In the past few days, the crypto market has seen strong gains, with Bitcoin’s price creating a new all-time high. But this rise triggered a profit-taking sentiment, which caused the market to temporarily peak. Ethereum, in particular, struggled to stay above its recent high as large investors started pulling back their money. As a result, there might be a short-term correction for ETH price ahead.
Ethereum Struggles in Meeting Buying Demand
A market-wide rebound, driven by Bitcoin hitting new all-time highs and better overall economic conditions, helped push Ethereum’s price up to an eight-week high of $2,731. However, it’s now having trouble attracting strong buying interest, as many short-term investors have already sold to lock in profits.
According to Coinglass, over the past 24 hours, more than $40.66 million in Ethereum positions were liquidated. Of this, 15.12 million from buyers and $25.54 million from sellers. Meanwhile, data from IntoTheBlock shows a sharp drop in large transaction volume, falling from $12.24 billion to $3.28 billion in just three days.
Large Transaction Volume: IntoTheBlock
This suggests that big investors are stepping back, which is weakening the upward momentum in ETH’s price. With whales pulling back, sellers might gain the upper hand in the short term, possibly leading to a price correction.
Despite some recent price struggles, Ethereum’s defi activity continues to grow. The total value locked in Ethereum rose from $50.63 billion on April 26 to $62.7 billion by May 26, a jump of over 25% in just under a month.
Some of the biggest gains came from platforms like Pendle, where deposits increased by over 50%, and Ether.fi and EigenLayer, both of which saw 48% growth. Ethereum still leads all blockchains in TVL, holding 54% of the market. For comparison, Solana holds 8%, and BNB Chain has 5% among Layer-1 networks.
This strong DeFi growth could help support ETH’s price and reduce the chances of a major drop, as many investors remain bullish about a rebound.
What’s Next for ETH Price?
Ether recently faced resistance around $2,731, resulting in a drop below the immediate Fib levels. As bears strengthen their dominance, buyers struggle in triggering a recovery rally. As of writing, ETH price trades at $2,535, declining over 0.6% in the last 24 hours.
ETH/USD Price Chart: TradingView
The ETH/USDT pair might fall to the 100-day EMA (around $2,456), which is an important support level to watch. If the price bounces back strongly from that point, buyers may make another attempt to push past $2,750. If they succeed, the price could rise toward $3,000. There is some resistance around $2,870, but it likely won’t hold for long.
However, if the price drops below the 100-day EMA, this bullish outlook could change. In that case, the pair might fall further toward the descending trend line at $2,329. As the hovers below the midline, the chances of a bearish correction rise for ETH price.
To meet the rising demand for crypto derivatives, CBOE Global Markets has launched new Bitcoin futures contracts called Cboe FTSE Bitcoin Index futures (XBTF), now available on its Cboe Futures Exchange.
This follows CBOE’s earlier launch of Bitcoin options products (CBTX and MBTX), offering a range of tools for managing Bitcoin price swings. These products can be used individually for simpler trades or together for more advanced strategies. The XBTF futures, like the Bitcoin options, are cleared through OCC.
Cboe Expands Crypto Offerings
Cboe’s growing range of crypto products now includes spot bitcoin ETFs and bitcoin ETF index options, alongside their new bitcoin futures. The BTC index futures are cash-settled, which eliminates the need for physically delivering Bitcoin. These XBTF futures will settle on the last business day of each month in the afternoon.
“As customer demand for crypto-based derivatives continues to rise, Cboe is committed to building a well-rounded ecosystem to help facilitate more efficient, flexible access to bitcoin exposure and risk management,” said Catherine Clay, Global Head of Derivatives at Cboe.
She added that Cboe’s new Bitcoin futures are an important addition to their crypto offerings, allowing investors to gain exposure to or hedge Bitcoin in a regulated, transparent environment with centralized clearing.
Cboe is expanding its digital assets by listing U.S. spot bitcoin and ether ETFs. Its new cash-settled Bitcoin options have helped create ETFs that give investors Bitcoin exposure with limited risk.
Barak Capital, a leading market maker, noted the growing demand for stable and efficient markets as digital asset investments become more institutionalized. They are ready to provide liquidity to Cboe’s FTSE Bitcoin Index futures.
The post New Cboe Bitcoin Futures (XBTF) Offer More Flexibility for Crypto Traders appeared first on Coinpedia Fintech News
To meet the rising demand for crypto derivatives, CBOE Global Markets has launched new Bitcoin futures contracts called Cboe FTSE Bitcoin Index futures (XBTF), now available on its Cboe Futures Exchange. This follows CBOE’s earlier launch of Bitcoin options products (CBTX and MBTX), offering a range of tools for managing Bitcoin price swings. These products …
In recent months, the crypto markets witnessed a notable price drop, with the market capitalization shrinking from $3.72 trillion in December to $2.71 trillion at the time of writing. Nevertheless, this financial downturn appears to be losing momentum as Bitcoin maintains its position firmly above the $80K threshold while altcoins like Ethereum, XRP, and Solana successfully defend their strategic support levels.
The horizon looks promising when considering developments such as anticipated interest rate hikes and the introduction of altcoin ETFs. These catalysts could potentially spark a swift market recovery, filling the substantial $1 trillion gap and creating lucrative opportunities for forward-thinking investors who position themselves advantageously.
Yet conventional wisdom among seasoned cryptocurrency enthusiasts suggests that established tokens like Bitcoin, Ethereum, XRP, and Solana, while reliable, rarely deliver the extraordinary returns that discerning investors seek.
The pathway to 100x gains typically involves identifying emerging projects that capitalize on innovative market trends before they achieve mainstream recognition. This article covers 3 promising cryptos you need to keep an eye on.
Solaxy (SOLX)
Solaxy is a presale project aiming to develop a Layer-2 scaling solution for the Solana blockchain. The project aims to address a documented issue within the Solana ecosystem: transaction delays and occasional failures during high network traffic periods.
According to the project documentation, Solaxy utilizes off-chain computation and transaction bundling technology to improve transaction speed, reduce costs, and enhance reliability on the Solana network.
Analysts at 99bitcoins YouTube channel dubbed it “the next 10x potential crypto” due to its much-needed use case, as well as due to its immensely successful presale phase.
The project has secured $26.8 million in its ongoing presale, indicating investor interest in solutions that address existing blockchain limitations. Currently, participants can stake tokens for a reported 152% annual percentage yield, though this rate is expected to decrease as more investors join the staking pool.
Industry analysts note that if successful, Solaxy could help overcome one of the main technical challenges facing the Solana network while maintaining its performance advantages.
Best Wallet Token is a new addition to the Best Wallet ecosystem of over 250,000 monthly active users. The ecosystem presents itself as a solution to the fragmented user experience common in cryptocurrency management, attracting attention for its proposed consolidation of multiple cryptocurrency functions into a single platform.
Apart from having access to a cross-chain decentralized exchange, presale aggregator, cryptocurrency debit card, and additional features within one interface, BEST token holders would reportedly receive benefits, including reduced trading fees, staking opportunities, governance participation, and access to stage 0 projects partnered up with Best Wallet.
With $11.1 million raised in its presale phase, Best Wallet Token seeks to compete in a market where established wallets like MetaMask and Phantom have achieved valuations in the billions.
The project emphasizes user security through its consolidated approach, potentially reducing exposure to common phishing vectors.
BTC Bull Token represents an evolving approach within the meme coin segment, establishing a direct relationship with Bitcoin price performance. Unlike traditional meme coins that primarily rely on community enthusiasm and social media momentum, BTCBULL has implemented a structured reward system.
The project’s key feature are its airdrop and burn mechanisms, which trigger token distributions or token burns each time Bitcoin’s price increases by $25,000.
BTC Bull Token will airdrop real BTC as soon as Bitcoin reaches $150,000 and $200,000, as well as distribute 10% of its total supply at Bitcoin’s $250,000 mark. At the same time, its burn mechanism will reduce the BTCBULL supply as the demand for BTC increases, making the token even more lucrative. Scheduled token burns will happen at Bitcoin’s price of $125,000, $175,000, and onwards.
This approach appears designed to encourage longer-term holding rather than speculative trading behavior that often characterizes the meme coin market. It also enhances BTC exposure of DeFi users without ever having to hold actual Bitcoin.
With $3.7 million raised during its presale, BTC Bull Token enters a market segment known for both volatility and potential for significant returns during bullish cycles. The project also offers staking capabilities, further incentivizing holding behavior among community members.
The post 3 New Cryptocurrencies That Could Dominate in 2025: Best Crypto to Buy appeared first on Coinpedia Fintech News
In recent months, the crypto markets witnessed a notable price drop, with the market capitalization shrinking from $3.72 trillion in December to $2.71 trillion at the time of writing. Nevertheless, this financial downturn appears to be losing momentum as Bitcoin maintains its position firmly above the $80K threshold while altcoins like Ethereum, XRP, and Solana …
The metrics used to measure outcomes can be misleading when evaluating blockchain performance. As more blockchain networks emerge, the public needs clear, efficiency-focused metrics, rather than exaggerated claims, to differentiate between them.
In a conversation with BeInCrypto, Taraxa Co-Founder Steven Pu explained that it’s becoming increasingly difficult to compare blockchain performance accurately because many reported metrics rely on overly optimistic assumptions rather than evidence-based results. To combat this wave of misrepresentation, Pu proposes a new metric, which he calls TPS/$.
Why Does the Industry Lack Reliable Benchmarks?
The need for clear differentiation is growing with the increasing number of Layer-1 blockchain networks. As various developers promote the speed and efficiency of their blockchains, relying on metrics that distinguish their performance becomes indispensable.
However, the industry still lacks reliable benchmarks for real-world efficiency, instead relying on sporadic sentimental waves of hype-driven popularity. According to Pu, misleading performance figures currently saturate the market, obscuring true capabilities.
“It’s easy for opportunists to take advantage by driving up over-simplified and exaggerated narratives to profit themselves. Every single conceivable technical concept and metric has at one time or another been used to hype up many projects that don’t really deserve them: TPS, finality latency, modularity, network node count, execution speed, parallelization, bandwidth utilization, EVM-compatibility, EVM-incompatibility, etc.,” Pu told BeInCrypto.
Pu focused on how some projects exploit TPS metrics, using them as marketing tactics to make blockchain performance sound more appealing than it might be under real-world conditions.
Examining the Misleading Nature of TPS
Transactions per second, more commonly known as TPS, is a metric that refers to the average or sustained number of transactions that a blockchain network can process and finalize per second under normal operating conditions.
However, it often misleadingly hypes projects, offering a skewed view of overall performance.
“Decentralized networks are complex systems that need to be considered as a whole, and in the context of their use cases. But the market has this horrible habit of over-simplifying and over-selling one specific metric or aspect of a project, while ignoring the whole. Perhaps a highly centralized, high-TPS network does have its uses in the right scenarios with specific trust models, but the market really has no appetite for such nuanced descriptions,” Pu explained.
Pu indicates that blockchain projects with extreme claims on single metrics like TPS may have compromised decentralization, security, and accuracy.
“Take TPS, for example. This one metric masks numerous other aspects of the network, for example, how was the TPS achieved? What was sacrificed in the process? If I have 1 node, running a WASM JIT VM, call that a network, that gets you a few hundred thousand TPS right off the bat. I then make 1000 copies of that machine and call it sharding, now you start to get into the hundreds of millions of ‘TPS’. Add in unrealistic assumptions such as non-conflict, and you assume you can parallelize all transactions, then you can get “TPS” into the billions. It’s not that TPS is a bad metric, you just can’t look at any metric in isolation because there’s so much hidden information behind the numbers,” he added.
The Taraxa Co-founder revealed the extent of these inflated metrics in a recent report.
The Significant Discrepancy Between Theoretical and Real-World TPS
Pu sought to prove his point by determining the difference between the maximum historical TPS realized on a blockchain’s mainnet and the maximum theoretical TPS.
Of the 22 permissionless and single-shard networks observed, Pu found that, on average, there was a 20-fold gap between theory and reality. In other words, the theoretical metric was 20 times higher than the maximum observed mainnet TPS.
Taraxa Co-founder finds 20x difference between the Theoretical TPS and the Max Observed Mainnet TPS. Source: Taraxa.
“Metric overestimations (such as in the case of TPS) are a response to the highly speculative and narrative-driven crypto market. Everyone wants to position their project and technologies in the best possible light, so they come up with theoretical estimates, or conduct tests with wildly unrealistic assumptions, to arrive at inflated metrics. It’s dishonest advertising. Nothing more, nothing less,” Pu told BeInCrypto.
Looking to counter these exaggerated metrics, Pu developed his own performance measure.
Introducing TPS/$: A More Balanced Metric?
Pu and his team developed the following: TPS realized on mainnet / monthly $ cost of a single validator node, or TPS/$ for short, to fulfill the need for better performance metrics.
This metric assesses performance based on verifiable TPS achieved on a network’s live mainnet while also considering hardware efficiency.
The significant 20-fold gap between theoretical and actual throughput convinced Pu to exclude metrics based solely on assumptions or lab conditions. He also aimed to illustrate how some blockchain projects inflate performance metrics by relying on costly infrastructure.
“Published network performance claims are often inflated by extremely expensive hardware. This is especially true for networks with highly centralized consensus mechanisms, where the throughput bottleneck shifts away from networking latency and into single-machine hardware performance. Requiring extremely expensive hardware for validators not only betrays a centralized consensus algorithm and inefficient engineering, it also prevents the vast majority of the world from potentially participating in consensus by pricing them out,” Pu explained.
Pu’s team located each network’s minimum validator hardware requirements to determine the cost per validator node. They later estimated their monthly cost, paying particular attention to their relative sizing when used to compute the TPS per dollar ratios.
“So the TPS/$ metric tries to correct two of the perhaps most egregious categories of misinformation, by forcing the TPS performance to be on mainnet, and revealing the inherent tradeoffs of extremely expensive hardware,” Pu added.
Pu stressed considering two simple, identifiable characteristics: whether a network is permissionless and single-sharded.
Permissioned vs. Permissionless Networks: Which Fosters Decentralization?
A blockchain’s degree of security can be unveiled by whether it operates under a permissioned or permissionless network.
Permissioned blockchains refer to closed networks where access and participation are restricted to a predefined group of users, requiring permission from a central authority or trusted group to join. In permissionless blockchains, anyone is allowed to participate.
According to Pu, the former model is at odds with the philosophy of decentralization.
“A permissioned network, where network validation membership is controlled by a single entity, or if there is just a single entity (every Layer-2s), is another excellent metric. This tells you whether or not the network is indeed decentralized. A hallmark of decentralization is its ability to bridge trust gaps. Take decentralization away, then the network is nothing more than a cloud service,” Pu told BeInCrypto.
Attention to these metrics will prove vital over time, as networks with centralized authorities tend to be more vulnerable to certain weaknesses.
“In the long term, what we really need is a battery of standardized attack vectors for L1 infrastructure that can help to reveal weaknesses and tradeoffs for any given architectural design. Much of the problems in today’s mainstream L1 are that they make unreasonable sacrifices in security and decentralization. These characteristics are invisible and extremely hard to observe, until a disaster strikes. My hope is that as the industry matures, such a battery of tests will begin to organically emerge into an industry-wide standard,” Pu added.
Meanwhile, understanding whether a network employs state-sharding versus maintaining a single, sharded state reveals how unified its data management is.
State-Sharding vs. Single-State: Understanding Data Unity
In blockchain performance, latency refers to the time delay between submitting a transaction to the network, confirming it, and including it in a block on the blockchain. It measures how long it takes for a transaction to be processed and become a permanent part of the distributed ledger.
Identifying whether a network employs state-sharding or a single-sharded state can reveal much about its latency efficiency.
State-sharded networks divide the blockchain’s data into multiple independent parts called shards. Each shard operates somewhat independently and doesn’t have direct, real-time access to the complete state of the entire network.
By contrast, a non-state-sharded network has a single, shared state across the entire network. All nodes can access and process the same complete data set in this case.
Pu noted that state-sharded networks aim to increase storage and transaction capacity. However, they often face longer finality latencies due to a need to process transactions across multiple independent shards.
He added that many projects adopting a sharding approach inflate throughput by simply replicating their network rather than building a truly integrated and scalable architecture.
“A state-sharded network that doesn’t share state, is simply making unconnected copies of a network. If I take a L1 network and just make 1000 copies of it running independently, it’s clearly dishonest to claim that I can add up all the throughput across the copies together and represent it as a single network. There are architectures that actually synchronize the states as well as shuffle the validators across shards, but more often than not, projects making outlandish claims on throughput are just making independent copies,” Pu said.
Based on his research into the efficiency of blockchain metrics, Pu highlighted the need for fundamental shifts in how projects are evaluated, funded, and ultimately succeed.
What Fundamental Shifts Does Blockchain Evaluation Need?
Pu’s insights present a notable alternative in a Layer-1 blockchain space where misleading performance metrics increasingly compete for attention. Reliable and effective benchmarks are essential to counter these false representations.
“You only know what you can measure, and right now in crypto, the numbers look more like hype-narratives than objective measurements. Having standardized, transparent measurements allows simple comparisons across product options so developers and users understand what it is they’re using, and what tradeoffs they’re making. This is a hallmark of any mature industry, and we still have a long way to go in crypto,” Pu concluded.
Adopting standardized and transparent benchmarks will foster informed decision-making and drive genuine progress beyond merely promotional claims as the industry matures.
