Autor Christina Comben

Does Botanix’s failure prove Bitcoiners don’t care about DeFi?

For the past two cycles, Bitcoin DeFi has lived more as a promise than a category.Programmable Bitcoin has remained a vision held by a certain breed of Bitcoin maxi who believes that the world’s largest cryptocurrency can become productive without losing its security or sound money qualities. Yet the closure of Bitcoin scaling platform Botanix earlier this month has called that vision into question.If a well-funded, technically ambitious Bitcoin layer-2 with live apps, integrations and competitive yields can’t attract enough usage to survive, does that mean Bitcoiners simply don’t care about decentralized finance?Bitcoin DeFi remains a niche proposition in 2026, despite years of being touted as the next big thing.DefiLlama’s dashboard shows just $4.12 billion of total value locked (TVL) across all of the Bitcoin DeFi protocols. That’s a rounding error next to Bitcoin’s $1.2 trillion market cap, and the hundreds of billions held via spot exchange-traded funds, corporate treasuries and custodial accounts.Andre Dragosch, head of research Europe at Bitwise, told Cointelegraph, “Bitcoin is winning decisively as a monetary asset and as pristine collateral, but the case for Bitcoin as a standalone DeFi execution layer was always structurally weaker than the narrative suggested.”Botanix closes after four yearsWhen Botanix announced it was winding down after nearly four years of work and a year of mainnet uptime, the team didn’t blame a hack or a regulatory shock; they blamed demand. Botanix described a chain that “worked” in every technical sense: 25 million transactions, 200,000 wallets, and tens of millions of dollars in bridged funds, yet it never generated the fee volume needed to cover its infrastructure costs. Users came for the yield, treated BTC as store-of-value collateral, and then largely stuck to passive, buy-and-hold strategies, rather than actively borrowing, trading, or moving funds often enough to generate meaningful fee volume. Related: Fireblocks to integrate Stacks for institutional-grade Bitcoin DeFi Like most BTCFi stacks today, Botanix still requires users to bridge their Bitcoin into a tokenized version on a separate Ethereum Virtual Machine (EVM)-based chain before they can access DeFi. That introduces additional bridge and smart contract assumptions that worry many Bitcoiners. Botanix’s shutdown notice. Source: BotanixEven so, Botanix co-founder Willem Schroé told Cointelegraph that he wouldn’t have changed the core design. Despite Botanix offering what he described as “the best rates in the industry” and a more Bitcoin-aligned security model than typical wrapped BTC bridges, wrapped BTC on Ethereum still out-competed Botanix.He attributed that to Ethereum’s “huge infrastructure network and Lindy effect,” as well as a mix of liquidity depth, user experience and regulatory comfort.What Botanix learned about Bitcoin DeFiThe team concluded that Bitcoin is still viewed as a reserve asset rather than something that has programmable utility. For most existing use cases like lending, leveraged exposure, or yield, a wrapped BTC position on a large, mature EVM ecosystem such as Ethereum is “genuinely sufficient” for most users. Rather than bridge into a Bitcoin-aligned EVM chain like Botanix, users preferred to stick with wBTC on venues where the liquidity, apps and integrations already exist.Related: Mercado Bitcoin expands LatAm RWA push with $20M in Rootstock private credit Botanix also pointed to onchain activity consolidating around venues like Hyperliquid, and major centralized exchanges and retail-facing fintechs that “own the user relationship,” leaving independent infrastructure “rowing upstream” against convenience and branding.Wilhelm said he hopes Botanix’s wind-down “will definitely be looked at by others,” and framed the process as a professionally managed experiment whose lessons other BTCFi builders should take seriously. Bitcoiners, DeFi and wrapped BTCWhile estimates vary, only a small fraction of Bitcoin’s supply is currently productive in DeFi, and most of that sits in wrapped BTC products on Ethereum and its L2s like Base and Arbitrum, as well as Polygon, Solana and BNB Smart Chain. A smaller percentage is on “Bitcoin L2” chains, with Bitcoin-aligned L2s and sidechains accounting for a modest share of that activity by value.Tokenized BTC products themselves represent just a sliver of the asset: A May 2026 analysis estimated that roughly $20 billion worth of BTC — less than 2% of the total Bitcoin supply — is circulating on EVM chains in wrapped form.Total Value Locked (TVL) in Bitcoin DeFi. Source: DeFiLlamaAn October 2025 GoMining survey of 730 Bitcoin holders found that 77% of respondents had never used a BTCFi platform, and only 3% integrated BTCFi into their overall Bitcoin strategy. Even allowing for sample bias (these respondents were plugged-in, survey-answering BTC holders), the numbers show that BTCFi platforms that keep users in Bitcoin-aligned stacks remain a niche activity rather than a mass behavior.Justin d’Anethan, head of research at crypto private markets advisory firm Arctic Digital, told Cointelegraph, “There is more liquidity and better yields on EVM or SVM [Solana Virtual Machine] native solutions than on BTC solutions, period.” When clients ask about “putting their Bitcoin to work,” the practical routes, he said, are still centralized desks, exchanges lending out BTC at 2% to 4%, basis trade structures “à la Ethena,” or institutional credit pools like Maple. Related: Bitcoin recovery meets DeFi tensions as Aave rift deepens: Finance RedefinedHe said the big obstacle for most Bitcoiners was the risk of bridging to a less secure Bitcoin L2. For “hardcore BTC maxis,” the default remains cold storage, HODLing and riding price appreciation, rather than trying to “eke out 2-3% with counterparty risk.”Native BTCFi as a structural mismatchDragosch said Botanix’s failure suggested that demand for standalone Bitcoin DeFi execution layers was much weaker than their backers expected.He argued that capital that “genuinely wants yield has migrated to wrapped BTC on mature, liquid venues rather than bridging into bespoke federations.” In this view, the problem isn’t just that Bitcoiners haven’t “discovered” native DeFi yet; it’s that the architecture and user base are misaligned. Bitcoin’s base layer is slow, conservative and firmly anchored in the store-of-value narrative.“Bitcoin as reserve collateral is the durable trade,” Dr. Dragosch said, “the next leg of adoption runs through institutions and balance sheets, not necessarily through onchain execution layers.”77% of respondents have never used a BTCFi platform. Source: GoMiningWho is still building BTCFi, and for whom?Diego Gutierrez Zaldivar, chief executive of RootstockLabs, a Bitcoin-secured, EVM-compatible sidechain, doesn’t buy the idea that there’s “no demand” for Bitcoin-backed lending, yield products or broader BTCFi services. He said the main constraint is trust: putting in place the operational, legal and risk management frameworks that institutions need. More than 40% of all Bitcoin DeFi activity now runs through Rootstock, he said, including real-world asset settlements and institutional vaults. Over the past year, he said, funds have started asking to deposit hundreds or even thousands of BTC at a time into Rootstock-based products; flows that were almost unheard of two or three years ago.Chains TVL. Source: DeFiLlamaOrkun Mahir Kılıç, co-founder of Chainway Labs, which is behind Citrea, a Bitcoin-anchored rollup combining the Bitcoin Virtual Machine (BVM) and zero-knowledge proofs, argued that cloning EVM DeFi primitives onto Bitcoin is a dead end, and said that Botanix’s experience is a verdict on that model, rather than BTCFi itself.Orkun Mahir Kılıç is co-founder of Chainway Labs, behind Citrea, a Bitcoin-anchored rollup that keeps user assets inside Bitcoin’s security perimeter and proves its state with zero-knowledge proofs. He argued that cloning EVM DeFi primitives onto Bitcoin is a dead end, and said that Botanix’s experience is a verdict on that model, rather than BTCFi itself.He told Cointelegraph that “more secure” doesn’t change most people’s behavior.“People don’t price counterparty risk until something breaks,” he said. ”Where it matters” is for institutions and large holders that need trust-minimized transactions with no custodian to fail.“For everyone else, the reason to be here isn’t the security guarantee in the abstract; it’s the applications that don’t exist elsewhere.”Magazine: Bitcoin will not hit $1M by 2030, says veteran trader Peter Brandt

Čítaj viac

Ethereum’s much-hated staking 'tax' may already be obsolete

Ethereum is running out of money, according to former insiders. The warning has sparked one of the fiercest Ethereum governance debates in months: should the network fund developers by taxing staking rewards, or just rely on wealthy Ether holders to bankroll its ecosystem? At the center of the debate is a controversial proposal from Kleros co-founder Clément Lesaege. He suggested redirecting up to 10% of validator rewards to ecosystem funding through a protocol-level mechanism called Validator Redirected Revenue.Lesaege argued that this may be necessary to solve Ethereum’s “coordination failure” and reduce the underfunding of shared ecosystem work. The idea was met with a wave of backlash, with critics warning of cartel-like incentives and a dangerous precedent for validator-led redistribution. Validator Redirected Revenue proposal. Source: Eth ResearchBut just as the Ethereum community was sharpening its knives, a “credibly neutral” solution was forming: Ethlabs.Unveiled Monday by five former Ethereum Foundation researchers, the shiny nonprofit Ethereum research and development lab is backed by the ecosystem’s biggest supporters, including BitMine, Sharplink and ConsenSys founder Joseph Lubin.Related: Ethereum Foundation sacks 20% of workforce amid strategic restructuringWith large investors ready to dig into their pockets, the real question becomes less about whether Ethereum can fund itself and more about how it wants to be funded. Ethereum’s ‘slow-burning funding crisis’The latest ETH drama began on Friday when former Ethereum Foundation contributor Trenton Van Epps warned that Ethereum’s core development ecosystem could face a “slow-burning funding crisis” within three to nine months as older support programs dry up and Foundation spending falls. He estimated that maintaining more than 10 client, research and coordination teams costs roughly $30 million a year, and that the Client Incentive Program and other support mechanisms were no longer enough to cover that bill.Van Epps argued that Ethereum is entering an institutional “inheritance” phase in which the Foundation will move away from being the primary steward of protocol funding, and that new arrangements must replace the expiring programs he helped coordinate.Having spent much of the year dealing with leadership turnover, public criticism over priorities, and a growing debate over core protocol funding, Van Epps’ warning touched a raw nerve.But some Ethereum voices pushed back, arguing that the EF has “enough funds to run for at least 30 years, so there is zero funding crisis.” Bitmine’s Tom Lee also rejected the warning, saying there was “zero chance” of Ethereum running out of funds for protocol development.Ethereum Foundation Treasury Policy. Source: Ethereum FoundationThe Ethereum Foundation’s own treasury policy already points to a multi-year operating buffer and a planned reduction in annual spending.In June 2025, the EF said it would maintain a 2.5-year operating expense buffer in cash and stablecoins, pledged to cap annual spending at 15% of total treasury assets and gradually reduce that spending rate toward a 5% baseline over five years. Related: Ethereum can quantum-proof accounts for just 7 cents, says Ethereum’s Kohaku leadOn Tuesday, Ethereum founder Vitalik Buterin said the Foundation is decreasing its budget by roughly 40%, in line with that policy, as it transitions from spending around 15% of its funds annually before 2026 toward a long-term target of about 5% per year after 2030. It laid off 54 staff members. The proposal everyone hatesSo the Foundation may not run out of money, but it is tightening its belt and has a lot less cash to spend on research and development than in its glory days. Lesaege argued that Ethereum suffers from a coordination failure in which everyone benefits from shared infrastructure — but no one wants to foot the bill. His proposal would require validators to signal how much of their staking rewards they are willing to redirect, a figure between 0% and 10%. If a majority of validators supported a non-zero rate, that redirect would become mandatory for all. At current staking levels, he estimated that even a 5%-10% redirect could generate roughly 50,000 to 70,000 ETH per year for ecosystem work, or roughly $82.5 million to $115.5 million at current ETH prices today.Incentive to fund Ethereum growth. Source: Eth ResearchCritics quickly zeroed in on the mechanism’s power dynamics, warning that it could entrench large validators, blur the line between operators and governance actors, and give a stake-weighted majority new leverage over ecosystem funding decisions.What staking providers sayA spokesperson for Figment told Cointelegraph the proposal would compress margins, which “tends to consolidate the validator set toward larger, more integrated operators” serving institutional clients, like Figment. This would come at the “cost of some operator diversity and potentially fewer net new ETH stakers,” the spokesperson said.Andrew Gibb, chief executive and co-founder of Twinstake institutional staking, told Cointelegraph that various investor segments would respond differently. While long-term ETH holders may value the prospect of a better-funded ecosystem, shorter-term capital, such as retail participants, liquid multi-asset funds and reward-focused allocators may be less receptive. He said the proposal would “narrow the addressable staking market at the margin,” with the most price-sensitive cohorts likely to “reduce or exit positions,” adding that he would expect some clients to reassess their staking allocations.Related: Buterin fires back at Ethereum Foundation critics, recommits to neutralitySenior research associate at Bitwise, Max Shannon, told Cointelegraph that Ethereum staking participation has so far shown limited sensitivity to lower rewards. He said that the staking annual percentage rate (APR) has fallen from about 4.6% in June 2023 to around 2.7% now, while staked supply and the staking ratio roughly doubled. However, additional reward compression would make “slashing risk and exit-queue liquidity risk more material relative to the return.”He added that a lower net consensus-layer yield could push validators to rely more heavily on maximal extractable value (MEV) to make up lost APR, which could potentially weigh on censorship resistance.How large is the problem, really?On paper the funding gap is not that large. Shannon noted that if the annual shortfall is around $30 million and annual staking rewards are about $1.9 billion, so the gap could be filled with just 1.6% of staking rewards.That makes Lesaege’s proposal look modest, even though it remains politically radioactive. In economic terms, a single-digit haircut on staking rewards is manageable. In governance terms, many Ethereum participants see it as a line-crossing move that turns validators into a tax authority.Shannon also argued that networks with hard-coded development funding are not necessarily better off just because they earmark rewards. In his view, protocol success is driven far more by token performance and contributor incentives than by any one developer funding mechanism. A new funding model emerges Tom Lee’s comment there was “zero chance” of an Ethereum funding crisis and that funds were “secured” foreshadowed the unveiling of the new non-profit EthLabs a few days later.Rather than taxing rewards at the protocol level, Ethlabs enables large ETH-aligned institutions such as BitMine and Sharplink to fund development directly. Ethlabs nonprofit R&D for Ethereum. Source: EthlabsIt does not replace the Ethereum Foundation, but complements it. EthLabs signals that the smart contract platform’s next phase may involve a more distributed funding model, where the EF remains central to the protocol’s core, while other labs and treasury-heavy institutions fund adjacent work.In an X post on Monday, Ethereum co-founder Joe Lubin said there is still “an enormous amount of top tier talent” at the Ethereum Foundation that remain focused on “the cypherpunk core components” of the protocol. But he added that many other Ethereum R&D teams will now explore other dimensions.Gibb said that the responsibility for funding ecosystem development sits with foundations and protocol treasuries. There are alternate mechanisms to explore, such as staking yield or priority fees, he added, “before making changes to validator economics at the protocol level.” Whether Ethlabs proves sufficient remains to be seen. But its emergence has already shifted the debate from how Ethereum should tax itself to whether it needs to at all. Market Moves: Why is Ethereum Foundation selling? BTC futures warning signs

Čítaj viac

SpaceX’s debut: A win for crypto price discovery, a fail for tokenized access

SpaceX’s hotly anticipated public debut on June 12 raised $75 billion at $135 per share, valuing the company at more than $2 trillion and turning its founder, Elon Musk, into the world’s first trillionaire. And it’s not only Musk getting wealthier. Buyers who got in at the offer price made roughly 20% almost overnight, while early private investors saw far larger gains. Crypto traders, meanwhile, were abruptly cut out of the deal, left holding pre-IPO subscription tokens on platforms like Binance, Bybit and Bitget with no allocation to SpaceX at all.As SPCX shares soared, key tokenized equity pipelines broke down. Intermediaries failed to secure allocations, campaigns were abruptly canceled, and platforms scrambled to issue refunds and damage control. In effect, it’s a stress test for the “tokenized IPO access” narrative; price discovery worked, but access to the underlying shares did not.Pre-IPO perps as a parallel price signalAccording to Talos Research data shared with Cointelegraph on June 15, in the 30 minutes before the Nasdaq open, SPCX perpetuals traded at a volume-weighted average price (VWAP) of $159.89 across Hyperliquid, Binance and OKX, around 6.6% above the opening print, while Cerebras (CBRS) perps on Hyperliquid were within 1.3% of the Nasdaq open.It’s also worth noting SPCX perps peaked above $220 in mid-May before gradually converging lower toward the IPO date as traders incorporated more realistic valuation expectations, Talos Research said. SpaceX aggregated VWAP across venues, May 17 – June 8. Source: TalosPre-IPO perpetuals on derivatives platforms showed that onchain traders could generate credible price discovery and deep liquidity for a hot tech unicorn before a single share changed hands. They flashed a real-time indication of where speculators thought the stock would land by the opening bell.Related Crypto Biz: SpaceX fuels tokenization’s next boom“These signals will become increasingly difficult for underwriters and retail-facing platforms to ignore,” Samar Sen, head of international markets at Talos, told Cointelegraph, “particularly for high-profile listings where there is already active global demand before the IPO.” He said these markets could “become a useful supplementary input alongside institutional orders, private market marks and comparable-company analysis.”Why tokenized SpaceX “IPO access” collapsed at the last mileThe problem, then, was not with synthetic, futures-style exposure to SpaceX’s valuation. Pre-IPO perpetuals “functioned as intended,” Sen said, proving to be “a venue for continuous trading and price discovery ahead of the listing.”Talos Research showed that SPCX perpetual markets recorded roughly $4.6 billion in trading volume on the day of IPO, with total open interest peaking near $500 million across eight venues, including Hyperliquid, Binance, OKX and Kraken, while Cerebras (CBRS) on Hyperliquid saw $281 million in IPO day volume.Perpetuals traders were able to monetize both the pre-IPO volatility and the post-listing convergence. But investors who bought tokenized claims on SpaceX IPO shares missed out on the upside entirely. The SpaceX IPO was four times oversubscribed, leaving many retail investors with too few shares, tiny fills, or even zero allocation.SpaceX open interest by volume and venue, May 16 – June 12. Source: TalosSpaceX-linked tokenized shares on major exchanges collapsed at the last mile, with platforms like Binance, Bybit and Bitget Wallet all canceling their campaigns and issuing refunds after xStocks failed to deliver the underlying allocation.Alvin Kan, chief operating officer of Bitget Wallet, told Cointelegraph that users subscribed to participate in a tokenized IPO offering facilitated through Kraken’s xStocks, and that the tokens, “if issued,” would represent economic exposure to SpaceX shares. Related: Bybit to offer tokenized SpaceX IPO access through xStocksThe tokens never came. Kraken was unable to satisfy demand from its own users, let alone serve as a distribution hub for third-party platforms, since the bottleneck was the availability of underlying IPO shares, rather than the onchain plumbing itself.How exchanges responded when the allocation pipeline brokeUsers were left empty-handed as platforms issued notices citing “circumstances outside” their control, causing them to cancel their campaigns and return the subscribed funds. Binance founder and former chief executive Changpeng Zhao posted the notice on X with the comment, “Protect users when things don’t go as planned,” which triggered a litany of furious replies from retail traders. Binance customer notice, SpaceX IPO campaign cancelation. Source: BinanceOne user stated, “last in the queue, again,” and pointed to the $557 million in crypto capital raised across “three of the world’s biggest exchanges” to buy tokenized SpaceX shares. “All cancelled. Zero shares delivered… Turns out you still need the underlying asset. Blockchain doesn’t magic shares into existence when Wall Street decides who gets the allocation.” A Binance Wallet representative told Cointelegraph its role in the campaign was limited to technical and support services. Binance Wallet was not responsible for “pricing, issuance, backing or redemption,” they said, and user-facing materials stated allocation was not guaranteed.Despite also getting clogged in the xStocks blockage, Bitget, after canceling its pre-market subscriptions and refunding users, responded by switching to Reality, a real-world asset platform backed by the exchange.Related: Kraken offers SpaceX IPO access through xStocksBitget chief executive Gracy Chen told Cointelegraph that Reality provides 1:1 tokenized SpaceX shares (rSPCX) on the spot market, held with a broker, replacing the exchange’s third-party initiative with xStocks.She said that for users, that means access to “properly backed” US equities, rather than short-term structures chasing a single hot IPO.The gap between onchain exposure and real allocationsAt the heart of the SpaceX mess is a simple structural gap. Crypto venues can create synthetic or tokenized exposure to a stock, but they can’t control the primary market allocations that only underwriters with broker-dealer networks can provide. Pre-IPO perpetuals gave a strong real-time signal of where traders thought SPCX should trade, but the tokenized IPO campaigns depended on a single upstream allocation pipe that ultimately ran dry.Sen argued this is exactly why pre-IPO derivatives should be treated as “signals” not substitutes for the IPO machinery itself, and the SpaceX episode reinforces the “need for greater caution around how different forms of pre-IPO exposure are structured, marketed and understood.” Kan said the episode points to a “broader reality facing the tokenized RWA space,” adding that onchain infrastructure for distribution and settlement is ready, but the mechanisms for crypto-native channels to access primary market allocation are still developing.Retail demand, he said, is growing faster than the supply-side infrastructure, and closing that gap will require “closer collaboration between crypto platforms, traditional intermediaries and regulators.”Tokenization can improve access, but it can’t create sharesThe legal constraints also help explain why the SpaceX IPO was never going to happen onchain in the first place. Brogan Law’s Aaron Brogan noted that a token sold to raise $75 billion for SpaceX and marketed on the company’s future performance would fall squarely on the securities side of the Securities and Exchange Commission’s (SEC) recent token guidance line.Related: SEC plan to scrap ‘Rule 611’ positive for tokenized US stocks: GalaxyBetween securities law, tax uncertainty and the scrutiny a mega-deal would invite, he argued, “there is no path to do so reliably,” making a full-blown token sale an unrealistic substitute for a traditional IPO for a company of SpaceX’s size.A spokesperson from the SEC declined to comment on whether the regulator had concerns around crypto platforms’ promotion of IPO access or whether securities regulations adequately address tokenized equity offerings.Statement on Tokenized Securities. Source: SECIn a January 2026 staff statement on tokenized securities, however, the SEC stressed that tokenized stocks remain full securities subject to registration and disclosure rules, explicitly distinguishing between custodial, issuer-sponsored tokenization and synthetic or third-party wrappers.The future of tokenized IPO accessFor all the drama around the SpaceX IPO, none of the key players believe it has killed the tokenized equity story, but rather sharpened the conditions under which it can work. Dinari, a tokenized equities platform whose tokenized $SPCX maintained continuous uptime as the allocation pipe ran dry, chief executive Gabriel Otte told Cointelegraph the long-term opportunity is to “extend the reach of public markets, not reinvent them.”He said that was achievable by starting with real underlying securities, regulated custody and clear legal rights, then using tokenization to improve access and settlement rather than to sidestep the rules.Chen, for her part, said the exchange has learned to avoid short-term, third-party structures and instead build 1:1, broker-backed tokens it can stand behind.For Brogan, the SpaceX IPO exposed the difference between pricing a stock and allocating one. Crypto markets were able to generate liquidity and price discovery ahead of the listing, but access to actual IPO shares remained firmly in the hands of traditional market participants.Sen concluded that, while investors may be more cautious about products promising exposure to underlying private company shares, the scale of activity surrounding SpaceX shows these markets are “becoming increasingly difficult to ignore.”Magazine: How to fix suspected insider trading on Polymarket and Kalshi

Čítaj viac

Získaj BONUS 8 € v Bitcoinoch

nakup bitcoin z karty

Registrácia Binance

Burza Binance

Aktuálne kurzy