CoinTalk

Crypto Treasury Buying Is Absorbing Bitcoin Faster Than It’s Being Mined

Bitcoin’s supply dynamics are entering a new phase, and this time, corporations are at the center of it. Over the past six months, corporate crypto treasuries have accumulated Bitcoin at a pace that dramatically exceeds new issuance, creating a growing imbalance between demand and freshly mined supply. The numbers reveal a powerful shift in how Bitcoin is being adopted, not by retail traders chasing short-term gains, but by institutions locking BTC onto balance sheets for the long term.

ETH Funding Rate Turns Negative: Is This a Trap or a Hidden Opportunity for Ether Bulls?

Ethereum has once again found itself at the center of market debate after its funding rate slipped into negative territory, a signal that often excites contrarian traders. Historically, negative funding rates tend to emerge when fear dominates the market, sometimes setting the stage for sharp rebounds. Yet this time, the broader context suggests that Ether investors may have valid reasons to hesitate.

Over the past week, Ether’s price action has reflected growing uncertainty across the crypto market. ETH suffered a sharp three-day correction of nearly 14%, revisiting the $2,900 support level for the first time in almost a month. This move coincided with a broader market pullback as traders reduced exposure to risk assets amid increasing economic and geopolitical tension.

Although Ether briefly reclaimed the $3,000 mark following news that US President Donald Trump suspended proposed import tariff hikes on several European Union countries, optimism quickly faded. The rebound lacked conviction, and traders remained cautious as liquidation data painted a sobering picture.

Liquidations Shake Confidence Across the ETH Market

One of the most damaging blows to market sentiment came from leveraged traders being flushed out at scale. In just two days, bullish Ether positions worth approximately $480 million were liquidated, highlighting how fragile confidence had become. Such liquidation cascades often reinforce bearish momentum, especially when they occur alongside weakening onchain indicators.

The sell-off also reflected a broader shift toward risk aversion. Macro uncertainty, combined with declining crypto liquidity, has made traders far less willing to hold aggressive long positions. This environment helps explain why Ether’s perpetual futures funding rate briefly turned negative.

What a Negative Funding Rate Really Signals

In normal conditions, Ether’s annualized funding rate tends to hover between 6% and 12%, with long traders paying a premium to maintain leveraged exposure. When the rate flips negative, it means short sellers are paying to keep their positions open, an unusual setup that can hint at overcrowded bearish trades.

However, a negative funding rate is not automatically bullish. In the current environment, it reflects hesitation rather than outright panic. Traders appear unwilling to commit capital, even when contrarian indicators suggest potential upside. This cautious stance is reinforced by declining institutional participation.

ETF Outflows Add to the Pressure

Institutional demand for Ether has shown visible cracks, particularly through spot ETF flows. US-listed Ether spot ETFs recorded roughly $230 million in net outflows in a single day, reversing the previous week’s steady inflow trend. With these ETFs collectively holding more than $17 billion worth of ETH, any sustained outflow represents a meaningful overhang on the market.

Adding to the concern, companies that previously embraced Ether as a treasury reserve asset are now facing mounting accounting losses. Firms such as Bitmine Immersion and Sharplink have seen their balance sheets pressured by ETH’s recent decline, raising questions about whether corporate accumulation strategies will continue.

Options Market Reveals Deep Unease, Not Panic

To better understand professional sentiment, it is essential to look beyond futures and examine the options market. The ETH options skew, which measures the relative pricing of downside versus upside protection, has surged to its highest level in seven weeks. Traders are currently paying a significant premium for downside exposure, signaling discomfort rather than aggressive bearish positioning.

This elevated skew reflects repeated failures by Ether to break above the $3,400 resistance level over the past two months. Each rejection has weakened trader confidence, particularly as Ethereum’s onchain activity shows signs of stagnation.

Falling Network Fees Raise Structural Concerns

Ethereum’s fundamentals have also come under scrutiny. Network fees have declined by roughly 20% over the past week, indicating reduced demand for block space. In contrast, competing blockchains such as Solana and BNB Chain have seen substantial increases in fee generation, highlighting a shift in user activity.

More notably, Solana continues to dominate transaction volume, with Ethereum’s base layer and scaling solutions collectively falling well behind. This growing competitive pressure in decentralized application processing has fueled doubts about Ethereum’s near-term growth narrative.

Trading ETH in a High-Uncertainty Environment

Key Takeaways:

• The theoretical cap of 21 million Bitcoins will never actually be in circulation due to lost private keys.
• Experts estimate that between 3 to 6 million coins are permanently removed from the Bitcoin supply, effectively burning them.
• Institutional accumulation by ETFs and corporations is creating a supply shock on the remaining liquid coins.

Every crypto investor knows the magic number. The total Bitcoin supply is hard-capped at 21 million. It is the most fundamental rule of the protocol, ensuring that no central banker can ever inflate your savings away.

But here is the secret that most new investors miss: There will never actually be 21 million Bitcoins available to buy.

In 2026, the reality of the market is quite different from the code. Through accidents, deaths, and lost hard drives, a massive chunk of the supply has vanished into the digital void. When you adjust for these lost coins, Bitcoin is significantly scarcer than the charts suggest.

Where Did the Lost Coins Go?

In the early days of 2009 and 2010, Bitcoin was practically worthless. People mined thousands of coins on their laptops just for fun. They stored them on old hard drives, reformatted their computers, or threw them in landfills without a second thought.

Because there is no "Forgot Password" button on the blockchain, these coins are gone forever. They are technically still visible on the ledger, but they can never move because the private keys are destroyed.

This isn't a small rounding error. Analytics firms estimate that nearly 20% of the total Bitcoin supply hasn't moved in over a decade and is likely lost. That is roughly 3 to 4 million BTC that are effectively burned.

What About Satoshi’s Stash?

The biggest question mark hangs over the creator, Satoshi Nakamoto. Satoshi is estimated to hold nearly 1.1 million Bitcoin across various early wallets.

These coins have never been touched. Most analysts consider these coins to be out of circulation. If we assume Satoshi is gone or will never sell, the effective cap drops even further.

Instead of competing for 21 million coins, the world is actually fighting over a supply that might be closer to 14 or 15 million.

How Does This Impact the Price?

This reduced supply creates a massive multiplier effect on the price. Economics 101 tells us that price is determined by supply and demand.

We know the demand is skyrocketing. In 2026, we have Spot ETFs, nation-states, and corporations like MicroStrategy buying billions of dollars worth of BTC every month. But they are chasing a Bitcoin supply that is much smaller than they realize.

This is known as a "Supply Shock." When the available inventory on exchanges runs dry, the price doesn't just go up linearly; it goes parabolic. The scarcity is real, and it is more severe than the code suggests.

Is It Too Late to Accumulate?

With the supply shrinking, many worry they have missed the boat. But understanding the lost coins thesis should actually be bullish.

It means that owning even a fraction of a Bitcoin puts you in an even more exclusive club than you thought. You aren't just one in 21 million; you are one in perhaps 15 million. As time goes on, user error will inevitably claim more coins, making the remaining ones even more valuable.

Conclusion

The number 21 million is a theoretical ceiling, not a practical reality. The real Bitcoin supply is shrinking relative to the population. As institutions wake up to this mathematical reality, the rush to secure the remaining coins will only intensify.

Key Takeaways:

• Investors in 2026 are favoring Bitcoin over precious metals due to its mathematically verifiable scarcity.
• Gold supply is theoretically unlimited as mining technology improves, whereas Bitcoin has a hard cap.
• Silver is increasingly viewed as an industrial commodity rather than a monetary store of value.

The Bitcoin vs Gold debate has defined the financial landscape of the last decade. For centuries, yellow metal was the undisputed king of wealth preservation. It was heavy, shiny, and relatively rare.

But as we settle into 2026, the narrative is shifting fundamentally. A new generation of investors is beginning to realize that "relative rarity" is not the same thing as "absolute scarcity."

While gold and silver have served humanity well, they suffer from a fatal flaw in the digital age. They are physical elements that can be mined in greater quantities if the price rises high enough. Bitcoin changes the equation entirely by introducing a commodity that cannot be inflated, no matter how much demand increases.

Why Is Gold Losing Its Monetary Premium?

To understand the Bitcoin vs Gold shift, you have to look at supply elasticity. When the price of gold rises, mining companies invest in better equipment.

They dig deeper. They explore new continents. Theoretically, if the price went high enough, we could even mine asteroids. This means the supply of gold reacts to the price.

Bitcoin does not care about the price. Even if Bitcoin goes to $10 million per coin, the network will still only produce a specific, pre-programmed amount per block. This "inelastic supply" makes it the hardest asset humanity has ever discovered.

How Does Silver Fit Into the Picture?

Silver occupies a strange middle ground. In 2026, it is increasingly being "demonetized" in the eyes of institutional investors.

While it holds value, that value is driven by industry. Silver is essential for solar panels, batteries, and electronics. This makes it a commodity play, similar to copper or oil.

It lacks the monetary premium of its rivals. It is too heavy to transport easily and too abundant to serve as a high-stakes store of value. Investors looking for safety are bypassing silver and moving directly to the harder assets at the top of the food chain.

What Is the "Great Repricing" Event?

We are currently witnessing a generational transfer of wealth. Baby Boomers owned gold; Millennials and Gen Z own Bitcoin.

As trillions of dollars pass from the older generation to the younger generation, capital is flowing out of vaults and into cold storage. This flow is causing a repricing of scarcity.

The market is realizing that digital property rights are superior to physical property rights. You can cross a border with a billion dollars of Bitcoin in your head. Trying to do that with gold bars is impossible.

Can Bitcoin Replace Gold Completely?

The Bitcoin vs Gold battle does not necessarily end with one dying. Gold will likely remain a trusted asset for central banks and jewelry.

However, Bitcoin is eating its market share as a "financial" asset. In a digital world, an analog store of value feels outdated. The efficiency, speed, and divisibility of Bitcoin make it the superior technology for the modern economy.

Conclusion

The definition of safety has changed. In 2026, safety isn't a metal bar buried in the ground; it is a cryptographic code on a decentralized ledger. As the world wakes up to the reality of absolute scarcity, the premium on digital assets will likely continue to rise.

Canaan Faces Nasdaq Delisting Risk as Share Price Slips Below Critical Threshold

US Senate Judiciary Pushes Back Against Crypto Developer Protections

A growing divide within the US Senate is threatening to reshape the future of crypto regulation, as top lawmakers from both parties move to strip developer safeguards from a key digital asset bill. The dispute highlights rising concerns that proposed protections could unintentionally weaken law enforcement’s ability to combat illicit financial activity in decentralized crypto markets.

At the center of the debate is the Senate’s long-anticipated crypto market structure legislation, which aims to clarify how regulators oversee digital assets and blockchain-based platforms. However, Senate Judiciary Committee leaders argue that parts of the bill could open dangerous loopholes for criminals operating through decentralized systems.

Bipartisan Warning From the Senate Judiciary Committee

Senate Judiciary Committee Chair Charles Grassley and the committee’s senior Democrat, Richard Durbin, issued a rare bipartisan warning to leaders of the Senate Banking Committee. In a letter sent to Banking Chair Tim Scott and ranking member Elizabeth Warren, the lawmakers urged major revisions to the bill’s language.

According to Grassley and Durbin, the current draft risks undermining long-standing unlicensed money transmitter laws by shielding certain crypto developers and network operators from liability. They warned that this could severely limit the government’s ability to pursue bad actors who exploit decentralized platforms for illegal purposes.

The letter, first reported by Politico, described the proposed protections as creating a  significant enforcement gap  that sophisticated criminal organizations could take advantage of.

Lawmakers Fear Criminal Exploitation of Decentralized Platforms

Grassley and Durbin emphasized that criminal groups already rely on advanced methods to hide illegal transactions, including the use of complex financial structures and anonymizing technologies. They argued that the bill, as currently written, would make it even harder for prosecutors to trace and punish unlawful activity tied to decentralized digital assets.

In their view, removing accountability from developers and network maintainers could turn decentralized platforms into attractive safe havens for illicit actors, including transnational criminal organizations and cartels. The senators stressed that regulatory clarity should not come at the cost of weakening public safety or financial crime enforcement.

The Role of the Blockchain Regulatory Certainty Act

The controversy largely stems from the inclusion of provisions inspired by the Blockchain Regulatory Certainty Act, or BRCA. This proposal seeks to clarify that individuals who develop blockchain software or maintain decentralized networks are not automatically classified as money transmitters under federal or state law.

Supporters argue that such protections are necessary to foster innovation and prevent developers from being punished for how others use open-source technology. Critics, however, warn that overly broad exemptions could shield individuals who play a more active role in facilitating illicit transactions.

Grassley and Durbin contend that the bill fails to clearly distinguish between neutral software development and conduct that effectively enables unlicensed money transmission.

Judiciary Committee Says It Was Left Out of the Process

Adding to the tension, the Senate Judiciary Committee leaders said they were not consulted during the drafting of the bill, despite their committee’s authority over federal criminal statutes and the Department of Justice.

They expressed frustration that proposed changes affecting criminal enforcement were advanced without giving the Judiciary Committee a meaningful opportunity to review or weigh in. In their letter, they urged the Banking Committee to reject any language that could weaken the government’s ability to hold culpable actors accountable.

This procedural dispute has further complicated efforts to move the legislation forward.

Legislative Delays and Political Uncertainty

The crypto market structure bill has already faced setbacks, with both the Senate Banking and Agriculture Committees postponing scheduled markups in an effort to build broader bipartisan support. The latest objections from the Judiciary Committee add another obstacle to an already fragile legislative path.

If the bill eventually reaches the Senate floor, it will require at least 60 votes to pass. That threshold would likely demand unanimous Republican support and backing from several Democrats, making any internal disagreement particularly consequential.

Crypto Industry Support Begins to Fracture

Industry reaction has also been mixed. Coinbase, one of the most influential lobbying forces in the crypto sector, withdrew its support for the bill earlier this week, citing concerns over multiple provisions. While the company has since indicated that negotiations with lawmakers are ongoing, the move underscored growing unease within the industry.

The combination of political resistance and shifting industry alliances raises questions about whether the bill can survive in its current form.

What This Means for the Future of US Crypto Regulation

The clash over developer protections reflects a broader struggle to balance innovation with enforcement in the rapidly evolving crypto space. Lawmakers face mounting pressure to define clear rules without creating blind spots that criminals can exploit.

As negotiations continue behind closed doors, the fate of the crypto market structure bill remains uncertain. What is clear, however, is that the debate has entered a critical phase—one that could shape how decentralized technologies are regulated in the United States for years to come.