Today's Cryptocurrency Prices by Market Caps
The global cryptocurrency market cap today i $2.41T
Market Cap
$2.41T
24h Trading Volume
$124.22B
BTC Dominance
55.95%
|
#
|
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
Mt. Gox Moves 10,422 BTC (~$739M) to New Address — Biggest Transfer Ahead of 2026 Repayments
Mt. Gox has moved a fresh chunk of bitcoin — a sign of renewed activity as the trustee races to meet a looming creditor repayment deadline. At 04:47 UTC on Tuesday, the defunct exchange transferred 10,422.65 BTC (about $739 million) in a single transaction recorded in Bitcoin block 952,072, according to Arkham Intelligence. The split sent 10,306.35 BTC (roughly $730.8 million) to a previously unseen address beginning with 14FEEM, and 116.30 BTC (around $8.25 million) to Mt. Gox’s known hot wallet at 1Jbez. It’s the largest single transfer tied to Mt. Gox in months and the biggest movement yet as the October 31, 2026 deadline to complete creditor repayments approaches. The transfer pattern echoes prior administrative moves the trustee has used before distributions — but crucially, none of these coins has been routed to a custody provider or public exchange so far. That keeps the immediate market impact uncertain, even though the size of the transfer makes it worth watching. Mt. Gox still holds roughly 34,504 BTC, with an on‑chain value near $2.43 billion — the largest unresolved cache tied to any failed crypto exchange. Repayments officially began in mid‑2024 and about 19,500 creditors have received funds, but trustee Nobuaki Kobayashi has twice pushed back the final rollout timetable. A Tokyo court approved the most recent extension in October 2025, moving the final deadline from October 31, 2025 to October 31, 2026, citing incomplete creditor procedures and processing issues. The move comes against a shaky market backdrop: bitcoin has slid below $71,000 for the first time in weeks amid headlines including Strategy’s first publicized BTC sale, a record 10‑session outflow streak from spot BTC ETFs, and geopolitical concerns around stalled U.S.‑Iran ceasefire talks. Because most Mt. Gox creditor claims stem from pre‑2014 holdings, any large‑scale distributions would likely hit a market populated by sellers positioned to realize substantial gains at today’s prices. What to watch next: whether the newly used 14FEEM address or the 1Jbez hot wallet forwards coins to a custody provider or exchange, and how the trustee times any further administrative moves relative to the October 2026 deadline. Any visible transfers to exchanges could raise selling‑pressure concerns, while continued internal consolidation would suggest the trustee is still preparing logistics for final distributions. Read more AI-generated news on: undefined/news
$79M Polymarket Bet on MicroStrategy BTC Sale Becomes Courtroom-Style Fight Over Timing
A $79 million bet on whether MicroStrategy (MSTR) sold bitcoin by month-end has turned into a courtroom-style fight on Polymarket — not over whether a sale happened, but over when it counts. What triggered the dispute - Polymarket ran a contract asking: did MicroStrategy sell any bitcoin by 11:59 PM ET on May 31? MicroStrategy’s disclosure says it executed 32 BTC in trades between May 26 and May 31 and lists the activity “as of May 31, 2026, 4:00 p.m. Eastern Time.” That 8-K, however, wasn’t filed until June 1, after the market closed. - The timing gap — trade-dates inside the window, filing date outside it — exposed a single ambiguity in the market’s language: does “by 11:59 PM ET” mean the sale must have occurred by then, or must it have been confirmed by then? Three camps emerge - Event-based (vote P2 / “Yes”): These bettors read the market as asking whether the event (a sale) occurred by the deadline. They point to MicroStrategy’s own disclosure dating the trades inside the window and to the market’s stated primary resolution source: information from MSTR. Some add a practical point — MicroStrategy typically reports weekly, so a late-month sale could never be confirmed before a month-end cutoff if confirmation were required. - Announcement-based (vote P1 / “No”): This group treats the market as announcement-gated. They argue the deadline closes a window of admissible evidence and that nothing — no MSTR filing, no on-chain signal, no credible reporting — confirmed a sale before the market closed. They also note that the “as of May 31” language only appeared in the filing released June 1, and warn that allowing late confirmations to retroactively change outcomes would invite manipulation. - Ambiguity/Too-early (vote P4): A smaller faction says the market was drafted poorly, pointing out inconsistent phrasing (e.g., requiring sales “on the date specified” vs. “by” it). They claim the rules left the outcome unknowable until MSTR’s imminent disclosure and argued the contract should have stayed open until that filing. How the platforms responded - Polymarket added context favoring the “No” reading, saying no MSTR disclosure, on-chain evidence, or credible reporting confirmed a sale within the market’s time frame and that “confirmation achieved outside of the market's time frame does not qualify.” Traders reacted: the May 31 contract tumbled from roughly 81% “Yes” during the dispute to under 1%. - But Polymarket does not make the final call. Resolution ultimately lies with UMA token holders, who cast the deciding vote on disputes. The two platforms have split before — in 2024 UMA voted that Barron Trump wasn’t involved in the DJT memecoin while Polymarket later refunded “Yes” holders — though at the moment their positions appear aligned. Where it stands and why it matters - The underlying fact — MicroStrategy executed the 32 BTC trades between May 26–31 and dated them “as of” May 31 — is visible in the filing. The question is procedural: does a trade count when it happens or only when it’s confirmed? - The market’s value reflects that uncertainty: the contract tied to the visible sale is trading for less than a penny. - Beyond this particular bet, the episode highlights a broader lesson for prediction markets and oracles: precise wording on deadlines and resolution sources matters. Small ambiguities about “when” information counts can create large-value disputes and reputational headaches for platforms that rely on timely, unambiguous resolution rules. Read more AI-generated news on: undefined/news
Cardano Foundation, Brazil Olympic Committee Launch 3-Year Blockchain, AI & IoT Sports Pilot
Cardano Foundation teams up with Brazil’s Olympic Committee to pilot blockchain, AI and IoT in sport The Cardano Foundation has struck a partnership with the Brazilian Olympic Committee (COB) to pilot blockchain, artificial intelligence and Internet of Things tools across Brazilian sport. The three‑year collaboration aims to build practical, non‑financial blockchain use cases for athletes, coaches, federations and fans — positioning COB as a potential global benchmark in sports innovation. What they’ll test The roadmap focuses on four practical areas: - Digital identity and certification: secure digital IDs for athletes and coaches that could enable globally verifiable certifications and reduce reliance on paper records. - Fan engagement: exploring ways to deepen interaction and trust between teams and supporters. - Equipment tracking: intelligent tracking and trusted digital records for sports gear, using permanent, auditable and verifiable records to improve operations and information security. - Governance and transparency: clearer, traceable records for funding programs and internal controls. Early steps and timelines The Cardano Foundation says an initial executive workshop has already taken place and institutional pilots will follow as the partnership moves from planning into applied testing. The organizations expect the first projects to be developed in the coming months, though the announcement did not specify which sports, athletes or exact pilot dates. Voices from the deal Emanuel Rego, COB’s director general, framed the partnership as more than a technical upgrade: COB wants to “lead by example” and use innovation to strengthen trust with athletes, federations and society. Marcelo Santos, COB’s technology manager, said the move puts the committee at the forefront of digital transformation in sport. Rafael Fraga, the Cardano Foundation’s manager in Latin America, said the foundation is eager to reveal the next steps as pilots roll out. How this fits in Cardano’s Brazil strategy The COB deal builds on Cardano’s broader push in Brazil. Earlier collaborations include a partnership with SERPRO, the state-owned IT provider, to support blockchain education and public sector use, and a May agreement with the University of Brasília to launch the first Cardano Project Development Lab in Latin America — a program focused on blockchain, AI, IoT, digital identity, governance and public sector tools. Scope and limitations The partnership is explicitly non‑financial: it does not involve a token launch or a direct payment product. Instead, the emphasis is on records, identity, transparency and education — real‑world administrative use cases that could show whether public blockchain tools can improve record keeping, trust, fan engagement and internal checks in sport. Next steps COB and the Cardano Foundation plan to move from workshops to institutional pilots over the coming months. Observers will be watching to see which specific applications are chosen first and whether the trials deliver measurable improvements in transparency and operational efficiency. Read more AI-generated news on: undefined/news
Kalshi reportedly files for XRP, SOL and DOGE perpetuals as U.S. approval awaits
Kalshi moves beyond Bitcoin: reported filings for XRP, SOL and DOGE perpetuals Kalshi has reportedly filed paperwork to certify perpetual futures tied to XRP, Solana (SOL), Dogecoin (DOGE) and other major altcoins in the U.S., expanding its crypto derivatives ambitions beyond the Bitcoin perpetual it recently won approval for. The initial report surfaced on social media, with a BankXRP post claiming Kalshi submitted certification requests for multiple altcoin perpetuals. Those filings have not yet been publicly approved and should be treated as reported, not launched. What’s happened so far - Kalshi’s Bitcoin perpetual (BTCPERP) received formal approval from the Commodity Futures Trading Commission after submission under Commission Regulation 40.3. That contract is the firm’s first confirmed, regulated crypto perpetual offering. - The newly reported filings for XRP, SOL and DOGE have not received equivalent public confirmation from the CFTC. Each altcoin contract may require its own review path before trading can commence. Why this matters - Perpetual futures are a popular way for traders to gain price exposure without holding the underlying asset. Unlike traditional futures, perpetuals don’t expire and rely on periodic funding payments to keep their price aligned with spot markets. - The CFTC has cautioned that perpetual contract design may not suit every asset class and encouraged firms to submit products for review prior to listing, underscoring that approval is not automatic across tokens. - If approved, Kalshi’s altcoin perpetuals would provide a regulated on-ramp for U.S. traders to access altcoin price exposure through a derivatives product rather than direct token custody. Pricing and market structure Reports say Kalshi plans to use CF Benchmarks pricing data for its proposed crypto perpetuals. CF Benchmarks already supplies regulated reference rates used across institutional crypto products, and using that framework could help Kalshi establish reference prices and funding-rate mechanics for perpetual contracts. Notably, CF Benchmarks data has been used in other institutional settings, including XRP futures listed on CME. Broader context and competition Kalshi’s move comes amid a fast-moving U.S. derivatives race: - Coinbase has opened a regulated route for U.S. institutions via Deribit-linked products. - Kraken reportedly plans to launch regulated Bitcoin perpetuals through Bitnomial within about 30 days. Together with Kalshi, these players are jockeying to capture institutional perpetual trading volume in the U.S. Kalshi’s growth trajectory Kalshi has expanded beyond its original prediction-market roots and reportedly reached a $22 billion valuation after a $1 billion Series F round. Institutional trading volumes on the platform have risen sharply—momentum that would be further amplified if altcoin perpetuals gain regulatory sign-off. Bottom line Kalshi’s filings for XRP, Solana and Dogecoin perpetuals signal a potential broadening of regulated crypto derivatives in the U.S., but they remain reported filings until the CFTC confirms approval or Kalshi announces a formal launch. Bitcoin perpetuals are a done deal; altcoin perpetuals are now entering the regulator’s queue. Read more AI-generated news on: undefined/news
Tether-Backed Twenty One Capital Gets NYSE Warning; Must Appoint Independent Audit Member by June 5
Twenty One Capital (NYSE: XXI), the Tether-backed Bitcoin treasury vehicle, was hit with a New York Stock Exchange non-compliance warning after recent board changes left its audit committee short of the exchange’s independence requirements. The company disclosed it received the NYSE notice on May 29, citing an audit committee deficiency. Twenty One has until June 5 to name a qualified independent audit committee member that satisfies SEC Rule 10A-3 and NYSE rules. If it fails to do so, the exchange will flag XXI with a “below-compliance” indicator starting June 9. The filing stresses that the warning is a compliance notice, not an automatic delisting, but continued non-compliance could introduce further listing risk. XXI shares reacted to the news, slipping roughly 5% to $6.90. The governance shortfall follows a May 19 transaction in which Tether International bought SoftBank’s full stake in Twenty One. SoftBank sold 89,106,748 Class A shares to Tether International while an equal number of SoftBank-held Class B shares were cancelled. That deal also terminated a prior governance agreement among Twenty One, Tether Investments, SoftBank and Bitfinex. After the transaction closed, two SoftBank-linked directors — Jared Roscoe and Vikas J. Parekh — resigned from the board and its committees. The company said the departures were not related to any disputes over operations, policies or practices. Roscoe had been a member of the audit committee; his exit left the committee below the NYSE’s minimum requirement of two independent directors during the company’s transition period. Twenty One said it expects to appoint a compliant independent audit committee member “as soon as practicable,” and the NYSE marker will be removed once the company regains compliance with required exchange standards. Background: Twenty One launched with more than 43,500 Bitcoin and went public via a Cantor Fitzgerald–backed SPAC. The firm is backed by Tether, Bitfinex and Cantor Fitzgerald and is led by Strike founder Jack Mallers. Tether’s recent buyout of SoftBank tightened its control over the listed Bitcoin vehicle; separate reports have suggested Tether supports a potential merger plan that could fold in Strike and Elektron Energy to expand the company into payments, financial services and mining. For now, the immediate task for Twenty One is straightforward: name a qualified independent director for the audit committee by June 5 to avoid an exchange compliance flag on June 9. Read more AI-generated news on: undefined/news
OpenSea May Add Perpetual Contracts — Reportedly to Use Hyperliquid's On-Chain Perps
OpenSea appears to be moving beyond NFTs and into crypto derivatives — and it may not be building the engine itself. What happened - Zack Brenner, OpenSea’s product marketing lead, asked on X (formerly Twitter) which users wanted early access to perpetual contracts on the marketplace. The post drew wide attention because it hints at a new trading product from one of the industry’s best-known NFT platforms. - When a user asked whether the service would be powered by Hyperliquid, Brenner reportedly replied “YES,” according to posts shared by Hyperliquid-focused accounts on X. OpenSea has not published a product page, launch date, supported assets, or user terms. Why it matters - Perpetual contracts (perps) let traders take leveraged positions that track an asset’s price without owning the underlying token. Adding perps would shift OpenSea from pure NFT marketplace toward a multi-product trading platform that includes derivatives. - Rather than building a derivatives exchange from scratch, OpenSea could leverage Hyperliquid’s on-chain perp infrastructure — potentially speeding time-to-market and lowering development overhead. Context on OpenSea and SEA - OpenSea remains a major NFT marketplace despite losing some of its boom-era market share. CoinGecko ranks it third by monthly NFT trading volume, with a 19.9% share and about $66.52 million in volume. - The company previously delayed the SEA token launch in March, citing weak market conditions. SEA has been positioned as part of a wider “trade everything” strategy encompassing NFTs, token trading and features like perpetual futures. CEO Devin Finzer said the team wanted to make sure “every piece is in place” before moving forward. Broader industry signals - Hyperliquid is already one of the better-known on-chain perp platforms, and it’s drawing interest from regulated-market products: Grayscale recently updated an ETF filing tied to Hyperliquid (ticker HYPG, fee 0.29%), while 21Shares and Bitwise have Hyperliquid-linked products available. - If OpenSea rolls perps into its app, it could attract users seeking one-stop access to spot NFTs and derivatives, bringing OpenSea closer to exchange-style platforms that combine spot trading, derivatives and rewards. What’s still unknown - It’s unclear whether any perp product will launch broadly or via a limited test, which assets would be supported, or how custody, KYC, margin and risk controls would be handled. For now, Brenner’s teasing points to early access and a possible Hyperliquid-powered rollout, but full details remain pending. Bottom line OpenSea’s possible move into perpetuals would be a significant product expansion that aligns with its stated “trade everything” ambitions. If the marketplace ropes in Hyperliquid infrastructure, it could quickly add derivatives without building an exchange from scratch — but important questions around rollout, compliance and product design remain unanswered. Read more AI-generated news on: undefined/news