A subtle but powerful market shift

Rule also argued that many investors are still missing the most important development in uranium — a quiet structural shift away from spot pricing toward long-term contracting.

While uranium equities continue to trade off a thinly traded spot market — which accounts for roughly a quarter of annual transaction volume in a good year — utilities are increasingly locking in multi-year supply agreements.

“Unlike almost any other commodity, uranium producers can pre-sell material under contracts that specify price and terms,” Rule said. “That changes everything.” Those contracts, he explained, can serve as collateral, lowering financing risk and enabling projects that would have been unbankable five years ago.

The impact is already visible. Utilities have been steadily re-entering the term market since 2022, with Cameco reporting an expanding contract book and higher realized prices year over year.

Meanwhile, physical uranium investment vehicles, particularly the Sprott Physical Uranium Trust (TSX:U.U,OTCQX:SRUUF), have removed tens of millions of pounds from circulation, tightening availability even further.

That tightening is occurring alongside geopolitical fragmentation.

Sanctions and self-imposed trade barriers have effectively split the uranium market, with Russian and some Central Asian material flowing east, while western utilities scramble to secure non-Russian supply.

As Bey put it, “That uranium isn’t coming back west.”

Supply, risk and the Athabasca advantage

The question, then, is where new uranium supply will come from. Canada’s Athabasca Basin, home to the world’s highest-grade uranium deposits, remains central to that answer.

Several advanced projects, including Denison Mines’ (TSX:DML,NYSEAMERICAN:DNN) Wheeler River operation and NexGen Energy’s (TSX:NXE,NYSE:NXE) Rook I asset, are both approaching key permitting milestones, potentially clearing the way for construction later this decade.

After decades without a new uranium mine approval in Canada, momentum appears to be shifting.

Bey said regulators are becoming more familiar with uranium-specific permitting, while First Nations partners are increasingly vocal in their support for project development.

Exploration also remains critical, though not without challenges. Bey noted a shrinking pipeline of trained uranium geologists, with graduating class sizes sharply lower than a decade ago. “Teams matter more than ever,” he said. “A good discovery today will get bought — and at a multiple that will surprise people.”

Rule was blunter. Of roughly 125 uranium juniors globally, he expects only 10 to 15 to generate meaningful returns.

“The rest go to their intrinsic value, which is zero,” he said.

Success, he added, comes down to people, geology and jurisdiction — in that order.

Jurisdictional risk itself sparked debate. Rule argued that political risk is often misunderstood, noting that supply disruptions in places like Niger tend to reroute material rather than remove it from the global market.

Tiggre, while broadly agreeing, said investors are justified in demanding a discount for higher-risk regions. “If I need a military escort, that’s not a positive check mark,” he said.

Volatility is the price of admission

Despite their bullish long-term outlooks, all three panelists emphasized that volatility is unavoidable.

Narrative-driven selloffs, whether tied to artificial intelligence (AI) hype, data center demand or broader risk-off sentiment, can whipsaw uranium equities even when fundamentals remain intact.

“That’s when opportunity shows up,” Tiggre said, pointing to sharp pullbacks in 2024 that preceded new highs later in the year. “Fundamentals and narratives aren’t the same thing.”

Rule offered a starker reminder. “If you aren’t willing to accept a small probability of catastrophic loss, don’t be here,” he said, referencing the ever-present tail risk of a major nuclear accident.

For investors willing to accept that risk, the panel’s message was clear: uranium’s bull run appears to be maturing, but is far from over. The easy money may be gone — but, as Rule put it, “the sure money may still lie ahead.”

AI, energy security and the case for uranium’s next leg higher

If the first half of the uranium bull market was driven by supply discipline and long-overdue utilities contracting, the next phase may be shaped by something far larger: electricity itself.

That was the gist of comments from Uranium Energy (NYSEAMERICAN:UEC) CEO Amir Adnani at VRIC.

He framed nuclear power, and by extension uranium, as a central pillar of the emerging AI economy, not merely a decarbonization tool. What stands out, Adnani argued, is not just the scale of demand that’s coming into view, but also the political and corporate alignment forming around it.

At this year’s World Economic Forum in Davos, global leaders, including US President Donald Trump, publicly identified grid fragility and electricity shortages as national security risks in the AI era.

For Adnani, the shift in tone was telling. “When leaders stop talking only about inflation and start talking about power and electricity, that’s a sign of the times we’re in,” he said.

Crucially, nuclear energy has become one of the few areas of bipartisan consensus in the US.

While Democrats often emphasize decarbonization, Republicans increasingly frame nuclear as a strategic asset tied to energy independence and security. “This isn’t a four-year story,” Adnani emphasized to the audience. “We’re talking about multi-decade growth underpinned by bipartisan political support.”

The urgency, however, collides with reality.

AI-driven electricity demand is accelerating far faster than new generation can be built. Adnani cited a Morgan Stanley (NYSE:MS) estimate calling for roughly 150 gigawatts of additional power capacity globally over the next three years from data centers alone — equivalent to powering more than 150 cities the size of Philadelphia.

“One gigawatt is a city of 2 million people,” he said. “And we’re talking about adding more than 100 of those.”

That buildout could require as much as US$3 trillion in investment. Governments, Adnani noted, cannot shoulder that burden alone. Instead, balance sheets from tech giants such as Microsoft (NASDAQ:MSFT), Amazon (NASDAQ:AMZN), Alphabet (NASDAQ:GOOGL) and Meta Platforms (NASDAQ:META) are increasingly being deployed to secure reliable, long-term power — a dynamic that favors baseload generation over intermittent sources.

“This isn’t just political signaling,” he said. “This is the private sector committing real capital, as fast as possible, to infrastructure that works 24/7.”

For uranium, the implications are direct. Global pledges now call for nuclear capacity to triple by 2050, while the US has set its sights on quadrupling domestic capacity. That ambition implies a parallel expansion in uranium supply, something the market is currently ill-equipped to deliver.

At the same time, the supply picture is already strained.

The US consumes roughly 50 million pounds of uranium annually, but produces less than 4 million pounds, leaving it more than 90 percent dependent on imports, much of them from geopolitically sensitive regions.

In Adnani’s view, reshoring critical mineral supply chains — uranium included — has become a strategic imperative.

“This bifurcated world is a total game changer,” he said. “The US wants control over its supply chains, and uranium is now squarely in that category.”

Room for growth intact

Adnani also pushed back against the idea that uranium prices have already peaked.

The spot price spiked above US$100 in late January and has since stabilized near US$96, a level that remains well below the 2007 high of US$140, even as the market is structurally tighter than it was nearly two decades ago.

Adjusted against gold’s performance since that peak, Adnani argued, uranium remains historically cheap.

“On a gold equivalent basis, uranium would be closer to US$1,000,” he said. “That’s the headroom.”

Positioning for that upside, he explained, requires scale, patience and balance sheet strength, qualities Uranium Energy has spent two decades assembling.

The company built its asset base during the downturn, acquiring more than US$1 billion in projects when uranium traded near US$20. Today, it operates as the largest US-focused uranium producer, with ambitions to become vertically integrated from mining through conversion — a capability that does not currently exist domestically.

Uranium Energy’s unhedged strategy underscores its conviction. “We don’t put ceilings on our upside,” Adnani said. “We want maximum exposure to what we believe will be an unprecedented bull market.”

Overall his message echoed that of others at VRIC: commodities — and energy in particular — are entering a new cycle.

“This is another industrial revolution,” he said. “And it’s an energy-hungry one. We’re still in the early innings.”

Bitcoin and Ether price update

Bitcoin (BTC) was priced at US$73,420.53, down by 3.9 percent over 24 hours.

Bitcoin price performance, February 4, 2026.

Chart via TradingView.

Expectations of tighter monetary policy and unresolved regulatory tensions are also weighing on investors.

Meanwhile, XS.com’s Samer Hasn is observing positive sentiment marked by long-term investors and new Bitcoin addresses accumulating at current low prices, despite speculative money leaving. He views the downtrend as a buying opportunity while the broader market anticipates crucial economic data and earnings from Alphabet (NASDAQ:GOOGL).

Ether (ETH) was priced at US$2,164.80, down by 5.7 percent over the last 24 hours.

Altcoin price update

• XRP (XRP) was priced at US$1.54, down by 4.7 over 24 hours.

• Solana (SOL) was trading at US$93.04, down by 7.7 percent over 24 hours.

Today’s crypto news to know

Bitcoin-led selloff wipes nearly US$500 billion from crypto market

A sharp crypto selloff has erased nearly half a trillion dollars in market value in less than a week, with Bitcoin leading the decline, according to a Bloomberg report.

The total market cap for crypto has fallen by about US$467.6 billion since January 29.

Meanwhile, Bitcoin slid to its lowest level since US President Donald Trump’s re-election in early November 2024, briefly touching US$72,877 in US trading before clawing back to around US$75,900.

The pullback comes despite a more crypto-friendly White House and growing institutional adoption, reflecting how fragile sentiment remains after months of heavy leverage.

More than US$700 million in bullish and bearish bets were liquidated in the past 24 hours alone, taking total liquidations since January 29 to over US$6.6 billion, according to CoinGlass data.

Burry warns Bitcoin slide could trigger cascading financial stress

In a Substack post published on Monday (February 2), Michael Burry speculated that Bitcoin’s recent sharp decline could be something beyond a normal bear market, framing it as a uniquely dangerous setup that could trigger cascading financial turmoil across leveraged portfolios, as well as the entire crypto market and metals.

As Bitcoin is deeply embedded into leveraged structures, further price drops could force more selling. He outlined several ‘sickening scenarios,’ including 15 to 20 percent hits for large institutional holders like Strategy (NASDAQ:MSTR), a company he predicts could see major losses if Bitcoin were to fall to US$60,000.

If the cryptocurrency were to dip toward US$50,000, Burry said miners could dump reserves to avoid bankruptcy, dragging minerals and tokenized metal futures into a collapse. Burry sees Bitcoin as a purely speculative asset that has failed to act as a reliable debasement hedge like gold, so its drawdown exposes broader balance sheet fragility driven not just by price moves, but also by over‑levered positions, aggressive artificial intelligence and cloud CAPEX accounting and weak capital discipline that will only become apparent when liquidity tightens.

Strategy’s Bitcoin bet goes underwater

Michael Saylor doubled down on his Bitcoin conviction this week even as Strategy’s vast holdings slipped below their average purchase price. Bitcoin’s drop under roughly US$76,000 has pushed the firm’s estimated cost basis into negative territory, leaving it about US$630 million underwater on paper, according to market estimates cited by critics.

The company has accumulated more than 712,000 BTC since 2020 using a mix of share issuance and convertible debt, a strategy that paid off during the bull market, but now faces renewed scrutiny.

Bitcoin critics, including Peter Schiff, argue that Strategy’s aggressive buying helped fuel the earlier rally and that slowing purchases are now exacerbating the decline. Saylor has rejected that view, posting on X that volatility is “Satoshi’s gift to the faithful” and reiterating his rule to “Buy Bitcoin.”

TRM Labs hits US$1 billion valuation

Blockchain intelligence firm TRM Labs has reached a US$1 billion valuation after closing a US$70 million Series C funding round that was led by Blockchain Capital and included backing from Goldman Sachs (NYSE:GS), Bessemer Venture Partners, Brevan Howard, Thoma Bravo and Citi Ventures.

Co-founder Esteban Castaño said the company was built around the belief that widespread crypto adoption would inevitably require sophisticated risk and compliance tools.

TRM gained traction with law enforcement agencies and financial institutions by tracking activity across multiple blockchains, an early strategic choice that helped it compete with more established rivals.

Bessent reasserts government Bitcoin stance

During testimony before the House Financial Services Committee during a mandatory oversight hearing on the annual report of the Financial Stability Oversight Council, US Secretary of the Treasury Scott Bessent reasserted his stance that Bitcoin is an asset of the US government, not a liability, and that the Strategic Bitcoin Reserve built from forfeited coins is a legitimate balance sheet asset that the treasury is treating as part of the nation’s financial toolkit.

Bessent noted that roughly US$500 million in seized Bitcoin retained by the government has appreciated to over US$15 billion while in custody, underscoring Bitcoin’s role as a high‑growth strategic asset on the federal balance sheet.

He reiterated that the US is not planning to buy more Bitcoin on the open market, but will continue to accumulate it in budget‑neutral ways to build the reserve, such as through forfeitures and seizures.

A step towards the right direction

“The announcement is a step in the right direction, that direction being minimizing China’s ability to disrupt the US economy and manufacturing/technology base by manipulating both price and supply of critical elements,” Silversteyn said.

However, he noted that it is “not a quick solution” given that many US-backed mining projects remain in early development stages or produce limited commercial volumes.

The initiative also follows earlier, less successful efforts. Last summer, the US withdrew a proposed US$500 million cobalt stockpile tender after failing to attract sufficient compliant supply.

Regardless, mining companies and developers have broadly welcomed the renewed push. American Pacific Mining Chief Executive Warwick Smith said Project Vault underscores the growing strategic importance of domestic copper supply.

“Once again, President Trump and the current administration are shining an important light on the need for more critical metals within the United States,” Smith said, pointing to copper’s role in electrification, transmission infrastructure, and advanced manufacturing.

Trump has also recently met with GM Chief Executive Mary Barra and mining entrepreneur Robert Friedland in a bid to bridge the interests of mineral producers and large industrial consumers.

INN: Is the SEC’s guidance a real step forward for tokenized securities, or simply existing law repackaged for blockchain?

EF: It is mostly existing law applied to new rails, and the SEC staff says that explicitly: the format and whether records are onchain or off-chain does not change the application of federal securities laws, and the statement creates no new obligations or exemptions. The step forward is practical: a clear taxonomy of tokenization models and an invitation to engage on registrations and requests for staff action, which reduces interpretive ambiguity for counsel and compliance teams.

INN: Does formally classifying tokenized securities under federal securities laws accelerate institutional adoption?

EF: It accelerates adoption only to the extent it reduces legal uncertainty. The statement anchors tokenized securities inside familiar categories and emphasizes that compliance pathways already exist, which helps internal risk committees approve pilots. But it does not solve the institutional bottleneck by itself; mainstream adoption still requires scalable market infrastructure and regulated operating models that fit broker-dealer, exchange, custody and settlement expectations.

INN: Who is this guidance really designed for? Crypto-native platforms, traditional financial institutions or regulators preparing for enforcement?

EF: All three, but the clearest primary audience is market participants preparing filings and requests for relief, across both crypto native and traditional firms. The staff frames it as assistance for compliance and for preparing registrations, proposals or requests for appropriate action. At the same time, it signals an enforcement baseline: do not assume tokenization changes the regulatory perimeter, especially for third-party sponsored models that introduce intermediary and bankruptcy risk.

INN: Does the SEC’s tokenization taxonomy provide meaningful structure, or does it leave key operational questions unresolved?

EF: It provides meaningful structure by separating issuer-sponsored tokenized securities from third-party sponsored tokenized securities, then splitting third-party models into custodial tokenized securities and synthetic tokenized securities. Key operational questions remain open because the statement is not a rule and assumes away major frictions like state law transfer validity, and it does not standardize how onchain settlement, custody controls or trading venues should be implemented in practice.

INN: What needs to happen next for tokenized securities to move from experimentation to mainstream financial markets?

EF: First, a credible clearing and settlement pathway at scale. The (Depository Trust Company) no-action relief for its tokenization services pilot is directionally important because it connects tokenized entitlements to core market plumbing.

Second, more formal regulatory outputs: targeted exemptive relief, standard form disclosures for tokenized representations and clear expectations for broker-dealer and exchange-compliant secondary trading of tokenized securities. Third, operational standards that institutions can audit: identity and permissioning controls, wallet and key management, corporate actions processing and insolvency treatment for intermediary-based models, so that tokenization becomes an efficiency upgrade rather than a new risk layer.