Microsoft's shift to usage-based pricing for Copilot could drive revenue growth but adds complexity to enterprise AI budgeting strategies.

The post Microsoft shifts Copilot to usage-based pricing, boosting growth potential appeared first on Crypto Briefing.

The incident highlights inefficiencies in bot operations and underscores the unintended benefits miners gain from competitive fee escalations.

The post Sweeper bots burn $4,800 in Bitcoin fees chasing $12.67 appeared first on Crypto Briefing.

Anthropic's tiered AI model approach could redefine cybersecurity and biology research, balancing safety with commercial viability and partnerships.

The post Anthropic hints at Claude Mythos 5.5 for cybersecurity and biology research appeared first on Crypto Briefing.

The massive withdrawal highlights significant trust issues in the crypto market, emphasizing the need for enhanced security and transparency measures.

The post Binance sees nearly $3.8 billion withdrawn in 10 hours after reopening appeared first on Crypto Briefing.

The massive crypto liquidations highlight the risks of leveraged trading and the potential for market instability, impacting trader confidence.

The post Crypto liquidations hit $12.5 billion in October 2026 as longs take the beating appeared first on Crypto Briefing.

▶

Bitcoin Magazine

MSTR Q3 2026 Earnings Call: Analyst Q&A

The full analyst Q&A from Strategy’s (MSTR) Q3 2026 earnings call. Phong Le and Michael Saylor take questions from BTIG’s Andrew Harte, Treasury’s Khing Oei, Galaxy’s Alex Thorn, Citi’s Pete Christiansen and Scott Melker on digital credit, Stretch (STRC) returning to par, the other preferreds, Bitcoin’s financialization and tokenization.

Chapters:
00:00 Strategy’s Balance Sheet vs. the Last Bull Market
02:38 You Need a Lot of Capital to Create a Lot of Credit
04:30 When Does Strategy Turn the Equity ATM Back On?
06:06 Why STRC Took Four Months to Return to Par
08:24 What Happens to STRD, STRK and STRE?
10:44 Why the Euro-Listed STRE Is a Challenge
12:51 Is Strategy Financializing Bitcoin?
16:06 How Institutions Are Damping Bitcoin’s Volatility
19:35 Mr. Edison, Mr. Rockefeller and Financialized Bitcoin
20:34 Will Strategy Issue Tokenized MSTR for U.S. Investors?
23:16 The Promise of Tokenization Is a Free Market
26:33 The Elephant in the Room: No U.S. Token Standard

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

This post MSTR Q3 2026 Earnings Call: Analyst Q&A first appeared on Bitcoin Magazine and is written by Mark Mason.

▶

Bitcoin Magazine

Mike Flaum: MSTR Performance “Massively” to the Upside During Next BTC Bull Run

Mike Flaum, CEO of Log Scale Investments, joins Bitcoin Magazine TV to talk Strategy’s Stretch, daily dividends, Strive’s SATS, Bitcoin-backed preferreds vs. Treasury bonds for retirees, mNAV and the four-year cycle. He explains why he separates risk from volatility and why he’s bullish long term.

Chapters:
00:00 Mike Flaum on Strategy and Bitcoin Treasury Companies
00:15 What Stretch Getting Back to Par Means for Strategy
01:18 How Issuing Stretch at $100 Restarts Bitcoin Buying
02:33 Strategy Shareholders Approve Daily Dividends
03:34 Why Daily Dividends Work Like Bitcoin Perpetual Futures
04:51 Opportunistic Traders vs. Long-Term Preferred Holders
07:08 Was Strive’s SATS Oversubscription Net New Money?
09:39 Bitcoin-Backed Preferreds vs. Treasury Bonds for Retirees
11:43 Why Strategy’s Stock Hasn’t Kept Pace With Its Bitcoin
13:41 Gross, EV and Net mNAV Explained
15:04 Digital Credit, Amplification and Share Buybacks
16:47 Strategy vs. Strive’s Capital Stack
18:48 Is the Bitcoin Four-Year Cycle Dead?
20:31 Why Bitcoin Hits an All-Time High Before the Halving
22:08 JPMorgan’s Bitcoin Forecast and Bitcoin’s Long-Term Retur

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

This post Mike Flaum: MSTR Performance “Massively” to the Upside During Next BTC Bull Run first appeared on Bitcoin Magazine and is written by Patrick Green.

▶

Bitcoin Magazine

What to Know About the $6.3 Billion Binance Hack

The biggest crypto-related hack in history by dollar volume just hit Binance, with more than $6.3 billion in affected assets moving on-chain. About $3 billion was frozen through stablecoin operators, but $3.3 billion has not been recovered. Bitcoin Magazine TV breaks down what happened, what Binance has said, and why every day now feels like zero day for crypto security.

Chapters:
00:00 Binance Sees $6.3 Billion Move On-Chain in Record Hack
00:15 Binance Freezes $3 Billion as $3.3 Billion Stays Missing
00:45 Polymarket Hack Drains $2.7 Million From User Wallets
01:13 Why Every Day Is Zero Day for Crypto Security
02:45 What the Multi-Chain Hit Reveals About Binance Custody
03:21 TRM Labs Ties the Attack to North Korea’s TraderTraitor
04:49 How the Funds Flowed Through Stablecoins and Aave
05:52 Can Binance Cover the Losses? Solvency Questions
07:31 Why Stablecoin Freezes Aren’t Freedom Technology
09:07 Bitcoin Stays Resilient Through Hacks and Bear Markets

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

This post What to Know About the $6.3 Billion Binance Hack first appeared on Bitcoin Magazine and is written by Patrick Green.

Bitcoin Magazine

Coinbase (COIN) Misses Revenue Estimates as Users Fall, Armstrong Sets Up New Share Sales

Coinbase had a mixed third quarter. Revenue came in at $1.20 billion, below the $1.233 billion analysts expected, according to company filings. Subscription and services revenue did better, reaching $570 million. The company is still heavily tied to trading activity, but its recurring income is growing.

Monthly Transacting Users fell to 7.4 million, down from 9.3 million a year earlier. During its earnings call, Coinbase blamed overall market conditions. Its share of crypto trading volume did rise to 10.7%, the fourth straight quarter of gains, which suggests it is winning business even as the broader market quiets. 

Adjusted EBITDA was $332.9 million, extending a run of 15 straight profitable quarters on that measure. The prediction markets business passed $200 million in annualized revenue, and Coinbase One hit a record number of subscribers.

Coinbase CEO preps share sales

Separately, filings reported on October 30 show CEO Brian Armstrong has set up a plan to sell up to 8.17 million Class A shares. He adopted the plan in August under SEC Rule 10b5-1, which lets executives schedule sales ahead of time. Sales could run from November 16 through October 2027, subject to stock price conditions. Co-founder Fred Ehrsam and President Emilie Choi have similar plans, bringing the total to about 13.6 million shares.

This is not new territory for Armstrong. In the past, VanEck analyst Matthew Sigel tracked about $545.7 million in sales over nine months, starting in April 2025. Armstrong has said these sales are part of his risk management, not a signal about the company.

Coinbase stock slumps nearly 15% 

Coinbase shares (COIN) fell about 15% today, but not necessarily due to this earnings report. 

Binance disclosed a security breach on October 29 that it estimates at $6.3 billion, making it the largest crypto theft on record. Around $3 billion in assets has been frozen so far, with industry partners assisting in the freezes. 

The hackers are allegedly linked to North Korea, though Binance has not attributed the attack to any group. The exchange says it has found no evidence of a leaked wallet private key.

Binance says it has $6.34 billion in reserves available to cover losses. Deposits were unaffected, and the company expects to resume withdrawals within 48 hours. Figures remain preliminary, and estimates vary slightly across outlets.

The market reacted quickly. Bitcoin fell roughly 4.5% to below $77,000. Shares of Strategy (MSTR) fell nearly 10% on the day. Strive (ASST) shares fell over 12% at times. Coinbase’s stock is down over 55% on the year.

This post Coinbase (COIN) Misses Revenue Estimates as Users Fall, Armstrong Sets Up New Share Sales first appeared on Bitcoin Magazine and is written by Micah Zimmerman.

Bitcoin Magazine

SEC Charges Two Companies in $130 Million Crypto Trading Scheme

The Securities and Exchange Commission charged two foreign-operated, Colorado-incorporated companies with running a crypto investment fraud that used false federal filings to raise more than $130 million from tens of thousands of retail investors.

The defendants are BG Wealth Sharing Ltd. and DSJ Exchange Pty Ltd. A complaint filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California alleges that from at least October 2025 through June 2026, the companies induced investors in more than 40 states and several U.S. territories to join a “wealth-sharing program.” 

Participants were promised risk-free returns generated by so-called signals for crypto asset trading.

According to the complaint, BG Wealth claimed to be the world’s largest hedge fund, claimed registration with the SEC as an investment adviser, and said it partnered with a licensed and secure crypto trading platform, DSJ Exchange. 

The SEC says none of those claims were true. The complaint alleges the companies submitted false Form ADV and Form D filings to the SEC. Those filings were viewable on the agency’s website and shared with investors as evidence that the SEC had licensed or approved the firms.

Laura D’Allaird, chief of the SEC Enforcement Division’s Cyber and Emerging Technologies Unit, described the operation in a statement. 

SEC: Crypto scheme was ‘a Ponzi-like tactic’

“This alleged scheme was well-planned,” she said, citing social media, encrypted messaging channels, weekly live videoconferences and a mobile app used to engage investors. The complaint alleges the defendants displayed fake certificates bearing the SEC’s seal and made periodic payments to some investors, “a Ponzi-like tactic,” while misappropriating the remaining funds.

The SEC charged both companies with violating the antifraud provisions of the Securities Act of 1933 and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

It charged BG Wealth with violating Sections 204(a) and 207 of the Investment Advisers Act of 1940. The agency seeks permanent injunctions, disgorgement with prejudgment interest, and civil penalties against both companies, along with conduct-based injunctions against BG Wealth.

The Form ADV and Form D filings have been removed from the SEC website.

The SEC’s Office of Investor Education and Assistance has issued investor alerts warning that scammers are using exempt reporting adviser filings to create a false impression of legitimacy. The agency encourages investors to check the background of anyone offering or selling a crypto investment through Investor.gov.

The SEC said it received assistance from the Alberta Securities Commission, the Hawaii Department of Commerce and Consumer Affairs, the Texas State Securities Board, the Utah Division of Securities, the Washington State Department of Financial Institutions, the Wisconsin Department of Financial Institutions, and other authorities.

This post SEC Charges Two Companies in $130 Million Crypto Trading Scheme first appeared on Bitcoin Magazine and is written by Micah Zimmerman.

Affected macOS and Windows users need host cleanup and trusted-system credential rotation because uninstalling may leave persistent components.

Read the full story on CryptoSlate

Understand the crypto stories that matter and what to watch next. Get The Catalyst in your inbox

Borrowers can repay or add other eligible collateral, but Aave withdrawals do not reopen Threshold’s paused Bitcoin redemption route.

Read the full story on CryptoSlate

Understand the crypto stories that matter and what to watch next. Get The Catalyst in your inbox

North Korean hackers could target BlackRock's $62 billion Bitcoin exchange-traded fund (ETF), crypto wallet maker OneKey founder Yishi Wang warned. “I suspect IBIT is already on North Korea's shortlist,” Wang said, following the $6 billion Binance hack that US authorities attributed to North Korea's TraderTraitor operation. The warning puts fresh attention on Coinbase, which serves…

Read the full story on CryptoSlate

Understand the crypto stories that matter and what to watch next. Get The Catalyst in your inbox

Japan's central bank has decided to sell its stock funds about 2.6 times faster than usual, reducing the estimated time needed to dispose of them from 112 years to 43. If you're wondering why such a supercharged exit still stretches across more than four decades, it's because the Bank of Japan is trying to undo…

Read the full story on CryptoSlate

Understand the crypto stories that matter and what to watch next. Get The Catalyst in your inbox

Bitquery estimates about 11,217 ETH reached proposing validators while builders retained about 564 ETH over four and a half hours.

Read the full story on CryptoSlate

Understand the crypto stories that matter and what to watch next. Get The Catalyst in your inbox

Google is building a custody service for crypto assets. The target group is banks and large financial institutions; retail investors are not on the list. It was presented on October 28, 2026 under the name Google Multi-Party Compute. The core is simple: the private key used to sign a transfer on a blockchain never sits complete in one place. It breaks into parts that are spread across separate compute environments, and a signature comes about only once enough parts work together. For your own coins, nothing changes today. The news matters for a different reason: the most common cause of very large losses in the crypto market is a key that falls into the wrong hands. Broken protocols and wrong views on price cost the market considerably less.

What Google Multi-Party Compute is and how a signature arises without a complete key

Multi-party computation, MPC for short, is a cryptographic method in which several participants jointly compute a result without any of them seeing the others' inputs. Applied to the custody of crypto assets: the private key is split into fragments instead of being copied and locked away in one place. Each fragment sits in a different environment, for instance at Google, on the institution's own hardware and with a third provider.

When a transfer is to be signed, these environments compute together. The complete key arises at no point, not even for a fraction of a second. That is the decisive difference from a classic vault, out of which a key is taken for use and locked away again afterwards. Steal one of the fragments and you hold nothing usable.

According to the report by CoinDesk, a policy check also runs on top of the fragments. Before every signature it verifies whether the operation matches the institution's rules. Such rules can be an upper limit on amounts, a list of permitted destination addresses, or the requirement that several departments approve. By Google's account, this check takes place in a sealed-off compute environment that the company calls Confidential Space.

Where the difference from a multisig account lies

Do not confuse MPC with a multisig account. With multisig the blockchain itself knows that several signatures are required, and each of them comes from its own full-fledged key. With MPC the blockchain sees only a single, entirely ordinary signature. The splitting happens beforehand and stays invisible from outside. That makes MPC independent of whether a blockchain supports multisig at all, and it explains why institutional custodians prefer the method.

Two of three parts suffice: how a signing threshold makes the theft of one fragment worthless

The number of fragments and the number of fragments needed for a signature can be set separately. Google names two examples: two of three participants, or five of seven. Such a threshold resolves two problems at once that otherwise work against each other in custody.

The first is theft. With a threshold of two out of three, an attacker needs two fragments from two different environments, and needs them at the same time. A single successful break-in gets him nowhere. The second problem is loss. If a fragment is destroyed because a data centre fails or a device is wrecked, two remain, and the holdings stay reachable. This is exactly where custody models with a single key fail time and again: securing against theft and securing against loss pull in opposite directions.

The higher the threshold, the safer and the less movable the holding becomes. Five of seven suits a reserve that is rarely touched. Two of three suits holdings that move daily. That an institution can run both in parallel matters more for operations than any single number.

A closed preview instead of a finished product: the roadmap to early 2027

What Google has presented is not yet a service an institution can book. The offering sits in a closed preview. Several development partners and, by Google's account, larger financial institutions as well are testing it; the company has named none of them. Commercial release is announced for early 2027. There are no prices so far.

For Google, the product is newer than the technology. Back in 2023 the company had described how customers could build MPC custody on its sealed-off compute environment themselves. What was missing was a finished custody service that Google operates and answers for itself. It is taking that step now.

A sober look helps in placing the timing: between a closed preview and a service onto which a European bank puts its customers' assets lie supervisory reviews, certifications and contracts. Do not count on finding Google's name in the small print of your brokerage account in 2027.

Compromised keys are the single largest cause of loss in the crypto market

Why a company of this size gets into key custody at all becomes clear from a look at the causes of loss. The public hack database of the analytics firm DeFiLlama lists 1,326 incidents from the period of June 19, 2011 to October 27, 2026. Taken together, $21.19 billion was lost in them. Of that, $8.96 billion falls to the category of compromised keys, spread across 162 incidents. That is 42.3 percent of the total sum and therefore more than for any other cause. cryptoticker.io compiled this analysis itself on October 29, 2026.

The problem has not grown smaller either. For the current year 2026, the same database already holds $721.1 million in losses from compromised keys; for the whole of 2025 it was $302.0 million. The CoinDesk report arrives at a similar magnitude by another route, citing an analysis by Chainalysis according to which 43.8 percent of the crypto assets stolen in 2024 traced back to compromised keys.

One insight follows, and it holds for you as much as for a bank: the most expensive mistake in this market is rarely a wrong view on price. It is the question of who holds the key.

ECDSA, Ed25519 and the open question of quantum-safe signatures

At general availability the service is to handle two signature methods. ECDSA is the method with which Bitcoin and Ethereum, among others, sign transfers. Ed25519 is used by blockchains such as Solana. With these two the service covers the bulk of today's relevant networks, but not everything.

The answer to quantum computers remains open. Google holds out the prospect of supporting quantum-safe signature methods later, once the blockchains adopt them. The company names no date for it, and the capability is not included in the scope of the preview. That is an honest framing, because the decision rests with the networks and not with a custodian.

How big the task is in the end is hinted at by a figure from the CoinDesk report: around 6.9 million Bitcoin are regarded as possibly vulnerable to future quantum attacks, because their public keys stand openly in the blockchain. This is no danger for tomorrow. It is a reason why custodians build their methods to be interchangeable.

What Alphabet does with its own holdings on Ethereum and Solana

One detail of the presentation deserves more attention than the product announcement itself. By Google's account, parent company Alphabet secures its own digital assets on Ethereum and Solana with the same technology. Which assets those are and how large the holdings turn out to be, the company has not disclosed.

Two things can be read from that without reading anything into it. First, one of the world's largest technology companies holds positions in these two networks at all. Second, it trusts its own method enough to secure them with it. That is no argument for buying and says nothing about prices. As an indication of how far the infrastructure for institutional holdings has matured, it serves nonetheless.

Rich Widmann, responsible for strategy in the digital assets business at Google Cloud, placed the move as follows according to CoinDesk: adoption and tokenisation of digital assets stand “at an inflection point”. Read as the assessment of a participant rather than a market forecast, the sentence fits the situation.

Fireblocks, Fordefi and BitGo: who serves the market for institutional custody today

Google is not entering an empty market. The company itself names Fireblocks, Fordefi and BitGo as providers that cover the securing and approval of transactions for institutions today. These firms have lived off precisely this task for years and know what the supervisors require.

What Google brings is no better method but a different starting position. Many banks run their systems in one of the large compute clouds anyway. If custody is available there as a building block, a separate contract with a specialist provider falls away. This very route has shifted other markets before.

What a cheaper custodian changes for you

For you it works through costs and through supply. The price has nothing to do with it. If custody becomes cheaper and easier for banks to run, the number of institutions that offer crypto assets at all grows. More providers mean pressure on fees and spreads. That is a slow effect over years, not an event around which to plan an entry.

MiCA and the supervisors: a technology provider is not an authorised crypto custodian

Here lies the misunderstanding that attaches itself to such reports. Google does not hold customer assets with this service. The company supplies the technology with which an institution controls its keys. The custodian remains the institution, and the liability therefore stays there too.

In the EU this role requires a licence. Anyone holding crypto assets for customers needs an authorisation as a crypto-asset service provider under the EU regulation MiCA. The national supervisory authority grants it and oversees the providers; authorised firms appear in a public register of the European supervisory authority ESMA. Banks and investment firms that are supervised anyway can notify the service instead of applying for a full authorisation. Among the obligations is that customer holdings are kept separate from the firm's own.

In practice that means: if the name of a technology company appears in a report, that tells you nothing about who has to answer for your coins. That question is answered by your provider's authorisation alone.

Custody at an exchange or in your own hands: the two questions that decide

Little carries over from a closed preview for banks to your own portfolio. This news does raise two questions for private holdings, though, and both can be answered today.

The first question is who holds the key. If your coins sit at an exchange, the exchange holds the key and you hold a claim against it. So check whether your provider carries an authorisation under MiCA, whether it keeps customer holdings separate and what it writes about its custody. A firm that says nothing about its key management has not answered this question for you.

The second question is whether you want to hold the key yourself. Then the responsibility rests with you, and there is no firm that irons out a mistake. A hardware wallet keeps the key in a device that is not attached to the network; a software wallet is more convenient and lives with the risk of the device it runs on. The split into several parts that Google is building for banks can be reproduced on a small scale, by the way: spreading your wallet's recovery words across two separate places works with the same idea, only by hand.

How to recognise a sound custody disclosure

A solid disclosure names three things: who technically controls the keys, under which supervision the firm stands, and what happens to the holdings in the event of insolvency. If one of these points is missing, the statement is advertising and not information.

Google custody: until 2027 custody stays your job

The announcement shifts the infrastructure behind the market, not the situation in your portfolio. Three steps are worth taking nonetheless:

1. Look up your provider's authorisation. Clarify whether your trading venue or broker is authorised under MiCA and which obligations come with it.
2. Think your own custody through once. Decide for every part of your holdings whether it should sit with a custodian or with you. On the device side, a look at current hardware wallets in comparison helps.
3. Put the custody question before the fee question. Anyone choosing between trading venues should include custody in the calculation. Which firms operate with an authorisation in the EU is shown by our list of regulated crypto exchanges.

The figures on the causes of loss in this article are based on the public hack database of DeFiLlama.

(As of October 29, 2026. This article is not investment advice. Prices and fee structures change; check the terms with the provider before you buy.)

The record shows this: Whale Alert reported two transfers to Coinbase Institutional on October 31, 609,699 SOL worth $58.5 million and 550,157 SOL worth $52.7 million, together 1,159,856 SOL or $111.2 million. Over the same stretch, from October 26 to 30, the US fund wrappers on Solana lost $71.5 million across five consecutive trading days, according to SoSoValue data. Our assessment follows further down: fund flows are the smaller of the two channels at Solana, and anyone explaining the price from them alone is working with the wrong magnitude.

The SOL price stood at $94.62 on Sunday afternoon, after a daily high of $96.15 and a daily low of $94.38. Over seven days the token is down 6.8 percent, over 30 days down 21.1 percent. Where the price can point on a horizon of months is set out in our Solana price prediction.

What counts at Solana this Sunday

Two figures sit side by side this weekend, and they point in the same direction but carry very different weight. On one side, the exchange-traded Solana funds in the US have been giving up money for weeks. On the other, individual large addresses are shifting amounts that exceed a whole week of fund outflows.

If you hold SOL, that is no academic distinction. A fund outflow is a sale that lands in the order book and pushes the price down. A transfer to a custody address, by contrast, is at first only a relocation: the SOL can be sold, but they do not have to be. Lumping the two together reads a selling pressure out of $182 million in movement that the data does not support.

The two transfers Whale Alert reported on October 31

Whale Alert is a service that automatically reports large transfers on public blockchains as soon as they cross a threshold. Both senders are flagged there as unknown wallets, while the destination carries the Coinbase Institutional label. Which address received the SOL does not appear in the report, and therefore neither does whether a sale, a new custody arrangement or the collateralisation of a loan sits behind it.

The order of magnitude deserves its own calculation. 1,159,856 SOL is 0.197 percent of the circulating 590,150,380 SOL. Measured against the past 24 hours' trading volume of $1.344 billion, the $111.2 million amounts to 8.3 percent of a single day's turnover. That is a lot for one address and little for the market as a whole.

A second signal came a day earlier from the opposite direction. Lookonchain reported on October 30 that a newly created wallet withdrew 68,773 SOL worth $6.7 million from Kraken, Bybit and OKX, so away from exchanges into self-custody. Taken together, the two reports show no single picture but capital changing its form of custody.

Five consecutive losing days for the Solana ETFs

The fund side is better documented than the wallet side, because inflows and outflows are published every trading day. From October 26 to 30, money flowed out on each of the five trading days, $71.5 million in total. October 27 brought $19.16 million in outflows according to SoSoValue data, the largest daily loss since December 3, 2025. Two days later, on October 29, $27.69 million followed. Farside attributes $23.7 million of that to the Bitwise fund BSOL and $4 million to the Grayscale fund GSOL.

A word on the data, because the figures diverge slightly from provider to provider: SoSoValue and Farside differ by a few hundred thousand dollars in individual weeks, because they draw the boundaries of trading days differently. We therefore quote the values as each provider carries them, and do not smooth them into a single number.

Where things stand in October: four weeks of outflows

October was the first consistently negative month for the Solana funds since their launch. The run of weeks reads as follows:

Net inflows occurred on only two days in the whole month, October 2 and October 21. For the full month, estimates range between $99.62 million and a good $105 million in outflows, depending on which provider counts. Fund assets fell over the course of the month from around $1.61 billion on October 22 to around $1.4 billion on October 30. Cumulatively, net inflows of around $1.51 billion still stand on the books since the funds launched.

The legal position and the products available from a German brokerage account are set out in our overview of crypto ETFs in Germany. The US products are hard for retail investors in the EU to access, yet the flows act on the same world market price.

Why the fund channel weighs less at Solana than at Bitcoin

Here lies the point missing from most reports. What decides is not the absolute size of an outflow but its ratio to the market it arrives in.

Solana's market capitalisation came to $55.83 billion on Sunday. Fund assets of $1.4 billion to $1.61 billion therefore amount to 2.5 to 2.9 percent of the total value. The outflow of $71.5 million does weigh a good 5 percent of fund assets, but only around 1 percent of the five days' turnover that accumulated on exchanges over the same stretch. A single wallet transfer of $111.2 million in one day, by contrast, reaches 8.3 percent of a day's turnover.

For comparison, the magnitude on the supply side: by our own survey of October 31 the network issues 62,415 new SOL a day, around $5.91 million at the current price. The two transfers of October 31 therefore correspond to roughly 19 days of fresh issuance. A whole week of fund outflows corresponds to about twelve days.

That leads to a sober reading: at Bitcoin the fund wrappers hold a share of supply in the double-digit percentage range, and there fund flows move the price directly. At Solana they are a marginal channel. The price here continues to follow exchange trading, futures positioning and the supply from issuance and unlocks.

What has changed since the Solana article of October 31

Our Solana analysis of October 31 put the supply side at the centre, meaning the 62,415 new SOL a day at a network inflation rate of 3.5777 percent a year. Three things have changed since.

First the price: on October 31 SOL traded at around $96, on Sunday afternoon at $94.62, so 1.4 percent lower. Second the $100 level, which gave way on October 29 and has not been reclaimed since; the distance to it comes to 5.7 percent. Third, the wallet transfers have added a factor that did not appear in the issuance calculation: demand and supply from individual large addresses, which cannot be planned the way an inflation rate can.

The levels carrying the SOL price on Sunday evening

Levels are only usable when they are reasoned. These four can be derived from the day's data.

• $94.38, the daily low. As long as it holds, the sideways move of recent days remains intact.
• $96.15, the daily high. It is the first hurdle to the upside and sits 1.6 percent above the current level.
• $100, the round level from October 29. A close above it would be the first technical sign that October's downtrend has broken.
• $293.31, the all-time high of January 19, 2025. The price sits 67.7 percent below it, and over the year the loss comes to 49.2 percent. That figure belongs in every assessment, because it sets the frame.

This is not a forecast, and nobody here knows the next price level. What these levels provide is an order of checks: first the daily low, then the daily high, then the 100.

Custody: fund share, exchange or your own key

The transfers to an institutional custodian lead straight to a question that matters in a small portfolio too: where do your SOL sit, and who holds the keys?

A fund share is a security. You hold a claim rather than SOL itself, and you pay an ongoing management fee for it. In return, key management falls away. At an exchange the coins sit in its custody; you can trade them immediately but carry the platform's default risk. With self-custody on a hardware wallet you hold the private key yourself, pay no ongoing fee and are solely responsible for securing the recovery words. Which device supports which blockchain and what the models cost is set out in our hardware wallet comparison.

One peculiarity at Solana: delegated SOL stays in your wallet and is not transferred to the validator. So you can stake and keep the key. Anyone running staking through a provider, by contrast, hands the coins into that provider's custody and pays a share of the yield.

Holding period and loss offsetting before the turn of the year

This section is why a 21 percent loss in October is more than bad news for German investors. Private disposals are governed by section 23 of the German Income Tax Act. If you sell SOL within a year of buying, the gain is taxable, but the loss is also offsettable: against gains from other private disposals in the same year, and on application in the previous or in future years.

After a year has passed, a gain is tax-free. The flip side, which often gets lost: a loss is then no longer usable for tax purposes either. So anyone holding SOL at a loss for less than a year who has realised gains from other crypto sales this year has a window until December 31 that closes afterwards. That is no recommendation to sell. It is a deadline that stands in the calendar.

Three things are needed for it: the purchase date of every single tranche, the acquisition costs and a consistent allocation method. On the planned reform of the holding period and the current state of the legislation we maintain a separate page on the holding-period reform, which we keep up to date.

How to buy SOL in Europe under MiCA

MiCA is the EU regulation on markets in crypto assets. It has applied in stages since 2024 and requires trading platforms to hold an authorisation in an EU member state. In practice that means the platform has to demonstrate a European licence, it has to identify you and it has to disclose its fees.

At the point of purchase, three items decide the price, and only the first is written large on the page. The trading fee ranges from 0.1 to 1.5 percent depending on the platform. Added to that is the gap between the buying and selling price, which on small orders often weighs more heavily than the fee. And finally the withdrawal costs, if you move the SOL to your own address. Which platform is cheap in which combination is something we calculate in the overview of crypto exchanges.

Our assessment of where Solana stands

From the newsroom's point of view, the Solana ETF outflow is currently overrated. Three documented figures support that: fund assets of $1.4 billion to $1.61 billion are 2.5 to 2.9 percent of the market capitalisation of $55.83 billion; the outflow of $71.5 million over five days corresponds to around 1 percent of the daily turnover in the same week; and a single day with two wallet transfers set one and a half times that amount in motion, at $111.2 million.

One point stands against it, and it is not a small one: fund flows are a gauge of institutional sentiment. Fourteen consecutive inflow weeks ended in October, and four outflow weeks in a row show a change of stance in exactly the group that carried the upswing in 2026. Anyone reading the flows as a signal rather than as a price driver is reading them correctly.

What follows from that: the next solid piece of information comes from the order book rather than the funds. If part of the 1,159,856 SOL at Coinbase Institutional is sold, it will show up first in trading volume and at the daily low of $94.38. If volume stays at around $1.3 billion and the low holds, the transfer was a relocation. This appraisal is an assessment of the situation and not a buy or sell recommendation; with crypto assets a total loss is possible.

Solana at $94: the fund channel decides less than assumed

1. Clarify custody. Check where your SOL sit and whether the recovery words are secured outside the device. The devices and their costs are listed in the hardware wallet comparison.
2. Assemble your purchase data. Draw up a list of your tranches with purchase date and acquisition costs by mid-December, so that you can decide before December 31 whether loss offsetting works for you. The legal position is tracked on our holding-period page.
3. Weigh the fees. Before your next purchase, compare your platform's trading fee, price gap and withdrawal costs, not just the percentage on the home page. The calculation is set out in the overview of crypto exchanges.

(As of November 1, 2026. This article is not investment advice. Prices and fee structures change; check the terms with the provider before you buy.)

The Shiba Inu price stands at $0.00000468 on Sunday midday. That is 0.8 percent below the previous day and 0.2 percent above the October 31 close. The figure on its own says little. It becomes interesting only once you set it against the three months behind the token.

The record shows this: anyone who bought SHIB on August 1, 2026 now sits at 97 out of 100 points, so slightly down. Anyone who bought Dogecoin the same day sits at 109 points, Bitcoin at 123, Pepe at 180. We calculated that from daily closing prices ourselves, and the series appears as a chart further down. Our own assessment follows at the end of the article: the shortfall has less to do with the direction of the overall market than with the money that flows through SHIB each day.

The Shiba Inu price on November 1, 2026 at a glance

As of Sunday midday, SHIB trades at $0.00000468. Over seven days the token is down 3.7 percent, over 30 days down 21.0 percent, according to CoinMarketCap. Market capitalisation comes to $2.76 billion, which puts Shiba Inu 32nd among all crypto assets.

Supply in circulation stands at 589.24 trillion SHIB. That number explains the many zeros in the price: market capitalisation divided by supply gives the price per token. A price of one cent would require a market capitalisation of $5.89 trillion at this supply, roughly three times what Bitcoin weighs in at today. Anyone counting on one cent is counting against the entire crypto market.

Three months compared: 97 points for SHIB, 180 for Pepe

For this article we indexed the daily closing prices from August 1 to October 31, 2026 for four tokens to a common starting value of 100 points. The result: Shiba Inu ends at 97 points, Dogecoin at 109, Bitcoin at 123 and Pepe at 180. The gap between SHIB and Pepe therefore comes to around 82 points, the gap to Dogecoin to around 12 points.

What stands out is not the loss itself but how it came about. SHIB kept pace until mid-October, if more weakly: on October 10 the curve stood at 123 points, Dogecoin at 138. The slide came after that. Over the past 30 days SHIB lost 21.0 percent; over 90 days that adds up to a small loss, because August and September made up most of it. In other words: the entire quarterly loss comes from the last three weeks.

What has changed since October 30

On October 30 we reported here on the day's low of $0.00000448 and put the distance to the August low at 2.7 percent. Since then the following has happened: the price has not returned to that low. On October 31 SHIB closed at $0.00000467, and at midday today the token stands at $0.00000468. The distance to the monthly low has widened to 4.4 percent.

At the same time trading volume has fallen sharply. On October 30, SHIB worth $110.4 million changed hands; on October 31 it was $35.1 million, and over the past 24 hours $30.9 million. That is a drop of a good 72 percent within two days. The level held, but it held because hardly anyone tested it.

The levels: $0.00000519 above, $0.00000448 below

Two values currently cap the price above and below, and both can be reasoned rather than asserted.

Above: $0.00000519. That is the average of the closing prices of the past 30 days, calculated from the same series as the chart above. The current price sits 9.8 percent below it. A moving average is not a prophecy but an arithmetic aid: it shows where the market has paid on average in recent weeks. As long as SHIB trades below it, anyone buying now buys cheaper than the monthly average, and anyone who bought in October is on average sitting on a paper loss.

Below: $0.00000448. That is the low of October 30 and at the same time the lowest level of the past 30 days. The distance comes to 4.4 percent. Below it there is no further support from the past 30 days, because the price did not enter that area in October.

The monthly high came on October 3 at $0.00000600. The price is 22.0 percent away from it today. Betting on a return there means betting on a move worth almost a quarter of today's price.

Turnover ratio: why 1.1 percent a day becomes a problem for SHIB

The turnover ratio is daily volume divided by market capitalisation. The figure says what share of all existing tokens is actually traded in a day. For Shiba Inu that is 1.1 percent today: $30.9 million in volume against $2.76 billion in market capitalisation.

By comparison, calculated from the same Sunday midday figures: Dogecoin comes to 2.6 percent, Pepe to 23.0 percent. Pepe therefore turns over almost a quarter of its entire market capitalisation in a single day, Shiba Inu one hundredth. That is the second point of entry alongside the chart picture, and it explains the shortfall better than any price line.

The mechanism behind it is simple. Every buy or sell order meets an order book holding bids and offers. If that book is thinly populated, even a mid-sized order clears several price steps, and the price moves before the order is fully filled. That is exactly what happened on October 29 and 30: across two days with $94 million and $110 million in volume, the price fell from $0.00000496 to $0.00000448, so by 9.7 percent. At Pepe the same volume would barely have left a trace.

Liquidity before a SHIB order: three values in the order book

The turnover ratio points to one step that costs nothing and takes a few minutes. You can read these three values at any regulated crypto exchange before you place an order:

1. The spread between bid and ask. At the top of the order book sit the highest bid and the lowest offer. You pay the difference immediately with every market order. Above 0.3 percent, the market is thin at that moment.
2. The depth next to the current price. Add up the volume sitting in the steps up to one percent above and below the price. If your intended order size is larger than that amount, you move the price with your own order.
3. The volume at your exchange, not the total volume. The $30.9 million is the sum across all venues. What decides your fill is the venue where you trade.

In practice, that leads to one consequence: a limit order with a fixed maximum or minimum price protects you in thin books from a fill that deviates sharply from the quoted price. A market order, by contrast, takes whatever price the book offers. For a token with 1.1 percent turnover, that difference is no detail.

MiCA: what applies to trading meme tokens in Europe

The European regulation on markets in crypto assets, MiCA for short, has applied in full since December 30, 2024. The regulation governs who may offer and trade crypto assets in the EU: providers need an authorisation, must segregate client funds and must keep a whitepaper on file. The supervisory authority ESMA maintains the details and the list of authorised providers in its MiCA section.

For holders, that means two things. First, you now trade Shiba Inu only at venues with MiCA authorisation; the German providers received their licences over the course of 2025 and 2026. Second, MiCA changes nothing about the nature of the token itself: a meme token without an issuer falls under the general obligations, not under the stricter rules for asset-referenced tokens or e-money tokens.

Anyone planning to hold SHIB for the longer term should decide custody separately from that. A token on an exchange belongs to you economically but sits in the provider's care. A hardware wallet moves the keys to you, but it also moves the entire responsibility for securing them.

Supply: 589 trillion SHIB and what burning moves

The Shiba Inu project has been burning tokens for years, sending them to an address without a key from which they never return. The idea behind it: a smaller supply lifts the price per token at unchanged demand.

The order of magnitude puts that into perspective. With 589.24 trillion SHIB in circulation, a burn would have to run into the trillions to cut supply by one percent. The amounts actually burned have been orders of magnitude below that for months. Anyone pricing in burning as a price driver should first set it against supply, not against the absolute number of tokens burned.

The same applies to Shibarium, the project's own blockchain. This blockchain generates fees that finance burns. As long as the capital locked there stays small, so does the contribution to burning.

Our assessment of where Shiba Inu stands

From the newsroom's point of view, the quarterly shortfall of 12 points against Dogecoin and 82 points against Pepe is no verdict on the project's technology but a finding about demand. Three documented points support that: the turnover ratio of 1.1 percent against 23.0 percent at Pepe, the volume slump from $110.4 million to $30.9 million within two days, and the fact that the entire quarterly loss stems from the last three weeks, while August and September moved with the market.

Against it stands the fact that SHIB has not revisited the monthly low of October 30 since and trades 4.4 percent above it. A thin order book works in both directions: the same thinness that pushed the price down 9.7 percent on October 29 can carry it up just as quickly on fresh demand. What is missing is the trigger for that. There is no spot ETF on Shiba Inu in Europe, and without such a product there is no route through which institutional money flows into a token on a regular basis.

No buy recommendation follows from this. What follows is a check: anyone holding SHIB should know how much volume turns over daily at their venue, because that determines the price at which they get out if it matters.

SHIB quarterly scorecard: 97 points and turnover still falling

Shiba Inu closes the quarter below its starting value, while Dogecoin, Bitcoin and Pepe sit above it. The price stands at $0.00000468, 9.8 percent below the 30-day average and 4.4 percent above the monthly low. Three steps that follow from this:

1. Look up the volume at your own venue. The depth of the order book decides your fill price, not global total volume. Which venues are authorised in the EU and what their fees look like is set out in the overview of crypto exchanges.
2. Decide custody separately from the price. Whether the token sits on the exchange or on your own hardware is a question of counterparty risk, not of market conditions. The hardware wallet comparison ranks the devices by handling and price.
3. Document purchases and sales cleanly. For the tax return, every single position counts with its date and price. How to solve that without manual work is shown in the overview of crypto tax software.

(As of November 1, 2026. This article is not investment advice. Prices and fee structures change; check the terms with the provider before you buy.)

What is documented: in the 24 hours to October 28, 2026, 10:38 p.m. UTC, the Dogecoin network produced 1,356 blocks. The target is 1,440, that is one per minute. Our assessment follows further below: for the price this gap means little, but for your timing on transfers and for the money supply of Dogecoin it means more than most calculations online assume.

The figure does not come from an announcement but from the network data itself. Anyone setting the block height against the clock over longer stretches sees the same shortfall across seven days and across 30 days. So the network is not running slowly for one bad evening; it has been doing so for weeks. This article works out what follows from that, and where it affects you day to day.

Eighty-four blocks short in 24 hours

Dogecoin targets one block per minute. That works out to 1,440 blocks a day. The block height stood at 6,434,606 on October 28 at 10:38 p.m. UTC, and in the preceding 24 hours 1,356 new blocks had been added. That is 84 fewer than intended, a shortfall of 5.83 percent. Arithmetically a block therefore takes 63.72 seconds instead of 60.

A single day proves nothing on its own. Block production is a random process, and deviations of a few percent are part of normal operation on any proof-of-work blockchain. The figure only becomes interesting once it repeats over longer periods.

Over 30 days, 2,176 blocks are missing

That is exactly the case. Between September 28, 2026 at 10:43 p.m. UTC, when the block height stood at 6,393,588, and October 28 at 10:38 p.m., 41,018 blocks were created. Over that span of roughly 719.9 hours there should have been 43,194. That leaves 2,176 blocks or 5.04 percent missing, and the average block time comes to 63.18 seconds.

Over the shorter stretch of seven days the picture is similar: 9,606 blocks instead of the arithmetic 10,074, a shortfall of 4.64 percent at 62.92 seconds per block. Three periods, three times the same finding. The shortfall is not noise but the current state of the network.

Ten thousand Dogecoin per block: how the gap in the money supply arises

With Dogecoin a block is not only a unit of time but also the unit in which new money is created. Whoever finds a block receives 10,000 freshly created Dogecoin as a block reward, according to the project's Dogepedia, plus the fees of the transactions it contains. That reward has been fixed since 2015 and no longer falls, unlike Bitcoin, where it halves every four years.

From that follows a calculation anyone can check. At 1,440 blocks a day, 14.4 million new Dogecoin would be created, which extrapolates to 5.256 billion a year. That figure appears in almost every description of Dogecoin's monetary policy. In the past 24 hours, however, only 13.56 million Dogecoin were actually created, 840,000 fewer. Over 30 days that adds up to 410.18 million instead of 431.94 million, a difference of 21.76 million Dogecoin.

Annualised, the measured pace delivers around 4.95 billion new Dogecoin rather than the nominal 5.256 billion. Measured against the circulating supply of 172.23 billion Dogecoin, that is a dilution of 2.87 percent a year instead of 3.05 percent. The difference is small, but it runs in the same direction as the price: anyone holding for the long term is diluted slightly less than the standard calculation claims.

The same hash power, two blockchains: Litecoin is running above its target

Dogecoin has not been secured on its own since 2015. The Dogepedia describes the step: Litecoin founder Charlie Lee proposed in 2014 that Dogecoin recognise computational proofs produced for other Scrypt blockchains. The developers implemented this as Auxiliary Proof-of-Work, AuxPoW for short. Since then the same machine, with the same computational work, secures both networks and collects the reward in both.

AuxPoW means this: a Scrypt miner works on a Litecoin block that at the same time references a Dogecoin block. If the result meets Dogecoin's lower difficulty, a valid block has been found there too. The two blockchains keep separate ledgers and their own rules, but they share the market for hash power.

That is precisely why the comparison is instructive. Hash power averaged 3.11 petahashes per second for Dogecoin over the past 24 hours and 2.93 petahashes for Litecoin, practically the same value. Litecoin, however, produced 638 blocks in those 24 hours, although with a target time of 2.5 minutes only 576 are intended. That is 10.76 percent above target, at 135.42 seconds per block.

The same computational work, and one blockchain runs clearly above its pace while the other runs below it. The difference does not come down to the machines but to how the two networks set their difficulty.

DigiShield adjusts the difficulty at every block

Mining difficulty is the value that determines how hard a valid block is to find. If hash power on the network rises, it has to rise with it, otherwise blocks would arrive too fast. If hash power falls, it has to fall, otherwise blocks take too long.

According to the Dogepedia, Dogecoin handles this with the DigiShield algorithm and adjusts the difficulty at every single block. The procedure was introduced in 2014, after hash power had repeatedly flooded into the young network and been withdrawn again shortly afterwards. A network that only readjusts every few days is left with a far too high difficulty after such a withdrawal and fails to move blocks along for days.

The measured difficulty shows how mobile that is: on September 28 it stood at 48.9 million, on October 21 at 40.9 million and on October 28 at 45.6 million. Within a single month, then, a range of almost 20 percent. A procedure that readjusts at every block still does not hold the pace exactly, because it always reacts to what has just happened and never to what is coming. As long as hash power fluctuates, a shortfall remains on average.

In practical terms that means: the 60 seconds are a target and not a promise. Anyone counting on exactly one minute per confirmation for a transfer is counting too tightly. If you happen to be looking at which trading venues let you move Dogecoin into euros, the overview of the best crypto exchanges helps with the choice.

How to work out your deposit's waiting time yourself

An exchange only credits an incoming Dogecoin payment once a certain number of confirmations is in. Each confirmation is one more block. How many there are is set by each exchange itself and shown in the deposit screen or on the help page for the respective cryptocurrency. The calculation after that is simple: the number of confirmations required times 63.2 seconds instead of times 60.

At 20 confirmations that is 21.1 minutes instead of 20, at 60 confirmations 63.2 instead of 60 minutes. The difference does not sink a trade, but it is the reason a deposit regularly arrives slightly later than the rule of thumb promises. Added to that is the time until your transaction makes it into a block at all.

The surcharge becomes relevant wherever a deadline is running. Kraken is replacing 176 trading pairs as of November 6, and anyone wanting to move open orders or holdings beforehand has a window for it, which is set out in our article on the affected Kraken trading pairs. Anyone sending on the last day of such a deadline is better off calculating a generous buffer.

Fees and mempool: what a Dogecoin transfer costs today

The good news sits in the same data. Averaged over the past 24 hours, a Dogecoin transaction cost 0.358 Dogecoin in fees, the equivalent of 2.86 US cents. The median, meaning the typical case, came to 0.0707 Dogecoin or 0.57 US cents. The few expensive transactions pull the average up; most transfers cost well under a cent.

The mempool, the waiting room for transactions not yet confirmed, held 88 transactions at the time of measurement. Against 21,260 transactions in 24 hours that is a practically empty waiting room. So there is no fee competition: anyone leaving their wallet's default fee in place gets into the next block. The longer block time does not make a transfer more expensive, it only delays it marginally.

To put the network's size in context: at the time of measurement Dogecoin counted 8,498,097 addresses with a balance and 487 reachable nodes, Litecoin 832.

What is new since Wednesday's October review

On Wednesday afternoon we drew up the October review for Dogecoin, then with a view to the monthly performance and the question whether October really is the strong month for Dogecoin it is held to be. The price has barely moved since: $0.0799 on October 28 at 10:41 p.m. UTC, a gain of 1.67 percent within 24 hours. Over seven days there is a loss of 3.22 percent, over 30 days one of 14.62 percent. Market capitalisation stands at $12.5 billion.

What is new is the look beneath the price. The monthly review describes what the market did with Dogecoin. The block data describe what the network did in the same period, and that is a different story: hash power is not sufficient to hold the intended pace, and that for the third measurement period in a row.

Our assessment: the block rate is not a price argument

From the editorial point of view, nobody should derive a price claim from these figures, for one simple reason: the missing quantity is too small. Eight hundred and forty thousand Dogecoin a day correspond to around $67,000 at the current price. Against that stands a trading volume of several hundred million dollars a day. A supply that falls short by that amount shifts no price.

What speaks for that reading is the second figure in this article. Litecoin runs 10.76 percent above its block target with practically the same hash power, Dogecoin 5.83 percent below it. If the machines were the problem, both blockchains would have to deviate in the same direction. They do not. The deviation is therefore a result of the difficulty adjustment and not a signal about miners' interest in Dogecoin.

What speaks against it is that our measurement compares three reference dates and not a complete series. A single slow block on one of those dates shifts the result marginally. Across 41,018 blocks that barely counts, but it remains a sample and not a continuous record. Anyone wanting to recalculate the figures will find the block heights for the stated times in any Dogecoin block explorer.

What remains is one practical finding and one monetary one. The practical one: count on 63 seconds per confirmation, not 60. The monetary one: the often-quoted 5.256 billion new Dogecoin a year are an upper limit the network is not currently reaching.

Dogecoin block rate: 63 seconds per block shifts every deadline

Three steps for putting the finding to work in your portfolio:

1. Plan a buffer on transfers. Look in your exchange's deposit screen to see how many confirmations are required for Dogecoin, and multiply the number by 63 seconds. If a deadline is running, do not send the Dogecoin on the last day. Which trading venues list Dogecoin against the euro and what they charge is in the overview of the best crypto exchanges.
2. Review holdings you intend to move anyway. Anyone holding Dogecoin for the long term rather than trading does not need an exchange for it. Which devices are suitable for self-custody and what they cost is shown by the hardware wallet comparison.
3. Document transfers. A transfer between your own addresses is not a sale for tax purposes, but it has to remain traceable so the tax office can assign acquisition dates. Tools that record this automatically are among the crypto tax tools.

(As of October 28, 2026. This article is not investment advice. Prices and fee structures change; check the terms with the provider before you buy.)

When you transfer money from your bank account to a crypto exchange, two new rules have applied since October 2025 that change the process noticeably. Your bank must offer the instant transfer, and it may not charge more for it than for an ordinary transfer. At the same time, before releasing the payment it matches the name you typed in against the name that actually belongs to the recipient account. Both requirements sit in the same EU regulation.

For a deposit at an exchange that means two things. The money arrives within seconds, so you buy at the price of the moment rather than the price of the day after tomorrow. And you may be shown a warning even though the account details are correct, because the account holder of an exchange is rarely named exactly like the app on your phone. What you do next decides what happens to your money: after a warning, the liability is yours.

Instant transfers and SEPA transfers differ on three points

A classic SEPA transfer is collected by the bank and passed on at fixed times. On a Friday evening the money therefore sits until Monday. The SEPA instant transfer, known in the trade as an instant payment, takes a different route and is processed individually, around the clock on every day of the year, and must be credited to the recipient account within ten seconds.

The second difference is finality. An ordinary transfer can sometimes still be recalled on the same day, as long as the bank has not passed it on. With an instant transfer the money is immediately with the recipient and therefore out of your reach. A recall is only a request to the recipient, no longer a technical process.

The third difference concerns the price. For consumers an instant transfer has not been allowed to cost more than an ordinary transfer since January 2025. Anyone whose bank still charges a surcharge for instant payments should look at their schedule of prices and services.

The regulation prescribes ten seconds, continuous operation and equal fees

The basis is Regulation (EU) 2024/886, known in the industry as the Instant Payments Regulation. It obliges all payment service providers in the euro area to offer instant transfers as standard, 365 days a year and around the clock. The credit to the recipient must take place within ten seconds.

The obligations arrived in two stages. Since January 9, 2025, banks in the euro area have had to be able to receive and credit instant transfers. Since October 9, 2025, they have also had to be able to send them. For payment service providers in EU states that do not use the euro as their currency, the deadline runs until July 9, 2027.

In the background the regulation has rebuilt anti-money-laundering screening. Because a payment made in ten seconds leaves no time for an individual check, banks now screen their customer records against the EU sanctions lists daily and on every change, instead of checking each transaction one by one. For you as a customer that is invisible, but it explains why banks treated this changeover as a major project.

Since October 9, 2025 the bank matches the payee name against the IBAN

The second innovation from the same regulation is payee verification, abbreviated to VoP after the English term and governed by Article 5c. Since October 9, 2025 all payment service providers in EU countries with the euro as their currency have had to offer this matching service, and free of charge. It runs on SEPA transfers and on SEPA instant transfers alike.

The process has three steps. You enter the payment as usual. Your bank asks the recipient's bank whether the name you typed belongs to the IBAN, and shows you the result within seconds. Then you decide whether to release, correct or cancel.

The result falls into four categories. The details match, they largely match, they do not match, or verification was not possible. The last category applies, for instance, when the recipient's bank does not answer or cannot technically perform the match. One detail of the response matters: if the result is that the details do not match, the recipient's bank does not disclose the correct name. So you learn that something does not fit, but not what would fit.

Legal form, middle name, special characters: the most common triggers of a warning

The match compares character strings, and that is where it often fails on entirely correct payments. In its customer information on payee verification, Commerzbank lists as typical causes the omission or abbreviation of middle names, missing additional authorised persons on joint accounts, missing parts of a company name, omitted legal forms and special characters. HypoVereinsbank additionally lists umlauts and nicknames, along with the case where no response arrives within five seconds.

On payments to companies these stumbling blocks add up. A firm is named differently in the commercial register than on its website, legal-form suffixes such as GmbH, B.V. or Ltd belong to the name, and anyone leaving them out produces a discrepancy. The same applies to company names with additions such as “and Co. KG”, where the spelling on the account differs from the one on the invoice.

This mechanism is the reason a warning is not yet an indication of fraud. All that is reported at first is that two character strings are not identical.

Germany's federation of consumer organisations considers the implementation unfit

After a year in practice, the Federation of German Consumer Organisations examined payee verification and delivered a harsh verdict on October 9, 2026. Support for the idea is broad: a good nine out of ten online banking users, namely 91 percent, rate the matching service positively in principle. A good one in four, 27 percent, consider the current implementation poor. For the evaluation a further 295 responses from consumers came in, submitted between March and July 2026 through a call for contributions.

The core of the criticism is accuracy. “Payee verification is meant to protect consumers from fraud and misdirected transfers. For that, warnings have to be accurate. Anyone who repeatedly receives false alarms will eventually just click warnings away. This kind of education is not enough,” says Dorothea Mohn, head of the financial markets team at the federation. The study can be read in the federation's publication.

From that follows an uncomfortable position for anyone making a transfer. The match is mandatory, it frequently produces false alarms, and precisely for that reason the one warning that would really matter loses its weight. The federation is calling for a match that only triggers on meaningful discrepancies. Until that is implemented, telling a harmless discrepancy from genuine suspicion remains the payer's job.

The deposit at the crypto exchange and the name on the recipient account

Which brings us to the case that affects investors. Anyone depositing euros at an exchange is in many cases not transferring to a company with the name that appears in the app. Trading venues frequently hold client money through a partner bank or a payment service provider, and the account holder then carries that firm's name, often with a foreign legal form. What appears as the recipient on the deposit screen is therefore the detail that counts.

After the previous section the consequence is obvious. If you type in the name of the exchange as you know it, instead of the account holder from the deposit instructions, the match can report a discrepancy even though the account details are correct. The reverse also holds: a match only confirms that name and IBAN belong together, nothing about whether the IBAN is the right one for your account at that exchange, and nothing about whether the provider operates reputably.

Which trading venues hold a licence in Europe and how they hold client money can be clarified beforehand. An overview of providers with a European authorisation and their costs is in the comparison of crypto exchanges. On the reasons why a bank rejects a transfer to a trading venue outright, we published a separate article in August 2026: euro deposit to a crypto exchange rejected. That one is about the rejection, this one about the warning before it.

After a warning the payer carries the risk

The warning does not stop the payment. Even if the recipient details do not match or match only partly, or verification was not possible, you can release the transfer; the decision expressly rests with you. This point has a flip side that the banks' customer information states plainly: anyone who transfers despite the notice and whose money lands in the wrong account has no claim to reimbursement from their bank.

With an instant transfer that sharpens, because the credit happens immediately. There is no window in which the order can still be stopped. The combination of the two, immediate finality and your own liability after a warning, makes the match the most important second of the entire process.

That is why the reflex of clicking a warning away is more expensive than it looks. This is exactly the behaviour the Federation of German Consumer Organisations described, and on a deposit of four figures more is at stake than on a payment to a tradesperson.

How to check the payee name before your first transfer

For the first deposit at a new trading venue a minute of preparation pays off, and after that the recipient is saved as a template.

Open the deposit instructions in your account at the exchange and note the account holder exactly as it appears there, with legal-form suffix and special characters. Carry that spelling over unchanged into the transfer form instead of typing the brand name. Alongside that, check whether a reference or identifier belongs in the payment reference field, because some providers will otherwise not assign the payment to your account.

Transfer a small amount first and wait for the credit. If the bank shows a discrepancy despite a correctly copied name, ask the provider for the registered account holder before you send a larger sum. The recipient's bank will not tell you the correct name in that case, but the provider will. For the proof of origin that exchanges require on larger deposits, we have compiled the requirements in a separate article on source of funds.

Ten seconds to the credit and the price at the moment of purchase

The practical gain of the instant transfer lies in the timing of the purchase. In the past a working day or a weekend often lay between sending the money and being able to buy, and the market kept moving during that time. Anyone depositing by instant transfer today buys at the price they saw when they sent it, not at Monday morning's.

For a purchase of Bitcoin or another large coin this advantage is real, but it also tempts: anyone who can deposit in seconds more easily pays into a fast-rising market. The payment route takes the waiting time off your hands, not the decision. A price range of a few percent within a single day is normal on the crypto market, and it works in both directions.

The second point is availability at the weekend. Crypto exchanges trade continuously, while banks processed classic transfers only on working days. The instant transfer closes that gap, because it also runs on Sundays.

Recurring purchases and the savings plan after the first entry

Anyone buying regularly only touches the name match when setting things up. A saved recipient or a standing order is not re-checked on every execution; the match applies at the point of entry. That is why care the first time round pays off twice.

If a provider changes its bank details, the match comes into play again, and then it is useful: a notice about a new IBAN is a popular opening for fraud, and that is exactly where the verification is meant to take effect. You verify such a message in your account with the provider itself, never through a link in the email.

Anyone who does not want to trigger the purchase themselves can also go the other way and leave the debit to the provider. How regular purchases through a savings plan are calculated and which providers run them is in the comparison of savings plan providers.

Instant transfers: ten seconds to the credit, one name at stake

Since October 2025 instant transfers and the name match have belonged together, and since October 2026 it has been documented that the match triggers wrongly too often. Both at once means: the money is gone faster than before, and the one warning that counts stands among many that mean nothing. Three steps follow from that.

1. Copy the account holder from the deposit instructions. Do not type the brand name, but the company name with its legal form, as the provider states it. Which trading venues hold a European authorisation is shown by the overview of regulated crypto exchanges.
2. Start with a small amount. A first transfer of a few euros costs almost nothing at the same fee and shows whether name, IBAN and payment reference fit together. Providers' fees for deposits and trading are in the exchange comparison.
3. Record every deposit with date and amount. The purchase record is later the basis for the holding period, because in Germany a gain on cryptocurrencies remains tax-free after a holding period of one year. The tools for that are listed in the comparison of tax tools and portfolio trackers.

(As of October 27, 2026. This article is not investment advice. Prices and fee structures change; check the terms with the provider before you buy.)

Bitcoin ETFs saw $643.2 million in outflows Friday, the first full trading session after the $6.4 billion Binance hack, ending October with roughly $516 million in net outflows.

Free tools like Ollama and LM Studio can run open-weight AI models on your laptop, offline, and without a subscription. Here's how to get started.

Attackers tied to North Korea drained roughly $6.4 billion from the world’s largest crypto exchange. Here’s what we know about how it happened, who’s behind it, and what comes next.

From boat-racing bots to OpenAI models inside Hugging Face, here's how AI reward hacking works and why it matters.

Michael Selig said the record $6.4 billion theft shows why offshore exchanges should register with the CFTC and adopt U.S.-grade cybersecurity standards.

Coinbase hits a record Bitcoin discount as a Binance freeze traps liquidity and breaks market arbitrage.

No Binance cash vouchers yet, with users warned against fake campaign links.

Ethereum tokenized stocks surge 170% to $827 million as Hyperliquid equity derivatives trigger a massive multibillion-dollar crypto stock boom.

XRP stabilizes at $1.25, defending its 200-week moving average as buyers absorb the panic from the recent Binance hack.

Shiba Inu (SHIB) is drawing attention after Binance hacker reportedly dumped 499 billion tokens.

TLDR:

• Ethereum trades near $2,266 as buyers attempt to defend the $2,250 level ahead of this weekly close.
• U.S. spot Ethereum ETFs recorded $155.7 million in net outflows on October 30, extending the streak.
• Ted said ETH funding rates hit their lowest level since June, with shorts expecting another decline.
• Ethereum’s weekly chart places the next support at $2,192, with resistance around $2,400 and $2,500.

The Ethereum price recovered to around $2,266 on Sunday after the Binance hack raised concerns over the stolen ETH supply. However, the recovery has remained limited, with ETH still trading below its previous weekly high of $2,385.

The cryptocurrency is now approaching its weekly close, while ETF withdrawals and bearish futures positioning remain concerns for traders. Market attention has turned to whether Ethereum can hold $2,250 before the new trading week begins.

Ethereum Price Holds $2,250 as ETF Withdrawals Continue

Ethereum has recovered some ground since Thursday’s selloff, when news of the Binance breach spread across cryptocurrency markets. ETH briefly dropped below $2,200 before buyers returned, although the rebound has struggled to gain further momentum.

Crypto analyst Ted warned that Ethereum needs to hold $2,250 into Sunday’s weekly close. According to the analyst, losing that level could make the coming week more difficult for buyers. He also reported that ETH funding rates had reached their lowest levels since June’s market bottom.

The weak futures positioning comes alongside continued withdrawals from U.S. spot Ethereum exchange-traded funds. According to Farside Investors, the funds recorded $155.7 million in net outflows on October 30. This marked five consecutive sessions of withdrawals, bringing the combined total to $431.4 million.

BlackRock’s ETHA accounted for $76.6 million of Friday’s outflows, while Grayscale’s Ethereum Mini Trust recorded another $34.1 million. The withdrawals continued even as some corporate investors increased their holdings. Bitmine, for instance, purchased another 10,452 ETH during the previous week, taking its total holdings above 6 million tokens.

Meanwhile, traders remain concerned about Ethereum holdings linked to the Binance attackers. Blockchain investigators linked the breach to North Korea’s TraderTraitor group, while stablecoin issuers froze billions in affected assets. Unlike those tokens, native ETH cannot be frozen by a central issuer, leaving potential transfers under scrutiny.

Ethereum Price Prediction Points to $2,192 as Next Support

With Ethereum still struggling below $2,385, the weekly chart shows that sellers have retained control of recent price movements. An earlier Ethereum market analysis identified weakness around this level before the latest decline. ETH subsequently moved toward $2,200, bringing the next support area into focus.

The weekly chart places immediate support at $2,192.47, close to the middle line of the 20-week Bollinger Bands. If buyers defend that level, Ethereum could attempt another recovery toward $2,400 and $2,500.

For a stronger recovery, ETH would need to reclaim $2,800.47, where its previous advance faced resistance. A move above that area would put the upper Bollinger Band at $2,914.16 within reach. Further buying could then bring the next resistance level at $3,447.44 into focus.

However, a weekly close below $2,192 would weaken the recovery outlook and expose support near $1,965.22. Continued selling could push ETH toward $1,713.44, while the lower Bollinger Band sits around $1,470.78.

The downside risk follows an earlier break below Ethereum’s rising daily trendline during the Binance-related market selloff. With futures positioning still weak, traders will watch whether ETH can defend $2,250 into the weekly close. Monday’s ETF flow data will provide another measure of demand when U.S. markets reopen.

The post Ethereum Price Prediction: Will ETH Crash Below $2,250 as Funding Rates Sink? appeared first on Blockonomi.

TLDR:

• Senator Cynthia Lummis says the CLARITY Act may help crypto firms share information with U.S. law enforcement.
• Lummis argues much faster transaction freezes could have helped contain losses in Binance’s $6.3 billion hack.
• Binance resumed withdrawals on November 1 after its security breach, with customers moving billions in assets.
• Binance says it has covered most affected assets while investigators trace funds tied to North Korean hackers.

Senator Cynthia Lummis has defended the CLARITY Act following Binance’s $6.3 billion hack and renewed customer withdrawals. The Wyoming Republican said direct intelligence sharing could help crypto firms and federal investigators stop stolen assets crossing blockchains.

Her comments came Sunday as Binance reopened withdrawals after the October 29 attack. Customers began moving funds from the exchange again, while lawmakers debated whether proposed legislation could have helped during the breach.

Senator Cynthia Lummis Defends the Clarity Act After the Binance Hack

Lummis said attackers transferred billions across blockchains within minutes, giving investigators little time to intervene. In her latest post on X, she pointed to a proposed pilot program connecting crypto firms with federal law enforcement. “When the industry and law enforcement move together, stolen money stops moving,” she wrote.

The proposal would allow participating businesses and investigators to share information about suspicious transactions. Other provisions would offer certain protections for firms temporarily freezing transfers at law enforcement’s request. However, these measures remain proposals rather than powers created by an enacted law.

On October 30, Lummis said the bill could have allowed quicker freezes during the Binance security breach. Amanda Fischer, a policy executive at Better Markets, challenged that reading, citing provisions involving court orders and existing laws. Lummis replied that Binance would qualify as a covered digital asset service provider under the proposed framework.

The disagreement follows the Senate’s September 15 procedural vote, when the bill failed to advance by 49 votes to 50. Lummis blamed Democratic opposition, although senators voted on advancing the full legislation rather than individual anti-fraud provisions. The CLARITY Act remains unenacted, meaning its proposed protections were unavailable during Thursday’s attack.

Binance Withdrawals Resume as Customers Move Billions

Binance reopened withdrawals on November 1 after temporarily suspending transfers to investigate the breach. Its first phase covered selected assets across 15 blockchain networks, including Bitcoin, Ethereum, Solana, and XRP. The exchange said access would return gradually as each network completed its security checks.

The reopening was followed by heavy customer activity, with DefiLlama recording more than $3.5 billion in net outflows on Sunday. Reuters reported the figure, but Binance did not confirm that estimate. The company said withdrawals initially jumped before slowing toward levels it considered normal.

Binance also reported replacing about 95% of the affected assets using its own resources. It said the remaining tokens were harder to source because of limited market liquidity, while customer losses would be covered. A separate report on the Binance withdrawal restart described its phased return across the supported networks.

Meanwhile, the FBI attributed the hack to North Korea’s TraderTraitor unit, following blockchain investigators’ findings. Investigators tracked funds moving between chains and reported that attackers were converting assets into Ether. Binance has continued cooperating with law enforcement and token issuers to trace funds and freeze assets.

Lummis argued that closer coordination should become a standard part of the industry’s response to such attacks. Her latest comments came as Binance continued restoring services and investigators worked to track the remaining stolen cryptocurrency.

The post Senator Cynthia Lummis Pushes CLARITY Act After $6.3B Binance Hack appeared first on Blockonomi.

TLDR:

• China’s Communist Party plans tougher enforcement against bribery involving crypto and cross-border transfers.
• Chinese Party rules call for AI and government data platforms to help investigators detect financial misconduct.
• China will increase the party’s oversight of internet platforms and technology companies under the resolution.
• The crackdown targets illicit cryptocurrency activity while China’s existing restrictions on crypto trading remain.

China’s Communist Party has pledged tougher action against corruption involving cryptocurrency, blockchain technology, and cross-border financial transfers. The decision comes as authorities continue enforcing existing restrictions on cryptocurrency payments.

The party approved the resolution on October 29, with Xinhua publishing its full text on November 1. It also introduces plans for closer oversight of technology companies and greater use of digital tools in corruption investigations.

China Targets Crypto Bribery and Cross-Border Transfers

The resolution identifies cryptocurrency as one method officials may use to conceal bribes or transfer illegally obtained funds. It places blockchain transactions, internet activity, and cross-border payments under closer scrutiny as Beijing expands its anti-corruption campaign.

The document also calls for stronger cooperation in overseas corruption investigations and efforts to recover stolen assets. Chinese authorities have previously investigated cases involving digital currencies and international financial transfers. In October, Thai police arrested a Chinese suspect accused of laundering more than $74 million through cryptocurrency and bank accounts.

China banned cryptocurrency trading services in 2021, but the latest resolution focuses on illegal financial activities involving digital assets. Authorities reinforced existing restrictions in February 2026, including rules covering stablecoins and unauthorized tokenized financial products. The new measures address how officials investigate and prevent corruption involving those assets.

Meanwhile, Chinese courts have continued examining cases involving cryptocurrency ownership, financial disputes, and illegal transfers. The Supreme People’s Court recently outlined research into virtual currency cases and cross-border financial matters. These cases form part of China’s wider enforcement efforts involving digital assets.

One earlier investigation involved Yao Qian, the former head of the central bank’s digital currency research institute. State broadcaster CCTV reported in January that he had received cryptocurrency and cash bribes through wallets controlled by employees. The case involved companies seeking exchange listings and demonstrated the use of digital assets in official corruption cases.

Communist Party Expands Oversight of Tech Platforms

The resolution also calls for stronger party oversight across technology companies, internet businesses, and emerging digital industries. Private and mixed-ownership enterprises must incorporate party-building activities into their corporate governance and daily operations. Regulators and local authorities will take responsibility for strengthening supervision across these sectors.

Under the measures, disciplinary agencies will expand their use of digital inspection systems and platforms that combine government data. These tools will help investigators examine suspicious financial transactions and identify potential links between officials and businesses.

Chinese authorities have already introduced technology-based methods in several corruption investigations. In Zhengzhou, investigators used artificial intelligence to detect suspected collusion and price manipulation involving state enterprise contracts. Officials in Suifenhe have also combined government data with DeepSeek models to investigate social security fraud.

The latest measures come as China continues developing blockchain infrastructure for government and industrial applications. An October policy document called for further blockchain development, alongside artificial intelligence and quantum computing. These projects remain separate from the country’s restrictions on cryptocurrency trading services.

Blockchain transaction tracking has also featured in international investigations involving stolen cryptocurrency. A recent investigation into alleged cryptocurrency laundering examined transfers between wallets associated with North Korean hackers. China’s resolution similarly identifies digital financial channels as an area for closer anti-corruption scrutiny.

The Communist Party has directed disciplinary bodies to strengthen cross-border investigations and develop systems for monitoring emerging forms of corruption. The resolution also expands party oversight of online platforms, technology businesses, and workers in newer employment sectors.

The post China Crypto Regulation: Communist Party Targets Crypto Bribery and Blockchain Corruption appeared first on Blockonomi.

TLDR:

• Bitcoin price holds near $77.8 ahead of the November U.S. midterm elections amid continued market uncertainty.
• Analysts are identifying $80,100 as the immediate critical resistance, while BTC’s support stands near $75,800.
• U.S. spot Bitcoin ETFs recorded $643.2 million in outflows on October 30, adding pressure to Bitcoin prices.
• Historical midterm election data show mixed Bitcoin returns, while analysts monitor $73K as a downside target.

Bitcoin has steadied near $77,800 ahead of the November 3 U.S. midterm elections, after a difficult week for crypto markets. The weekend Bitcoin price recovery has brought attention back to the $80,000 level, although buyers have yet to reclaim it. Meanwhile, traders face another week of political uncertainty, with ETF withdrawals and recent security concerns weighing on the market.

Bitcoin Price Faces $80,100 Resistance Before Elections

Bitcoin traded in a narrow range on Sunday after recovering from Friday’s selling pressure. The cryptocurrency had slipped toward $76,000 following Binance’s security breach, but buyers helped stabilize prices over the weekend. Still, BTC remains below $80,000, a level traders are watching for signs of renewed buying.

Crypto analyst Killa identified $78,800 to $80,100 as the first resistance area following Bitcoin’s October monthly close. According to the analyst, BTC needs to reclaim that range before its short-term market structure improves. Failure to move above it could send prices back toward the monthly low.

The latest recovery also follows weaker demand from U.S. spot Bitcoin ETFs, which recorded $643.2 million in outflows on October 30. Those withdrawals erased four earlier sessions of inflows, leaving the week with roughly $202 million in net redemptions. ETF demand had already weakened earlier in October, when Bitcoin struggled to maintain its rally above $87,000.

Adding to those concerns, the Binance security breach affected an estimated $6.3 billion in crypto assets. The incident triggered selling across several cryptocurrencies, while Binance pledged to cover customer losses. Bitcoin subsequently recovered some ground, although the exchange’s investigation continued.

Could Bitcoin Price Fall Further After the U.S. Midterms?

With the elections approaching, traders are also comparing Bitcoin’s latest decline with previous market cycles. The historical midterm election record offers mixed results, despite recurring warnings about corrections during election years.

In the month following the 2010 and 2014 midterms, Bitcoin gained 30.91% and 6.61%, respectively, according to analyst Ali Charts. However, the comparable periods in 2018 and 2022 recorded losses of 47.13% and 18.15%. These figures describe historical price movements rather than evidence that elections caused the changes.

Crypto analyst Ted also pointed to earlier corrections during Bitcoin’s previous bull markets. He counted five corrections exceeding 30% during the 2019–2021 rally and four exceeding 25% during 2023–2025. Ted argued that the current pullback could be part of another extended market cycle, although that remains his assessment.

BTCUSD True Market Mean (Source: X)

For the coming week, Glassnode’s short-term holder cost basis near $75,800 provides another price level to watch. A sustained fall below that area would leave recent buyers facing losses on average. Analysts have also identified $73,000 as a possible downside level if selling pressure increases.

However, a recovery above $78,800–$80,100 would challenge the immediate resistance identified by Killa. Traders will also monitor fresh ETF flows when U.S. markets reopen Monday, before Tuesday’s election results bring another market test.

The post Bitcoin Price Outlook This Week: What to Expect Ahead of U.S. Midterms appeared first on Blockonomi.

TLDR:

• Binance processed $4.649B in withdrawals and $1.01B in deposits within a nine-and-a-half-hour window.
• Net outflows reached $3.64B, representing 2.1% of Binance’s stated $171B in assets under management.
• Withdrawal volumes peaked after transfers resumed across 15 networks, then eased in 30-minute chart intervals.
• Binance reported freezing about $3B in stolen assets, while its October 31 reserve snapshot predated outflows.

Binance recorded $4.649 billion in withdrawals on November 1 as customers regained access to transfers following a reported $6.3 billion theft. Deposits totaled $1.01 billion between 06:00 and 15:30 UTC, leaving approximately $3.64 billion in net outflows.

The net withdrawals equaled 2.1% of the exchange’s stated $171 billion in assets under management. Although demand surged immediately after transfers resumed, transaction data showed smaller withdrawal volumes later in the reporting window.

The figures captured a significant movement of customer funds without showing an uninterrupted acceleration in withdrawals. Deposits continued during the same period, but they were insufficient to offset the funds leaving the platform. The reporting window spanned nine and a half hours rather than a full day.

Withdrawal Rush Eases as More Networks Resume Transfers

Binance began restoring withdrawal services across 15 blockchain networks on Sunday, including Bitcoin, Ethereum, Solana, Tron, BNB Smart Chain, and XRP Ledger. Arbitrum was also among the supported networks returning to service.

The reopening proceeded in stages rather than across every network at once. Customer demand influenced which assets received priority, while operational and security checks determined when transfers could resume.

A chart tracking activity in 30-minute intervals showed the strongest withdrawal volumes near the beginning of the reopening. Later intervals registered progressively smaller amounts, even as deposits remained below withdrawals.

Reuters separately cited DefiLlama figures showing more than $3.5 billion in Sunday net outflows. That independent measure broadly matched the $3.64 billion figure disclosed by Binance for its reporting period.

Some customers could still encounter delays as remaining services returned. The exchange described conditions as stabilizing, although the outflow totals showed that withdrawals continued to exceed incoming transfers.

Hack Response Freezes $3B as Reserve Verification Remains Pending

The withdrawals followed an October 29 hot-wallet breach. In an October 30 update, Binance said a compromised engineer’s laptop may have enabled unauthorized transactions through a service container.

Investigators had not identified leaked private keys. The FBI attributed the attack to North Korea’s TraderTraitor operation and warned that decentralized finance services could facilitate laundering.

Binance reported freezing approximately $3 billion in stolen assets with partners. It also said company resources replenished about 95% of affected token balances, separate from asset recovery.

A Proof of Reserves snapshot taken October 31 showed ten major assets fully backed, according to Binance. However, that snapshot preceded Sunday’s withdrawals and did not measure subsequent reserve changes.

The accompanying zero-knowledge proof was still being calculated, with publication expected November 3. Binance pledged to cover losses itself as withdrawal operations and reserve verification continued.

The post Binance Withdrawals Hit $4.65B as Net Outflows Reach $3.64B After Hack appeared first on Blockonomi.

The world’s largest crypto exchange by market cap resumed withdrawals earlier today and later reported that users requested nearly $4.7 billion to be taken out of the platform.

At the same time, BTC continues to trade close to $78,000, with some analysts drawing comparisons to the post-FTX collapse, which marked the bear market’s bottom.

$3.64B Leaves Binance

CryptoPotato reported earlier today that Binance began progressively reopening withdrawals at 06:00 UTC, and all 15 networks and assets included in its initial phase were operational again within five hours.

It later reported that users withdrew $4.649 billion between 06:00 and 15:30 UTC, while deposits totaled $1.01 billion. This meant that the net outflows were approximately $3.64 billion. The company’s statement stated that this amount represents roughly 2.1% of its $171 billion in assets under management, based on its October 28 Proof of Reserves data.

Binance explained that withdrawal activity surged immediately after services reopened but subsequently declined and began stabilizing. Deposits remained relatively stable all along. The company is still testing the remaining networks and assets before launching the next restoration phase.

Today’s reopening follows the $6.3 billion hack that sent shockwaves through the market on Friday, with BTC tumbling from $81,000 to a six-week low of $76,000 and triggering $1.5 billion in liquidations. Binance has pledged to absorb the losses rather than pass them on to customers and says it has already replenished approximately 95% of the affected assets.

FTX-Like Bullish Signal

Despite the enormous security incident, which actually became the largest in USD terms in crypto history, and billions leaving Binance, BTC didn’t crash further. In fact, there are multiple factors going against it at the moment, yet the cryptocurrency stands relatively stable at around $78,000.

That reaction caught the attention of popular analysts, including DonAlt, who compared the current setup with BTC’s behavior following FTX’s meltdown four years ago. He recalled that the asset dropped to around $16,000 when the SBF-led exchange failed but didn’t plunge any further despite countless such expectations.

DonAlt said the lack of additional selling made him “giga bullish,” before bitcoin eventually advanced from the $16,000 region to above $100,000.

“Hard to be bearish here after having been given the same setup yet again,” he said on X.

KALEO reposted DonAlt’s tweet and also recalled the predictions for BTC to tumble below $10,000 in November 2022. Those levels never arrived, and many investors remained bearish even as BTC climbed above $100,000.

“Don’t be that guy. Be more bullish,” he emphasized.

The post Here’s How Much Binance Users Withdrew as Bitcoin Bulls Spot an FTX-Era Signal appeared first on CryptoPotato.

Strategy disclosed earlier this week that Chief Financial Officer Andrew Kang will step down on November 5, just days after formally notifying the company of his intention.

The sudden transition has attracted attention because of the central role Strategy’s finance operations play in its enormous Bitcoin holdings and increasingly complex capital structure.

Kang Leaves

According to the regulatory disclosure published by the largest corporate holder of BTC, Kang informed the company on October 26 that he plans to resign as Executive Vice President, CFO, principal financial officer, and principal accounting officer effective November 5.

Bitcoin commentator Matthew Kratter weighed in on the matter, focusing particularly on the short notice. He argued that an unexpected CFO departure can represent a significant warning sign for investors and pointed to historical corporate collapses where senior-finance exits preceded larger problems.

$MSTR CFO just resigned. A sudden departure like that is almost always a huge red flag for any company. Think Enron, WorldCom, Lehman Brothers, etc https://t.co/9zUwBeWi8o

— Hardfork Kratter (@mattkratter) October 29, 2026

It’s worth noting that there are currently no signals of anything comparable at Strategy, though. The company explicitly asserted that Kang is leaving for personal reasons and that his decision was not caused by any disagreement involving the firm’s operations, policies, or practices. He will also remain with the company in a non-executive advisory role through the end of the year.

The company has already laid out the succession plan, with CEO Phong Le temporarily becoming PFO, while longtime exec Reza Virasteh is scheduled to take over as CFO on January 1, 2027.

This planned handover somewhat softens the “sudden departure” narrative, even though the 10-day gap between notice and Kang’s exit from the CFO role is untypically short.

Timing Matters

The timing of Kang’s departure could be an equally interesting moment in this story, as Strategy just reported $20.91 billion in Q3 operating income, largely due to gains on its BTC holdings. Net income reached $19.53 billion.

The company held 848,517 BTC as of October 25, acquired for approximately $64 billion at an average price of $75,446 per unit. Strategy has also become more active beyond simply buying and holding bitcoin.

The firm said it raised more than $21 billion in equity capital this year and has built multiple preferred-stock products around its cryptocurrency treasury. It also disclosed that it has sold approximately $431.8 million worth of BTC in 2026 to help fund preferred-stock dividends and STRC repurchases.

The post Strategy CFO Abruptly Resigns: Is This a Red Flag for MSTR? appeared first on CryptoPotato.

Ethereum witnessed one of the sharpest declines in October, despite the positive but brief start to the month, tanking by over 16%.

A large portion of those losses came because of the ETF outflows, which hit an all-time high, with over $1.6 billion leaving the funds.

ETH Failed in October

Similar to the bitcoin landscape, the leading altcoin entered October following three very successful months. After its early July low at $1,500, the asset rebounded swiftly during that month and ended it with a substantial 18.52% surge. Then came the mid-August breakout rally that drove the alt higher, posting a 32.60% surge. The streak extended in September with another 8.79% increase.

October indeed started with a minor leg up that pushed ETH close to the $2,800 resistance. The rejection there turned out to be fatal, and the asset tanked toward $2,400 within the next week. The rebound was halted at $2,560 a few days later, and ETH saw another leg down to $2,300 on October 15 after the release of the CPI and PPI data for September.

The bulls hadn’t given up yet, propelling another surge to $2,520 on October 21. However, this attempt didn’t see much success, and the asset nosedived in the following week or so. The culmination took place on October 30 after the massive Binance hack, when ETH plunged to a two-month low at $2,150.

Despite rebounding slightly to $2,250 as October ended, the altcoin still finished the month with a 16.06% drop. What’s even worse for its broader situation is that this substantial decline was not even in the top three this year, as it plummeted by 21.69% in June, 19.63% in February, and 17.59% in January.

November has been quite volatile for ETH, with all but the 2015 and 2021 editions seeing double-digit moves. The most extreme cases were the 59% surge in 2020 and the 43% plunge in 2018.

ETH ETFs to Blame?

Aside from the inflation data and the Binance hack, the other major reason for ETH’s substantial decline came from the Ethereum ETFs. Data from SoSoValue shows that investors pulled out $1.61 billion in October, the single-largest monthly net outflow since the ETFs’ inception. The previous record was last November, when the withdrawals hit $1.42 billion.

The funds saw only three days in the green in October, all of which were with modest net inflows: $24.84 million on October 13, $14.96 million on October 21, and $4.35 million on October 23.

The cumulative net inflows declined from $13.89 billion at the end of September to $12.29 billion a month later.

The post ETH Plunged 16% in October as Ethereum ETF Outflows Hit All-Time High appeared first on CryptoPotato.

[PRESS RELEASE – Panama City, Panama, November 1st, 2026]

Cambio is an AI-native crypto exchange: a swap runs as one conversation, from the user’s first sentence to the payout, instead of token menus, network dropdowns and forms. Cambio is now also available in ChatGPT, through a new plugin that gives ChatGPT users a Cambio quote for an exact amount. Customers completed more than $100,000 in swaps on Cambio in October 2026, and more than $150,000 since late August.

Say the Swap

Swapping one coin for another usually means picking tokens and networks from long lists, opening several exchanges in separate tabs and working out which fees apply. On Cambio, a user types the swap the way they would say it, for example “swap 500 USDT on Tron to SOL”. Cambio’s AI reads the request, asks only for what is missing, such as the network or the receiving address, and prices the exact amount. The AI is not a chatbot added to a swap form: the conversation is the product.

One Quote, Priced Against Other Exchanges

Before it quotes, Cambio compares prices from other exchanges for that amount and uses them to set its own price. The user receives one Cambio quote, at 0.38% on most routes. The network fee is shown on its own line, and the amount the user will receive is shown before they confirm. No account is needed: each swap settles to the wallet address the user provides, and the swap is followed step by step on the same screen, from the deposit arriving to the payout.

The conversation does not end with the swap. A user can ask Cambio to send an alert when a coin reaches a price they choose, and come back to swap when it does.

Also in ChatGPT

Many of Cambio’s customers start in ChatGPT, so Cambio now has a plugin there. A ChatGPT user can ask for a Cambio quote for an exact amount, find out which coin pays a network’s fees, and follow a swap in progress, all inside the conversation.

The plugin only shows information: it cannot create a swap or move funds. Each quote card links to cambio.one and to Cambio’s Telegram bot, where the user makes the swap themselves, from their own wallet.

“Most people know exactly which swap they want. The work has been in the forms, the network menus and checking prices across several sites,” said John Warwick of Cambio. “Cambio was built so you can just say the swap, and that work is ours. ChatGPT is already where many of our customers start, so now our quotes are there too, and the swap stays in their hands.”

Availability

Cambio supports more than 100 coins on more than 25 networks, including Bitcoin, Ethereum, Solana, Tron, BNB Smart Chain, Arbitrum, Litecoin, Monero and XRP. Swaps can be made on cambio.one and in Cambio’s Telegram bot, and Cambio’s support team answers by email at support@cambio.one. The Cambio plugin is available in ChatGPT.

Customer swap figures are completed swaps from Cambio’s own records and exclude Cambio’s own test swaps.

About Cambio

Cambio is an AI-native crypto exchange operated by Cambio Technologies, S.A., registered in the Republic of Panama (Public Registry Folio 155788233). Users describe a swap in plain words on cambio.one or in the Cambio Telegram bot and receive one quote for their exact amount, and a Cambio plugin brings quotes and swap tracking to ChatGPT. Non-custodial by design: no account needed, no stored balances, and no ongoing custody. Each swap settles to the destination wallet the user provides. Cambio is not available to residents of the United States, the European Union, the United Kingdom and other restricted jurisdictions; see the Terms of Use at cambio.one/legal/terms.

Website: cambio.one

Telegram: t.me/CambioSwapBot

ChatGPT plugin: Cambio in ChatGPT

The post Cambio, the AI-Native Crypto Exchange, Brings Swap Quotes to ChatGPT appeared first on CryptoPotato.

We would be the first to admit that BTC didn’t have a good week; in fact, it didn’t have a good month despite some expectations, but the surrounding market environment arguably looks much worse.

From Wall Street and China to monetary policy, geopolitics, and a massive hack, several major risk factors have deteriorated simultaneously. Yet, BTC continues to trade in the upper $70,000s.

Global Markets Crashed

Selling pressure accelerated last week, with brutal sessions for US tech stocks. The Nasdaq Composite dropped by almost 3% on Friday alone, its steepest decline since June, while individual stocks such as Intel and AMD collapsed by double digits. The tech-heavy index finished nearly 8% below its October 6 record amid growing concerns that massive AI spending may not generate adequate returns.

This weakness, though, was not isolated to the US. China’s CSI 300 fell by 1.4% on Friday and closed October with a massive 8.5% loss. This became its largest monthly decline in over a decade. The index has now dumped around 15% over 12 consecutive losing weeks. Tech shares were among the biggest casualties, with the STAR50 plunging 5.5% during that session.

Normally, that sort of synchronized risk-off move would be a highly uncomfortable environment for Bitcoin. The asset indeed plunged on Friday, but it was mostly driven by the painful $6.3 billion hack against Binance and actually managed to rebound by almost $2,000 since the low of $76,100.

Meanwhile, the US Federal Reserve left rates unchanged last week, but hotter economic data has quickly shifted expectations toward additional tightening. US GDP grew at a 3.4% annualized rate in the third quarter, while headline PCE inflation jumped to 3.6% in September from 3.4% in August.

Markets moved to price in roughly an 80% probability of a 25-basis-point Fed hike in December, as Reuters reported.

Another Risk Looms

Multiple reports emerged over the weekend that US President Donald Trump spoke with Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu to resume bombing Iran as soon as next week. Recall that the POTUS has warned on several occasions that the strikes will continue once the mid-term elections are over, which would be on Tuesday.

The administration has also warned Arab Gulf countries to prepare for a “short and intense” military campaign after November 3.

The aforementioned Binance hack was the latest piece of this all-out pressure. Somewhat expected, BTC indeed dumped hard in October, closing with a decline of more than 7%. However, given the scope of the hack, pressure on financial markets, the expected rate hike in December, the midterms, and potential subsequent attacks in the Middle East, trading between $77,000 and $78,000 isn’t as bad as it should be.

The post Bitcoin Should Be Plunging Much Harder: So Why Is BTC Still Above $77K? appeared first on CryptoPotato.