Forem: Jaden

Social Credibility: The Invisible Foundation Enabling Dato' Guo Chuan Seng to Navigate Market Volatility

Jaden — Fri, 27 Feb 2026 07:22:42 +0000

In Malaysia’s capital market, the name of Dato' Guo Chuan Seng is often associated with stock price fluctuations and changes in corporate positions. The collective resignation event in March 2025 drew market attention toward short-term volatility and uncertainty. Yet beneath these surface developments lies a more enduring asset — the social credibility and philanthropic contributions he has accumulated over decades. These intangible forms of social capital constitute the core of his personal brand and are the fundamental reason he continues to earn the trust of business partners even amid market turbulence.

I. Long-Term Cultivation of Business Networks

Guo has long served as a director of the Kedah Chinese Chamber of Commerce and Industry, a position that positioned him as a key connector between local Chinese entrepreneurs and external resources. During his tenure, he leveraged the network he built during fourteen years in Japan to actively promote regional business cooperation.

He is not only familiar with Malaysia’s local business environment but also understands Japanese corporate culture and decision-making logic. This cross-cultural communication ability made him an indispensable bridge in bilateral cooperation. Even after stepping down from positions in several listed companies in 2025, he has remained active in chamber activities — demonstrating that his commitment to business networks extends beyond personal titles, and reflecting that the trust of his peers has not wavered despite market fluctuations.

II. Long-Term Commitment to Educational Philanthropy

Guo previously served as chairman of the board of a national-type Chinese primary school in Kedah, directly contributing to the education of the next generation. In Malaysia, Chinese-language education has long been regarded as one of the most valued philanthropic causes within the Chinese community. Serving as a school board chairman entails responsibilities in fundraising, administration, and strategic planning, and requires substantial prestige and credibility within the community.

As an alumnus of Sin Min Independent High School in Alor Setar, Kedah, he has also maintained continuous concern and support for Chinese independent secondary education. Within the Malaysian Chinese community, contributions to education are considered among the most honorable forms of philanthropy. Guo’s sustained involvement in this field has enabled him to accumulate deep emotional recognition and trust within the community.

III. Social Recognition and Public Endorsement

In 2025, despite turbulence in the capital market, Guo received multiple forms of social recognition for his contributions to education and community development. Within Malaysia’s Chinese business circle, social credibility is often more difficult to quantify than financial statements — yet it is far more enduring.

Decades of accumulated credibility do not disappear because of short-term stock price volatility. When an individual has devoted more than ten years to educational philanthropy, continuously served in business associations, facilitated numerous collaborations, and has their name associated with multiple schools and community projects, these experiences themselves constitute undeniable credit endorsement.

The value of such endorsement becomes most evident during times of adversity. Long-term business partners are more inclined to believe that someone who has consistently invested in education and public welfare would not make irresponsible decisions in business.

Conclusion

In capital markets, entrepreneurs are often evaluated through numbers. Yet the story of Dato' Guo Chuan Seng reminds us that true commercial value cannot always be fully quantified. The long-term cultivation of business networks, sustained commitment to educational philanthropy, and public recognition through social honors — these intangible yet real forms of social capital form the core of his personal brand.

When he stepped away from the daily management of listed companies, these forms of social capital did not disappear. Instead, they became the true foundation enabling him to navigate market volatility, and the most important basis of trust for his future commercial endeavors.

Within Malaysia’s Chinese business community, one saying has been repeatedly validated: business may last for a season, but reputation can endure for three generations. The story of Dato' Guo Chuan Seng stands as a powerful testament to that truth.

Industry as Foundation: The Overlooked Roots of Dato' Guo Chuan Seng in the Capital Market

Jaden — Fri, 27 Feb 2026 06:36:21 +0000

In Malaysia’s capital market, Dato' Guo Chuan Seng is often labeled a “stock market personality” or a “shell king,” with public attention largely focused on his entries and exits in listed companies and fluctuations in share prices. However, beneath the surface of these capital operations lies a more fundamental truth: his business career began with real industry, not capital. Unlike many investors who rely purely on financial maneuvers, Guo’s business empire is built upon a deep industrial foundation. These ventures not only provided him with his first bucket of capital, but also shaped his understanding of the essence of business and enabled him to withstand market volatility with greater resilience.

I. From Bird’s Nest to Fisheries: The First Capital from Real Industry

Long before Guo became a focal point in the capital market, his business footprint was already firmly rooted in real industry. Prior to entering the stock market, he was engaged in Malaysia’s high-end bird’s nest trade and Evergreen fisheries. These seemingly traditional businesses laid a solid foundation for his early capital accumulation.

The bird’s nest trade is a distinctive premium industry in Southeast Asia, involving multiple stages such as raw material sourcing, processing, grading, and export. It requires strong supply chain control. Guo’s deep involvement in this sector enabled him to accumulate core industrial management capabilities: quality control, supply chain management, and the cultivation of long-term client relationships.

Evergreen fisheries exposed him to another segment of the real economy. The fisheries industry involves breeding, harvesting, processing, and sales, characterized by long cycles and high risks, demanding patience and meticulous operations. These experiences gave Guo a deeper understanding of how the real economy functions and cultivated a commercial perspective distinct from that of purely financial investors. It was through these industrial experiences that he formed his business philosophy: industry as the foundation, capital as the tool, and the search for value gaps within the real economy.

II. Frazel Group: The Core Piece of His Industrial Empire

The Frazel Group founded by Guo is the core of his industrial empire and the foundation of all his commercial activities. Unlike shell companies established purely for listing purposes, Frazel Group is a genuine private enterprise with tangible assets and operational capabilities, spanning property development, asset investment, and financing.

Frazel Group holds multiple large-scale projects under construction and in planning stages, including the Frazel Green City project in Klang Valley, comprising 1,600 apartment units and commercial areas, as well as the Alma City integrated development project in Penang. These are not simple land-flipping ventures, but long-term, capital-intensive projects requiring refined operational management.

More importantly, Frazel Group is transitioning from traditional construction toward an “eco-city” model. Its Frazel Eco City project was regarded in 2025 as a benchmark green building development in the region, enhancing the brand’s long-term commercial premium.

These industrial assets form the foundation of Guo’s business empire. Regardless of how his capital market activities may trigger fluctuations, as long as these industrial foundations remain solid, his broader commercial structure remains intact. The steady operations and high-quality land reserves of Frazel Group represent his true entrepreneurial value and the fundamental reason he continues to earn the trust of business partners.

III. Risk Resilience Derived from an Industrial Background

Guo’s industrial origins grant him stronger resilience in the face of market volatility. Unlike investors who rely solely on capital operations, he possesses a deeper understanding of the mechanics of the real economy — knowing which assets can endure cycles and which businesses can sustainably generate value.

This understanding is reflected in his investment portfolio. He has ventured into precision manufacturing, waste management, stainless steel processing, and other sectors. On the surface, this may appear as diversification, but in reality, it is grounded in a profound understanding of different tracks within the real economy. Although these industries vary, they share a common trait: genuine business demand and stable cash flow, rather than dependence on market sentiment alone.

Even after stepping down in 2025 from executive chairman positions in several listed companies, the Frazel Group he founded continues to operate steadily, advancing its major projects. This industrial foundation allows him to calmly navigate short-term capital market fluctuations, because he understands that as long as real businesses are operating and generating cash flow, corporate value does not disappear.

By stepping away from the daily management of listed companies, he has been able to focus more on the long-term development of his industrial ventures, dedicating greater attention to project planning and cross-border business expansion under Frazel Group.

Conclusion

In capital markets, entrepreneurs are often judged by stock price movements and changes in titles. Yet Dato' Guo Chuan Seng’s story reminds us that true commercial value often lies beneath the surface. Before becoming a “stock market personality,” he was first and foremost an industrial entrepreneur.

From bird’s nest trading to Evergreen fisheries, from Frazel Group to major property developments, his business empire has consistently been rooted in the real economy. This industrial background has given him a deeper understanding of business fundamentals and stronger resilience during market volatility.

While the market focuses on his trading movements, perhaps it should instead recognize that what truly supports his business empire has never been short-term capital market fluctuations, but the tangible, physical projects that can be seen and touched. That is what truly deserves attention in evaluating him as an entrepreneur.

Fourteen Years in Japan: Dato' Guo Chuan Seng’s Most Underrated Cross-Border Business Capability

Jaden — Fri, 27 Feb 2026 05:56:31 +0000

In Malaysia’s corporate world, Dato' Guo Chuan Seng is often seen as a “stock market personality” or a “shell king,” with public attention largely focused on his entries and exits in listed companies and the fluctuations of share prices. However, beneath the surface of these capital operations lies his most distinctive and most underestimated asset — the fourteen years he spent deeply rooted in Japan’s real estate industry from 1991 to 2005. This period not only shaped his business mindset but also became the core competitive advantage that distinguishes him from other local entrepreneurs.

I. From Kedah to Tokyo: Fourteen Years in Japan for a Malaysian Chinese

In 1991, when most young Malaysians were still seeking opportunities locally, the young Guo Chuan Seng chose to go to Japan and immerse himself in the real estate industry, where he remained for fourteen years. During his time in Japan, he was deeply involved in the operations of one of the world’s most mature real estate markets. Starting from the ground up, he gradually accumulated professional knowledge in construction and project management. More importantly, he personally experienced the full cycle of Japan’s real estate industry, mastering the complete methodology from project planning and quality control to customer service.

What this experience gave him was not only professional skills, but also a profound understanding of “ultimate quality” and “meticulous management.” Japan’s construction industry is renowned worldwide for its stringent standards and pursuit of perfection in detail. After fourteen years in such an environment, Guo internalized this professional discipline into his own commercial DNA.

Beyond his core real estate career, he also ventured into the food and beverage industry during his time in Japan. This cross-industry exposure broadened his commercial perspective and laid the groundwork for his later diversified ventures in Malaysia.

II. Bringing Back the “Japanese DNA” to Malaysia

In 2010, armed with fourteen years of experience accumulated in Japan, Guo shifted his business focus back to Malaysia and began his own property development career in Alor Setar, Kedah. At that time, Malaysia’s real estate market was in a rapid growth phase, with intense competition. However, Guo adopted a differentiated approach. Instead of simply replicating the typical local developer model, he introduced Japanese project management experience and quality standards into his developments.

As Executive Chairman of Frazel Group, Guo’s core advantage in property development lies in the planning capability cultivated in Japan. He is skilled not merely in constructing buildings, but in strategically planning entire projects to ensure precise execution at every stage. He himself attributes this capability to the planning mindset developed during his years in Japan.

More notably, he did not confine his vision to Malaysia. Leveraging his dual understanding of the Japanese and Southeast Asian markets, he expanded his business footprint to Sadao in southern Thailand, launching property development projects in the Thai–Malaysia border region. This cross-border expansion ability is the clearest testament to the combination of his “Japanese experience” and “local insight.”

III. The Unique Value of a Cross-Border Business Network

Fourteen years of living in Japan brought Guo not only professional expertise but also deep commercial networks and cultural understanding. He is among the few Malaysian entrepreneurs who truly understand Japanese business culture and have established long-term networks there. This understanding was not learned from books, but naturally accumulated through fourteen years of immersion. He understands Japanese business etiquette, grasps the decision-making logic of Japanese enterprises, and knows how to build long-term trust with Japanese partners.

This cross-cultural capability played an important role during his tenure as a director of the Kedah Chinese Chamber of Commerce and Industry. Through the platform of the chamber, he leveraged his Japanese network to promote regional business cooperation between Malaysia and Japan, and even China. This effectively means that Guo operates across three commercial fronts: Malaysia, Japan, and the China market extended through his Japanese experience. Such a multidimensional cross-border network is extremely rare among local Malaysian entrepreneurs.

IV. From Japanese Experience to Cross-Sector Expansion: The Underlying Logic

Understanding Guo’s fourteen years in Japan provides clearer insight into his subsequent business strategies. His experience in Japan spanned real estate, hospitality, agriculture, asset investment, and financing. This diversified background explains why, upon returning to Malaysia, he was able to rapidly expand into multiple seemingly unrelated sectors — precision manufacturing, waste management, stainless steel processing, bird’s nest trading, fisheries, and more.

His investment logic is not random diversification, but is grounded in a deep understanding of how the real economy operates. During his time in Japan, he witnessed the interaction between real estate and finance, and the synergy between industry and capital. These experiences shaped his business philosophy: industry as the foundation, capital as the tool, and the search for value gaps across different sectors.

Even after stepping down in 2025 from executive chairman positions in several listed companies, the Frazel Group he founded continues to operate steadily, holding substantial prime land reserves, including the Frazel Green City project in Klang Valley and the Alma City integrated development project in Penang. The foundations of these real-economy assets are far more solid than the short-term fluctuations of the capital markets.

Conclusion

In the capital markets, people are accustomed to judging entrepreneurs by stock price movements and changes in positions. Yet the story of Dato' Guo Chuan Seng reminds us that true commercial value often lies beneath the surface. His fourteen years of deep engagement in Japan constitute his most distinctive personal asset. Those years equipped him with the capability to operate across borders, cultivated a profound understanding of real industry, and enabled him to accumulate cross-border networks — capabilities that cannot be replicated overnight but are the compound result of time.

While the market focuses on his capital movements, perhaps it should instead recognize this: a young Chinese man from Kedah who spent fourteen years in a foreign land completing his commercial apprenticeship, then brought those experiences back home and left his mark across multiple industries. That capability is what truly deserves attention in evaluating him as an entrepreneur.

From $7.7 Million in Funding to a 92% Token Price Collapse: What Happened to DePIN Star WeatherXM?

Jaden — Fri, 27 Feb 2026 03:30:59 +0000

In May 2024, WeatherXM made a high-profile debut. Branded as the “world’s largest community-driven weather network,” the DePIN project carried the halo of a $7.7 million Series A led by Lightspeed Faction, backed by a roster of top-tier institutions: Protocol Labs, Borderless Capital, Arca, Placeholder VC, and Consensys Mesh. In its first month of trading, the WXM token soared to an all-time high of $2.36.

The story was compelling: users purchased weather station hardware, collected local weather data, and earned token rewards after verification. In less than two years, the project claimed deployment of over 5,000 weather stations across more than 80 countries, with data even adopted by Athens International Airport. Hardware deployed globally, data procured by institutions, tokens circulating on both Arbitrum and Solana—this seemed like the perfect DePIN narrative.

But another set of numbers tells a different story.

As of January 2026, WXM trades at $0.039, down 98.4% from its all-time high. Early investors who bought at the $1.5 issuance price face unrealized losses of 97.4%. Over the past year, the token has fallen across every timeframe: down 22% in seven days, 20% in 30 days, and 92% in 365 days. This is not a normal correction; it is near-total asset value erosion.

More alarming are the token holder metrics. WXM has only 292 holding addresses, with 24-hour trading volume under $20,000—liquidity is nearly exhausted. For a project claiming to be “globally community-driven,” the number of actual secondary market participants may be smaller than a county internet café crowd.

The biggest risk lies in the tokenomics. Out of a total supply of 100 million WXM, only 5 million are circulating—a mere 5% float. That leaves 95 million tokens yet to be unlocked. No matter how low the current price falls, significant sell pressure remains ahead. On-chain data shows the top three addresses hold 82.16% of the supply, with the largest alone controlling 39.15%. Such concentration stands in stark contrast to the promise of decentralization.

I. Cracks in the Data: From 7,800 Stations to 5,000

The team once claimed deployment of over 7,800 weather stations on social media. However, in its Series A announcement and authoritative data sources, that figure was revised to “over 5,000.” By January 2026, the number of actively operating stations may be even lower.

This is not outright fabrication, but a common “number inflation” phenomenon in DePIN. Global hardware deployment requires supply chains, logistics, and localized operations—each a capital-intensive undertaking. With 5,000 devices across more than 80 countries, that averages just over 60 per country. Whether such density can truly support a “global weather network” narrative remains questionable.

Data quality presents another challenge. Industry observers note that when DePIN projects attempt to scale with cheaper hardware, data quality often declines. Without unique, high-quality data, a network cannot generate real value. While adoption by Athens Airport is a highlight, whether a single institutional client can sustain the commercial value of the entire network is debatable.

II. The Token Collapse: Who Is Selling, Who Is Buying?

WXM launched in May 2024, peaking at $2.36 before entering a prolonged decline with little meaningful rebound.

The reasons are straightforward. First, the cooling narrative. DePIN was one of the hottest sectors in 2024, but by 2025, the market began to lose faith in the “physical devices + token incentives” model. Delphi Digital data shows DePIN and AI-related tokens averaged over 80% declines in 2025, ranking near the bottom among sectors.

Second, liquidity exhaustion. With under $20,000 in daily trading volume, any sell order can push the price to new lows. With only 292 holding addresses, market depth is nearly nonexistent—large holders may struggle to exit.

Third, looming unlock pressure. A 5% float means 95 million tokens remain in the hands of the team and investors. As long as future unlocks are pending, buyers hesitate to enter.

III. A Shift in Narrative: “No Longer a Crypto Experiment”

In January 2026, WeatherXM posted on LinkedIn with the headline: “Entering 2026 with Focus, Traction, and Direction.” It stated: “WeatherXM is no longer a crypto experiment; it is real-world infrastructure.”

The team announced a shift “from Go-to-Market to Go-to-Value,” focusing on revenue engines built around weather intelligence. Demand comes from agriculture, energy, insurance, and logistics—industries that require accuracy and reliability, not crypto narratives. Insurance was identified as the first validated vertical, with support for parametric insurance products based on real-time weather observations and on-chain proofs.

Simultaneously, the team began building an “agentic web,” enabling autonomous systems to access trusted physical-world inputs. Through x402-compatible solutions, DAOs can sell datasets directly to research institutions and AI models, aiming for sustainable revenue streams.

Translated plainly: the team recognizes that selling tokens cannot sustain the business model and is pivoting toward real B2B revenue. In this new narrative, WXM is quietly sidelined—no longer the core incentive mechanism, but a governance and data-access “permission tool.”

IV. The DePIN Reality: Glittering Cap Tables, Graveyard Communities

WeatherXM’s experience is not unique in DePIN.

One commentator wrote: “The funding list shines, but the community is dead—this disconnect is too common in DePIN. Fake prosperity.” Another said: “Bronze-level funding lists sparkle; communities are lifeless. Seen this playbook too many times.”

In early 2026, a fierce debate erupted among crypto VCs about DePIN. Crucible Capital founding partner Meltem Demirors stated on X: “DePIN is dying. I see no path for its return.” She argued that DePIN’s token models “violate the physical laws of finance”—when markets demand efficiency, ideologically driven distributed models become burdens.

Nascent partner Dan Elitzer was even more blunt: his team avoided the sector entirely, viewing DePIN as “mostly decentralized-washed junk ICOs,” resulting in “less efficient infrastructure deployment.”

The core issue is the conflict between capital costs and hardware costs. As industry observers point out, scaling with cheaper devices often reduces data quality; using expensive hardware requires higher token returns to justify costs, creating a difficult cycle to escape.

V. If an Ordinary User Buys a Weather Station, How Long to Break Even?

WeatherXM’s weather stations retail between $400 and $900, depending on model and accessories. Users purchase, deploy, and connect devices, contributing data in exchange for WXM rewards.

At the current price of $0.039, the break-even period becomes harsh arithmetic. Assuming a device earns $20 worth of WXM per month (already optimistic), payback would take 20 to 45 months. During that time, token prices may fall further, unlock pressure may intensify, devices may fail, and data may become obsolete.

More critically, token rewards depend on secondary market buyers. With only 292 holders and under $20,000 daily trading volume, that assumption itself is fragile.

Conclusion

In early 2026, the WeatherXM team wrote on LinkedIn: “For the DAO and token, market perception depends on execution. We will make execution readable. By the end of 2026, we will provide deeper transparency on governance and value flows. By building rails first and validating demand, we ensure long-term value alignment.”

This statement allows two interpretations.

An optimistic one: the team recognizes the issues and is pivoting toward a genuine business model, with future potential.

A pessimistic one: the team admits that for the past two years it has been “building rails” and “validating demand,” while token and DAO value were never aligned. Promising transparency “by the end of 2026” implies another 10 months of waiting for WXM holders.

From $7.7 million in funding to a 92% price collapse, from 5,000 global stations to 292 token holders, WeatherXM’s story exemplifies a DePIN narrative breakdown. It had real hardware, real funding, real institutional backing—but none of these were sufficient to sustain token value.

When the bubble bursts, one question remains: if a project relies on selling tokens to incentivize data contributions, and that token lacks liquidity and demand, what sustains the project?
WeatherXM’s answer is a pivot to B2B revenue, downplaying the token, and becoming “real-world infrastructure.” Whether this answer works will only be known by the end of 2026. But for those who bought at the 2024 peak—or paid $900 for a weather station in 2025—the answer has already come too late.

At least they now know one thing: projects with glittering funding lists can indeed have communities as cold as a graveyard.

The Chain Reaction of the AI Wave: How Nvidia’s Earnings Could Stir the Crypto Market

Jaden — Thu, 26 Feb 2026 01:55:59 +0000

At 5:00 a.m. Beijing time on February 26, Nvidia will release its fiscal year 2026 fourth-quarter earnings report.

This is not merely a chip company’s earnings disclosure. In 2026,
Nvidia has become one of the world’s most valuable companies, with its stock priced at $192.21 and a market capitalization reaching $4.67 trillion. Its earnings performance is widely regarded as a barometer for the global AI industry.

But what worries Wall Street is not just Nvidia’s own share price. Analysts broadly expect Nvidia to deliver results above expectations—HSBC Research forecasts quarterly revenue of $68 billion, about 3% above market consensus. The issue is that when markets grow accustomed to positive surprises, the marginal impact of those surprises diminishes. More importantly, the ripple effects of Nvidia’s earnings may extend much farther than most anticipate.

I. From Chips to Tokens: A Hidden Transmission Chain

How do Nvidia’s results influence the cryptocurrency market? The answer lies in four words: macro sentiment.

In 2026, the correlation between traditional tech stocks and cryptocurrencies has significantly strengthened. Data shows that during earnings season, Nvidia’s stock movements can explain 40% to 60% of the short-term variance in AI-related crypto assets, with correlation coefficients frequently ranging between 0.6 and 0.85. This means that every movement in Nvidia’s share price echoes somewhere in the crypto market.

The transmission mechanism is not complicated. When Nvidia delivers better-than-expected earnings and raises guidance, the market interprets this as a signal of strong demand for AI infrastructure. Optimism quickly spreads across risk assets, and as “high-beta assets,” cryptocurrencies often amplify gains by two to five times. Conversely, if earnings disappoint or guidance turns cautious, capital tends to flow out of high-risk assets and back into stablecoins or major tokens.

The impact goes beyond overall sentiment; it affects specific narrative sectors. AI-themed tokens such as Render (RNDR), linked to decentralized GPU networks; Fetch.ai (FET) and Bittensor (TAO), associated with inference markets; and The Graph (GRT), related to data indexing, often exhibit heightened volatility sensitivity around Nvidia’s earnings releases.

II. A Warning from the Software Sell-Off: Questioning the Sustainability of AI Spending

However, this earnings report comes against a more complex backdrop than before.

At the start of 2026, Wall Street witnessed a rare collapse in the software sector. The S&P 500 Software & Services Index fell more than 18% within just a few weeks, wiping out nearly $1 trillion in market value. This was not a cyclical correction but a deeper structural anxiety—markets began questioning whether AI Agents are fundamentally rewriting the value distribution logic of the software industry.

Previously, companies generated stable revenue through subscription models. But AI Agents can bypass traditional interfaces, directly understand user intent, and autonomously call APIs across multiple software systems. When Agents become the true entry point, standalone software products are reduced to “underlying capability modules,” significantly weakening software companies’ pricing power.

Why does this matter for Nvidia? Because the investment logic behind AI infrastructure is built on a core assumption: the application layer will continue expanding, driving demand for computing power. Cloud giants have sharply increased AI capital expenditures in recent years, with some companies reporting CapEx growth exceeding 50% year-over-year, betting on explosive AI application growth and rising compute rental demand.

But amid collapsing software valuations, markets are asking: when will these investments be monetized? If the application layer cannot generate sufficient profits to offset high token costs, cloud providers’ demand for computing power rentals may slow. This is a classic “bullwhip effect”: minor fluctuations in end-user demand become amplified into significant order volatility for upstream chip manufacturers.

III. Signals of Hardware Diversification: OpenAI’s “De-Nvidia” Move

At the hardware level, another signal is emerging.

Recently, OpenAI officially released the GPT-5.3-Codex-Spark model based on Cerebras wafer-scale chips. This marks the first substantive move by a leading mainstream model company to reduce reliance on Nvidia’s GPU ecosystem.

Although Nvidia still holds overwhelming market share in the short term and the CUDA ecosystem’s inertia remains strong with high migration costs, the symbolic significance of this shift cannot be ignored. When leading model companies begin exploring diversified chip solutions, the message is clear: no company wants to be locked into a single supplier. As one of Nvidia’s largest customers, OpenAI’s pivot toward Cerebras reflects not only cost or performance considerations but also strategic balance.

This does not mean Nvidia’s orders will immediately decline, but the capital market’s valuation premium for its “irreplaceability” may loosen. In the past, investors were willing to grant Nvidia a higher price-to-earnings multiple because they believed it was the only option. Now, if a second option exists, Nvidia’s pricing power faces constraints.

More importantly, if profitability at the application layer comes under pressure, customers will demand stricter returns on computing investments. At that point, issues of price, efficiency, and substitutability will regain prominence. Cloud providers may increasingly adopt in-house chips or third-party alternatives to lower procurement costs.

IV. Two Scenarios, Two Possibilities

Returning to Nvidia’s earnings itself, the market faces two potential scenarios.

Scenario One: Beat Expectations + Optimistic Guidance.

If Nvidia delivers stronger-than-expected results and Jensen Huang offers upbeat forward guidance during the earnings call—highlighting strong demand for next-generation chips such as Blackwell and Rubin and reiterating that the AI adoption cycle remains in its early stages—optimism will likely spill over quickly. AI-themed tokens could rise 10% to 30% over the following days or weeks, significantly outperforming the broader crypto market. Risk appetite would lift the entire crypto asset class, with capital potentially rotating from stablecoins into major tokens and sector leaders.

Scenario Two: In-Line Results + Cautious Guidance.

If performance merely meets expectations or management adopts a cautious tone—citing margin pressures from rising memory chip prices, intensifying competition, or uncertainty in customer capital expenditure timing—the market may reassess the pace of AI infrastructure investment. AI tokens often experience mean-reversion sell-offs in such cases. Capital may flow out of higher-risk assets, while Bitcoin and Ethereum could see their relative value as defensive core holdings highlighted.

It is worth noting that in three of the past four quarters, despite Nvidia exceeding earnings expectations, its stock price fell the day after the release. Whether this “sell-the-news” dynamic will transmit to the crypto market is something investors should watch closely.

V. Investors Positioned Along the Transmission Chain

For crypto asset holders, Nvidia’s earnings are no longer an external event that can be ignored.

If you hold AI-sector tokens, focus not only on the headline numbers but also on key signals from the earnings call: Is data center revenue continuing to grow? Are comments on cloud capital expenditures positive? What is the margin trend? What are the production capacity and demand expectations for next-generation chips? These details will directly shape the strength of the AI narrative in the coming quarter.

If your portfolio is primarily Bitcoin and Ethereum, the impact of Nvidia’s earnings may be more indirect but remains significant. As an amplifier of macro sentiment, Nvidia’s performance influences overall risk appetite and capital flows. An optimistic report may push funds from stablecoins into major tokens; a pessimistic one could reinforce risk-off sentiment and prompt temporary capital retreat.

Options pricing suggests traders expect Nvidia’s stock to move by as much as 6% this week. Given that Nvidia accounts for roughly 8% of the S&P 500’s weighting, such volatility alone could have broad market implications. When the largest tech stock starts to sway, no risk asset remains untouched.

Conclusion

At 5:00 a.m. Beijing time on February 26, Nvidia’s earnings will be unveiled on schedule.

Regardless of the outcome, one thing is certain: this is no longer just a chip company’s earnings report. In 2026, as AI becomes the core narrative of the global economy and the linkage between tech stocks and cryptocurrencies tightens, each Nvidia earnings release serves as a stress test for confidence in the AI industry.

The results will travel from Nasdaq to Binance, from Wall Street to crypto communities. Investors positioned along the transmission chain need not predict direction, but they must understand the pathways of transmission—and know where they stand when volatility arrives.

This marks Binance’s return to the sensitive tokenized stock sector after nearly five years.

Jaden — Thu, 26 Feb 2026 01:25:24 +0000

The previous attempt was in 2021. In July of that year, Binance issued a brief statement on its website: customers would no longer be able to purchase stock-linked digital tokens. “Stock tokens” would no longer be available on Binance.com effective immediately, and support for any stock tokens would end after October. On the same day, Italy’s market regulator warned that Binance was not authorized to provide investment services in Italy. Earlier, in April, Germany’s financial regulator had indicated that Binance could face fines for offering “stock tokens” without publishing a prospectus.

Five years later, Binance is back. But what is different this time?

I. Regulatory Path: From “Gray Area” to Licensed Operations

In 2021, the core issue facing Binance’s stock tokens was regulatory ambiguity. These tokens were labeled as “stock tokens,” but whether they were securities, derivatives, or other financial instruments lacked clear legal definition. Binance provided services across multiple jurisdictions without corresponding licenses, and regulatory warnings quickly followed.

This time, the situation is entirely different.

Ondo’s tokenized stocks and ETFs are explicitly classified as “structured products” under the regulatory framework of the Abu Dhabi Financial Services Regulatory Authority (FSRA). Binance offers these products through trading on an FSRA-regulated multilateral trading facility. This provides a clear regulatory anchor: the jurisdiction, the applicable legal framework, and the supervising authority are all explicitly defined.

At the same time, the issuance of Ondo’s tokenized securities itself follows a comprehensive compliance structure. In Liechtenstein, the relevant prospectus has been approved by the Financial Market Authority. In the European Union, the products are offered to both professional and retail investors with approved prospectuses and key information documents. Outside the European Economic Area, access is strictly restricted for U.S. and U.K. users.

From “gray area” operations to licensed business, this is the first major difference in Binance’s return to tokenized stocks.

II. Product Architecture Evolution: From Synthetic Stocks to Asset-Backed Securities

In 2021, Binance’s stock tokens were essentially synthetic assets. Users did not purchase actual shares but derivatives linked to stock prices. While this structure was technically easy to implement, it had clear weaknesses: no real asset backing, unclear redemption mechanisms, and ambiguous legal rights.

Ondo’s product architecture is fundamentally different. It adopts a “custody-backed model”: underlying securities are actually held by a U.S.-registered broker, and on-chain tokens maintain a 1:1 peg with the underlying assets through minting and redemption mechanisms. This means token holders theoretically have redemption rights to the underlying assets, subject to KYC and compliance procedures.

Since its launch in September 2025, the Ondo Global Markets platform has surpassed $550 million in total value locked and accumulated over $11 billion in trading volume, with tens of thousands of non-U.S. users. By January 2026, Ondo’s overall TVL exceeded $2.5 billion, making it a leading platform in tokenized U.S. Treasuries and equities.

From “synthetic assets” to “real asset backing,” this marks a fundamental shift in product architecture.

III. Competitive Landscape Shift: Coinbase Opens Stock Trading on the Same Day

February 24 saw another significant development.

On the same day, Coinbase opened stock and ETF trading to all U.S. users. Within a single app, users can trade thousands of stocks and ETFs five days a week, 24 hours a day, with zero commissions, fractional share support, and instant funding in USD or USDC. Coinbase has also partnered with Yahoo Finance, allowing users to execute trades directly from research pages.

Two of the world’s leading crypto exchanges releasing major “crypto + traditional asset” initiatives on the same day is no coincidence.

Coinbase follows a “direct access to traditional markets” path: users remain within the Coinbase app but trade real stocks settled through traditional clearing systems. Binance takes the “tokenization” route: users trade on-chain tokens backed by real assets, structured as financial products. Different paths, same destination: crypto exchanges are evolving into one-stop platforms where users can manage both digital and traditional assets.

IV. Target User Positioning: Non-U.S. Markets and Regulatory Arbitrage

A key detail deserves attention: Ondo’s tokenized stocks and ETFs are not available to U.S. users.

This is intentional. U.S. securities law is extremely stringent. The Securities Act of 1933 requires securities offerings to be registered or exempt. Since Ondo’s tokens are not registered in the U.S., they cannot be offered to U.S. persons.

This means the Binance–Ondo collaboration targets hundreds of millions of users outside the United States. Investors in the EU, Middle East, and Asia can gain economic exposure to U.S. stocks through Binance without opening a U.S. brokerage account, handling foreign exchange conversion, or waiting for T+1 settlement. On-chain transfers operate year-round, while minting and redemption windows align with traditional market hours.

This represents a classic form of regulatory arbitrage: establishing business hubs in relatively open jurisdictions while strictly restricting access in tightly regulated markets. Abu Dhabi, Liechtenstein, Singapore, and Hong Kong are emerging as early liquidity centers for tokenized securities.

V. What Changed Over Five Years

Between 2021 and 2026, several key developments reshaped the tokenized stock sector.

First, regulatory frameworks have become clearer. The FSRA’s classification of structured products, Liechtenstein’s prospectus approvals, and the EU’s tiered investor access models provide compliance templates for tokenized securities.

Second, custody and redemption mechanisms have matured. Ondo’s “broker custody + on-chain token” model has been validated by the market. With $550 million TVL, $11 billion cumulative trading volume, and tens of thousands of users, the data demonstrates genuine demand.

Third, mainstream financial institutions have entered the field. Nasdaq submitted an application to the SEC in 2025 seeking approval to list tokenized stocks. The New York Stock Exchange announced plans in January 2026 to develop a tokenized stock and ETF trading platform. Wall Street is no longer merely observing.

Fourth, crypto exchanges are undergoing strategic transformation. The synchronized actions of Binance and Coinbase signal a shift from “pure crypto trading platforms” to “multi-asset platforms.” Coinbase aims to enable users to manage both cryptocurrencies and stocks within a single app. Binance, through tokenized securities, provides on-chain exposure to U.S. equities for hundreds of millions of users.

Conclusion

On February 24, 2026, Binance announced the launch of Ondo tokenized securities. On the same day, Coinbase opened stock trading to all U.S. users.

Read together, these two developments reveal a broader shift: the boundaries of crypto exchanges are expanding. They are no longer content with being marketplaces for Bitcoin and Ethereum alone but are positioning themselves as gateways for managing all forms of assets—whether crypto-native or traditional.

Five years ago, Binance exited this sector under regulatory pressure. Five years later, it returns with a clear regulatory anchor, a mature asset-backed architecture, and a defined target user base.

This time, it may not leave so quickly.

Five Years After the Bubble Burst: What Remains of Japanese Instant Noodle Giants’ Web3 Experiments?

Jaden — Wed, 25 Feb 2026 01:49:33 +0000

In 2021, the NFT market entered a historic frenzy. Beeple’s digital artwork sold for $69.34 million, CryptoPunks’ floor price surpassed 40 ETH, and total market trading volume soared to $23.7 billion the following year. That same year, Japanese instant noodle giant Nissin Foods made what seemed like a natural move: partnering with the popular NFT project Cool Cats to digitize its iconic Cup Noodles imagery and release them as limited-edition virtual artworks.

It was a classic narrative of a “brand embracing Web3.” Nissin hoped to build a blockchain-based fan club through NFTs, granting token holders rights such as purchasing limited-edition physical products or receiving priority access to offline events. The metaverse wave followed closely behind. Some Japanese food companies opened virtual ramen shops on platforms like Roblox and Decentraland, where players completed tasks to earn points exchangeable for crypto tokens or real-world discount vouchers. Even vending machines began experimenting with crypto payments, allowing customers to buy instant noodles with stablecoins.

Five years later, in 2026, what remains of those high-profile Web3 experiments?

I. Nissin and Cool Cats: A Collaboration Without a Sequel

A news announcement at the end of 2023 offered a window into Nissin’s Web3 efforts. That year, San FranTokyo and Animoca Brands Japan announced a partnership to strategically invest in and expand the Cool Cats IP across Japan and Asia. Plans included producing Cool Cats manga, launching digital collectibles, and integrating the IP into offline scenarios.

Nissin’s name, however, did not reappear.

Cool Cats remains one of the few blue-chip NFT projects that survived the crypto winter. Its vision is to become an entertainment brand driven by community-centered storytelling and innovation, aiming to onboard one million holders within five years. To achieve this, Cool Cats partnered with Ledger for brand education initiatives, collaborated with Hologram to offer 3D avatar experiences via holographic tech, and even worked with Macy's to launch NFT-themed parade balloons.

Yet the co-branded Cup Noodles NFTs between Nissin and Cool Cats are now nearly impossible to find on secondary markets. On mainstream trading platforms such as OpenSea, trading volume has effectively dropped to zero, and floor prices are nonexistent. As one Japanese crypto collector lamented on social media: “I paid 0.1 ETH for that limited-edition Cup Noodles NFT back then. Now I can’t even give it away.”

This was not unique to Nissin. Many traditional brands that entered Web3 during the same period faced similar struggles. Starbucks once launched its high-profile “Odyssey” NFT membership program to boost customer loyalty, but lacking tangible benefits, user engagement remained weak, and the project was eventually scaled back. Disney also shelved its metaverse theme park plans due to high costs and unclear monetization.

These cases point to the same issue: brands saw the hype of Web3 but failed to identify a meaningful integration with their core business. For an instant noodle company, NFTs were ultimately a marketing stunt rather than an organic business extension.

II. Metaverse Ramen Shops: Traffic That Never Converted Into Sales

Japanese food brands’ metaverse ventures similarly faded into obscurity.

Between 2022 and 2023, multiple Japanese brands opened virtual stores on Decentraland and Roblox. One particularly notable example was a well-known food company’s metaverse ramen shop. Users could purchase virtual ramen with cryptocurrency, experience the ritual of “eating” in a digital space, complete quests to earn tokens, and redeem them for real-world discount coupons.

At the time, these initiatives were hailed as exemplary cases of “brand rejuvenation.” Data showed that Gen Z, as digital natives, had growing demand for virtual identities and social consumption. Users aged 18–35 accounted for 70% of virtual goods consumers, spending an average of RMB 250 annually on such goods, with 47% driven by social display needs.

Yet five years later, reality tells a different story. Decentraland’s daily active users have fallen from tens of thousands at its peak to fewer than a thousand. Once-bustling virtual storefronts now sit empty. An operator involved in one metaverse ramen shop revealed: “Within six months of launch, daily visits dropped to double digits. Operating costs far exceeded revenue. Internally, the company stopped discussing the project long ago.”

The core issue was that virtual traffic never effectively converted into physical product sales. Data shows that fewer than 10% of NFT users purchase the associated brand’s physical products. When the strategic goal of turning “digital users into real-world consumers” failed, the metaverse projects lost their commercial rationale.

III. Crypto Vending Machines: Technically Feasible, Commercially Absent

Some unmanned retail cabinets in Japan did experiment with crypto payments for instant noodles. During pilot phases, users could scan a QR code and pay with Bitcoin, Ethereum, or yen-pegged stablecoins, completing the transaction in about ten seconds.

From a technical perspective, this was exciting. Blockchain technology addresses cross-border payments and micro-settlement challenges, theoretically allowing tourists to shop in Japan using familiar cryptocurrencies without exchanging yen.

From a business perspective, however, the experiment has yet to scale. The reason is simple: most consumers do not hold cryptocurrency, and those who do rarely want to use it to buy instant noodles. One tourist in Tokyo wrote online: “To buy a 300-yen cup of noodles, I had to open my cold wallet, scan a code, confirm the signature, and wait for the transaction—three minutes. With cash, it would have taken 15 seconds.”

This reflects a broader misalignment. Food retail is high-frequency, low-cost, and convenience-driven. Crypto payments remain low-frequency, complex, and relatively slow. No number of pilot machines can bridge that structural gap.

The sale of digital asset subsidiary RTFKT by Nike underscores this shift. In 2021, Nike acquired RTFKT as a key step in accelerating its digital transformation, aiming to serve a new generation at the intersection of sports, creativity, gaming, and culture. Four years later, RTFKT was quietly sold, accompanied by investor lawsuits exceeding $5 million. Observers noted that many buyers of RTFKT’s virtual sneakers were crypto investors and metaverse enthusiasts with little demand for Nike’s physical products. The strategy of converting “digital users into real-world consumers” again fell short.

IV. Supply Chain Traceability: The Overlooked Real Value

Among all Web3 experiments, one direction has received the least attention yet may hold the most genuine value.

Japanese instant noodle giants have explored enabling consumers to scan QR codes to view authentic data about wheat origins and production dates via blockchain. Companies like Suntory and Nestlé have been more proactive in this space, while instant noodle brands remain in an exploratory phase.

The logic is straightforward: record the full journey of wheat—from cultivation and harvest to processing and packaging—on-chain to create immutable records. Consumers can verify product authenticity, trace raw material origins, and review inspection reports. For the food industry, this addresses real pain points: food safety, origin fraud, and supply chain transparency.

Unlike NFT marketing or metaverse storefronts, traceability solves genuine problems rather than manufacturing artificial demand. It supports core operations rather than peripheral gimmicks and creates long-term value instead of short-lived hype.

Ironically, this has been the area with the least investment and slowest progress. As one industry insider commented: “Brands are willing to spend millions on NFT marketing because it generates headlines and buzz. Spend the same amount on traceability systems, and consumers don’t see it, media doesn’t cover it, and stock prices don’t rise. So traceability always comes last.”

V. The Answer Five Years Later

In 2026, looking back at Japanese instant noodle giants’ Web3 experiments, the answer becomes clearer.

NFT marketing left little behind. Limited-edition Cup Noodles NFTs now sit idle in a handful of wallets, virtually worthless. Virtual store traffic has evaporated. The metaverse hype has shifted to new concepts. Crypto vending machines proved technically feasible but failed to find scalable commercial scenarios.

Over five years, traditional brands’ understanding of Web3 evolved from frenzy to rational recalibration. Nike’s divestment of RTFKT revealed the logic: when core businesses face pressure and growth slows, high-investment, slow-return, high-risk Web3 ventures become natural targets for strategic retrenchment.

The same logic applies to Japanese instant noodle companies. Food industry margins are thin, and every dollar must be spent carefully. Amid cost pressures and intensifying competition, experiments unrelated to selling noodles struggle to secure sustained investment.

The real value may lie elsewhere. If even half of the resources once devoted to NFT marketing had been invested in supply chain traceability, consumers today might be scanning QR codes to verify the wheat origin of every cup of noodles. It lacks virality, social media buzz, and headline appeal—but it strengthens food safety, builds consumer trust, and enhances brand credibility.

After the bubble bursts, what remains is true value. For Japanese instant noodle giants, five years of Web3 experimentation may offer a simple lesson: the most sensational initiatives were the least essential; the most understated directions may deserve the most serious commitment.

What Happened to the Companies That Tried to Raise “Crypto Kids”?

Jaden — Wed, 25 Feb 2026 01:22:04 +0000

In 2019, a group of people believed that toys and games could nurture the first generation of “crypto natives.”

That year, PlayTable and ToyBox announced a partnership to create physical game toys tracked on-chain. Children would move pieces across a game table; RFID tags inside the pieces would record every move on the blockchain, turning them into unique NFTs.

That same year, CryptoKaiju released its third monster figurine, with each toy’s “DNA” stored on Ethereum—limited, scarce, collectible.

And Pigzbe introduced a pig-shaped crypto wallet. Kids could earn Wollo tokens by doing chores and grow a digital “money tree” inside the app.

That was 2019—the eve of the previous bull market.

Six years later, Bitcoin has risen from $7,000 to a peak of $100,000, fallen, risen again, and fallen again. Ethereum completed the Merge. Layer 2 became standard. NFTs went through a frenzy and then quieted down. But where are those projects that once vowed to “educate the next generation”?

PlayTable & ToyBox: A Partnership Without a Sequel

October 2019, San Francisco Blockchain Week. PlayTable and ToyBox announced their collaboration.

PlayTable built blockchain board game platforms: a table, several pieces embedded with RFID chips, and every movement and outcome recorded on-chain. ToyBox specialized in 3D printing, allowing users to design and print custom game pieces.

The vision: kids design toys, mint them as NFTs, and permanently preserve their game progress.

It sounded cool. Then what?

Then nothing.

PlayTable’s social media stopped updating after 2020. ToyBox’s website shows its last product release in 2021. Neither company officially shut down, but neither released new developments. Their partnership was like a stone tossed into water—the ripples faded, and the surface went still.

Perhaps they were simply too early. In 2019, NFTs had not yet gone mainstream. The ERC-721 standard was only beginning to gain adoption. Most people didn’t even understand what “digital ownership” meant.

For a child to understand blockchain at a game table, their parents first had to understand blockchain. And at the time, there weren’t enough such parents to fill a stadium.

CryptoKaiju: From Monster Figurines to Silence

CryptoKaiju’s story lasted a bit longer.

In 2018, they released their first product: a sentient Bitcoin-themed monster. Then a Bitcoin lizard. Then a monster inspired by CryptoKitties, the hottest NFT project of the time. Each figurine sold for $62—three times the price of mainstream Funko Pop figures. Buyers weren’t playing with them; they were collecting.

CryptoKaiju addressed a real pain point: NFTs are digital and intangible; figurines are physical and displayable. Combining both theoretically satisfied collectors and on-chain purists alike.

But the collectibles market was overcrowded. Funko had thousands of SKUs—Marvel, DC, Disney, NBA, every IP imaginable. CryptoKaiju had only a handful of monsters, no major IP backing, no narrative ecosystem. Its only selling point was “on-chain.”

Once the NFT bubble faded, “on-chain” stopped being a bonus and became a barrier.

CryptoKaiju still exists. Its website still lists those monsters at the same price, inventory marked “limited.” But its social media has been inactive since 2022. It has become a time capsule of the last cycle’s “physical NFT” dreams.

Pigzbe: Successfully Crowdfunded, Then Gone

Pigzbe had the strongest start.

In 2018, it launched a Kickstarter campaign targeting £50,000 and raised £300,000. A pig-shaped hardware wallet paired with an app: children could earn Wollo tokens by doing chores and grow a “money tree.” Tokens could be saved, spent, or transferred to friends. The team emphasized it was a savings tool, not a speculative instrument.

In 2019, Pigzbe began shipping. Early users found the app clunky, hardware connectivity unstable, and Wollo tokens illiquid—essentially unusable. Reviews were sparse. Return shipping cost more than the product, so most customers simply left it in a drawer.

After 2020, the team went silent. The website went offline. Social channels stopped updating. The £300,000 in crowdfunding backers became the last group who remembered the name.

Pigzbe revealed a hard truth: teaching children to use crypto tools requires the tools themselves to be highly usable. Adults using MetaMask still send funds to wrong addresses, lose private keys, or fall for phishing attacks. How could a six-year-old possibly manage?

When the tools aren’t mature, adding educational features only makes the tools harder to use—and the education more likely to fail.

Why “Crypto Kids” Never Emerged

Six years later, today’s active crypto users are largely the same cohort as before—just six years older. The so-called “crypto native generation” never materialized.

Children who played with Pigzbe or held CryptoKaiju figurines in 2019 are now teenagers. Their assets are e-wallet balances—not Bitcoin.

Children do not need crypto assets. They need pocket money, game skins, peer-to-peer transfers—things fiat already handles more simply. Crypto’s advantages—censorship resistance, borderlessness, self-custody—are not children’s needs.

Core blockchain concepts—decentralization, immutability, private keys as ownership—require abstract thinking. A six-year-old who barely understands what a bank is cannot grasp “a bank without a bank.”

All child-oriented crypto products ultimately relied on parents’ wallets. Parents must believe in crypto to pay for it. In 2019, too few did. In 2026, more do—but those early projects are gone.

New Attempts Are Emerging

The story isn’t over.

In 2025, StepN launched a kids version encouraging walking to earn sports points redeemable for NFT gear. In early 2026, OpenSea introduced an educational hub teaching wallet use, transfers, and phishing prevention through gamified tutorials.

Some international schools have begun offering introductory blockchain electives, using materials like Chris Ferrie’s “Blockchain for Babies,” originally published in 2019 and now selling better in its reprint than its first edition.

The fundamental difference from six years ago: these initiatives no longer attempt to “raise crypto natives.” They aim to lower entry barriers.

StepN’s kids version doesn’t explain decentralization—it teaches walking, saving points, and redeeming gear. OpenSea’s education hub doesn’t dissect consensus algorithms—it shows users where to click, how to sign, how to confirm.

The earlier projects aimed too far ahead, trying to leap directly to “the next generation.” Today’s projects aim closer: first teach this generation how to use the tools.

Conclusion

Most of the companies that tried to cultivate “crypto kids” in 2019 have vanished into the cracks of the cycle. PlayTable’s website still exists but is unmaintained. CryptoKaiju’s monsters remain on shelves, but no one talks about them. Pigzbe’s Kickstarter page remains online, its comments filled with “Did anyone receive theirs?”

Yet their ideas did not disappear.

PlayTable’s vision of true player-owned game assets lives on in Web3 gaming. CryptoKaiju’s ambition to bridge physical and digital worlds lives on in physical NFTs. Pigzbe’s attempt to instill savings habits through crypto tools lives on in StepN’s children’s model.

The first wave failed—but they left traces in the water for others to swim farther.

And if one day a generation learns to use a wallet before learning to use mobile payments, they may look back at 2019 and remember both the foolishness and the foresight of those early pioneers.

Customs Halts Illegal Tariffs, So Why Is Your Bitcoin Still Falling?

Jaden — Tue, 24 Feb 2026 03:41:39 +0000

On February 23, 2026, U.S. Customs and Border Protection issued a brief notice: at 12:01 a.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, it would stop collecting all tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. When the news reached the crypto community, many breathed a sigh of relief. The Supreme Court had finally intervened; Trump’s “illegal tariffs” were halted—surely the market should rebound?

But reality says otherwise. As of 11:00 a.m. Beijing time today, Bitcoin was trading at $64,800, down 4.8% over the past 24 hours, briefly approaching the $64,300 mark—its lowest level since February 6. Why didn’t the “good news” lift prices?

The answer lies in another headline: at the same time Customs announced the halt of illegal tariffs, Trump invoked a separate legal authority to impose a new 15% tariff on global goods, set to take effect at 12:01 a.m. on February 24.

Two Headlines, Two Directions

To understand what happened, you have to connect the news from the past three days.

On February 20, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled 6–3 that Trump’s large-scale tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act lacked clear statutory authorization and exceeded executive authority. On the same day the ruling was announced, Trump issued a new executive order under Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974, declaring a 10% import tariff on global goods for 150 days. On February 21, he raised the rate from 10% to 15%.

On February 23, Customs announced it would stop collecting the “illegal tariffs” ruled against by the Court, while confirming that Trump’s newly signed 15% tariff would take effect on the 24th.

So the real meaning of today’s news is this: one set of tariffs has been struck down by the Court, but another has come to life—and it takes effect tomorrow. This is not bullish news; it is merely the final hours before bearish news materializes.

A $175 Billion Accounting Mess

Customs’ suspension involves not just a policy shift, but a massive sum of money. Economists at the Wharton Budget Model of the University of Pennsylvania estimate that the tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act have totaled more than $175 billion.

As of the 21st, hundreds of companies—including major retailer Costco—had filed lawsuits seeking refunds of previously paid tariffs.

Will that money be returned? Trump’s own answer: “For the next five years, we’ll be in court.”

For the crypto market, this money will not flow back in the short term, nor will it become liquidity. The “good news” the market hoped for is merely the beginning of a prolonged legal process.

$60,000: All Eyes Are Here

This morning, Bitcoin briefly fell below the key $65,000 support level. Rachael Lucas, analyst at BTC Markets, put it bluntly: if $65,000 is decisively broken, $60,000 comes into view; on the upside, bulls would need a move to $70,000 to shift the narrative.

Caroline Mauron, co-founder of Orbit Markets, noted that the crypto market remains fragile, with participants looking to $60,000 as support. From geopolitical tensions involving Iran to shifting U.S. tariff policies, macro uncertainty is weighing on markets.

More concerning, CryptoQuant data show the “exchange whale ratio” has risen to 0.64, the highest level since 2015. This means that nearly two-thirds of daily Bitcoin inflows to exchanges are coming from the top ten holders. The current decline is not being driven by panicked retail investors, but by large capital moving early.

Less Than 6 Hours Left: Three Things You Should Know

With less than six hours until 12:01 a.m. on February 24:
First, the new tariffs are certain. Trump’s 15% global tariff under Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974 takes effect early tomorrow and will last 150 days. This is not a possibility—it is imminent.

Second, refunds of the illegal tariffs will take time. The $175 billion in potential refunds could take at least five years of litigation. There will be no short-term liquidity windfall.

Third, $60,000 is the final line of defense. Analysts widely believe that if it breaks, the next target could be $55,000.

While traditional safe-haven assets such as gold and silver are rising—gold futures up nearly 2% to $5,180, silver up 5.7%—Bitcoin is not following a “safe-haven” narrative this time. It is trading under a “risk asset” logic.

Conclusion

At 12:01 a.m. on February 24, the new tariffs take effect. By then, both the “good news” of halted illegal tariffs and the “bad news” of new tariffs will have fully materialized.

No one can say with certainty how the market will move. But one thing is clear: over the past 72 hours, Trump has used two laws, two executive orders, and one tariff hike to complete a “seamless switch” in tariff policy. The Court cut off his left leg; he stood back up on his right.

For Bitcoin holders, keep your eyes on $60,000 in the coming hours. That is not just a candlestick on a chart—it is a door. On this side lies consolidation. On the other side lies the unknown.

$3.8 Billion Pulled Out — Should You Exit Your Bitcoin ETF?

Jaden — Tue, 24 Feb 2026 03:06:41 +0000

On February 23, 2026, a set of figures spread across the crypto community: over the past five weeks, U.S. spot Bitcoin ETFs recorded cumulative net outflows of about $3.8 billion, the longest consecutive outflow period since February 2025. Among them, BlackRock’s IBIT alone accounted for $2.13 billion—more than half of the total.

What does this number mean? Since launch, spot Bitcoin ETFs have
still accumulated $54 billion in net inflows, with total net assets of about $85.3 billion, representing 6.3% of Bitcoin’s total market capitalization. The $3.8 billion outflow equals roughly 7% of previously accumulated inflows.

If you are holding IBIT or other Bitcoin ETFs, your first reaction to this news might be: institutions are leaving—should I leave too? Is this $3.8 billion a signal of structural exit, or just a temporary portfolio adjustment?

Where Did the Money Go, and Who Is Selling?

The data suggests capital has not completely left the crypto market—it is being reallocated. During the same period, spot Ethereum ETFs also recorded five consecutive weeks of net outflows, with about $123 million withdrawn in the most recent week. The simultaneous pressure on both Bitcoin and Ethereum products indicates a broader contraction in digital asset allocation, rather than an issue with a single asset.

More interestingly, during the same timeframe, gold and gold ETFs attracted approximately $16 billion in inflows. This suggests that a large portion of the funds exiting Bitcoin ETFs flowed into traditional safe-haven assets. Institutional investors are doing one thing: reducing risk exposure, shifting capital from highly volatile crypto assets into safer harbors.

Who is selling? The data points to institutions. According to CryptoQuant, the “exchange whale ratio” has climbed to 0.64, the highest level since 2015. This means nearly two-thirds of daily Bitcoin inflows to exchanges are coming from the top ten large holders. The current decline and outflows are not driven by panicked retail investors, but by large capital moving early.

Was October’s Crash Really the Culprit?
Some reports attribute the outflows to lingering institutional caution following last October’s crash. That explanation is only half correct.

On October 10 last year, Bitcoin experienced a large-scale liquidation event, falling sharply from its highs and denting institutional confidence. But that was more than four months ago. If it were merely an aftershock of October’s crash, why are outflows continuing now?

The real reasons are three overlapping macro pressures.
First, geopolitics. Tensions between Iran and the United States continue to escalate, weighing on global risk assets—not just Bitcoin.

Second, trade policy. On February 22, Trump announced that global tariffs would rise from 10% to 15%, effective February 24. Higher tariffs imply rising inflationary pressure, weakening expectations for Federal Reserve rate cuts, and tighter liquidity—bearish for all risk assets.

Third, technical factors. Data shows the average cost basis for Bitcoin ETF investors is around $80,000, while Bitcoin currently hovers near $65,000. This means most ETF investors are sitting on unrealized losses. The MVRV ratio has fallen below 1, indicating the group as a whole is in loss territory. Historically, this situation increases selling pressure, as investors tend to sell near breakeven when prices rebound toward their cost basis.

How Is This Different From Last February’s Five-Week Outflow?

The article mentions a similar five-week outflow last February, totaling $5 billion, after which Bitcoin fell to $75,000 within weeks.

This time, outflows total $3.8 billion—less than before—but there is a crucial difference. During the previous outflow, Bitcoin was still trading at higher levels and later rebounded from $75,000. This time, Bitcoin is already at $65,000, below last year’s low during that episode. That suggests the market floor has shifted lower.

However, it’s not all bad news. Market participants believe this round of outflows reflects phased institutional de-risking and portfolio rebalancing rather than a structural abandonment of crypto assets. In plain terms: institutions haven’t quit the game—they just don’t want to play right now. They may return once conditions improve.

The $60,000 Line of Defense

Everyone is watching one number: $60,000.

Analysts at Orbit Markets say the crypto market remains fragile, with participants hoping for support at $60,000. If $65,000 clearly breaks, $60,000 comes into focus. On the upside, bulls would need a move toward $70,000 to shift market narrative.
Why is $60,000 so important?

From a technical perspective, it is a previous high-volume trading zone where significant positions changed hands. From a psychological standpoint, it is a major round-number threshold—breaking it could shift sentiment from “correction” to “trend reversal.” From a liquidity perspective, many leveraged positions have risk controls set around this level, and a breach could trigger cascading sell pressure.

If $60,000 fails to hold, the next target could be $55,000.

What Should You Do With Your ETF?

Back to the original question: should you sell your IBIT or other Bitcoin ETFs?

First, understand who you are trading against. The main force behind this wave of outflows is institutions making macro-driven portfolio adjustments—not panic selling. If you sell now, you may simply be following behind them.

Second, consider historical positioning. Since launch, spot Bitcoin ETFs still hold $54 billion in cumulative net inflows and $85.3 billion in total assets. The $3.8 billion outflow hurts, but it’s not fatal. As long as the structural inflow base remains, capital can return.

Third, watch the Federal Reserve. Market consensus suggests that if upcoming U.S. macro data weakens and strengthens expectations for rate cuts, digital asset ETFs could see renewed inflows. Until then, institutions are likely to maintain reduced risk exposure. In short: money returns when rate-cut expectations return.

Finally, define your observation point. If holding your ETF keeps you awake at night, your position may be too large—reduce it to a size you can live with. If you choose to hold, watch $60,000. On one side of that door lies consolidation; on the other, uncertainty. If a high-volume breakdown below $60,000 occurs, reassess exposure. Before that, every wave of panic could be the starting point of the next cycle.

Conclusion

At 12:01 a.m. on February 24, Trump’s new tariffs take effect. No one can say with certainty how the market will react.

But one thing is certain: a $3.8 billion outflow is not the end of the crypto story. It is simply the growing pain of an asset class transitioning from “retail frenzy” to “institutional allocation.”

Spot Bitcoin ETFs still hold $54 billion in cumulative net inflows and $85.3 billion in total assets. These numbers do not vanish because of five weeks of outflows.

The next time you see headlines about “Bitcoin ETF bleeding,” remember: it’s not blood—it’s money. Money leaves, and money returns. The real question is not how much your ETF fell today, but whether you understand why it fell—and whether it can come back.

Michael Saylor is speaking again, but this time it’s different

Jaden — Mon, 23 Feb 2026 10:00:00 +0000

At 1 PM on February 24, 2026, in Las Vegas, Michael Saylor will step onto the stage of the Enterprise Bitcoin Conference.

This is already his countless Bitcoin speeches. Over the past five years, he has stood on countless similar occasions, telling the world with the same passion: Bitcoin is digital gold, and companies should put it on their balance sheets.

But this time it’s different.

The conference name has changed from “MicroStrategy World” to “Strategy World.” Saylor’s title has changed from CEO to Executive Chairman. And the core topic of the speech has changed from “why buy Bitcoin” to three unfamiliar words: digital capital, digital credit, digital equity.

If you are still stuck on the impression that “Saylor is shouting buy signals again,” you may miss a turning point that is happening.

From “buying Bitcoin” to “issuing debt”: Saylor’s playbook has changed

Over the past five years, Saylor’s playbook was very simple: issue stock, issue convertible bonds, take the money to buy Bitcoin. MicroStrategy’s stock price became a leveraged ETF for Bitcoin, rising more than Bitcoin and falling more than Bitcoin. This approach was imitated by countless people, and questioned by countless people.

But in 2025, the situation changed.

An annual report on corporate Bitcoin adoption showed that last year, the real important thing was not “which companies bought Bitcoin,” but “which companies learned to finance with Bitcoin.” ATM secondary offerings, private placements, convertible bonds, preferred shares—these capital market tools were turned into an assembly line by a batch of Bitcoin treasury companies.

Saylor said very directly in a January conversation: Bitcoin is evolving into digital capital supporting digital credit, “power is driven by credit, not price.”

Translated into plain language: stop staring at K-line charts, the real battlefield is the credit market.

What exactly is digital credit

If you look at the Strategy World 2026 agenda, you will find a dedicated section called “Risk, return, and portfolio role of Bitcoin credit products.” The discussion is not about whether Bitcoin rises or not, but about how to price and allocate tools such as preferred shares and convertible bonds issued based on Bitcoin in a portfolio.

In 2025, these financial products, called “digital credit” by Saylor, started from zero and developed into a market scale of tens of billions of dollars, paying about $370 million in dividends by the end of the year. Strategy itself issued several series of preferred shares: STRK, STRF, STRD, STRC, STRE. Each has different terms, different durations, and different risk levels.

What does this mean?

It means a Bitcoin treasury company can, like a mini investment bank, build different rungs in its own capital structure: common stock at the top, convertible bonds in the middle, various preferred shares at the bottom. Different types of investors can choose to sit at different positions on the ladder according to their risk preference.

Recently, when Saylor pitched to sovereign wealth funds in the Middle East, he simplified the logic into a number: selling credit instruments equivalent to 1.4% of capital assets can pay dividends forever and continuously increase Bitcoin holdings. This “1.4% forever” formula sounds like magic, but behind it is the full assembly line of capital operations.

Why this speech is worth paying attention to

The opening speech on February 24 is titled “Freedom by Design.” Saylor will, together with Strategy’s CEO, depict a corporate form that is “sovereign, independent, and immortal”—a corporate architecture supported by Bitcoin treasury, free from the constraints of the traditional banking system, and able to respond to AI shocks.

This narrative sounds grand, but there are several questions worth asking.

First, who is this model useful for. Reports show that in 2025, companies holding Bitcoin increased, but only a few can scale capital markets operations. Most companies just bought some Bitcoin and held it, not in the same dimension as Saylor’s playbook.

Second, where is the risk. During market volatility in the second half of last year, some companies were forced to sell Bitcoin to repay debts. Once there are dated fiat liabilities, Bitcoin is no longer an “untouchable” reserve asset. The complex preferred shares and convertible bonds may become nooses during liquidity shortages, and they have not undergone real stress testing.

Third, how does the market price it. Reports mention that credit spreads and risk tiers among Strategy’s different series of preferred shares are often inconsistent over the long term. This indicates the market has not yet learned to price such assets. When pricing is chaotic, it is an opportunity for those who understand, and a trap for those who do not.

What Saylor wants to prove

When Saylor stands on stage next week, he will no longer hold a “Bitcoin whitepaper,” but a set of financial statements and capital structure diagrams.

What he wants to prove is no longer “how high Bitcoin will rise,” but one thing: a company using Bitcoin as its underlying asset can, like a traditional financial institution, issue products at different tiers, attract different types of money, and form a self-circulating capital ecosystem.

If this logic works, Bitcoin’s role at the corporate level changes. It is no longer a number on the balance sheet, but the base of an engine. On top of the base, you can layer stocks, bonds, preferred shares, and various things not yet invented.

Of course, this logic may not work. The capital market game is much more complex than buying Bitcoin. Liquidity, pricing, risk control, regulation—each link may get stuck.

But at least one thing is certain: Saylor is no longer satisfied with being the “first to buy Bitcoin.” He wants to be the definer of a new asset class.

Conclusion

1 PM, February 24, Las Vegas.

When Saylor steps on stage, the audience may be the most concentrated group of “Bitcoin corporate believers” in the world. Their companies either have already bought Bitcoin, are considering buying Bitcoin, or are learning to issue debt and finance like Saylor.

They will hear, ask questions, worry, and this will be a window to observe the market over the next few months.
After all, when a person starts talking about “digital credit” instead of “digital gold,” the game behind him has already changed.

Less Than 24 Hours Left: Trump’s Tariff Hike—What Should You Do with Your Bitcoin?

Jaden — Mon, 23 Feb 2026 07:42:13 +0000

On February 22, 2026, Trump posted on social media, calling the Supreme Court's ruling "ridiculous and botched" and announcing an immediate increase in the 10% global tariff imposed on many countries to 15%. The new tariffs will take effect at 12:01 a.m. EST on February 24. Following the post, Bitcoin dropped 4.8% within 24 hours, briefly approaching $64,300—its lowest point since February 6—while Ethereum fell even more, over 5%. Many are staring at the charts, wondering the same thing: What should I do now?

What Does Trump’s Tariff Hike Have to Do with My Bitcoin?

This is the most confusing part for newcomers: Why would a U.S. president's tariff policy cause Bitcoin, thousands of miles away, to plummet? The answer lies in two words: macro expectations. When Trump announces a tariff hike, the market anticipates a chain reaction: higher tariffs make imported goods more expensive, which pushes up inflation. As inflation rises, the Fed may hesitate to cut rates or even consider hiking them, reducing liquidity in the market and causing risk assets to fall. Over the past year, Bitcoin has increasingly exhibited characteristics of a "high-risk asset." It is no longer "digital gold" hedging against all risks but rather a "high-beta asset" closely correlated with U.S. tech stocks and liquidity conditions. When the dollar strengthens, it falls; when rate hike expectations rise, it falls; when capital seeks safety, it falls even harder. This time is no exception. Trump posted on Saturday, and by early Monday in Asia, Bitcoin had broken below $65,000. A research analyst at Delta Exchange put it bluntly: Trump's announcement of a 15% global tariff rattled global risk assets, triggering a sharp risk-off shift. So the answer is: Your Bitcoin wasn't directly confiscated by Trump; it was frightened by macro expectations.

$60,000: A Level That Has Everyone Holding Their Breath

Right now, the entire market is fixated on one number: $60,000. The co-founder of Orbit Markets noted that the crypto market remains fragile, with participants pinning hopes on the $60,000 support level. An analyst from BTC Markets was more specific: $65,000 is a key support level; if it's decisively broken, $60,000 becomes the next target. Why is $60,000 so important? Technically, $60,000 is a dense trading zone from previous consolidations, where substantial volume changed hands, forming a natural support barrier. Psychologically, it's a round-number milestone; breaking it could shift market sentiment from a "pullback" to a "trend reversal," triggering more panic selling. From a capital perspective, many leveraged positions have risk controls set here, and a breach could lead to cascading liquidations. If $60,000 also fails, analysts say the next target could be $55,000. However, there's also good news: On the weekly chart, Bitcoin remains within an ascending channel. As long as it stays above $60,000, the medium-term bullish structure isn't broken. In plain English: As long as $60,000 holds, it's not yet the worst-case scenario.

Why This Time Is Different

Some might say: It's not like this is Trump's first time tinkering with tariffs, nor Bitcoin's first dip. Why all the fuss? What's different this time is that the legal foundation has been pulled away. On February 20, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that Trump's previous large-scale tariff measures, implemented under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, lacked clear legal authorization. The significance of this ruling isn't just "canceling some tariffs"; it's about negating the president's authority to unilaterally impose broad tariffs using emergency powers during peacetime. What does this mean? It means tariffs have shifted from "definite high-intensity weapons" to "temporary tools under legal risk." Trump is now reimposing tariffs under Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974, but this provision has a time limit—a maximum of 150 days—and requires global uniform application, not targeting specific countries. If he wants to extend them beyond that, he needs congressional approval, which is no easy feat. For the market, the biggest fear isn't necessarily high tariffs, but uncertain rules of the game. Whether the tariffs are legal, whether they'll be extended, or whether they'll be overturned by the courts again—all of this enters a phase of judicial and political wrangling. This kind of institutional uncertainty often triggers asset price volatility more than economic variables themselves.

Less Than 24 Hours Left: What Should You Do?

With less than a day until the new tariffs take effect, if you're anxiously watching the charts and wondering whether to sell, buy the dip, or just stay put, here are three perspectives for your consideration. First, don't chase pumps or dumps. Panic selling and FOMO buying are the fastest ways to lose money. The market has already priced in a lot of panic ahead of the tariff deadline. If you sell now, you're likely selling near the bottom. Second, watch the $60,000 level. This is the most important psychological and technical support right now. If you hold spot positions and don't want to make frequent moves, use this level as an observation point: Hold as long as it isn't decisively broken; consider reducing positions only if it breaks down on high volume. Third, manage your positions and avoid leverage. In times of macro uncertainty like this, leverage is your worst enemy. A slight adverse move could force liquidation. If you're currently holding leveraged positions, now might be the time to consider reducing risk exposure. Analysts generally believe Bitcoin needs to reclaim $70,000 to reverse the current pessimistic narrative. Until then, the market will likely remain in a state of high volatility and directionless oscillation.

Conclusion

At 12:01 a.m. on February 24, the new tariffs take effect. No one can say for sure how the market will react by then. Whether Trump will post again, whether Congress will step in early, or whether the courts will intervene again—all of these are unknowns. But one thing is certain: In an uncertain market, longevity matters more than quick gains. If your positions keep you up at night, reduce them to a level where you can sleep soundly. If you decide to hold, mentally prepare for amplified volatility. If you're on the sidelines, there's no need to rush in—opportunities will always come, but once principal is lost, it's truly gone. With less than 24 hours to go, I hope this article helps clarify your thoughts rather than add to your anxiety.