XRP trapped between $1.15 support and heavy supply at $1.50: What’s next?

ambcryptoPublished on 2026-02-19Last updated on 2026-02-19

Abstract

XRP's bearish momentum intensified as it declined from its December peak of $2.40, with sellers defending key resistance levels and triggering stop-loss liquidations. The price found support near $1.15, attracting buyers and forming a consolidation zone around $1.43–$1.45. However, bulls failed to reclaim the $1.50–$1.60 range due to persistent selling pressure and weak conviction. Technical indicators like MACD and RSI reflect negative sentiment. Derivatives data shows crowded short positions, declining open interest, and defensive options hedging, reinforcing a fragile and range-bound structure. The current setup discourages aggressive long positions and favors range trading between support and resistance levels.

Bearish control tightened its grip as XRP’s post-December structure steadily unraveled from distribution to forced liquidation.

Sellers controlled Ripple [XRP] from the $2.40 December peak by defending overhead supply and selling into each rebound.

They accelerated downside momentum by dumping through $1.7305, then forced a second breakdown below $1.5017 to trigger stop-loss liquidity.

As the price reached $1.15 and tapped the 100% Fib near $1.1479, profit-takers reduced shorts while opportunistic buyers stepped in. That shift fueled the rebound and formed consolidation near $1.43–$1.45.

Meanwhile, bulls bought defensively because the 78.6% Fib at $1.3998 and the $1.15 base offered asymmetric risk. However, they failed to reclaim $1.50–$1.60 as supply reloaded and conviction stayed thin.

MACD remained negative, reflecting persistent trend pressure, while RSI near 42 showed muted demand.

This structure heightened chop risk, discouraging aggressive longs, while rewarding range traders positioning around defined support and resistance.

XRP’s range tightens

Leverage fragility defined XRP’s consolidation as derivatives signaled pressure beneath the $1.43–$1.45 compression.

At press time, Funding Rates plunged to -0.035% on Binance, showing crowded shorts paying premiums without triggering squeezes.

This imbalance reinforced seller dominance, especially as supply reloaded near $1.50–$1.60 and capped rebounds.

Meanwhile, the Long/Short Ratio printed 49.1% longs to 50.9% shorts, indicating a slightly bearish or neutral sentiment rather than bullish dominance, yet liquidation data exposed structural weakness.

Moreover, Open Interest collapsed to $2.35 billion from 2025 highs, reflecting exhausted speculative demand rather than constructive positioning.

Options skew leaned defensive as implied volatility rose, concentrating downside hedging near $1.40 and $1.15.

This structure amplified chop risk, discouraged new long positions, and rewarded fades to resistance while keeping liquidation cascades structurally active.

What’s reinforcing XRP’s defensive structure?

Trending Cryptos

Related Questions

QWhat are the key support and resistance levels for XRP mentioned in the article?

AThe key support level is at $1.15, and the heavy resistance is in the $1.50 to $1.60 range.

QWhat technical indicators showed persistent bearish pressure for XRP?

AThe MACD remained negative, reflecting persistent trend pressure, and the RSI was near 42, showing muted demand.

QWhat did the Funding Rate on Binance and the Long/Short Ratio indicate about market sentiment?

AThe Funding Rate plunged to -0.035%, showing crowded shorts paying premiums, and the Long/Short Ratio of 49.1% longs to 50.9% shorts indicated a slightly bearish or neutral sentiment.

QHow did Open Interest change, and what does it reflect?

AOpen Interest collapsed to $2.35 billion from its 2025 highs, reflecting exhausted speculative demand rather than constructive positioning.

QWhat is the current market structure rewarding, according to the article?

AThe structure is rewarding range traders who position around defined support and resistance, and it discourages aggressive long positions.

Related Reads

a16z: From Companies to DAOs, DUNA May Become the Next Generation Organizational Form

This article, "From Companies to DAOs: How DUNA Could Become the Next Organizational Form," traces the 500-year evolution of business collaboration. It begins with medieval structures like the *commenda* and Florentine *compagnia*, which exposed partners to personal risk. The modern corporation, exemplified by the Dutch East India Company (VOC), was a revolutionary leap, enabling large-scale, capital-intensive ventures by offering limited liability and reducing coordination costs. However, corporations introduced new challenges like principal-agent problems and bureaucratic overhead. The piece argues that software and internet-native protocols are now reducing these traditional overheads. Decentralized Autonomous Organizations (DAOs) emerged as a new model for coordination without centralized management. Yet, DAOs face a significant legal vacuum: they lack legal recognition, leaving members exposed to unlimited personal liability, and their tokens are vulnerable to being classified as securities under unclear regulations (e.g., the Howey Test). This has forced projects into suboptimal workarounds like offshore foundations. The article identifies the Decentralized Unincorporated Nonprofit Association (DUNA) as a potential solution. Recently legalized in states like Wyoming, the DUNA provides a legal wrapper for decentralized networks. It grants key protections—legal personality, limited liability, and perpetual existence—to a group without imposing a traditional hierarchical management structure. This allows token-holder communities to govern, hold assets, and contract as a single legal entity, aligning with their decentralized nature. While DUNA doesn't solve all governance challenges or magically resolve securities law questions, it represents a crucial step. It fills the legal recognition gap, offering a native legal form for internet-scale, decentralized collaboration and extending the separation of personal risk from organizational venture into a new domain.

marsbit25m ago

a16z: From Companies to DAOs, DUNA May Become the Next Generation Organizational Form

marsbit25m ago

2026 Mid-Year Report On-Chain RWA: Tokenized Stock Market Cap Doubles in a Year, But 90% of Rights Are Hollow Shells

The 2026 Mid-Year Report on On-Chain RWA highlights a significant growth in tokenized stock market capitalization, which nearly doubled from $951 million in March to $1.89 billion by July. However, the report reveals a fundamental contradiction in this "layer 2.5" ecosystem: products with the strongest legal foundation (like regulated U.S. infrastructure) lack liquidity and distribution, while freely tradable offshored wrapper products often lack substantive ownership rights. The increase is driven largely by a few products (SECZ, FGRS, STRCx) and platforms (Ondo, xStocks, Securitize collectively hold over 85% share). While distributed value across networks like Ethereum, Solana, and BNB Chain has grown, the market remains fragmented. Products referencing the same underlying asset (e.g., Apple stock) are distinct legal liabilities with different intermediaries and jurisdictional rules, offering varying degrees of legal claim. The report cautions that headline numbers are misleading, as they reflect changes in distributed token value—driven by issuance, conversions, and price movements—not pure investor inflows. True "canonical shares" with legal ownership, wide wallet distribution, institutional liquidity, and independent on-chain price discovery do not yet exist at scale. Tokenized treasuries show stronger product-market fit, and ETFs may be easier to scale than single stocks. The core takeaway is a trade-off: legal certainty versus liquidity and composability.

marsbit1h ago

2026 Mid-Year Report On-Chain RWA: Tokenized Stock Market Cap Doubles in a Year, But 90% of Rights Are Hollow Shells

marsbit1h ago

Coldcard Hardware Wallet Hacked: 594 Bitcoin Withdrawn in 25 Minutes

The Coldcard hardware wallet has been compromised, with hackers stealing approximately 594.5 Bitcoin (~$40 million) from 500 addresses in just 25 minutes. The root cause was a critical software bug, undetected for five years, which disabled the device's secure chip for generating true random numbers. This led to the creation of private keys based on predictable data like the processor's serial number, drastically reducing cryptographic security. The attackers exploited this offline by brute-forcing possible seed phrases, finding active addresses on the public ledger, and signing transactions. Initially, Coinkite (Coldcard's maker) claimed only older models were at risk but later admitted all devices running the compromised firmware were vulnerable. CEO Rodolphe Novak (NVK) apologized but ruled out financial compensation for affected users. To secure funds, owners must urgently update their firmware to specific safe versions, generate a completely new seed phrase on the updated device, and transfer all assets to new addresses created with that new seed. While a BIP-39 passphrase can help, it does not replace this migration process. Other Coinkite products like TAPSIGNER were not affected. This incident underscores that even specialized hardware requires rigorous, independent code audits, especially for cryptographic functions. It parallels past failures, like a 2006 OpenSSL bug in Debian, and raises questions about whether automated code analysis can ever fully replace human scrutiny in critical security areas.

cryptonews.ru3h ago

Coldcard Hardware Wallet Hacked: 594 Bitcoin Withdrawn in 25 Minutes

cryptonews.ru3h ago

Trading

Spot

Hot Articles

Discussions

Welcome to the HTX Community. Here, you can stay informed about the latest platform developments and gain access to professional market insights. Users' opinions on the price of S (S) are presented below.

活动图片