Pulisic's return boosts Milan's tactical flexibility, enhancing their attacking options and potentially impacting their Serie A campaign positively.

The post Ruben Amorim confirms Christian Pulisic’s return for AC Milan against Lazio appeared first on Crypto Briefing.

The rapid rise of onchain equities highlights a shift towards decentralized finance, but reliance on a single platform poses systemic risks.

The post Onchain equities surpass governance tokens in user engagement as tokenized stock trading explodes appeared first on Crypto Briefing.

The surge in tokenized ETF deposits into DeFi highlights a shift towards integrating traditional finance with decentralized platforms, enhancing liquidity and accessibility.

The post Tokenized ETF deposits into DeFi venues surge 19x to $68M appeared first on Crypto Briefing.

Russia's hybrid warfare strategy risks destabilizing Europe, potentially altering geopolitical dynamics and influencing military engagement forecasts.

The post Kremlin’s hybrid warfare aims to undermine European support for Ukraine appeared first on Crypto Briefing.

Sunak's advisory role may enhance Anthropic's strategic influence, potentially driving further growth and solidifying its AI industry position.

The post Rishi Sunak joins Anthropic as advisor amid $965B valuation boost appeared first on Crypto Briefing.

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.

Bitcoin Magazine

Blockstream Tells Hackers To Return Remaining Bitcoin Stolen in Liquid Theft

Bitcoin infrastructure firm Blockstream has refused to negotiate further with hackers who last week stole 4,000 bitcoins from its Liquid network. 

Writing on X Friday, Blockstream said that the hackers still had time to return the funds before the company would work with law enforcement. 

White-hat hackers on Sunday withdrew about $320 million from the federation wallet that backs Liquid, a sidechain by Blockstream. After negotiating with Blockstream, they returned most of the funds but kept 598.5 coins worth over $46 million — demanding it as ransom. 

“Blockstream will not pay a ransom for the return of stolen funds,” the post read. “Taking assets without authorization and withholding their return is a crime, not responsible disclosure. It is not white-hat activity. It is theft.”

It added: “We will work with law enforcement, exchanges, service providers, forensic specialists, and other relevant parties to trace and recover the assets and identify those responsible.”

“We will not pay for the return of stolen property. We will not abandon our users. The Bitcoin community will not stop pursuing the funds.”

Liquid, or L-BTC, is a layer-2 created by Blockstream that allows users to fast move assets backed 1:1 with bitcoin. One of the assets, LBTC, is a token backed by bitcoin that allows for quick settlement — a bit like the Lightning Network. 

Hackers were able to get the funds by exploiting an inflation bug on the Liquid sidechain to create over 4,000 LBTC that did not exist before and cash them out for real, on-chain bitcoins. 

The hackers then had an exchange with Blockstream via messages written into Bitcoin blocks. 

In one message, the white hats wrote: “Please fix the bug first. The chain is under risk at latest commit right now. Make sure every node is patched. Then we will transfer the money back safely after confirming the fix.”

In the latest message, the hackers slammed Blocksteam as “delusional, greedy, and arrogant,” and threatened to reveal all of Blockstream’s encrypted messages in the exchange unless the company allowed thieves to keep 10% of the bitcoins. 

“You SHALL pay 10% using your own money as bug bounty or you will cause all your holders a 15% loss for your irresponsibility and stinginess,” the message read. 

The Bitcoin community is still reeling after hackers in July were able to steal over 1,800 bitcoins worth close to $140 million from Coldcard wallet holders. 

Users of the popular hardware wallet, created by Coinkite, were targeted because the product’s manufacturer did not use a true random number generator, allowing hackers to essentially guess investor seedphrases. 

This post Blockstream Tells Hackers To Return Remaining Bitcoin Stolen in Liquid Theft first appeared on Bitcoin Magazine and is written by Mathew Di Salvo.

Bitcoin Magazine

Italy’s Second Biggest Bank UniCredit Is Weighting up Crypto Custody: Report

Italy’s second largest bank is considering expanding into digital asset offerings, including custody, according to reports. 

According to a Friday Bloomberg report citing people familiar with the matter, Milan-based UniCredit is selecting a technology provider that would allow it to build the infrastructure needed to hold digital assets and facilitate their buying and selling. 

Bloomberg’s reporting added that tokenized investment products and fixed-income securities, the use of stablecoins and exposure to cryptocurrencies were all on the cards. 

The news comes as other banks in Europe expand crypto offerings. Spain moved first on retail, with BBVA rolling out bitcoin trading and custody to all customers via its app, using its own custody infrastructure rather than a third party; Santander’s Openbank followed with its own trading service.

Cecabank — a Spanish custodian with over €400bn under management that acts as backbone for 100+ financial institutions — went live with crypto custody in June via a partnership with Bit2Me.

And in Germany, Deutsche Bank is building custody with Bitpanda’s technology arm, while Taurus and DZ Bank got BaFin approval in January for its meinKrypto platform. 

New regulation in the European Union — Markets in Crypto-Assets Regulation (MiCA) — gives banks a legal definition, a supervisor, and a familiar set of obligations to launch crypto services. 

UniCredit is one 37 lenders across 15 European countries working together to create a company called Qivalis with the aim of issuing a euro-denominated stablecoin.

Last year, the bank said it was offering professional clients a structured product tied to BlackRock’s iShares Bitcoin Trust exchange-traded fund, with full protection against losses.

This post Italy’s Second Biggest Bank UniCredit Is Weighting up Crypto Custody: Report first appeared on Bitcoin Magazine and is written by Mathew Di Salvo.

Bitcoin Magazine

Government Defeated as Lords Back UK Digital Assets Strategy

The UK government suffered a defeat in the House of Lords on Wednesday as peers backed an amendment requiring the Treasury to draw up a national strategy for regulating digital assets.

The upper chamber approved the measure by 194 votes to 138, with Conservative and Liberal Democrat peers combining against a near-solid bloc of Labour votes. Baroness Neville-Rolfe, a Conservative former Treasury minister, moved the amendment to the Financial Services and Markets Bill.

The new clause, titled “Digital assets strategy,” would require the Treasury to prepare, publish and consult on a strategy for regulating and developing digital assets and related digital financial market infrastructure in the UK.

The regulation of digital assets includes “cryptoassets, qualifying stablecoins, Central Bank Digital Currencies, tokenised securities and other digital and tokenised financial assets,” according to the draft. 

The UK is in the process of drafting a sweeping new crypto bill. The country’s Financial Conduct Authority finalised its regulatory framework for cryptoassets in June, with the regime due to take effect on 25 October 2027. The authorisation gateway for firms opened on 30 September and runs to 28 February 2027. 

Britain is trailing behind Brussels and Washington with digital asset regulation. The EU’s Markets in Crypto-Assets regulation has applied to service providers since 30 December 2024. 

And the U.S. under President Donald Trump signed the GENIUS Act into law in July 2025, establishing a federal framework for dollar-backed tokens. Broader market-structure legislation remains unfinished: the Clarity Act cleared the House in July 2025 by 294-134 but has been stuck in the Senate over DeFi, stablecoin yield and ethics provisions, with a procedural vote set for next week. 

This post Government Defeated as Lords Back UK Digital Assets Strategy first appeared on Bitcoin Magazine and is written by Mathew Di Salvo.

Bitcoin Magazine

Bitcoin Price Spikes, Shrugs off Hot US Inflation Data

Bitcoin’s price rose on Friday — despite data revealing that U.S. inflation had risen. 

The biggest cryptocurrency by market cap was recently trading for close to $78,749 after jumping 2% over a 24-hour period. At one point on Friday morning in New York, bitcoin rose as high as $79,607. 

Bitcoin’s price spike came after news dropped that U.S. consumer prices accelerated in August, reinforcing ​expectations that the Federal Reserve will raise interest rates next week.

The consumer price index, excluding food and energy, climbed 0.3% in August from a month earlier, which was higher than expected. 

Inflation in the U.S. has been difficult to tame due to the war with Iran, which has lifted oil prices, in turn raising the costs of food, gasoline and other goods. 

Higher inflation typically means the Federal Reserve will raise interest rates, which in turn could stop bitcoin’s price climbing higher. 

According to CME’s FedWatch tool, traders think there is a 85% chance interest rates will be higher by next week. The Federal Reserve will meet next week and reveal what it will do with borrowing costs. 

Bitcoin has typically performed well in a low interest rate environment because it means people can buy more of the cryptocurrency with increased liquidity. 

Federal Reserve Chairman Kevin Warsh, who took the helm in January, last month gave his first speech as head of the U.S. central bank and said he had “more work to do” to fight inflation. 

The U.S. is currently in the grips of an affordability crisis and rising oil prices are a hot topic ahead of the midterm elections. 

U.S. President Donald Trump has reassured voters that prices will get under control and repeatedly put pressure on the central bank to lower interest rates. 

Bitcoin in August had its biggest run in years following positive regulatory news and an announcement from the U.S. Treasury. 

Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent announced the department would double the size of its long-dated bond buybacks, helping non-yielding assets like bitcoin and gold. The cryptocurrency then benefited from President Trump urging lawmakers to get key crypto legislation, the Clarity Act, over the line. 

This post Bitcoin Price Spikes, Shrugs off Hot US Inflation Data first appeared on Bitcoin Magazine and is written by Mathew Di Salvo.

Nasdaq's agreement to invest $100 million in Payward, Kraken's parent company, adds a planned surveillance rollout to a push into tokenized and always-on markets. One day earlier, Citadel Securities asked U.S. regulators to keep products tied to public companies, including equity-linked event contracts and perpetual derivatives, inside the Securities and Exchange Commission's perimeter.

Together, the two moves expose the gate facing always-on markets. The disputed products use public-company shares, prices or reported financial metrics as reference points. Their legal classification shapes the listing path, market access and investor protections. Nasdaq's technology could help Payward monitor trading across crypto, equities, tokenized equities, futures and options, but it cannot decide what a product is under federal law.

Nasdaq said Sept. 10 that its venture arm had agreed to invest $100 million in Payward. The announcement describes an agreement to invest, not a completed transaction.

The companies also announced that Payward would adopt Nasdaq surveillance across its portfolio of trading venues. Nasdaq's investor release names crypto, equities, tokenized equities, futures and options as the covered asset classes.

That is broad venue coverage, but the disclosed implementation detail is thin. Nasdaq gave no deployment date and did not say whether Payward's system would combine trading on its venues with order and trade data from the underlying U.S. cash-equity market.

Citadel's concern is that misconduct can cross venue boundaries. Its filing describes how a trader with material nonpublic information could profit through an equity-linked derivative before an issuer announcement, or use a derivative in a strategy involving the price of the underlying security.

In its Sept. 9 comment letter, Citadel argued that effective oversight therefore requires regulators to surveil an equity-linked product together with activity in the underlying cash equity. That is Citadel's policy position, not a decision by either the SEC or Commodity Futures Trading Commission. Yet it identifies a test the Nasdaq-Payward announcement does not answer: whether multi-asset monitoring also means cross-market access to the securities data needed to spot manipulation and insider trading.

Classification still controls the route to market

Surveillance can strengthen a venue's case that it can operate an orderly market. It cannot decide whether an equity-linked instrument is a security, security-based swap, swap or futures contract.

The procedural stakes are concrete. Regulatory routes differ. Under CFTC Regulation 40.2, a designated contract market may list a product without prior Commission approval after filing a written self-certification by the preceding business day. The venue must certify compliance with the Commodity Exchange Act and applicable rules. Regulation 40.3 provides a separate voluntary approval route.

The SEC does not use one uniform track for every exchange filing, but recent equity-linked proposals show the contrast between routes. A July 10 Cboe notice described binary options tied to issuer key performance indicators as a proposed rule change. An Aug. 24 MEMX notice similarly described proposed securities event contracts tied to financial metrics reported by issuers.

At the same time, a CFTC product filing page listed a QCEX KPI Contract as certified on June 18. Another CFTC page for organization code COIN listed US500, Tech100, Defense10, China10 and AI10 index perpetual-style futures as certified.

Those pages establish certification status, not trading volume, launch dates or availability to a particular customer group. The official record therefore supports a narrower statement than claims that equity perpetuals are already broadly trading in the United States: multiple equity-index products have been certified, while the cited pages do not prove their live commercial status.

On May 29, 2026, the CFTC took a historical, bitcoin-specific step when it approved KalshiEX's bitcoin-referencing BTCPERP under Regulation 40.3. Its companion policy statement called for case-by-case review of perpetuals tied to asset classes outside that order. That past bitcoin approval did not settle how equity-linked perpetuals should be classified.

Citadel's filing argues that the SEC perimeter brings more than an approval process. It points to best execution, order handling and front-running rules, execution-quality disclosure, fair access, venue transparency and coordinated trading halts. For equity-linked perpetuals, it separately cites market-access controls and the risk of automatic deleveraging during volatile periods.

Those are the practical stakes for users. Two contracts can provide exposure to a similar corporate outcome while offering different disclosure, execution and surveillance arrangements. A faster listing route can widen access, but it can also create uncertainty over which protections apply and which regulator has the data and authority to investigate misconduct spanning the derivative and the underlying stock.

On March 18, 2026, the SEC approved Nasdaq's rule change for eligible securities to trade in tokenized form during a Depository Trust Company pilot.

Under that model, a tokenized share must be fungible with its traditional counterpart, carry the same CUSIP and symbol, provide the same shareholder rights, and trade on the same order book with the same execution priority. Market surveillance for the tokenized and traditional forms would rely on the same underlying data available to Nasdaq and FINRA.

That March 18 approval did not equal a launch. The order says the framework becomes effective only after DTC establishes the required infrastructure and post-trade settlement services. Nasdaq must then give members at least 30 calendar days' notice before tokenized trading begins.

Nasdaq separately expects its work with Payward on Nasdaq Equity Tokens, or NETs, to launch in the second quarter of 2027. That is a forward-looking target. The sources do not establish that the Payward rollout and the DTC-pilot model have identical operating conditions.

The SEC's Sept. 17 roundtable will bring these questions closer together without resolving them by itself. The published agenda covers exchange and broker readiness, overnight surveillance, closing-price processes, clearance and settlement, investor protection, system resiliency, market-data continuity and expected liquidity.

The event concerns preparations for 24-hour trading in conventional market infrastructure, with a later panel looking toward possible future expansion to 24×7 trading. It is a public discussion, not a rulemaking decision. That distinction prevents a debate about longer US equity sessions from being collapsed into the separate question of tokenized equities and perpetual derivatives that may trade continuously.

The regulatory test is not a choice between surveillance and law. Venues will need both. Nasdaq's technology could help Payward show that always-on markets are observable across its own stack. Citadel's argument is that equity-linked oversight must also reach the underlying securities market and fit the statutory boundary between the SEC and CFTC.

Until those pieces align, the fastest token rail will not necessarily deliver the broadest U.S. access. The products that reach users with durable liquidity may be the ones that combine continuous monitoring, cross-market data, operational resilience and a classification regulators can defend.

The post Why Nasdaq surveillance cannot settle the fight over 24/7 tokenized markets appeared first on CryptoSlate.

SideSwap reopened its markets on Liquid while the network’s route back to Bitcoin remained closed. The split gives Liquid Bitcoin a market price before holders regain the process that converts L-BTC into BTC.

At 22:55 UTC on Sept. 10, a Blockstream explorer endpoint showed 4,229 L-BTC outstanding. A simultaneous Bitcoin address reading for the cited federation reserve showed 3,601 BTC. Those two readings imply reserve coverage of about 85.15% and a gap of roughly 627 BTC at that moment.

SideSwap’s Sept. 10 statement said Liquid was producing blocks and all SideSwap markets were open. New peg-ins and peg-outs through SideSwap remained closed while the Liquid Federation continued its security review.

SideSwap runs the trading venue and wallet. The Liquid Federation controls the Bitcoin reserve and authorized peg-out process, while Blockstream provides core technology and publishes network status. Their separate roles explain how venue trading can resume ahead of federation redemption.

Trading gives L-BTC a price, not an exit

Trading and redemption answer different questions. An order book records the price counterparties accept. A peg-out burns L-BTC on Liquid and directs the federation to release BTC on the Bitcoin network.

SideSwap describes its swap venue as a central-limit-order-book-style market with L-BTC as the base asset and registered Liquid assets as quotes. Its market documentation does not identify a direct L-BTC/BTC order book.

The public record at publication time also lacked a reproducible post-restart L-BTC/BTC price, bid-ask spread, depth, slippage measure or cross-venue comparison. The evidence therefore supports the reopening of SideSwap’s venue, while leaving the actual post-restart discount or premium unmeasured. It says nothing about an absence of trading or liquidity.

A near-par L-BTC price would show that participating buyers expected most value to be recoverable. Expectations of recapitalization could support that price. A thin book could do the same for small orders while offering much worse execution for larger positions.

Before the incident, redemption arbitrage helped connect the two assets. A trader could buy discounted L-BTC, redeem it for BTC and continue until the discount narrowed. Suspended federation peg-outs remove that enforcement route, so price parity becomes a confidence signal rather than proof of backing.

The reserve figures sharpen that distinction. SideSwap cited an earlier Sept. 10 reading of 4,205 L-BTC and 3,597 BTC in reserve. The later API readings used by CryptoSlate were slightly higher on both sides, while coverage stayed near 85%.

Each row is a separate time-stamped view. The differences make the reserve ratio a live measure rather than a settled loss estimate.

The reserve gap followed the Sept. 6 incident. A transaction shows 3,400 BTC returning on Sept. 7, matching CryptoSlate’s earlier recovery coverage.

A 22:55 UTC reading showed about 598.50048115 BTC at the address identified through that history. Supply and reserve balances can change separately, so that address balance and the later reserve gap are related evidence rather than interchangeable totals.

Liquid’s restart remains a staged process

An official Blockstream status update described the restart’s first phase. As of 10:00 UTC on Sept. 10, block production had resumed in a controlled mode without transactions. Required functionary and bridge-node updates had been deployed, while peg operations, including PAK-authorized peg-outs, remained suspended during reserve restoration.

By 22:55 UTC, the Liquid explorer’s block-tip endpoint had reached height 4,051,868. That establishes continuing block production at the snapshot time. Transaction availability still depended on the separately published operating status.

Liquid’s homepage later said issued-asset transfers had resumed while L-BTC transfers and peg-outs remained paused. SideSwap, meanwhile, said its swaps and all markets were open. The two statements address different surfaces and leave the precise scope of L-BTC market settlement less clear than SideSwap’s headline alone suggests.

This distinction also applies to transactions caught in the pause. SideSwap said peg-ins and peg-outs already in progress through its service would be completed after blocks resumed. It also said Bitcoin payouts completed before the pause were final. The statement covers SideSwap’s service and offers no federation-wide guarantee for transactions initiated through other providers.

Other issued assets have separate backing arrangements. SideSwap said assets such as USDt and DePix depend on their issuers rather than the L-BTC reserve. Their ability to move or trade therefore gives holders limited information about the condition of the Bitcoin peg.

Restoring the peg requires reserves and a working bridge

Liquid’s protocol documentation defines one L-BTC as a claim backed by one BTC held by the federation. The peg-out process burns L-BTC, validates an authorized Bitcoin destination and releases BTC from the federation reserve.

Direct peg-outs require a registered Peg-out Authorization Key. General users usually depend on a federation participant, exchange or peg-out partner. A dependable exit therefore requires sufficient reserve BTC and functioning authorized infrastructure through which holders can reach it.

The Elements project released version 23.3.4, including a change that hardens proof-cache keys. Blockstream said required functionary and bridge-node updates had been deployed. Completion of a full independent review of the network and peg process remained undisclosed in the reviewed official updates.

Reserve restoration is the other condition. SideSwap said Blockstream CEO Adam Back had stated that the L-BTC-to-BTC peg would receive one-for-one coverage. SideSwap added that it lacked insight into the method or timing. Blockstream’s status page described restoration as in progress without naming a capital source or deadline.

Clear operating conditions form the final piece. Holders need a federation announcement that peg-outs have resumed, an explanation of any limits or staged access, and confirmation from the provider handling their redemption route. SideSwap separately promised to explain changes to its own peg service before reopening it.

Until those conditions are met, L-BTC’s market price measures confidence in the recovery process. The reserve data and disabled peg-outs determine whether holders can actually leave Liquid with Bitcoin at par.

The post L-BTC resumes trading with reserves covering just 85% of supply appeared first on CryptoSlate.

U.S. Bank has completed a live cross-border payment pilot using USBDC, its proprietary U.S. dollar-backed stablecoin. The transaction demonstrated in a limited test that the lender could move its own token between bank entities on a public blockchain while keeping established financial controls connected.

The payment moved value between U.S. Bank entities in North America and Europe on Stellar, a public blockchain network used for payments, according to the bank's September 9 announcement. It was an intercompany pilot, not a customer transaction. The announcement did not disclose the amount moved, a plan for customer access or a commercial rollout date.

Although the payment crossed regions, both ends remained inside U.S. Bank's corporate structure. That limits what the result establishes: it demonstrates an internal cross-border payment on Stellar, but not settlement with an outside bank, merchant or retail customer.

The pilot evaluated minting, payment redemption, freezing and clawback. Freezing and clawback give the issuer ways to halt or reverse token movement when required, allowing U.S. Bank to test controls over the asset's lifecycle while using public blockchain infrastructure.

Taken together, the four functions cover the payment path and the issuer's ability to intervene. Minting and redemption govern how the bank creates and removes token units, while freezing and clawback address exceptional situations. U.S. Bank tested those controls as part of the same live transaction rather than presenting them only as future platform features.

U.S. Bank said the transaction remained integrated with its core finance, risk, compliance and operations infrastructure. Its internally developed Digital Asset Platform served as the foundation for issuing, managing and transferring the token, and the bank said the pilot validated the platform's connection between traditional banking infrastructure and blockchain networks.

The test covered both token movement and the banking processes around it. U.S. Bank used USBDC for a cross-border payment between its own regional entities while keeping the transaction tied to the systems that govern its broader money movement. That scope gives the pilot institutional significance without implying that the token is ready for public use.

The Stellar Development Foundation said the network's issuer-control features supported the test. U.S. Bank and the organization are now exploring other institutional applications, including liquidity management, collateral mobility and cross-border treasury operations. Each would extend the same approach to another part of institutional money movement, but neither organization presented those possibilities as committed products.

For now, USBDC remains evidence of a working institutional pilot rather than a stablecoin available to customers. The next material signal will be whether U.S. Bank expands the token beyond intercompany transfers, discloses more operating details or sets a timetable for client use.

The post US Bank moves USBDC across borders on Stellar, but only inside its own walls appeared first on CryptoSlate.

Canada’s banking regulator has finalized a narrow change to its crypto capital rules that should reduce capital overstatement for some market-neutral positions without broadly easing how banks must treat digital-asset risk.

The Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions’ 2027 guideline, published Sept. 10, treats all regulated exchanges of traditional financial assets as one exchange when banks calculate delta risk for qualifying Group 2a crypto exposures. That allows positions in the same crypto asset on different qualifying regulated exchanges to receive full capital recognition when they also have the same time to maturity.

What changes, and what does not

The change addresses a specific mismatch between trading practice and capital calculations. In its May consultation backgrounder, OSFI said banks primarily use market-neutral strategies for crypto exposures and that prices for the same asset tend to move almost identically across major regulated exchanges. Treating each venue separately could therefore make the calculated risk, and the capital held against it, larger than the underlying position warranted.

The final treatment does not create unconditional offsetting. It applies only to Group 2a exposures that satisfy the guideline’s hedging-recognition tests, including product structure, regulatory approval or qualifying clearing, liquidity and data-history conditions. Positions associated with unregulated exchanges do not gain the same cross-exchange recognition, and differences in time to maturity still matter.

In plain terms, Group 2a contains crypto exposures that qualify for limited hedging recognition, while Group 2b covers the Group 2 exposures that do not. The framework retains a 94% correlation parameter for calculating delta or vega capital within a Group 2a bucket. Delta and vega risk weights remain 100%, and banks cannot recognize diversification across different Group 2a crypto assets.

Group 2b treatment is substantially stricter. For each Group 2b asset, a bank must deduct from common equity tier 1 capital the greater of its absolute aggregate long or short position. If the prescribed market-risk and credit-valuation-adjustment calculation produces a higher requirement, the bank must use that higher amount.

OSFI also kept Canada’s aggregate gross exposure limit for Group 2 crypto assets at 5% of Net Tier 1 capital, with an exclusion for certain client-clearing derivatives. A breach makes all of the institution’s Group 2 exposures subject to the Group 2b treatment.

The result is targeted relief rather than a broad capital easing. Banks can remove an exchange-specific penalty for a tightly matched hedge that meets the rule’s conditions, but they still face high risk weights, conservative treatment for non-qualifying assets and a firm exposure ceiling.

The guideline takes effect Nov. 1, 2026, for institutions with an Oct. 31 fiscal year-end and Jan. 1, 2027, for institutions with a Dec. 31 fiscal year-end. The effective dates match those laid out when OSFI opened consultation in May.

The post Banks get cross-exchange crypto hedge relief under Canada’s new 2027 capital rule appeared first on CryptoSlate.

Coinbase CEO Brian Armstrong says Bitcoin’s latest bottom is already in, even as the cryptocurrency remains below a level that historically confirmed recoveries.

Armstrong said in Sept. 10 interviews with Bloomberg and CNBC that he expects Bitcoin to trend higher over the next one to two years as the market approaches its next halving, while calling $400,000 by 2030 a “reasonable target.”

“I personally think we’ve seen the bottom of the Bitcoin price in this cycle,” Armstrong said, framing the view as his own rather than a Coinbase forecast.

The call comes with Bitcoin trading around $77,000, roughly 39% below the record $126,198 reached in October 2025. That leaves Armstrong wagering on a turn in the cycle before Bitcoin has reclaimed either its old high or a technical level that has historically helped distinguish durable recoveries from bear-market rallies.

Bitcoin still has one historical hurdle to clear

The immediate test sits above $80,000, where Bitcoin has repeatedly struggled and where its 50-week moving average has become an increasingly important marker.

Galaxy Research put that average at $81,473 on Sept. 2 and said a weekly close above it would strengthen the argument that Bitcoin’s bear market had ended.

In four of Bitcoin’s five completed bear markets, the first upside break of the 50-week average came after the cycle low had already been established. The exception was the shorter downturn between Bitcoin’s two record highs in 2021.

That history broadly supports Armstrong’s sequencing: a bottom can occur before the market produces clearer confirmation that a new cycle has begun.

Bitcoin has already supplied some evidence for that view.

The cryptocurrency climbed 25.4% in August, rising from $62,899 to $78,852. Most of the move came during the week ended Aug. 23, when Bitcoin gained 23.5%, producing its largest weekly increase in dollar terms on record. US spot Bitcoin exchange-traded funds attracted $3.4 billion during the month, their strongest monthly inflow since July 2025.

Galaxy attributed the rally to renewed demand for the debasement trade, policy developments in Washington, short liquidations, and momentum buying. Bitcoin also fell far enough below its previous record to attract investors who viewed the asset as cheap relative to other risk assets trading near their highs.

Some of those forces make the rebound less conclusive. Short covering can accelerate a rally without establishing sustained demand, while momentum buyers can retreat quickly if Bitcoin fails to extend the move.

That puts the weekly close around the 50-week average at the center of the next test. A decisive break would place Armstrong’s bottom call alongside a signal that has appeared near the end of most previous Bitcoin bear markets. Continued rejection would leave the market below a threshold that has historically separated recovery from consolidation.

The $400,000 target depends on a much bigger cycle

Armstrong’s longer-term forecast assumes the rebound eventually becomes much larger than a return to Bitcoin’s previous high.

At roughly $77,000, Bitcoin would need to climb more than fivefold to reach $400,000. The target would also put the cryptocurrency more than three times above its October 2025 record.

Armstrong tied his optimism to Bitcoin’s historical four-year cycle and the approach of the next halving, expected around 2028. The programmed event will reduce the block subsidy paid to miners, tightening the rate at which new Bitcoin enters circulation.

His one-to-two-year outlook places the next phase of the recovery around that period, though Bitcoin still faces nearer-term resistance before investors can test the broader cycle thesis.

The first hurdle sits around the low-$80,000 range. Galaxy’s moving-average analysis makes a weekly break above that zone the clearest technical confirmation of Armstrong’s call, while other analysts have also identified resistance around $80,000 to $84,000 after the recent run-up.

Sustaining that move may depend increasingly on spot demand. August’s ETF inflows helped absorb supply during the rebound, but Bitcoin has since struggled to extend gains beyond $80,000 even as shorter-term momentum indicators improved.

A successful weekly close above the 50-week average would put Armstrong’s bottom call in line with the pattern that followed most previous Bitcoin downturns. Another rejection would leave the market inside the same recovery zone it has occupied since August, forcing investors to wait longer for evidence that the next cycle has actually begun.

The post Coinbase CEO sees Bitcoin at $400,000, but first it has to clear $81,000 appeared first on CryptoSlate.

Ethereum is getting its next major upgrade, and for the first time it has a date: on October 6, 2026, Glamsterdam is due to be activated on the Sepolia test network. If you stake yourself, that is the point from which your node needs a software version that does not exist today as a stable release. On September 11, 2026 we counted the published version levels of all ten major Ethereum clients to show how far preparation has actually come.

The short answer first: not one of the ten clients checked carried a stable version on that day with the upgrade in its name. The work is happening in pre-releases and nightly test builds. For you that means nothing needs doing today. What matters more is knowing when the moment arrives.

Glamsterdam, Gloas and Sepolia: What Lies Behind the Names of the Ethereum Upgrade

Three terms turn up in every report on this upgrade, and they mean different things.

Glamsterdam is the collective name for the next change to the rules of the Ethereum protocol. It is assembled from the names of the two layers Ethereum is changing at once: Gloas for the consensus layer and Amsterdam for the execution layer. Anyone reading about Gloas in meeting minutes is therefore reading about the same process, simply the other half of it.

Sepolia is a test network. It runs the same software as the main network, but with worthless tokens. New protocol rules go live there before they touch real money. A bug on Sepolia costs developer time; a bug on the main network costs investors money. Hence the sequence.

A hard fork is a rule change that makes old and new software incompatible: a node that does not know the new rules follows a different chain from the rest of the network from the switchover onwards. That is exactly why a client update before a fork is a precondition for taking part rather than a recommendation.

Why October 6, 2026 Is in the Calendar for Sepolia

The date comes from the 186th consensus layer developer call, held on September 3, 2026. There the client teams settled on epoch 351232 as the switchover point, which corresponds to October 6, 2026 at 13:53 UTC. The Ethereum Foundation's roadmap page has listed that date as the next milestone ever since, and the status of the upgrade as testing on devnets.

For the main network there is no date. The same page says Q4 2026, with the explicit addition that the date is not yet confirmed. A December slot has been discussed in developer circles, and nobody is bound by it. Anyone quoting you a main network date today is quoting an expectation.

The Sepolia date itself is subject to a reservation too. The agenda of the call records that Lido and Optimism had asked for at least one stable day of operation on a test network before a fork is scheduled. That condition was not yet met on September 11.

Devnet-11 on September 14: the Test the Sepolia Date Hangs On

A devnet is a short-lived developer network set up specifically for an upgrade test and discarded afterwards. It is the stage before the public test network.

Glamsterdam-Devnet-10 was originally meant to be the last of these networks before Sepolia. That plan has changed. The developers have scheduled a further network, Devnet-11, due to start on Monday, September 14, 2026. Tests on Devnet-8 continue in parallel, and on Devnet-9 clients are being measured individually.

The position before October 6 can therefore be described precisely: 22 days lie between the planned start of Devnet-11 and the Sepolia date. In that time the client teams have to run a network stably, fix the bugs found and build release versions out of the result. If Devnet-11 does not hold up, the Sepolia date moves. That is precisely what these networks are for.

Client Readiness Checked: Ten Ethereum Clients and Their Versions on September 11

This survey was carried out by cryptoticker.io on September 11, 2026. Method: through GitHub's public interface we retrieved the release lists of the ten open-source Ethereum clients and noted the most recent stable version per client along with its publication date; pre-releases are recorded separately. Ten objects were checked, at a reference time of 18:00 UTC.

What we could not check belongs to the survey as well: we evaluated the version names, publication dates and the pre-release marking, not the full text of every release description. A version can contain Glamsterdam rules without carrying the word in its name. Also not captured are special builds for individual devnets that the teams exchange among themselves without publishing them as releases.

What the Figures Say About the Glamsterdam Timetable

Three findings can be read out of the table.

First: none of the ten stable versions carries Glamsterdam, Gloas or Sepolia in its version name or label. That matches the state of development as the roadmap page describes it.

Second: the release rhythms diverge widely. Four clients built their most recent stable version in September, Erigon as recently as two days ago. Another four are more than 30 days behind, led by Geth at 46 days and Prysm at 44. No verdict on readiness follows from that, though an expectation does: at those teams the release is still to come.

Third: the visible movement is happening in pre-releases. Nethermind published a 2.0.0-rc pre-release on September 2, Lodestar published a pre-release for 1.47.0 on August 27, and Nimbus filed a nightly test build on the morning of September 11. That is where the work is going on right now.

The conclusion for you is unspectacular and useful for that reason: there is nothing to install at the moment. The version you need for the fork does not yet exist as a stable release. Updating in a hurry now gains you nothing.

Execution Client and Consensus Client: Why You Have to Update Both

Since the transition to proof of stake, an Ethereum node consists of two programs that run side by side and talk to each other.

The execution client executes transactions and manages the state of the chain. Geth, Nethermind, Besu, Erigon and Reth belong to this group. The consensus client determines which block counts next and looks after staking. Prysm, Lighthouse, Teku, Nimbus and Lodestar handle that job.

Glamsterdam changes rules on both layers. An update on one side alone is therefore not enough. Anyone who updates the consensus client and forgets the execution client ends up, after the switchover, with a node whose halves disagree. In practice that means missed attestations and, if you are a validator, forgone rewards. How much adds up depends on how long the condition goes unnoticed.

If a service stakes your ETH for you, that service carries the task. Which providers take it on and on what terms is set out in our comparison of staking platforms.

What Solo Stakers Should Check on Their Node Before the Fork

Four points are worth doing already, even with no release available.

Make a note of which versions are running on your machine, separately for both clients. A surprising number of operators do not know this by heart when it counts, and then go looking under time pressure.

Check whether your installation pulls releases automatically or whether you update by hand. For a fork the automatic route is the safer one, as long as it pulls stable releases and not pre-releases.

Look at how much disk space is free. An upgrade that fails on a full disk is an avoidable outage.

Subscribe to the release notifications of both your clients. That is the channel through which the teams will announce the fork date for the main network, and it is faster than any news site.

EIP-8061 and the Exit Queue: What Changes for Stakers

Among the proposals earmarked for Glamsterdam, one bears on staking directly. EIP-8061 raises what is known as the churn, the number of validators allowed to exit the network or be consolidated per unit of time.

Why that counts: anyone pulling their ETH out of staking joins a queue. Its length follows from this ceiling. How long it can become at times is something we described in August using the figures of the day; the details are in our analysis of the staking queue. If the churn rises, the wait shortens at unchanged demand.

Two further proposals shape the substance of the upgrade. EIP-7732 anchors the separation of block proposal and block building in the protocol. EIP-7928 introduces block-level access lists, which tell processing in advance which parts of the state a block touches. Both aim at speed and even treatment in block building, and not at any change to your balances.

The scope of the upgrade counts as frozen, but it can still change before the main network, because the overarching proposal formally sits in draft status. The full list is carried by the Ethereum Foundation's roadmap page.

Staking Through a Provider: What You Can Check Without Running a Node

The larger part of staked ETH sits with exchanges, staking services and liquid staking protocols, only a small part on private machines. If that describes you, the client update is not your job. Two things are still worth doing.

Check whether your provider keeps a status page or an announcement channel, and whether anything about Glamsterdam appears there. Providers that handle network upgrades silently give you no way to make sense of an outage.

Second, check how your provider handles maintenance windows. Around a main network fork many services suspend deposits and withdrawals for a few hours. That is customary and mostly harmless, but it is a poor moment for a planned transaction.

What the Upgrade Means for the ETH in Your Wallet, and What It Does Not

Here is the reassurance that belongs with this subject: if you simply hold ETH, in a wallet of your own or with a provider, Glamsterdam requires nothing of you. There is no swap, no migration, no deadline that costs you money. Your addresses stay the same, your balances stay the same.

An upgrade of this kind changes the rules by which the network builds and checks blocks. It does not change the holdings in your wallet. A hardware wallet needs no particular preparation for it either; which devices cover which functions we have set side by side in our hardware wallet comparison.

Caution is warranted elsewhere. Network upgrades are a proven occasion for attempted fraud. Around a fork, messages regularly appear urging a supposed migration or asking for a seed phrase. No genuine protocol change ever demands that. Anyone asking you to enter your recovery words wants your money.

Assessment: How to Tell Whether the Date Holds

Three signals over the coming weeks say more than any headline.

The first is Devnet-11 from September 14. If it runs for several days without breaking, October 6 is plausible. If finalisation breaks off again, the date moves.

The second is the releases from the client teams. Once several clients publish stable versions with Sepolia support within a few days of each other, the fork is genuinely prepared. That sequence never runs the other way round.

The third is the roadmap page itself. It carries the next milestone with its date, and the entry is maintained. We described the original decision in August in our piece on the Glamsterdam date for Sepolia; the reservation from September is not yet included there. The minutes of the developer calls are summarised by Christine Kim in her notes on the 245th execution layer developer call.

Glamsterdam Date and Client Update: What to Take Away

1. Note both of your client versions today and subscribe to their release notifications. There is nothing to install: on September 11 not one of the ten clients checked carried a stable version with any Glamsterdam reference. If you would rather not run a node at all, our comparison of staking platforms is the quicker route.
2. Watch Devnet-11 from September 14 rather than the calendar. The Sepolia date of October 6 hangs on that test, and for the main network there is in any case only the unconfirmed indication of the fourth quarter of 2026. If you hold your own keys along the way, our hardware wallet comparison helps with choosing a device.
3. Treat every prompt to migrate as attempted fraud. A protocol upgrade never asks for your seed phrase. Keep your records clean instead, so that staking rewards stay traceable; suitable tools are in our comparison of crypto tax tools.

(As of September 11, 2026. This article is not investment advice. Prices and fee structures change; check the terms with the provider before you buy.)

The short answer to the question German readers have been asking for months has been sitting in a European supervisory document since September 10, 2026: the marketing and sale of event contracts in the EU generally requires an EU authorisation, and the largest prediction market platforms do not currently hold one. That is how the European Securities and Markets Authority puts it in its TRV Risk Monitor No. 2/2026, which devotes a chapter of its own to prediction markets for the first time.

For the German debate that is a step change. Until now, Polymarket and Kalshi had attracted legal opinions from law firms, assessments from newsrooms and a great many forum posts. Now there is a statement from the authority that supervises securities markets across the EU, and the chapter can be cited. What the report expressly does not settle matters just as much: it says nothing about whether an individual German user faces consequences, and nothing about what happens to funds already sitting on such a platform. That gap stays a gap in this article too.

What ESMA Writes About EU Authorisation for Polymarket and Kalshi

A prediction market is a platform on which participants trade contracts whose payout depends on the outcome of a future event. Throughout the report ESMA calls these event contracts. Two sentences from the chapter carry the whole assessment. The first reads: “the marketing and sale of event contracts in the EU generally requires an EU authorisation, which the largest prediction market platforms currently do not hold.”

The second draws the consequence for the case in which an event contract counts as a financial instrument: “where event contracts qualify as financial instruments, they would generally be classified as derivatives and fall within the scope of national product intervention measures relating to binary options, under which their marketing, distribution and sale to retail investors are prohibited.”

In the same chapter ESMA names the providers: Polymarket and Kalshi as the large ones, alongside PredictIt, Robinhood, Pariflow, DraftKings and FanDuel. All of them are based outside the EU. The two operating models differ markedly. Polymarket, as the report describes it, is partly decentralised: trading and settlement run on-chain, while market governance and administration stay central. Kalshi is organised entirely centrally and is regulated by the US supervisor CFTC as a designated contract market, an officially named trading venue under US law. In the United States a dedicated CFTC advisory committee now meets on this sector; the EU side, by contrast, was undocumented until this report.

Why Prediction Markets Are a Crypto Question: On-Chain Settlement, Oracles and DeFi

The authorisation question would be a pure exchange story if the contracts did not sit on a blockchain. Polymarket's do exactly that. Positions are represented as shares, settlement is handled by a smart contract, a program on the blockchain that executes an agreed payment automatically. The outcome of an event reaches the chain through an oracle, a service that makes external data available to a blockchain program. For anyone following the crypto market, a prediction market is therefore not a betting shop but a DeFi application whose risks resemble those of other on-chain applications.

ESMA draws the same line. The report records that transactions via smart contracts are irreversible, including in the event of a dispute, a programming error or an operational failure, and that dependence on external data feeds and oracles creates an attack surface where those mechanisms are manipulated or unreliable. Decentralised prediction markets, in the authority's account, operate without identifiable intermediaries and without central governance, which limits accountability and supervision.

The sector hangs on the crypto market in substance too. According to the platform data evaluated in the report, 15 percent of Polymarket's trading volume falls on crypto-related markets, such as contracts tied to the price of Bitcoin. Politics leads there with 29 percent, sport follows with 19 percent. At Kalshi the picture looks different: 73 percent of the trading recorded falls on sports markets. Anyone looking for regulated routes into the crypto market will find the vetted providers in our overview of the best regulated crypto exchanges, rather than on a platform without EU authorisation.

What an Event Contract Is, and Why the Classification Decides Everything

An event contract is a contract with a binary payout: if the event described in the contract occurs, there is a fixed amount; if it does not, there is nothing. The price of a share can be read as the probability the market currently assigns to the outcome. ESMA describes that as an analytical benefit: prediction market prices could deliver economically interpretable signals about political, economic and social events, and thereby support forecasting, sentiment analysis and assessments of macroeconomic uncertainty. Commercially the benefit is already tangible: according to the report, prediction market data is increasingly distributed through Bloomberg and LSEG Workspace.

For the legal question, however, what counts is the construction of the individual contract rather than its usefulness. In a footnote the authority becomes very precise: not every event contract is a financial instrument under MiFID II. Only contracts whose event question refers to an underlying from Section C points 4 to 10 of Annex I of MiFID II qualify as financial instruments. The classification therefore hangs on the specific question being wagered on, and not on the name of the platform. A contract on a share index may have to be treated differently from one on an election result.

Three Possible Legal Regimes: MiFID II, MiCA or National Gambling Law

Depending on how they are built, the report assigns event contracts to one of three sets of rules. MiFID II is the European directive on markets in financial instruments; it applies where the contract is a financial instrument under the footnote just mentioned. MiCA is the EU regulation on markets in crypto-assets; it can apply where the contract rests on distributed ledger technology and is precisely not a financial instrument. That leaves the third case: the contract is then treated under national law as a gambling product, and in Germany the gambling authorities of the federal states have jurisdiction, not the securities supervisor.

This three-way split explains why the question stayed unanswered so stubbornly. Depending on what a user wagers on, the same provider lands in a different legal regime, with different competences and different consequences. ESMA also records in its chapter that the Market Abuse Regulation against manipulation and insider dealing can only help where the contracts fall within the financial supervisory perimeter at all. Where they do not, that instrument has no purchase.

The BaFin Binary Options Ban and What It Has to Do With Event Contracts

The strand of the chapter that matters most to German readers is the reference to product intervention. A binary option is a financial product with exactly two possible outcomes, a fixed payout or a total loss. ESMA restricted its marketing to retail investors across the EU on a temporary basis in 2018; that temporary measure was subsequently replaced by permanent national measures taken by the respective supervisory authorities. In Germany that is the BaFin general administrative act under Article 42 MiFIR, in force since July 2, 2019, which prohibits the marketing, distribution and sale of binary options to retail investors with no end date.

The bridge sits as a footnote in the risk report: ESMA refers to its own public statement on applying exactly these national product intervention measures to event contracts, published in July 2026. That completes the chain of reasoning. Where an event contract is a financial instrument, it is as a rule a derivative; where it is a derivative with a binary payout, product intervention applies; and where product intervention applies, distribution to retail investors is prohibited. The supervisor did not have to create a new rule for this. It applied an existing one to a new market.

Is Polymarket Allowed in Germany? What the Report Says and What It Leaves Open

Cleanly separated, the position looks like this. The provider side is answered: on ESMA's finding, offering event contracts in the EU requires an authorisation, and the large platforms do not hold one as far as the authority is aware. The distribution side is answered for part of the products as well: where the contracts are financial instruments, distribution to retail investors is blocked by product intervention.

The user side is not answered. The report makes no statement about whether a user in Germany exposes themselves by taking part. It makes no statement either about what happens to funds already sitting on an unauthorised platform. Both are legal questions touching on German gambling and criminal law, and a securities markets authority has no business deciding them. Anyone wanting that settled for their own case needs a lawyer, not a guide article. What this article can do is make the dividing line visible: on the authorisation of the providers there is now a statement from a supervisor, on the personal position of the user there is not.

For assessing a provider there is also a practical tool that ESMA operates itself: the warning list of the European supervisory authorities. It lets you check whether an authority has issued a warning about a company before money is transferred.

Geoblocking and VPNs: What ESMA Criticises About the Access Restrictions

A separate paragraph of the chapter deals with the platforms' country lists. It reads: “Both Polymarket and Kalshi state on their websites that users located in some, but not all, EU countries are prohibited from placing orders. It is unclear why all EU Member States are not included in the list of restricted jurisdictions.” ESMA expressly connects that with the risk of unauthorised provision of services under MiFID II, MiCA and national gambling law.

To that comes a second finding, reproduced here purely as a finding of the supervisor: geographical restrictions, in ESMA's assessment, do not prevent users from the EU accessing the services over VPN connections. The authority adds that the platforms can prohibit VPN use and suspend accounts, but regards the practical effectiveness of these restrictions as uncertain. That is not a set of instructions and is not meant to become one here; it is the observation that a barrier providers invoke serves its purpose only to a limited extent in the supervisor's view.

Figures From the Risk Report: Trading Volume, Categories and the EU Gap

Trading has grown, visibly so since the 2024 US presidential election, which the report names as the trigger. In the fourth quarter of 2025, quarterly volume according to the platform data evaluated by ESMA stood at around 8.8 billion US dollars on Kalshi and around 12 billion US dollars on Polymarket, with further growth into 2026. At the same time the traditional exchange camp is moving closer: Eurex, Euronext, CME Group, CBOE, ICE and Nasdaq are showing interest in the sector, as the report describes it. ICE has committed to investing up to 2 billion US dollars in Polymarket and has become the exclusive global distributor of the event data.

Alongside that stands a sentence about the EU that puts the opening question in perspective: “prediction markets do not appear to have gained significant traction in the EU compared with the US.” ESMA attributes that to the European regulatory approach, which severely restricts marketing and sale. The methodological caveat the authority makes itself matters here: “available data mainly reflect global market activity and do not permit an assessment of EU retail participation.” How many German users are actually active therefore appears in no source at all.

Insider Trading and Manipulation: the Regulator's Market Integrity Findings

In one place the chapter becomes unusually blunt. ESMA writes that a growing number of incidents shows prediction markets to be riddled with insider trading, and supports that with three examples from the current year. Around the US-Israeli strike on Iran in February 2026, newly created wallets are said to have made roughly 1.2 million US dollars in profit shortly before the operation became public. In connection with the detention of Nicolás Maduro, a US soldier was charged according to a US Department of Justice statement of April 23, 2026, on the accusation of having bet on a prediction market using information classified as secret. And in April 2026 a suspicion that weather sensors used to resolve weather contracts had been manipulated led to a criminal complaint by Météo-France. These cases are suspicions, not verdicts.

Structurally the authority traces the vulnerability back to pseudonymity. On DLT-based platforms with limited identity checks, the operator may not know who stands behind a position, and participants can run several accounts. According to the report that makes it harder to detect insider dealing, wash trading and coordinated manipulation. ESMA describes platform surveillance as largely reactive: investigations often begin only once the event has occurred and the profit has been realised. How quickly technical risks become real on such a platform is something we described in our piece on the Polymarket hack and the security risks of prediction markets.

Who Earns on Prediction Markets: 67 Percent of Profits, 0.1 Percent of Accounts

On the question of who actually makes money on these markets, ESMA cites two external analyses. A Wall Street Journal analysis from May 2026 concludes that 67 percent of the profits on Polymarket accrue to 0.1 percent of accounts. A Bloomberg analysis from May 2026 reports that most Polymarket users lose money. The authority puts that in context: profits are heavily concentrated among experienced participants trading in a data-driven, algorithmic and increasingly AI-supported way.

From this the report identifies a protection problem for retail investors. Prediction platforms, it says, offer speculative environments without the investor protection measures usually attached to regulated financial products, where access runs through providers not authorised in the EU. The gamified structure, the emotional dynamic and the promotion via social media expose inexperienced participants to considerable risks, from losses through addictive behaviour to exploitation by professional market participants with an informational or technical edge. On top of that comes a risk that has nothing to do with forecasting: unclear event definitions, opaque resolution mechanisms and delays in payout and settlement.

Malta, the MiCA Review and the Roadmap: What Comes Next

There is movement on two levels. Malta, as the report describes it, is the first EU member state publicly examining a regulatory framework of its own for prediction markets; the Maltese government described the sector in March 2026 as a field with considerable innovation potential, provided a suitable legal framework emerges. In parallel, the European Commission's targeted consultation on the review of MiCA is running at EU level, its deadline extended to September 30, 2026. There, for the first time, it is formally up for discussion whether and under which set of rules DLT-based prediction markets should be run in the EU.

For you that means two things. The current statement is solid, but it is a snapshot of a legal framework currently under review. And the direction of that review is open: a future classification under MiCA would open an authorisation route in the EU for prediction market operators, while classification as a binary derivative continues to bar distribution to retail investors. Anyone watching the market should keep an eye on the end-of-September deadline and the Commission's evaluation that follows.

Prediction Markets in Germany: What to Take Away

1. Separate the provider question from the user question. On the authorisation of the platforms, the ESMA risk report provides a statement from a supervisor. On the personal position of a German user there is none, and this article replaces no legal advice. Before the question of where you want to acquire crypto-assets at all, a look at our overview of the best crypto exchanges helps.
2. Check the supervisory status before money moves. A provider's authorisation can be looked up, and the warning lists of the European supervisory authorities are public. Anyone wanting to play safe stays with providers holding EU permission; which those are is set out in our comparison of regulated crypto exchanges.
3. Read the distribution figures before you read the return promises, and keep the MiCA review in view. The analysis cited in the report describes a market in which the overwhelming share of profits ends up with a tiny share of accounts; that is a statement about the structure of the market, not about any single bet. The Commission's consultation deadline ends on September 30, 2026, and what follows may change the very answer that holds today. Tools for recalculating market data yourself are listed in our comparison of the best crypto tools and analytics platforms.

(As of September 11, 2026. This article is not investment advice. Prices and fee structures change; check the terms with the provider before you buy.)

Anyone holding the Bitcoin token allBTC on the Cosmos exchange Osmosis has, since September 9, 2026, owned less Bitcoin on paper than the portfolio display promises. Around 36 percent of the backing stands without real assets behind it, caused by a single one of the five bridge versions that converge in this pooled token, and it applies no matter which version you deposited yourself. This guide shows you how to recalculate your own share, what the announced vote means for you, and how to tell in future whether a token is genuinely backed by Bitcoin.

What Happened at Osmosis and Nomic: a Double-Spend Through the Forwarding Logic

Nomic operates a blockchain of its own that carries Bitcoin into the Cosmos ecosystem across a bridge. The token issued there is called nBTC and is meant to be backed one to one at all times by real Bitcoin held on the Bitcoin blockchain.

A double-spend describes the case in which the same unit of money is spent twice although it exists only once. According to Osmosis, that is exactly what became possible here: a flaw in Nomic's own forwarding mechanism allowed a single deposit to generate multiple vouchers and send them on to Osmosis, where they were exchanged for properly backed holdings.

Osmosis said on September 9, 2026 that neither its own chain nor the Inter-Blockchain Communication protocol had been compromised, and that the flaw sat in Nomic's forwarding logic. The distinction matters, because it confines the damage to one component. For you as a holder it changes little about the outcome at first, as the next section shows.

The exchange then froze the minting of new allBTC, the redemption into individual bridge tokens, and deposits and withdrawals across the affected rail. Trading in the Bitcoin pools carried on with a risk notice attached.

Alloyed BTC Explained: One Pooled Token Out of Five Bridge Versions

Alloyed assets are an Osmosis construct that fuses several technically distinct versions of the same underlying into a single tradable token. Instead of running four or five competing Bitcoin tokens side by side, each with its own liquidity, there is one common pot and a share certificate on top of it. That share certificate is called allBTC.

The thinking behind it is practical: liquidity does not splinter, prices do not drift apart, and traders need not know which bridge a given Bitcoin once entered through. The price of that convenience is shared liability, and this case makes it visible for the first time.

According to several trade publications, five versions flow into the pot behind allBTC: Wrapped Bitcoin in two variants, a Coinbase Wrapped Bitcoin bridged via Axelar, ckBTC from the Internet Computer ecosystem, and Nomic's nBTC. Which of them actually sat in the basket on the reference date, and in what quantity, we counted ourselves.

The Backing Basket on September 11: 70.73 Bitcoin for 110.57 allBTC

This survey was carried out by cryptoticker.io on September 11, 2026. Method: via a public Osmosis node we queried the circulating supply of the allBTC token and every balance held by the address that holds the backing basket; the eight positions found were then resolved individually through the IBC origin query and assigned to their respective underlying assets. Eight basket positions and one circulating supply were checked, each retrieved with HTTP status 200.

The result in figures:

• 110.57094432 allBTC were in circulation.
• 66.62854569 came from Wrapped Bitcoin as an Osmosis-native token.
• 3.98144981 from bridged Coinbase Wrapped Bitcoin.
• 0.12114412 from a Wrapped Bitcoin version bridged via Axelar.
• 0.00014048 from a tiny residual position tracing back to the Ethereum contract of Wrapped Bitcoin.
• 39.83974592 from Nomic's nBTC position.

Adding the first four positions together produces 70.73128010 Bitcoin of backing whose origin does not run across the bridge in question. Set against 110.57 share certificates in circulation, that is a backing ratio of 63.97 percent. The shortfall comes to 39.83966422 Bitcoin, or 36.03 percent. At the price of 66,928 euros per Bitcoin reported by CoinGecko on September 11, 2026, that is around 2.67 million euros; calculated in US dollars at 77,673 dollars per Bitcoin, around 3.09 million.

The figures match what CryptoSlate and The Crypto Times published independently of one another; both cite 70.73 Bitcoin of valid backing and a 36.03 percent shortfall, while earlier reports still put the figure at around 30 percent. The range stems from the share being revised upwards in the course of disclosure.

What we could not check: whether the four remaining positions are themselves fully backed by real Bitcoin. That is a question for the respective custodians and cannot be answered on the Osmosis chain. Three minimal entries in the basket clearly belong to other projects and carry no Bitcoin reference; they were taken out of the calculation.

Why Your WBTC Share Is Affected Too: Fungibility Spreads the Damage

Here lies the point that sets this case apart from an ordinary bridge incident. Anyone who brought their Bitcoin to Osmosis through Wrapped Bitcoin or through cbBTC never had anything to do with Nomic. They carry the shortfall all the same.

The reason is the fungibility of the share certificate: all allBTC are interchangeable and entitle their holders to the same proportional claim on the same pot. There is no marking that identifies one certificate as a Wrapped Bitcoin deposit and another as an nBTC deposit. If a third of the pot is missing, it is missing from everyone in equal measure.

Osmosis did not build this wrong. Shared liability is the flip side of the very convenience depositors chose deliberately. Whoever wants no part of that liability pool has to stay one level lower and hold the individual bridge version, rather than handing it into the pooled token. We observed the same mechanism in a different form at the Liquid Network and described it on September 7, 2026 in our survey of the backing behind L-BTC.

In practice that means a glance at a token's name says nothing about its risk. What counts is how many parties stand between you and the real Bitcoin, and whether their failures reach through to you. Keeping that chain short is hard to do without holding the coins yourself.

The Frozen 22.65 Bitcoin: What the Governance Vote Is Meant to Decide

An emergency update managed to pin down 22.65060846 Bitcoin at the address before they could be moved on. At the reference-date price that is around 1.52 million euros. Osmosis has announced that it will put a proposal to OSMO holders to seize this amount and close the remaining gap out of the Bitcoin holdings of the community pool.

Working that through, a successful seizure would leave a residual gap of 17.18905576 Bitcoin, or around 1.15 million euros by our survey. Only once that part is covered as well will a full Bitcoin stand behind every allBTC again.

What that means for your timetable

A vote in the Cosmos ecosystem typically runs over several days, and it can fail. For as long as it runs, minting and redemption stay frozen, and the traded price of allBTC can diverge from the Bitcoin price because the market is pricing in the uncertainty. Anyone selling in this phase is not selling a Bitcoin, but a claim on a pot with a known gap.

Do not count on a community pool absorbing every failure. It has a size, it belongs to the token holders, and its use is decided afresh every time.

How to Check Your Own Position in Alloyed BTC

Step one: look up your holding and its label

Open your Cosmos wallet and check whether your Bitcoin holding is listed as allBTC or as one of the individual versions. Pooled tokens on Osmosis carry the prefix "all". If it says nBTC, WBTC or cbBTC instead, you hold the individual version and are not exposed to the shared liability; in the case of nBTC, however, you are directly exposed to the bridge in question.

Step two: count your liquidity positions as well

Many users do not hold allBTC as a free balance at all, because they have placed it into a liquidity pool. Those shares often appear in the wallet under a different name. Go through the pool overview and note every position in which allBTC forms one of the two sides.

Step three: apply the backing ratio to your holding

Multiply your allBTC holding by 0.6397. The result is the amount of Bitcoin that actually stands behind your share as of September 11, 2026. For two allBTC that is 1.2794 Bitcoin. If the seizure of the frozen holdings succeeds, the factor rises to about 0.8446.

Step four: decide and document

Record which holding and which backing ratio you entered the voting phase with. That note will help you later with the tax treatment of a possible loss and with any query you put to support.

Bridged Bitcoin and Real Bitcoin: the Difference in Your Portfolio

A Bitcoin on the Bitcoin blockchain belongs to whoever holds the private key. A bridge token, by contrast, is a promise: a real Bitcoin sits somewhere, and somebody guarantees you will get it back. Between the two stand a custodian, a contract and, in case of doubt, a vote.

That distinction reaches all the way into valuation. If a bridge fails, the Bitcoin price is untouched by it, while your token is not. Conversely, a rising Bitcoin price does you little good if the claim behind it can only be served to 64 percent.

For everyday use a simple rule follows from this: amounts you intend to leave untouched for months belong on an address you control yourself, or with a supervised provider operating under a clear legal framework. Which trading venues in the EU hold an authorisation under the MiCA crypto regulation, we have compiled in our overview of regulated crypto exchanges. Bridge tokens are tools for a particular purpose on a particular chain, and no place of storage.

What the Case Means for Other Pooled Tokens

The pattern is not confined to Osmosis. Wherever several origins of the same underlying are bundled into one interchangeable share certificate, the same liability pool arises. That holds for liquid staking tokens that spread deposits across several operators, as it does for vault products running various strategies under one token.

The question to ask is always the same: how many independent sources of failure feed the pot, and which of them could damage the entire share certificate on its own? A basket with five inflows is only as stable as its weakest inflow, once the certificate stops distinguishing between them.

A look at the proportions helps too. A position making up more than a third of a basket deserves a check of its own before you buy in. In the present case nBTC stood for a good 36 percent, and that is precisely the share now missing.

Timeline of the Incident: From Late June to Disclosure

The chronology shows that more than two months passed between the first conspicuous activity and the public announcement. According to the analysis of an independent on-chain analyst, reproduced by CryptoSlate, the substantial minting activity took place as early as June 25, 2026, with further activity on July 17.

At the start of September the signs then multiplied. On September 6, according to The Crypto Times, Nomic's last Bitcoin checkpoints ran; a day later the chain apparently came to a standstill. On September 8 the analyst published his transaction trail, and on September 9 at 09:48 UTC the official Osmosis statement followed.

For you, one thing about this matters above all: a gap in the backing can persist for months without the price or the interface giving anything away. A regular check of your own replaces no security guarantee, but it shortens the time you spend in the dark.

Where to look up the state yourself

The circulating supply of an Osmosis token and the balances of an address can be retrieved through any public node on the chain. Those who would rather not do it themselves will find the processed figures in the ongoing coverage, for instance at CryptoSlate and at The Crypto Times.

Open Questions Nobody Has Answered Yet

A full report on the course of events was still outstanding on September 11, 2026, as was a detailed statement from Nomic on the forwarding logic. It is also unclear whether the community pool holds enough Bitcoin to close the residual gap, and how a possible seizure would be classified in legal terms.

Equally open is whether redemption into individual bridge versions will reopen at the original ratios after the vote, or whether depositors will bear a proportional haircut. Until that is settled, every figure in this article has the character of a snapshot.

Checking Bridged Bitcoin: What to Take Away

1. Convert your holding into real backing. Multiply your allBTC by 0.6397 and you know how much Bitcoin stands behind your share as of September 11, 2026. If you would rather hold such amounts yourself in future, you will find suitable devices in our crypto hardware wallet comparison.
2. Separate trading stock from stored stock. What is meant to work on a chain may sit there; what stays put for months belongs on an address of your own or with a supervised provider. Which trading venues are authorised in the EU is shown in our overview of regulated crypto exchanges.
3. Check the composition of a pooled token before every entry. Count how many inflows the basket has and which of them makes up more than a third. A wallet that lets you keep holdings and pool positions cleanly apart helps here; our software wallet comparison sorts through the common applications.

(As of September 11, 2026. This article is not investment advice. Prices and fee structures change; check the terms with the provider before you buy.)

Bitcoin trades around the clock. Your Bitcoin ETP does not. Between 10pm and 8am, and throughout every weekend, the German trading venue is closed while the price keeps moving. We measured how much of that movement falls into the closed hours: across the 30 days to September 11, 2026, it was 45 percent of the total hourly movement in the euro price of Bitcoin. Almost half of what happens takes place while you cannot place an order.

That is no reason to panic, and it is no argument against exchange-traded products. It is a reason to know two things: the real trading hours of your venue, and the order type you carry into the gap. Ahead of the US Federal Reserve rate decision on September 16, 2026, the exercise is worth the few minutes it takes, because the announcement lands in the final open hours of the German trading day.

What a Bitcoin ETP Is, and Why Its Trading Hours Are Not the Market's

An ETP (exchange traded product) is a security listed on a stock exchange that tracks the price of an underlying asset. With a Bitcoin ETP that underlying is the Bitcoin price, in Europe usually backed by coins held in custody. You buy it through your ordinary securities account, with a security identification number, an order book and settlement much as you would a share.

From that follows the quirk this article is about. The crypto market itself never clocks off. On venues such as Kraken or Bitstamp, Bitcoin trades seven days a week, including at three in the morning on Boxing Day. A stock exchange has opening hours, a trading calendar and public holidays. The security follows its underlying, but only while somebody is there to trade it.

The distinction is no technicality. It decides the price at which your order is finally executed, and it decides what a stop-loss order really delivers overnight.

Xetra, Börse Frankfurt and Tradegate: When German Venues Are Open

The hours are public and take a minute to look up. According to the figures published by Deutsche Börse, retrieved on September 11, 2026, the two large German venues work as follows:

• Xetra: trading Monday to Friday, 8:00am to 10:00pm. The opening auction starts at 8:55am, the closing auction at 5:30pm.
• Börse Frankfurt: specialist-supported trading from 8:00am to 10:00pm, for shares and ETPs as well as for certificates and structured products. On public holidays trading ends earlier.
• Tradegate: the venue quotes 7:30am to 10:00pm for its own offering.

Two details here are regularly confused. First, the closing auction at 5:30pm is not the end of trading: continuous trading runs on until 10pm. What the auction does set is the closing price, the one that turns up in account statements, index calculations and many valuations as the price of the day. Second, the long session out to 10pm is a gain of recent years, and plenty of investors still have the old core session ending at 5:30pm in their heads.

Which venue applies to you depends on your broker. Some accounts route orders to Tradegate or gettex by default, others to Xetra, others again let you choose. That setting is the real lever, and it sits in the order screen rather than in the prospectus. For an overview of providers and their execution venues, see our crypto broker comparison.

Our Own Survey: 720 Hours of Bitcoin Against the German Trading Calendar

On the question of how much price movement falls into the closed hours, we found no reliable figure. So we produced one ourselves. This survey was carried out by cryptoticker.io on September 11, 2026.

The method in one sentence: for the 30 days from August 12, 2026, 6:00pm, to September 11, 2026, 6:00pm, we pulled 721 hourly candles of the Bitcoin-euro price from the open data interfaces of two independent trading venues, calculated the absolute change in the closing price for every hour, and sorted each hour according to whether German securities trading was open at the time.

Open means Monday to Friday from 8:00am to 10:00pm, the window that Xetra and Börse Frankfurt cover between them. Everything else counts as closed: the nights from 10:00pm to 8:00am and the weekends from Friday evening to Monday morning. Public holidays needed no separate treatment, because no Xetra holiday fell within these 30 days. That gave 720 hourly intervals per source, or 1,440 measurement points in total.

The Result: 45 Percent of Price Movement Falls Into Closed Hours

Both sources produce practically the same picture. The sum of all absolute hourly changes came to 123,291 euros at one source and 122,527 euros at the other. Of that, 45.4 percent and 45.0 percent respectively fell into the closed hours. That two independently operated venues land four tenths of a percentage point apart suggests the figure describes the market rather than the quirks of a single order book.

The closed hours split unevenly. The nights from Monday to Friday accounted for 29.8 percent of the movement, the weekends for 15.7 percent. The bulk therefore sits on weekdays between 10pm and 8am, while the United States is still trading and the Asian venues are waking up.

Some context belongs here, otherwise the number sounds more dramatic than it is. The session from 8am to 10pm covers 308 of the 720 hours, or 42.8 percent of the clock. In that barely half of the time, 55 percent of the movement occurred. Measured per hour, the market is busier during German trading hours than it is overnight. The closed hours still add up to almost as much, simply because there are more of them.

The contrast is sharper among the larger moves. Hours in which the price shifted by at least one percent numbered 20 at the first source and 22 at the second. Of those, 4 and 6 respectively fell into closed hours, among them the night of August 21 at 3am with 1.90 percent and the Saturday morning of August 22 at 7am with 1.41 percent. The genuinely large swings in this window came during open trading.

Weeknights Are More Dangerous Than Weekends

The worry you hear most often concerns the weekend: two days without trading, and on Monday the price stands somewhere else. Our measurement does not support that for this window. We calculated every gap between the closing price at 10pm and the opening price at 8am, separated into nights and weekends.

Across the four weekends in the window the average gap was 0.39 percent, the largest 0.73 percent from August 14 to August 17. The 18 weeknights averaged 0.82 percent, more than twice as much. The largest gap of all opened in the night of August 21 at 3.67 percent, the second largest in the night of August 25 at 2.54 percent.

Pinning your risk on the weekend therefore means watching the wrong gap. The dangerous one is the ordinary Tuesday night that nobody is braced for.

Price Gaps Explained: Why the First Price in the Morning Is Not the Last One From the Evening

A price gap is the jump between the last price before a trading break and the first price after it. It opens because the price kept moving during the break while nobody at this venue could trade. With shares that is the normal state of affairs overnight. With a Bitcoin ETP it is measurably wider, because the underlying runs on at full speed throughout the break.

In practice that means the first price of your ETP in the morning does not pick up where the evening left off. It is a new price that has already taken the whole night into account. The opening auction at 8:55am on Xetra is precisely the mechanism that derives this price from all the orders on hand. Anyone looking at the quote at 8:56am is seeing the outcome of the night, not its course.

What the Price Gap Means for Your Stop-Loss Order

This is where a curiosity turns into a concrete risk. A stop-loss order guarantees no selling price. It is an instruction that triggers a sell order once a threshold is reached, and that sell order is executed at the next tradable price. If the next tradable price only arrives in the following morning's opening auction, and the market fell sharply overnight, your position is sold well below your threshold.

Our measurement gives a sense of the scale. In the night of August 21 the gap stood at 3.67 percent. A stop at minus two percent would not have closed at minus two percent in a night like that. It would have been executed only at the morning open. In this particular case the price jumped upwards, which merely turns the problem the other way round: a buying threshold gets skipped by a gap just as readily.

None of this argues for going without protection. It argues for reading the stop as a trigger that carries a tolerance, and that tolerance is wider in closed hours than it is during the day.

Limit Order Instead of Market Order: The Step That Caps the Gap

A market order is executed at the next available price, whatever that price looks like. A limit order sets a price boundary and is executed only within it. In calm phases the difference is small. In the first minute after a trading break it is large, because the spread between bid and ask is regularly wider there than during the day.

For orders executed inside or immediately after the closed hours, the limit order is therefore the more sober choice. What you give up is certainty of execution: if the price jumps past your limit, the order simply sits there. Which order types your broker offers, and how stop-limit, trailing stop and limit work together, we have set out in our guide to order types in crypto trading.

The Fed Decision on September 16 Falls Into the Last Trading Hours

The Federal Open Market Committee meets on September 15 and 16, 2026, according to the Federal Reserve's meeting calendar, with the decision coming on the second day. The Fed traditionally publishes its decisions at 2:00pm Washington time, and the press conference begins half an hour later. For Frankfurt that means 8:00pm and 8:30pm.

The situation that follows is worth knowing in advance. Between the announcement and the close at 10pm there are roughly two hours in which you can still trade on a German venue, often against a thinner order book than in the afternoon. After that the venue closes while the US market goes on digesting the decision. Whatever happens in that night, you will meet again at the next morning's open.

This is explicitly not a statement about whether or how far the price will move, and still less a recommendation to do anything before the date. It is a statement about the window in which you can trade, and that window is already fixed.

A Savings Plan on a Bitcoin ETP: Which Price Your Instalment Gets

If you build your ETP position through a savings plan, you are not trading yourself: the broker handles execution on a fixed date. That execution takes place at a time set by the provider and at a venue set by the provider, frequently in the morning. The price you receive is therefore the price at that moment, including whatever gap opened overnight.

For a long-running instalment this barely matters, because the execution times average out over many rounds. It becomes relevant once you push a larger one-off investment through the savings-plan mechanics, or once you want to place a date deliberately before or after a known event. Then it is worth reading the terms to see at what time and at which venue execution happens. Our overview of the Bitcoin savings plan covers how regular purchases are set up.

What the Survey Does Not Show

Honesty requires naming the limits of this measurement. We measured the spot price of Bitcoin in euros at two venues, not the price of any particular ETP. An ETP follows its underlying, but the price quoted for it also depends on the spread between bid and ask, on the market maker and on demand in the order book. How that spread behaves at 8am or at 9:50pm is something our figure does not say.

Second, this is a 30-day window and therefore a snapshot. The price rose within it from around 55,000 to around 67,200 euros, a gain of 22 percent. In a phase of falling prices, the split between open and closed hours may look different.

Third, an hourly grid measures only what is visible at the end of each hour. A move that builds and unwinds within a single hour never appears in this calculation. And fourth, none of these numbers says anything about whether a specific order would actually have been executed. What is documented is the distribution of price movement across the clock, and no more.

Checking Trading Hours in Your Own Account: Five Minutes, Three Places

All of the details below sit in your securities account or on your broker's website. You need no software and no data service for this.

First: at which venue is your order executed?

Open the order screen for your ETP and look at the field for the trading venue. It will say Xetra, Tradegate, gettex, Börse Frankfurt or an over-the-counter direct-trading partner. Each of these venues keeps its own hours, and many accounts carry a default you are free to change. Make a note of what is preset there.

Second: which hours actually apply there?

The exchange's trading hours are not automatically the hours during which your broker accepts and forwards orders. Some houses take orders around the clock and forward them at the open, others block entry outside trading hours. Both are permissible, and the difference decides whether an order entered overnight reaches the morning auction.

Third: which order type is preset?

Check whether your order screen proposes a market order by default, and whether your existing stop orders are set up as stop-market or as stop-limit. That single setting decides how a price gap reaches you.

Why the Question Goes Beyond Bitcoin

The same pattern applies to every exchange-traded product on an underlying that runs on outside securities trading hours. With Ethereum ETPs the situation is identical. With products on US shares the problem shifts the other way: there the underlying runs on once Frankfurt has long closed, though only on working days. The crypto market is the special case, because it is the only one that also runs through Saturday and Sunday.

Anyone unwilling to accept the window has an alternative that raises questions of its own: buying the coins directly on a crypto venue that is open around the clock. That solves the timing problem and brings custody, withdrawal routes and a different tax treatment along with it. Which route suits you is a decision reaching far beyond trading hours.

Bitcoin ETP Trading Hours: What to Take Away

1. Establish your venue and its hours. Check the order screen for the venue that is preset, and compare it against that venue's trading hours. If you conclude along the way that your account is a poor fit for crypto products, our crypto exchange comparison is the place to look.
2. Keep an eye on the price outside trading hours. The value of your position keeps changing overnight and at weekends, your account statement simply does not show it. A portfolio tracker maps both together; the tools for that are listed in our overview of crypto tax software and portfolio trackers.
3. Choose order type and execution time deliberately. Set a limit for orders placed around trading breaks, and look up the time at which a running savings plan is executed.

(As of September 11, 2026. This article is not investment advice. Prices and fee structures change; check the terms with the provider before you buy.)

When a crypto exchange reports that deposits and withdrawals are “delayed”, it sounds like a footnote. At Kraken it has turned this week into a condition that has now lasted seven days, and that falls on this particular day together with a deadline that is final for one of the affected tokens. The short answer to the question of what you have to do: check today whether your coin is listed as disrupted on the exchange's status page, and do not rely on what the trading view shows you. Both sources come from Kraken, and they contradict each other.

This analysis was carried out by cryptoticker.io on September 11, 2026. We pulled the exchange's public status page and its public market data interface on the same morning and compared them line by line. What came out of it appears in no announcement by the exchange.

What Kraken Reports as a Funding Incident and What It Means for Your Account

Funding is the umbrella term at a crypto exchange for everything that brings balance onto the account or takes it off again: deposits from your own wallet, withdrawals to your own wallet, plus transfers in euros or dollars. Trading itself is expressly not part of it. That very separation explains why the current situation feels so harmless: prices are running, charts are updating, buying and selling work. Only the way out is blocked for part of the networks.

Kraken keeps a separate entry for every single network on its public status page. Such an entry can take four states, and the most important dividing line runs between “operational” and everything else. Where it says degraded performance, it means in the language of the exchange: the gateway for this network is working, but not reliably. A withdrawal may go through, it may take hours, it may get stuck. No commitment as to when the condition ends comes with it.

Disrupted Since September 4: 19 Networks From the Cosmos Ecosystem

The incident at issue carries the title “Funding delays for select blockchain networks” at Kraken and was opened on September 4, 2026 at 21:43 UTC. It names 19 affected networks: Akash (AKT), Babylon (BABY), Celestia (TIA), Cosmos (ATOM), dYdX (DYDX), Dymension (DYM), Fetch.ai (FET), Initia (INIT), Injective (INJ), Juno (JUNO), Kava (KAVA), Mantra (MANTRA), Neutron (NTRN), Osmosis (OSMO), Saga (SAGA), Secret Network (SCRT), Sei (SEI), Terra Classic (LUNA) and THORChain (RUNE).

That list has a pattern you should not miss. Almost all the chains named belong to the Cosmos ecosystem or speak its transfer protocol. That points to a shared technical cause in the connection path rather than 19 independent failures on the same evening. Kraken itself has published nothing on the cause to date. Eight status updates since September 4 contain essentially the same sentence: work on a solution continues. The most recent of those updates is dated September 10, 12:33 UTC.

The incident still sits at the processing state “identified”. That means the cause is known to the exchange and the fix is in progress. This state names no target date, and Kraken has not supplied one since.

Our Own Analysis: 725 Funding Services Checked, Nine Flagged as Disrupted

For this article we pulled the status page on September 11, 2026 at around 12:55 UTC via its public data interface. The page timestamp reported in the response itself is 12:29:12 UTC on the same day. The analysis covers 831 entries spread across seven areas. By far the largest of them is “Digital Currency Funding” with exactly 725 individual services, meaning one entry for every combination of coin and network.

Of those 725 services, nine were not on “operational” at the moment we pulled the data. Sorted by the time since which each entry has been flagged as disrupted:

• Stablr Euro (EURR) and Stablr USD (USDR) on Ethereum: both since August 12, 2026, 10:16 UTC. The associated incident reaches back further: it was opened on May 24, 2026, after a problem occurred in the underlying smart contract. Kraken suspended deposits and withdrawals for both tokens and set the markets to “post only”.
• MemeCore (M) on BNB Chain: since August 19, 2026, 08:20 UTC. Here the exchange released withdrawals again after a few hours and instead switched off deposits as a precaution.
• Fetch.ai (FET), Juno (JUNO), Mantra (MANTRA), Osmosis (OSMO) and THORChain (RUNE): all since September 4, 2026, 21:43 UTC, so for exactly one week.
• Polkadot (DOT): since September 11, 2026, 10:05 UTC, the morning of this article.

What is remarkable about this list is less its length than what is missing from it. Of the 19 networks the September 4 incident originally named, only five are flagged as disrupted today. Cosmos (ATOM), Celestia (TIA), Injective (INJ), Sei (SEI) and ten others are back on “operational”, while the incident itself formally stays open. Anyone reading only the incident notice therefore assumes 19 networks are affected, while by our measurement it is five. The reliable information sits in the individual service entries, not in the headline above them.

One limit of this survey belongs with it: it is a snapshot of a single data pull. It says nothing about how many withdrawals were actually delayed, how long an individual transaction took and how many customers were affected. Only the exchange has those figures, and it does not publish them.

Polkadot (DOT) Since This Morning: The Second, Separate Incident

The Polkadot entry is not part of the Cosmos disruption but an incident of its own with its own notice. Kraken opened it today at 10:05 UTC: it was investigating a problem with the Polkadot funding gateway, deposits and withdrawals might be delayed, all other funding methods were working normally. At 11:14 UTC came the follow-up that the cause had been found and a fix was being deployed.

That is the usual course of events, and in most cases such an entry has disappeared again after a few hours. It is still relevant to you, because it shows how quickly a network can slip into this state. Anyone who checked yesterday evening whether DOT was withdrawable had a green display in front of them. This morning that answer no longer holds.

Why the Trading Interface Reports “enabled” While the Status Page Shows a Disruption

Alongside the status page, Kraken runs an open market data interface that keeps a status entry for every tradable asset. We pulled it in the same working step: 843 entries, of which 841 carry the note “enabled”. Only two assets, ANSEM and NATG, sit there on “withdrawal_only”, meaning they may be withdrawn but not deposited.

JUNO shows as “enabled” in that interface. So do FET, MANTRA, OSMO, RUNE and DOT. The same exchange, the same minute, two opposing statements about the same coin.

Technically that is not a contradiction, because the two systems answer different questions. The market data interface describes whether an asset is generally cleared for trading. The status page describes whether the gateway to the respective network is working right now. In practice the difference is awkward all the same, because many portfolio trackers, trading apps and tax tools read their status information from the market data interface. Anyone relying on that gets a completely unremarkable display for a disrupted coin. The disruption is simply not provided for in these tools.

The JUNO Case: A Delisting Deadline Meets a Broken Withdrawal Gateway

Two processes converge here that are each known on their own and together add up to a problem. At the end of August, Kraken announced that it would remove 21 assets from its offering. Affected are XTER, IR, GAIA, SCA, VANRY, BNC, SBR, RBC, MIR, JUNO, HDX, ACA, MULTI, RIZE, EPT, MAT, CQT, CXT, BKS, VULT and M. The dates are set out in the exchange's notice and are unambiguous: deposits and trading end on September 11, 2026 at 14:00 UTC, withdrawals on December 10, 2026 at 15:00 UTC. Whatever is still sitting in the account after that, Kraken sells itself between December 14 and 18.

The exchange states the consequence of that sale unusually plainly. Several of the affected assets have only thin or inactive markets left, it says, so the proceeds could be well below the prices last seen and in some cases minimal or zero. That is not our reading; it is what the delisting notice says.

Two names from that list now also appear in our disruption analysis: JUNO has been flagged as disrupted since September 4, MemeCore (M) since August 19. For JUNO that means in concrete terms: trading ends today at 14:00 UTC, so the convenient route of simply selling the position and leaving the proceeds in euros falls away. What remains is the withdrawal to your own wallet, and that runs through exactly the gateway that has been flagged as disrupted for a week. Anyone who does not get that withdrawal through by December 10 ends up in the automatic disposal.

Three months is a lot of time for that, and the disruption will in all likelihood be fixed long before. Even so, it is the difference between a task you handle today in five minutes and one you have to sort out with customer support in December under time pressure. For MemeCore (M) the situation is more relaxed: there, according to the status notice, only deposits are switched off, while withdrawals were released again on the same day.

Checking the Funding Status Yourself: The Two Addresses You Need

The good news about this case is that you need neither an account nor a tool for the check. Kraken puts its status page openly on the web, and it is readable in a browser. At status.kraken.com you will find the “Digital Currency Funding” area with the 725 individual services. There you look for the name of your coin and read off the state next to it. Anything other than “operational” is a reason not to leave your withdrawal until the last day.

The second address is the exchange's own delisting notice. It sits at support.kraken.com and names the affected assets along with all three dates. You can open both pages without signing in, and both are the position the exchange commits to itself.

This check is not a Kraken peculiarity. Almost every larger exchange runs a page of this kind, and in a separate analysis of several exchange status pages on September 7 we showed how differently detailed these pages are kept. Anyone regularly active on several venues should bookmark the relevant addresses once. Which venues offer that kind of transparency at all is, incidentally, a usable selection criterion and feeds into our crypto exchange comparison.

Stablr USD and Stablr Euro: When a Disruption Lasts Three Months

The oldest open entry in our analysis is also the most uncomfortable one. On May 24, 2026, Kraken suspended deposits and withdrawals for the two stablecoins Stablr USD (USDR) and Stablr Euro (EURR), because a problem had occurred in the underlying smart contract. In the same breath the exchange stated that there was no indication its own wallets or systems were affected, and set the markets to “post only”. The last substantive status update on this is dated July 1, 2026 and says work on a solution continues.

That leaves this incident open for more than three and a half months. For a stablecoin, a token whose entire purpose is to be redeemable one to one against a currency at any time, that is a remarkable condition. It shows that “temporarily suspended” is a very elastic statement at an exchange. There is no deadline by which an exchange would have to resolve such a state.

What “degraded performance” Does Not Mean Legally at an Exchange

A status notice is operational information, not a commitment. No entitlement to a withdrawal within a particular period follows from the entry “degraded performance”, and it is not an admission of fault either. Conversely, “operational” does not mean that an individual withdrawal will go through; it can get stuck for entirely different reasons, such as a source-of-funds check or a missing approval on your side.

This distinction matters so that you hold the right expectation. The status page tells you whether a known problem exists. It does not tell you when it will be fixed, and it does not replace a query to customer support when a specific transaction is stuck.

Withdrawal Stuck: These Steps, in This Order

If a withdrawal is not going through for you right now, work through the following order before you write to customer support. It costs a few minutes and answers most cases.

Network Status First, Everything Else After

Check on the status page whether your coin or your chosen network is listed as disrupted. Many coins can be withdrawn over several chains, and the entries differ: a token can run normally on Ethereum and stand still on a second chain. If the entry is disrupted, your withdrawal is as a rule still sitting in the queue and is not lost.

Check Whether Another Network Is Open

If your preferred route is flagged as disrupted but another one is on “operational”, you can often simply switch the withdrawal route. Make sure that your receiving wallet really supports the chain you choose. A withdrawal to an address on the wrong chain is the most expensive mistake in this whole process and is usually not recoverable.

Only Then Support and Documentation

If the status stays green and your withdrawal is stuck anyway, the cause most likely lies with your account rather than with the network. Then it is a matter of approvals, checks or a stored withdrawal address. How to secure that route in advance is something we have described using the example of the withdrawal whitelist.

Move Delisted Tokens in Time Instead of Letting Them Be Liquidated

For the 21 assets whose trading ends today at 14:00 UTC, a logic of their own applies. After the trading halt only the transfer remains. Where to depends on the token: some remain listed on other venues, others practically nowhere. Which routes exist for this and what to watch out for during the transfer is set out in our piece on delisted tokens and fallback exchanges. The announcement itself and its dates we wrote up in our coverage of the trading halt for 21 tokens.

Anyone shying away from the effort should take the exchange's warning seriously that the disposal proceeds in December may be minimal or zero. With a holding of a few euros that is a defensible decision. With a position of any size it is not.

What This Case Says About Custody on an Exchange

The actual lesson of this episode has little to do with Kraken. As long as your coins sit on a trading venue, your access depends on that venue's infrastructure. If a gateway is not running, your balance is there, visible and tradable, but it does not come out. That is no accusation against a single exchange but a property of custody with a third party.

No panic follows from this, and no immediate withdrawal of all holdings. What follows is a split: what you actively trade belongs on the trading venue. What you want to hold for longer belongs in custody that nobody else has a switch for. Which devices come into question for that and how they differ is set out in our hardware wallet comparison, linked in the final section.

Checking Kraken's Funding Status: What to Take Away

1. Check today whether your coin is affected. Open the “Digital Currency Funding” area on the status page and look for your asset. If it says anything other than “operational”, do not plan your withdrawal for the last day. Where else you can trade is set out with the respective providers in our exchange comparison.
2. If you hold one of the 21 delisted assets, act before 14:00 UTC. After that, selling is no longer possible and only the withdrawal until December 10 remains. For JUNO that route currently runs through a disrupted gateway. Whether your venue is supervised at all is answered by a look at the comparison of regulated crypto exchanges.
3. Separate your trading holdings from your long-term holdings. What you do not move does not have to sit on the exchange. The right custody for the dormant part is set out in our hardware wallet comparison.

(As of September 11, 2026. This article is not investment advice. Prices and fee structures change; check the terms with the provider before you buy.)

Greenberg Traurig said documents were posted to the dark web, while BakerHostetler recorded a near-doubling of law-firm incidents in 2025.

A rapidly changing interest rates market has changed the near-term outlook on the Bitcoin chart. Here’s why.

The company is seeking clarity on antitrust rules as researchers call for restraint and experts warn that competition encourages companies to overlook risks.

Fresh operating data shows crypto trading bouncing back, but the company's fastest-growing business these days isn't traditional trading at all.

BWOW will stop trading October 14, with cash payments to remaining shareholders expected October 22.

Zcash leads the market with a powerful rebound, while BNB and HYPE retain bullish structures and SHIB attempts to recover.

A simulated fruit-fly brain hooked up to Coinbase has turned a $100 Bitcoin trading experiment into a small profit.

Bitcoin experienced its third one-block reorganization in less than a month on Sept. 11 after competing blocks from SpiderPool and AntPool briefly created two versions of the blockchain at the same height.

Tom Lee doubles down on a "face-ripper" Ethereum rally as ETH jumps over 7% following the U.S. inflation report.

BlackRock has accumulated about $250 million of Ethereum’s over the last 20 days while the asset continues to show mixed price actions.

TLDR:

• BNB Chain protocol revenue reached $3.2 million on September 9, its highest level since October 2025.
• BSC protocol revenue rose 42% from $2.25 million on July 31 to $3.2 million by September 9.
• Base network protocol revenue jumped nearly 194%, from $347,000 to $1.02 million in five weeks.
• BNB traded near $727.01, gaining 2.57% in 24 hours and 1.10% over the past seven trading days.

BNB Chain protocol revenue climbed 42% to reach $3.2 million on September 9, marking its highest daily level since October 2025.

The jump reflects a sharp rise in fee-generating activity across all protocols operating on BNB Smart Chain. The reading compares to $2.25 million recorded on July 31, when Bitcoin traded near $62,400.

Bitcoin has since risen about 26% to $78,400, yet BNB Chain protocol revenue expanded at a considerably faster pace than Bitcoin’s price over the same stretch.

BNB Chain Revenue Outpaces Bitcoin Price Direction

The current reading also stands roughly 19% above the $2.68 million recorded on January 12. Bitcoin, by comparison, trades about 14% below its January 12 price of $91,200.

This gap suggests BNB Chain protocol revenue is not simply tracking Bitcoin’s broader price trend. Fee generation on the network has moved independently of Bitcoin’s recent decline.

The divergence points to activity building specifically within BNB Smart Chain’s ecosystem of applications. Decentralized exchanges, token launches, derivatives platforms and lending protocols all contribute to this revenue figure. A rise in these categories signals renewed on-chain engagement regardless of Bitcoin’s own price path.

BNB, the network’s native token, traded at $727.01 at the time of writing. The token carried a 24-hour trading volume of $1,128,174,325 alongside the revenue data. BNB posted a 2.57% price increase over the past 24 hours. Over the past seven days, the token gained 1.10%, extending its recent upward move.

Source: Coingecko

Together, these figures place BNB Chain protocol revenue at its strongest level in nearly a year. The scale of the increase stands out even without accounting for Bitcoin’s separate price movements. Fee activity across the network has clearly accelerated since late July.

Base Network Shows Parallel Surge in Protocol Revenue

The expansion in fee-generating activity is not limited to BNB Smart Chain. Base recorded daily protocol revenue of approximately $1.02 million on September 9. That figure compares to about $347,000 on July 31, just over five weeks earlier.

The increase on Base amounts to roughly 194%, or nearly three times its earlier level. This growth rate exceeds the percentage gain recorded across BNB Smart Chain protocols in the same window. Both networks point toward broader momentum in on-chain fee activity industry-wide.

Higher protocol revenue generally reflects stronger participation from decentralized exchanges, token launches, and lending platforms.

It can also stem from increased activity among either retail traders or larger holders. The source of that activity often shapes what follows in subsequent price behavior.

Stronger participation from larger holders has historically aligned with steadier price behavior afterward, particularly when they absorb supply during weaker phases.

Retail-heavy activity near market tops, by contrast, has at times coincided with distribution from larger holders. Revenue figures alone do not identify which group is driving current activity on either network.

The post BNB Chain Protocol Revenue Jumps 42% to Highest Level Since October 2025 appeared first on Blockonomi.

TLDR:

• Ethereum surged 10% within two hours as whale-driven buying accelerated the entire price move.
• Whale transactions above $1 million jumped nearly 14%, signaling strong large-holder demand.
• Glassnode data shows more than 10 million ETH previously traded between $2,700 and $2,800.
• Analysts say clearing the $2,700–$2,800 resistance zone could open the path toward $3,000.

Ethereum surged 10% in two hours, moving from $2,433 to $2,667, as large holders stepped up buying activity. Whale transactions above $1 million rose nearly 14% during the move.

The increase in large-wallet activity coincided with fresh August inflation data showing a 3.4% annual rate. Analysts say whale participation played a central role in accelerating the rally. Ethereum now approaches a key resistance zone near $2,700 to $2,800.

Large Holders Take the Lead in Ethereum’s Move

Whale activity stood out as the defining feature of this week’s rally. On-chain data showed transactions above $1 million climbing nearly 14%.

That shift pointed to concentrated buying from large wallets rather than broad retail demand. The pattern suggested bigger holders positioned early as sentiment turned favorable.

Analyst Ali Charts tracked the move in a five-part breakdown on X. The account noted Ethereum had already reached a $2,740 target flagged earlier.

It tied the rally directly to rising whale participation. The post framed large-holder activity as the main force behind the two-hour surge.

Data cited in the thread, sourced from Santiment Intelligence, reinforced that reading. The nearly 14% jump in large transactions came alongside the price spike.

Such increases often reflect accumulation by whales rather than short-term retail trading. The timing suggested large holders acted quickly once the inflation report was released.

Whale-driven rallies tend to move faster and with less warning than retail-led ones. The two-hour timeframe of this surge fits that pattern closely.

Large wallets can shift price quickly when acting in coordination or in response to macro news. This rally appears to reflect exactly that kind of behavior.

Whales Now Face a Resistance Test Near $2,800

Even with whales fueling the advance, Ethereum faces a dense supply zone ahead. Glassnode data showed over 10 million ETH previously traded between $2,700 and $2,800.

That volume represents holders likely to sell as price returns to their entry range. Whales pushing further will need to absorb that supply.

Analysts view this range as the next test of whale conviction. Sustained buying from large wallets would be needed to clear the zone.

A pullback could follow if whale demand fades near resistance. The $2,700 to $2,800 band is being treated as the decisive marker.

Trader Crypflow offered a technical read that aligns with the whale narrative. The post described a liquidity sweep above the prior range, followed by a move back inside.

Similar setups in past consolidations preceded larger directional shifts. Crypflow suggested a sweep below the range could occur next.

If that pattern repeats, Crypflow noted it could set up an expansion move higher. Such liquidity grabs often precede renewed buying from larger participants.

Whether whales continue driving Ethereum higher will likely hinge on this resistance test. Their next move should determine if $3,000 comes into range soon.

The post Whale Buying Fuels Ethereum’s 10% Surge Amid CPI Data appeared first on Blockonomi.

TLDR:

• Dominion Market’s multisig wallets were breached near 01:00 UTC on Friday, September 11.
• SILV bought between 01:00 and 14:00 UTC Friday will be frozen and removed from wallets.
• USDC refund claims open Monday, September 14 at 12:00 UTC via onchain verification.
• Dominion is working with SIRN and SEAL 911 while targeting a full SILV repeg soon.

Dominion Market confirmed a wallet breach that pushed its Solana-based SILV token off its 1:1 silver backing. The platform moved fast, pulling liquidity and locking down compromised wallets within hours.

Tokens purchased during the exploit window will be frozen, while long-term holders keep their balances untouched. A refund process opens Monday, and the team says a full repeg is coming soon.

Breach Response and Wallet Security

Dominion Market said the compromise began near 01:00 UTC on Friday, September 11. The team detected unusual activity roughly three hours later and moved to contain it.

Founder Mark said the platform pulled liquidity, secured the affected wallets, and swapped in fresh hardware devices. He added that Dominion now has full control over its systems again.

The breach caused SILV to trade well below the value of the physical silver supporting it. That gap opened the door for opportunistic buying during the compromised window.

Dominion said tokens acquired between 01:00 UTC and 14:00 UTC on Friday would be removed from wallets. Balances held before the exploit began remain unaffected by the freeze.

The team is working with outside security groups to trace the incident. Dominion named the Solana Incident Response Network and SEAL 911 as partners in the review.

Both groups focus on tracking exploits across Solana-based protocols. Dominion said it would share updates on the investigation as new details emerge.

Dominion also warned its community about follow-up scams tied to the incident. The company said it will never contact holders directly about refunds through private messages.

Any account offering early refunds before Monday should be treated as fraudulent. Official updates, the team said, will only come through its verified account.

Refund Process and Path to Repegging

Holders who bought SILV during the compromised window will be eligible for USDC refunds. Dominion set the claims window to open Monday, September 14, at 12:00 UTC. The team cited closed silver markets over the weekend as the reason for the delay.

Dominion said the refund process would rely on verifiable onchain data for every claim. Affected users do not need to submit anything until the claims form goes live. The company plans to publish full instructions alongside the refund link at the same time.

Beyond refunds, Dominion’s stated priority is restoring the SILV peg to physical silver. The team said it is working to add liquidity ahead of the repeg.

Trading remains paused for now while the platform confirms its systems are secure. Holders have been asked to avoid trading SILV until an official repeg announcement.

Reaction within the community has been mixed since the freeze was announced. Some holders welcomed the quick action to protect the token’s backing.

Others expressed frustration over having tokens removed from their wallets. Dominion said the freeze protects holders who bought SILV before the breach occurred.

The post Dominion Market Halts Trading, Freezes SILV Following Multisig Wallet Hack appeared first on Blockonomi.

TLDR:

• USDe and sUSDe are now live on TRON through Stargate Finance for cross-chain transfers.
• The launch gives TRON users access to Ethena’s dollar-pegged and rewards-bearing assets.
• JustLend DAO and SUN.io will be among the first TRON platforms to support the assets.
• Ethena gains exposure to TRON’s 403M+ accounts and growing stablecoin settlement ecosystem

USDe is now live on the TRON network, alongside its yield-bearing counterpart sUSDe, following an announcement from TRON DAO and Ethena Labs.

The two organizations confirmed the integration on September 11, 2026, from Geneva and Lisbon. Users can bridge, hold, and transfer both digital dollar assets across TRON through Stargate Finance.

The launch links Ethena’s stablecoin products with one of the largest stablecoin settlement networks worldwide.

Stargate Bridge Opens Access Across TRON

TRON DAO confirmed the launch through its official X account, stating that “USDe and sUSDe are now live on #TRON.” The announcement also highlighted Stargate Finance, which enables users to “bridge, hold, and transfer both assets” across the network.

This extends Ethena’s lineup to TRON’s existing user base immediately. USDe joins TRON’s stablecoin options as an added dollar-pegged token for daily use.

Meanwhile, sUSDe gives TRON users first-time access to Ethena’s rewards-bearing product on this chain. Both tokens will remain connected to liquidity held across Ethena’s other supported networks.

This setup supports interoperability within Ethena’s broader multichain strategy going forward. Support across TRON’s core decentralized finance applications is expected within the coming weeks.

JustLend DAO and SUN.io are named as the first platforms to add support. Wider adoption across wallets and exchanges is expected next. TRON counts more than 403 million accounts.

Justin Sun, Founder of TRON, said: “Millions of people rely on the TRON network every day to make payments, save, and move value globally.” He added that USDe and sUSDe “broaden the options available to users” on the network.

Ethena Deepens Its Multichain Stablecoin Strategy

Guy Young, Founder of Ethena Labs, said TRON has “a massive user base that already holds and moves digital dollars“ at scale. He added that the integration means users “can hold a dollar that accrues rewards” on a network they already use.

Young called the move part of a wider effort to reach more users globally. He also pointed toward continued collaboration between the two teams going forward.

This integration extends USDe’s presence beyond a dozen networks it already supports. The asset is already connected with several centralized exchanges and decentralized finance platforms elsewhere.

Adding TRON strengthens USDe’s position within the wider multichain stablecoin landscape. It also places sUSDe on a network built for high transaction volume.

For TRON, the addition supports its positioning as decentralized infrastructure built for everyday financial use. The network has focused heavily on stablecoin settlement and payment applications in recent years. Adding Ethena’s products gives TRON users another rewards-bearing option within the same ecosystem.

Both companies indicated that further integrations are planned beyond this initial TRON launch. Wallets, exchanges, and payment providers are expected to add support gradually over time. The move reflects a continued push toward wider digital dollar accessibility across TRON’s ecosystem.

The post Ethena’s USDe and sUSDe Go Live on TRON Through Stargate appeared first on Blockonomi.

TLDR:

• Active tokenized stock market cap surged 314% in 2026, reaching $4 billion by September 9.
• bStocks and Robinhood captured 87.8% of tracked issuer trading volume in September so far.
• DeFi total value locked for tokenized stocks jumped to $289 million, now 7.2% of active cap.
• Stock-paired meme markets generated a combined $5.4 billion across BNB and Robinhood Chain networks.

Binance Research said the tokenized stock market is shifting from an issuance race toward distribution and usage. The research team found active tokenized stock market capitalization has risen 314% this year to $4 billion.

Monthly trading volume increased from $237 million in January to $7.9 billion in August, while turnover rose from 0.23x to 2.14x.

Binance Research said stronger platforms will convert users, retain liquidity and give tokenized stocks added on-chain utility.

Trading Activity Outpaces Issuance

Binance Research found active tokenized stock market capitalization rose from $965 million to nearly $4 billion by September 9. On-chain market capitalization reached $4.7 billion over the same period.

The research team said this expansion reflects steady growth in the number of tokenized stocks available to traders.

According to Binance Research, trading volume expanded far faster than the underlying asset base. Monthly issuer volume rose from $237 million in January to $7.9 billion in August. That represents an increase of more than 33 times within eight months.

Market turnover also increased sharply across the same window, the report said. Turnover moved from 0.23x average active market cap in January to 2.14x in August. Turnover peaked at 3.32x in July before easing the following month.

Binance Research said the gap between issuance and trading shows tokenized stocks are being used more actively than before.

Investors appear to be trading positions rather than holding them passively. The research team pointed to this as a sign of the market maturing.

Distribution Now Drives Growth

Binance Research said issuer distribution has changed rapidly since the middle of 2026. bStocks and Robinhood accounted for just 0.8% of tracked issuer volume in June. Their combined share rose to 82.3% in August and 87.8% in September month-to-date.

The report also tracked a similar pattern at the network level. BNB Chain and Robinhood Chain combined for 2.3% of tracked chain volume in June. That figure rose to 83.0% by August and 88.2% by early September.

Binance Research noted the token mix within bStocks is becoming less concentrated over time. The five most-traded tokens’ combined share of volume fell from 98.7% to 84.6%. QQQ’s individual share of volume dropped from 95.2% to 66.0% across the same period.

Binance Research said user data shows existing trading relationships help drive adoption of tokenized stocks. The team found 58.5% of early bStocks users had already traded perpetuals or direct equities. Among SPCX perpetual traders, 8.6% converted into bStocks compared with 0.6% into direct equities.

On-Chain Usage Is Rising

Binance Research reported DeFi activity tied to tokenized stocks grew substantially through the year. Active DeFi total value locked rose from $21.6 million in January to $289.1 million by September 9. That share of active market cap increased from 2.2% to 7.2% over the period.

The research team said liquidity pools account for the largest portion of this DeFi activity. Binance Research reported 65.4% of DeFi total value locked sits in liquidity pools. Lending accounts for 28.1%, while yield tokenization makes up 5.7% of the remaining total.

Binance Research also tracked bStocks collateral use growing alongside broader lending activity. Outstanding borrowing rose from 5.5% of deposited collateral in June to 46.2% by September 10. Roughly $3.1 million was borrowed against $6.8 million in collateral by that date.

According to Binance Research, tokenized stocks are also appearing in memecoin-paired trading pools. Stock-paired meme markets generated about $2.49 billion on Robinhood Chain between July 26 and September 9. BNB Chain recorded roughly $2.90 billion in similar volume across the same window.

The post Tokenized Stocks Market Shifts from Issuance to Distribution, Binance Research Says appeared first on Blockonomi.

Ethereum developers have tentatively scheduled the Glamsterdam upgrade for Ethereum’s Sepolia testnet on October 6 at 13:53 UTC, even as private devnet testing continues to uncover bugs.

The date gives developers a path toward a December mainnet release, but it remains conditional on whether the next testing phase can produce a stable network.

Glamsterdam Date Depends on Devnet Testing

Protocol specialist Christine D. Kim noted in her latest newsletter that developers agreed to the October 6 Sepolia date while acknowledging several caveats, the biggest of which is that Glamsterdam has yet to run successfully on a stable private devnet.

Glamsterdam-Devnet-9 launched on September 1 with 1,000 validator nodes, making it the largest devnet of its kind by node count so far. But the network is not finalizing, meaning too few validators are correctly proposing and attesting to the chain head.

Ethereum Foundation (EF) developer operations engineer Stefan Starflinger said the size of the network exposed problems, noting it “showed that there are still quite a few edge cases and issues” left to address. He added that the previous devnet, Devnet-8, had an even more serious flaw, a bug that could freeze the entire network if a validator proposed a block sharing its parent’s hash.

Separately, EF researcher Maria Silva flagged a bug tied to EIP-8037, the State Creation Gas Cost Increase, which will require every execution-layer client to update its code.

Because of those fixes, another devnet is coming, and as of this week, the one to watch is Devnet-11, not 10 as originally planned. Parithosh Jayanti, the Ethereum Foundation developer operations engineer who chaired the call, said that if the new devnet fails again, “we’d have to take it case by case” on whether October 6 still works.

Hoodi and Mainnet Dates Remain Uncertain

Developers have also held off on setting a date for Hoodi, Ethereum’s second public testnet in the rollout, with Enrico del Fante of Consensys arguing that waiting a few more weeks before committing to Hoodi would be sensible given the problems found on Devnet-9.

The uncertainty extends to the main network. Developers still hope that the upgrade can reach Ethereum mainnet before the end of 2026, but the Sepolia date does not make the outcome more certain, especially since client implementations are not yet considered ready for mainnet.

As CryptoPotato reported previously, Ethereum’s broader roadmap has penciled in Glamsterdam’s mainnet activation for December 2026, ahead of a separate push toward quantum-resistant infrastructure targeted for 2029.

That plan, tied to the Hegotá upgrade that follows Glamsterdam, points to Ethereum shipping major changes roughly twice a year, a pace it kept last December when Fusaka activated on schedule.

The post Ethereum Targets October 6 for Glamsterdam Sepolia Fork appeared first on CryptoPotato.

Crypto asset manager Bitwise is shutting down its spot Dogecoin exchange-traded fund roughly 10 months after the product launched, as the firm moves to optimize its product range to meet changing investor needs.

The fund, BWOW, currently trading on NYSE Arca, is expected to continue trading until October 14, its final trading day.

Investor Demand Dries Up

According to the official press release, investors can sell their shares on the secondary market until trading closes that day, after which BWOW will cease operations. The remaining shareholders will receive the net asset value of their shares as of October 21 in cash on October 22, and Bitwise said investors do not need to take any action during the process.

The firm has also coordinated with NYSE to facilitate the fund’s delisting and liquidation.

Back in November 2025, Bitwise CEO Hunter Horsley had stated,

“DOGE is simply a 12-year-old coin based on a picture of a cute dog, people doing good, and the common ideal in crypto that people should have the freedom to do as they choose. And, against the odds, it has kept its relevance – and its value – longer than just about anything else in crypto.”

Bitwise’s decision comes as the market for spot Dogecoin ETFs struggles to attract steady investor demand. The first DOGE ETF launched in September 2025 and generated significant attention at the time. But the products have since seen limited interest.

Data compiled by SoSoValue revealed that Dogecoin ETFs posted about $318,000 in net inflows last month, reversing the small outflows recorded in July. September has been considerably weaker, however, with more than $343,000 already leaving the funds. The fund saw more money leave than come in. Its lifetime net outflow stood at $1.23 million.

Fresh Bullish Signal

The past month has been relatively steady for the OG meme coin. It gained nearly 20% over the past month as the broader crypto market rallied. After reaching a recent high of $0.09, though, it slipped back to around $0.084.

Ali Martinez thinks DOGE could be ready for another bounce. The analyst identified a buy signal from the TD Sequential on the asset’s four-hour chart. Martinez said the signal has worked well recently. The last three times it appeared, DOGE went on to rebound 6.96%, then 2.71%, and 11.25%.

The post Bitwise Pulls the Plug on Dogecoin ETF Just 10 Months After Launch appeared first on CryptoPotato.

XRP Ledger Foundation CTO Denis Angell has suggested that an integration between X Money and XRP could let users move funds from the payments platform into the token and access yield-generating tools on XRPL.

His idea goes beyond simply adding crypto payments to X Money, as he sees a possible connection between X’s wallet product and XRPL’s lending and asset-management features, with users potentially moving between a consumer payment account and on-chain financial products.

Angell Sees X Money as a Potential XRP On-Ramp

“If with X Money you can transfer from your X Money account right into XRP and then use the primitive on the XRP Ledger to drive yield generation, I don’t think there’s anything wrong with that,” Angell said.

He added that the important part would be having “some sort of integration, some sort of onboarding, on-ramp, off-ramp to XRP” within the X social app.

The comments came as Angell discussed the XRPL Foundation’s work on bringing more traditional financial functions onto the ledger. He pointed to the lending protocol, which he said is currently on the network and can be voted in, as a way to generate yield.

Angell also highlighted the single asset vault as one of his favorite developments. He described it as similar to a mutual fund, where users deposit assets into a pool and a strategy built on top of it can generate yield that remains in the pool until users withdraw.

The broader goal, he explained, is to put “TradFi primitives into the protocol rather than just writing smart contracts.” That includes financial products such as stocks, bonds, and options.

X Money Still Doesn’t Touch Crypto

For now, that on-ramp does not exist. X Money currently works as a fiat-based wallet, letting users hold balances, send free transfers to other X Money users, receive direct deposits, and spend through a Visa debit card, earning up to 6% annual yield along with cashback.

It launched to a limited group of Premium+ subscribers in June before expanding to more paid users by late July, with no crypto or stablecoin support. Musk had floated the idea of crypto integration as far back as March, when he reposted a claim that X Money would eventually add high-yield savings, loans and crypto integration, calling the vision “big.”

Nothing on that front has shipped since, and X’s more recent payments work has centered on the dollar system it already has, although, according to reports, there have been talks over paying creators on the social platform in stablecoins.

The post Could Elon Musk’s X Money Use XRP? XRPL Foundation CTO Weighs In appeared first on CryptoPotato.

Ethereum (ETH) is retesting a resistance line it has only reached twice before, in 2021 and again around 2025, and trader Crypto Patel says that makes this the “biggest breakout setup yet” for the cryptocurrency.

In a chart posted Friday, Patel mapped a path toward $5,000, then $10,000, then $15,000 if the line breaks, even as ETH was trading near $2,500, still less than half its all-time high.

The Chart Behind the $15K Call

“$ETH is retesting a multi-year resistance zone for the 3rd time after holding its long-term accumulation support,” stated Patel as he shared a chart that traced a descending trendline from 2018 to 2021, marked by three lower highs before ETH broke out into that year’s rally.

The same horizontal resistance capped the price at the 2021 peak and again near 2025, and the current test is drawn as the third touch of that line.

Below it, a wide band the analyst called the “Best Accumulation Zone” has caught every major pullback since, with a rising trendline running through it that ETH is still sitting just above, around $2,460 on the chart’s own reading.

The target ladder is more granular than the $5K, $10K, $15K shorthand in Patel’s caption suggests. The chart itself marks $3,270 and $4,892 as the first two levels, with $5,500 also flagged, before the path opens toward $10,000 and then $15,000.

At the time of writing, spot ETH had changed little in 24 hours, but it was down about 1% on the week and roughly 44% below where it had been trading a year ago. However, over one month, it showed gains of 31%, although even that jump kept the asset 50% below its August 2025 all-time high.

Trading volume jumped close to 28% in the past 24 hours to near $16.3 billion, a sign of fresh activity around the level Patel is watching.

Experts Split Between Breakout and Pullback

Analyst NoName, posting on Thursday, offered a different perspective, noting that ETH had just finished a Wave 3 impulsive move and writing that “the next phase of the structure should be a Wave 4 correction.”

They pointed to $2,324 as the first support to watch, with a bounce toward $2,784 to $2,966 possible if buyers defend it, or a drop to the $2,112 to $2,222 zone if it fails. Only a daily close under $2,050 would scrap the setup entirely.

Several other market watchers have also been keeping an eye on the $2,500 to $2,550 area, with some expecting a move toward $3,000 after a strong weekly close above resistance and others anticipating a retreat toward $2,000 first.

The post Analyst Flags Ethereum Breakout Setup With $15K Target appeared first on CryptoPotato.

Earlier this year, Pi Network’s native token surged to nearly $0.30 after Kraken allowed trading services with it. Since then, the asset has been in a steep downtrend and now trades around $0.09.

The big question is whether the price can rise above the $0.30 mark again before the end of 2026, or whether that was the maximum for this year. Here’s what three of the most widely used AI-powered chatbots think on the matter.

Mixed Predictions

According to ChatGPT, PI can exceed $0.30 and spike to as high as $0.60 sometime this year, but such a major increase will depend on vital catalysts rather than speculation alone. OpenAI’s platform suggested potential positive factors include listings on leading crypto exchanges or a broader altcoin rally.

PI began trading at the start of 2025 and is available for trading on platforms like Bitget, Kraken, OKX, and others. However, the industry’s heavyweights Binance and Coinbase have not yet embraced the token. Recall that the former asked its community whether they want to see PI on the exchange, and the vast majority answered “yes.”

In conclusion, the chatbot suggested that PI’s highest price in 2026 will most likely be around $0.35-$0.45, with $0.42 set as a specific estimate.

“A short-lived move toward $0.50 is plausible, but without a major listing or explosion in genuine usage, I don’t see it approaching $1,” it added.

Google’s Gemini took a similar stance, saying a pump above $0.30 and a new local peak of $0.36 are possible “under favorable market conditions.” According to it, the main drivers include mainnet ecosystem expansion, real-world utility adoption, and broader bullish momentum across the entire crypto sector.

Perplexity was much more pessimistic, claiming that a new rise above $0.30 before the end of the year is highly unlikely. At the same time, it assumed that a solid resurgence may still occur given the upcoming protocol 27, which is about to be implemented on September 15. However, the team has not always met its deadlines, so delays remain a possibility.

Sentiment Flips Bullish?

X user Crypto With Gopal recently opined that PI is printing a double-bottom formation, with buyers defending the 0.08-$0.09 support zone and the price slowly building higher lows.

He believes a breakout above the $0.10-$0.12 range could ignite the next rally, saying bulls have shown signs of reclaiming control.

The post Pi Network (PI) Keeps Struggling Under $0.10: 3 AIs Predict Its Maximum Price for 2026 appeared first on CryptoPotato.