The incident underscores escalating maritime security risks, impacting global trade routes and oil supply stability, with market apprehension rising.

The post Vessel struck by projectile in high-tension zone, crew unharmed: UKMTO appeared first on Crypto Briefing.

The Mecca pact's focus on collective defense may reshape regional alliances, potentially stabilizing the Gulf amid ongoing tensions.

The post Mecca pact strengthens regional security among Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Turkey appeared first on Crypto Briefing.

Berkshire's increased stake in Alphabet highlights confidence in AI's growth potential, signaling a strategic shift towards tech investments.

The post Berkshire Hathaway boosts Alphabet stake by 83% to $38B appeared first on Crypto Briefing.

Anthropic's IPO valuation underscores a market trend prioritizing future growth potential over current financial metrics, impacting investor strategies.

The post Anthropic IPO valuation hinges on $190-200B 2028 revenue forecast appeared first on Crypto Briefing.

Musk's reversal on Anthropic reshapes AI dynamics, boosting Amazon's strategic position and highlighting infrastructure's pivotal role.

The post Elon Musk admits he was ‘clearly wrong’ about Anthropic, and Amazon investors are paying attention appeared first on Crypto Briefing.

Bitcoin Magazine

Edelman Financial, Tudor Investment Reveal Significant Bitcoin Holdings 

Edelman Financial Engines has disclosed a $34 million position in spot Bitcoin ETFs — a stake that now exceeds some of the firm’s other holdings in major tech companies. 

While the position is still tiny in the investment advisor’s portfolio, it is still larger than its $25 million position in Amazon. 

The position — held in BlackRock’s iShares Bitcoin Trust and Grayscale’s flagship product — tracks closely with the public views of its founder, Ric Edelman. 

Edelman has been advocating for Bitcoin ETFs since 2019, years before the SEC approved spot products in January 2024. He also founded the Digital Assets Council of Financial Professionals, an organization built to educate financial advisors on crypto and blockchain technology. 

And Edelman Financial isn’t the only one: In a filing submitted this afternoon, Tudor Investment Corporation, the firm run by legendary macro trader Paul Tudor Jones, reported owning 688,529 shares of IBIT as of June 30, valued at $22.9 million. 

That’s up from the 579,083 shares Tudor reported the previous quarter. 

It’s worth remembering that few investors have built a career reading inflation cycles and their historical patterns as successfully as Jones, making the size of the add notable in its own right.

This post Edelman Financial, Tudor Investment Reveal Significant Bitcoin Holdings  first appeared on Bitcoin Magazine and is written by Mathew Di Salvo.

Bitcoin Magazine

Abu Dhabi Sovereign Wealth Funds Keep Big Bitcoin Positions 

Bitcoin is the most important asset in two of Abu Dhabi sovereign wealth funds, according to regulatory filings. 

Abu Dhabi’s Mubadala Investment Company disclosed Friday that it held a $490 million stake in BlackRock’s iShares Bitcoin Trust — the second-largest single holding across its entire 13F portfolio. 

And a Thursday filing from the Abu Dhabi Investment Council, another state-run fund, revealed a $273.6 million position in the popular Bitcoin exchange-traded fund. The stake is the biggest position in its portfolio. 

Both wealth funds’ position in Bitcoin is unchanged since last quarter. 

Earlier this year, blockchain analytics firm Arkham Intelligence attributed approximately 6,782 Bitcoins — worth roughly $453.6 million at the time of its analysis — to wallets connected to Bitcoin mining activity linked to the UAE’s Royal Group.

The findings highlight a distinction between how the UAE has built its bitcoin position compared with other governments known to hold large amounts of the asset. Countries such as the United States hold substantial Bitcoin reserves that largely originated from law enforcement seizures. 

The UAE’s holdings, by contrast, stem primarily from domestic mining activity rather than confiscated assets.

Since the SEC approved a slew of Bitcoin funds in January 2024, major firms have been able to buy exposure to the asset via shares of the regulated vehicles that trade on stock exchanges. 

BlackRock’s IBIT is the most successful crypto ETF: The fund has received more cash than any other crypto ETF and currently has $47.3 billion in assets under management. 

Pension funds and U.S. states have all bought exposure to Bitcoin via the ETFs, along with more traditional investments like tech stocks and other U.S. equities.

This post Abu Dhabi Sovereign Wealth Funds Keep Big Bitcoin Positions  first appeared on Bitcoin Magazine and is written by Mathew Di Salvo.

Bitcoin Magazine

Bitcoiners Warned After French Tax Authority Confirms Data Breach Affecting Hundreds of Thousands

Bitcoiners have been warned after France’s tax administration confirmed that hackers breached its information system, exposing sensitive financial and personal data belonging to hundreds of thousands of taxpayers and businesses.

Writing on X on Friday, Bitcoin developer Jameson Lopp said the leak was “more bad news for Bitcoiners living in the leading country for wrench attacks.”

Lopp has created a tracker counting wrench attacks — when physical violence is used to steal crypto — across the world. A large amount happens in France, where data has been leaked before. 

The news comes one day after hardware wallet manufacturer Trezor announced a data breach exposing customer data. 

Cybersecurity researchers at FrenchBreaches, who reviewed samples of the leaked data, reported that the affected records break down to roughly 392,867 individuals and 285,570 businesses. 

Among the individuals, an estimated 26,805 have a reported annual taxable income of €100,000 or more, 386 exceed €1 million, and eight exceed €10 million. The hacker is said to be offering the full dataset for sale for several thousand euros.

The breach first surfaced publicly on August 12, when a hacker using the alias “ZeroBytes” posted on a cybercrime forum claiming to have infiltrated internal DGFiP servers and obtained VPN credentials that unlocked an internal lookup tool covering millions of taxpayers. 

According to the hacker’s own account, the extraction was interrupted before it could be completed, leaving what they described as only a partial dataset of 678,438 records.

The exposed sample reportedly includes highly sensitive information: full legal names, dates and places of birth, home and mailing addresses, marital status, number of dependents, internal tax identification numbers, reference taxable income, individual withholding tax rates, phone numbers, email addresses, and records of past correspondence with tax officials.

Security analysts warn that this combination of identity, contact and financial data could fuel highly convincing phishing campaigns impersonating tax authorities, as well as identity theft and fraud schemes tailored to victims’ income levels or family circumstances.

2025 was the worst on record for wrench attacks (crypto targeted kidnappings), with around 55 reported globally last year, according to TRM Labs. Lopp’s tool counted over 70 throughout last year. And this year is already looking bad, according to the tracker: 54 attacks have been documented so far. 

Wrench attacks made headlines last year when crooks kidnapped David Balland, co-founder of crypto hardware wallet brand Ledger, and his wife in France.

Criminals held the pair for around 24 hours before they were rescued by the French authorities.

This post Bitcoiners Warned After French Tax Authority Confirms Data Breach Affecting Hundreds of Thousands first appeared on Bitcoin Magazine and is written by Mathew Di Salvo.

Bitcoin Magazine

Citi CEO Wants ‘Good’ Crypto Clarity Act To Get Passed

Citigroup CEO Jane Fraser has said that while some improvements need to be made to the crypto Clarity Act, the bank wants a “good bill to go through.”

The banking executive said that the bank was a “leader in digital assets” so wanted “safe adoption” of the technology. 

Lawmakers were trying to get a vote on the Clarity Act through before splitting for recess last week but ran out of time. A vote will now take place in September. 

“We want to have good regulation that supports innovation and also encourages the safe adoption of the capabilities of digital assets,” Fraser said. 

“I think it would be excellent for the system.”

A sticking point for the bill has been from the banking lobby, who raised concerns over crypto companies paying customers yield for holding stablecoins. U.S. banks have said they could lose customers if crypto exchanges offer more attractive products for their deposit base.

Fraser reiterated the point on Friday, saying that small banks play an important role in the U.S. and a reward system on deposits could have a “detrimental effect.” But she added: “We have not given up on pushing to get some improvements made to the bill, but we would like to see a good bill go through.”

America’s biggest crypto exchange, Coinbase, pulled support for the bill in January after clashing with banking chiefs who said that earning yield on stablecoins should be banned. 

The Clarity Act was passed last year by the House of Representatives but has been deadlocked since 2026. 

Still, the bill has been worked on by both Republicans and Democrats — despite crypto legislation being something pushed by pro-crypto President Donald Trump. 

Major institutions, including Fidelity and Goldman Sachs, as well as crypto lobby groups and politicians, have said the revised bill works in its current form. 

This post Citi CEO Wants ‘Good’ Crypto Clarity Act To Get Passed first appeared on Bitcoin Magazine and is written by Mathew Di Salvo.

Bitcoin Magazine

Bitcoin Treasury Strategy Bites Back After MSCI Announces Possible Index Removal

Bitcoin treasury Strategy has said it “doesn’t need” Morgan Stanley Capital International after the index provider said it could remove the Bitcoin company from its Global Investable Market Indexes.

MSCI said in a consultation that it was consulting on a plan to define “Non-Operating Companies” and make them ineligible for its Global Investable Market Indexes (GIMI).

The removal of such companies would exclude companies like Strategy from indexes visible to a large pool of institutional investors. MSCI said it was weighing up the decision as Strategy is primarily known for holding a large amount of Bitcoin rather than running a traditional operating business.

Writing on X Friday, Strategy wrote: “Digital assets are assets. Index providers should measure markets, not decide which assets companies are allowed to own. MSCI’s proposal puts it out of step with regulators, markets, and its own customers.”

It added: “Bitcoin doesn’t need MSCI. Neither does Strategy.”

The consultation also included Japanese Bitcoin treasury Metaplanet, which trades on the Tokyo Stock Exchange, and uranium investment company Yellow Cake. 

Based on financial filings as of May 2026, Strategy and Metaplanet already meet the criteria for removal under MSCI’s proposed rule. 

If MSCI adopts the proposal as currently written and their financial profiles remain unchanged, both companies would be deleted from the MSCI ACWI IMI Index as part of the November 2026 Index Review, triggering forced selling by index-tracking funds and loss of future passive inflows.

MSCI is still gathering feedback on the proposal through September 30, and has explicitly said the consultation “may or may not result in changes to MSCI indexes” — meaning the rule could be modified, delayed, or dropped entirely based on responses from affected companies and market participants. Even if adopted, any changes to a company’s underlying financials before the review could also shift the result.

Nasdaq-listed Strategy — formerly MicroStrategy — started buying Bitcoin in August 2020 as a way to generate better returns for its shareholders during the COVID-19 pandemic.

It has since spent around $63.3 billion on Bitcoin and is the largest corporate holder of the asset. Investors can buy its shares to gain exposure to the leading cryptocurrency without having to buy and hold digital coins themselves. 

Strategy spawned a long-list of copycat firms which have bought not only Bitcoin, but other cryptocurrencies to boost their stock prices. 

Strategy’s stock (MSTR) was trading nearly 3% lower Friday at nearly $95 per share. MSTR year-to-date has dropped by nearly 40%. 

This post Bitcoin Treasury Strategy Bites Back After MSCI Announces Possible Index Removal first appeared on Bitcoin Magazine and is written by Mathew Di Salvo.

Two Abu Dhabi sovereign investors kept their BlackRock Bitcoin ETF holdings unchanged through the second quarter, retaining $764 million of exposure even as the cryptocurrency remained mired in one of its steepest annual declines.

Mubadala Investment Company and the Abu Dhabi Investment Council held a combined 22.94 million shares of BlackRock’s iShares Bitcoin Trust ETF (IBIT) as of June 30, regulatory filings show.

Neither reduced its share count during the quarter.

The decision meant the funds absorbed the decline in IBIT. Their combined positions were valued at about $881.4 million at the end of March, implying roughly $118 million of value was erased during the second quarter even though the number of shares remained unchanged. Mubadala’s stake alone fell in reported value to $490.1 million from $565.6 million.

Mubadala held 14,721,917 IBIT shares as of June 30, the same amount it owned three months earlier. The position remained its second-largest reported holding in its $34.8 billion 13F portfolio, behind GlobalFoundries.

The sovereign investor had increased its position by almost 16% during the first quarter, adding more than 2 million shares as Bitcoin weakened. It had previously boosted the stake by about 46% in the final quarter of 2025.

Related Reading

Abu Dhabi invests $437M in Bitcoin ETFs, Wisconsin doubles its holdings

Abu Dhabi added IBIT shares to its $302 billion in assets under management, while SWIB surpassed $320M in BTC exposure.

Feb 14, 2025 · Gino Matos

Abu Dhabi Investment Council (ADIC) also stood pat, retaining 8,218,712 IBIT shares worth about $273.6 million as of June 30. IBIT was its largest reported US-listed position, accounting for over 33% of its roughly $715 million 13F portfolio.

ADIC began reporting the position directly earlier this year after its subsidiary Al Warda Investments had previously disclosed the stake. The reporting change did not alter the beneficial ownership of the shares.

Bitcoin slides

The unchanged positions stand out against Bitcoin’s performance this year.

Bitcoin traded near $62,900 on Friday, down about 29% from roughly $88,700 at the start of 2026. The cryptocurrency has also fallen by roughly half from the record above $126,000 reached last October.

BlackRock data show IBIT was down 27.6% this year through Aug. 13, with net assets falling to about $47.35 billion. Its shares closed at $35.88 Thursday.

The broader ETF market reflects this retreat, with Bitcoin ETFs shedding around $40 billion in assets under management, from more than $116.7 billion to around $95.5 billion, according to data from SoSoValue.

That means the Abu Dhabi investors have so far responded differently from institutions that have used the downturn to cut exposure.

Harvard University, for example, reduced its IBIT position by 43% during the first quarter after already trimming it late last year. Mubadala increased its holdings during that same period, while ADIC kept its stake unchanged.

Michael Tanguma, chief executive of Onramp Bitcoin, said Abu Dhabi may also hold Bitcoin directly in cold storage, arguing that relying exclusively on an ETF structure would be unusual for a sovereign investor seeking long-term exposure.

Form 13F disclosures cover specified US-listed securities and would not reveal Bitcoin held directly in sovereign-controlled wallets, meaning the filings neither confirm nor rule out Tanguma’s assertion.

Abu Dhabi deepens its crypto push

These funds' decision to maintain their Bitcoin positions comes as Abu Dhabi builds a broader institutional presence across digital assets, spanning regulation, venture investment, tokenization and crypto infrastructure.

Abu Dhabi Global Market, the emirate’s international financial center, has operated a dedicated virtual-asset regulatory framework since 2018 and said late last year that more than 20 regulated firms were licensed to conduct activities involving virtual assets or fiat-referenced tokens.

Binance received a global license under the framework in December, while Coinbase secured regulatory approval this week to establish an international tokenization hub in Abu Dhabi.

State-linked capital has moved alongside that regulatory expansion. Abu Dhabi-backed MGX agreed last year to invest $2 billion in Binance, one of the largest institutional investments ever made in a crypto company.

Related Reading

Abu Dhabi's MGX invests $2B in Binance, marking largest institutional stablecoin-backed crypto deal

MGX's investment marks strategic entry into blockchain with focus on AI integration and secure crypto solutions.

Mar 12, 2025 · Assad Jafri

Separately, Hub71, Abu Dhabi’s government-backed technology ecosystem, established a dedicated digital-assets program with more than $2 billion of capital committed to Web3 and blockchain startups.

Mubadala itself has also expanded beyond simply owning Bitcoin through an ETF. Its asset-management arm, Mubadala Capital, moved one of its private-market funds onchain in July, making the strategy available in tokenized form across Base, Solana and Sui.

Those initiatives show an Abu Dhabi investment strategy that has increasingly treated digital assets as part of its financial infrastructure rather than solely as a speculative trade.

The post Bitcoin erased $118 million from Abu Dhabi’s ETF holdings, but its sovereign funds kept every share appeared first on CryptoSlate.

Three Bored Ape sales at steep losses accompanied a month-long contraction in the leveraged Ethereum account that Lookonchain publicly tracks as Machi Big Brother's. By Aug. 14, official venue data showed the ETH long had been cut by more than half, yet the market remained close to the account's liquidation line.

At 3:51:43 p.m. UTC, Hyperliquid's public Info API showed the address holding a 2,500 ETH long with a displayed 25x leverage setting and a liquidation price of $1,859.15, and 14 seconds later the venue's ETH midpoint was $1,881.65. That left an indicative $22.50 gap, with the midpoint 1.21% above the reported liquidation price at that moment.

The position was 52.51% smaller than the 5,264 ETH long position Lookonchain reported on July 14. Its liquidation price was $102.39 higher than the $1,756.76 level in that earlier snapshot. The two figures captured less exposure without a wide cushion against further market weakness.

Etherscan labels the address as machibigbrother.eth, while HypurrScan shows an account page for the same hexadecimal address, supporting the public address attribution used by Lookonchain. Person-level control at every observation and Jeffrey Huang's wider finances remain outside the explorers' evidence.

The Ethereum position shrank as the danger line rose

The sequence is clearest when each number is frozen to its observation time.

Hyperliquid fill data corroborated three July 31 close-long groups at 1:47:16 p.m., 2:04:59 p.m., and 2:06:57 p.m. UTC. They closed 700 ETH, 560 ETH, and 448 ETH, respectively, for 1,708 ETH in total and about $96,301 in aggregate negative closed PnL.

The direct data supports the size, timing, and loss of the closures. The sub-$100,000 account balance and later $1,843.40 liquidation price rely on the tracker's post.

Related Reading

Why viral public whale liquidations are becoming a real trading signal on Hyperliquid

Hyperliquid's transparent liquidation data turned one whale's repeated ETH wipeouts into a real-time signal traders can track and react to.

Jun 24, 2026 · Liam 'Akiba' Wright

From July 14 to that snapshot, the position fell from 5,264 ETH to 2,800 ETH, a 46.81% reduction, while the liquidation price moved from $1,756.76 to $1,863.08, exactly $106.32 higher.

The next day, the long was 52.51% below its July size, while the liquidation price was $102.39 above the July baseline. In the 24 hours after Lookonchain's last post, the long had fallen another 300 ETH and the liquidation price had eased $3.93.

Lookonchain said Bored Ape #251 was sold at a 6.99 ETH loss on July 14, and an Aug. 5 post showed Bored Ape #5670 sold for 9 ETH after a displayed 84.99 ETH purchase, a 75.99 ETH or 89.4% loss in ETH terms.

On Aug. 13, it reported Bored Ape #5715 sold for 8.3 ETH after a 34.17 ETH purchase, a difference of 25.87 ETH.

Lookonchain described the sales as efforts to support the Ethereum long, but the available public trail stops short of a complete buyer-payment-to-address-to-Hyperliquid chain. The reported sales and account stress form a correlated sequence, while the effect of any particular sale on the liquidation price or position survival remains unresolved.

Related Reading

NFTs are coming back but Blue Chip projects are on life support

NFTs: Where are they now? A look back at the once $25 billion industry.

Oct 28, 2025 · Liam 'Akiba' Wright

What the NFT sales reveal about collateral stress

The Hyperliquid account was repriced continuously, producing timestamped changes in its position and liquidation level. Each Bored Ape produced value only when it found a buyer, and the reported sales locked in losses against the tokens' historical purchase prices.

The account's risk did not follow the NFT sales in a simple line. The liquidation price rose as the long shrank through Aug. 13, then moved slightly lower as another 300 ETH disappeared from the position by Aug. 14.

Those observations leave the account's changing threshold dependent on more than position size or one visible asset sale.

Related Reading

The “insider wallet” that made over $100M on October tariff trade in threat of liquidation if one asset continues to dip

Funding bleed plus clustered ETH leverage near $2,600–$2,400 sets up a domino path toward that $2,268 threshold.

Jan 22, 2026 · Gino Matos

They also show why converting an NFT into fungible value doesn't make a leveraged trade safe. Whatever the sales' ultimate destination, the directly visible result at the latest timestamp was a 2,500 ETH long with the Ethereum midpoint only 1.21% above its liquidation price.

The 1.21% figure compares offers at a timestamped gap, but prices, fills, and account equity can change immediately, so the position may already have moved again.

The post Machi Big Brother sells 3 Bored Apes to cut his Ethereum long in 52%, but liquidation moved to just $22 away appeared first on CryptoSlate.

Crypto company Cyber is telling CyberWallet and Cyber Passkey Wallet users to move their assets ahead of an Aug. 15 shutdown that will take both interfaces offline. Users who still hold balances after the cutoff would be left with a technical recovery process that Cyber says it will not support.

Cyber's official shutdown notice says tokens will remain on-chain after the interfaces close, so the immediate risk is that the supported route for accessing and moving them will be removed.

Related Reading

Latest bear market victim shows how quickly DeFi users are left behind when crypto projects move on

Swell warned users to bridge out by June 23, turning a planned L2 shutdown into a test of user exit procedures.

Jun 24, 2026 · Liam 'Akiba' Wright

The company's homepage still displayed an Aug. 15 withdrawal warning on Aug. 14. Cyber has not published an exact shutdown time or time zone, so users should not assume that the interfaces will remain available throughout Aug. 15.

CyberWallet users have been instructed to transfer standard supported tokens to the signer wallet associated with their account. The withdrawal route is specific to CyberWallet and should not be confused with the separate destination Cyber gives Passkey Wallet users.

Cyber Passkey Wallet users should transfer all assets to an external wallet, then confirm that their Passkey Wallet balances are cleared. Cyber's instructions give the two products distinct endpoints: the signer wallet for CyberWallet assets and a separate external wallet for Passkey Wallet assets.

Related Reading

Coinbase tells users to follow ‘foolish' steps scammers use to withdraw funds from wallets

Coinciding with past breaches, Coinbase's new flow raises alarms among security experts over phishing vectors.

Mar 19, 2026 · Oluwapelumi Adejumo

CyberWallet's SmartGas deposits are an exception, as Cyber says those crypto deposits cannot be withdrawn through the normal flow. Eligible CyberWallet users will instead receive Surf coupons, while Passkey Wallet does not include SmartGas.

The coupon is Cyber's stated resolution for affected depositors, and the shutdown notice does not describe another recovery route.

For users who miss the deadline, Cyber says accessing assets after the interfaces close would require direct interaction with the underlying smart contracts. The company describes that as a technical process it will not support, and its shutdown notice does not provide a product-specific recovery procedure.

Both public wallet URLs still responded on Aug. 14, with CyberWallet leading to its assets route and the Passkey Wallet address returning an application shell. That reachability did not establish that authenticated login, balance loading, or transfer functions were working for every user.

Related Reading

Crypto apps are shutting down as capital floods into Bitcoin ETFs and stablecoins

Crypto money is concentrating in regulated rails, leaving wallets, NFT apps, and DeFi platforms under pressure.

Apr 7, 2026 · Oluwapelumi Adejumo

Cyber's shutdown notice applies to anyone who still holds a balance in either product: use the product-specific transfer path and act before the unspecified Aug. 15 cutoff to avoid relying on unsupported recovery later.

The post CyberWallet users have until Aug. 15 before crypto withdrawals become a smart contract recovery job appeared first on CryptoSlate.

Bitcoin treasury holder CIMG Inc. said in its Aug. 13 quarterly filing that it needs to raise capital immediately, even though it held 1,145.4 BTC valued at $67.19 million on June 30.

CIMG had just $5,397 in cash and $1.87 million in current assets against $9.25 million in current liabilities, leaving a $7.38 million working-capital deficit.

CIMG said it may monetize its Bitcoin, but warned the asset is volatile and the holdings are not committed or assured financing. Management’s plans to seek more equity or debt had not alleviated doubt about the company’s ability to continue as a going concern.

Related Reading

A US Bitcoin treasury company sold every BTC because debt and Nasdaq pressure just closed in

New SEC filing ties a full BTC liquidation to debt repayment, collateral language, Nasdaq pressure and an AI pivot.

Jul 2, 2026 · Liam 'Akiba' Wright

Why the Bitcoin reserve is not operating cash

A June 12 registration statement said CIMG’s Singapore subsidiary self-custodies the coins in segregated Safe Wallet addresses under a 3-of-3 multisignature arrangement. The CEO, CFO, and a director each hold separate credentials, and every signer must approve a transfer. If one is unavailable, moving coins could be delayed or prevented.

The later 10-Q says the coins may be monetized, but CIMG disclosed no third-party custodian or cold storage, no Bitcoin insurance, and no independent third-party verification of the holdings.

The June registration statement also described Bitcoin as a long-term reserve. At that time, CIMG said it did not expect routine operating use or near-term monetization and had no formal active-trading, monetization, or hedging policy.

The reviewed filings do not establish that every coin is unpledged or unencumbered.

Related Reading

Bitcoin treasuries already faced two collateral calls in 2026 and some loans can liquidate after just 12 hours

Empery disclosed two February calls, but missing collateral balances and trigger ratios make it impossible to rank which treasury is closest to another lender demand.

Jul 14, 2026 · Liam 'Akiba' Wright

CIMG held 500 BTC as of Sept. 30, 2025, then completed a 230 BTC purchase in December for $24.46 million, bringing the total to 730 BTC.

In June, CIMG sold 900 million units for $13.5 million payable in Bitcoin at a $65,000 reference price. Each unit included one share and one warrant, and the company said it later exercised all 900 million warrants.

The 10-Q reports $51.46 million of Bitcoin additions during the nine months and no disposals. Subtracting the $24.46 million December purchase leaves $27 million.

At the financing’s $65,000 reference price, that equals about 415.4 BTC and reconciles the increase from 730 BTC to 1,145.4 BTC after rounding. This is an inference from the filings’ arithmetic because the company did not separately disclose the warrant exercise payment medium or resulting coin count.

Related Reading

Strategy faces $8.3 billion Bitcoin Q2 loss as Saylor sells over $200M in BTC

Michael Saylor’s company sold Bitcoin to help fund preferred-stock payouts, testing a model built on years of accumulation.

Jul 7, 2026 · Oluwapelumi Adejumo

CIMG’s loss attributable to the company widened to $10.49 million for the June quarter and $45.36 million for the nine-month period. Operations used $10.35 million of cash over those nine months.

Without new financing or another adequate source of liquidity, CIMG’s ability to keep funding operations remains in doubt. The disclosure shows why a large treasury carrying value does not by itself pay day-to-day obligations.

The post A Bitcoin treasury with $67 million in BTC has just $5,397 in cash and needs money immediately appeared first on CryptoSlate.

Ethereum researcher Justin Drake said on Aug. 13 that the Ethereum Foundation is abandoning Poseidon for future layer-1 (L1) designs and pivoting toward SHA or BLAKE hashes after eight years of work on specialized, proof-friendly cryptography.

Drake reported no break in Poseidon and issued no migration order, noting that recent gains in proof systems changed the performance tradeoff that had favored the hash.

SNARKs produce compact proofs that a computation was performed correctly. Many use arithmetic over large prime fields, where the bitwise operations behind conventional hashes such as SHA-256 and Keccak historically imposed a high proving cost. Poseidon was designed to lower that cost by fitting the proof system's preferred math.

Related Reading

Ethereum considers Poseidon hash to boost zero-knowledge proof efficiency

Poseidon promises reduced computational costs for Ethereum's rollups but faces skepticism over performance.

Feb 26, 2025 · Oluwapelumi Adejumo

Binary-field proofs raise hash throughput

Binius research binary-field construction works naturally with 0s and 1s, closely matching Keccak's bitwise operations. The Flock paper, posted July 29, applies newer techniques to large batches of standard hash computations.

Flock's authors report that one M4 Max core can prove about 82,000 BLAKE3 compression evaluations, 42,000 SHA-256 compressions, and 30,000 Keccak permutations per second. Ten cores exceeded 660,000 BLAKE3 compressions per second, and SHA-256 proving ran more than nine times faster than Binius64 in the paper's comparison.

The proof-of-concept benchmark counts internal hash operations, while Ethereum transaction capacity and production throughput use different measurements.

Drake described the advance as a reversal in cryptographic design: researchers have built hash-friendly SNARKs, reducing the need for SNARK-friendly hashes. Conventional hashes can enter Ethereum's design process without carrying their former proving penalty.

SHA-256 is part of NIST's Secure Hash Standard. BLAKE2 has had a public informational specification since 2015, separating it from the newer BLAKE3 implementation benchmarked by Flock.

Years of public analysis give cryptanalysts more time to test its design, and faster proofs now let Ethereum weigh that history without choosing a younger primitive mainly for proving speed.

Ethereum's security roadmap separately identifies protocol simplification as a way to shrink the network's attack surface.

Related Reading

Justin Drake reveals 10-year ‘Lean Ethereum' roadmap to achieve 10k TPS on mainnet

Ethereum researcher Justin Drake sketched a post-quantum, high-throughput roadmap for the next decade a day after Ethereum's 10th anniversary.

Jul 31, 2025 · Gino Matos

Ethereum plans to replace validator BLS signatures with hash-based leanXMSS signatures, then use leanVM to aggregate their much larger data into compact proofs. Cheap proofs of conventional hashes would remove one obstacle from that architecture.

Drake's personal strawmap places production-grade leanVM around 2027 and deployments across the consensus, data and execution layers in 2028. Ethereum's official post-quantum roadmap gives a nonbinding target of about 2029 for core infrastructure and extends full execution-layer migration beyond that point.

Related Reading

As quantum ‘Q-Day' jumps to 2029, Ethereum faces a new fight over what to do with coins left in old wallets

The Ethereum Foundation’s post-quantum roadmap argues that the real danger is a years-long struggle over how to move user wallets.

Mar 26, 2026 · Gino Matos

Ethereum's roadmap tells users to leave their wallets unchanged for now, while Drake's announcement calls for no changes to existing rollups or zkVMs and describes no deployed fork. The decision concerns which hash foundations Ethereum may use in a future proof-driven L1.

The post Ethereum abandons its 8-year cryptography bet after proof systems flip the tradeoff appeared first on CryptoSlate.

Tron trades at around 0.3347 US dollars on 11 August 2026, some 12.2 percent below the twelve-month high of 0.3753 US dollars from 27 May 2026 and 22.4 percent above the twelve-month low of 0.2692 US dollars set on 6 February 2026. TRX sits in the upper half of its annual range without the momentum that carried it there in spring. Is Tron a good buy at current prices?

cryptoticker.io collected the price data for this analysis on 11 August 2026. The source is the public market data interface of CoinMarketCap, and we evaluated the daily closing prices of the past 365 trading days with standard formulas: exponential moving averages over 200 and 50 days, the relative strength index over 14 days, and the twelve-month high and low from the same series. Longer-dated scenarios are on our Tron price prediction page.

Tron Price Analysis: Where the TRX Price Stands in August 2026

The chart is unusually quiet for a large-cap crypto asset. At 0.3347 US dollars, Tron sits above its 200-day exponential moving average of 0.3236 US dollars and marginally above the 50-day average of 0.3277 US dollars. Both are within two percent of spot, which is the technical definition of a market without direction. The simple 200-day mean is lower at 0.3177 US dollars.

Three levels frame the zone. The band between 0.3236 and 0.3277 US dollars, where both averages converge, has started every rebound since June. The twelve-month low of 0.2692 US dollars, roughly 19.6 percent below spot, is the last point at which buyers absorbed a sustained sell-off. The twelve-month high of 0.3753 US dollars, 12.2 percent above spot, capped the May advance and has not been retested.

What stands out is how little distance the price has travelled. Over 30 days TRX is up 1.1 percent, over 90 days down 4.3 percent, and against the closing price of 0.3383 US dollars on 11 August 2025 it is down about 1.0 percent over a full year. A market capitalisation near 31.8 billion US dollars and rank eight describe an asset holding its position without gaining ground.

Is the Tron Downtrend Broken or Merely Interrupted?

Strictly speaking, Tron is not in a downtrend. The move that matters is the correction from the May high of 0.3753 US dollars, and it stalled in late June around the moving averages rather than continuing towards the February low. A trend that gives up 12 percent and then spends eight weeks going sideways has not resolved.

The evidence for the downside case is the sequence of lower highs since 27 May 2026. Against it stands the behaviour at the 200-day line: Tron has closed above 0.3236 US dollars on the large majority of days since April, and dips below it have been shallow and short. The February low of 0.2692 US dollars has not been tested for six months.

Our reading is that the correction is interrupted rather than broken, and that the resolution has not happened yet. That is an assessment, not a forecast. The range boundaries do the work: a daily close below 0.3236 US dollars tips the balance towards the downside case, and a daily close above 0.3753 US dollars retires it.

What RSI and Moving Averages Mean for a Tron Entry

The 14-day relative strength index stands at 55.2, the least informative reading the indicator produces. Values below 30 mark the oversold condition contrarian buyers look for, values above 70 the overheating that usually precedes a pause. Anyone hoping to buy Tron into a washed-out market will not find one.

The averages tell a related story. The 50-day line at 0.3277 US dollars sits above the 200-day line at 0.3236 US dollars, so the shorter mean has not crossed below the longer one. That configuration is read as constructive, but the gap is about 1.3 percent, far too narrow to carry weight.

For an entry, this argues against timing and in favour of structure. There is no oversold signal to buy and no overbought signal to wait out. What the indicators provide is a level at which the assessment fails: while TRX holds above the 0.3236 to 0.3277 US dollar band, the sideways reading stands.

What Trading Volume Reveals About Demand for Tron

Volume is the part of the picture that has genuinely deteriorated. Turnover over the past 24 hours came to about 546 million US dollars, against a 30-day average of roughly 418 million and a 90-day average of about 567 million. The most recent month has run some 26 percent below the quarterly average, and the latest day is an outlier rather than a recovery.

Falling volume in a sideways market is not neutral. The range is being held by an ever thinner set of participants, which makes both edges easier to break when a larger order arrives. The eight-week defence of the 200-day average rests on less conviction than the chart suggests.

Against a market capitalisation near 31.8 billion US dollars, daily turnover of 546 million is under 1.8 percent of outstanding value changing hands: adequate for private position sizes, thin for anything institutional. The mood matches the tape, with the CoinMarketCap fear and greed index at 37.

Structural Factors: What Speaks for Tron and What Its Supply Mechanics Hold Against It

Tron's economics differ from most large networks in one respect that matters to holders: users do not have to pay for every transaction in TRX. The network operates a resource model in which bandwidth and energy are obtained by staking TRX, so an active user can lock tokens instead of spending them; the mechanics are set out in the Tron resource model documentation. That creates a standing reason to hold TRX which does not depend on speculation.

The supply side has no ceiling. Roughly 94.9 billion TRX are in circulation and the protocol defines no maximum supply, so scarcity arguments of the Bitcoin kind do not apply. What offsets this is the fee burn: fees paid in TRX are destroyed, linking effective supply to usage rather than a fixed schedule.

The strongest structural argument is Tron's role as a settlement rail for dollar stablecoins, where low fees have made it one of the most heavily used networks for transfers. That is also the largest concentration risk: demand for block space is tied to a use case Tron does not control, and a shift in stablecoin routing towards other chains would show up in fee burn and staking demand at once. In our assessment, this dependency is what a long-term buyer is really underwriting.

Regulation cuts both ways. Stablecoin issuance and the venues around it are supervised in the European Union under the MiCA framework, whose technical standards are published by the European Securities and Markets Authority. Clear rules make regulated distribution easier and constrain the segment that drives Tron's transaction demand.

Three Arguments For Buying Tron at Current Prices

The entry is close to the long-term average. At 0.3347 US dollars, a buyer pays about 3.4 percent above the 200-day exponential average of 0.3236 US dollars. Purchases near a long-term mean carry a defined invalidation level, which is rarely true after a rally.

Usage-linked demand exists independently of price. The resource model gives active users a reason to stake TRX, and the fee burn ties supply to transaction volume. Neither mechanism requires new speculative money to function.

The downside has been tested and held. The February low of 0.2692 US dollars has stood for six months, and the 0.3236 to 0.3277 US dollar band has absorbed every pullback since June. A twelve-month change of about 1.0 percent shows the asset kept its level through a difficult year.

Three Arguments Against Buying Tron at Current Prices

There is no discount. TRX sits 22.4 percent above its twelve-month low of 0.2692 US dollars and only 12.2 percent below the high of 0.3753 US dollars, with an RSI of 55.2. Buyers waiting for stressed valuations are being offered the middle of the range.

Liquidity is thinning. A 30-day average turnover near 418 million US dollars against 567 million over 90 days means the market holding the range is shrinking. A break below 0.3236 US dollars in this condition would likely be faster than the recent calm implies.

Concentration risk sits outside the protocol. Transaction demand is dominated by stablecoin transfers, an activity subject to issuer decisions and to supervision. A migration of that flow would weaken fee burn and staking demand at once, with no supply cap to cushion it.

How to Buy Tron at Current Prices: Costs, Custody, Providers

The cost of buying TRX is dominated by two items most buyers underestimate: the spread between the quoted and the executable price, and the withdrawal fee if the coins leave the platform. Headline commissions of 0.1 to 1.5 percent are visible; half a percent of spread on a thin order book is not.

Regulated European venues are the practical starting point in the EU. Our Bitpanda review covers a broker model with simple handling and wider spreads, our Kraken review an exchange with an order book and lower fees, and our Bitvavo review sits between them on cost. Fees side by side are in our crypto exchange comparison, and buyers who weight supervision most heavily should start with the comparison of regulated exchanges.

Custody separates a trade from an investment. Coins held on a platform are exposed to that platform, which is acceptable for a position sold within weeks and questionable for one held for years; the device trade-offs are in our hardware wallet comparison. Buyers who intend to stake TRX for bandwidth and energy should check whether their provider supports it, which the staking platform comparison shows.

On position sizing, the arithmetic of a range matters more than conviction. A buyer at 0.3347 US dollars who treats a close below 0.3236 US dollars as the point at which the thesis fails is risking a little over 3 percent to that level, while a fall back to 0.2692 US dollars would be a drawdown of about 19.6 percent. Both numbers belong in the decision before the order.

So Is Tron a Good Buy at Current Prices? Short Term and Long Term

For the short term, the chart offers no edge. An RSI of 55.2, a price 3.4 percent above the 200-day average of 0.3236 US dollars and 2.1 percent above the 50-day average of 0.3277 US dollars, and range edges 12.2 percent above and 19.6 percent below describe a market waiting for information. Falling turnover argues for patience rather than for size.

For the long term, the question is the dependency rather than the chart. Tron earns its position through cheap stablecoin settlement, and the resource model and fee burn convert that usage into demand for TRX. A multi-year buyer is underwriting the view that this role survives competing chains and tighter supervision.

Two conditions would refute the reading set out here. The first is a weekly close below 0.3236 US dollars on turnover above the 90-day average of about 567 million US dollars, which would signal the range floor is being sold rather than drifted through, with 0.2692 US dollars as the next reference. The second is a sustained decline in on-chain transaction volume and fee burn, which would undercut the structural argument regardless of price. A move above 0.3753 US dollars on rising volume would confirm the opposite.

Buying Tron: what to take away

1. The price sits in the middle of its range. At 0.3347 US dollars, TRX is 12.2 percent below the high of 0.3753 US dollars and 22.4 percent above the low of 0.2692 US dollars. Longer-dated scenarios are in our Tron price prediction.
2. Volume is the warning signal, not the chart. A 30-day average near 418 million US dollars against 567 million over 90 days means fewer participants hold the range, so cost control matters more than usual; fees are compared in our crypto exchange comparison.
3. Decide custody before you buy. A position intended for years does not belong on a trading account, and the device choice should be made before the first purchase; the options are in our hardware wallet comparison.

Disclosure: Some of the providers mentioned in this article work with us through partner programmes. This has no influence on the price analysis or on our assessment of the chart situation; the price data comes from a public market data source and can be verified there.

(As of 11 August 2026. This article is not investment advice. Prices, fees and terms change; check them with the provider before every purchase. Crypto assets are subject to high price volatility, and a total loss is possible.)

Transparency note: This article was produced with the assistance of artificial intelligence and reviewed by our editorial team before publication. All figures and claims were checked against the primary sources linked in the text. The feature image was generated with AI.

The information provided in this article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute financial advice. Cryptocurrency investments carry a high degree of risk.

The deadline for Pi Network Protocol 26 expired on 11 August 2026. Anyone running a mainnet node who had not updated the software by then has been cut off since — not as a penalty, but because an outdated version can no longer follow the new consensus. There is no grace period. There is only the update.

One number runs through the coverage that makes the event look far bigger than it is: 421,000 nodes. It does not describe what the deadline actually applies to. And the PI price, which essentially ignored the cut-off, fits that picture precisely. Both in turn.

Key Facts at a Glance

• 11 August 2026: cut-off for the upgrade to Protocol 26 (v26.1). Mainnet nodes that missed it lose their connection until they catch up.
• 29 July 2026: rollout began, announced by the Pi Core Team through its official X account.
• 421,000 nodes is the figure in circulation — it sums Testnet1, Testnet2 and Mainnet. On mainnet itself, the PiScan explorer last counted figures in the hundreds.
• Under five minutes of downtime is what the official instructions quote, while advising operators not to update several of their own nodes simultaneously.
• Pioneers are unaffected: anyone using only the mining app needs to do nothing, and PI balances are untouched.
• 0.92%: how small 24-hour trading volume ($8.89m) was relative to market capitalisation ($965.3m) on 11 August 2026 — at rank 55 on CoinMarketCap.

How Many Pi Network Nodes the Deadline Actually Affects

This is where almost all of the coverage goes imprecise.

The figure of 421,000 comes from the project's own communication; crypto.news carried it on 11 August 2026 as "more than 421,000 active nodes" as of August 2026. But Pi runs three separate networks — Testnet1, Testnet2 and Mainnet — and the number is the sum across all three. The Protocol 26 deadline applies to mainnet nodes only.

How large that gap is has been counted repeatedly by the PiScan blockchain explorer:

At the same moment PiScan counted 114 active mainnet nodes, the project was reporting over 400,000 nodes across all networks. The same gap shows up inside the testnets: Vietnam had 918,000 registered nodes against 8,153 active ones — an activity rate of 0.9%; South Korea showed 43,043 of 173,435, or 24.8% (both PiScan, cited by BeInCrypto on 8 July 2025).

Two caveats belong here, stated plainly: those counts are more than a year old, and no independently verified mainnet node figure for 11 August 2026 is available. The number may well have grown since. The order of magnitude still tells you something — three orders of magnitude separate a three-digit count from 421,000, and no growth phase closes that on its own.

You can check this yourself, incidentally: PiScan is publicly accessible and reports active mainnet nodes, quorum sets and known peers.

What Pi Network Protocol 26 Changes Technically

Protocol 26 is not an end-user feature release. The Pi Core Team names four areas: contract safety, state management, interoperability and cryptographic capabilities.

Contract safety. According to crypto.news, the upgrade tightens the rules governing how smart contracts may touch the chain's state layer. In plain terms: a contract should no longer be able to alter network state through paths that were previously permitted.

State management. How data is stored, versioned and retrieved has been reworked — the groundwork for running more complex applications without letting node load grow unchecked.

Cryptography. Protocol 26 ships the cryptographic primitives Protocol 27 will require. Its predecessor, Protocol 25, had already introduced BN254 curve cryptography and Poseidon hashing (per Coinpedia), both typical building blocks for zero-knowledge applications.

One caveat for context: the Core Team has communicated headline descriptions, not a technical specification. Exactly what changed in the contract rules cannot be independently verified as things stand.

Missing the Pi Network Deadline Means Losing the Connection

The Pi Core Team's wording on X leaves no room: all mainnet node operators must complete the upgrade before the deadline in order to remain connected to the network.

This is not an administrative ban but a consequence of the protocol switch. A node on the old version drops out of consensus. Update later and it rejoins — the damage is repairable, but it does not repair itself.

The upgrades are also sequential. The chain documented by coinsprobe runs 19.1 → 19.6 → 19.9 → 20.2 → 21.2 → 22.1 → 23.0 → 24.1 → 25.2 → 26.1 → 27.0, with no skipping steps. Anyone far behind is facing several updates, not one. crypto.news counts Protocol 26 as the ninth mandatory upgrade of recent months; the documented chain runs to ten steps up to 26.1, depending on how you count.

In practice: the effort is under five minutes of downtime, while the outage lasts as long as nobody looks. The official instructions explicitly advise operators running several nodes to upgrade them one after another, with verification in between, rather than all at once.

The PI Price Did Not React to Protocol 26

All figures: CoinMarketCap, as of 11 August 2026, 20:29 UTC.

Two ratios stand out once you work them through:

0.92%. That is how much of the market value changed hands that day. For a coin at rank 55, that is unusually thin. PI's price is set on a very small trading venue relative to what it values.

11%. That is the share of the 100 billion maximum supply currently circulating — 11.04 billion PI. Roughly 89% of the tokens are not yet in circulation.

Together, those explain why a protocol deadline does not move the price: a mandatory upgrade changes neither tradable supply nor demand. It is maintenance, not news about scarcity.

What does move supply are the scheduled unlocks. Coinpedia reports roughly 128 million PI unlocking in August 2026 and around 132.7 million in September; crypto.news puts the total at roughly 775 million PI through December 2026 as three-year lock-ups expire. At the 11 August price, those 128 million PI amount to about $11.2m — more than the entire volume traded that day. Spread across the month, that works out to roughly 4% of daily volume in potential additional supply. Both unlock figures rest on a single trade source each and could not be checked against a primary source.

What Comes After Protocol 26 on Pi Network

The Core Team describes Protocol 27 as the last major planned upgrade in this series. No date has been announced.

There is no official feature list either. crypto.news expects expanded smart contracts, DeFi infrastructure, DEX liquidity mechanisms and foundations for merchant payments — that is the outlet's assessment, not a Core Team announcement.

That makes Protocol 26 mostly groundwork: it supplies the cryptographic building blocks without which the stated goal does not work. Whether and when usable applications follow is open as things stand — and this is precisely the point on which opinions about the project have diverged for years. How the price got here is covered in our analysis of the PI price collapse; expectations around Pi Day 2026 are in this piece.

What Pi Network Pioneers Without a Node Need to Do

Nothing. That is not shorthand but the official position: anyone using only the Pi mining app on a phone is unaffected by the Protocol 26 deadline. PI balances do not change.

The deadline applies solely to people running Pi Node software on a desktop machine. These are two distinct roles in the network, they get confused regularly — and that confusion is one reason the node figures are so often misread.

If you hold PI on an exchange rather than in the Pi wallet, the upgrade changes nothing for you either — custody risk sits with the platform in that case. Which providers are regulated how is covered in our crypto exchange comparison; what app-based wallets actually offer is in the software wallet comparison.

Pi Network Risks Worth Keeping in View

Three points belong in an honest assessment:

Central control. A deadline set by one team that removes nodes from the network when ignored is the opposite of a decentralised process. A sequential chain of ten mandatory steps shows how tightly the Core Team runs operations.

A thin market. At 0.92% volume relative to market capitalisation (11 August 2026), comparatively small orders can move the price noticeably. That cuts both ways.

Supply overhang. Around 89% of the maximum supply is not yet circulating. Every unlock meets the thin market described above.

On tax: rules differ by jurisdiction, and node or mining income is frequently treated differently from a plain sale. In Germany, as of August 2026, the one-year holding period under § 23 EStG still applies to private disposals of crypto assets, while mining and node income is taxed separately as other income. A budget proposal from Finance Minister Klingbeil dated 3 July 2026 would reclassify privately held crypto assets as investment income and remove the holding period — but a drafted bill and the parliamentary process are still outstanding, and the 2026 annual tax act does not contain the change. We cover the current state in our piece on petition 201716. None of this replaces advice — check your own case with a tax professional. For assembling records, see the crypto tax software comparison.

FAQ

What happens to my Pi node if I missed the deadline?

It is disconnected from mainnet until you complete the Protocol 26 update, then it reconnects. Permanent exclusion is not part of the design. Note that the upgrades are sequential: if you are several steps behind, you have to work through them in order.

Do I need to do anything as an ordinary Pi miner?

No. The deadline applies only to mainnet node operators. App-only users are unaffected and PI balances remain unchanged.

How long does the Protocol 26 update take?

The official instructions quote under five minutes of downtime for most operators and note that individual restarts can take longer. Several of your own nodes should be upgraded one after another, not simultaneously.

Is it true that 421,000 nodes are affected?

Not in that form. The figure sums Testnet1, Testnet2 and Mainnet. The deadline applies to mainnet nodes only, and there the PiScan explorer last counted figures in the hundreds — 114 active mainnet nodes in July 2025, 23 in March 2025. No verified figure for August 2026 is available.

Why did the PI price not rise on the deadline?

A mandatory upgrade changes neither tradable supply nor demand. On 11 August 2026 PI stood at $0.0874, down 0.82% (CoinMarketCap), with trading volume at 0.92% of market capitalisation.

What is Protocol 27?

According to the Core Team, the last major planned upgrade of the current series. There is no date, and no official feature list either.

This story is not over: Protocol 27 has neither a date nor a feature list, the next token unlocks land in September, and pending MiCA decisions can reshuffle the exchange landscape for EU users at any time. We wrap up deadlines and turning points like these weekly, in English and German – stay with us on cryptoticker.io.

Sources

• Pi Core Team on X, announcing the Protocol 26 upgrade with the 11 August 2026 deadline – <https://x.com/PiCoreTeam/status/2082475759487070446>
• Pi Core Team on X, reminder about the deadline (31 July 2026) – <https://x.com/PiCoreTeam/status/2083229299323072894>
• coinsprobe (29 July 2026): Pi Network Activates Protocol Upgrade 26.1 – contains the upgrade chain and the instruction not to upgrade all nodes at once – <https://coinsprobe.com/pi-network-activates-protocol-upgrade-26-1-sequential-path-continues-with-new-deadline/>
• The Crypto Times (29 July 2026): Pi Network Starts Protocol 26 Rollout Ahead of August 11 Deadline – <https://www.cryptotimes.io/2026/07/29/pi-network-starts-protocol-26-rollout-ahead-of-august-11-deadline/>
• crypto.news (11 August 2026, Andrew Folkler): Pi Network's Protocol 26 deadline is tomorrow – node figure, update duration, unlock volumes – <https://crypto.news/pi-network-protocol-26-deadline-upgrade-2026/>
• Coinpedia (10 August 2026, Rizwan Ansari): Protocol 26 Upgrade Deadline Set for August 11 – Protocol 25, unlock figures – <https://coinpedia.org/news/pi-network-news-protocol-26-upgrade-deadline-set-for-august-11/>
• BeInCrypto (8 July 2025): PI Coin Drops 7% Amid Questions Over Pi Network Node Count – PiScan mainnet count, Vietnam, South Korea – <https://beincrypto.com/pi-node-count-transparency-questions/>
• Piscan.io on X: active mainnet nodes, quorum sets and peers – <https://x.com/piscanofficial/status/1900956056160997450>
• Blockpit (2026): German crypto holding period and the reform proposal – <https://www.blockpit.io/de-de/steuer-guides/krypto-steuerreform-2026>
• CoinMarketCap: PI price, market capitalisation, volume and circulating supply, as of 11 August 2026, 20:29 UTC – <https://coinmarketcap.com/currencies/pi/>

Note on AI use: AI tools were used for this article – in research and drafting, and for the header image, which is AI-generated and does not depict a real event. All figures, claims and sources are editorially checked before publication.

The information provided in this article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute financial advice. Cryptocurrency investments carry a high degree of risk.

Germany's one-year rule is the best-known crypto tax rule in Europe: hold a coin for more than twelve months, sell it, owe nothing. Since the German cabinet's 2027 budget decision, one sentence has appeared in almost every report about its future: crypto gains will be taxed like stock gains. That sentence is wrong twice over, and both errors can be checked against documents anyone can download.

It is wrong first because, as of 12 August 2026, there is no law and not even a ministry draft on crypto taxation. It is wrong second, and this matters far more, because two entirely different models are circulating. On a €100,000 gain held for more than twelve months, the two models are €21,100 apart. Which one ends up in the statute book is genuinely open, so anyone talking about "the" German reform is talking about nothing in particular.

Key facts at a glance

• As of 12 August 2026 there is no law and no ministry draft on crypto taxation. The working draft of Germany's Annual Tax Act 2026, published on 13 July 2026, contains no crypto provision at all.
• Two models are in circulation: moving crypto into capital income under section 20 of the Income Tax Act (cabinet decision of 6 July 2026), and keeping it in section 23 but deleting the one-year rule (bill 21/5752 of 5 May 2026).
• On a €100,000 gain that is €26,375 versus up to €47,475, a difference of €21,100.
• The bill was rejected in the finance committee on 20 May 2026. Only Die Linke voted for it; the conservatives, the AfD and the Social Democrats voted against.
• Under that bill, gold, antiques, artworks, historic vehicles and foreign currency keep the one-year rule explicitly. Exactly one asset class is carved out.
• Revenue estimates range from roughly €300 million to €11.4 billion a year. That is a factor of 38.

How the German rule works today

Under section 23 of the German Income Tax Act, crypto assets count as "other economic goods". A private sale is taxable only if fewer than twelve months passed between purchase and disposal. Sell earlier and the gain is added to your ordinary income at rates up to 45% plus the solidarity surcharge. Sell later and the gain is not taxed at all.

One detail matters for the debate that follows: this is not a preferential crypto regime that someone invented for Bitcoin. It is the general rule for privately held assets such as physical gold or a classic car, and Germany's Federal Fiscal Court confirmed in February 2023 that crypto falls under it (case IX R 3/22).

Nothing about that has changed. Whatever comes next, the documentation burden lands on the taxpayer, which is why acquisition records are the practical bottleneck in every scenario. Tools that produce a German-compliant tax report are listed in our crypto tax software comparison.

Model 1: capital income under section 20

This is the finance ministry's line. Crypto would be lifted out of private disposals and treated like interest, dividends and stock gains, at the flat withholding rate of 25% plus the 5.5% solidarity surcharge on that tax, giving 26.375%. Add church tax and the burden lands near 28%, depending on the federal state.

No legal text exists for this model. Not a draft, not a paragraph. Everything written about it rests on a budget document and on the finance minister's public statements. That leaves open exactly the questions that decide the real burden: whether the €1,000 saver's allowance would apply, how losses could be offset, and whether crypto exchanges would become paying agents that withhold tax at source.

Model 2: staying in section 23, without the deadline

This model has one advantage over the first: it exists as finished statutory language. The bill from the Green parliamentary group carries the number 21/5752, is dated 5 May 2026, and is titled, in translation, a bill "to close a fairness gap in the taxation of crypto assets".

Article 1 number 1 inserts a new sentence into section 23:

"The one-year deadline in sentence 1 does not apply to disposals of crypto assets."

Crypto would remain an "other economic good". The explanatory memorandum states the consequence plainly: gains would be taxed "regardless of the holding period, on disposal, at the personal income tax rate". Depending on other income, that is up to 45% plus the solidarity surcharge.

The bill was rejected in the finance committee on 20 May 2026. Only Die Linke supported it. The Social Democrats, who share the goal, voted against it because they wanted to wait for their own finance minister's proposal. That makes the text dead as a vehicle but very much alive as a blueprint: it is the only fully drafted statutory language anyone has produced on this question.

The comparison: €21,100 on the same gain

The following assumes a sale with a €100,000 gain after more than twelve months, no church tax, and no other private disposals in the same year.

The gap between the ministry's model and the drafted bill at the top rate is therefore €21,100 on an identical gain.

One detail almost every summary omits: the solidarity surcharge behaves differently in the two models. On the flat withholding tax it is levied without any threshold. On assessed income tax it only kicks in above a threshold that most taxpayers no longer cross. At the 42% and 45% marginal rates assumed above the threshold is comfortably exceeded, so the surcharge applies. On smaller gains and lower other income the arithmetic changes, which is precisely why the blanket claim "crypto is about to get more expensive" is worth so little.

Three ways the bill is worse than stock taxation, not equal to it

The rate. Stock gains face 25% plus surcharge. The bill applies personal rates up to 45% plus surcharge. That is not parity; it is a penalty of up to 21.1 percentage points.

Loss offsetting. Losses from private disposals under section 23 may only be netted against gains from other private disposals. They sit in their own narrow bucket and cannot be set against interest or dividends. Under the section 20 model, crypto losses would join the much wider capital-income bucket.

Withholding. Section 23 has no withholding mechanism by design. Every single disposal has to be declared, with acquisition date, cost basis and proceeds. The section 20 model could in principle withhold at source, but only through a domestic paying agent. How that would work for exchanges based elsewhere in the EU appears in neither document.

Gold, art and classic cars keep the one-year rule

The most revealing passage of the bill is not in the statutory text but in the reasoning, where the drafters explain why singling out crypto is justified:

"The provision is appropriate because other economic goods such as physical gold, antiques, artworks, historic vehicles or foreign currencies are used for speculative gains to a considerably lesser extent."

So the bill does not clean up the system. It removes one asset class and justifies that with an assumption about how investors behave. That is where the constitutional exposure sits: Germany's Article 3 equality clause requires an objective reason for unequal treatment, and whether a behavioural assumption qualifies would be for the courts to decide. The same section states that crypto assets have "not proven themselves as a digital equivalent to gold and other precious metals".

The reasoning also contains a claim that does not survive checking. It says Germany is "almost the only country within the European Union" that exempts gains after a short holding period. Portugal exempts after 365 days and taxes shorter holdings at 28%. Czechia has exempted disposals after three years since the 2025 tax year. Luxembourg applies a six-month speculative period. Holding-period exemptions are not the German anomaly the bill describes.

The cut-off date is already in the past

The bill's application clause turns solely on when an asset was acquired. The new rules would first apply to disposals of assets "acquired or created after 31 December 2025".

The bill is dated 5 May 2026. The cut-off was therefore more than four months in the past when the text was introduced, and the reasoning says so openly: the new rules apply to crypto acquired from 1 January 2026, because for those assets "the one-year holding period existing until the law enters into force has not yet expired". The drafters lean on a 2010 ruling of the Federal Constitutional Court, which held that the "mere possibility of collecting gains tax-free at a later date" creates no legally protected position.

There is also a gap the bill simply does not address. Under the finance ministry's circular of 6 March 2025, holding periods for identical crypto assets are determined asset by asset where possible and otherwise first-in-first-out, wallet by wallet. The bill writes that consumption order into law only for foreign currency amounts, not for crypto. With an acquisition-based cut-off, the protected older holdings would in case of doubt be consumed first. How that interacts with the political promises of grandfathering is a story of its own, and we will take it apart separately.

The reform paradox: day traders would pay less

The argument that turns the debate on its head comes from the conservative side. On 31 July 2026, CDU member of parliament Olav Gutting spelled out what the ministry's model does to short-term sellers: today, someone selling inside the one-year window pays their personal rate of up to 45%. Under the section 20 model it would be a flat 25% plus surcharge.

The reform would therefore relieve the high-earning day trader and burden the long-term holder who could previously sell tax-free after twelve months. That is the opposite of the stated intention, and it holds whatever you think of the holding period itself.

Nobody knows what this raises: estimates differ by a factor of 38

The distance between the lowest and the highest figure is a factor of 38. That is no longer estimation uncertainty; it means nobody knows the order of magnitude.

Two qualifications, both important. The Austrian figure first: the Austrian finance ministry reports around €33.84 million of capital gains tax from crypto for 2024, and that is the total collected since service providers began withholding on 1 January 2024. It is not the isolated yield of Austria's 2022 abolition of its holding period, so it functions as a ceiling on that yield rather than a measurement of it. Scaled to Germany by population it gives the €300 million above, and that stays a ceiling too. Austria also shows what grandfathering looks like in practice, because holdings bought before March 2021 stayed outside the new regime, as we set out in our piece on Austrian pre-2021 holdings.

Second, the €11.4 billion. On 15 March 2026 the Bitcoin Bundesverband published an open letter with 15 questions about the €11.4 billion estimate, addressed to Blockpit and to the study's author Co-Pierre Georg, covering data provenance, sample representativeness, extrapolation method and the absence of error margins. Its core line: the greater the political impact of a number, the higher the standard of transparency it has to meet. To our knowledge the questions remain unanswered.

The path that number travelled is instructive. In the finance committee session of 20 May 2026 the Greens cited the study and its €11.4 billion, then halved the amount in their own calculation and wrote "at least about €5 billion" into the bill. The bill gives no reason for the halving.

Why this is not only a German story

Two threads reach beyond Germany. The bill's own reasoning points to the European Parliament's proposal for the 2028 to 2034 budget framework, which includes a levy based on a uniform rate on capital gains from crypto assets as a possible new EU own resource. Germany's domestic argument is being made with one eye on Brussels.

The second thread is data. Under DAC8, centralised crypto service providers in the EU have been collecting reportable information since 1 January 2026, with the first exchange of data scheduled for September 2027, as we set out in our piece on automatic crypto tax reporting in Germany. Whatever rate a country lands on, the visibility question is already settled, and self-custodied holdings sit outside that reporting net rather than outside the tax law.

What this means in practice

None of this produces an instruction, and anyone handing you one knows the statutory text no better than everyone else does. Three sober points remain.

Acquisition records are the bottleneck in every scenario. If the deadline survives, they prove the exemption. If it goes, they establish the gain. If grandfathering arrives, the acquisition date decides the treatment of every single lot. Export the transaction histories from your trading venues while the accounts are open and store them off the platform; Germany's filing deadlines do not wait for the political process, as our note on the German crypto tax deadline showed. The tax-report capabilities of each venue are listed in our exchange comparison, and holdings on a hardware wallet need their address mapping documented by you.

Selling as a precaution is a bet on an unknown rule. Selling today to get ahead of a cut-off date nobody has defined can trigger a tax that holding would never have caused. That is an observation, not a recommendation in the other direction.

Watch the wording, not the headline. The two models differ on rate, on loss offsetting, on withholding and on the cut-off date. Any report that does not say which model it is describing is not telling you what you need to know.

Our managing director Dennis Weidner has worked through the primary documents, the arithmetic and the European comparison in his statement on the crypto holding period and the finance committee's reply. Individual tax questions belong with a qualified tax adviser; this article does not replace one.

FAQ

Has Germany abolished the crypto holding period? No. As of 12 August 2026, section 23 of the Income Tax Act applies unchanged: after more than twelve months of holding, the gain is untaxed. There is no adopted law and no finance ministry draft on crypto taxation. The working draft of the Annual Tax Act 2026 of 13 July 2026 contains nothing on the subject, though a provision could still be added before the cabinet stage or later in the parliamentary process.

What is the difference between the two models? Under the section 20 model, crypto becomes capital income taxed at a flat 25% plus solidarity surcharge, giving 26.375%. Under the section 23 model it stays an "other economic good" but loses the one-year deadline and is taxed at the personal income tax rate of up to 45% plus surcharge.

How much tax would €100,000 of gains attract? Today, after twelve months, nothing. Under the section 20 model, €26,375. Under the section 23 model, €44,310 at a 42% marginal rate and €47,475 at the 45% top rate, in each case before church tax.

Would new rules apply to coins I already hold? The only fully drafted bill, 21/5752, turns on the acquisition date and captures everything acquired after 31 December 2025. No text exists for the ministry's model. The conservatives have promised protection for existing holdings, while Die Linke explicitly rejects any transition period. The state of that debate is in our piece on petition 201716.

Does physical gold stay tax-free after a year? Under the Green bill, yes. It removes only crypto assets from the one-year rule and names gold, antiques, artworks, historic vehicles and foreign currencies as goods that keep it.

Does this affect me if I am not a German tax resident? Generally no; these rules govern German income tax. The reason to follow it anyway is that Germany's one-year exemption is the reference point other European debates measure themselves against, and the same bill points to an EU-level levy on crypto capital gains as a possible own resource from 2028.

When could a new rule take effect? 1 January 2027 is the announced date. That would require a ministry draft, an association consultation, three readings in the Bundestag and the federal council to be completed by December 2026. None of those dates is confirmed.

None of this is settled: the ministry draft is still outstanding, the consultation of associations follows, a first reading is pencilled in for 7 to 11 September and the federal council for 18 December. Each of those steps can change which of the two models applies and which cut-off date sits inside it. We read every new text against the primary sources and summarise weekly what actually changed in the wording, in English and in German. Stay with it on cryptoticker.io.

Sources

• German Bundestag: Bill 21/5752, on closing a fairness gap in the taxation of crypto assets (PDF in German, statutory text and reasoning, 5 May 2026)
• German Bundestag, heute im bundestag: Greens fail with their push on crypto asset taxation (finance committee vote, 20 May 2026)
• Federal Ministry of Finance: Individual questions on the income tax treatment of certain crypto assets (PDF in German, circular of 6 March 2025, replacing the 10 May 2022 circular)
• Section 23 of the German Income Tax Act as currently in force
• Federal Constitutional Court: decision of 7 July 2010, 2 BvL 14/02 and others (paragraph 64, relied on in the bill's reasoning)
• Bitcoin Bundesverband: The €11.4 billion question (open letter with 15 questions, 15 March 2026)
• Dennis Weidner: The crypto holding period and the finance committee's reply (model comparison, revenue range, holding periods in Europe, 12 August 2026)
• Austrian Federal Ministry of Finance, capital gains tax collected on cryptocurrencies in 2024 (€33,839,499.66 in total, withholding by service providers since 1 January 2024)

Note on AI use: AI tools were used for this article – in research and drafting, and for the header image, which is AI-generated and does not depict a real event. All figures, claims and sources are editorially checked before publication.

Dogecoin trades at around 0.0717 US dollars on 11 August 2026, some 75.2 percent below the twelve-month high of 0.2894 US dollars from 14 September 2025 and only 3.9 percent above the twelve-month low of 0.0690 US dollars set on 7 August 2026. Anyone buying today is buying within a few percent of the weakest level of the past year. Is Dogecoin a good buy at current prices, or has its floor yet to be found?

cryptoticker.io collected the price data for this analysis on 11 August 2026. The source is the public market data interface of CoinMarketCap, and we evaluated the daily closing prices of the past 365 trading days. The metrics are calculated with standard formulas: exponential moving averages over 200 and over 50 days, the RSI according to Wilder over 14 periods, and volume averages as the arithmetic mean of daily turnover. All figures refer to that date. Our longer-term view is set out separately in our Dogecoin price prediction.

Dogecoin Price Analysis: Where the DOGE Price Stands in August 2026

Dogecoin carries a market capitalisation of roughly 11.1 billion US dollars on a circulating supply of about 155.5 billion DOGE, which places it tenth among all crypto assets by market value. The fall in price has not pushed it into obscurity.

The chart is unambiguous. Over twelve months the price has fallen roughly 69 percent, from about 0.2341 US dollars to 0.0717 US dollars today. Over 90 days the decline is 36.3 percent, over 30 days 2.0 percent, and over the past week the price has gained 2.2 percent. A steep annual decline has flattened into a shallow drift.

Three levels define the picture. The twelve-month low of 0.0690 US dollars from 7 August 2026 sits directly beneath the market. The current zone runs between roughly 0.0690 and 0.0750 US dollars, where the price has spent most of the past month. Above both stands the 200-day exponential moving average at 0.1016 US dollars, 41.7 percent above the current price and the level the market would have to reclaim before the annual downtrend could be considered over.

Is the Dogecoin Downtrend Broken or Merely Interrupted?

A downtrend is broken when a market stops making lower lows and reclaims the averages it has traded beneath. Dogecoin meets neither condition. The low of 0.0690 US dollars on 7 August 2026 is the weakest print of the entire twelve-month window, so the sequence of lower lows is intact as of this month.

What has changed is the speed. Between May and July the price gave up more than a third of its value; since mid-July it has moved sideways in a narrow band. The seven-day gain of 2.2 percent shows a market that has stopped falling rather than one that has started rising, which is a pause in the trend rather than a reversal.

The 50-day exponential moving average at 0.0747 US dollars is the level that decides which of the two readings is correct. The price currently sits about 4 percent below it. As long as Dogecoin trades under that line, every rally is a move within a falling market. A weekly close above 0.0747 US dollars would be the first technical evidence that the pause is turning into something more durable, and a sustained move above 0.1016 US dollars would be the confirmation.

What RSI and Moving Averages Mean for a Dogecoin Entry

The 14-day RSI stands at 41.4, below the neutral 50 line and above the oversold threshold of 30. Momentum is weak, but the market is not in the kind of capitulation that produces sharp technical rebounds. Anyone waiting for an oversold entry trigger does not have one at this price.

The moving averages tell the more useful story. The 50-day EMA at 0.0747 US dollars sits well below the 200-day EMA at 0.1016 US dollars, the classic configuration of an established downtrend. Reversing it requires the shorter average to turn up and cross the longer, which takes weeks of sustained buying. The simple averages say the same: the 200-day SMA stands at 0.0920 US dollars and the 50-day SMA at 0.0730 US dollars.

For an entry decision the technical picture offers no confirmation in either direction. Buying here means buying against the trend and without a signal, which is defensible on a long horizon with a defined position size and poor for anyone expecting a quick move.

What Trading Volume Reveals About Demand for Dogecoin

Turnover over the past 24 hours amounts to roughly 475 million US dollars. Average daily volume over the past 30 days is about 510 million US dollars, against about 730 million across the past 90 days. Demand this month runs around 30 percent below the level of the preceding quarter.

That decline is the most important warning signal here. A sell-off on heavy volume eventually exhausts itself because the sellers run out. A slow slide on thin volume can continue far longer, because what is missing is the other side of the trade. Dogecoin is in the second condition: the price is drifting because too few participants are stepping in to buy.

Thin volume also shows up in the price paid: the spread widens and larger orders move the market against the buyer.

The backdrop fits. The CoinMarketCap Fear and Greed Index reads 37 out of 100 on 11 August 2026, in the fear range, and speculative assets tend to be the last to recover when sentiment improves.

Structural Factors: What Speaks for Dogecoin and What Its Supply Mechanics Hold Against It

Dogecoin has no supply cap. The protocol issues 10,000 DOGE per block at a block time of roughly one minute, adding about 5.26 billion new DOGE each year. Against the circulating supply of 155.5 billion coins, that is an annual expansion of roughly 3.4 percent. The rules are documented on the official Dogecoin project site.

The effect is structural rather than dramatic. Dogecoin needs a steady inflow of demand simply to hold its price, because the circulating supply grows every year. In a strong market that headwind is barely noticeable; in a weak one it compounds the drift.

On the other side of the ledger sits distribution. Dogecoin is listed on effectively every significant exchange and holds one of the widest retail holder bases in the sector. When speculative appetite returns, capital can flow into DOGE without friction, which is one reason the coin has historically moved early in recovery phases.

Utility is where the case is thinnest. Dogecoin works reliably as a fast and cheap payment network, but it has no developing application layer and no fee mechanism tying usage to the value of the coin. Its price is driven almost entirely by speculative demand, which explains both the depth of this decline and the speed of past advances.

Regulation has moved in the coin's favour. Under the European MiCA framework, supervised by the European Securities and Markets Authority, established crypto assets can be offered by licensed providers under harmonised EU rules. That lowers the regulatory risk of holding DOGE through a licensed venue, though it says nothing about the price.

Three Arguments For Buying Dogecoin at Current Prices

The entry level is close to the low of the year. At 0.0717 US dollars the price sits 3.9 percent above the twelve-month low of 0.0690 US dollars and 75.2 percent below the twelve-month high of 0.2894 US dollars. At the lower end of a range the risk-reward is structurally better than at the upper end, provided the position is sized for the range breaking downwards.

The decline has lost momentum. The 90-day loss of 36.3 percent contrasts with a 30-day change of minus 2.0 percent and a seven-day gain of 2.2 percent. Selling pressure has eased, which is a precondition for stabilisation without being proof of one.

Liquidity and reach remain intact. Dogecoin is the tenth largest crypto asset by market value at roughly 11.1 billion US dollars. Positions can be entered and exited at any time on regulated venues, which is not true of every asset that has fallen this far.

Three Arguments Against Buying Dogecoin at Current Prices

The downtrend is technically unbroken. The price trades below both the 50-day EMA at 0.0747 US dollars and the 200-day EMA at 0.1016 US dollars, and the low of 0.0690 US dollars was set this month. Every available technical signal points the same way.

Demand is thinning. With 30-day average volume of about 510 million US dollars against a 90-day average of about 730 million, participation is shrinking rather than building. Falling prices on falling volume describe a market losing interest, which is the harder condition to escape.

The supply grows without limit. Roughly 5.26 billion new DOGE enter circulation each year, an expansion of about 3.4 percent. Absent growing demand, that alone exerts continuous downward pressure on the price.

How to Buy Dogecoin at Current Prices: Costs, Custody, Providers

Two cost blocks determine the outcome of a purchase: the trading fee and the spread. In a thin market the spread weighs more heavily, because it is embedded in the price rather than itemised. The figure worth comparing is the total paid for a given quantity of DOGE.

Which venue is appropriate depends on how much weight an investor places on regulation and asset protection. Our crypto exchange comparison sets out the terms side by side, and for those who prioritise European authorisation, the overview of regulated exchanges under MiCA is the more relevant starting point. Detailed accounts of individual providers are available in our Kraken reviews and Bitpanda reviews.

On custody the rule of thumb is simple. For smaller amounts, holding at a regulated exchange is practical. For a position intended to be held over years, the coins belong in a wallet the investor controls, and for larger sums on a dedicated device. Our hardware wallet comparison covers the models we consider suitable.

One note on execution: given the reduced depth described above, a single large market order is the most expensive way in. Limit or split orders reduce the slippage thin books produce.

So Is Dogecoin a Good Buy at Current Prices? Short Term and Long Term

For the short term the data does not support an entry. The price trades below both moving averages, the RSI at 41.4 gives no signal, and volume is contracting. The twelve-month low of 0.0690 US dollars sits close enough beneath the market that a break would take effect quickly. Whoever buys on this horizon is taking a position on sentiment rather than on the chart.

For the long term the assessment turns on whether speculative demand in this segment returns. If it does, Dogecoin's reach and liquidity leave it positioned to participate, and an entry near the bottom of the annual range is a defensible starting point. If it does not, annual supply growth of 3.4 percent works against the price indefinitely, and the coin has no fee or utility mechanism to fall back on.

This is an assessment of the data, not a recommendation to buy or sell. The assumption behind the constructive case is that the current stabilisation between 0.0690 and 0.0750 US dollars holds. That assumption should be treated as refuted if the price closes below 0.0690 US dollars on a daily basis, or if the 30-day average volume falls further below the current 510 million US dollars. The assumption behind the cautious case should be treated as refuted if Dogecoin closes a week above the 50-day EMA at 0.0747 US dollars and subsequently reclaims the 200-day EMA at 0.1016 US dollars on rising turnover.

Buying Dogecoin: what to take away

1. The price of 0.0717 US dollars sits 3.9 percent above the twelve-month low of 0.0690 US dollars and 75.2 percent below the twelve-month high of 0.2894 US dollars, with the 50-day EMA at 0.0747 and the 200-day EMA at 0.1016 US dollars above the market. The longer-term view is set out in our Dogecoin price prediction.
2. Falling volume is the weaker part of the case: a 30-day average of about 510 million US dollars against a 90-day average of about 730 million points to shrinking participation. Where a position can be entered at a reasonable spread is covered in our crypto exchange comparison.
3. Custody belongs settled before a position is added to, because unlimited supply and thin liquidity make DOGE a long-horizon holding rather than a short trade. Suitable devices are listed in our hardware wallet comparison.

Disclosure: Some of the providers mentioned in this article work with us through partner programmes. This has no influence on the price analysis or on our assessment of the chart situation; the price data comes from a public market data source and can be verified there.

(As of 11 August 2026. This article is not investment advice. Prices, fees and terms change; check them with the provider before every purchase. Crypto assets are subject to high price volatility, and a total loss is possible.)

Transparency note: This article was produced with the assistance of artificial intelligence and reviewed by our editorial team before publication. All figures and claims were checked against the primary sources linked in the text. The feature image was generated with AI.

Transferring Bitcoin From a Foreign Exchange to an Austrian Platform: Which Tax Data Can Be Missing

Moving Bitcoin from a foreign exchange to an Austrian crypto platform does not in itself trigger a sale. The change of platform can still become relevant for tax purposes at the latest once the Bitcoin is sold.

The reason: since 2024, Austrian crypto service providers have been required to withhold capital gains tax on certain crypto profits. When Bitcoin arrives from an external exchange, the Austrian provider frequently does not know its tax history. Acquisition cost and purchase date may therefore have to be evidenced by the investor.

These Three Pieces of Tax Data Matter Most

The Austrian income tax guidelines name three details that can be passed to a crypto service provider obliged to withhold tax:

• the acquisition date or acquisition period,
• the acquisition cost of the Bitcoin,

and whether a tax-neutral crypto-to-crypto swap has taken place since the purchase.

For Bitcoin originally bought on Binance, Coinbase, Kraken or another foreign platform and later transferred to Austria, that data is not automatically available to the new provider.

The blockchain does not fully solve the problem either. It shows transfers between addresses, but it does not necessarily reveal the euro amount for which the Bitcoin was originally acquired.

Why the Acquisition Cost Is Decisive for Austrian Tax

For Bitcoin classified as new holdings, the taxable capital gain is generally calculated as the difference between the sale proceeds and the acquisition cost. Gains from cryptocurrencies in Austria are generally subject to the special tax rate of 27.5 percent.

An example:

Bitcoin purchase abroad: 20,000 euros
Transfer to an Austrian platform: Bitcoin value 50,000 euros
Later sale: 60,000 euros

The transfer to the Austrian platform does not reset the acquisition cost to 50,000 euros. For the purposes of calculating the gain, the historical acquisition cost that is relevant for tax generally remains in place.

In this simplified example, the taxable gain therefore comes to:

60,000 euros – 20,000 euros = 40,000 euros

For the Austrian provider to calculate the withholding tax correctly, however, it has to know this history, or at least be able to check that it is plausible.

Earlier Crypto Swaps Have to Be Taken Into Account Too

Matters become more complicated when the Bitcoin was not bought directly with euros.

If an investor first bought Ether and later swapped it for Bitcoin in a tax-neutral transaction, the previous acquisition cost is generally carried over to the Bitcoin received. The Bitcoin price at the time of the swap does not automatically become the new acquisition cost for tax purposes.

That is precisely why information about earlier tax-neutral crypto-to-crypto swaps forms part of the tax data the Austrian provider needs.

A purchase history for the Bitcoin alone can fall short in such cases. The relevant chain of transactions may be considerably longer.

When Does the Tax Data Have to Be Submitted?

The tax data can be disclosed and verified for plausibility immediately after the Bitcoin has been transferred to the Austrian platform.

At the latest, however, it must be available immediately before the taxable sale.

Investors should therefore not wait until seconds before a larger disposal. If Bitcoin is transferred to an Austrian platform and sold straight away, before the acquisition data has been processed, the provider cannot readily calculate with the actual historical figures.

What Happens in Austria If the Data Is Missing?

If the required tax data is unavailable at the point of sale, or if its plausibility cannot be established, Austrian tax law provides for a flat-rate valuation for the purposes of the withholding tax.

The Austrian finance ministry expressly points out that this can create substantial liquidity disadvantages for investors.

That does not necessarily mean the final income tax has to stay at the same level. An incorrect or flat-rate withholding can be corrected under certain conditions.

Under the current view of the finance ministry, the crypto service provider can still correct the capital gains tax withheld until the end of the calendar year if the tax data is submitted and verified successfully at a later point. Otherwise, a correction through the income tax assessment may become relevant.

Legacy Bitcoin Holdings Make the Tax Position More Complex

Bitcoin acquired before March 1, 2021 requires particular attention. It generally counts as a legacy holding and does not automatically fall under the newer Austrian crypto tax regime.

Where a wallet contains legacy holdings alongside more recently acquired Bitcoin, or holdings carrying a flat-rate acquisition cost, special allocation rules apply. Under certain conditions investors can choose which units are disposed of first. If no such choice is made, statutory or administrative ordering rules take effect.

Anyone transferring old and new Bitcoin holdings together from a foreign exchange to an Austrian platform should therefore document with particular care:

• when the individual Bitcoin was acquired,
• which quantities belong to the legacy holding,
• which acquisition cost applies to the newer holding,

and whether any crypto-to-crypto swaps took place in the meantime.

Which Records Should Investors Secure Before the Transfer?

Before moving assets to an Austrian provider, older transaction data from the foreign exchange should be exported. The following are worth having:

• complete purchase and sale histories,
• CSV or API exports,
• original acquisition cost in euros,
• the date or period of the acquisitions,
• wallet addresses and transaction IDs,
• evidence of transfers between the investor’s own wallets,
• earlier crypto-to-crypto swap transactions,
• any existing tax reports.

Where Bitcoin of the same kind has been acquired one after another in the same wallet, Austrian law generally applies the moving average price to determine the acquisition cost.

Conclusion: Bitcoin, Austria and the Tax Data

Transferring Bitcoin from a foreign exchange to an Austrian platform is not the same thing as a sale for tax purposes. What can become a problem is the missing tax history.

For the Austrian withholding tax to be calculated correctly, the provider needs above all the acquisition date or acquisition period, the acquisition cost relevant for tax, and information about earlier tax-neutral crypto swaps.

If those details are missing at the point of the later sale, a flat-rate valuation may be applied. Investors should therefore secure their transaction history before the transfer and lodge the tax data with the Austrian provider as soon as possible after the Bitcoin arrives.

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

Transparency note: This article was produced with the assistance of artificial intelligence and reviewed by our editorial team before publication. All figures and claims were checked against the primary sources linked in the text. The feature image was generated with AI.

A hacker is reportedly selling personal and financial records tied to more than 678,000 taxpayers and businesses in France.

The Chinese lab says the release beats comparably sized open models on code benchmarks. The blog's own numbers show it trails the closed frontier and at least one open rival.

Sharplink plans to stake roughly 12% of its total Ethereum holdings through Lido, earning yield while staying active in DeFi.

Current and former OpenAI employees reportedly say pressure to release new AI products made it harder to prioritize safety.

Galaxy Research says the lull likely means vulnerable holders migrated, or were already emptied.

Sinking against the dollar, XRP flashes a Bollinger Bands setup that could leave an exhausted Bitcoin behind.

Shiba Inu's exchange outflow isn't affecting the price as many investors would've wanted.

The market might be aiming for the recovery, but the current situation is far from looking bearish.

Ripple is set to return to the White House next week as part of a high-profile crypto meeting that will bring together some of the industry’s biggest companies and U.S. financial regulators.

Peter Schiff has warned that Strategy co-founder Michael Saylor may have to sell significantly more Bitcoin and MSTR shares.

TLDR:

• Ethereum and Solana proposals could reduce annual inflation and slow new token supply growth.
• Grayscale projects ETH inflation near 0.4% and SOL inflation near 1.1% by 2031 if changes pass.
• Lower inflation could reduce staking rewards as fewer new tokens enter circulation across both networks.
• Solana’s proposals appear to have broader community agreement, according to Grayscale’s research.

Ethereum and Solana are moving toward lower token inflation as both networks consider changes that could reduce future supply growth. The proposals could make ETH and SOL scarcer over the coming years if their communities approve the changes.

By 2031, projected annual inflation could fall below current gold supply growth and U.S. consumer inflation. The changes would also alter how staking rewards reach token holders across both networks.

Ethereum and Solana Weigh Lower Inflation

Ethereum and Solana support major blockchain activity, including stablecoins and tokenized assets. Their native tokens trade as digital commodities, with supply and demand shaping their market value.

According to Grayscale, proposed code changes could reduce annual token inflation on both networks. Lower supply growth would leave fewer new tokens entering circulation over time.

Grayscale estimates that Ethereum and Bitcoin could reach about 0.4% annual supply inflation by 2031. Solana could reach roughly 1.1%, assuming the proposed changes take effect. 

The estimates assume the networks implement the proposed tokenomics changes without other supply adjustments. Bitcoin provides a useful comparison because its projected inflation would also remain near 0.4% annually.

Those figures would sit below gold’s estimated 1.8% annual supply growth and U.S. CPI inflation at 3.3%. The comparison shows how the proposals could change the supply profile of ETH and SOL. 

The lower issuance rates would not automatically determine token prices, since demand would remain a separate market variable. Still, the proposed changes directly target the amount of new ETH and SOL entering circulation.

ETH and SOL Staking Rewards Could Change

The proposals remain under discussion within the respective blockchain communities. Grayscale said Solana’s proposals appear to have broader agreement and may have a higher chance of implementation.

Staking rewards rely partly on new token issuance, meaning lower inflation would reduce the number of tokens distributed to stakers. That change could alter the return profile for participants who secure each network.

Unstaked ETH and SOL holders could benefit from reduced token issuance if scarcity supports stronger market prices. Stakers would face a different calculation because lower rewards could offset any potential price increase.

Grayscale’s research also points to the technical nature of the proposed changes, particularly Ethereum’s staking model. The outcome depends on whether each community approves the changes and how the new parameters affect token supply. 

Governance decisions will determine whether the proposed reductions become part of each network’s operating rules.

The post Why Ethereum and Solana Supply Growth Could Drop Sharply by 2031: Grayscale appeared first on Blockonomi.

TLDR:

• CLARITY Act passage odds have dropped to 10% as Senate negotiations remain unresolved.
• Senate leaders delayed the CLARITY Act vote after political and banking disputes stalled negotiations.
• SEC exemptions could provide temporary crypto rules while Congress struggles to pass legislation.
• CFTC action on prediction markets adds another front to the wider U.S. crypto regulatory debate.

The odds of the CLARITY Act becoming law in 2026 have fallen to 10%, according to Galaxy Research. The Senate delayed action after negotiations failed to resolve several political and industry disputes.

Meanwhile, the SEC and CFTC are advancing regulatory measures while Congress remains stalled. The shift could leave U.S. crypto companies relying on agency action before lawmakers establish permanent rules.

CLARITY Act Passage Faces Senate Roadblocks

The CLARITY Act cleared a bipartisan Senate Banking Committee markup in May, raising expectations for progress before August. However, several disputes later weakened support for the bill among senators.

Galaxy Research pointed to unresolved ethics controls concerning government officials and crypto-related activities. Pressure from community banks also created resistance to provisions involving stablecoin-related business models.

Lawmakers also debated developer protections under the Blockchain Regulatory Certainty Act. Concerns from illicit finance groups added another obstacle during negotiations.

Senate Majority Leader John Thune ultimately declined to schedule a vote before the August recess. The Senate now expects to consider the CLARITY Act after lawmakers return on September 14.

Galaxy Research said the September session leaves limited time for the legislation. The Senate plans to adjourn around October 2 for midterm election activity.

SEC and CFTC Advance Crypto Regulation

The stalled CLARITY Act has coincided with renewed regulatory activity at federal agencies. Galaxy Digital said the SEC had been preparing two major crypto exemptions.

One proposal, called Reg Crypto, would establish a pathway for public cryptoasset issuance. The Innovation Exemption would address secondary trading of tokenized securities within decentralized finance.

Bloomberg previously reported that the SEC was preparing both measures. However, the agency delayed the initiatives following resistance from traditional securities industry participants.

Galaxy noted that the SEC appeared close to releasing the exemptions again this week. The agency later delayed the Innovation Exemption and canceled a planned open meeting.

The CFTC has also intensified efforts around prediction markets and event contracts. The agency issued an emergency order challenging New York Attorney General Letitia James’ attempt to block Kalshi nationwide.

According to Galaxy Research, agency measures could temporarily address regulatory gaps while Congress remains gridlocked. However, those measures lack the durability of legislation and could change under another administration.

Galaxy Research expects the SEC to publish Reg Crypto, the Innovation Exemption, or both within coming weeks or months. The agency’s actions could therefore shape U.S. crypto regulation while the CLARITY Act remains uncertain.

The post Galaxy Digital Cuts CLARITY Act Passage Odds to 10% as Senate Vote Slips appeared first on Blockonomi.

TLDR

• Sidus Space Q2 revenue drops 54% to $583,000 as operating losses remain elevated
• SIDU stock drops after hours despite ending the regular session 2.36% higher
• Sidus Space ends June with $166.5 million in cash and no outstanding term debt
• A $100 million share offering strengthens Sidus Space’s balance sheet in Q2
• LizzieSat testing and Fortis VPX integration advance key mission milestones

Sidus Space (NASDAQ: SIDU) reported weaker second-quarter revenue while losses continued across its space and defense operations. SIDU stock closed 2.36% higher at $2.60 before falling 8.85% after hours to $2.37. The company also strengthened its cash position and advanced its next LizzieSat spacecraft during the quarter.

Sidus Space, Inc., SIDU

Sidus Space Q2 Revenue Falls as Expenses Rise

Sidus Space generated $583,000 in second-quarter revenue, down 54% from $1.3 million one year earlier. The company linked the decline to the timing of revenue recognition under fixed-price milestone contracts. Lower contract activity therefore reduced reported sales during the three months ending June 30.

Cost of revenue fell 47% to $1.2 million from $2.3 million during the previous-year quarter. However, Sidus Space still recorded a $630,000 gross loss during the latest reporting period. That result improved 39% from the $1 million gross loss recorded one year earlier.

Meanwhile, selling, general, and administrative expenses increased 19% to $5.1 million from $4.3 million. Adjusted EBITDA produced a $5.1 million loss, compared with a $3.9 million loss last year. Net loss improved 15% to $4.8 million, reducing the year-over-year loss by $844,000.

Sidus Space Builds Cash Position Through Share Offering

Sidus Space ended June with $166.5 million in cash and reported no outstanding term debt. The balance sheet improvement followed a major capital raise completed during the second quarter. Management plans to use the stronger financial position to support commercialization and technology development.

The company closed a registered direct offering on May 29 involving 19.69 million Class A shares. Sidus priced the shares, or equivalent pre-funded warrants, at $5.08 each. The transaction generated approximately $100 million in gross proceeds before fees and other offering expenses.

Sidus also secured expected membership in three FTSE Russell indexes during the annual June reconstitution. The additions covered the Russell 2000, Russell 3000, and Russell Microcap Indexes. Those changes expanded the company’s exposure across portfolios that follow major Russell benchmarks.

LizzieSat Development Advances Toward Commercial Operations

Operationally, Sidus completed vibration testing for its next LizzieSat spacecraft during the second quarter. The company conducted the qualification work at Element U.S. Space and Defense’s Orlando facility. The testing marked an important environmental milestone before future spacecraft deployment activities.

Sidus also integrated its proprietary Fortis VPX Maxima computing platform into the upcoming LizzieSat spacecraft. The system combines processing hardware, reconfigurable technology, navigation capabilities, and onboard mission computing functions. Sidus designed the platform to support autonomous processing across space, air, land, and maritime applications.

The company continues shifting its focus from technology development toward recurring government and commercial contracts. Sidus highlighted opportunities across defense, intelligence, satellite services, and related technology markets. It also appointed Alan Khalili as chief financial officer, effective July 27.

Sidus Space Expands Space and Defense Technology Strategy

Sidus Space develops satellite hardware, mission systems, data services, and technology for commercial and government customers. Its LizzieSat platform supports hosted payloads and other missions through a flexible small-satellite architecture. The company has continued developing proprietary systems while seeking contracts that can produce recurring revenue.

The latest quarter showed a sharp difference between Sidus Space’s financial resources and current operating performance. Revenue declined substantially, while operating expenses and adjusted EBITDA losses remained elevated. Improved gross losses and a stronger cash balance provided additional resources for future execution.

Sidus presented the quarterly results after the regular trading session on August 14. The company also scheduled a conference call to discuss the quarter and its broader business progress. Its next financial updates will show whether recent technology milestones translate into stronger commercial revenue.

The post Sidus Space, Inc. (SIDU) Stock: Q2 Revenue Drops 54% as Losses Persist  appeared first on Blockonomi.

TLDR

• Paramount wins WBD merger clearance across 68 countries after eight months.
• Mexico becomes the latest market to approve Paramount’s proposed WBD merger.
• Twelve state attorneys general remain the final obstacle to the WBD transaction.
• Global regulators found no major competition concerns across key media markets.
• Paramount says further legal delays could raise costs and disrupt operations

Paramount Skydance (PSKY) gained 1.71% to $10.14, then added 0.39% to $10.18 after regular trading. The move followed another regulatory milestone for Paramount’s planned Warner Bros. Discovery acquisition. Paramount has now secured required regulatory clearances across 68 countries, leaving a multistate lawsuit as the remaining obstacle.

Paramount Skydance Corporation Class B Common Stock, PSKY

Paramount Skydance Secures Global WBD Merger Clearances

Paramount said competition authorities across 68 jurisdictions have approved the proposed Warner Bros. Discovery transaction. The eight-month review covered major markets across Europe, North America, Asia, Africa, Australia, and South America. Mexico became the latest jurisdiction to approve the combination and completed Paramount’s required global regulatory review.

Authorities in the European Union, United Kingdom, Australia, Canada, Brazil, China, and COMESA examined the transaction. The United States Department of Justice also reviewed the planned combination under federal competition rules. These reviews covered film production, theatrical distribution, television networks, streaming services, and content licensing.

Paramount said the companies could complete the transaction without the remaining state-level legal challenge. California and 11 other state attorneys general continue to challenge the merger through litigation. Paramount has urged the states to negotiate a settlement instead of continuing toward a trial.

Regulators Reject Major Competition Concerns

Several regulators found that the combined company would continue facing substantial competition across entertainment markets. The United Kingdom competition authority found no realistic prospect of substantially weaker competition after the merger. European regulators also considered streaming services important competitors against traditional television networks.

The United States Department of Justice recognized growing competitive pressure from streaming platforms on broadcast and cable networks. Meanwhile, Australian regulators examined competition across theatrical distribution and film production. They identified Disney, Sony, Universal, Amazon MGM, StudioCanal, and independent companies as significant competitors.

Brazilian authorities treated theatrical film distribution as one broad market rather than separating the largest releases. COMESA also described theatrical distribution as competitive and driven heavily by individual successful films. These findings differ from the narrower competition arguments presented by the 12 state attorneys general.

State Lawsuit Remains Final Barrier to WBD Deal

Paramount now faces a legal dispute rather than another international regulatory approval process. The company says the continuing case could increase penalty payments, legal expenses, and operational disruption. A prolonged delay could also affect planning across both companies before their proposed combination.

The company has offered commitments and concessions while seeking an agreement with the participating states. Paramount also plans to maintain significant film output after completing the Warner Bros. Discovery acquisition. The company has committed to releasing at least 30 high-quality films annually across the combined business.

The Warner Bros. Discovery deal would combine two major entertainment groups with large film and television operations. Paramount Skydance emerged from the 2025 combination between Skydance Media and the former Paramount Global. The WBD transaction would further expand Paramount’s position across studios, television networks, streaming platforms, and entertainment libraries.

The post Paramount Skydance (PSKY) Stock: WBD Merger Wins Clearance in 68 Countries appeared first on Blockonomi.

TLDR

• Reddit stock jumps 12% as S&P 500 inclusion fuels a strong market rally today
• RDDT surges after S&P confirms Reddit will join the S&P 500 on August 18, 2026
• Reddit replaces AvalonBay in the S&P 500 before trading opens on August 18
• Passive S&P 500 funds may need to buy RDDT shares ahead of its index entry
• Sun Communities will join the S&P MidCap 400 as Webster Financial exits index

Reddit Inc. (RDDT) stock jumped 12.63% to $178.09 after S&P Dow Jones Indices announced its S&P 500 inclusion. The shares held strong gains after briefly climbing above $183 during intraday trading. Reddit will officially join the benchmark before trading begins on Tuesday, August 18.

Reddit, Inc., RDDT

Reddit Stock Rallies After S&P 500 Addition

S&P Dow Jones Indices selected Reddit to replace AvalonBay Communities in the S&P 500. The change gives Reddit membership in one of the most tracked United States equity benchmarks. The announcement triggered a sharp rise in Reddit shares during Friday trading.

Reddit will enter the index under the Communication Services sector with its existing RDDT ticker. The company has expanded its presence in public markets since completing its initial public offering. Its S&P 500 addition now marks another major step in its development as a listed company.

Index membership can also affect trading because funds tracking the S&P 500 must match its holdings. Therefore, passive funds may need to purchase Reddit shares before the index change takes effect. The required portfolio adjustments can increase trading activity around an index addition.

AvalonBay Exit Creates Opening for Reddit

Reddit will replace AvalonBay Communities after Equity Residential agreed to acquire the real estate company. The transaction remains subject to final closing conditions before completion. S&P has already scheduled AvalonBay’s removal before the August 18 market opening.

Equity Residential currently holds membership in the S&P 500 and will remain in the benchmark after the transaction. Following the merger, the combined company will operate under the Vivmark Residential name. The company will also trade under the new VMRK ticker after completing the planned combination.

The merger removes the need for two separate S&P 500 positions following the companies’ combination. As a result, S&P selected Reddit to take AvalonBay’s position within the large-cap index. The move also shifts that position from Financials into the Communication Services sector.

S&P Index Changes Extend to MidCap 400

S&P Dow Jones Indices also announced separate changes involving the S&P MidCap 400 benchmark. Sun Communities will replace Webster Financial before trading begins on Thursday, August 20. Sun Communities operates within the Real Estate sector and trades under the SUI ticker.

Webster Financial will leave the MidCap 400 because Banco Santander plans to acquire the company. The transaction remains dependent on final conditions before the companies complete the deal. Santander trades in Madrid and New York under the SAN ticker.

The scheduled changes follow S&P’s standard process of adjusting index membership after major corporate transactions. Reddit’s addition stands out because its shares responded sharply after the announcement. The August 18 inclusion will place RDDT alongside established large-cap companies across the United States market.

The post Reddit, Inc. (RDDT) Stock: Surge 12% on S&P 500 Inclusion  appeared first on Blockonomi.

XRP has shed more than 10% over the past week as its struggle near $1 continues. This downward pressure has pushed the crypto asset’s yearly losses to almost 70%.

Despite the negative sentiment, institutional participation appears to be intact, as several firms continue to use exchange-traded products to gain exposure to XRP.

Institutions Remain Unfazed

Morgan Stanley has disclosed its XRP exposure in the second quarter of 2026. The Wall Street giant holds positions through three XRP-linked exchange-traded funds: Franklin, REX-Osprey, and Bitwise ETF. Its largest position was in the Franklin fund, with 6,715 shares. The filing showed 255 shares of the REX-Osprey ETF and 67 shares of Bitwise’s.

The 13F filing also shows a larger position in Armada Acquisition Corp II, the SPAC partner of Ripple-backed Evernorth Holdings.

Several investment firms have had exposure to the token through exchange-traded products. For example, Wolverine Asset Management held 199,912 shares of the Bitwise XRP ETF. Gallacher Capital Management held 86,744 shares of Canary’s XRP ETF. Main Street Group had 5,261 shares of the same fund.

Meanwhile, Moisand Fitzgerald Tamayo held 964 shares of the Franklin XRP ETF. Additionally, National Bank of Canada revealed 3,848 shares of Bitwise’s XRP ETF.

Opportunity Amid Pressure

The picture looks less encouraging when it comes to XRP’s broader market activity. As reported by CryptoPotato, the Taker Buy/Sell Ratio is around 0.86, its lowest level since last May. The ratio has stayed below 1 for most of the recent period, which means that sellers have generally been more aggressive than buyers in the derivatives market.

There have been short-lived moves above 1, but buyers have yet to establish a clear change in momentum. A move back above that level could be a better sign for XRP, especially if it also starts seeing stronger volume and price action.

For now, however, derivatives traders appear to be leaning toward the sell side. Futures open interest also remains elevated and stands at 435.1 million units, above the 403.6 million 30-day average, with a +1.20σ Z-score, meaning “leverage is still stacked.” As such, the token is at risk of a liquidation cascade if it dumps further.

But the current weakness may also create a potential setup for a future recovery. ChartNerd highlighted $1.24 as an important level to reclaim. If the asset fails to do so, the analyst identified the $0.90-$0.70 range as a possible area where accumulation could take place.

ChartNerd also expects a retest of the 3-month 40 EMA to help XRP form a stronger base. Similar setups played out in 2023 and 2024, according to the analyst.

The post Morgan Stanley’s XRP Exposure Emerges as Price Struggles Near $1 appeared first on CryptoPotato.

Ever since bitcoin started to lose value rapidly and consistently in Q4 last year, the main question within the cryptocurrency community is how low it can go. The next one was: when and where it will bottom out.

Analysts began speculating after each leg down. At first, it was $60,000 when BTC dipped to that level in February. Months later, though, it crashed to $59,000, $58,000, and even slightly below that on July 1. As such, the bottom figures have slightly changed. Now, popular analyst Rekt Fencer brought some historical figures to outline the exact date.

October 2026: Here We Go

In an August 13 tweet, the market commentator outlined that there are 53 days left (now 51 since two days have already passed) until this market slumber and sluggishness end. They based this prediction on previous BTC cycles, as bull markets lasted approximately 1,064 days, while the subsequent bear phases required roughly 364 days to find their ultimate bottom. The pattern sounds simple, but it has been surprisingly consistent.

Bitcoin’s bull cycle from the 2015 bottom to its 2017 peak lasted exactly 1,064 days. The painful bear market needed another 364 days before the cryptocurrency finally bottomed in December 2018.

History almost perfectly repeated itself from that 2018 bottom to the November 2021 peak. Guess what: another 364-day decline followed that culminated in the 2022 bear-market low.

It gets better. BTC’s latest bull cycle ran from late 2022 until October 2025. Yes, another approximately 1,064 days. If the second half of this pattern repeats as accurately as the first, Rekt Fencer believes the next bottom will arrive on October 5, 2026.

BITCOIN HAS 53 DAYS LEFT.$BTC macro cycles are almost too perfect:

2015 ➜ 2017 bull: 1064 days
2017 ➜ 2018 bear: 364 days

2018 ➜ 2021 bull: 1064 days
2021 ➜ 2022 bear: 364 days

2022 ➜ 2025 bull: 1064 days

If the pattern repeats one more time:

2025 ➜ 2026 bear: 364… https://t.co/R5BYDSY8nb pic.twitter.com/I1E4g3N6fy

— Rekt Fencer (@rektfencer) August 13, 2026

October in Focus

The screenshot reshared by Rekt Fencer has been a popular one in the crypto community. The reason for this is its surprising accuracy. The previous two major BTC bear markets required approximately 363 and 376 days, respectively, to move from their cycle peaks to eventual capitulation lows.

Applying that range to Bitcoin’s October 2025 ATH produces a potential bottoming window between roughly October 4 and 17 this year. Ali Martinez recently outlined almost the same possibility, but his dates ranged between October 6 and 16.

There’s an obvious problem with relying too heavily on particular calendar patterns. BTC’s previous cycles developed under entirely different macroeconomic environments. Today’s market includes spot ETFs, enormous institutional holders, corporate treasuries, a different regulatory landscape, and far greater integration with TradFi.

Interest rates, liquidity, ETF flows, geopolitical developments, and Fed policy could easily break even the most accurate pattern. As such, October 5 (or 6-16) shouldn’t be treated as some predetermined date on which BTC is guaranteed to print its lowest candle before it explodes to new peaks within days, weeks, or even months.

But then again, it’s always good to have a North Star, and October 2026 has quickly become the month every crypto investor has circled on the calendar.

The post Bitcoin’s Bottom Has a Date: And It’s Closer Than You Think appeared first on CryptoPotato.

XAO DAO is preparing a series of governance changes for the XRP Ledger over the next two to three months, according to Fabio Marzella, the organization’s co-founder.

The planned changes would let members delegate voting power, adjust quorum rules, and access community mini-grants, as the DAO looks to make participation easier and more representative, at a moment when several XRPL projects have already scaled back or shut down.

XAO DAO Targets Broader Participation

Marzella said the first change would introduce wallet delegation, allowing members to hand their voting power to others when they lack the time or expertise to vote on individual proposals.

The DAO is also reviewing its quorum requirements, including how inactive wallets count toward proposal thresholds. The stated aim is to prevent inactive participation from blocking decisions while keeping governance tied to the active community.

Community mini grants are another planned addition. Under the proposal, members would be able to submit smaller initiatives and seek funding for projects that contribute to the XRPL ecosystem.

“These aren’t changes for the sake of change,” Marzella wrote. He said the broader goal is to create a DAO where the community has “the ability to act” rather than simply having a vote.

The timing comes as questions around developer support have grown within the XRPL community. On August 13, Marzella said the shutdown of Gen3’s retail platforms showed that funding developers alone does not solve the problem of building lasting businesses.

Gen3, an XRPL infrastructure team, said on August 12 it would spin down two of its retail products, aigent.run and AxiomProtocol, citing weak user demand and rising infrastructure costs. Gen3 said the platforms will stay live for another month, until September 13, so users can withdraw remaining funds, and that it will keep running its core XRPL infrastructure and take part in the ledger’s amendment process.

Marzella pointed to the Gen3 news as evidence of a bigger problem, arguing that funding developers only solves half the issue if there’s no path from a funded project to a sustainable business. Builder Handy Andy, replying in the same thread, described colleagues quietly calculating how much longer they can keep funding their own work without support, calling it “the last roll of the dice” for some.

Activity Is Up

The reshuffle comes as XRP closed near a 21-month low this week, and Santiment data shows daily active addresses averaging 35,700 in August, up from 26,400 in July, even though the number of new wallets has stayed almost flat.

That distinction may matter for XAO DAO’s participation plans. More activity among existing users does not automatically mean a larger pool of people taking part in governance.

As it stands, Marzella has not provided a final timetable or detailed voting mechanics for the proposed changes, instead promising that more information will follow as each initiative progresses, leaving the community to see how delegation, quorum changes and mini grants are eventually implemented.

The post XRP Ledger’s XAO DAO Plans Major Governance Upgrades to Boost Community Participation appeared first on CryptoPotato.

Baltimore has taken legal action against prediction market operators Kalshi and Polymarket, accusing both companies of offering illegal sports betting in the city.

Mayor Brandon M. Scott and the Baltimore City Council filed separate lawsuits on August 13 in the Circuit Court. The cases allege violations of Baltimore’s Consumer Protection Ordinance and accuse the companies of misleading consumers about whether their products are legal and properly regulated.

Illegal Sports Betting

The complaints claimed that Kalshi and Polymarket allow Baltimore residents to bet on game winners, point spreads, point totals, player statistics, and other outcomes commonly offered by licensed sportsbooks. The companies describe these products as “event contracts” or prediction-market trades. According to the officials, the label does not change what the products are.

Neither platform, according to the lawsuits, has the licenses required to offer sports betting in Maryland. The city said that this lets them compete with regulated sportsbooks while avoiding the oversight, taxation, responsible-gambling requirements, and consumer protections imposed on licensed operators.

Questions have also been raised about how the companies promote their platforms. Baltimore alleged that Kalshi and Polymarket market their platforms in ways that can create a false or misleading impression that the offerings are legal and properly regulated. The city added that this can make gambling more accessible and expose vulnerable consumers, including young adults and people with gambling addictions, to financial harm.

Baltimore is seeking civil penalties, injunctive relief, restitution for affected consumers, disgorgement of alleged ill-gotten profits, and other relief allowed under law.

Legal Battles on Multiple Fronts

The two companies are already dealing with several other legal and regulatory disputes. For example, Kalshi recently faced a lawsuit from New York State Attorney General Letitia James seeking to shut down its operations in the state. The US Commodity Futures Trading Commission then used its emergency authority to require Kalshi to continue operating in New York after the company sought federal help. The agency said the order followed the platform’s request for assistance after the state lawsuit was filed at the end of July.

It also faced a lawsuit from flight-tracking company FlightAware over flight-related prediction markets. FlightAware accused Kalshi of using its data and name without permission to host markets on flight cancellations. But the case was withdrawn just a day later. Its lawyers said the lawsuit was voluntarily dismissed without prejudice against all defendants.

Polymarket has faced separate problems as well. JPMorgan Chase stopped providing banking services to it late last year. Polymarket has since moved to another lender, although its name has not been disclosed.

A separate consumer protection lawsuit has also been filed against it in Washington, D.C. The National Association of Consumer Advocates alleges that the company, CEO Shayne Coplan, and Chief Marketing Officer Matthew Modabber ran “flagrantly deceptive” social media advertising campaigns that promoted Polymarket to American consumers and encouraged betting on a platform that was not technically available in the US.

The complaint also refers to reports of political influencers praising Polymarket’s accuracy without disclosing paid deals. It cites a Wall Street Journal investigation that found viral videos using simulated versions of the platform to suggest creators had won bets.

The post It’s Not Just Baltimore: Kalshi and Polymarket Face More Legal Trouble appeared first on CryptoPotato.

On August 13, Trezor disclosed that a data breach at its shipping partner, ShipMonk, exposed the personal information of roughly 13,700 recent customers, including names, phone numbers, and home addresses.

Binance founder Changpeng Zhao (CZ) responded by arguing that the incident shows a real advantage of software self-custody wallets, since they don’t require shipping a physical device that ties a buyer’s identity to a home address.

Trezor Breach Puts Physical Addresses in Focus

Trezor disclosed the incident after ShipMonk, a logistics provider, notified the company on Monday, August 10, about unauthorized access to systems holding customer order data.

CZ reacted on Thursday, contending that the incident highlights a different risk profile for hardware and software self-custody.

“Hardware wallets are often considered ‘more secure’ than software wallets,” he wrote. “While I still think that is ‘generally true’ in a few specific aspects, this incident reinforces an advantage of software self-custody wallets.”

He pointed to examples such as Binance Web3 Wallet and Trust Wallet, which do not require shipping a physical device that ties a user’s identity and address to crypto ownership.

CZ also stopped short of dismissing hardware wallets. “Not saying hardware wallets are ‘bad,'” he wrote. “Just different profiles.” He added that YZiLabs is an investor in many hardware wallet companies.

Contributing to the debate, NaoX Protocol said the exposed addresses could give attackers a list of verified crypto holders worth targeting in person. Bitcoin security executive Nick Neuman similarly warned that the data could lead to targeted social engineering and potentially wrench attacks, where criminals use physical threats to steal funds.

Trezor said customers could face more sophisticated phishing through email, phone calls or letters. It urged users never to enter their wallet backup online or share it with anyone.

A Rough Stretch for Hardware Wallets

The timing adds to a run of bad headlines for hardware wallet makers. In mid-July, on-chain investigator ZachXBT called the category unfit for serious use, writing on Telegram that “all hardware wallets are complete garbage.”

He argued a spare phone used only for signing transactions could work better, citing dead batteries, forced firmware updates, and interface bugs as recurring problems. The Trezor breach is a different kind of failure, as it involves exposure through a vendor rather than the device, but it fits the same conversation about costs beyond the seed phrase.

Furthermore, last week, Galaxy Research linked more than $100 million in stolen Bitcoin to a separate issue in older Coldcard firmware, which generated wallet seeds with weaker randomness than intended. Coinkite has patched the flaw in newer releases but cannot fix seeds already generated on affected devices and has told holders of its Mk3 through Q models to move funds to unaffected hardware.

This isn’t the first time Trezor has found itself in such a situation, with a separate breach tied to a third-party support vendor exposing contact details for around 66,000 users in January 2024.

The post CZ Says Software Wallets Avoid Risks Seen in Trezor Leak appeared first on CryptoPotato.