Crypto News and Tradfi News - COINOTAG

• XRP fell to 89 cents overnight, its lowest level since November 2024
• US spot XRP ETFs posted $19.13 million in weekly outflows, the most since March
• XRP ETFs attracted about $1.5 billion since launching in November last year
Overnight Slide to 89 Cents
In the early hours of Sunday, XRP dropped to 89 cents, its weakest print since early November 2024, when the token was still riding the wave of crypto-friendly policy promises that followed President Donald Trump's election victory. The move pushed the XRP price through a level it had not traded at in two years, and it came as bitcoin and ether fell to territory last visited in August, dragging the broader altcoin market lower with them. COINOTAG's live monitoring shows the token back at $0.9638 in the hours after the low, a 1.3% recovery since the low was first reported, though it remains 3.1% lower on the day and carries a market capitalization near $61.5 billion. The token, the native asset of a payments-focused blockchain, has long traded as one of the market's higher-beta large caps, and Sunday's move fit that pattern: no token-specific development drove the drop, only a withdrawal of money from the asset class. The scale of the retreat stands out even in a weak quarter. XRP has lost 36% this quarter alone and has been sliding since it peaked above $3.60 in July 2025, which means the token has surrendered most of the gains it built up around the November 2024 election, when expectations of lighter regulation had put the market strongly bid. The 89-cent print thus erases a two-year re-rating in one stretch of trading.
The bounce from the low has so far been shallow, and the question traders now face is whether the 89-cent area acts as a base or as a waystation toward a deeper slide. With the largest funds in the market also in outflow mode, there was no big-cap bid to lean on overnight, which left the low unguarded once selling started. COINOTAG's composite support and resistance scoring frames the field around the crash low. The strongest support sits at $0.8911, scored 73 out of 100, while the heaviest barrier waits overhead at $0.9808 with an 84 rating, per our XRP technical analysis. Momentum backs the bearish read: the relative strength index sits at 25.29, deep in oversold territory, and the MACD signal is bearish. In contract trading, the perpetual funding rate has turned negative at -0.0030%, and long accounts outnumber shorts 3.19 to 1, a crowded-long book that leaves room for further forced selling. The Crypto Fear and Greed Index reads 10 out of 100, extreme fear. A daily close below $0.8911 would open the weaker bands underneath, while a reclaim of $0.9808 would be the first evidence the downtrend is loosening.
ETF Outflows and a Shrinking Stablecoin Float
The selling pressure has visible plumbing behind it. U.S.-listed spot XRP ETFs, which hold the token directly and give holders exposure that mirrors spot trading, recorded net withdrawals of $19.13 million last week, the largest weekly outflow since March. The funds have pulled in around $1.5 billion since launching in November last year, a modest first year detailed in XRP ETF holdings after one year, and a small sum next to the several billion dollars that bitcoin and ether ETFs attracted in their own early months. Those larger products have also been bleeding in recent sessions, and the token had already marked a ninth straight daily loss before the weekend drop, a losing streak that built day by day rather than in a single session. Capital has been leaving through another door as well: the combined value of USDT and USDC in circulation, the two largest dollar-pegged stablecoins, has shrunk to $244 billion, its lowest level since September 2025. Stablecoins are tokens pegged to an external reference such as the dollar, which makes them the preferred rail for funding crypto purchases and cross-border payments, so a shrinking float removes buying power from the market directly. Neither USDT nor USDC is a yield-bearing stablecoin that pays interest for holding it, which means the contraction reads as money leaving crypto rather than rotating inside it. On-chain data shows the combined supply fell $17 billion over the past month, the steepest contraction since 2022. The total peaked near $270 billion in early May and has dropped from $260 billion in a near-straight line, a drawdown now in its seventh week that, at the latest reading, had not stabilized.

• Bitcoin reclaimed $65,000 on Saturday, November 15, after breaking below $63,000 earlier in the day
• Roughly $135 million in derivatives positions were liquidated within a single hour
• Short positions made up $121 million, or 89.6 percent, of hourly liquidations
Forced Closes Turn Into Buy Orders
Bitcoin (BTC) price reclaimed the $65,000 line on Sunday, November 15, after a rebound that cleared roughly $135 million in derivatives positions out of the market within a single hour. The session had opened on the opposite foot: the asset lost a key support zone and broke below $63,000 earlier in the day before buyers stepped back in and lifted the market above $65,000 again. A liquidation is a leveraged position an exchange closes automatically once the margin behind it no longer covers the loss, and that process is what turned a modest bounce into a squeeze. As the price turned upward, venues force-closed short positions to keep losses from outgrowing the collateral backing them, and the buy orders used to shut those shorts added fresh upward pressure, which in turn tripped the next tier of stops. Derivatives data captured at 03:15 UTC shows about $130 million in positions had been closed against their holders across the preceding hour; the $130 million reading and the $135 million figure describe the same burst measured at slightly different moments.
The one-hour shape of the event matters as much as the size. Forced closures do not spread evenly through a session; they arrive in bursts whenever price crosses a level crowded with leveraged entries, and Sunday's burst concentrated the damage into a short window. The side that paid is unambiguous. Shorts carried $121 million of the hourly total, or 89.6 percent of everything liquidated, so by the time the wave ended nine of every ten dollars removed from the market had belonged to short sellers. COINOTAG's live reading at press time places the asset at about $65,003, marginally below where it stood when the wave was reported, and down 3.6 percent over 24 hours. The squeeze capped a heavier stretch of trading that began before the hour in question. Bitcoin had already slid to a 3-month low near $65,000 in early Saturday trading, and the later break of $63,000 followed a support test near $62,400 during which liquidations were already piling up. Weekend order flow thins both sides of the book, and desk commentary earlier in the weekend flagged concentrated weekend selling as the price slipped, so there were fewer resting bids underneath when the forced closes came. That thinness cut both ways: it helped sellers on the way down and then helped the shorts' liquidation orders on the way up, because each forced buy met little opposition and carried the price further into the crowd. Nothing in the hour points to a change in the network's fundamentals. The unwind lived entirely in the derivatives book, the proof-of-work chain kept running as usual, and spot holders with a long-term HODL stance had no position to close and no part in the cascade; the transfer of losses ran entirely between leveraged accounts. The reclaimed level held through the hour that followed, and the price has given back only about 0.3 percent since the 03:15 UTC snapshot, leaving the market just around $65,003. The $63,000 line itself now reads as the zone where the day's cascade started, and any retest of it arrives with the memory of that burst attached. For a market that began the day under $63,000, the practical effect of the hour was to hand trapped shorts their losses and hand the reclaimed level back to spot buyers, and readers tracking the wider Bitcoin market picture can follow our full Bitcoin technical analysis read.
Extreme Fear at 10
Our composite level scoring puts the strongest floor below the market at $62,978, scored 87 out of 100, with the nearest resistance overhead at $65,747, scored 72 out of 100; a second loss of $62,978 would test that shelf, while a close above $65,747 would relieve the trapped-shorts pressure that built on Sunday. Positioning still leans one way: the funding rate sits at a positive 0.0012 percent and the long/short account ratio reads 3.51, with 77.8 percent of accounts long, so leverage has not flushed out entirely. Momentum gauges are stretched, with the RSI at 21.64 and the Fear and Greed Index at 10, deep in extreme-fear territory. For buyers running a strategic Bitcoin reserve playbook, the difference between a squeeze low and an organic selloff is exactly this kind of positioning picture.

• Hackers broke into Coinone support vendor Metam's server at about 4:00 AM on November 12.
• Coinone disclosed 11 potentially leaked data fields, including passwords and resident registration numbers.
• Coinone learned of the breach from Metam at 9:20 AM the same day.
11 Fields, Passwords Among Them
Coinone confirmed on November 15 that customer information handled by an external contractor was exposed after hackers broke into that contractor's servers. The South Korean exchange said unauthorized outsiders accessed the systems of Metam, the firm that runs its outsourced customer support desk, and that the personal data collected during consultations was the target. The intrusion began at around 4:00 AM on November 12, and Metam reported the incident to Coinone at 9:20 AM the same morning.
The company published a list of 11 data categories that may have leaked: phone number, name, email address, date of birth, bank account number, password, resident registration number, the issuance date of identity documents, home address, virtual asset wallet address, and the transaction identifier known as TXID, the string that pinpoints an individual transfer on a blockchain. The list aggregates the types of information customers handed over during chat and phone consultations. It does not mean every user lost every field, and the items actually exposed vary from one account to the next. Customers with no support history are not part of the incident.
Coinone said it is preparing a lookup service, together with individual notices, so each user can check which of their details were involved. It also stressed that member accounts, the trading engine and the wallet infrastructure run separately from the vendor's consultation servers, and that as of the notice's publication it had found no trace of direct intrusion into those systems.
Regulator Reports and a Password Warning
After becoming aware of the breach, Coinone blocked the internet addresses and unauthorized access routes used in the attack and moved its customer center to email-only consultation. The company filed reports with the Korea Internet and Security Agency (KISA), the Personal Information Protection Commission and the Financial Supervisory Service, and is working with Metam and outside specialists to establish how the intrusion happened and how far the damage reaches. It has also tightened real-time monitoring for unusual logins and transactions, and said it will review the contractor's security management directly, along with the safeguards in place across its partner network.
The exchange warned that the leaked details could feed voice phishing, phishing emails, spam texts and identity fraud. Anyone who gave a password during a consultation was told to change it immediately, and to update the same credentials on any other service where they were reused. Coinone reminded customers that it never asks for one-time passwords, authentication codes or withdrawals, and that messages citing prior consultations may be impersonations. Users can lock their accounts and review registered withdrawal addresses in the app or on the web, and the company asked them to report any logins, orders or withdrawals they did not initiate.
The notice also states that customers harmed by the leak can seek compensation, including statutory damages, under Korean law. It draws a line between two separate questions: exposure of passwords shared during support sessions, and whether the exchange's own account system was breached, which remains unconfirmed. The episode follows a similar probe at Bithumb, where hackers compromised an employee-facing internal system and the exchange examined whether customer data had escaped; the Coinone incident differs because the hit landed at a support contractor rather than on the trading platform itself.
The breach shows where the real attack surface sits for a centralized exchange: outsourced human operations. No funds moved, and the segregated design of the trading and wallet systems appears to have held, which is why this incident is a data compromise rather than a theft. The risk is indirect. Wallet addresses and TXIDs are pseudonymous on a public ledger, and a DEX works the same way; paired with names, resident registration numbers and phone numbers, they give fraudsters credible material for targeted phishing. The outsourcing model is not unique to crypto, since banks across TradFi run call centers the same way. Vendor audits, not just cold storage, are becoming the differentiator among the best crypto exchanges, and Coinone's next report on the confirmed scope of the leak is the item to watch.

• Bitcoin (BTC) fell in early Sunday trading, 2026-11-15, and traded near $62,300, down 8.9% over 24 hours.
• Phyrex analyst found no abnormal change in exchange inflows or net inflows during the sell-off.
• COINOTAG composite scored the nearest support at $61,574 with a reading of 69 out of 100.
A Cascade Through a Shallow Book
Bitcoin (BTC) fell in the early hours of Sunday, 2026-11-15, and an analysis attributed to the researcher known as Phyrex locates the cause in concentrated selling that hit a market running on unusually low weekend liquidity. The reading was published at 01:46 UTC, close to the lows of the move, and its central claim is narrow: exchange inflows and net inflows showed no unusual change during the sell-off, so the drop looks less like an organized exit and more like a chain of sell orders feeding on itself in a shallow book. Our live monitoring puts the Bitcoin price at $62,300 at the time of writing, up 0.3% since that pre-dawn reading and still down 8.9% across the past 24 hours. The analyst's argument proceeds by elimination. A large coordinated sale, or a wave of distribution by long-term and early holders, the cohort identified with HODL discipline, would normally announce itself in the flow data: coins pile up on exchanges ahead of the selling, and net inflow builds in step. Neither signature appeared. With both on-chain series clean, the weight of the evidence points to concentrated, opportunistic selling rather than a deliberate campaign, and the wider Bitcoin market becomes the venue for it rather than the cause. Weekends strip that venue of its usual shock absorbers. United States spot ETF desks are closed, so the institutional bid that steadies weekday prints is absent, and a block of sell orders meets thin resting depth. The fill moves the reference price further than it would on a weekday, the next seller prices off the lower print, and the sequence repeats. On that construction, the pre-dawn episode was a possible cascade of exactly this kind, not a completed event, and the analyst stopped short of calling the downside exhausted. The analysis covers the early-morning session only and does not extend a view to the week ahead.
Exchange Inflows Showed No Anomaly
The two series at the center of that argument carry precise definitions. Exchange inflow counts the coins moved from external wallets onto trading platforms in a given window, while net inflow subtracts the coins leaving venues from the coins arriving. A rising inflow is read as potential sell-side supply, but the inference is loose. Coins can move to an exchange for custody changes, internal reorganization or preparation to buy, and the data alone cannot identify the seller, the timing or the intent; a crypto whale repositioning coins between wallets registers the same way as an account lining up orders. The absence of an anomaly in both series therefore says more about what did not happen than what did: no visible pile of supply on venues preceded the drop. That is also why the finding is limited. Clean flows rule out a staged, pre-signaled exit, but they cannot fully exclude selling that stayed inside normal daily ranges. The move itself extended an already weak stretch. The market had printed a 3-month low near $65,000 in early Saturday trading, one session earlier a support test near $64,400 had coincided with rising liquidations, and an earlier on-chain readout showed the aSOPR slipping to 0.995, meaning the average coin changed hands below its last sale price. None of those series identifies a seller. Inflows are a lagging record as well, since coins must arrive before they can be sold, which is why the analyst weighed the two flow series against the price move rather than in isolation. Together the readings describe a market absorbing supply at a loss, session after session, with each lower print handing the next holder a weaker reference. In that context the weekend-liquidity account fits the record most cleanly: no inflow spike, no whale footprint, simply sell pressure arriving when the book was thinnest and the usual weekday flows were absent.
Support at $61,574, Fear Index at 10
Our composite at the time of writing frames the levels either side of $62,300. The strongest support below the market sits at $61,574, scored 69 out of 100, and the first resistance overhead sits at $65,734, scored 74 out of 100. Momentum leans the same way as the weekend's price action: Relative Strength Index at 17.98, a bearish MACD signal and a downtrend classification. Positioning adds a wrinkle. Perpetual funding ran at -0.0023% while the long/short account ratio read 3.81 with 79.2% of accounts long, a crowded-long profile still catching up to the lower prices. Sentiment agrees: the Fear and Greed Index stood at 10 out of 100, deep in extreme fear. The picture turns if price reclaims the $65,734 band or loses the $61,574 floor. Our Bitcoin technical analysis page tracks both levels live.

• Payward reported $60 million adjusted EBITDA in Q3 2026, up from $23 million in the second quarter.
• Adjusted EBITDA still fell 67% from a year earlier despite the rebound.
• Total Platform Margin reached $487 million, up 12% quarter over quarter and down 12% year over year.
A $60 Million Quarter Without a Listing Date
Payward, the parent company of crypto exchange Kraken, posted adjusted EBITDA of $60 million for the third quarter of 2026, more than doubling the $23 million it reported in the second. The measure strips out interest, taxes, depreciation and amortization, making it the closest read on operating profitability the release offers. Even with the rebound, the figure landed 67% below the level of a year earlier, according to the shareholder letter that accompanied the company's third-quarter results, published on Friday, November 13. The second-quarter figure had marked a pronounced slump for the exchange. These are the company's first published results since Nasdaq agreed in September to a $100 million investment in Payward at a reported valuation of $21 billion. Nasdaq, the exchange operator, is backing the group ahead of its listing. The listing timeline around those numbers remains unsettled. A confidential filing lets a company prepare for a public offering without publishing its financials first, and Payward submitted one for a US IPO in November 2025; the process was reportedly put on hold in March. No listing date has been set, and the third-quarter release does not mention the offering. Reporting in September indicated the IPO now targets the second quarter of 2027 at the earliest. Trading figures point the same way as the profit recovery. Payward's share of industry spot volume, the immediate-delivery segment of the market, reached 6.5% in September, up from 3.3% a year earlier. Total volume across Payward's platform climbed 22% quarter over quarter, while industry-wide spot volume fell 7% over the same stretch, according to figures the company cited in the release. A year earlier, that share stood at barely half its current size. In other words, Kraken captured a larger slice of a shrinking spot market.
Total Platform Margin Replaces Adjusted Revenue
The release also changed how Payward keeps score. Total Platform Margin has now replaced adjusted revenue as the company's main measure. The old adjusted-revenue figure is no longer the primary number investors see. TPM excludes trading costs and the staking rewards paid out to clients, and it reached $487 million in the quarter, up 12% from the second quarter while down 12% year over year. The switch moves the headline away from gross turnover toward what the platform actually retains, a distinction that matters for anyone comparing exchange economics, where the distance between revenue and kept margin sits at the core of blockchain revenue and profit. Margin generated by assets held on the platform by clients rose 26% quarter over quarter, reaching $128 million. That line grew twice as fast as the overall platform margin, which rose 12% over the same period. Income tied to what clients park on the exchange, rather than to how much they trade, is becoming the faster-growing share of the business. Client behavior fills in the rest of the picture. Payward said clients added assets to the platform for twelve straight months, even as the dollar value of those holdings fell. Average assets on platform fell 21% year over year to $43 billion. Measured at constant asset prices, the same client assets rose 29% to $71 billion. The gap between those two readings is the price effect: clients accumulated more units of crypto assets while the market's decline cut the dollar value of the total. Funded accounts, meaning accounts that hold a client balance, grew 37% over the same period to 7.1 million. More funded accounts and more held assets give the platform a recurring base of asset-linked income, in contrast to trading revenue that rises and falls with activity.
The bigger picture is that Payward enters an unscheduled listing window with a stronger earnings story than it had three months ago, even if the 67% year-over-year gap shows how far the comparison base still sits. Nasdaq's $100 million commitment was agreed at a reported $21 billion valuation, and anyone underwriting that price will want the fourth quarter to confirm both the EBITDA recovery and the new TPM baseline before applying a P/E ratio to the earnings stream. The primary document here is the company's own release of November 13, which is silent on the offering; its fourth-quarter print will show whether the rebound carries into 2027.

• Aster fell 22.46% in 24 hours to $0.5008, reported at 00:14 UTC on 2026-11-15.
• Live monitoring placed Aster at $0.4914, down 23.7% over 24 hours.
• Bitcoin fell 4.09% and total crypto market capitalization dropped 3.90% on 2026-11-14.
A 22% Drop in a Day
Aster price dropped 22.46% over 24 hours to $0.5008, and live monitoring now places the token at $0.4914, another 1.1% lower since that reading was reported at 00:14 UTC on Sunday. The 24-hour loss stands at 23.7% as of this writing, and Aster ranks 47th by market capitalization, which live data puts at roughly $1.24 billion. The move ran ahead of the wider market: a snapshot taken on 2026-11-14 had showed Aster at $0.629, down 5.10% over 24 hours, while Bitcoin (BTC) fell 4.09% and total crypto market capitalization lost about 3.90% across the same window. At that stage Aster's decline tracked Bitcoin's almost exactly, which read as a market-linked move rather than anything specific to the token. In the hours after the snapshot, selling in Aster deepened well beyond the market's pace, turning an orderly correlated pullback into one of the sharpest single-session drops among mid-cap tokens. Commentary around the decline points to broad selling across the Altcoin market: reports that the United States could expand operations connected to Iran circulated through the session, and risk assets reacted. The same commentary is careful to note that those reports alone cannot be proven to be the sole cause of the drop. Turnover grew as the price fell, with 24-hour volume up 15.09%, and the concentration of sell orders produced the kind of slippage that appears when exits crowd thin order books in a fast session.
Nothing in the verified record points to a problem inside the Aster project itself. No confirmed announcement, exploit, or incident tied to the token surfaced during the selloff, and no FUD narrative, rug pull claim, or hack attaches to Aster in the material reviewed for this report. The trading that accompanied the decline looked mechanical rather than news-driven. Volume rose 15.09% over 24 hours, yet turnover on its own cannot distinguish selling that followed fresh information from selling that simply tracked the broader flow of funds out of risk assets. The evidence that can be confirmed therefore sits with market pressure, not with a token-specific event, and the decline reads as an amplification of a market-wide drawdown rather than a repricing on new information about the project. Because Aster sits at rank 47 by market cap, its move was large enough to register across the market but still too small to set the direction itself. Against that backdrop, the levels traders watched came from a trader post cited in the market commentary: $0.606 and $0.587 served as downside baselines, and $0.643 marked the price zone Aster needed to clear for an upside reversal. Those figures were not independently verified support or resistance levels, and the live price of $0.4914 already sits below both baselines. No lower price targets were offered for the zone beneath them, which leaves the current area without a mapped floor from that commentary. The near-term question is whether Aster can reclaim $0.606 within the next 24 to 48 hours; failure would leave bearish pressure in place. The market outlook was rated as bearish pressure, with any further escalation of Middle East tensions over the coming days flagged as a variable that could deepen the drawdown.
Oversold With Support at $0.4807
Our own composite support and resistance scoring, which rates each level from 0 to 100 based on the indicators converging there, puts the strongest support below the market at $0.4807, scored 65/100, and the nearest resistance at $0.5295, scored 69/100. The relative strength index reads 19.94, deep in oversold territory, and the trend is flagged as a downtrend. Positioning looks calm by comparison: the perpetual futures funding rate sits at 0.0020% and open interest stands at $45.9 million, so the drop has so far carried little of the fingerprint of a leveraged unwinding and looks like spot-driven selling. A reclaim of $0.5295 would be the first step toward repairing the structure; a clean break of $0.4807 would open the path to the weaker shelf beneath it, and readers following Aster technical analysis can track both thresholds as they form. Neither side of the trade has been identified in the reporting, so the token is left to price on order flow alone until the geopolitical picture becomes clearer.

• DEX daily volume reached about $10 billion on Friday, up 22% from the prior day
• Aggregate on-chain data put Friday's volume 19% above the level a week earlier
• Orthogonal (OG) on Arbitrum surged 4,620% in 24 hours, the day's largest gain
$10 Billion in a Day
Daily trading volume across decentralized exchanges (DEX) platforms reached roughly $10 billion on Friday, Nov 13 (UTC), and aggregate on-chain data shows the total ran 22% above the prior day's count and 19% above the level recorded a week earlier. The reading covers the full Nov 13 UTC session and is the most recent complete-day figure for the sector. DEXs settle trades through smart contracts rather than a custodial order book, so every dollar of that turnover is visible on-chain as it clears.
Attention, as measured by trending ranks on market dashboards, clustered around three pairs as of early Sunday (00:04 UTC). Pons (USDG) topped the board with the token quoted at $0.1151, down 20% over 24 hours. CashCat (WETH) ranked second at $0.04025, a 16% decline. Loot (TON) held third at $0.0005090 after climbing 139%.
The three pairs also span different corners of the market: Pons trades against a dollar-linked asset, CashCat against wrapped ether (WETH) on Ethereum, and Loot against TON. Trending status tracks watch activity rather than traded size, so the list shows where retail attention sat, not where the largest sums moved.
Two of the three most-watched pairs were falling even as sector-wide turnover expanded, a mix consistent with rotation and profit-taking among short-term holders. A 19% week-on-week gain stacked on a 22% daily jump indicates the expansion is part of a build-up rather than a single-day spike. Whether that mix carries into the next session is what the next daily reading will answer.
Volume on this scale also refreshes the question of how much on-chain flow is organic trading and how much is churn between linked wallets, a distinction the raw totals cannot settle.
Orthogonal Rallies 4,620%
The gainers' board produced the day's most extreme print. Orthogonal (OG), a pair on Arbitrum, gained 4,620% over the 24-hour window, the largest rise of any pair tracked. Lia Labs (LIA/SOL) on Solana followed with a 939% gain, and Just A Jacket (USDT) on BNB Chain added 857%. Losses concentrated on BNB Chain: Kava (USDT) fell 38%, Alaya Governance Token (AGT/WBNB) dropped 30%, and Aster (BNB) lost 22%.
Depth tells a sharper story than direction. Wrapped ether (WETH) led the volume table with $312 million traded, a figure equal to 4.2 times its pooled liquidity. Tether USD (USDT/USDS) followed at $274 million, five times its liquidity. Stand With Jensen (SWJ) took third at $249 million despite turning over 195 times its pooled depth, a pace that would exhaust any market maker 's inventory within hours and leaves the pool exposed to steep slippage on either side of a large order.
Transaction counts clustered on stablecoin and utility pairs rather than meme tickers. Tether USD (USDT/WBNB) logged 401,295 transactions, 41% of them buys; AKE/WBNB recorded 272,717 with 46% buys; and wrapped SOL (USDC) 271,318 with 53% buys. Buy-side shares between 41% and 53% point to no single dominant direction in raw transaction terms.
Distinct wallet counts ran narrower still. SOL/USDC drew 30,457 buying wallets against 30,756 sellers, USDT/WBNB 22,599 against 21,138, and TTWO/USDC 19,623 against 22,598.
TTWO is the outlier on that list: it tracks Take-Two Interactive Software, issued as a tokenized stock through Backpack Securities, placing a Nasdaq-listed publisher inside the day's most-traded pairs by wallets. It sits in the same on-chain equities segment that products such as xStocks target, and its appearance among routine volume leaders shows how far tokenized equities have moved into everyday on-chain flow.
Thin Pools, Even Flow
COINOTAG's reading of the session is that Friday's growth is genuine but unevenly distributed. A top-three volume pair turning over 195 times its liquidity is hot capital cycling a thin pool, which can reprice within a single large trade. Wallet counts sharpen the point: across the three most-participated pairs, buyers and sellers finished close to balance, with sellers slightly ahead on SOL/USDC and TTWO/USDC and buyers ahead on USDT/WBNB.
Traders weighing on-chain venues against custodial ones can shortlist options through Best Crypto Exchanges .
Whoever stood on the other side of Friday's $10 billion, the record shows them facing nearly matched numbers of counterparties rather than one-way demand.

• Coinbase won final OCC approval for its national trust company, announced November 9.
• The OCC granted conditional approval in April and the final decision on November 6.
• Coinbase is the third firm this year after Circle in July and Ripple in October.
Custody Moves to Federal Oversight
Coinbase Global has received final approval to open its national trust company, the company announced on Monday, November 9, completing a charter process that the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) began with conditional approval in April. The regulator issued its final approval on Friday, November 6, three days before the announcement, clearing the last gate before the trust company can start business. The charter moves the exchange's custody operations into a federal regulatory framework. Since 2018, Coinbase has provided custody through Coinbase Custody Trust Company, a limited-purpose trust chartered by the New York Department of Financial Services (NYDFS). The April conditional approval first opened the path to operate custody under federal rather than state oversight. Under the transition plan described by the OCC, the company will move its entire custody service to the new national trust company over three years. A national trust charter is narrower than a full banking license: the holder cannot take retail deposits or extend loans the way a commercial bank does. Custody, the safekeeping of client assets, sits at the core of the exchange's institutional offering. Coinbase said the approval lets custody run inside a consistent federal system with clearer requirements, and the license supports expansion in custody and payments, including the potential to issue its own stablecoin and to handle issuance and management services for other digital asset firms. The company is the third digital asset business this year to win final OCC approval for a new national trust bank, after Circle in July and Ripple in October. The decision reflects a broader effort by blockchain companies to anchor regulated services inside the U.S. financial system. It also lands amid a standing question over whether trust structures let some firms deliver bank-like services while avoiding the obligations traditional banks carry.
Senate Democrats Escalate Records Demands
Congressional scrutiny is building in parallel. Senator Elizabeth Warren has been the sharpest critic of how the OCC charts digital asset firms. In a May letter to the agency, she questioned at least nine approvals, Coinbase's conditional approval included, and asked for every application, the legal analysis behind each decision, and copies of communications between OCC officials and the White House or the Trump family. She has argued that some firms may be reaching beyond the limits of a traditional national trust company, and that letting them run bank-like operations without matching safeguards would put consumers and the wider financial system at risk. On Thursday, November 5, Senator Richard Blumenthal, the Democratic ranking member of the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations (PSI) set to take its chairmanship, sent letters to Binance, Tether, World Liberty Financial (WLFI) and Fight LLC, the issuer of the TRUMP memecoin. In a statement, his office said the targets must voluntarily produce the requested records by January 4, 2027, or the subcommittee will pursue other means to secure cooperation. The Binance and Tether probes cover illicit crypto use and dealings between the administration and crypto firms, while the WLFI and Fight files concern potential conflicts of interest in the Trump family's crypto ventures. Blumenthal also asked executives at Coinbase, Ripple, Kraken, Paxos and Gemini for details on donations to the White House ballroom construction project, and told WLFI and Fight to begin producing documents by the end of this month. Separately, a draft oversight plan prepared by an outside progressive group led by a former Warren aide lists Coinbase chief executive Brian Armstrong as a proposed hearing witness; it has circulated in Washington and been reviewed by Democratic staff, but it is not an official congressional program. None of the investigations has reached a conclusion.
Scope Is the Open Question
The two threads meet at the same point: process and scope. The charter gives Coinbase's custody business a single federal framework, but the records demands test whether this year's approvals followed proper procedure and whether holders stay inside the limits of their charters. Blumenthal's January 4, 2027 deadline is the near-term marker; if the four targets refuse voluntary production, the subcommittee can escalate, and an incoming chairman with subpoena power makes that threat concrete. The Warren letter points somewhere more direct: any escalation could reach the OCC's own files, including the legal reasoning behind Coinbase's approval. Firms watching from the outside now have to price two outcomes at once, wider federal access and harder political review of how that access was granted.

• Hyperliquid's cumulative HYPE burn reached 50.59 million tokens, 5.06% of the 1 billion maximum supply.
• The last 24 hours saw 47,700 HYPE burned at an average price of $66.37.
• On-chain tracking valued the 24-hour burn at $3.17 million and the cumulative burned supply at $3.12 billion.
50.59 Million HYPE Out of a 1 Billion Cap
The cumulative Hyperliquid (HYPE) burn has reached 50.59 million tokens, on-chain data shows, a supply reduction equal to 5.06% of the token's fixed 1 billion maximum supply. The count moved higher over the past 24 hours as 47,700 HYPE were bought back and destroyed at an average of $66.37 per token, a session worth roughly $3.17 million. The Hyperliquid price averaged that level across the burn purchases, and live spot readings put the token down 12.5% over the same window. HYPE holders have been asked to do nothing; the process runs entirely on the protocol side. The burn is not a discretionary buyback. The 24-hour figure refers to tokens purchased on the open market and then sent to destruction. Hyperliquid's official fee documentation sets out the mechanics: trading fees routed to the platform's assistance fund are converted into HYPE automatically during execution on the network's blockchain nodes, and tokens that reach the system address are permanently excluded from both circulating and total supply. The assistance fund is the pool that collects the fee share earmarked for buyback and destruction. The percentage is calculated against maximum supply, not the circulating float, so it describes how much of the hard cap has been retired rather than how scarce tradeable supply has become. The pace moves around, too: an earlier reading had put the daily burn at 21,790 tokens, roughly half the latest tally. Fee distribution does not flow to the burn alone. HLP, the protocol's liquidity provider facility, and market makers receive shares as well, which makes any single day's burn a partial read of platform fees rather than the total. HYPE itself is recorded in the official guidance as serving network security, paying transaction costs and funding fee discounts across the exchange's perpetual futures and margin trading markets.
48.95 Million or 50.59 Million: Trackers Diverge
Dollar figures attached to the burn need careful handling, because two of them are easy to confuse. A tracking post published late Saturday valued the cumulative burned supply at $3.12 billion and put Hyperliquid's cumulative platform revenue at $1.42 billion. These are different metrics. The burn valuation is an accounting figure: every destroyed token is priced at the level it held at the moment of destruction, so $3.12 billion describes what the retired supply was worth, not the cash that actually went into buying it. Platform revenue measures fee income and is reported separately from the burn. Across the Hyperliquid ecosystem, fee conversion into HYPE remains the only burn channel the official documents describe. Hyperliquid's published guidance does not consolidate a single burn total, which is why third-party tallies fill the gap. The token count itself is not settled to the unit. A second tracker that queries the assistance fund address directly through Hyperliquid's official API displayed roughly 48.95 million HYPE as of 21:52 UTC on Saturday, about 1.64 million below the 50.59 million cumulative figure. Both readings draw on the same on-chain state; they differ in method, one aggregating burn events and the other reading a single address balance. Whether the two measurements cover identical address scopes is not confirmed. Earlier in the session, the running total stood at 49.69 million, so both the daily pace and the cumulative count were revised upward as Saturday progressed. The chart backdrop for all of this has been rough. Our earlier coverage recorded how HYPE defended $69 support after a 26% slide from its record, and the current level map is updated in our Hyperliquid technical analysis.
A One-Way Drain at $3.17 Million a Day
Our reading is that the burn matters more as a permanent subtraction than as a market event. Tokens in the system address cannot re-enter circulation, so each session lowers the ceiling by a fixed amount, and at the current $3.17 million daily pace the drain is steady rather than dramatic. The $1.7 billion spread between the $3.12 billion burn valuation and the $1.42 billion cumulative revenue is the number worth quoting, because it shows how quickly burn dollar headlines can outgrow the fee flow behind them. What remains unresolved is the count itself: a 1.64 million token gap between trackers, and no stated cap or schedule for the program in the official documents, leaving the true retired total an open question.

• Derivatives data mapped a $1.4 million long liquidation cluster near $860 on Saturday.
• Zcash logged seven consecutive daily losses since November 7, 2026.
• On-chain data shows large buy walls at $845, $811 and $805.
$1.4 Million Long Cluster Near $860
Zcash (ZEC) price action has put a pocket of leveraged longs directly in harm's way, with aggregated derivatives data showing a cluster of long liquidation orders worth $1.4 million stacked near $860. The map was current as of Saturday and draws from liquidation estimates pooled across major venues, making it one of the more closely watched reference points on ZEC's chart going into the weekend. A liquidation is a leveraged position closed automatically once the margin behind it falls below what the venue requires; when many positions carry their triggers at the same price, their forced selling hits the order book at once and can accelerate the very move that set it off. That was the risk Zcash carried into Saturday: the cluster sat close enough to spot that an ordinary continuation of the downtrend would reach it, and the market did not need an extraordinary move to test it. The test has already happened. Our live monitoring shows ZEC changing hands at $828.29, down 10.6% over the past 24 hours, meaning the market has traded through the $860 band rather than merely approaching it. Whether the resting longs were actually closed by their venues or pulled ahead of price is not visible in the aggregate data, and the distinction shapes what comes next. If the cluster was absorbed, the sell pressure it represented has already been released into the market; if it sits untouched on the map, the same vulnerability now hangs above any rebound attempt. One thing the data makes clear is that a cluster is not a price target. It marks where forced selling is concentrated, not where the market must travel. For traders still running leveraged longs here, the practical reading is blunt: margin trading positions that survive this tape are the ones anchored under real structure, not the ones hoping a map proves wrong.
Our composite scoring frames where the market would next find structure. The $806.15 level, where the 200-day moving average, a high-volume node and session VWAP converge, is the strongest support below spot at 81/100, while $955.77 above, a confluence that includes the lower Bollinger band and a pivot point reading, carries a resistance score of 85/100. Positioning is not stretched in aggregate: perp funding prints at 0.0054% and open interest stands near $460.6 million, so the pocket near $860 was a localized build rather than a market-wide leverage stack. A sustained defense of $806 keeps that structure intact, and a reclaim of $955 would be the first hard evidence on our support and resistance levels map that the downtrend is spent; traders adjusting exposure should revisit crypto risk management strategies before adding leverage.
Weeklong Slide Below $1,000
The cluster sat above the market because Zcash had already surrendered the $1,000 mark in a slide running without a daily gain since November 7. Seven consecutive days of losses are on the board, and a lower close on Saturday would make it eight; the session's first low printed at $861 early in the day before the decline extended further. The selling has tracked forces well beyond crypto's own order books. Turmoil around Nvidia's leadership has weighed on the artificial intelligence trade, and hotter-than-expected inflation earlier in the week raised expectations of further Federal Reserve (Fed) tightening. On Friday the dollar index climbed to its strongest reading since April 2025, lifting Treasury yields and the dollar while dragging on cryptocurrencies and gold, and ZEC has been among the day's hardest-hit altcoins. The Zcash chart gave way before the macro did: the token lost its 50-day moving average, the support that had carried its surge in August 2026, and price has not reclaimed that line since, which is why a return above it is treated as a condition for any recovery. Depth below the market offers the nearest counterweight. On-chain data shows large buy walls at $845, $811 and $805, resting orders large enough to absorb sell flow if the market tests them in sequence. Even after the week's damage, the token remains deep in profit for the year following a 147% year-to-date rally, although selling pressure has built steadily on the way down. Whether those walls hold where the long cluster did not is the question the rest of the weekend session will answer.

• Aztec co-founder Zac Williamson detailed the serial-number system in an interview published November 14.
• Private notes carry serial numbers proving funds do not overlap with Lazarus Group-flagged deposits.
• Tierra V6 doubled private proof speed and cut Ethereum message delivery to as fast as 12 seconds.
Serial Numbers Screen Out Lazarus Deposits
Aztec co-founder Zac Williamson explained on Saturday how users of the Aztec Network can show their funds have no connection to deposits attributed to North Korea's Lazarus Group, and how that proof works without exposing any other part of their transaction history. The mechanism, laid out in an interview published on November 14, rests on serial numbers attached to notes, the private units that hold value on the protocol. Williamson presented the design against the backdrop of persistent concern over how stolen funds from Pyongyang-linked operations move and get laundered through the wider market.
Value on Aztec is split into individual notes rather than a single account balance, a structure Williamson compared to Bitcoin's unspent transaction output (UTXO) model, in which every output is tracked as its own spendable unit. Because checks run at the note level, a tainted note delivered through a dusting attempt cannot pull the rest of an account under suspicion; the funds outside that one note keep a clean origin. The interview material framed this property as protection that stops a dusting attack from contaminating everything else a user holds on the protocol.
The proof itself follows a privacy pools-style construction: a user presents evidence that their notes do not appear on a list of flagged deposits tied to groups such as Lazarus. Williamson was careful about scope. The demonstration covers only whether specific funds overlap with that flagged list, and it does not amount to identity verification or to automatic blocking of transactions.
Disclosure is a separate and selective matter. A user can share their full transaction record with a party they designate, such as the US Internal Revenue Service, through a per-account view key. Williamson distinguished that arrangement from a common audit key that would open every user's activity to a single observer, and the design means nobody has to surrender a private key to a global auditor. The choice of who sees what stays with the account holder.
Tierra V6 Doubles Proving Speed
The conversation centered on Tierra, the V6 upgrade to Aztec's private, fully decentralized layer 2, which settles on Ethereum's layer 1. Performance moved on two measurable fronts. According to the official introduction released on November 3, the bridge protocol relaying messages from Ethereum into Aztec cut delivery from an average of two minutes to as fast as 12 seconds, and proving of private transaction proofs now runs twice as fast as in the previous version. Those figures frame the upgrade's case rather than replacing its security story.
That security work preceded the release. Aztec operates a 24/7 AI audit harness that Williamson said surfaced critical vulnerabilities in the project's cryptographic libraries, the components that implement the system's information protection. Formal verification, a procedure that checks whether a system satisfies defined mathematical conditions, was then applied to those components, and he said the exercise raised his confidence in V6. The official release notes state that Tierra also fixed a critical vulnerability in the previous version's proof system.
Governance follows a Stage 2 rollup design in which sequencers post stakes, forfeit them if they break the rules, and vote on upgrades; a security council is not part of the process. To limit the blast radius of a hard-to-detect double-spend bug, Aztec adopts a Zcash-style turnstile approach. Launch targets on the network include zk.money, a private AI inference marketplace, and an anonymous social network backed by Ethereum bonds. Williamson argued that privacy features succeed when a product cannot exist without them, so users opt in because the function is essential rather than decorative.
The serial-number proof is the piece regulators and exchanges will test first. A protocol that lets an account clear itself against a sanctions-linked deposit list, while keeping a global auditor key out of the design, offers a path between full transparency and delisting pressure. Acceptance is unproven: no source in this story reports an exchange or regulator adopting note-level proofs, and the interview describes capability, not adoption. The Stage 2 sequencer set is the second test. Staking, slashing and upgrade votes without a security council shift enforcement onto protocol rules, and the 12-second message delivery gives that design a performance argument. Whether both hold up under real sanctions screening is the open question for Aztec heading into 2027.

• AMD outperformed Nvidia by 53.2 percentage points over five trading days, the widest gap since 1999.
• AMD rallied 44.7% in the stretch while Nvidia fell 8.5%.
• Jensen Huang resigned as Nvidia CEO on November 12; Colette Kress became interim CEO.
A 53.2-Point Lead Not Seen Since 1999
Advanced Micro Devices (AMD) has opened a 53.2 percentage-point lead over NVIDIA (NVDA) across five trading days, the widest such gap between the two chipmakers since NVIDIA's initial public offering in January 1999. Over the same stretch, AMD rallied 44.7% while NVIDIA fell 8.5%, surpassing the previous five-day record of 49.9 percentage points, set in April 2016. The markets commentary account The Kobeissi Letter posted the calculation on X, writing that AMD has been the main beneficiary of NVIDIA's historic volatility.
The year-to-date picture is wider still. AMD has gained 149.4% since January 1, while NVIDIA is down 12.7% as of Friday's close, a difference of roughly 162 percentage points.
The five-day surge coincided with upheaval at its larger rival: Jensen Huang resigned as NVIDIA's chief executive on November 12, and the company named CFO Colette Kress interim CEO while its board searches for a permanent replacement. AMD also supplied its own numbers ahead of the test. Its third-quarter revenue rose 45% from a year earlier to a record $13.4 billion, and data center sales nearly doubled to $8.5 billion, according to the company's investor-relations disclosure. Both figures framed the rally that Friday then put under pressure.
Friday's Pullback Sets Up Nvidia's Earnings
The record run met its first test on Friday. AMD stock dropped 8.75%, closing at $534.06, down from $585.30, and slipped a further 2.41% to $521.20 in after-hours trading. Chip names sold off as a group: the 10-year Treasury yield stayed above 5% following October's producer price index reading, a backdrop that weighs hardest on growth stocks whose value rests on profits expected years out. Trading volume reached 48.6 million shares, nearly double the three-month average, and analysts at The Motley Fool attributed part of the decline to profit-taking after the surge.
NVIDIA's earnings on Tuesday, November 17, after the US market close, now set the next stage. The company has guided for $108 billion in third-quarter revenue, plus or minus 2%, while analysts polled by LSEG expect about $109.2 billion and adjusted earnings of $2.48 per share. The quarter closed on October 25, before Huang's resignation, so the results will reflect his tenure; the following quarter's guidance will be the first issued under Kress. AMD's record week rested on a bet that cloud customers are moving AI chip orders away from NVIDIA, and Tuesday's call gives investors the first chance to hear whether NVIDIA sees that shift in its own demand.
COINOTAG data shows the stock changing hands at $515.90, down 3.22% over the last 24 hours, inside a session range of $515.47 to $539.35. COINOTAG's composite scoring marks $506.20 as the strongest support below the market, rated 100/100 on the EMA 20, S1 and Fibo 0.382, with $530.30 the nearest resistance, also 100/100 on the EMA 50, EMA 100 and Fibo 0.500. The daily relative strength index sits at 49.6, the trend reads sideways and the MACD signal remains bullish.
In derivatives, the perpetual funding rate stands at -0.0049% per interval with open interest near $33.2 million.

• Kava ruled out unlimited token minting and said the issue is confined to Kava Lend.
• Kava paused the Axelar cross-chain bridge pending a full incident report.
• An unverified X post claimed 48.36 million KAVA, about $3.3 million, moved to BNB Chain.
Kava Lend Transactions Trigger Security Review
Kava opened a security review on Saturday after its team detected abnormal on-chain activity involving its native token. In a statement on the project's official X account, the team reported that KAVA tokens had been moved to BNB Smart Chain and then sold, and that the transactions are tied to Kava Lend, a lending dapp where users deposit supported assets as collateral to borrow or to earn interest on what they supply. The team said the issue was contained before it could spread to other applications in the ecosystem. Two points in that disclosure carry the most weight. Kava explicitly ruled out unlimited token minting, saying no new KAVA entered circulating supply outside the normal issuance schedule. What the team has not yet explained is how the transfers were executed, what flaw was used, and whether any user of the protocol lost funds. Kava Lend supports assets compatible with the Cosmos and Ethereum ecosystems, so the unanswered loss question touches collateral positions on both sides of that user base. The market repriced ahead of the investigation. KAVA, the token used for network security, staking and governance, dropped more than 40% within hours on Saturday and traded down to about $0.04002 at one point, with some feeds printing levels near $0.037. The slide has since gone further: our live monitoring puts KAVA at $0.0316, a decline of 53.6% over 24 hours. Korean exchanges acted within minutes of one another. Upbit suspended KAVA deposits and withdrawals and warned investors of possible security risks in its official notice, while Bithumb and Coinone applied matching restrictions. Order matching stays open on all three venues, but with the transfer rails closed, moving the altcoin off an exchange and into self-custody is not possible until services resume.
48.36M KAVA Reported Moved to BNB Chain
Claims about the scale of the outflow started circulating on X. A widely shared post put the movement at 48.36 million KAVA, worth roughly $3.3 million at the time, bridged from the Kava network to BNB Chain, with part of the sum said to be converting into BNB in batches of 100,000 KAVA on a decentralized exchange and about 47.96 million KAVA still unsold when the post appeared. Those figures remain unconfirmed: the post carried no wallet address or transaction identifier, and Kava's own statements have not connected the alleged transfer to the application under review. Kava's first public statement, issued before the protocol was named, likewise gave no application name, no scope and no confirmation of losses. No independent on-chain verification of the batches has been published. Containment went beyond the exchange freezes. Kava paused the Axelar cross-chain bridge as a precaution, which stops cross-chain withdrawals through that route, one of the main exit paths for assets that arrived on Kava from other networks. The project committed to publishing a full incident report once the review is complete, but attached no date to restoring services. The exchange timeline was unusually tight. Bithumb's suspension announcement landed at 13:35 Turkey time on Saturday, and Upbit's followed a minute later; Upbit said it would issue a fresh notice only after confirming that deposits and withdrawals over the Kava network can resume safely. Coinone's measure, like Bithumb's, covers deposits and withdrawals only, leaving trading books live. Closed deposit channels also carry a market consequence: with arbitrage between venues constrained, price gaps across exchanges can persist for longer after a shock, delaying the point at which quotes realign. For a market already down more than half, restricted arbitrage is one more reason the sell-off is finding no natural brake.
A 35/100 Floor and Thin Positioning
The chart offers little cushion at these levels. Our composite support scoring places the first meaningful floor at $0.0276, scored 35 out of 100, while the nearest strong resistance sits far overhead at $0.0690, scored 86 out of 100. The daily RSI reads 8.59 with a bearish trend signal, and derivatives positioning is light: perp funding sits at 0.0039% and open interest at roughly $1.46 million, so the decline ran through spot trading rather than leveraged books. The same composite our KAVA technical analysis tracks resolves only with the incident report: until it names the mechanism and confirms whether funds were lost, no support level below the market carries much weight.

• Aave V4 deposits on Avalanche rose 295% since late October, passing $225 million.
• Active loans on the Aave V4 Avalanche markets exceeded $100 million.
• Aave Labs launched Aave V4 on Avalanche under documentation dated July 15.
Deposits Cross $225 Million
Deposits in the Aave V4 markets deployed on Avalanche (AVAX) have grown 295% since late October and now exceed $225 million, according to a post the network's official account published on Friday, November 13. The same post put active loans on those markets above $100 million. Both figures describe a single venue: Aave V4, the newest version of the lending dApp , which Aave Labs rolled out on the network under launch documentation dated July 15. The 295% is the growth rate the account itself published. The post gave no starting balance and no formula behind the percentage, so the figure can be read only within the limits of that announcement: a deposits level above $225 million, measured from an undisclosed base in late October. What it measures is supply. In a lending market, a deposit is capital a user has supplied, and it can sit idle in the market or stand behind a loan. The second number the post published, the $100 million of active borrowing, describes how much of the deposited capital is out on loans at any given moment. The two figures together define the scope of the announcement, and the scope is narrow. They cover the V4 deployment on this chain only, not Aave markets on other networks, and they say nothing about trading in the underlying token. The deposits figure is a stock, not a flow: it is the total sitting in the markets when the post went up, not the amount that arrived during the growth window. No asset-level breakdown came with it. Seeing how the money arrived, in which assets and through which market, requires the protocol's own structure. The post framed both numbers as milestones for the deployment rather than as a comparison with any other chain.
Stables and Wrapped Assets in the Hub
The liquidity hub behind those deposits holds WAVAX, sAVAX, BTC.b, USDC, USDT, WETH.e and EURC. V4 organizes activity into a main market, an AVAX-correlated market and a foreign exchange market, and every market draws on the hub's shared liquidity instead of keeping its own pool. The main market accepts WAVAX alongside BTC.b and the stablecoins as assets users can supply or borrow. The AVAX-correlated market is a narrower loop: it takes sAVAX, a liquid staking token, as collateral and lends WAVAX against it, so deposits there are AVAX-linked assets moving between wrappers, not fresh purchases of the token. The foreign exchange market uses USDC, USDT and EURC as both collateral and borrowed assets, and its balances count toward the same headline total. Because several markets share one hub, the same pool of liquidity can serve the main market's borrowers and the foreign exchange market's collateral needs at once, a design that concentrates depth but blurs which market drove the growth. That composition is why the deposit total resists a simple reading. Growth of 295% across this mix means stablecoins, wrapped Bitcoin and wrapped Ether arrived in the markets alongside AVAX-linked assets, and nothing in the published figures separates them. A $225 million deposit base therefore cannot be read as $225 million of AVAX bought. Deposits also are not total value locked: TVL counts the tokens locked in a protocol's contracts and excludes assets that have been borrowed out, a different accounting basis from the deposits number the account published. Measuring the 295% against a TVL chart built on the other definition would misstate the capital involved. Earlier gaps between reported V4 deposit figures and official numbers are one reason that distinction needs care. AVAX's role in the network sits apart from all of this: the token pays transaction fees and secures staking, and the AVAX paid in fees is burned. Neither trading volume nor fee burn for the period can be derived from the deposits figure, so the announcement's scope starts and ends with deposits and active loans.
Deposits Against a Falling Tape
Our live monitoring shows the token down 9.4% over the past 24 hours, and its recent chart carries sharp swings in both directions. The Avalanche ecosystem has seen the token rally 4% after the NYSE tokenized stock settlement selection and slip below $8 in a market-wide selloff. Deposits had nothing to do with those moves. The 295% figure says the V4 markets gathered capital; it does not say the capital chased the token. Avalanche technical analysis tracks those price levels separately, and the deposits announcement changes none of them. Anyone sizing the milestone should keep protocol usage and token demand apart, note that the official percentage ships without a published base, and treat that distinction as the core of any DYOR exercise on the figure.

• Bitcoin's weekly loss reached 13.5% when the Saturday reading was published.
• Ethereum fell 18%, Solana 18% and XRP 16.3% over the same week.
• James Check read the move as the fourth capitulation event since the all-time high.
A Three-Month Low in a 13.5% Week
In the hours after United States equity markets closed on Friday, the Bitcoin (BTC) price gave up roughly another 3%, and by early Saturday the coin had slid to its lowest intraday level in three months. Price-history data recorded the session trough at $65,039.6; the round $65,000 figure that circulated in coverage is a near-approximation of that print, and neither number is a closing value. The last time Bitcoin traded this low on an intraday basis was in August, so the session put the coin back where it stood before the late-summer climb. The drop came outside regular Wall Street hours, and weekend order books thin out after the New York close, a condition that tends to exaggerate moves of this size. The seven-day decline gives the scale: by the time the Saturday reading was published, the coin had lost 13.5% of its value over the week. Our Friday tally had put the weekly loss at 11.5%, meaning the figure worsened by two full percentage points inside a day. Nor did the selling stop at the largest asset. Over the same window, Ethereum lost 18%, Solana matched that drop at 18%, and XRP gave up 16.3%, so the drawdown spread across major altcoin markets rather than ending at Bitcoin's door. Bitcoin has since steadied a little above the trough. At the time of writing it trades at $65,187, some $150 above the session low and 5.3% lower across 24 hours, with a market capitalization near $1.31 trillion and 24-hour turnover of $22.3 billion. The three-month low therefore stands as the reference print for the sessions ahead, with the coin holding just above it.
James Check Calls It the Fourth Capitulation
James Check, an on-chain market analyst, read the slide as the fourth capitulation event since the all-time high, in a cycle that has run since the most recent Bitcoin halving. Capitulation is the market's term for holders who sell while accepting a loss rather than waiting out the drawdown, and the pattern inverts the HODL discipline that marked earlier stages of the cycle. In Check's account, the sellers are investors who hesitated through last summer, then bought in September when the coin traded in the $80,000s. He wrote that they are “now selling at the very price they had hoped to buy at three months ago.” The point lands because every one of those September entries sits under water in a $65,000 market. In plain terms, the seller accepts the loss today rather than risk a deeper one tomorrow. Check also offered a valuation read, calling the current zone a deep-value area for the market. The reporting around that phrase gave no calculation basis, and Check himself cautioned that the assessment does not amount to a confirmed bottom. The distinction matters: a value call describes where price sits relative to its own history, not where it turns, and Saturday's session offered no confirmation either way. The wider retail conversation stayed equally divided. In the r/BitcoinMarkets daily discussion dated Nov 14, one participant argued that the pressure reflects loss-taking by buyers who entered between $75,000 and $85,000, while another countered that further downside remains on the table. Both are individual opinions rather than data, but the split mirrors the same gap between a value framing and an unconfirmed low. Our own coverage this week recorded the same loss-driven pattern in the numbers: on-chain data showed coins changing hands at a loss as the aSOPR slipping to 0.995, below the break-even line, and corporate treasuries built as strategic Bitcoin reserves are feeling the drawdown too, with Strategy's holdings $7.1 billion under water at a $67,000 reference price.
Support at $64,739, Sentiment at 13
Our composite support scoring places the strongest floor below the market at $62,448.79, scored 68 out of 100, with a nearer shelf at $64,739.25 that scored 62, and spot now sits just above that nearer line. Positioning argues against a quick repair: the perpetual funding rate stands at 0.0029% while 77.8% of accounts stay long, a 3.51 long/short ratio that, in a falling market, points to selling from larger positions tracked as crypto whale flows. Sentiment sits at 13 out of 100, extreme fear, with the trend model still reading a downtrend and the RSI at 20.66. The full level map sits in our Bitcoin technical analysis. Until a session closes back above the $64,739 shelf, the downtrend that has now run through a full week of losses and one three-month low stands unbroken.