Opinion by: Alexander Guseff, founder and CEO of Tectum

Crypto companies have spent years pushing digital wallets and exchange apps, convinced they’ll bring financial inclusion to the world. Here’s the reality: 1.4 billion people remain unbanked, and crypto adoption has barely exceeded 8%. For all the talk about decentralization and accessibility, the industry continues to overlook the billions of people who rely on cash for their daily lives.

In developing economies of Africa, South Asia and Latin America, cash is not just dominant — it’s essential. Banking services are sparse, smartphone penetration is low, and digital literacy remains a hurdle. Expecting these populations to onboard through a process designed for tech-savvy users with internet access is unrealistic.

Yet whenever offline crypto solutions have been tested, adoption has jumped. The message is clear: People are willing to use crypto but need a way to access it that fits their reality.

The global reality of cash dependence

Despite assumptions that digital finance will eventually replace cash, that’s not what the numbers show. Take Romania. Notably, 76% of transactions there are still cash-based, yet crypto adoption has hit 14%. In Morocco, cash remains king despite digital payment growth, yet 16% of the population has found a way to use crypto — even though it’s officially banned.

Then there’s Egypt, where approximately 72% of payments rely on cash, but crypto adoption sits at around 3%, primarily due to limited digital infrastructure. Even in India, where crypto enthusiasm runs high, 63% of transactions still happen in cash. 

Across these markets, the pattern is clear: People want to use crypto, but the industry isn’t giving them a practical way to integrate it into their everyday transactions.

Crypto’s real problem

The barriers to crypto adoption go far beyond technology. Government regulations, economic conditions and local financial habits all play a role. 

Crypto’s biggest flaw isn’t a lack of demand. It’s the assumption that digital wallets and banking apps are the only viable entry points. That thinking ignores billions of people who still operate in cash-driven economies.

A more practical approach

Instead of forcing a digital-only model onto cash-heavy regions, crypto should adapt. Blockchain-linked physical banknotes, QR-coded vouchers and SMS-based transfers could bring crypto into the real economy in a way that makes sense for people who already use cash.

Recent: Stop making crypto complex

The idea isn’t as radical as it sounds. Africa’s M-Pesa, which has over 66.2 million active users, operates on a simple agent-based model that lets people exchange cash for digital value without needing a bank account. The same approach could work for crypto, enabling users to trade blockchain-linked cash notes at local vendors.

It’s already happening in small pockets. Machankura, for example, enables Bitcoin transactions via basic mobile networks, attracting over 13,600 users in Africa. In a region where nearly all digital payments rely on simple mobile codes rather than smartphone apps, solutions like this are far more viable than pushing another exchange-based onboarding process.

Security concerns will always come up with physical assets, but trained agents and proper oversight can mitigate risks. More importantly, that’s a solvable problem — excluding billions of people from the financial system isn’t.

The digital purists get it wrong

Many in the crypto space dismiss paper-based solutions as outdated. The idea that everything must be digital ignores how financial systems evolve. People need time to transition and systems that fit their current way of life.

CoinText, an SMS-based crypto transfer service, spread to 50 countries before it shut down — not because the idea didn’t work, but because the industry wasn’t ready to support it. 

The same rigid thinking that dismissed SMS transfers is now preventing adoption in cash-heavy economies. A new service called Text BSV has emerged, enabling seamless peer-to-peer (P2P) payments of satoshis via SMS — no app downloads, registrations or prior knowledge of Bitcoin (BTC) is required. It works on any phone, even non-smartphones.

If crypto adoption remains stalled at 8%, it won’t be because people don’t want it. It’ll be because the industry insisted on an approach that doesn’t work for most of the world.

A $50-billion opportunity 

The financial upside of integrating crypto into cash economies is enormous. Similar markets could follow if Romania, with a 76% cash reliance, can reach 14% adoption. That translates into a $50-billion opportunity globally as crypto enters economies where trillions of dollars move in informal cash transactions every year.

A network of cash-to-crypto agents could generate $10 billion in revenue by 2030, mirroring the success of mobile money platforms like M-Pesa. Even crypto exchanges would benefit from tapping into these underserved markets, bridging the gap between digital and cash economies.

Regulators may hesitate at paper-based crypto owing to transparency concerns, but financial inclusion at this scale is hard to ignore. If governments see a potential $50 billion in new economic activity, they’re more likely to work toward solutions rather than block progress.

Cash meets crypto

Crypto was supposed to revolutionize financial access, but it remains out of reach for billions of people. Expecting these communities to abandon cash entirely and jump straight into digital wallets is unrealistic and a bad strategy

The solution isn’t to wait for these economies to modernize. It’s to meet people where they are. That means experimenting with cash-compatible solutions, partnering with telecom providers, and rolling out agent-based models that let people use crypto in a way that feels familiar.

The current adoption stall will become permanent if the industry doesn’t make these changes. Instead of a step backward, paper-based crypto could be the bridge that finally connects billions of people to the future of finance.

Opinion by: Alexander Guseff, founder and CEO of Tectum.

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.

Cryptocurrency and equities markets entered a “new phase of the trade war, amid ongoing tariff escalations between the United States and China.

Global trade war concerns intensified on April 15 after the White House published a fact sheet announcing that Chinese imports would be hit with tariffs of up to 245%.

The penalties include a “125% reciprocal tariff, a 20% tariff to address the fentanyl crisis, and Section 301 tariffs on specific goods, between 7.5% and 100%,” according to the White House.

Fact sheet on tariffs, investigation into security risks posed by US reliance on imports. Source: White House

Crypto, tech stocks and other “expensive assets” have entered a “new phase” of the global trade war in response to the latest escalation, according to Aurelie Barthere, principal research analyst at crypto intelligence platform Nansen.

“We are now in a new phase of the trade war, with the focus on high-added-value sectors, Tech (and Pharma), and the zeroing in on US-China,” the analyst told Cointelegraph, adding:

“Until and IF we see a resolution of the US-China conflict (one leader picks up the phone and gives some concessions to the other), we are facing highly correlated risk assets.”

“I also think this situation is negative for non-US equities,” Barthere said. US equities and crypto have been “highly correlated” since November 2024, which increased to the downside during the current market correction, as “investors de-risk, especially expensive assets,” she added.

BTC, SPX, Nasdaq, gold chart. Source: Cointelegraph/TradingView

Related: Bitcoin’s safe-haven appeal grows during trade war uncertainty

The recovery of global equities and cryptocurrency markets hinges on the tone of global tariff negotiations, with a 70% chance to bottom by June 2025 before recovering, Nansen analysts previously predicted.

China recently appointed a new chief trade negotiator, Li Chenggang, a former assistant commerce minister during the first administration of US President Donald Trump.

Chenggang is characterized as a “very intense” negotiator experienced in dealing with US officials, Reuters reported on April 16, citing an unnamed source in Beijing’s “foreign business community.”

Related: Trump’s tariff escalation exposes ‘deeper fractures’ in global financial system

Eyes on Powell’s next move

As tariff tensions increase alongside inflation-related concerns, all eyes are now on US Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell’s upcoming speech during the next Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) meeting on May 6.

“Markets were on edge for any signal that the Fed might delay rate cuts due to sticky inflation or heightened geopolitical risk,” analysts from Bitfinex exchange told Cointelegraph, adding that if Powell leans hawkish, risk assets like Bitcoin could see downside:

“A neutral or balanced tone may calm markets more than they already have over the past week with some signficant recoveries across many risk assets and particularly crypto where many lower market cap assets have moved 30–40% off the lows.”

“Crypto is reacting to macro news not because fundamentals have changed, but because positioning is thin and confidence is sensitive,” the analysts added.

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

Meta, the parent company of Facebook, Instagram, WhatsApp and Messenger, is facing antitrust proceedings that could limit its ability to develop AI amid a field of competitors.

First filed in 2021, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) alleges that Meta’s strategy of absorbing firms — rather than competing with them — violates antitrust laws. If the court rules against Meta, it could be forced to spin out its various messenger services and social media sites into independent companies.

The loss of its stable of social media companies could harm Facebook’s competitiveness not only in the social media industry but also in its ability to train and develop its proprietary Llama AI models with data from those sites.

The trial could take anywhere from a couple of months to a year, but the outcome will have lasting consequences on Meta’s standing in the AI race.

Meta’s antitrust case and its effect on AI

The FTC first opened its complaint against Meta in 2020 when the firm was still operating as Facebook. The agency’s amended complaint a year later alleges that Meta (then Facebook) used an illegal “buy-or-bury” scheme on more creative competitors after its “failed attempts to develop innovative mobile features for its network.” This resulted in a monopoly of the “friends and family” social media market.

Meta founder and CEO Mark Zuckerberg had the chance to address these allegations on April 14, the first day of the official FTC v. Meta trial. He testified that only 20% of user content on Facebook and some 10% on Instagram was generated by users’ friends. The nature of social media has changed, Zuckerberg claimed.

“People just kept on engaging with more and more stuff that wasn’t what their friends were doing,” he said — meaning that the nature of Meta’s social media holdings was sufficiently diverse.

The FTC alleges that Meta identified potential threat competitors and bought them up. Source: FTC

At the time of the FTC’s initial complaint, Meta called the allegations “revisionist history,” a claim it repeated on April 13 when it stated the agency was “ignoring reality.” The company has argued that the purchases of Instagram and WhatsApp have benefited users and that competition has appeared in the form of YouTube and TikTok. 

If the District of Columbia Circuit Court rules against Meta, the global social media giant will be forced to unwind these services into independent firms. Jasmine Enberg, vice president and principal analyst at eMarketer, told the Los Angeles Times that such a ruling could cost Meta its competitive edge in the social media market.

“Instagram really is its biggest growth driver, in the sense that it has been picking up the slack for Facebook for a long time, especially on the user front when it comes to young people,” said Enberg. “Facebook hasn’t been where the cool college kids hang out for a long time.”

Such a ruling would also affect the pool of data from which Meta can draw to train its AI models. In July 2024, Meta halted the rollout of AI models in the European Union, citing “regulatory uncertainty.” 

The pause came after privacy advocacy group None of Your Business filed complaints in 11 European countries against Meta’s use of public data from its platforms to train its AI models. The Irish Data Protection Commission subsequently ordered a pause on the practice until it could conduct a review. 

Related: Meta’s Llama 4 puts US back in lead to ‘win the AI race’ — David Sacks

On April 14, Meta got the go-ahead to use public data — i.e., posts and comments from adult users across all of its platforms — to train the model. If these firms dissolved into separate companies, with their own organizational structures and data protection policies and practices, Meta would be cut off from an ocean of data and human communication with which its AI could be improved. 

Andrew Rossow, a cyberspace attorney with Minc Law and CEO of AR Media Consulting, told Cointelegraph that in such an event, “companies would most likely control their own user data, and Meta would be restricted from using it unless new data-sharing agreements were negotiated, which would be subject to regulatory scrutiny and user/consumer privacy laws.”

However, Rossow noted that it wouldn’t be a total loss for Meta. Zuckerberg’s firm would retain the wealth of data from Facebook and Messenger. It could continue to use “opt-in” data from consumers who allow their posts to be used for AI training, and it could also employ synthetic data sets as well as third-party and open data.

Meta, the AI race and data protections

The race to unseat OpenAI and its ChatGPT model from AI dominance has grown more competitive in the last year as DeepSeek joined the fray and Meta launched the fourth iteration of its open-source Llama model. 

In addition to training new models, major AI development firms are investing billions in new data centers to accommodate new iterations. In January 2025, Meta announced the construction of a 2-gigawatt data center with more than 1.3 million Nvidia AI graphics processing units. 

Zuckerberg wrote in a post on Threads, “This will be a defining year for AI. In 2025, I expect Meta AI will be the leading assistant serving more than 1 billion people […] To power this, Meta is building a 2GW+ datacenter that is so large it would cover a significant part of Manhattan.”

Illustration of the data map coverage. Source: Mark Zuckerberg

His announcement followed the $500-billion Stargate project, which would see massive investment in AI development led by OpenAI and SoftBank, with Microsoft and Oracle as equity partners. 

Related: Trump announces $500B AI infrastructure venture ‘Stargate’

Amid this competition, AI firms are looking for broader and more varied sources of data to train their AI models — and have turned to dubious practices in order to get the data they need. In order to stay competitive with OpenAI when developing its Llama 3 model, Meta harvested thousands of pirated books from the site LibGen. According to court documents in a case pending against Meta, Llama developers harvested data from pirated books because licensing them from sources like Scribd seemed “unreasonably expensive.” 

Time was another perceived motivator for using pirated works. “They take like 4+ weeks to deliver data,” one engineer wrote about services through which they could purchase book licenses.

The practice is not limited to Meta. OpenAI has also been accused of mining data from pirated work hosted on LibGen. 

Rossow suggested that, “to ensure lasting impact — beyond short-term profit,” Meta would do well to “prioritize investment in advanced data collection, rigorous auditing and the implementation of privacy-preserving and encryption-based technologies.”

By focusing on transparency and responsible practices, “Meta can continue to genuinely advance AI capabilities, rebuild and nurture long-term user trust, and adapt to evolving legal and ethical standards, regardless of changes to its platform portfolio.”

What a ruling for the FTC would mean

Litigation is now hitting tech firms from all sides as they face allegations of privacy violations, copyright law infringement and stifling competition. Major cases like those facing Google, Amazon and Meta that have yet to play out will decide how and whether these firms can proceed as they have, defining the guardrails for AI development as well. 

Rossow said that the current antitrust case against Meta could decide how courts interpret antitrust law for tech firms, spanning tech mergers, data usage and market competition. It would also signal that courts are “willing to break up tech conglomerates” when issues of smothering competition are involved, while at the same time, “taking current precedent a step further in harmonizing it with the laws of cyberspace.”

Magazine: Memecoin degeneracy is funding groundbreaking anti-aging research

Bitcoin’s (BTC) price failed another attempt at breaking above resistance at $86,000 on April 16 as  Fed Chair Jerome Powell dashed hopes of early rate cuts, citing the impact of Trump’s tariffs.

Since April 9, BTC price has formed daily candle highs between $75,000 and $86,400, but has been unable to produce a close above $86,000.

BTC/USD daily chart. Source: Cointelegraph/TradingView

Many analysts and traders ask, “Where is Bitcoin price headed next?” as the asset remains stuck in a tight range on the lower time frame (LTF) of the 4-hour chart.

88% chance interest rates unchanged

Polymarket bettors say there is an 88% chance that the current interest rates will remain between 4.25% and 4.50%, leaving just a 10% probability of a 0.25% rate cut.

Interest rate expectations. Source: Polymarket

However, a common market belief is that any bearish price action from unchanged interest rates is already priced in.

On April 16, US Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell indicated that the Fed is not rushing to cut interest rates. Speaking in Chicago, he emphasized a “wait-and-see” approach, needing more economic data before adjusting policy. 

Powell highlighted risks from President Trump’s tariffs, which could drive inflation and slow growth, potentially creating a “challenging scenario” for the Fed’s dual mandate of stable prices and maximum employment. 

“The level of the tariff increases announced so far is significantly larger than anticipated,” said Powell in a speech, adding: 

“The same is likely to be true of the economic effects, which will include higher inflation and slower growth.”

He stressed maintaining a restrictive policy to ensure inflation doesn’t persist, suggesting any immediate rate cuts despite market volatility and tariff uncertainties.

Related: Bitcoin gold copycat move may top $150K as BTC stays ‘impressive’

As a result, President Trump has threatened Powell with termination, arguing that he is “always too late and wrong” and that his April 16 report was a typical and complete “mess.”

“Powell’s termination cannot come fast enough!”

Meanwhile, Polymarket now says there’s a 46% chance that Bitcoin’s price will hit $90,000 on April 30, with less than 5% possibility of hitting new all-time highs above $110,000.

Key Bitcoin price levels to watch

Bitcoin must flip the $86,000 resistance level into support to target higher highs at $90,000.

For this to happen, BTC/USD must first regain its position above the 200-day exponential moving average (purple line) at $87,740. This trendline was lost on March 9 for the first time since August 2024.

Above that, there is a major supply zone stretching all the way to $91.240, where the 100-day SMA sits. Bulls will also have to overcome this barrier in order to increase the chances of BTC’s run to $100,000.

Bitcoin daily chart. Source: Cointelegraph/TradingView

Conversely, the bears will attempt to keep the $86,000 resistance in place, increasing the likelihood of new lows under $80,000. A key area of interest lies between $76,000 and the previous range lows at $74,000, i.e., the previous all-time high from March 2024.

Below that, the next move would be a retest of the US election day price of $67,817, erasing all the gains made from the so-called Trump pump.

Onchain analyst James Check points out that Bitcoin’s true bottom lies at its “true market mean” — the average cost basis for active investors — around the $65,000 area. 

“The $75,000 zone is an area where you want the bulls to mount a defense,” check said in an interview on the TFTC podcast, adding:

“If they don’t, the next step is we go back to the chop consolidation range, we find out how deep into that we go, and the flag in the sea of sand is $65,000.”

Interestingly, this price level aligns closely with Michael Saylor’s Strategy cost basis, which sits around $67,500. 

This article does not contain investment advice or recommendations. Every investment and trading move involves risk, and readers should conduct their own research when making a decision.

Bitcoin’s (BTC) price failed another attempt at breaking above resistance at $86,000 on April 16 as  Fed Chair Jerome Powell dashed hopes of early rate cuts, citing the impact of Trump’s tariffs.

Since April 9, BTC price has formed daily candle highs between $75,000 and $86,400, but has been unable to produce a close above $86,000.

BTC/USD daily chart. Source: Cointelegraph/TradingView

Many analysts and traders ask, “Where is Bitcoin price headed next?” as the asset remains stuck in a tight range on the lower time frame (LTF) of the 4-hour chart.

88% chance interest rates unchanged

Polymarket bettors say there is an 88% chance that the current interest rates will remain between 4.25% and 4.50%, leaving just a 10% probability of a 0.25% rate cut.

Interest rate expectations. Source: Polymarket

However, a common market belief is that any bearish price action from unchanged interest rates is already priced in.

On April 16, US Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell indicated that the Fed is not rushing to cut interest rates. Speaking in Chicago, he emphasized a “wait-and-see” approach, needing more economic data before adjusting policy. 

Powell highlighted risks from President Trump’s tariffs, which could drive inflation and slow growth, potentially creating a “challenging scenario” for the Fed’s dual mandate of stable prices and maximum employment. 

“The level of the tariff increases announced so far is significantly larger than anticipated,” said Powell in a speech, adding: 

“The same is likely to be true of the economic effects, which will include higher inflation and slower growth.”

He stressed maintaining a restrictive policy to ensure inflation doesn’t persist, suggesting any immediate rate cuts despite market volatility and tariff uncertainties.

Related: Bitcoin gold copycat move may top $150K as BTC stays ‘impressive’

As a result, President Trump has threatened Powell with termination, arguing that he is “always too late and wrong” and that his April 16 report was a typical and complete “mess.”

“Powell’s termination cannot come fast enough!”

Meanwhile, Polymarket now says there’s a 46% chance that Bitcoin’s price will hit $90,000 on April 30, with less than 5% possibility of hitting new all-time highs above $110,000.

Key Bitcoin price levels to watch

Bitcoin must flip the $86,000 resistance level into support to target higher highs at $90,000.

For this to happen, BTC/USD must first regain its position above the 200-day exponential moving average (purple line) at $87,740. This trendline was lost on March 9 for the first time since August 2024.

Above that, there is a major supply zone stretching all the way to $91.240, where the 100-day SMA sits. Bulls will also have to overcome this barrier in order to increase the chances of BTC’s run to $100,000.

Bitcoin daily chart. Source: Cointelegraph/TradingView

Conversely, the bears will attempt to keep the $86,000 resistance in place, increasing the likelihood of new lows under $80,000. A key area of interest lies between $76,000 and the previous range lows at $74,000, i.e., the previous all-time high from March 2024.

Below that, the next move would be a retest of the US election day price of $67,817, erasing all the gains made from the so-called Trump pump.

Onchain analyst James Check points out that Bitcoin’s true bottom lies at its “true market mean” — the average cost basis for active investors — around the $65,000 area. 

“The $75,000 zone is an area where you want the bulls to mount a defense,” check said in an interview on the TFTC podcast, adding:

“If they don’t, the next step is we go back to the chop consolidation range, we find out how deep into that we go, and the flag in the sea of sand is $65,000.”

Interestingly, this price level aligns closely with Michael Saylor’s Strategy cost basis, which sits around $67,500. 

This article does not contain investment advice or recommendations. Every investment and trading move involves risk, and readers should conduct their own research when making a decision.

Eliza Labs, the developer behind the AI agent framework ai16z, announced the launch of auto.fun, a new no-code platform allowing users to launch AI agents on Web3 applications.

Auto.fun allows for the creation, deployment and monetization of AI agents by non-developers without programming knowledge, according to an April 17 announcement.

The platform supports the creation of AI agents that interact with social media, decentralized finance (DeFi) apps and other Web3 services.

“The vision for auto.fun is to democratize access to both AI and Web3 technologies by creating agents that can execute tasks autonomously on behalf of users,” said Shaw Walters, founder of Eliza Labs and the open-source elizaOS.

The animated ASCII art shown to auto.fun visitors ahead of launch. Source: auto.fun

Walters said the agents could automate yield farming strategies, manage social media accounts or trade on behalf of users. The platform is focused on X support, with DeFi, gaming and other application support promised in the future.

Related: AI takes nearly 60% of global venture capital dollars in Q1: Pitchbook

AI agents with no coding required

Eliza Labs said auto.fun will allow users to create agentic AI systems that both respond to queries and perform tasks. Users will purportedly be able to tell their AI agents what to do with their funds in DeFi through simple commands.

“Find me the best staking opportunities with at least 12% APY and automatically allocate funds.”

An Eliza Labs spokesperson told Cointelegraph that the product’s focus is accessibility, with some user education in place:

“While the platform makes it possible for users to spin up agents in a few clicks, key educational prompts and user experience guardrails are embedded throughout the process to help users make informed choices.Token launch mechanics

Auto.fun also introduces what Eliza Labs calls “fairer than fair” token launches. The company is employing a bonding curve mechanism that “combines the benefits of a fair launch with enough flexibility for project teams to secure up to 50% of their tokens before market listing.”

Related: Ethereum could be AI’s key to decentralization, says former core dev

A bonding curve is a smart contract-based algorithmic pricing model in DeFi that dynamically adjusts a token’s price based on its circulating supply. When tokens are bought or sold, the bonding curve automatically adjusts the price according to predefined mathematical relationships, ensuring continuous liquidity without relying on traditional order books.

The Eliza Labs spokesperson said (RAY) purportedly allows for “a more sustainable alternative.”that traditional token launches often leave core teams with little in terms of resources and allow for easier token dumps. The hybrid bonding curve approach developed in partnership with Raydium

The system allows project teams to pre-reserve up to 50% of the supply, which supposedly ensures “they have meaningful skin in the game and resources for post-launch development.” The remaining tokens are sold through a bonding curve that should limit the advantages of bot-driven purchases.

Walters also highlighted that auto.fun is open source. This “ensures users can verify exactly how their agents operate and what happens with their data.”

Agents that will operate on the platform include FightFi, a collection of social media agents that compete with each other with agent-specific tokens providing token-gated access to higher-level functions.

Other agents include Secret, which launches Solana (SOL) tokens, and Sigma Music Agent, which connects musicians and fans with AI agents. Another agent on the platform is Astra, which manages crosschain payments between Ethereum Virtual Machine (EVM) blockchains, Solana, and the Bitcoin (BTC) layer-2 Lightning Network.

Magazine: ‘Chernobyl’ needed to wake people to AI risks, Studio Ghibli memes: AI Eye

Mantra’s OM token collapsed by more than 90% overnight, and the crypto world can’t agree on why. On April 13, OM’s price plummeted from over $6 to below $0.50, wiping out more than $5 billion in market cap and triggering widespread panic across the crypto industry.

The sudden crash drew comparisons to Terra’s LUNA implosion as traders scrambled for answers. Unverified rumors of insider dumping, forced liquidations, mislabeled wallets and exchange manipulation quickly spread — but Mantra insists it was caught in the middle.

Mantra had built a strong position in the real-world asset tokenization narrative heading into April 13, backed by a $1-billion deal to tokenize Dubai-based Damac Group’s real estate and data centers. It secured a Virtual Assets Regulatory Authority (VARA) license in Dubai and launched a $108-million ecosystem fund with support from heavyweights such as Laser Digital, Shorooq, Amber Group and Brevan Howard Digital. In February 2025, the OM token hit an all-time high of nearly $9.

But on April 13, that momentum was violently interrupted. The hours that followed painted a messy picture of token transfers, insider speculation and shifting blame. Here’s a detailed look at how the OM collapse played out.

24 hours of the Mantra OM fiascoApril 13 (16:00–18:00 UTC)

Mantra’s OM token was trading sideways throughout the day. It dropped from $6.14 to $5.52 during this two-hour window.

April 13 (18:00–20:00 UTC)

The token suddenly fell to $1.38 in the first hour, then to as low as $0.52 in the next — losing over 90% of its value in a single day. Social media erupted with theories, including a rug pull, insider dumping, forced liquidation or exchange manipulation.

Mantra’s OM loses over 90% of its value in just a few hours. Source: CoinGeckoApril 13 (20:00–22:00 UTC)

Early speculation surrounded a rug pull, sparked by a screenshot of a deleted Telegram channel. This was later debunked, as the deleted group was not Matra’s official channel. Cointelegraph has confirmed that the project’s Telegram is active at the time of writing.

Mantra shared its first statement on X, but the brief update was met with immediate backlash from the community.

Mantra says OM’s crash was due to “reckless liquidations.” Source: Mantra/ExyApril 13 (22:00–00:00 UTC)

Mantra co-founder and CEO John Patrick Mullin posted a more detailed statement on X, claiming OM’s market action was triggered by “reckless forced closures initiated by centralized exchanges on OM account holders.”

“The timing and depth of the crash suggest that a very sudden closure of account positions was initiated without sufficient warning or notice,” Mullin said.

“That this happened during low-liquidity hours on a Sunday evening UTC (early morning Asia time) points to a degree of negligence at best, or possibly intentional market positioning taken by centralized exchanges.”

Related: Atkins becomes next SEC chair: What’s next for the crypto industry

April 14 (00:00–02:00 UTC)

In the days leading up to the crash, at least 17 wallets had deposited a total of 43.6 million OM (worth $227 million) into Binance and OKX, according to blockchain tracker Lookonchain.

Two of these wallets were labeled as belonging to Laser Digital, a strategic Mantra investor, by blockchain data platform Arkham Intelligence. The label triggered further speculation and allegations against Laser Digital. At the time of writing, the accuracy of Arkham’s labels has not been confirmed, and the platform has not responded to Cointelegraph’s request to clarify.

Laser Digital is still tagged on Arkham’s platform. Source: Arkham Intelligence

Meanwhile, Mullin replied to community questions under his X post, suggesting internal findings pointed to one exchange as the main cause of the collapse while stating that it was not Binance.

April 14 (02:00–05:00 UTC)

Both Binance and OKX responded to the situation. Binance said, “Binance is aware that $OM, the native token of MANTRA, has experienced significant price volatility. Our initial findings indicate that the developments over the past day are a result of cross-exchange liquidations.”

OKX CEO Star Xu posted on X, “It’s a big scandal to the whole crypto industry. All of the onchain unlock and deposit data is public, all major exchanges’ collateral and liquidation data can be investigated. OKX will make all of the reports ready!”

OKX stated, “Following the incident, we have conducted investigations and identified major changes to the MANTRA token’s tokenomics model since Oct 2024, based on both publicly available on-chain data and internal exchange data.

“Our investigation also uncovered that several on-chain addresses have been executing potentially coordinated large-scale deposits and withdrawals across various centralized exchanges since Mar 2025.”

April 14 (05:00–12:00 UTC)

Laser Digital denied ownership of the wallets tagged by Arkham and reported by Lookonchain, calling them mislabeled.

“We want to be absolutely clear: Laser has not deposited any OM tokens to OKX. The wallets being referenced are not Laser wallets,” the company said on X, sharing three token addresses to support its claim that no sales had occurred.

Lookonchain also identified another wallet using Arkham data that had remained dormant for a year before becoming active just hours before the crash. The wallet was labeled as belonging to Shane Shin, a founding partner of Shorooq Partners, and received 2 million OM shortly before the collapse.

Source: Lookonchain/Shae ShinApril 14 (12:00–13:00 UTC)

Mullin joined Cointelegraph’s Chain Reaction show and denied reports that key Mantra investors dumped OM before the collapse. He dismissed allegations that the team controlled 90% of the supply.

“I think it’s baseless. We posted a community transparency report last week, and it shows all the different wallets,” Mullin said, noting the dual-token setup across Ethereum and the Mantra mainnet. Additionally, he reassured users that OM token recovery is the team’s primary concern. 

“We’re still in the early stages of putting together this plan for a potential buyback of tokens,” he said. 

Related: The whale, the hack and the psychological earthquake that hit HEX

April 14 (13:00–16:00 UTC)

More theories started emerging. Onchain Bureau claimed market makers at FalconX were responsible for the price crash. They blamed it on the loan option model — a service allowing market makers to borrow tokens and execute guaranteed purchases at contract expiry.

“Instead of paying the market maker with a monthly retainer fee, they had a contract signed saying that they would be able to enforce a buy of, for example, 1M tokens at $1 by contract expiry. Clearly, when the contract expired, they enforced the contract and made their bags,” Onchain Bureau said in a now-deleted X post.

Shortly afterward, Onchain Bureau followed up, saying FalconX had reached out and denied being Mantra’s market maker. Mullin also responded to the post, stating that FalconX was not the project’s market maker. He described them instead as a trading partner.

Meanwhile, crypto detective ZachXBT weighed in, claiming that individuals linked to Reef Finance had allegedly been seeking massive OM-backed loans in the days leading up to the crash.

Source: ZachXBTWhat we know of the OM crash

Several theories have been thrown around. Initial fears ranged from a rug pull to insider trading, which Mantra has denied in several instances by sharing wallet addresses. The team has responded to online comments and media inquiries to assure that they haven’t run away.

Mantra has also denied that the price collapse was a result of an expiring deal with market maker FalconX. Some fingers were pointed toward Laser Digital, which said it is a result of mislabeling at Arkham Intelligence. 

Arkham Intelligence has not responded to Cointelegraph’s request to clarify its labels. However, the Laser Digital tags on Arkham are a low-confidence prediction made by an AI model, not a verified entity with a blue checkmark.

Magenta-colored labels on Arkham Intelligence are low-confidence AI predictions, not verified wallets. Source: Arkham Intelligence

In the days following the OM crash, Mullin stated that he would burn all of his team’s tokens. He later said that he would start by putting his own allocation on the line.

Mullin announced that Mantra would publish a post-mortem and followed with a “statement of events” on April 16. The team reiterated that no project-led token sales occurred and that all team allocations remain locked. The statement doubled down on Mantra’s plan to introduce a token buyback and burn program but lacked new information on the cause of the crash.

Mullin told Cointelegraph that Mantra has tapped an unnamed blockchain analyst to investigate the underlying cause of the crash, though details remain confidential at this time.

Magazine: Memecoin degeneracy is funding groundbreaking anti-aging research

Mantra’s OM token collapsed by more than 90% overnight, and the crypto world can’t agree on why. On April 13, OM’s price plummeted from over $6 to below $0.50, wiping out more than $5 billion in market cap and triggering widespread panic across the crypto industry.

The sudden crash drew comparisons to Terra’s LUNA implosion as traders scrambled for answers. Unverified rumors of insider dumping, forced liquidations, mislabeled wallets and exchange manipulation quickly spread — but Mantra insists it was caught in the middle.

Mantra had built a strong position in the real-world asset tokenization narrative heading into April 13, backed by a $1-billion deal to tokenize Dubai-based Damac Group’s real estate and data centers. It secured a Virtual Assets Regulatory Authority (VARA) license in Dubai and launched a $108-million ecosystem fund with support from heavyweights such as Laser Digital, Shorooq, Amber Group and Brevan Howard Digital. In February 2025, the OM token hit an all-time high of nearly $9.

But on April 13, that momentum was violently interrupted. The hours that followed painted a messy picture of token transfers, insider speculation and shifting blame. Here’s a detailed look at how the OM collapse played out.

24 hours of the Mantra OM fiascoApril 13 (16:00–18:00 UTC)

Mantra’s OM token was trading sideways throughout the day. It dropped from $6.14 to $5.52 during this two-hour window.

April 13 (18:00–20:00 UTC)

The token suddenly fell to $1.38 in the first hour, then to as low as $0.52 in the next — losing over 90% of its value in a single day. Social media erupted with theories, including a rug pull, insider dumping, forced liquidation or exchange manipulation.

Mantra’s OM loses over 90% of its value in just a few hours. Source: CoinGeckoApril 13 (20:00–22:00 UTC)

Early speculation surrounded a rug pull, sparked by a screenshot of a deleted Telegram channel. This was later debunked, as the deleted group was not Matra’s official channel. Cointelegraph has confirmed that the project’s Telegram is active at the time of writing.

Mantra shared its first statement on X, but the brief update was met with immediate backlash from the community.

Mantra says OM’s crash was due to “reckless liquidations.” Source: Mantra/ExyApril 13 (22:00–00:00 UTC)

Mantra co-founder and CEO John Patrick Mullin posted a more detailed statement on X, claiming OM’s market action was triggered by “reckless forced closures initiated by centralized exchanges on OM account holders.”

“The timing and depth of the crash suggest that a very sudden closure of account positions was initiated without sufficient warning or notice,” Mullin said.

“That this happened during low-liquidity hours on a Sunday evening UTC (early morning Asia time) points to a degree of negligence at best, or possibly intentional market positioning taken by centralized exchanges.”

Related: Atkins becomes next SEC chair: What’s next for the crypto industry

April 14 (00:00–02:00 UTC)

In the days leading up to the crash, at least 17 wallets had deposited a total of 43.6 million OM (worth $227 million) into Binance and OKX, according to blockchain tracker Lookonchain.

Two of these wallets were labeled as belonging to Laser Digital, a strategic Mantra investor, by blockchain data platform Arkham Intelligence. The label triggered further speculation and allegations against Laser Digital. At the time of writing, the accuracy of Arkham’s labels has not been confirmed, and the platform has not responded to Cointelegraph’s request to clarify.

Laser Digital is still tagged on Arkham’s platform. Source: Arkham Intelligence

Meanwhile, Mullin replied to community questions under his X post, suggesting internal findings pointed to one exchange as the main cause of the collapse while stating that it was not Binance.

April 14 (02:00–05:00 UTC)

Both Binance and OKX responded to the situation. Binance said, “Binance is aware that $OM, the native token of MANTRA, has experienced significant price volatility. Our initial findings indicate that the developments over the past day are a result of cross-exchange liquidations.”

OKX CEO Star Xu posted on X, “It’s a big scandal to the whole crypto industry. All of the onchain unlock and deposit data is public, all major exchanges’ collateral and liquidation data can be investigated. OKX will make all of the reports ready!”

OKX stated, “Following the incident, we have conducted investigations and identified major changes to the MANTRA token’s tokenomics model since Oct 2024, based on both publicly available on-chain data and internal exchange data.

“Our investigation also uncovered that several on-chain addresses have been executing potentially coordinated large-scale deposits and withdrawals across various centralized exchanges since Mar 2025.”

April 14 (05:00–12:00 UTC)

Laser Digital denied ownership of the wallets tagged by Arkham and reported by Lookonchain, calling them mislabeled.

“We want to be absolutely clear: Laser has not deposited any OM tokens to OKX. The wallets being referenced are not Laser wallets,” the company said on X, sharing three token addresses to support its claim that no sales had occurred.

Lookonchain also identified another wallet using Arkham data that had remained dormant for a year before becoming active just hours before the crash. The wallet was labeled as belonging to Shane Shin, a founding partner of Shorooq Partners, and received 2 million OM shortly before the collapse.

Source: Lookonchain/Shae ShinApril 14 (12:00–13:00 UTC)

Mullin joined Cointelegraph’s Chain Reaction show and denied reports that key Mantra investors dumped OM before the collapse. He dismissed allegations that the team controlled 90% of the supply.

“I think it’s baseless. We posted a community transparency report last week, and it shows all the different wallets,” Mullin said, noting the dual-token setup across Ethereum and the Mantra mainnet. Additionally, he reassured users that OM token recovery is the team’s primary concern. 

“We’re still in the early stages of putting together this plan for a potential buyback of tokens,” he said. 

Related: The whale, the hack and the psychological earthquake that hit HEX

April 14 (13:00–16:00 UTC)

More theories started emerging. Onchain Bureau claimed market makers at FalconX were responsible for the price crash. They blamed it on the loan option model — a service allowing market makers to borrow tokens and execute guaranteed purchases at contract expiry.

“Instead of paying the market maker with a monthly retainer fee, they had a contract signed saying that they would be able to enforce a buy of, for example, 1M tokens at $1 by contract expiry. Clearly, when the contract expired, they enforced the contract and made their bags,” Onchain Bureau said in a now-deleted X post.

Shortly afterward, Onchain Bureau followed up, saying FalconX had reached out and denied being Mantra’s market maker. Mullin also responded to the post, stating that FalconX was not the project’s market maker. He described them instead as a trading partner.

Meanwhile, crypto detective ZachXBT weighed in, claiming that individuals linked to Reef Finance had allegedly been seeking massive OM-backed loans in the days leading up to the crash.

Source: ZachXBTWhat we know of the OM crash

Several theories have been thrown around. Initial fears ranged from a rug pull to insider trading, which Mantra has denied in several instances by sharing wallet addresses. The team has responded to online comments and media inquiries to assure that they haven’t run away.

Mantra has also denied that the price collapse was a result of an expiring deal with market maker FalconX. Some fingers were pointed toward Laser Digital, which said it is a result of mislabeling at Arkham Intelligence. 

Arkham Intelligence has not responded to Cointelegraph’s request to clarify its labels. However, the Laser Digital tags on Arkham are a low-confidence prediction made by an AI model, not a verified entity with a blue checkmark.

Magenta-colored labels on Arkham Intelligence are low-confidence AI predictions, not verified wallets. Source: Arkham Intelligence

In the days following the OM crash, Mullin stated that he would burn all of his team’s tokens. He later said that he would start by putting his own allocation on the line.

Mullin announced that Mantra would publish a post-mortem and followed with a “statement of events” on April 16. The team reiterated that no project-led token sales occurred and that all team allocations remain locked. The statement doubled down on Mantra’s plan to introduce a token buyback and burn program but lacked new information on the cause of the crash.

Mullin told Cointelegraph that Mantra has tapped an unnamed blockchain analyst to investigate the underlying cause of the crash, though details remain confidential at this time.

Magazine: Memecoin degeneracy is funding groundbreaking anti-aging research

Bybit is shutting down more of its Web3 services after axing its non-fungible token (NFT) marketplace earlier in April.

According to an April 16 announcement, the exchange is shutting down its Cloud Wallet (a hosted custodial wallet​), Keyless Wallet (non‑custodial multiparty computation wallet with no seed phrase​), NFT marketplace, multi‑chain decentralized exchange (DEX)​ DEX Pro and the Swap & Bridge cross‑chain swap widget​ on May 31.

Source: Bybit Web3

On April 28, Bybit will also discontinue Web3 Points, its internal loyalty program that rewarded onchain activity with redeemable points for fee discounts, airdrop boosts and early-bird perks.​

On the same day, the exchange will shut down its inscription marketplace, the decentralized NFT marketplace NFT Pro, the gateway to the Apex Pro derivatives DEX, its fiat-to-crypto on-ramp, and its initial DEX offering service.

Related: Bybit recovers market share to 7% after $1.4B hack

A strategic pivot

Bybit announced its intention to shut down its NFT marketplace earlier this month. The decision follows a similar decision by major NFT marketplace X2Y2.

Still, the firm is not just cutting products. Recent reports indicate that Bybit has integrated the Bitcoin (BTC) yield product of lending protocol Avalon to offer Bitcoin yield to its users. Avalon said it will allow the platform’s users to earn yield from Bitcoin by arbitrating on its fixed-rate institutional borrowing layer.

Bybit recently denied claims that it charges $1.4 million to list a token on its platform, following allegations made by a social media user.

Related: BitMEX CEO explains how perpetual swaps test altcoin value

Bybit refocusing its efforts

Bybit said it is shutting down the services in order to focus on the quality of its core products. The announcement reads:

“In line with our commitment to the evolving onchain ecosystem and delivering high-quality services to our Web3 users, we will be optimizing our current Web3 product and service offerings.“

These apparent cost-cutting efforts by the company follow Bybit’s loss of about $1.4 billion in a major hack in February.

“Bybit is Solvent even if this hack loss is not recovered, all of the client’s assets are 1 to 1 backed — we can cover the loss.“

Bybit had not responded to Cointelegraph’s request for comment by publication.

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

Fartcoin (FARTCOIN), a Solana-based memecoin launched in October 2024, has soared over 370% from its yearly low, outperforming Bitcoin (BTC) even as global trade tensions weigh on broader risk assets.

These are the five key reasons why FARTCOIN is rising faster than top cryptocurrencies.

FARTCOIN/USDT vs. BTC/USD 30-day price chart comparison. Source: TradingViewPEPE boom similarities fuel FARTCOIN hype

FARTCOIN’s recent surge mirrors the early stages of Pepe’s (PEPE) meteoric rise.

In 2023, PEPE launched with a rapid ascent to a $1.8 billion market cap before crashing down to $255 million, according to the PEPE/WETH weekly chart.

From there, it bottomed out, consolidated, and then entered a second, even more powerful rally that carried it beyond a $4 billion valuation.

PEPE/WETH weekly performance chart. Source: DEX Screener/MacroCRG

The euphoric pump, harsh correction, and quiet accumulation phase look similar to what FARTCOIN is showing now.

The Solana memecoin peaked near $2.4 billion earlier this year before undergoing a brutal drawdown. Its valuation dropped to around $365 million, forming a rounded bottom pattern.

FARTCOIN/SOL weekly price chart. Source: DEX Screener/MarcoCRG

From there, FARTCOIN has steadily climbed back, reaching about $949 million this week. That is strikingly similar to PEPE’s post-hype accumulation phase in 2023.

“I genuinely think there’s a chance Fartcoin repeats the PEPE playbook and pulls some crazy multiples from here,” wrote market analyst MacroCRG, citing the PEPE memecoin fractal.

Fartcoin’s social media hype spikes 500%

FARTCOIN appears to be riding a fresh wave of speculative mania, with social media metrics revealing a sharp rise in online activity.

FARTCOIN’s social volume (orange line) surged by nearly 500% in early April, preceding its 100%-plus gains in the month, according to data resource LunarCrush.

As of April 17, the engagement had cooled slightly, albeit remaining elevated at 177% above baseline.

FARTCOIN social volume, dominance and contributors 30-day chart. Source: LunarCrush

Social dominance (purple) and social contributors (blue) have both trended higher, up 162% and 136%, respectively.

Rising social media activity in crypto markets often correlates with increased speculative interest, particularly in meme-driven assets.

While not a guaranteed indicator of future price action, a surge in social metrics can reflect growing community engagement and heightened visibility, factors that are now coinciding with sharp moves in FARTCOIN.

Fartcoin OI jumps over 500%

Fartcoin’s open interest (OI) in the futures market has jumped by around 504% so far in 2025, according to data resource CoinGlass. A rising OI indicates a massive influx of capital and attention from traders.

FARTCOIN futures open interest. Source: CoinGlass

In contrast, Bitcoin’s OI has declined by 10.5% during the same period, reflecting reduced speculative interest in the leading crypto asset.

Adding to the bullish case, FARTCOIN’s funding rates have remained largely positive throughout April, showing that more traders are betting on the price going up than down.

FARTCOIN funding rates (8-hour). Source: CoinGlass

Periods of negative funding rates in the FARTCOIN futures market have consistently aligned with disproportionately large short liquidations, highlighting the risks of betting against this popular memecoin.

A clear example occurred on April 9, when FARTCOIN’s eight-hour funding rate plunged to -0.023%, signaling a wave of bearish sentiment as traders aggressively shorted the token.

FARTCOIN funding rates and liquidation charts. Source: CoinGlass

But in a classic short squeeze, FARTCOIN surged by nearly 50% the same day, triggering $9.16 million in short liquidations, compared to just $2.52 million in longs.

This stark imbalance underscores a growing pattern: When too many traders lean bearish, FARTCOIN often moves sharply against them.

As a result, short sellers appear to be treading carefully, as excessive pessimism has repeatedly backfired, turning negative funding into a setup for explosive upside moves.

Fartcoin is founderless

Fartcoin’s rise reflects more than just meme-fueled hype—it stems from a unique narrative that actively blends AI innovation with internet absurdity.

New Zealand-based AI researcher Andy Ayrey created an AI agent called the Terminal of Truth, which conceived Fartcoin as part of an experiment in merging artificial intelligence with blockchain humor.

Source: X

This unusual origin story has caught the attention of traders looking to capitalize on the intersection of AI and crypto, positioning Fartcoin as more than just a typical memecoin.

“Unlike most AI plays, it lives free of the execution risks and technical complexity of infra tokens *and* free of the fatigue and noise around tokenized agents,” wrote analyst Ben in December 2024, adding:

“This simplicity coupled with absurdity is the perfect recipe for reflexivity: higher price = higher absurdity = higher attention = higher price.”

Fartcoin’s team continues to build its brand around viral internet culture, planning a Goatse-inspired film to further fuel engagement.

It pushes the absurdity even further by incorporating a digital fart sound into its “Gas Fee” system—turning transaction costs into a deliberately crude punchline that reinforces its meme-first identity.

Source: X

In doing so, Fartcoin has leveraged novelty and narrative to attract speculative capital without relying on a roadmap, founder figure or utility.

This strategy possibly explains why it has continued to gain momentum while many other tokens stall.

Fartcoin price technicals hint at 100% gains next

FARTCOIN’s price rally also has strong technical backing.

The four-hour chart of FARTCOIN/USDT shows an inverse head-and-shoulders pattern, a classic bullish reversal signal that often marks the end of a downtrend and the beginning of a sustained upward move.

This formation includes a left shoulder formed in early February, a deeper head in mid-March, and a right shoulder in early April, all anchored around a horizontal neckline around $0.63.

FARTCOIN/USDT four-hour price chart. Source: TradingView

The pattern confirmed its breakout on April 10 when FARTCOIN surged above the neckline with strong volume. Following the breakout, the price has held above key moving averages — the 50-EMA and 200-EMA — while consolidating just under the $0.90 level.

Based on the distance from the head to the neckline, the measured move projection points to an upside target near $1.96, up by over 100% compared to current price levels.

This breakout adds a layer of technical confirmation to the ongoing rally, supporting the view that FARTCOIN’s momentum is narrative-driven and structurally supported by bullish chart patterns.

This article does not contain investment advice or recommendations. Every investment and trading move involves risk, and readers should conduct their own research when making a decision.