Has the Winter of Crypto IPOs Arrived? Consensys and Ledger Hit Pause

marsbitPubblicato 2026-05-14Pubblicato ultima volta 2026-05-14

Introduzione

Crypto IPO Winter Arrives? Consensys and Ledger Hit Pause. Following a boom in 2025, the window for crypto company initial public offerings has narrowed sharply in 2026. Major players like MetaMask developer Consensys and hardware wallet firm Ledger have recently postponed their US listing plans, joining exchange Kraken which paused its process earlier this year. This slowdown follows a strong 2025 where companies like Circle and Bullish went public, raising billions as Bitcoin hit all-time highs. However, in 2026, declining Bitcoin prices and trading volumes have cooled investor risk appetite. Newly listed crypto stocks, including BitGo, have seen significant price drops post-IPO, reinforcing investor caution. The cooling crypto IPO market contrasts sharply with the red-hot AI sector, where companies like SpaceX and OpenAI command massive valuations and investor interest based on "productivity revolution" narratives. Crypto firms, seen as more cyclical and volatile, struggle to compete for capital. The IPO delays are prompting a strategic shift. Companies are focusing on strengthening fundamentals, pursuing private funding, and expanding into more stable revenue streams like institutional services. This phase may accelerate industry consolidation, favoring firms with robust compliance and infrastructure. Analysts suggest a potential second wave of crypto IPOs in late 2026 could depend on a Bitcoin price recovery and clearer regulatory developments.

Original Author: Ma He, Foresight News

On May 14th, MetaMask wallet developer Consensys temporarily postponed its IPO until at least this autumn. Meanwhile, crypto hardware wallet giant Ledger also suspended its U.S. IPO plans on May 13th. Previously, exchange Kraken had repeatedly delayed its listing plans. This series of IPO delays and suspensions indicates a clear narrowing of the IPO window in 2026, following the surge in crypto company listings in 2025.

2025 was seen as a "bumper year for IPOs" in the industry: stablecoin issuer Circle successfully listed on the NYSE, and companies like Bullish and Gemini completed their IPOs, initially opening exit channels for crypto VCs. Crypto-related IPOs in 2025 raised approximately $14.6 billion, and total VC deal volume soared to $19.7 billion. The price of BTC once surged to a historic high of $126,000. Inflows of institutional capital and a relatively friendly regulatory environment propelled strong first-day performances for several crypto stocks.

Entering 2026, Bitcoin's price saw a significant correction, trading volume declined, and investor risk appetite for crypto stocks rapidly cooled. BitGo, as the first crypto IPO of 2026, listed in January at a price of $18. Despite a brief rise on the first day, its price subsequently fell, at one point dropping to $7, and has now recovered to $11.9.

Specifically, the listing pace of several leading companies has noticeably slowed. Kraken's parent company, Payward, confidentially filed an S-1 form in November 2025, originally planning to proceed in Q1 2026, with a valuation once targeting $20 billion. On March 18th this year, the company paused its plans citing "difficult market conditions." Co-CEO Arjun Sethi stated that despite a recent funding round lowering the valuation to $13.3 billion, the IPO filing remains active, awaiting the optimal window.

Arjun Sethi

Ledger's pause was more abrupt. Known for its hardware wallets and enterprise-grade infrastructure, reports in January 2026 indicated it had hired investment banks to prepare for a U.S. listing with a target valuation of $4 billion. According to sources familiar with the matter, Ledger decided to hold off due to unfavorable market conditions and did not initiate the formal filing process. A company spokesperson declined to comment but indicated a possible turn towards private financing to sustain growth.

Notably, just in March, Ledger appointed former Circle executive John Andrews as CFO and opened a New York office to strengthen its U.S. business presence. This expansion shows its business strategy remains unchanged, and the listing suspension is more a result of external pressures.

Meanwhile, MetaMask parent company Consensys has also joined the wait-and-see ranks. The company had hired JPMorgan and Goldman Sachs as underwriters, originally planning to submit its S-1 form around the end of February, targeting a 2026 listing. However, due to weak market conditions, Consensys has postponed its IPO to at least this autumn.

The suspension of these crypto company IPOs is, of course, the result of multiple overlapping factors.

The stock performance of the first wave of crypto IPOs in 2025 has heightened market caution towards the 2026 listing window.

This year, Circle's stock price has fallen from a high of $300 to below $50 at one point, and Bullish's dropped from $118 to below $25. Even BitGo, the first crypto IPO of 2026, was not spared—after listing at $18 in January, it briefly rebounded but then fell all the way to around $7 at its lowest.

This year's performance collectively confirms that crypto-related stocks can easily attract capital during the tail end of a bull market but struggle to resist valuation resets during cyclical downturns. Traditional institutional investors are significantly increasing their risk premium requirements for "cycle-bound" assets.

In stark contrast to the "cooling-off period" for crypto IPOs, the AI sector is experiencing a dual climax of IPOs and financing in 2026.

SpaceX has initiated IPO preparations with a target valuation as high as $1.75 trillion to $2 trillion, making it one of the most anticipated tech listings globally.

OpenAI's valuation is approaching $1 trillion and is in close communication with multiple investment banks regarding its listing path; Anthropic's valuation is nearing $900 billion and is also actively preparing IPO materials. The AI narrative, backed by the certainty of a "productivity revolution," is attracting a massive influx of long-term capital. Even in an environment of macroeconomic uncertainty, AI-related IPOs still garner far higher risk appetite than crypto assets.

In contrast, crypto companies are highly dependent on Bitcoin prices and trading volume, with more volatile revenue, making it difficult to provide the certainty of "exponential growth" promised by AI companies. This cross-sector disparity in cold and hot sentiment further amplifies investors' wait-and-see attitude towards crypto IPOs and also forces crypto enterprises to accelerate their transition from "storytelling" to "focusing on cash flow and compliance."

Furthermore, crypto companies are adopting a more pragmatic strategic shift: while private financing scales have shrunk, it can still provide a buffer; some companies choose to first optimize product lines, expand into stablecoins or institutional services, and wait to list after Bitcoin stabilizes at higher levels and market conditions improve.

The implications of this phenomenon for the industry warrant deep thought.

On one hand, it accelerates the survival of the fittest. Weaker projects face increased difficulty in financing, and resources concentrate towards companies with strong compliance and solid infrastructure, such as Ledger's institutional-grade platform and Kraken's custody business. On the other hand, it highlights the crypto industry's transition from story-driven to performance-driven. Companies that truly survive across cycles are winning long-term trust by building resilient cash flows and enhancing transparency. However, in the short term, the narrowing IPO window may lead to valuation resets and affect confidence and liquidity across the entire ecosystem.

Looking ahead, if Bitcoin returns to $90,000 or even higher, and regulatory legislation further materializes, a second wave of IPOs may emerge in the second half of 2026.

Domande pertinenti

QWhat are the two major cryptocurrency companies mentioned that have postponed their IPO plans recently, and to when has Consensys delayed its IPO?

AThe two major cryptocurrency companies mentioned are Consensys (developer of MetaMask) and Ledger. Consensys has postponed its IPO until at least the fall of this year (2026).

QAccording to the article, what were the key factors that made 2025 a 'bountiful IPO year' for crypto companies?

AKey factors included Circle's successful listing on the NYSE, the IPOs of companies like Bullish and Gemini, a total of about $14.6 billion raised from crypto-related IPOs, a surge in VC deal volume to $19.7 billion, Bitcoin's price reaching a then all-time high of $126,000, institutional capital inflows, and a relatively friendly regulatory environment.

QHow does the article contrast the current market reception for crypto company IPOs with that of AI company IPOs in 2026?

AThe article states that crypto company IPOs are in a 'cooling-off period' with multiple delays, while AI is in a 'double climax' for IPOs and financing. AI companies like SpaceX, OpenAI, and Anthropic attract high valuations and capital due to the 'certain narrative of productivity revolution,' offering more perceived certainty than the high volatility and Bitcoin-price-dependent revenues of crypto firms.

QWhat is cited as a primary reason behind the recent wave of IPO delays and suspensions for crypto companies in 2026?

AA primary reason cited is the poor stock performance of the first wave of crypto IPOs from 2025, such as Circle and Bullish experiencing significant price drops from their highs. This has increased caution among investors and raised the risk premium demanded for crypto stocks, which are seen as highly cyclical.

QWhat potential positive developments does the article suggest could open a new IPO window for crypto companies in the second half of 2026?

AThe article suggests that if Bitcoin's price returns to $90,000 or higher and if further regulatory legislation is passed, the second half of 2026 could see a second wave of IPO opportunities for crypto companies.

Letture associate

Fei-Fei Li's Team Clarifies the Concept of 'World Models', Sora Merely a Renderer

"World Models" has become a widely used yet confusing term in AI. To address this, a team led by Fei-Fei Li and World Labs proposed a functional taxonomy based on the Partially Observable Markov Decision Process framework. This taxonomy categorizes systems called "world models" into three distinct projections: Renderers, Simulators, and Planners. Renderers, like OpenAI's Sora and other video generation models, focus on producing photorealistic visual outputs for human perception. They prioritize visual fidelity over physical accuracy. Simulators, such as NVIDIA Omniverse, aim to compute precise future environmental states for computational tasks like engineering analysis or digital twins. Planners, like Vision-Language-Action models, take in observations and goals to output executable actions for robots or agents. The article clarifies that most current "world models," including Sora, are primarily Renderers. They generate convincing visuals but lack the core ability to simulate state transitions based on actions, a key requirement for a true world model in classic reinforcement learning definitions. This conceptual confusion has practical implications, leading to potential misalignment in technology selection, investment, and public understanding of AI capabilities. Clear categorization is crucial. It helps enterprises avoid costly mistakes (e.g., using a renderer for robot training), allows investors to accurately assess markets, and enables researchers to build comparable benchmarks. While future systems may integrate these functions, recognizing current boundaries is essential for honest assessment and progress.

marsbit7 min fa

Fei-Fei Li's Team Clarifies the Concept of 'World Models', Sora Merely a Renderer

marsbit7 min fa

Bloomberg Uncovered: How Do China's Wealthy Circumvent the Annual $50,000 Limit to Transfer Assets?

**Summary: How Wealthy Chinese Circumvent $50,000 Annual Foreign Exchange Limits** Despite China's strict capital controls, including an annual $50,000 per person foreign exchange quota, an estimated $150 billion in funds still leaves the country annually via various gray and underground channels. This report outlines the evolution of China's "capital wall" and the methods used to bypass it. **The Evolving Capital Controls:** * **Foundation (1994):** The system of "current account convertibility with strict capital account controls" was established. * **Quota Set (2007):** The $50,000 individual annual forex purchase limit was formalized. * **Crackdown Begins (2015-2017):** Following market volatility, enforcement tightened. Banks were required to scrutinize transactions, and channels like using UnionPay cards for Hong Kong insurance premiums or buying overseas property were blocked. * **Digital & Legal Upgrades (2024-2026):** Enhanced algorithms now flag suspicious patterns (e.g., "smurfing"). The Common Reporting Standard (CRS) provides Chinese tax authorities with data on citizens' offshore accounts. Unlicensed cross-border brokers have been targeted. **Five Primary Methods for Moving Capital:** 1. **Underground Banking / "Hawala" (Duiqiao):** The largest-scale method. No money crosses borders. Clients pay RMB to a domestic account; an overseas associate deposits equivalent foreign currency into the client's offshore account. Risks include high fees, account freezes, and legal penalties. 2. **"Smurfing" or "Ant Moving":** Using multiple individuals' $50,000 quotas to pool funds for one offshore recipient. Increasingly detected by anti-money laundering algorithms. 3. **Trade Invoice Manipulation:** Businesses over-invoice imports or under-invoice exports via offshore shell companies, creating a pretext to transfer excess funds abroad under the guise of trade. 4. **Channel Migration:** After a crackdown on internet brokers, funds flow toward more compliant but costly channels like major banks' cross-border wealth management services or Qualified Domestic Institutional Investor (QDII) quotas. 5. **Structural Arrangements:** High-net-worth individuals use complex, high-cost legal structures involving offshore trusts, insurance, and investment migration programs to transfer asset ownership. **Regulatory Response: Focusing on People, Not Just Money** The current strategy extends oversight from enterprises to **individual residents**. Tools like CRS allow retroactive visibility into offshore assets. Cryptocurrencies, once seen as a potential loophole, are now actively monitored and prosecuted as an illegal channel. The underlying driver remains: with significant wealth concentrated among millions of affluent households seeking diversification amid domestic economic shifts, the incentive to move assets offshore persists despite regulatory barriers.

marsbit26 min fa

Bloomberg Uncovered: How Do China's Wealthy Circumvent the Annual $50,000 Limit to Transfer Assets?

marsbit26 min fa

Ethereum's Ballmer Moment: As Everyone Is Bearish, the Circulating Supply Is Disappearing

"Ethereum's Ballmer Moment: Circulation Shrinks Amid Bearish Sentiment" Amid widespread bearish sentiment, with prominent figures like Bankless founder David Hoffman selling ETH and young developers flocking to Solana, some argue Ethereum is entering its "Ballmer era"—akin to Microsoft's perceived stagnation under Steve Ballmer. While surface-level criticisms about slow protocol development, cautious leadership, and competitive pressure are valid, underlying fundamentals tell a different story. Approximately 30% of ETH is staked, major holders like BitMine are accumulating, and spot ETFs continue to absorb supply. Regulatory clarity, including the SEC/CFTC's March ruling on staking rewards and the potential passage of the CLARITY Act, is transforming crypto from a regulatory threat into a legitimized framework. This institutionalization, alongside a shrinking circulating supply (with net issuance around 0.23% annually), creates significant buy-side pressure independent of fee-based value capture. The broader crypto total addressable market is expanding through regulated stablecoins, tokenized assets, and institutional adoption. While public chains face competition from permissioned alternatives, the winning model appears to be permissioned assets settling on public chains like Ethereum and Solana. The author advocates a non-maximalist, barbell strategy: holding ETH for its institutional role and supply squeeze, SOL for consumer/throughput trends, BTC as a macro hedge, and a basket of next-gen L1s. Key bullish drivers for ETH include rapid circulation shrinkage, potential Q2 staked ETF approvals, regulatory tailwinds solidifying its role as a default settlement layer, and the optionality of an eventual "Satya moment" leadership shift. Despite bearish consensus, the current setup—where crypto is "not hot" and regulatory groundwork is being laid—presents a compelling investment opportunity. The crypto cycle's focus may have shifted to AI, but blockchain infrastructure is gaining a legal and institutional foothold precisely while attention is elsewhere.

marsbit27 min fa

Ethereum's Ballmer Moment: As Everyone Is Bearish, the Circulating Supply Is Disappearing

marsbit27 min fa

Trading

Spot
Futures
活动图片