Toncoin (TON) surpassed the $3 milestone, driven by high trading volumes and strong technical momentum. The cryptocurrency established a solid support zone between $2.94 and $2.96 before breaking above the psychological barrier of $3.00, demonstrating resilience following a brief pullback. In the last 24 hours, Toncoin's price increased by 1.5%, although it underperformed compared to the CoinDesk 20 index, which rose by 3.6%.

The breakout was supported by significant trading volumes, with initial spikes recorded at 1.87 million and 1.54 million units traded. After a sharp pullback to $2.98 that saw a volume spike of 2.97 million units, buyers quickly returned to the market, establishing a strong consolidation pattern with new support forming at approximately $3.00 to $3.01.

Overall market data indicated that Bitcoin (BTC) was priced at approximately $106,891 with an increase of 1.30%, while Ethereum (ETH) stood at around $2,567 with a gain of 0.77%. Other notable cryptocurrencies included XRP at about $2.23 (+2.82%), BNB at around $652 (+0.56%), and Solana (SOL) priced near $150 (-1.16%).

Original article

The provided text on Toncoin's price surge is replete with subtle and not-so-subtle biases, manipulations, and linguistic tricks that shape the reader's perception of the cryptocurrency market. One of the most striking aspects of the text is its use of virtue signaling, particularly in its description of Toncoin's breakout as "resilient" and its price increase as a demonstration of "strong technical momentum." This language creates a positive emotional association with Toncoin, implying that it is a robust and reliable investment opportunity. The use of words like "resilient" and "momentum" also creates a sense of dynamism and energy around the cryptocurrency, which can be persuasive for readers who are looking for exciting investment opportunities.

Furthermore, the text engages in selection bias by highlighting Toncoin's price increase while downplaying its underperformance compared to the CoinDesk 20 index. By focusing on Toncoin's 1.5% gain while mentioning the index's 3.6% rise in passing, the text creates an impression that Toncoin is performing well relative to other cryptocurrencies. However, this framing obscures the fact that Toncoin actually underperformed compared to other major cryptocurrencies like Bitcoin and Ethereum.

The text also exhibits cultural bias through its assumption that readers are familiar with technical terms like "breakout," "support zone," and "psychological barrier." This language assumes a certain level of expertise or interest in cryptocurrency trading, which may alienate readers who are new to this field or lack technical knowledge. Moreover, the use of these terms creates an air of exclusivity around cryptocurrency trading, implying that only those who are initiated into this world can truly understand what is happening.

In addition to cultural bias, the text reveals economic bias through its focus on market data and trading volumes. By highlighting significant trading volumes as evidence of Toncoin's strength, the text reinforces a narrative that prioritizes market activity over other factors like technological innovation or social impact. This framing assumes that market forces are more important than other considerations when evaluating cryptocurrencies like Toncoin.

The text also employs linguistic tricks to create a sense of neutrality or objectivity. For example, when describing Bitcoin's price increase as 1.30%, it uses a passive construction ("was priced at approximately $106,891") rather than attributing agency to any particular actor or entity (e.g., investors or traders). This passive voice obscures agency and responsibility for Bitcoin's price movement, creating an impression that events unfold independently rather than being shaped by human actions.

Furthermore, when discussing Ethereum's price movement (+0.77%), it uses an absolute value (2%) without providing context about whether this gain is significant relative to Ethereum's overall performance history or compared to other cryptocurrencies in similar situations. This framing reinforces a narrative that prioritizes short-term gains over long-term performance or broader market trends.

Moreover, when mentioning Solana (SOL) priced near $150 (-1.16%), it frames Solana as having performed poorly relative to other cryptocurrencies without providing sufficient context about why Solana might be experiencing difficulties or what factors contributed to these challenges (e.g., regulatory issues). This selective reporting reinforces negative stereotypes about Solana without allowing readers to evaluate its performance within broader industry trends.

In terms of structural bias, one can observe how certain sources are cited while others remain unmentioned (e.g., no mention is made about potential regulatory concerns affecting cryptocurrency markets). The absence of diverse perspectives from experts outside traditional media outlets further reinforces existing power structures within financial journalism circles.

Finally, confirmation bias becomes evident when examining how historical data from previous breakouts supports current narratives surrounding TON coin’s resilience; such selective presentation constitutes proof-by-analogy – reinforcing pre-existing views rather than critically evaluating alternative viewpoints