Invest ideasNews
20 Feb 2026, 16:21
Bitcoin Price Reacts as US Supreme Court Strikes Down Trump Tariffs
After a few delays, the United States Supreme Court finally announced its ruling on the highly debated Trump-tariff case. Unfortunately for the US President, the Court ruled them illegal, rejecting their usage of emergency powers to impose trade duties. As reported by Walter Bloomberg, the import tariffs from countries like Canada, China, Mexico, and the EU were projected to raise $1.5 trillion over the next decade. SUPREME COURT STRIKES DOWN TRUMP’S GLOBAL TARIFFS The Supreme Court ruled Friday that President Trump’s global tariffs are illegal, rejecting his use of emergency powers to impose trade duties. • The tariffs, covering imports from Canada, China, Mexico, and nearly all… pic.twitter.com/Qu7EVbBCch — *Walter Bloomberg (@DeItaone) February 20, 2026 Trump was quick to lash out against the Supreme Court’s decision, calling it a “disgrace.” Additionally, he said his administration has a backup plan. Further reports on the matter, including trade expert Lawrence Herman’s opinion, indicated that the trade tensions won’t end with the Supreme Court’s ruling. He reportedly added that the tariffs are “here to stay in one form or another,” and warned that the US-Canada trade relationship has already been “shattered.” In the more recent development on the matter as of press time, Trump seemed to have threatened the US legal system, saying he had to do something about the courts. Bitcoin has had a long and mostly painful history with Trump’s tariff impositions. It plunged last April when the first wave was announced and has reacted negatively to almost all threats from the POTUS to other countries. After the Supreme Court ruling today, BTC went on a wild micro ride, going down to $66,500, jumping to over $68,000 within minutes, before it repeated the scenario a few times. It has since settled at under $68,000. BTCUSD Feb 20 5 Min Chart. Source: TradingView The post Bitcoin Price Reacts as US Supreme Court Strikes Down Trump Tariffs appeared first on CryptoPotato .
20 Feb 2026, 16:20
Gold Price Soars: Defiant Rally Above $5,000 Fueled by Geopolitical Fears and Stubborn Inflation
BitcoinWorld Gold Price Soars: Defiant Rally Above $5,000 Fueled by Geopolitical Fears and Stubborn Inflation Global financial markets witnessed a defiant rally in the gold price during early 2025, with the precious metal holding firmly above the historic $5,000 per ounce threshold. This sustained surge directly correlates with two powerful macroeconomic forces: escalating military tensions between the United States and Iran, and persistently firm data from the Federal Reserve’s preferred inflation gauge, the Personal Consumption Expenditures (PCE) index. Consequently, investors are flocking to the timeless safe-haven asset, seeking both protection from geopolitical instability and a reliable hedge against enduring price pressures. Gold Price Defies Gravity Amid Dual Market Pressures The gold price achieved a landmark close above $5,000 last week, according to data from major commodity exchanges. This milestone represents a continuation of a multi-year bullish trend, yet the recent acceleration is particularly noteworthy. Market analysts immediately point to a confluence of drivers. Primarily, reports of a significant naval confrontation in the Strait of Hormuz between US and Iranian forces triggered immediate risk-off sentiment. Simultaneously, the latest US PCE report confirmed inflation remains stubbornly above the Federal Reserve’s 2% target, dashing hopes for imminent aggressive rate cuts. Therefore, the gold price is reacting to a perfect storm of fear and fundamentals. The Geopolitical Catalyst: US-Iran Tensions Escalate Geopolitical risk has returned as a primary driver for the gold price in 2025. The strategic Strait of Hormuz, a critical chokepoint for global oil shipments, became a flashpoint last Tuesday. Initial reports from regional defense monitors indicate a direct engagement involving drones and naval vessels. Following this event, safe-haven flows into gold and other perceived stores of value intensified dramatically. Historically, gold performs strongly during periods of international conflict and uncertainty, as investors move capital away from volatile equities and growth-sensitive currencies. This pattern is repeating with remarkable clarity, demonstrating gold’s enduring role in portfolio defense. Inflation’s Grip: Firm PCE Data Supports Gold’s Hedge Status Beyond geopolitics, domestic economic data provides a fundamental bedrock for the elevated gold price. The core PCE price index, which excludes volatile food and energy costs, rose 0.3% for the latest month, matching analyst forecasts. More importantly, the year-over-year rate held at 2.8%, significantly above the central bank’s goal. This data signals that the Federal Reserve may maintain a restrictive monetary policy for longer than markets had anticipated. Higher-for-longer interest rates typically strengthen the US dollar, which can pressure dollar-denominated gold. However, the current environment shows gold decoupling from this traditional inverse relationship, as its utility as an inflation hedge is overpowering currency effects. Investors clearly view physical gold as a superior protection against the erosion of purchasing power. Key Drivers of Gold Demand (2025): Safe-Haven Flows: Capital seeking safety from geopolitical and equity market volatility. Inflation Hedge: Protection against persistent rises in the cost of living. Central Bank Purchases: Ongoing diversification of reserves by nations like China and India. Weakening Rate Cut Expectations: Reduced opportunity cost of holding non-yielding bullion. Expert Analysis on Market Dynamics Dr. Anya Sharma, Chief Commodities Strategist at Global Macro Advisors, provided context on the gold price movement. “The breach of $5,000 is psychologically significant, but it’s underpinned by tangible factors,” she stated in a recent research note. “We are observing a paradigm where gold is responding less to daily dollar fluctuations and more to its core identities: a geopolitical insurance policy and a real asset. The PCE data confirms the ‘last mile’ of inflation is the most difficult, and the Middle East situation reminds us that tail risks are ever-present.” This expert perspective underscores the multifaceted support for the current valuation. Historical Context and Future Trajectory for the Gold Price To understand the current gold price, a brief historical comparison is useful. The previous major bull run peaked in 2011 following the global financial crisis, driven by quantitative easing and low rates. The current cycle differs, featuring higher nominal interest rates but also higher geopolitical and fiscal risks. A short table illustrates the shifting drivers: Period Primary Gold Driver Secondary Driver Price Context 2011 Peak Monetary Expansion (QE) Post-Crisis Fear ~$1,900/oz 2025 Rally Geopolitical Risk Sticky Inflation >$5,000/oz Looking forward, the trajectory of the gold price will hinge on the evolution of its two key drivers. De-escalation in the Middle East could remove a primary support, while a sustained drop in inflation metrics might reduce its hedging appeal. However, many institutional forecasts remain bullish, citing structural deficits in mine supply and continued strong demand from central banks, particularly in emerging markets seeking to reduce US dollar dependency. Conclusion The gold price holding above $5,000 marks a pivotal moment for commodity markets and global finance. This rally is not speculative but is deeply rooted in the tangible realities of renewed geopolitical conflict in a critical region and the persistent challenge of inflation, as confirmed by firm PCE data. Gold has reasserted its dual historical role as the ultimate safe-haven asset and a proven store of value. For investors and policymakers alike, the strength of the gold price serves as a clear barometer of underlying market anxiety and economic uncertainty as we move deeper into 2025. FAQs Q1: Why is the gold price so sensitive to US-Iran tensions? The Strait of Hormuz is a vital passage for approximately 20% of the world’s oil supply. Any conflict there threatens global energy security, spooking financial markets and triggering demand for safe-haven assets like gold, which is seen as immune to geopolitical disruptions. Q2: What is the PCE, and why does it matter for gold? The Personal Consumption Expenditures (PCE) index is the Federal Reserve’s preferred measure of inflation. Firm or rising PCE data suggests persistent inflation, which erodes the value of currency. Investors buy gold to preserve purchasing power, as its value often rises alongside inflation expectations. Q3: Don’t higher interest rates usually hurt the gold price? Typically, yes, because gold pays no interest. Higher rates increase the opportunity cost of holding it. However, in the current environment, the dual forces of geopolitical risk and inflation concerns are overpowering that traditional dynamic, making gold attractive despite higher rates. Q4: Is the $5,000 gold price sustainable? Sustainability depends on the persistence of its driving factors. If geopolitical tensions ease and inflation falls convincingly, the price could consolidate. However, continued central bank buying and structural market deficits provide a strong long-term floor for prices. Q5: How does this affect the average investor or consumer? A rising gold price can signal broader market caution and inflation concerns. For consumers, it may indirectly reflect higher costs for goods. For investors, it highlights the importance of diversification, including assets that can perform during periods of uncertainty and price instability. This post Gold Price Soars: Defiant Rally Above $5,000 Fueled by Geopolitical Fears and Stubborn Inflation first appeared on BitcoinWorld .
20 Feb 2026, 16:15
Saylor: Bitcoin Going to $0 or $1 Million
Strategy founder Michael Saylor has predicted that Bitcoin could surge to $1 million (unless it is crashes to zero).
20 Feb 2026, 16:13
Can Bitcoin Handle the Threat from Quantum Computing?
Quantum computing has recently become one of the biggest open questions in Bitcoin, particularly for institutions . Not because a breakthrough is considered imminent, but because long-horizon tail risks matter. If quantum machines ever reached the right scale, they could theoretically target the cryptography upon which Bitcoin relies, raising uncomfortable questions not only about security but what happens to long-dormant coins if key recovery ever becomes feasible. What’s changed isn’t the underlying risk model — it’s that the ecosystem is now starting to treat it as an engineering and governance problem, not just a thought experiment. That includes everything from emphasising basic wallet hygiene to longer-range upgrade paths like BIP 360. Before any of that, though, it’s worth being clear on what quantum actually threatens — and how. What Quantum Changes: Shor vs. Grover Bitcoin ownership relies on digital signatures — ECDSA historically, with Taproot supporting Schnorr signatures ( BIP340 ). Both rely on the same elliptic curve, secp256k1. Private keys generate public keys through elliptic-curve mathematics. Reversing that relationship — deriving a private key from a public key — is considered infeasible for classical computers. A fault-tolerant quantum computer capable of running Shor’s algorithm at cryptographically relevant scale, however, could theoretically solve the elliptic-curve discrete logarithm problem, allowing an attacker to forge valid signatures and steal funds. Of secondary concern is Grover’s algorithm . It doesn’t “break” SHA-256 , but it could reduce the work needed to find a valid proof-of-work output, potentially altering mining economics and introducing centralisation concerns — though only if a quantum miner can outpace today’s ASICs, an engineering feat well beyond running Grover itself. Shor-related concerns are therefore considered more urgent because they target Bitcoin’s ownership layer in a more immediate sense in the event of any meaningful quantum breakthrough. Exposure Profiles: Long vs. Short Shor is only relevant, however, once a public key becomes visible on-chain. Coins vulnerable to long exposure are those whose public keys are visible when a UTXO is created or remain visible for extended periods. These include early Bitcoin P2PK (pay-to-public-key) outputs, reused addresses that tie funds to keys revealed during earlier spends, and Taproot (P2TR) outputs, which commit to a (tweaked) public key in the UTXO itself. In these cases, public keys are visible well before any spend, representing a “harvest now, attack later” threat if quantum capability matures. Modern wallet outputs such as P2PKH (legacy) and P2WPKH (SegWit) use hashed-pubkey constructions that only reveal the public key once the output is spent. The exposure window here is far shorter — and less practical at scale — requiring an attacker to derive the private key and broadcast a conflicting spend within the few blocks needed for the legitimate transaction to confirm. Estimates of how many coins are exposed vary. Some analyses claim that 20–50% of supply could be vulnerable under broad threat assumptions. Others argue this conflates theoretical exposure with practical exploitability, especially where risk is limited to short “mempool race” windows or where exposed coins are dispersed across many smaller UTXOs. One widely cited report places the concentrated, materially exposed subset closer to ~10,200 BTC. The key takeaway is that the threat is real but not uniform — and the attack surface, in practice, narrower than it sounds. The Fault-Tolerance Bottleneck All of the above presupposes fault-tolerant quantum computers operating at cryptographically relevant scale. Breaking Bitcoin’s elliptic-curve signatures would likely require millions of physical qubits operating with sufficient error correction to yield the stable logical qubits such attacks depend on. One recent report suggests this could require machines roughly 100,000× more powerful than those publicly known today. Views on when — or even whether — this will happen vary, with many serious discussions clustering in the mid-2030s to mid-2040s. What is less disputed is that if meaningful capability ever materialises, any response will need to have been coordinated well in advance. Migration and Post-Quantum Standards The main challenge to any response lies in how Bitcoin transitions to something resilient to quantum threats under throughput limits, uneven incentives and contentious governance trade-offs. In 2024, NIST finalised post-quantum standards including lattice-based ML-DSA (Dilithium) and SLH-DSA (SPHINCS+), anchoring the candidate set large systems are converging on. For Bitcoin, any migration would likely be staged: introducing new, safer output types and wallet defaults, and potentially a transition period involving hybrid spends that require classical and post-quantum proofs. Trade-offs are unavoidable — post-quantum signatures tend to be larger and heavier to verify, increasing bandwidth and validation costs. There are multiple plausible directions beyond any single proposal, including new post-quantum-capable output types, hybrid signature policies during transition, and wallet-default shifts designed to reduce long-lived public-key exposure over time. A soft fork is the most likely mechanism for introducing new output types. A hard fork is possible, but it is a messy solution risking chain splits if stakeholders disagree. BIP 360: P2MR as Incremental Hardening BIP 360 — recently merged into the BIPs repository — is the most concrete attempt yet to translate “quantum readiness” into an incremental, Bitcoin-native proposal. It introduces a new output type, Pay-to-Merkle-Root (P2MR), designed to operate similarly to Taproot but with key-path spending removed. Specifically, it aims to reduce reliance on long-lived embedded public keys most at risk from “harvest now, attack later,” without forcing Bitcoin to immediately select and deploy heavyweight post-quantum signature schemes. Conceptually, P2MR is “Taproot-like script trees, but no key-path.” Spends must reveal a script path and a Merkle proof, which is less compact than a Taproot key-path spend. The trade-off is larger witnesses in exchange for reducing a long-exposure pattern threatened by Shor. BIP 360 frames P2MR as foundational rather than final. It directly addresses long-exposure patterns, while mempool-race scenarios and the broader shift to post-quantum signatures would require separate follow-on work. Crucially, the proposal also surfaces an issue any credible migration plan must reckon with: even with opt-in upgrades and changing wallet defaults, a meaningful portion of the UTXO set may remain on legacy outputs for a very long time. Dormant holdings, lost keys, institutional custody constraints, and simple inertia create UTXOs that may never voluntarily move. If cryptographically relevant quantum capability ever arrives, some long-exposed coins whose owners are unreachable could, in principle, be swept by whoever can derive their keys. Even if that is “just” theft rather than protocol failure, the consequences could be severe: it would undermine confidence, trigger emergency policy responses, and — in the case of large dormant clusters — raise fears of sudden supply becoming liquid. Proposals to freeze or otherwise treat unmigrated coins differently, however, raise politically explosive questions about immutability, neutrality, and property rights. Proposals to freeze or otherwise treat unmigrated coins differently, however, raise politically explosive questions about immutability, neutrality, and property rights. The risk of deadlock is why planning early matters, even if timelines remain uncertain. Risks, Reality and Readiness Quantum is a real, long-horizon challenge for Bitcoin. It isn’t, however, an existential cliff edge. The risk is uneven, tied to specific exposure profiles and subject to hardware timelines that remain genuinely uncertain. Importantly, it’s not arriving into a vacuum: developers are already sketching credible migration paths: the kind of long-range planning that matters as much to institutions as it does to anyone holding Bitcoin for the long term. The hardest part for now is coordination. Any transition will be slow — potentially taking years — contested and complicated by coins that never move. But Bitcoin is conservative by design, and that conservatism is a feature, making staged, opt-in change possible without forcing everyone onto a single rushed deadline. Taproot is a recent reminder that meaningful upgrades can ship when the case is clear and incentives align. Taken together, that points to the only posture that really makes sense for now: as with everything, preparation beats panic — and Bitcoin still has time to prepare. The post Can Bitcoin Handle the Threat from Quantum Computing? appeared first on Bitfinex blog .
20 Feb 2026, 16:10
Coinbase Offers 3.5% Annual Yield on USDC Balances With Subscription Service
Coinbase will offer a 3.5% annual yield on USDC balances for Coinbase One subscribers. The yield is available on all subscription tiers, paid weekly in USDC or Bitcoin. Continue Reading: Coinbase Offers 3.5% Annual Yield on USDC Balances With Subscription Service The post Coinbase Offers 3.5% Annual Yield on USDC Balances With Subscription Service appeared first on COINTURK NEWS .
20 Feb 2026, 16:05
Trump Tariff Refunds: Kalshi Traders Predict Stunning 66% Chance of $135.5 Billion Repayments by July
BitcoinWorld Trump Tariff Refunds: Kalshi Traders Predict Stunning 66% Chance of $135.5 Billion Repayments by July WASHINGTON, D.C. – March 2025: Prediction market platform Kalshi is currently signaling a dramatic shift in trader sentiment, with users now pricing in a 66% probability that billions in Trump-era tariffs will be refunded by July. This surge follows a landmark U.S. Supreme Court decision that fundamentally reshapes the legal landscape of presidential trade authority. Kalshi Prediction Market Signals Major Policy Shift The probability of tariff refunds on Kalshi has effectively doubled from recent levels in the low 30% range. This rapid repricing directly responds to the Court’s ruling on the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA). Consequently, market participants are betting heavily on a specific administrative outcome. Reuters analysis suggests the total refund liability could reach approximately $135.5 billion. This figure represents one of the largest potential fiscal adjustments in recent U.S. trade history. Prediction markets like Kalshi aggregate the collective intelligence of thousands of traders. They function by allowing users to buy and sell contracts based on the likelihood of future events. Therefore, a contract price of 66 cents signifies a 66% perceived chance of that event occurring. The platform has gained significant traction for forecasting political and economic outcomes, often with notable accuracy. Anatomy of the Supreme Court’s Landmark Ruling The Court’s majority opinion, delivered in late February 2025, centered on statutory interpretation. Specifically, the justices examined whether the IEEPA granted the executive branch the authority to impose reciprocal tariffs. The IEEPA, enacted in 1977, empowers the President to declare a national emergency in response to unusual threats. Historically, administrations have used it to freeze assets or block transactions. However, the Court found a critical distinction. The majority concluded that while the Act grants broad economic powers, it did not explicitly authorize the specific tariff mechanism employed. The ruling stated that Congress must provide clearer statutory language for such significant trade actions. This decision immediately invalidated the legal foundation for billions of dollars in collected duties. Core Legal Issue: Statutory authority under IEEPA for reciprocal tariffs. Court’s Finding: The Act’s language was insufficiently specific. Immediate Effect: Removal of legal basis for the tariff program. Key Precedent: Reinforces congressional primacy in setting trade policy. Expert Analysis on the Ruling’s Implications Constitutional law scholars note the decision continues a recent trend of the Court reining in expansive executive authority. “This ruling firmly places the power of the purse—and by extension, detailed trade policy—back with Congress,” explains Dr. Elena Rodriguez, a professor of trade law at Georgetown University. “The administrative state now faces the complex task of unwinding a multi-year policy. Furthermore, the mechanics of any potential refund present a monumental logistical challenge.” The timeline for implementation remains uncertain. The Court’s mandate typically gives lower courts 25 days to finalize judgment. After that, the executive branch must develop a compliance plan. Administrative law experts suggest the Treasury and U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) would lead the refund process. They would need to identify eligible importers, verify payments, and establish a disbursement system. This complexity explains why Kalshi traders are focusing on the July timeframe rather than an immediate payout. The Massive Financial and Economic Impact The potential $135.5 billion refund, as estimated by Reuters, would have profound fiscal and macroeconomic consequences. To contextualize this sum, it exceeds the annual GDP of several U.S. states. The refunds would essentially inject capital back into the corporate balance sheets of thousands of importers. Industries that faced the heaviest tariff burdens, such as manufacturing, retail, and technology, stand to benefit most directly. Estimated Top Industries Impacted by Potential Tariff Refunds Industry Estimated Tariff Burden (Billions) Primary Goods Affected Consumer Electronics $32.1 Smartphones, Computers, Components Industrial Machinery $28.7 Factory Equipment, Parts Retail & Consumer Goods $25.4 Apparel, Furniture, Home Goods Automotive $22.8 Vehicles, Parts, Steel/Aluminum Chemicals & Plastics $18.5 Industrial Inputs, Raw Materials Economists are debating the potential stimulative effect. A sudden liquidity event of this scale could boost business investment and consumer spending. Conversely, the federal government would need to account for the loss of this revenue, potentially affecting budget projections and debt management strategies. The refund process itself would also require significant administrative resources, diverting personnel from other CBP and Treasury functions. How Prediction Markets Like Kalshi Work Kalshi is a regulated CFTC-designated contract market. It allows users to trade on the outcome of yes/no questions about real-world events. For this event, the specific market is: “Will the U.S. government issue refunds for Section 301 China tariffs before July 31, 2025?” The current price of the “Yes” share reflects the collective, money-backed judgment of all participants. This price incorporates all publicly available information, including legal analysis, political commentary, and logistical assessments. The market’s volatility—jumping from 30% to 66%—demonstrates how efficiently these platforms digest new information. When the Supreme Court issued its ruling, traders immediately began buying the “Yes” shares, driving the price upward. This market-based probability offers a continuous, quantitative measure of expectation that differs from traditional polling or pundit speculation. The Road Ahead: Legal and Political Pathways The executive branch now faces a clear mandate to comply with the Court’s order. Legal experts outline two primary pathways. First, the administration could initiate a structured refund program through executive action, guided by the Treasury. Second, Congress could pass legislation to formalize the refund process, allocate funds, and set eligibility criteria. The political dynamics are complex, with debates likely over whether refunds should go directly to importers or be used for broader economic purposes. Some legal observers also note the possibility of follow-on litigation. Disputes may arise over calculation methods, interest accrual, or eligibility for certain importers. These factors contribute to the uncertainty that Kalshi’s probability captures. The 66% chance implies a significant likelihood of refunds, but also acknowledges a roughly one-in-three chance of delays, legal obstacles, or an alternative resolution. Conclusion The Kalshi prediction market’s 66% probability for Trump tariff refunds by July highlights the immediate economic ramifications of the Supreme Court’s pivotal ruling. This event underscores the growing influence of prediction markets in forecasting policy outcomes. Moreover, the potential movement of $135.5 billion will significantly impact federal finances, corporate liquidity, and broader trade policy. As administrative agencies chart their course, all market participants will watch the evolving probability on platforms like Kalshi for the clearest signal of what happens next. FAQs Q1: What exactly did the Supreme Court rule regarding Trump’s tariffs? The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that President Trump exceeded his statutory authority under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) by imposing reciprocal tariffs. The Court found the law did not specifically authorize such tariff actions, invalidating their legal basis. Q2: How does Kalshi calculate a 66% chance? Kalshi is a prediction market where users trade contracts. The price of a “Yes” contract for tariff refunds by July is currently 66 cents. This price, determined by supply and demand among thousands of traders, represents the market’s collective probability estimate. Q3: Who would receive the tariff refunds? Refunds would typically be issued to the importers of record—the U.S. companies or individuals who directly paid the tariffs to U.S. Customs and Border Protection at the time of import. The exact eligibility criteria would be defined by the implementing policy. Q4: Is the $135.5 billion refund amount confirmed? No, the $135.5 billion figure is an estimate from Reuters based on collected tariff data. The official total would depend on the final accounting by the Treasury and CBP, including which tariffs are deemed eligible for refund under the Court’s ruling. Q5: Could Congress or the President stop the refunds from happening? While the Court’s ruling is binding, the implementation process could be shaped by subsequent legislation or executive action. However, any attempt to circumvent the core requirement to provide a remedy for illegally collected tariffs would likely face immediate legal challenge. This post Trump Tariff Refunds: Kalshi Traders Predict Stunning 66% Chance of $135.5 Billion Repayments by July first appeared on BitcoinWorld .
