Michael Saylor says he is not worried about Strategy’s credit risk even as Bitcoin slides. He says the company planned for ugly markets. In his view, Bitcoin can drop hard and stay low, and the company can still operate. His plan is simple: if Bitcoin stays weak for years, Strategy will refinance its debt and push maturities forward.

Saylor made the comments on CNBC as Bitcoin traded below $70,000 in early February 2026. He said Strategy will keep buying Bitcoin every quarter and will not sell what it already owns. Strategy holds about 714,644 Bitcoin. The company paid an average price near $76,056 per coin, so the position moves into an unrealized loss when Bitcoin stays below that level.

Debt sits at the center of the debate. Strategy used equity sales and large amounts of convertible notes to build a Bitcoin treasury. Saylor says the firm can “roll” debt forward if Bitcoin drops 90% and stays down for four years. He also says the balance sheet includes enough cash to cover interest and preferred dividends for more than two years, which reduces near-term pressure. Critics counter that refinancing depends on market access and investor appetite, which can change fast in a deep risk-off cycle.

The market has turned more defensive. Strategy’s stock often trades like a high-beta version of Bitcoin, so it can rise faster in rallies and fall harder in sell-offs. That link helped drive a huge run from 2020 to 2024, but it also made the stock a popular short. Recent reporting shows short interest rose as Bitcoin fell and as investors focused on the company’s leverage and the size of its convertible debt stack.

At the same time, traders are looking for a clear reason behind the latest Bitcoin drop. One theory points to a blow-up tied to Bitcoin ETF options. Parker White, a former equities trader who now works in crypto, posted that Hong Kong hedge funds may have built large, leveraged bets using call options on BlackRock’s iShares Bitcoin Trust, often called IBIT. The theory says those funds borrowed in Japanese yen to fund the trade. That strategy is known as the yen carry trade: borrow in a low-rate currency, then invest elsewhere and hope the spread pays off. If funding costs rise or the trade moves against you, losses can snowball.

White’s idea links several moving parts. If a fund buys out-of-the-money call options, it is betting on a sharp Bitcoin rebound. If Bitcoin keeps falling, those options lose value fast. If the fund also used leverage, it may face forced selling. White adds that stress in other markets, including moves tied to yen funding and a volatile silver market, could have squeezed the same players at the same time. The result, in this telling, is liquidation that drives more selling of IBIT shares and more weakness in Bitcoin. This remains a theory, not a confirmed chain of events, and past Bitcoin crashes often came from more than one trigger.

Still, the timing matters because the options market around Bitcoin ETFs has been changing. Nasdaq filed to remove the old 25,000-contract position cap on options tied to Bitcoin and Ether ETFs, and reporting says the SEC allowed the change to become effective in late January 2026. If traders can take bigger positions, they can also unwind bigger positions, which can add force to a sharp move in Bitcoin during stressed conditions.

This is where the two stories connect. Strategy represents a long-term, corporate form of Bitcoin demand that uses debt and patience. The Hong Kong hedge fund theory represents short-term, leveraged Bitcoin exposure through ETFs and options. When leverage breaks, it can push Bitcoin down fast. When Bitcoin drops, Strategy’s paper losses grow, and the company faces louder questions about refinancing risk. Saylor says he welcomes the volatility because he believes it draws lenders and traders, not just holders. Markets often see it the other way: volatility raises the cost of capital and makes lenders cautious.

For everyday investors, the key point is not the drama. It is the plumbing. Bitcoin now sits closer to traditional finance than it did in earlier cycles. Bitcoin ETFs, Bitcoin options, and cross-market funding trades can all affect Bitcoin price moves. That can bring more liquidity, but it can also bring faster liquidations. In that world, Strategy’s bet becomes easier to track: if Bitcoin stays weak, the company must keep paying, keep refinancing, and keep convincing markets it can carry the load. If Bitcoin rebounds, the same leverage can look smart again.

The White House is set to host another closed-door session on February 10 as it tries to break a standoff over U.S. crypto regulation. The talks come after a February 2 meeting ended without a deal, even though bank groups and crypto groups said the discussion was useful. The fight has slowed the CLARITY Act, a major crypto market structure bill that cleared the House in July 2025 and still needs a path through the Senate.

At the center of the dispute is one question: can a stablecoin pay interest or other rewards to the person who holds it? That question has turned stablecoin policy into the main roadblock for the wider bill. Lawmakers and lobbyists can agree on many rules for crypto trading and registration, but they keep returning to stablecoin rewards.

A stablecoin is a digital token that aims to hold a steady price, often by staying close to one U.S. dollar. People use a stablecoin to move money fast, trade crypto, and park funds without leaving the blockchain. Many stablecoin issuers say they back each stablecoin with reserves like cash and short-term U.S. Treasury bills. In the GENIUS Act framework, stablecoin reserve rules and public disclosures became a key focus, with the goal of making a stablecoin easier to trust.

Now a newer product is pushing the debate further. A yield-bearing stablecoin is a stablecoin that shares part of its earnings with users. The issuer may earn money on reserves, then pass some of that return back as stablecoin interest or stablecoin rewards. Crypto firms say this feature helps users and helps them compete. Banks say it looks like a deposit product, but without the same guardrails.

Bank leaders warn that stablecoin interest could pull money out of insured bank deposits. Deposits are a main funding source for many banks. If customers move cash into a stablecoin to chase stablecoin interest, banks fear they could face faster outflows during stress. Banks also argue that stablecoin issuers do not face the same capital rules, liquidity rules, and supervision that banks face. In their view, stablecoin interest creates a form of parallel banking that could grow fast outside the usual safety net.

Crypto firms push back and call a ban on stablecoin interest anti-competitive. They say a stablecoin is not a bank account and should not be forced into the same model. They argue that stablecoin interest is a normal result of holding reserves that earn yield, and that users should share in that value. They also say stablecoin interest helps recruit new customers, since rewards make it easier to try a stablecoin for payments, trading, or saving. Some crypto executives warn that if the U.S. blocks stablecoin interest, more stablecoin activity will move offshore, and the next wave of digital finance will be built elsewhere.

That split is why the White House has stepped in. The talks are being run through the administration’s crypto policy effort, with the goal of getting both sides to draft compromise language. People familiar with the first meeting said it did not settle the stablecoin issue, and Reuters reported it ended without agreement. The next session is expected to include more senior executives, including leaders from large banks and top crypto companies.

A compromise, if it comes, may rely on limits instead of a full ban. One option is to allow stablecoin interest only under strict rules, such as clear reserve requirements, tight custody rules, and strong disclosure. Another option is to restrict who can offer stablecoin interest, or how a stablecoin can market rewards, to avoid confusing a stablecoin with a bank deposit. Lawmakers could also add consumer protection rules so users understand the risks, including what happens if a stablecoin issuer fails and how redemptions work under pressure.

The clock matters. The White House has signaled it wants movement soon, and lawmakers face a crowded schedule. If the CLARITY Act stalls longer, it could lose momentum and leave crypto regulation stuck in the same patchwork that firms complain about today. For banks, the stakes are about deposits, funding, and stability. For crypto, the stakes are about whether a stablecoin can act like modern money and whether stablecoin innovation stays in the United States.

The February 10 meeting may not settle every detail, but it could decide the direction. If negotiators agree on a framework for stablecoin interest, the broader bill could start moving again. If they fail, the stablecoin fight may keep blocking the larger effort to set clear federal rules for digital assets at a time when stablecoin use keeps expanding.

Crypto ETPs saw selling pressure cool last week, even as traders stayed busy. New data from CoinShares showed crypto ETPs had $187 million in outflows for the week. That is still a loss, but it is much smaller than the $3.43 billion that left over the prior two weeks. Many investors watch crypto ETPs because they can show how big money feels about risk when prices swing.

The change in pace matters. CoinShares research head James Butterfill said the speed of outflows often tells more than the price move itself. In past cycles, crypto ETPs have sometimes hit a turning point when outflows slow after a hard drop. This does not prove a bottom is in, but it can signal that fear is easing.

Bitcoin products drove most of the damage. CoinShares data showed Bitcoin-focused crypto ETPs were the only major group with heavy losses, with about $264 million leaving. At the same time, XRP products led the winners list. XRP crypto ETPs pulled in about $63 million. Ether crypto ETPs and Solana crypto ETPs also saw small inflows, showing some traders chose to rotate instead of leaving the market. This split matters because it suggests investors did not treat all crypto ETPs the same. Some reduced Bitcoin exposure while keeping money in other large tokens.

Spot Bitcoin ETFs in the United States also played a big role. Separate ETF tracking data pointed to roughly $318 million in weekly outflows from spot Bitcoin ETFs. When spot Bitcoin ETFs see outflows, it can add pressure to the wider Bitcoin market. That is because these funds can be a main on-ramp for traditional investors who do not want to hold coins directly.

Trading activity surged even as money left. CoinShares said weekly trading volume in crypto ETPs hit a record near $63.1 billion, above the prior high from late 2025. High volume during a downturn can mean traders are repositioning fast. Some investors sell to cut risk. Others buy what they see as value. Either way, crypto ETPs can turn into a battlefield when price moves get sharp.

Assets under management also fell. CoinShares said Bitcoin ETP assets under management were about $102.7 billion by week’s end. It also noted global crypto ETP assets under management fell to about $129 billion, the lowest level since March 2025. Lower assets under management can reflect both price declines and net outflows. It also means crypto ETPs carry less weight in some large portfolios, at least for now.

Market prices stayed jumpy. Bitcoin dipped near $60,000 last week on Coinbase before bouncing. As of Monday, prices were still soft, with Bitcoin trading near the high-$60,000 range. Ether traded near the low-$2,000 range, while XRP held near the mid-$1 range and Solana stayed in the mid-$80s. Crypto ETPs often react to these swings because investors can adjust exposure quickly, without moving funds through exchanges.

Macro news added another twist. Japan’s election result boosted attention on currencies and safe havens. Reports said Japan’s ruling conservatives won a landslide, which helped the yen firm and pushed local stocks to record highs. When the yen strengthens, the dollar can weaken, and that can shift how global investors price risk. At the same time, gold moved back above $5,000 an ounce, pulling focus toward old-school safety trades. Some analysts warned that a gold rebound can slow a crypto rebound, since both can compete for the same “store of value” narrative during stress.

Still, the product pipeline kept moving. 21Shares filed updated paperwork with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for a proposed Ondo-linked ETF, tied to the ONDO token. The filing shows issuers still see demand for more crypto ETPs, even after weeks of outflows. It also highlights a wider theme: Wall Street wrappers for on-chain assets keep expanding, from Bitcoin and Ether to newer tokens tied to real-world-asset projects.

For now, the key story is the shift in behavior. Crypto ETPs are still bleeding, but the bleeding slowed. Crypto ETPs also traded at record volume. Bitcoin crypto ETPs took the biggest hit while XRP crypto ETPs drew the biggest inflow. And with gold above $5,000 and global politics in view, crypto ETPs sit inside a bigger risk map than just blockchain news.

Crypto markets are sliding again, and the pain is spreading beyond price charts. This crypto sell-off is now showing up in company treasuries, inside spot exchange-traded funds, and in the daily output of miners. It also shows how crypto hardware can find a second life when a new tech wave arrives.

Ether fell below $2,200 during the latest crypto sell-off, and that matters for BitMine Immersion Technologies. The company built its treasury around Ether and holds about $9.1 billion worth of ETH, including a recent purchase of about 40,302 ETH.

As Ether dropped, BitMine’s paper losses widened. Reports put the firm’s unrealized loss around $7 billion, meaning the coins are worth far less than what the company paid. The loss stays on paper unless BitMine sells, but investors still treat it as real risk. A big crypto position can lift a balance sheet during a rally. In a drawdown, it can limit choices if the firm needs cash or wants to refinance.

BitMine chairman Tom Lee has pushed back on criticism. He argues that a crypto treasury designed to track Ether will move down when Ether moves down. The crypto sell-off still shows the tradeoff. Concentration can boost returns when the market runs. It can also magnify losses when the market turns.

Bitcoin is delivering a similar lesson to a wider crowd through spot Bitcoin ETFs. These funds made it easy to get crypto exposure in a normal brokerage account, without managing keys. But access does not change crypto volatility.

After Bitcoin fell into the mid-$70,000 range, returns for the average dollar invested in BlackRock’s iShares Bitcoin Trust (IBIT) turned negative, according to Unlimited Funds chief investment officer Bob Elliott. That means the typical buyer is now underwater. It is a reminder that a Bitcoin ETF is still Bitcoin, just wrapped in an ETF.

This shift matters because IBIT grew at record speed. Reports have described it as BlackRock’s fastest fund to reach $70 billion in assets. In calm weeks, that growth looked like crypto was becoming routine. In rough weeks, it becomes a stress test for new holders who have not lived through a long drawdown.

The crypto sell-off is also touching the mining layer. In late January, a strong US winter storm forced many Bitcoin miners to cut production. Data shared by CryptoQuant showed publicly traded miners produced about 70 to 90 BTC per day before the storm, then fell to about 30 to 40 BTC per day at the worst point.

The drop reflected miners reducing load or going offline to ease pressure on local power grids. As conditions improved, output began to recover. The episode highlights a basic fact about crypto mining: hash rate depends on energy. It rides on power lines, weather, and power prices.

These threads connect to a bigger shift in infrastructure. The same data center gear that once served crypto mining is now feeding the boom in AI computing. CoreWeave is a clear example. The company began as a crypto mining firm in 2017 and later pivoted into providing GPU cloud computing for AI workloads.

This pivot shows how quickly computing resources migrate. As crypto demand cooled and Ethereum moved away from proof-of-work, many GPU setups lost their old job. Some of that capacity moved toward AI, where demand for GPUs and power-heavy sites has surged.

Put together, the current crypto sell-off is not just a price story. It is a capital story. It shows up on corporate balance sheets when a crypto treasury swings. It shows up in portfolios when a crypto ETF drops below cost. It shows up in network activity when miners pause during extreme weather. And it shows up in data centers when last cycle’s crypto machines become part of the AI backbone.

China’s regulators issued a new notice on February 6, 2026, aimed at tightening control over virtual currency activity and the growing push to turn real-world assets into blockchain tokens. The document was signed by the People’s Bank of China and several other agencies, and it frames virtual currency business as an illegal financial activity inside China.

The notice repeats a core message: virtual currency is not legal tender. It names common coins like Bitcoin, Ether, and Tether as examples of virtual currency that cannot be used as money in the market. Under the new rules, trading services for virtual currency remain off-limits. That includes exchanging fiat for virtual currency, swapping one virtual currency for another, running a central counterparty that buys and sells virtual currency, and offering pricing or matchmaking for virtual currency trades. Token fundraising tied to virtual currency is also barred. The notice also warns overseas players not to provide virtual currency services into China.

At the same time, regulators put a bright spotlight on real-world asset tokenization, often called RWA tokenization. This is when a company uses blockchain tools to turn rights tied to an asset—like ownership or income rights—into a token that can be issued and traded. The notice says RWA tokenization done inside China, or supported from inside China, can cross into the same legal risk zone as virtual currency deals. The concern is that some RWA tokenization schemes can look like unapproved securities, illegal fundraising, or other banned finance activity. Regulators leave a narrow door open only for approved pilots that run through specific regulated financial infrastructure.

Stablecoins get special attention. The notice says a stablecoin pegged to a fiat currency can act like money in daily use, even if it is branded as a token. It states that no one may issue a stablecoin linked to the renminbi without approval, even if the issuance happens outside China. This point matters because stablecoins often serve as the bridge between trading accounts and virtual currency markets. Cutting off a renminbi-pegged stablecoin reduces a path for moving funds into virtual currency trading.

The notice also tries to tighten the “plumbing” that supports virtual currency and RWA tokenization. Financial institutions and payment firms are told not to open accounts, move funds, or provide clearing and settlement for virtual currency business. They also cannot sell virtual currency-linked products, accept virtual currency as collateral, or write insurance tied to virtual currency. For unapproved RWA tokenization, custody and settlement services are also restricted. In plain terms, the rules aim to make it harder for virtual currency flows to touch the banking system.

Internet platforms are pulled into the enforcement plan. The notice says online firms cannot offer hosting, marketing, paid traffic, or other support for virtual currency and RWA tokenization schemes. If a platform finds signs of a virtual currency operation, it must report it and help with investigations. Regulators also say they can shut down websites, apps, mini-programs, and social accounts tied to virtual currency promotion or sales. This is designed to reduce the reach of virtual currency ads and cut off new users before they are pulled into risky offers.

Market regulators are told to block branding that normalizes the space. The notice says business registrations and business scopes should not include terms like “virtual currency,” “crypto asset,” “stablecoin,” “RWA,” or “real-world asset tokenization.” It also calls for stricter checks on advertising tied to virtual currency and RWA tokenization. The goal is to limit storefront-style signals that make virtual currency activity look permitted.

Mining returns as a key target. China already moved against crypto mining in earlier campaigns, but the notice calls for continued cleanup. It says provinces should find and shut down remaining mining projects, stop new mining projects, and prevent mining machine makers from offering sales services inside China. Mining matters because it can create large, hard-to-trace virtual currency flows and can also stress local power grids.

One of the strongest lines is about legal protection. The notice states that investing in virtual currency, RWA tokens, or related products can be treated as violating public order and good morals, making the civil act invalid and leaving losses with the investor. A similar warning appeared in China’s 2021 notice on virtual currency trading risk, and it signals that courts may not help someone recover money lost in a virtual currency deal.

The cross-border section ties the themes together. China is not only watching virtual currency at home, but also watching how domestic firms use offshore structures. The notice says domestic entities and their controlled overseas entities cannot issue virtual currency abroad without approval. It also says tokenized deals tied to onshore assets—such as tokenized asset-backed structures—will face strict filing and review by agencies like the CSRC, with a “same business, same risk, same rules” approach. That keeps RWA tokenization from becoming a back door for virtual currency-style fundraising.

For enthusiasts, the message is clear: China is drawing a hard line around virtual currency while trying to keep tighter control over any form of tokenized finance that looks like a security. Virtual currency trading, virtual currency marketing, and virtual currency payment rails remain the main targets. RWA tokenization is not treated as a free pass, and stablecoin plans tied to the renminbi face a direct ban without approval.

Bitcoin slid under $63,000 on Thursday and rattled traders. Weak U.S. job data, a softer stock market, and fresh worry about an AI spending boom pushed investors toward safety. In that mix, many asked one question: can Bitcoin rebound to $90,000 by March?

A key clue sits in Bitcoin options. Bitcoin options let traders buy insurance or take a view on price without owning BTC. Because Bitcoin options trade every day, Bitcoin options often show mood shifts before spot markets calm down. Right now, Bitcoin options look cautious.

On Deribit, a major crypto derivatives exchange, traders priced the March 27 contract that pays off above $90,000 at a low level. That $90,000 call option traded near $522. In plain terms, Bitcoin options buyers did not pay much for a big upside swing. Using common pricing tools such as Black-Scholes, that call price implies odds under 6% for $90,000 by late March. Bitcoin options also show demand for crash protection. A March 27 put option near the $50,000 strike traded around $1,380, implying roughly a one-in-five chance of a much deeper drop.

Those numbers do not predict the future. They show what traders are willing to pay right now. Bitcoin options turn crowd emotion into “implied volatility,” a market estimate of how hard price could whip around. When implied volatility rises, Bitcoin options cost more because risk feels higher. When implied volatility falls, Bitcoin options get cheaper because traders expect calmer trading. The current mix says traders see limited upside and meaningful downside risk in the next several weeks.

Macro stress helps explain why Bitcoin options lean defensive. New layoff data hit the tape as crypto slipped. U.S. employers announced 108,435 job cuts in January, up 118% from January 2025, according to Challenger, Gray & Christmas. It was the biggest January total since 2009. Job cuts like that can weaken risk appetite. When investors rush to reduce exposure, Bitcoin options often price less chance of a fast rebound and more demand for protection.

Equities added to the pressure. Bitcoin’s recent drop tracked losses in several large listed companies tied to payments, trading, and software. When stocks wobble, Bitcoin often trades like a high-beta asset, rising and falling with broader risk sentiment. That link matters because many funds use Bitcoin options to hedge, so shaky equities can lift Bitcoin options premiums on the downside.

Another driver is the AI spending debate. Alphabet, Google’s parent company, said it expects 2026 capital spending around $175 billion to $185 billion. That is far above what many analysts expected and has raised questions about returns on data-center builds. When investors doubt the “AI trade,” they often cut exposure across growth assets. That shift can show up quickly in Bitcoin options, since traders reach for puts when they fear a wider selloff.

A newer fear also hangs over Bitcoin options: quantum computing. The worry is not that today’s machines can crack Bitcoin, but that future systems could threaten older cryptography if they advance fast. Jefferies strategist Christopher Wood recently removed a Bitcoin allocation from his model portfolio and cited quantum risk. Headlines like that can weigh on sentiment, and Bitcoin options price uncertainty even when the timeline is unclear.

Traders also watch corporate Bitcoin reserves. Some public companies built large BTC holdings using debt or new shares. If Bitcoin stays weak for long, those firms could face pressure to refinance, raise cash, or cut risk. Investors fear forced selling because it can speed up declines. When that fear rises, Bitcoin options demand for downside hedges can rise too.

So what would have to change for a $90,000 push by March? Bitcoin options would likely show it first through stronger demand for upside calls and higher prices for $90,000 strikes. Traders would also want calmer macro news, steadier stocks, and less stress around AI spending plans. A bounce can happen in a rough market, but a move that large usually needs fuel from risk-on flows and fresh spot buying that spills into Bitcoin options.

For now, Bitcoin options suggest $90,000 is possible but not the base case for March. That does not rule out a rally. It means traders are not paying much for that outcome today. At the same time, Bitcoin options show many still want protection if the slide deepens.

Bithumb apologized to customers after a payout mistake during a promotion caused a sudden shake-up in bitcoin trading on its platform. In a notice posted in Korean, the South Korea crypto exchange said it was “sincerely sorry for the inconvenience” and blamed “confusion during the payment process for this event.” The exchange said that, during the payout, “an abnormal amount of bitcoin was paid to some customers,” and that selling by some of the accounts led to a brief, sharp move in the bitcoin price on Bithumb.

Bithumb said it spotted the problem right away through its internal controls and then moved fast to limit trading on the related accounts. Bithumb also said the market price returned to a normal level within about five minutes. It added that its “domino liquidation prevention system” worked as designed, so the abnormal bitcoin price did not trigger a chain of forced liquidations. For traders, that detail matters because fast drops can push leveraged positions into liquidation, which can create more selling and even larger swings. Bithumb said that did not happen this time.

In the same notice, Bithumb stressed that the incident was not caused by an outside attack. Bithumb said the issue had “no connection to external hacking or a security breach,” and that there were no problems with system security or customer asset management. Bithumb also said customer assets remained safe, and that trading, deposits, and withdrawals were operating normally after the brief disruption.

Bithumb did not share how much bitcoin was sent by mistake or how many accounts received it. Still, local reporting tied the event to a “Random Box” giveaway. Under that event, Bithumb planned to distribute prizes worth up to 50,000 won. But reports said a payout meant to be 2,000 won ended up being treated as 2,000 BTC for some recipients, which would be a massive sum. Bithumb has been asked to clarify the exact numbers.

On the market side, the bitcoin/Korean won pair on Bithumb appeared to drop hard during the confusion, with reports describing a fall of around 15% before prices recovered. Some users said on social media that their Bithumb accounts were frozen after the abnormal deposits and sales. Bithumb said it restricted trading on the relevant accounts as part of its response.

Regulators also took notice. Reports said South Korea’s Financial Services Commission and Financial Supervisory Service planned to investigate the cause, describing the situation as serious given the size of the potential damage. Another report said about 3 billion won was withdrawn after selling the mistakenly deposited bitcoin. If accurate, that figure would suggest at least some funds moved off-platform before controls fully locked things down.

The incident lands at a time when South Korea is watching crypto exchanges more closely. Recent reporting has described rising scrutiny of major platforms, including checks on how exchanges run promotions and how they present trading conditions to customers. In that setting, a Bithumb promotion error can draw extra attention, even if Bithumb says there was no hack and no customer asset loss.

For users, the key questions are simple: what failed, who got the mistaken bitcoin, and what happens next. Bithumb said it will share follow-up steps in a transparent way and promised to take responsibility so that “not a single customer” is harmed. Bithumb also said it believes there was no loss or damage to customer assets from the incident, though it did not provide a full public accounting of every transaction linked to the payout.

Mistaken deposits are rare, but they can be disruptive because crypto trading runs around the clock and prices can react in seconds. When the mistake involves bitcoin, the impact can spread fast through the order book, especially if recipients try to sell at once. That is why Bithumb focused on its internal controls, its trading restrictions, and its liquidation backstop. Bithumb is one of the largest exchanges in South Korea, and its systems handle high-volume bitcoin and won trading each day.

Bithumb now faces the hard part: proving, with clear facts, that the brief bitcoin crash on Bithumb did not hurt regular traders and that the account freezes were handled fairly. Bithumb said it will disclose more details as it confirms what happened inside the payout process. For now, the exchange’s message is that this was an internal error during a Bithumb event, not a security breach, and that Bithumb’s safeguards kept a bad moment from turning into a wider liquidation wave.

Europe has become the riskiest region for wrench attacks, according to a new report from blockchain security firm CertiK. The report tracks physical crimes tied to crypto ownership, such as robberies, assaults, and kidnappings where attackers force victims to hand over coins. CertiK counted 72 verified wrench attacks worldwide in 2025, up 75% from 2024. Europe made up more than 40% of those wrench attacks, nearly double its share a year earlier.

CertiK says wrench attacks are getting harsher. Kidnappings rose 66% in 2025, while physical assaults jumped 250%. These wrench attacks often start with doxxing and basic surveillance. Criminals look for brag posts, wallet screenshots, or clues about where someone lives. CertiK says many wrench attacks use OSINT, or open-source intelligence, pulled from public data and social media.

Wrench attacks hit Europe harder than other regions in the dataset. France was the top country in 2025, with 19 incidents, more than any other nation tracked. The United States logged eight in the same count.

A high-profile case showed how wrench attacks can turn brutal. In January 2025, Ledger co-founder David Balland and his wife were kidnapped from their home in France, and the attackers demanded a large crypto ransom. Prosecutors said Balland was seriously injured during the ordeal before police freed the couple and detained suspects. The case became a warning that wrench attacks are not only about money.

Wrench attacks are not limited to Europe. Asia still made up about one-third of cases in 2025. CertiK flags risk to crypto tourists and expatriates in hubs like Thailand and Hong Kong. Some wrench attacks begin after a target shares a ride, flashes a wallet app, or meets a new contact who seems helpful.

Wrench attacks can also be costly, even when totals are unclear. CertiK says losses linked to wrench attacks exceeded $40.9 million in 2025, but the figure is likely low because many victims do not report crimes, and ransoms can be hard to trace. In wrench attacks, the goal is speed.

The report’s main point is that code upgrades alone will not stop wrench attacks. As exchanges and wallets get harder to crack online, criminals shift to real-life pressure. CertiK says humans remain the single point of failure, which helps explain why wrench attacks can rise even when cybersecurity improves. That is why “just protect your seed phrase” is no longer enough.

To cut the risk of wrench attacks, focus on simple habits and personal security awareness. Limit what you share online. Avoid posting your location in real time. Keep most funds in cold storage on a hardware wallet, and keep only a small “spending” wallet on your phone. For larger balances, use multi-signature wallets or a passphrase so one stolen device cannot move everything at once. These steps cannot prevent every wrench attack, but they can slow a thief and limit damage.

While wrench attacks rise, Russia is moving closer to opening crypto trading to more retail users. State Duma lawmaker Anatoly Aksakov said a draft bill is ready that would let non-qualified investors trade crypto under set limits, according to Russian reporting. Under the plan discussed by officials, non-qualified investors could buy up to 300,000 rubles of crypto, while professional market participants would face no such cap. Officials also say the rules could support cross-border settlements and the overseas placement of Russian-issued tokens.

Russia’s central bank has laid out a similar framework. In a December 23, 2025 statement, the Bank of Russia said non-qualified investors could buy the most liquid cryptocurrencies only after passing a risk-awareness test, and only within the 300,000 ruble annual limit through one intermediary. The same proposal says crypto and stablecoins may be traded but may not be used for payments inside Russia.

Both stories meet at the user level. More access can bring more new holders, and new holders can become targets for wrench attacks if they overshare or carry large balances on a phone. CertiK says wrench attacks are rising faster in Europe than in North America, but it warns this does not prove North America is “safe.”

For anyone holding crypto in 2026, wrench attacks are part of the threat map. Treat personal safety like wallet safety. Keep your identity and holdings private, plan how you move funds, and assume criminals read the same posts you do. Wrench attacks succeed when a target has no plan and no time.