cointelegraph.com

Altcoin unit bias 'absolutely destroying' crypto newbies — Samson Mow

Jan3 CEO Samson Mow says that Bitcoin dominance hasn’t yet exhausted its upside trajectory after analyzing how altcoin prices would stack up against Bitcoin if all were on equal terms of total supply.

His forecast for Bitcoin (BTC) Dominance to rise further comes as the ratio has already exceeded the levels many crypto analysts expected it would reach by late 2024.

“Unit bias is absolutely destroying the uninitiated,” Mow said in an April 19 X post. Mow suggested that unit bias — a psychological method in behavioral economics that suggests that individuals usually like to own a complete unit or stock regardless of its price and size — often causes less experienced investors to assume cheaper whole altcoins are better value than owning part of a Bitcoin.

Mow questions altcoin valuations on level playing field

“You can buy one twenty-one millionth of the BTC supply for ~$85,000,” Mow said. He asked, “What happens if you remove unit bias from alts to calculate the equivalent of 1/21 million?”

He pointed out that Ether (ETH) would be priced at $9,200, XRP (XRP) would be priced at $5,800, and Solana (SOL) would be priced at $3,400 — representing increases of approximately 278,746%, 470%, and 2,328%, respectively, from their prices at the time of publication, according to CoinMarketCap data.

“No way these alts are worth that much,” Mow said. 

CryptocurrenciesSource: Samson Mow

Sunny Po, an anonymous Bitcoin proponent, said on Jan. 12 that “Unit bias is a core foundational framework of the normie mind. ‘Cheaper better.’”

Mow said that “most” altcoins take advantage of unit bias by implementing a very high total supply so market participants “can’t figure out what they’re buying.”

Related: XRP: Why it’s outperforming altcoins — and what comes next

Based on his calculations, Mow said Bitcoin dominance is going “so much higher.” Bitcoin dominance — a metric that reflects Bitcoin’s share of the total crypto market capitalization — is often used by traders to gauge when Bitcoin might be nearing a price peak. 

Historically, when Bitcoin Dominance declines, it often signals the start of altcoin season, with capital flowing from Bitcoin into altcoins to find higher returns.

Altcoin unit bias 'absolutely destroying' crypto newbies — Samson MowBitcoin Dominance is up 9.11% over the past six months. Source: TradingView

At the time of publication, Bitcoin Dominance is sitting at 63.69%, as per TradingView data.

Several crypto analysts were forecasting Bitcoin Dominance to top out at 60% in late 2024 before the beginning of an altcoin season.

In August 2024, Into The Cryptoverse founder Benjamin Cowen said “I don’t think it is going back up to 70%, my target for Bitcoin dominance has been 60%.”

Magazine: Altcoin season to hit in Q2? Mantra’s plan to win trust: Hodler’s Digest, April 13 – 19

Read more at cointelegraph.com

‘Crypto is not communism’ — Exec slams BIS’ take on crypto

The Bank for International Settlements’ (BIS) push to isolate crypto markets and its controversial recommendations on DeFi and stablecoins is “dangerous” for the entire financial system, warns the head of a blockchain investment firm.

“Many of their recommendations and conclusions — perhaps due to a mix of fear, arrogance, or ignorance — are completely uninformed and, frankly, dangerous,” CoinFund president Christopher Perkins said in an April 19 X post, referring to the BIS’ April 15 report titled “Cryptocurrencies and Decentralized Finance: Functions and Financial Stability Implications.” 

BIS recommendations exposes TradFi to risks of “unimaginable scale”

“Crypto is not communism,” Perkins said, pushing back against the BIS’ call for a “containment” approach to isolate crypto from traditional finance and the broader economy.

“It’s the new internet that provides anyone with a connection access to financial services,” Perkins said. “You cannot control it anymore than you control the internet,” he added.

Perkins warned that a containment approach to crypto would expose the traditional financial system to massive liquidity risks “of unimaginable scale,” especially when the crypto market operates in real-time, 24/7, while traditional financial markets shuts down after trading hours.

“If implemented they will cause–not mitigate–the systemic risk they seek to prevent.”

The report warned that the number of investors and amount of capital in crypto and DeFi have “reached a critical mass,” with investor protection becoming a “significant concern for regulators.”

CryptocurrenciesSource: Michael Egorov

Perkins pushed back against the BIS’ claim that DeFi presents significant challenges, arguing instead that it represents a “significant improvement” over the “opacity” and imbalances of the traditional financial system.

Related: Crypto industry is not experiencing regulatory capture — Attorney

Responding to the BIS’s concern about the anonymity of DeFi developers, Perkins questioned its relevance:

“Sorry, but when was the last time a TradFi company published a list of its developers? Sure, public companies provide a degree of disclosures and transparency, but they seem to be dying off in favor of private markets.”

Perkins also critiqued the BIS’s concern around stablecoins that it could lead to “macroeconomic instability in countries like Venezuela and Zimbabwe.”

“If there is demand for USD stablecoins and it helps improve the condition of anyone in the developing world, perhaps that is a good thing,” Perkins said.

CryptocurrenciesSource: Christopher Perkins

Perkins wasn’t alone in criticizing the controversial report. Lightspark co-founder Christian Catalini also weighed in, posting a series of critiques on X that same day. Catalini summed up the report with the analogy:

“Think: writing parking regulations for a fleet of self‑driving drones — earnest work, two technological leaps behind.”

Magazine: Altcoin season to hit in Q2? Mantra’s plan to win trust: Hodler’s Digest, April 13 – 19

Read more at cointelegraph.com

'Rich Dad, Poor Dad' author calls for $1 million BTC by 2035

Financial educator, author of Rich Dad, Poor Dad, and investor Robert Kiyosaki recently forecasted a $1 million Bitcoin (BTC) price by 2035 as the US dollar continues to lose value to inflationary monetary policies.

“I strongly believe, by 2035, that one Bitcoin will be over $ 1 million, Gold will be $30,000, and silver $3,000 a coin,” Kiyosaki wrote in an April 18 X post.

Kiyosaki, a self-described gold bug, has long argued that bearer assets like gold, silver, and more recently Bitcoin, are critical hedges against inflation and key to long-term generational wealth accumulation through economic cycles.

Dollar, Bitcoin Price, EconomyUnited States M2 money supply 1959-2025. Source: TradingView

“In 2025, credit card debt is at all-time highs, US debt is at all-time highs, unemployment is rising, 401k’s are losing, and pensions are being stolen. The USA may be heading for a greater depression,” Kiyosaki warned.

Kiyosaki, like many other sound money advocates, has continually warned of an impending financial crash brought on by expansionist monetary policies and fiscal irresponsibility. Bitcoin maximalists argue that loose monetary policy will drive the price of Bitcoin to seven-figures.

Related: Bitcoin could hit $1M if US buys 1M BTC — Bitcoin Policy Institute

Analysts eye $1 million BTC in the 2030s

In May 2024, Twitter co-founder Jack Dorsey forecasted that the price of a single BTC would be $1 million by 2030 and could appreciate further.

Trader and investor Michaël van de Poppe told Cointelegraph, in November 2024, that Bitcoin could go to $1 million. However, the price appreciation would come with hyperinflation and a broader economic collapse, the trader said.

Blockstream CEO Adam Back said the price of Bitcoin could rise to $1 million per coin if the Trump administration established a Bitcoin strategic reserve for the United States and started buying Bitcoin on the open market.

On Dec. 10, Eric Trump delivered the keynote speech at the Bitcoin MENA event in Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates (UAE), and predicted that Bitcoin would hit $1 million due to its scarcity.

More recently, in February 2025, Ark Invest CEO Cathie Wood said that Bitcoin could hit $1.5 million by 2030 if demand for the digital asset continues to grow.

Magazine: TradFi fans ignored Lyn Alden’s BTC tip — Now she says it’ll hit 7 figures: X Hall of Flame

Read more at cointelegraph.com

Charles Schwab CEO eyes spot Bitcoin trading by April 2026

Charles Schwab Corp CEO Rick Wurster is reportedly eyeing an April 2026 launch window to provide spot Bitcoin (BTC) trading services to Schwab clients.

According to RIABiz, Wurster cited a 400% increase in traffic to Schwab’s crypto website as evidence of investor interest in digital assets. The CEO predicted:

“Our expectation is that with the changing regulatory environment, we are hopeful and likely to be able to launch direct spot crypto. Our goal is to do that in the next 12 months, and we are on a great path to be able to do that.”

The Schwab CEO’s comments reflect the growing trend of traditional financial (TradFi) institutions adopting crypto products and offering services that blur the line between the digital asset world and TradFi.

Related: Lyn Alden lowers Bitcoin forecast after ‘tariff kerfuffle,’ eyes liquidity

Schwab makes crypto moves under new CEO

Rick Wurster assumed the helm at Schwab in 2025, and in a November 2024 Yahoo Finance interview, said the company was happy to provide services to clients who want to trade digital assets.

At the time, Wurster told the financial news outlet that Schwab wanted to offer crypto directly to its clients but was waiting for a positive regulatory catalyst.

Following the re-election of Donald Trump in the United States, Wurster said the financial services company anticipated a much better regulatory environment to expand its digital asset services.

The Schwab CEO previously said he did not own any cryptocurrency, adding that he felt “silly” for not investing in the nascent asset class as it has continued to provide outsized investment gains.

Charles Schwab CEO eyes spot Bitcoin trading by April 2026Rick Wurster speaking to Yahoo Finance in November 2024. Source: Yahoo Finance

In January 2025, Charles Schwab partnered with the Trump Media and Technology Group (TMTG) to provide customized exchange-traded funds and cryptocurrency services for the upcoming “Truth.Fi” service.

Truth.Fi will encompass digital assets and traditional financial services as a proposed alternative to the legacy banking system.

TMTG CEO, and White House official, Devin Nunes said the goal of TMTG is to provide an option for individuals worried about unfair banking practices and “cancellation, censorship, debanking, and privacy violations committed by big tech and woke corporations.”

Magazine: Researchers accidentally turn ChatGPT evil, Grok ‘sexy mode’ horror: AI Eye

Read more at cointelegraph.com

Crypto industry is not experiencing regulatory capture — Attorney

Brandon Ferrick, general counsel at Douro Labs, said that the Securities and Exchange Commission’s (SEC) openness to public input on crypto policy and their roundtable discussions are positive signs that the crypto industry is not currently experiencing regulatory capture.

In an interview with Cointelegraph, Ferrick identified signs of regulatory capture including, a public-to-private sector revolving door of employees, the same roster of attendees at regulatory events, and special treatment given to certain crypto projects. However, Ferrick added:

“The reason why I am not worried today is that a lot of what you’re seeing from the regulatory side, like the SEC, for example, is totally open, public, and there are available opportunities to have conversations with the regulators about changing or thinking about the regulatory structures.”

“[The SEC] has a public portal where you can just submit written commentary on your thoughts for the crypto regulatory environment, and you can schedule meetings with them,” the attorney continued.

Crypto industry is not experiencing regulatory capture — AttorneyCrypto Industry executives and panelists discuss cohesive crypto regulation at the SEC’s first crypto roundtable in March 2025. Source: SEC

As the crypto industry becomes more integrated with the traditional financial system and engages state regulators more, some analysts and executives are worried that the industry is experiencing regulatory capture that will skew incentives and politicize the burgeoning crypto sector.

Related: SEC staff gives guidance on how securities laws could apply to crypto

SEC hosts several roundtable discussions on crypto policy

The SEC has hosted several crypto roundtable discussions and panels, with more slated in the coming months — a sharp contrast from the agency’s regulation-by-enforcement approach under former SEC chairman Gary Gensler.

On March 21, the regulatory agency hosted its first crypto roundtable, which featured crypto industry executives, SEC officials, and even opponents of the crypto industry.

Former SEC official John Reed Stark was highly critical of the industry and opposed comprehensive regulatory reform, arguing that digital assets must comply with existing securities laws.

Crypto industry is not experiencing regulatory capture — AttorneyFormer SEC official John Reed Stark addresses the SEC’s March 2025 crypto roundtable. Source: SEC

The SEC’s April 11 roundtable focused on trading rules and included a different set of panelists, including representatives from Uniswap and Coinbase.

The next SEC panel will occur on April 25 and focus on establishing guidelines for crypto custodians and other firms holding crypto on behalf of customers.

Magazine: SEC’s U-turn on crypto leaves key questions unanswered

Read more at cointelegraph.com

Every chain is an island: crypto’s liquidity crisis

Opinion by: Jin Kwon, co-founder and chief strategy officer at Saga

Crypto has come a long way in boosting transaction throughput. New layer 1s (L1s) and side networks offer faster, cheaper transactions than ever before. Yet, a core challenge has come into focus: liquidity fragmentation — the scattering of capital and users across an ever-growing maze of blockchains.

Vitalik Buterin, in a recent blog post, highlighted how scaling successes have led to unforeseen coordination challenges. With so many chains and so much value splintered among them, participants face a daily tangle of bridging, swapping and wallet-switching. 

While these issues affect Ethereum, they also affect nearly every ecosystem. No matter how advanced, new blockchains risk becoming liquidity “islands” that struggle to connect with one another.

The real costs of fragmentation

Liquidity fragmentation means there is no single “pool” of assets for traders, investors or decentralized finance (DeFi) applications to tap into. Instead, each blockchain or side network hosts its own siloed liquidity. For a user who wants to buy a token or access a specific lending platform, this siloing introduces multiple headaches. 

Switching networks, opening specialized wallets and paying multiple transaction fees are far from seamless, especially for those less tech-savvy. Liquidity is also thinner in each isolated pool, leading to price disparities and higher slippage on trades. 

Many users resort to bridges to move capital across chains, yet these have been frequent targets for exploits, raising fear and mistrust. If it’s too cumbersome or risky to move liquidity around, DeFi fails to gain mainstream momentum. Meanwhile, projects scramble to deploy across multiple networks or risk being left behind.

Some observers worry that fragmentation could drive people back to a few dominant chains or centralized exchanges, undermining the decentralized ideals that fueled blockchain’s rise.

Familiar fixes, with persisting gaps

Solutions have emerged to tackle this tangle. Bridges and wrapped assets enable basic interoperability, but the user experience remains cumbersome. Crosschain aggregators can route tokens through a chain of swaps, yet they generally don’t merge the underlying liquidity. They only help users navigate it. 

Meanwhile, ecosystems like Cosmos and Polkadot bring interoperability within their frameworks, though they are separate realms in the broader crypto landscape.

The problem is fundamental: Each chain views itself as distinct. Any new chain or sub-network must be “plugged in” at the ground level to truly unify liquidity. Otherwise, it adds another liquidity island that users must discover and bridge into. This challenge is compounded by chains, bridges and aggregators seeing one another as competition, leading to intentional siloing and making fragmentation even more pronounced.

Integrating liquidity at the base layer

Integration at the base layer addresses liquidity fragmentation by embedding bridging and routing functions directly into a chain’s core infrastructure. This approach appears in certain layer-1 protocols and specialized frameworks, where interoperability is treated as a foundational element rather than an optional add-on. 

Recent: What are exit liquidity traps — and how to detect them before it is too late

Validator nodes automatically handle crosschain connections, so new chains or side networks can launch with immediate access to the broader ecosystem’s liquidity. This reduces reliance on third-party bridges that often introduce security risks and user friction.

Ethereum’s own challenges with heterogeneous layer-2 (L2) solutions underscore why integration is essential. Different participants — Ethereum as a settlement layer, L2s focusing on execution, and various bridging services — have their own motivations, resulting in fragmented liquidity. 

Buterin’s references to this issue highlight the need for more cohesive designs. An integrated base-layer model brings these components together at launch, ensuring that capital can flow freely without forcing users to navigate multiple wallets, bridge solutions, or rollups.

An integrated routing mechanism also consolidates asset transfers, mimicking a unified liquidity pool behind the scenes. By capturing a fraction of the overall liquidity flow rather than charging users for every transaction, such protocols reduce friction and encourage capital mobility across the network. Developers deploying new blockchains gain instant access to a shared liquidity base while end-users avoid juggling multiple tools or encountering unexpected fees. 

This emphasis on integration helps maintain a seamless experience, even as more networks come online.

Not just an Ethereum issue

While Buterin’s blog post focuses on Ethereum’s rollups, fragmentation is ecosystem-agnostic. Whether a project builds on an Ethereum Virtual Machine-compatible chain, a WebAssembly-based platform, or something else, the fragmentation trap arises if liquidity is fenced off. 

As more protocols explore base-layer solutions — embedding automatic interoperability into their chain design — there’s hope that future networks won’t splinter capital further but instead help unify it.

A clear principle emerges: Throughput means little without connectivity.

Users shouldn’t need to think about L1s, L2s or sidechains. They just want seamless access to decentralized applications (DApps), games and financial services. Adopting will follow if stepping onto a new chain feels identical to operating on a familiar network.

Toward a unified and liquid future

The crypto community’s focus on transaction throughput has revealed an unexpected paradox: The more chains we create for speed, the more we fragment our ecosystem’s strength, which lies in its shared liquidity. Each new chain intended to boost capacity creates another isolated pool of capital.

Building interoperability directly into blockchain infrastructure offers a clear path through this challenge. When protocols handle crosschain connections automatically and route assets efficiently, developers can expand without splintering their user base or capital. Success in this model comes from measuring and improving how smoothly value moves throughout the ecosystem.

The technical foundations for this approach exist today. We must implement them thoughtfully, with attention to security and user experience.

Opinion by: Jin Kwon, co-founder and chief strategy officer at Saga.

This article is for general information purposes and is not intended to be and should not be taken as legal or investment advice. The views, thoughts, and opinions expressed here are the author’s alone and do not necessarily reflect or represent the views and opinions of Cointelegraph.

Read more at cointelegraph.com

UK firm buys $250M Bitcoin as analysts eye quiet Easter weekend

Whales and institutions are increasing their Bitcoin holdings ahead of Easter, as market analysts predict a weekend with less volatility after two weeks of heightened volatility driven by escalating global trade tensions.

A wallet linked to London-based investment firm Abraxas Capital acquired 2,949 Bitcoin (BTC) worth more than $250 million during the four days leading up to April 19.

In the latest transaction, the firm bought over $45 million worth of Bitcoin from Binance on April 18, according to crypto intelligence firm Lookonchain, citing Arkham Intelligence data.

UK firm buys $250M Bitcoin as analysts eye quiet Easter weekendSource: Arkham Intelligence, Lookonchain

The investment came days after Michael Saylor’s Strategy bought $285 million worth of Bitcoin at an average price of $82,618 per BTC, as the world’s largest corporate Bitcoin holders signal continued confidence in Bitcoin, amid global tariff uncertainty.

Large Bitcoin investors, or whales, continue accumulating, absorbing over 300% of Bitcoin’s yearly issuance as exchanges continue losing coins at a historic pace, Cointelegraph reported on April 18.

Related: Spar supermarket in Switzerland starts accepting Bitcoin payments

Crypto analysts eye quiet Easter weekend after weeks of turmoil

Despite continued accumulation from whales and institutions, volatility concerns were raised by significant movements from the medium-term Bitcoin cohort, which holds coins for an average of three to six months.

Over 170,000 Bitcoin entered circulation from the medium-term cohort, a development that may signal “imminent” crypto market volatility, according to pseudonymous CryptoQuant analyst Mignolet.

“The effect of this metric on LTF moves is overstated as large onchain movement of coins hardly ever affects weekend price action since it’s not on liquid markets or CEX markets,” analysts at Bitfinex exchange told Cointelegraph, adding:

“It is important to note that funding rates remain relatively flat currently. Moreover, US markets are closed as we have a long weekend for Easter, so volatility could be suppressed barring headlines from the White House.”

Related: Crypto, DeFi may widen wealth gap, destabilize finance: BIS report

Marcin Kazmierczak, chief operating officer of RedStone Oracles, added that the recent movements may be operational transfers, not necessarily signs of imminent selling pressure.

Still, concerns over weekend volatility have been amplified over the past two weeks after the Mantra (OM) token’s price collapsed by over 90% on Sunday, April 13, from roughly $6.30 to below $0.50, triggering market manipulation allegations and highlighting “critical” liquidity issues in the industry.

Two weeks ago, on April 6, Bitcoin fell below $75,000 on Sunday, as investor concerns spread from a record-breaking  $5 trillion sell-off from the S&P 500, its largest on record.

UK firm buys $250M Bitcoin as analysts eye quiet Easter weekendBTC, SPX, year-to-date chart. Source: Cointelegraph/TradingView

The correction was caused by Bitcoin’s 24/7 trading availability, which made it the only large liquid asset available for de-risking on Sunday, Blockstream CEO Adam Back told Cointelegraph.

“On a weekend, there’s not much volume. So you have a worse risk of rapid sort of flash crashes or flash dips that get filled in again,” he said.

Magazine: Bitcoin ATH sooner than expected? XRP may drop 40%, and more: Hodler’s Digest, March 23 – 29

Read more at cointelegraph.com

Crypto, DeFi may widen wealth gap, destabilize finance: BIS report

The growing adoption of cryptocurrencies may pose risks to the traditional financial system and exacerbate wealth inequality, according to the Bank for International Settlements (BIS).

In an April 15 report, the BIS warned that the number of investors and amount of capital in crypto and decentralized finance (DeFi) have “reached a critical mass,” with investor protection becoming a “significant concern for regulators.”

The size of the crypto market signals that authorities should be worried about the “stability of crypto over and above the role it may have for TradFi and the real economy,” the report states, highlighting the role of stablecoins, which the BIS said have “become the means through which participants transfer value within crypto.”

Crypto, DeFi may widen wealth gap, destabilize finance: BIS reportBIS report on crypto and DeFi’s functions and financial stability implications. Source: BIS

The report calls for targeted stablecoin regulation on stability and reserve asset requirements that will guarantee the redemption of stablecoins for US dollars during “stressed market conditions.”

Related: Spar supermarket in Switzerland starts accepting Bitcoin payments

The report comes two weeks after the US House Financial Services Committee passed the Stablecoin Transparency and Accountability for a Better Ledger Economy, or STABLE Act, with a 32–17 vote on April 2.

Cryptocurrencies, Banking, Banks, Central Bank, Bitcoin Price, Investments, Bitcoin Regulation, United States, BIS, Stablecoin, Cryptocurrency Investment, Bitcoin AdoptionSource: Financial Services GOP

The STABLE Act aims to create a clear regulatory framework for dollar-denominated payment stablecoins, emphasizing transparency and consumer protection.

On March 13, the GENIUS Act, short for Guiding and Establishing National Innovation for US Stablecoins, passed the Senate Banking Committee by a vote of 18–6. The act aims to establish collateralization guidelines and require full compliance with Anti-Money Laundering laws from stablecoin issuers.

Related: $400M Web3 investment fund ABCDE halts new investments, fundraising

Crypto may exacerbate wealth gap

The BIS also raised concerns about how crypto markets may worsen income inequality by enabling larger investors to capitalize on the emotions of less sophisticated retail participants, as seen during the FTX collapse in 2022.

Crypto, DeFi may widen wealth gap, destabilize finance: BIS reportWhale vs retail activity after FTX collapse. Source:  BIS

“As prices tumbled in 2022, users actually traded more,” the BIS report noted. “Most disturbingly, large bitcoin holders (“whales”) were selling as ordinary retail investors (“krill”) were buying.” It added:

“This implies that the crypto market, which is often presented as an opportunity for inclusive growth and financial stability, can be a means for redistributing wealth from the poorer to the wealthier.”

The report concludes that DeFi and TradFi have similar underlying economic drivers, but DeFi’s “distinctive features,” like “smart contract and composability,” present new challenges that need proactive regulatory interventions to “safeguard financial stability, while fostering innovation.”

Magazine: Uni students crypto ‘grooming’ scandal, 67K scammed by fake women: Asia Express

Read more at cointelegraph.com

$400M Web3 investment fund ABCDE halts new investments, fundraising

Web3 and blockchain-focused investment fund ABCDE is halting new investments, but the $400 million fund remains committed to supporting its existing projects.

In an April 19 X post, ABCDE co-founder and Huobi exchange founder Du Jun said the $400 million fund will no longer invest in new projects or raise capital for the second phase of the fund.

However, Jun said the fund will continue to “post-investment support and exit arrangements of existing projects” to ensure the firm’s commitment to entrepreneurs and liquidity providers (LPs).

“My personal work focus will also gradually shift from financial investment in the primary market to strategic investment-led and deep incubation-based, focusing more on industrial synergy and long-term value creation,” Jun added.

$400M Web3 investment fund ABCDE halts new investments, fundraisingSource: Du Jun

The announcement comes nearly three months after ABCDE’s last investment into an Ethereum layer-2 (L2) solution, Soon (Solana Optimistic Network), which raised $22 million through a non-fungible token sale to mark the launch of its mainnet, Cointelegraph reported on Jan. 22.

Investments, Scalability, Ethereum 2.0, Solana, Layer2SOON block times, compared to other blockchains. Source: SOON

The Soon mainnet claims to outperform Solana in speed and efficiency, delivering average block times of 50 milliseconds compared to Solana’s 400 milliseconds.

ABCDE is a $400 million fund, with 28% of its investments in Bitcoin (BTC) scaling technology, 16% in Ethereum liquid staking derivatives finance (LSDFi) infrastructure, and an additional 12% invested in L2s, restaking and smart contract platforms, Cryptorank data shows.

$400M Web3 investment fund ABCDE halts new investments, fundraisingABCDE investments focus area, average round size. Source: Cryptorank

ABCDE has invested over $40 million worth of capital into over 30 projects over the past three years, with an internal rate of return (IRR) “still at the global leading level,” despite the current market environment, Jun said.

Related: Trump family memecoins may trigger increased SEC scrutiny on crypto

New incubator brand Vernal announced

ABCDE’s suspension of fundraising efforts was announced a month after the fund’s co-founder launched a new incubator brand, Vernal.

Cryptocurrencies, Funding, Investments, Bitcoin Investment Trust, return of investment, Web3, Cryptocurrency Investment, Investment 101, Hedge FundSource: Du Jun

The new incubator is set to announce its shareholders and incubation rules for the first batch of projects in May, along with its first investments.

Jun said that the decision to halt ABCDE’s fundraising efforts was not made due to financial constraints or lack of funds but because of a fundamental concern for the current development trajectory of the crypto industry.

Related: Crypto, stocks enter ‘new phase of trade war’ as US-China tensions rise.

“Frankly speaking, I am increasingly unable to agree with the current ecological atmosphere of the primary market,” Jun said in an April 19 X post, adding:

“Many projects are extremely short-sighted and only think about how to get listed on the exchange as soon as possible, and what is left behind is often a mess.”

“What is more worrying is that some primary funds not only have no reflection on this, but also hype up their ‘listed projects’ and short-term market value performance, but never mention the value creation of the projects themselves,” he added.

Cardano founder Charles Hoskinson has urged fourth-generation cryptocurrency projects to embrace more collaborative tokenomics to compete with major centralized tech companies entering the crypto industry.

Cryptocurrencies, Facebook, Investments, Bitcoin Regulation, United States, Cryptocurrency Exchange, Developers, Charles Hoskinson, Cardano, TokenomicsCharles Hoskinson. Source: Cointelegraph

“The problem right now, with the way we’ve done things in the cryptocurrency space, is the tokenomics and the market structure are intrinsically adversarial. It’s sum 0,” Hoskinson said at Paris Blockchain Week on April 9. “Instead of picking a fight, what you have to do is you have to find tokenomics and market structure that allows you to be in a cooperative equilibrium.”

“You can’t build a global ecosystem this way, and you can’t win this way,” he added. “Because here’s the thing. The incumbents are much larger.”

Magazine: Your AI ‘digital twin’ can take meetings and comfort your loved ones

Read more at cointelegraph.com

Tariffs, explained: How they work and why they matter

What are tariffs?

Tariffs are taxes placed on imported goods by a government or a supranational union. Occasionally, tariffs can be applied to exports as well. They generate government revenue and serve as a trade regulation tool, often to shield domestic industries.

Four main categories of tariffs are:

Ad valorem tariffs: These are calculated as a percentage of the good’s value. For instance, a 20% tax might be placed on $100 of goods.Specific tariffs: These are fixed fees based on the quantity of goods. For example, there might be a tariff of $5 per imported kilogram of sugar.Compound tariffs: These combine a specific duty and an ad valorem duty applied to the same imported goods. Both tariffs are calculated together to determine the total tax. For example, a country might place a tariff on imported wine at $5 per liter plus 10% of the wine’s value.Mixed tariffs: Mixed tariffs apply either a specific duty or an ad valorem duty, based on predefined conditions. For instance, for imported trucks, a country might charge either $5,000 per vehicle or 15% of the car’s value, whichever is greater.

The objective of such policy is to influence international trade flows, protect domestic industries, and respond to unfair practices by foreign countries. When a tariff is applied to an imported good, it raises its cost, making domestically produced alternatives more lucrative for customers regarding price.

In the US, the Trump administration uses reciprocal tariffs as a key instrument in influencing the trade policies of other countries. Reciprocal tariffs are trade duties a country imposes in retaliation to tariffs or barriers set by another country. This policy seeks to correct trade imbalances and safeguard domestic industries.

Tariffs are generally collected by the customs departments of a country at ports of entry based on the declared value and classification of goods.

Did you know? Some countries use tariff-rate quotas, allowing a set quantity of a product to be imported at a lower tariff. Once the quota is exceeded, a higher tariff kicks in. This system balances domestic protection with access to global markets, especially in sectors like agriculture and textiles.

Trump administration’s reciprocal tariff policy

US President Donald Trump signed an executive order on April 2, 2025, a day he called Liberation Day, citing his authority under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA). The order placed a minimum 10% tariff on all US imports effective April 5, 2025. Reciprocal tariffs went into effect on April 9, 2025. 

Trump stated that the US would apply reciprocal tariffs at roughly half the rate imposed by other countries. For instance, the US imposed a 34% tariff in response to China’s 67%. A 25% tariff on all automobile imports was also announced.

Breakdown of reciprocal tariffs by country

The Trump administration’s reciprocal tariff policy is rooted in the belief that the US faced long-standing trade imbalances and unfair treatment by global trading partners. To address this, his administration pushed for what it called reciprocal tariffs, aiming at setting a tariff structure that matched or at least was close to tariffs that foreign nations imposed on American exports.

Under this approach, the administration used tariff policies to pressure countries to lower their trade barriers or renegotiate trade deals. The policy drew support from domestic manufacturers and labor groups for attempting to rebalance trade and support the US industry. But it also sparked criticism from economists and international allies who viewed it as protectionist and destabilizing the prevalent economic system in the world. 

The reciprocal tariffs policy has reshaped US trade relations and marked a departure from decades of multilateral, open global trade policy.

Did you know? Tariffs can reshape supply chains. To avoid high import taxes, companies often relocate manufacturing to countries with favorable trade agreements. This shift doesn’t always benefit consumers, as savings are not always passed down, and logistics become more complex.

The US–China tariff war: A defining economic conflict

The US–China tariff war, which began in 2018 under the first Trump administration, marked a significant shift in global economic relations. The conflict between the world’s two largest economies had broad implications for global supply chains, inflation and geopolitical dynamics.

The trade conflict between the US and China wasn’t just a bilateral spat. It signaled a structural rethinking of trade policy in a multipolar world. The trade war began after the US imposed sweeping tariffs under Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974, citing unfair trade practices, intellectual property theft and forced technology transfers by China. 

Over time, the US levied tariffs on more than $360 billion worth of Chinese goods. China retaliated with tariffs on $110 billion of US exports, targeting key sectors like agriculture and manufacturing.

The conflict disrupted major supply chains and raised costs for American businesses and consumers. American farmers were hit hard by retaliatory Chinese tariffs on soybeans, leading the US government to provide billions in subsidies to offset losses.

While the Phase One Agreement in 2020 eased tensions and required China to increase purchases of US goods and enforce intellectual property protections, many tariffs remained in place. The Biden administration retained most of the economic measures imposed by the first Trump administration, signaling bipartisan concern over China’s trade practices.

As of April 10, 2025, Trump had imposed 125% tariffs on China, while for 75 countries, he had paused the imposition of tariffs for 90 days.

Trump regime has imposed harsh tariffs on China

Compared to disputes with allies like the European Union or Canada, the stakes are higher in the US–China conflict, and the consequences are more far-reaching. 

Here are the responses of various governments to Trump’s tariffs:

Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney implemented a 25% tariff on US-made cars and trucks.China will impose a 34% tariff on all US imports, effective April 10.The French prime minister described the tariffs as an economic catastrophe.Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni criticized the tariffs as wrong.European Commission chief Ursula von der Leyen pledged a unified response and prepared countermeasures.Taiwan’s government denounced the tariffs as unreasonable.

How do tariffs work?

When a tariff is applied — for example, a 30% tax on imported steel — it raises the price of that good for importers. They, in turn, pass these added costs to downstream businesses, which further transfer these costs to consumers.

For importers, tariffs mean higher purchase costs. If a US company imports machinery from abroad and faces a tariff, its total cost increases. This possibly reduces its profit margins or forces it to search for alternatives. Exporters in other countries may suffer if US buyers reduce orders due to higher prices, hurting their competitiveness.

Domestic producers may benefit initially from a high tariff regime. Tariffs can shield them from cheaper foreign competition, allowing them to increase sales and potentially make profits. But if their operations rely on imported components subject to tariffs, their input costs may rise, offsetting gains.

Consumers often bear the brunt. Tariffs can lead to price hikes on everyday goods — from electronics to apparel. In the long term, high tariffs contribute to inflation and reduce purchasing power.

Tariffs also disrupt global supply chains. Many products are assembled using components from multiple countries. High tariffs on one component can cause delays, prompt redesigns, or force companies to relocate manufacturing, increasing complexity and costs.

Overall, while tariffs aim to protect domestic industries, their impact is felt across the economy through altering prices, trade flows and business strategies. One way or another, tariffs influence everyone — from factory owners to workers and everyday shoppers.

Trump excluded various tech products, such as smartphones, chips, computers and certain electronics, from reciprocal tariffs, providing the tech sector with crucial relief from tariff pressure. This step of Trump eased pressure on tech stocks. 

Trump’s tariff announcement on April 2 triggered a sharp sell-off in both equities and Bitcoin (BTC), with BTC plunging 10.5% in a week. Once seen as a non-correlated asset, Bitcoin now trades in sync with tech stocks during macro shocks. According to analysts, institutional investors increasingly treat BTC as a risk-on asset closely tied to policy shifts. While some view Bitcoin as digital gold, recent behavior shows it reacting more like Nasdaq stocks — falling during global uncertainty and rallying on positive sentiment.

Bitcoin vs. tech stocks

Did you know? Tariff exemptions can be highly strategic. Governments may exclude specific industries or companies, allowing them to import goods tariff-free while competitors pay more. This creates an uneven playing field and can spark domestic controversy.

Why do tariffs matter for global markets?

Tariffs are a robust tool in the hands of governments to shape a nation’s economic and trade strategy. They are not merely taxes on imports but a tool that influences domestic production, consumer behavior and global trade relationships.

For the US, tariffs have historically been used to assert economic power on the global stage, protect emerging industries, and respond to unfair trade practices. 

When countries with large economies are involved, tariff decisions can impact global supply chains, shift manufacturing hubs, and alter the price of goods worldwide. Even for the smaller countries, in an interconnected world, tariffs matter because their impact goes far beyond national borders. 

Domestically, tariffs could boost local industries by making foreign goods more expensive. This can create jobs and support economic resilience in the short term. 

Governments getting larger revenue via tariffs will enable them to reduce direct taxes as Trump proposed. But they can also raise prices for consumers, hurt exporters, and trigger retaliation from trade partners.

As geopolitical tensions rise and nations reevaluate their economic dependencies, tariffs have reemerged as a central element of US trade policy. 

Whether used defensively or offensively, they shape the balance between protectionism and global engagement. This makes tariffs a matter not just of economics, but of national strategy and global influence.

Who sets tariff policy in the US?

In the US, tariff policy is shaped by a combination of legislative authority, executive power and administrative enforcement. Various agencies also help in the execution of tariff policy.

Congress holds the constitutional authority to regulate trade and impose tariffs. Over time, Congress has given the president significant power to change tariffs for national security, economic threats or trade violations.

The Office of the US Trade Representative plays a central role in formulating and negotiating US trade policy. It leads trade talks, manages disputes, and recommends tariff actions, often in coordination with the president and Congress.

US Customs and Border Protection (CBP) is responsible for enforcing tariffs at ports of entry. CBP collects duties based on the classification and value of imported goods according to the Harmonized Tariff Schedule.

Several major trade laws have shaped tariff policy in the US. The Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act of 1930, aimed at protecting US farmers during the Great Depression, led to retaliatory tariffs and worsened global trade. 

Later, the Trade Act of 1974 gave the president tools like Section 301, which was used extensively during the US–China trade war to impose retaliatory tariffs on unfair foreign practices.

Together, these actors and laws form the foundation of US tariff policy.

Criticism of Trump’s tariff policy

Criticism of Trump’s tariff policy surfaced following the announcement of reciprocal tariffs. Critics say this move bypasses Congress and sets a dangerous precedent for unchecked executive power in economic matters.

Detractors argue that these tariffs hurt American businesses more than their intended foreign targets. A Vox article argued that low-income people would be hit more by Trump’s tariffs than by the already reeling Wall Street. Former Treasury Secretary Lawrence Summers fears that America may slip into recession due to tariffs, probably costing 2 million jobs nationwide.

A critic declares Trump's tariffs  a catastrophe

Legal challenges have also emerged regarding Trump’s tariff policy. The New Civil Liberties Alliance (NCLA), a conservative legal group, has filed a lawsuit on behalf of Simplified, a small business based in Florida that sells planners and sources goods from China. The lawsuit claims that the president overstepped his authority under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) when imposing tariffs in a non-emergency trade context.

Small and mid-sized businesses, many of which rely on global supply chains, will have to deal with rising import costs due to tariffs. This may lead to inflation and reduced competitiveness of such businesses. 

While the tariffs might hit China financially in the short term, the action could result in higher prices for US consumers and disrupt operations for American firms if the tariff policy continues for a long time.

Read more at cointelegraph.com