Coin info
Rank
Market Cap
Volume (24h)
Circulating Supply
Total Supply
Do you think the price will rise or fall?
Rise 40%
Fall 60%
Price perfomance
Depth of Market
Depth +2%
Depth -2%

PRICE
+7.72%
$0.03226

PRICE
+5.12%
$0.07766

PRICE
+4.89%
$1.28

PRICE
+4.52%
$0.03472
PRICE
+2.23%
$0.008692

PRICE
+2.18%
$0.4291
PRICE
+1.84%
$0.03919

PRICE
+1.59%
$0.057

PRICE
+1.53%
$0.6969

PRICE
+1.31%
$0.03469

PRICE
+1.27%
$324.71

PRICE
+1.2%
$1.48

PRICE
+1.18%
$0.9901

PRICE
+1.16%
$4,701.39

PRICE
+0.77%
$3.38

PRICE
+0.76%
$0.1036

PRICE
+0.74%
$100.01

PRICE
+0.60%
$1.02

PRICE
+0.56%
$0.1098

PRICE
+0.52%
$95.39

PRICE
+0.50%
$0.052

PRICE
+0.35%
$0.09595

PRICE
+0.30%
$9.71

PRICE
+0.26%
$0.3511

PRICE
+0.13%
$0.1685

VOL24
+2,902.39%
$1.14

VOL24
+1,107.16%
$1.0000

VOL24
+490.31%
$1.0000

VOL24
+457.43%
$4,720.13

VOL24
+408.79%
$0.07766

VOL24
+408.55%
$0.9992

VOL24
+313.32%
$1.12

VOL24
+301.33%
$0.9990

VOL24
+299.5%
$4,701.39

VOL24
+221.9%
$2,321.88

VOL24
+215.22%
$0.03472

VOL24
+211.52%
$0.2798

VOL24
+196.05%
$0.1098

VOL24
+194.98%
$0.057

VOL24
+193.46%
$1.28
VOL24
+185.29%
$0.01132

VOL24
+180.5%
$1.48

VOL24
+179.52%
$59.6

VOL24
+168.71%
$0.054

VOL24
+153.9%
$2.01

VOL24
+147.45%
$0.9994

VOL24
+141.33%
$10.17

VOL24
+136.91%
$0.1685

VOL24
+114.17%
$10.5

VOL24
+110.15%
$41.33
PRICE
+7.72%
$0.03226

PRICE
+5.12%
$0.07766

PRICE
+4.89%
$1.28

PRICE
+4.52%
$0.03472
PRICE
+2.23%
$0.008692

PRICE
+2.18%
$0.4291
PRICE
+1.84%
$0.03919

PRICE
+1.59%
$0.057

PRICE
+1.53%
$0.6969

PRICE
+1.31%
$0.03469

PRICE
+1.27%
$324.71

PRICE
+1.2%
$1.48

PRICE
+1.18%
$0.9901

PRICE
+1.16%
$4,701.39

PRICE
+0.77%
$3.38

PRICE
+0.76%
$0.1036

PRICE
+0.74%
$100.01

PRICE
+0.60%
$1.02

PRICE
+0.56%
$0.1098

PRICE
+0.52%
$95.39

PRICE
+0.50%
$0.052

PRICE
+0.35%
$0.09595

PRICE
+0.30%
$9.71

PRICE
+0.26%
$0.3511

PRICE
+0.13%
$0.1685

VOL24
+2,902.39%
$1.14

VOL24
+1,107.16%
$1.0000

VOL24
+490.31%
$1.0000

VOL24
+457.43%
$4,720.13

VOL24
+408.79%
$0.07766

VOL24
+408.55%
$0.9992

VOL24
+313.32%
$1.12

VOL24
+301.33%
$0.9990

VOL24
+299.5%
$4,701.39

VOL24
+221.9%
$2,321.88

VOL24
+215.22%
$0.03472

VOL24
+211.52%
$0.2798

VOL24
+196.05%
$0.1098

VOL24
+194.98%
$0.057

VOL24
+193.46%
$1.28
VOL24
+185.29%
$0.01132

VOL24
+180.5%
$1.48

VOL24
+179.52%
$59.6

VOL24
+168.71%
$0.054

VOL24
+153.9%
$2.01

VOL24
+147.45%
$0.9994

VOL24
+141.33%
$10.17

VOL24
+136.91%
$0.1685

VOL24
+114.17%
$10.5

VOL24
+110.15%
$41.33
Rise 40%
Fall 60%

$0.00001752
#18021
$0.00
$0.00
0
0
11 May 2026, 15:05

Digital asset investment funds recorded $857.9 million in weekly inflows last week, with bitcoin accounting for $706.1 million of those gains, as growing optimism over the U.S. Senate’s scheduled CLARITY Act markup on May 14 revived institutional appetite for crypto exposure. CLARITY Act Momentum Flips the Script Coinshares, the digital asset investment firm that tracks
11 May 2026, 15:05

Michael Saylor and Strategy are facing calls for an SEC antifraud investigation as Peter Schiff warns that the company's STRC model exposes retirees to what he calls a Bitcoin-linked Ponzi scheme.
11 May 2026, 15:04

Summary Bitcoin and correlated assets like IBIT are rallying on misplaced optimism over the CLARITY Act. Deep stakeholder deadlock—ABA, Treasury, crypto community—makes passage of the CLARITY Act highly improbable, risking an imminent 35%+ crypto drawdown. Even if stakeholders reach a compromise, there may simply not be enough legislative runway left for the bill to clear all procedural hurdles and become law. The Trump administration’s crypto-friendly posture is unlikely to stop institutions from carefully weighing the regulatory, operational, and reputational risks associated with deeper crypto adoption. Short-term traders may consider SBIT to benefit from this drawdown, while completely eliminating exposure to IBIT and similar ETFs. Bitcoin’s ( BTC-USD ) recovery to its current trading value of approximately $81,000, since the February crash that I forecasted weeks before , seems to be purely speculative. To be more precise, BTC and instruments with 1:1 correlation to it, such as the iShares Bitcoin Trust ETF ( IBIT ), have rallied due to irrational optimism around the CLARITY Act. Even now, the odds of the bill passing on Polymarket are between 60 and 70 percent , when it should be close to zero based on my judgement. I claim so despite recent and purportedly positive developments on the stablecoin yields conflict. Therefore, in my opinion, as and when retail investors do realize that the bill is effectively dead, a correction of 35% across all major cryptos may follow. Haze Beats CLARITY One of the primary reasons for my assertion is the stalemate among the key stakeholders - the American Bankers Association (ABA), the United States Department of the Treasury, and the crypto community - with stablecoin yields as the primary point of contention. To elaborate, the ABA believes that if crypto exchanges offer stablecoin yields/rewards, they will outcompete traditional banks, leading to a $6.6 trillion deposits flight. To be specific, the ABA sent a letter to the Senate: The letter warns that without stronger legislative clarity, up to $6.6 trillion in deposits could be at risk, threatening the availability of credit for households and businesses nationwide. A detailed state-by-state analysis of potential deposit outflows and lost lending accompanies the letter. Estimates from the Federal Reserve support that claim by stating that there could be a $1.26 trillion reduction in local lending if stablecoin yields are not abolished. (Please read under section titled 3.1 Balance Sheet Capacity and Asset Allocation Adjustments) The crypto community, on the other hand, believes that if they don’t offer such high yields, a major incentive to invest in stablecoins would be eliminated, stifling both adoption and innovation. That was why Brian Armstrong withdrew support for the bill in January 2026. An overlooked player in this game, the U.S. Treasury, would also be on the losing side if stablecoin adoption decelerates. That is because stablecoins have become a major buyer of U.S. Government Bonds in the past few years. Tether ( USDT-USD ), for instance, in and of itself, holds more than $135 billion in Treasuries. To put things into context, that is more than what Germany or South Korea holds. In addition to the obvious impact that limited stablecoin adoption will have on treasury purchases, effectively eliminating a huge source of funds for the government, there are also concerns that capital may instead flow to rivals such as China, the EU, or the UK that do (or would) pay interest on their respective digital sovereign currencies. Such a stalemate, that too among heavyweight stakeholders, puts the Senate in a difficult situation to say the least. Stated another way, they cannot move forward without severely compromising the interests of at least one stakeholder. On the other hand, maintaining the status quo, which has already led to a crypto market cap of ~$2.5 trillion , keeps everyone as content as they were before the CLARITY Act. I, therefore, believe that Congress may choose to just let the bill die and continue with “haze” instead of “clarity.” The 6.6 Trillion Dollar Question My conclusion in the previous section would fall flat if the ABA’s $6.6 trillion number is inaccurate. Stated differently, if that number is imprecise, the Senate would disregard it and move to pass the bill without eliminating stablecoin yields. In my opinion, judging whether that number is correct is really a matter of common sense rather than financial modelling. Especially because different financial models and assumptions used therein will lead to materially different numbers. A report published by the Council of Economic Advisers (CEA) at the White House serves as a great example. Precisely speaking, the CEA concluded that banning yield payments would only increase total bank lending by $2.1 billion. The ABA responded to the study by stating that it focuses on the wrong topic: lending as opposed to deposits. Moreover, CEA assumes a stablecoin market size as it stands today at roughly $300 billion, as opposed to what it would be in the future with increased adoption. It is, therefore, better to arrive at our own conclusions, which is simpler than it sounds. If a fully and financially regulated entity were to offer you roughly 4 percent on deposits, along with the usability of a regular bank account, such as the ability to pay bills, use a debit card, etc., would you continue to hold money at your bank? It would be fair to say that a large percentage of the population would answer that question with an unequivocal and resounding ‘no.’ With that in mind, I believe that the ABA’s and the Fed’s concerns about capital flight are warranted, and my conclusion that Congress cannot pass the bill without severely compromising the interests of one of the stakeholders remains valid. Lost In The Crowd Now, for a discussion on the most recent and crucial development: connecting rewards/yields with activity. In essence, the crypto industry recently agreed to compromise on the issue of rewards/yields if determined by usage. Definitely a non-trivial development because it brought back Brian Armstrong ’s support for the bill. But there is a problem. The bill, according to the aforementioned Yahoo! Finance link, states that “cryptocurrency firms would be banned from offering rewards that are economically or functionally equivalent to deposit interest.” What is the definition of "activity"? And what qualifies as "economically or functionally equivalent"? There are many ways to circumvent that restriction. For instance, Coinbase can offer rewards for only one payment per month, or for moving funds to and from its other offerings, such as Coinbase Asset Management . American banks are acutely aware of this flaw, which is why they recently said that this compromise “falls short” . I believe that this is going to the primary point of contention during the executive session of the Senate Banking Committee on May 14 . Please note that this is not a Senate voting session, only a markup session. The bill still has to go through the Senate to become a law. And I think those who assume that will happen are being too optimistic because the Senate has not touched the bill since September 18, 2025 . Odds that the Senate will consider the bill diminish further when you realize that they are in session for only ten working days in May 2026. Moreover, in those ten days, they need to commence preparations for budget appropriations and defense authorizations. In fact, if you look at the meetings that the Senate has decided on for May, you can observe that their focus has already shifted towards those two topics. And as many would know, once May is over, focus will completely shift to budget approvals. Given that the Congress has passed budgets before the October 1 deadline only three times since 1980 (please read under the section titled How is a CR different from a budget? ) it is reasonable to say that they won’t really have time for a non-essential bill like the CLARITY Act. Even if the Senate were to discuss the bill and mark it up, it would then have to survive the 60-vote Senate floor filibuster threshold. Surviving the filibuster would be a very difficult feat because democrats are not really pro-crypto, as demonstrated by their actions during the Biden Era, such as Operation Chokepoint 2.0 . Then the bill has to reconcile with the Senate Agriculture Committee’s version, reconcile again with the House-passed CLARITY Act, and finally receive a presidential signature. With all that in mind, I do not think it is speculative to say that the bill is already dead just because there is not enough time. Trump Cannot Save The Day A major risk to my thesis stems from the fact that President Trump is crypto-friendly . To be more specific, my thesis could be wrong not because the CLARITY Act may still have a chance, but because Trump’s actions can cause future crypto rallies. His favorable attitude towards crypto has indeed led to supportive second-order effects, such as the appointment of Paul Atkins as the SEC chairman, who then launched the pro-crypto initiative called Project Crypto . Even the current commerce secretary, Howard Lutnick, favors crypto innovation . While such a pro-crypto administration is beneficial for innovation and advancement in the field, it cannot establish new laws. That is to say, even if the SEC provides friendly directives, it cannot change the fact that any new law cannot come into existence unless Congress deems it so. This is why the SEC could issue only an interpretation on how the federal securities laws apply to certain crypto assets and transactions involving crypto assets. By definition, an interpretation does not mean a law and thus can be challenged in court. More importantly, it can be modified and completely revoked if the next administration is not crypto-friendly. You may refute the possibility of detrimental effects of an unfriendly future regime as irrelevant because regulations, and thus innovations, would have advanced significantly by the time Trump’s term is over, especially because the SEC is not really waiting for Congress to take action. I, however, believe that all these developments are inconsequential because the lack of complete regulatory clarity is an impediment to adoption among institutional investors. That is because institutions care about legal certainty and compliance risk as much as they care about potential returns. In other words, the lack of clarity creates more “unknown unknowns,” leading to a decelerated institutional adoption scenario. IBIT can be used as an example to indicate why institutions may shy away from crypto adoption if clear and specific laws are not put in place. If you were to go through IBIT’s SEC filings (page 2), you would notice that Coinbase is IBIT’s primary Bitcoin custodian. The SEC dismissed its case against Coinbase in 2025 , right after Trump came into office, but that does not mean that Coinbase will not be subject to scrutiny ever again. As a matter of fact, the risk of crypto exchanges coming under the SEC’s jurisdiction will only increase in the coming years because of the tokenization of stocks and the possibility that these tokenized assets may fail the Howey Test . That kind of uncertainty, and many others that may crop up without a legal framework, may compel institutional investors to shy away from crypto investments. That in turn will cause a pricing out of optimism around institutional adoption and a crash from current levels. Portfolio Positioning As the title of this article suggests, I expect at least a 35 percent drop in the coming days. Specifically, I expect the BTC to break its previous support level of $60,000, but find support at $49,000. For IBIT, the corresponding lowest value possible could be $28. BTC's Next Support Level At $49,000 (TradingView) I expect Ethereum ( ETH-USD ) and Ripple ( XRP-USD ) to crash harder because they are more connected to innovations around payment rails, stablecoins, and DeFi – topics that form the core of the CLARITY Act. Numerically speaking, ETH will probably drop to $1350, and XRP may fall back to its pre-Trump-era value of 50 cents per coin. If you want to take advantage of these drawdowns, it would be prudent to invest in a reverse crypto play. Previously, I had recommended the YieldMax MSTR Short Option Income Strategy ETF ( WNTR ). But it has performed horribly over the long run due to the fact that WNTR is a reverse-ETF on Strategy ( MSTR ), which is now trading at a level higher than the January crash. A highly illogical occurrence because BTC is the primary determinant of MSTR’s value, and is trading at prices lower than the January crash. That said, WNTR did experience substantial short-term gains in January-February. An even better performer, though, was the ProShares UltraShort Bitcoin ETF ( SBIT ), which almost doubled in value after the last crash. Unfortunately, that ETF has also lost most of its value since. With all that data under consideration, I recommended that readers buy SBIT as a short-term trading instrument only and completely ignore WNTR. Closing Thoughts I have been racking my brain to figure out the best time to enter this trade, but I am still not completely certain. The most likely date, at present, seems to be May 14 because on that date we may learn that the ABA is unwilling to accept the bill in its current form for reasons I have already explained. In other words, the ABA, as a lobbying group, will most likely pressure the committee to oppose advancing the bill unless revisions are made. And as concluded earlier, since there is already not enough time for the bill to pass through all stages of Congress, it could effectively be considered dead. But it is also possible that the crash may commence when the Senate’s complete schedule is revealed for May and if the CLARITY Act is not mentioned anywhere; or the plunge may commence when all sessions end on May 22; or it could be that the crash happens at any other time if another negative catalyst, such as military escalation with Iran, comes into play. Due to this ambiguity around timing, I recommend inexperienced traders to sit this one out. As for those interested in investing in BTC, ETH, or any other crypto-related instrument for the long-haul, I remain committed to my price target of BTC at $30,000 , and ETH at $996 by the end of this crypto winter. I also have a pretty good idea of what will cause BTC and ETH to drop to those levels after this CLARITY Act crash, and I will write about it in a future article.
11 May 2026, 15:03

Ethereum treasury firm BitMine Immersion Technologies slowed its ETH purchase pace, adding just $62 million worth last week.