The cryptocurrency market is usually characterized by technical moments, the exact points when a multi-month trend finally breaks and turns in a different direction. For $XRP, this may have occurred. A prominent crypto analyst Ali Martinez reports that there was a significant indication on the daily chart of $XRP that has occurred for the first time since January to show a significant bullish change in direction from being bearish.
A new sense of optimism comes from the SuperTrend indicator, which is an indicator that can be used to identify the overall direction of the price action for any market to at least some extent. The SuperTrend indicator has flipped back into Bullish mode after being in Bearish mode since January 17. This suggests that the selling pressure on $XRP may have peaked, after months of negative momentum.
Decoding the SuperTrend Signal
SuperTrend is a lagging indicator because it uses both price movement and volatility, most often measured by the Average True Range, to determine trend direction. When it changes from red to green or closes below the price action of the daily candle, it is generally a sign that the trend has shifted from distributive to accumulative.
In the past, $XRP has been known to spend months consolidating before making a sudden move to the upside. The most recent signal comes after an extended period of declining resistance. With the trailing support floor now in place as a supporting technical benchmark for bulls, the chance of a sudden “fake-out” back into the $1.10-$1.30 range is reduced.
The $1.55 Resistance – The Final Boss
The trend has changed, but this evaluation makes an important point: The $1.55 resistance level. A trend change implies the intention of making an action in technical analysis; while a break of trend through resistance level implies that it has been achieved.
The level of $1.55 has acted as a ceiling, or psychological barrier, to any rally attempts since the beginning of December, providing significant technical resistance. A clean break, which will be confirmed by a daily close above this level, is viewed as a critical event for initiating a rally. If the bulls can turn $1.55 into support, it will be much easier to target the $1.90 area which would provide an upside of over 20% from the breakout level.
Ecosystem Growth and Broader Market Context
This technical breakout of $XRP cannot be seen in isolation from the market maturity and advances in the XRPL. Technological developments in Web3 integration and cross-chain will provide much of the fundamental fuel that merely will be measured through technical indicators as the $XRP ecosystem evolves.
Recent market analysis has reported on how combining Real-World Assets (RWA) with sports-tech has led to renewed interest in many long-established protocols within the blockchain marketplace. In CoinDesk’s estimation based on prior cycles of digital asset trading, the sudden price rise of altcoins has typically followed a prolonged period of price stability for Bitcoin. $XRP may indeed be at the leading edge of this alt-season price movement if the $1.55 level fails.
Conclusion
The daily $XRP price chart reveals a potential new bullish trend or a battle over a longstanding resistance level. The most positive development was that the SuperTrend indicator recently flipped bullish; however, the real determination will be if $XRP can break through this final barrier at $1.55. Therefore, for all traders it is an event to keep your eye on the daily closes for $XRP, as this may set up an unexpected fast run towards $1.90 if the ultimate barrier is broken at $1.55.
Most analysts had ruled out the ‘4-Year Cycle’ for Bitcoin [$BTC], saying the narrative was dead. Among them is James Lavish, a partner at the Bitcoin Opportunity Fund.
James Lavish on Bitcoin’s ‘4-Year Cycle’
James Lavish claimed last year that a liquidity cycle drove the price, rendering Bitcoin halving cycles irrelevant. He admitted he was mistaken when $BTC went on to hit a new high of $126K. Lavish said,
I thought the four-year cycle was dead. I declared it dead last year. I was wrong
Bitcoin started to turn in the 4-year cycle when prices got up over $100K, solidifying the narrative last year. Several Bitcoin OGs sitting on tens of thousands of $BTC coins started selling relentlessly, monetizing all the wealth they accumulated over the years.
From those actions, Lavish said Bitcoin was the only rational exit as the US debt spiraled to new heights, tipping $BTC to make a new high in 2026.
Why liquidity always wins
When money supply increases, the prices of everything go up, including gold, silver, Bitcoin, stocks, bonds, and real estate.
Conversely, Lavish noted that fears about wars, quantum computing, and AI may take the markets down in the short term.
Lavish said this period resembled March and April 2020, into 2021 and 2022, when the market rebounded after quantitative easing. Hence, liquidity always wins.
That could repeat as the Fed pumps billions into the money supply through the buying of long-term treasury bills from banks.
On that note, Lavish noted that the Fed had no other choice but to print more dollars to manage debt that had doubled in 10 years to around $39 trillion. The US needs to service $12 trillion in debts this year.
Hence, they needed to ensure more US dollars hit the system. The authorities intentionally kept the dollar weak to facilitate financing.
As for this, Lavish said,
The $39T US debt isn’t a problem to solve. It’s a system to maintain. More refinancing. More liquidity. A weaker dollar by design.
Can $BTC make a new high?
Lavish noted that this Bitcoin cycle was a bit different from the rest, where corrections run between 70% and 90%. For this one, the correction was about 50%, to around $65K from a high of $126K.
The charts showed that price action has been hitting higher levels since the potential bottom began to form in February.
There is an anticipation that the price will trade to $84K before another significant correction. Breaching this level would put $96K in sight.
Source: $BTC/USD on TradingView
Kyle Chase noted that a correction back to $65K cannot be ruled out. The analyst noted that if $BTC did fall to that range, traders would add more leverage ahead of $BTC making a new high.
Final Summary
James Lavish admits that the ‘four-year cycle’ for Bitcoin is still alive.
Lavish anticipated that Bitcoin would form a new high this year as the Fed pumps liquidity.
Ethereum, the second largest cryptocurrency by market capitalization, might be on the verge of a structural shift that might eye $2,900 if validated.
According to Ali, Ethereum has officially cleared the X-axis of its ascending triangle, breaking through the critical $2,385 resistance level. This opens the path to $2,900, the analyst added.
Ethereum $ETH opens the path to $2,900!
Ethereum has officially cleared the X-axis of its ascending triangle, breaking through the critical $2,385 resistance level.
This breakout is a significant structural shift. By flipping $2,385 into a support floor, $ETH has neutralized the… https://t.co/NLesHeyzQH pic.twitter.com/Pi0H5ypcts
— Ali Charts (@alicharts) April 17, 2026
Ali indicated that this price move represents a significant structural shift. The analyst indicated that Ethereum flipping the $2,385 into a support floor neutralizes recent sell signals and might suggest a major trend continuation.
With the overhead supply cleared, Ali stated that the technical objective for this formation is now $2,900. As long as Ethereum holds above the breakout zone at $2,385, the advantage will continue to tilt toward bulls.
Ethereum short-term price action
Ethereum rose to a high of $2,466 on April 17, extending its recovery from a March 29 low of $1,937. $ETH‘s price faced resistance at this level as sellers sought to halt the recovery. Bulls continued to press in and did not allow $ETH‘s price to dip below $2,300.
If $ETH‘s price continues to hold above the highlighted $2,385 level, the recovery may extend to $2,900, then to $3,050. Such a move suggests that Ethereum may have bottomed out at $1,742.
This bullish view will be invalidated in the near term if the price turns down sharply and breaks $2,300. That would suggest the recent rise might have been a bull trap. $ETH could then decline to the $1,916 level.
Ethereum fundamentals remain
Ethereum processed a record 200.4 million base-layer transactions in Q1, 2026, as it saw a multi-year U-shaped recovery in network activity.
Despite the surge in usage, Ethereum remains more than 50% below its August 2025 peak near $5,000, representing a divergence between fundamentals and price.
In other news, Bitmine now holds 4.87 million $ETH worth $10.7 billion and is 81% of the way to its target of owning 5% of the entire $ETH supply. Of this, Bitmine has staked 3.33 million $ETH, or about 68%.
“Did you guys listen to any new music during the week, maybe?” Addison Rae asked the packed main stage crowd at the Coachella Valley Music and Arts Festival before throwing on a purple hoodie and launching into her 2025 single, “Headphones On.”
When the Grammy-nominated singer hit the lyrics, “I compare myself to the new IT girl,” she paused and looked over to another part of the stage, revealing singer Olivia Rodrigo. The moment was met with huge cheers from the large crowd. The 23-year-old, wearing a baby pink bra top and jeans, joined Rae to continue singing “Headphones On.”
The pair then performed Rodrigo’s new single, “Drop Dead,” which was released Friday. “Oh my god, I might drop dead,” Rae squealed, hugging Rodrigo as she hyped the crowd up for the performance.
“Drop Dead” serves as the pre-release single for her upcoming album, You seem pretty sad for a girl so in love. Rae joined the Guts singer during its live debut.
Rodrigo announced her highly anticipated third album earlier this month. She posted the news on social media with the album cover, which pictures Rodrigo swinging upside down in a baby pink dress. The singer had been teasing the follow up to her 2023 album, Guts — which earned her a Grammy nomination for album of the year — for weeks before confirming that it would finally release June 12.
“My third album ‘You seem pretty sad for a girl so in love’ is out June 12th,” the singer said in her social media announcement post. “I am so proud of this record and I can’t wait for you to hear it.”
Weekend two of Coachella has already proven to be full of A-list, surprise guests. Pop star Sabrina Carpenter wowed the audience at her Friday night headlining set by bringing out Madonna. The pair even performed a rendition of Madonna’s “Like A Prayer.” The hit song came back into the zeitgeist late last year after a video of Heated Rivalry star Connor Storrie dancing to the track went viral.
Justin Bieber is set to return as the headliner for Saturday night’s Coachella program. Karol G will close out the festival with a Sunday night headlining set.
The Cavaliers open their first-round matchup with a 126-113 win over the Raptors, and lead the best-of-seven series, 1-0.
For those who need a refresher on why the regular season doesn’t always translate in the playoffs, the Cleveland Cavaliers just served up a defiant reminder and statement.
It’s true that during the season the Toronto Raptors had the Cavs’ number, sweeping them 3-0. The new and more important numbers are Cavs 1, Raptors 0 in this first-round playoff series.
With sparse few exceptions in the first half, the Cavs ruled and rolled throughout a 126-113 victory in Saturday’s opener, punishing the Raptors by exposing their tendency to make mistakes — and riding Donovan Mitchell, easily the best player on the floor.
“He was focused,” said Cavs coach Kenny Atkinson. “I liked how downhill he was. He was locked in at getting to the rim and made some really good decisions kicking it to our shooters. The goal for him now is sustaining and keeping that consistency.”
It was a necessary reaction by Cleveland, to put the regular season result in the rear view and find ways to flex like a higher seed should. The Cavs were better at both ends and gave Toronto a look that wasn’t evident in those three earlier losses — which is exactly the purpose of the playoffs.
Here are Four Takeaways from Game 1:
1. So far so good for Harden, Mitchell
The Cavs made the curious decision two months ago to pull the plug on the Mitchell-Darius Garland backcourt, breaking up a duo capable of dropping 50 points combined on any given night and against any given team.
The reasoning was sound enough; Garland was frequently injured and at times his size was problematic against certain opposing guards. What made the choice to part with Garland easier to comprehend is that he was swapped for James Harden, who not only could match Garland’s point production, but is a far superior passer.
And that skill has enabled Harden to connect fairly quickly with new teammates and especially with Mitchell. Both were evident against the Raptors when Mitchell remained the Cavs’ lead singer, taking 20 shots for 32 points, while Harden delivered 10 assists which were just as helpful as his 22 points, if not more.
Donovan Mitchell scores a game-high 32 points to lead Cleveland to a Game 1 victory.
Together they were too much for Toronto, swapping turns punishing the Raptors’ defense. Mitchell and Harden were responsible for more than 80 of the Cavs’ 126 points.
Cleveland is now 21-6 since acquiring Harden in a trade with the Clippers. He has helped balance the Cavs’ offense to where it isn’t so reliable on Mitchell to generate plays and scoring opportunities. And that’s the key going forward — using his court vision and passing to make Jarrett Allen and Evan Mobley bigger threats and the Cavs less predictable.
2. Strus brings the juice
In retrospect, this year won’t be a wash for Max Strus. He spent much of it recovering from offseason foot surgery, and with just 12 games worth of warm up before the playoffs, Strus wasn’t projected to have a significant impact if only because of the inactivity.
Such much for that theory, which was erased just one game into the playoffs. Strus delivered what he does best — stretch the floor, become a deep shooting threat, boost the bench play and take advantage whenever he gets open looks.
Strus scored 24 points, shooting 8-for-10 overall, including 4-for-6 on 3-pointers. Not only was Strus battling physical forces this season, but he also saw others step up and assume his role, notably Jaylon Tyson and Sam Merrill. Those two combined to shoot 1-for-8.
Strus came off the bench in Game 1 and while he’s certainly capable of starting, the Cavs could keep him in the sixth man role to fortify the second unit.
Mitchell said: “If you’ve seen all the work he puts in, it’s for this moment. Give him credit for his journey.”
3. Immanuel better return Quickley for the Raptors
Toronto was doomed by a rush of turnovers, all of which seemed to come at the most unfortunate times in the game. All told, the Raptors had 18 turnovers and a handful became easy transition points for Cleveland.
It was probably no coincidence that the Raptors struggled in this manner in a game without Immanuel Quickley, their best point guard, who dealt with a hamstring issue. That put Toronto at a disadvantage against a Cleveland team bringing quality guards and a thirst for forcing Toronto into bad decisions.
The Raptors turned to Jamal Shead, who actually played reasonably well (17 points) as the replacement starter; it was more a depth and ball-handling issue for Toronto. Suddenly, the play-making chores went to others and their flaws were magnified.
The Raptors averaged more than 29 assists per game, good for third-highest during the season. This efficient ball-sharing and careful consumption was absent Saturday.
“We missed Quickley big time with the way he gets us organized,” said coach Darko Rajakovic. “We wanted to have multiple ball handlers on the floor with Jamal.”
Without better ball sharing and control, Ingram suffered — the Raptors’ leading scorer took just one shot in the second half and scored four points after the break.
4. Scottie Barnes needs a Game 2 response
He’s among the league’s better players from an all-around standpoint, bringing the ability to score in the mid-range, handle the ball and defend. That’s why it was strange how most of that was missing in Game 1 from Scottie Barnes, who uncharacteristically did more harm than good for Toronto.
The Raptors stand a far better chance of winning playoff games when Barnes is his typical self. He made only six baskets with five turnovers and never really establish a rhythm or flow after a decent start — making three straight 3s, which is rich for him — and certainly didn’t strike fear into Cleveland.
Barnes led Toronto in rebounds and assists and was third in scoring. He usually manages to impact games different ways, except he didn’t standout against the Cavs and at times was vapor.
His Game 2 response will be critical and curious. Barnes doesn’t need to suddenly become a volume scorer; the Cavs have RJ Barrett and Brandon Ingram for that. But if Quickley misses a second straight game, Barnes’ playmaking and decision making could once again dictate Toronto’s chances for winning, or reasons for losing.
Familiarity breeds contempt, they say, and that may be a good thing for NBA fans who have watched the Denver Nuggets and Minnesota Timberwolves butt heads again and again – and again – in recent years.
Facing each other this spring for the third time in the past four postseasons – added to their four clashes each regular season – means the Nuggets and the Wolves had gone head-to-head 28 times since the start of 2022-23 heading into Game 1 Saturday at Ball Arena. The count was 14-14 – until Denver won 116-105 to go up 1-0 in this latest first-round series.
Familiarity of the sort these two Midwest Division rivals have gained can breed lot of things, including respect, grudges and the basketball know-how to force each other out of their first and even second options. All of which bodes well for the competitiveness of the games to follow.
Here are four takeaways from the series opener:
1. Denver’s 2-man game
Nikola Jokić and Jamal Murray are the twin turbos of the Nuggets. Letting them work and following in their wake is how this team plays, how it wins, how it captured the 2023 NBA championship. It’s how they draw teammates into the mix, and it’s how they managed the game Saturday down the stretch after Minnesota had gotten within five points with three minutes left, 106-101.
“They’re so patient,” coach David Adelman said. “We can control the game at the end because of those two players.”
Nikola Jokić does it all in Game 1, finishing with 25 points, 13 rebounds and 11 assists
The Denver vets helped orchestrate a 10-2 run the 33-second mark that drained the life out of any Wolves comeback. And their combined production – 55 points, 18 rebounds, 18 assists – was same old, same old. In this season’s series, Jokić and Murray averaged 67.3 points, 19.8 rebounds and 18.6 assists.
Any defensive schemes that don’t cut those numbers in half for two or three games will end up being the final ones the Wolves need.
2. Oh, those middle quarters
One thing better than a devastating two-man game is a lethal two-quarter performance. The Nuggets fueled easy Minnesota points in the first 12 minutes courtesy of turnovers. The fourth quarter wound up essentially even. But the second and third were when the game cracked open.
Denver outscored their guests 68-46 in the 24 minutes straddling halftime. The Nuggets shot 55% (23-for-42), while holding the Wolves to 39.5%. Murray scored 24 of his game-high 30 points in those periods, while Jokić had 15 on his way to his 22nd playoff triple-double (25, 13, 11).
The hammer came in a 17-2 burst from 68-68 early in the third that had the Nuggets in command, 85-70. Minnesota countered into the fourth with a 21-8 stretch but never got closer than five.
3. Wolves need to play smarter, not harder
It wasn’t Minnesota’s effort that led to its undesirable result, nor was it any relapse or limitation due to recent injuries to Anthony Edwards and Jaden McDaniels.
No, the Wolves’ theme afterward was that they didn’t bring a thinking man’s approach to this contest. Never mind any particular game plan for coping with the Nuggets – this was more a problem of staying focused, showing discipline and processing what was happening on the floor.
The Wolves didn’t move the ball enough when they got into the halfcourt. They stood too much on the perimeter. There wasn’t much offensive flow. And when things got hot, they got frustrated. McDaniels especially had a low flustered threshold Saturday.
Beat a title contender that way? Heck, it’d be hard to beat the Wizards or the Nets.
“It just wasn’t very smart,” said Minnesota coach Chris Finch. “We have to be more composed. … There were opportunities for everybody to move the ball more.”
Rudy Gobert, who considers himself one of the best defensive big men in the game, worked hard against Jokić, widely regarded as one of the best offensive centers in NBA history. He echoed his coach, though, after his 17-point, 10-rebound performance.
“Too many frustrations that carried over in the next possessions,” Gobert said. “If you want to beat this team, you can’t have that.”
4. Fine line for Murray
The Denver point guard shot 16 free throws and made all 16. Finch called that a “head scratcher,” pointing out that his whole team shot 19 free throws, making 14, to the Nuggets’ 30-for-33. Half of Murray’s freebies came in the second quarter, with the visitors’ irritation increasing with each whistle.
Want some context? OKC’s Shai Gilgeous-Alexander is a polarizing star because rival teams’ fans accuse him of hunting for foul calls. He led the Thunder to the championship last year and never shot more than 15 free throws in a game, despite his reputation.
Jamal Murray finishes with a game-high 30 points including 16-for-16 from the free-throw line
Defensive of Murray, Adelman said: “He drew a lot of fouls in [the second] because he got fouled – a lot … They had a hold of his jersey throughout the night.”
Murray, who averaged 5.2 free throws this season, seemed amused by Minnesota’s grumbles. He reminded reporters he shot four technical foul shots on his team’s behalf, dropping the total he earned off whistles to 12.
Of those Murray said:“I thought I got fouled on every single one of ‘em. So I don’t know what everybody’s talking about. Real fouls.”
Liquid restaking protocol Kelp DAO faced a large-scale attack that caused roughly $292 million in damages and triggered spillover disruption impacting the Aave lending protocol.
The exploit was first flagged by blockchain investigator ZachXBT at approximately 2:52 PM on April 18.
The attacker manipulated LayerZero’s cross-chain messaging layer, the verification system that confirms legitimate instructions between networks, into believing a valid transfer request had arrived from another chain.
The spoofed message triggered the unauthorized transfer of 116,500 rsETH, Kelp DAO’s Liquid Restaking Token, worth about $292 million, on-chain data shows.
The exploited amount represents around 18% of rsETH’s total circulating supply of approximately 630,000 tokens.
Kelp DAO confirmed on X that it had activated emergency safeguards and immediately stopped rsETH deposits and withdrawals, and is coordinating with LayerZero and Unichain.
Earlier today we identified suspicious cross-chain activity involving rsETH. We have paused rsETH contracts across mainnet and several L2s while we investigate.
We are working with @LayerZero_Core, @unichain, our auditors and top security experts on RCA.
We will keep you…
— Kelp (@KelpDAO) April 18, 2026
Where the stolen rsETH went
The incident escalated as stolen funds were moved into lending protocols including Aave V3, Compound V3, and Euler, where the attacker borrowed large amounts of wrapped $ETH against collateral, building more than $236 million in debt positions.
On-chain data shows the attacker consolidated around 74,000 $ETH post-exploit, generating over $280 million in bad debt across protocols.
In response, AAV suspended the rsETH markets on both Aave V3 and Aave V4. The project confirmed that its smart contracts were not compromised and that the issue originated from rsETH.
Aave also began reviewing rsETH-backed loans opened after the exploit to evaluate potential exposure. The team said they would explore measures to address any resulting bad debt.
The rsETH markets on Aave V3 and Aave V4 have been frozen. Aave’s contracts have not been exploited and this is an exploit related to rsETH.
The freeze follows an exploit of the Kelp DAO rsETH bridge. Freezing the rsETH markets prevents new deposits and borrowing against rsETH…
— Aave (@aave) April 18, 2026
SparkLend and Fluid took identical steps, with SparkLend reporting zero rsETH exposure and crediting its conservative risk posture.
Lido Finance paused deposits into its earnETH product, which carries rsETH exposure, while saying its core staking protocol and the stETH token were completely uninvolved.
[Lido Earn Disclosure] The Lido Earn team is aware of the developing situation with the Kelp DAO exploit. earnETH has exposure to rsETH.
As a precaution, further deposits into earnETH have been paused while the situation is assessed alongside relevant partners.
We will share…
— Lido (@LidoFinance) April 18, 2026
Ethena, the stablecoin issuer, temporarily shut down its own LayerZero bridges from the Ethereum mainnet as a precaution despite having no rsETH exposure and maintaining over 101% collateralization.
Out of an abundance of caution we are temporarily pausing our LayerZero OFT bridges from Ethereum mainnet until the root cause of the rsETH incident has been identified.
We expect the pause to last ~6 hours and will provide updates on this temporary pause as we receive them.
To… https://t.co/zqE6EQhJLf
— Ethena (@ethena) April 18, 2026
Aave’s token dropped about 10% on news of the attack, per CoinGecko.
A brutal stretch for DeFi
The attack is the largest DeFi exploit of the year to date and it came weeks after Solana-based perpetuals protocol Drift Protocol was hit in a targeted administrative breach.
On April 1, Drift lost about $285 million in an attack later linked to North Korea-affiliated actors. At least a dozen smaller protocols have been hit in the weeks since, including CoW Swap, Zerion, Rhea Finance, and Silo Finance.
Nadia Farès, the French actress who starred in The Crimson Rivers, has died Sunday. She was 57.
Farès was found unconscious in a swimming pool in Paris last week and had been in a coma since, suffering a cardiac arrest, her daughters told Agence France-Presse.
“It is with immense sadness that we announce the death this Friday of Nadia Farès,” Cylia and Shana Chasman shared in a statement with the outlet. “France has lost a great artist, but for us, it is above all a mother that we have just lost.”
Cylia shared a tribute to her mother on Instagram, writing, “This is a heartbreak I will never get over. Everyday I wake up and pray this is a nightmare and that you’re still with us. I know you fought your very hardest for your babies. Thank you. Thank you for fighting, thank you for giving me life, thank you for every memory, thank you for the laughs, for the cries.”
She began her acting career in 1990, with a one episode appearance in the television series Navarro. Farès made her feature debut two years later in My Wife’s Girlfriends. Her additional credits include Tell Me Yes… (1995), The Crimson Rivers (2000), War (2007), Marseille (2016-2018), Luther (2021) and Toujours possible (2025), among others.
Farès married producer Steve Chasman in 2002, and took a break from acting in 2009 when she moved with her husband to the United States. This September, she was set to film her first feature as a director and screenwriter.
“Through hard work, questioning myself and persistence, I found a great team, we are working together on an action comedy with Studios TF1,” Farès said in a January profile with Gala.
Farès is survived by her daughters, Cylia and Shana Chasman.
As she reached the end of her Coachella weekend two set, Addison Rae paused to ask the audience if they had heard “any new music this week.” On cue, Olivia Rodrigo emerged from the back of the stage, joining the pop singer for a pair of duets.
Rodrigo first sang with Rae on the latter’s single “Headphones On,” trading off lines and joining together on the chorus. “Coachella, how much do we love Miss Addison?” asked Rodrigo after the song’s completion. “Oh my god, I might just drop dead,” added Rae, a nod to Rodrigo’s new single “Drop Dead.” “Can we make some noise?” Rodrigo then gave the live debut of her freshly released single, strutting to the front of the stage with Rae and singing the tune as a duet.
“Drop Dead” arrived early Friday morning along with a music video directed by Petra Collins. In the clip, Rodrigo wanders through the Palace of Versailles, running from room to room before strapping on a pink guitar and rocking out.
The single marks the first taste of her third album, “You Seem Pretty Sad for a Girl So in Love,” releasing on June 12 via Geffen Records. She recorded the album with producer Dan Nigro, her longtime collaborator who worked on her first two albums, “Sour” and “Guts.” Ahead of the album’s release, Rodrigo will be pulling double duty as both host and musical guest on “Saturday Night Live” on May 2. She will be making her hosting debut, though she previously appeared on the show as a performer alongside host Keegan-Michael Key in 2021 and Adam Driver in 2023.
The article title asks whether SPELL can make a comeback. Let’s answer that question directly before doing anything else.
For SPELL to “come back” in any meaningful sense, three things would need to happen simultaneously: Abracadabra.money would need to stop getting hacked (three exploits totalling over $21 million in the last 18 months), the protocol’s annual token inflation of approximately 60% would need to be overcome by demand growth, and the broader DeFi lending market — where Abracadabra competes against Aave with $74 billion TVL compared to Abracadabra’s $154 million — would need to rotate capital toward smaller, less audited protocols.
None of those things are impossible. But none of them are currently trending in the right direction.
That’s the honest short version. Everything below is the full analysis, because the longer answer is more complicated and more interesting than a simple “no.”
Disclaimer: This is informational analysis only, not investment advice. SPELL is highly speculative. Always do your own research before any investment decision.
What Abracadabra and SPELL Actually Are
Abracadabra.money is a multi-chain DeFi lending protocol built around one core mechanic: letting users deposit interest-bearing tokens (ibTKNs) as collateral to borrow a USD-pegged stablecoin called Magic Internet Money (MIM). The concept was novel at launch in August 2021 — unlocking liquidity from assets that were already generating yield, rather than requiring users to choose between earning yield or having liquid capital.
The idea: you deposit stETH (staked $ETH earning ~4% APY) into Abracadabra as collateral. You borrow MIM against it. Now you have liquidity while your stETH keeps compounding. You swap the MIM for whatever you need — more $ETH, other stablecoins, portfolio rebalancing. The yield on your collateral partially offsets your MIM borrowing costs. In theory, you get leverage on yield-generating assets more efficiently than any traditional lending protocol offers.
SPELL is the governance and utility token in this ecosystem. Stake SPELL to receive sSPELL tokens, which grant voting rights on protocol parameters and entitle holders to a share of protocol fees — 75% of interest fees collected by Abracadabra go to purchase SPELL tokens, which are then distributed to sSPELL stakers. This creates a fee-distribution mechanism: if the protocol grows, staking SPELL earns meaningful yield.
At its November 2021 $ATH, SPELL hit approximately $0.035 per token with a market cap of around $2.1 billion. TVL on Abracadabra reached $6.42 billion in January 2022. For a few months, Abracadabra was one of DeFi’s fastest-growing protocols, and SPELL was one of the most talked-about tokens in the ecosystem.
That was over four years ago. April 2026’s SPELL sits at approximately $0.000165 — over 99.5% below its $ATH. The all-time low of approximately $0.0001648 was set on February 6, 2026.
The Three Hacks That Defined the Decline
SPELL’s price story can’t be separated from Abracadabra’s security history. Three exploits in 18 months have fundamentally damaged the protocol’s credibility with capital allocators.
Hack 1: January 30, 2024 — $6.49 Million
An attacker exploited Abracadabra’s Ethereum cauldron contracts, draining $6.49 million by manipulating smart contract variables to bypass insolvency checks. The immediate consequence: MIM briefly depegged from $1.00, touching approximately $0.97 before the DAO treasury intervened with a buyback-and-burn strategy to restore the peg.
The January 2024 hack was significant not just for its financial impact but because it marked the beginning of Abracadabra’s serial security problems — the kind that institutional DeFi allocators use to permanently remove a protocol from consideration.
Hack 2: March 2025 — $13 Million
The second and largest exploit hit Abracadabra’s cauldron contracts on Arbitrum — specifically, cauldrons linked to GMX liquidity tokens. An attacker executed a seven-step flash loan attack that drained approximately $13 million worth of MIM. The team, in an unusual move, offered the hacker a 20% bounty to return the remaining funds. The $13 million Arbitrum exploit demonstrated that the vulnerability patterns from January 2024 had not been fully remediated across all contract deployments — specifically, the cook() function’s handling of batched transactions.
Hack 3: October 4, 2025 — $1.8 Million
The third exploit targeted a deprecated Cauldron V4 contract that had been live on-chain for approximately 961 days — almost two and a half years — without the logic flaw in its cook() function being identified or patched. The attacker extracted approximately 1.79 million MIM (worth about $1.79 million) by exploiting the same class of vulnerability that enabled the prior hacks. Funds were laundered through Tornado Cash. The protocol’s official X account had not posted since early September 2025 at the time of the attack.
The cumulative damage from three exploits: over $21 million stolen. Each incident required DAO treasury buybacks to stabilise MIM’s peg. The protocol had a treasury of approximately $19 million in reserves at the time of the October hack — meaning the third incident alone consumed essentially the entire treasury.
Security experts were blunt: the October 2025 hack was preventable. A 2023 audit by Guardian Audits identified critical issues in the cauldron architecture, but no follow-up reviews were conducted after subsequent code changes. The deprecated contract that was exploited had been publicly accessible for years with a known-pattern vulnerability.
The Tokenomics Problem: 60% Annual Inflation
Even if the security incidents had never happened, SPELL faces a structural tokenomics problem that is independent of the hack history.
The current annual SPELL token inflation rate is approximately 59.68% — meaning roughly 64.1 billion new SPELL tokens were created over the past year. Against a circulating supply of 171.5 billion, that is enormous ongoing dilution.
The original token design contemplated a ten-year halving model: 50% of total supply issued in year one, 25% in year two, 12.5% in years three and four, and so on. The idea was that high early inflation rewards early adopters and liquidity providers, then decays. In practice, the inflation remains substantial years into the protocol’s life, and the fee revenue that was meant to offset dilution — generating demand for SPELL through the 75% fee buyback mechanism — has shrunk as TVL has declined.
At $10.84 in daily protocol revenue (per CoinGecko data for April 2026), Abracadabra generates approximately $3,957 in annual fees for SPELL stakers. Against a ~$28 million market cap, the fee yield is effectively zero. SPELL staking cannot be a meaningful income strategy at current protocol activity levels.
The maximum supply is 210 billion SPELL. Circulating supply is already 171.5 billion — 81.7% of the maximum. The token burns conducted after each hack helped marginally, but not enough to counteract the ongoing emission schedule.
What Remains Working: The Case for the Protocol Surviving
The bearish case has been stated clearly. The bull case — which is thinner but real — rests on a few observations.
The MIM stablecoin survived three depeg events. Each hack caused MIM to briefly fall below $1.00. Each time, the DAO treasury buyback restored the peg. MIM’s circulating supply of approximately 44 million tokens is small relative to its historical peak (over 2.78 billion at the protocol’s height), but it is still functioning, still accessible, and still integrated into DeFi liquidity pools on Ethereum and Arbitrum.
TVL hasn’t gone to zero. $154 million TVL is a shadow of the $6.42 billion peak, but it represents real capital that has stayed in the protocol through three hacks. This is not an abandoned protocol — it still has users. Those users accept above-market risk in exchange for whatever leverage mechanics or yield opportunities the protocol still provides.
The ibTKN-collateral mechanic still has value. The stablecoin DeFi lending market is growing, with stablecoin market cap hitting $312 billion and lending protocol TVL expanding broadly. Top lending protocols in DeFi are securing tens of billions in TVL, and the category of interest-bearing collateral that Abracadabra pioneered is now implemented by Aave, Spark, Morpho, and others. The mechanic was right. The execution was flawed.
The protocol is multichain. Abracadabra operates on Ethereum, Avalanche, Fantom, and Arbitrum. This distribution means a hack on one chain doesn’t necessarily eliminate the entire protocol.
SPELL Key Data (April 2026)
Source: CoinGecko — SPELL Live Price
The Context SPELL Operates In: DeFi’s Competitive Landscape
Understanding SPELL’s outlook requires understanding the competitive landscape of DeFi lending in 2026. This landscape has changed dramatically since 2021.
Aave V4 launched in 2026 with a modular hub-and-spoke architecture supporting specialised lending markets, real-world assets, and institutional lending. Aave TVL hit $74 billion in Q3 2025 — nearly 500x Abracadabra’s current TVL. The gap in institutional trust, audit history, and capital depth is not closeable through feature differentiation alone.
The stablecoin evolution in 2026 has moved decisively toward yield-bearing, regulated, RWA-backed structures — the opposite of the pseudonymous, reputation-based DAO governance that characterised Abracadabra’s 2021 identity. The “Frog Nation” branding that defined the protocol’s early culture (which also encompasses the related Wonderland TIME ecosystem built by co-founder Daniele Sesta) has become a liability rather than an asset as institutional DeFi has matured.
The market that SPELL competes in has grown, but the winners in that market have become more professional, more audited, and more institutional. Abracadabra’s niche — leveraged yield on ibTKNs, governed by a pseudonymous DAO — is now served by larger, better-capitalised protocols with cleaner security records.
SPELL Price Prediction 2025
FY2025 has closed. The story was grim: SPELL ended 2025 near all-time lows, hit the absolute ATL of $0.0001648 on February 6, 2026, and showed essentially zero price recovery despite the broader DeFi market’s Q3 2025 bull run (Aave TVL up 70%, $ETH briefly making new highs). SPELL’s failure to participate in a strong DeFi quarter while its primary peer group surged is a meaningful signal: the market has structurally devalued Abracadabra’s risk profile.
The 2025 price decline was driven by three distinct catalysts: the March 2025 hack ($13 million, the largest ever), ongoing token inflation of ~60% annually, and the absence of any new product development, partnership announcements, or governance upgrades that could attract capital. The September 2025 social media silence (the official account going dark from September 9 through October and beyond) damaged community confidence at the exact moment it most needed reinforcement.
SPELL Price Prediction 2026
The 2026 scenario for SPELL hinges almost entirely on one question: does Abracadabra.money ever address its smart contract architecture in a comprehensive, externally audited way that can rebuild institutional confidence?
As of April 2026, there is no publicly announced V2 architecture, no partnership with a major security firm, no governance proposal for comprehensive contract migration, and no new product roadmap that would increase protocol activity and fee generation.
Without those developments, the 60% annual token inflation continues to exert downward pressure on price regardless of broader market conditions. Even in a bull market where altcoins run 5–10x, SPELL needs to absorb 64+ billion new tokens per year while generating $10/day in fees. That arithmetic is brutal.
If a broad DeFi/altcoin bull cycle materialises in 2026, SPELL could see speculative price recovery — the “dead cat bounce” pattern is common in previously-high-profile DeFi tokens. During the Q3 2025 altcoin season, SPELL briefly touched approximately $0.000200 before falling back. A similar technical bounce in a bull market could push SPELL to $0.000300–$0.000500 without any fundamental change in protocol economics.
The moderate bull case exists primarily as a speculative artefact of broader crypto market conditions, not as a reflection of Abracadabra’s fundamental health.
SPELL Price Prediction 2027–2030
For SPELL to stage a meaningful long-term recovery — say, reaching $0.001 by 2027 or $0.005 by 2030 — several things need to happen that are not visible in any current roadmap:
A comprehensive smart contract architecture overhaul, audited by multiple top-tier firms, that closes the cauldron cook() vulnerability class permanently. A governance transition that addresses community trust — the pseudonymous DAO governance that worked during the 2021 bull run is a liability today. A product that creates meaningful, growing fee revenue — at $10/day, the fee-sharing mechanic provides essentially nothing to SPELL stakers. Without fee revenue, there is no fundamental demand for SPELL beyond speculation.
If those things happen — and they could, DeFi protocols have been rebuilt from worse positions — then the market cap potential is real. At a $300–$500 million market cap (still modest for a DeFi protocol in a bull market), SPELL would trade between $0.0015 and $0.0025. That’s a 10–15x from current levels.
The probability of that outcome is low given the current trajectory. But it is not zero. The MIM mechanic is still novel. The multichain infrastructure still works. The DAO treasury still exists, diminished but functional.
The Honest Comeback Assessment
The original Spell token price prediction on BCR and subsequent deep-dives into SPELL’s price trend history captured the upside narrative from the protocol’s early days. Those narratives were grounded in real innovation — the ibTKN collateral mechanic was genuinely new in 2021, and the fee-sharing model for governance token holders was compelling.
The question of whether SPELL can make a comeback is actually two different questions that get conflated. Can the price of SPELL bounce? Yes, easily, in a bull market — speculative bounces don’t require fundamentals. Has it happened before from deep lows.
Can SPELL return to relevance as a DeFi protocol generating real fee value for stakers? That requires Abracadabra to solve three compounding problems simultaneously: security (three hacks and counting), tokenomics (60% inflation with no real fee revenue to offset it), and competitive positioning (competing against Aave, which has 500x the TVL). That combination is very hard.
The market’s current assessment — a $28 million market cap, ATL pricing, essentially zero fee revenue — says that most capital allocators have concluded the comeback case is weak. That assessment might be wrong. But it’s not obviously wrong.
At $0.000165, SPELL is genuinely priced like a protocol that the market expects to eventually fail or remain irrelevant. If you believe that assessment is too pessimistic — if you think Abracadabra has a path to protocol revival, architectural renewal, and captured market share in a growing DeFi lending market — then SPELL at ATL represents an asymmetric speculative bet.
If you agree with the market’s current pricing, there’s no compelling case to hold.
That’s as honest as any SPELL price prediction gets.
