USDTの‌価格USDT

As we approach the end of 2025, the landscape for cryptocurrencies has experienced a tumultuous year marked by significant market activities. A notable concern has been the excessive selling by short-term investors, a point emphasized by on-chain analyst Darkfost. A recent assessment from Bloomberg provides a fresh perspective on the current state of the crypto market. Contents Data Manipulation Concerns Current Market Dynamics Data Manipulation Concerns Earlier days saw Anıl warning investors about FUD (Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt) and data blindness when 800,000 BTC were moved. Darkfost from CryptoQuant highlights the misinterpretations concerning short-term investors. He argues that the perception of them “selling like crazy” is misleading, largely due to skewed interpretations of on-chain metrics. The movement of approximately 800,000 BTC by Coinbase has significantly impacted on-chain data. Coinbase eliminated and created new LTH (Long-Term Holders) UTXOs while Bitcoin $90,357.50 was trading around $85,000. This action skewed datasets across platforms, affecting metrics dependent on UTXO such as time/value cohorts and realized values. Despite reports implying rampant selling by LTHs, including coverage by Bloomberg, Darkfost insists that a deeper examination reveals otherwise. Adjusted data shows LTH distribution aligns with typical behavior observed throughout the market cycle. Thus, much of the panic surrounding the market may be overstated. Although the outlook remains uncertain in the short term, there is potential for relief once the panic subsides, possibly post-January FUD. Current Market Dynamics Bloomberg’s recent report, focusing on crypto hedge funds, reveals that these funds have faced their toughest year since 2022. Fundamental and altcoin-focused strategies suffered approximately a 23% decline, with only market-neutral funds achieving about 14.4% gains. The influx of institutional capital via ETFs and structured products narrowed traditional arbitrage opportunities. This shift prompted many funds to reduce altcoin positions and pivot toward DeFi, where structural opportunities persist. On-chain analyst Maartunn, suggests that despite poor stock performance, Strategy’s push for more BTC through MSTR created selling pressure. After achieving ATH (All-Time High), MSTR shares plummeted to a 442-day low. Potential fund reclassification by MSCI on January 15 could trigger more withdrawals. There is a silver lining with the rejection of USDT dominance at the 6.5% resistance level, previously indicating an altcoin rally from a market low. As USDT dominance retracts, altcoin values are seeing an uptick. Altcoin valuations and market capitalizations are benefiting from decreased USDT dominance. This resistance rejection bodes well for future growth prospects. Overall market volatility remains influenced by current news cycles, and the CryptoAppsy‘s news section can serve as a helpful tool for navigating these dynamic conditions.

In brief Police seized more than 9,000 counterfeit Korean won bills linked to in-person crypto trades. Three men were arrested last year and two have been indicted. Similar counterfeit-cash crypto scams have also occurred in Hong Kong. Decrypt’s Art, Fashion, and Entertainment Hub. Discover SCENE Police in South Chungcheong province are investigating a criminal group accused of manufacturing counterfeit Korean won bills and using them to defraud cryptocurrency traders during in-person transactions. According to Chosun Ilbo, the group was found in possession of 9,188 fake 50,000-won notes, with a value of about 459.4 million won ($330,000), last year. Investigators said the suspects printed the bills using a color printer and contacted crypto traders online to arrange face-to-face exchanges of cash for digital assets. The scheme unraveled when a prospective victim noticed the poor quality of the notes during a meeting in Asan City and refused to complete the transaction, instead alerting police. The use of counterfeit cash in crypto transactions is not new. Such scams exploit the speed and informality of face-to-face trades, where large sums of money can change hands quickly and verification of banknotes may be limited. Hong Kong, in particular, saw a wave of similar cases last summer, showing how counterfeit currency has become a recurring risk in over-the-counter crypto markets. amp;amp;lt;span data-mce-type="bookmark" style="width:0px;overflow:hidden;line-height:0" class="mce_SELRES_start"amp;amp;gt;amp;amp;lt;/spanamp;amp;gt;amp;amp;lt;span data-mce-type="bookmark" style="width:0px;overflow:hidden;line-height:0" class="mce_SELRES_start"amp;amp;gt;amp;amp;lt;/spanamp;amp;gt; In one Hong Kong case in July 2024, police arrested three people accused of defrauding a businessman of $400,000 in USDT in Mong Kok, a popular commercial district. Officers seized more than 11,000 counterfeit banknotes in that raid, exceeding the total number of fake notes confiscated in Hong Kong during the entire previous year. Two months earlier, police in the same area arrested three cryptocurrency exchange staff members for allegedly conning a customer out of HK$128,000 ($16,000) in a USDT-for-cash transaction. The suspects used “hell money,” fake notes printed on joss paper traditionally burned in rituals that are easily available at shops in Hong Kong, to deceive the victim. In the South Korea case, three men in their 30s and 40s, identified only as Mr. A, Mr. B and Mr. C, were arrested in connection with the scheme. Police arrested Mr. A and Mr. C last October and November, while Mr. B fled to Cambodia. An Interpol red notice was issued for his arrest and he was detained upon reentering South Korea through Incheon Airport from China on Nov. 5 this year. Investigators said the suspects claimed they committed the crimes to cover living expenses while unemployed. Mr. A and Mr. B have been indicted, while Mr. C remains under investigation after a bench warrant was initially rejected. Police said they plan to reapply once supplementary investigations are complete. The officers involved in the case received an award for preventing the spread of counterfeit cash from the Bank of Korea on Friday. The central bank, which presents the prizes twice a year, said the team made a significant contribution to apprehending counterfeiters. In a statement, the bank urged the public to inspect cash carefully in well-lit areas, check hologram movement while counting bills, and report suspected counterfeit money immediately. It also pointed to its revamped counterfeit money detection app as a tool for verifying banknotes. The case comes amid a broader rise in crimes linked to in-person interactions. Over the past year, authorities and security experts have warned about an increase in so-called “wrench attacks,” which are physical assaults aimed at forcing victims to unlock crypto wallets or transfer funds. Jameson Lopp, chief technology officer of crypto security firm Casa, has documented at least 66 physical crypto-related assaults in 2025 so far, including kidnappings and home invasions targeting investors, influencers and even their family members.

A fresh $4 billion lawsuit tied to Terraform Labs’ collapse is becoming a test of what a stablecoin’s $1 promise means amid the adoption of dollar tokens as payment rails. The case is about more than who pays for a 2022-era failure. It also decides whether a “stable” price can be maintained by arrangements that everyday users never see. That debate is unfolding as regulators rewrite rules to treat stablecoins as money-like instruments for settlement, remittances, and merchant payouts. A court-appointed plan administrator overseeing Terraform’s wind-down sued Jump, seeking $4 billion. The administrator alleges the firm supported TerraUSD’s peg through trading and undisclosed arrangements, then benefited through discounted Luna-related terms, according to The Wall Street Journal. Jump has denied the claims. Stablecoins move from reserve theory to real-world stress tests The question for users is what happens when “stability” depends on market structure, incentives, and counterparties, not only on an issuer’s reserves and redemption mechanics. That question is landing as stablecoins move closer to consumer-visible rails. Visa expanded USDC settlement for U.S. banks, enabling around-the-clock settlement for participating institutions. SoFi announced a dollar-pegged token and positioned it for settlement and remittances. In parallel, the market is already large enough that disruptions translate into real frictions. DefiLlama shows the global stablecoin supply at around $309 billion, with USDT accounting for roughly 60%. TRM Labs has reported that stablecoins have surpassed $4 trillion in volume, evidence that they already function as settlement plumbing even when users do not label them as such. Terraform’s collapse remains a reference point because it spotlights a failure mode that “are reserves real” does not fully capture. A stablecoin can stay near $1 because redemptions anchor it, because reserve quality supports those redemptions, or because arbitrage narrows gaps. It can also hold because a powerful liquidity provider has incentives to trade in a way that defends the peg. The administrator’s allegations put that last channel at the center. The claim is that stabilization depended on a trading counterparty acting quietly and potentially in conflict with what users believe they are buying. If courts validate claims that a peg was supported through undisclosed incentives and trading programs, the compliance perimeter could expand beyond issuer balance sheets. It could also include stabilization agreements and market conduct. Regulators tighten the perimeter around stablecoins as legal scrutiny intensifies Regulation is already moving in that direction, with stablecoins being pulled into mainstream financial rulebooks rather than treated as exchange collateral. President Donald Trump signed the GENIUS Act into law on July 18, 2025, creating a federal framework to facilitate the mainstream adoption of “payment stablecoins.” The OCC also conditionally approved national trust bank charters for several crypto firms, a step toward regulated issuance, custody, and distribution channels. In the UK, the Bank of England consultation on regulating systemic stablecoins has included public discussion of consumer-facing constraints. Reuters also reported Deputy Governor Sarah Breeden warned that diluting stablecoin rules could damage the financial system. Globally, the permissioning environment is diverging. China’s central bank has reiterated a crackdown stance and flagged stablecoin concerns, a posture that can shape cross-border availability and off-ramp access. That policy mix can manifest as product limits and higher friction, even if the stated goal is safer, money-like tokens. Tighter rules can mean fewer stablecoins supported in major apps, more KYC checks at cash-in and cash-out, and transfer caps in some jurisdictions. It can also mean wider spreads and higher fees as compliance and liquidity costs are factored into pricing. The Terraform allegations add a specific lever regulators can pull: disclosure and constraints around stabilization arrangements. That includes market-maker contracts, liquidity backstops, incentive programs, and any “emergency support” triggers, so a $1 claim does not rely on hidden counterparties. Why market structure and reserve trust matter more than the headline lawsuit There is also a market-quality channel that tends to hit retail first. In June, Fortune reported the CFTC has been probing Jump Crypto and described the firm as a major liquidity provider. If a top market maker retrenches under litigation and regulatory pressure, order books can thin, slippage can rise, and volatility can spike around stress events. The everyday effect is mechanical: worse execution and faster liquidation cascades during drawdowns, even for traders who never hold stablecoins directly. Reserve governance remains part of the trust equation as well. SP recently downgraded its assessment of Tether, citing concerns about reserve composition. That matters because consumer adoption does not hinge only on whether a token prints $1 on a chart. It also hinges on whether redemption confidence holds through shocks, and whether market structure props up that confidence in ways users understand. Forecasts help explain why this case is being watched as a forward-looking test rather than a post-mortem. Standard Chartered has projected that stablecoins could grow to about $2 trillion by 2028 under the new U.S. framework. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent projects tenfold growth toward roughly $3 trillion by the end of the decade. At that scale, peg integrity becomes a consumer protection and financial stability issue. The line between issuer risk and market-structure risk becomes harder to ignore. Why the Jump–Terraform lawsuit could reshape stablecoin trust and oversight Scale and reference Metric User-facing consequence DefiLlama snapshot ~$309.7B stablecoin supply, USDT ~60% share Stablecoins already sit inside transfers, exchange settlement, and app balances Standard Chartered via Reuters ~$2T by 2028 More use in settlement raises expectations for disclosure and controls Bessent via Barron’s ~$3T by end of decade Stabilization methods draw scrutiny similar to other payment systems Even without a definitive court ruling, the lawsuit could shape norms by forcing them into the open. A settlement could limit precedent but still pressure exchanges, issuers, and market makers to strengthen disclosures and internal controls around peg support. Discovery that substantiates the administrator’s account could invite follow-on suits and rulemaking that treats stabilization arrangements as material facts for payment-grade stablecoins. A dismissal would narrow the immediate path for restitution against intermediaries. It would not remove the policy focus now forming around how pegs are maintained as stablecoins move deeper into bank settlement and consumer-adjacent payments. The post Terraform’s $4 billion Jump lawsuit exposes the hidden “shadow trading” that may be artificially holding up stablecoin prices appeared first on CryptoSlate.

Get ready for a seismic revelation at the intersection of high finance, scandal, and cryptocurrency. The U.S. Department of Justice is poised to release hundreds of thousands of Jeffrey Epstein files on December 19th. This massive document dump promises to shed light on the disgraced financier’s powerful network. However, a startling detail has emerged: these records reportedly contain notes from a meeting about Bitcoin at Epstein’s Manhattan mansion, involving former Treasury Secretary Larry Summers and Tether co-founder Brock Pierce. What Do the Jeffrey Epstein Files Contain? According to a report by Walter Bloomberg, the impending release centers on a vast trove of documents related to the Jeffrey Epstein case. The files are expected to detail the scope of Epstein’s associations and operations. While the primary focus remains on the serious criminal allegations, a fascinating subplot involves the digital asset world. The documents are said to chronicle a specific meeting where the future of money was discussed. This meeting reportedly took place at Epstein’s now-infamous Upper East Side mansion. The attendees were two figures from seemingly different spheres: Larry Summers, a pillar of traditional economic policy, and Brock Pierce, a pioneer in the volatile world of cryptocurrency. Their topic of discussion? Bitcoin. Why is the Bitcoin Meeting in the Epstein Files Significant? The inclusion of a Bitcoin discussion within the Jeffrey Epstein files is profoundly significant for several reasons. It provides a rare, documented glimpse into how early crypto ideas permeated elite circles, even those shrouded in controversy. Historical Context: It places Bitcoin conversations within a specific, controversial timeline and social circle, offering researchers a new data point on its early adoption narrative. Credibility Questions: Any association with Epstein’s network automatically casts a long shadow, forcing the crypto community to confront uncomfortable questions about its earliest advocates and their connections. Regulatory Scrutiny: The involvement of a former top U.S. financial official like Larry Summers could influence how regulators today view the origins and early promotion of cryptocurrencies like Bitcoin and Tether. Who Are the Key Figures Named in the Files? Understanding the players is crucial to grasping the story’s weight. The Jeffrey Epstein files connect two very different worlds through these individuals. Larry Summers served as the 71st U.S. Secretary of the Treasury under President Clinton and later as Director of the National Economic Council. He represents the apex of traditional, centralized financial power and policy-making. Brock Pierce is a venture capitalist and one of the founding members of the Tether stablecoin project and the Bitcoin Foundation. He embodies the disruptive, decentralized ethos of early cryptocurrency evangelism. The mere fact that their paths crossed in this setting is a startling detail emerging from the documents. What Could the Epstein Document Release Mean for Crypto? The impending publication of the Jeffrey Epstein files is not just a news event; it’s a potential catalyst for reflection and reputational reckoning within cryptocurrency. The industry has long battled perceptions of being a haven for bad actors. This revelation, however tangential, feeds that narrative and could have tangible effects. For Tether specifically, any renewed scrutiny of its co-founder’s past associations could prompt questions from partners, exchanges, and regulators. More broadly, it reminds the market that the decentralized nature of crypto does not absolve its prominent figures from the consequences of their real-world associations. The full impact, however, will depend on the exact contents revealed on December 19th. Conclusion: A Story of Money, Power, and Secrecy The release of the Jeffrey Epstein files promises to be a watershed moment, unraveling threads that connect elite finance, politics, and scandal. The reported Bitcoin discussion adds a complex, modern layer to this story. It shows how the idea of decentralized currency was being debated in the most centralized and secretive of rooms. For the crypto community, it’s a stark reminder that its history is intertwined with the broader, and sometimes darker, narrative of global power and influence. Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) Q: When will the Jeffrey Epstein files be released?A: The U.S. Department of Justice is scheduled to release the documents on December 19, according to reports. Q: What is the crypto connection in the Epstein files?A: The files reportedly contain details of a meeting at Epstein’s mansion where former Treasury Secretary Larry Summers and Tether co-founder Brock Pierce discussed Bitcoin. Q: Why does a Bitcoin meeting matter in this context?A: It provides historical context on Bitcoin’s early outreach to traditional finance elites and raises questions about the associations of key crypto figures. Q: Could this affect Tether (USDT)?A: While the meeting was historical, any renewed scrutiny of a co-founder’s past could lead to reputational questions, though the direct operational impact on the stablecoin is unclear. Q: Where can I find the files when they are released?A: They will likely be published on the U.S. Department of Justice or relevant federal court websites. Major news outlets will also provide analysis and excerpts. Found this dive into the intersection of scandal and cryptocurrency revealing? The story of money, power, and technology is constantly evolving. Share this article on Twitter, LinkedIn, or Reddit to continue the conversation with your network about what these Jeffrey Epstein files could mean for the future of finance. To learn more about the latest Bitcoin trends, explore our article on key developments shaping Bitcoin institutional adoption. Disclaimer: The information provided is not trading advice, Bitcoinworld.co.in holds no liability for any investments made based on the information provided on this page. We strongly recommend independent research and/or consultation with a qualified professional before making any investment decisions.

Peak Mining was sold to Tether-controlled entities Giancarlo Devasini and Paolo Ardoino. Sale followed an earlier failed deal and reshaped Northern Data’s mining ownership structure. The transaction paved the way for Rumble’s $767M acquisition and linked Tether’s investments. Northern Data, a German AI data center firm tied to Tether, sold its Bitcoin mining arm, Peak Mining, in November. The $200 million deal involved buyers controlled by Tether leaders Giancarlo Devasini and Paolo Ardoino. The sale occurred in Europe and North America, days before Tether-backed Rumble announced a $767 million plan to acquire Northern Data. The transaction reshaped Northern Data’s asset base and clarified ownership around its former mining operations. Notably, the buyers emerged through later U.S. regulatory filings rather than the initial announcement. As a result, attention shifted toward how the sale was linked directly to Tether’s senior leadership. Peak Mining Sale and the Buyers Behind the Deal Northern Data disclosed in November that it sold Peak Mining for “up to $200 million.” However, the company did not initially identify the buyers. Later U.S. filings named Highland Group Mining, Appalachian Energy LLC, and 2750418 Alberta ULC. Corporate records connect all three entities to Tether leadership. Notably, British Virgin Islands filings list Devasini and Ardoino as directors of Highland Group Mining. Meanwhile, Canadian documents show Devasini as the sole director of 2750418 Alberta ULC. Appalachian Energy LLC adds another layer of opacity. The company is registered in Delaware, yet it has not publicly listed directors. However, filings still tie the firm to the same internal network behind Tether. This structure followed a previously failed attempt to sell Peak Mining. In August, Northern Data announced a nonbinding agreement with Elektron Energy. The proposed price reached $235 million. However, the deal never closed. Elektron Energy’s director was also Devasini, according to British Virgin Islands records. Consequently, the finalized November sale transferred Peak Mining to a different set of companies under the same leadership group. This shift sets the stage for broader changes around Northern Data. Regulatory Context and Northern Data Ownership The Peak Mining sale occurred during increased regulatory scrutiny. In September, European prosecutors raided Northern Data offices in Germany and Sweden. Authorities are investigating suspected large-scale VAT fraud. Officials estimate potential unpaid taxes could exceed €100 million. However, Northern Data denied wrongdoing. The company said the case involved a misunderstanding of tax treatment related to GPU cloud services and legacy mining structures. Northern Data operates on a regulated but unofficial German market. That status requires certain disclosures but does not mandate reporting related-party transactions. As a result, the Peak Mining sale remained legal without detailing shared control on both sides. Ownership concentration further defines the company’s position. Tether, Northern Data’s chief executive, and another shareholder together control 72% of the firm. The company’s market value stands at €885 million. Another major shareholder is investor Christian Angermayer. He recently relocated from the United Kingdom to Lugano, Switzerland. Notably, Devasini and Ardoino also reside in Lugano, which has become a hub for crypto-linked firms. Related: Tether Submits Proposal to Acquire Juventus Football Club Rumble Acquisition Follows Mining Divestment The Peak Mining sale preceded a larger corporate move. Days later, Rumble announced plans to acquire Northern Data for roughly $767 million. Tether holds a 48% stake in Rumble. Alongside the acquisition, Tether outlined additional commercial arrangements. Notably, it agreed to purchase $150 million in GPU services from Rumble. It also signed a separate $100 million advertising agreement. Financial ties extend through debt as well. Northern Data carries a €610 million loan from Tether. Under the acquisition plan, half converts into Rumble stock. The remaining balance becomes a new Tether loan to Rumble, secured by Northern Data assets. These steps align with Tether’s broader investment activity. The company deploys revenue from USDT, which has about $186 billion in circulation. Its investments span mining, artificial intelligence, and media platforms. The Peak Mining transaction, therefore, fits within a defined sequence. Northern Data divested its mining arm to Tether-linked buyers. Soon after, Rumble moved to absorb Northern Data itself. Together, the events connect asset sales, executive-controlled entities, and corporate acquisitions. The Peak Mining deal, the regulatory outlook, and the Rumble acquisition collectively outline how Tether’s leadership manages interconnected businesses across mining, data centers, and media. Disclaimer: The information provided by CryptoTale is for educational and informational purposes only and should not be considered financial advice. Always conduct your own research and consult with a professional before making any investment decisions. CryptoTale is not liable for any financial losses resulting from the use of the content. Tags Bitcoin Mining news Market News Tether (USDT) News