Invest ideasNews
1 Jun 2026, 10:51
Bitcoin Price Prediction: $73.5K Retest Keeps the Next Move on Edge
Bitcoin is retesting a key support zone near $73,500 after pulling back from the low $80,000s. Analysts say BTC remains neutral for now because selling volume is still low, but a clean break below this zone could shift pressure back toward $70,000. Bitcoin Price Retests Key Support Zone as BTC Faces Major Decision Point Bitcoin is retesting a major support and resistance zone on the three-day chart, according to a setup shared by Daan Crypto Trades on X. The analyst called it “the retest that matters,” pointing to the green horizontal area that has acted as an important reaction zone several times since 2024. Bitcoin Three-Day Chart. Source: Daan Crypto Trades on X The chart shows BTC trading near the $73,500 area after pulling back from the low $80,000s. Price has returned to the same green zone that previously acted as resistance before later becoming support. This area matters because Bitcoin reacted from it several times in the past. The chart marks earlier touches with gray circles, showing how price either rejected from the zone or bounced after reclaiming it. BTC is now testing the zone again after a sharp pullback. If buyers defend this area, the chart could support another recovery attempt toward the $78,000–$82,000 range. However, a clean break below the green zone would weaken the structure. In that case, sellers could push BTC back toward the lower range near the $70,000 area. For now, Bitcoin is at a key retest point. The next move depends on whether this old resistance-turned-support zone holds or fails. Bitcoin Price Holds Neutral Range as Selling Volume Stays Low Bitcoin showed a slight decline on several one-hour exchange charts, but selling volume remained limited, according to a chart shared by CW on X. The analyst said BTC remains in a neutral state because the latest move lower has not come with strong sell-side volume. Bitcoin Volume Chart. Source: CW on X The chart compares Bitcoin price action across Coinbase, Binance perpetual futures, Binance spot, and OKX. All four panels show BTC moving lower earlier before entering a sideways range near the $73,500 area. The latest candles show only a small pullback. The volume bars also appear lighter than during the earlier decline, which suggests sellers have not added strong pressure. CW said the selling volume is small. That means the decline has not confirmed a stronger bearish move yet. The lower indicators on the chart also show mixed behavior across exchanges. Some readings moved slightly negative, but none showed a large fresh breakdown. For now, Bitcoin remains stuck inside a short-term neutral range. Buyers have not pushed price back toward the previous highs, while sellers have not shown enough volume to force a deeper move.
1 Jun 2026, 10:50
XLM Outpaces XRP Again as Stellar Rally Nears 100% Gain Since DTCC Deal
XLM surged past $0.27 early June 1—yielding brief 24-hour gains of 14%—before a market-wide sell-off trimmed its daily gains to 5%. Alongside Hyperliquid and TRON, XLM was one of the few top 20 digital assets to post gains on a day the aggregate market fell 1.4%. XLM Defies Market Sell-off On June 1, XLM surged
1 Jun 2026, 10:50
Sui Explains What Caused Its Three Consecutive Mainnet Disruptions
Sui experienced three mainnet outages on May 28 and May 29 tied to its v1.72 release. Two halts came from a gas-charging bug exposed by the new address balances feature. The third halt followed a latent randomness bug triggered during validator restarts. The Sui Foundation published its full review of the three mainnet outages that knocked the network offline across May 28 and May 29, 2026. The firm claimed that the disruptions were caused by two distinct bugs in the v1.72 software release. The post-mortem confirmed that the first two halts shared the same root cause, while a third halt was triggered by a latent randomness-state bug exposed during validator restarts. The first outage began at around 7 a.m. PT on Thursday, May 28, and ended at about 1:30 p.m. PT the same day. The second halt ran from roughly 5 a.m. PT to 8:30 a.m. PT on Friday, May 29. The third outage began at around 1:30 p.m. PT on Friday and ended at about 7:20 p.m. PT. The Foundation said no user funds were at risk across the three events and the network did not revert any committed transactions when it resumed. SUI , the network’s native token, trades at $0.8776, down 2.6 percent on the day, 15.7 percent over the past week, and 73.0 percent over the past year. Gas-Charging Bug Drove the First Two Sui Outages The v1.72 release added a feature called address balances, which gives users a new way to store funds and pay for gas without using coin objects. Sui transactions can now pay for gas using an address balance on its own, coin objects, or a mix of both, which the team calls hybrid gas. For transactions paying with coin objects or hybrid gas, the runtime performs gas smashing before charging the transaction. The process combines all input coins into a single coin that is then debited for gas. The step runs for transactions that execute successfully and for transactions that are cancelled. The root cause of the first two outages sat at an edge case inside the hybrid gas path. If a reservation attempted to overdraft an address balance during the budget check, the attempt was blocked and the transaction was cancelled with an InsufficientFundsForWithdraw error. The Foundation said the crash did not happen during gas smashing itself. Using an address balance in a transaction emits balance deltas that are reconciled by a system settlement transaction. The crash came from a negative delta produced by the cancelled-but-still-smashed gas being applied to a zero balance during settlement. The condition could only happen when two transactions hit the scheduler at the same time and competed to spend funds from an address balance that could not cover both. The scheduler cancels one of them with InsufficientFundsForWithdraw to prevent the overdraft, but the cancelled transaction still debited funds through gas smashing. Interim Fix Came With a Known Risk That Triggered the Second Halt The fix the core team proposed on Thursday afternoon stopped the system from smashing gas when a transaction was cancelled with InsufficientFundsForWithdraw. Enough validators adopted the patch to bring the network back at about 1:30 p.m. PT, with the team accepting a known risk attached to the interim approach. The Foundation said gas logic changes are delicate work. Address balances interact with coins in complicated ways. Changes must either preserve all previous behavior or apply version gating, since nodes can fork while replaying old transactions under new logic. Sui’s gas charging also includes conservation checks that prevent any transaction from creating or destroying SUI. Skipping the step that credits any charged funds to the appropriate place would cause a crash. Charging expensive transactions also serves as a key piece of denial-of-service protection. The interim fix had a shortcoming that the team flagged when it shipped. A transaction can carry multiple reasons for cancellation, and one reason can override the others. A transaction using address balances might be cancelled because too many higher-priority transactions are queuing to touch the same hot shared object, then also be cancelled for InsufficientFundsForWithdraw when another transaction spends from the same address balance. In that scenario, the InsufficientFundsForWithdraw error gets masked by the other error, bypassing the patch and triggering the same underflow. That exact scenario hit the network on Friday morning, leading to the second outage. The team was close to completing a more durable fix at the time and finished in time to propose the new patch to validators by about 8 a.m. PT. Enough validators adopted it to bring Sui back up by 9:40 a.m. PT. Randomness State Bug Caused the Third Sui Halt The network ran normally from 9:40 a.m. PT until about 1:30 p.m. PT on Friday, when the scheduled epoch change failed to complete and the network halted a third time. The Foundation said the third halt came from a latent bug whose conditions were set by the previous restart cycle. At the start of each epoch, Sui validators run a distributed key generation, or DKG, protocol that bootstraps the random beacon used by transactions that depend on on-chain randomness. The DKG requires a higher participation threshold than normal consensus. If participation falls short, randomness disables itself for the rest of the epoch as designed. When validators restarted to install the Friday morning fix, participation for the next epoch’s DKG was not high enough, and the protocol disabled itself. The latent bug meant the failure verdict was never written to disk. As further restarts followed, each validator came back up unaware that DKG had failed. Randomness-dependent transactions expect to either execute or be cancelled. With validators no longer holding the record that DKG had failed, neither could happen. The paused queue grew, and the end-of-epoch logic, which has to drain that queue before closing, was left waiting on a DKG that would never arrive. The fix carried two parts. The first piece corrected the bug and added logic to persist DKG status across restarts. The second piece added a mechanism that lets validators close a stuck epoch at a coordinated point. The team used the new mechanism once to close the affected epoch. The network then moved into the new epoch normally, and randomness was restored. What the Sui Team Took From the Three Outages The foundation set out four takeaways from the week. End-of-epoch resilience was the first, with the team noting that the existing safe-mode fallback for epoch transitions may be too narrow. The Foundation said the ecosystem needs to extend graceful-degradation patterns across the rest of the reconfiguration path and turn the force-close mechanism into a standing operational capability. The second takeaway covered the gas-charging logic itself. The crashes in parts one and two both stemmed from bugs in gas charging, a corner of execution that interacts with the address-balance settlement system, conservation checks, and the scheduler. The team said the logic is now complex enough that edge cases are hard to rule out by inspection alone. Coming out of the incident, the Foundation said gas charging deserves the same code-quality bar as the Move VM or the Mysticeti consensus engine. The third takeaway covered AI tooling. AI agents with access to production state, capable of querying validator logs interactively, inspecting cluster state, and assembling metrics on demand, materially accelerated diagnosis during the week’s incidents. The fourth takeaway covered failure containment. The crashes in the first two outages were each triggered by specific inputs the validators could not process safely. The Foundation said the system lacks a defense-in-depth layer that would bound the blast radius of such a crash.
1 Jun 2026, 10:50
Crypto players lose $68.3 million to exploits and scams in May 2026
The crypto industry lost approximately $68.3 million to exploits and scams across 60 confirmed incidents in May 2026, according to the latest monthly report from blockchain security firm CertiK. The figure brings the month in as the third in 2026 where monthly losses were under $100 million. Phishing alone accounts for around $2.6 million of the total. Funds returned across the same period reached $9.38 million, partially offsetting the gross loss figure. The May numbers come in well below the heavy April losses . Crypto sector records 60 incidents across May The CertiK report counted 60 separate incidents through the month, the highest monthly count of 2026 so far. The figure runs above the 50 incidents seen in February, the 55 logged in March, and the 58 recorded in April. The January count had been 48 incidents. #CertiKStatsAlert 🚨 Combining all the incidents in May we’ve confirmed ~$68.3M lost to exploits with ~$2.6M of the total attributed to phishing. After a particularly bad April, May is now the third month of 2026 to record losses under 100M$. More details below 👇 pic.twitter.com/GSWTLKXWDH — CertiK Alert (@CertiKAlert) May 31, 2026 Total May losses came in at the $68.3 million figure, lower than April’s $547.3 million and below the $97 million logged in January. February and March had also recorded losses under $100 million and March posted the lowest dollar figure of the year so far at $38 million. Phishing losses moderated through the month at $2.6 million, the second-lowest figure of 2026 to date. January had posted $331.3 million in phishing losses, with February at $86.1 million and March at $21.6 million. The April phishing figure had fallen to $7.5 million before the May reading. Verus and Thorchain lead the monthly loss list The Verus attack was rated first in terms of monthly losses at $11.52 million, while the Thorchain attack was second at $10.12 million, and both attacks comprised almost one-third of the monthly total. Third, fourth, and fifth spots in the list of greatest loss incidents went to TrustedVolumes at $6.58 million, Victim 0x2cFED at $5.94 million, and Gravity Bridge at $5.40 million. All five biggest incidents in the period under analysis brought total losses amounting to $39.55 million, almost half of the total loss figure. A number of less significant incidents made up the rest of the top ten by losses. Stablr incurred monthly losses at $3.50 million, while New Market Trading suffered losses totaling $3.10 million. TAC, Ossie, and Haveno/RetoSwap all had losses at $2.80 million and $2.70 million. Code vulnerabilities drive crypto losses by category By category, code vulnerabilities accounted for $45.13 million of the monthly losses, equal to around 66 percent of the total. Wallet compromises followed at $13.77 million, with validator compromises at $5.40 million and phishing at $2.66 million. Backend incidents posted the smallest category figure at $0.82 million in losses. The category breakdown points to smart contract code as the main attack surface during the month. The dominance of code vulnerabilities runs against the pattern seen in some earlier months of 2026. January’s hardware wallet hack of $282 million had been a wallet compromise, while April’s Drift Protocol breach of $285 million had run on social engineering against admin keys. By incident type, bridge exploits drew the largest dollar figure at $28.62 million. DeFi protocol incidents came in second at $23.92 million, with meme token incidents at $1.34 million and exchange-related losses at $1.09 million. Unverified contract incidents added $0.74 million to the monthly total. Funds returned total $9.38 million against gross losses The May report also tracked recoveries across the month. Funds returned came to $9.38 million against the $68.3 million in gross losses, equal to around a 13.7 percent recovery rate. This is in line with a trend emerging across 2026 where certain compromised projects have succeeded in recovering some amounts of funds that were stolen. From the KelpDAO bridge hack in April, where Arbitrum froze about $75 million out of the $292 million stolen, along with law enforcement efforts, to Operation Atlantic that disrupted the flow of about $45 million from cryptocurrency scams. As per the May report, the total losses incurred during 2026 up to the end of May amount to almost $1.3 billion, with April having accounted for nearly half of that loss amount itself. If you're reading this, you’re already ahead. Stay there with our newsletter .
1 Jun 2026, 10:50
DXY Price Forecast: Dollar Index Hesitates Near 99.00 as Market Awaits Fed Clarity
BitcoinWorld DXY Price Forecast: Dollar Index Hesitates Near 99.00 as Market Awaits Fed Clarity The US Dollar Index (DXY) is showing signs of hesitation around the 99.00 level, a key psychological and technical threshold that has drawn the attention of currency traders and macro analysts alike. After a period of relative strength, the greenback appears to be pausing as markets digest conflicting signals from the Federal Reserve, inflation trends, and global economic data. Why 99.00 Matters for the Dollar Index The 99.00 mark has historically acted as both support and resistance for the DXY, which measures the dollar against a basket of six major currencies. A sustained break below this level could signal further weakness, while a bounce might indicate renewed buying interest. The current hesitation reflects a broader uncertainty about the direction of US monetary policy and the relative strength of the US economy compared to its peers. Fed Policy and Inflation Data Drive Sentiment Recent comments from Federal Reserve officials have been mixed, with some hinting at a potential pause in rate hikes while others emphasize the need to remain vigilant against persistent inflation. This lack of consensus has left traders without a clear catalyst, contributing to the sideways movement in the DXY. Meanwhile, upcoming US inflation data, including the Consumer Price Index (CPI) and Producer Price Index (PPI), will be closely watched for clues about the Fed’s next move. Global Currency Pressures Add to the Mix The dollar’s performance is also being influenced by developments in other major economies. The euro has shown resilience on the back of stronger-than-expected economic data from the Eurozone, while the Japanese yen remains under pressure from the Bank of Japan’s ultra-loose monetary policy. These cross-currents are creating a complex environment for the DXY, with no single factor dominating the narrative. Technical Outlook: Key Levels to Watch From a technical perspective, the DXY is trading near its 50-day moving average, a level that often acts as a pivot point. If the index can hold above 99.00, the next resistance level is around 99.50, followed by 100.00. On the downside, a break below 98.80 could open the door to further losses, with support at 98.50 and 98.00. Traders should also watch for volume and momentum indicators to confirm any breakout or breakdown. What This Means for Investors and Businesses For investors holding dollar-denominated assets, a weaker dollar could boost returns for foreign investors, while a stronger dollar might weigh on multinational earnings. For businesses engaged in international trade, currency volatility adds an additional layer of risk that may require hedging strategies. The current hesitation around 99.00 underscores the importance of staying informed about macroeconomic developments and central bank communications. Conclusion The DXY’s hesitation near 99.00 reflects a market in wait-and-see mode, with traders looking for clearer signals from the Federal Reserve and upcoming economic data. While the dollar’s long-term trend remains uncertain, the current level is a critical juncture that could determine the direction for weeks to come. Investors and businesses should monitor key support and resistance levels, as well as central bank rhetoric, to navigate the evolving landscape. FAQs Q1: What is the US Dollar Index (DXY)? The US Dollar Index (DXY) measures the value of the US dollar relative to a basket of six major currencies: the euro, Japanese yen, British pound, Canadian dollar, Swedish krona, and Swiss franc. It is widely used as a benchmark for the dollar’s overall strength. Q2: Why is the 99.00 level important for the DXY? The 99.00 level is a key psychological and technical threshold that has historically acted as support or resistance. A break above or below this level can signal a shift in market sentiment and influence trading strategies. Q3: How does Federal Reserve policy affect the DXY? The Federal Reserve’s interest rate decisions and monetary policy stance directly impact the dollar’s value. Higher rates tend to attract foreign investment and strengthen the dollar, while a dovish stance can weaken it. The current uncertainty around the Fed’s next move is contributing to the DXY’s hesitation. This post DXY Price Forecast: Dollar Index Hesitates Near 99.00 as Market Awaits Fed Clarity first appeared on BitcoinWorld .
1 Jun 2026, 10:49
XRP ETFs Pull Strongest 2024 Performance in May Despite Market Volatility
XRP ETFs achieved their strongest monthly inflow of 2026 in May as institutional investors remained confident in the leading altcoin despite market volatility.
