TRUMP price has continued its downward trajectory, currently trading near $21 after a sharp decline of roughly 72% from its all-time high. Over the past 24 hours, the meme coin has dropped another 9%, extending its losses to nearly 30% in a week.

TRUMP lost nearly $10 billion in market cap over the past two weeks, reflecting ongoing selling pressure. As technical indicators like RSI and CMF remain weak, the meme coin faces a critical test to determine whether it can regain momentum or risk further downside.

TRUMP RSI Shows Sellers Are Still In Control Despite The Recent Recovery

TRUMP RSI is currently at 31.68, remaining below the 50 mark for the past seven days, with a notable low of 19.8 on February 1. This extended period of weak RSI suggests persistent selling pressure, as the token has struggled to generate enough momentum for a meaningful recovery.

A sharp dip to 19.8 highlights an extreme level of bearish sentiment, though the recent recovery to 31.68 indicates some stabilization. However, the inability to cross 50 suggests that bullish strength remains limited, keeping TRUMP in a vulnerable position.

The Relative Strength Index (RSI) is a momentum oscillator that measures the speed and magnitude of price movements, ranging from 0 to 100.

Readings above 70 indicate overbought conditions, signaling a possible correction, while readings below 30 suggest an asset is oversold and may be primed for a rebound.

With TRUMP RSI at 31.68, it is hovering just above oversold territory but still below the neutral 50 level, indicating that sellers continue to dominate.

The inability to reclaim 50 over the past week reinforces a bearish outlook, as it reflects a lack of sustained buying pressure necessary to shift market sentiment.

CMF Is Currently At Very Low Levels

TRUMP CMF is currently at -0.23, marking its third consecutive day in negative territory. Yesterday, it hit an all-time low of -0.27, reflecting a significant outflow of capital.

This sustained negative reading suggests that selling pressure has outweighed buying interest, with more volume being transacted at lower prices.

While the slight recovery to -0.23 indicates some stabilization, the overall trend remains bearish, signaling that TRUMP is struggling to attract consistent liquidity inflows.

The Chaikin Money Flow (CMF) is an indicator that measures the accumulation and distribution of capital based on price and volume over a specified period. It ranges from -1 to 1, with positive values indicating strong buying pressure and negative values suggesting persistent selling pressure.

A CMF reading of -0.23 means that sellers are in control, as more volume is flowing out of TRUMP than into it. Given that CMF has remained negative for three days and recently hit its lowest level ever, this suggests weak demand and a lack of sustained buying support, which could keep TRUMP price under pressure in the short term.

TRUMP Price Prediction: More Corrections Ahead?

The TRUMP meme coin is currently trading near the $21 level, facing a key resistance at $24.58. As one of the most hyped meme coins ever launched, a resurgence in momentum could drive a breakout above this resistance.

If buying pressure strengthens and TRUMP reclaims bullish momentum, testing $24.58 becomes a likely scenario.

A successful breakout above this level could trigger further upside, potentially leading to a test of $30.47 in the near term as traders capitalize on renewed enthusiasm.

On the other hand, if TRUMP price fails to establish an uptrend and sellers maintain control, downward pressure could intensify. A lack of buying strength might push the price lower, with $18.56 acting as the next major support level.

If bearish sentiment deepens and volume favors sellers, TRUMP price could break below this level, opening the possibility for further downside.

According to reports, more parents in the US are abandoning traditional 529 college savings plans in favor of Bitcoin.

This shift stems from Bitcoin’s historical price appreciation, which has outpaced conventional investment options like stocks.

Parents Identify Bitcoin’s Appeal as a Long-Term Investment

Many of these parents view Bitcoin as a hedge against inflation and economic uncertainty, seeing its long-term growth potential as an advantage. Despite concerns about its volatility, these investors remain confident in Bitcoin’s ability to preserve value over time.

Still, some parents view Bitcoin as a diversification strategy rather than a complete replacement for traditional savings plans. Many believe their children will have ample time to ride out Bitcoin market fluctuations before they need to access the funds for their College tuition.

“If you’re saving for your kids, add Bitcoin to the portfolio. Buying $10-$100 of Bitcoin per month over 18 years will set your kids up for an excellent life. It will massively outperform the rest of the portfolio,” wrote Rajat Soni, a popular financier on X (formerly Twitter).

Bitcoin’s recent price action has reinforced investor confidence. The cryptocurrency reached a new all-time high of nearly $110,000 this year, marking a staggering 500% surge from its 2022 low of under $20,000.

Supporters argue that Bitcoin still holds significant growth potential, which has fueled its adoption across retail and institutional investors alike.

However, choosing Bitcoin over 529 plans comes with trade-offs. While Bitcoin offers the potential for significant gains, parents who opt for cryptocurrency investments forego the tax advantages of 529 plans, which provide benefits like tax-free withdrawals for educational expenses.

Growing Institutional and Political Support for BTC

Meanwhile, Bitcoin’s rising adoption extends past individual investors. Over the past year, institutional interest has surged, with more than 70 publicly traded companies now holding over 600,000 BTC. This accumulation signals confidence in Bitcoin’s long-term value and role as a viable store of wealth.

Beyond institutional adoption, Bitcoin’s rising popularity has also been fueled by political shifts. US President Donald Trump’s transition from a crypto skeptic to a pro-Bitcoin advocate has further legitimized the asset.

His plan for a Bitcoin stockpile has intensified global interest, with nations such as the Czech Republic and Hong Kong also exploring Bitcoin reserves.

Market experts believe these moves are unsurprising because of the top asset’s core attributes. According to them, BTC’s decentralized nature, fixed supply, and global accessibility position it as a strong alternative to traditional investment options.

Travis Kling, founder and chief investment officer of Ikigai Asset Management, has highlighted Bitcoin’s role as protection against central bank mismanagement.

“Eventually you come to Bitcoin and you can squint a little bit and actually put together a cogent argument that Bitcoin would be a better collateral foundation than Treasuries,” Kling wrote.

He explained that Bitcoin is built to absorb a large portion of global money supply growth. This feature makes it a strong alternative to fiat-based investments.

While Bitcoin remains volatile, Kling predicted that it would become more stable and widely accepted over the next decade. By 2035, he projected Bitcoin’s market capitalization could reach $15 trillion, with an annual trading volume of $200 trillion.

If realized, this could position Bitcoin as superior collateral compared to traditional investment vehicles like US Treasury bonds.

Decentralized autonomous organizations (DAOs) have become popular in Web3 as an alternative to traditional organizational structures. Their bottom-up decision-making, driven by token-based voting enforced and executed by smart contracts, aims to increase transparency and participation.

However, as DAOs grow beyond theoretical governance experiments, they face significant hurdles. BeInCrypto spoke with Danny Cooper, Venus Protocol’s Vanguard Team Lead, to understand how low voter turnout, large token holders, and decision paralysis hinder effective leadership.

A Promising Alternative

DAOs were‬‭ once‬‭ hailed‬‭ as‬‭ the‬‭ future‬‭ of‬ governance, structures‬‭ that‬‭ could‬‭ operate‬‭ without‬‭ centralized‬‭ control,‬‭ guided‬‭ purely‬‭ by‬‭ code‬‭ and‬‭ community‬‭ consensus.‬‭ The‬‭ vision‬‭ was‬‭ simple:‬‭ a‬‭ transparent,‬‭ democratic‬‭ system‬‭ where‬‭ every‬‭ participant‬‭ has‬‭ a‬‭ voice‬‭ and‬‭ makes decisions‬‭ through‬‭ token-based‬‭ voting.

These organizations use a blockchain to facilitate self-enforcing rules or protocols. The blockchain’s smart contracts store these rules, while the network’s tokens incentivize users to safeguard the network and vote on regulations.

‭Since the first DAO launched on Ethereum in 2016, these organizations have entered the realms of venture capital, social initiatives, and public goods funding. But with their philosophy now implemented, their flaws have begun to surface. 

DAOs‬‭ often‬‭ struggle‬‭ with‬‭ balancing‬‭ decentralization‬‭ and‬‭ the‬‭ need‬‭ for‬‭ effective‬‭ leadership,‬‭ raising‬‭ questions‬‭ about‬‭ whether‬‭ they‬‭ are‬‭ genuinely‬‭ the‬‭ ideal‬‭ governance‬‭ model or simply a stepping stone toward something more refined.‬

Lowered Voter Turnout

DAOs operate without a central authority, with governance decisions distributed among their members through code-based mechanisms. This decentralized structure was designed to empower members to participate in decision-making through token voting mechanisms.

However, there have been many instances where equally distributed voting power did not yield the expected results. Frequent voting on every issue can discourage participation. 

“As‬‭ DAOs‬‭ grow,‬‭ decision-making‬‭ can‬‭ indeed‬‭ become‬‭ cumbersome,” said Cooper.

Since many DAOs use referendum-style voting, they assume members will thoroughly research proposals. However, time constraints, lack of information, or simple disinterest can lead to low voter turnout or uninformed voting decisions.

Waiting for every DAO member to vote on a proposal can also slow the decision-making process, especially when an urgent solution is needed. 

Segmenting voting matters by priority and topic and assigning them to specific delegates can solve this issue. 

“Decentralized‬‭ decision-making‬‭ can‬‭ scale‬‭ with‬‭ the‬‭ implementation‬‭ of‬‭ sub-DAOs‬‭ and‬‭ layered‬‭ governance‬‭ systems,‬‭ which‬‭ delegate‬‭ decision-making‬‭ to‬‭ smaller,‬‭ focused‬‭ groups.‬‭ This‬‭ approach‬‭ reduces‬‭ operational‬‭ complexity‬‭ while‬‭ empowering‬‭ specialized‬‭ teams‬‭ to‬‭ act‬‭ autonomously‬‭ within‬‭ defined‬‭ boundaries.‬‭ Advanced‬‭ governance‬‭ tooling‬‭ and‬‭ clear,‬‭ codified‬‭ processes‬‭ ensure‬‭ efficiency‬‭ and‬‭ coherence‬‭ across‬‭ a‬‭ growing,‬‭ decentralized‬‭ community,” Cooper added.

Other options can remedy decreased participation, though they also come with risks. 

Increased Centralization Among Major Players

To address low voter turnout, some DAOs allow less active participants to entrust their voting power to more informed members to increase overall engagement. 

However, this system does not eliminate the risk of influence by the original owners. They could still acquire a majority of transferable voting tokens, allowing them to manipulate decisions that may not align with the DAO’s best interests.

Consequently, centralization risks also rise. In December 2024, the Cambridge Centre for Alternative Finance, a research institute based at the University of Cambridge, published a study examining the centralization level among decentralized finance (DeFi) projects.

The analysis focused on the following DAOs: AAVE, Compound Finance, Convex Finance, Curve Finance, Frax Finance, Instadapp, Lido, MakerDao, Rocket Pool, and Uniswap. 

The study revealed that power within several leading DeFi DAOs is highly concentrated, with governance often dominated by a few influential players. 

Researchers used the Gini coefficient to measure the DAOs’ governance token distribution and voting. This coefficient measures the inequality of governance token distribution within these protocols, with 1 representing maximum inequality and 0 representing perfect equality.

The Cambridge study found that these 10 DAOs had Gini coefficients ranging from 0.97 to 0.99 as of October 2024. For comparison, South Africa, the most income-unequal country in the world, had a Gini coefficient of 0.63 in 2024, according to Statista data. 

MakerDAO had the highest coefficient of 0.99, while Rocket Pool had a coefficient of 0.97.

Whale Activity Compromises DAO Governance

The concentration of voting power among high-net-worth individuals can also marginalize smaller token holders, potentially leading to a situation in which a small group of influential actors effectively controls governance decisions.

“Whale‬‭ influence‬‭ in‬‭ DAOs‬‭ can‬‭ skew‬‭ governance‬‭ outcomes,” said Cooper. 

The concentration of power within some DAOs also raises concerns about potential rent-seeking behavior and conflicts of interest. When token holders are involved in multiple projects, their own interests may influence decisions within a particular DAO, potentially leading to outcomes that do not align with the best interests of the DAO.

A notorious example of whale risks in DAOs came to light in February 2023 when a Bubblemaps investigation revealed that Andreessen Horowitz controlled more than 4% of Uniswap’s UNI token supply. 

Uniswap requires 4% of votes to pass any proposal, meaning that wallets owned by a16z can collectively change the outcome of any governance vote, challenging Uniswap’s claim of having a decentralized governance model. 

The firm used its governance control that month when it leveraged a 15 million UNI token voting block to vote against a proposal to use the Wormhole bridge for Uniswap V3 deployment on the BNB Chain. a16z is apparently heavily invested in rival bridge platform LayerZero, which it favored for the deployment.

According to Cooper, DAOs must implement mechanisms to safeguard the organization from these types of manipulation in cases of governance attacks.

“‭Enhanced‬‭ transparency‬‭ through‬‭ auditable‬‭ voting‬‭ records‬‭ and‬‭ the‬‭ introduction‬‭ of‬‭ reputation-based‬‭ deterrents‬‭ penalize‬‭ malicious‬‭ actors,‬‭ while‬‭ layered‬‭ safeguards‬‭ like‬‭ quorum‬‭ thresholds‬‭ prevent‬‭ collusion‬‭ and‬‭ vote-buying‬‭ from‬‭ compromising‬ governance integrity,” he said.

Ensuring that these mechanisms work will prove vital to avoid critical threats like vote-buying, whale activity, or collusion. 

‭Scalability Issues

Many of the issues facing DAOs are directly or indirectly linked to the limitations in their scalability. These challenges pose significant risks to long-term growth and development. 

As the number of participants and the volume of transactions increase, the DAO’s infrastructure may struggle to keep pace, potentially leading to delays in processing transactions and other inefficiencies.

Balancing the diverse interests of a DAO’s various stakeholders while simultaneously incentivizing desired behaviors and outcomes presents a significant operational challenge. 

“Without central authority, setting long-term goals requires clear structure and alignment incentives. ‭ A‬‭ clear‬‭ roadmap,‬‭ built‬‭ collaboratively‬‭ and‬‭ tied‬‭ to‬‭ measurable‬‭ milestones,‬‭ ensures‬‭ the‬‭ DAO‬‭ remains‬‭ focused‬‭ and‬‭ unified‬‭ across‬‭ its‬‭ decentralized community,” Cooper told BeInCrypto.‬

Similarly, the ongoing maintenance and upgrade of a DAO’s technical infrastructure, including smart contracts, voting mechanisms, and communication channels, is crucial for its smooth and effective operation. 

In terms of accessibility, enhancing user experience requires developing and maintaining user-friendly tools. These could be intuitive voting platforms, efficient proposal management systems, and accessible decision-making interfaces.

Since one of the core principles of DAOs is a merit-based contribution, the organization should reward individuals based on the value they contribute.

Therefore, the successful operation of a DAO also requires careful consideration and management of its economic incentives. Initiatives could take the form of effective token distribution models, staking mechanisms, and reward structures. 

Alignment with jurisdictional regulations will also be paramount.

Legal and Regulatory Challenges

The legal status of DAOs remains largely unclear within most jurisdictions. Their decentralized and autonomous nature presents challenges for traditional legal frameworks, typically designed for centralized entities with clearly defined legal structures. 

As a result, most governments lack specific regulations and legal frameworks to address DAOs’ unique legal and operational characteristics.

Challenges include difficulties in designating legal entity status, ensuring transparency in registration, and addressing the operational complexities associated with decentralization, anonymity, and borderlessness. This ambiguity can erode investor confidence, hinder innovation, and create significant challenges in ensuring compliance with relevant regulations.

However, some jurisdictions have made progress. For instance, Wyoming passed a bill that provides a framework for DAOs of at least 100 members to become unincorporated nonprofit associations. 

In 2021, the state passed the Decentralized Autonomous Organization Supplement Act, which extended Wyoming’s LLC laws to include DAOs and provided the first legal framework for their creation and management within the state.

“Emerging‬‭ solutions‬‭ include‬‭ DAO-specific‬‭ legal‬‭ entities,‬‭ such‬‭ as‬‭ Wyoming’s‬‭ DAO‬‭ LLC,‬‭ and‬‭ jurisdictional‬‭ sandbox‬‭ programs‬‭ will‬‭ enable‬‭ DAOs‬‭ to‬‭ operate‬‭ with‬‭ legal‬‭ clarity‬‭ while‬‭ maintaining‬‭ the‬‭ decentralized‬‭ ethos.‬‭ Self-regulation,‬‭ backed‬‭ by‬‭ auditability‬‭ and‬‭ consistent‬‭ community‬‭ oversight,‬‭ strengthens‬‭ both‬‭ accountability‬‭ and‬‭ credibility,” Cooper told BeInCrypto.

The United Arab Emirates (UAE) also introduced a structured legal framework for DAOs through the RAK Digital Assets Oasis (RAK DAO) last October. 

The move also signaled a growing recognition of the potential that DAOs offer.

Fixing Issues Will Be Critical for a Sustainable Future

At large, DAOs offer a potential paradigm shift in corporate governance, presenting an alternative to traditional corporate structures. This decentralized model, with its emphasis on transparency and equitable participation, holds the potential to significantly impact the formation, management, and regulation of companies in the long term.

However, while their potential remains significant, several key challenges must be addressed to facilitate the widespread adoption of DAOs beyond current niches.

“To‬‭ thrive‬‭ in‬‭ these‬‭ areas,‬‭ hybrid‬‭ governance‬‭ models‬‭ that‬‭ integrate‬‭ expert‬‭ advisory‬‭ boards‬‭ with‬‭ community‬‭ oversight‬‭ will‬‭ be‬‭ critical,‬‭ ensuring‬‭ technical‬‭ precision‬‭ alongside decentralized values,” Cooper concluded. ‬

To ensure the success of these governance models, stakeholders must address critical challenges, including the need for greater regulatory clarity, the development of a sustainable technological infrastructure, and the elimination of centralization risks.