Need to know what happened in crypto today? Here is the latest news on daily trends and events impacting Bitcoin price, blockchain, DeFi, NFTs, Web3 and crypto regulation. Today in crypto: Crypto market participants aren’t fearful enough yet to call a market bottom, Bitcoin maximalist and analyst warns investors not to sell BTC for gold. Meanwhile, a user lost nearly $50 million in USDt after copying a poisoned wallet address from transaction history. Crypto traders have not yet shown enough fear on social media to confirm a market bottom, according to a crypto analyst who suggested Bitcoin could still slide to around $75,000. “It looks very tempting to come even closer to it,” crypto market sentiment platform Santiment founder, Maksim Balashevich, said on a video published to YouTube on Friday. Read more
BlackRock’s spot Bitcoin ETF ranked sixth in 2025 ETF inflows despite posting a negative annual return, a signal analysts say reflects long-term conviction. BlackRock’s spot Bitcoin ETF, iShares Bitcoin Trust (IBIT, has ranked sixth in net inflows despite being the only fund in the top cohort posting a negative return for the year. Data shared by Bloomberg ETF analyst Eric Balchunas shows IBIT pulling in roughly $25 billion in year-to-date inflows, even as its annual performance sits in the red. By comparison, several traditional equity and bond ETFs ahead of IBIT on the leaderboard posted double-digit gains, while gold-backed ETF GLD, which is up more than 60% on the year, attracted less capital than IBIT. Balchunas described the result as a “really good sign” over the long term, arguing that the flows reveal more about investor behavior than short-term price action. Read more
BlackRock’s spot Bitcoin ETF ranked sixth in 2025 ETF inflows despite posting a negative annual return, a signal analysts say reflects long-term conviction. BlackRock’s spot Bitcoin ETF, iShares Bitcoin Trust (IBIT, has ranked sixth in net inflows despite being the only fund in the top cohort posting a negative return for the year. Data shared by Bloomberg ETF analyst Eric Balchunas shows IBIT pulling in roughly $25 billion in year-to-date inflows, even as its annual performance sits in the red. By comparison, several traditional equity and bond ETFs ahead of IBIT on the leaderboard posted double-digit gains, while gold-backed ETF GLD, which is up more than 60% on the year, attracted less capital than IBIT. Balchunas described the result as a “really good sign” over the long term, arguing that the flows reveal more about investor behavior than short-term price action. Read more
A user lost nearly $50 million in USDt after copying a poisoned wallet address from transaction history, showing how subtle address spoofing can trick users. A single transaction error led to one of the largest onchain losses seen this year, after a user mistakenly sent nearly $50 million in USDt to a scam address in a classic address poisoning attack. According to onchain investigator Web3 Antivirus, the victim lost 49,999,950 USDt (USDT) after copying a malicious wallet address from their transaction history. Address poisoning scams rely on look-alike wallet addresses being inserted into a victim’s transaction history via small transfers. When victims later copy an address from their transaction history, they may unknowingly select the scammer’s lookalike address instead of the intended recipient. Read more
A user lost nearly $50 million in USDt after copying a poisoned wallet address from transaction history, showing how subtle address spoofing can trick users. A single transaction error led to one of the largest onchain losses seen this year, after a user mistakenly sent nearly $50 million in USDt to a scam address in a classic address poisoning attack. According to onchain investigator Web3 Antivirus, the victim lost 49,999,950 USDt (USDT) after copying a malicious wallet address from their transaction history. Address poisoning scams rely on look-alike wallet addresses being inserted into a victim’s transaction history via small transfers. When victims later copy an address from their transaction history, they may unknowingly select the scammer’s lookalike address instead of the intended recipient. Read more