The surge in tokenized stock trading on DEXs highlights a shift towards 24/7 markets, raising new compliance and liquidity challenges.

The post Uniswap leads tokenized stock DEX trading with $17.1 billion in volume appeared first on Crypto Briefing.

Anthropic's investment in AI training could enhance its market position, potentially boosting its valuation and influencing industry dynamics.

The post Anthropic to invest $100 million to train AI engineer talent appeared first on Crypto Briefing.

Tokenizing stocks on Solana could revolutionize trading by enabling 24/7 access and integration with DeFi, challenging traditional markets.

The post Backpack brings tokenized BlackRock shares to Solana appeared first on Crypto Briefing.

Nscale's strategic leadership shift signals potential volatility in executive stability, impacting investor confidence ahead of its ambitious IPO.

The post Nscale hires former Meta executive Justin Osofsky as COO ahead of US IPO appeared first on Crypto Briefing.

Powerus' rapid transition to tokenized shares on Solana highlights the growing shift towards blockchain-enabled financial democratization.

The post Powerus went public Thursday. By Friday, its shares were on Solana appeared first on Crypto Briefing.

Bitcoin Magazine

When the Banks Don’t Work, Bitcoin Does: Cornell University’s Adoption Index

A lot of people know little about Bitcoin and how it works. 

But despite knowledge being shallow, for those holding the leading cryptocurrency, it appears to be solving a problem: getting around failing banking rails or inflation. 

That’s according to new findings from the U.S. Ivy League research university Cornell, which spoke to nearly 26,000 around the globe about Bitcoin. 

In its new Bitcoin Adoption Index report, the top college found that El Salvador, Venezuela and Nigeria were the countries that had the highest number of people who had ever owned bitcoin. 

“Ranked by the share of all respondents who have ever owned bitcoin, the leaders are not wealthy financial centers — they are economies where the national currency has been unstable and everyday access to dollars or reliable banking is hard,” the report read.  

“In each, bitcoin functions less as a speculative bet and more as a practical workaround.”

Bitcoin Advocacy Associate at Strategy and Junior Fellow at Cornell University’s Brooks School Tech Policy Institute, Ella Hough, added: “Bitcoin works the same everywhere, but people’s need for it does not. 

“Across 25 countries, we found that people are more likely to see Bitcoin as a tool for financial freedom where currencies are less stable, banking access is limited, or monetary controls are tighter.”

Still, Cornell found that actually being able to explain the fundamentals of the protocol was difficult for most — including how many bitcoins would ever be minted in existence. In fact, 58% of those surveyed said they didn’t know the supply was capped at 21 million coins. 

Technicalities aside, the cryptocurrency has still proved helpful to people wanting to use it, the report found. 

One Venezuelan — who wasn’t named — told interviewers that Bitcoin was “faster, cleaner, and much less risky” than other methods of getting dollars in the country. 

While another Salvadoran was quoted saying: “When nobody controls [bitcoin], it means we all have control of it.”

A Nigerian interviewee reportedly told Cornell researchers: “I’ve been to six African countries and whenever I go there, I don’t fear it because I know I can spend my bitcoin.”

Bitcoin adoption started growing in Venezuela ahead of other countries years ago, when hyperinflation crippled the economy and strict government currency controls meant getting dollars became difficult. 

El Salvador made bitcoin legal tender — along with the dollar — in 2021. The country’s leader admitted that getting its citizens to use the cryptocurrency was difficult but the Central American nation still says it buys the asset for its government coffers. 

In Nigeria, which has had some of the highest transaction volumes in the world, saving in bitcoin has been used by some to get around the collapse of the naira.

Cornell University’s research was fielded by Morning Consult in partnership with the Tech Policy Institute in Cornell University’s Jeb E. Brooks School of Public Policy, the Cornell Bitcoin Club, the Human Rights Foundation and the Reynolds Foundation.

Researchers interviewed 25,880 people in 25 countries between December 16, 2024 to March 10, 2025, asking 125 individual questions. 

This post When the Banks Don’t Work, Bitcoin Does: Cornell University’s Adoption Index first appeared on Bitcoin Magazine and is written by Mathew Di Salvo.

Bitcoin Magazine

South Africa’s Absa Becomes First Bank on the Continent to Custody Bitcoin: Report

South African bank Absa has become the first African lender to custody bitcoin, according to reports. 

As reported first by Bloomberg on Friday, the Johannesburg-based lender will serve institutional clients, mostly by custodying bitcoin — but other digital assets will also be a part of the service. 

Banks worldwide are integrating or offering bitcoin-related products and services. A number of U.S. and European banks have started offering crypto-related services by custodying assets for institutions.

Rob Downes, head of digital assets at Absa’s corporate and investment banking unit, was quoted saying that while bitcoin was the biggest asset the bank would custody, others would follow. 

Absa did not immediately respond to questions from Bitcoin Magazine. 

The African continent has a large crypto-native base, with data firms frequently highlighting the high adoption — particularly in countries where currencies have been significantly debased. 

In Chainalysis’s 2025 report, South Africa’s $36.0 billion in on-chain value made it second in Sub-Saharan Africa. Nigeria alone received $92.1 billion, nearly three times the total of second-place South Africa. 

On the global index, South Africa ranked 30th for crypto adoption. 

The character of its market is different from Nigeria‘s: it’s more institutional, with regulatory clarity resulting in hundreds of licenses being issued to VASPs and attracting professional investors and traditional finance. 

BNY Mellon in 2022 became the first major U.S. bank to offer digital asset custody services. And this month, German multinational Deutsche Bank said it would debut a bitcoin custody service for European corporate and institutional clients later in 2026.  

This post South Africa’s Absa Becomes First Bank on the Continent to Custody Bitcoin: Report first appeared on Bitcoin Magazine and is written by Mathew Di Salvo.

Bitcoin Magazine

Bitcoin Price Surges Above $87,000 on Softer-Than-Expected Jobs Data

The price of bitcoin surged above $87,000 on Friday morning in New York, buoyed by constant exchange-traded fund flows and a jobs report showing that unemployment in the U.S. had ticked up. 

Bitcoin’s price recently stood at $85,990 after a 2% jump over a 24-hour period. Over the past week, it has also risen by more than 2%. 

Nonfarm payrolls increased 29,000 last month after a downward revision to the prior two months, Bureau of Labor Statistics data showed Friday. 

Weaker-than-expected jobs data can give a lift to riskier assets like bitcoin and stocks, whose prices tend to swing more sharply. 

A softer labor market typically means less consumer spending, which eases pressure on prices. That could make the Federal Reserve less inclined to keep raising interest rates to fight inflation.

Many economists and politicians have said the U.S. is in the midst of an affordability crisis, and the topic is a hot one ahead of the November midterm elections. 

The Federal Reserve’s new chair, Kevin Warsh, has said that prices in the world’s biggest economy are too high and that the central bank is fully focused on making life more affordable again. 

Bitcoin investors shrugged off the central bank’s interest rate hike in September, climbing on the news. 

The largest cryptocurrency started rallying in August on news that the U.S. Treasury Department said it would more than double the size of its government debt repurchases. The coin had its best run in three years and third best August ever.  

The coin’s price has benefited from the so-called debasement trade: when investors buy certain assets to hedge against currency being devalued. The dollar slid in value in August. 

It continued to have a good September, rising nearly 6% over a 30-day period. 

October has historically delivered good returns for bitcoin investors, with traders dubbing the phenomenon “Uptober.” 

This post Bitcoin Price Surges Above $87,000 on Softer-Than-Expected Jobs Data first appeared on Bitcoin Magazine and is written by Mathew Di Salvo.

Bitcoin Magazine

Impacts of Daily Dividends on Digital Credit

In May 2026, Strive rebranded itself as “The Daily Dividend Company,” then moved SATA to daily cash dividends beginning June 16. Strategy has now pushed the same idea into its own digital credit engine. On September 24, its board proposed moving STRC, STRF, STRK and STRD to daily dividends, subject to shareholder approval at an October 28 special meeting. The proposal keeps the annual dividend economics unchanged and changes the cadence of cash payments.

STRC spent much of the summer below its $100 stated amount even as Strategy raised its dividend rate to 12% and deployed more than $1 billion buying back STRC. The move to daily dividends by Strategy could be seen as the latest attempt to make the security more attractive and help it trade near par.

Now that the overton window has fully shifted in favor of digital credit paying daily dividends, we should take a look at the actual impacts of daily dividends. 

Daily Dividends Fit Onchain Finance

Digital credit is increasingly becoming an input for other financial products—so called “digital money” or “digital yield” products. Strategy estimated in mid-May that more than $440 million of STRC exposure had moved into DeFi through stablecoins, tokenized securities, yield products and other structures.

However, there is a cash flow mismatch. Crypto products commonly accrue and distribute yield at high frequency. A security that pays monthly or twice monthly forces the product sitting on top of it to bridge the period between economic accrual and actual cash receipt.

Daily dividends compress that gap to one day. The protocol, fund or issuer receives cash from the underlying asset at almost the same cadence that users expect to receive yield. That simplifies liquidity management and reduces the cash needed between dividend dates. This is much more impactful to a financial product funding daily distributions or redemptions than to a long term investor focused on total return. The crypto-heavy setting of the “Layer 3” products on top of digital credit raises the attractiveness of daily dividends. 

Daily Dividends Are Primarily a Retail Feature

For investors focused strictly on total return, dividend payment frequency makes little difference in underlying economic value. The asset’s price accrues between distribution dates and adjusts post-payment, meaning annual, quarterly, monthly, and daily payouts produce comparable long-term results.

The true advantage of daily dividends lies in product psychology and user experience. Cash arriving every day provides immediate visibility and an engaging feedback loop. Investors can spend, withdraw, or automatically reinvest the payout while leaving their principal position intact, turning an abstract yield metric into tangible recurring cash flow.

This dynamic mirrors the strategy of Realty Income, which built a massive retail follower base by branding itself as “The Monthly Dividend Company.” As a member of the S&P 500 Dividend Aristocrats Index, Realty Income has paid and raised dividends for 31 consecutive years. 

Daily dividends on digital credit extends this product concept even further: SATA pairs frequent daily payouts with a target price near $100 and a double-digit yield.

While institutional investors prioritize yield spreads, liquidity, tax structure, and balance sheet coverage, daily payments offer their strongest appeal to retail buyers. If the overarching objective is to raise capital to purchase Bitcoin, optimizing security design for retail investor preferences is the most effective approach.

Options Get Cleaner Too

Daily dividends also change options mechanics. STRC currently pays $0.50 twice monthly. SATA pays roughly five cents each business day. Larger dividend events create larger discrete adjustments in the underlying price, which affects option pricing and early exercise decisions. Daily payments spread the same annual cash flow across much smaller adjustments.

The total value of dividends over an option’s life is a key economic input. The more interesting effect comes from the price stability created by daily dividends. If daily dividends, variable rates and active par management keep SATA and STRC trading in narrower ranges, realized volatility should fall. Implied volatility can follow as the market gains confidence in that behavior.

The Biggest Test

The real test is whether daily dividends increase demand enough to eventually lower the required yield.

If investors consistently support SATA near the top of its target range, Strive can theoretically reduce the dividend rate while attempting to keep SATA near par. Success would show that a Bitcoin company can issue permanent preferred capital, manage it around a stable price, and adjust its yield with market demand. The benefit of the variable rate preferreds was, from inception, the eventual opportunity to lower the rate and reduce the cost of capital without upsetting price stability. In comparison, fixed rate credit locks in fixed rate forever. 

Conclusion 

Strategy adopting daily dividends would move the feature from a SATA differentiator toward a digital credit category standard. The annual economics barely change but the retail appeal and crypto composability become meaningful improvements. 

This post Impacts of Daily Dividends on Digital Credit first appeared on Bitcoin Magazine and is written by Allard Peng.

Bitcoin Magazine

Frank Holmes: They Will Print $100 Trillion – Why to Buy Bitcoin & Gold

Bitcoin miners already have the power, the land, and the substations that AI needs. Frank Holmes, executive chairman of HIVE Digital Technologies, explains why he calls Bitcoin mining a “tier one” data center, how GPUs that once mined Ethereum led HIVE into AI, and why he thinks the next wave of AI factories will be built on mining infrastructure from Paraguay to Canada.

Chapters:
0:00 Frank Holmes on HIVE: From Gold Investor to Bitcoin Miner to AI Compute
2:12 How ETFs Changed Bitcoin: From the Fear Trade to the Love Trade
4:20 The Binance $19 Billion Liquidation and the $350 Trillion Money Supply
5:45 Gamers, Younger Quants, and Why Bitcoin Will Keep Gaining Adoption
7:29 Covid’s $40 Trillion of Money Printing and the Global MMT Risk
9:24 China, Russia, and Why Bitcoin Is a Tier One Data Center
11:33 China’s Bitcoin Mining, $1.4 Trillion of Lending, and Central Banks Buying Gold
13:44 Paraguay’s Central Bank and Bitcoin Mining as an Export
14:57 Compute as a Commodity: Canada’s AI Push and Bitcoin Miners’ Power Advantage
20:34 Where to Find Frank Holmes’s Weekly Investor Alert Newsletter

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in this show are those of the participants and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of BTC Inc., Bitcoin Magazine, or any affiliated entities. This content is provided for informational and educational purposes only and should not be construed as investment, legal, tax, or accounting advice. Nothing contained in this show constitutes a solicitation, recommendation, endorsement, or offer to buy or sell any securities or financial instruments. Viewers should consult their own advisors before making financial or business decisions.

This post Frank Holmes: They Will Print $100 Trillion – Why to Buy Bitcoin & Gold first appeared on Bitcoin Magazine and is written by Patrick Green.

Bitcoin’s rally is approaching a $90,000 test as a rare accumulation pattern reappears and sell-side liquidity thins.

On Oct. 2, Bitcoin registered an intraday high at $87,000 after buyers broke through a sell wall around $85,000 that had stalled several previous attempts to advance.

Glassnode said some of those orders were filled and the remainder withdrawn, leaving a smaller concentration of asks around $87,000 and less visible liquidity immediately above.

At the same time, bands on CryptoQuant’s Bitcoin Accumulation Trend chart have begun contracting, reviving a pattern seen before two sharp advances in 2025.

The setup adds another bullish signal to a market that has reclaimed several key cost-basis levels, though the limited number of previous occurrences makes the pattern far from conclusive.

Past contractions offer a bullish, but limited, precedent

Per CryptoQuant, the current contraction resembles two episodes in 2025 followed by sizable gains, giving traders a bullish analog as Bitcoin enters October.

The Accumulation Trend tracks buying and selling behavior across different groups of Bitcoin holders, offering a view into whether supply is being absorbed or distributed. Periods when the chart’s bands narrow sharply have previously coincided with shifts in market momentum.

One contraction occurred between April 17 and April 20, 2025, when Bitcoin traded near $84,000. BTC subsequently climbed toward $109,000, and another appeared between March 5 and March 8 before a separate advance.

Those episodes are too few to establish the contraction as a reliable forecasting tool. However, they do make the latest occurrence more notable because Bitcoin’s broader market structure has improved at the same time.

Bitwise said this week that Bitcoin has reclaimed the major cost-basis thresholds it tracks for identifying shifts toward risk-on conditions. Those include the short-term holder cost basis near $73,000, a true market mean around $77,000, and the estimated average cost basis of spot exchange-traded fund investors near $83,000.

Bitcoin has also moved decisively through Bitwise’s $85,000 short-term holder realized-price band, pushing the market toward a part of the distribution where gains have historically become harder to sustain.

Underwater Bitcoin holders crowd the path toward $100,000

The disappearance of the $85,000 sell wall leaves Bitcoin heading directly toward another source of potential supply: investors approaching breakeven after months of losses.

CryptoQuant analyst Darkfost estimates that BTC holders who acquired their assets 18 months to two years ago have an average cost basis near $88,350. The six-to-12-month cohort sits around $89,200 and has been underwater overall for close to a year.

Some investors bought above these averages and others below, but as the market approaches the cohort's cost bases, more holders face a fresh decision after months in losses.

Some may use the recovery to exit near breakeven, while others could hold or add to lower their average purchase price. How much of that returning supply buyers absorb will help determine whether the rally can extend beyond $90,000.

Bitwise’s valuation bands place another hurdle in almost the same area.

The firm puts the next short-term holder reference level around $90,000, or 1.5 standard deviations above realized price, followed by the two-standard-deviation level around $95,000. Bitcoin has traded above those thresholds on only about 3.8% and 1.7% of days, respectively, in Bitwise’s historical sample.

A separate Fibonacci framework used by the asset manager places levels near $92,000 and $100,000, adding to the concentration of technical and on-chain markers across the region. Bitwise described $90,000 to $100,000 as the next area where several structural reference points converge.

Options traders are positioning for the same corridor. Deribit data show about $2.1 billion of Bitcoin call exposure at the $90,000 strike, $2.4 billion at $95,000 and $1.8 billion at $100,000.

The concentration of calls points to substantial demand for upside exposure as Bitcoin moves closer to those strikes.

Their effect on the spot market will depend on expiration dates and dealer hedging, but the positioning shows that traders have placed billions of dollars behind a move into the same $90,000-to-$100,000 range highlighted by on-chain valuation measures.

Leverage rebuilds as macro pressure eases

Bitcoin is approaching that supply zone with speculative exposure rising again and Friday’s US employment report giving risk assets a fresh macro boost.

Bitcoin's open interest fell to about $52 billion as September ended, but derivatives activity has begun recovering, with the figure climbing to roughly $56.2 billion in the first two days of October, CoinGlass data show.

The roughly $4.2 billion increase coincided with Bitcoin rising from about $83,500 to briefly above $87,000.

The rebound suggests traders are rebuilding exposure after cutting positions into the end of September. With open interest rising alongside Bitcoin, new positions have accompanied the price advance, although the measure alone does not show whether traders are positioned long or short.

Bitcoin open interest ended September near its lowest level in a year, leaving room for speculative activity to rebuild without immediately returning to previous extremes. Rising funding nevertheless makes long positions more expensive to maintain and increases their vulnerability if the rally reverses.

The macro backdrop turned more favorable Friday after US employers added just 29,000 jobs in September, well below the 90,000 economists had expected. The unemployment rate increased to 4.2% from 4.1%, while August payroll growth was revised lower.

The report pushed down expectations that the Federal Reserve will raise rates again at its October meeting, sending Treasury yields lower and lifting US equities. Futures markets placed the probability of an October increase below 20% following the data.

That removes one immediate threat to Bitcoin’s advance while leaving the harder test inside the crypto market itself.

A sustained move through $90,000 would take Bitcoin into territory that Bitwise already considers historically stretched relative to recent investor cost bases. Reaching $95,000 would push it into a band exceeded on less than 2% of days in the firm’s sample, forcing buyers to absorb both returning holder supply and increasingly expensive leveraged positions.

Failure to do so would shift attention back toward $83,000, where Bitwise places the average ETF investor cost basis and the first major downside level that bulls would need to defend.

The post Bitcoin’s $85,000 sell wall is gone and traders are now betting on $100,000 appeared first on CryptoSlate.

A third-party lending adapter built on Aave was exploited to steal about 114 ETH, worth over $300,000, while the protocol itself remained unaffected.

On Oct. 2, blockchain security firm SlowMist said the attacker compromised two Safe multisig wallets through a flaw in the FlashLoopAdapter used with Aave v3 positions. The exploit allowed the attacker to bypass the adapter’s authentication checks, execute arbitrary calls, and drain collateral from the affected wallets.

SlowMist estimated the direct loss at about 114.09 ETH. It said roughly 1,300 WETH of debt was also repaid during the attack to unlock collateral tied to the positions.

Aave founder Stani Kulechov said the incident did not involve Aave v3’s core smart contracts. He said:

“This is not Aave v3 contract, it’s third party external adapter built on top of Aave, zero effect on Aave v3.”

The distinction is significant for Aave, the largest decentralized lending protocol, with more than $33 billion in total value locked. The exploit affected infrastructure layered on top of Aave.

Fake Safe bypass opened access to collateral

SlowMist traced the vulnerability to the FlashLoopAdapter’s open() and close() functions, which checked whether the calling Safe had enabled the adapter as a module.

That verification could be spoofed.

According to SlowMist, the attacker created a fake Safe contract that always returned a positive response when asked whether the module was enabled. The adapter then accepted the forged authentication and proceeded to its internal swap function.

The more serious weakness came next. The adapter allowed the caller to specify both the router and calldata used in an external contract call.

The attacker pointed the router back at the victim Safe and supplied instructions invoking Safe’s execTransactionFromModule function. Because the FlashLoopAdapter was already enabled as a module on the affected wallets, that call gave the attacker a path to execute transactions through the victims’ Safes.

SlowMist said the technique was used to withdraw weETH and collateral associated with Aave positions from two multisig wallets.

The incident highlights a recurring risk in decentralized finance: protocol security can remain intact while integrations built around it create separate attack surfaces.

For Aave, the immediate exposure appears contained to users of the vulnerable adapter. The next question is whether other wallets enabled the same module and whether the adapter’s developers identify additional affected positions before attackers can reuse the same authentication flaw.

The post Crypto hackers exploit third-party Aave tool to steal 114 ETH appeared first on CryptoSlate.

Evernorth’s shareholder vote has advanced its plan to become a publicly traded XRP treasury. Its next round of token buying hinges on cash left at closing: disclosed delayed subscriptions, conditional notes and expected trust proceeds imply roughly $88.5 million in gross sources if all three settle, before expenses and other uses.

Evernorth and Armada Acquisition Corp. II, its merger partner, announced on October 1 that shareholders had approved the combination on September 30. They expect closing on October 7, subject to remaining conditions, followed by trading of the combined company’s Class A stock on Nasdaq under XRPN on October 8.

That timetable brings the funding question into focus. The company’s approximately $300 million gross-cash figure includes a private placement program whose advance funding had already supported a roughly $214 million XRP purchase reported in November 2025. Cash already converted into tokens cannot finance the next acquisition a second time.

XRP was about $1.53 on CryptoSlate’s market page around press time.

Cash raised and cash still to settle

The October 1 announcement lists $225 million from related private placements, $30 million of incremental convertible-note financing and approximately $48 million of trust proceeds, all before transaction expenses. Those displayed components total about $303 million, so the company’s approximately $300 million summary should be read as an approximate amount.

The definitive proxy separates the private placements into $214.05 million of advance cash subscriptions and $10.5 million of delayed cash subscriptions. Together, those cash commitments total $224.55 million, consistent with the release’s rounded $225 million placement figure. The subscriptions also include separate XRP contributions.

The historical spending is substantial. In a November 4, 2025 disclosure, Evernorth reported purchasing about 84.37 million additional XRP at an average price of about $2.54, a purchase of approximately $214 million funded from its advance placement proceeds.

That purchase helps explain why the financing headline cannot be carried directly into a forecast of fresh spot demand. The advance cash had already financed the reported 2025 acquisition. The November 2025 announcement does not provide a precise current balance of unused advance cash, and a rounded purchase cost cannot resolve that balance.

The identifiable closing-linked sources can be separated from that historical deployment:

Adding those amounts gives roughly $88.5 million in gross sources if they settle as described. This analytical gross total is not a company-announced net purchase budget or an upper limit. Expenses, operating needs and other uses reduce deployable cash, while any unused advance cash remains unmeasured.

The financing itself remains conditional. Armada’s September financing disclosure says the $30 million note issuance depends on, and is expected to occur concurrently with, the business-combination closing. Shareholder approval clears one milestone; it does not establish that the investor’s cash has arrived.

Costs and allocation choices then matter. The proxy permits net subscription proceeds and trust cash to fund working capital, general corporate purposes and XRP purchases. The note agreement likewise permits general corporate uses, including acquiring XRP and other activities within the XRP ecosystem. Ecosystem spending therefore cannot automatically be counted as a spot-token purchase.

There are historical liabilities to reconcile as well. Armada’s June 30, 2026 balance sheet reported about $5.39 million in accounts payable and accrued expenses and a $9.2 million deferred underwriting fee payable. Those are dated SPAC figures, not the combined company’s final closing expense schedule; the underwriting payment also depends on trust funds remaining after redemptions.

The convertible funding also creates a financing obligation. Evernorth’s September 17 filing describes 4% annual payment-in-kind interest, which adds to principal, and maturity in 2031 unless the notes are earlier converted, redeemed or repurchased under their terms. Raising that money expands possible cash resources while adding debt; it does not itself establish a token acquisition.

The 473 million XRP forecast is a starting position

Evernorth expects to hold approximately 473 million XRP at closing. That figure combines a different set of questions from the cash budget: what was purchased earlier, what investors contribute in kind and what has actually settled into the treasury.

The November 2025 announcement had already described more than 473 million XRP as purchased and committed. The similar closing forecast therefore cannot be presented as 473 million newly acquired tokens following the September vote. The older figure also included commitments, so it cannot establish today’s completed holdings by itself.

The proxy illustrates the contribution channel. It describes a separate 50 million XRP related-party subscription and approximately 211.3 million XRP invested through the sponsor by RippleWorks. RippleWorks could withdraw its investment if the business combination did not consummate. These contractual contributions differ from spending company cash to buy XRP in the market.

A closing holdings update would consequently need a reconciliation, not just a headline token count. An increase caused by contributed XRP can enlarge the treasury without showing a contemporaneous cash purchase. Likewise, a higher dollar valuation of existing tokens would not establish token accumulation.

CryptoSlate’s September 28 coverage centered on the redemption risk to Evernorth’s funding. The October 1 trust-proceeds estimate advances the story toward the cash expected at closing, while leaving the final deductions and actual spending to be established.

The next useful signals are concrete. A completed-closing announcement and financing settlement would establish that the expected resources arrived. A net cash balance and paid-expense schedule would show what survived the transaction. Acquisition disclosures pairing cash outflows with purchased token quantities would show whether that money became additional XRP.

A holdings reconciliation would strengthen that evidence by separating purchases from in-kind contributions and any other treasury activity. Disclosed operating and ecosystem allocations would explain why some cash might support the business without appearing as new spot buying.

Nasdaq share turnover answers a different question. In ordinary secondary trading, consideration moves between the share buyer and seller. The issuer does not receive that trading volume as fresh treasury cash. A capital raise that supplies new company proceeds, an allocation to XRP and an executed purchase are separate steps.

For XRP demand, the consequential disclosure is how much settled cash Evernorth actually spends on additional tokens.

The post Evernorth’s Nasdaq XRP treasury is approved, but its real buying power isn’t the $300 million expected appeared first on CryptoSlate.

Strategy’s Bitcoin credit calculator produced an illustrative STRC price of $210.90 on Oct. 2, while displaying a market-price input of $99.50 for the perpetual preferred stock. The issuer also retains the option to redeem shares at $101, or a higher amount it chooses, plus applicable unpaid dividends.

That gap exposes the limits of the calculation. The published formula holds the current dividend constant and replaces the market’s credit spread with a modeled Bitcoin spread. It contains no explicit valuation of the issuer’s call option or a path for future dividend resets. Strategy’s pricing dashboard separately discloses those features and warns that the call can make Derived Price diverge substantially from realizable market prices.

For buyers, the calculation is a view of the security under selected assumptions. It does not establish that STRC is worth more than twice its displayed market price, or that a holder can collect either the model output or the redemption amount on demand.

How the calculator reaches $210.90

At approximately 08:18 UTC on Oct. 2, the dashboard used a Bitcoin price input of $86,593, an assumed annual return of 10% and volatility of 40%. Its STRC row showed a 12.06% effective yield, a 5.23% risk-free yield and 46 basis points of BTC Credit, Strategy’s modeled credit spread.

The published pricing formula divides the annual dividend by the sum of the risk-free yield and BTC Credit. Using a $12 annual dividend and the displayed inputs gives:

$12 ÷ (5.23% + 0.46%) ≈ $210.90.

The arithmetic reproduces the rounded output. The row’s market spread, the extra yield above the risk-free rate represented by the displayed market price, was 684 basis points. BTC Credit is the model’s estimate of that credit spread. Substituting 46 basis points for the much larger market spread lowers the formula’s discount rate and raises its output. Rounded yield inputs need not reproduce the displayed market spread exactly.

The formula makes the economic mechanism visible. Holding other inputs constant, a larger dividend raises the numerator, while a smaller modeled spread lowers the denominator. Keeping a high current dividend and using a much smaller spread can produce a large illustrative price without any change to the rights holders actually own.

Strategy expressly says the output is neither a fair-value determination nor a price target. Its assumptions include full scheduled payments and a simplified treatment of Bitcoin coverage and claims. The dashboard also warns that displayed market prices can be stale and are not executable quotes. The numbers are a dated snapshot, with Bitcoin-linked model inputs capable of changing after observation.

The output therefore cannot identify why the market price differs from the calculation. Issuer options, payment risk, trading conditions and the model’s assumptions all affect the comparison; the entire gap cannot be assigned to the call right.

Under STRC’s amended certificate of designations, Strategy can elect optional redemption at $101 per share or a higher amount it announces. Applicable accumulated unpaid dividends and compounding are added, with adjustments for declared dividends payable separately to record holders.

A partial optional redemption must leave at least $250 million of stated amount outstanding and uncalled when notice is provided. The redemption date follows the notice by between three business days and 60 calendar days. These terms govern an issuer action, rather than an ordinary holder right to cash out.

If Strategy exercises the option, the holder receives the contractual redemption payment instead of continuing to own the dividend-paying share. That possibility matters when reading a calculation that capitalizes the current dividend without explicitly valuing a call.

But the $101 figure neither promises a redemption nor imposes an absolute secondary-market price ceiling. Strategy can choose not to call, and the certificate permits a higher announced amount. A buyer also cannot assume the company will redeem merely because STRC trades below that level.

The three prices describe different things: $99.50 is the dashboard’s market input, $210.90 is an assumption-driven output, and $101 plus applicable dividends is a potential issuer-selected redemption payment. Each comes with different conditions.

The numerator is adjustable too. STRC’s current rate does not promise the same cash income indefinitely.

For each monthly reference period, ordinary rate reductions are constrained by a 25-basis-point allowance plus specified declines in one-month term SOFR, a SOFR floor and conditions covering prior accumulated dividends. Those dividends must be paid, or fully declared with sufficient consideration set aside. The restrictions limit discretion; they do not remove it.

STRC dividends accumulate cumulatively. Cash payment still requires board declaration and legally available funds. An accumulated entitlement and cash received on a particular date are different considerations for someone relying on the income.

The payment calendar has already changed from the monthly schedule described in the July 2025 offering announcement. The amended certificate effective June 30, 2026, established twice-monthly payments, while retaining monthly reference periods for rate resets.

Strategy’s Oct. 1 filing reports that its Sept. 30 action maintained the 12% annual rate for periods beginning Oct. 16 and declared a $0.50 payment for the semi-monthly period ending Oct. 31.

The daily-dividend proposal awaits an Oct. 28 shareholder vote. If approved and adopted on time, with dividends declared by the board, the planned first daily record date is Nov. 1 and first payment Nov. 2. Payments would follow record dates on the next business day.

More frequent payments would change when income arrives. They would not create a daily redemption right, lock in the dividend rate or guarantee principal stability.

Bitcoin coverage does not replace dollar capacity

Strategy’s Bitcoin holdings and its cash-payment resources answer separate questions. Bitcoin coverage concerns assets relative to claims under the model’s assumptions. Dividends payable in dollars require dollar capacity when payment comes due.

In its Sept. 28 reserve update, Strategy reported a $5.02 billion USD Reserve and a separate $1.00 billion USD Cash balance as of Sept. 27. The reserve supports preferred dividends and debt interest; USD Cash serves broader treasury and capital-allocation purposes.

During Sept. 21–27, the company used $22.1 million of the reserve for preferred dividends and $48.1 million of USD Cash to help fund STRC repurchases. Those are dated balances and uses, rather than a guarantee of future payment coverage. The broader cash pool should not be treated as interchangeable with the designated reserve.

Claim priority also matters. Debt and STRF sit above STRC, while STRK, STRE and STRD are junior preferred claims. Bitcoin is not pledged directly to STRC holders, and additional senior claims or other liabilities can affect the assets available to them.

Michael Saylor’s Sept. 29 explanation of digital credit describes Bitcoin capital and dollar liquidity as distinct parts of the structure. He presents reserve management, financing and discretionary repurchases as tools, while stating that repurchases do not guarantee a price floor. Those are management choices and objectives, rather than assurances embedded in the calculator.

Earlier CryptoSlate coverage examined third-party dividend-durability modeling and Strategy’s buyback allocation. The issuer’s own price formula adds a narrower question: how much can buyers learn from replacing one spread while holding other inputs constant?

The answer is bounded by what the formula includes. Changes in the declared rate alter the income being capitalized; a call changes how long a holder owns that income stream; reserve decisions and senior claims affect payment capacity. At the Oct. 2 snapshot, the calculator’s large gap to the displayed market price resolved none of those contractual and payment questions.

The post Why Strategy’s STRC calculator shows $210 for a share it can redeem at $101 appeared first on CryptoSlate.

A newly disclosed unfunded-channel flaw could leave Eclair, a Bitcoin Lightning implementation, crashing repeatedly without an attacker spending BTC on-chain. The flaw affected reachable nodes running v0.14.0 and earlier, with saved channel records making a restart insufficient to restore service.

Researcher Erick Cestari published the persistent-crash finding Sept. 30 and explained it alongside a separate denial-of-service bug in an Oct. 1 developer post. Both were fixed in v0.14.1, released in July, before the public disclosures. ACINQ now recommends the later v0.14.3 security release for separate vulnerabilities.

Why restarting could fail

Eclair limited the number of pending channels a peer could open, but inconsistent checks of temporary and final channel identifiers let its counter undercount unfunded channels. A malicious peer could accumulate saved requests without broadcasting the funding transaction or paying an on-chain fee.

That distinction matters: the BTC normally needed to fund a channel did not have to be committed for the vulnerable node to incur memory and database costs. The attack still required computing resources and network traffic.

In Cestari’s proof of concept, Eclair v0.14.0 ran in regtest, Bitcoin’s local testing environment. He reported that the node exhausted a 4 GB Java virtual machine heap after about 47 minutes 43 seconds, with 217,623 rows accumulated in the channel database. That is one laboratory benchmark, not a universal attack duration.

The initial crash left those records on disk. During startup, Eclair reloaded the channels and exhausted memory again. Cestari described increasing the heap or manually removing fake channel records as recovery measures. Repeated restarts left the underlying load in place.

The demonstration concerns one vulnerable node’s availability. It does not establish live exploitation or the number of unpatched nodes.

ACINQ merged PR #3324 July 17. The patch strengthened duplicate-channel checks, and v0.14.1 shipped July 29. According to Erick Cestari / Delving Bitcoin, v0.14.0 and earlier are affected, while v0.14.1 or later addresses these two denial-of-service findings.

The second bug, disclosed by Matt Morehouse / lnfuzz as LNF-2026-0003, was a channel-opening race that left orphaned channel processes consuming memory or CPU. His advisory says the tested node recovered on disconnect or restart without loss. That recovery result belongs to the race bug, rather than the persistent database flood.

These findings also differ from the fund-loss vulnerabilities CryptoSlate covered Sept. 21, which were patched in v0.14.3. The July minimum fix should therefore not be read as a complete current security recommendation.

ACINQ recommends upgrading to v0.14.3, released Sept. 14, because malicious nodes could exploit some of the issues it fixed. Preventing new unfunded-channel floods and recovering an already overloaded database are separate operator concerns.

The post Unpatched Eclair Bitcoin Lightning nodes could crash again every time they restart appeared first on CryptoSlate.

The Shiba Inu price prediction hangs on a figure almost nobody looks up: Shibarium, the project's own blockchain, has processed 612,814,563 transactions since launch. On this Friday, 1,005 of them were added. Anyone who wants to know whether the price targets between $0.00002 and $0.0000399 will hold has to start with that daily activity and not with the daily price. Shiba Inu traded at $0.00000585 on Friday evening, the equivalent of €0.0000052, a gain of 1.9 percent within 24 hours and of 13.1 percent over 30 days. Over twelve months it is down 53.3 percent.

This article works out what the stated price targets mean in terms of market capitalisation, what the Shibarium data say about them, and which three checks an investor in Germany can carry out today. Two of those concern the tax office and have nothing to do with the price chart.

Shibarium counts 612.8 million transactions, 1,005 of them on this Friday

Shibarium is a layer-2 blockchain, a separate network that settles transactions more cheaply and anchors the result on Ethereum. For the Shiba Inu price prediction it is the pivot, because the automatic token burns run through it and because usage there is the only tangible evidence of demand beyond trading on exchanges.

The network's block explorer shows 10,508,210 blocks on Friday, 612,814,563 transactions in total and 248,430,250 addresses. Those figures can be looked up at any time on Shibariumscan. The value that matters, however, sits somewhat hidden: transactions on the current day, 1,005 of them. That is 0.00016 percent of all the operations ever processed on this chain.

The cumulative figure impresses, the daily figure places it in context. 612 million transactions do not arise in a month; they are the result of three years, and a considerable part of them fell in the early phase, when automated test runs flooded the chain. Anyone resting the prediction on adoption needs today's movement, not yesterday's total.

For a comparison within the network itself: 612.8 million transactions go with 248.4 million addresses, which is around 0.41 addresses per transaction. A ratio of that order arises when a great many addresses trigger very few operations. That fits a chain which was once tried out widely and has rarely been used since.

The capital locked on Shibarium stands at $56,677

The second hard figure is total value locked, or TVL. It measures how much capital is tied up in a blockchain's applications, in trading venues or lending protocols for instance. It is not a perfect yardstick, but it shows whether anyone is prepared to leave money sitting in a network.

Our own query of the DefiLlama database on October 2 returns $56,677 for Shibarium. The peak was $6,437,163 on December 8, 2024. That is a fall of 99.1 percent. Over the past two weeks the daily reading fluctuated between $53,510 on September 21 and $142,861 on September 26, so there are individual days with considerably higher values. The range is stated here deliberately, because a smoothed single value is misleading at sums this small.

What counts is the order of magnitude. $56,677 of locked capital stands against a token market capitalisation of $3.45 billion. For every transaction on the current day there is, arithmetically, $56 of locked capital. That is the basis on which every prediction arguing from Shibarium growth is built.

589.24 trillion SHIB in circulation: what the supply does to the prediction

SHIB has 589,238,865,672,620 tokens in circulation, a good 589 trillion. That quantity is the reason for the many zeros in the price, and it is at the same time the reason why percentage price targets for SHIB have to be read differently from those for Bitcoin or Ethereum.

The burns that are regularly reported change little about this. Even a day with several hundred million tokens burned removes less than one ten-thousandth of a percent of the circulating supply. Our own piece of October 1 on the triangle apex of October 4 looked at the chart side; the quantity side remains untouched by it. Anyone reading the burn record as a driver of a prediction should therefore always set it against the circulating supply and not against daily turnover.

In practical terms that means: €1,000 deployed corresponds at the current price to around 192.3 million SHIB. A doubling of the price presupposes that the market is prepared to pay twice the sum for the same quantity, and with 589 trillion tokens that sum is large in absolute terms.

The Finder panel price targets stand at $0.00002 and $0.0000399

Price targets are opinions and not facts, which is why they belong in quotation with a name and a date. The best-known regular survey on SHIB comes from the comparison portal Finder, which polls specialists from the crypto industry and publishes the averages.

One round with 26 respondents arrived at an average of around $0.0000399, justified by accelerated burns, Shibarium growth and spreading adoption. A more recent panel from January 2026 with 19 respondents, by contrast, names $0.00002 for the end of 2026. The two values lie a factor of two apart, and both come from the same house. That range is the more honest picture than a single average, and it shows how far the assessments have travelled within a year.

Set against those expectations is the finding from the first two sections. Neither justification, burning or Shibarium growth, can currently be read off the daily data. That does not refute the targets, because a network can pick up again. It does shift the burden of proof: anyone betting on $0.0000399 today is betting that usage will come back, not that it is already here.

$0.0000399 corresponds to $23.5 billion in market capitalisation

Price targets with many zeros are hard to place. Market capitalisation makes them tangible, and the calculation is simple: circulating supply times price.

• $0.00000585, the price on this Friday, gives $3.45 billion.
• $0.00002 gives $11.78 billion, 3.4 times today's level.
• $0.0000399 gives $23.51 billion, 6.8 times today's level.
• $0.00008616, the all-time high of October 27, 2021, would give $50.77 billion.
• $0.0001, the much-quoted deletion of a further zero, would give $58.92 billion.

These figures only make sense in comparison. Dogecoin comes to $14.8 billion on the same Friday, Solana to $70.3 billion. The target of $0.0000399 therefore requires SHIB to become considerably larger than Dogecoin is today and to reach roughly a third of Solana. That is possible, but it is a different statement from the familiar formulation that the price need only move a few places forward.

Levels for the coming days: $0.00000571 below, $0.00000597 above

Within the past 24 hours SHIB moved between $0.00000571 and $0.00000597, on trading volume of around $110 million. That is a range of a good 4.5 percent, a quiet session for a meme coin.

On the downside the day's low of $0.00000571 is the first level whose breach would call the rise of the past 30 days into question. The reason lies not in chart technique alone but in the volume: $110 million of daily turnover against $3.45 billion of market capitalisation means that around 3.2 percent of the capitalisation changes hands in a day. At that turnover rate, comparatively small waves of selling suffice to leave the range.

On the upside the day's high of $0.00000597 is the next hurdle, and behind it the round level of $0.00000600. A breakout above it would not in itself be evidence for the stated price targets, because a factor of three to $0.00002 would still be missing afterwards.

The one-year holding period under section 23 of the Income Tax Act: twelve months separate tax-free from taxable

Here the article leaves the price, because this is where the action lies that an investor in Germany can actually take today. Gains from the sale of crypto assets count as a private disposal under section 23 of the German Income Tax Act. Anyone who holds a coin for longer than twelve months and then sells pays no income tax on the gain, whatever its size.

The gain of 13.1 percent over 30 days is precisely the case in which this deadline counts. Anyone who bought in September and sells now is inside the one-year period and is liable to tax on the gain. Anyone holding the same position since autumn 2025 is not. The period runs separately for each purchase, not for the portfolio as a whole.

The concrete step for this: pull the transaction list with purchase date and quantity from your exchange and mark every position bought before today's date in the previous year. Those positions are tax-free on sale. This can be kept cleanly with a portfolio tracker with a tax function that carries the holding periods for each tranche. With 192 million tokens from a €1,000 purchase, a list kept by hand is no realistic solution.

The €1,000 exemption threshold tips over at one euro above it

For sales within the one-year period an exemption threshold of €1,000 per calendar year applies. It has stood at that amount since the 2024 tax year; before that it was €600. The important word is threshold: this is not an allowance that remains in place.

The difference is expensive. On a gain of €999 from all private disposals in a year, no tax is due. On €1,001 the full amount of €1,001 is charged at the personal income tax rate. A single euro therefore decides the taxation of the whole sum.

The threshold applies to all private disposals of a year taken together, not only to crypto assets. Anyone who also sold gold or a collection within the speculation period in the same year counts those gains in. With €1,000 deployed and the gain of the past 30 days, the arithmetical profit would be around €131, so clearly below the threshold. Anyone working with larger sums checks where they stand in the current year before selling.

Buying SHIB under MiCA: the BaFin register names the authorised providers

Since the European crypto regulation MiCA, providers that trade or hold crypto assets for retail clients in Germany need authorisation as a crypto asset service provider. BaFin maintains a public register for this, and a look inside takes two minutes.

For you that means in practice: before you test a platform with a deposit, you search for the company name in the supervisor's company register. If you do not find it, you lack a point of contact in Germany in the event of a dispute. That holds regardless of whether the platform looks reputable and how cheap its fees are.

The second point is cost. With a token carrying eight decimal places, the trading spread between the buy and sell price weighs more heavily than with large assets, because it works in percentage terms on a very small price. Compare the spread before buying, not just the order fee that is stated.

Custody: SHIB is an ERC-20 token on Ethereum, not on Shibarium

A widespread misunderstanding concerns custody. SHIB is an ERC-20 token and normally sits on the Ethereum blockchain. Shibarium is an additional chain to which tokens have to be transferred over a bridge. Anyone holding SHIB in a wallet is, as a rule, holding the Ethereum variant.

That is relevant given the current situation. A bridge to a chain on which $56,677 is locked is thinly populated. Anyone sending tokens across should know that the way back depends on the liquidity on the other side, and that the bridge carries an additional technical risk which does not arise when holding on Ethereum.

For larger holdings the usual rule applies: what you do not want to trade in the coming weeks does not belong on the exchange. A hardware wallet separates the key from the internet, and SHIB is supported as an ERC-20 token by every common device.

Shiba Inu price prediction: How to proceed now

1. Check the holding period for each tranche. Download the transaction list from your exchange and mark every position older than twelve months. Those gains are tax-free under section 23 of the Income Tax Act; all younger ones are not. Which tools carry this for each tranche is shown in the comparison of tax tools and portfolio trackers.
2. Reconcile the trading spread and the provider's authorisation. Check your platform's name in the BaFin register and compare the spread between the buy and sell price, not just the order fee. An overview of the terms is given in the comparison of crypto exchanges.
3. Take holdings off the exchange if you are leaving them there. SHIB sits as an ERC-20 token on Ethereum and is supported by every common device. Which models cost what and how they differ is set out in the hardware wallet comparison.

And on the prediction itself: the stated price targets are derived in a way that can be followed, but they presuppose a return of network usage which this Friday's daily data do not show. The figure from which you can read that without outside help is the transaction count for the current day in the block explorer. If it climbs markedly over weeks, the prediction gains a basis. If it stays in four digits, it remains an expectation.

(As of October 2, 2026. This article is not investment advice. Prices and fee structures change; check the terms with the provider before you buy.)

The US labour market added just 29,000 jobs in September, and the unemployment rate rose to 4.2 percent. For investors in Germany, the first consequence is this: the pressure on the Federal Reserve to turn the rate screw once more on October 27 and 28 has eased markedly. Bitcoin reacted to the upside and reached $87,086 over the past 24 hours before giving ground again.

The underlying figures are weaker than the headline suggests. The US Department of Labor did not only report a disappointing September number, it also revised July into negative territory after the fact. What that means for the rate path, for the levels on your chart and for leveraged positions is set out in this article.

The September jobs report: 29,000 new positions instead of the expected 90,000

The Bureau of Labor Statistics, the statistical agency of the US Department of Labor, published its monthly employment situation report on October 2, 2026. Its central measure is nonfarm payrolls, the number of employees on payrolls outside agriculture. That figure rose by 29,000 in September. The release puts it plainly: Both nonfarm payroll employment (+29,000) and the unemployment rate (4.2 percent) changed little in September.

Economists had expected around 90,000 new jobs. The gap between expectation and outcome is therefore wider than the reported gain itself. It is that difference which moves rate expectations, not the absolute number.

What the jobs report actually measures

The report normally appears on the first Friday of the month and rests on two surveys: an establishment survey, which produces the payroll count, and a household survey, which produces the unemployment rate. The two readings can point in different directions because they draw on different populations. For monetary policy the report is the most important monthly reading of conditions alongside the inflation data.

July revised: a gain of 21,000 jobs turns into a loss of 10,000

The more important part of the release sits further down the text. The agency marked the previous months down, and it did so substantially. For July the correction amounts to 31,000 jobs, from a previously reported gain of 21,000 to a loss of 10,000. August was lowered by 29,000 jobs, from 162,000 to 133,000.

A month with a minus sign is a different matter from a weak month. It means that jobs disappeared on balance in the US economy in July. That this finding only becomes visible with a two-month delay is part of the method: firms file late, and the agency recalculates the sample.

Why a revision can turn out so large

A revision is the after-the-fact correction of a figure already published, made once more returns have come in. The later small firms respond, the larger the shift can be. For interpretation that means the first number for a month is an estimate, while the second and third versions carry more weight. Anyone setting a rate decision by the first release is working with the least reliable value in the series.

Unemployment rate rises to 4.2 percent

The unemployment rate climbed from 4.1 to 4.2 percent. Taken on its own that is a small move. Together with the revised payroll series, however, a picture emerges that points one way: the labour market is cooling, and it has been doing so for longer than the figures first reported suggested.

For the central bank this is no side issue. Its mandate covers stable prices and a high level of employment at the same time. As long as the labour market looked robust, it could place the full weight on inflation. That justification becomes harder to carry with every weaker employment reading.

The September 16 rate rise and the target range of 3.75 to 4.00 percent

To understand the reaction, it is worth looking back four weeks. On September 16, 2026, the Fed's Open Market Committee raised the policy rate by a quarter point. The target range for the overnight rate has stood at 3.75 to 4.00 percent since then. The committee gave its reason in the statement: Inflation remains elevated. Today's policy action will support a timelier return to the Committee's 2 percent goal.

The target range is the band within which the US overnight rate is meant to move. It works through the funding costs of banks into the yields on government bonds, and from there into the valuation of every asset that pays no running income. Bitcoin is one of them, which is why a US rate date is regularly more important for the crypto market than most sector-specific news.

The Fed's September reasoning and the new figures do not fit together

In the same statement of September 16 the committee's own description of the labour market read: Job gains have kept pace with the workforce, and the unemployment rate has changed little. That assessment now sits next to a July in negative territory, an August revised downwards and a September with 29,000 jobs.

This is the real finding of the day. It is less about the single monthly number than about the basis on which the last rate rise was justified. Parts of that basis have fallen away after the fact. How the committee weighs this will only become clear in the minutes of the October meeting.

The market expects a rate pause on October 27 and 28

Even before the jobs report, futures markets had cut the probability of a further rate rise in October to around 25 percent, and attention had moved towards December. With the weak employment data, that expectation has shifted further in favour of a pause.

A rate pause means the central bank leaves the target range unchanged without committing to a cut. For the crypto market even that is a relief, because the gap between the risk-free rate and the expected return on riskier assets stops widening.

Two dates remain in the Fed's calendar for this year: the meeting on October 27 and 28, and the meeting on December 8 and 9, at which the committee also publishes its projections for growth, inflation and the rate level. The December date therefore carries more information than the October one. How expectations have developed since the latest inflation data is described in our assessment of US core inflation and the rate path.

Bitcoin between $84,068 and $87,086 in 24 hours

Bitcoin trades at $85,404 on October 2, 2026, around 1.5 percent above its level of 24 hours earlier. The range over that period runs from a low of $84,068 to a high of $87,086. Ether stands at $2,698, up just under 0.6 percent. The figures are cryptoticker.io's own reading for the reference date.

What stands out is less the gain than the shape of the move. The price did not hold the day's high but gave back a good $1,600 of it. A reaction that unwinds on the same day says little about the coming week. Above all it shows that there are sellers at this level.

Why a short reaction says nothing about the week

At data dates, automated systems trade first, and larger addresses position themselves afterwards. Only when the market holds above the breakout level for several trading days can one speak of a durable shift. Before that, every reading is a snapshot.

Resistance at $87,000 to $87,500, support at $82,000

The zone between $87,000 and $87,500 is regarded in the market as the next resistance, and the day's high of $87,086 sits precisely within it. On the downside, the area around $82,000 is cited as support. These are not forecasts but price levels at which supply and demand have met repeatedly over the past weeks.

For observation over the coming days, the way these two levels are handled says more than the daily change. A daily close clearly above $87,500 would take the force out of the resistance. A slide below $82,000 would devalue today's move, whatever the data showed.

Leveraged positions at a data date: funding rate, margin and liquidation price

Anyone trading with leverage carries a different risk on days like this than a holder in the spot market. Leverage multiplies the effect of a price move on the capital deployed, and it does so in both directions. A move of three percent, as was visible at times today, is already enough at tenfold leverage to produce a thirty percent effect on the deposit.

Three quantities determine how tight it gets. The funding rate is the periodic payment between the long and the short side in perpetual futures, and it makes a position that runs against the majority direction more expensive. The margin is the collateral the account puts up. The liquidation price is the price at which the exchange closes the position by force because the collateral no longer suffices. Every trading interface shows where that price lies before you open the position. The further that value sits from the day's range, the smaller the danger of being forced out of the market at a data date.

What actually happens in a liquidation

If the price reaches the liquidation level, the exchange sells the position at the next available price. With a thin order book that price can lie noticeably below the liquidation level. The loss is then larger than calculated, and a later counter-move is of no use because the position is already closed. That is precisely why forced closures cluster at data dates.

Buying routes in Germany: MiCA licence, spot purchase and ETN

A US data date changes nothing about how you buy Bitcoin in Germany, it only shifts the price. Two routes are customary. A spot purchase through a trading platform means the coins themselves are allocated to you. Since the European transition period expired in July 2026, providers may only offer crypto services in the EU with authorisation under the MiCA regulation, in Germany under the supervision of BaFin. Which houses hold that authorisation is set out in our overview of regulated crypto exchanges.

The second route runs through an ETN, an exchange-traded debt security that tracks the price of an underlying asset and can be traded through an ordinary securities account. This route is convenient because it stays inside the existing account. It does, however, bring issuer risk with it, and it follows different tax rules from a direct purchase.

The one-year holding period under section 23 of the Income Tax Act and the rate path

For a direct purchase of Bitcoin, Germany applies the speculation period for private disposals under section 23 of the Income Tax Act. If you sell at a profit within one year of buying, that profit is in principle taxable. Once a year has passed, the disposal gain from private assets is tax-free.

The connection to the rate path is more immediate than it appears. Anyone holding a position shortly before the end of the one-year period and selling because of a rate date swaps a tax-free gain for a taxable one. The calendar question therefore belongs to every sale decision that arises out of a data date. Which purchase date belongs to which position is hard to reconstruct after a few years without clean records.

This is general information and not tax advice. Which rules apply in your case depends on your personal situation, and binding guidance is a matter for tax advisers.

US jobs report and Bitcoin: Your next three steps

1. Go through leverage and buying route at your trading platform. Check where the liquidation price of open positions lies, and keep it at a distance from the 24-hour range of $84,068 to $87,086. Whether your provider holds MiCA authorisation is shown in the overview of regulated crypto exchanges.
2. Record purchase dates and the one-year deadline. Note the purchase date for every position before a rate date forces a sale decision. A tool that keeps track of purchases and deadlines can be found among the tax tools and portfolio trackers.
3. Settle custody if holdings are staying put. What you do not want to trade after a volatile day does not have to sit on the trading platform. The differences between the devices are shown in the hardware wallet comparison.

The next fixed point is the meeting on October 27 and 28. Another jobs report is due before then, and experience suggests the next data series weighs more heavily than the interpretation of today's.

The primary sources for this article are the Bureau of Labor Statistics release on the employment situation and the Open Market Committee statement of September 16, 2026.

(As of October 2, 2026. This article is not investment advice. Prices and fee structures change; check the terms with the provider before you buy.)

Bitcoin or Ethereum: the question comes up again at the start of every quarter for anyone planning an entry or a reallocation. An honest answer does not begin with the price but with what the two networks actually are. Bitcoin is a payment and store-of-value network with a firmly limited money supply. Ethereum is a platform on which programs run and outside capital is managed. Both compete on the market for the same money, but they solve different tasks.

This comparison puts side by side the figures that can be verified: supply and money-supply growth, actual usage, relative size on the market, the question of a running yield, and access for investors in Germany including tax. You will not find a price forecast or a buy recommendation here, and anyone promising you a certain answer to the price question in October does not have one either.

Bitcoin and Ethereum solve two different tasks

Bitcoin launched in 2009 with a narrowly drawn purpose: transferring and storing value without an intermediary. The protocol can deliberately do little, and that very frugality is the product. Anyone buying Bitcoin is buying the scarcity rule and the expectation that it holds.

Ethereum went live in 2015 and allows programs on the blockchain, so-called smart contracts. Credit markets, trading venues without a central counterparty, stablecoins and tokenised assets run on it. Anyone buying Ether is buying a share in this network's computing capacity: Ether is the means of payment for every transaction on it and at the same time the collateral that validators post.

What this difference does for valuation

Bitcoin can be valued almost only through supply and demand, because there is barely any cash flow to set against it. Ethereum, by contrast, generates fees and burns part of them; there, a figure exists that can be pinned to usage. That does not automatically make Ethereum easier to value, it merely shifts the question: with Bitcoin the scarcity is the argument, with Ethereum the utilisation.

Supply: 20.09 of 21 million Bitcoin are already in circulation

Bitcoin has a hard ceiling of 21 million units. As of October 2, 2026, roughly 20.09 million of them have been created, which is just under 96 percent. New Bitcoin arise solely as a reward for mining, and this reward halves roughly every four years. Since the halving in April 2024 it has stood at 3.125 Bitcoin per block; the next halving is due in 2028. The annual growth of the money supply is therefore in the low single-digit percentage range and continues to fall.

This curve is the core of the Bitcoin argument: the supply is known in advance and cannot be changed by anyone, as long as the majority of participants stick to the rules. What the curve does not say is anything about demand. A scarce good without buyers falls just as much as one that can be multiplied at will.

Ethereum has no ceiling: roughly 0.85 percent growth at an annualised pace

For Ether there is no fixed ceiling. Depending on the source, the quantity stands at roughly 120 to 122 million Ether. New units arise as a reward for validators, and at the same time part of every transaction fee has been permanently destroyed since the fee reform of 2021. What is left at the end therefore depends on how heavily the network is used.

We measured this balance ourselves over 24 hours on October 2: in that period the Ether supply grew by roughly 2,840 units. Extrapolated to a year, that corresponds to about 0.85 percent growth. This value is a snapshot of a single day and not an annual figure. It tips into negative territory as soon as there is a lot going on the network, and rises in quiet phases. ultrasound.money shows the running balance continuously.

Scarcity with a condition instead of scarcity by rule

The difference is fundamental. With Bitcoin the scarcity is written into the protocol. With Ethereum it arises from usage and can reverse. Anyone buying Ether for the scarcity is buying a bet on the network's utilisation, not on a rule.

Usage: 56 percent of DeFi capital sits on Ethereum

The most tangible measure of a smart contract platform's usage is the capital tied up in its applications, the so-called total value locked. On October 2, 2026, roughly $96.8 billion sat in such applications across all blockchains. Of that, $54.4 billion fell to Ethereum, so a good 56 percent. Next came Solana with just under $7 billion, Base with roughly $6.5 billion, and BNB Chain and Tron with just under $6 billion each. DefiLlama keeps the running distribution across all chains. Bitcoin accounted for $4.6 billion and thus just under 5 percent.

This distribution is the strongest argument on the Ethereum side: despite years of competition from faster and cheaper networks, more than half of the tied-up capital still sits on Ethereum. Against that stands an objection which is equally documented: Base is itself an Ethereum extension, and part of the growth is therefore happening alongside the main chain, where fewer fees arise. Which figure you read depends on exactly that: our 56 percent apply to the main chain alone, while surveys that count extension networks name values of up to roughly 68 percent for Ethereum. Both figures are correct, they are simply measuring different things.

What the figure does not measure

Tied-up capital says nothing about profits, user numbers or durability. It can flow out within days, and part of it is the same capital counted several times across multiple applications. For Bitcoin the figure is secondary anyway, because there was never a claim there to carry applications.

Market capitalisation and dominance: Bitcoin weighs a good five times as much

On October 2, 2026 Bitcoin came to a market capitalisation of roughly $1,742 billion, Ethereum to roughly $336 billion. Bitcoin is thus worth a good five times Ethereum. Measured against the entire crypto market of roughly $3,080 billion, Bitcoin accounted for about 56.5 percent, the so-called dominance.

A second value belongs alongside for context: both were well below their all-time highs on that day. Bitcoin stood roughly 31 percent below its high from October 2025, Ethereum roughly 44 percent below its high from August 2025. That is no argument for or against an entry, it merely shows that Ethereum has given up more ground in this market phase.

Staking: only Ethereum pays a running yield

Ethereum has secured its network through staking since 2022. Anyone who deposits Ether receives a share of new units and of the fees. The size of this yield is not fixed: the rate falls the more Ether are deposited in total, and rises when the network is heavily used. Nobody gives an assurance about the level, and every figure a provider names is a snapshot.

Bitcoin knows nothing comparable. There is no protocol yield. Where a yield on Bitcoin is offered to you, it comes from a provider's lending or custody business, and with it you carry that provider's default risk. You should keep this difference in mind with every offer that names Bitcoin and a fixed rate of interest in the same sentence.

Three catches with staking

• Your Ether is tied up during staking, and on exit it only becomes available again after a waiting period.
• Misbehaviour by a validator's software can cost part of the deposited amount, even if you are not to blame for it yourself.
• Staking through a provider means leaving them the keys, or at least the handling.

Access in Germany: direct purchase, savings plan or exchange-traded product

For both assets there are essentially two routes in Germany. With a direct purchase through a crypto exchange the coins themselves belong to you, and you can withdraw them to your own address. With an exchange-traded product you buy, through your normal securities account, a paper that tracks the price; in the EU these are as a rule ETNs, meaning debt instruments, not funds. Which variants exist and how they differ is something we broke down in our overview of crypto ETFs and ETNs in Germany.

The difference is bigger than it first appears. An ETN is a claim against the issuer, even when it is backed with coins. In return it runs through the familiar securities account, is easy to buy into regularly and falls under the flat-rate withholding tax. With a direct purchase, by contrast, you carry the responsibility for custody and can in return make use of the one-year holding period. For regular purchases over long periods, a look at the savings plan comparison is worthwhile, because the running costs weigh more heavily over years than the entry price.

Tax: a one-year holding period for both, with separate rules for staking income

For directly held coins, Section 23 of the Income Tax Act applies in Germany. If you sell after more than twelve months, the gain is tax free. If you sell earlier, the gain counts as a private disposal; if the total of all such gains in a year stays below 1,000 euros, nothing is due, and once the limit is reached the entire amount is taxable. That applies to Bitcoin and Ether alike.

With Ether a second point comes on top. Staking income is taxable as other income in the year it is received, valued at the price on the day of receipt. The units received then start their own holding period. Anyone receiving many small credits over the year therefore has bookkeeping to do that a pure Bitcoin holder does not need. Tools that capture such inflows automatically are in our overview of crypto tax tools and portfolio trackers. With ETNs in a securities account, by contrast, the flat-rate withholding tax applies, and there is no holding period there.

A note on the legal position

Crypto tax law is currently being worked on. A draft bill with a cabinet date in October 2026 is on the table, and with it deadlines and reporting duties could change. For the current year the position above applies; anyone planning a larger reallocation should keep an eye on developments and seek tax advice if in doubt.

Risks that apply to both sides

A comparison that only lists arguments helps nobody. These points hit both assets.

• Market risk. Both prices swing heavily and can fall over months. Drawdowns of more than 40 percent from the high have occurred several times historically with both and are also on the books right now.
• Custody risk. Anyone holding their own coins carries the risk of lost keys. Anyone trusting the exchange carries its default and fraud risk.
• Regulatory risk. Access routes, products and tax rules can be shaped politically and have changed several times in recent years.
• Counterparty risk with products. An ETN does not automatically survive the insolvency of its issuer, even when it is collateralised.
• Technical risk. With smart contracts and extension networks, Ethereum carries more moving parts and therefore more attack surface; Bitcoin in return carries the risk that the mining reward has to be replaced by fees in the long run.

Dates in the fourth quarter that can move both prices

The rest of the year brings data for both assets that can move prices: interest rate decisions, inflows into exchange-traded products and, on the Ethereum side, the progress of the next network upgrade, whose date for the main network is not yet confirmed. Which of these are due when is something we gathered in our overview of crypto dates in the fourth quarter.

What cannot be derived from it is a direction. A known date is as a rule already priced in, and nobody knows in advance how the market will react to the outcome. The value of a calendar lies in not being surprised, not in predicting the next swing.

How our archive answered the question in 2023

We have run this comparison once before, back then under entirely different circumstances: our article on the question of whether Bitcoin or Ethereum was the better investment dates from February 2023 and still argued with the then-fresh switch to staking. The comparison shows one thing above all: the arguments age, the structure of the two networks remains.

Bitcoin or Ethereum: the key points for your decision

Three steps with which the question can be answered for you:

1. Decide on the task first, not on the coin. If you are looking for a position on a fixed scarcity rule, the road leads to Bitcoin. If you are looking for a share in a platform whose value hangs on usage, it leads to Ether. The purchase routes and costs for both are in the buy Bitcoin comparison.
2. Settle the purchase route before you settle the amount. Direct purchase with your own custody and a holding period, or an exchange-traded product in a securities account, are two different worlds for tax. For regular instalments the savings plan comparison is worthwhile.
3. Set up the bookkeeping before the first purchase runs. The acquisition date, price and fee for each purchase belong on record, and with Ether every staking credit as well. The providers for that are in the comparison of the best crypto exchanges and in our tax overview.

(As of October 2, 2026. This article is not investment advice. Prices and fee structures change; check the terms with the provider before you buy.)

Upbit ends trading in Ravencoin (RVN) on October 12, 2026 at 3 p.m. Korean time (KST), which is 8 a.m. in Germany. All three of the exchange's order books are affected: RVN against the Korean won, RVN against Bitcoin and RVN against the dollar stablecoin USDT. With that, RVN loses the trading venue which has so far carried the largest share of global daily volume. The practical question for you is therefore not where the price is heading, but where you can still get out at all after the cut-off date.

This article places the date in context, names the deadlines that are documented, and separates them from those circulating online without any reachable source behind them. It also shows what you as a holder in Germany actually have to decide before October 12: sell on an exchange that keeps RVN listed, or transfer into your own custody. You will not find a price call or a recommendation here.

Upbit ends trading in Ravencoin on October 12

Upbit is South Korea's largest crypto exchange and settles trading predominantly in Korean won. The exchange had already announced the end of trading support for Ravencoin on September 10. At the stated time the three RVN markets will be closed; according to the announcement, open buy and sell orders in these pairs will be cancelled across the board. In exchange jargon the process is called a delisting: the exchange permanently discontinues trading support for an asset, and the token disappears from the order books.

In Upbit's own market overview, each of the three Ravencoin markets carries the warning label with which the exchange flags projects with unresolved risks. A comparable market such as the won order book for Bitcoin does not carry this label. That labelling is the visible part of the procedure: Upbit had classified Ravencoin on August 11 as a project under a trading warning and, after a review, decided that the grounds for the classification had not been cleared up. From that followed the decision to end trading support under its own policy.

What a delisting means for your balance and what it does not

A delisting deletes no coins. Your RVN remain on the Ravencoin blockchain, and the exchange continues to carry them as a balance in your account for the time being. What falls away is solely trading on this venue: after the cut-off date you can neither buy nor sell there. What decides the withdrawal in such a case is the second deadline an exchange sets, and that is precisely the critical point here.

KAWPOW consensus bug and checkpoint 4,487,775: the background to the delisting

The reason for the wave of delistings lies in August. Ravencoin uses the mining method KAWPOW, a variant of ProgPoW in which the block height in a block's header data helps steer the calculation of the proofs of work. In validation, this height field was never reconciled against the block's actual position in the chain. Anyone who manipulated the value could get a vulnerable node to accept a supplied hash without having performed the actual computational work.

The gap was exploited from August 7, 2026. The first known invalid block was accepted at height 4,487,776. On August 10 the mining pool 2Miners published the emergency patch in version 4.6.1.1-hf1. It rejects every block whose stated height does not match its actual position, and sets a fixed checkpoint at block 4,487,775, the last block before the first invalid one. Two large pools, 2Miners and RavenMiner, built an alternative chain from that block and together supplied the majority of the hash power for it. 2Miners documented the details of this rescue operation in its own monthly report.

For the exchanges this was a double problem. On the one hand they had to halt deposits and withdrawals, because confirmations after block 4,487,775 counted as potentially reversible. On the other they faced the question of whether a network that only keeps running with an emergency patch and a fixed checkpoint still meets their own listing criteria. Several Korean exchanges answered that question initially with a trading halt and a warning list, and Upbit now with the delisting. For holders that means: the tradability of cryptocurrencies with an open security incident is decided by the exchanges' risk assessment, not by the price action.

Upbit, Bithumb, Bitvavo: the stages of the delisting wave since August 7

The Upbit date is not the first cut for RVN holders but the third step in a chain that began immediately after the consensus bug. For you as a German investor the second stage was the most important, because it affected an exchange with German customers.

• August 7 to 11: the attack on the chain runs, the patch appears, Korean exchanges put RVN on the warning list. Upbit classifies Ravencoin on August 11 as a project under a trading warning.
• September 18: Bitvavo removes Ravencoin from trading together with Kava and Nano (XNO). How that step unfolded, which deadlines applied and why the automatic EUR swap on September 28 was a sale for tax purposes is set out in our article on the Bitvavo delisting of Kava, Nano and Ravencoin. Both deadlines have since expired.
• October 12: Upbit closes the three RVN markets. With that the largest remaining source of liquidity falls away.

Bithumb, the second large Korean exchange, also carries Ravencoin on a delisting watchlist. A date for a possible delisting has not been published there so far, at least not by a route that can be read from the outside. Anyone holding balances at Bithumb should therefore keep watching the matter rather than rely on a deadline that is written down nowhere.

Upbit carries the largest share of RVN trading volume: the market after the cut-off date

How much liquidity falls away on October 12 can be quantified. On October 2 we evaluated the trading venues that run an order book for Ravencoin: there were 39 exchanges with a combined daily volume of roughly $9.4 million. Of that, about 57 percent fell to Upbit alone. Next, at a clear distance, come CoinUp.io with roughly 18 percent and Binance with a good 8 percent; Bithumb came to roughly 2 percent. All the remaining venues were each below 3 percent.

This distribution explains why the date is more than a footnote. When a market that supplies more than half of turnover is taken out of trading, the volume does not simply redistribute evenly. As a rule part of it moves away, part of it disappears, and the remaining order books get thinner. What thin order books cost on a sale is set out below. If you are thinking about changing trading venue anyway, our comparison of the best crypto exchanges puts the terms of the common providers side by side.

What the figures do not say

Volume shares are a snapshot. A share describes where trading happened on one day, not how deep the order books are on another. For your decision, the exact percentage therefore matters less than the order of magnitude: a single market carries the trading, and that market is closing.

Open orders, deposits, withdrawals: what Upbit has announced about the process

Three things in the announcement go beyond merely naming the date. First, trading support for all three pairs ends at the same time, so there is no market that stays open longer. Second, open orders in these pairs will be cancelled on the cut-off date; a limit order you place today and which is not filled by then therefore lapses rather than remaining in place. Third, Upbit expressly cites the project's unresolved security situation as the reason and refers to its own policy on ending trading support.

The date itself is also carried by the calendar service CoinMarketCal, whose entry on the end of RVN market support at Upbit names October 12 and the time. Two mutually independent reporting routes thus arrive at the same date.

The November 11 withdrawal deadline is a figure from reports, not a confirmed notice

This is the point at which you should be careful. Several trade publications render the announcement as saying that withdrawal of RVN remains possible for a further 30 days beyond the end of trading, which puts November 11, 2026 forward as the cut-off date for the last transfer. That rhythm matches what the exchange has applied in comparable cases. What is missing is confirmation from the exchange's own notice, because its announcement pages are not reliably reachable from outside. Earlier reports on the same matter expressly recorded that details on affected pairs, withdrawal deadlines and grounds had not yet been published.

In practice that means: treat November 11 as a guide, not as a guaranteed deadline. Anyone with balances sitting on an exchange whose trading support is ending has no reason to push the withdrawal to the edge of a deadline that exists only in reports. That holds regardless of whether November 11 or another date applies in the end.

Warning signs that apply regardless of the date

When trading support for an asset falls away at an exchange, experience shows that further restrictions follow: deposits are closed first, then withdrawals, and at the end in some cases comes an automatic swap of the remaining balance into the exchange's main currency. That is exactly how it went at Bitvavo with the EUR swap at the end of September. Whether Upbit plans such a step has not been announced.

German investors and RVN: which exchanges with MiCA authorisation still list the token

The liquidity for Ravencoin sits predominantly on venues that do not address German retail customers. The won market at Upbit requires a Korean account, and several of the other trading venues from the evaluation are not available in the EU, or only to a limited extent. Since the EU regulation on markets in crypto-assets, MiCA for short, a provider needs an authorisation as a crypto-asset service provider in order to offer services to German customers. Which obligations come with it and how long the transitional rules run is something we compiled in our overview of the MiCA licensing obligations for crypto companies.

In practical terms that means: before you rely on an alternative venue, it is worth looking at whether the provider is authorised in the EU and whether it still carries RVN at all. An overview of providers with European authorisation is in our comparison of regulated crypto exchanges. A token that sits on the delisting list at several large exchanges may follow at further providers; there is no guarantee that a trading venue available today will still be trading in six months.

Sell or transfer to your own wallet: two routes before the cut-off date

For RVN balances on an affected exchange there are exactly two clean routes before October 12, and both have pitfalls of their own.

Route one: sell while an order book is open

Selling ends the position and produces proceeds in euros, won or a stablecoin. The timing is decisive: the closer to the cut-off date, the thinner the order book and, as a rule, the worse the price achieved. Anyone who wants to sell has time between today and October 12 and does not have to leave this step to the final hour. For tax purposes a sale is an event with consequences, more on that shortly.

Route two: withdrawal to your own address

The transfer into your own custody keeps the coins without tying them to the exchange. For that you need a wallet that actually supports Ravencoin: an address from a Bitcoin wallet or an ERC-20 address does not work, because RVN has its own blockchain. Check the address before the transfer, send a small test amount ahead and wait for the confirmation before the rest follows. Which devices carry Ravencoin and how the models differ is shown by our hardware wallet comparison. On fees the rule is: every exchange charges its own withdrawal fee, which on small balances can make the transfer uneconomic.

The third route is not one

Doing nothing and waiting is the most expensive variant in this situation. If a withdrawal deadline expires before you react, the balance hangs on the exchange's customer service, and with a token without trading support that is a lengthy road. At the Bitvavo delisting the chain ended in an automatic swap into euros, at the rate that applied on that day.

Tax in Germany: a forced swap counts as a sale for tax purposes

For private investors in Germany, gains from crypto-assets fall under private disposals pursuant to Section 23 of the Income Tax Act. Two points are decisive in this situation. First: if more than twelve months lie between purchase and sale, the gain is tax free. Second: within the one-year period the total gain from all private disposals in a year stays tax free up to 999.99 euros; once the limit of 1,000 euros is reached, the complete amount is taxable.

The decisive point with a delisting: a forced swap carried out by the exchange is also a disposal for tax purposes. You do not trigger it yourself, but it counts just the same. Anyone holding balances that are close to the end of the one-year period therefore has an interest of their own in choosing the date themselves rather than leaving it to the exchange. A pure transfer to your own address, by contrast, is not a taxable event, because the owner stays the same; document it anyway, because the acquisition data are needed for the later disposal. Tools that bring such events together across several exchanges are in our overview of crypto tax tools and portfolio trackers.

Losses from a forced swap

Not every delisting sale ends in a gain. If the proceeds fall below the purchase price, a loss from a private disposal arises. Such losses can only be offset against gains from private disposals, not against wages, interest or dividends. If a remainder is left at the end of the year, the tax office carries it forward on request and offsets it against gains in later years. For that, however, the event has to appear in the tax return, even if there is nothing to pay tax on in the end.

What belongs in your own records

For every event, record the date, the quantity, the price and the equivalent value in euros, plus the exchange and the transaction number. With an automatic swap by the exchange, what counts is the moment the exchange carries it out, not the day you find out about it. Reconstructing these details later from an account that no longer carries the asset is laborious.

Spread and liquidity in a thin order book: the risk of selling under time pressure

When the largest market closes, trading spreads across smaller venues with less depth. Two effects hit you directly. The spread, meaning the gap between the best bid and the best offer, widens. And an order larger than the first level of the order book is filled in several steps at worse prices; this effect is called slippage.

In practice that means a sell order without a price limit can be filled well below the displayed price when the book is thin. A limit order protects against this effect but runs the risk of not being filled at all, and at Upbit it will be cancelled on the cut-off date anyway. Anyone holding larger balances is therefore better off spreading the sale over several days than putting everything into one order.

A second point concerns the price itself: delisting announcements often move prices well before the date. No reliable statement about where RVN is heading can be derived from that, and we are not making one here either. All that can be said is that the trading options grow fewer with every step of this wave.

Ravencoin delisting: how to proceed now

Three steps that can be worked through before October 12:

1. Take stock across all accounts. Look at which exchanges you hold RVN on and whether trading there is still open. If your balance sits on an exchange that is removing the token, decide now between selling and withdrawing. Which providers carry which tokens and what the trading costs is shown by the comparison of the best crypto exchanges.
2. Settle custody before you transfer. If you want to keep the coins, first set up a wallet that supports Ravencoin and send a test amount ahead. An overview of the common programs is in the software wallet comparison.
3. Pin down the tax position. Note the acquisition date and acquisition price of your RVN before a sale or a forced swap takes place, and check whether the one-year period has already elapsed. The tools from our overview of crypto tax tools and portfolio trackers help with this.

(As of October 2, 2026. This article is not investment advice. Prices and fee structures change; check the terms with the provider before you buy.)

Citi raised its twelve-month price target for Ethereum on October 1 from $2,240 to $3,028, an increase of a good 35 percent. Ethereum is trading at around $2,725 on Friday afternoon, so just under 11 percent is missing to that target. For you as an investor in Germany, however, more hangs on the twelve-month horizon than the price question. It ends in October 2027, and until then the purchase date alone decides whether a gain stays tax free or is charged at a good 26 percent.

Citi raises the ETH price target by 35 percent to $3,028

A price target is the estimate of a bank or a research house as to where a price should stand after a set period, usually after twelve months. It is an expectation and not a promise, and it is revised continuously.

Citi moved two targets up at once on October 1. For Bitcoin the twelve-month expectation is now $113,000, for Ether $3,028. At a good 35 percent, the increase for Ether is markedly stronger than the move the price has shown since. The old target of $2,240 sat below the market price at the time, the new one sits a good 11 percent above it. Several trade publications report this consistently, among them Coingape.

Important for context: this is the expectation of a single bank, which does not replace any examination of your own and sits alongside estimates from other houses that name considerably tighter ranges for October, of roughly $2,656 to $2,731. A forecast that reaches a year ahead carries a correspondingly large amount of uncertainty.

Citi's reasoning in detail: ETF inflows, the macro picture and market activity

The bank names three drivers. First, livelier activity across crypto markets overall. Second, a friendlier macroeconomic environment. Third, the return of inflows into exchange-traded crypto products. In that course Citi reckons with roughly $5 billion in inflows across all crypto products.

The third point is the one you can track yourself, because the inflows are published every trading day. The other side of the calculation shows up here as well: the US spot products on Ether recorded an outflow of roughly $2.8 million on September 29 and thereby ended a seven-day run of inflows in which roughly $850 million had previously come in. So the run was strong, but the thread has snapped. If you want to understand the product side behind it, the structures and the tax treatment are in our overview of crypto ETFs in Germany.

The price action itself argues against the bullish reading. Ether has been marking time just below $2,700 to $2,750 for days, while the target increase is already out in the world. Both observations stand side by side, and neither one on its own is a buy signal.

Ethereum price today: $2,725 and a 15.6 percent gain over 30 days

As of Friday afternoon, one Ether costs around $2,725. Over 24 hours that is a gain of 1.2 percent, over seven days roughly 1.1 percent, but over 30 days 15.6 percent. So the monthly gain carries practically the whole move, while the week itself was quiet.

For context on the upside: the all-time high stands at $4,946 and dates from August 24, 2025. From the current level up to there would be a good 81 percent. Citi's target of $3,028 therefore sits clearly within what the price has already seen in this cycle, and it is not an extreme assumption.

The twelve-month horizon meets December 31, 2026

This is where the forecast becomes concrete for German investors. A twelve-month target means a holding period of twelve months, and that exact duration is the line in German tax law between taxable and tax free. At the same time the Federal Ministry of Finance has a draft before it that would delete that line for future purchases. The purchase date thus becomes the real lever.

Holding period and grandfathering: the purchase date decides the tax on the twelve-month gain

Under current law, Section 23 of the Income Tax Act applies to cryptocurrencies held as private assets. If you sell coins later than one year after buying them, the gain is tax free, regardless of its size. If you sell within one year, the gain counts as a private disposal and is charged at your personal rate of income tax.

The Federal Ministry of Finance has sent a 16-page draft bill to associations and interest groups that rebuilds this system. Crypto gains would become investment income, the holding period would fall away, and the flat-rate withholding tax of 25 percent plus the solidarity surcharge would apply, together roughly 26.4 percent. Coins bought from January 1, 2027 would be affected. For holdings acquired by December 31, 2026, the draft leaves the one-year period in place.

The status is decisive: the draft has not been adopted. Comments from the associations were possible until October 6, 2026, and consideration by the federal cabinet is scheduled for October 14, 2026. The Bundestag and the Bundesrat follow after that. We wrote up the timetable and the reactions in our report on the draft bill ahead of the cabinet meeting; the planned substitute assessment where a purchase receipt is missing is set out there as well.

A worked example using the Citi target

Suppose a position worth 10,000 euros runs over twelve months exactly the 11 percent up to the Citi target. The gain then comes to 1,100 euros. With a purchase in 2026 and a sale after the one-year period has elapsed, 1,100 euros of that remain under current law and under the grandfathering rule in the draft. With a purchase from January 2027, roughly 290 euros of withholding tax and solidarity surcharge would be due under the draft. The calculation illustrates the tax rule and says nothing about whether the price takes this path.

The 1,000 euro exemption limit: the difference from an allowance in figures

For sales within the one-year period, an exemption limit of 1,000 euros per person and calendar year currently applies, raised from the previous 600 euros by the Growth Opportunities Act. An exemption limit is something different from an allowance: if your total gain from private disposals in the year comes to 999 euros, you pay nothing. If it comes to 1,001 euros, the full amount of 1,001 euros is taxable, not merely the one euro above the limit.

The limit applies to all private disposals in a year taken together, so to gains from other coins or from gold as well. Anyone sitting just below the limit who still wants to sell should keep the turn of the year in view. Under the draft, the exemption limit would in future be replaced by the saver's lump-sum allowance, which applies to all investment income together. Which software keeps the periods and gains per coin properly is shown in our comparison of crypto tax tools.

Proof of acquisition: without a receipt, 50 percent of the sale proceeds is assessed

One point in the draft looks inconspicuous and is expensive. If you cannot document the purchase price, a flat 50 percent of the sale proceeds is to be assessed as the taxable amount. On a sale of over 10,000 euros that would be a tax base of 5,000 euros, even if the actual gain was far smaller.

That hits precisely the cases which are common in practice: an exchange that has ceased operations, an old data export that can no longer be found, coins from a wallet migration five years ago. The countermeasure is unspectacular and takes effect immediately. For each purchase, save the date, the quantity, the price and the fee as a file outside the exchange, and keep the annual statements from your trading venues independently. Those records cost you minutes today and later replace a proof that nobody can reconstruct any more.

Staking and lending from 2027: investment income at 25 percent withholding tax

For Ether this part of the draft is particularly relevant, because staking is the normal case with Ethereum. Income from staking and lending is in future to count as investment income and thus fall under the flat-rate withholding tax. Today it is regularly treated as other income under Section 22, with its own exemption limit of 256 euros a year.

In practical terms that means the income becomes simpler to declare but in many cases more expensive, because the personal rate of tax on smaller amounts was often below 25 percent. From 2028 the exchanges are also to withhold the tax directly and, for that purpose, to be allowed to sell coins without separate consent. Anyone earning income today should know which platform they are doing it through and how it is reported there; our comparison of staking platforms lists the settlement routes.

The levels up and down: $2,800 as the cap, $2,656 as the floor

On the upside the first hurdle lies in the zone between $2,750 and $2,800. The price failed at this zone several times in September, which makes it a reliable resistance. Above it the way opens towards $3,000, where the round number and Citi's target of $3,028 additionally sit close together.

On the downside, the October ranges of several research houses name roughly $2,656 as the lower end. If that zone does not hold, the next notable level is the area around $2,500, which served as a springboard for the monthly move in September. What matters here is less the individual figure than the fact that the entire monthly gain of 15.6 percent arose above that zone.

Anyone wanting to build or reduce a position should know the fee side beforehand, because a narrow gap between two levels is quickly eaten up by the spread and the order fee. The terms of the trading venues authorised in Germany under MiCA are in our exchange comparison.

Glamsterdam on Sepolia on October 6: testnet fork ahead of the mainnet target in the fourth quarter

On October 6, 2026 the Ethereum Foundation activates the Glamsterdam upgrade on the Sepolia testnet. Glamsterdam combines the execution layer Amsterdam with the consensus layer Gloas and brings, among other things, a revised gas pricing. A date for the main network is not fixed; the fourth quarter of 2026 is being targeted. Among others, The Crypto Times reported on the details of the test run.

For you this is above all a diary note and not a call to act. A fork on a testnet demands nothing from holders. It only becomes relevant once a date for the main network is fixed, and even then exchanges and large wallets handle the transition as a rule without any action by users. Anyone running their own software or their own validator, by contrast, has a real date in the calendar.

Ethereum price prediction: what to take away

Citi's target increase is an argument, not a guarantee. The part you steer yourself does not lie in the price but in the date and in the records.

1. Set the purchase date deliberately. Under the draft, purchases up to December 31, 2026 keep the one-year period, purchases from January 2027 do not. If you are planning a position anyway, the turn of the year is the relevant line. Which platform authorised under MiCA suits your plan is in the crypto exchange comparison.
2. Secure the acquisition data. File the date, quantity, price and fee for each purchase as a separate file, so that the 50 percent substitute assessment from the draft never hits you. The tools that carry this automatically are in the comparison of tax tools.
3. Record staking income separately. This income already follows its own rules today and is to count as investment income from 2027. Where your income arises and how it is reported is shown by the staking comparison.

(As of October 2, 2026. This article is not investment advice. Prices and fee structures change; check the terms with the provider before you buy.)

Ethereum's zkAPI lets users prepay in USDC and query AI models through cryptographic proofs, so no single party sees both who they are and what they ask.

The USDC issuer told the European Commission that MiCA's reserve mandates and concentration caps keep the largest global stablecoins outside Europe's perimeter—siding with the ECB in calling for more flexible rules.

Tavus says 26 of 54 people on a one-minute video call thought its new Griffin model was human. The results are the company's own, and the model isn't going to retail customers yet.

Blast said operating costs now exceed the revenue its Ethereum layer-2 generates and asked users to withdraw their assets to mainnet before Oct. 26.

The AI chipmaker's stock topped its May peak on Friday, helped by a record $150 billion buyback and a weak jobs report that cooled bets on Fed rate hikes.

Galaxy Digital CEO Mike Novogratz believes Bitcoin’s drop to roughly $60,000 marked the cycle low, predicting that the cryptocurrency could finish 2026 near $100,000 despite the possibility of another short-term pullback.

Bitcoin holders gain a direct, decentralized route to Zcash shielded pools with zero intermediaries.

Jay Clayton, the former SEC chairman best known in the crypto world for launching the agency’s landmark lawsuit against Ripple.

Evernorth's upcoming XRP ETF may begin trading on Nasdaq from October 8, as all major hurdles on its path to launch have been cleared.

Ripple's RLUSD grew by $765.3 million, placing it among the fastest growers in stablecoin market valuation.

TLDR

• Banco Bradesco stock gains 0.32% to $3.15 after a major insider purchase.
• Executive Fernando Freiberger acquired 49,550 Banco Bradesco preference shares.
• The SEC filing valued Freiberger’s latest share purchase near $890,909.
• Freiberger’s direct Banco Bradesco holdings increased to about 239,000 shares.

Banco Bradesco combines banking and insurance across Brazil and other markets.
Banco Bradesco S.A. stock rose 0.32% to $3.15 on Friday after a sizable executive share purchase surfaced. Executive Officer Fernando Freiberger recently acquired 49,550 preference shares, according to an SEC Form 4 filing. The transaction adds a fresh corporate development as Banco Bradesco continues navigating its broader recovery phase.

Banco Bradesco S.A., BBDO

Freiberger Adds Nearly $900,000 in Banco Bradesco Shares

Freiberger completed the share purchase on September 18, adding significantly to his direct position in Banco Bradesco. The filing listed the transaction value at about $890,909 for 49,550 preference shares. It also reported a weighted average purchase price of $17.98 for the acquired shares.

The filing data stands apart from Banco Bradesco’s market price of $3.43 on the transaction date. The figures require distinction between the filing’s reported transaction terms and publicly quoted market pricing. Still, the transaction materially increased the number of Banco Bradesco shares held directly by Freiberger.

Following the purchase, Freiberger directly held roughly 239,000 shares in the Brazilian financial services group. That position represented about 0.002% of the company’s outstanding shares at the reported ownership level. Although small relative to total shares, the purchase increased the executive’s direct exposure to Banco Bradesco.

Banco Bradesco Stock Remains Below September Levels

Banco Bradesco stock traded at $3.15 on Friday, despite gaining 0.32% during the latest session. The stock stood at $3.52 at the September 21 market close, shortly after Freiberger’s transaction. The latest price remains below levels recorded immediately following the executive’s reported purchase.

Banco Bradesco shares had generated roughly a 5% return during the year ending September 18. The more recent retreat shows that the stock has continued facing short-term market pressure. The insider transaction now adds another data point to Banco Bradesco’s recent trading and corporate activity.

Executive purchases can attract market interest because they increase direct ownership among senior company officers. A single transaction does not establish future price direction or guarantee stronger operating performance. Banco Bradesco’s financial results and Brazilian banking conditions remain important drivers of the stock’s longer-term direction.

Banking and Insurance Operations Support Bradesco’s Scale

Banco Bradesco ranks among Brazil’s largest financial institutions and operates across banking, insurance, investments, and other financial services. The group serves retail customers, companies, and institutional clients through an extensive domestic financial network. It also maintains international operations that broaden its reach beyond the Brazilian banking market.

The company’s Banking division generates income through lending, deposits, fees, investments, and related financial products. Its Insurance division adds another significant source of revenue through premiums and associated financial services. This structure gives Banco Bradesco a broader earnings base than businesses relying primarily on conventional lending.

Banco Bradesco reported trailing revenue of BRL 341.3 billion and net income of BRL 24.3 billion. Its market capitalization stood near $37.2 billion based on the figures accompanying the recent company overview. The group also employed approximately 82,095 people across its financial services and operating network.

Brazil’s banking sector remains highly competitive, with large institutions competing across lending, digital banking, insurance, and wealth management. Banco Bradesco has relied on its extensive customer base and broad service offering to maintain its market position. At the same time, operating efficiency and credit quality remain central factors across the bank’s business model.

The latest insider purchase comes as Banco Bradesco continues building earnings across its diversified banking and insurance activities. Freiberger’s transaction increased his direct holding while BBDO stock remained near the lower end of recent September levels. Friday’s modest gain placed renewed attention on the purchase and Banco Bradesco’s broader share performance.

The post Banco Bradesco S.A. (BBDO) Stock: Insider Buying Sparks Fresh Recovery Interest appeared first on Blockonomi.

TLDR

• Western Digital stock drops 11.07% as Toshiba expands HDD production capacity.
• Toshiba plans a $380M investment to double Philippine HDD output by 2027.
• Toshiba targets 30% HDD capacity share from just over 10% currently.
• AI data centers are increasing demand for cheaper high-capacity HDD storage.
• Western Digital relies heavily on cloud customers for its growing HDD revenue.

Western Digital Corporation stock fell 11.07% to $411.33 on Friday as Toshiba outlined a major HDD production expansion. The planned investment increases competitive pressure across the fast-growing data-center storage market. Toshiba wants to strengthen its position as artificial intelligence workloads drive demand for high-capacity hard drives.

Western Digital Corporation, WDC

Toshiba Plans Major HDD Capacity Expansion

Toshiba plans to invest about 60 billion yen, or $380 million, to expand HDD production in the Philippines. The project would double production capacity by fiscal 2027 and mark Toshiba’s largest HDD investment in five years. The company also plans to produce drives offering as much as 40% more storage capacity.

Toshiba currently holds just over 10% of the HDD market when measured by storage capacity. The company aims to raise that share to 30% over the medium term. That target could increase competition for Western Digital and Seagate across large enterprise storage contracts.

Western Digital and Seagate each control more than 40% of the worldwide HDD market, according to industry estimates. Toshiba holds roughly 17% when market share is measured through unit shipments. Its planned expansion could narrow the capacity gap between the three major HDD suppliers.

Western Digital Faces Stronger Data Center Competition

Western Digital now focuses heavily on hard drives following its separation from SanDisk. That structure leaves the company more exposed to changes in enterprise storage demand and HDD pricing. Toshiba’s expansion therefore creates a direct competitive challenge within Western Digital’s core business.

Western Digital generated $3.75 billion in fiscal fourth-quarter revenue, representing 44% annual growth. Cloud customers accounted for 89% of total sales during the period. That contribution placed cloud revenue near $3.3 billion as demand for large-capacity drives remained strong.

High-capacity enterprise drives have become increasingly important as data centers expand artificial intelligence infrastructure. Operators need large storage systems for training data, system logs, backups, and inference outputs. HDD manufacturers have benefited because these workloads often require inexpensive storage rather than the fastest possible access.

AI Storage Demand Supports Long-Term HDD Growth

Artificial intelligence continues to increase the amount of information created and stored across global data centers. IDC estimates annual worldwide data generation could reach 718 zettabytes by 2030. That level would represent about four times the amount of data generated during 2024.

HDDs could store around 60% of that future data because their cost remains significantly below solid-state storage. SSDs currently cost roughly 20 times more than HDDs for comparable storage capacity. Tight memory supplies have also increased demand for conventional hard-drive storage.

Toshiba plans to pursue 65-terabyte-class drives by 2030 and eventually develop 100-terabyte-class products. The company also intends to automate inspection and clean-room processes at its expanded Philippines facility. Those changes could reduce additional staffing needs by around 40% while supporting higher production volumes.

Western Digital shares fell $51.23 during Friday trading as the Toshiba report weighed on the HDD sector. Seagate shares also declined as the market assessed potential changes in industry supply and competition. Toshiba’s capacity expansion now adds another factor to a storage market already benefiting from rising AI demand.

The post Western Digital Corporation (WDC) Stock: Slides on Toshiba’s $380M HDD Expansion appeared first on Blockonomi.

TLDR

• Flux Power rejects Solidion’s takeover bid after reviewing the proposal and value.
• The board says Solidion’s offer undervalues Flux Power and its long-term outlook.
• Flux Power plans to focus on lower costs, new growth and a path to profitability.
• The company expands OEM ties while pursuing new white-label growth opportunities.
• Solidion’s proposal remains unsupported as Flux Power reviews financing options.

Solidion Technology stock fell sharply Friday after Flux Power rejected the company’s unsolicited takeover proposal. STI dropped 11.12% to $5.47 during midday trading and moved near its intraday low. The rejection increased pressure as the market assessed Solidion’s failed attempt to acquire the energy storage company.

Solidion Technology Inc., STI

Flux Power Board Rejects Solidion Takeover Proposal

Flux Power’s board unanimously rejected Solidion Technology’s unsolicited and non-binding acquisition proposal. Solidion announced the proposed transaction on September 30, targeting the lithium-ion energy storage company. However, Flux Power determined that the offer did not provide sufficient value for its shareholders.

The board reviewed the proposal with its legal advisers before reaching its decision. Flux Power said Solidion’s proposal substantially undervalued the company and its longer-term business potential. Therefore, the board decided that accepting the proposed transaction would not serve the company’s interests.

Solidion develops battery materials and technologies for electric mobility and energy storage applications. Meanwhile, Flux Power supplies lithium-ion battery systems for industrial vehicles and other commercial equipment. The proposed deal would have combined businesses operating across different parts of the battery technology market.

Flux Power Focuses on Costs and Growth

Flux Power instead plans to continue its strategy aimed at improving efficiency and reaching profitability. The company has reduced product costs, operating expenses, and internal spending under its newer management team. It has also strengthened its supply chain and expanded relationships with original equipment manufacturers.

During fiscal 2026’s fourth quarter, Flux Power reduced operating expenses by 33% from the previous year. The company also secured certification with another major OEM, expanding its addressable electric material-handling market. Flux Power launched SkyEMS 3.0, which uses artificial intelligence for fleet energy management.

Flux Power has also started pursuing additional growth through its S series battery platform. The company plans to offer white-label solutions to new manufacturers and dealership networks. Furthermore, Flux Power entered the robotics market through cooperation with a large global technology company.

Rejected Bid Leaves Solidion Without Board Support

Flux Power’s rejection blocks Solidion from securing board support for its proposed transaction. The decision also shifts attention toward whether Solidion changes the proposal or abandons the acquisition effort. No revised offer formed part of Flux Power’s announcement.

Flux Power expects improving demand as broader economic pressures ease across its markets. Management believes lithium-ion technology can capture a larger share of industrial battery demand over time. Therefore, the company continues building capacity and commercial relationships around that expected shift.

The board is also reviewing possible financing options and strategic partnerships to support Flux Power’s operating plans. Those efforts could provide additional financial flexibility as the company pursues growth and profitability. For Solidion, the rejected proposal leaves the proposed acquisition without support from Flux Power’s board.

The post Solidion Technology (STI) Stock: Slides After Flux Power Rejects Takeover Bid  appeared first on Blockonomi.

TLDR

• FFAI stock fell 2.80% after an earlier rally reversed during Friday trading.
• Faraday Future showcased its EAI robotics platform and products at IROS 2026.
• The company used IROS to recruit robotics talent and attract development partners.
• FFAI and AIxC signed a non-binding deal valuing robotics assets near $200 million.
• Faraday Future is positioning its robotics business for a possible public listing.

Faraday Future pushed its robotics strategy into focus after showcasing its EAI platform at the IROS 2026 conference. FFAI stock traded at $1.2150, down 2.80%, after an earlier rally reversed during the session. The company used the Pittsburgh event to present robotics products, development programs, and industry solutions.

Faraday Future Intelligent Electric Inc., FFAI

Faraday Future Expands Robotics Presence at IROS

Faraday Future attended IROS 2026 in Pittsburgh from September 28 through September 30. The conference brings together researchers, universities, technology companies, and developers working across global robotics markets. During the event, Faraday Future presented its developing EAI Robot World 2.0 platform.

The company displayed several robot products and demonstrated their operation for conference participants. Its All-New Futurist model showed mobile functions and flexible task execution across different practical situations. Faraday Future also discussed possible applications with developers, researchers, universities, and other industry participants.

Meanwhile, the company introduced its Built in USA Acceleration Program during the event. The initiative supports Faraday Future’s broader plan to expand its American robotics development operations. The company also used IROS to recruit specialists across robotics, data, research, and industry applications.

EAI Ecosystem Targets Developers and Industry Partners

Faraday Future presented its EAI Brain and Developer Platform as another part of its robotics strategy. Developers discussed capability development, practical applications, and opportunities to build products within the platform. The company also continued seeking internal development partners to support future robotics projects.

Its EAI Data Factory formed another part of the company’s conference activities. Faraday Future discussed real-world data collection and cooperation with potential data partners. The company plans to use broader datasets to improve robot functions across different operating environments.

Faraday Future also promoted four Industry Productivity Solutions designed for several commercial and research applications. Its Research Solution attracted discussions with research institutions and universities attending the Pittsburgh conference. Those talks covered robotics research, educational uses, teaching programs, and possible future cooperation.

AIxC Deal Supports Broader Robotics Strategy

The IROS appearance followed another major development involving Faraday Future’s robotics business. FFAI and AIxC recently signed a non-binding term sheet covering a proposed business combination. The agreement values Faraday Future’s robotics assets and related operations at approximately $200 million.

Under the proposal, Faraday Future would combine those robotics operations with AIxC. AIxC has also changed its name to FF EAI Robotics Ecosystem Inc., or FFR. The companies intend to position the combined robotics business toward a separate public listing.

Faraday Future continues expanding beyond its electric vehicle operations through robotics and embodied intelligence projects. Its IROS participation supported product development, recruitment, data partnerships, and possible commercial applications. However, FFAI stock ended the latest move lower after giving back its earlier intraday gains.

The post Faraday Future (FFAI) Stock: EAI Robotics Push Takes Center Stage at IROS 2026 appeared first on Blockonomi.

TLDR

• Palantir partners with Armada to expand sovereign AI infrastructure deployments.
• Armada is named Palantir’s inaugural Certified Modular Data Center Partner.
• Joint infrastructure keeps models, data, and hardware under customer control.
• Modular data centers support faster deployment across secure operating sites.
• Armada’s Sovereign AI Grid links distributed sites for stronger system resilience.

Palantir Technologies partnered with Armada to deliver sovereign artificial intelligence infrastructure for governments and enterprises. Palantir Technologies (PLTR) traded at $189.93, down 0.06%, after retreating from an intraday peak near $194.50. The companies will combine Palantir software with modular data centers manufactured in the United States and allied nations.

Palantir Technologies Inc., PLTR

Palantir Names Armada Modular Data Center Partner

Palantir named Armada its inaugural Certified Modular Data Center Partner under the new agreement. The partnership combines Palantir’s Sovereign AI Operating System with Armada’s modular infrastructure and distributed network. Together, the companies aim to give customers direct ownership over computing systems, models, and stored data.

The offering targets organizations seeking infrastructure that operates within their own security boundaries. Therefore, customers can deploy open-weight models without depending on computing resources controlled by outside cloud providers. Armada also supports deployments at locations where existing power capacity can support new computing infrastructure.

Palantir will validate its operating system on Armada’s Galleon modular data centers. Its software stack includes AIP, Ontology, Foundry, and Apollo across the joint infrastructure. Meanwhile, Armada will provide the hardware, management software, and connectivity required across distributed deployments.

Partnership Extends Palantir Sovereign AI Architecture

The agreement expands Palantir’s existing Sovereign AI Operating System reference architecture developed with NVIDIA. That framework supports computing infrastructure that customers physically own and directly operate. The Armada partnership now brings that structure into modular data centers designed for faster deployment.

Customers can run open models and adapt them using proprietary company or government data. They can also serve those models through Palantir platforms without moving information outside controlled infrastructure. As a result, organizations can maintain direct authority over computing hardware and model operations.

Armada manufactures the modular data centers in the United States and selected allied nations. The companies designed the system for traditional sites, remote locations, and environments without standard network connections. The modular approach also reduces dependence on lengthy construction schedules for conventional data centers.

Armada Infrastructure Supports Distributed AI Deployments

Armada’s software platform manages open-source models for model tuning and inference across customer-owned infrastructure. The platform can function without Armada’s cloud services and supports fully air-gapped systems when required. It also monitors computing equipment, power systems, and cooling conditions across each deployment.

The Sovereign AI Grid connects individual locations into a broader distributed computing system. Organizations can spread important workloads across several sites instead of depending on one facility. This structure provides additional operational resilience when individual locations face outages or infrastructure problems.

Demand for locally controlled computing infrastructure has increased as organizations review cloud dependence and supply-chain exposure. Governments also seek stronger control over sensitive data, computing resources, and model deployment locations. Palantir and Armada now plan to address those requirements through an integrated customer-owned infrastructure stack.

The post Palantir Technologies (PLTR) Stock: Partners With Armada on Sovereign AI Infrastructure appeared first on Blockonomi.

The Ethereum Foundation and the Open Anonymity Project have developed zkAPI, a zero-knowledge protocol that lets users pay for AI services and other paid APIs without linking their identity to their requests.

Live on Ethereum mainnet, the system separates payment records from the prompts and queries sent to service providers, although it does not hide all network activity or the content users submit.

How zkAPI Separates Payments From API Requests

The Open Anonymity Project announced its collaboration with the Ethereum Foundation in a September 25, 2026, post introducing its public AI chat services, OA-chat. The foundation also promoted zkAPI on October 2, describing it as “a means for private AI.”

The protocol was originally proposed by Ethereum researcher Davide Crapis and co-founder Vitalik Buterin, while the Open Anonymity team built the client, server, smart contracts, and browser integration.

Users first deposit ETH into the ZkAPIVault contract on Ethereum mainnet. The deposit is then turned into a commitment via the use of a Merkle tree, which is a cryptographic data structure, while the spending balance is kept as a private note on the user’s device.

At the start of a session, the browser generates a zero-knowledge proof that proves the user has sufficient funds to pay and has not yet spent the money. Payment verification is done without knowing the specific deposit being used for the payment and the user’s identity.

Once the verification is complete, an API key with a spending cap is issued, with the prompt going straight from the browser to the AI provider. When the API key expires, you get a receipt of usage. The system then deducts that amount from the private balance, with a one-way serial number called a nullifier preventing the same funds from being spent twice.

The protocol uses Groth16 proofs, BN254 cryptography, and Poseidon hashing to make the payment system both private and verifiable, and users can withdraw their remaining funds directly through the vault contract, even if the zkAPI servers stop operating.

What zkAPI Does Not Hide

The protocol hides the payment link, not the content. A provider still sees prompts and network details such as an IP address, and can try to match sessions by timing. The developers suggest Tor with a fresh circuit per session, since reused conversation history, writing style or personal details can let a provider relink individual sessions.

This project sits close to Buterin’s recent interests. Recall that late last month he shared a longer-term Ethereum roadmap that placed greater emphasis on cryptographic proofs and verification. zkAPI applies that general approach to everyday payments, allowing a service to verify spending without receiving a conventional account identity.

The post Ethereum Foundation and OA Launch zkAPI for Private AI Payment appeared first on CryptoPotato.

It was just several hours ago that the primary cryptocurrency topped $87,000 for the first time in about ten days after the softer-than-expected US jobs report came out.

Although that should be considered bullish for risk-on assets, especially when it’s aligned with the positive data from the PCE report earlier this week, the subsequent effects on BTC’s price were dramatically different.

After all, a weaker labor market combined with lower inflation than expected should, at least in theory, reduce some of the pressure on the US Federal Reserve for more immediate hikes. Perhaps that’s why BTC reacted to today’s jobs report with an instant uptick from $86,000 to $87,200.

That wasn’t the surprising part of today’s developments. What came next is somewhat unexpected. Bitcoin was rejected at that multi-day peak and tumbled to $85,500 first, before the bears took complete control and drove it to under $84,000 minutes ago. This meant that BTC had crashed by well over $3,000 in hours after the release of the US jobs report.

The altcoins have followed suit. ETH tapped $2,750 earlier today but now sits $100 lower. XRP was rejected again at $1.55 and now sits at $1.45. ZEC, DOGE, LINK, XMR, and ADA have marked even more substantial losses of up to 7% daily.

The total crypto market cap has shed almost $80 billion since the peak seen earlier today, and it’s down to $2.880 trillion on CMC.

Data from CoinGlass shows that the overall wrecked positions in the past 24 hours have jumped past $570 million. $186 million came in the past hour alone. Naturally, longs dominate, with 99% of the liquidated positions in the past hour coming from such positions.

The single-highest wrecked order took place on Binance and was worth almost $12 million.

The post Bitcoin Crashes Below $84K as Crypto Liquidations Near $600M appeared first on CryptoPotato.

Regulatory efforts continue following the CLARITY Act’s failure to advance. The US Securities and Exchange Commission has now proposed new rules to create a clearer framework for the custody of crypto assets by registered investment advisers and regulated funds.

The SEC said the changes would address how such assets are held under federal securities laws.

Addressing Crypto Custody Uncertainty

The proposal essentially aims to remove some regulatory barriers that currently affect advisers providing crypto-related investment advice. Under it, digital assets could be held through state trust companies in certain circumstances. The rules would also allow crypto assets to be held through self-custody arrangements under specific conditions.

The SEC said the proposal gives regulated funds more options for offering investment strategies linked to crypto assets. It also updates certain requirements related to financial statement audits for registered investment advisers and broker-dealer custodial services for regulated funds.

SEC Chairman Paul S. Atkins explained that existing custody rules under the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 and the Investment Company Act of 1940 were designed for traditional assets and largely predate the internet. He added that these rules do not adequately address the custody needs of newer crypto assets. Atkins further pointed out that custodial services for crypto assets can take months to become available after an asset is launched, which ends up creating challenges for investment advisers and regulated funds.

The SEC’s proposal, therefore, aims to address this gap through a framework while modernizing existing requirements to reflect current industry practices and support crypto innovation in the US. While highlighting that the latest move is not an “isolated initiative,” Atkins went on to add,

“It is another element of a comprehensive crypto asset regulatory approach. It began with ending regulation by enforcement. In December 2025, Commission staff issued a no-action letter to the Depository Trust Company regarding DTC’s voluntary securities tokenization pilot program. And in January 2026, Commission staff issued a statement on tokenized securities that provided a clear tokenization taxonomy for the marketplace.”

The proposed changes are not final. The SEC is seeking public comments on the proposal before making a final decision. The public comment period will remain open for 60 days.

Regulatory Focus Shifts

The CLARITY Act’s failure to advance has shifted attention toward what US regulators can do without waiting for Congress. Coinbase co-founder Brian Armstrong previously argued that the SEC and CFTC already have enough authority to establish clearer rules for crypto, and that the industry cannot afford to wait for legislation.

Similar views were shared by Bitwise CIO Matt Hougan as well, who said that these developments do not replace the CLARITY Act or settle every outstanding regulatory question, but they show how the agencies could help shape crypto rules through their existing authority while broader legislation remains stalled.

The post SEC Proposes Rules That Could Change How Funds Custody Crypto appeared first on CryptoPotato.

September was highly beneficial for numerous cryptocurrencies, yet Pi Network’s PI did not follow the overall green wave and posted a 4% monthly decline.

Pioneers and investors have now shifted their focus to October, expecting a better period for the token. Here’s what three of the most popular AI-powered chatbots think will happen to the price in the next four weeks.

Don’t Expect a Bull Run?

ChatGPT said its best-case expectation is that PI will remain volatile but largely range-bound in October, probably hovering between $0.08 and $0.11. OpenAI’s platform noted that the asset currently trades near $0.09 with weak momentum and relatively low trading volume compared with its roughly $1 billion market cap.

The chatbot suggested that the first important resistance sits around $0.095-$0.10, predicting that a convincing breakout above (supported by stronger volume) could open the door toward $0.12-$0.14.

It highlighted one potential catalyst that could support an uptrend. Namely, this is Protocol 28, which the Core Team is expected to deploy by October 13. The project has made serious progress on that front and recently confirmed the successful completion of the Protocol 27 upgrade on the Mainnet. Speaking of version 28, the team said:

“Protocol 28 improves how the network handles delays in transaction data and enables developers to upgrade groups of smart contracts at once and change stored data more safely as their applications develop.”

In contrast to its bullish thesis, ChatGPT said PI’s biggest problem remains supply. It noted that a huge amount of tokens are yet to be unlocked, which could increase selling pressure and may result in a further price drop.

Google’s Gemini forecasted that the asset is most likely to trade between $0.09 and $0.13 throughout October. It said the price may push even higher, but only if Pi Network’s team resolves the ongoing KYC verification issues and other user-related concerns.

A Slide Remains Highly Possible

Perplexity was more bearish than the chatbots mentioned above, saying that PI’s response to previous upgrades and its persistent downtrend make a further plunge below $0.07 a “very real possibility.”

At the same time, it labeled $0.10 as the key confirmation level, speculating that a move above could extend to $0.11-$0.12. “The $0.10 mark matters because analysts identify it as both a psychological barrier and technical resistance; a sustained move through it would be the first meaningful sign that the downtrend is changing,” it added.

Unfortunately for the bulls, $0.12 is the highest target Perplexity set for the next four weeks.

The post Pi Network (PI) in October: 3 AIs Speculate What Will Happen With the Price appeared first on CryptoPotato.

NEAR Intents GM Alex Shevchenko has identified the attacker behind a $3.8 million exploit and given the hacker 48 hours to return the stolen funds, after a bug in its Omni deposit and withdrawal infrastructure was exploited.

The platform has restored most services and plans to compensate affected users in full while investigators trace the assets.

NEAR Intents Identifies Bug Behind $3.8M Exploit

Shevchenko’s post on X directly addressed the attacker: “We have identified you, sir.” He then asked the person responsible to return the funds to Bitcoin, BNB/Ethereum, and Solana addresses.

“You know better than most how responsible disclosure works — this is the last window to use it,” he told the hacker. “After 48 hours, that window closes.”

According to NEAR Intents’ own account, services were halted after a security incident was detected. A bug in how the Omni deposit and withdrawal infrastructure interacts with the NEAR Intents smart contract caused the loss, which a preliminary assessment put at approximately $3.8 million.

Illia Polosukhin, a NEAR co-founder, added that the exploit was isolated to USDT on BSC, and that SHIELD, the platform’s AI security layer, flagged outlier behavior and triggered the pause. The contract vulnerability was patched within an hour of detection, and NEAR Intents and near.com are back online.

Deposits and withdrawals on BSC, Polygon, TON, Optimism, Avalanche, Stellar, Monad, LayerX, Adi, Scroll and Plasma remained unavailable for about 12 additional hours while Omni fixes were completed.

Furthermore, the NEAR Protocol confirmed that it was fully operational, and that neither it nor its native NEAR token had been involved in the Intents incident. Data from CoinGecko at the time of writing shows the cryptocurrency down more than 5% in 24 hours, although other timeframes were all green, including a 166% jump in the last 30 days.

Affected users will be compensated in full, while the incident has been reported to law enforcement. NEAR Intents is also working with other security and blockchain analytics partners to trace the stolen assets.

AI-Equipped Attackers

Polosukhin argued that crypto is entering a period of more sophisticated attacks, naming Bitget, MetaMask and Lido as recent targets of criminals using AI systems.

“As a space, we need to be far more vigilant and raise the bar on both onchain contract standards and offchain monitoring and proactive prevention,” he wrote.

MetaMask confirmed an infrastructure security incident on October 1, after which it began exiting affected validators, while saying it saw no immediate threat to user wallets. Lido separately confirmed the compromise and started taking precautionary steps as well to protect client assets linked to its Ethereum validators.

Meanwhile, Bitget is reeling from a $387 million hack that happened on September 24, with the attacker laundering the funds via CoW Protocol and Chainflip.

The AI researcher now wants the industry to “raise the bar on both onchain contract standards and offchain monitoring.” His own firm plans to add formal verification to its contract release process and is inviting new SHIELD partners to share information faster. He also pointed out that the platform now processes over $4 billion a month, and that this was its first major exploit.

The post NEAR Intents Identifies $3.8M Hacker, Gives Them 48 Hours to Return Funds appeared first on CryptoPotato.