In recent reports, analysts at market intelligence platform Santiment have indicated that daily active Ethereum (ETH) addresses have seen a major increase, reaching around 1,089,893 on Sept. 13, marking the second-highest number of active addresses in Ethereum’s history. This notable rise in on-chain activity likely points to a growing demand for the underlying asset and a potential upsurge in market volatility. On the other side of this coin is the observed pace of Ethereum’s price decline, slipping below the $1.7k threshold and potentially nearing the next support level at approximately $1.5k in the coming weeks.
Certainly, the escalating interest in Ethereum among institutional investors is palpable, particularly with spot ETFs emerging in financial conversations. Simultaneously, Ethereum’s significant market capitalization, liquidity, and trading activity are bolstering its outlook. The second-largest blockchain maintains its stronghold in the DeFi ecosystem and smart contract sphere, securing around $20 billion in total value locked (TVL).
However, it would be short-sighted not to factor in the influence of Bitcoin (BTC) on Ethereum’s price movements. Historically, Ethereum’s price has proven to be heavily influenced by Bitcoin, especially around September when a new halving event spikes market instability. Moreover, Ethereum is currently facing intense selling pressure as both weekly and daily death crosses form between the 50 and 200 Moving Averages (MA).
In another relevant news, the South Korean Bitcoin lender Delio is reportedly preparing an administrative lawsuit against regulators for the faulty interpretation of the law concerning virtual assets deposits and management products. This action is in response to allegations of fraud and embezzlement levied by the Financial Service Committee (FSC), resulting in an imposed three-month business suspension on Delio—a move that puts operational sustainability under threat.
In the face of uncertainty and shifting dynamics, the interpretation of existing laws and the looming question of whether a lending company that lends cash using virtual assets as collateral constitutes a virtual asset business operator will continue to generate scrutiny and be a major focal point in the discourse of blockchain technology and digital assets.
Source: Cointelegraph
