che hanno fatto offerte sul token reale (reale ) promosso dall'ex campione UFC Conor McGregor riceverà un rimborso completo dopo che il progetto non è riuscito a raccogliere al di sopra del suo $ 1 milione minimo. Non abbiamo raggiunto il nostro aumento minimo, & rdquo ; the developers of the Real (REAL) token, Real World Gaming said in an April 6 X post, aggiungendo che & ldquo ; tutte le offerte saranno rimborsate in piena. RWG said.

The team only managed to raise $392,315 in USDC ( usdc ) per una prevendita di 28 ore il 5 e 6 aprile & mdash ; Meno della metà del minimo richiesto e circa l'11% dell'obiettivo $ 3,6 milioni, che è stato condotto tramite un'asta di bidone sigillata. & nbsp ;

la vendita pubblica di 60 milioni di token reali (3% del totale miliardi di approvvigionamento reale ) inizialmente mirato inizialmente un valore di diluizione completamente diluita di $ 120 milioni, con la bonifica reale $ 06 token.

solo 668 partecipanti sono stati coinvolti, secondo rwg & rsquo ; s. data-ct-non-breakableu003d"null" hrefu003d"https://docs.google.com/document/d/1uhvflbnBbCMcS5pVWZ3derTHmX02LLYnSd2R_YvP730/edit?tabu003dt.0" relu003d"null" targetu003d"null" textu003d"null" title u003d "null " > token celebri che bruciavano luminosi, poi bruciati, nel 2024

mcgregor, un combattente UFC trasformato in imprenditore e il candidato politico IRLAND, iniziale che sarebbe stato più legittimo di altri legittimi, McGregari, McGregied UFC, un candidato politico Ireland, ha inizialmente rivendicato il suo clandestino, il suo clandestino sarebbe più legittimo di altri legittimi, McGregor, McGregor UFC. token, che hanno frequentemente det-> desthed in rugh in tappe pull:

& ldquo ; questo non è

Jameson lopp, il Chief Security Officer di Bitcoin ( btc ) società di custodia Casa, ha suonato l'allarme sugli attacchi di avvelenamento dell'indirizzo bitcoin, una truffa di ingegneria sociale che utilizza indirizzi simili da vittime

Last week, Bitcoin (BTC) began showing early signs of decoupling from the US stock markets. Bitcoin was relatively flat over the week, while the S&P 500 plunged by 9%. The sell-off was triggered following US President Donald Trump’s April 2 global tariff announcement, which escalated further on April 4 as China retaliated with new tariffs on US goods. Even gold was not spared and was down 1.9% for the week.

Alpine Fox founder Mike Alfred highlighted in a post on X that a gold bull market is bullish for Bitcoin. During previous cycles, gold led Bitcoin for a short while, but eventually, Bitcoin caught up and grew 10 times or more than gold. He added that it would not be any different this time.

Although the short-term outperformance of Bitcoin is an encouraging sign, traders should remain cautious until further clarity emerges on the macroeconomic front. If the US stock markets witness another round of selling, the cryptocurrency markets may also come under pressure.

A handful of altcoins are showing strength on the charts, but waiting for the overall sentiment to turn bullish before jumping could be a better strategy. If Bitcoin breaks above its immediate resistance, what are the top cryptocurrencies that may follow it higher?

Bitcoin price analysis

Bitcoin bulls have failed to push the price above the resistance line, but they have not ceded much ground to the bears. This suggests that the bulls have kept up the pressure.

The 20-day exponential moving average ($84,241) is flattening out, and the relative strength index (RSI) is just below the midpoint, signaling a balance between supply and demand.

This advantage will tilt in favor of the bulls on a break and close above the resistance line. There is resistance at $89,000, but if the level gets taken out, the BTC/USDT pair could ascend toward $100,000.

The $80,000 is the vital support to watch out for on the downside. If this level cracks, the pair could plummet to $76,606 and then to $73,777.

The pair has been consolidating between $81,000 and $88,500. The moving averages on the 4-hour chart are sloping down marginally, and the RSI is just below the midpoint, signaling the continuation of the range-bound action in the near term. 

If buyers push the price above $85,000, the pair could rally to $88,500. This level could attract sellers, but the pair may jump to $95,000 if the bulls prevail. 

The bears will be back in the driver’s seat if the price breaks below the $81,000 to $80,000 support zone. The pair may then dump to $76,606.

Pi Network price analysis

Pi Network (PI) has been in a strong downtrend since topping out at $3 on Feb. 26. The relief rally on April 5 shows the first signs of buying at lower levels.

Any recovery is expected to face selling at the 20-day EMA (0.85), which remains the key short-term level to watch out for. If the PI/USDT pair does not give up much ground from the 20-day EMA, it indicates that the bulls are holding on to their positions. That opens the doors for a rally above the 20-day EMA. The pair could then jump to the 50% Fibonacci retracement level of $1.10 and next to the 61.8% retracement level of $1.26.

The $0.40 level is the critical support on the downside. A break and close below $0.40 could sink the pair to $0.10.

The 4-hour chart shows that the bears are defending the 50-simple moving average, but a minor positive is that the bulls are trying to keep the pair above the 20-EMA. If the price rebounds off the 20-EMA, the bulls will attempt to kick the pair above $0.80. If they do that, the pair could travel to $1.20.

On the contrary, a break and close below the 20-EMA suggests that the bears have kept up the pressure. The negative momentum could pick up on a break below $0.54. The pair may then retest the vital support at $0.40.

OKB price analysis

OKB (OKB) turned up sharply on April 4 and closed above the moving averages, indicating that the bulls are attempting a comeback.

The up move continued, and the bulls pushed the price above the short-term resistance at $54 on April 6. The OKB/USDT pair could reach the resistance line of the descending channel, which is likely to attract sellers. If the price turns down sharply and breaks below $54, the pair may oscillate inside the channel for a few more days.

On the other hand, if buyers do not give up much ground from the resistance line, it increases the likelihood of a break above the channel. The pair could climb to $64 and then to $68.

The pair will complete an inverted head-and-shoulders pattern on a break and close above the neckline. The up move may face selling at the resistance line, but on the way down, if buyers flip the neckline into support, it increases the possibility of a break above the resistance line. If that happens, the pair could start its march toward the pattern target of $70.

Sellers will have to fiercely defend the neckline and quickly pull the price below the 20-EMA to prevent the rally. The pair may drop to the 50-SMA and thereafter to $45.

Related: Solana TVL hits new high in SOL terms, DEX volumes show strength — Will SOL price react?

GateToken price analysis

GateToken (GT) has been finding support at the 50-day SMA ($22.05) for a few days, which is an important level to watch out for.

The flattish moving averages and the RSI just below the midpoint do not give a clear advantage either to the bulls or the bears. A break and close above $23.18 could push the price to $24. This remains the key overhead resistance for the bears to defend because a break above it could catapult the GT/USDT pair to $26.

This positive view will be invalidated in the short term if the price breaks and maintains below the 50-day SMA. The pair may sink to $21.28 and then to $20.79.

The pair turned down from the resistance line of the descending channel pattern, indicating selling on rallies. The break below the moving averages suggests the pair may remain inside the channel for some more time.

Buyers will gain the upper hand on a break and close above the resistance line. Such a move suggests that the corrective phase may be over. The pair could rally to $23.18 and then to $24.

Cosmos price analysis

Cosmos (ATOM) is trying to form a bottom but is facing selling at $5.15. A minor positive in favor of the bulls is that they have not allowed the price to break below the moving averages.

If the price rebounds off the moving averages with force, it signals buying on dips. That improves the prospects of a break above the $5.15 resistance. If that happens, the ATOM/USDT pair could surge toward $6.50 and then to $7.17.

Contrarily, a break and close below the moving averages suggests a possible range formation in the near term. The pair could swing between $5.15 and $4.15 for a while. Sellers will be back in command on a slide below $4.15.

The bulls and the bears are witnessing a tough battle at the 20-EMA on the 4-hour chart. If the price remains below the 20-EMA, the pair could tumble to the 50-day SMA and later to $4.15. Buyers are expected to fiercely defend the $4.15 level.

Instead, if the price stays above the 20-day EMA, it signals solid demand at lower levels. The bulls will then try to push the pair to $5.15. A break and close above this resistance could start a new up move.

This article does not contain investment advice or recommendations. Every investment and trading move involves risk, and readers should conduct their own research when making a decision.

stablecoins sono lo strumento migliore per il governo degli Stati Uniti per mantenere i dollari USA

Bitcoin ( btc ) ha emesso la volatilità nella chiusura settimanale del 6 aprile mentre i timori di un crash di mercato azionario sono stati contrastati con obiettivi di prezzo BTC rialzisti.

cnbc & rsquo ; s Cramer: 1987 Crash non & ldquo ; fuori dal tavolo eppure & rdquo ;

> data-ct-non-breable u003d "null " href u003d "https://subscription.cointelegraph.com/?_glu003d1*7499wx*_ga*mtq0mzq0nzi4 Ny4xnze2mzy1nta0 *_ ga_53r24teeb1 *mtcxnjm2ntuwnc4xljeumtcxnjm2njg2mc4wljauma .. " rel u003d "null " target u003d "null " text u003d "null " title u003d "null " > Cointelegraph Markets Pro e tradingView ha mostrato che BTC/USD scendevano al di sotto di $ 80.000 nel giorno, in calo del 3% dall'inizio della settimana. Asset.

US STOCKS IN PACCHIARE ha registrato perdite significative , con entrambi i s & amp ; p 500 e l'indice composito NASDAQ che termina la sessione di trading del 4 aprile.

The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) will likely see a reduced role in crypto regulations as other federal agencies like the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and state-level regulators assume a bigger role in crypto policy, according to Ethan Ostroff, partner at the Troutman Pepper Locke law firm.

"I think with the current administration, my sense is, we are highly likely to see a significant pullback by the CFPB in the context of the activity by other regulators," Ostroff told Cointelegraph in an interview.

State regulators also have the authority under the Consumer Financial Protection Act (CFPA) to assume some of the regulatory roles of the CFPB, the attorney said but also added that some regulatory functions will continue to fall within the purview of the CFPB as a matter of established law.

Ostroff cited the New York Department of Financial Services (NYDFS) and the California Department of Financial Protection and Innovation (DFPI) as regulators to keep an eye on as potential leaders of crypto regulations at the state level.

However, the attorney clarified that while the CFPB may see a diminished role during the Trump administration, the agency would not be outright dismantled during the current regime due to "statutorily mandated obligations and requirements" that require acts of Congress to change.

Related: Elon Musk’s ‘government efficiency’ team turns its sights to SEC — Report

Trump administration targets CFPB in efficiency push

The Trump administration targeted the CFPB as part of a broader push by the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) to slash government spending and reduce the federal debt.

Russell Vought, the recently appointed head of the CFPB, announced major funding cuts to the agency and scaled back operations within days of assuming the helm at the CFPB in February 2025.

Massachusetts Senator Elizabeth Warren criticized Elon Musk for dismantling the CFPB, which the US senator co-founded back in 2007.

Warren characterized Musk as a "bank robber" and claimed that the Trump administration dismantled the CFPB to undo consumer protection rules and have greater control over the financial system.

In a February 12 interview with Mother Jones, the senator stressed that the Executive Branch of government does not have the statutory authority to fully dismantle the CFPB, which can only be done through Congressional approval.

Magazine: SEC’s U-turn on crypto leaves key questions unanswered

Opinion by: Daryl Xu, co-founder and CEO, NPC Labs

While gaming has been on a steady decline since the end of COVID-19 lockdowns, 2024 hit the industry especially hard, with layoffs and studio closures hitting even the most prominent studios. 

While unsustainable development costs and an innovation crisis seem to be the main culprits behind the collapse, Web3 gaming emerged as a potential solution promising to return power to developers — and it raised billions of dollars in investment to do so. 

Yet, despite a continued rise in crypto adoption, Web3 gaming has failed to capture mainstream players’ attention or solve any of gaming’s fundamental problems. Why? Early blockchains were designed for financial applications. Game developers were forced to either build on blockchains that weren’t designed for their use or create their own chains that isolated themselves from the blockchain ecosystem. Either choice led to poor player experience and an overemphasis on tokenomics. 

Many developers choose the latter, picking control over connectivity. Inadvertently, this resulted in walled gardens that were not dissimilar to the ones that contributed to traditional gaming’s collapse.

A solution that created more problems

A recent article in The New York Times revealed that over the last 30 or 40 years, video game industry executives have bet on better graphics to bring in players and profits rather than leaning on creativity. Traditional gaming development is costly, regularly exceeding $100 million per title. Indie developers often struggle to compete against large publishers who ultimately control funding and distribution.

Blockchain seemed to be a promising solution for indie studios, providing them with new avenues to raise funds and giving them control over distribution. Early Web3 gaming platforms, however, ended up recreating the same enclosed systems that blockchain was trying to fix. With high player acquisition costs and limited Web3 gamers, Web3 gaming platforms deepened their moats to prevent users from moving away. As it continued developing, Web3 gaming introduced its own problems. 

An impossible choice for game developers

The technological infrastructures of layer-1 blockchains like Ethereum and Solana were created for finance and not aligned with gaming’s requirements. Beyond transaction speed, layer-2 solutions were not designed to handle gaming’s unique needs either.

Game developers — attracted to Web3’s funding model, promises of ownership and user engagement, are forced to either build on existing blockchains and compromise gameplay or launch their own chain — which diverts attention and resources away from what they want to do: make better games. 

Recent: Web3 gaming investors no longer throwing money at ‘Axie killers’

While crypto native players may feel this is a worthwhile tradeoff, mainstream gamers want engaging experiences. A January DappRadar report showed that Web3 gaming had reached 7.3 million unique active wallets, but  in speaking with the community anecdotally, approximately 10,000 of those represent the actual gaming cohort who aren’t in games just to farm rewards. This number may be higher but is not more than 50,000 to 100,000 at the most.

A misalignment with gaming culture

The thing that converts mainstream users onchain isn’t non-fungible tokens (NFTs) or decentralized finance, its meaningful ownership of in-asset games. Mainstream gamers have spent decades on arcade games, Nintendo or mobile games. If combined with true ownership of in-game assets, that familiarity is powerful enough to create a compelling experience for developers and gamers.

While Web3 games claim to be revolutionizing gaming, most projects aren’t listening to actual gamers. In actuality, they end up competing for the same crypto-native users. Rather than focusing on fun and engaging gameplay, most Web3 games are led by crypto technology and tokenomics. Within this bubble, success in Web3 gaming meant taking crypto users from each other rather than bringing new players onchain. 

With rare exceptions, the industry lost sight of what’s important: making fun games that people want to play.

This misalignment also extends to game developers who want to enter Web3 to create better player experiences and sustainable revenue models. Game studios understand the potentials of Web3 but are hesitant to navigate crypto’s complex systems, which require technical skills to build protocols with sufficient liquidity and user bases while delivering seamless gameplay simultaneously.

Make games fun again

As major studios continue to struggle, Web3 has a second chance to deliver on its promise. But this time, we must rethink how games interact. We must focus on creating access for creators and players instead of building new walled gardens. This requires Web3 gaming-specific infrastructure that provides both developer control and cross-ecosystem collaboration. 

The path forward is clear. We need to restore economic freedom to creators and put control back in players’ hands. That means revenue models that reward collaboration instead of isolation. Most importantly, it means returning to gaming’s roots — making games fun again. 

The future of gaming isn’t about better graphics or token incentives. It’s about creating an industry where creativity and collaboration can thrive. When developers can focus on making engaging experiences instead of building moats, everyone wins.

Opinion by: Daryl Xu, co-founder and CEO, NPC Labs.

This article is for general information purposes and is not intended to be and should not be taken as legal or investment advice. The views, thoughts, and opinions expressed here are the author’s alone and do not necessarily reflect or represent the views and opinions of Cointelegraph.