Warren's opposition highlights the tension between ethical governance and economic interests, potentially influencing future crypto regulations.

The post Elizabeth Warren opposes GOP’s crypto ethics deal endorsed by White House appeared first on Crypto Briefing.

Saudi Arabia's pipeline shutdown heightens global oil supply risks, amplifying geopolitical tensions and market volatility amid Hormuz reliance.

The post Saudi Arabia reroutes oil through Strait of Hormuz after drone attacks shut down key pipeline appeared first on Crypto Briefing.

Aerodrome's dominance in onchain FX trading highlights the growing influence of decentralized exchanges and innovative liquidity models.

The post Aerodrome surpasses 700 DEXs in spot FX volume in first half of 2026 appeared first on Crypto Briefing.

Rising Middle East tensions could lead to sustained high oil prices, impacting global markets and economic stability if conflicts persist.

The post Oil prices rise as Middle East tensions escalate after Gulf-Iran talks canceled appeared first on Crypto Briefing.

Fernandez-Pardo's rapid integration into Newcastle's starting lineup highlights the club's urgent need for impactful offensive solutions this season.

The post Fernandez-Pardo makes first Newcastle start against Leeds appeared first on Crypto Briefing.

Bitcoin Magazine

Morgan Stanley’s Bitcoin Investment Recommendation Explained w/ Amy Oldenburg

Morgan Stanley became the first global systemically important bank to launch a spot Bitcoin ETP and it crossed $600 million within months of its April debut. Amy Oldenburg, Head of Digital Assets at Morgan Stanley, joins host Spencer Nichols to explain how that product came together, why it was priced below competing spot Bitcoin ETFs, and what still stands between clients and their first Bitcoin allocation. She also details the firm’s 0–4% allocation framework across three investor risk profiles and why Morgan Stanley has no equivalent gold allocation. Plus: whether Bitcoin could land on Morgan Stanley’s own balance sheet.

Host: Spencer Nichols — Bitcoin Magazine
Amy Oldenburg, Head of Digital Assets at Morgan Stanley

Chapters:
0:00 — Morgan Stanley on Putting Bitcoin on Its Own Balance Sheet
1:14 — 26 Years at Morgan Stanley: Emerging Markets to Head of Digital Assets
2:10 — First Major Bank to Launch a Spot Bitcoin ETP Tops $600 Million
3:14 — Education, E-Trade Spot Crypto, and What Clients Actually Own
4:49 — Why Morgan Stanley Priced Its Bitcoin ETP So Low
6:40 — The 0–4% Allocation Framework and the Digital Gold Thesis
8:52 — Correlation Regimes: Digital Gold, High Beta Tech, and Volatility
11:41 — Gold 2.0, Market Cap, and Bitcoin on the Balance Sheet
14:37 — Institutional Market Structure, Quantum Risk, and Client Trust
18:02 — Global Off-Ramps, Tokenization, Stablecoins, and Morgan Stanley Research

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 Morgan Stanley’s Bitcoin Investment Recommendation Explained w/ Amy Oldenburg first appeared on Bitcoin Magazine and is written by Mark Mason.

Bitcoin Magazine

Strive Snaps Up More Bitcoin, Brings Holdings to 25,000 BTC 

Nasdaq-listed bitcoin treasury Strive now holds 25,000 BTC — worth nearly $2 billion — following its latest buy. 

The company said Monday that it bought 469 bitcoins at an average price of approximately $77,954. It is still the fifth biggest publicly traded bitcoin company, according to Bitcoin Treasuries. Strategy, Twenty One, Metaplanet, and MARA all hold more bitcoin than Strive. 

CEO Matt Cole wrote on X Monday that 100% of the capital raised during the week came through sales of SATA, Strive’s perpetual preferred stock.

Dallas, Texas-based Strive’s stock (ASST) was trading more than 6% higher following the news. 

Strive debuted as an official bitcoin treasury last year. The company was founded by former Ohio gubernatorial candidate and tech entrepreneur Vivek Ramaswamy. 

In January 2026, it completed the acquisition of Semler Scientific in an all-stock deal — the first instance of a publicly traded Bitcoin treasury company acquiring another such company. 

Like with other digital asset treasuries, the idea is that investors can get amplified returns from Strive’s stock. The company buys bitcoin with equity, and maintains a debt-free balance sheet: no bonds, no credit lines, and no leveraged positions that could trigger forced liquidation in a downturn. 

The company is different to other major bitcoin treasuries because it has no debt. 

Other major bitcoin treasuries — like the biggest, Strategy — have used leverage to buy the leading cryptocurrency. 

Strive CEO Matt Cole has described the company as debt-free with zero margin requirements and zero encumbered bitcoin.

This post Strive Snaps Up More Bitcoin, Brings Holdings to 25,000 BTC  first appeared on Bitcoin Magazine and is written by Mathew Di Salvo.

Bitcoin Magazine

Strategy Buys Back Stock, Skips Bitcoin Purchase 

Bitcoin treasury Strategy held off buying bitcoin again last week. The Nasdaq-listed company said it instead bought $139 million of its preferred stock STRC. 

A Monday filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission on Monday showed that the company repurchased 1.42 million STRC preferred shares for around $139.3 million between September 8 and September 13. 

The company still owns 845,050 bitcoins worth $66.2 billion at today’s prices, and has two cash balances: USD Reserve and USD Cash, holding $5.1 billion and $1.3 billion, respectively. 

Strategy, which is the largest corporate holder of bitcoin, this year switched from predictably buying the biggest cryptocurrency this week to buying back its stock and building a cash reserve. 

On some occasions, the company even sold small bits of its BTC stash — despite founder and chairman Michael Saylor famously preaching to “never sell your bitcoin.” 

After a 10-week hiatus, the company started buying bitcoin again in the final week of August, scooping up nearly $370 million in the leading cryptocurrency. 

It hasn’t bought any bitcoin since. 

Its Nasdaq-listed shares (MSTR) were 3% trading higher on Monday. The stock has lost over 75% of its value since notching a record in November 2024 — one month before bitcoin passed the once mythical and long-awaited $100,000 mark. 

Strategy — formerly MicroStrategy — is an enterprise software company that pivoted to buying and holding bitcoin in 2020. 

It first bought the cryptocurrency to protect its shareholders from inflation but has since aggressively bought the asset and pivoted to being a bitcoin treasury.

Strategy has defended its recent bitcoin sales, with CEO Phong Le saying that the company now has a “bullet-proof balance sheet.” 

In the company’s quarterly earnings in July, Strategy posted a $8.22 billion loss. But Le reassured investors that the firm’s current paper loss was nothing to worry about.

“We’re the J.P. Morgan of the crypto economy, so whether we sell 1,000 bitcoin out of 840,000 to me is irrelevant to the conversation,” Le said in a subsequent interview. 

This post Strategy Buys Back Stock, Skips Bitcoin Purchase  first appeared on Bitcoin Magazine and is written by Mathew Di Salvo.

Bitcoin Magazine

A Bitcoin Berkshire Model: Orange Juice

The corporate Bitcoin landscape is currently dominated by a single, aggressive playbook. Companies following this model rely almost exclusively on capital markets and financial engineering—issuing debt, preferred stock, and common equity at premiums—to turn their corporate balance sheets into amplified, high-beta proxies for Bitcoin.

Now, Orange Juice, a firm launched by partners at ego death capital, is introducing a brand-new corporate strategy to the mix. Rather than acting as a financial engineering vehicle reliant on capital markets, Orange Juice plans to acquire profitable American businesses, hold them indefinitely, improve their operations, and direct part of their excess cash flow into a Bitcoin treasury. While the dominant model turns investor demand for credit securities into Bitcoin, Orange Juice wants to turn sustainable operating earnings into Bitcoin.

To understand the value of this new approach, you have to understand its primary departure from the prevailing meta: Orange Juice is deliberately not “max long” Bitcoin. By anchoring its balance sheet to traditional operating earnings, the company trades away explosive bull market leverage in exchange for a decorrelated return stream that acts as a vital ballast during bear market winters.

Bear market ballasts and countercyclical purchasing power 

The core argument for the Orange Juice model becomes clearest during a Bitcoin bear market. Bitcoin companies that are driven by capital markets flows work best when investors are eager to finance them. Strong Bitcoin prices support higher equity valuations, which makes share issuance highly accretive, while healthy credit markets lower the cost of borrowing. However, during market downturns, this dynamic reverses. Equity premiums compress, credit becomes expensive, and capital markets become far less receptive. As a result, pure-play Bitcoin balance sheets lose their purchasing power precisely when Bitcoin is trading at its cheapest valuations.

Orange Juice, in theory, would be able to use its non-Bitcoin enterprise value as a buffer against these “very awful months”. A durable operating business like a pest control firm, a managed IT provider, or an industrial maintenance contractor can all continue to collect customer payments and generate free cash flow even during a 50% Bitcoin drawdown. This steady operational cash provides the company with unencumbered, countercyclical purchasing power when external capital markets are closed. At its core, the non-Bitcoin business serves as a diversification venue, providing a decorrelated return stream that smooths out enterprise volatility and protects the firm from a fearful capital market. It is also applicable to leveraged financing, because free cash flow can be used to pay preferred dividends or debt coupons, which can eliminate the need to issue equity at bear market lows. 

The trade-off: cost of capital and the Bitcoin hurdle rate

Because Orange Juice isn’t purely a Bitcoin balance sheet company, its downside protection comes with a clear structural trade-off.

Every acquisition Orange Juice makes introduces a cost of capital and an implicit hurdle rate: Bitcoin itself. If Orange Juice has $20 million in capital, it must decide whether to deploy that $20 million directly into Bitcoin on day one or use it to acquire a business generating (as an illustration) $3 million in annual cash flow. Even if the business yields an attractive 15% initial cash return, Orange Juice still has to answer whether that business will ultimately create more Bitcoin-denominated value than simply holding the underlying asset.

In a sustained bull market, this model obviously creates an inherent drag. A business returning 12 – 15% annually can prove to be a poor capital allocation decision if spot Bitcoin compounds much faster, and Orange Juice’s equity will naturally lag the explosive returns of amplified pure-play amplified “digital equity.” Orange Juice is effectively betting that the ability to aggressively buy the dip during bear markets (or at least service liabilities without selling Bitcoin or issuing equity) using operational cash will ultimately compensate for the opportunity cost of not putting every dollar directly into Bitcoin.

Execution risk and acquisition quality

For this countercyclical engine to work, the model depends heavily on acquisition quality and operational execution.

Unlike strategies that focus primarily on marketing to the capital markets and on financial engineering, Orange Juice’s success would depend on management’s ability to execute M&A and manage operating businesses. The ideal subsidiary must generate recurring revenue, require minimal maintenance capital expenditures, carry modest leverage, and remain resilient through broader economic recessions.

Weak or highly cyclical businesses damage the core thesis by losing its cash flow at the exact moment Bitcoin and the capital markets come under pressure. If an acquired subsidiary fails during a downturn, it could turn into an operational drain. Therefore, management must excel at both acquiring businesses at attractive free-cash-flow multiples and running them efficiently enough to maintain a predictable stream of excess cash for Bitcoin accumulation.

The bottom line 

Corporate Bitcoin strategy no longer has to be a game dominated by “digital securities.” While pure-play Bitcoin companies operate as high-beta vehicles designed to maximize upside during favorable market regimes, the Orange Juice model offers an alternative framework designed for resiliency through decorrelation.

By accepting lower beta and sacrificing maximum leverage in a bull market, Orange Juice, in theory, creates an operational foundation for unconditional purchasing power through every stage of the market cycle. 

Disclaimer: This content was prepared on behalf of Bitcoin For Corporations for informational purposes only. It reflects the author’s own analysis and opinion and should not be relied upon as investment advice. Nothing in this article constitutes an offer, invitation, or solicitation to purchase, sell, or subscribe for any security or financial product.

This post A Bitcoin Berkshire Model: Orange Juice first appeared on Bitcoin Magazine and is written by Allard Peng.

Bitcoin Magazine

Bitcoin’s ‘Unusual Mix’: Bearish Inflation Print, Bullish Buyback Failure

Bitcoin’s path higher just got harder in the short term, but the setup further out may be improving, according to a new report. 

In a Friday note, European asset manager CoinShares’ Head of Research, James Butterfill, said firmer-than-expected core inflation raises the odds of tighter Fed policy and could cap bitcoin below $80,000 for now. 

But the longer-term case, he argued, rests on the U.S. Treasury’s bond buyback programme failing to bring down long-end yields — a failure that could ultimately feed the debasement narrative that has supported both bitcoin and gold.

“The result is therefore a somewhat unusual policy mix for Bitcoin,” the report read. “Today’s CPI data is negative at the margin, increasing the probability of tighter monetary policy and potentially limiting the immediate upside. 

“But the apparent failure of the Treasury’s current buying programme increases the likelihood of much more substantial intervention further ahead.”

It continued: “If that happens, it could become one of the more powerful medium-term catalysts for Bitcoin.”

Data on Friday revealed that the consumer price index, excluding food and energy, climbed 0.3% in August from a month earlier — higher than expected. 

According to CME’s FedWatch tool, traders think there is a 85% chance interest rates will be higher after the Federal Reserve meets next week. Bitcoin has typically performed well in a low interest rate environment. 

But the U.S. Treasury’s expanded bond buyback programme has so far failed to materially suppress long-term yields. 

If yields stay stubbornly high, Butterfill said, pressure will build on Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent to escalate to a much larger, “bazooka-style” buying programme aimed at forcing borrowing costs down.

Bitcoin in August had one of its best runs in years after Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent announced the department would double the size of its long-dated bond buybacks. 

The announcement and subsequent price surge has led some to say the much talked-about debasement trade is back. The so-called debasement trade is when investors buy an asset as a way to hedge against a currency losing value. 

Bitcoin and gold have both benefited as part of the trade as the dollar weakens. 

This post Bitcoin’s ‘Unusual Mix’: Bearish Inflation Print, Bullish Buyback Failure first appeared on Bitcoin Magazine and is written by Mathew Di Salvo.

Aave's USDT0 stablecoin lending pool on the Monad network displayed a 6.10% annual percentage rate over the weekend, but only about $4.4 million of its $55.9 million supplied balance was unborrowed. For a lender weighing a large withdrawal, that smaller number mattered more than the headline yield.

Aavescan snapshot showed $51.5 million borrowed from the reserve. It followed a Sept. 11 analysis in which Aave service provider TokenLogic documented an earlier sharp retreat in USDT0 deposits. Together, the figures show how an attractive lending rate can coexist with limited room for a cash exit.

That is a consequence of how lending pools work. When suppliers remove tokens while loans remain outstanding, a greater share of the remaining pool is borrowed. Aave's interest-rate curve can then raise returns for the lenders who stay. The rising rate may reflect a shrinking cash buffer even without an increase in borrowing.

The withdrawal balance behind the yield

Aave's withdrawal rules limit suppliers to underlying tokens that are available and have not been borrowed. Cash access here means receiving those stablecoin tokens, rather than redeeming them for fiat currency. A depositor using the position as collateral may face another constraint: withdrawing must leave enough collateral to support the depositor's own loans.

Subtracting the rounded USDT0 supplied and borrowed balances gives approximately $4.4 million, or 7.9% of supply, left unborrowed. That is a pool-wide estimate from a dashboard capture, not an exact transaction quote or cash reserved for one account.

A hypothetical $5 million direct withdrawal would exceed that buffer if no fresh deposits or repayments arrived first. This does not establish that anyone attempted such a withdrawal or that a transaction failed. It shows why the size of an intended exit belongs beside the yield when assessing a lending position.

The same snapshot also shows why the finding should stay specific to the reserve:

Source: Aavescan, Sept. 12, 2026, 21:09 UTC. Estimated unborrowed balances are calculated from rounded supplied and borrowed figures.

USDC offered the same displayed APR with a larger absolute cash buffer, although both reserves had more than nine-tenths of their supplied funds lent out. The difference matters for a withdrawal of a fixed dollar amount. USDC's supplied balance also exceeded the $163.7 million in TokenLogic's earlier reserve table. That larger later balance tempers any suggestion of a uniform retreat across Monad's stablecoin markets, although the observations do not establish what caused the additional supply.

In its Sept. 11 report, TokenLogic said USDT0 supply peaked at $167.3 million on Aug. 15 and fell to about $57.2 million over the following roughly three weeks, while debt stayed between $53 million and $62 million. Those are its historical observations, separate from the Sept. 12 snapshot.

Its hourly analysis covered Aug. 8 through Sept. 7. USDT0 spent 261 of 721 hours above its 92% optimal utilization threshold, including 13 hours above 98%. The peak hourly borrowing APR was 27.21%. That was an annualized borrower rate at a point in time, not a lender's realized annual return.

Aave's interest-rate model uses one slope below the optimal utilization point and another above it. As the reserve approaches full utilization, the curve makes borrowing more expensive. The higher rate is intended to encourage borrowers to repay and suppliers to add funds, either of which can restore withdrawal liquidity.

The distinction is consequential. New borrowing can support a higher rate, but withdrawing deposits can also push the rate up by reducing the cash supporting existing loans. A yield increase alone cannot distinguish those paths.

LlamaRisk's later Sept. 11 review recommended raising the USDC and USDT0 Slope1 parameter from 4.40% to 5.00%, a 60-basis-point increase. It kept their 92% optimal utilization point, base rate and second slope unchanged.

A higher curve can improve what suppliers earn, but changing a rate parameter does not itself put cash into the reserve. Execution of the recommendation was unconfirmed at reporting time. TokenLogic's roughly 6.28% projected displayed rate also depended on rebasing incentive campaigns after execution; the Sept. 12 observed total was 6.10% APR.

TokenLogic discloses that it is an active Aave DAO service provider. LlamaRisk says it independently prepared its review and receives part of its funding from the Aave DAO.

Interest and incentives buy different things

The 6.10% headline contained two components. In the Sept. 12 snapshot, USDT0's displayed components were 4.34% protocol APR plus an estimated 1.76% WMON reward APR. USDC's total consisted of 4.07% protocol APR and 2.03% in WMON rewards.

The protocol component comes from lending activity; the reward component comes from an incentive campaign. TokenLogic proposed shifting more compensation toward interest paid by borrowers. It also described an alternative in which the earlier 5.70% target stayed in place while subsidy spending fell. A change in the mix therefore need not translate into the same change in the displayed total.

Morpho offers a useful comparison of that mix. In TokenLogic's Sept. 7 comparison, the Ethereum PayPal USD Main V2 vault showed 2.62% organic APY and 2.96% incentive APR. Sentora RLUSD Main V2 showed 2.53% organic APY and 3.57% incentive APR. The incentive component was material in both examples.

Those historical figures describe different stablecoins and should not be treated as Sept. 12 alternatives to the Monad quote. APR annualizes a rate without compounding; APY includes compounding assumptions. Neither a mixed display nor a past average promises the return a depositor will ultimately receive.

Morpho's reward documentation separates native vault APY, direct and forwarded reward APR, and fees. Its V2 architecture can route assets into Morpho lending markets and other approved yield sources, so native vault yield should not automatically be equated with borrower interest.

Averages introduce another complication. Coin Metrics' Sept. 1 study reported a 4.79% median yield and approximately 5.31% average among Morpho USDC vaults over its preceding 90-day window. Higher-yield outliers lifted the average. That describes a historical distribution across vaults, not a rate available to every USDC lender.

Comparing returns therefore requires the same asset, observation window and treatment of rewards and fees, as well as the underlying exposure. These historical examples explain the components of yield; they do not rank today's withdrawal capacity.

Leaving a vault can still leave money lent out

Aave pools liquidity by asset within a market. Morpho's variable-rate markets pair individual collateral and borrowing assets, while vault curators choose where to allocate deposits. That additional allocation layer makes the withdrawal route part of the comparison.

Morpho's liquidity documentation describes a V2 configuration that draws ordinary withdrawals first from idle tokens and then from one selected market. If idle assets are empty and that market is fully utilized, the withdrawal can revert. This is a documented condition, not evidence that a named vault currently faces it.

There are countermeasures. An allocator can switch the selected market or reallocate funds, and a permissionless mechanism can move available liquidity from an adapter into the vault. These routes depend on the cash available and the vault's configuration.

The in-kind redemption route addresses a different problem. It can replace vault shares with a direct position in an underlying protocol, even when that position remains illiquid. The holder has left the vault but may still lack spendable stablecoins. Penalties and access controls can also affect the route.

For Aave's Monad USDT0 reserve, the next useful signals are therefore deposits, repayments and the unborrowed balance alongside the rate. More cash entering or debt being repaid would make a given withdrawal easier to accommodate. A rising APR alongside a shrinking cash buffer would tell a different story.

The yield breakdown explains who pays the lender. The unborrowed balance and withdrawal route explain immediate cash access. Even borrower-funded interest can rise because other suppliers have left, so a larger organic component alone does not establish more durable demand.

The post $55 million Aave stablecoin pool sees just $4.4 million available for withdrawals appeared first on CryptoSlate.

A future quantum-safe Bitcoin will have to pass through the systems that hold and move today's coins. Exchanges, institutional custodians, hardware wallets and key-management platforms would all need to adopt new rules while continuing to process deposits, withdrawals, approvals, backups and recoveries.

That operational challenge moved to the center of the debate after Coinbase published a September 9 account of a post-quantum Bitcoin workshop it hosted with Stanford and Localhost Research. Coinbase said the closed-door session brought together developers, cryptographers, institutional custodians and hardware-wallet experts. Participants reached no consensus on an exact post-quantum approach and identified open tradeoffs involving transaction size, hardware performance, key management and adoption.

An earlier Glassnode exposure study gives that rollout problem a measurable scale. Its May data placed roughly 1.6 million BTC in exchange-related outputs whose public keys were already visible on-chain.

A visible public key is not a present theft condition. Sources published through September described no cryptographically relevant quantum computer capable of breaking Bitcoin's signatures, and Coinbase called the risk non-immediate. The measurement instead identifies coins that a sufficiently capable future machine could target without waiting for their owners to spend.

A 1.6 million BTC custody cohort

Bitcoin signatures allow the network to verify that a spender controls a private key. Conventional computers cannot feasibly derive that private key from its public counterpart. Shor's algorithm running on a sufficiently capable quantum computer could, in principle, break that assumption.

Public-key visibility therefore divides the risk into two time windows. An at-rest, or long-exposure, attack would target a key that has remained visible on-chain. A short-exposure attack would target a key revealed only after a transaction enters the mempool, giving an attacker a brief window before confirmation.

Glassnode estimated that 6.04 million BTC, or 30.2% of issued supply, had public-key exposure at rest in May. The firm classified 1.92 million BTC as structurally exposed because the output type reveals a key or equivalent by design. It attributed 4.12 million BTC, or 20.6%, to operational behavior such as address reuse or leaving a balance associated with a key after a spend revealed it.

Exchange-related balances were the largest labeled part of that operational bucket. Glassnode's summary gives 1.63 million BTC, or 8.1% of supply, while its detailed section gives 1.66 million BTC, or 8.3%. Those two slices support a shared description of roughly 1.6 million BTC, equal to about 40% of the study's operationally exposed total.

The label has limits. Glassnode presented exchanges as an attributed subset of on-chain balances rather than an exhaustive inventory, and it cautioned against reading the data as a security, solvency or immediate-risk ranking. The results also varied widely: Coinbase-attributed balances showed 5% exposure under the methodology, while several peers showed much higher shares. Custody scale alone did not determine exposure.

Active control gives exchanges tools that dormant holders lack. Glassnode said address hygiene, change-output rotation and reserve management could shrink operational exposure before Bitcoin adopts a post-quantum signature scheme. A custodian still has to coordinate policies, approvals, backups, deposit addresses and withdrawals, yet it can decide to move a controlled balance.

Dormant and lost-key coins sit at the opposite end of that spectrum. A March Google Quantum AI paper separated active holdings that can migrate from abandoned or inaccessible assets whose owners cannot produce a valid transaction. Protocol changes can create a safer destination, but they cannot make an absent keyholder sign.

That distinction turns the exchange pool into a large test of execution rather than a verdict on the hardest part of migration.

BIP-360 opens a path while operations catch up

BIP-360 separates long-exposure mitigation from the choice of a post-quantum signature. The draft Bitcoin Improvement Proposal would add Pay-to-Merkle-Root, or P2MR, as a new SegWit output through a soft fork.

P2MR keeps Taproot-style script-tree functionality and removes Taproot's key-path spend. Funds could be committed to a script tree without leaving a public key visible in the output by default, reducing the attack surface for long-exposure attacks.

The draft adds no post-quantum signature algorithm. Existing exchange balances, legacy outputs and current Taproot coins would remain where they are until their controllers moved them. P2MR also leaves the short-exposure window open because spending generally reveals a public key while a transaction awaits confirmation. BIP-360 says a separate post-quantum signature proposal may be needed for that window.

Activation would therefore create an optional destination, followed by the operational work of adding wallet support and moving balances. The proposal's draft status also matters: it has no activation timeline and represents one approach under review.

Recent experiments have started to narrow individual deployment questions. On August 19, Blockstream Research published benchmarks showing that several tested hardware wallets could generate the hash-based post-quantum signatures used in its study. Its scope covered signature generation on those devices and excluded post-quantum firmware verification, lattice-based schemes and isogenies.

The result demonstrates bounded device capability. Manufacturers would still need to select supported algorithms, secure firmware and backups, build recovery paths and integrate with whatever rules Bitcoin ultimately adopts.

Institutional custody has reached a similarly early testing stage. BitGo, a regulated custodian, and MPC security firm Silence Laboratories reported a post-quantum transaction simulation in May using ML-DSA inside a multi-party computation wallet workflow. The exercise covered distributed key control, policy enforcement and separation of duties. Its status as a simulation leaves production deployment across Bitcoin exchanges unproven.

These tests break a broad migration into specific engineering questions. A device's ability to produce a signature, a custody platform's ability to enforce policy and Bitcoin's ability to verify a new algorithm are distinct layers. Each layer can succeed in isolation while the combined migration remains incomplete.

Two tracks define readiness

Coinbase's workshop account puts cryptographic design and operational rollout on parallel tracks. Signature families carry different costs in transaction size, hardware performance, security assumptions and key management. Deployment then has to carry the chosen design across institutions and individuals without interrupting access to funds.

The available evidence does not rank one track above the other. Exchanges concentrate a large, actively managed exposure and may be easier to coordinate than dormant holders. Their complexity also makes them a demanding test of safe execution. A cryptographically elegant proposal would achieve little if custodians and wallets could not deploy it; flawless operations would have no destination until Bitcoin agreed on new protocol rules.

Near-term progress can be measured without attaching a date to a quantum threat. Custodians can reduce reuse, map exposed balances and test changes to key generation, backups, approvals, deposits and withdrawals. Hardware makers can benchmark candidate schemes and firmware paths. Developers can evaluate P2MR alongside signature proposals that cover the short-exposure window.

The roughly 1.6 million BTC identified by Glassnode is valuable because it turns an abstract transition into a visible cohort. Its active operators have both the ability to act and the burden of proving that large-scale migration can work. Success there would address one material slice of Bitcoin's exposure. Dormant coins, ecosystem consensus and the final cryptographic choice would still remain.

The post Bitcoin exchanges can reduce quantum exposure before a network upgrade appeared first on CryptoSlate.

Senate Republicans rewrote key parts of the CLARITY Act as they made a final push for Democratic votes Tuesday.

“This text is truly bipartisan and includes more than 120 of Democrats’ demands,” Sen. Cynthia Lummis said Monday as she, Senate Banking Committee Chairman Tim Scott and Senate Agriculture Committee Chairman John Boozman released the final draft.

Republicans put the tally at 126 substantive changes Democrats requested over more than a year of negotiations.

The newest round is narrower, concentrating on four disputes that remained unsettled: ethics rules for federal officials, a backstop for stablecoin-related bank deposit flight, the scope of developer protections and tighter rules for digital commodity intermediaries.

Those revisions now face a 60-vote test when cloture on the motion to proceed to H.R. 3633 ripens Tuesday at 2:15 p.m. If cloture is invoked, Republicans plan to offer the final text as a substitute amendment and move the legislation into formal Senate consideration.

Trump ethics and bank safeguards target late-stage objections

The final round targets two of the most politically sensitive issues still hanging over negotiations: federal officials’ crypto interests and community banks’ exposure to stablecoin competition.

The ethics language gives state attorneys general a role in enforcing restrictions on covered officials who issue or sponsor digital assets or maintain significant financial interests in digital asset issuers.

Covered individuals would have to divest those interests or place them in a qualified blind trust. Violations could bring civil penalties equal to 20% of the consideration received in a prohibited transaction or $500,000, whichever is greater.

Those provisions would take effect 360 days after enactment or 60 days after the final implementing rule, whichever comes sooner. Republicans said the package reflects substantially all of an ethics proposal backed by Republican Sen. Thom Tillis and Democratic Sen. Ruben Gallego. They also said President Donald Trump agreed to the restrictions as negotiators worked through the remaining ethics dispute.

The stablecoin compromise adds a separate “circuit breaker” for community banks. If the Treasury secretary determines in writing that substantial deposit flight is occurring from those banks, Treasury would be directed to write rules restricting rewards available to payment stablecoin holders. That authority would expire 18 months after enactment.

The broader Section 404 compromise already prohibits covered digital asset service providers and affiliates from paying US customers interest or yield solely for holding payment stablecoins.

Activity- or transaction-based rewards can remain, subject to rulemaking, while providers would be barred from marketing stablecoins as bank deposits, investment products, government-backed products or FDIC-insured products.

Developer shield narrows as exchange rules tighten

Republicans also narrowed one of the crypto industry’s most closely watched legal protections, removing language that could have extended the Blockchain Regulatory Certainty Act more directly into criminal money-transmission cases.

The final draft keeps protections preventing software developers from being treated as money transmitters or financial institutions under the Bank Secrecy Act merely for developing software, but removes references to 18 U.S.C. 1960, the federal criminal statute covering unlicensed money-transmitting businesses. Miners and validators, which were previously outside the provision, are now covered.

Republicans describe the change in their list of Democratic concessions as restricting developer protections to the civil context, including the Bank Secrecy Act. The Agriculture title separately limits certain developer protections to cash and spot transactions, keeping derivatives regulation outside that shield.

The Agriculture provisions also impose stricter guardrails on affiliate trading and conflicts of interest involving digital commodity exchanges, brokers and dealers.

The Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) would write rules to identify, mitigate and resolve conflicts among affiliated businesses and entities holding multiple registrations, including vertically integrated trading structures.

The approach stops short of requiring exchanges to separate affiliated businesses. Republican committee materials leave the CFTC discretion to address conflicts through governance, disclosure, capital and customer-protection rules while directing the agency to avoid duplicative or unnecessarily burdensome requirements.

The final language also preserves state consumer-protection laws and says developer protections cannot create exemptions from derivatives law or affect tribal gaming. Republican materials released alongside the text say the legislation leaves the legal framework for prediction markets unchanged.

Broader concessions reach securities, AML and consumer rules

Beyond the four late-stage compromises, Republicans’ 126-change tally reaches deeper into the bill’s securities, enforcement and consumer-protection architecture, illustrating how far the Senate proposal moved during negotiations.

The revisions reduce the annual Regulation Crypto fundraising cap to $50 million from $75 million and establish a $200 million lifetime limit. Originators raising more than $25 million would need audited financial statements, while the ownership threshold triggering certain resale restrictions was lowered to 3% from 5%.

The bill also explicitly preserves SEC anti-fraud and market-manipulation authority and state consumer-protection remedies.

The Agriculture provisions add best-execution rulemaking, whistleblower protections, certified annual financial statements and restrictions on exchanges using their own digital commodities to satisfy capital requirements.

They also create a CFTC Office of the Retail Commodity Advocate and authorize $150 million for the agency.

Law-enforcement changes pull digital commodity brokers, dealers, and exchanges into Bank Secrecy Act and sanctions compliance, expand Treasury authority over foreign digital asset transactions tied to major money-laundering concerns, and allow temporary holds on suspicious transactions without civil liability in specified circumstances.

Crypto kiosk operators would face registration, fraud-warning, and disclosure requirements, along with a 72-hour holding period for certain transactions by new customers.

The bill also creates a Digital Asset Cyber Innovation Center and authorizes $150 million for the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network to expand anti-money-laundering capacity.

Those additions address categories seven Democratic senators identified in July when they said an earlier Republican draft fell short.

The group, which included Gallego, Mark Warner and Cory Booker, called for stronger provisions covering ethics, consumer protection, illicit finance, conflicts of interest and market integrity before the legislation advanced.

Republicans are now using the accumulation of those revisions to increase pressure on Democrats before Tuesday’s vote.

Lummis said Monday that Democrats had secured more than 120 of the changes they sought and argued that the resulting legislation should command bipartisan support. She added:

“If the Clarity Act fails, Democrats own what comes next: more 100 Democratic-directed changes wasted, consumers with zero federal protection, no disclosure rules, no delisting requirements for bad actors, stuck in the same unregulated system that has already cost Americans billions. They wrote the fix. They must pass it.”

The political test now shifts from what Republicans were willing to rewrite to whether the senators whose objections helped produce those concessions believe the final language goes far enough. A successful cloture vote would open the next stage of Senate debate and amendments rather than complete passage of the CLARITY Act.

The post Here’s what’s new in the final CLARITY Act before Tuesday’s Senate vote appeared first on CryptoSlate.

Staking was supposed to strengthen Ethereum exchange-traded funds (ETFs), but BlackRock’s early results show investors still favor its original fund.

When US spot Ethereum ETFs launched in July 2024, the absence of staking was widely identified as one of their biggest structural disadvantages. Investors buying the funds gained exposure to ETH's price but forfeited the rewards available to holders who committed their tokens to securing the Ethereum network.

At the time, JPMorgan cited the removal of staking from ETF filings as one reason it expected weaker demand than for Bitcoin funds. BitMEX Research similarly argued that institutional investors could find non-staking products less attractive, while Galaxy Digital estimated that giving up staking represented a meaningful opportunity cost for ETF investors.

BlackRock now offers an early test of that argument.

Its iShares Ethereum Trust ETF (ETHA) provides straightforward exposure to ether without staking. The newer iShares Staked Ethereum Trust ETF (ETHB) stakes part of its holdings and distributes a portion of the resulting income to shareholders.

So far, adding yield has not overturned the hierarchy.

ETHA held about $8.96 billion in net assets on Sept. 11, compared with roughly $1.05 billion for ETHB, BlackRock fund data show.

The difference is even larger in secondary-market trading: ETHA generated an estimated $1.86 billion of share turnover that day based on volume multiplied by its closing price, roughly 30 times ETHB’s $61.8 million.

ETHB is also paying investors. The fund listed a distribution of $0.036487 per share payable Sept. 10 after beginning to earn staking rewards in May.

Yet ETHA attracted $148.8 million of net inflows on Sept. 11, compared with $18.3 million for ETHB, Farside Investors data show.

The comparison comes with an important limitation. ETHA has had substantially more time to accumulate assets, trading relationships, and institutional adoption, while ETHB is still building its track record. Its roughly $1 billion asset base also represents meaningful demand for a newer product.

Still, ETHA’s continued inflows after staking income became available challenge the stronger version of the thesis that missing yield was the main constraint on Ethereum ETF demand.

Staking removes one handicap, but not ETHA’s head start

ETHB removes much of the opportunity-cost problem that shaped criticism of the original Ethereum ETF structure. It cannot immediately replicate the liquidity ETHA has accumulated since becoming one of the first US spot Ethereum ETFs.

BlackRock reported a 30-day median bid-ask spread of 0.05% for ETHA as of Sept. 11, compared with 0.06% for ETHB. That difference is small, but the much wider disparity in trading activity gives institutions substantially more capacity to enter and exit larger ETHA positions.

Daily flows have yet to show a sustained migration toward the staking product.

Both funds recorded no net flows on Sept. 8 and attracted capital on Sept. 9. ETHA suffered an outflow on Sept. 10 while ETHB gained assets, but both returned to inflows the next day, with ETHA attracting substantially more money.

Those movements cannot establish whether individual investors are rotating between the products. ETF flow data identify creations and redemptions at the fund level but do not reveal whether an investor selling ETHA subsequently used the proceeds to purchase ETHB.

That distinction matters if staking eventually changes the competitive balance. A sustained period of ETHB creations accompanied by ETHA redemptions would provide much stronger evidence that investors are actively exchanging simpler exposure for yield-bearing exposure.

Yield introduces costs and another layer of liquidity management

Staking also gives ETHB a more complicated economic structure than simply adding yield to ETHA.

About 75.85% of ETHB’s ether was classified as staked as of Sept. 10, while roughly 24.15% remained unstaked. The unstaked portion provides liquidity for fund operations and redemptions without requiring BlackRock to wait for ether to exit Ethereum’s staking process.

Investors also face two separate layers of charges.

ETHB carries a standard annual sponsor fee of 0.25%, the same headline rate as ETHA, although a temporary waiver reduces the fee to 0.12% on its first $2.5 billion of assets for 12 months beginning March 12.

Staking rewards carry another charge. An April prospectus supplement sets the aggregate staking fee at 10% of gross staking consideration, down from an earlier 18%.

The fees apply to different bases. The sponsor fee is assessed against fund assets, while the staking fee is deducted from rewards generated by participating in Ethereum’s proof-of-stake network.

Distributions are also conditional, not a fixed yield. BlackRock can consider staking consideration received, legal requirements, and the fund’s operational and liquidity needs when determining payments.

The structure introduces additional redemption considerations. Under stressed conditions, ETHB’s prospectus allows delayed settlement or cash-only redemptions when staking exit times or available liquidity make ordinary settlement more difficult.

Those trade-offs put the staking thesis to a tougher test than whether investors like receiving additional income.

ETHB must generate enough after-fee value to persuade investors to choose a younger, less-traded vehicle over an incumbent with nearly $9 billion in assets.

The next signal will be whether ETHB can convert its distribution feature into sustained creations rather than episodic demand around payouts. If that happens while ETHA begins losing assets, the staking thesis will have stronger support.

Until then, BlackRock can capture both preferences: investors prioritizing ETHA’s established liquidity and those willing to accept additional complexity to earn staking income through ETHB.

The post BlackRock’s staking Ethereum ETF pays yield but investors still prefer its $9 billion ETHA fund appeared first on CryptoSlate.

Tuesday’s US estimated-tax deadline will shift cash toward the Treasury, testing whether last week’s improvement in bank reserves can hold through the Federal Reserve’s meeting. Bitcoin liquidity could come under pressure if the transfer tightens dollar funding and limits risk-taking before policymakers conclude their September 15–16 meeting.

The IRS calendar sets September 15, 2026 as the third installment deadline for individuals and corporations subject to estimated-tax payments. It falls on the opening day of the Fed meeting, putting a scheduled cash movement alongside the policy decision due the following day.

Bank reserves are balances commercial banks hold at the Fed. They support payments and funding, rather than measuring traders’ available cash. The starting point is stronger than a week earlier. The Fed’s September 10 balance-sheet release showed weekly-average bank reserves rose $96.779 billion to about $2.991 trillion in the week ended September 9. Over the same period, the Treasury General Account, the government’s account at the Fed, fell $84.6 billion to $883.3 billion on a weekly-average basis.

Those are averages, not Wednesday’s snapshot. The separate September 9 levels were about $3.037 trillion for reserves and $843.705 billion for Treasury cash.

How US tax payments could affect Bitcoin liquidity

The accounting mechanism is straightforward: tax payments move balances from commercial banks’ reserve accounts into the Treasury’s account. Treasury spending moves funds back to recipient banks. Other things equal, incoming taxes reduce reserves, while outgoing government payments replenish them.

That can matter for short-term financing, including repo markets where cash is borrowed against securities. The New York Fed’s account of September 2019 describes how a temporary reserve decline, Treasury settlements and a corporate tax date combined with a spike in repo rates. It is a historical example of the mechanism, not evidence that this Tuesday will repeat it.

Several forces can cushion the transfer. In its August 5 refunding statement, Treasury anticipated September reductions in shorter-dated bill auction sizes because of mid-month tax receipts. Less bill borrowing could partly offset cash absorption relative to unchanged issuance. The size of that offset depends on actual borrowing and spending.

The Fed also plans for seasonal reserve demand. Its May 2026 balance-sheet report says reserve-management purchases accommodate fluctuations such as tax dates and adjust to the reserve outlook. The New York Fed describes the Standing Repo Facility as a backstop supplying eligible institutions with temporary cash against securities to limit upward funding pressure.

For Bitcoin investors, the possible effect runs through financing conditions and appetite for risk.

BIS research finds that stablecoin market capitalization declines after US monetary tightening. That supports broader sensitivity to monetary conditions, not a measured Bitcoin response to this tax deadline.

The useful signal is therefore whether short-term funding spreads widen relative to Fed-administered rates as taxes settle. Rising spreads would be consistent with funding pressure without proving taxes caused it; stable funding would weaken that interpretation. Tuesday’s calendar creates a test, while spending, bill supply and Fed liquidity tools help determine the result.

The post Another Bitcoin liquidity test arrives with Tuesday’s US tax deadline appeared first on CryptoSlate.

Ethereum spent most of the last three weeks doing very little, then packed an entire month of drama into a single session. On 11 September, $ETH ripped from roughly $2,437 to as high as $2,667, printed its first move above $2,600 in around eight months, and then handed most of it straight back. As of 14 September, the Bitstamp ETHUSD pair is trading near $2,505, up a rounding-error 0.19% on the session.

That combination, a violent spike followed by three days of nothing, is the whole story right now. $Ethereum has the buyers. What it does not yet have is the follow-through. Below is the macro picture and the technical picture, and where the two collide.

What Happened to the Ethereum Price This Week?

The trigger was the August US Consumer Price Index, released on 11 September. Headline inflation came in at 3.4% year over year, matching expectations, while core CPI rose 0.3% month over month, slightly hotter than forecast. On paper that is a mildly hawkish print. Crypto rallied anyway.

The reason is positioning, not economics. Traders had been leaning short into the data, and the move detonated them. Roughly $665 million in crypto positions were liquidated across the market in 24 hours, with about $400 million of that on the short side. Ethereum alone accounted for around $250 million, more than Bitcoin's roughly $170 million. Ali Martinez also flagged that ETH transfers above $1 million jumped 14% on the day, which points at large holders adding rather than retail chasing.

So the spike was real demand meeting thin liquidity above the range. The problem is what happened next: ETH closed the week near $2,619 and has since slid back under $2,500 before stabilising around $2,505. A breakout that cannot hold its breakout level is a test, not a trend.

Why Does the Fed Rate Hike Matter for the Ethereum Price?

Here is the part most ETH holders are underweighting. The Federal Reserve meets on 15 and 16 September, and the market is not debating the size of a cut. It is pricing a hike.

Futures and prediction markets have been assigning roughly 80% to 87% probability to a 25 basis point increase, which would lift the federal funds rate off the 3.50% to 3.75% range it has held all year. Goldman Sachs and J.P. Morgan have both moved their forecasts to include the hike. J.P. Morgan's team pointed at two drivers: energy costs kept elevated by ongoing supply disruption tied to the Iran conflict and the Strait of Hormuz, and investor doubt about the Fed's inflation credibility after it held in July. Separately, prediction markets put the odds of zero rate cuts across all of 2026 at above 90%.

For a duration-sensitive risk asset like ETH, that is a headwind, full stop. Higher policy rates and a 10-year Treasury yield hovering near 4.8% raise the opportunity cost of holding a non-yielding asset, and they compress the multiple the market is willing to pay for future growth.

The interesting wrinkle is that ETH rallied into this anyway. Goldman Sachs analyst Jonathan Shugar has argued that risk assets can still appreciate through a hiking move, which is one explanation for why institutional demand for ETH products has not flinched. Either the market has fully digested the hike and is looking past it, or it is about to get a reminder. Wednesday settles the argument.

Are Ethereum ETF Inflows Still Supporting ETH?

This is the strongest leg of the bull case, and it is not close.

Spot Ethereum ETFs absorbed $216.41 million on 11 September alone, according to SoSoValue data, with BlackRock's ETHA taking $148.8 million of that, its biggest single day since January. Combined trading volume across ETH ETF products topped $2.56 billion, nearly matching Bitcoin's $2.6 billion. Ethereum was the only major crypto fund category to record net inflows that day. Bitcoin and Solana products both saw money leave.

Zoom out and the divergence gets sharper. Ethereum spot ETFs sit at roughly $863 million in net inflows for 2026, while Bitcoin spot ETFs are around $1 billion net negative on the year. ETH also outperformed BTC on price from 11 August to 10 September, gaining about 33% against Bitcoin's 23%.

There is a corporate bid underneath it too. Bitmine, chaired by Fundstrat's Tom Lee, had accumulated roughly 5.9 million ETH by September, around 4.9% of circulating supply, with most of it staked. Lee has been publicly calling for what he describes as a face-ripper rally for short sellers. Treat the commentary as talking a book, but the accumulation itself is a genuine supply constraint.

What Does the Ethereum Technical Analysis Show on the 3-Hour Chart?

The 3-hour chart is unusually clean right now.

• The 200 EMA has caught up to price. The 200-period EMA sits at $2,403.7, and it has spent the last four weeks grinding higher from the $1,900 area while price went sideways. It has now converged almost exactly with the horizontal $2,400 level. When a moving average and a historical horizontal stack on top of each other, that level stops being a line and becomes a decision point.
• The breakout base is intact. The green arrow on the chart marks the 19 August ignition around $1,870. ETH added more than 30% in roughly 48 hours, clearing the descending trendline that had capped every rally since the August 2025 peak near $4,958. Everything since has been consolidation above that breakout, not a failure of it. Higher lows have held since the 3 September dip to the $2,370 zone.
• Momentum is flat, not weak. RSI (14) reads 50.09 with its signal line at 49.58. That is textbook neutral. The 11 September spike pushed RSI into the low 70s and it has since unwound back to the midline without price giving up the range, which is a healthy reset rather than a distribution signal. It also means neither side currently has an edge from momentum alone.
• The rejection candle matters. The 11 September wick to roughly $2,667 with a close back under $2,600 left a clear upper shadow. That is a supply print. Until ETH closes a candle above $2,600 and holds it, that wick is the ceiling.

Where Are the Key ETH Support and Resistance Levels?

Resistance:

• $2,550 is the immediate ceiling and the level analysts are watching for a weekly close. Clear it and $2,600 comes back into play quickly.
• $2,600 is the marked horizontal on the chart and the level that rejected on 11 September. It is the line that separates chop from trend.
• $2,700 to $2,800 is the real problem. Ali Martinez has pointed out that roughly 10 million ETH changed hands inside that band, creating a heavy supply wall. Every one of those holders is close to break-even, and break-even is where people sell. Clearing that zone is the precondition for any serious $3,000 conversation.

Support:

• $2,490 to $2,450 is the near-term shelf where the current range has been holding.
• $2,400 is the one that counts, because it is the horizontal and the 200 EMA together. Holding it keeps the August structure alive.

Below that, the chart offers very little until the $2,000 horizontal, with the next marked level all the way down at $1,800. That gap is thin air, which is exactly why $2,400 is worth defending.

What Is the Ethereum Price Outlook From Here?

Three scenarios, in rough order of probability as the chart currently sits.

1. Range continuation (most likely near term). ETH keeps chopping between roughly $2,450 and $2,600 through the Fed decision. RSI at 50 and fading volume since the breakout both argue for this. Boring, but it is what consolidation above a breakout usually looks like.
2. Bullish resolution. A daily or weekly close above $2,550, ideally confirmed by another heavy ETF inflow day, opens $2,600 and then the $2,700 to $2,800 supply wall. Getting through that band on volume is what would put $3,000 on the table. The ETF bid and the Bitmine accumulation are the fuel for this path.
3. Bearish resolution. A close below $2,400 breaks both the horizontal and the 200 EMA in one move, which would invalidate the higher-low structure built since 3 September. A hawkish Fed surprise on 16 September, a hike plus language pointing at more, is the obvious catalyst. The measured downside from there runs toward the $2,220 area where the 50-day EMA sits, with little structural support before $2,000.

One more calendar item worth keeping on the radar: the Glamsterdam upgrade has slipped to Q4 2026, with the Sepolia testnet fork scheduled for 28 September and developers cautioning that the date can still move. It is not a this-week catalyst, but a confirmed testnet fork would give bulls a narrative to work with heading into October.

The short version: Ethereum has the institutional bid, the broken trendline and the higher lows. What it does not have is a close above $2,600 or a Fed that wants to help. Watch $2,400 and watch Wednesday.

Bitcoin lost to fraud: what the Austrian tax office recognises as a loss

Fake investment platforms, phishing or supposed crypto advisers: anyone who loses bitcoin to fraud may be facing a total loss in economic terms. For tax purposes in Austria, however, that does not automatically mean the original acquisition costs can be claimed as a loss.

For privately held cryptocurrencies the basic rule is this: losing coins to fraud is not a disposal for tax purposes. What is missing is therefore a realisation event, the thing that would trigger a capital loss you could offset against tax.

20,000 euros gone – and still no tax loss?

An example:

• Bitcoin bought for 20,000 euros
• the coins are transferred to the perpetrators as a result of fraud
• no repayment follows

In economic terms the loss amounts to 20,000 euros.

For tax purposes, those 20,000 euros held as private assets generally cannot simply be offset against share gains, dividends or other crypto gains. What is decisive is that the owner did not sell or swap the bitcoin in the course of a normal taxable disposal.

Fraud, theft and hacking are treated along similar lines

Austrian administrative practice groups several cases together in broadly the same way:

• theft of cryptocurrencies,
• loss through fraud,
• a hacking attack,
• loss of the private key.

Outside a business context, none of these on its own generally produces a loss realised for tax purposes. That sets a case of fraud distinctly apart from a voluntary sale below the original purchase price.

A genuine sale at a loss is different

Anyone who buys bitcoin for 20,000 euros and later sells it in the ordinary way for 12,000 euros generally realises a tax loss of 8,000 euros. Under the Austrian loss-offsetting rules, that loss can be set against certain positive capital income in the same year.

Anyone who loses the same bitcoin entirely to fraud suffers the same economic damage – but for tax purposes the necessary realisation is generally absent.

Compensation can trigger fresh tax consequences later on

A further layer arises where the investor holds a claim for repayment or damages.

An example:

• original acquisition costs: 15,000 euros
• the bitcoin is lost to fraud
• a responsible party later pays 18,000 euros in damages

The compensation payment can then become relevant for tax. Depending on the case, it may realise unrealised gains or losses that were present until then.

Document the fraud case fully all the same

Even where no usable tax loss arises at first, investors should secure all the evidence:

• wallet addresses,
• transaction IDs,
• the original purchase receipts,
• chat and email correspondence,
• the police report,
• reports to supervisory authorities,
• records of attempts to recover the funds,
• possible claims for damages.

This documentation becomes especially important if bitcoin or money is repaid after all at a later stage.

Business assets can look different

The restrictions described here apply in particular to privately held cryptocurrencies. Where bitcoin was part of business assets, different rules on profit determination and valuation apply. A business owner should therefore have a fraud loss assessed separately for tax.

Conclusion

A bitcoin loss caused by fraud is economically real in Austria, but where the assets are held privately it generally does not automatically lead to a capital loss that is deductible for tax.

Fraud does not count as a normal disposal. Only later repayments or compensation payments can trigger events that are relevant for tax once more.

(As of September 14, 2026. This article is not investment advice. Prices and fee structures change; check the terms with the provider before you buy.)

When you move funds from a Layer 2 network back to Ethereum, your wallet tells you after roughly twenty minutes that the process has been finalized. Your money has still not arrived on Ethereum at that point, and depending on the network it takes anywhere from just under two hours to more than ten days afterwards. This gap between what the display says and what is actually happening is why withdrawals started shortly before an exchange deadline regularly arrive too late.

I measured the waiting times myself on September 14, 2026, directly against the contracts on Ethereum and against the public nodes of six Layer 2 networks. The short answer: on the optimistic networks Arbitrum One, OP Mainnet and Base, the finalized marker sits some eighteen to twenty-four minutes behind the current state, yet the waiting period written into the contract runs to between 1 and 7 days. On the ZK networks zkSync Era, Linea and Scroll, the marker lags by 1.7 to 4.1 hours, and there it roughly describes the moment your funds become claimable on Ethereum. Same term, two entirely different meanings.

Layer 2 withdrawal explained: what really happens on the way back to Ethereum

A Layer 2 is a network of its own. It processes its transactions itself and then posts the results to Ethereum in batches. The benefit shows up in the cost; the price is paid at withdrawal. Anyone pulling funds back has to wait until Ethereum has accepted the Layer 2 result as valid.

The route has three steps, and only the first one is quick. You begin by starting the withdrawal on the Layer 2 itself. The network then has to submit the corresponding state to Ethereum, and only after that does the real waiting period begin. At the end comes a second transaction on Ethereum, the one with which you claim the funds. Anyone who completes only the first step and then waits may be waiting indefinitely, because on most networks the claim does not happen by itself.

State root, proof and claim

A state root is a single check value that summarises the entire balance sheet of a Layer 2 network at one point in time. That check value is the anchor against which Ethereum later verifies whether your withdrawal really belongs to a valid state. As long as no state root has been posted to Ethereum for the block containing your withdrawal, you cannot prove anything at all, however long you wait.

Only once the root is in place do you submit the proof. After that, the window runs in which other participants may object. If it expires without objection, you claim the money.

The finalized stamp: why "finalized" in the block explorer means two different things

Every node on an EVM network knows a block marker called finalized. That marker describes the state the network regards as irreversible. On Ethereum itself this is unambiguous. On a Layer 2 the meaning depends on how the network is built, and this is precisely where the misunderstanding arises.

On the optimistic networks, the marker refers to the data from which the Layer 2 state is derived. Once that data is final on Ethereum, the Layer 2 block derived from it counts as finalized. That says nothing about your withdrawal. The fraud window keeps running independently.

On the ZK networks, the marker is tied more closely to what actually matters to you: there a batch is only carried as final once the corresponding proof has been verified and executed on Ethereum. Anyone reading their withdrawal out of that marker on Arbitrum or Base is off by a factor of several hundred.

Our own measurement: what the contracts of six Layer 2 networks prescribe as withdrawal periods

This analysis was carried out by cryptoticker.io on September 14, 2026. The measurement was taken at 06:56 UTC against Ethereum block 25,974,039, via a public node, with no account and no keys. In each case I queried the parameters that sit in the contract on Ethereum and set the waiting period.

One methodological detail makes the difference: I did not take the contract addresses from a list but resolved them starting at the canonical bridge contract. On Arbitrum One, the bridge leads to a different rollup contract from the one many older guides name; the older one reports a confirmation state from February 2025 and has therefore been superseded. Query the wrong address and you get an answer that looks like a measurement.

The maturity period is the time that has to elapse between your submitted proof and the permitted claim. The lock period is an additional wait that the operator has written into the contract as a safety buffer. Both values sit in the same contract. Whether they add up or overlap in an emergency depends on how the dispute procedure runs, and I did not verify that with a withdrawal of my own. Anyone planning conservatively adds them together.

Optimistic rollups: why the fraud window on Arbitrum runs to 6.4 days

An optimistic rollup assumes the submitted results are correct and grants everyone else a window in which they may prove the opposite. That window is the fraud window, and it is the real reason for the wait. It is sized so that an honest participant can still object even if someone tries to push them off the network for a while.

On Arbitrum One, the rollup contract holds a value of 45,818 Ethereum blocks. Converted at the target time of 12 seconds per block, that gives 549,816 seconds, or 6.36 days. The conversion is the only place in my measurement where an assumption is buried: Ethereum blocks arrive on a twelve-second rhythm on average, and individual slots can be missed. In practice that lengthens the window rather than shortening it.

On top of that comes a grace period of 14,400 blocks, around two days. In normal operation this grace period does not apply; it becomes relevant only if there is an actual dispute. For your planning that means 6.4 days is the standard case and 8.4 days is the upper bound you should work with if you have no buffer.

OP Mainnet and Base compared at contract level: 7 days against 1 day on the same technology

The most interesting finding of the measurement sits between two networks running on the same software. OP Mainnet carries a maturity period of 604,800 seconds in its portal contract, exactly seven days, plus a lock period of 302,400 seconds, or three and a half days. Base carries 86,400 seconds in the identically built contract, so one day, and a lock period of zero.

Both values come from the same query at the same moment, and both networks run on the same software. The difference is therefore a decision taken by the respective governance, not a technical necessity. That is also why you should not rely permanently on a figure you read once: what stands at one day today can be back at seven after a contract update. The number sits publicly in the contract and can be looked up at any time.

What this means for the network you choose

If you regularly move back and forth between a Layer 2 and Ethereum, withdrawal duration is a hard selection criterion alongside fees. The duration determines how quickly you can react to a cut-off date, such as a withdrawal deadline at your crypto exchange. Anyone simply holding funds for the long term never feels the difference. Anyone working with them feels it every time.

ZK rollups: why zkSync, Linea and Scroll settle in hours rather than days

A ZK rollup does not present Ethereum with a claim that would have to be contested, but with a mathematical proof that the contract itself recomputes. If the proof passes, the state is valid. No fraud window is needed, because there is nothing to challenge.

The remaining wait arises because a proof is always generated for whole batches of blocks and generating it costs computing time. That lag is exactly what I measured, by querying each network for its current block and its block carried as final, then comparing the timestamps.

At first glance the table reads the wrong way round, and that is its value. The three optimistic networks sit at the top because their marker shows the least lag, even though it is precisely there that the longest real wait is coming for you. The three ZK networks sit at the bottom, even though their figure is the only one that gives any indication of when you get to your money.

Submission rhythm measured: every 60 minutes on OP Mainnet, every 19 minutes on Base

Ahead of the fraud window sits a wait that most guides leave out: your withdrawal can only be proven once the state containing it has been submitted to Ethereum at all. To gauge this, I read out the 24 most recent submissions for OP Mainnet and Base via the relevant contract and compared their timestamps.

On OP Mainnet the median is 60.4 minutes, with a range of 60.2 to 60.4 minutes. The window ran from September 13, 07:23 UTC to September 14, 06:30 UTC. The rhythm is therefore effectively hourly and barely fluctuates. On Base the median is 19.2 minutes, but the range runs from 4.4 to 35.2 minutes, measured from September 13, 23:08 UTC to September 14, 06:43 UTC. Base submits more often, but less regularly.

For planning purposes you add this time on top. On OP Mainnet, waiting for the next submission alone can cost you a full hour, on Base up to a good half hour. Set against a seven-day window, that barely registers. If you start a withdrawal on the last possible day, that hour is what decides it.

Layer 2 withdrawal before an exchange deadline: how to count backwards

The practical occasion is on the table right now. KuCoin has delisted 25 tokens and closes withdrawals on October 7, 2026 at 08:00 UTC; we have listed the withdrawal deadline and the affected tokens individually. Anyone who still has to pull funds out of a Layer 2 for a cut-off date like this and then send them to an exchange is best advised to count from the end.

For October 7, 08:00 UTC, the measured values give the following latest start times, in each case without a buffer and without the crediting time at the receiving exchange:

• OP Mainnet: 7.00 days of maturity period plus 3.50 days of lock period give 10.5 days on a conservative reading. Latest start: September 26, around 20:00 UTC.
• Arbitrum One: 6.36 days of fraud window plus 2.00 days of grace period give 8.36 days. Latest start: September 28, around 23:20 UTC.
• Base: 1.00 day of maturity period. Latest start: October 6, 08:00 UTC.
• Scroll, Linea, zkSync Era: 1.7 to 4.1 hours. The day before is enough.

A buffer belongs on top of these values, for four reasons: the wait until the next submission, the crediting time at the receiving exchange, possible network congestion, and the plain fact that you have to trigger the second transaction yourself. Anyone who starts over a weekend and only notices the claim on Monday loses two days that appear in no contract period.

The two transactions many people forget

On the optimistic networks it is usually two signatures on Ethereum: one for the proof, one for the claim. Both cost fees on Ethereum, not on the Layer 2. So keep enough ether ready on the address you are withdrawing from. What ether is currently worth is shown on our Ethereum page. A withdrawal left hanging on an empty gas balance waits beyond the seven days, and goes on waiting until you top it up.

Fast bridges as a shortcut: what you take on in exchange for the time saved

There is a route that bypasses the wait. So-called fast bridges pay you the funds out on Ethereum immediately and sit out the waiting period themselves. They charge a fee for this, and you trade a wait for counterparty risk.

That risk is not theoretical. cryptoticker.io reported on the outflow of funds at the Symbiosis bridge on September 12, 2026, and on the shutdown of the Silicon Network bridge, with a deadline of its own, on September 4, 2026. The canonical bridge of a Layer 2, by contrast, is the one operated by the network itself; it is slow, but it has no counterparty that can disappear.

That makes the trade-off an honest one to weigh. For small amounts and a tight deadline, the fast bridge can be the right choice. For amounts whose loss would hurt, the wait is the price of safety, and the moment to pay it is before the cut-off date.

What the measurement does not show: the limits of this analysis

The values come from the contracts and from the nodes, not from a withdrawal of my own with a stopwatch. What I can evidence are the periods the network prescribes and the rhythm in which submissions are made. What I cannot evidence is the actual duration of a specific withdrawal from start to finish.

Further open points you should be aware of: the submission rhythm rests on a single day's sample of 24 submissions per network, not on a long-term average. The marker for the final state is set by each node provider individually, and I queried exactly one public endpoint per network. Layer 3 networks, non-EVM chains and all third-party bridges are not measured. And whether the maturity period and the lock period on OP Mainnet add up in an emergency is the conservative reading, not an established fact.

The technical foundations of both designs are publicly documented, at Ethereum itself for optimistic rollups and in the developer documentation of the OP Stack networks for the course of a withdrawal. Anyone wanting to recompute the figures in this article will find there the contract names I queried.

Planning a Layer 2 withdrawal: what to take away

1. Count backwards, not forwards. Put the cut-off date at the start and subtract your network's period: 10.5 days on OP Mainnet, 8.4 on Arbitrum One, 1 day on Base, a few hours on the ZK networks. If the cut-off comes from an exchange, check at the same time whether your exchange supports the network directly at all; which providers are licensed in the EU is set out in our overview of regulated crypto exchanges.
2. Do not rely on the finalized stamp. On the optimistic networks it describes something other than your withdrawal. What governs is the contract value, and that can be queried publicly. Anyone holding funds in self-custody should plan firmly for the second transaction; the equipment for that is covered in our hardware wallet comparison.
3. Document the process while it is running. A withdrawal spread over several days produces two transactions on Ethereum and one on the Layer 2, and come January you will want to know which of them belong together. A portfolio tracker takes the piecing-together off your hands.

(As of September 14, 2026. This article is not investment advice. Prices and fee structures change; check the terms with the provider before you buy.)

If you want to sell Ethereum in Germany, the purchase date decides first and the price only after that. Where the purchase goes back more than a year, the gain stays tax free under section 23 of the Income Tax Act. Where it does not, the gain counts towards taxable income and is charged at your personal tax rate. That is precisely why the question raised by the price jump of September 11, 2026, is a calendar question rather than a chart question: which of your units are old enough, and which of those are actually showing a gain? This article works through both, drawing on the text of the law, the guidance issued by the tax authorities and our own analysis of two years of daily Ethereum closing prices.

What Happened on September 11 and Why It Turns Into a Tax Question

On September 11, 2026, Ether rose to an intraday high of 2,664.81 US dollars on the Kraken exchange. That was the highest level since January 31, 2026, when the price last reached 2,710.35 dollars. Measured by the daily closing prices of the same trading pairs, not a single day in between closed higher. The figures come from Kraken's public OHLC interface, retrieved on September 14, 2026, at 06:40 UTC; they describe trading on this one venue and may differ by a few dollars on other exchanges.

Half of that move has since been given back. At the same retrieval time, Ether was quoted at around 2,519 US dollars and 2,179 euros. Anyone who reads the headline about the eight-month high and concludes that their holding now sits at that level is working with a price that existed for only a few hours. For tax purposes the high is irrelevant in any case. What counts is the price at the moment you sell.

The trigger came from inflows into the US spot ETFs on Ether. The data service SoSoValue reported net inflows of 216.41 million dollars for September 11, of which 148.82 million went into BlackRock's ETHA fund; the Bitcoin ETFs recorded their fourth consecutive day of outflows on the same date, at a net 13.29 million dollars. These figures are attributable to the data service and were reported on September 12, 2026, among others by Bitcoin.com News in German. A reallocation of institutional money indicates demand. It is no promise of a further price rise. How the market read the level before this move is set out in our analysis of the test of the 200-day moving average at 2,100 dollars from August 19, 2026.

How Long Does the Holding Period Run on Ethereum, and When Is a Sale Tax Free?

Holding period means the span between the acquisition and the disposal of an asset. For crypto assets held as private assets it is one year. The wording of section 23 (1) sentence 1 no. 2 of the German Income Tax Act refers to disposal transactions involving other assets where the period between acquisition and disposal is no more than one year. Only these transactions are taxable. Anything held for longer falls outside the provision, regardless of the size of the gain.

The usual calculation of deadlines under the German Civil Code applies: the day of acquisition itself does not count, and the one-year period ends at the close of the day corresponding to the day of acquisition. Someone who bought on September 13, 2025, was able to sell tax free on September 14, 2026. Someone who bought on September 14, 2025, has to wait until September 15, 2026. A single day decides the full tax exposure here, as an all-or-nothing threshold with no pro-rata gradation whatsoever.

What Counts as a Disposal

It is not only a sale for euros that triggers the test. Swapping Ether into another coin or into a stablecoin is a disposal as well, as is paying for goods or services with Ether. The circular issued by the German Federal Ministry of Finance on March 6, 2025, treats the price agreed in euros as the disposal proceeds when tokens are exchanged for goods and services, falling back on the market price where that is unavailable. Anyone parking a holding in a stablecoin in order to swap back later has therefore already triggered the taxable event and starts a fresh one-year period for the new holding.

The 1,000 Euro Exemption Limit: What It Protects and Where It Tips Over

For taxable sales within the one-year period there is an exemption limit, meaning a threshold above which the entire amount becomes taxable. Under section 23 (3) sentence 5 of the Income Tax Act, gains stay tax free where the total gain from private disposal transactions in the calendar year came to less than 1,000 euros. The word less is to be taken literally: at 999 euros of gain you pay nothing, at exactly 1,000 euros the full amount becomes taxable, not merely the euro above the line.

Two subtleties are regularly overlooked. First, the limit applies to all private disposal transactions of the year taken together, so it also covers the sale of gold or the gain on a different coin. Second, it is an annual figure: anyone realizing 900 euros of gain in December and another 900 in January stays below it twice over. Put both into the same December and you are above it. A tax report of the kind the providers in our comparison of crypto tax tools and portfolio trackers produce shows this annual total before you sell, and that is exactly what matters when planning.

FIFO, Average Method, Individual Allocation: Which Ether the Tax Office Sells

Anyone who has bought over a span of months does not own a single uniform position but many tranches with different purchase dates and purchase prices. Which of them counts as disposed of when you sell is governed by the order of use. The Ministry of Finance circular of March 6, 2025, places the principle of individual allocation first in paragraph 61: where the individual unit can be specifically identified, that unit is decisive. Where this is not possible, the crypto assets of a trading designation acquired first count as disposed of for the purposes of the holding period, and the average method is to be applied for the valuation. For reasons of simplification, the valuation may also assume that the units acquired first were disposed of first. That is the FIFO procedure, short for first in, first out.

What matters in practice is a sentence in the same paragraph: A wallet-based approach applies. Every wallet and every exchange account is therefore considered on its own. The method once chosen must be retained within a wallet until all units of that trading designation there have been disposed of in full; only afterwards, and following a new acquisition, may it be changed. For coins with a different trading designation in the same wallet, a separate election exists in each case.

What This Means in Practice

The wallet-based view is a lever that many people do not even know about. If the old, tax-free Ether sit on a hardware wallet and the young, taxable ones on the exchange account, a sale on the exchange reaches only the holding held there. The period running on the older units remains untouched by it. Conversely, a problem arises when you consolidate everything onto a single address: the tranches then mix, and the order determines what gets sold. Anyone shifting holdings around should document these movements; paragraph 103 of the circular expressly requires documentation of reallocations within wallets for the wallet-based application of the average or FIFO method.

Run the Numbers: Which Ethereum Purchases Are Actually in Profit Today

The decision between selling and waiting hinges on a question that is rarely asked: is the tax-free tranche showing a gain at all? For this article we analyzed the daily closing prices of the Ether against euro pair from Kraken, retrieved on September 14, 2026, at 06:40 UTC. The interface window reaches back 721 trading days, that is to September 24, 2024. Each daily close was compared with the current price of around 2,179 euros. The method is deliberately rough, assumes a purchase at the respective daily close, and leaves fees out of account.

The result is unambiguous. Of the 355 purchase days in the window from September 24, 2024, to September 13, 2025, meaning those days whose one-year period has now expired, only 89 sit below today's price. That is 25 percent. Three out of four tax-free purchase days are therefore currently under water. In the following window from September 14, 2025, to September 13, 2026, whose purchases are still taxable, 225 of 365 days lie below today's price, or 62 percent.

The price history itself supplies the reason. In September 2025 an Ether cost between 3,324 and 4,014 euros, with a median of 3,686 euros. Anyone who bought back then is down around 41 percent today. The low point of the window, by contrast, fell in the summer of 2026, and those cheap purchases are not yet twelve months old.

The Trap: Tax Free Is Usually Exactly the Tranche That Is Under Water

An uncomfortable constellation follows from these two data series, and it affects many portfolios right now. The units you could sell tax free are predominantly the ones you bought expensively. The units showing a gain are predominantly young and therefore taxable. So anyone who hears that they can sell tax free after a year and reaches for the oldest tranche on that basis realizes a loss in many cases, while simultaneously giving away the tax exemption they spent twelve months earning.

A loss from a tax-free sale is worthless for tax purposes: what lies outside the one-year period is simply not taxable, neither in gain nor in loss. A loss within the period, by contrast, can be offset, though only within narrow limits. Section 23 (3) sentence 7 of the Income Tax Act permits the offset only up to the amount of the gain from private disposal transactions in the same calendar year; a deduction from other income is excluded. Under sentence 8, the carry-back to the previous year and the carry-forward to subsequent years remain available, in each case again only against private disposal transactions.

The Order of Checks Before You Sell

What makes sense, then, is a sequence that starts with the calendar and looks at the price only at the end. First: which tranches are older than a year, and which wallet are they on? Second: what is the cost base of those tranches, are they in profit or at a loss? Third: how much gain from private disposal transactions have you already realized in this calendar year, and where do you stand relative to the 1,000 euro exemption limit? Only after that does the question of the price level become answerable at all. Our newsroom made the same calculation for XRP on August 24, 2026, back then after a weekly gain of 53 percent; the structure of the decision is identical, only the figures differ.

What a Sale Within the Period Actually Costs

The gain from a taxable sale is not charged at the 25 percent flat-rate withholding tax that would apply to interest or dividends. It counts as other income under section 22 no. 2 in conjunction with section 23 of the Income Tax Act, forms part of taxable income, and is charged at your personal tax rate, plus the solidarity surcharge and, where applicable, church tax. Anyone already in the top tax bracket therefore loses considerably more than a quarter of the gain, while anyone on a low income loses correspondingly less.

The gain itself is defined by section 23 (3) sentence 1 of the Income Tax Act as the difference between the disposal price on one side and the acquisition costs plus income-related expenses on the other. Transaction fees on purchase and on sale therefore reduce the taxable gain, provided you can evidence them. On a sale through an exchange the fee appears in the statement; on a sale out of your own wallet the network fee belongs in the calculation. Which venues charge which fees depends heavily on volume and changes continuously.

Staking and Lending: Does the Period Extend to Ten Years?

This worry has haunted forums for years, and it has a real background. Section 23 (1) sentence 1 no. 2 sentence 4 of the Income Tax Act extends the period to ten years where income is generated in at least one calendar year from the use of an asset. Applied to crypto that would mean anyone who stakes or lends their Ether and collects rewards for it would have to wait ten years.

The tax authorities have cleared this up. The Ministry of Finance circular of March 6, 2025, states verbatim in paragraph 63: For currency or payment tokens, the extension of the disposal period under section 23 (1) sentence 1 no. 2 sentence 4 of the Income Tax Act does not apply. For Ether as a currency and payment token, the one-year period therefore stands, even where the units generated income in the meantime.

The rewards themselves are to be considered separately. This income counts as income in its own right, and the units received are treated as acquired. A separate one-year period begins for them from the day of receipt, valued at the market price at that moment. Anyone receiving staking rewards weekly therefore accumulates new tranches with their own periods every week. Which providers withhold how much of that reward is something our newsroom broke down for fourteen providers on September 12, 2026.

What the Draft With Its December 31, 2026 Cut-Off Date Would Change

The future of the holding period is currently the subject of political argument. Reports describe a draft from the Federal Ministry of Finance that provides for a cut-off date of December 31, 2026: for crypto assets acquired after that date the one-year period would fall away, while holdings acquired before it would remain under the law as it stands. None of this has been enacted. As long as no statute appears in the Federal Law Gazette, section 23 of the Income Tax Act applies in its present form, and it is under that form that you settle your sale this year.

For your decision today this means two things. First, a sale brought forward solely because of a possible change in the law is a bet on a draft. Second, such grandfathering would be an argument for leaving existing tranches intact, precisely because a newly purchased replacement holding could fall under the new rules. How the debate has developed since the summer was traced by our newsroom on September 8, 2026, in its article on grandfathering and the cut-off date.

Exemption Limit, Losses, Turn of the Year: The Three Levers

Once the decision for a partial sale has been made, three variables remain under your control. The first is the timing within the calendar year. Because the exemption limit applies afresh for each calendar year, splitting a sale across the turn of the year can push the taxable gain into two years and keep it below the limit twice. The second is the wallet you sell from, because the order of use operates on a wallet basis. The third is the offset against losses from other private disposal transactions in the same year, which section 23 (3) sentence 7 of the Income Tax Act expressly permits.

Two things, by contrast, are not levers. Switching exchanges changes nothing about the period, because what counts is the acquisition and not the place of storage. And a transfer to another address of your own is no disposal, so it neither resets the period nor ends it; it can, however, make the allocation of tranches harder if it goes undocumented.

Which Records You Need for the Sale

The burden of proof lies with you. In paragraphs 102 and 103 the Ministry of Finance circular lists what the tax offices may request. That includes the time of acquisition, the quantity acquired and the type of acquisition, the acquisition and incidental costs in euros, the time of disposal with quantity and trading platform, the disposal proceeds and disposal costs in euros, as well as the market price used together with its source where trading did not take place in euros. Expressly required on top of that is documentation of the chosen order of use per wallet and documentation of reallocations between wallets.

In practice this means the tax report is no retrospective paperwork exercise. It is the precondition for being able to evidence the tax exemption of an old tranche at all. Anyone who no longer holds purchase records from 2021 because the exchange has since shut down is left without proof in case of doubt. The statements of the bank account the money left at the time often help as supporting evidence.

When a Sale Can Be Worth It Despite the Tax

Tax is a cost factor, not a prohibition. There are cases in which a taxable sale is the more sensible decision. Anyone servicing a loan at high interest earns a certain return by repaying it, while the price remains open. Anyone holding a single position so large that a fall by half would touch their life planning buys peace of mind with the tax. And anyone who needs money for a fixed expense in a few months should not leave it sitting in an asset that has swung between 1,405 and 2,881 euros this year.

Conversely, the blanket rule of taking profits after a rise as a matter of course is expensive in Germany while the one-year period is still running. Between a taxable sale today and a tax-free sale in a few months lies almost half the gain at a personal tax rate of 42 percent. The price has to deliver that difference first.

Ethereum Gains and the Holding Period: What to Take Away

1. Check purchase dates before prices. Pull a list of your tranches with date, quantity and cost base per wallet, and mark which are older than a year. A tax report from the comparison of crypto tax tools and portfolio trackers delivers this overview in a few minutes and documents the chosen order of use at the same time.
2. Sell out of the right wallet. Decide deliberately which holding is disposed of, and factor the venue's fees into the calculation; the terms differ considerably, so a look at the comparison of the best crypto exchanges pays off before you place the order.
3. Let the rest run to a plan. Anyone who does not want to exit completely should establish when the next tranches come free for the remaining holding, and continue regular purchases in an orderly way; how to set up a recurring purchase is shown by the comparison of savings plan providers.

This article describes the legal position on the basis of the statute and the circular from the tax authorities; it is no substitute for tax advice in an individual case. Anyone who has to bring together several wallets, staking income and purchases from several years is better off with a tax adviser than with an estimate.

The sources in full: the text of section 23 of the Income Tax Act and the Ministry of Finance circular of March 6, 2025, on specific questions of the income tax treatment of certain crypto assets.

(As of September 14, 2026. This article is not investment advice. Prices and fee structures change; check the terms with the provider before you buy.)

If you have ever swapped a token on a decentralized exchange, deposited one in a lending pool or sent one through a bridge, an approval you forgot about long ago is very probably still live today. It allows a contract that is not yours to move your tokens out. It does not end with the swap, it does not expire after a year, and it does not lapse when the project behind it is abandoned. It ends only when you revoke it yourself.

The objection to clearing them up was the same for years: every revocation is a separate transaction, every transaction costs gas, and anyone sitting on twenty old approvals pays twenty times over. That objection no longer holds in this form. We ran the numbers on September 14, 2026, and revoking a single approval on Ethereum mainnet currently costs around half a cent.

Token Approval Explained: Why an approve Keeps Running After the Swap

A token approval, also called an allowance, is permission granted to an external contract address to take a certain quantity of a token out of your account. This is no flaw in the design. It is the mechanism without which the ERC-20 standard would not work at all.

The reason lies in how the standard is built. An ERC-20 token is its own contract with its own ledger. When you want to hand tokens to another contract, that contract cannot simply take them, it has to collect them itself. That requires two steps: first the approval through the approve function, then the actual operation, in which the contract pulls the tokens via transferFrom. You can read it up in the EIP-20 standard description, which has set out this split since 2015.

What matters is what does not happen in the second step. The standard makes no provision for the approval to expire once it has been used. It is reduced by the amount that was pulled, and if the approved amount was high enough, a remainder stays in place. That remainder is exactly the problem at issue here.

Unlimited Approval: What the uint256 Maximum Means for Your Balance

Many interfaces do not ask for an amount at all. They set the approval straight to the highest value the standard permits. That value is known as the uint256 maximum and is a 78-digit number. In practice it means unlimited, forever, covering the full size of your current and any future balance of that token.

For the operator of the interface this is convenient, because you only have to approve once and can trade afterwards without any further confirmation. For you it shifts the ceiling on the damage. An approval capped at 500 USDC can cost you 500 USDC in the worst case. An unlimited approval costs you everything held in that token at that address, at the moment the approved contract is compromised.

That moment is no theoretical one. In recent weeks we have reported repeatedly on cases in which users lost balances without ever giving away a seed phrase: through manipulated signature requests from wallet drainers as well as through tokens with a built-in freeze and clawback function. An old approval works in the same direction, only more quietly: once it is in place, it never asks you for another click.

It helps to be clear about what an approval is not. It gives nobody your private key, it grants no access to your Ether balance, and it only ever covers the one token you granted it for. Anyone holding ten tokens who has granted an unlimited approval for each of them has ten separate points of entry, not one.

Our Own Measurement: 5,910 Approvals in One Hour, 13.9 Percent of Them Unlimited

So that the scale does not remain a claim, we measured it. This analysis was carried out by cryptoticker.io itself on September 14, 2026.

The method in one sentence: through a public Ethereum node we read out every approval event for the five most used ERC-20 tokens across a contiguous window of 300 blocks and sorted them by the size of the approved amount. The window covers blocks 25,972,833 to 25,973,132, that is the period from 02:54 to 03:55 UTC on September 14, 2026, a good hour of network operation. The contracts examined were those of USDT, USDC, DAI, WETH and LINK.

In that hour there were 5,910 approval events, spread across 3,301 transactions. Of these, 820 stood at the uint256 maximum, meaning unlimited. That is 13.9 percent. A further eleven approvals sat below the maximum but above 10 to the power of 30 units, which for each of these tokens amounts to an unlimited approval. Together that gives 14.1 percent.

The distribution across the individual tokens diverged sharply. For WETH, 477 of 2,140 approvals were unlimited, a share of 22.3 percent. For USDC it was 203 of 2,475, or 8.2 percent. USDT came in at 130 of 1,181, or 11.0 percent. The smaller samples for DAI (7 of 83) and LINK (3 of 31) contribute little to the finding given their low case numbers and appear here only for the sake of completeness.

A second figure from the same measurement deserves attention because it points the other way: 1,241 of the 5,910 events were approvals set to zero, in other words revocations. One in five approval transactions in this window was therefore a clean-up. Awareness of the issue exists, and a measurable share of users acts on it.

What we could not establish with this method belongs here just as much. We did not assess the receiving addresses for whether a reputable protocol or a fraudulent contract sits behind them, since an unlimited approval granted to an established exchange interface is a different matter from one granted to an unknown address. We also measured only approvals newly granted within this window, leaving out the existing stock of open approvals that has built up over years and cannot be read out with this type of query. Finally, the figures exclude all approvals on layer-2 networks such as Arbitrum, Base or Optimism, as well as signature-based approvals following the Permit2 pattern, which generate no approval event at all. The true number of open approvals therefore lies above what is shown here.

Gas at 0.049 Gwei: What Revoking on Ethereum Really Costs Today

The second half of the measurement concerns the price. Here too the figures are queried values rather than an estimate. For six reference dates we read out ten blocks each, spaced 50 blocks apart, and took the median of the base fee.

On September 14, 2026, this median stands at 0.0492 Gwei, with a range of 0.0389 to 0.0540 Gwei across the ten samples. Seven days ago it stood at 0.0493 Gwei, 30 days ago at 0.0616 Gwei. Going back three months produces a different picture: on June 15, 2026, the median stood at 0.2097 Gwei, on March 17 at 0.1155 Gwei, and on September 12, 2025, at 0.1539 Gwei. Today's level is therefore barely a quarter of the value from three months ago and around a third of the value from a year ago.

That leaves the question of how much gas a revocation actually consumes. We measured this as well instead of taking it from a rule of thumb: out of the transactions in the measurement window we filtered 23 that produced exactly one event, meaning pure approval operations with nothing else attached. Their gas consumption ranged from 24,080 to 55,906 units, with a median of 48,837.

From this the calculation follows. 48,837 gas units at 0.0492 Gwei come to 0.0000024 Ether. At a price of 2,170.21 euros per Ether, retrieved on September 14, 2026, from Kraken, that equals 0.52 cents. Across the measured gas range the price moves between 0.26 and 0.60 cents. Clearing up ten approvals therefore costs around five cents. For comparison: on June 15 the same revocation would have cost 2.22 cents, which supports the point rather than undermining it. Even back then the operation was not expensive.

This is where the actual finding of the analysis lies. Cost does not work as a justification for leaving old approvals in place, and it has not worked as one for some time. Even so, 13.9 percent of all newly granted approvals still sit at unlimited. The transaction fee is not what stands in the way. What is missing is the habit of clearing up once the swap is done.

Checking Token Approvals: How to See What Is Open in a Few Minutes

Getting started is unspectacular. You need your public address, no seed phrase and no installation.

The quickest route is an approval checker. The best known one is Revoke.cash, which was reachable when we called it up on September 14, 2026, and which breaks down the open approvals of an address by token and contract address. Etherscan also runs a tool of its own under the name Token Approval Checker that produces the same list; the page blocks automated requests, while in a normal browser it is readily accessible.

You can start by simply typing in the address and looking at the list without connecting a wallet. For a plain look-up that is entirely sufficient, and it is the safer route: an interface you are using for the first time does not need immediate access to your account. You only have to connect once you actually want to revoke, because that requires a transaction and therefore a signature.

How to Spot a Risky Approval

Three characteristics tell you most. If the amount column points to an unlimited quantity, the approval is open regardless of your current balance. If the grant date goes back months or years and you cannot remember the protocol, there is no reason to let it keep running. And if the receiving address carries no known contract name, only a bare hex address, it deserves particular attention.

One qualification belongs here: the fact that an approval goes to a well known, heavily used protocol does not make it harmless. The large losses of recent years arose predominantly at established contracts that only revealed a gap later on.

Revoking Approvals: The Process Step by Step

A revocation is technically the same thing as an approval, only with the amount set to zero. You call the same approve function and set the permitted quantity to nothing. After that the contract can pull nothing more.

In practice it runs like this: you open the approval checker, connect your wallet, select the approval you want gone from the list, and confirm the transaction. Pay attention to what your wallet shows you before you sign. It has to be an approve on the token contract you are currently clearing up, and the amount has to be zero. If your wallet shows you a transfer of your balance instead, or a signature with no recognizable function, abort.

Every approval needs its own transaction, and that holds even when the interface offers several at once. So reckon with the measured half a cent per operation, not with a flat price for the whole list. Anyone with a great many old approvals can work by the size of the balance and start with the tokens that actually hold something. An unlimited approval on a token of which you hold zero units is untidy, yet at that moment it has no effect. It becomes dangerous only once something arrives at the address again.

Limited Approval Instead of Unlimited: What a Fixed Amount Really Achieves

The more effective step comes before the revocation, namely at the moment of granting. Most wallets let you overwrite the proposed unlimited amount when confirming and enter exactly the quantity this particular operation is about.

The price for that is convenience. If you want to trade again next week, you have to approve again, and that costs another transaction. At the gas price measured today, this price is five tenths of a cent per operation. Anyone trading regularly therefore pays a few euros a year for the assurance that no open approval is left behind.

Against that stands the benefit. A limited approval caps the possible damage at the amount entered, and it effectively expires by itself because it is used up during the operation. Precisely this property makes the difference between an annoying and an existential loss when a contract is compromised years later.

The Special Case of Permit2 and Signatures

A newer pattern works with a signature in place of a transaction. Under the name Permit or Permit2 you grant permission by signing a message that the contract later submits itself. This saves you the gas cost of the approval and therefore also generates no approval event on the blockchain, which is why these permissions are missing from our measurement.

For you that means two things. A signature request can have the same effect as an approval, even though it looks more harmless and costs nothing. And a permission granted by signature will show up in some approval checkers only if the tool explicitly supports Permit2. Check that before you take an empty list for a clean list.

What Revoking Does Not Protect: Seed Phrase, Signatures and Phishing

Tidy approvals limit the damage. They are no shield. They help you against exactly one attack pattern: a contract you once granted access to that later uses this access against you.

They do not help you if your seed phrase goes missing, because whoever holds the key needs no approval. They do not help you against a freshly signed transaction on a spoofed page, because in that moment you are granting a new permission rather than using an old one. And they do not help you with tokens whose contract brings its own blocking or clawback function, as many regulated and tokenized assets have built in.

Revoking therefore belongs alongside the other habits rather than in their place: separate addresses for trading and custody, a hardware wallet for the holdings that stay put, and the habit of reading every signature request before you confirm it.

Separate Addresses: Why an Approval Only Costs What the Account Holds

There is a way to defuse the topic structurally, and it manages without any tool at all. An approval can only ever reach what sits at the address it applies to. Anyone who separates their holdings limits the damage regardless of how clean their approval list is.

In practice that means one address on which you trade and use contracts, and a second one on which the holdings you do not touch are kept. The second address connects to no decentralized interface and therefore never grants an approval. If you also manage it through a separate wallet instead of the same software installation, you separate the risk that a compromised interface reaches both accounts at once.

This split has a side effect you should be aware of: moving holdings between your own addresses counts as a transfer for tax purposes rather than a sale. You should still document it cleanly, because your exchange has been reporting these movements to the tax authorities since the beginning of 2026, and an unexplained outgoing transfer raises questions later on. What exactly gets transmitted is something we have broken down in our overview of the crypto reporting obligation.

Revoking Token Approvals: What to Take Away

1. Check today what is open. Enter your address into an approval checker without connecting the wallet, and get yourself a list. Anyone who finds an unlimited approval to a protocol they have not used for a year has already spent the afternoon usefully. For the holdings that are meant to stay put afterwards, our hardware wallet comparison is worth a look.
2. Clear up in the order of your balances. Begin with the tokens you actually hold something in, and work your way down. At a measured price of around half a cent per revocation, the list is a question of half an hour of your time rather than of cost. Which wallet shows you the approvals in plain language when you confirm them is set out in our software wallet comparison.
3. Change the habit at your next approval. Overwrite the unlimited proposal and enter the amount the operation is about. That costs you one more transaction on your next trade and in return caps every future loss at a sum you have set yourself. Anyone who wants to keep a clean overview of their holdings and movements will find the right tools in our portfolio tracker comparison.

(As of September 14, 2026. This article is not investment advice. Prices and fee structures change; check the terms with the provider before you buy.)

AI CEOs want the industry to pump the brakes on capability gains. Nvidia, Intel, and AMD didn't like the sound of that. Bitcoin didn't seem to mind.

Ethics and banking concessions have improved the crypto bill’s prospects, analysts say, but Democratic support remains uncertain.

The purchase brings the company closer to its goal of owning 5% of Ethereum’s supply, with most of its tokens earning staking rewards.

The Bitcoin treasury firm slowed its preferred-stock buyback from last week's $176 million pace and left its 845,050 BTC untouched, per a Monday SEC filing.

Republicans' "last, best and final offer" wins Trump's backing on stronger ethics rules and concedes on DeFi and stablecoin sticking points, but it's unclear if enough Democrats will cross over Tuesday.

Cardano has landed a major payments integration after gaining native support in the official x402 codebase, making it easier for developers and AI agents to settle internet payments on the network using standardized tooling.

Zcash and Litecoin achieve a new European listing amid ZEC’s $1K rally, opening a compliant trading window ahead of the 2027 AMLR ban.

Binance's CZ considers a new target, which seems like a long road for BNB Chain, after the blockchain flipped Solana in a major DeFi milestone.

Shiba Inu burn rate slows down ahead of potentially significant market development.

SHIB inflows just clocked a 200% surge to double outbound traffic, setting up a hidden supply trap while spot prices sit completely frozen.

TLDR

• Charles Schwab brings Claude for Financial Advisors to more than 16,000 RIAs.
• Anthropic’s platform supports meeting prep, planning, analytics, and follow-ups.
• Claude connects with CRM, custody, portfolio reporting, and planning systems.
• Schwab says the integration can reduce routine workloads across advisory firms.
• SCHW shares slipped 0.25% as Schwab expanded its advisor technology offering.

Charles Schwab stock slipped 0.25% to $106.99 on Monday as the company expanded its technology strategy. Schwab Advisor Services announced a partnership with Anthropic to bring Claude for Financial Advisors to independent advisory firms. The rollout targets more than 16,000 registered investment advisors using Schwab’s custody and business services.

The Charles Schwab Corporation, SCHW

Schwab Expands Technology Offering for Independent Advisors

Schwab plans to provide Claude for Financial Advisors directly through its Advisor Services business. The service focuses on daily tasks that often consume significant advisor time. Those tasks include meeting preparation, portfolio explanations, financial planning updates, and client communications.

The system connects with several tools already used across independent wealth management firms. These include customer relationship management, custody, portfolio reporting, financial planning, estate planning, and meeting platforms. Therefore, advisors can access information across several systems without constantly moving between separate applications.

Schwab said the integration should help advisory firms improve productivity while maintaining their existing technology infrastructure. The service also provides administrative audit logs that firms can review when needed. This feature gives firms another way to supervise technology use across their operations.

Claude Targets Daily Financial Advisory Workflows

Claude for Financial Advisors aims to support several stages of the client service process. Advisors can use the system to prepare meetings and identify changes across client accounts. They can also use it for analysis and updates to existing financial plans.

The service can draft follow-up communications after meetings for an advisor to review. Consequently, advisory teams may spend less time preparing routine client materials and internal information. Advisors still control the final information delivered to clients through their firms.

Anthropic designed the financial service around tools commonly used by wealth management companies. The partnership with Schwab gives Anthropic access to a large network of independent advisory businesses. Schwab gains another technology product for firms seeking to streamline daily operations.

Schwab Builds on Its Independent Advisor Business

Schwab Advisor Services provides custody, technology, and business support to independent registered investment advisors. Its network includes more than 16,000 firms serving clients across different wealth management segments. Technology has become an important part of Schwab’s services as advisory businesses handle growing operational demands.

Independent advisory firms often combine several platforms for planning, portfolio management, client records, and custody. That structure can create additional administrative work when employees need information from several different systems. Schwab’s new Anthropic integration aims to connect those workflows through one service.

The announcement also extends Schwab’s broader focus on technology within its advisor business. The company wants technology to reduce administrative workloads while helping advisors spend more time with clients. Monday’s modest stock decline came as Schwab outlined this latest expansion of its advisor technology offering.

The post Charles Schwab (SCHW) Stock: Anthropic Deal Brings Claude to 16,000 RIAs appeared first on Blockonomi.

TLDR

• Verizon stock gains as the company expands its 6G industry partnership network.
• Nine technology firms join Verizon’s forum to support future 6G development.
• Verizon tests sensing tools for crowd density, drones, and vehicle tracking.
• Smart glasses trials show how edge networks could support real-time sports data.
• Los Angeles will serve as a major test hub before wider commercial 6G rollout.

Verizon Communications Inc. (VZ) stock gained 1.29% to $51.26 during Monday’s trading session, adding $0.65. The advance followed Verizon’s expansion of its 6G Innovation Forum with nine additional technology companies. The initiative targets future wireless systems designed for edge computing, smart glasses, sensing technology, and advanced connected devices.

Verizon Communications Inc., VZ

Verizon Expands 6G Forum With Major Technology Partners

Verizon added Amazon Web Services, Cisco, Intel, Keysight Technologies, MediaTek, NVIDIA, Palo Alto Networks, Rohde & Schwarz, and VIAVI Solutions. These companies join founding members Ericsson, Samsung, Nokia, Meta, and Qualcomm Technologies in Verizon’s wireless development program. Together, the group plans to develop an open 6G ecosystem while testing new technologies and network requirements.

The forum focuses on new spectrum bands, network capacity, edge computing, security, device development, and advanced wireless applications. Members will also work toward compatibility with international standards developed through organizations including the 3GPP. Verizon expects wider industry participation to support more practical testing before future commercial 6G networks reach customers.

Verizon has positioned advanced connectivity around growing demand from connected devices that generate large amounts of real-time data. Smart glasses could require stronger upload capacity because users continuously send video, audio, and environmental information. Therefore, future networks may require different traffic designs compared with traditional mobile systems focused heavily on downloads.

Verizon Tests Network Sensing for Crowds Drones and Vehicles

Verizon also highlighted recent Integrated Sensing and Communication trials with Samsung and Qualcomm using current 5G Advanced technology. ISAC allows wireless infrastructure to detect movement and environmental changes while continuing normal mobile communication services. The technology could eventually support public safety, event operations, transportation monitoring, and autonomous systems.

Verizon and Samsung tested crowd-density detection during an international soccer celebration held in Dallas, Texas. The demonstration used one 5G base station, CBRS spectrum, Samsung smartphones, and edge processing equipment. The system analyzed wireless signal changes and produced real-time crowd-density information without relying on traditional camera systems.

Verizon and Qualcomm tested drone and vehicle tracking at Qualcomm’s San Diego campus. The system used millimeter-wave spectrum and synchronized transmission points to monitor airborne and ground targets. It also maintained high-speed 5G Standalone service while tracking movement, showing how future networks could support several functions simultaneously.

Smart Glasses Trial Builds Verizon 6G Deployment Strategy

Verizon also demonstrated an AI Sports Companion application designed around edge computing and wearable devices. The prototype allowed users wearing Meta smart glasses to request statistics, scores, and game probability information through voice commands. Verizon processed the requests through its edge network to reduce delays and improve real-time responses.

The project reflects Verizon’s wider focus on applications that could require stronger uplink performance and lower network latency. Wearable devices may continuously transmit information while receiving processed responses from nearby computing infrastructure. Consequently, Verizon is testing network designs that balance data uploads and downloads more efficiently than existing mobile architectures.

Verizon plans additional demonstrations involving robotics, digital twins, sensing systems, advanced wearables, and edge-based applications. The company views the 2028 Los Angeles Summer Olympics as an important testing environment before commercial 6G deployment. Verizon already operates a dedicated 6G laboratory in Los Angeles to support development and large-scale network trials.

The post Verizon Communications Inc. (VZ) Stock: Surge as 6G Expansion Targets AI and Smart Glasses appeared first on Blockonomi.

TLDR

• UiPath stock climbed 7.53% after Gartner again named the company an IDP Leader.
• Gartner recognized UiPath as an IDP Leader for the second consecutive year.
• UiPath IXP turns complex business documents into structured data for workflows.
• Document processing remains central to UiPath’s broader automation strategy.
• UiPath is expanding beyond RPA into broader enterprise workflow automation.

UiPath stock advanced Monday after Gartner again named the company a leader in intelligent document processing. PATH climbed 7.53% to $14.78 as the recognition strengthened UiPath’s position in enterprise automation. The move also highlighted demand for tools that turn business documents into usable workflow data.

UiPath Inc., PATH

Gartner Recognition Strengthens UiPath’s IDP Position

Gartner placed UiPath in the Leaders category of its 2026 Magic Quadrant for Intelligent Document Processing. The recognition marked the second straight year that UiPath received a Leader position in the assessment. Gartner reviews market vision, execution, customer reach, and the ability to expand products and services.

The ranking gives UiPath added visibility in a market tied to automation and document management. Businesses still store important information inside invoices, contracts, claims forms, and scanned records. Intelligent document processing converts those files into structured information for automated business processes.

UiPath connects document processing with wider workflow automation across finance, insurance, procurement, and other functions. That approach moves data from documents directly into tasks and reduces repeated manual review. It also supports extraction, validation, and routing before teams complete later stages of each process.

UiPath Expands Document Processing Through IXP

UiPath has built its document processing strategy around IXP, which handles complex documents and unstructured business content. The platform converts information into structured data for workflows, operations, and business decisions. UiPath also connects the system with its wider automation and business orchestration tools.

The company says IXP can process varied document types while reducing manual work in document-heavy operations. Accounts payable teams can use invoice data, while claims teams can process forms and supporting records. These functions extend automation where inconsistent document formats previously limited straight-through processing.

UiPath also relies on customers, developers, and technology partners to expand document automation use cases. The company emphasizes faster deployment and simpler integration across its document processing products. Those priorities support wider automation without forcing businesses to rebuild existing systems around new software.

PATH Stock Gains as Enterprise Automation Focus Expands

Monday’s move came as Gartner’s recognition reinforced UiPath’s standing within the enterprise software market. The announcement gave the company another external validation point for a product area tied to automation spending. It also highlighted UiPath’s effort to connect document intelligence with processes that require reliable data.

UiPath competes in a crowded automation market where vendors increasingly combine workflow tools with document processing. Companies want systems that handle unstructured information while supporting faster and more consistent decisions. That demand has increased the importance of document extraction, verification, and integration across enterprise software.

UiPath has expanded beyond robotic process automation into broader business orchestration and intelligent workflow tools. Its document processing products support that shift and provide options for more complex enterprise use cases. Gartner’s latest recognition strengthens that position as UiPath continues expanding end-to-end process management.

The post UiPath (PATH) Stock: Jump as Gartner Recognizes IDP Leadership  appeared first on Blockonomi.

TLDR

• Ciena stock fell 6.48% as the company launched a new $200 million venture fund.
• Ciena Ventures will back startups and funds tied to advanced networking technologies.
• The fund targets next-generation data centers, optical systems, and interconnects.
• Loai Louis will lead Ciena Ventures as the company expands its innovation strategy.
• Ciena aims to gain early access to emerging technologies across networking markets.

Ciena Corporation (CIEN )stock fell 6.48% Monday as the networking company launched a $200 million corporate venture program. CIEN shares dropped $22.65 to $326.89 during the session. Meanwhile, Ciena Ventures will target emerging networking, data center, optical, and computing technologies.

Ciena Corporation, CIEN

Ciena Corporation Launches $200 Million Venture Program

Ciena introduced Ciena Ventures as its first company-wide corporate venture capital initiative. The company committed an initial $200 million to support the program. It will invest in early-stage companies and technology-focused venture funds.

The program will complement Ciena’s existing internal research investments and acquisition strategy. Ciena expects the initiative to expand its access to emerging technologies. It could also support development across networking infrastructure and related markets.

Ciena assigned Vice President of Corporate Development Loai Louis to lead the program. His team will identify companies and funds aligned with Ciena’s long-term technology priorities. The initiative also gives Ciena another route for expanding its technology portfolio.

Next-Generation Data Center Technology Takes Focus

Ciena Ventures will target technologies supporting advanced networking infrastructure and network operations. The program will also pursue developments supporting next-generation data center architectures. These areas have gained importance as computing workloads require faster and more efficient connections.

Ciena also plans to support new optical networking technologies and advanced interconnect systems. These technologies connect servers, data centers, and other large computing systems. Growing data traffic has increased demand for higher capacity and lower network delays.

Furthermore, Ciena will explore opportunities involving computing, materials, and emerging communications technologies. Those investments could extend the company’s reach beyond its traditional networking products. However, Ciena did not identify specific companies receiving capital from the new fund.

CIEN Stock Falls as Ciena Expands Technology Strategy

Ciena develops networking systems that help telecommunications companies and data center operators move large volumes of information. Its portfolio includes optical systems, routing technology, automation software, and network management products. The company serves customers that require high-capacity communications infrastructure.

The venture program adds another component to Ciena’s broader growth strategy. Ciena already uses internal development and acquisitions to expand its technology capabilities. The new fund provides direct access to startups developing technologies that could shape future network infrastructure.

Ciena designed the initiative to strengthen its position as networking requirements continue changing. Faster computing systems require stronger connections between data centers, cloud platforms, and communications networks. Therefore, Ciena Ventures gives the company another channel for identifying technologies linked to those changes.

The post Ciena Corporation (CIEN) Stock: Drops 6% as $200M Fund Targets Data Center Tech appeared first on Blockonomi.

Key Takeaways

• Major AI semiconductor companies like Nvidia, AMD, and Intel experienced significant declines following executive warnings about rapid AI advancement dangers
• Technology companies Adobe and ServiceNow saw gains, indicating potential sector rotation rather than wholesale AI exit
• Brent crude surged beyond $108 per barrel following attacks targeting Saudi Arabia’s critical energy infrastructure and pipeline shutdown
• Saudi Arabia’s East-West pipeline transports approximately 4 million barrels daily, making this disruption a significant supply threat
• Bitcoin enters a critical macroeconomic period as Federal Reserve rate increase expectations intensify

The semiconductor sector experienced substantial turbulence Monday as leading AI chip manufacturers saw sharp selloffs triggered by industry leader warnings regarding the pace of artificial intelligence advancement.

Nvidia’s shares declined over 3% during trading. Meanwhile, AMD, Intel, and Marvell each posted losses ranging from 5% to 6%. The Philadelphia Semiconductor Index registered a decline approaching 6% during intraday trading.

These losses followed public statements from influential AI industry figures advocating for more measured development of advanced AI systems, citing potential hazards. Market participants immediately began reassessing whether the substantial capital investments flowing into chips and infrastructure might decelerate.

Sector Rebalancing Rather Than Broad Exodus

The broader technology landscape showed divergent patterns. Adobe and ServiceNow posted gains during the same session, suggesting capital reallocation within AI-exposed stocks rather than wholesale abandonment of the theme.

Declaring the AI investment cycle finished would be premature. However, Monday’s price action indicates investors are adopting a more discriminating approach when allocating capital.

Semiconductor manufacturers had been among the primary beneficiaries of AI-driven investment flows. Monday’s reversal served as evidence that this trend faces headwinds and volatility.

Crude Prices Jump Following Saudi Infrastructure Strike

Energy commodities experienced dramatic movement after strikes targeted Saudi Arabian energy facilities. Brent crude pushed back above the $108 threshold following the temporary closure of the nation’s East-West pipeline system.

This critical pipeline infrastructure handles roughly 4 million barrels daily, directing crude toward Red Sea export terminals. Any interruption to these volumes immediately captures market attention.

The incident compounded already elevated energy market tensions. Crude prices had been advancing for weeks before this development provided additional upward momentum.

Rising oil prices compound inflationary pressures already commanding Federal Reserve attention. Financial markets have now increased probability assessments for additional monetary tightening in upcoming meetings.

Cryptocurrency Faces Critical Assessment Period

Bitcoin confronts this challenging macroeconomic backdrop with significant tests approaching. Escalating interest rate expectations combined with equity volatility typically pressure risk-oriented assets, a category where Bitcoin frequently trades.

Cryptocurrency market participants view the upcoming period as among the most significant macro inflection points this year for digital asset valuations.

Bitcoin’s performance trajectory depends substantially on Federal Reserve communications and broader market reactions to energy supply disruptions and technology sector weakness.

Market participants monitoring both traditional and cryptocurrency markets now face multiple simultaneous pressure points, with limited clarity on near-term resolution for any single catalyst.

The post Market Watch: AI Chip Stocks Tumble, Crude Spikes Past $108, and Bitcoin Braces for Volatility appeared first on Blockonomi.

SUI trades well below its peak levels, and its double-digit decline over the past week has only worsened its condition. It is currently worth around $0.71, representing an 80% crash on a yearly basis.

However, certain indicators suggest that a resurgence could be just around the corner.

The Factors in Question

Renowned analyst Ali Martinez revealed that the TD Sequential has flashed a buy signal on SUI’s 12-hour chart, noting that it has been “remarkably accurate at identifying major trend shifts.”

“Its previous signal came after a 17% rally and accurately anticipated the next shift in momentum. Now, with SUI trading near $0.71, the indicator has flashed a fresh buy signal. This could mark the beginning of the next leg higher,” he stated.

His analysis follows a previous comment on SUI. Last week, Martinez argued that the asset appears to have entered a trading channel with a lower boundary set at $0.71. He claimed that if this area holds, he plans to buy SUI again, targeting the top of the structure at around $0.84.

At the beginning of September, another ray of hope emerged for the token. Back then, Martinez said SUI’s TD Sequential flashed a buy signal on the asset’s daily chart, hinting that the correction could be nearing its end.

The asset’s exchange netflow should also be observed. Over the past few days, outflows have dominated inflows, suggesting some investors have moved away from centralized platforms toward self-custody. This, in turn, reduces immediate selling pressure.

Top Forecasts

The list of market observers projecting SUI to fly high in the near future is quite lengthy. X user Michael van de Poppe believes that a pump to $0.85 could trigger a more substantial surge beyond $1. Crypto With Gopal also shared a similar thesis lately, saying:

“Buyers have defended the $0.72-$0.73 zone twice, showing strong support and a potential momentum shift. A reclaim of $0.84-$0.85 resistance could open the way toward the $1.00 target.”

Sui Intern was more optimistic, saying the asset has entered “a trampoline mode” and that “the deeper the market sentiment hits, the higher it will bounce up.” That said, they expect SUI to trade above $30 in Q4 2026.

In the meantime, you can check our video below for the overall market state and the major macro events coming up.

The post Sui (SUI) Flashes a Buy Signal After a 10% Weekly Drop: What Are the Potential Targets? appeared first on CryptoPotato.

The landmark crypto legislation, known as the CLARITY Act, seeks to establish a clear regulatory framework for digital assets in the USA, and many industry participants view it as a potential game-changer.

The Senate’s cloture vote on the bill is scheduled for tomorrow (September 15), and advancing the debate will require at least 60 votes. Although lawmakers recently revised the legislation to attract more Democratic support, the outcome remains far from certain.

Still, we wanted to check whether Bitcoin (BTC) or Ethereum (ETH) will pump more if the CLARITY Act formally moves to the Senate. To do so, we asked three of the most widely used AI-powered chatbots for their take, and here are their answers.

ChatGPT + Perplexity

OpenAI’s platform claimed that ETH is more likely to rally harder in percentage terms if the bill advances. It predicted that BTC would benefit from the broader sentiment improvement, but added that the asset already has relatively clear commodity status and the legislation would not fundamentally change its regulatory position.

ChatGPT also suggested that ETH has considerably more to gain because the CLARITY Act will reduce uncertainty over whether the asset and other network tokens could be treated as securities. In conclusion, the chatbot estimated that BTC could jump 5-10% after a potential successful vote, while the second-largest cryptocurrency might soar 10-20% immediately after the news.

Perplexity shared a similar thesis, projecting that ETH could print a sharp move toward the high-$2,000s to low-$3,000s after such a development. It went even further, arguing that this could set the stage for a major bull run toward a new all-time high above $5,000.

For BTC, the chatbot expects its valuation to initially surge beyond $83,000. At the same time, it warned that if the bill clearly fails, the asset could plunge to a local bottom of around $55,000.

Gemini’s Take

Google’s chatbot also picked ETH, arguing that it is generally expected to experience a larger percentage rally than BTC if the CLARITY Act clears its hurdles.

“While both assets stand to gain from regulatory progress, the structural dynamics of the CLARITY Act favor ETH for sharper upside potential,” it explained.

Gemini suggested the bill would generally benefit altcoins more than BTC, noting that their lower relative market capitalization (compared to the industry leader) means the same volume of institutional capital inflow triggers larger percentage price swings.

Meanwhile, you can find all details regarding the upcoming vote in our video below.

The post Bitcoin or Ethereum: Which Will Rally More if CLARITY Act Moves to Senate? 3 AIs Analyze appeared first on CryptoPotato.

BitMine Immersion Technologies (BMNR) reported an Ethereum (ETH) treasury of 5,956,378 tokens and combined crypto, cash, and moonshot holdings of $15.8 billion as of September 13, in a press release and 8-K filed September 14.

BitMine marked its ether at $2,513 per token, up from the prior week’s $2,495 mark, per Coinbase, lifting the total to $15.7 billion from the $15.7 billion it reported a week earlier, when its stash reached 5.93 million tokens, and it switched staking to a flat 1.50% validator fee.

Staked Total Holds at 85%

The company added 27,180 ETH over the past week and has bought ether every week since the strategy began on June 30, 2025.

Those holdings equal 4.9% of the 122.0 million ETH in supply, unchanged from a week earlier, under a plan BitMine calls the Alchemy of 5%, its [target of owning 5% of all ether]. The company puts the treasury 98% of the way to that mark, 15 months into the strategy.

BitMine stakes 5,067,309 ETH, worth $12.7 billion at its mark and about 85% of the treasury, through MAVAN, the in-house Made in America Validator Network it built this year. That staked total has held unchanged across the last three weekly updates even as the token count rose.

Chairman Thomas “Tom” Lee put projected annualized staking revenue at $334 million, up from $330 million a week earlier, rising to $392 million once the ether is fully staked, at a 2.62% seven-day yield.

Lee said Ether was the best-performing macro asset in the third quarter, outperforming the S&P 500 by 5,866 basis points through September 11, with Ether, Solana, and Bitcoin the top three assets since June 30. He added that the ETH-to-BTC price ratio had reached its highest level since January 30.

Cash Falls to $549 Million

Total cash and marketable securities stood at $549 million on September 13, down from $593 million a week earlier. The release gave no reason for the drawdown. Alongside the ether, BitMine held 212 Bitcoin (BTC), a $180 million stake in Beast Industries and a $98 million stake in Eightco Holdings (ORBS), up from $91 million the previous week, which the company called one of the only listed equities offering investors indirect exposure to OpenAI.

BitMine ranked among the most heavily traded US stocks, at $924 million in average daily dollar volume over the four days to September 11, 98th of 5,704 listed names, according to Fundstrat. Its holdings rank first among corporate ether treasuries and second among all crypto treasuries, behind Strategy (MSTR), which the release said owns 845,080 Bitcoin worth about $71 billion.

More information on Ethereum as well as the upcoming major events in the US can be found in our dedicated video below.

The post BitMine Adds 27,180 Ethereum in Latest Purchase, Pushing Stash to 5.96 Million ETH appeared first on CryptoPotato.

Bitcoin’s struggle below $80,000 continues and the asset is currently facing the weekly MA50.

This is a major resistance that it needs to reclaim so BTC can continue building on the impressive August breakout.

Weekly MA50 Test

In the latest market update, Doctor Profit flagged multiple attempts made by Bitcoin around the MA50 in early 2023 before the eventual breakout. According to him, the comparison does not mean that every candle from 2023 must repeat or that it tells us whether another correction comes first.

He reiterated that $78,500 had broken as resistance but had not been confirmed as support. $71,000 is an important level in his framework. Doctor Profit said it remains his strongest support reference and that the market could still revisit it before recovering toward higher levels.

Bitcoin needs to reclaim the weekly MA50 before the $82,500-$83,000 region becomes the major breakout area in his framework, which could then open the path for $88,000. However, the move toward this level may take time, rather than playing out within this week.

“So anyone expecting an immediate, uninterrupted breakout was getting ahead of the chart. Expecting resistance to break eventually is not the same as expecting every attempt to succeed.”

Key Events This Week

A new version of the CLARITY Act is now on the table as Senate Republicans make a final push for Democratic support ahead of the procedural vote. The 635-page bill brings in tougher ethics rules that would force public officials to sell major crypto holdings or place them in a blind trust. It also gives both the DOJ and state attorneys general the power to enforce those rules. Beyond that, the latest changes cover miners and validators, stablecoin risks, and conflicts of interest across crypto markets.

The analyst expects the legislation to be signed by Donald Trump by the end of the year and considers progress toward a workable framework as bullish for BTC.

Federal Reserve’s decision is due September 16, following the September 15-16 FOMC meeting, and is also one of the several economic events taking place this week. The market is pricing in an 85.5% probability of a quarter-point hike and a 14.5% probability of rates remaining unchanged, with effectively no probability assigned to a cut. For Bitcoin, Doctor Profit’s personal view is that the Fed should leave rates as they are rather than make a change.

More on the upcoming events and the current market state can be found in our dedicated video below.

The post The Weekly MA50 Is Holding Bitcoin (BTC) Back – Here Are the Levels to Watch appeared first on CryptoPotato.

The world’s largest corporate holder of bitcoin made a somewhat surprising BTC acquisition at the start of the month but has remained quiet on that front ever since.

In contrast, the Matt Cole-spearheaded Strive continues to accumulate, adding another 469 BTC to its stash.

Michael Saylor noted on X minutes ago that his company’s cryptocurrency stash remains at 845,050, acquired at an average price of $75,412 per unit. The firm has spent a little over $63.7 billion to acquire the fortune over the past six years, while its current value is about $2 billion higher.

Nevertheless, Strategy has made only one purchase in the past almost three months, which was announced on September 1. At the time, the company spent $370 million to buy back 4,603 BTC after selling at much lower prices.

Instead, the firm continues to repurchase STRC, splashing another $139 million. Its USD reserve has fallen slightly to $6.4 billion as a result. STRC’s price has recovered substantially since the lows a few months ago when it dipped to $75, currently sitting at over $98.5.

In contrast to Strategy, Strive has made a BTC purchase over the past week. CEO Matt Cole noted on X that the firm has acquired 469 BTC for $36.6 million at an average price close to the current one. Its total holdings were rounded up to 25,000 BTC. All of the capital raised came from SATA, which now has over $1 billion in notional outstanding.

Strive acquired an additional 469 $BTC for $36.6M at an average cost of $77,954 per bitcoin, bringing total holdings to ₿25,000.

100% of the capital raised came from SATA, which now has over $1B notional outstanding.
We increased amplification ratio to 53.5%.$ASST $SATA pic.twitter.com/Nu3EYIBS4R

— Matt Cole (@ColeMacro) September 14, 2026

The post Strategy Stays on the Sidelines Again but Strive Buys More Bitcoin appeared first on CryptoPotato.