Something notable happened on Friday, indicating the accelerating institutionalization of the bitcoin BTC$77,347.89 market, which has been pioneered by everyday people for years.

This is because options, or hedging instruments, linked to BlackRock’s bitcoin exchange-traded fund (ETF), IBIT, have grown slightly larger on Nasdaq than total bitcoin options trading on the offshore giant Deribit. It is particularly striking that IBIT options have, in just two years, closed the gap with Deribit’s bitcoin options market, which has been operating since 2016.

On Friday, the dollar value of open or active IBIT options contracts on Nasdaq, the so-called open interest (OI), was $27.61 billion, slightly higher than the $26.90 billion in Deribit’s bitcoin options, according to data tracked by decentralized crypto volatility protocol Volmex.

This milestone indicates that the regulated, institutional-grade bitcoin investment and derivatives infrastructure in the U.S. is no longer second fiddle to the offshore market. Moreover, a booming, regulated market in the U.S. could embolden more Wall Street institutions to explore digital assets, ultimately leading to more mature price discovery.

Deribit’s Global Head of Retail Sales and Business, Sidrah Fariq, described IBIT’s rise as a net positive for the broader crypto derivatives ecosystem.

“US retail can’t onboard platforms like Deribit, so iShares Bitcoin Trust (IBIT) options give them direct access to regulated leverage and options exposure. This is further supported by the current macro environment with supply chain uncertainty, energy shocks, and broader geopolitical risks, which naturally drives demand for hedging and options strategies,” Fariq told CoinDesk.

What are options?

Options are derivative contracts that give the purchaser the right to buy or sell the underlying asset at a predetermined price at a later date. Think of it as paying a token price to reserve the right to buy or sell the property at a pre-agreed specific price in the future. A call option gives the right to buy and represents a bullish bet, while a put option gives the right to sell.

Analysts use open interest as the measure of market size and participation – the higher the open interest, the deeper and more liquid the market.

Traders use options to hedge existing positions in the spot and futures markets, speculate on price direction, and generate additional income on coin/ETF holdings.

One of the most preferred income-generating strategies involving IBIT ETF and IBIT options is the covered call strategy. It allows investors to profit from BTC’s implied volatility by simultaneously holding the ETF and shorting IBIT calls at levels well above the ETF’s current market price.

Traders holding actual BTC have been doing this via Deribit for years.

Same in size but different in shape

The two markets, though, now match each other in scale but are positioned differently, revealing a lot about trader sentiment in each.

According to Volmex, the bulk of open interest in IBIT call options points to expectations of an ETF rallying to levels equivalent to BTC trading at $109,709 in the near-term. That’s roughly 41% higher than the current market price of $77,400.

Positioning in Deribit options is bullish but slightly measured, suggesting expectations of a rally to $106,000.

“Onshore call OI is concentrated roughly 4 percentage points further out-of-the-money than offshore, and the onshore average delta is slightly lower. This is consistent with onshore flow being dominated by retail upside speculation and systematic call overwriting programs, both of which concentrate OI in further-OTM strikes,” Volmex said in a report shared with CoinDesk.

ETF holders are more patient

Options have expiry dates – the point at which contracts are settled, depending on where IBIT or spot BTC is trading at that time.

Analysis of activity across both markets suggests that, on average, October 2026 expiries are preferred in IBIT, while August expiries dominate on Deribit.

“IBIT options are approximately two months longer-dated on an OI-weighted basis. The gap is roughly symmetric across puts and calls, suggesting it reflects the underlying holder base, longer-horizon ETF investors onshore versus more tactical positioning offshore, rather than asymmetric demand for protection or upside,” Volmex noted.

Lastly, IBIT’s implied volatility – a metric that measures expected swings in the BTC-linked ETF over the next four weeks – is higher than the implied volatility derived from Deribit’s BTC options.

Volmex attributes this premium to a structural quirk: Because ETF holders cannot easily short (express a bearish view) bitcoin directly, they buy put options as their only available hedge. This demand for put options is keeping IBIT’s implied volatility slightly elevated.

All things considered, IBIT’s rapid rise in the options market is striking and, in many ways, now appears to rival Deribit in scale. However, the two are not direct substitutes, as IBIT options primarily cater to regulated, onshore investors accessing bitcoin exposure through traditional brokerage channels, while Deribit remains the go-to place for global investors.

“I don’t see this as competition. If anything, it expands the market. As more participants get comfortable trading options via IBIT, it ultimately feeds into the broader ecosystem, and venues like Deribit benefit from increased sophistication and flow,” Fariq said.

A group of cryptocurrency executives, investors and public figures is set to speak Saturday at a private event hosted by U.S. President Donald Trump at his Mar-a-Lago club in Palm Beach, Florida.

The event, billed as “the most exclusive conference in the world,” started with Bill Zanker, co-founder of TRUMP memecoin and was followed by legendary boxer Mike Tyson.

Other high-profile speakers include stablecoin issuer Tether’s CEO Paolo Ardoino, who is expected to address the link between financial inclusion and the U.S. dollar’s global role. Ark Invest founder Cathie Wood and crypto infrastructure provider Alchemy’s CEO Nikil Viswanathan will also speak at the conference, and each will focus on the overlap between artificial intelligence and crypto, a topic that has drawn increasing attention as both sectors expand.

Anchorage Digital CEO Nathan McCauley is scheduled to join a panel on the state of crypto and equities markets, while investor Anthony Pompliano of ProCap Financial is also set to appear on stage.

The lineup also includes traditional finance investors such as Tim Draper and Grant Cardone, as well as author Tony Robbins.

The event is touted as a major cryptocurrency and finance gathering tied to Trump’s broader push to support the digital asset industry since returning to the White House in January 2025. The conference website lists Trump as the keynote speaker and says attendance is limited to the top 297 holders of the $TRUMP token, a meme coin launched in his name.

This will mark the second time such an event has been hosted by the President. That previous dinner prompted Democratic lawmakers to lodge protests and raise concerns about Trump profiting off of his own crypto token while simultaneously championing legislation to support the industry and appointing regulators to oversee crypto.

Since taking over the Oval Office, Trump has backed several crypto-related projects, including the $TRUMP and $MELANIA meme coins, which are tied closely to the public profiles of the president and first lady rather than any underlying utility. Transaction fees generated from trading the coins have produced millions of dollars in revenue for entities linked to Trump and his family.

Nevertheless, since launching around Trump’s second inauguration, the $TRUMP token has fallen about 97% from its peak. The $MELANIA coin has dropped even further, down roughly 99% after a rapid rise and decline.

Read more: It could cost you up to $6 million to grab lunch with Donald Trump

Not everything in bitcoin is at risk from a quantum computer.

Bitcoin mining, the process by which new blocks get added to the blockchain, uses a type of math called hashing that quantum computers cannot meaningfully break. The ledger itself and the rule that new bitcoin can only be created through mining would survive a quantum attacker. Blocks would still get produced, and the chain would keep running.

What would not survive is ownership.

Bitcoin wallets are protected by a different kind of math that turns a secret private key into a public address anyone can see. The math works easily in one direction and not at all in the other, which is the only thing stopping a stranger from spending your coins.

Part 1 of this quantum computing series went into physics. A quantum computer is not a faster version of a regular computer. It is a fundamentally different kind of machine, starting at a very cold, very small loop of metal where particles behave in ways they do not behave anywhere else on Earth.

Part 2 walked through what happens when you point that machine at bitcoin. Bitcoin wallets depend on a one-way math problem. Turning a secret private key into a public address takes milliseconds. Going the other way, from public address back to the private key, would take a regular computer longer than the age of the universe.

A quantum algorithm called Shor’s collapses the gap. Google’s paper this month showed the attack could be run with far fewer resources than anyone previously estimated, in a window that races against bitcoin’s own block times.

This piece, the last in the series, is about the response. What is actually at risk, what bitcoin has done about it, and whether a network built to resist coordinated change can coordinate the biggest security upgrade in its history before the hardware catches up.

What’s exposed, what’s safe

The at-risk pool is large.

Roughly 6.9 million bitcoin, about one-third of everything ever mined, sits in wallets whose public keys are already permanently visible onchain. Most of this is early bitcoin from the network’s first years, stored in an address format that published the public key by default. It also includes any wallet that has ever been spent from, because spending reveals the key for whatever remains.

A quantum attacker would not need to race against a transaction in progress. Rather, they could work through the wallets with already exposed keys at their own pace, one by one. Bitcoin’s pseudonymous creator, Satoshi Nakamoto, holds roughly 1 million bitcoin, untouched since the network’s early days, and this stack now sits in the exposed category.

The 2021 Taproot upgrade expanded the problem. Taproot is a change to how bitcoin addresses work, intended to make transactions more efficient and more private.

A side effect was that any bitcoin spent since Taproot activated has published the key protecting whatever remains at that address. This was not a mistake but a reasonable tradeoff at the time, when quantum timelines looked much longer than they do now.

What’s in the works?

While the quantum threat has sparked a heated debate in recent months, and other blockchains are preparing, nothing concrete has emerged from Bitcoin developers yet.

Ethereum, which can be considered one of Bitcoin’s largest competitors among institutional investors looking at the crypto market, has had a formal quantum-resistant program since 2018.

The Ethereum Foundation runs four teams working on the migration full-time, with more than ten independent developer groups shipping weekly test networks. The plan maps specific upgrades across four upcoming network-wide changes, moving Ethereum’s security to new math that quantum computers cannot break. It has even launched a dedicated website, pq.ethereum.org, to publish its progress.

Bitcoin has no equivalent strategy so far.

That doesn’t mean there aren’t any efforts out there to solve it.

One such formal proposal is BIP-360 from a group of developers and researchers. It would add new quantum-safe address types that holders could voluntarily migrate to. A competing proposal from BitMEX Research would install a detection system that triggers defensive action if a quantum attack is observed on the network.

However, neither has broad support from bitcoin’s core developers, and the two proposals solve different halves of the problem.

Nic Carter, one of bitcoin’s prominent advocates, has called it out in the past months.

“Elliptic curve cryptography is on the brink of obsolescence,” Carter wrote on X, referring to the math that secures bitcoin wallets. He described Ethereum’s approach as “best in class” and bitcoin’s as “worst in class,” citing developers who “deny, gaslight, gatekeep, bury heads in sand” rather than engage with the problem.

Adam Back, the Blockstream CEO and a prominent early bitcoin contributor, disagrees on the urgency but agrees on the direction.

“Quantum computing still has a lot to prove. Current systems are essentially lab experiments,” Back said at a conference earlier this month. But he also said bitcoin should prepare now, with optional upgrades built in advance so the network can migrate when needed, rather than scrambling in a crisis.

The coordination problem

So what’s the biggest challenge in implementing effective solutions against Bitcoin’s quantum threat?

Bitcoin’s migration is harder than Ethereum’s for reasons unrelated to the actual math.

Ethereum has a foundation that funds engineering work and a governance process that regularly passes major upgrades. Bitcoin has neither. Its development culture treats any central authority as a failure mode, and its social consensus holds that changes to the protocol should be rare and hard.

Those priors have kept the network stable for nearly two decades, but they also make the quantum problem structurally harder for bitcoin to solve.

Migrating the 6.9 million exposed coins requires decisions the network has spent twenty years avoiding. Should old address formats be frozen after a certain date to protect coins from future theft? Should exposed coins be allowed to move to new quantum-safe addresses using their original keys? What happens to coins whose owners cannot or will not migrate?

Satoshi’s coins are the sharpest example. Freezing old formats protects the coins from theft but makes them permanently inaccessible, including to Satoshi. Leaving the old formats open means those coins sit as a standing prize for whoever builds the first working quantum computer or has access to a quantum computer and wants to attack.

Setting a migration deadline forces Satoshi to either move the coins, revealing their ownership, or lose them. Every option changes bitcoin’s character in ways the network has historically refused to change it.

What happens next

The Google paper’s own framing is a summary of where the industry stands.

A successful attack on the math bitcoin uses “should not be seen as a wake-up call to adopt post-quantum cryptography as much as a potential signal that PQC adoption has already failed.”

This means that by the time the threat becomes visible, the window to respond may already have closed.

Developers now face a question of whether a network built to resist coordinated change can coordinate the biggest security upgrade in its history before the hardware catches up to the theory.

Ethereum’s eight-year head start suggests the correct answer is to start now. Bitcoin’s governance culture suggests the likely answer is to wait until the threat is demonstrated, then move.

Only one of those answers works if the timeline turns out to be shorter than the optimists’ estimate.

The U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission sued New York on Friday in its latest action to shield what the agency has argued is its unassailable nationwide regulatory authority over prediction market firms.

Earlier this week, New York sued Coinbase and Gemini, arguing that their prediction market contracts violated state gambling laws. And last year, the state had similarly targeted Kalshi, demanding it cease its sports wagering platform.

The CFTC, in its role as the federal derivatives regulator, has staked out a position that the states have no business interfering with those firms. The agency’s suit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York argues that federal law “designates the CFTC as the federal agency with ‘exclusive jurisdiction’ over the regulation of commodity futures, options, and swaps traded on federally regulated exchanges,” and that includes these CFTC-registered designated contract markets. State law is effectively preempted, according to the synchronized positions of the regulator and the growing industry it’s seeking to protect.

But also on Friday, 37 state attorneys general — including New York Attorney General Letitia James — signed onto a legal brief in one of the Kalshi legal fights in Massachusetts to argue that “Kalshi’s aggressive theory of preemption threatens the States’ longstanding ability to protect their citizens in this area.”

CFTC Chairman Mike Selig has made this one of his most prominent initiatives since taking over the agency four months ago, and his agency has similarly sued Arizona, Connecticut and Illinois, claiming event contracts are derivatives instruments within federal jurisdiction.

“CFTC-registered exchanges have faced an onslaught of state lawsuits seeking to limit Americans’ access to event contracts and undermine the CFTC’s sole regulatory jurisdiction over prediction markets,” he said in a statement.

In their own statement later Friday, James and New York Governor Kathy Hochul said they were enforcing state laws on gambling.

“Once again, this administration is prioritizing big corporations over consumers and New Yorkers’ best interests. New York’s gambling laws are designed to protect consumers, whether they are placing bets in a prediction market or a casino. When gambling platforms, including prediction markets, violate our laws, we will not hesitate to hold them accountable. We look forward to continuing to defend our laws in court.”

UPDATE (April 25, 2026, 01:20 UTC): Adds James and Hochul statement.

XRP is stuck just below resistance, but the price action is starting to lean one way. Every push higher gets sold, but each pullback is getting shallower. That tells you sellers are still active, but they’re losing control bit by bit. When that balance shifts, the move that follows is usually quick and decisive.

Price is grinding sideways at the top of the range, which is where markets typically resolve after absorbing supply. Add rising participation and steady positioning underneath, and this starts to look less like indecision and more like a setup waiting for a trigger.

News Background

• Spot XRP ETFs saw fresh inflows, extending last week’s strong demand and pushing total institutional positioning above $2.6 billion. This keeps a steady bid under the market even as price stalls.

• Exchange outflows hit one of the largest daily readings this year, with nearly 35 million XRP leaving trading platforms. That typically reduces immediate sell pressure and supports tighter supply conditions.

Price Action Summary

• XRP moved around $1.43-$1.45 after a high-volume push earlier in the session.
• The breakout attempt above $1.44 held briefly but failed to extend, leading to sideways consolidation.
• Price is now compressing into a narrower range, holding support without reclaiming higher levels.

Technical Analysis

• The dominant structure is a multi-week symmetrical triangle, with lower highs and higher lows squeezing price toward a decision point.
• Volume spiked during the initial breakout attempt, but faded into consolidation, suggesting absorption rather than conviction.
• Buyers continue defending higher lows, which keeps downside limited for now.
• The market is effectively coiling, with neither bulls nor bears in full control.

What traders should watch

• $1.50 is the key breakout level. Clearing it would shift momentum more decisively higher.
• $1.39 remains the critical support. Losing it would break the structure and open downside.
• The tighter the range gets, the more likely a sharp move follows. Direction will depend on which side breaks first.

Metaplanet said it will issue ¥8 billion ($50 million) in zero-interest bonds to expand its Bitcoin holdings, according to a Friday statement, extending a financing strategy that has defined its balance sheet shift toward digital assets.

The issuance marks the firm’s 20th series of ordinary bonds and will mature in April 2027. The bonds are unsecured and carry no interest, giving the company access to capital without added debt servicing costs. Proceeds are earmarked for additional Bitcoin purchases, with repayment due at par upon maturity.

The bonds were allocated to EVO FUND, a Cayman-based investor tied to Evolution Financial Group that has backed several of the company’s prior raises. Under the terms, the fund can request early redemption with five business days’ notice, while Metaplanet retains the option to redeem part or all of the issuance if it completes further financing with the same counterparty.

At current Bitcoin prices near $78,000, the raise could allow Metaplanet to acquire between 640 and 700 BTC. The company holds 40,177 BTC, valued at about $3.1 billion, making it the largest corporate Bitcoin holder in Japan and the third largest among public firms.

Metaplanet has set a target of 100,000 BTC by the end of 2026 and 210,000 BTC by the end of 2027. The latest raise follows a first quarter in which the firm added 5,075 BTC and reported a BTC Yield of 2.8%.

Metaplanet reported a ¥95 billion net loss for fiscal year 2025, driven by unrealized valuation declines tied to Bitcoin price movements. Its average acquisition cost stands at $104,106 per coin, above current market levels.

Strategy’s massive buy

The strategy mirrors a model seen in the United States, where public firms use capital markets to accumulate Bitcoin as a treasury reserve asset. The most famous of this type of company is Strategy.

Earlier this week, Strategy disclosed it bought 34,164 bitcoin for about $2.54 billion, one of its largest purchases ever. The acquisition raised its total holdings to 815,061 BTC, surpassing BlackRock and bringing its cumulative spend to roughly $61.56 billion at an average cost near current market prices. 

The purchase was funded through equity sales and its STRC preferred stock offering, which has become a key financing tool. 

Despite its expanding position — now over 3.8% of bitcoin’s supply — shares slipped in pre-market trading as investors weighed the firm’s aggressive capital strategy.

Editorial Disclaimer: We leverage AI as part of our editorial workflow, including to support research, image generation, and quality assurance processes. All content is directed, reviewed, and approved by our editorial team, who are accountable for accuracy and integrity. AI-generated images use only tools trained on properly license material. In Bitcoin, as in media: Don’t trust. Verify.

Nakamoto Inc. has launched an actively managed Bitcoin derivatives program aimed at generating income from market volatility while reducing downside exposure, according to a company statement released Friday.

The program, in operation since the first quarter of 2026, is structured as a complement to Nakamoto’s core strategy of holding Bitcoin as a treasury asset. It uses a portion of the company’s Bitcoin holdings as collateral in a derivatives strategy managed by Bitwise Asset Management through a separately managed account. Custody services are provided by Kraken Institutional.

The initiative centers on two primary components: an income sleeve and a hedging sleeve. The income sleeve involves writing covered calls and call spreads against a defined share of Nakamoto’s Bitcoin holdings. This approach seeks to capture premiums from options markets, where implied volatility in Bitcoin pricing often exceeds realized volatility.

The hedging sleeve focuses on purchasing protective puts and put spreads. These positions are designed to offset potential losses during periods of price decline, providing a buffer against adverse market moves. According to the company, premiums generated from the income sleeve may help fund the cost of these protective positions.

Bitcoin’s volatility as opportunity 

Tyler Evans, chief investment officer of Nakamoto and UTXO Management, said the firm views Bitcoin’s implied volatility as a consistent source of opportunity. He described the program as a structured effort to convert that volatility into shareholder value while maintaining exposure to the underlying asset.

Bitcoin used as collateral within the program remains under Nakamoto’s ownership and continues to be counted toward its reported holdings. The company emphasized that derivatives positions supplement its spot Bitcoin exposure rather than replace it.

Premiums collected through the program may be received in either Bitcoin or U.S. dollars, depending on the structure of each trade. Nakamoto said these proceeds can be allocated toward hedging costs, additional Bitcoin purchases, or general corporate needs in line with its capital allocation strategy.

The program operates under a unified investment mandate that defines limits on notional exposure, eligible instruments, counterparties, and custody requirements. It also accounts for the tradeoff between income generation and potential limits on upside participation due to call option positions.

Nakamoto framed the strategy as part of a broader effort to generate yield from its Bitcoin treasury while maintaining long-term accumulation goals. The company said the hedging component is intended to support balance sheet stability and reduce the risk of forced asset sales during periods of market stress.

Performance details from the program’s first quarter of operation are expected to be disclosed in Nakamoto’s upcoming Form 10-Q filing.

Bitcoin Magazine is published by BTC Inc, a subsidiary of Nakamoto Inc. (NASDAQ: NAKA)

Bitcoin’s latest onchain and derivatives data point to a constructive setup, with VanEck highlighting negative funding rates and a clustered hash rate drawdown alongside softer volatility and cautious positioning. 

The firm notes in their latest report that realized volatility fell from about 56% to 41% as US‑Iran tensions eased, while the 7‑day average funding rate dropped to roughly -1.8%, its lowest level since 2023 and in the 10th percentile of readings since late 2020.

Since 2020, bitcoin’s average 30‑day return during periods of negative funding has been 11.5%, compared with 4.5% across all periods, with a 77% hit rate for positive performance. When annualized funding sank below -5%, subsequent 30‑day returns averaged 19.4%, and 180‑day returns reached 70%, making negative funding a recurrent contrarian buy signal. VanEck also reports that 19 of the top 50 180‑day return windows since 2020 began on days with negative funding, despite such periods representing only about 13.6% of the sample.

The Bitcoin hash rate is falling

On the mining side, the 30‑day moving average hash rate has fallen to the 16th percentile over 30 days and 9th percentile over 90 days, while difficulty has slid to the 5th and 6th percentiles on those horizons. 

Three sustained hash rate decline episodes have appeared since December 2025, the densest cluster since China’s 2021 mining ban, with the latest drawdown of about 6.7% ending on April 15, 2026. Across seven completed historical drawdowns, bitcoin was higher 90 days later in six cases, with a median gain of 37.7% and a 63.1% median gain over 180 days.

Derivatives and onchain activity reflect guarded sentiment rather than capitulation. Put premiums relative to spot volume are more than six times their April 2024 level, while active supply over the last 180 days slipped to 28.4%, signaling greater holder dormancy. 

Long‑tenured cohorts, particularly 7‑10 year and 10+ year holders, increased spent volume to the 85th and 90th percentiles of the past four years, but VanEck stresses that such movements do not always represent outright selling. 

Taken together, the firm concludes that negative funding and hash rate stress form a reinforced bullish backdrop for bitcoin.

“Both mining rate drawdowns and negative funding rates have been associated with strong forward BTC returns. As such, we have become increasingly bullish on bitcoin,” the analysts wrote. 

Editorial Disclaimer: We leverage AI as part of our editorial workflow, including to support research, image generation, and quality assurance processes. All content is directed, reviewed, and approved by our editorial team, who are accountable for accuracy and integrity. AI-generated images use only tools trained on properly license material. In Bitcoin, as in media: Don’t trust. Verify.

The Department of Justice ended its criminal investigation into Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell on Friday, removing the last major obstacle to Senate confirmation of Kevin Warsh as the central bank’s next leader — a development with consequences for monetary policy and Bitcoin.

U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia Jeanine Pirro announced the closure of the probe, which had been launched over alleged cost overruns on a $2.5 billion renovation of the Fed’s Washington headquarters. 

Pirro said she was transferring the matter to the Fed’s own inspector general, calling for “a comprehensive report in short order.” She left open the possibility of reopening criminal proceedings if warranted.

The investigation had no legal foundation. A federal judge, James Boasberg, quashed DOJ subpoenas in March after a prosecutor conceded the government had found “essentially zero evidence” of a crime, branding the justification as “thin and unsubstantiated.” Powell himself called the probe a political weapon, stating in January that it was “a consequence of the Federal Reserve setting interest rates based on our best assessment of what will serve the public, rather than following the preferences of the President.”

A ‘bogus’ probe into Powell

Senator Thom Tillis, a North Carolina Republican on the Senate Banking Committee, had vowed to block Warsh’s confirmation until the probe ended, describing it as “bogus.” His opposition, combined with unified Democratic resistance, had stalled the nomination. With the investigation now closed, leadership expects a swift committee vote and floor confirmation before Powell’s term expires on May 15.

Warsh, 56, a former Fed governor and Stanford professor, testified before the Senate Banking Committee on Tuesday and pledged “strict independence” from the White House on rate decisions. “The president never once asked me to commit to any particular interest rate decision, period,” Warsh said. 

Senator Elizabeth Warren called him a “sock puppet” for Trump, while Republicans praised his qualifications.

For Bitcoin, the stakes are significant. The cryptocurrency has traded in the $70,000–$92,000 range this year as the Fed held rates steady at 3.5%–3.75%, with traders watching every signal from the central bank. 

Lower interest rates historically reduce yields on conventional assets, pushing capital toward risk assets like Bitcoin. When the DOJ first launched its probe in January, Bitcoin climbed toward $92,000 as institutional investors read the attack on the Fed as a threat to dollar credibility and a potential catalyst for rate cuts.

Warsh is considered more hawkish than Powell on inflation, having called the Fed’s post-pandemic rate response “the biggest policy error in 40 or 50 years.” 

Should he take the helm on May 15 and maintain a restrictive stance, Bitcoin bulls betting on rate-cut-driven liquidity expansion may find themselves waiting longer than expected.

A closer look at why the consultation’s proposed deferral sits awkwardly inside a rules-based benchmark and what a better path forward might look like.

JPX Market Innovation & Research (JPXI) is considering a new rule that would defer companies whose principal asset is cryptoassets from new inclusion in TOPIX and other periodically reviewed indices. The proposal is measured in tone, and the underlying concern, how to treat a newly emerging category of issuer, is a reasonable one for any index provider to think about.

But the specific rule under consultation raises real questions. It would affect companies like Metaplanet, Remixpoint, and ANAP Holdings, along with a growing set of Japanese issuers whose business models are fully legitimate, fully regulated, and fully aligned with long-standing corporate treasury practices.

Here are seven reasons JPXI should reconsider the proposal before February 2026.

1. The Rule Doesn’t Measure What TOPIX Normally Measures

TOPIX is designed to function as a broad, neutral, investable benchmark of the Japanese equity market. Its methodology already contains objective tools for that purpose: liquidity screens, free-float-adjusted market capitalization criteria, continuation buffers, and established treatment for delistings and other listing-quality events.

A crypto-asset screen is a different kind of test. It doesn’t measure liquidity, free float, turnover cost, market capitalization, or listing quality. It looks instead at the composition of a company’s balance sheet.

That’s a meaningful departure from how TOPIX eligibility has historically worked, and it deserves a clearer justification than the consultation currently provides. If a company satisfies TOPIX’s ordinary eligibility requirements, deferring it because of one category of asset introduces a new kind of judgment into a methodology that has been valued precisely for its objectivity.

2. “Principal Asset Is Cryptoassets” Needs a Clearer Definition

The consultation refers to companies whose “principal asset is cryptoassets,” but leaves several administrative questions open:

• Is the test based on parent-only holdings or consolidated holdings?
• Would exposure through wholly owned subsidiaries, affiliated companies, or strategic equity stakes be captured?
• Would indirect exposure through securities, derivatives, or economically similar instruments count?
• Is the inquiry formal (direct legal title) or substantive (economic exposure)?

These aren’t edge cases. They determine which companies the rule actually applies to. Index methodology gains its credibility from rules that are objective, measurable, and consistently administrable, and a clearer definition would help everyone: issuers, investors, and JPXI itself.

3. The Rule May Be Easier to Work Around Than to Apply

A practical concern follows from the definitional question. If direct Bitcoin holdings by the parent company are disfavored, but equivalent exposure through other structures is not, the rule becomes sensitive to legal form rather than economic substance.

Consider the asymmetry:

• A direct Bitcoin position would trigger the rule
• A position in the iShares Bitcoin Trust ETF (IBIT) likely would not
• A position in a listed Bitcoin miner likely would not
• A stake in a crypto-linked subsidiary likely would not

The economic exposure in these cases can be very similar. The index treatment would be quite different. That creates an incentive for issuers to restructure toward less transparent forms of exposure rather than disclose direct holdings on the balance sheet. A benchmark rule generally works better when it encourages clear disclosure rather than the opposite.

4. The Carve-Out for Existing Constituents Creates an Internal Tension

The consultation contemplates deferring new inclusion while not applying the rule to existing constituents. This is understandable from a stability standpoint, no one wants unnecessary index churn.

But it also creates an internal tension in the rule’s logic. If Bitcoin treasury exposure were genuinely incompatible with TOPIX, it would be difficult to justify exempting current members. And if it isn’t incompatible, it’s worth asking why new entrants meeting the same investability criteria should be treated differently.

Reconciling that asymmetry would strengthen the proposal considerably.

5. “For the Time Being” Leaves the Timeline Open-Ended

The consultation says the deferral would apply “for the time being,” without specifying a review period, exit standard, or sunset mechanism. In practice, that leaves the timeline open-ended.

The timing matters here. October 2026 will be the first periodic review under the next-generation TOPIX framework in which Standard and Growth market companies can become eligible through the new process. A deferral that coincides with that review, without a defined path back to eligibility, could function as a longer-term exclusion even if it isn’t framed that way.

A clearer review cadence, or an explicit sunset, would make the proposal easier to evaluate on its merits.

6. Global Peers Have Taken More Time on the Same Question

JPXI is not the only index provider thinking about this. MSCI recently considered a threshold-based approach to digital-asset treasury companies and ultimately did not adopt a blanket exclusion, acknowledging the need for further work to distinguish operating companies from non-operating or investment-like entities. FTSE Russell has not announced a comparable rule.

The common thread is that the classification question is genuinely unsettled. Operating companies that hold Bitcoin alongside other business lines: media, energy, retail, mining, infrastructure, don’t fit neatly into existing categories, and the global index community is still working out how to think about them.

Given that, there’s a reasonable case for JPXI to engage further with issuers and market participants before codifying a rule, rather than moving ahead of where the broader conversation has landed.

7. An Asset-Neutral Framework Would Be More Durable

If the underlying concern is that some listed companies have become more concentrated or investment-like, that concern is worth addressing, but it isn’t unique to cryptoassets. Concentrated holdings can take many forms: listed equities, private-company stakes, fund interests, real estate, or other non-operating assets.

A framework that applies consistently across these categories would likely be more durable than a single-asset rule. It would also sidestep the definitional and arbitrage concerns above, since the test would focus on the economic characteristic JPXI actually cares about rather than on one particular asset class.

Several paths could accomplish this:

• Enhanced disclosure standards for concentrated treasury positions of any kind, giving investors clarity without changing index composition
• An asset-neutral concentration framework that applies the same test to any non-operating asset held above a defined threshold
• An optional index variant for investors who want exposure to the Japanese market with cryptoasset-heavy companies excluded, offered alongside, not in place of, the flagship benchmark

Where This Leaves the Proposal

None of this is to say JPXI’s instinct to think carefully about a new category of issuer is wrong. It isn’t. Bitcoin treasury companies are relatively new, and their prominence in Japan has grown quickly enough that questions about how to treat them are worth taking seriously.

But the specific rule on consultation is narrower, vaguer, and more open-ended than the questions it’s trying to answer. A clearer definition, a defined review period, and an asset-neutral framing would go a long way toward addressing the underlying concerns while preserving what has made TOPIX a trusted benchmark: objective, rules-based eligibility that reflects the Japanese equity market as it is.

That combination, substance over form, clarity over ambiguity, neutrality across asset classes, seems like the stronger path forward.

Add Your Signature

Bitcoin For Corporations has organized a coalition letter urging JPXI to withdraw the proposed exclusion and preserve TOPIX as a neutral, rules-based benchmark. The public comment period closes May 7, 2026 and every signature strengthens the case that this issue matters to issuers, investors, and market participants worldwide.

If the arguments above resonate, add your name. Individuals and organizations from any jurisdiction can sign.

→ Sign the coalition letter at topix.bitcoinforcorporations.com

You can also review the full position letter, see who has already signed, and share the campaign with your network from the same page. The deadline is firm, and the window to shape JPXI’s final decision is short.

---

Disclaimer: This content was prepared on behalf of Bitcoin For Corporations for informational purposes only. It reflects the author’s own analysis and opinion and should not be relied upon as investment advice. Nothing in this article constitutes an offer, invitation, or solicitation to purchase, sell, or subscribe for any security or financial product.