Today's Cryptocurrency Prices by Market Caps
The global cryptocurrency market cap today i $2.35T
Market Cap
$2.35T
24h Trading Volume
$141.09B
BTC Dominance
56.47%
|
#
|
Name
|
Price
|
1h %
|
24h %
|
7d %
|
Market Cap
|
Volume (24h)
|
Chart (7d) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
—
|
|||||||
|
No cryptocurrencies found Try adjusting your search query |
||||||||
Latest Crypto News
View All News
Ethereum Faces 'Slow-Burning' Core-Dev Funding Crisis in Months, Ex-EF Dev Warns
Headline: Ex-Ethereum Foundation contributor warns of a looming core-dev funding crunch within months A former Ethereum Foundation (EF) contributor is sounding the alarm: Ethereum could face a meaningful gap in core development funding within three to nine months. Trent Van Epps — who worked at the EF from May 2021 through April 2026 on core development coordination, Protocol Guild funding and Ethereum’s political economy — says the network may be entering a “slow-burning funding crisis” as two major support pillars wane. Key facts - Van Epps estimates Ethereum’s baseline core-development budget needs roughly $30 million per year to keep client teams, researchers and coordination groups healthy. Those teams are the ones shipping upgrades and keeping consensus clients resilient. - Two pressures are converging: - The Ethereum Foundation’s treasury policy aims to reduce annual spending from roughly 15% of its treasury down to a 5% baseline by 2030, shrinking a major grant source. - The Client Incentive Program (CIP), launched in 2021 to reward and preserve client diversity via validator-based rewards, expired in April 2026 and has no obvious replacement lined up. - Van Epps warns that the sudden loss of steady support risks pushing experienced developers away and could hamper long-horizon work such as Layer 1 scaling and quantum-resistant cryptography research. Why client funding matters Client teams (examples recently funded via EF grants include Geth, Erigon and Lighthouse) are core public goods for Ethereum: multiple independent implementations reduce the chance of catastrophic bugs or coordinated attacks. The CIP’s intent was to make client development financially sustainable; without it, the incentives keeping multiple client teams well-staffed and long-lived are weaker. Where the debate goes next Van Epps’ comments have re-ignited a broader debate about who should fund protocol-maintenance work and how. Vitalik Buterin has long argued the Foundation was not meant to be an “eternal steward,” raising questions about what institutions or funding mechanisms should step in. - Some observers, like Gabriel Shapiro on X, say protocol funding likely requires governance structures Ethereum does not have today. - Van Epps counters that his goal is practical: secure neutral, steady funding for core contributors without handing centralized control to any single actor. Existing and emerging funding paths - Protocol Guild (described by Gitcoin) is one existing vehicle: a collective fund that supports Layer 1 contributors through long-term token vesting and donated assets, while explicitly staying out of protocol-priority setting. - The EF still funded core work in Q1 2026 — grants went to Geth, Erigon, Lighthouse, validator security tools, cryptography research and other infrastructure — but Van Epps argues these efforts don’t replace the need for more durable, predictable funding streams. Technical work continues, but uncertainty grows Developers are already planning substantive work — for example the Glamsterdam upgrade roadmap, which includes changes to Layer 1 scaling, block building and gas pricing. Van Epps’ warning doesn’t imply imminent technical failure, but it does raise a sharper concern: can Ethereum sustainably pay for the maintenance and upgrades that underpin its security and progress without making the Foundation a permanent, central financier? Bottom line Ethereum’s technical roadmap is active, but funding models for the people who build and maintain the protocol are at a crossroads. Unless new, reliable funding sources emerge within the next few months, the ecosystem risks talent attrition and slower progress on long-term research — outcomes that could make major upgrades harder and more expensive to deliver. Read more AI-generated news on: undefined/news
CFTC Permanently Bans Alex Mashinsky From Trading After Celsius Collapse
The U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission has put the final regulatory nail in the coffin of one of crypto’s highest‑profile collapses: a federal court consent order permanently bans former Celsius Network CEO Alex Mashinsky from trading in markets overseen by the agency and from registering with the CFTC. What the order does - The consent order resolves the CFTC’s enforcement action first filed in July 2023 and issues a lifetime prohibition on Mashinsky’s participation in commodities, futures and derivatives markets under the agency’s jurisdiction. - The settlement follows an earlier regulatory resolution with Celsius itself, making Mashinsky the last individual defendant in the CFTC matter — the agency’s first case targeting a digital‑asset lending platform. CFTC findings - The regulator said Mashinsky and Celsius misled hundreds of thousands of customers about the safety, returns and legal status of Celsius’s crypto lending business, alleging a “scheme to defraud.” - According to the CFTC, Celsius pooled customer crypto to generate yields used for weekly interest payouts, while increasingly taking uncollateralized loans and risky DeFi positions. The agency says the platform received roughly $20 billion in customer funds over the period covered by the case. - Those business practices, the CFTC contends, contributed to Celsius’s heavy losses, a freeze on withdrawals and the company’s eventual bankruptcy — one of the largest crypto lending failures of 2022. Where Mashinsky stands now - Mashinsky is already serving a 12‑year federal prison sentence after pleading guilty to commodities and securities fraud; in May 2025 a judge ordered the prison term, a $50,000 fine, and forfeiture of more than $48 million tied to the criminal case. - Earlier regulatory actions have also tightened the squeeze: an April 2026 Federal Trade Commission order barred him from promoting or offering services tied to deposits, exchanges, investments or withdrawals, and included a $4.72 billion judgment that remains largely suspended if certain payment and disclosure conditions are met. Ongoing legal and recovery processes - Celsius’s bankruptcy estate has continued to return funds to creditors. As reported in August 2025, the company began a third creditor distribution of $220.6 million, bringing creditor recoveries to about 64.9% of claims. - Mashinsky still faces a civil suit from the Securities and Exchange Commission alleging unregistered securities offerings, false statements and manipulation of the CEL token; the SEC has requested limits on his future activity in crypto asset securities. - Separately, Mashinsky has asked a federal court to vacate his prison sentence, alleging possible manipulation of CEL by former FTX chief Sam Bankman‑Fried and raising issues around his legal defense. Prosecutors have been ordered to respond to that request by mid‑August. Why it matters The CFTC’s consent order closes another chapter in the long legal fallout from Celsius’s collapse and underscores regulators’ willingness to pursue broad enforcement against crypto lending platforms and their executives. While the CFTC ban is final for markets it oversees, other civil and bankruptcy proceedings tied to Celsius and Mashinsky continue to play out. Read more AI-generated news on: undefined/news
Malta Proposes New "Software-Based Organizations" Legal Label for DAOs Amid EU DeFi Push
Malta regulator proposes new legal label for DAOs as EU braces for DeFi rules Malta’s financial regulator has taken a fresh step into the DeFi debate, proposing a new legal category designed for decentralized autonomous organizations (DAOs) and other blockchain-native entities. In a discussion paper published on June 12, the Malta Financial Services Authority (MFSA) launched a public consultation — open until July 10 — seeking industry feedback on a potential DeFi framework under the EU’s crypto rulebook. What the MFSA is proposing - The paper introduces “software-based organizations,” a legal concept intended to cover DAOs and similar entities governed primarily by code. - Rather than creating an entirely separate statute for DAOs, the MFSA suggests this category would legally separate the organization from the underlying protocol and smart contract code. - The regulator argues this distinction could help clarify governance and accountability — perennial pain points in DeFi projects where roles and liabilities are often blurred. Why Malta is pushing this now Malta has been an early mover in crypto regulation (it rolled out a pioneering framework in 2018). The MFSA’s paper responds to growing regulatory interest in how decentralized systems actually operate — and to research showing many so-called decentralized projects still retain centralized control points. The MFSA highlights that the EU’s Markets in Crypto-Assets regulation (MiCA) deliberately excludes “fully decentralised models” from its scope. As the paper puts it: “MiCA excludes fully decentralised models from its regulatory scope, meaning that projects without intermediaries or central control may not need to comply with MiCA.” But the regulator notes it’s often hard to draw a bright line: many projects claiming decentralization still have identifiable intermediaries or concentrated governance. Broader regulatory context in Europe The MFSA’s consultation comes as EU authorities continue scrutinizing DeFi under MiCA. In March, the European Central Bank published a working paper finding governance and decision-making for four major DeFi protocols remained concentrated among a limited group — a factor that could prevent those projects from qualifying as “fully decentralized” under MiCA. In May, the European Commission opened a targeted review of MiCA, soliciting input on topics including DeFi activities, stablecoin-related issues, and possible regulatory gaps. A looming compliance deadline Regulators are also racing toward MiCA’s implementation milestones. A transition period ends on July 1, 2026: after that date, crypto exchanges, brokers and wallet providers operating in the EU without MiCA authorization will no longer be allowed to serve customers in the bloc. The European Securities and Markets Authority (ESMA) has warned that continuing to operate without a MiCA license after the deadline would breach EU law, urging unauthorized firms to prepare orderly wind-down plans and assist customers in moving assets to authorized providers or self custody. Scale of the challenge The enforcement task is significant. Law firm Hogan Lovells reported Europe had more than 3,000 virtual asset service providers (VASPs) in 2024 — yet by May 2026 only 194 authorized crypto-asset service providers, including credit institutions, had secured approval. That gap underscores the practical hurdles regulators and firms face as the rules take effect. Why it matters Malta’s consultation adds another piece to an evolving puzzle: how to regulate entities that operate through code but retain human governance structures. Creating a legal space for “software-based organizations” could offer a pragmatic route to attribute responsibility, protect users, and bring certain DeFi projects into legal visibility without stifling genuinely decentralized systems. The MFSA’s consultation runs through July 10. The outcome could influence how DeFi projects structure governance and legal exposure across the EU as MiCA comes fully into force next year. Disclosure: This article is for informational and educational purposes only and does not constitute investment advice. Read more AI-generated news on: undefined/news
Wealthsimple Launches Predict, Bringing 4,000 Kalshi Prediction Contracts to Canadians
Wealthsimple has won approval to bring roughly 4,000 prediction-market contracts to Canadian retail investors through a new partnership with Kalshi, and plans to roll out a standalone platform, Wealthsimple Predict, this summer. What’s launching - Wealthsimple Predict will list thousands of event-based contracts sourced from Kalshi across categories including financial markets, economic data and climate-related events, giving Canadians a first mainstream outlet to trade outcomes rather than assets. - The authorization, granted by the Canadian Investment Regulatory Organization (CIRO) in March, makes Wealthsimple the second investment dealer permitted to offer prediction-market contracts in Canada. CIRO said the products will be treated as derivatives and must carry settlement periods of at least 30 days. Kalshi’s crypto push and trading boom - The move comes as Kalshi aggressively expands beyond conventional event markets into crypto-linked derivatives. The firm announced its perpetual futures business at the end of May and this week said perpetual futures products are now live. - Kalshi reported that its new perpetual futures platform generated more than $5.5 billion in trading volume within two weeks of launch. The company currently lists 11 crypto-linked perpetual futures contracts and says it is in ongoing discussions with regulators about additional products. Regulatory and political headwinds - Prediction markets have drawn mixed responses from regulators and lawmakers worldwide. In the U.S., a coalition that includes the Indian Gaming Association, the American Gaming Association and several labor groups has urged Congress to amend the CLARITY Act to explicitly ban sports and casino-style event contracts on prediction-market platforms, arguing such activity should remain under state and tribal gambling oversight. - The debate has spilled into litigation: CME Group filed suit against the U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission this week, challenging the regulator’s approvals of cryptocurrency perpetual futures from Kalshi and similar products launched by Coinbase. The suit followed the CFTC’s May approvals — including a green light for Kalshi’s Bitcoin perpetual futures and a no-action letter that allowed Coinbase to roll out comparable products. Global divergence in policy - Responses from other jurisdictions vary widely. Spanish regulators ordered internet providers in May to block access to Kalshi and Polymarket while assessing potential gambling-law violations. Indonesia has banned Polymarket, and Japanese and South Korean authorities have also taken action against prediction-market activity. - At least 11 U.S. states have recently challenged prediction markets. Digital Chamber CEO Cody Carbone told attendees at Bitso’s Stablecoin Conference on June 16 that the growing clash between state gambling regulators and the CFTC could ultimately land before the U.S. Supreme Court. Why it matters Wealthsimple’s launch of Predict marks a significant step in bringing event-based trading to mainstream Canadian investors under a regulated derivatives framework. At the same time, Kalshi’s rapid move into crypto perpetuals and the ensuing regulatory, political and legal pushback underscore that prediction markets are becoming a hotbed of innovation — and controversy — at the intersection of finance, gambling law and crypto regulation. Read more AI-generated news on: undefined/news
Spot Litecoin ETF LTCC Launches — Early Inflows Show Tepid Institutional Demand
Headline: Canary Capital’s LTCC Confirms Spot Litecoin ETF — Early Flows Show Tepid Institutional Demand Canary Capital’s new spot Litecoin ETF, ticker LTCC, is now officially confirmed on the fund’s page — but early flow data suggests institutional appetite is muted compared with the behemoths of the ETF market, Bitcoin and Ethereum. Flow tracking cited by The Defiant shows about $9.3 million in trailing inflows to LTCC since launch. Canary’s own fund materials list net assets at roughly $5.43 million. Those two figures aren’t contradictory — they reflect different measures (cumulative inflows versus current assets under management) and can diverge because of price moves in Litecoin, redemptions, trading activity and how flows are reported. Still, both point to the same takeaway: investor demand for a spot Litecoin product is modest so far. Why this matters Crypto proponents long argued that approving spot Bitcoin ETFs would pave the way for a broader market of altcoin ETFs. LTCC represents an early real-world test of that thesis. The initial data suggests that ETF approval alone does not automatically translate into broad institutional adoption for altcoins. Bitcoin and Ethereum benefit from dominant, well-defined narratives — BTC as macro store of value and ETH as the center of smart-contract and staking activity — along with deeper liquidity, richer derivatives markets and stronger custody and allocater familiarity. Litecoin’s case is more constrained: it’s an established proof-of-work chain with a payments history and a generally clean regulatory standing, but these traits have not yet driven widespread institutional demand. What this implies - Approval ≠ guaranteed demand. Regulatory green lights allow products to exist, but investors still need reasons to allocate capital. - Selective altcoin interest. LTCC doesn’t disprove the potential for altcoin ETFs, but it makes clear that market acceptance will be selective — future launches tied to stronger narratives (e.g., Solana, XRP or others) could attract different levels of interest. - For traders: easier access via an ETF doesn’t automatically create inflows. Until secondary crypto ETFs show sustained flows, Bitcoin and Ethereum are likely to remain the primary institutional ETF channels, while smaller altcoin funds chase more specialized capital. This piece was written by the News Desk and edited by Samuel Rae. Reporting is based on information from Canary Capital and The Defiant. Read more AI-generated news on: undefined/news
CryptoQuant: Spike in Bitcoin Spot Order Size at $64K Suggests Whale Accumulation
CryptoQuant’s latest Quicktake shows a notable jump in Bitcoin’s Spot Average Order Size as price tested the $64,000 area — a move the report reads as potential whale accumulation during the pullback. What the metric shows - Spot Average Order Size = traded volume ÷ number of trades. It’s a simple but effective way to tell whether activity is coming from many small retail trades or from larger capital flows. - A rising average order size while price is under pressure often means bigger buyers are stepping in to absorb supply, rather than markets being driven purely by small, panic-driven orders. Why the $64,000 area matters - That zone has acted as a recent support level and has gained focus amid a hawkish macro backdrop. Seeing larger average orders there suggests institutions, whales, or high-conviction players may be defending the area. - This doesn’t prove a market bottom — it simply increases the odds that some big players are accumulating on weakness. Important caveats - Not all large average orders equal directional buying. Exchange internal transfers, execution batching, or liquidity management can inflate the metric without signaling fresh accumulation. - The signal is most convincing when it lines up with other signs: price stabilization, falling selling pressure, and a healthier order book. How to read the signal - If Bitcoin holds $64k and begins reclaiming nearby resistance, the CryptoQuant spike will look like constructive accumulation in hindsight. If support fails, the same data may show whales bought too soon or that their buying wasn’t enough to offset broader selling. - In short, the data adds nuance: this correction isn’t pure panic — larger capital may be dipping in — but it’s not a standalone endorsement of a bullish reversal. Bottom line CryptoQuant’s spike in Spot Average Order Size supports a cautious accumulation narrative rather than a clean breakout call. Traders should weigh the metric alongside price action, macro risks, and ETF-flow sensitivity — because whale-sized orders can help form a floor, but they don’t eliminate the need for follow-through. Written by the News Desk; edited by Samuel Rae. Report based on CryptoQuant data. Read more AI-generated news on: undefined/news