South Korea's ambitious AI and chip strategy could redefine its global tech standing, but hinges on power supply and talent development success.

The post South Korea unveils a roughly $900B AI and chip plan it calls a survival strategy appeared first on Crypto Briefing.

CZ's continued influence in crypto, despite legal setbacks, highlights the resilience of major players in shaping industry dynamics.

The post Changpeng Zhao details life after prison in exclusive NYT report appeared first on Crypto Briefing.

Japan's sanctions on Garantex highlight global efforts to curb illicit crypto activities, emphasizing increased compliance burdens for businesses.

The post Japan sanctions Garantex, freezing assets of exchange tied to $96B in crypto transactions appeared first on Crypto Briefing.

Burry's bearish stance on AI highlights potential risks of over-leveraged investments, signaling caution for tech investors amid market volatility.

The post Michael Burry more confident than ever AI bubble will burst within a year, targets Micron and Nebius appeared first on Crypto Briefing.

U.S. regulators' proactive crypto measures may signal a shift towards agency-driven policy development, bypassing stalled legislative efforts.

The post US advances crypto policy despite CLARITY Act stall appeared first on Crypto Briefing.

Bitcoin Magazine

IMF Praises El Salvador — But Still Tries To Scale Back Its Bitcoin Project

The International Monetary Fund has praised El Salvador for improving its economy — but scolded it at the same time for its ongoing Bitcoin experiment. 

In a statement Friday, the IMF said that it had  approved a $139 million disbursement to the Central American nation while also trying to “reduce the state’s involvement in Bitcoin-related activities.”

El Salvador in 2021 made Bitcoin legal tender, much to the ire of the IMF and other major institutions. The Latin American country was at the time negotiating a development loan with the agency. 

The IMF in September said that El Salvador wasn’t buying bitcoin; the country’s Bitcoin Office has repeatedly said that it does buy the cryptocurrency. 

“Economic activity has exceeded expectations, supported by sustained improvements in security and investor confidence, as macroeconomic imbalances continue to be addressed,” the IMF said. 

It continued: “However, certain performance criteria were not met, including on the Bitcoin accumulation front, for which waivers were granted based on strong corrective measures and renewed commitments.”

The IMF further said that the Salvadoran state’s involvement in Bitcoin-related activities is being unwound and that “no further bitcoin accumulation is envisaged beyond the documented donations.”

Salvadoran president Nayib Bukele in 2022 said the country would buy one bitcoin per day but it was never clear where the money was coming from — or if he was actually buying at all.  

The IMF said in September that El Salvador was — at least for some time —not using public funds to accumulate bitcoin but rather had received bitcoin from private donations. 

El Salvador and the IMF entered a $1.4 billion loan agreement at the end of December but the fund asked for the country to scale back certain aspects of its Bitcoin strategy.  

The Salvadoran state gifted its citizens bitcoin in 2021 and debuted a wallet with the hope of getting more citizens using the cryptocurrency in the dollarized country. 

President Bukele in 2024 admitted that Salvadorans weren’t using the cryptocurrency to buy things as expected, but always boasted that the government was still stacking sats.  

This post IMF Praises El Salvador — But Still Tries To Scale Back Its Bitcoin Project first appeared on Bitcoin Magazine and is written by Mathew Di Salvo.

Bitcoin Magazine

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bitcoin Magazine

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

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

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

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

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

Absa did not immediately respond to questions from Bitcoin Magazine. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bitcoin Magazine

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bitcoin Magazine

Impacts of Daily Dividends on Digital Credit

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

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

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

Daily Dividends Fit Onchain Finance

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

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

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

Daily Dividends Are Primarily a Retail Feature

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

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

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

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

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

Options Get Cleaner Too

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

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

The Biggest Test

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

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

Conclusion 

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

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

Binance will require Brazilian users to provide additional information for cross-border crypto transfers starting Nov. 1.

The exchange said customers sending crypto abroad or receiving it from nonresidents must disclose the purpose of each transfer and identify the counterparty type. Corporate accounts must also say whether the other party belongs to the same economic group.

Binance will report the transactions monthly to Brazil’s central bank under Resolution BCB No. 521/2025, which brings international virtual-asset transfers into the country’s foreign-exchange framework.

The requirement creates a new compliance checkpoint for cross-border crypto flows. Withdrawals cannot be submitted until the questionnaire is completed, while incoming deposits can remain pending and, in some cases, be returned if users fail to provide the required information.

The rules apply to individuals and companies transferring crypto to or from nonresidents, including customers moving assets to their own accounts on foreign exchanges. Transfers between Brazilian residents are unaffected.

They arrive as Brazil broadens its oversight of a crypto market that Chainalysis estimated handled $252.5 billion between July 2025 and June 2026. Brazil ranked first overall in the firm’s 2026 adoption index and second for cross-border flows, though activity contracted 1.6% during the period.

Brazil tightens oversight of crypto flows

The Binance changes form part of a broader Brazilian push to bring crypto payments, self-custody and cross-border transfers deeper into the country’s financial-surveillance and foreign-exchange framework.

That effort already includes new reporting obligations for transactions involving self-custody wallets. Regulated institutions must report crypto transfers worth at least $10,000 to or from such wallets to Brazil’s Financial Activities Control Council, or Coaf, by the next business day, even when the transaction has not been flagged as suspicious.

Brazil has also restricted the use of stablecoins and other virtual assets in a specific aggregated cross-border payment structure used by foreign-exchange providers. Individual international crypto transfers remain permitted, but settlement between eFX firms and overseas counterparties must now pass through licensed FX transactions or qualifying nonresident real accounts.

The restriction reaches a market where stablecoins have become deeply embedded in payments and foreign-exchange activity. Brazilian tax data showed R$1.13 trillion in declared stablecoin transactions between August 2019 and December 2025, accounting for about 72% of declared crypto activity over the period.

Binance’s new procedures extend that framework to the information collected on individual cross-border transfers. Transactions of as much as $50,000 use a simplified list of 10 purposes, while larger transfers require customers to choose from 96 classifications. Certain international transfers are capped at $100,000 when the counterparty is not authorized to operate in Brazil’s foreign-exchange market.

Customers sending crypto to their own account on a foreign exchange will have the purpose and counterparty details populated automatically and only need to confirm the declaration.

Self-hosted wallets follow a separate process. Users do not need to provide a transfer purpose but must confirm wallet ownership, and Binance will report those transactions to the central bank under a distinct category.

The exchange said the requirements are separate from Brazil’s Travel Rule, which is scheduled to take effect in phases for domestic transactions in 2027 and international transfers in 2028.

Brazil’s regulatory rollout will tighten further on Jan. 1, when Resolution BCB 584 introduces precautionary holding procedures that can delay certain outbound virtual-asset transfers while additional checks are carried out. Binance said it will provide more details before its Nov. 1 changes take effect.

The post Binance will hold some Brazil crypto deposits until users explain where the money came from appeared first on CryptoSlate.

Here's a hypothetical scenario: you want to use $100 out of your bank account to buy newly issued stablecoins. The company issuing the stablecoins takes your dollars, puts them in its own bank account, and gives you a balance you can send around on a blockchain.

You got the product you wanted, and somewhere in the vast and confusing realm of banking, the $100 is still there.

From a distance, this looks like something banks shouldn't worry about. Sure, they lost a deposit, but they also got a deposit back, so why do bankers keep warning that stablecoins could drain the financial system?

The thing is, your bank really liked having you as the customer. If you take your money away, now it owes that money to a company managing withdrawals for thousands of people, with someone paid to decide where the reserves should go.

The dollars came back, but they came back with a different owner, and that owner can be a much more demanding creditor.

This is the part of the stablecoin debate that gets lost when everyone starts estimating how many trillions will leave banks. The amount in the bank can stay the same while the bank gets a much worse deal, because a deposit's value to a bank depends partly on how long the customer will leave it there and what it costs to keep it.

The Bank for International Settlements' 2026 analysis used a $100 purchase to show how household deposits can return as issuer deposits while making banks' funding less dependable under regulatory measures.

If banks have to spend more to support that money, some of the cost could eventually reach people taking out loans, including people who don't even know what a stablecoin is.

Your bank likes you a little boring

The balance in your banking app is money the bank owes you. You have a right to spend it, but the bank doesn't keep every customer's balance in a separate pile waiting to be collected. Its assets also include loans repaid over years, while customers can ask for their deposits much sooner.

Banks can create deposits when they make loans, but they still need to fund the payments customers send elsewhere. Keeping a dependable base of deposits helps them do that.

That arrangement works partly because people don't usually need all their money at once.

Your salary comes in while someone else's rent goes out, and across enough customers, the bank can plan around a reasonably dependable deposit base. It still needs ready cash for payments, but it doesn't expect every account to empty on the first of the month.

That comfort has limits, as any bank run shows. Still, many individual balances used for everyday life can be easier to manage than one very large account whose owner can move the whole amount with a single decision. Bankers call the first kind retail funding and the second wholesale funding.

Stablecoin issuers also have promises to keep. If token holders redeem, the issuer needs dollars to pay them, and withdrawing reserves from a banking partner may be part of getting those dollars ready.

The bank can lose the balance even if it's perfectly healthy, because the issuer's customers need money somewhere else.

The Fed's research on stablecoins and bank deposits describes this conversion from scattered household balances into large institutional accounts. It doesn't make every household loyal or every issuer flighty, but it does explain why adding up all the deposits misses something a bank's funding team has to think about every day.

The Liquidity Coverage Ratio, under the Basel banking framework, compares assets a bank can readily turn into cash with the net cash outflows it could face during 30 days of stress. Different deposits come with different assumptions about how much might leave.

A bank with $120 million of qualifying liquid assets and $100 million of estimated net outflows has a ratio of 120%. A different mix of customers could push estimated outflows to $110 million while those assets stay the same.

The ratio falls to about 109%, even though nobody has withdrawn anything.

While that's just back-of-the-napkin math, it shows why banks can't just shrug and say total deposits haven't moved. Its estimated cash needs have increased, leaving less spare room above the required buffer.

Depending on the rules it faces, the bank may need more liquid assets or funding it can count on for longer, both of which can cost money.

The dollars don't disappear when someone buys a Treasury bond

Issuers don't always leave the money in a bank account. They can buy short-term Treasury bills to back their tokens, earning interest while holding an asset they expect to sell when customers want dollars back.

This adds another person to our $100 example: whoever sells the bill. If the issuer buys an existing Treasury from a nonbank investor, the issuer's bank balance falls by $100 and the seller's rises by $100. The money has another owner, but the banking system still has the deposit.

That doesn't tell us how dependable the new owner's balance will be, and it certainly doesn't tell us where they'll move it next. The only thing it tells us is that counting the issuer's Treasury purchase as $100 permanently removed from bank deposits skips the person getting paid for the Treasury.

Buying a bill that a bank itself owns produces different accounting. The bank gives up an asset, and the payment can extinguish a deposit liability, reducing both sides of the banking system's balance sheet.

The bank has also sold a security it might otherwise have kept available for its own cash needs.

Buying newly issued government debt adds a further step because the payment goes to the Treasury's account, with government spending later sending money back out. That's different from paying a private investor, so saying “the issuer bought Treasuries” doesn't explain the whole thing.

BIS General Manager Pablo Hernández de Cos put reserve composition at the center of the banking effects in an August speech. The route the backing takes determines what happens to banks, which is why a forecast for token supply alone can't tell you how much lending will be lost.

Our example also assumes money reaches the issuer to back new tokens. If you buy existing stablecoins from another holder, your payment goes to that seller, and it doesn't automatically create a new reserve deposit.

Then there's the difference between banks collectively and the particular bank you used to pay. Your smaller lender can lose your deposit while the issuer's larger banking partner gets the replacement account.

The national total looks unchanged, but your old bank still has to find funding or adjust its business.

The receiving bank isn't obliged to make the same loans to the same people. It has its own customers and lending standards, so money returning somewhere in banking doesn't guarantee the local business seeking a loan will find its lender just as willing to provide one.

Banks now need to compete with stablecoins

None of this entitles a bank to keep your money cheaply forever. If a stablecoin gives you a payment service your bank doesn't, moving is a reasonable choice, and protecting the bank's profit margin isn't your job.

Banks can compete by paying more interest or improving their own payment services. They can also replace lost deposits with longer-term borrowing, although lenders willing to commit money for longer will want terms that make it worth their while.

The bank then has to decide how much extra cost it can absorb and what that does to the loans it can profitably offer.

The Fed's study of how banks handled earlier financial competitors looked at adaptation to money-market funds and payment platforms. Stablecoins aren't the first product to give customers another place to keep transaction money, and banks have options beyond watching the balances leave.

One is to offer some of the technology while keeping the customer as a depositor. CryptoSlate's reporting on tokenized deposits and bank funding explained that recording a deposit on a blockchain can preserve the customer's claim on the bank.

However, the sales pitch still has to work for the customer, including whether the product can send money where they actually need it.

Issuing stablecoins is another possibility, but it comes with its own requirements. The Fed's Sept. 24 proposals would set reserve and risk-management rules for payment stablecoin issuers under its supervision, alongside a process for supervised banks seeking approval for a subsidiary to issue them.

Money committed to redeeming tokens can't be treated just as ordinary bank funding available on identical terms for a portfolio of long-term loans. Owning the issuer doesn't make the promise to token holders go away.

The BIS examples show how the accounts can work, but they don't prove stablecoins have already caused banks to cut lending. Establishing that would take evidence from the banks involved, including how they replaced deposits and what happened to their loan books.

It would also require knowing where buyers got the money, since new dollar demand from abroad needn't have the same effect as customers moving existing domestic deposits.

The trade-off is worth understanding without defaulting to the banks' side. Faster payments can be valuable, and banks having to compete harder for customers can be a good thing, even if dependable funding becomes more expensive along the way.

Your $100 can make it back into a bank while the comfortable customer relationship attached to it is gone. The bank now owes someone else, on terms that may require more cash on hand or a better interest rate, and those costs help determine what it can afford to do for the next person asking for a loan.

The post Stablecoins may not drain banks of dollars but they can still make lending more expensive appeared first on CryptoSlate.

The Independent Community Bankers of America sued the OCC in federal court in Washington on Oct. 2, two weeks after the agency approved Agora National Trust Bank, Catena Trust Bank and Bastion Platforms.

American Banker reported that the complaint asked the court to vacate the OCC's national trust bank rule and Interpretive Letter 1176. It argued the agency exceeded its authority by widening limited-purpose trust charters for fintech and crypto firms.

ICBA says the OCC has approved or conditionally approved 21 trust banks, 13 of them tied to crypto.

Banks lost the applicant-by-applicant fight against crypto firms

Banking groups objected company by company, and the OCC kept approving. Five crypto-linked national trust applications, including BitGo, Fidelity Digital Assets, First National Digital Currency Bank, Paxos and Ripple-linked applicants, won decisions in December 2025.

Bridge, National Digital Trust and Foris DAX, the parent of Crypto.com, followed in February, Coinbase in April and Laser Digital in May. Agora, Catena and Bastion arrived Sept. 18, and several of these approvals are conditional or preliminary.

The OCC finalized its national trust bank rule in February, effective April 1. It replaced the phrase “fiduciary activities” with the statute's broader wording, “the operations of a trust company and activities related thereto.”

The OCC says the language leaves its chartering authority intact and that national trust banks have long performed some nonfiduciary work, including custody. It points to 12 U.S.C. 24(Seventh) as authority for nonfiduciary custody and related activities.

ICBA's complaint reads the same rule as stretching a limited-purpose trust charter to cover non-depository, non-fiduciary crypto businesses under a lighter framework than insured banks face.

An objection to Coinbase or Ripple asks the agency to deny one applicant. A suit over the rule asks a judge to decide the scope of authority behind every charter that relies on it.

The OCC said a court would decide

In the February rule, the OCC cited the Supreme Court's Loper Bright decision. It said that when a party with standing disputes whether the National Bank Act authorizes a national trust bank charter, courts must exercise independent judgment on the statutory question.

That is the review ICBA now requests. The OCC spent 2026 approving crypto trust charters while on record that a court would settle their legal basis.

Exposure varies with business plan, with plain fiduciary custody furthest from the dispute and nonfiduciary custody, stablecoin issuance and reserves, payments, settlement, conversion, and execution nearest to it.

Coinbase's approved plan covers digital asset custody as a fiduciary plus transactional services tied to custodied assets, and the OCC defended it as trust-company operations or related activities under fiduciary authority and 24(Seventh).

Agora plans dollar-backed stablecoin issuance, reserve maintenance, nonfiduciary custody, and payment and settlement services. Catena combines custody, investment management, and trust services with conversion, clearing, and execution, and Bastion offers white-label stablecoin issuance, custodial wallets, conversion, and issuer services.

Foris DAX's plan couples custody with trade settlement and staking, and Bridge's initial approval covers custody, stablecoin issuance and orchestration, and reserve management.

ICBA seeks vacatur plus declaratory and injunctive relief. What happens to existing charters depends on the order a judge writes, including how it treats final approvals, conditional approvals and activities with independent statutory support.

The OCC said in August that it had received 40 de novo charter applications over about 18 months, and Comptroller Jonathan Gould said 23 of them involved digital assets.

The agency's digital-asset licensing page lists pending applicants, including zerohash, Dakota National Trust Bank, Payward (Kraken), Lorum National Trust Bank, EDX Trust and PAYO Digital Bank.

Whether the OCC keeps processing those applications on the same terms while the court weighs the rule is the open question for each of them.

Where the court crypto test leads

If the court sides with the OCC, the national trust bank becomes a firmer federal route for crypto custody and stablecoin infrastructure.

JPMorgan sees $500 billion by 2028, Coinbase's model centers on $1.2 trillion by the end of 2028, and Standard Chartered expects $2 trillion by then. Citi's 2030 cases run from $1.9 trillion in its base scenario to $4 trillion in its most optimistic one.

FDIC-insured banks held about $20.7 trillion in deposits in the second quarter, so $500 billion to $2 trillion equals roughly 2.4% to 9.7% of that base. For Bitcoin, a win would deepen bank-supervised custody and settlement-linked services for institutions.

If the court vacates or narrows the rule or the letter, the effect lands hardest on plans built around stablecoin issuance, reserves, nonfiduciary custody, conversion, payments and settlement.

Those firms might restructure activities into affiliates, state trust companies or partner-bank arrangements, and pending charters could face tougher review. Bitcoin custody itself could stay available, with the federal wrapper less flexible around adjacent services such as conversion, execution, settlement, staking-like services and collateral movement.

The San Francisco Fed estimates stablecoin issuers' Treasury demand could roughly double to about $400 billion by 2030, which gives the answer weight beyond crypto.

How much nonfiduciary market infrastructure can sit inside a national trust bank is now a question for a federal judge, which is where the OCC said it would land.

The post Bankers sue to overturn OCC trust-bank rule used by crypto firms appeared first on CryptoSlate.

Companies can own a mountain of US government debt without betting that bond prices will rise. Hedge funds buy Treasury securities and sell futures against them to collect a small pricing gap, borrowing most of the purchase money to make the return worthwhile.

The government gets another buyer, whose interest lasts as long as the trade pays.

The catch is that the loan can expire tomorrow while the trade needs longer to pay off. The government's ability to repay its debt doesn't solve the fund's need to repay its lender.

This is the Treasury cash-futures basis trade, and the sums involved are large enough to reach well beyond the bond desk. Morgan Stanley estimated positions had fallen 20% this year to about $1.2 trillion, according to Sept. 24 reports.

The bank hadn't found evidence of broad basis-related market stress at that point, so a smaller trade wasn't automatically a trade that would blow up.

Hedge funds love small profits when it's someone else's money

You can buy a Treasury security outright, or trade a futures contract that sets terms now for a transaction completed later. The contract specifies which securities can be delivered against it, linking their prices without making them identical.

When futures are expensive enough relative to an eligible bond, the fund buys the bond and sells the futures. Investors wanting bond-market exposure through contracts supply the other side, leaving the fund to hold the actual securities.

Selling the futures is the hedge: if bond prices fall, that short position can earn money that offsets much of the loss on the bond. The fund aims to collect the pricing gap as the contract approaches delivery, while limiting its exposure to the market's overall direction.

To pay for the bond, it uses repo, short for repurchase agreement. The fund sells the security for cash and agrees to buy it back later at a slightly higher price, which, economically speaking, looks like a loan secured by the bond.

Overnight repo means the fund must renew or replace the financing to keep the position.

Consider an illustrative $100 million position earning 0.2% annually from the strategy, net of assumed financing and trading costs. That's $200,000, which becomes a 4% return if the fund has committed only $5 million of its own capital.

But if borrowing costs on the other $95 million increase by 0.2% for the year, the extra bill is $190,000. Almost the entire expected profit has gone to the lender, without the government defaulting on anything.

The Office of Financial Research includes the cost of futures margin and the seller's options over which eligible bond to deliver and when. Calculating the return means valuing those delivery rights and accounting for financing and margin costs.

If that calculation stops looking attractive, a fund can simply stop replacing positions as they expire. Professional investors don't need a crisis to find something better to do with their money.

Being right doesn't pay today's bill

The hedge may work, but the fund can't afford the payments needed to keep it open.

Suppose the bond gains value and the short futures position loses a similar amount. The futures account can require a cash payment against that loss, known as variation margin, while the bond's gain is still tied up in a security.

The fund has to get dollars out of that asset or find them elsewhere before the payment is due.

Crypto traders with gains on one exchange and a liquidation approaching on another will recognize the problem: money in the wrong account won't meet the payment, and explaining the hedge won't extend the deadline.

The repo lender can also require more money. If it lends $98 against $100 of bonds, the fund supplies the other $2, a 2% haircut. If that haircut becomes 4%, the fund must supply twice as much of its own money against the same collateral, even before considering futures margin.

If many funds have to close positions at the same time, they sell bonds to repay loans and buy futures to close their shorts. Those trades can push bond prices down relative to futures, hurting funds still holding the same positions and making their own exits more expensive.

That forced selling is different from letting trades expire without replacing them, although both reduce outstanding positions. The reported contraction alone won't tell you which is happening.

Federal Reserve researchers estimated $830 billion of basis positions for September 2025, in research published this June. That and Morgan Stanley's newer estimate use different approaches, so treating them as consecutive readings would manufacture a comparison the data doesn't support.

Total hedge-fund Treasury holdings also include other strategies, as do their short futures positions.

Someone still has to own the Treasury bonds

Fewer trades dependent on tomorrow's loan can make the market less fragile, provided the next owners bring financing they can keep through a difficult week. Investors buying with committed capital don't face the same daily negotiation with a repo lender.

Those buyers may want a better price because they're buying the bond for its income. Cheaper bonds offer higher yields, attracting replacement demand while potentially making new government borrowing more expensive.

Dealers can hold bonds while they find buyers, but their capacity also costs money and has limits. An orderly transfer can therefore leave Washington paying more without the market breaking down.

Higher repo rates or larger haircuts become more troubling if funds must sell into a market with few willing buyers. Those financing terms and the prices sellers can obtain say more about stress than a position total alone.

The same restraint applies to Bitcoin, as hedge funds' broader balance sheets show why one strategy can't stand in for everything those firms do.

Connecting Treasury trouble to crypto requires evidence that the institutions involved are selling crypto or withdrawing financing, rather than assuming every cash need ends with a Bitcoin sale.

Borrowed money makes these funds willing to own bonds for a return that would otherwise be too small to bother with.

When that calculation stops working, replacing them can reduce the market's dependence on overnight loans, but the next owner may want a higher yield to take the debt off their hands.

The post Hedge funds built a $1.2 trillion Treasury trade on money they have to keep borrowing appeared first on CryptoSlate.

The European Securities and Markets Authority wants to extend Europe’s restrictions on non-compliant stablecoins beyond trading to the services that let customers keep and move them. If adopted as proposed, the change would remove the option of leaving such tokens with a licensed custodian after their trading pairs disappear.

In its September 30, 2026 response to a review of the EU’s Markets in Crypto-Assets regulation (MiCA), ESMA asks the European Commission to prohibit every licensable crypto-asset service involving stablecoins that fail the regulation’s applicable requirements. Custody and transfers fall within that service list. The consequence would reach existing holders who have stopped trading, as well as customers seeking to buy.

That is a further step from the regulator’s January 2025 approach, which said mere custody and transfer should remain possible. It could give compliant tokens a wider advantage in European distribution, but neither a forced conversion timetable nor a global demand shift follows from the proposal.

The permission left after delisting

ESMA’s January 17, 2025 statement distinguished services that offered non-compliant stablecoins to the public or admitted them to trading from simply holding or transferring them. Platforms were expected to stop making the tokens available for trading, and other services had to cease where they constituted an offer to the public.

Under that earlier transition, acquisition restrictions were expected by the end of January 2025, with temporary sell-only services through the end of the quarter.

For an investor, the custody distinction mattered. Losing access to a trading pair did not necessarily mean losing the service that safeguarded an existing balance or enabled its withdrawal. ESMA acknowledged that investors retaining those holdings could face worse execution conditions, even while custody and transfer remained possible.

A historical example shows the distinction. In its March 3, 2025 reporting, CryptoSlate said Binance planned to remove nine tokens’ trading pairs for European Economic Area users by March 31 while keeping deposits, withdrawals, conversions and custody available. This was the exchange’s announced approach in March 2025.

The September response would replace the activity-by-activity distinction with a broader asset-compliance test. ESMA argues that the lack of a clear prohibition creates disparities between compliant and non-compliant issuers and facilitates regulatory arbitrage.

The reach comes from MiCA’s Article 3 definitions. Custody includes safekeeping or controlling clients’ crypto-assets or their means of access, including private keys. Transfers cover moving assets on a client’s behalf from one ledger address or account to another. Both are expressly listed services, with Article 82 setting client-agreement requirements for transfers.

Provider permissions are also separate from token compliance. Article 59 requires authorization as a crypto-asset service provider, or qualifying permissions for specified financial entities, and says authorizations must identify the services permitted. A license for a provider does not by itself settle whether a particular stablecoin can be serviced.

An existing holder would therefore not avoid the proposed restriction by deciding never to trade again. If the wording became law without an exception, the custodian’s continued safekeeping would itself be covered.

ESMA’s response is a policy submission, not an enacted amendment. The Commission’s consultation had a September 30 deadline, and its page says the resulting review report may, if warranted, be accompanied by a legislative proposal.

Section 3.2 of ESMA’s submission gives no implementation date, withdrawal exception or wind-down mechanism. That omission matters because ending custody requires a way to return assets that a provider already controls, while the proposed prohibition also reaches transfer services.

Current custody rules provide a relevant starting point. Article 75 requires procedures to return clients’ crypto-assets or their means of access as soon as possible. Client assets must also be segregated from the provider’s own holdings.

An answer from the European Commission via ESMA, dated February 18, 2026, further says the assets returned must be the same type held when the client requests withdrawal. A provider may offer conversion into fiat or another crypto-asset, but the client must request it at withdrawal and the provider must have permission for the additional service.

That existing interpretation does not settle how a future blanket service restriction would handle exits. It does explain why delisting, termination of custody and compulsory conversion cannot be treated as interchangeable outcomes. Legislators would need to resolve how any new prohibition fits the obligation to return assets.

The stablecoin proposal targets those professional services. It does not itself ban personal ownership, order tokens frozen or prescribe compulsory conversion. A holder’s ability to retain an asset and a licensed business’s ability to hold or move it for that customer are different questions.

Trading shares do not measure custody exposure

The earlier delistings show how trading can change at European-facing venues without a comparable shift across a wider market.

In a July 2026 paper, Nicola Borri and Kirill Shakhnov examine trading in the dollar-linked tokens USDT and USDC across 14 exchanges selected from CoinMarketCap’s top 30 centralized venues. Their daily pair-volume data from CryptoCompare run from January 1, 2024, through December 7, 2025.

The authors classify Bitstamp, Coinbase, Gemini and Kraken as “regulated-facing” because their Similarweb EU audience shares exceed 10%; all four also have US audience shares above 10%. The other 10 venues are classified as globally oriented, including Binance despite its EEA delistings. The audience proxy identifies neither individual EU-resident trades nor a clean division of legal exposure.

Around the study’s April 1, 2025 event date, the authors estimate that USDC’s share of combined USDT and USDC trading rose by about six percentage points on regulated-facing exchanges relative to global exchanges. The estimate covers a 30-day window and uses smoothed, detrended data; it measures a relative trading shift across venue groups.

The authors estimate USDT trading volume fell about 20% on regulated-facing exchanges relative to global venues, while the USDC-volume estimate was not statistically significant. USDC gained share primarily because USDT trading contracted in that comparison, not because the study established a corresponding expansion in USDC trading.

Aggregate USDC-to-USDT trading-volume ratios across the sample stayed nearly flat around the event. That describes sampled exchange turnover, not worldwide demand or EU custodial balances. The legal documents and study provide no total for the holdings that a future custody restriction could affect.

If the proposal became law in its present form, compliant tokens could retain access to regulated custody and transfer channels that non-compliant tokens would lose. For customers who want a provider to safeguard and move a dollar-linked balance, compliance could affect the usefulness of that asset beyond the availability of a trading pair.

The next consequential text would be a legislative amendment, particularly its scope, application date and treatment of existing balances. How it reconciles an end to custody with the return of clients’ assets would determine whether and how existing holders must leave regulated services.

The post ESMA proposes ending EU custody and transfer services for non-compliant stablecoins appeared first on CryptoSlate.

Bitcoin has started October 2026 with a small gain and costs around $84,800 on Sunday morning, October 4 (according to CoinGecko). The month has a nickname among crypto investors, Uptober, and for the Bitcoin price prediction it is worth looking at how much there is to that reputation. We have analysed the monthly candles from Binance since 2018.

Bitcoin's October record since 2018

Six of eight Octobers ended in the black for Bitcoin. The strongest was 2021 with plus 39.9 percent, followed by 2023 with plus 28.5 percent and 2020 with plus 28.0 percent. Then come 2024 with plus 11.0 percent, 2019 with plus 10.3 percent and 2022 with plus 5.5 percent. Only 2018 with minus 3.8 percent and 2025 with minus 3.9 percent ended in the red (monthly candles from Binance against USDT, from October 1 to 31).

The record is better than that of most altcoins. Solana, for example, has ended only three of six Octobers in the black since 2020, as our October analysis of Solana shows. Eight years is a small sample, though, and the swings range from minus 4 to plus 40 percent. A rule cannot be derived from that, but a tendency can.

What October 2025 teaches

Last October shows how quickly the month can turn. On October 6, 2025, Bitcoin reached its record high of around $126,000 (CoinGecko). Four days later, on October 10, US President Trump announced tariffs of 100 percent on Chinese imports. Within 24 hours, leveraged positions worth more than $19 billion were force-closed, more than on any day before, as CoinDesk Research has worked through. Bitcoin closed the month down 3.9 percent, and the price today is still around a third away from that record.

The lesson from it concerns leverage more than the price. Anyone who held without leverage had a bad day. Anyone who traded with high leverage often lost everything they had put in.

Bitcoin price prediction: the levels for October

The one-year chart shows the record, the slump that followed and the recovery since the summer. Bitcoin sits above its 50-day moving average (around $78,300) and its 200-day moving average (around $75,300), both calculated from CoinMarketCap daily closes.

Since September 21 every daily close has been between $83,479 and $86,597. The upper level around $86,600 is therefore the first hurdle on the upside, the lower one around $83,500 the first support. October opened at $83,624 on Binance, just above that support. Why the inflows into the US spot ETFs have not lifted the price above this range so far is something we set out on Saturday.

Bitcoin: The key points for your decision

Three points sum up the situation. First: the October record speaks slightly in favour of Bitcoin, as six of eight years ended in the black. Second: last October showed that a single day can turn the month around, above all for anyone trading with leverage. Third: the price is stuck in a range between $83,500 and $86,600, and only a close outside it will show the direction for the month.

Anyone who wants to buy more in October can spread the entry over a savings plan instead of betting on the one right day; our comparison of Bitcoin savings plans puts the providers side by side. Anyone taking profits should know the holding period: Bitcoin held for less than a year is taxable on sale in Germany once the annual allowance of 1,000 euros is exceeded. Crypto assets fluctuate heavily and a total loss is possible. This article analyses past price data; it is not a forecast and not a recommendation to buy or sell Bitcoin.

(As of October 4, 2026. This article is not investment advice. Prices and fee structures change; check the terms with the provider before you buy.)

Solana (SOL) costs around $121 on Sunday morning, October 4, 2026 (according to CoinGecko). The price has barely moved for days, but something happened on the network itself this week that reaches beyond crypto: since October 1, more than 90 banks and credit unions in North Dakota have been moving money between each other over Solana. For the Solana price prediction that is a building block which shows up in usage rather than in the price.

What Fiserv and the Bank of North Dakota have launched

The US payments processor Fiserv opened its digital asset platform to bank customers on October 1. The first use case is the Roughrider Coin, a stablecoin pegged to the dollar that the Bank of North Dakota announced with Fiserv a year ago. It is issued by VersaBank, Fireblocks provides the tokenisation technology, and settlement runs on Solana, Solana Compass reports.

The banks reach the coin through the corporate online banking they already use from Fiserv. Transfers between the institutions, which until now ran overnight in batches, are meant to arrive in around 400 milliseconds, around the clock and on every day of the week. For Solana it is evidence that traditional banks are using the network for their day-to-day business, not only for trials. How stablecoins work in principle and which ones there are is shown by our comparison of stablecoins.

A record in tokenised equities

The bank connection falls in a month with a second record. In September, tokenised equities worth $4.35 billion were traded on Solana, 3.4 times the August figure and 24 percent more than in the previous record month, as Cryptonews reports with data from Tokens on Solana. On top of that come the US spot ETFs on Solana with assets under management of around $1.91 billion (SoSoValue, from the same source).

For the price, though, the connection is indirect. A stablecoin travelling between banks needs hardly any SOL, as fees on Solana are low. What supports the value of SOL is rather the picture of a network that is used for real payments, and with it the demand from investors who are betting on that.

Solana price prediction: the levels on the chart

SOL sits above its 50-day moving average (around $104) and its 200-day moving average (around $97), both calculated from CoinMarketCap daily closes.

Since September 21 every daily close has been between $115 and $122. The upper level, the close of $122.10 on September 25, is the first hurdle on the upside, the lower one at $115 the first support. Below that lies the zone around $111. How October has turned out for SOL in previous years is set out in our October record for Solana.

Solana: What to take away

Three points sum up the situation. First: with the Roughrider Coin, dozens of US banks are using Solana for their day-to-day business, which strengthens the picture of the network as payment infrastructure. Second: for the SOL price that is not a direct boost to demand, because stablecoin transfers consume hardly any SOL. Third: the price is stuck between $115 and $122, and only a close outside that range will show the direction.

Anyone holding SOL can stake the coins and earn a running return that way; providers and terms are shown by our comparison of staking providers. Gains on SOL held for less than a year are taxable on sale in Germany once the annual allowance of 1,000 euros is exceeded. Crypto assets fluctuate heavily and a total loss is possible. This article is not a recommendation to buy or sell Solana.

(As of October 4, 2026. This article is not investment advice. Prices and fee structures change; check the terms with the provider before you buy.)

Shiba Inu costs $0.00000571 and 0.00000507 euros on Sunday midday. That is a gain of 0.94 percent against the previous day, and above all it is a number with eight decimal places. That eighth place is exactly what decides how finely a trading venue can quote the Shiba Inu price at all: a single step at that place is 0.175 percent of the price. If you want to set an order to a tenth of a percent, you cannot do it with SHIB, because the display has nothing left in between.

That sounds like a footnote, and it is the reason SHIB looks flat on quiet days, why a stop-loss rarely lands where it was meant to, and why the spread between the bid and the ask weighs differently on this coin than it does on Bitcoin. This piece works it through in numbers you can check on your own account.

Shiba Inu price today: $0.00000571, 0.00000507 euros and a daily range of 1.77 percent

The market data are from Sunday midday and from CoinGecko. SHIB stands at $0.00000571, and at 0.00000507 in euros. Within 24 hours the price ranged between $0.00000566 and $0.00000576. The whole daily range therefore measures 1.77 percent.

Over seven days there is a loss of 4.81 percent, over 30 days a gain of 7.43 percent. SHIB has given back last week's gains and is holding the monthly gain all the same. Market capitalisation stands at $3.36 billion, which is rank 36 in the overall market. SHIB is 93.4 percent away from its record price of $0.00008616; a factor of 15.1 is missing to get there.

What is really new about these numbers today

In substance, little. No announcement from the project, no inflow, no scheduled date is driving the price this Sunday. What is interesting on this day is the shape of the number: $0.00000571 is a price at which the display itself becomes the limiting factor.

Tick size explained: the smallest step in which a trading venue quotes the price

The tick size is the smallest amount by which a price can change at a trading venue. On a German share it is usually 0.01 euros, and on Bitcoin at most exchanges likewise one cent. On SHIB it depends on how many decimal places the provider quotes the price to.

Work it through: if the display has eight decimal places, the smallest step is $0.00000001. Divided by the current price of $0.00000571, that comes to 0.175 percent. Every move SHIB makes at such a venue is therefore a multiple of 0.175 percent. In between there is nothing.

Which number of places your provider uses is shown in the price display itself and in no product description. Open the SHIB page in your app and count the places after the decimal point. Some houses additionally show a price per one million units, in which case it reads 5.07 euros instead of 0.00000507, and the step becomes relatively finer as a result. A look at the terms and price displays of the large crypto exchanges shows how differently the houses handle this.

Eight places or seven places: 0.18 percent and 1.75 percent per step

The difference between eight and seven decimal places is a factor of ten. At eight places one step measures 0.175 percent of the price. At seven places, that is a smallest unit of $0.0000001, it is 1.75 percent.

1.75 percent per step means this: the complete daily range of this Sunday, 1.77 percent, would have been a single price step at such a provider. The price would not have moved all day, although it did move. Anyone who wants to run a short-term strategy at such a venue is measuring above all the coarseness of their own display.

The comparison figure on Bitcoin

Bitcoin stands at $85,246 on the same Sunday. A one-cent price change corresponds there to 0.0000117 percent. In relative terms the smallest step on SHIB is therefore around 15,000 times as coarse as the one on Bitcoin. That is the real difference between a coin with six zeros in front of the first digit and a five-figure price, and it says nothing about the quality of the project.

Ten steps on October 4: the daily range between $0.00000566 and $0.00000576

Between the day's low and the day's high lie $0.00000010. At a step of $0.00000001 that is exactly ten steps. The whole of Sunday, with everything that came together in supply and demand, fits into ten possible price values on SHIB.

For practice that means two things. First, every curve you zoom in on a single day looks like a staircase, and that staircase is not a fault in the data source. Second, the distance between two neighbouring prices in the order book often sits at exactly one of those steps, which puts a floor under the spread between the bid and the ask.

The day's low of $0.00000566 lies 0.88 percent below the current price, the day's high of $0.00000576 lies 0.88 percent above it. The price is therefore almost exactly in the middle of its own daily range.

The contract knows 18 places, the price display eight

A look at the token itself makes the contrast clear. The SHIB contract on Ethereum can be inspected on Blockscout and carries 18 decimal places. Technically a single SHIB can therefore be divided down to a quintillionth. The total supply in the contract is 999,982,329,055,139 units, just under 1,000 trillion; of those, according to CoinGecko, 589.24 trillion are in circulation, which is 58.9 percent. The contract counts 1,848,269 holder addresses.

The divisibility of the token is therefore ten places finer than the divisibility of its price in the app. You can own 0.000000000000000001 SHIB, but you cannot type in a price of $0.000000005712. That gap is the core of the problem: the price display is coarse, while the quantity stays as fine as you like.

What a holder address says and what it does not

A holder address is an Ethereum address with a SHIB balance greater than zero. An address is not a person. Exchanges often hold customer balances on a few pooled addresses, and a single person can run any number of addresses. Arithmetically, $1,821 of market value falls to each address on average, but that mean says nothing about the distribution.

Turnover ratio of 1.41 percent on Shiba Inu, 2.54 percent on Dogecoin

The second figure that counts on a price with six zeros is trading activity in relation to size. Over 24 hours SHIB comes to $47.6 million of turnover against a market capitalisation of $3.36 billion. That is 1.41 percent.

For context, the same figures on the same Sunday: Dogecoin comes to $370.5 million of turnover against a market capitalisation of $14.58 billion, which is 2.54 percent. Ethereum sits at 1.40 percent, Bitcoin at 0.87 percent.

Measured against its size, SHIB is therefore traded considerably less than Dogecoin. For a small order that makes no difference. For an order of several thousand euros it does, because there the depth of the order book decides whether you get the quoted price or a worse one. Combined with a price step of 0.175 percent, it follows that the spread between the bid and the ask on SHIB can hardly fall below that figure.

Limit and stop-loss on SHIB: which level can actually be typed in

This is where the calculation gets concrete. Suppose you want to set a stop-loss exactly 2.00 percent below the current price. Arithmetically that would be $0.0000055958. With eight decimal places that value does not exist. The next step below that can be typed in is $0.00000560, and it lies 1.93 percent below the price.

The difference comes to 0.07 percentage points and is small in this case. It grows, though, the closer the desired level lies to the current price. A stop 0.5 percent below the price can only be set at 0.350 or 0.525 percent with a step of 0.175 percent; in between there is no level that can be typed in. Tight stops on SHIB therefore fail on the arithmetic and not on discipline.

The check on your own account

Open the order form for SHIB and type in a limit with nine decimal places as a test, without submitting the order. Either the field does not accept the ninth place at all, or it rounds it away when you leave the field. In both cases you have measured your provider's tick size, and more precisely than any product description names it.

Units and euros: 19.7 million SHIB for 100 euros

At 0.00000507 euros per unit you get around 19,723,866 SHIB for 100 euros. For 1,000 euros it is 197,238,659 units. Conversely, one million SHIB costs 5.07 euros or $5.71.

This conversion is the basis for two practical things. First, it makes partial sales plannable: anyone holding 50 million units who wants to realise 100 euros sells around 19.7 million of them. Second, it is the basis for every tax calculation, because the tax office is not interested in numbers of units.

Holding period under Section 23 of the German Income Tax Act: one year and the 1,000 euro threshold

For private investors in Germany, the sale of SHIB falls under private disposal transactions. The governing provision is Section 23 of the Income Tax Act. Paragraph 1 covers disposal transactions in other assets where the period between acquisition and disposal is, in the words of the statute, no more than one year.

Anyone who holds SHIB for longer than a year sells the gain tax free. Within the year, the threshold from paragraph 3 applies: gains stay tax free if the total gain from private disposal transactions in the calendar year came to less than 1,000 euros. The word threshold is to be taken literally. If the total gain is 1,000 euros or above, the full amount is taxable, not only the part above the line.

Why the number of places plays into this as well

The taxable gain follows from the acquisition and disposal price in euros, not from numbers of units. At a price of 0.00000507 euros the result hangs on places that some statements do not even show. So check in your transaction overview how many decimal places the euro price per transaction is stored to. If a rounded value stands there, your own calculation deviates from the provider's, and on 197 million units a rounding in the eighth place adds up to two-figure euro amounts.

The matching of purchase and sale usually runs, for crypto assets, on the method under which the units acquired first count as the units sold first. Which method your provider uses in its tax report is stated in the documentation of that report.

Levels above and below: $0.00000600 and $0.00000550

Anyone who wants to set levels on SHIB sensibly places them on round steps, because the order books are denser there. On the upside $0.00000600 is the next such level, 5.08 percent above the current price. On the downside lies $0.00000550, 3.68 percent below it.

The two levels are 29 and 21 price steps away respectively. That is the distance at which the tick size no longer matters and the level actually says something about supply and demand. The reasoning for these two values lies in the order of the number itself: round steps attract limit orders, and that is precisely why resistance and support form there.

Between the monthly gain of 7.43 percent and the weekly loss of 4.81 percent, the price currently sits in the middle. As long as the daily range stays at just under two percent, neither of the two levels is reachable on a single day.

Shiba Inu order: Your next three steps

1. Count the decimal places of your price display. Eight places mean 0.175 percent per step, seven places 1.75 percent. Only then do you know the frame for how tight a limit on SHIB can be at all. How finely the individual houses quote and what they charge for it is shown by the overview of the best crypto exchanges.
2. Check how many places your provider stores the euro price per transaction to. That determines whether your own profit calculation matches the tax report. Which tools carry the holding period and the 1,000 euro threshold properly is set out in the comparison of crypto tax software and portfolio trackers.
3. Set levels on round steps instead of on percentages. $0.00000600 and $0.00000550 are far enough away that the tick size does not distort them. Which order types your house offers for this differs widely; the overview of the best crypto brokers puts that in order.

(As of October 4, 2026. This article is not investment advice. Prices and fee structures change; check the terms with the provider before you buy.)

Midnight (NIGHT), the token of the privacy chain built around Cardano, traded at about $0.049 on Sunday morning, October 4, 2026 (according to CoinGecko). That is a gain of around 91 percent over seven days and around 125 percent over 30 days. NIGHT stands at its highest level in six months, and it got there in a week in which Cardano itself lost about five percent.

What is behind the rally

The trigger is a technical one. Midnight CTO Sebastien Guillemot presented the next release, v8, on September 19. It will let developers create private contracts on Midnight and issue private tokens of their own. Midnight Node 1.0.3 followed on September 26, which Guillemot called the last major technical release before that launch. He regards a further stage, v9, in which contracts can work with one another, as possible before the end of the year, U.Today reports.

On top of that comes a recovery from a deep fall. In July 2026, around 515 million NIGHT were stolen through a flaw in the bridge between Cardano and BNB Chain that Wanchain operates, worth about $13 million at the time, as CoinGape sums up. On July 20, NIGHT marked its low to date at around $0.015 (CoinGecko). The price has more than tripled since.

Midnight price: the levels on the chart

NIGHT has only been trading since December 2025. The record high came on December 9, 2025 at $0.1185, almost two and a half times today's level (CoinGecko). With the gains of the past few days the price is back above its 200-day moving average (around $0.034) for the first time in months, and well above the 50-day average (around $0.026), both calculated from CoinMarketCap daily closes.

Around $0.053 is the level on the upside, the high of the 24 hours into Sunday morning (CoinGecko). Above it, the next levels do not come until around $0.06, where NIGHT traded in the spring.

Around $0.039 and $0.034 are the levels on the downside. NIGHT closed at $0.038 to $0.039 on September 29 and 30, shortly before the price jumped above $0.048. The 200-day moving average runs at around $0.034.

Around $0.024 is the zone in which NIGHT moved in the second half of September. A fall back there would wipe out the whole of last week's advance.

What Glacier Drop participants need to know

For many Cardano holders NIGHT is not a token they bought but an allocation from the Glacier Drop. Those claims thaw in four tranches, and each one has to be collected in the portal by the holder. The thawing ends on December 4, 2026, after which a 90-day grace period applies; the details are in our guide to redeeming NIGHT. Anyone who has not yet collected their tranches should not miss the deadline, all the more now that the value has risen.

The thawing also has a flip side for the price: according to CoinGecko, around 16.6 billion of 24 billion NIGHT are in circulation. Every tranche that is collected can bring additional supply to the market if recipients sell after the rally. For custody a wallet that supports Cardano and Midnight is enough; which ones are suitable is shown by our comparison of software wallets.

Midnight: The key points for your decision

Three points sum up the situation. First: the rally has a cause that can be named, the announced launch of private smart contracts. Second: NIGHT is coming off a very low base after July's bridge hack, and a price that almost doubles in a week can fall back just as fast. Third: anyone holding claims from the Glacier Drop should collect their tranches in good time.

Gains on NIGHT held for less than a year are taxable on sale in Germany once the annual allowance of 1,000 euros is exceeded. How allocated tokens are assessed for tax purposes depends on the individual case. Crypto assets fluctuate heavily and a total loss is possible. This article is not a recommendation to buy or sell NIGHT.

(As of October 4, 2026. This article is not investment advice. Prices and fee structures change; check the terms with the provider before you buy.)

Sky costs $0.09669 on Sunday morning, the equivalent of just under 8.6 cents. That leaves the token 3.8 percent short of its record of $0.100535 from December 2024. This is the week's real story: while bitcoin sits around a third below its peak, Sky is on the verge of beating its own. Over the week the token has gained 25.8 percent, and over the month 39.7 percent.

No single announcement carries the rise. Behind it stands a series of figures from the protocol itself. The supply of its in-house stablecoin USDS has reached the $10 billion mark, the savings rate on it stands at 3.60 percent a year, and a listed asset manager placed $100 million of it in its own corporate treasury in September. At the same time the EU is working on rules that could hit precisely such stablecoins in Europe. This article puts both in context.

Sky price at $0.09669: a weekly gain of 25.8 percent and 3.8 percent short of the record

Over the past 24 hours the price ranged between $0.08724 and $0.09779. The daily high therefore marks the highest level since the record almost two years ago. The gain of 8.46 percent within a day falls in a week in which the overall market barely budged: bitcoin moved by less than one percent over the same period.

Market capitalisation amounts to $2.26 billion, which puts Sky at number 50 among the largest cryptocurrencies. Daily turnover stands at just under $21 million. That ratio is notable: less than one percent of the market capitalisation changes hands per day. A market with thin turnover moves more sharply on large orders, upwards as well as downwards.

Of a total of 23.46 billion SKY, 23.42 billion are in circulation. A large release wave that could dilute the price is therefore not pending from that direction. That sets Sky apart from many projects where an unlock defines the week.

What Sky is: MakerDAO became Sky, MKR became SKY, DAI became USDS

Sky is the renamed MakerDAO, one of the oldest lending protocols on Ethereum. A lending protocol is a program that issues loans without a bank standing in between: whoever deposits collateral is paid out a stablecoin in return.

Three things were given new names in the 2024 rebranding. The governance token MKR is now called SKY, the stablecoin DAI is called USDS, and the interest-bearing variant of that stablecoin is called sUSDS. A governance token is a token that entitles its holder to vote on the rules of the protocol, for instance on the level of the savings rate. That is precisely what defines SKY: the token embodies a voting right and a claim to part of the proceeds, and it is not intended for making payments.

Anyone still holding MKR should know that the conversion now costs money. Nominally, one MKR is exchanged for 24,000 SKY. According to our own analysis of September 2, 2026, the conversion contract withheld four percent at that point, so one MKR became 23,040 SKY. This deduction rises by one percentage point each quarter; the fourth step took effect on June 8, 2026. There is no hard deadline after which a conversion would no longer be possible at all, but the deduction keeps growing.

USDS supply at the $10 billion mark

Here the figures diverge slightly, and that is part of the picture. The news site Cryptobriefing reported on September 30, 2026 that the USDS supply had passed the $10 billion mark after $237 million was added within a day. The protocol itself currently shows $9.96 billion on its home page. The range therefore runs from just under to a little over $10 billion, depending on the reference date and the counting method; anyone adding up USDS and the legacy DAI balance arrives at different values than someone counting USDS alone.

More important than the second decimal place is the backing. Against the roughly $10 billion of USDS stand $17.16 billion of collateral according to the protocol's own figures. A stablecoin backed by considerably more value than it is itself meant to be worth is an overcollateralised stablecoin, and in credit-based models that is the rule, because the collateral itself fluctuates. Cryptobriefing additionally cites a solvency target of $150 million in reserves and several quarters in which the protocol's gross revenue exceeded $100 million.

For context it is worth looking at the surroundings. How USDS stands next to the large stablecoins authorised in Europe is shown by our overview of stablecoins with MiCA status. The difference between a stablecoin with European authorisation and one without becomes important further down.

Sky Savings Rate at 3.60 percent: how the yield on sUSDS arises

The Sky Savings Rate is the interest rate the protocol pays to holders of sUSDS. According to the protocol's home page the rate stands at 3.60 percent a year. Anyone swapping USDS into sUSDS thereby holds a token whose value rises slowly against USDS, instead of receiving an interest payment.

The money for it comes from two sources. One is the interest borrowers pay when they take out USDS against deposited collateral. The other is investments the protocol makes with its reserves, by now in conventional financial products as well. Cryptobriefing put cumulative distributions via sUSDS at more than $250 million, and the sum that so-called Sky Agents have steered into institutional strategies at $5.5 billion.

From this follows a feature that is often overlooked: the yield is not guaranteed. It is set by a vote of SKY holders and follows the protocol's earnings. If lending rates or the returns on the reserves fall, the rate can drop without a holder noticing anything before it is decided. Which platforms pay interest on crypto assets and what the terms there look like is set out in our comparison of staking and interest platforms.

SKY staking rate of 6.56 percent and stUSDS at 5.07 percent

Alongside the savings rate on the stablecoin, the protocol shows two further rates. For deposited SKY the home page names a staking rate of 6.56 percent a year, and for the token stUSDS 5.07 percent. Staking here means that the token is tied up in the protocol and in return takes part in the distribution of earnings.

These rates explain part of the price move. A governance token that is meant to carry an ongoing distribution is valued differently from one that merely embodies a voting right. If the protocol's proceeds rise, the amount available for distribution rises. The news site Tokenpost reported revenue of $436,321 within 24 hours for October 3, 2026. Extrapolated to a year that would be around $159 million, although such an extrapolation from a single day should be read with caution: one strong trading day distorts it upwards.

One point belongs clearly separated at this stage. The percentages named refer to earnings within the protocol, not to the price performance of SKY. Both can run in different directions at the same time.

Galaxy takes $100 million in sUSDS into its corporate treasury

On September 23, 2026, the asset manager Galaxy Digital announced a partnership with Sky and the Sky Frontier Foundation and placed $100 million in sUSDS in its own corporate treasury. Galaxy additionally accepts sUSDS as collateral in institutional lending, according to its own statement. Max Bareiss of Galaxy pointed out that institutional clients can thereby post sUSDS as collateral while continuing to collect the savings rate.

For investors, the interesting part is the mechanism rather than the sum. An interest-bearing stablecoin that doubles as collateral becomes, for large addresses, an instrument that replaces cash. That explains why the USDS supply grows in steps of several hundred million dollars and not in small amounts from retail business.

Caution requires looking at the other side: the more a stablecoin is carried by a few large holders, the stronger the effect when one of them exits. A concentration in a few addresses is the side effect of this kind of growth.

ESMA opinion of September 30: a ban on services around unauthorised stablecoins

In its response of September 30, 2026 to the review of the EU's MiCA regulation, the European securities regulator ESMA proposed to the European Commission that all crypto services requiring authorisation be banned where they concern stablecoins that do not meet the regulation's requirements. Custody and transfer fall expressly within that. In reporting on the opinion, USDT and USDC are named as examples.

Two qualifications matter so that no false urgency arises from this. First, this is a recommendation to the Commission and not applicable law; whether and when it becomes a legislative proposal is open. Second, on the state of reporting the proposal contains no implementation date, no exemption for paying out existing holdings and no wind-down mechanism. It is precisely this gap that is the real question for holders: how holdings get back to customers if a provider has to discontinue a service is not addressed in the opinion. We have compiled the state of the obligations for companies in our overview of the MiCA licence requirements.

What this means for USDS hangs on a question a holder can and should check themselves: whether the provider through which they hold the coin will still list it after the cut-off date. That information comes from the provider, not from the protocol.

MiCA and the purchase route: which providers list SKY and USDS in Germany

Since January 1, 2026, only authorised providers may offer services around crypto assets in Germany; the German transitional period for legacy providers ended on December 31, 2025 and thus earlier than the EU-wide deadline. In practice that means the purchase runs through a provider with CASP authorisation, and that provider's listing decides what is available at all.

For a token at number 50 that is no formality. The smaller a token, the more likely it is missing from the range of the regulated houses, and the sooner the route leads via a trading platform without European authorisation or via a decentralised exchange. Both shift the responsibility: without an authorised provider there is no complaints body in Germany, and when using a decentralised exchange custody rests entirely with the user.

Anyone considering leveraged products should calculate carefully with daily turnover of $21 million. In a thin market the execution price slips more than expected, and a liquidation thereby becomes more likely than the leverage figure alone suggests. A liquidation is the forced closure of a leveraged position when the collateral is no longer sufficient.

Holding period and tax: how earnings from sUSDS are treated in Germany

For private disposals of crypto assets, the one-year period currently still applies in Germany: anyone who holds for longer than a year pays no tax on the price gain. That remains the case as long as no new law is in force. Under the draft bill from the Federal Ministry of Finance that became known in September 2026, taxation is to cover only crypto assets acquired after December 31, 2026; the cabinet discussion was scheduled for October 14, 2026. Until then it is a draft and not applicable law.

Two things need to be kept apart with an interest-bearing stablecoin. The price gain from the sale of a token is something different in tax terms from an ongoing return that a protocol distributes. With sUSDS there is the added point that the return does not arrive as a payment but sits in the value of the token, which makes the classification harder. Anyone holding such positions clarifies the treatment with a tax adviser and documents every swap with date, quantity and price. Tools that record every transaction automatically take this work off your hands.

Levels at $0.1005 and $0.0872: weekly high, record and the round ten-cent mark

On the upside the first level to watch is the daily high of $0.09779, above that the round ten-cent mark and the record of $0.100535 from December 2024. These three values lie so close together that they effectively form a zone. If a closing price above it succeeds, the price is in unknown territory, because above it there is no history.

On the downside the daily low sits at $0.08724. Below that begins the zone from which the past week's move came. These are points to watch and not price targets; no forecast can be derived from them, and a recommendation even less so.

The dollar price is moreover not the price an investor in Germany sees. Sky trades at €0.085893. If the exchange rate moves, the euro calculation turns out differently from the dollar calculation, and in both directions.

Sky and USDS: How to proceed now

1. Clarify the purchase route before you trade. Check your provider's listing to see whether SKY is carried there at all, and whether the provider holds a European authorisation. An overview is given by the overview of regulated crypto exchanges.
2. Assess yield and custody separately. The savings rate of 3.60 percent and the staking rate of 6.56 percent can be changed by a vote. Check who holds your tokens in the meantime and whether you can withdraw them at any time. Comparative figures from other providers are in the comparison of staking and interest platforms.
3. Document every swap. Record the date, quantity and price for every transaction, including the swap of USDS into sUSDS. That is the basis for the one-year period and for whatever the legislator still decides by the end of the year. Suitable tools are listed by the comparison of tax and portfolio tools.

To read at the source: the rates for the savings rate, staking and stUSDS as well as the USDS supply are on the home page of the Sky protocol, and the state of European regulation on ESMA's MiCA page.

(As of October 4, 2026. This article is not investment advice. Prices and fee structures change; check the terms with the provider before you buy.)

Near Intents said the roughly $3.8 million drained in an exploit on Thursday was returned in full, a day after the team said it had identified the attacker and gave them 48 hours to return the funds.

The firm says the Sept. 24 breach pushed North Korea's 2026 crypto haul past $1 billion, and detailed how it used in-house AI to trace the stolen funds across four blockchains in a race against the attackers.

The YouTuber says OpenAI suspended his account twice while he trained a small, uncensored model built to run on your own computer.

The TRUMP meme coin project is inviting its top 185 holders to a Nov. 22 gala dinner with President Trump two weeks after ethics disputes over his crypto interests helped stall the Clarity Act in the Senate.

The pontiff says algorithms "lack the spark of humanity," and the Vatican wants to renew an alliance with artists and cultural institutions to protect it.

Inside the aggressive multi-million dollar marketing pivot that put giant XRP banners on prime-time stadium screens.

Shiba Inu rapid price ascent is certainly slowing down following the surge of selling pressure.

India’s central bank has reiterated its skepticism toward cryptocurrencies.

Stellar blockchain outpaces retail chains with $36.4 million in daily inflows, securing 37% of global RWA growth.

Near Protocol might not be as bullish as it was before, following the major correction around local heights.

TLDR:

• PUMP coin price gained 15% to $0.006369 on October 4. Whale activity accompanied a rally that outpaced the wider crypto market.
• Two wallets moved 572.56 million PUMP, worth about $3.58 million. One purchased tokens, while another withdrew holdings from MEXC.
• PUMP open interest rose 25.77% to $669.62 million in an earlier reading. Rising positions alone do not establish bullish conviction.
• Positive MACD momentum keeps $0.007 in focus beyond $0.00655 resistance. A break below $0.006 could expose the $0.0055 rebound area.

The PUMP coin price rose 15% to $0.006369 on October 4 as large wallet activity accompanied a market recovery. Market data valued the Pump.fun token at approximately $2.95 billion, placing it 35th among tracked cryptocurrencies. 

The wider crypto market gained 0.77%, lifting its total capitalization to about $2.9 trillion. Bitcoin held above $85,000, while Ethereum traded near $2,699 and XRP reached $1.50.

Whale accumulation drew attention after two wallets moved tokens worth roughly $3.58 million. Derivatives positions also expanded sharply, while positive MACD readings kept $0.007 in focus. That target remains conditional on PUMP clearing nearby resistance and preserving support.

Whale Accumulation Expands as Two PUMP Wallets Move $3.58M

According to on-chain data, the wallet known as Netherlol purchased 383.34 million PUMP tokens, worth approximately $2.4 million. The transaction marked its first PUMP purchase in more than a year, according to the blockchain tracker.

A newly created wallet, GnZqfY, separately withdrew 189.22 million PUMP tokens from MEXC. Lookonchain valued that transfer at $1.18 million and recorded it seven hours before its update.

Together, the purchase and withdrawal involved 572.56 million tokens. Their combined value reached approximately $3.58 million, adding to attention around whale accumulation.

However, the two transactions carry different implications. A purchase records additional buying, while an exchange withdrawal can simply relocate tokens acquired earlier.

The PUMP coin price advanced alongside these wallet movements, but their timing does not establish a causal connection. Lookonchain did not disclose why Netherlol returned or how long either wallet intended to hold its tokens.

Exchange withdrawals can move assets into private custody, reducing the balance available on that exchange. They do not establish permanent removal from circulation, since holders can transfer tokens back later.

For the PUMP coin price, continued whale accumulation could support demand if purchases persist. These reported transfers alone cannot establish that pattern or explain the wider recovery.

PUMP Coin Price Faces Resistance as Open Interest Rises

CoinGlass figures show the PUMP open interest rising 25.77% to $669.62 million. Derivatives trading volume increased 3.64% to approximately $1.08 billion over the reported period.

Liquidation data shows $390,000, with short positions accounting for most losses. A later CoinGlass check showed approximately $3.22 million in liquidations across 24 hours.

The PUMP coin price maintained a rising channel on the four-hour timeframe and recovered to the area around $0.006. Its relative strength index stood at 65.77, below the conventional overbought threshold of 70.

The MACD line measured 0.000241, exceeding the signal line at 0.000189. The histogram registered a positive 0.000052, indicating improving momentum after the recent decline.

These readings support a constructive technical interpretation, although momentum indicators cannot confirm that a breakout will continue. Immediate resistance stands near $0.00655, ahead of the larger $0.007 level.

A sustained move above that nearer barrier would strengthen the case for another advance. From $0.006369, reaching $0.007 would require an increase of approximately 9.91%.

The PUMP coin price could instead revisit $0.006 if it fails to clear resistance. Losing that support and the ascending channel would expose the recent rebound area around $0.0055.

The post PUMP Coin Price Gains 15% as Whales Move $3.58 Million in Tokens appeared first on Blockonomi.

TLDR:

• Bitcoin price this week could move toward $90,000 if the bull flag breaks higher. A sustained move above resistance remains essential.
• Iran says Hormuz will remain closed until seven conditions are met. Prolonged shipping disruption could increase inflation pressure.
• The Coinbase Premium Index is recovering, suggesting renewed US demand. Changing whale orders leave nearby liquidity levels uncertain.
• Rising yields and the coming US economic releases could test Bitcoin momentum. Leveraged long face liquidation risk if support fails.

The Bitcoin price forecast this week puts $90,000 in focus as the cryptocurrency consolidates near $85,000. A possible bull flag above support underpins that target, although confirmation requires a sustained breakout.

Iranian Parliament Speaker Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf said Sunday that the Strait of Hormuz would remain closed pending US commitments. He linked reopening to seven conditions under the Islamabad memorandum, keeping geopolitical risk on the market agenda. Shipping disruptions could complicate the inflation outlook.

Meanwhile, recovering US spot demand faces pressure from rising yields and upcoming economic releases. Those competing forces leave Bitcoin vulnerable to sharp moves in either direction.

Bitcoin Price This Week Tests Support Before a Bull Flag Breakout

Bitcoin’s price this week remains tied to whether the consolidation resolves upward. Market data shows five weeks of trading around $85,000, with the latest weekly wick reaching $87,000.

An upside break would strengthen the bull flag case for $90,000, provided former resistance becomes support. Repeated rejection would weaken that scenario and keep attention on the lower boundary of the consolidation.

The Coinbase Premium Index provides another test for Bitcoin price this week. An early recovery suggests renewed US demand rather than confirming a durable shift. 

CryptoQuant calculates the premium using Coinbase dollar prices and Binance tether prices. Exchange-specific flows and stablecoin pricing differences can influence the reading. The index reflects relative pricing rather than directly measuring new capital flowing into the market.

Stronger readings can indicate increased buying pressure on Coinbase but require confirmation from wider trading activity. A temporary premium can fade without producing a sustained advance across exchanges.

CoinGlass order data shows a $13.25 million bid at $82,500 in. It also listed a $15.52 million ask at $84,799.90. These orders can change quickly and do not establish permanent support or resistance. 

Strait of Hormuz Closure Raises Inflation and Funding Risks

Ghalibaf said Washington had sent proposals through a mediator after Iran presented a roadmap for reopening the strait. He rejected unilateral demands and tied access to US compliance with the seven conditions. Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi separately said an accepted proposal could allow reopening within seven days. 

The Strait of Hormuz dispute adds an energy risk to Bitcoin price this week. A prolonged disruption could increase oil costs, complicating inflation expectations and reducing confidence that monetary policy will ease.

Saudi-backed Yemeni government forces also struck Houthi-controlled Sanaa while fighting displaced civilians. The regional escalation adds another uncertainty for markets already assessing the shipping dispute.

Rising bond yields create another challenge for Bitcoin price this week. As reported, higher Treasury yields are alongside a 7.6% rate for 30-year mortgages. Those figures measure different borrowing costs, but both can reflect tighter financial conditions.

ISM schedules its services report for October 5, adding an early test of business activity and price pressures. Federal Reserve minutes follow on October 7 under the central bank’s three-week release timetable. Employment updates, jobless claims, and Michigan inflation expectations will also shape rate expectations.

The one-year inflation expectations had previously reached 4.6%. Stronger inflation signals could reinforce expectations for restrictive policy, reducing demand for risk assets.

The liquidation heatmap showed heavier exposure around leveraged long positions. For Bitcoin price this week, a support break could trigger forced selling before fresh spot demand absorbs supply. Changes in leverage and open positions can alter those estimated liquidation clusters during the session.

The post Iran Keeps Hormuz Shut as Bitcoin Eyes a Possible $90K Breakout appeared first on Blockonomi.

TLDR:

• Ethereum price holds above $2,600, with $3,400 identified as a conditional liquidity target and resistance near $2,750 to $2,800.
• Binance futures volume reached roughly 12.5 times spot turnover on October 1, despite ETH gaining approximately 73% since late June.
• CryptoPatel projects $10,000 to $15,000 during a future altseason, while his roadmap requires resistance breaks and intact structural support.
• U.S. spot Ethereum ETFs lost a provisional $118 million over the latest week, while Glamsterdam awaits a confirmed mainnet activation date.

The Ethereum price is holding above $2,600 after reclaiming a liquidity zone, with $3,400 identified as a potential target. ETH traded near $2,740.20 in the October 4 analysis, while resistance remained around $2,750 to $2,800.

However, Binance futures continue to dominate trading activity despite the recovery from late June. Analyst Amr Taha found that spot volume equaled only 8% of futures volume on October 1.

That trading mix adds context to the immediate support test, while CryptoPatel projects higher levels during a future altseason. Meanwhile, Ethereum ETFs face withdrawals as upcoming network changes add a separate development factor to the outlook.

Ethereum Price Tests Support as Binance Futures Lead Activity

Taha’s CryptoQuant review shows ETH advancing from $1,560 on June 27 to $2,700 on October 1. That represents a gain near 73%, or about $1,140, over the period.

Over the same interval, the Binance spot-to-futures volume ratio rose from 6.5% to 8%. This compares two trading volumes; it does not measure spot activity as a share of their combined total.

At an 8% ratio, Binance futures volume was approximately 12.5 times spot volume. Calculated across both markets, spot represented roughly 7.4% of combined turnover, assuming the same measurement window.

The Ethereum price recovery coincided with a small increase in spot trading’s relative contribution. However, the ratio alone cannot establish whether absolute spot volume increased, decreased, or stayed flat.

Differences in market size also limit what can be inferred about directional positioning. High futures turnover can reflect repeated trading or hedging, so it does not prove excessive leverage.

Taha identified earlier ratio peaks of 45% on April 13, 2026, and 114% on November 14, 2025. Subsequent declines reached approximately 36% and 45%, respectively. Those sequences show historical association without establishing that higher spot participation caused either decline.

For the Ethereum price, continued support above $2,600 would preserve the breakout case outlined in the analysis. A move below that zone would weaken the rationale for the $3,400 liquidity target.

Ethereum ETFs Reverse Flows as Cycle Targets Face Resistance

CryptoPatel’s longer-term Ethereum price forecast points toward $10,000 to $15,000 during a future altseason. His roadmap also marks $16,000 as a possible cycle peak around 2027 to 2028.

The two-week candle gained 1.94%, with a $2,773.97 high and $2,635.35 low. Calculated from $2,740.20, reaching $15,000 would require an increase of about 447%.

Earlier cycles carried ETH from roughly $10 to $1,400 in 2017, then down to $80. The subsequent recovery peaked near $4,800 in 2021 before reversing toward $880 in 2022.

The model links Ethereum’s previous advances to Bitcoin’s four-year halving pattern. It labels the current phase Wave 4, followed by a projected Wave 5 expansion.

Within that framework, $3,945 is a major resistance level before potential moves toward $8,000 and $10,000. More distant labels at $32,000 and $60,000 sit outside the immediate trading setup.

The Ethereum price roadmap includes an accumulation area near $2,000 and structural support around $1,000. CryptoPatel’s bullish wave count would fail below the latter level.

U.S. spot Ethereum ETFs recorded approximately $118 million in net outflows for the week ending October 2. Farside’s provisional daily totals show a reversal from $689.8 million in inflows during the previous week.

Lookonchain figures show wallets holding 1,000 to 10,000 ETH controlling more than 14.2 million tokens. That holding total alone does not show when purchases occurred or identify the wallets’ owners.

Network development provides another factor for the Ethereum price outlook. Ethereum’s official roadmap places Glamsterdam in the fourth quarter of 2026, while leaving the mainnet date unconfirmed.

The Ethereum Foundation has scheduled Sepolia activation for October 6. Planned changes include enshrined proposer-builder separation and block-level access lists, which prepare the network for greater throughput and parallel processing.

The post Ethereum Price Holds $2,600 as Binance Futures Dominate Trading appeared first on Blockonomi.

TLDR:

• The Cronos token burn removes 228 million CRO from the community pool. Community approval lifts this program to 428 million tokens. 
• All Ult and Cronos Launch revenue will fund CRO buybacks and monthly burns. Published transaction hashes allow public verification. 
• Staking rewards keep their current terms, with Strategic Reserve support maintaining payouts as emissions decline under existing policy. 
• CRO trades near $0.0669 after a roughly 1.56% daily gain. Future purchase amounts depend on product revenue and execution costs. 

The Cronos token burn removed 228 million CRO from the community pool after voters approved two governance proposals. Cronos Network announced the decision on October 3, bringing burns under the community program to 428 million tokens. 

CRO traded near $0.0669, gaining approximately 1.56% over 24 hours, according to Coingecko market data. The destroyed tokens carried an estimated market value of about $15 million. 

The approved framework directs all revenue from Ult and Cronos Launch toward open market purchases and monthly burns. Cronos will publish transaction hashes, while staking rewards retain their existing terms and funding support through the Strategic Reserve. 

Cronos token burn lifts community total to 428 million

Proposal 36 authorized the latest community pool transfer to a burn address on Cronos POS. Four previous rounds each removed 50 million CRO, making this fifth round considerably larger. 

The Cronos token burn therefore exceeded the combined size of those earlier rounds by 28 million tokens. The 428 million total describes this community initiative, rather than every historical destruction of CRO.

The immediate operation used tokens already held by the community pool. It did not require purchasing the entire 228 million CRO from exchanges, an important distinction when assessing market demand. 

Future CRO buybacks introduce a separate source of purchases because they use product revenue to acquire tokens. Their size will vary with platform earnings and the market price when transactions execute.

Although the Cronos token burn reduces available supply, it does not establish a guaranteed price increase. Liquidity, demand, reserve distributions, and broader market conditions still influence how CRO trades.

Coingecko listed daily trading volume near $5.82 million and market capitalization around $3.31 billion. These figures show that the burn announcement arrived alongside relatively limited turnover compared with the token valuation. 

That leaves a practical distinction between governance approval and sustained trading interest. A smaller token supply alone cannot reveal whether demand will grow enough to support a lasting advance.

CRO Buybacks Tie Monthly Burns to Revenue From Trading

Proposal 37 commits 100% of Ult and Cronos Launch revenue to token purchases and destruction. Cronos Labs says existing capital will cover operations, infrastructure, and growth spending instead of those product receipts. 

The Cronos token burn framework links supply reduction directly to activity on both products. Ult generates trading revenue, while Cronos Launch collects fees associated with tokens created and traded through its launchpad.

Monthly burns provide a schedule for removing purchased tokens, and published transaction hashes allow independent verification. Community members can check execution amounts rather than relying solely on announcements about future commitments. 

Under the Cronos token burn plan, published records can help compare revenue commitments with the tokens actually purchased and destroyed. A transaction record verifies execution, while separate revenue reporting would explain whether purchases reflect all earnings from the two platforms.

The revenue percentage is fixed, but the purchase budget is not. As an illustration, $100,000 would acquire about 1.5 million CRO near $0.0669 before fees and execution costs.

That calculation highlights why product revenue remains a central measure for future CRO buybacks. More usage can generate larger purchases, although lower revenue would reduce the number of tokens acquired.

Staking rewards retain their current parameters, including existing lock periods and bonus structures. The Strategic Reserve will support payouts as emissions decline, keeping reward funding separate from revenue committed to monthly burns. 

The Cronos token burn does not change the review process for potential Crypto.com listings. The published strategy says qualifying tokens enter an ongoing assessment, with Crypto.com controlling criteria and final decisions. 

Cronos Launch opened on September 15, followed by Ult on September 17. The September governance document listed the purchasing contract as being developed. Subsequent execution hashes will show the amounts bought and burned.

The post Cronos Token Burn Removes 228 Million CRO as Voters Back Buybacks appeared first on Blockonomi.

TLDR:

• Cathie Wood challenges Bill Ackman on inflation, arguing that stronger real growth and falling technology costs can explain higher rates.
• Bill Ackman questions whether higher borrowing costs can slow AI infrastructure investment when companies expect exceptionally large returns.
• Wood cites a 99.99% annual decline in AI inference costs at constant performance, presenting the figure as support for benign deflation.
• Wood links cheaper AI to expanding usage, citing OpenAI revenue run rate growth from $20 billion to $70 billion in her economic argument.

The ARK Invest CEO, Cathie Wood, has challenged Bill Ackman over whether artificial intelligence will fuel lasting inflation. She argues falling AI inference costs could support stronger economic growth while limiting pressure on consumer prices. Her response follows concerns that Federal Reserve rate increases could fail to restrain continued investment in computing infrastructure.

Wood also places the 10-year Treasury yield near its historical median, citing records dating to 1790. The disagreement highlights how cheaper technology and heavy construction spending could push inflation in different directions. Both investors question conventional assumptions, but they offer sharply different readings of the economic consequences.

Cathie Wood Challenges the Inflation Case Behind Rate Hikes

The Federal Reserve raised its benchmark rate by 25 basis points on September 16, 2026. That increased the target range to 3.75%–4.00%, following a unanimous vote. Officials said inflation remained elevated and reaffirmed their commitment to a 2% target. 

Bill Ackman questioned that decision in a September 25 post on X. He suggested demand for computing capacity and energy could remain strong despite more expensive borrowing. Companies pursuing major AI breakthroughs may keep investing because they expect unusually large returns.

His concern centers on financing costs becoming embedded in goods and services. If AI investment stays resilient, tighter policy could raise costs without reducing that spending sufficiently. He warned that this could create a cycle of rising costs and further rate increases.

Cathie Wood offered a different interpretation on September 29, pointing to real yields and growth exceeding expectations. Real yields represent returns after adjusting for inflation. Under her argument, higher rates can reflect stronger economic prospects while productivity improvements help contain prices. 

The Fed also reported solid economic expansion, strong productivity growth, and robust capital investment in September. Its statement still identified elevated inflation as a continuing problem. This combination suggests efficiency gains can coexist with price pressures while companies build infrastructure and expand their operations.

For Cathie Wood, the historical yield comparison provides context for evaluating those increases. However, a historical median alone cannot establish whether current policy is restrictive. Inflation expectations, borrowing conditions, and productivity trends also matter when assessing the economic effects of higher rates.

Falling AI Inference Costs Reshape the Inflation Debate

In the October edition of ARK’s In The Know, Cathie Wood highlighted sharply falling technology costs. She cited a 99.99% annual decline in AI inference costs at a constant performance level. Inference refers to running a trained model to generate outputs, including answers and predictions.

That estimate compares the expense of delivering similar capabilities as models and computing systems improve. Its broader economic impact depends on how widely businesses adopt those efficiencies. Potential savings could support automation, lower service costs, and expand access to tools previously considered expensive.

Cathie Wood linked those changes to OpenAI’s revenue run rate rising from $20 billion to $70 billion. She presented that increase as evidence that cheaper AI can encourage substantially greater usage. A run rate expresses revenue on an annualized basis, rather than a completed year of reported sales.

She describes the potential result as benign deflation, with productivity gains supporting output as production costs fall. That differs from falling prices caused by weakening demand. Yet cheaper inference can coexist with expensive electricity, land, and construction during a rapid infrastructure buildout.

Bill Ackman’s concern involves demand for data centers and other physical infrastructure that support AI services. Cheaper inference could increase usage, adding pressure to electricity supplies and computing capacity. That makes the speed of new supply relevant alongside the pace of technological improvement.

Cathie Wood also cited US money supply growth near 5.7%, arguing it had not triggered renewed inflation. ARK’s briefing placed 90% of global data center financing in the United States. 

The post Cathie Wood Challenges Bill Ackman Over AI Driven Inflation Fears appeared first on Blockonomi.

The OG meme coin was rejected even before it had the chance to truly challenge the $0.10 resistance earlier this week, but it has rebounded from the subsequent multi-day low.

Popular analyst Ali Martinez noted that a breakout might indeed be brewing, but the asset would have to overcome a key resistance level to do so. However, the ETF inflows do not support this thesis.

14% Move Next?

Recall that Dogecoin surged to $0.104 during the market-wide rally on September 22-23 before the bears stepped up and pushed it south hard. In the span of just several hours, the meme coin slumped to $0.92. Since then, it has tried to take down to $0.10 resistance on several occasions, but to no avail.

The latest rejection came on Friday amid the market-wide crash that drove BTC down by over $3,500. DOGE, on the other hand, dipped from $0.098 to $0.091 before it rebounded to $0.092-$0.093 during the weekend.

Martinez noted that the asset’s consolidation phase inside a descending triangle continues on the 4-hour chart. Dogecoin would have to overcome $0.095 decisively and close above it on the same timeframe, which would confirm a bullish breakout. The popular analyst, who last week outlined that DOGE whales had scooped up over 1.14 billion tokens in 4 days, predicted that a 14% surge to $0.106 would be next if the meme coin reclaims the aforementioned resistance.

“As price approaches the apex, the structure is becoming increasingly compressed, and a breakout could be getting closer,” he added.

ETF Flows Suggest Caution

The last full business week of September brought something Dogecoin fans hadn’t seen — an actual interest in the spot exchange-traded funds tracking its performance. The total net inflows hit a new record of nearly $2.90 million. Although this amount is nowhere near as impressive as the inflows into the BTC, ETH, XRP, or SOL ETFs, it was still a record for the meme coin.

This was seen as bullish at the time, but the next five-day trading period couldn’t maintain the momentum. Data from SoSoValue shows that the interest evaporated on Monday, but the inflows returned on Tuesday with $878,790. However, investors took out $551,430 a day later, and there were no reportable inflows on October 1 and 2.

As such, Dogecoin’s institutional side remains fragile, but the asset has never been driven by such large players, as retail often dominates its price moves.

The post Analyst Explains What Can Trigger DOGE’s Next Double-Digit Surge appeared first on CryptoPotato.

Bitcoin’s price has climbed slightly on Sunday morning, jumping past $85,000 after the major volatility experienced on Friday after the release of the US jobs report.

Most larger-cap alts are also slightly in the green over the past day, with ETH challenging the $2,700 resistance, while XRP is up to $1.50.

BTC to Reclaim $85K

Bitcoin’s previous business week began with a leg down that drove it from the upper boundary of its trading range at $85,000 to just under the lower at $82,500. The following few days were choppy before the PCE data came out on Wednesday. As it was lower than expected, BTC skyrocketed to $85,600 within minutes. However, the subsequent move was just as rapid, but to the downside.

Thursday was calmer, with BTC standing between $82,500 and $84,000. It began to climb again on Friday and was boosted by the much weaker-than-expected US jobs report. The initial move was quite bullish, as bitcoin jumped past $87,000 for the first time in ten days or so.

Somewhat surprisingly, though, it crashed almost immediately and had dumped to under $84,000 within hours. The bulls finally intervened at this point and helped BTC recover to $84,000 on Saturday. It has increased slightly to over $85,000 as of now on Sunday.

Its market capitalization has jumped to $1.710 trillion on CMC, while its dominance over the alts remains flat at 59%.

PUMP Pumps

Ethereum has returned to $2,700 today after a minor increase from yesterday. XRP eyes $1.50 following a 1.1% jump. BNB nears $800 after a more impressive 2.9% increase. Most other larger-cap alts have risen by about 1-2%. HYPE is up by 3% and stands above $90.

CRO, NEAR, and TAO have gained up to 4.5%, while RAIN and PUMP are the two top performers from this cohort of alts. The former has gained almost 14%, while the latter is up by 16% to $0.0063. ZRO and AERO follow suit in terms of daily gains.

The total crypto market cap has increased by approximately $30 billion daily and now sits at $2.910 trillion on CMC.

The post PUMP Soars 16% in 24 Hours, Bitcoin Reclaims $85K: Weekend Watch appeared first on CryptoPotato.

Bitcoin entered its most successful month with a bang, surging past $87,000 on Friday after the release of the weak US jobs report. Institutional demand has improved significantly over the past few months.

Meanwhile, Hyperliquid, Zcash, and Kaspa each have important protocol or market catalysts in play. Here are the key levels and developments to watch.

BTC: This Level Remains Key

Softer US inflation data, strong institutional demand, and the weaker-than-expected jobs report on Friday helped BTC recover some of the recent losses, with the asset challenging the key $87,000 resistance once again at the end of the business week.

The latest PCE data showed core inflation rising 0.2% month-over-month and around 3.0% annually, both of which were below expectations. That, alongside the relatively small number of only 29,000 added jobs in September, reduced some concerns about the need for additional monetary tightening from the US Federal Reserve.

The setup, though, is not entirely bullish. Glassnode recently cited data showing relatively limited profit-taking compared with previous market tops, but selling by long-term holders has recently increased. Trading volumes remain comparatively weak, suggesting BTC may need stronger buyer participation before confirming another major leg up.

The $87,000-$87,500 resistance remains the first notable obstacle in bitcoin’s path, as a decisive break above it could open the door toward the next big selling zone at around $95,000.

Hyperliquid’s Case

Hyperliquid’s native token has been among the strongest market performers lately, reaching consecutive all-time highs as protocol activity and ecosystem development continue to expand. One of those was the introduction of manual borrowing through HyperCore. Since September 18, users have been able to use HYPE and BTC as collateral to borrow USDC or USDT, with borrowing volume reaching almost $270 million on the first day.

The project has also introduced trailing-stop orders for perpetual markets, while its tokenomics continue to generate persistent buy-side pressure. 99% of platform fees are directed toward the Assistance Fund to repurchase HYPE from the open market.

From a technical perspective, the next important question is whether the $90-$92 region can turn into sustained support. If it does, the bullish structure remains intact. In contrast, $85 could serve as the first major support in case of a pullback.

Zcash: Privacy Meets Network Upgrade

When we talk about massive price gainers, it’s difficult to leave ZEC out of the conversation. It has been frequently posting major gains, up by over 1,000% in the past year or so, and recently topped $1,600 for the first time in a decade.

The biggest development is the network’s seventh major upgrade, which received overwhelming support from voters and is scheduled to activate on November 5. It will reduce block time from 75 seconds to 25, effectively tripling the rate of block production. Participants also voted to retain Zcash’s existing halving structure, which resembles Bitcoin’s issuance model.

Another notable metric is the amount of ZEC held in shielded pools, as recent updates on the matter indicated that 29% of the existing supply is currently shielded. Another 4 million tokens have moved into the newer Ironwood pool.

Kaspa: Adoption Being Tested

Kaspa’s recent developments have focused more heavily on expanding what developers can actually build on the network, such as the Tokata hard fork. It introduced UTXOs, covenants, transaction introspection, and native zero-knowledge verification, pushing the project beyond its original role as a high-throughput proof-of-work payments network.

Released in September, Silverscript 1.0 added higher-level tools for building covenant logic, including vaults, escrow, mechanisms, and time locks. The .k name service also launched during the same month, allowing Kaspa addresses to be replaced by readable names, with several thousand registrations recorded within the first few days.

In terms of price movements, KAS has soared by roughly 50% in the past month, bringing the psychological $0.50 level back into focus. The question now is whether the network usage can catch up with the technological development.

The post 4 Cryptocurrencies to Watch This Week: BTC, HYPE, ZEC, and KAS Face Crucial Tests appeared first on CryptoPotato.

During the recently concluded conference in Asia, Ripple highlighted how the XRP Ledger is being prepared for a new wave of institutional and developer adoption, with confidential transfers, transaction batching, and dedicated infrastructure for AI agents among the key upgrades.

The company aims to expand the network beyond simple payments and toward more complete institutional and automated use cases.

Privacy and Scalability

Among the most important new developments are confidential transfers powered by zero-knowledge proofs. According to a presentation published on X by an account dedicated to covering conference news, full on-chain transparency has historically created difficulties for traditional financial institutions that cannot publicly expose every detail of complex transactions.

The planned confidential-transfer functionality lets institutions keep sensitive transaction workflows private while still proving their validity to the network and relevant regulators.

The company behind XRP is also working on making its network more suitable for complex financial operations through formal verification, adversarial testing, and transaction batching. This would allow multiple transactions or operations to be bundled together and executed on an all-or-nothing basis, which could improve efficiency for developers and institutions building more sophisticated applications on top of the XRP Ledger.

XRPL for AI Agents

While the aforementioned announcement might not come as a surprise to many following the latest Ripple and XRPL developments, the involvement of artificial intelligence could catch others off guard. Ripple’s Senior Director of Engineering, Ayo Akinyele, said AI agents have already generated substantial activity on XRPL, with related network volume surpassing 11 million transactions.

Ripple is also developing infrastructure specifically designed for autonomous agents to boost growth further. This includes verifiable identities, permissions and spending controls, and secure smart wallets capable of holding both XRP and stablecoins.

The goal is to allow AI agents to transact autonomously while still operating within predefined safeguards. The XRP Ledger’s settlement speed, described during the keynote as roughly three to five seconds, could make it particularly suitable for machine-to-machine payments and other automated financial activity.

These XRPL-tailored developments follow a working paper from the Bank of International Settlements that explored using it to on-chain verify official statistics and strengthen data integrity without alerting existing systems.

The post Major Ripple (XRP) Reveal From Seoul: XRPL Gets Privacy, AI Agent Upgrades, and More appeared first on CryptoPotato.

Robert Kiyosaki, who has frequently put BTC, ETH, silver, and gold into the same investment bracket, has compared owning some of these assets to carrying insurance against financial trouble.

The author of best-sellers such as “Rich Dad, Poor Dad” said preparing for monetary instability is not the same as predicting disaster. Moreover, he used the opportunity to lash out against government-issued money.

Financial Prepper

In his latest post on X, the renowned author called himself a “financial prepper,” arguing that holding gold, silver, and bitcoin is like buying insurance: people don’t buy car insurance because they want to crash, but because they want protection if something goes wrong.

He framed the argument around a conversation with a woman who reportedly questioned whether preparing for economic trouble was overly pessimistic.

“Do you own any gold, silver, bitcoin?” Kiyosaki asked, then reiterated one of the central themes of his investment philosophy: “I only want money government cannot print.”

His concerns are familiar, including the loss of purchasing power caused by inflation and monetary expansion. In his view, holding scarce assets outside government-issued currencies provides a degree of protection against those. Bitcoin fits that thesis particularly well because its supply is capped at 21 million coins, though scarcity alone does not guarantee the asset will preserve purchasing power over any specific period.

Kiyosaki’s BTC Bull Case

It’s worth noting that Kiyosaki’s latest comments are significantly less apocalyptic than some of his other recent warnings, but the underlying strategy has barely changed.

As we previously reported, the renowned investor warned that rising debt, inflation, energy-related geopolitical tensions, and weaknesses in traditional retirement systems could converge into a much larger financial crisis. As usual, he proposed owning BTC, gold, and silver, which he regards as alternatives to traditional fiat-based savings.

He has also continued buying during periods of market weakness. After sounding the alarm a few months ago that the financial crash “accelerates,” the author said he was accumulating assets including BTC and ETH rather than retreating into cash. However, his public stance has changed a few times on the topic. In June, for example, he explained why he wasn’t buying the BTC and ETH dip yet, even though prices bottomed within a week or so.

The post Why Robert Kiyosaki Treats Bitcoin and Gold Like Insurance appeared first on CryptoPotato.