Bitcoin nears R2m as crypto goes mainstream — but don't get too excited just yet
In case you missed it last week, bitcoin hit almost R2m. This wasn't just another crypto bro celebration moment either — it goes deeper.
Bitcoin's breakthrough last week to past $111,000 (R1,966,480 for those keeping track) has been hailed as a genuine turning point for digital assets, coming at a time when traditional tech stocks were having what can only be described as a tantrum.
'Bitcoin hitting a new all-time high above $111,000 marks a major milestone for the crypto industry,' said Hannes Wessels, the general manager of Binance South Africa.
'It reflects growing global confidence in digital assets, driven by strong institutional demand and regulatory progress.'
Translation for the rest of us: Big money is finally taking crypto seriously, and governments are starting to figure out how to regulate it without completely breaking it.
When trading goes nuclear
The bitcoin surge wasn't happening in isolation. On 19 May, crypto wallet platforms recorded the kind of trading volumes that would make the JSE weep with envy.
Binance Wallet alone hit over $5-billion in daily trading — that's roughly R88-billion changing hands in a single day on one platform.
To put it in perspective, that's more than the entire market capitalisation of Shoprite, and it happened in 24 hours on a platform most South Africans probably haven't heard of.
This trading frenzy suggests something fundamental is shifting in how people interact with cryptocurrencies. Gone are the days when crypto was just about buying bitcoin and hoping for the best.
Users are becoming more sophisticated, seeking out early opportunities and engaging with what the tech crowd calls 'Web3' — think of it as the internet's awkward teenage phase, where everything becomes decentralised and confusing.
The early bird gets the (digital) worm
Much of this activity revolves around platforms that let users get in on cryptocurrency projects before they hit the big exchanges. These early-access platforms have become incredibly popular by offering exclusive token generation events and airdrops.
Since December 2024, Binance Alpha has featured 18 tokens that eventually got listed on major exchanges — a 43% success rate that would make any venture capitalist jealous.
Here's where it gets interesting for regular investors: participants in these early events bought tokens at prices averaging eight times lower than their opening day values. That's the kind of return that makes property investment look like a savings account.
But — and this is a big but — this is also where things get properly risky.
Don't fall for the Fomo trap
Before you start liquidating your unit trust to chase crypto dreams, let's talk reality. Getting early access to cryptocurrency projects is like being invited to a high-stakes poker game where half the players are card sharks and the other half are algorithms.
Yes, the potential returns are eye-watering. But so are the risks:
Regulatory roulette: Governments worldwide are still figuring out how to handle crypto. Rules can change overnight, potentially making your investment illegal or inaccessible.
Hacker heaven: Crypto platforms are magnets for cybercriminals. When they succeed, your money disappears into the digital ether with zero chance of recovery.
Volatility on steroids: Traditional shares can be volatile, but crypto makes the JSE look like a lazy Sunday afternoon. Prices can swing 50% in a day just because someone influential tweeted something.
Liquidity nightmares: Sometimes you can't sell your tokens even if you want to, because there aren't enough buyers or the trading volumes are too low.
Technical meltdowns: When platforms crash or have bugs, your investments can be stuck in digital limbo.
When courts get crypto reality
The legal system is slowly catching up with crypto reality, and the results are sobering for investors who think digital assets are a guaranteed path to riches.
A recent UK Court of Appeal case involving Bitcoin SV investors provides a masterclass in crypto reality checks. These investors sued Binance and other exchanges for $13.4-billion (yes, billion), claiming that delisting their favourite token prevented it from becoming the next bitcoin.
The court's response was, essentially, 'Nice try, but no.'
The judges ruled that cryptocurrencies are 'by their nature, volatile investments' and should be treated like shares or other financial instruments. More importantly, they rejected the idea that investors could claim damages based on what their tokens might have been worth in some hypothetical future.
As the court put it: 'It would be unthinkable for the holders of freely tradeable shares, whose value had been reduced by tortious conduct, to be able to claim more than the current value of those shares to compensate them for the prospect that their value might have substantially increased in the future.'
This ruling could reshape how crypto disputes are handled globally, establishing that digital assets don't get special treatment just because they're digital.
The regulatory maze
Meanwhile, regulators worldwide are creating a patchwork of rules that would make a tax consultant weep. The European Union's new crypto regulations are so strict that Tether — the company behind the world's most popular stablecoin — simply refused to comply.
This has led to major exchanges delisting USDT (a dollar-pegged cryptocurrency) for European users, creating a fragmented market where your access to certain digital assets depends entirely on your location.
In Nigeria, tensions have escalated dramatically, with authorities seeking $79.5-billion from Binance in alleged damages, plus another $2-billion in back taxes.
What this means for you
For South African investors watching this unfold, the message is clear: crypto is maturing, but it's maturing into something complex and regulated, not the Wild West of easy money that early adopters experienced.
The good news is that institutional money is flowing in, providing stability and legitimacy. The bad news is that with legitimacy comes regulation, compliance costs, and the kind of complexity that makes traditional investments look simple.
Bitcoin's march toward R2-million represents genuine progress for digital assets, but it's progress that comes with grown-up responsibilities and grown-up risks.
Keep it tidy
The cryptocurrency market is undoubtedly entering a new phase of maturation, with unprecedented trading volumes, institutional adoption and regulatory clarity. But this maturation cuts both ways — while it brings legitimacy and stability, it also brings complexity and risk that many retail investors aren't prepared for.
For South Africans considering crypto investments, the advice remains unchanged: only invest what you can afford to lose, understand the risks, and remember that past performance — even R2-million Bitcoin — is never a guarantee of future returns. DM
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Citizen
13 hours ago
- The Citizen
Multi-billion Limpopo mega-project has ground to a halt
Makhado Special Economic Zone, announced in 2018, was intended to attract investments of R40-billion. The mega industrial project in the Musina Makhado Special Economic Zone has ground to a halt. Photos: supplied by Living Limpopo The Musina Makhado Special Economic Zone in Limpopo, announced in 2018 by President Cyril Ramaphosa, was intended to attract investments of more than R40-billion. But seven years later, the project has all but ground to a halt. Only one company has made a firm commitment to invest. Though more than R100-million has been spent, there are no roads, electricity or water connections; and the company contracted to build roads has terminated the contract. However, the chair of the board says a turnaround plan is in place and construction on the first infrastructure projects will start in September. Seven years after its launch by President Cyril Ramaphosa, the multi-billion Musina Makhado Special Economic Zone (MMSEZ) in Limpopo is at a standstill. R67.5-million has been spent on consultants and R50-million on roads and infrastructure. But there is no infrastructure, no electricity connection, no roads and no water. Described on its website as 'a flagship of the Limpopo Provincial Government' the MMSEZ is 'a green field investment platform consisting of two sites' – Artonvilla, near Musina, intended for light manufacturing, and Mopani, near Makhado, intended for heavy industry. The zone claims to offer 'state of the art logistics facilities promoting operational excellence' But though the MMSEZ was touted to bring in R40-billion in investments, so far only one company has made a firm commitment to invest. ALSO READ: Revival of job-creating initiative in Limpopo A report by the chair of the MMSEZ board, Nndweleni Mphephu, to the Limpopo Economic Development, Environment and Tourism department, shows how little has happened in what was to be a mega industrial park in the heart of the Limpopo Valley. The report, dated 28 May, follows questions in Parliament and an oversight visit to the area by members of the Limpopo Economic Development, Environment and Tourism portfolio committee. According to the Minister of Trade Industry and Competition Parks Tau, R2.27-billion would be needed for bulk infrastructure on the site, and R1.07-billion had been set aside between 2020/1 and 2026/7 in the provincial budget. In response to a question in Parliament in May from the DA's Toby Chance, Tau added that the DTIC's Industrial Zones Programme was helping the MMSEZ with advisory support. Some of the money has already been spent, much of it on consultants. In his report, Mphephu gives a list of consultants, service providers and contractors who have benefited to date. Spending of just over R85.2-million was approved for consultants, of which just over R67.5-million has already been paid to 17 consultants, including engineers, planners, quantity surveyors, project managers and horticulturists. Just under R40-million has been paid to service providers, including Eskom. ALSO READ: Limpopo's special economic zones expected to create 21,000 jobs According to the report, three contractors have so far benefited, including Tshiamiso Trading 1 and Tshiamiso Trading 2, which received a R200-million contract for roads and stormwater infrastructure and a R99.3-million contract for bulk sewer and wastewater treatment works. A contract for R134-million was awarded to Rembu Construction, also for the construction of bulk sewer and wastewater treatment works. But though some earthworks have been done by Tshiamiso on the northern site, there are no finished roads, electricity or water on either site. After being paid just over R50.4-million, Tshiamiso had to stop work on the northern site, after beginning bush-clearing, because the land belonged to a different organ of state and transfer had to take place first, the report says. Tshiamiso has now terminated the contract and is claiming more money from the MMSEZ, citing non-payment for standing time. This dispute is currently in litigation. Tshiamiso Trading is also accused of unlawfully removing white rock materials from another site to the MMSEZ site without the owner's consent or any formal agreement or compensation. ALSO READ: Limpopo unveils R1.8 billion budget boost for economic development The MMSEZ southern site was gazetted as a Special Economic Zone in 2017, but it turns out that the northern site at Artonvilla has yet to be gazetted, according to a response by Tau to a question in Parliament. Tau said the Limpopo government had indicated it would submit a request before the end of June 2025 to gazette the northern site. In his report, Mphephu noted fierce 'oppositions, dissenting views and pushbacks' mostly from environmental groups, over the southern site. Some of these were challenging the Environmental Impact Assessment in the Polokwane High Court. But in the absence of an interdict, the report says, 'all activities leading to the development, including township establishment processes are expected to proceed.' Tshiamiso Trading is one of the contractors which has been paid. When President Cyril Ramaphosa publicly announced the MMSEZ in September 2018 following his return from the Forum for Africa and China Cooperation, it came with the promise of an initial investment value of more than R40-billion. To date, little of that money appears to have materialised. ALSO READ: It's war on power, water theft to save Limpopo economic zones Responding to questions in Parliament in May, Tau gave a list of investment pledges amounting to more than R8.64-billion, of which R2.1-billion has been verified and validated from eight prospective investors. But according to the report, only the China-based Kinetic Development Group has come to the party, with a R16-billion promise of a ferrochrome smelter on the southern site, once township development on the site is approved, and subject to EIA approvals. If investors do come, one of the biggest questions will be: where is the water going to come from in this semi-arid area? The MMSEZ has approached the Water Services Authority (Vhembe) and the catchment management agency (the Department of Water and Sanitation, DWS) in the region to determine whether they have capacity, either from treated or raw water, to supply the developments. According to the report, Vhembe agreed to provide the MMSEZ with some of its allocation for raw water to kickstart development on the northern site. The DWS said treated water could be brought from Zimbabwe by pipeline for the future development of the site. 'For the south, a few boreholes were drilled in order to start the development of the site. For further development, a pipeline needs to be built to connect to the bulk pipeline from Zimbabwe. Furthermore, two dams are earmarked to be constructed in future to specifically provide water to the site as it grows,' the report says. According to the report, the MMSEZ has now implemented a 'turnaround plan' including a review of the design of roads and stormwater. A division of the Industrial Development Corporation has been appointed as implementing agent, with four professional engineers assigned to the MMEZ full-time. Construction on the first projects will start in September, the report says. This article is published in association with the Limpopo Mirror/Zoutpansberger. Correction on 2025-06-19 09:53 This article has been amended to clarify that the visit to the site was by members of the Limpopo Economic Development, Environment and Tourism portfolio committee, not by MPs. This article was republished from GroundUp. Read the original here.
IOL News
17 hours ago
- IOL News
Crypto traders, pay attention: legal changes are coming
South Africa's exchange control rules are laws that decide how money can move in and out of the country. They affect how much forex you can buy, how you invest overseas, and how businesses move funds across borders, says Davron Chanderdeo. A RECENT High Court ruling just confirmed something many of us in the crypto world have known for a while. South Africa's laws around money, especially when it comes to crypto, are completely outdated. Judge Mandlenkosi Motha ruled that the country's exchange control regulations, which were written way back in 1961, don't apply to cryptocurrencies like Bitcoin. That's a big deal, because up until now, traders and investors have been operating in a confusing space, unsure what the rules really are. So, what does this mean if you're trading crypto on Luno, VALR, or Binance? Whether you're an investor, casual buyer or someone who trades daily, here's how this decision affects you and what you should do next. Why this ruling matters South Africa's exchange control rules are laws that decide how money can move in and out of the country. They affect how much forex you can buy, how you invest overseas, and how businesses move funds across borders. Until now, there's been no clear rule about where crypto fits. Is it like rand? Is it a foreign investment? Or is it something totally new? Someone can transfer Bitcoin from Cape Town to a family member in Hong Kong in a matter of minutes and that transaction, under current law, isn't clearly defined as foreign or local. The court said: crypto is not covered by the old rules. It's time for new laws made just for digital currencies. So what changes for traders or the everyday South African? Let's break it down with a few real-life examples. You're trading from your couch: You buy Bitcoin on Luno, then move it to Binance for better trading options. Under the old rules, it was unclear whether that was considered 'sending money offshore'. Now? The court says crypto isn't covered, so you're technically not breaking exchange control laws. But this may change once new rules come in. You work for a financial firm or are an avid investor: Let's say your firm wants to launch a crypto ETF or offer Bitcoin as one of the assets in a pension fund. Right now, that's risky, because crypto isn't clearly identified as an onshore or offshore asset. Furthermore, Regulation 28 of the Pension Funds Act allows limited exposure to crypto assets (up to 10%), but asset managers remain cautious due to FSCA guidance and ongoing market volatility. This ruling could pave the way for investment houses to get involved which means more opportunities and better products for everyday investors. The bigger picture: why regulation is good for you Let's face it, most South Africans don't like the idea of more rules. But in the crypto world, the right regulation doesn't mean more red tape, it means more protection, less risk, and real growth. According to the Financial Sector Conduct Authority (FSCA), crypto-related scams are on the rise in South Africa, particularly across social media platforms like WhatsApp, Facebook, and Instagram. Fraudsters often impersonate legitimate traders or companies, promising unrealistic returns and then vanishing once funds are transferred via Bitcoin or other crypto. These scams exploit crypto's semi-anonymous nature, making it harder to trace transactions and recover funds. A 2023 FSCA report warned that South Africans lost over R500 million to crypto scams in just one year, with most scams originating via social media or messaging platforms. So why would these scammers ever stop? While there's currently no formal government-mandated transaction declaration process between crypto wallets, increased regulation may soon require verified identification through Know-Your-Customer (KYC) processes at local and international exchanges. This would make it harder for criminals to use crypto anonymously and easier for authorities to trace illicit activity. Implementing regulation will: - Help prevent scams by setting minimum standards for exchanges and wallet providers. - Make tax reporting easier, so you know what you owe and can plan properly. - Encourage large institutional investors (like pension funds and asset managers) to enter the market, bringing stability and liquidity. - Create a legal path for innovation, like launching crypto linked debit cards, savings products, or smart investment platforms. My final thoughts are that this ruling is a win for the crypto community, but it's also a wake-up call: the wild west era of trading is ending. That's not a bad thing, it means South Africa is taking crypto seriously. And when the law takes something seriously, so does the market. Traders who stay informed, track their gains, and keep things clean will benefit the most. Crypto is here to stay. With the right legal framework, it can shift from the margins to the mainstream, unlocking innovation, securing investor trust, and contributing meaningfully to South Africa's financial ecosystem.
IOL News
19 hours ago
- IOL News
Cape Town father challenges R172,000 maintenance order, citing financial strain despite over R1 million bonus
A Cape Town father who receives over R1 million in bonuses challenged a ruling which ordered him to pay over R172,000 maintenance. Image: Pexels A Cape Town father who reportedly receives over R1 million in annual bonuses, has challenged the mother of his children and refused to produce his proof of income. The parents, who divorced in August 2010, have been at odds over financial responsibilities, as the mother continues to care for their children, aged 15 and 19. In February 2025, the maintenance court ordered the father to pay R172,188.63, which, amongst other things, will go towards the tuition cost of their older child. The money had to be paid before the end of March 2025. He was further ordered to pay over R20,000 towards the annual school fees of their second child. The total amount he had to pay was over R222,000. However, following the court's ruling, the father swiftly filed an urgent application in the Western Cape High Court to suspend the maintenance order. He argued that the amount was nearly double his net salary, asserting his financial inability to honour such payments. The high court granted a temporary suspension of the order, while simultaneously requiring the mother to demonstrate why this suspension should not become permanent pending the appeal hearing. The mother took further legal action, serving both the father and his employer with a subpoena duces tecum. A subpoena duces tecum is a court order requiring a person to appear in court and produce specific documents or other physical evidence relevant to a legal case. According to the mother, the father misled the court in his application to suspend the maintenance order. She argued that the maintenance court granted the order in line with what was provided by the father in terms of his monthly salary as well as his annual bonus which amounts to over R1 million. She further argued that the father did not provide proof to support his claim that he cannot afford to pay maintenance. He also didn't provide any evidence to support that his financial position had changed for the worse since the order was made. Furthermore, she said the father lied in his affidavit as his IRP5 showed that he had received more than R1 million in March 2025. With this information, she sought to have the interim order suspending the maintenance order to be dismissed. Furthermore, the mother highlighted discrepancies in the father's affidavit, alleging that his IRP5 tax document, which revealed earnings exceeding R1 million as of March 2025, illustrates his capacity to pay the mandated maintenance while still maintaining a comfortable lifestyle. Video Player is loading. Play Video Play Unmute Current Time 0:00 / Duration -:- Loaded : 0% Stream Type LIVE Seek to live, currently behind live LIVE Remaining Time - 0:00 This is a modal window. Beginning of dialog window. Escape will cancel and close the window. Text Color White Black Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Background Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Transparent Window Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Transparent Semi-Transparent Opaque Font Size 50% 75% 100% 125% 150% 175% 200% 300% 400% Text Edge Style None Raised Depressed Uniform Dropshadow Font Family Proportional Sans-Serif Monospace Sans-Serif Proportional Serif Monospace Serif Casual Script Small Caps Reset restore all settings to the default values Done Close Modal Dialog End of dialog window. Advertisement Next Stay Close ✕ Ad loading In response, the father approached the high court again, seeking to have the subpoena set aside. He claimed the documents requested by the mother were irrelevant and warned that such disclosures would cause irreparable harm. Presiding over the matter, Judge James Lekhuleni said the previous maintenance court order revealed that the mother battled to coerce the father to honour his maintenance obligations. He only provided financial support to the children when it suited him. He commented on the mother's diligent efforts, recognising that she was an unrepresented litigant trying to safeguard her children's welfare. The judge made it clear that the mother's attempts to compel the father to meet his obligations should not be viewed as an abuse of the legal system. Moreover, judge Lekhuleni emphasised that denying the subpoena would unduly harm the mother and the children, while the father would not suffer significant prejudice from its continuation. "As I see it, there is no prejudice that the applicant (father) will suffer if the subpoena is not set aside. While on the other hand, setting aside the subpoena will have deleterious effects on the first respondent (mother) and the children," he said. The father's application was dismissed. IOL News Get your news on the go, click here to join the IOL News WhatsApp channel.
