Blog

Humanity [H] extended its weekly rally and moved above the 20-day and 50-day Exponential Moving Averages (EMAs).

The technical improvement arrived as capital rotated toward altcoins. More large-holder wallets and bullish derivatives positioning supported H’s recovery. Could this momentum push Humanity toward the next resistance at $0.33?

Can Humanity hold above its EMAs?

Humanity advanced during the past week and traded above its 20-day and 50-day EMAs. This move suggested that buyers had gained momentum across the short and medium terms.

Holding above both EMAs could help bulls extend the rally toward $0.33.

However, losing these levels would weaken the bullish structure and increase the possibility of a deeper correction.

Are Humanity whales accumulating H?

Notably, Humanity’s large-holder activity offered another bullish signal.

The number of wallets holding over 10 million H reached 39, its highest level in several months. This increase suggested more wallets had entered that holding bracket. However, the metric alone could not confirm fresh whale purchases.

Even so, continued growth in large-holder wallets could support H’s attempt to reach $0.33.

What does H’s 7% volatility mean?

At the same time, H’s Price Volatility climbed to approximately 7%, reaching its highest recent level. This increase indicated that H had begun experiencing wider price movements as its bullish trend continued.

Elevated Price Volatility could amplify the rally if buying pressure holds. It could also accelerate losses during a sudden reversal.

Therefore, the same metric supporting a faster move toward $0.33 also increased H’s pullback risk.

Are Humanity traders too bullish?

On top of that, derivatives positioning remained strongly tilted toward buyers.

Long positions represented approximately 66% of H’s tracked positioning, showing that traders expected further upside. This bullish positioning supported the continuation scenario.

However, it also left leveraged longs exposed if momentum weakened. A price reversal could trigger Long Liquidations and deepen any resulting pullback.

Can Humanity reach $0.33?

Humanity’s bullish structure rested on its EMAs, rising large-holder wallets, and strong long positioning.

If buyers maintain control, H could extend its weekly advance and challenge the $0.33 resistance. For now, both EMAs remain the key support levels below H’s price.

A sustained move above $0.33 could strengthen the bullish case. Losing EMA support may invalidate the near-term setup.

Final Summary

• Humanity traded above its 20-day and 50-day EMAs, strengthening its short-term bullish structure.
• Wallets holding over 10 million H reached 39, their highest count in several months.

Congress and the regulators are no longer moving on the same timeline. The CLARITY Act, the U.S. crypto market structure bill meant to settle long-running questions over digital asset issuance and trading, now looks less likely to pass in 2026. Galaxy Research’s latest read, the original report, points to fading legislative momentum and a shift toward faster agency action.

The banking sector’s resistance to sweeping market structure changes has already been visible in the Senate, where major crypto legislation faced a last-minute lobbying fight. That friction is now part of the broader backdrop for the CLARITY Act. As the calendar tightens, the practical question for exchanges, issuers, and compliance teams is not whether Congress will act, but which agency will fill the gap first.

Agency action is accelerating

The SEC and CFTC have responded to the uncertainty by pushing administrative measures: rulemaking, interpretive guidance, and regulatory exemptions. Galaxy says the goal is to clarify how digital assets should be issued, traded, and supervised while the legislative path remains blocked. A staff interpretation or an exemption can be more useful in the near term than a bill that may never get a floor vote.

That speed has real value. A token project waiting on registration guidance or a trading platform trying to understand which regulator has jurisdiction can make operational decisions off an agency action far sooner than off a stalled congressional process. For institutional buyers and token issuers, the difference between a statute and an agency exemption is not academic. A statute binds the agency and survives a leadership change. An exemption is only as durable as the current line of thinking at the commission.

The urgency is especially visible in tokenized real-world assets, where issuance and settlement structures are already scaling. Recent tokenization activity shows that market participants are not waiting for Washington to settle every definition before expanding products.

Temporary clarity has a hard ceiling

Galaxy’s caution is straightforward: administrative fixes lack legal durability. Rulemaking and guidance can be revised or reversed by a future administration, and they cannot replace a long-term framework established by Congress. That creates a different kind of uncertainty. Firms can build against an SEC staff position only to have a new chair unwind it after a political transition.

The result is a two-tier regulatory reality. Congress may still deliver a durable statute, but for now the industry is operating on guidance that is faster to arrive and easier to reverse. That is not a stable foundation for capital-intensive infrastructure decisions.

For legal and compliance leaders, the shift also changes the type of risk they have to manage. A legislative process carries one set of lobbying and timing risks. An administrative process carries another: the possibility that a guidance document disappears with a new administration, or that a court reads a rule more narrowly than staff intended. That distinction is now a planning cost, not a theoretical concern.

Meanwhile, builder activity continues to concentrate in a few dominant ecosystems regardless of the legal noise. Developer activity this week remains clustered among major Layer 1 and Layer 2 networks, but the rules for the assets built on those chains still depend on whatever the agencies do next.

Ethereum [$ETH] was trading at $1,876.89 at press time, following a slight increase over the previous day but a 2.16% decline over the previous week. Meanwhile, Solana was trading at $75.16 at press time, following a slight increase over the previous week and a slight decline over the previous day.

These contradictory price movements imply that there is no clear bullish or bearish momentum dominating the cryptocurrency market, which is extremely erratic.

In fact, there were no clear indications of bulls or bears on the RSI for either $ETH or $SOL as well.

Grayscale paints a concerning picture for $ETH and $SOL

At the same time, Zach Pandl, Head of Research at Grayscale, presented his analysis indicating that Ethereum and Solana may become more scarce assets due to their respective networks’ consideration of lowering the annual production of new tokens.

Currently, issuing new $ETH and $SOL, which expands the total supply, helps to fund staking rewards on Ethereum and Solana.

This inflation would be decreased by the suggested modifications. Comparable to lowering the production of a commodity, the value of the current tokens may rise if demand remains constant or rises and fewer new tokens are introduced to the market.

According to Pandl, by 2031, the annual supply growth of $ETH and $SOL may drop to about 0.4% and 1.1%, respectively, bringing them closer to Bitcoin’s supply growth and below gold’s estimated 1.8% annual supply growth.

What about stakers?

For stakers, there is a trade-off, though. People who stake their tokens will get fewer tokens as rewards if there are fewer new $ETH and $SOL created.

After a decrease in inflation, for instance, a staker who earns 5 $SOL might only receive 3 $SOL. Yet, the value of those three $SOL might still surpass the value of the initial five $SOL if the decreased supply makes $SOL more scarce and its price increases noticeably.

Therefore, while stakers must weigh the potential for higher token prices against the possibility of lower token rewards, unstaked holders may directly profit from increased scarcity.

s up for debate and do not guarantee changes.

This was consistent with an earlier report from AMBCrypto that stated that Solana’s ecosystem provides more than just trading and DeFi, which is why it is drawing in more users and money.

Final Summary

• Both Ethereum’s and Solana’s price actions are not that strong, with RSI supporting this narrative.
• Garyscale suggests that Ethereum and Solana may become more scarce assets due to their respective networks’ consideration.

Binance Sets Three Deadlines for Transaction Restrictions

Transactions involving 16 crypto-asset service providers will no longer be processed through Binance under restrictions announced Aug. 14. The exchange instructed users not to send funds to, receive assets from, or otherwise engage directly or indirectly with the named entities after their respective effective dates.

Restrictions took effect Aug. 7 for Shelbit, operated by Shelbit General Trading LLC, and Aban Tether Exchange. Binance applied a second deadline on Aug. 13 to A7 Nigeria, A7 Africa and Pilotfinance Ltd., followed by an Aug. 23 cutoff covering 11 more platforms, including HTX, EXMO, Rapira, Aifory Pro, ABCeX, and WhiteBird.

The remaining Aug. 23 entities are Noonecrypto Inc., Tradex, Monease Ltd., Bitpapa and Exnode, including Exnode Pay. Binance cautioned:

“Any transactions attempted on or after these dates, may be held and subject to a compliance review. Restrictions may be applied to the impacted wallet(s) while the review is ongoing and such activity may also constitute a breach of Binance Terms of Use.”

Sanctions Target Iranian and Russian Crypto Networks

U.S. authorities imposed sanctions on Shelbit and Aban Tether through an Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) action on Aug. 7. The Treasury Department alleged that Shelbit addresses exchanged more than $3 million with Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps addresses, while Aban Tether processed transactions involving previously designated Iranian exchanges.

Earlier enforcement against Nobitex, Wallex, Bitpin and Ramzinex increased screening requirements surrounding Iranian exchange exposure. The June 2 sanctions action involving four Iranian platforms covered businesses that OFAC later identified among Aban Tether’s transaction counterparties, connecting the August restrictions to a broader campaign targeting Iran-linked digital asset flows.

U.K. authorities separately targeted cryptocurrency exchanges and the Kremlin-backed A7 network through 18 sanctions designations announced May 26. Officials alleged that A7 supported sanctions evasion, military procurement and oil-related payments, while the network claimed it moved more than $90 billion during the previous year.

The U.K. package included several entities appearing on Binance’s list, such as EXMO Exchange Ltd., Rapira Group LLC, Sooty Ltd., Bitpapa, Nueva Cryptologia and Huobi Global. The sanctions also reached exchanges and payment providers associated with Russia-facing settlement routes, stablecoin infrastructure and cross-border liquidity channels.

A7 Expands Alternative Payments as Compliance Pressure Rises

A7 has promoted alternative cross-border settlement systems as Western governments tighten access to established financial channels. A7 says it serves more than 10,000 trade partners and intermediates nearly one-fifth of Russia’s international settlements market. Its A7A5 ruble-backed stablecoin has reportedly surpassed $100 billion in aggregate transaction volume.

Binance has expanded compliance operations while responding to scrutiny over transactions involving restricted parties. The company previously reported a 96.8% decline in sanctions-related transaction exposure between January 2024 and July 2025. Its compliance operation includes more than 1,500 workers, representing about 25% of its global workforce.

Users remain responsible for confirming the destination, network, and counterparty before initiating an irreversible blockchain transfer. A small test transaction can expose address or network errors, although it would not eliminate the compliance risks associated with transferring assets to a restricted platform or wallet connected to one.

Centralized exchanges retain custody over customer assets and can delay, review, or prevent withdrawals under applicable rules. A self-custodial wallet gives its owner control of the private keys, but it does not remove sanctions obligations or protect users who transact with restricted counterparties. Binance’s final group of platform restrictions takes effect Aug. 23.