Prix de Unstable TitUST

Bitcoin Manipulation By Jane Street? Ex-Wall Street Market Maker Says No The latest Jane Street debate on X is meeting a blunt rebuttal from Ari Paul. The BlockTower founder, who says he used to work as a Wall Street market maker 15 years ago, argues that Bitcoin’s failure to push higher is better explained by spot sell-side than by a long-running suppression campaign. Paul’s answer was direct. “In short: no,” he wrote, before adding that market makers do “game the system” in many ways, but that in liquid products such as BTC ETFs, the effect is usually limited to “meaningful but small costs to consumers,” not a lasting distortion of the underlying asset price. He framed the distinction as one between short-term microstructure games and a broader claim that one firm kept Bitcoin from reaching far higher levels. Bitcoin Manipulation? Small Moves, Fast Reversions To make that case, Paul pointed to the kind of behavior traders on desks know well. “For example, market makers may manipulate the price to run stop limit orders,” he wrote. “But that’s typically on an intraday timeframe. So they might run an asset like MSFT or BTC 2% in a weak market to trigger stops, then a few seconds or minutes later, the price is mostly back to where it was before.” In his telling, that is still manipulation, but it is not the same as structurally pinning Bitcoin below some imagined fair value for months. That argument lands against a more conspiratorial narrative now circulating online, why Bitcoin is not already at $150,000. Paul’s pushback does not deny that large Wall Street firms can shape short-term trading conditions. It rejects the stronger claim that such activity is the central explanation for Bitcoin’s broader price path. Paul’s core point was much less dramatic. “Why is BTC down? Because OGs sold tens of thousands of coins, and not enough people wanted to buy them.” That line closely matched the view from renowned on-chain analyst James Check, who argued that “Jane Street didn’t suppress the Bitcoin price” and that “HODLers all did,” by selling large amounts of spot into the market. e added: “My point has always been the same; manipulation is a thing that has always, will always, and is indeed the literal job of large wall street firms. However, you do not need that as the central argument to explain why the price didn’t go higher, nor why it went lower. That can be well and truly explained by looking at spot sell-side.” Paul did leave room for exceptions. He wrote that there are rare cases where Wall Street manipulates an asset in major ways over a longer period, but said those cases are uncommon because they are risky and harder to profit from than people assume. “There are rare exceptions where Wall Street manipulates an asset in major ways longer term, but this is quite rare because it’s very risky and not as easy as it looks to profit. 99% of the time that an asset isn’t moving like you want and people are crying “manipulation”, it’s best to embrace the cognitive dissonance, avoid the “easy way out” of blaming manipulation,” Paul wrote. That leaves the current Jane Street argument in a narrower frame. Yes, large firms can influence intraday flows, liquidity, and execution quality. But based on Paul’s account, that is a long way from proving that one market maker is the reason Bitcoin is not trading materially higher. Notably, the Jane Street theory picked up fresh attention after Terraform Labs’ wind-down administrator sued the firm in Manhattan federal court, alleging insider trading tied to Terra’s 2022 collapse. The complaint says Jane Street used a private chat called “Bryce’s Secret” to obtain non-public information and alleges an 85 million UST trade on Curve that helped trigger a selloff; Jane Street has denied wrongdoing and called the case opportunistic. At press time, BTC traded at $66,090 $BTC $ETH $LTC

Jane Street and Terra: 9 Minutes, $40B Gone Terraform’s wind-down administrator sued Jane Street in Manhattan federal court, alleging material non-public info was funneled through a private backchannel chat (“Bryce’s Secret”). The core allegation is a timing edge: May 7, 2022 Terraform pulls ~$150M UST from Curve’s 3pool. Minutes later, a wallet alleged to be linked to Jane Street pulls ~$85M from the same pool before the move was public. If true, this is the anatomy of a peg break: 1) Liquidity is confidence made visible. 2) Pull depth → spreads widen → slippage spikes. 3) A $1 peg becomes a bank run. 4) First mover exits near $1. 5) Last mover funds the exit. Terra’s ~$40B crater didn’t stay inside Terra. It hit the crypto credit stack (3AC/Celsius/etc.). FTX later marked the low. BTC traded from the ~$40k zone to the ~$16k zone during the unwind. Not because the Fed “changed its mind that week.” Because opaque leverage + forced selling + information advantage is a demolition chain. And people still wonder why  $BTC exists.

Terraform Labs Sues Jane Street for Insider Trading in $40B Terra-Luna Crash A former Terraform intern allegedly created a secret chat called "Bryce's Secret" to leak nonpublic info to Jane Street. Minutes after Terraform withdrew $150M UST from Curve3pool. A Jane Street-linked wallet pulled $85M UST before it went public. These trades allegedly accelerated the crash while Jane Street escaped massive losses. Jane Street co-founder + 2 employees named as defendants. A separate $4B claim also filed against Jump Trading. Jane Street denies everything. Do Kwon is currently serving 15 years in prison. This case could redefine insider trading rules in crypto forever.

Terra ($LUNA ) Ecosystem — Data-Based, Short & War-Oriented The Terra collapse wasn’t emotional — it was mathematical. Key Numbers (Reality Check) • LUNA price: from ~$119 (Apr 2022) → ~$0.0001 at bottom → ~99.99% drawdown • Supply: from ~350M LUNA → 6.5+ trillion LUNA after death spiral • TVL: from $30–40B peak → <$200M post-collapse → >99% capital destruction • UST: depegged from $1 → ~$0.02 at lows • Current activity: volume spikes mostly come from retail speculation, not ecosystem growth What This Means • Tokenomics were structurally broken, not unlucky • LUNA absorbed losses but had no real demand floor • Any pump since is liquidity-driven, not usage-driven Community vs Reality • Social engagement stays high • On-chain usage and dev activity stay flat or declining ____________ Bull case: extreme volatility = tradable hype asset Bear case: irreversible trust loss + dead capital base ____________ If 99% of capital is gone and supply exploded 18,000x, 👉 Are you investing — or just gambling on memory? Pick a side. $BTC $ETH

Earlier this year, Gold Car Rent, a corporate vehicle rental company in Dubai, sought growth capital to expand its fleet and meet rising demand from long-term corporate clients. Instead of turning to traditional bank financing, the company raised capital through 8lends, a Web3-based crowdlending platform that connects global investors with real-world business loans. The financing was backed by collateral, specifically a fleet of Mercedes-Benz Vito vans owned by Gold Car Rent, which were appraised and used to secure the loan. The loan capital itself was released in stages, with each tranche unlocked only after the required documents and invoices were verified. Repayments are made from operating income generated by long-term B2B rental contracts. Under this structure, investors can see that returns are tied to business performance rather than a complex yield structure. For the company, the arrangement provided access to global capital without lowering underwriting standards. Gold Car Rents story shows whats quietly shifting in the DeFi yield segment through peer-to-peer (P2P) lending mechanisms. To learn more about this, BeInCrypto recently spoke with Aleksander Lang, CFO Co-Founder of Maclear the company behind 8lends. We explored why investors are increasingly turning toward stable-income crowdlending, how platforms like 8lends are adapting institutional credit practices to Web3 infrastructure, and whether this model can become a sustainable source of passive income for crypto investors. Two Models, Two Risk Profiles Peer-to-peer lending or crowdlending existed long before crypto and DeFi. Marketplace lending platforms spent years connecting investors with small businesses that traditional banks wouldnt touch. The pitch was simple: earn fixed returns by funding real economic activity. But the model also comes with trade-offs. Because many P2P platforms allow borrowers who fall outside conventional bank criteria, default risk can be higher than in traditional lending. Credit losses depend largely on the platforms underwriting standards, loan structure, and recovery processes, as well as the underlying business performance of borrowers. At the same time, many traditional P2P platforms are constrained by jurisdictional boundaries, limiting both investor access and cross-border diversification and tying risk management and enforcement to local legal frameworks. Decentralized finance (DeFi) approached the same problem from a different angle. DeFi lending protocols allow users to lend and borrow crypto assets through smart contracts, often using overcollateralization and automated liquidations to manage default risk. By removing intermediaries and geographic restrictions, DeFi dramatically expanded access to lending markets and introduced different forms of capital efficiency. In its early growth phase, parts of the DeFi yield ecosystem blurred the line between lending income and incentive-driven returns. Some protocols supplemented organic lending yields with token emissions or relied on optimistic assumptions about liquidity and collateral stability. Anchor Protocol on Terra became the most visible example. During its prime era, it offered roughly 20% APY on UST deposits by combining lending activity with subsidized rewards. When the underlying stablecoin failed in 2022, the entire structure collapsed. Why Investors Are Rethinking Yield After DeFis Boom and Bust However, Terras failure forced the industry to reassess how sustainable yields were being generated. Lang observed the same shift taking shape among investors. While confidence in high-yield narratives eroded, he noted that users did not reject crypto itself. People still liked crypto and all its advantages, like convenience, speed, and global access, but after seeing so many high-yield projects fall apart, their mindset started to change. When you see a platform promise 20% risk-free returns and then collapse overnight, or a big service suddenly freezes withdrawals, it leaves a significant impression. So instead of chasing the next APY, users began looking for products backed by real business activity. They wanted something they could clearly understand: where the money comes from, who the borrower is, and how the returns are generated. Real cash flow, not slogans or inflated marketing campaigns, Lang opined. Lang argued Web3 crowdlending sits between those two worlds. Rather than reinventing yield, it applies established lending mechanics while using blockchain infrastructure to expand access, standardize transparency, and make performance verifiable across borders. It allows people to stay in the crypto space while getting something predictable and easy to understand, based on actual performance rather than promises, he told BeInCrypto. Bringing Credit Discipline On-Chain Lang then explained how 8lends combines elements of DeFi and traditional crowdlending in its operational model. While the platform was developed by a team with extensive experience in Swiss P2P lending through Maclear, it was not designed as a direct extension of a Web2 platform. Instead, the focus was on rethinking how the credit process should be structured and presented in a decentralized environment, taking into account the different expectations of investors across both ecosystems. He said: In traditional lending, people rely on regulation and reputation, but on-chain users expect clarity first. They want to understand how decisions are made. So we focused on making the core elements of the process more visible: what information we analyze, how borrowers are assessed, and how risks are monitored. Lang also recognized that Web3 users are accustomed to updates as they happen. Rather than waiting for a final outcome, they want to follow progress along the way. As a result, 8lends reorganized how information is presented so investors can track developments in a clear and timely manner, while preserving the rigor of the underwriting process. Consistency was the final requirement. Lang stated that Maclear built its reputation on strict, repeatable procedures, including document checks, financial analysis, and ongoing monitoring. He added: Translating that level of operational structure into a blockchain environment required standardizing how information is displayed and verified so users can review the logic themselves. For the company, this is where blockchain provides tangible benefits. Funding flows, repayments, and performance data can be shown as they occur. Smart contracts apply the same rules consistently, reducing operational risk. At the same time, the system remains accessible to users globally, while preserving the same credit discipline behind the underwriting process. Proof of Loan: How 8LNDS Supports Participation Without Replacing Yield In addition to utilizing blockchain infrastructure to improve transparency and access, 8lends also introduced 8LNDS, a native token, to support participation within the platforms Web3 crowdlending ecosystem. Unlike many DeFi-native tokens, 8LNDS is designed to reinforce engagement and long-term participation rather than alter the economics of the lending product itself. Lending yields on 8lends remain fixed, asset-backed, and tied to borrower performance. The token operates alongside that structure, supporting rewards, loyalty mechanics, and additional benefits for active lenders across both traditional and Web3-native audiences. It didnt launch through a public sale or a push for early liquidity. Instead, it began as an earn-only token with distribution tied directly to activity on the platform, Timoshkin explained. 8LNDS is distributed through platform participation via 8lends Proof of Loan mechanism, appearing when users fund real-world business loans. In this structure, token distribution reflects actual lending activity, while investor returns continue to come solely from loan repayments generated by operating companies. What Web3 Crowdlending Needs to Prove As the conversation drew to a close, Lang outlined the qualities he believes Web3 crowdlending must demonstrate to reach mainstream adoption. Transparency around borrowers and loan terms, clear and understandable risk assessment, and returns generated from real repayment activity rather than incentives were central to that view. He also stressed the importance of being honest about liquidity, noting that fixed-term loans should behave like fixed-term investments, not products that promise instant exits. If this space wants to grow, it needs to rely on real fundamentals, not on marketing about high yields. Thats the only way a stable-income model can last in a market that already knows what happens when transparency is optional. For Lang, the clearest signal of success would come from changes in investor behavior rather than headline growth metrics. When crypto investors begin treating business-backed lending as a standard portfolio component, evaluated on credit fundamentals instead of yield promises, it would indicate that Web3 crowdlending has entered a more mature phase. And it doesnt take much to see that shift. If even 5% to 10% of the average Web3 portfolio ends up in real-world lending, thats already a signal that crowdlending has moved from a niche idea into a normal passive-income option, he noted. Read the article at BeInCrypto