Invest ideasNews
24 Apr 2026, 10:00
Bitcoin Could Survive Sale Of Satoshi’s Coins, On-Chain Expert Says
On-chain analyst James Check has pushed back against claims that a quantum-enabled sale of Satoshi-era Bitcoin would represent an existential market shock, arguing that the likely sell-side pressure is far smaller than the headline numbers suggest. In an April 23 report titled “Selling Satoshi’s Stack,” Check examined the debate over whether Bitcoin should freeze quantum-vulnerable coins if a cryptographically relevant quantum computer, or CRQC, becomes viable. The discussion has intensified around older Bitcoin outputs whose public keys are exposed, including coins from Bitcoin’s earliest years that many market participants associate with Satoshi Nakamoto. Bitcoin Quantum Fears Over Satoshi’s Coins Overblown? Check’s central argument is not that quantum risk should be ignored. He said Bitcoiners should support “the debate, development, and preparation” of credible post-quantum solutions. But he rejected the idea that vulnerable coins automatically translate into a market-ending sell event. “Quantum bulls often quote the 6.9M vulnerable coins as being a sword of Damocles that threatens to kill Bitcoin should a CRQC ever come to market,” Check wrote. “As with most things, there is a tonne of lost nuance, and the devil is absolutely in the details.” According to the report, roughly 6.934 million BTC currently fall into categories that could be vulnerable to long-range quantum attacks because their public keys are exposed. That includes 1.716 million BTC in Satoshi-era P2PK outputs , 214,000 BTC in Taproot addresses, and about 4.996 million BTC held in reused addresses. Check argues that the full 6.934 million BTC figure is best understood as a theoretical upper bound rather than a realistic market-risk estimate. Taproot is relatively new, he noted, meaning many owners are likely still active and able to migrate. Reused addresses, meanwhile, likely include large volumes managed by exchanges, custodians, ETFs and other entities with both the incentive and capacity to upgrade when post-quantum paths become available. “The real risk are the 1.716M Satoshi Era P2PK coins, which many liken to a sunken galleon full of gold, there for the taking if the lock can be pried open,” Check wrote. Even under a severe assumption that all 1.716 million P2PK coins are stolen and sold, Check said the market impact would likely be significant but not fatal. He compared the haul against revived supply, URPD shifts, exchange deposits and trading volumes, finding that the full P2PK balance is broadly equivalent to about 60 to 90 days of sell-side activity seen in Bitcoin bull markets or late-stage bear-market capitulations. “There is no doubt that a QC attacker selling all the P2PK coins would negatively impact the price. It probably creates a bear market. However, where will, I push back strongly, is it is nowhere near the ‘end-of-days’ fatal sell-side many quantum bulls in the debate seem to claim.” Check pointed to revived supply, which measures coins held for at least six months that are spent on a given day, as one lens for estimating Bitcoin’s ability to absorb older supply. He said a baseline of roughly 10,000 BTC per day is typical even in bear-market conditions, while bull-market profit-taking can push revived supply above 20,000 to 30,000 BTC per day. On that basis, the sale of Satoshi-era P2PK coins would represent a large but not unprecedented demand test. Check also cited recent 90-day cost-basis turnover, arguing that more than 2.3 million BTC had moved to new buyers between $60,000 and $80,000 since the Feb. 5, 2026 sell-off, exceeding the P2PK balance by 1.36 times. The report also discusses the proposed “hourglass” compromise in the BIP-360 debate , under which miners could include no more than one P2PK output per block. With about 38,000 P2PK outputs, Check estimated that such a mechanism would take roughly 264 days to fully exhaust the set, roughly in line with an optimistic post-quantum migration timeline for the broader Bitcoin network. For Check, the quantum debate ultimately goes beyond market mechanics. The sell-side argument, he suggests, is weaker than often claimed; the harder question is whether Bitcoin should preserve property rights even when old coins become vulnerable, or intervene before someone else can take them. “To the folks who claim we MUST freeze the coins because of the sell-side, I’d encourage you to put some numbers to your claims,” he wrote. “Instead, the actual thrust of this debate is around the principles of what Bitcoin is.” At press time, BTC traded at $77,869.
24 Apr 2026, 10:00
Riot unloads $38.95 mln in Bitcoin – Will this make BTC fail at $78K?
Bitcoin approaches $78K, but Riot's selling raises near-term resistance pressure.
24 Apr 2026, 10:00
Bitcoin Recovery May Not Arrive Until October, Scaramucci Says
Anthony Scaramucci said Bitcoin may not see a meaningful recovery until October or November, arguing that the current drawdown still fits the asset’s historic four-year cycle despite a more favorable regulatory backdrop in Washington. Speaking on the Thinking Crypto podcast from the Solana Policy Summit, the SkyBridge Capital founder framed the market weakness as a cyclical bear phase rather than a structural break. He said investors had expected a stronger policy-driven rally after the change in US administration, but that whales and long-time holders have continued to sell into ETF-driven demand. “I’m old school. I’ve been in the category that this is a cyclical bear market traditional to the four-year cycle of Bitcoin,” Scaramucci said. “You’ve just crossed the halfway mark of the halving and so you’re on your way to the back half of this thing. You typically don’t get any type of real recovery until the first quarter of next year.” Related Reading: Bitcoin Enters Disbelief Phase As Traders Keep Shorting The Rally Scaramucci added that Bitcoin’s timeline may have been slightly accelerated by macro factors, including President Donald Trump’s tariff-related messaging and geopolitical conflict. Still, he said Bitcoin has remained “fairly sticky” during the war period referenced in the interview. “You probably won’t see a recovery in Bitcoin until maybe the first month of the last quarter,” he said, pointing to “October possibly November” as a more realistic window. Why Bitcoin ETF Demand Has Not Been Enough The comments address a central frustration across the crypto market: why prices have failed to respond more forcefully to a pro-crypto administration, institutional ETF access, and improving legislative momentum. According to Scaramucci, the answer lies partly in supply. ETF activity has brought new buyers into Bitcoin, including older investors using traditional brokerage channels, but that demand has met heavy distribution from whales and early holders. “You’re still seeing a lot of Bitcoin buying. A lot of boomers are buying Bitcoin, but it’s just not enough,” he said. “You got whales that are selling into the — the OGs in this industry believe in the four-year cycle. And so what they do is they fulfill the prophecy of the four-year cycle by acting on the four-year cycle and selling.” He said whales were “pumping lots of coins into the supply at around $100,000,” which in his view contributed to Bitcoin falling into the high $60,000s. Scaramucci also tied Bitcoin’s next phase of institutional adoption to US market-structure legislation, especially the Clarity Act. He argued that the idea Bitcoin is “valueless” is now “completely off the table,” but said banks are unlikely to move aggressively without clearer rules. “If you don’t get the Clarity Act legislation passed, you’re not going to get the banks to really open up,” he said. He cited experimental custody programs at Bank of New York and SoFi, while arguing that real adoption requires major money-center banks to offer custody, yield, and borrowing against Bitcoin on more competitive terms. Until then, he said, investors will not see “real full-throated adoption.” Related Reading: Bitcoin Bulls Rebuild As Futures Metric Hits 4-Month High Scaramucci also criticized the political and lobbying dynamics around stablecoin yield and crypto legislation. He said banks are pushing back because of their entrenched market position, while warning that holding out for a perfect bill could delay progress. “I’m a little bit more practical. I probably would have tried to get something done and I would not make the perfect deal the enemy of progress,” he said. “The best example I can give you is the Bitcoin ETF. Gary Gensler hates us. He did not want that to happen. He lost the lawsuit, so he was forced to have it happen.” Bitcoin Reserve Debate Still Politicized On the question of whether the US government should hold Bitcoin in strategic reserves, Scaramucci said yes, but only if the issue can move beyond partisan framing. “It’s very hard to hold Bitcoin in a strategic reserve if it’s a partisan issue,” he said. “If we can get this to be a transformative post-partisan what’s right or wrong for the country, what’s right or wrong for the American taxpayer, then the answer is yes.” He said he would not aggressively push the issue before broader consensus forms, instead favoring an approach where government-held Bitcoin from legal actions is retained rather than sold. He also said he was unsure whether the US government had completed an audit of its Bitcoin holdings. At press time, BTC traded at $77,844. Featured image created with DALL.E, chart from TradingView.com
24 Apr 2026, 10:00
Iran Warns US: Eye for an Eye Response to Oil Strikes Sparks Global Alarm
BitcoinWorld Iran Warns US: Eye for an Eye Response to Oil Strikes Sparks Global Alarm Iran has issued a stark warning to the United States, vowing an “eye for an eye” response to any potential strikes on its oil infrastructure. This escalation of rhetoric dramatically raises the stakes in an already volatile Middle East. The threat, delivered through official state channels, directly links any American military action against Iranian oil assets to a proportional retaliation. This development immediately injects fresh uncertainty into global energy markets, which are already sensitive to supply disruptions. The focus keyword, Iran warns US, now dominates headlines as analysts scramble to assess the real risk of a direct military confrontation. Iran Warns US: The Direct Threat and Its Immediate Implications The warning from Tehran is unambiguous. Senior Iranian military officials stated that any attack on their oil facilities would be met with a direct and equivalent strike on US interests or allied infrastructure. This is not a new posture, but the timing and clarity are significant. It signals a red line that Iran expects the US to respect. For the international community, this represents a dangerous game of brinkmanship. The core of the threat is a mutual vulnerability: both nations rely on the stability of global energy flows, yet both possess the capability to disrupt them. This creates a high-stakes standoff where miscalculation could lead to rapid escalation. The phrase Iran warns US encapsulates the core tension, which now extends beyond diplomatic posturing to active military deterrence. Historical Context of US-Iran Oil Confrontations The current crisis is the latest chapter in a long history of confrontation over energy resources. The 2019 attacks on Saudi Aramco facilities, which temporarily halved the kingdom’s oil production, were widely attributed to Iran. Similarly, the US has imposed crippling sanctions on Iranian oil exports, a key pillar of its maximum pressure campaign. These actions have created a cycle of retaliation and counter-retaliation. The US has also conducted strikes against Iranian-backed militias that threaten oil infrastructure in Iraq and Syria. Understanding this history is crucial. It shows that both sides have used oil as a weapon and a target. The current threat is not an outlier; it is a predictable escalation of a long-standing pattern. The focus keyword, Iran warns US, is therefore deeply embedded in a broader narrative of economic warfare and military deterrence. Expert Analysis on the Escalation Ladder Geopolitical risk analysts point to a clear escalation ladder. The first rung is rhetoric, which we are now witnessing. The second is increased military posturing, such as moving naval assets or activating air defense systems. The third is a limited strike, perhaps on a single, symbolic target. The fourth is a full-scale retaliation. The key variable is the US administration’s response. If Washington views the threat as credible, it may de-escalate by reaffirming its commitment to diplomacy. However, if it perceives the threat as a bluff, it might proceed with a limited strike, testing Iran’s resolve. This creates a dangerous information asymmetry. Neither side can be certain of the other’s true intentions. The current situation, where Iran warns US, forces both capitals to play a high-risk game of chicken, with global energy security as the prize. Impact on Global Energy Markets and Oil Prices The immediate market reaction to the news has been a spike in crude oil futures. Brent crude, the international benchmark, jumped by several dollars in the hours following the announcement. This volatility is expected to persist. The Strait of Hormuz, a narrow waterway through which a fifth of the world’s oil passes, is a critical chokepoint. Iran has repeatedly threatened to close it. While a full closure is unlikely, any disruption—even a brief one—would send prices soaring. The impact is not limited to oil. Natural gas and refined product markets are also interconnected. A sustained conflict would likely trigger a global recession, as higher energy costs reduce consumer spending and increase business expenses. The central message, Iran warns US, is now a primary driver of market sentiment. Traders are pricing in a risk premium that reflects the potential for a supply shock. Key Market Data Points Brent Crude: Spiked $3.50 per barrel immediately after the warning. WTI Crude: Rose by $3.00, reflecting the same risk premium. Gasoline Futures: Increased by 2.5%, indicating downstream impact. Global Stock Markets: Major indices in Asia and Europe saw a 1-2% decline. Safe-Haven Assets: Gold prices rose 1.2%, while the US dollar strengthened. These figures demonstrate the immediate financial consequences of the geopolitical risk. The markets are clearly taking the threat seriously. Strategic Interests of Key Players: US, Iran, and Allies Each stakeholder has distinct strategic interests. The United States aims to maintain stable energy prices, especially ahead of domestic elections. It also seeks to contain Iran’s regional influence without triggering a costly war. Iran’s primary goal is to survive under sanctions and maintain its oil revenue, which is vital for its economy. Its allies, including Russia and China, have mixed interests. Russia benefits from higher oil prices, but a conflict could destabilize its own energy exports. China, the world’s largest oil importer, needs stable supply and would likely urge restraint from both sides. The complex web of alliances and dependencies means that any unilateral action has far-reaching consequences. The warning, Iran warns US, forces all these players to recalibrate their strategies. Diplomatic backchannels are likely already active, as each nation tries to prevent an uncontrolled escalation. Military Capabilities and Potential Targets An analysis of military capabilities reveals a dangerous asymmetry. The US possesses overwhelming conventional military power, including long-range bombers, carrier strike groups, and advanced cyber capabilities. Iran, however, has invested heavily in asymmetric warfare: ballistic missiles, drones, naval mines, and proxy forces across the region. A US strike on Iranian oil facilities would likely target key export terminals like Kharg Island, which handles over 90% of Iran’s crude exports. Iran’s response could target US bases in the Gulf, allied oil infrastructure in Saudi Arabia or the UAE, or even commercial shipping. The use of cyberattacks on US energy grids is also a credible threat. This creates a scenario where a limited military exchange could rapidly spiral into a broader regional conflict. The core message, Iran warns US, is therefore backed by a credible military deterrent, making any US decision to strike a high-risk gamble. Timeline of Recent Escalations January 2024: US and UK launch strikes against Houthi targets in Yemen, supported by Iran. April 2024: Iran launches a direct drone and missile attack on Israel, a first in history. October 2024: Israel strikes Iranian military facilities in a retaliatory operation. Current: Iran warns US of an eye for an eye response to potential oil strikes. This timeline shows a clear pattern of escalating direct confrontation. The current warning is the latest, and potentially most dangerous, step in this sequence. Economic Consequences for Iran and the Region Iran’s economy is already under severe strain from international sanctions. Oil exports, its primary source of foreign currency, have been significantly reduced. A direct strike on its export capacity would be catastrophic, potentially cutting off its remaining revenue. This would likely lead to a sharp devaluation of the rial, hyperinflation, and social unrest. For the region, the consequences are equally dire. Countries like Iraq, which relies on Iranian energy imports, would face severe shortages. The UAE and Saudi Arabia would see their insurance premiums for shipping skyrocket. Tourism and foreign investment would dry up. The economic cost of a conflict, even a limited one, would be borne by the entire region. The warning, Iran warns US, is therefore not just a military threat; it is an economic ultimatum that could destabilize the entire Middle East. Conclusion Iran’s explicit warning of an “eye for an eye” response to any US strikes on its oil infrastructure represents a critical inflection point in Middle East tensions. The threat is clear, credible, and backed by a history of asymmetric retaliation. The global energy market is now pricing in a significant risk premium, reflecting the potential for a supply disruption. The situation demands careful diplomatic navigation, as miscalculation could lead to a devastating regional conflict. The focus keyword, Iran warns US, encapsulates a high-stakes standoff that will define geopolitical risk for the foreseeable future. The world now watches to see if Washington will test Tehran’s resolve or seek a path toward de-escalation. The stakes have never been higher for global energy security and regional stability. FAQs Q1: What did Iran specifically warn the US about? A1: Iran warned the US that any military strikes on its oil infrastructure would be met with a direct and proportional retaliation, using the phrase “an eye for an eye.” Q2: Why is the Strait of Hormuz important in this context? A2: The Strait of Hormuz is a critical chokepoint through which about 20% of the world’s oil passes. Iran has threatened to close it in the past, and any disruption there would cause a massive spike in global oil prices. Q3: How did global oil markets react to the news? A3: Oil prices spiked immediately, with Brent crude rising by several dollars per barrel. The markets are now pricing in a risk premium due to the potential for a supply disruption. Q4: What are Iran’s primary military capabilities for retaliation? A4: Iran relies on asymmetric warfare capabilities, including ballistic missiles, drones, naval mines, and proxy forces across the region. These tools allow it to target US assets and allies without direct conventional confrontation. Q5: What is the historical background of US-Iran oil confrontations? A5: The history includes the 2019 attacks on Saudi Aramco, US sanctions on Iranian oil exports, and strikes on Iranian-backed militias. Both sides have consistently used oil as a weapon and a target in their long-standing conflict. This post Iran Warns US: Eye for an Eye Response to Oil Strikes Sparks Global Alarm first appeared on BitcoinWorld .
24 Apr 2026, 10:00
Mantle Proposes 30,000 ETH Loan to Aave After Kelp DAO Hack
The proposal would structure the funds as an interest-bearing loan with a term of up to 36 months and collateral requirements for Aave. The bad debt was created after attackers minted 116,500 rsETH through a compromised Kelp DAO bridge and used around $221 million of the stolen assets as collateral on Aave V3 to borrow WETH and wstETH. Mantle Offers 30,000 ETH to Help Aave Mantle Network, an Ethereum Layer 2 project backed by Bybit, proposed a major financial support package to help Aave DAO recover from the fallout of the recent $292 million Kelp DAO exploit. The proposal is known as MIP-34, and was submitted by Mantle’s Core Contributor Team. It will allow the Mantle Treasury to lend up to 30,000 ETH to Aave DAO. The funds would be used specifically to cover bad debt that was created on Aave V3 after the exploit involving rsETH, a liquid restaking token connected to Kelp DAO. Part of Mantle’s MIP-24 proposal According to the proposal, Mantle will not simply hand over the funds, but instead structure the arrangement as a yield-generating credit facility. Mantle Treasury would earn interest on the loan, turning otherwise idle assets into productive capital. The suggested interest rate would be based on Lido’s staking APR plus an additional 1% premium, though final terms would still need to be negotiated. The proposed maturity period is up to 36 months, and Aave would be able to repay the loan early without penalty. Mantle also shared details about several safeguards to reduce risk. The loan would be secured through a multisignature wallet designated by Mantle, where it would hold first-priority rights over the collateral. In addition, Aave would be required to commit 5% of its protocol revenue and AAVE tokens worth at least $11 million as collateral. If Aave defaults, Mantle would have the right to demand immediate repayment. Bybit CEO Ben Zhou publicly backed the proposal by saying the crypto industry should support one another during times of crisis. He referenced Bybit’s own past security incident, and pointed out that the community offered assistance then. The crisis began on April 18 when attackers exploited Kelp DAO’s LayerZero-powered cross-chain bridge. Around 116,500 rsETH tokens were fraudulently minted, worth roughly $292 million. This made it the largest decentralized finance exploit of the year so far. LayerZero said the attackers, likely linked to North Korea’s Lazarus Group, compromised two RPC nodes and used a DDoS attack to trick the bridge’s verification system into approving a fake message. The damage quickly spread to Aave when the attacker used approximately $221 million in stolen rsETH as collateral on Aave V3, borrowing 82,650 WETH and 821 wstETH. This left Aave facing a massive bad debt problem.
24 Apr 2026, 09:51
Toncoin (TON) And Worldcoin (WLD): With Messaging And ID Apps Adding Wallet Features, Do TON And WLD Drive A “Social + Identity” Leg Or Hit Regulatory Pushback?
As of mid-April 2026, the "Social + Identity" narrative is reaching a fever pitch. With major messaging platforms finally flipping the switch on native wallet integrations and digital ID protocols becoming the gatekeepers for AI-verified human interaction, Toncoin (TON) and Worldcoin (WLD) find themselves at the center of a massive capital rotation. However, the charts suggest we aren't in a "moon mission" just yet. While TON is carving out a sophisticated payments-social uptrend, WLD remains a high-beta wild card, sensitive to every headline from global privacy regulators. Toncoin (TON): Stronger Social + Payments Trend Source: tradingview TON is currently the poster child for "Social L1" adoption. By leveraging its deep integration with the Telegram ecosystem, it has successfully transitioned from a speculative asset to a functional payments rail for millions of mini-apps. Technical Verdict: TON is showing the structure bulls love to see. It is currently trading above its 7-day and 30-day moving averages, indicating that short-term and medium-term momentum are aligned. While it remains below its 200-day SMA, the MACD is decisively positive. Our Analysis: The RSI-14 at 55–65 is the "sweet spot"—it shows consistent buying pressure without the "blow-off" exhaustion that leads to 40% crashes. As long as it holds the 30-day support on dips, TON remains the primary anchor for the social finance trade. Worldcoin (WLD): High‑Beta Identity Bet With Fragile Structure Source: tradingview WLD is a different beast entirely. While its "Global Digital ID" story is perfect for the 2026 AI era, its technical structure is more fragile. Every rally seems to run into a wall of regulatory scrutiny or concerns over biometric data privacy. Technical Verdict: Structurally, WLD is still in a "repair" phase. It is currently attempting to base after a massive drawdown, but it remains far below its 200-day average. Unlike TON, WLD’s MACD flips frequently, suggesting that the market treats it as a news-driven trade rather than a structural hold. Our Analysis: For WLD to lead, it needs to prove it can sustain price levels above its 30-day average for more than a few days at a time. Right now, it looks like an "identity leg" play that pops on good news but lacks the sticky liquidity to hold its gains. Conclusion: Driving the Leg or Hitting the Wall? The "Social + Identity" leg of the 2026 cycle is currently being led by TON , which offers a cleaner trend and real-world payments utility. WLD provides the narrative torque for those betting on the biometric future, but it carries a significantly higher regulatory "handicap." For this to become a confirmed market leadership cycle, we need to see both assets reclaim their 200-day moving averages. Until then, keep an eye on the 30-day SMA; as long as the apps keep adding features and the price stays above that line, the narrative lives to fight another day. 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.
