Arthur Hayes, co-founder of Crypto Exchange Bitmex, offloaded more than $13 million in Crypto Holdings, including Ether (eth)Dan

and Pepe.

Data from Arkham Intelligence shows that Hayes has sold millions of these cryptocurrencies and moved to accumulate USDC, with Stablecoin accounting for more than 80% of the $27.9 million address associated with him.

The address sold for 2,373 ETH, worth $832 million, with 7.76 million ENAs for $462 million, and 38.8 billion Pepe for $414,700. In X’s post, he confirmed he was behind the address, pointing to a bearish scenario in the crypto space.

Hayes suggested that the market will be hit by the impact of President Donald Trump’s tariffs.

Combined with a weaker than expected US employment report, he argued that no major economy is expanding credit quickly enough to boost nominal GDP. Against this background, he predicted that Bitcoin could “test $100k” and that Ether would revisit $3,000.

The crypto market, measured by the Coindesk 20 (CD20) index, has lost more than 7.5% of its value in the past week as hopes for interest rate reductions have faded. Bitcoin surpasses the wider market by a 3.9% drop, and is currently at $113,500.

Similarly, ether fell 6.5% over the same period and is currently trading at $3,500. Hopes for rate cuts blew on Friday, but they spiked later in the session after the labour market showed signs of weakness. Polymarket Traders is currently heavier with a 70% chance of interest rate reductions in September.

And the market is falling as tensions between the US and Russia escalate. Former Russian President Dmitry Medvedev said Trump ordered two nuclear submarines to move to “the right area” after threatening the US to agree to the ultimate ceasefire in Moscow.

Despite the sale, Hayes may remain bullish. In a post last month, he said the year-end target for Bitcoin prices was $250,000 and the ether rose to $10,000.

US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) Commissioner Caroline Crenshaw has strongly opposed the agency’s recent settlement with Ripple Labs, arguing that it weakens regulatory oversight and fails to protect investors.

In a May 8 statement, Crenshaw said the agreement undermines the court’s and the SEC’s authority to enforce securities laws. She warned that the deal is part of a broader retreat from effective crypto regulation.

The Commissioner stated:

“The settlement joins a line of dismissals that collectively erode the credibility of our lawyers in court who are being asked to take legal positions today contrary to the ones taken just months ago. And it stands in defiant contravention of the doctrine of regularity of government affairs.”

Over the past months, the financial regulator and Ripple have struck an agreement that resolves the SEC’s case against Ripple and its co-founders Brad Garlinghouse and Christian Larsen.

As part of the agreement, the SEC requested that a district court lift a previous injunction against the company. Ripple will also regain access to over $75 million currently held in escrow.

Crenshaw slams SEC

Crenshaw, however, argued that the terms go too far. She explained that by wiping out the earlier court-imposed penalties, the agreement blocks the SEC from pursuing future enforcement tied to XRP sales.

In her view, this weakens the legal precedent and limits the Commission’s future ability to act on similar cases. She wrote:

“If, however, Ripple decides tomorrow to sell unregistered XRP tokens to institutional investors—in plain defiance of the court’s order—this Commission will do absolutely nothing about it. There will be no enforcement of the law. The hundreds of hours spent by the court in this matter will be rendered meaningless. And the court’s decision will be effectively vacated.”

The Commissioner also noted that this deal reflects a troubling shift within the SEC toward reducing its crypto enforcement agenda.

Crenshaw expressed concern that this direction sends confusing signals to the public and the industry, while asking numerous questions.

She questioned:

“Does the resolution suggest to the market that we agree with the court’s ruling? What is the legal effect of the ruling in place? How can we ensure that investors get the information that they need and to which they are entitled under the law?”

Crenshaw stressed that settlements like this risk sending mixed signals to the market. She warned that such actions leave investors vulnerable and fail to provide the clarity for responsible decision-making.

Ultimately, she concluded that the agreement raises more questions than answers, particularly regarding enforcement consistency and investor protection.

Mentioned in this article