving situation requires careful monitoring of multiple metrics including hash rate distribution, mining profitability, and network difficulty adjustments. Historical resilience suggests Bitcoin’s security model possesses inherent adaptability, but unprecedented business model diversification introduces new variables. The coming years will determine whether market forces successfully balance mining profitability with network security requirements as the cryptocurrency and artificial intelligence sectors increasingly converge. FAQs Q1: What percentage of revenue might Bitcoin mining companies derive from mining in the future? Capriole Investments founder Charles Edwards projects mining revenue could drop from approximately 90% to around 30% within two to three years as companies diversify into AI infrastructure. Q2: How does reduced hash rate potentially increase mining profitability? Bitcoin’s protocol automatically adjusts mining difficulty based on network hash rate. When hash rate decreases, difficulty adjusts downward, making remaining mining operations more profitable as they solve blocks with less competition. Q3: What is the connection between quantum computing and Bitcoin mining? Quantum computers theoretically could break current cryptographic standards, making robust hash rates important for maintaining network security while quantum-resistant solutions develop. Q4: How might higher mining profitability affect Bitcoin’s price? Increased profitability reduces selling pressure from miners covering operational costs, potentially creating upward price momentum through reduced market supply. Q5: What technical challenges exist when converting mining facilities to AI infrastructure? Bitcoin mining uses specialized ASIC hardware while AI typically requires GPUs or TPUs, necessitating substantial retrofitting investments beyond simple hardware replacement. Q6: How do regulatory considerations differ between mining and AI operations? Mining faces energy consumption regulations while AI infrastructure encounters data privacy and AI governance frameworks, creating complex compliance landscapes for transitioning companies. This post Bitcoin Mining’s Critical AI Pivot Sparks Intense Debate on Hash Rate Versus Profitability first appeared on BitcoinWorld .

17 Apr 2026, 08:51

Citi finds dual Bitcoin-gold strategy outperforms over time

Bitcoin and gold gave investors a better long-term result when they sat in the same portfolio instead of fighting for the same slot, according to a Citi study on how the two assets worked inside a portfolio built around bonds and equities over the last 10 years. That view comes as Bitcoin has started trading less like a pure hedge and more like a risk asset at times, leaving investors with a practical portfolio question. If gold still has a place and Bitcoin is not going away, how should money be split between them? Citi said investors may not need to choose one over the other at all. Citi says a small mix of gold and Bitcoin gave portfolios better results than a standard 60/40 setup In a Thursday note, Alex Saunders of Citi said, “A 5% allocation to gold demonstrably increases portfolio efficiency. Splitting this allocation between gold and bitcoin further enhances performance.” The bank found that gold alone already helped, then found that dividing part of that gold stake into Bitcoin improved the result even more. Alex wrote, “This combined approach shows improvements in bond-bull scenarios relative to a traditional 60/40 portfolio and better performance in bear-steepening which post-2020, has coincided with fiscal fears and increasing inflation risk-premia which is an environment we anticipate is likely to endure.” He also said, “The relative popularity of gold investments relative to BTC also makes the mix more attractive tactically in our view.” Citi also said Bitcoin has recently done better than gold when bond markets have been weak or unstable. The bank pointed to fiscal worries and weaker stocks during the ongoing Middle East conflict. Over the last two months, Bitcoin rose 9% while spot gold fell 4%. Meanwhile, a separate note from Wells Fargo Securities gave gold an even more aggressive upside case. The bank said gold could climb to $8,000 an ounce by 2027, even after bullion broke down last month. That prediction rests on what the bank called the debasement trade. In plain terms, that means central banks around the world are losing faith in fiat currencies such as the U.S. dollar and are leaning harder toward assets seen as more neutral stores of value. Ohsung Kwon, chief equity strategist at Wells Fargo Securities, wrote, “We’re in the 4th debasement cycle that started in 2022. Following the recent pullback, gold is now closer to our model’s fair value of $4,500, and all three drivers are likely to suggest further debasement from here.” Kwon said four out of five economic scenarios in the bank’s work still point to more debasement, which is why the bull case reaches $8,000, a more than 66% upside from current prices. The bear case was much lower. Kwon said gold could fall to $4,000 by the end of 2027, which would be about a 17% drop from current levels. Kwon added the current gold cycle can be tracked through the M2/gold ratio, which measures the M2 money supply against the price of one ounce of gold. Glassnode tracks negative Bitcoin funding as price stays above $75,000 Moving on, data from Glassnode showed Bitcoin funding rates have fallen to their lowest level since 2023, even as the asset’s price climbed from the low-to-mid $60,000s to around $75,000 through March and April. On a seven-day moving average, funding rates dropped to about -0.005%. That setup has shown up before at key points in Bitcoin history. In March 2020, funding turned sharply negative when Bitcoin fell to about $3,000 during the COVID-19 sell-off before later recovering. A similar pattern showed up in mid-2021 during China’s mining ban, when Bitcoin dropped to $30,000. Funding hit its deepest level during the FTX collapse in November 2022, when Bitcoin bottomed near $15,000. It turned negative again during the Silicon Valley Bank crisis in 2023, when Bitcoin briefly fell below $20,000 before rebounding. The yen carry trade unwind in August 2024 and the April 2025 Liberation Day sell-off showed the same pattern too, with deeply negative funding lining up with local lows. If you want a calmer entry point into DeFi crypto without the usual hype, start with this free video.