The meetings highlight a potential shift towards regulatory acceptance, potentially paving the way for institutional adoption of DeFi.

The post Injective CEO meets White House, SEC and CFTC officials on onchain finance appeared first on Crypto Briefing.

The integration of AI and crypto on Ethereum could revolutionize trust and automation in digital transactions, impacting global economic systems.

The post Joseph Lubin predicts AI and crypto will merge on Ethereum appeared first on Crypto Briefing.

The AI sector's growth may stall if financing gaps persist, impacting tech markets and potentially slowing innovation and adoption rates.

The post Nvidia CEO Jensen Huang says AI demand is soaring, but financing lags appeared first on Crypto Briefing.

Nvidia's AI financing strategy faces challenges, potentially impacting the neocloud sector and reshaping AI investment dynamics.

The post Nvidia’s $500B AI financing faces pressure as CoreWeave shows financial strain appeared first on Crypto Briefing.

Neuralink's Blindsight could revolutionize neurotechnology, offering new hope for the blind and potentially accelerating sector investment.

The post Neuralink plans first Blindsight vision implants within 6 to 12 months appeared first on Crypto Briefing.

Bitcoin Magazine

NY Seeks $1.37 Billion Judgment Against Operators of NovaTech Crypto Ponzi Scheme

New York Attorney General Letitia James is trying to secure a $1.37 billion judgment against the operators of NovaTech and its predecessor AWS Mining, two successive cryptocurrency investment schemes that allegedly defrauded hundreds of thousands of investors worldwide out of more than $1 billion.

Alleged founders Cynthia and Eddy Petion never appeared in court and, according to the AG’s office, fled the country.

“NovaTech and AWS Mining scammed thousands of vulnerable New Yorkers by telling them they were making a safe investment when in reality, they were victims of a pyramid scheme,” James said in a statement. “These scammers targeted immigrant and religious communities with the promise of a better life but instead robbed them of their life savings.”

The schemes, AWS Mining and later NovaTech, relied on promoters who recruited heavily in Haitian and other immigrant communities — through prayer groups, WhatsApp chats, and ads in Haitian Creole.

AWS Mining sold crypto mining contracts promising 15 to 20 percent monthly returns and 200 percent within 15 months. It collapsed in 2019. The Petions then launched NovaTech, marketed as a registered hedge fund broker, promising weekly trading returns of two to four percent — more than 140 percent a year.

Those returns were fabricated, according to prosecutors. Records from B2Broker, which supplied NovaTech’s white-label trading platform, show that of the more than $1 billion investors deposited between 2019 and 2023, only about $26 million was ever actually traded — and NovaTech’s traders lost $18.2 million of that. Returns to earlier investors came from newer deposits, not trading. When NovaTech collapsed in mid-2023, tens of thousands of investors could not withdraw their funds.

The AG is also seeking $134.5 million the Petions allegedly withdrew to their own wallets from the investor account Cynthia Petion solely controlled, plus $4.7 million tied to the earlier AWS Mining scheme. A default judgment entered in August 2025 already bars the couple and their companies from the securities, commodities, and cryptocurrency industries.

Separately, four of the scheme’s top promoters have agreed to pay nearly $6 million in disgorgement to victims and accepted the same industry bans.

This post NY Seeks $1.37 Billion Judgment Against Operators of NovaTech Crypto Ponzi Scheme first appeared on Bitcoin Magazine and is written by Mathew Di Salvo.

Bitcoin Magazine

Blockstream Launches Institutional Consulting Services, Opens Lugano Office

Blockstream has launched a consulting business for financial institutions and opened an office in Lugano, Switzerland, the company shared today. The expansion gives banks, asset managers and other institutions direct access to the firm’s engineering teams and Bitcoin infrastructure, Blockstream said. 

Blockstream Consulting Services will support institutions through the evaluation, design and implementation of Bitcoin-based financial infrastructure. The company said the business will develop solutions for tokenized asset issuance, confidential settlement and related infrastructure, with services spanning technical strategy, system architecture, integration and implementation.

From Lugano, Blockstream plans to serve clients across Switzerland, including Zurich, Geneva and Zug. The company said the office will serve as a hub for its European operations, supporting client relationships, strategic partnerships and collaboration with the region’s financial and technology communities.

“Switzerland is an important market for Blockstream given its longstanding banking tradition and supportive regulatory framework for digital assets,” said Peter Bain, chief marketing officer of the company. “We look to provide regional expertise in markets where we see demand for Bitcoin infrastructure. Our consulting business, combined with our new office in Lugano, will bring tailored Bitcoin solutions to financial institutions across Europe.”

Founded in 2014, Blockstream develops technology and services across Bitcoin custody, settlement, payments, asset issuance and self-custody. Its products include the Liquid Network sidechain, Elements, Simplicity, Core Lightning, the Jade hardware wallet and the Blockstream App. This year, the company launched Simplicity smart contracts on Liquid and added Lightning support to Jade.

Bitcoin adoption by financial institutions

The company said the consulting business draws on that experience, with capabilities in cryptography, protocol engineering, security and financial technology. Multidisciplinary teams will give institutions access to the firm’s technical staff from initial evaluation through deployment.

“The next phase of Bitcoin adoption is its integration into existing financial systems,” said Adam Back, Blockstream’s co-founder and CEO. “Our extensive experience in Bitcoin cryptography, protocol development and engineering gives Blockstream the technical expertise to address the complexities of integrating Bitcoin into traditional financial infrastructure.”

The company framed the move as part of a long-term commitment to Switzerland and a broader strategy of building a presence in key markets to support institutional Bitcoin adoption. 

The country has become a center for digital asset firms, with Zug’s “Crypto Valley” and a regulatory framework that permits banks to hold and trade bitcoin on behalf of clients.

There was no pricing disclosed, headcount for the Lugano office or named clients for the consulting business. The company said the Lugano office is open and that consulting engagements are available to institutions across Europe.

This post Blockstream Launches Institutional Consulting Services, Opens Lugano Office first appeared on Bitcoin Magazine and is written by Micah Zimmerman.

Bitcoin Magazine

Bitcoin Core Ends Long Embargoes for Bugs AI Can Rediscover

Bitcoin Core has changed its security disclosure policy to speed up fixes for vulnerabilities that large language models can find with little effort, ending the months-long embargoes those bugs once received.

Maintainers merged the change to the project’s security policy on Thursday. Chaincode Labs developer Antoine Poinsot, who wrote the proposal, announced it in a message to the Bitcoin Development Mailing List the same day.

“We recently experienced an increase in the number of reports for security vulnerabilities that can be easily (re-)discovered,” Poinsot wrote. “This is largely due to LLMs drastically reducing the bar to find certain classes of issues or identify covert fixes.”

How the policy worked before

Bitcoin Core, the software that runs on most nodes in the Bitcoin network, has graded each reported vulnerability by severity and timed its disclosure to match. Low-severity flaws were made public two weeks after the next major version shipped. 

Medium- and high-severity issues stayed under embargo until two weeks after the last affected release reached end of life, a span that could stretch to a year.

The extended timelines gave node operators, many of whom upgrade at a slow pace, time to move to patched software before details became public. In practice, the approach meant fixes went unreleased for older maintained versions and arrived with the next major release.

Poinsot argued that this tradeoff fails for bugs that are easy to rediscover. “The embargo period achieves little but it delays the availability of a fixed release,” the policy reads.

What changes

During triage, Bitcoin Core can flag a vulnerability as “easily discoverable,” a category the policy defines as issues that can be found “with minimal effort, such as through a simple LLM prompt.” The label is open to flaws found by other means as well.

For those issues, the project will backport a fix to every maintained major version, cut point releases as soon as possible and publish a security advisory with some details at the same time as the fixed software. 

Poinsot acknowledged that such fixes will have less testing time before they reach users.

Vulnerabilities outside that category keep the existing severity-based schedule. Critical bugs, those that could enable coin theft at the protocol level, inflate the supply or cause a permanent chain split, remain outside the standard policy and will be handled case by case.

Developer Antoine Riard pushed for an option to ship a fix without an advisory and withhold details on a case-by-case basis. Poinsot declined, writing that alerting users without details “could create more risk unnecessarily” by prompting a rushed migration among users who would otherwise be unaffected.

A summer of AI-driven reports

The change follows months of heightened pressure on Bitcoin’s open-source projects. In late July, a volunteer group of 16 developers known as the Bitcoin Red Team ran AI models across 390 bitcoin repositories in about a day and logged 4,962 findings, including 85 rated critical.

Within days, a BTCPay Server flaw the group had reported in private was exploited on live merchant servers, draining Lightning nodes.

In August, Core Lightning developers told operators to upgrade or disconnect after AI-generated reports to the project proved accurate.

The Red Team effort followed a Coldcard hardware wallet exploit in which attackers drained 594 BTC in 25 minutes on July 30. Losses across four sweeps approached $114 million.

This post Bitcoin Core Ends Long Embargoes for Bugs AI Can Rediscover first appeared on Bitcoin Magazine and is written by Micah Zimmerman.

Bitcoin Magazine

Bitcoin ETFs Lose Over $635M In One Day Following Oil Price Spike 

U.S. investors quickly reversed course on Thursday, cashing out over half a billion dollars from spot bitcoin exchange-traded funds as risk-off sentiment surfaced again. 

A total of $635.6 million left the funds on Thursday, data from Farside Investors shows. The redemptions put downward pressure on the price of bitcoin, which dropped under $81,000 at one point. 

The coin has since rebounded and was recently trading for nearly $81,669, down just 1% over a 24-hour period. 

BlackRock’s iShares Bitcoin Trust saw the biggest outflows, with investors cashing out over $254 million. Fidelity’s Wise Origin Bitcoin Fund followed, losing close to $218 million. 

Over $109 million left the ARK 21Shares Bitcoin ETF; Morgan Stanley’s fund and Bitwise’s ETF lost nearly $30 million and over $27 million, respectively. 

But the investment vehicles this week have this week received net positive investment of over $439 million. 

Investors went into “risk-off” mode after flare ups in the Middle East sent the price of oil higher. Brent crude hit its highest price in five months after Yemeni rebel group the Houthis on Thursday attacked Saudi Arabia, sparking concerns over more disruption to energy supplies. 

Bitcoin’s price has been rattled this year since the U.S. and Israel attacked Iran, halting oil supplies as ships have struggled to pass through the strategic Strait of Hormuz, where a fifth of the world’s oil passes through. 

A higher oil price can hurt the price of bitcoin and other “risk-on” assets because it increases the chances of the U.S. central bank raising interest rates. 

Bitcoin has typically done well in a low interest rate environment because it means the asset has more liquidity to rally. 

Investors on Thursday also sold off tech stocks, which had rallied earlier in the week off the back of SpaceX’s impressive earnings. 

Analysts are saying bitcoin is entering a bull market again. Data last month showed that  the leading cryptocurrency crossed above its 365-day moving average — a typical sign it is out of a bear market — following a strong run in August. 

Bitcoin notched a record of $126,080 in October 2025 but then began to sink later that month after the biggest liquidation event in crypto history saw over $19 billion in bets closed. 

The coin spent the first half of 2026 trading well below that level but picked up again in August and September, having its best quarter in years. 

This post Bitcoin ETFs Lose Over $635M In One Day Following Oil Price Spike  first appeared on Bitcoin Magazine and is written by Mathew Di Salvo.

Bitcoin Magazine

Franklin Templeton Clears Final Hurdle For ETFs That Turn Stock Dividends Into Bitcoin

Franklin Templeton has taken the last regulatory step before launching two exchange-traded funds that convert stock dividends into bitcoin. 

On October 22, Franklin Templeton filed a Form 8-A with the Securities and Exchange Commission to register shares of the Franklin US Equity Bitcoin DRIP Index ETF and the Franklin US Innovation Bitcoin DRIP Index ETF for trading on the Nasdaq. A prospectus filed the same day lists an effective date of October 27.

The filings for both funds arrived in June without tickers or fees. Four months later, the details are in.

How the funds work

The Equity fund, ticker FBEQ, tracks the VettaFi US Large-Cap 500 Bitcoin DRIP Index. The index holds the 500 largest U.S. companies by market capitalization, weighted by float-adjusted market cap. 

As of September 30, it held 499 stocks ranging from $10.2 billion to $5.5 trillion in size, with a concentration in information technology.

At inception, the index allocates 95% to those stocks and 5% to bitcoin. Each dividend the companies pay, regular or special, is reinvested into bitcoin at the market open on the day after the ex-date. The bitcoin share of the portfolio grows with each payment.

A traditional dividend reinvestment plan, or DRIP, buys more shares of the company that paid the dividend. Franklin’s version routes that cash into bitcoin. 

For a holder, the dividend stream from the largest companies in America becomes a recurring bitcoin purchase, with no exchange account, no wallet and no custody decisions.

The bitcoin position has limits. At each quarterly rebalance, an allocation above 5% is trimmed to 4.5%. If bitcoin exceeds 20% of the index between rebalances, it is cut back to 4.5% within two business days, and the proceeds return to stocks. The result is a stock fund with a bitcoin sleeve, not a bitcoin fund.

The ETF does not hold bitcoin on-chain. It gains exposure through bitcoin exchange-traded products, including Franklin’s own spot fund, through bitcoin futures and options, or through depositary receipts, in some cases via a Cayman Islands subsidiary.

FBEQ carries a 0.09% expense ratio with no 12b-1 fee. Franklin Advisory Services manages the fund, with Franklin Templeton Institutional as sub-advisor. Dina Ting, Hailey Harris, Joe Diederich and Basit Amin serve as portfolio managers.

The Innovation fund follows the same mechanic on the VettaFi US Innovation 100 Bitcoin DRIP Index, which draws from the 100 largest non-financial companies listed on the Nasdaq.

A deeper bet on bitcoin

Franklin Templeton filed for a spot bitcoin ETF in September 2023 and launched it as EZBC in January 2024. In April, the firm acquired 250 Digital and formed Franklin Crypto, an institutional digital asset division. Franklin Templeton CEO Jenny Johnson has argued that blockchains threaten Wall Street’s fee structure more than its technology.

The DRIP funds extend that strategy to investors who may never buy bitcoin on their own. A retiree holding an S&P 500-style fund in a brokerage account can, through FBEQ, let dividends from the companies she already owns build a bitcoin position over years.

The prospectus warns that investors can lose money, and that bitcoin’s price swings may affect the fund’s net asset value. Whether that trade-off appeals to the audience Franklin Templeton is targeting will become clear after October 27.

This post Franklin Templeton Clears Final Hurdle For ETFs That Turn Stock Dividends Into Bitcoin first appeared on Bitcoin Magazine and is written by Micah Zimmerman.

Tether faces US Senate scrutiny over multimillion-dollar payments to a consulting firm co-owned by a former White House crypto adviser. On Oct. 22, Senator Richard Blumenthal, the ranking Democrat on the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, demanded records on the stablecoin issuer's reported payments to Nxum, a consulting firm co-founded by Bo Hines, who helped…

Read the full story on CryptoSlate

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

Put €10,000 into Ethereum staking at a 2.2% annual return and, if ETH's price stays unchanged, you'll earn about €220 over a year. That's just €7 more than the same amount would earn at the average rate on new euro household deposits with maturities up to one year, but with Ethereum's price volatility attached to…

Read the full story on CryptoSlate

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

Summary: The upgraded JST Buyback and Burn program features the following highlights: $50M Treasury Reserve Cushion: Establishes a safety buffer for sustainable ecosystem operations. Expanded Funding Sources: Integrates GasFree revenue alongside JustLend and USDD to cover 100% of JUST core products. ~$20.34M Capital Injection: Unlocks legacy surplus funds to be released in phases for future…

Read the full story on CryptoSlate

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

The October 22 motion follows a 2025 liability ruling, while separate promoter obligations include Ciceron’s installments through 2029.

Read the full story on CryptoSlate

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

Eligible users can activate RedCoin wallets for payments as access expands over coming days, while investment subscriptions remain planned for later in 2026.

Read the full story on CryptoSlate

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

Initia’s blockchain has stopped. On October 23, 2026 at 15:41:30 UTC the project halted its layer 1 blockchain and the rollups built on top of it, after an attacker was able to create tokens without any cap through a flaw in the minting mechanism. According to co-founder Ezaan Mangalji, the attacker extracted around $2.7 million in the stablecoins AUSD and USDC and in ether before the blockchain was stopped. If you hold assets on that blockchain, the consequence is very concrete: balances sitting on it cannot be moved while it stands still. Balances held on an exchange are not affected for now, because exchanges settle internally.

What happened on the Initia blockchain on October 23, 2026

Initia’s official account on the platform X announced the halt with the exact time. Bitcoin.com News quotes the statement as saying that the Initia L1 and the rollups had been halted because of a security incident. The blockchain remained stuck at block height 23365925 as the source went to press. The developers had not given a time for the resumption of normal operations at that point, and the project had not officially confirmed a total figure for the damage.

The incident was first noticed outside the project. Blockchain security researcher Spreek described the unusual minting publicly before a statement from the project existed. The minting transactions themselves could be traced through Initia’s official block explorer, so they were visible in the blockchain’s public data. That is typical of this kind of incident: the entries sit openly in the blocks, only their cause is unclear at first.

Infinite mint means tokens appear without backing

An infinite mint is a flaw that allows new tokens to be created without any deposit, collateral or upper limit being required. Minting is the normal process by which a protocol puts new units of a token into circulation. Ordinarily that process is tightly bounded, for instance to the amount someone has deposited beforehand. If a programming error removes that boundary, an attacker can credit themselves any number of units.

The economic damage does not arise at the moment of minting. Tokens without backing are at first only numbers in a database. It turns dangerous at the second step, when those numbers are exchanged for something that actually holds value. That is exactly where the loss sat in Initia’s case: the freshly minted units were sent across a bridge to other blockchains and redeemed there for real assets. A bridge is a service that moves tokens from one blockchain to another and is supposed to check whether the other side is covered.

This two-stage sequence explains why the number of minted tokens and the figure for the actual loss can lie far apart. The network halt as an emergency brake is not an isolated case either: at Maya Protocol the sequence after an exploit ran in a comparable way, and there too it started with a mint that was not meant to be possible.

The MoveVM on the Cosmos SDK is the named weak point

Co-founder Ezaan Mangalji placed the cause technically, on his own account. Bitcoin.com News quotes him saying this was a day-0 bug relating to Initia’s MoveVM on the Cosmos SDK, while he expressly limited that assessment to what was known at the time. A day-0 bug describes an error that was in the code from the start and went unnoticed until the incident, so it is not the result of a later change.

To place the terms: the Cosmos SDK is a construction kit from which independent blockchains are built. The MoveVM is an execution environment for programs on the blockchain that comes from the Move programming language and is regarded as particularly strict in handling assets. Initia combines the two and additionally operates what are called rollups, separate execution layers that deliver their results to the main blockchain. According to the project, those rollups support both the MoveVM and the EVM known from Ethereum.

What matters for the assessment is what Mangalji expressly excluded: the flaw does not affect the native INIT tokens. That is not an aside but the reason the incident hit the project token’s price differently from comparable cases. That distinction rests on the co-founder’s statement, not on an independent review; a post-mortem from the project with a full error analysis was not available at the time of this article.

$2.6 to $2.7 million: why the figures diverge

Different figures exist for the damage, and they should not be melted into one round number. Mangalji names around $2.7 million that the attacker was able to mint in AUSD, ether and USDC and move out across the bridge before the blockchain was paused. Crypto Briefing reports around $2.6 million that the attacker converted, and points out that further funds were still in motion. DefiLlama’s hack list carries the incident at $2.6 million, classified as a flaw in token accounting with infinite mint as the technique.

A third figure sits considerably higher and refers to the nominal amount minted. An analysis by the research firm Bitquery, quoted by The Block, arrives at around $7.48 million of tokens created nominally. The larger part of that, however, was said to be synthetic iUSD, which could not be redeemed at face value. Synthetic means the token only reproduces a value by calculation, without redemption at that value being guaranteed. Anyone comparing the figures therefore has to separate cleanly what was minted from how much of it could be turned into real money. The Block blocks automated retrieval; the content was confirmed through a search.

Agora declares AUSD and its own business unaffected

One of the token names involved belongs to a third-party issuer, and that issuer has contradicted the account clearly. Agora, the house behind the stablecoin AUSD, said according to Bitcoin.com News that it has no smart contracts deployed on Initia. AUSD and Agora are not affected, and AUSD does not exist on Initia. At the same time Agora announced it would freeze balances connected to the attacker’s addresses, insofar as they sit on blockchains where Agora operates its own contracts.

This apparent contradiction with Mangalji’s list can be resolved, and it matters for understanding the case: what was carried on Initia under the name AUSD was, from the issuer’s point of view, not a token issued by it but a representation on an external blockchain. In practice that means a familiar name on a blockchain is no guarantee that the issuer of that name is actually active there and stands behind the backing. The question can be settled before buying, by checking which contracts an issuer officially names as its own.

Upbit suspends INIT deposits and withdrawals

Exchanges respond to a network halt with a protective measure of their own. The South Korean exchange Upbit suspended deposits and withdrawals for INIT. That is technically unavoidable: as long as a blockchain confirms no new blocks, an exchange can neither credit an incoming transfer reliably nor execute an outgoing one. A suspension in that situation protects both sides from entries that cannot be allocated later.

For holders this creates a clear distinction that often gets lost in such situations. Trading on an exchange runs through its internal book and does not need the blockchain. Deposits and withdrawals need it absolutely. So anyone holding INIT on an exchange may be able to keep trading, but not to withdraw. Anyone self-custodying the tokens has full control over the keys and still no access while the blockchain stands still. Which exchanges are accessible under regulation in Germany, and how they behave during disruptions, we broke down in our comparison of crypto exchanges.

The INIT price rises while the blockchain stands still

The price action contradicts the first expectation. According to CoinGecko, INIT stood at $0.152482, or 0.136096 euros, on October 24, 2026, 14.43 percent higher than 24 hours earlier. Over the week the token is up 22.31 percent, and 68.37 percent over 30 days. Within the day the range ran from a low of $0.114082 to a high of $0.156281. Market capitalisation comes to around $32.16 million, which puts INIT at rank 618. In circulation are 210,794,785 of a total of one billion tokens. The price is 89.29 percent away from its peak of $1.42 on May 13, 2025.

Two reasons carry that move. First, on the co-founder’s account the project token itself could not be minted, so the loss fell on external tokens that were represented on Initia. Second, trading carried on at exchanges, where the blockchain plays no part in the price. No all-clear can be derived from that, however: in this phase the price is mainly valuing the expectation that the restart succeeds. If it fails or takes long, that basis changes. The two intraday levels at $0.114082 and $0.156281 are the points at which that expectation last turned.

Audits and backers are no promise of protection

Initia launched its mainnet in 2025 and total supply stands at one billion INIT. According to Crypto Briefing the project raised around $24 million from investors, among them Binance Labs and Delphi Digital, and went through several security reviews. An earlier misconfiguration of the staking rewards for INIT was, on that account, not an exploit and was cleaned up in 2025 through the project’s governance.

That history is no side issue but the real lesson for picking projects. Several passed audits and well-known backers did not prevent a flaw that, on the co-founder’s account, was in the code from the beginning. An audit checks a particular state of the code against known error patterns, and a new combination of two building blocks, here a Move environment on a Cosmos kit, produces error patterns that nobody has looked for in that form yet. Anyone putting money on young blockchains should therefore read audits as evidence of diligence and not as a guarantee.

Holding period and tax: a network halt is not a sale

In tax terms a halted network changes nothing about your position for now. In Germany, gains from the sale or exchange of crypto assets count as a private disposal under section 23 of the Income Tax Act. What is decisive there is a transaction in which you give something up and receive something else. A network halt is neither a sale nor an exchange: nothing is taken from you, it simply cannot be moved. The one-year holding period keeps running normally during that time, and a loss only arises in tax terms through an actual sale, not already when a price falls or access drops out.

In practice that means anyone close to the end of the one-year period loses no waiting time through the standstill. Anyone considering a sale after a restart, by contrast, should know the acquisition date and the deadline before acting. For documenting cases like this, where credits fail and holdings are spread across several platforms, clean records are decisive: acquisition date, quantity and storage location belong on the file for each position. This article is no substitute for tax advice, and with larger amounts a query to a firm is worth it.

Custody when it counts: where your tokens actually sit

This incident separates two risks that often get thrown into one pot. The first risk is the loss of the keys, through phishing or a compromised wallet. A hardware wallet helps against that, because the key never leaves the device; the differences between the devices we set side by side in our hardware wallet comparison. The second risk is a flaw in the protocol itself. No wallet protects against that, because the error does not lie with you but in the blockchain on which your balance is recorded. The two risks need different answers.

For the second risk, spreading out helps most. Anyone distributing their assets across several blockchains and several places of custody loses access to a part during a standstill rather than to everything. Part of that is deciding deliberately how much sits on young blockchains with a short operating history. A further point concerns represented tokens: if a small blockchain carries a version of a well-known stablecoin, it needs clarifying who issues it and who stands behind the backing if something goes wrong. Agora’s answer in this case shows the question is not theoretical.

How things continue at Initia and how to spot the progress

A restart after an incident like this takes more than restarting the servers. The operators of the validators, the machines that confirm blocks, have to agree on a corrected version of the software and on the state from which work continues. Only after that can it be judged which entries hold. At the time of this article Initia has named no date for it and has not conclusively confirmed the total damage.

Three data points show the progress more reliably than any announcement. The first is the block height: if it rises beyond the level of 23365925, the blockchain is confirming blocks again. The second is the status pages of the exchanges: if an exchange lifts the suspension on deposits and withdrawals, it trusts the confirmations again. The third is a published post-mortem with an error analysis that names what the flaw was and how it was fixed. If that report stays missing for good, that is itself a piece of information. Until then, new deposits onto this blockchain deserve the same caution as a token that has been removed from trading: wait until the way out is demonstrably open again.

Initia network halt: without a restart every balance stays immobile

The position as of October 24, 2026: the blockchain has stood still since October 23, 15:41:30 UTC, at block height 23365925. On the figures available, $2.6 to $2.7 million was extracted. Three steps follow from that.

1. Establish the holding and its location. Clarify whether your tokens sit on the Initia blockchain itself or on an exchange. On an exchange trading is often still possible, withdrawing is not. Which venues come into question for investors in Germany is shown by our comparison of crypto exchanges.
2. Review custody and distribution. Separate the key risk from the protocol risk and spread holdings across several blockchains and places of custody. For the device side, our hardware wallet comparison helps.
3. Secure deadlines and records. Keep hold of acquisition dates, because the holding period keeps running and a standstill is not a sale. Tools for that are in our comparison of tax software and portfolio trackers.

(As of October 24, 2026. This article is not investment advice. Prices and fee structures change; check the terms with the provider before you buy.)

Sources: Bitcoin.com News on the network halt and the statements and Crypto Briefing on the course of the incident.

Ondo Finance is a platform that brings real financial assets onto the blockchain as tokens: short-dated US Treasuries, equities and ETFs. Anyone searching for Ondo is usually looking for two different things that are easily confused. One is the products, which on Ondo’s own figures hold around $4.0 billion. The other is the freely tradable ONDO token, which stood at $0.4133 on Friday morning, or 0.3689 euros. The token is not a share in those $4.0 billion. It is a governance token, and that is the most important sentence in this article.

For investors in Europe a second distinction applies that most write-ups leave out: Ondo’s tokenized bonds and equities may only be subscribed by professional clients across the European Economic Area. The ONDO token, by contrast, sits on ordinary trading venues, eight of them with a euro pair.

Ondo Finance tokenizes Treasuries, equities and ETFs on the blockchain

Tokenization means this: an asset that exists off the blockchain is given a token that mirrors its economics. This class of crypto assets goes by the term real world assets, or RWAs for short. Ondo describes its own job on its corporate pages as two arms: an asset manager that launches and runs tokenized financial products, and a technology side that builds the protocols for them. The Ondo platform therefore covers both ends, from the launch of a product to the contracts through which it runs on the blockchain.

The difference from an ordinary cryptocurrency lies in the backing. Behind a bitcoin stands a protocol; behind these tokens stand real assets: bonds, fund units or shares that someone holds and keeps in custody off the blockchain. The price therefore follows the value of the underlying paper rather than crypto sentiment, and the risk shifts from the market to the issuer and the custody arrangement.

In practice that means three product lines plus a fourth that is just being added. How big the market Ondo operates in actually is, we set out in our report on Ondo’s market share in tokenized equities of October 18: it put the share at 26 percent, with $4 billion in Ondo’s own products.

USDY, OUSG and Ondo Stocks: the three products and their $4.0 billion

Ondo publishes the size of each product on its own home page on a rolling basis. As of October 24 it breaks down as follows:

• USDY, $2.37 billion. A tokenized note that Ondo calls a “yieldcoin”. Depending on the issue date it is secured by short-dated US Treasuries, by units in the iShares Short Treasury Bond ETF or by bank deposits. The stated yield is 3.75 percent a year, and one token cost $1.1507.
• Ondo Stocks, $1.33 billion. The platform for tokenized equities and ETFs, on Ondo’s own figures more than 450 assets and around 257,100 holders.
• OUSG, $319.38 million. The institutional route into short-dated US Treasuries, with issuance and redemption around the clock, a yield of 3.70 percent and one token at $117.0111.

USDY comes in two versions, and the choice has practical consequences. With the accumulating USDY the price per token rises as interest accrues. With the rebasing rUSDY the price stays at $1.00 and the balance in the wallet grows instead on every bank business day. Ondo recommends the first form for longer holding and as collateral in smart contracts, meaning self-executing contracts on the blockchain, and the second as an interest-bearing means of payment. Switching between the two is possible at any time.

Together that comes to around $4.0 billion. Other compilations put the same week at about $3.79 billion; the spread arises because some counts treat older products or individual blockchains differently. The individual figures above are the solid ones, because the provider publishes them itself.

On top of that comes Ondo Private Markets, launched on October 9 and described in detail by us at the time: pre-IPO notes that pay out only at the listing. A further line, Ondo Intelligent Portfolios, was announced by the company on September 24, 2026. That line bundles several tokenized assets into a single token.

The ONDO token is a governance token, not a share in the tokenized bonds

A governance token is a token whose main function is a say in an organisation, not a claim on earnings or assets. That is exactly what ONDO is. Behind the token stands the Ondo Foundation, a non-profit foundation company set up in the Cayman Islands in 2022 with no beneficial owners. The foundation helped the Ondo DAO get started, and through that DAO token holders have rights that relate to Flux Finance.

Flux Finance is a lending protocol that Ondo developed itself: a fork of Compound v2 through which users borrow and lend stablecoins against high-quality collateral such as OUSG. Ondo subsequently sold the protocol to the Ondo Foundation. The voting rights of ONDO holders therefore attach to that lending protocol, not to the $4.0 billion in USDY, OUSG and Ondo Stocks.

Buying ONDO is thus a bet on the growth of a platform whose product earnings the token, as currently structured, does not directly share in. That gap between product success and token is the open question our buy analysis of the ONDO price from September named as the central point. Which licences and corporate structures sit behind it is set out on our company page on Ondo Finance.

In the EEA only professional clients may subscribe USDY and Ondo Stocks

This is the point at which most accounts fall short. Ondo divides the world into two groups. Access is prohibited outright for persons from fifteen jurisdictions, among them the United States and Canada. It is restricted for a second group, and that group includes, according to the Ondo Stocks eligibility page, the line “Any Member State of the European Economic Area”.

Germany belongs to the European Economic Area. Anyone resident there can only subscribe, mint or redeem USDY or a tokenized Ondo equity if they meet one of two conditions: “professional client” under Annex II Section I of the MiFID II markets directive, or “qualified investor” under Article 2(1)(e) of the Prospectus Regulation (EU) 2017/1129.

Ondo names the thresholds that usually suffice for this. A private individual has to meet two of three conditions: a financial portfolio of 500,000 euros, ten significant transactions per quarter over the preceding four quarters, or one year of professional experience in the financial sector. Companies face their own size criteria, such as a balance sheet total of 20 million euros. Anyone in the restricted group has to evidence and declare their eligibility to the issuer.

For the ordinary retail investor in Germany that means the tokenized products themselves are not an offer to them. What is open is only the ONDO token on the crypto exchanges, and that is a different thing.

Ondo’s tokenized equities are called TSLAon and are total return trackers

The tokenized equities carry the ticker of the underlying with “on” appended: TSLA becomes TSLAon. The issuer is Ondo Global Markets (BVI) Limited, a company in the British Virgin Islands. Every token is fully backed by the underlying according to the provider.

One property matters and surprises many people: a token does not permanently correspond to one share. Ondo constructs the tokens as total return trackers. They are meant to deliver holders the same economics as holding the share with dividends reinvested. Over time a token therefore embodies more than one share, and the token price deliberately drifts away from the price of the underlying. On Solana and BNB Chain, supported wallets account for that effect through a display factor applied to the balance rather than to the price.

Voting rights were added at the end of April 2026: on April 28 Ondo said it was building voting functions for tokenized equities together with the settlement provider Broadridge. In institutional use the company marked a further step on May 6, 2026, on its own account, when tokenized US Treasuries were redeemed across borders and across banks for the first time, together with Kinexys by J.P. Morgan, Mastercard and Ripple.

30 percent US withholding tax: what the British Virgin Islands structure costs

For German investors this point decides more than any product description. Dividends from the underlying shares do not flow to the token holder but to the issuer, and there US withholding tax applies at the rates for companies in the British Virgin Islands. Ondo states the consequence openly on its own fees and taxes page: on dividends from US companies it is 30 percent. Only that reduced amount is reinvested. A dollar of dividend becomes 70 cents.

For comparison: under the double taxation treaty between Germany and the United States the rate for German private investors falls to 15 percent, and that portion is creditable against German withholding tax. Holding the share through a German securities account therefore costs roughly half of what the token structure deducts at this point. On distributions from US bond ETFs the rate can be lower, because income from US Treasuries is exempt.

Ondo withholds no further taxes, not even on redemption. The tax liability itself stays entirely with the investor. How Germany treats tokenized equities and when the one-year holding period applies is something we took apart in our guide to the taxation of tokenized equities in Germany.

Secondary market purchases without eligibility: the issuer can refuse redemption

Tokenized assets can be traded on secondary markets, for instance on decentralised exchanges. Ondo expressly guarantees neither a market nor liquidity for that. What counts is what comes along with the purchase: buying such a token on the secondary market automatically declares that you are not a prohibited person and that you are eligible for the product.

Redemption then requires a successful customer check at the issuer. Ondo writes that there is a risk that someone holding secondary market tokens does not meet those requirements and is then unable to return their tokens in whole or in part. Prohibited persons have no rights at all under the offering documents. For a security that can be bought on a decentralised exchange in minutes, that is a hard condition: the purchase works technically, the way back can stay blocked.

ONDO in trading: 69 venues, eight euro pairs, no Bitpanda

The token itself is widely available. CoinGecko market data listed 69 trading venues for ONDO on October 24. It was directly tradable against the euro on eight of them, among others at Kraken, Bitvavo, OKX and Bybit. At Bitpanda, the most important provider for German-speaking beginners, ONDO did not appear in that listing. Trading volume across all venues came to around $87.2 million within 24 hours.

In practice that means a euro pair saves you the detour through a stablecoin and with it a second swap, which for tax purposes is a sale of its own. If you are comparing, look at fees, spread and the provider’s licence before you buy. An overview is in our comparison of the best crypto exchanges.

ONDO is issued as an ERC-20 token on Ethereum. Transactions run over that blockchain and the user bears the network fees. USDY sits more broadly: market data shows the token on twelve blockchains, among them Solana, Arbitrum, Sui and Mantle.

Market capitalisation $2.0 billion, 4.87 of 10 billion ONDO in circulation

The token figures as of October 24: market capitalisation stood at $2.01 billion, rank 49 among all cryptocurrencies. In circulation were 4,869,330,647 ONDO. Maximum supply is 10 billion tokens, so the circulating supply amounts to a good 48 percent of that. Valuing the full supply at the current price gives $4.13 billion.

That gap between circulation and maximum supply is the most important number in this section for investors: more than five billion ONDO are not yet in the market. If they arrive through unlocks, they meet the same demand unless that demand grows.

On the price history: the all-time high is $2.14, set on December 15, 2024, and the all-time low is $0.0822. The price is therefore more than 80 percent below the high. Over the week the token lost 9.58 percent, and 5.71 percent within 24 hours. We deliberately name no individual price targets here.

Ondo Private Markets packages pre-IPO stakes as unsecured debt instruments

The newest product line deserves a look of its own, because its construction is unfamiliar. An Ondo Private Markets note is a tokenized debt instrument whose payout is tied to the value per common share of a specific company that is not yet listed. One note relates to one share.

Three properties are decisive, and Ondo highlights them in the documents itself. The note is an obligation of PM Issuer Co (BVI) Limited, not of the company named. It is secured by no underlying whatsoever, not even by shares in the reference company, and it grants no ownership or shareholder rights. And it pays out exactly once, when a qualifying liquidity event occurs, such as a listing or a takeover. Until then a fixed price applies, and trading takes place only among eligible holders. For the payout, the holder has to go through a separate process with identity verification.

Risks: issuer in the British Virgin Islands, no deposit protection

Ondo’s products are not bank deposits and not German securities. That gives rise to risks which exist independently of the price. The issuer risk sits with companies in the British Virgin Islands; if one of them fails, no German deposit protection and no investor compensation fund applies. With the Private Markets notes there is the added point that they are expressly unsecured.

Then there is the access risk from the two sections above: eligibility and identity verification decide whether a holder can return their tokens. And with the ONDO token the underlying problem remains that its value hangs on the governance of a lending protocol while the growth happens in the products. A total loss is possible with any crypto asset.

One last difference from many other coins belongs here: these tokens cannot simply be self-custodied and forgotten. Taking part in the products ties you permanently to an identity check at the issuer for issuance and redemption. Investments in tokenized paper are therefore less anonymous than buying an ordinary crypto asset, and with a security that is also the point of the exercise.

Ondo Finance: the token is not part of the $4.0 billion

Anyone looking into Ondo is best served by separating the two levels first and then working through them in this order:

1. Settle your own classification. For USDY, OUSG and the tokenized equities you need professional client status in the EEA. If you do not meet the thresholds, the ONDO token is the only route left, and you buy it on a licensed exchange. Which providers can show a European licence is laid out in our comparison of regulated crypto exchanges.
2. Work through the alternative. If it is the share you want and not the blockchain, set the 30 percent withholding tax of the token structure against the 15 percent in a German securities account. The terms for that are in our broker comparison.
3. Open the tax file early. Every swap, including the one from a stablecoin into ONDO, is a separate event with its own date. Recording that as you go spares you the reconstruction in the spring; suitable tools are in our overview of crypto tax software and portfolio trackers.

(As of October 24, 2026. This article is not investment advice. Prices and fee structures change; check the terms with the provider before you buy.)

What is documented: the seven US spot funds on Solana gave up a net $30.3 million over the five trading days to October 22, and on October 22 not one of them recorded an inflow. Our assessment follows further down: the sum itself is small for a market capitalised at close to $60 billion, and it is the absence of any offsetting entry that stands out.

Solana trades at $101.83 on Saturday morning, measured on the last trade on the Coinbase exchange; Kraken shows $101.80 at the same moment. That is 2.6 percent below the level of 24 hours ago, when trading opened at $104.50. Where the price can point over a horizon of months is set out in our Solana price prediction.

$30.3 million in five trading days: the numbers on the SOL ETFs

For the trading day of October 22, the data service SoSoValue reports a net outflow of $8.515 million across all US spot funds on Solana. The industry service Tokenpost puts the same day at $8.9 million; the gap comes from different rounding and different cut-off times at the two providers. We give both figures rather than smoothing one of them away.

The weekly total is what counts. Tokenpost adds the five trading days to October 22 up to minus $30.3 million. For comparison: for the week of October 12 to 16 the same data provider reported $25.52 million of outflows, and at the time that counted as the highest weekly figure since the funds launched. Eight days later the new figure sits 18.7 percent above it.

A spot fund is a vehicle that actually holds the coin instead of tracking it through futures contracts. If an investor redeems shares, the fund has to hand over or sell the SOL behind them. That is precisely why an outflow bites differently from a change of mind in the futures market: real tokens change hands.

BSOL and GSOL carry the outflow, five funds stand still

The outflow of October 22 is not spread evenly. Two products carry it on their own:

• Bitwise Solana Staking ETF (BSOL): $5.7182 million out in a single day. That is the largest individual figure and accounts for two thirds of the daily total.
• Grayscale Solana Trust (GSOL): $3.2163 million out. Cumulative net inflows into this product stand at around $160 million.
• VSOL, FSOL, TSOL, SOEZ and MSOL: no flow in either direction.

That five of the seven funds show no movement at all on a trading day says more about the situation than the size of the outflow does. The day before, on October 21, the balance was even slightly positive at $585,300, and there too only one provider booked anything. The demand side is not negative. It is absent.

Why a staking ETF cannot sell its SOL straight away

That the outflow is largest at the staking product BSOL has a technical consequence which does not arise with Bitcoin funds. A staking ETF locks the SOL it holds into the network in order to earn the network reward. Locked SOL is not available for sale at once: freeing it means deactivating the stake first, and under the Solana protocol that only takes effect at the end of the current epoch.

An epoch is the settlement period of the Solana blockchain in which the rewards are allocated. We measured how large that locked share has become on October 23: our analysis of epoch 1066 found 74.12 percent of the circulating supply staked. For the funds that means a redemption order placed today may not reach the spot market until a day later.

The mechanism pushes the selling pressure back rather than removing it. An outflow booked on Thursday can arrive as a sale in the market on Friday or over the weekend. A missing price reaction on the booking day is therefore no proof that the outflow had no effect.

Last week’s record lasts eight days

The second thing worth a look is the cumulative holding, because it shows the direction over weeks instead of over days. On October 16 the cumulative net inflow of all Solana funds since launch stood at $1.57 billion, on October 19 at $1.56 billion, and the reading for October 23 is $1.532 billion. In the space of a week, $38 million has disappeared from the overall balance.

Net assets of the funds have fallen over the same period from $1.676 billion to around $1.608 billion. That decline has two causes at once, and reports often mix them up: money is flowing out, and the price of the SOL held is falling. With 589 million tokens in circulation and $101.83 per token, Solana is capitalised at around $60.0 billion. The funds hold about 2.68 percent of that.

The fund holding since October 18

For regular readers the comparison with our own reading from six days ago says more than any snapshot. On October 18 our analysis of annual issuance put the funds’ holding at $1.56 billion. The same figure today is $1.532 billion. The price was above $107 then; today it is $101.83.

One level from our calculation of October 20 has been answered since as well: back then the picture hung on $107.51. That level has gone, the price sits 5.3 percent below it and has not won it back. Readers following the series can keep score of which arguments held and which did not.

Solana price at $101.83: the levels between $100.32 and $109.62

The relevant levels come out of this week’s price data, not out of round numbers. On the downside the first catch is $101.60, Saturday’s intraday low; the price sits barely above it. Below that comes $100.32, the low of the past 30 days. Only 1.3 percent separates those two values, which is why a break of the daily low lands at the monthly low fast.

On the upside two values are justified. Saturday’s intraday high is $105.11. Considerably further away runs the 50-day line, the average of the last 50 daily closes, at $109.62. Solana trades 7.1 percent below it. On our calculation from the daily candles on the Coinbase exchange, the 100-day line sits at $96.42 and the 200-day line at $88.27; the long-term uptrend is therefore not broken, the medium-term one is.

The monthly high of $124.93 is 18.5 percent away. That span is the real frame for the debate about fund flows: as long as no fresh inflows arrive, the price lacks the buyer who could carry it above the 50-day line.

The US funds are mostly off limits to German retail investors

Here comes a point that is regularly missing from international reports on SOL fund flows: the seven products whose outflows this article describes are as a rule not available to a German retail investor at all. The reason is the key information document required by the European PRIIPs regulation. A broker may only distribute an investment product to retail clients if that document exists in the relevant national language, and US issuers do not usually produce it for their funds.

Existing positions may still be held and sold in that case; buying more is not allowed. The realistic exchange route in Europe therefore runs through exchange-traded products, meaning the ETPs and ETNs that are approved here. Which routes exist, and how to recognise an approved product, is set out in our overview of the crypto ETF in Germany.

The US figures still matter for the price picture, for a simple reason: they move the spot market on which a German investor buys too. To acquire SOL directly you need a trading platform that lists the coin and works under European supervision; the terms differ considerably, so a look at our comparison of crypto exchanges is worth it before the first purchase.

Holding period under section 23 EStG: December 31, 2026 is the date that counts

In Germany a tax difference sits between a fund share and a directly held coin that weighs more than any question of fees. Crypto assets held directly as private assets fall under section 23 of the German Income Tax Act, the rules on private disposals. After more than twelve months of holding, the gain on a sale stays free of income tax. Sell within the year and the personal tax rate applies, with an exemption limit of 1,000 euros per person per year that works on an all-or-nothing basis.

A share in a fund or a security does not carry that clock. Gains from it count as investment income and are taxed at 25 percent withholding tax plus the solidarity surcharge, around 26.375 percent in total, however long the share sat in the account. For products with a delivery claim the classification is disputed in the specialist literature; we pass that on as a contested question, not as settled law.

The date that matters now is December 31, 2026. The draft bill of the Federal Ministry of Finance of September 30, 2026 would move crypto assets from section 23 to section 20 of the Income Tax Act and tax gains at 25 percent regardless of the holding period. It is meant to apply only to crypto assets acquired after December 31, 2026. None of it is settled: the federal cabinet did not adopt the draft on October 14, 2026, and on October 8 the Bundestag rejected a motion of different content from the Greens parliamentary group by 445 votes to 132. We track the current state in our overview of the crypto holding period and its reform.

Our assessment: it is not the outflow that weighs, but the missing offsetting entry

From the newsroom’s point of view the sum of $30.3 million is no reason for concern taken on its own. The amount comes to a good 0.05 percent of Solana’s capitalisation and sits far below what passes through the spot markets on an average day. It also speaks in that direction that 2.68 percent of the circulating supply sits in these funds, so the holding was never the driving force behind the price.

What strikes us about the figures is something else: on two consecutive trading days only a single provider reported any entry at all. Five of the seven funds stood still on October 22. That points to institutional new money not flowing into Solana at the moment, and without that demand the price lacks exactly the buyer that would have to win back the $109.62 of the 50-day line.

Against it stands the time frame. Five trading days are a short stretch, the previous week contained a record outflow as well, and the price is still holding 1.5 percent above the monthly low of $100.32. No statement about a trend can be derived from that; the picture only becomes solid once the coming trading days show whether the $100 zone attracts buyers. We assess the situation, we recommend neither a purchase nor a sale, and a total loss remains possible with crypto assets.

SOL ETFs at $1.532 billion: without inflows the buyer is missing

1. Read the inflow balance, not the daily release. A single daily figure of $8.5 million says little. What carries information is whether the cumulative net inflow of $1.532 billion keeps falling in the coming days or turns. If part of your holding earns a network reward, a look at our comparison of staking platforms pays off first, because reward and lock-up both depend on the provider.
2. Record the acquisition date. For every position the date counts, not the feeling. Buy today and you are before December 31, 2026 and, under the draft as it stands, still covered by the old clock. Which tool documents acquisition dates and FIFO order reliably is shown by our comparison of crypto tax software.
3. Note the two levels. $100.32 as the monthly low on the downside, $109.62 as the 50-day line on the upside. As long as the price swings between those values, the development of the funds is a pointer to demand and not a signal for a breakout.

(As of October 24, 2026. This article is not investment advice. Prices and fee structures change; check the terms with the provider before you buy.)

In early November the next tranche comes out of lock-up at Sui. How large it is depends on which unlock tracker you ask: the figures range from 2.07 million to 22.6 million SUI, and on the date alone three services name three different days. If you hold the token, that is less dramatic than the numbers sound. Even the largest tranche cited amounts to about half a percent of the circulating supply. Three other things therefore matter more than the date: how your Sui is held, whether your one-year holding period is running, and whether you are positioned with leverage.

The price stood at $0.96 on Saturday morning. Over the week Sui has lost almost five percent, market capitalisation stands at $3.96 billion, rank 29 (according to CoinGecko, as of Saturday, October 24, 4am). This article places the date in context, separates the documented figures from the contradictory ones and says what applies legally in Germany.

Sui token unlock: what comes out of lock-up in early November

A token unlock is the scheduled end of a lock-up period: tokens that went to the team, early investors, the foundation or the reserve at issuance become transferable at a set point in time. They are not newly created in the process. Sui’s total supply is fixed at 10 billion SUI, of which 4.12 billion are in circulation, or 41.2 percent (CoinGecko, as of Saturday morning). An unlock moves tokens from the locked half into the tradable one.

The service Tokenomist names 13,147,499 SUI for November 1, going to the group of “Early Contributors”. On its calculation that is around 0.32 percent of the supply already released. CoinGlass lists a total allocation of 6.134 percent for the same group, of which 3.88 percent is unlocked and 2.25 percent still locked, and likewise names November 1. The service Tokenomics.com dates the next release to November 3 and names 22,617,401 SUI, or 0.2 percent of total supply. DeFiLlama lists a markedly smaller tranche of around 2.07 million SUI from the Mysten Labs treasury for October 31; the site blocks automated requests, but the figure could be confirmed through its search.

We are not smoothing out that range. What can be evidenced: in the days around November 1 a lock-up expires, and the services do not agree on the size or the exact day. Selling a single number as settled means not having read the other trackers.

Early Contributors: 12-month cliff, 72 months of linear vesting

The group in question is called “Early Contributors” at Sui. Its vesting schedule is described consistently across the trackers: twelve months of cliff, then 72 months linear. A cliff is the period in which nothing at all is released; when it expires, a block falls due in one go. Linear vesting, by contrast, spreads the amount evenly over many months.

That difference explains why this tranche is small for a network of this size. Sui is long past its cliff and is in the long linear phase. Dropstab describes the overall schedule as non-linear with a final milestone in May 2030. What falls in early November is therefore a monthly instalment and not a dam breaking. A cliff and a monthly instalment act on a market in completely different ways.

Why three unlock trackers name three different dates

The discrepancies have comprehensible reasons, and they are no sign that one side is miscalculating. First, the services count different recipient groups: Tokenomist assigns the tranche to the “Early Contributors”, DeFiLlama to the Mysten Labs treasury. Second, they work with different reference bases, in one case the share of released supply, in the other the share of total supply. Third, releases often sit on a block or an epoch rather than on a calendar day, which produces a day of difference depending on the time zone.

In practice that means treating the window from October 31 to November 3 as the period in which something can move, rather than a single day as a cut-off. The primary source for such questions is the project’s own tokenomics schedule; the trackers are presentations of it.

0.32 percent of circulating supply: the scale of the unlock

Figures without a benchmark are worthless. Set the tranches cited against the circulating supply of 4.12 billion SUI and this follows: Tokenomist’s 13.15 million SUI are 0.32 percent, Tokenomics.com’s 22.6 million are 0.55 percent, DeFiLlama’s 2.07 million are 0.05 percent. All three values are below one percent.

For comparison from our own coverage: at the Kite unlock in early November, 1.11 billion KITE become tradable according to our report of October 18, and at Cronos 1.17 billion CRO from the strategic reserve. Tranches of that kind move a circulating supply noticeably. A monthly instalment of a third of a percent generally does not.

Sui price at $0.96: weekly high $1.05, weekly low $0.94

Over the past seven days Sui has moved in a narrow range. The weekly high was $1.05 on October 21, the weekly low $0.94 on October 18 (CoinGecko price series, as of Saturday, October 24, 4am). The token currently trades at $0.96 and is therefore closer to the low than to the high. Over 24 hours it is down around three percent, over seven days almost five percent.

The wider context: Sui is 82 percent away from its all-time high of $5.35 set on January 4, 2025. Market capitalisation is $3.96 billion, the fully diluted valuation $9.62 billion. The gap between those two figures is precisely the part of the supply still sitting in lock-ups, and the reason unlock dates get any attention at Sui at all.

Trading volume of $324 million against a tranche worth $12.6 million

Whether a released amount moves the price depends on how it compares with daily trading. Sui’s trading volume over the last 24 hours was $324 million (CoinGecko, as of Saturday morning). The tranche of 13.15 million SUI corresponds to about $12.6 million at the current price, around four percent of one day’s turnover. The larger figure of 22.6 million SUI would come to roughly $21.7 million, just under seven percent.

Both are amounts a liquid market absorbs on a normal day, not least because recipients rarely sell everything at once. One point price forecasts tend to pass over is decisive here: released means transferable, not sold. Whether and when the tokens move to an exchange is in no vesting schedule.

Hashi, Samsung Wallet and 40 million TPS: the October before the date

The unlock falls in a month with several documented developments in the Sui ecosystem. On October 7 the Sui Foundation reported a verified throughput record of 40 million transactions per second on its own blog, measured at its Sui Basecamp conference; the previous figure was 6 million. On October 8 the same source announced the mainnet launch of Hashi, a network for bitcoin collateralisation, with more than $500 million in committed capital and Anchorage Digital as a partner. We placed both in context on October 12 in our report on the Hashi launch.

Also on October 8, the Sui Foundation reported a collaboration with Samsung intended to bring USDC on Sui into Samsung Wallet on 82 million US Galaxy devices. On October 12 came the connection of the DATA Network to Sui and Walrus, and on October 20 and 21 two technical posts from Basecamp followed. One point matters for context: the committed capital at Hashi is a commitment, not liquidity already provided. The Sui Foundation draws that distinction itself, and price reports frequently blur it.

Buying Sui in Germany: MiCA authorisation and custody

If you want to buy or reallocate Sui in Germany, the provider’s authorisation is the first point. Since the transitional periods expired, a crypto service provider needs an authorisation under the MiCA regulation to do business with customers in the EU; in Germany BaFin grants and supervises it. That can be checked in the supervisor’s register, not in the advertising on an exchange’s home page. Which houses are authorised for German customers and what they cost is set out in our comparison of the best crypto exchanges.

The second point is custody. If your SUI sit on an exchange, you hold a claim against the provider, not tokens. For holdings you intend to keep for longer, your own wallet is the route, and the differences between the devices decide how they are operated and how they are backed up. Sui is a proof-of-stake network, so you can delegate SUI to validators and receive a reward for it. If you do that through a provider, it pays to know the fee, the payout rhythm and the notice period, because lock-in durations differ widely.

The one-year holding period: why the unlock date is secondary for tax

In Germany the one-year holding period under section 23 of the Income Tax Act applies to crypto assets held privately. Sell SUI within a year of buying and the gain is taxable as a private disposal and charged at your personal tax rate; after a year has passed it is tax-free. There is also the exemption threshold for gains from private disposals, above which the entire gain becomes taxable.

That produces a sober order of priority: a project’s release date changes nothing about your personal deadline. Selling shortly before the anniversary because of an unlock date may mean paying tax on a gain that would have been tax-free eight weeks later. Note as well that staking rewards are treated differently from pure price gains for tax purposes; they count as other income at the time they accrue. With larger holdings that is a case for tax advice, not for a rule of thumb from an article.

Leverage and liquidation: why dates take out tightly set stop orders

For leveraged positions the arithmetic is different. Sui moved in a range of around eleven percent last week, between $0.94 and $1.05. With tenfold leverage, a ten percent move against the position wipes out the stake. Around known dates volatility often increases, because many market participants have the same dates in their calendar.

If you are positioned with leverage, the liquidation price, the level of collateral and the funding rate are the variables that decide the outcome. The funding rate is the periodic payment between the buy and sell sides in perpetual futures; with one-sided positioning it can make a position expensive even when the price stands still. A stop that sits inside the normal daily range will probably be triggered on a date with heightened volatility.

Levels above and below: $1.05 against $0.94

As points of observation, not as price targets, the weekly range yields two values. On the upside the weekly high of $1.05 from October 21 is the next hurdle, with the round $1.10 mark behind it. On the downside lies the weekly low of $0.94 from October 18, with the round $0.90 mark below that.

Whether those values hold cannot be predicted, and nobody should claim otherwise. What they are good for: they give you a frame in which to anchor your own decisions instead of reacting to daily headlines. Our running assessment of the price action is on our Sui price page.

Sui unlock: the size stays disputed until November 3

The date is set, the size is not. Three steps put the situation in order:

1. Settle your custody. Check whether your SUI sit on an exchange authorised in the EU or in your own wallet. For self-custody, our hardware wallet comparison is the starting point.
2. Look up your purchase date. Note when you bought your holdings and work out the one-year holding period. That date weighs more heavily on your result than November 1 or 3; the tools for it are in the comparison of tax tools.
3. Read up on your staking terms. If you have delegated SUI, check your provider’s fee and notice period, so that you know how long you are committed if the need arises. The terms are in the staking comparison.

The documented key figures to take away: 4.12 billion SUI in circulation out of 10 billion, a tranche of between 2.07 and 22.6 million SUI in the window from October 31 to November 3, a price of $0.96, a weekly range of $0.94 to $1.05. The primary sources for this are the Sui Foundation blog and the vesting schedule at Tokenomist.

(As of October 24, 2026. This article is not investment advice. Prices and fee structures change; check the terms with the provider before you buy.)

The bitcoin price stood at $80,806 on Saturday morning, a second consecutive day below its 50-day moving average. That average sits at $81,807 on our own calculation, a gap of $1,001 or 1.23 percent. Two things are therefore documented: the price has fallen through a moving average it had held for 66 days, and it remains 10.84 percent above its 200-day average. Our assessment follows further down: the break is a level that trading programmes orient themselves by, not a verdict on the trend.

For Bitcoin this is the first extended spell below that line since late summer. On October 23 the price closed at $81,328, which was $459 below the 50-day average of $81,787 at the time. By Saturday morning the gap had more than doubled, to $1,001. Within 24 hours the price moved between $80,455 and $81,939, a decline of 0.97 percent. Over the week the loss stands at 0.64 percent. The price data come from CoinGecko.

The 50-day average at $81,807 and the first break in 66 days

A 50-day moving average is the mean of the last 50 daily closing prices. The average smooths out the swings of individual days and shows where the medium-term centre of a market lies. With the price above it, a buyer over the last seven weeks or so has on average paid less than today. Below it, the reverse holds.

Our analysis of the daily closing prices shows this: from August 18 to October 22 the bitcoin price closed above that line on 66 consecutive days. The last close below it dates from August 17, 2026, then at $62,844 against a 50-day average of $63,572. On October 23 the streak broke. That is the real event of this weekend, not the price level itself.

The gap wore away over weeks rather than collapsing in a single day. On October 5 the price was still $7,465 above the line; by October 17 it was $270, and on October 18 only $83. In between, the line itself rose from $79,025 to $81,807, because weak summer days dropped out of the 50-day window and were replaced by strong October days. The price did not slump, then; the yardstick came up to meet it.

How we calculated: 366 daily closes instead of a third-party chart

The four moving averages in this article come from our own calculation and not from a chart provider. The basis is 366 daily closing prices from CoinGecko for the period October 25, 2025 to October 24, 2026. From those we form the simple moving average over 20, 50, 100 and 200 days.

Two limitations belong with that, because the figures would otherwise look more precise than they are. Our calculation works with daily values in dollars; anyone looking at hourly candles or at euro prices will arrive at slightly different lines. And the crypto market has no official closing price in the way an exchange with fixed trading hours does, so the daily value is a convention. For the question of whether a 66-day streak has broken, none of that matters: the latest gap of $1,001 is larger than any of these deviations.

The 20-day, 100-day and 200-day lines: where the other three levels stand

A single line says little. Only the distance to the longer averages shows how far the market has moved from its own mean. On our calculation as of Saturday morning:

• 20-day average: $82,560. The price is 2.13 percent below it. This line has been falling since October 10, when it stood at $84,288.
• 50-day average: $81,807. The price is 1.23 percent below it, and the line continues to rise.
• 100-day average: $75,291. The price is 7.32 percent above it.
• 200-day average: $72,900. The price is 10.84 percent above it.

That produces a range which can be put in numbers. On the upside, the zone between $81,807 and $82,560 stands in the way, a good $1,000 to $1,750 above the current level. On the downside, the next widely watched line only comes at $75,291, around $5,500 lower. Between those two zones the moving-average view offers nothing. Anyone looking for levels there takes the daily low of $80,455 and the yearly low of $58,566 from July 1, 2026.

Trend-following funds, stop levels and the break of a moving average

Why a calculated line has any effect at all is explained by its mechanism. Systematic trading programmes, trend followers in the jargon, buy and sell by fixed rules rather than by opinion. One of the oldest of those rules runs: hold the position as long as the price is above a set moving average, reduce it when the price falls below. The 50-day average is among the most common settings, because it covers roughly a quarter.

The effect is therefore self-fulfilling in good part. It is not the line that moves the price, but the number of programmes watching the same line. For private investors one sober consequence follows: the break says something about the supply situation of the next few days, nothing about the value of bitcoin. Selling for that reason alone is a bet on being faster than programmes that trade in milliseconds.

The other side of the same streak provides the counter-check. The 66 days above the line coincided with a recovery from $62,844 in mid-August to a peak of $86,490 on October 5, a gain of 37.6 percent. The market made up a lot of ground in that phase, and is now giving part of it back.

Nasdaq pullback and ETF outflows: the pressure came from outside

The break did not fall into a quiet market. Our newsroom reported on Friday morning on a bitcoin price of $81,568 after $431 million in long liquidations, triggered by a pullback on the American technology exchanges. Since then the price has given up a further $762 without a second wave of liquidations being needed. That points to selling in ordinary trading rather than to forced closures.

Added to that were the outflows from the American spot ETFs. We reported separately on Saturday morning on the more than $635 million that left the bitcoin ETFs in a single day; the figure comes from the data provider SoSoValue. For the moving-average view, one point about it matters: an ETF outflow hits the spot market directly, because the issuer has to sell the bitcoin it holds in order to redeem shares. Exactly that selling pressure consumed the gap to the 50-day average over the course of this week.

Mining difficulty rises by an estimated 5.55 percent on October 29

On the network side a countervailing development is visible, and it has a date. Mining difficulty, the computational effort required for a block, is reset every 2,016 blocks. The next adjustment is due at block height 973,728. On Saturday morning the network stood at block 972,877, so 851 blocks were missing. Mempool.space estimates the date as October 29 and the adjustment as plus 5.55 percent.

That estimate is an extrapolation from the block times of the current period so far and not a fixed value; it shifts with every block. The previous adjustment on October 16 came out similarly, at plus 5.92 percent. Current difficulty stands at around 140.6 trillion and the network’s estimated computing power at some 1,066 exahashes per second on a three-day average; both series can be viewed in the public history of hashrate and difficulty. That mean fluctuates heavily: the daily values of the past three days ranged between 867 and 1,228 exahashes per second.

Two adjustments totalling a good eleven percent to the upside mean rising costs per bitcoin produced for miners, while the price runs sideways to slightly lower. That is the second angle on the same week: on the chart a line is crumbling, while on the network more computing power is being added at the same time. Anyone looking only at the chart misses that half.

A network fee of one satoshi: what a transfer costs this weekend

One practical side effect of the quiet conditions concerns anyone who wants to move bitcoin. The network fee stood at one satoshi per virtual byte on Saturday morning, the technical minimum rate for relaying. In the next estimated block the median bid is even 0.14 satoshi per virtual byte. An ordinary transfer of around 140 virtual bytes therefore costs about 140 satoshi, roughly 11 cents at the current price.

The network’s queue held 49,019 transactions with 24.8 million virtual bytes. That sounds like congestion, but it is not: the bids sit almost entirely below one satoshi, which is why a new order at the minimum rate still makes it into one of the next blocks. The figures come from the public mempool explorer, retrieved on Saturday morning.

Network fee and exchange withdrawal fee are two different amounts

Here is where two things many investors take for one part company. The network fee goes to the miners and depends on utilisation. The withdrawal fee goes to the exchange and is, at many providers, a fixed amount per withdrawal, often between 0.0001 and 0.0005 bitcoin. At $80,806 that is $8 to $40 for an operation that currently costs the network 11 cents.

The difference is therefore a hundredfold. A look at your own provider’s fee page pays off, on three points: whether the withdrawal fee is a fixed amount or the actual network fee, whether there is a minimum withdrawal amount, and whether withdrawals over the Lightning network are offered, which are billed differently. Providers with variable billing pass a phase like this one straight through, providers with a flat amount do not; which exchange bills in which way is set out in the crypto exchange comparison.

Holding period and self-custody: a transfer is not a sale

In tax terms, moving coins to your own wallet has no consequences in Germany as long as they stay in your own possession: a transfer between two of your own addresses is not a disposal and triggers no tax. The one-year holding period under section 23 of the Income Tax Act keeps running; it does not start afresh. What counts is being able to prove the acquisition date of every position moved, so anyone holding several tranches documents them before the transfer.

How the holding period develops is politically undecided, however. We track the current state of the reform debate continuously on our page on the crypto holding period and its possible reform. Until something is decided there, the existing rule applies unchanged.

Our assessment: a level that moves programmes, not a change of trend

From the newsroom’s point of view, the break of the 50-day average is an event for short-term trading and not yet one for the medium-term picture. Three documented points support that: the price remains 7.32 percent above the 100-day average and 10.84 percent above the 200-day average, the decline over the current week amounts to just 0.64 percent, and the 50-day average itself continues to rise rather than turning down.

Against it stands the origin of the selling pressure. The $635 million of outflows from the spot ETFs and the pullback on the technology exchanges both originated outside the crypto market. As long as institutional money is being withdrawn there, the market lacks the demand that carried it above the line in September and early October. That will be decided by the ETF figures of the coming trading days, which are only published again on Monday evening, and not by the line.

What the newsroom does not derive from either is a buy or sell recommendation. A moving average describes 50 days of the past and says nothing about what happens on Monday.

The three levels for the coming trading days

For the week ahead, three verifiable levels can be drawn from the data in this article, each with a reason rather than a gut feeling:

• $81,807. The 50-day average, now resistance from below. A daily close above it ends the break after two days.
• $82,560. The 20-day average, the second hurdle above it. Only beyond that is the price back above both short lines.
• $80,455. The daily low of the past 24 hours. Below it begins the stretch without a moving average, down to $75,291.

These levels hold until the next daily closes shift them. The 50-day average is currently rising by around $20 to $80 a day, because weaker August days are dropping out of the window. The line therefore keeps coming towards the price, even when the price itself does not move.

The 50-day average at $81,807: below it, the $75,291 level counts

Three steps that can be dealt with over the weekend without any hurry:

1. Review your custody. With a network fee of around 11 cents, moving coins to your own wallet currently costs as little as it rarely does. Which devices are suitable and what they cost is set out in the hardware wallet comparison.
2. Sort out your acquisition data. Before any transfer, record the purchase dates of the individual tranches so that the holding period remains provable later. Which programmes take that over is shown by the comparison of tax and portfolio tools.
3. Know your selling route. Anyone planning to use one of the levels named as an exit settles the limit order, the payout route and the minimum amount beforehand. The routes and their costs are set out in the comparison on selling bitcoin.

(As of October 24, 2026. This article is not investment advice. Prices and fee structures change; check the terms with the provider before you buy. Trading in crypto assets carries the risk of total loss.)

Days before Israel’s election, Netanyahu said he has asked for a blockchain plan in case banks are hit with sanctions, and told Israelis to prepare for a rainy day after Trump.

Sen. Richard Blumenthal demanded Tether’s records on payments to Nxum, a firm co-owned by former White House crypto adviser Bo Hines.

SpaceX’s latest 10-Q filing quietly confirms any Tesla combination requires sign-off from its “controlling shareholder.”

The regulator's Division of Examinations named "super intelligence and other advanced technologies" as a focus area alongside tokenization risks.

Vibe coding your TV is impressive. Doing it without knowing exactly what you're touching is how you lose a rooted LG set and get a very sincere apology from an AI.

U.S. spot Bitcoin ETFs recorded $137.94 million in net outflows on Oct. 23, bringing combined withdrawals over two sessions to $773.43 million.

XRP network activity continues to grow as burn rate sees highest increase this week, signaling active participation on the XRP ledger.

A symbolic order on the XRP Ledger decentralized exchange offering 1 XRP for 1 BTC stays inscribed in its history.

XRP bulls face a mandatory two-year wait as steady escrow supply caps potential breakout momentum.

SHIB bounces back above $0.000005, but heavy exchange inflows cast doubt on the recovery.

TLDR

• BeOne’s liver cancer drug posts a 36% response rate in a Phase 1 clinical study.
• BGB-B2033 shows a 74.1% six-month response durability rate at its target dose.
• BeOne’s lung cancer ADC delivers a 56% response rate in CEA-high tumor patients.
• PRMT5 inhibitor BGB-58067 records 30.8% intracranial responses in lung cancer.
• ONC shares slip 1.21% to $377.63 despite promising new ESMO oncology trial results.

BeOne Medicines reported a 36% liver cancer response rate as new clinical results strengthened its oncology drug pipeline. The company presented findings across liver, lung, and breast cancers at the ESMO Congress 2026 in Madrid. Meanwhile, BeOne Medicines AG (ONC) stock fell 1.21% to $377.63, losing $4.64 despite progress across several experimental treatments.

BeOne Medicines AG, ONC

BeOne Medicines Reports 36% Liver Cancer Response Rate in Phase 1 Trial

BeOne Medicines presented updated Phase 1 results for BGB-B2033, an experimental treatment targeting advanced hepatocellular carcinoma. The treatment achieved a confirmed objective response rate of 36% at the selected Phase 3 dose. Moreover, the results exceeded the approximately 5% response rates associated with certain late-line tyrosine kinase inhibitors.

The study included 94 patients, with 93.6% previously receiving PD-(L)1 immunotherapy. Additionally, 61.7% had undergone treatment with both immunotherapy and a tyrosine kinase inhibitor. At the selected dose, researchers estimated a six-month confirmed response durability rate of 74.1%.

Safety findings also supported further development, with 5.3% of patients experiencing severe treatment-related adverse events. Only 2.1% discontinued treatment because of treatment-related complications across the tested dose levels. Furthermore, BeOne plans to begin global registrational trials before the end of 2026.

BeOne Advances Lung Cancer Treatments With Strong Early Clinical Results

BeOne also released initial clinical findings for BGB-58067, an experimental PRMT5 inhibitor targeting MTAP-deficient cancers. Among 75 evaluable lung cancer patients, the treatment achieved a confirmed response rate of 25.3%. Additionally, researchers recorded a disease control rate of 76%, indicating activity beyond confirmed tumor responses.

The treatment achieved a 38.5% response rate among patients with EGFR wild-type lung cancer. Meanwhile, median progression-free survival reached 7.7 months across the broader non-small cell lung cancer cohort. Researchers also recorded a 30.8% intracranial response rate among patients with untreated, asymptomatic brain metastases.

Separately, BeOne reported encouraging findings for BG-C477, its internally developed antibody-drug conjugate targeting CEA-expressing tumors. The treatment achieved a 56% confirmed response rate among 25 patients with high CEA expression. Furthermore, its disease control rate reached 88%, supporting plans for additional clinical development during 2027.

BeOne Expands Breast Cancer Pipeline Through Phase 3 KANDELA-302 Trial

Beyond liver and lung cancer, BeOne continues advancing BGB-43395, an experimental selective CDK4 inhibitor. The company launched enrollment for its global Phase 3 KANDELA-302 breast cancer trial in May 2026. The study targets patients with HR-positive, HER2-negative advanced or metastatic breast cancer receiving first-line treatment.

Researchers will compare BGB-43395 plus letrozole against three established CDK4/6 inhibitors combined with letrozole. These comparison treatments include abemaciclib, palbociclib, and ribociclib, which already serve important roles in breast cancer care. The trial will measure progression-free survival as its primary endpoint and overall survival as a key secondary endpoint.

Meanwhile, BeOne continues expanding its solid tumor portfolio beyond its established blood cancer operations. The FDA previously granted BGB-B2033 Fast Track and Orphan Drug designations for liver cancer. Together, the latest clinical findings establish several development milestones, although larger trials must confirm the early treatment results.

The post BeOne Medicines AG (ONC) Stock: 36% Liver Cancer Response Rate Fuels Breakthrough Potential appeared first on Blockonomi.

TLDR

• Tesla Semi enters volume production, opening the door to commercial fleet growth.
• Tesla and Nvidia commit $2.8B to expand advanced chip substrate production.
• Samsung deal backs Tesla’s autonomous driving chips and Optimus robot hardware.
• Tesla’s Q3 net income falls to $787M as expansion adds fresh cost pressures.
• TSLA slips 0.63% to $372.22 despite Semi progress and chip supply investment.

Tesla began volume production of its Semi truck and joined Nvidia in a $2.8 billion chip substrate investment. Both moves support Tesla’s expansion into commercial transport, autonomous driving, and humanoid robots. Meanwhile, TSLA fell 0.63% to $372.22, losing $2.36 after morning selling erased early gains.

Tesla, Inc., TSLA

Tesla Semi Moves Beyond Pilot Production

Tesla moved the Semi beyond pilot production into commercial-scale manufacturing of its electric truck. The shift extends its reach into freight transportation and large commercial fleets. Moreover, higher output could help the company compete in the electric trucking market.

The Semi adds heavy trucks to Tesla’s passenger vehicles, battery systems, and charging network. Fleet operators need reliable vehicles, charging facilities, and service support for daily operations. Therefore, expansion depends on manufacturing capacity, delivery schedules, and infrastructure for business customers.

Tesla sells vehicles and energy products across the United States, China, and other regions. The new Semi output adds another production line to its existing manufacturing operations. Meanwhile, expanding truck deliveries may create additional demand for commercial charging and energy services.

Tesla and Nvidia Fund $2.8 Billion Chip Supply Expansion

Tesla and Nvidia announced a combined $2.8 billion investment in Samsung Electro-Mechanics for chip substrates. These components connect processors to the electronics that support advanced computing systems. The investment targets hardware for autonomous driving technology and Tesla’s Optimus humanoid robot.

The agreement reportedly includes five years of priority supply access for advanced substrates. That arrangement supports production planning for Tesla’s custom chips and related hardware. Additionally, greater supply capacity could ease shortages as computing demand increases.

Tesla uses specialized processors in vehicles and hardware projects, creating demand for advanced components. Nvidia’s involvement extends the project beyond Tesla’s automotive business into wider computing supply chains. Together, the firms aim to secure manufacturing capacity for systems requiring specialized electronics.

Falling Quarterly Profit Puts Expansion Costs in Focus

Tesla reported third-quarter 2026 net income of $787 million, down from $1.37 billion a year earlier. The decline reflects ongoing profitability challenges amid spending on vehicles, chips, and production. Moreover, new factories and equipment can raise costs before production generates substantial revenue.

Those expenses test Tesla’s ability to turn its larger manufacturing footprint into stronger earnings. Semi output must grow while chip investments support products that reach commercial markets. Meanwhile, the company continues funding its existing vehicle, battery, and energy operations.

One valuation model cited in the analysis estimates Tesla’s fair value at $408 per share. The estimate remains separate from its trading price and depends on future performance. Ultimately, revenue growth and operating costs will determine the financial impact of these projects

The post Tesla (TSLA) Stock: Semi Production Ramps Up as $2.8B AI Chip Deal Fuels Growth Hopes appeared first on Blockonomi.

TLDR

• Roche stock jumps 2.60% as Phase 3 kidney drug results boost market momentum.
• Sefaxersen cuts proteinuria by 43.1% in a pivotal Phase 3 IgA nephropathy trial.
• Phase 3 data show no new safety signals for Roche’s monthly kidney treatment.
• More sefaxersen patients see blood in urine resolve than those given a placebo.
• Roche awaits two-year kidney function data as sefaxersen advances toward review.

Roche Holding AG reported positive Phase 3 results for its experimental kidney disease treatment, sefaxersen, showing significant reductions in proteinuria. Roche Holding AG (RHHBY) stock climbed 2.60% to $61.17, gaining $1.55 following strong midday and late-session buying. Meanwhile, the clinical findings strengthened the drug’s development prospects for patients with primary IgA nephropathy.

Roche Holding AG, RHHBY

Roche Reports 43.1% Proteinuria Reduction in Phase 3 Trial

Roche’s Genentech division presented new findings from the ongoing Phase 3 IMAgINATION study at ASN Kidney Week 2026. The trial evaluated sefaxersen in adults with primary IgA nephropathy who continued receiving optimized standard treatment. Results showed a 43.1% reduction in proteinuria relative to placebo after 37 weeks of treatment.

Researchers measured proteinuria through the 24-hour urine protein-to-creatinine ratio, a key marker of kidney damage. Moreover, the results reached statistical significance with a P-value below 0.0001 and a 95% confidence interval of 32.5%–52.0%. Lower proteinuria levels generally indicate better prospects for preserving kidney function over time.

The study also examined hematuria, a condition involving blood in the urine among patients with kidney disease. At week 37, more patients receiving sefaxersen achieved hematuria resolution than those receiving placebo. Additionally, researchers observed consistent proteinuria reductions across all prespecified patient subgroups.

Sefaxersen Shows Favorable Safety Results as Roche Advances Development

Sefaxersen targets complement factor B in the liver to address mechanisms associated with IgA nephropathy progression. The investigational treatment uses a once-monthly subcutaneous injection and supports patient self-administration. This approach could reduce treatment frequency while offering another option alongside existing kidney disease therapies.

Genentech reported that patients generally tolerated sefaxersen well throughout the study’s initial evaluation period. Furthermore, researchers identified no new safety signals compared with findings from the earlier Phase 2 study. These findings support continued clinical development, although regulators have not yet approved the treatment.

The IMAgINATION study will continue under blinded conditions to assess longer-term changes in kidney function. Researchers will measure estimated glomerular filtration rate at week 105, covering approximately two years of treatment. Roche also plans to share clinical findings with health authorities as it pursues potential regulatory approval.

Roche Holding AG Stock Gains as Kidney Disease Pipeline Progresses

Primary IgA nephropathy, also called Berger’s disease, causes progressive inflammation and damage within the kidneys’ filtering structures. The disease commonly affects younger adults, and doctors typically diagnose patients before age 40. Globally, at least 25 adults per million develop the condition annually.

The disease can eventually cause kidney failure, creating substantial long-term treatment needs for affected patients. Up to 50% of patients develop end-stage kidney disease within 20 years of diagnosis. Consequently, effective treatments that preserve kidney function could help reduce future dialysis and transplantation requirements.

Roche’s latest clinical results add another development milestone to its kidney disease research program. However, the ongoing trial must still establish the treatment’s longer-term effects on kidney function. The upcoming week 105 findings will provide further evidence as Roche advances sefaxersen toward potential regulatory review.

The post Roche Holding AG (RHHBY) Stock Rallies 2.60% Following Positive Phase 3 Kidney Drug Results appeared first on Blockonomi.

TLDR

• CELC stock fell 0.49% to $65.25, then dipped another 1.39% after hours to $64.34.
• Gedatolisib triplet delivers 21.5 months without progression in one key subgroup.
• Triplet response rate reaches 59%, versus 33% for the control treatment group.
• Gedatolisib dropout rates hit 5% and 4%, versus 19% for alpelisib treatment.
• Eight-study analysis favors gedatolisib regimens in progression-free survival.

Celcuity reported promising breast cancer treatment results from its Phase 3 VIKTORIA-1 trial, strengthening the outlook for gedatolisib. New analyses showed longer disease control and higher response rates across several patient groups. However, CELC stock declined during regular trading and extended its losses after the closing bell.

Celcuity (CELC) Stock Falls Despite Positive Phase 3 Results

Celcuity shares slipped 0.49% to $65.25, a decline of $0.32 during the regular session. The stock then lost another 1.39% in after-hours trading and reached $64.34. The decline followed a volatile session despite the company’s latest clinical findings.

Celcuity Inc., CELC

Celcuity develops targeted treatments for solid tumors, with gedatolisib central to its breast cancer program. The company presented fresh findings at the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) Congress on October 24, 2026. Barbara Pistilli of Gustave Roussy presented the new PIK3CA-mutant subgroup results.

The Phase 3 study tested gedatolisib combinations in patients with advanced HR-positive, HER2-negative breast cancer. Researchers compared gedatolisib combinations with existing treatment options, including alpelisib plus fulvestrant. The findings support Celcuity’s development plans, although the results do not establish regulatory approval.

Celcuity Phase 3 Trial Shows Longer Progression-Free Survival

Patients without liver metastases recorded 21.5 months of median progression-free survival with the gedatolisib triplet. By comparison, the alpelisib and fulvestrant control group reached 9.1 months. The trial reported a hazard ratio of 0.46 and a p-value of 0.0016.

Among patients with liver metastases, the triplet delivered 9.1 months, compared with 4.6 months for controls. Meanwhile, the gedatolisib doublet achieved 11.1 months for that subgroup. Both regimens showed statistically significant differences against the control in these patients.

Furthermore, triplet recipients without visceral metastases reached 21.5 months versus 9.2 months with standard treatment. Patients with visceral metastases recorded 9.8 months on the triplet, compared with 5.6 months for controls. These comparisons demonstrated benefits across disease locations, although subgroup sizes differed.

Gedatolisib Response Rates and Safety Strengthen Growth Outlook

In the PIK3CA-mutant cohort, the triplet achieved a 59% response rate, compared with 33% for controls. The doublet produced a 43% response rate, while triplet responses lasted a median 19.4 months. The alpelisib combination recorded a median response duration of 7.5 months.

Celcuity also reported a 39% response rate for the triplet in patients with PIK3CA wild-type tumors. The doublet reached 34%, while fulvestrant alone reached 1%. Moreover, treatment-emergent adverse events prompted gedatolisib discontinuation in 5% of triplet patients and 4% of doublet patients.

By contrast, 19% of patients discontinued alpelisib because of treatment-emergent adverse events. A separate analysis of eight trials also favored gedatolisib combinations over other regimens on progression-free survival measures. Together, these findings strengthen Celcuity’s clinical development outlook, although indirect comparisons cannot replace direct head-to-head trials.

The post Celcuity Inc. (CELC) Stock: Promising Phase 3 Breast Cancer Data Fuels Growth Hopes appeared first on Blockonomi.

TLDR:

• Crypto prediction markets on Kalshi and Polymarket reached a record $2.7 billion in weekly notional volume, largely from short-term Bitcoin and other crypto price contracts.
• Bloomberg reported that crypto ranked second to sports on both platforms, although the report did not break down volume by asset, venue, or contract.
• Coinbase’s event-contract product is operated by Kalshi, giving the exchange access to markets without running the underlying marketplace itself.
• State disputes over sports-related contracts could influence expansion; Michigan’s agreement with Coinbase limited sports contracts but did not resolve the wider legal question.

Crypto prediction markets on Kalshi and Polymarket logged a combined $2.7 billion in weekly notional volume last week.  Bitcoin and other short-term crypto price contracts drove much of that volume. Crypto ranks second only to sports on both platforms said. The record reflects participation in event-based contracts tied to digital-asset prices.

According to Dune Analytics data cited by Bloomberg, crypto exchanges are seeking new activity as spot trading volumes decline. Coinbase offers Kalshi-powered crypto prediction markets to eligible customers. Legal challenges to sports contracts in U.S. states could influence how widely exchanges choose to expand.

Crypto Prediction Markets Set a Weekly Volume Record

The report identifies short-term price moves as a draw. A contract ties a position to an outcome over a specified period, so activity can build around Bitcoin and other token prices. These crypto prediction markets track contract turnover, rather than investment flows into coins. The weekly total covers event contracts on Kalshi and Polymarket, not spot purchases or sales on crypto exchanges. Together, these categories measure activity separately from spot trading.

Notional volume counts the face value of contracts traded; it is not the amount users deposited or the platforms’ revenue. Contracts can change hands before resolution, adding turnover without creating a new event. Crypto prediction markets can report high activity even when deposits, unique participants, or concentration among traders remain unknown. The number measures gross trading activity, not the amount of capital at risk. It also cannot show whether traders expect Bitcoin prices to rise or fall.

Crypto ranked second only to sports on both platforms, Bloomberg reported. That places the category ahead of other event types, while sports remained the largest source of activity. Bitcoin’s continuous price movement creates frequent outcomes for contracts with short time horizons, and other tokens widen the range of markets. The headline total alone cannot show whether activity clustered around one venue or coin. One week’s volume does not establish whether that pace will persist.

Bitcoin Bets Drive Crypto Exchanges Toward Prediction Markets

Exchanges are moving into crypto prediction markets as spot activity cools. The Financial Times reported that crypto companies are adding prediction products while spot trading volumes have weakened. Some are building venues; others are partnering with established operators. Event contracts offer another product inside familiar trading apps, helping platforms seek activity beyond spot trades and compete for customer attention.

Coinbase’s crypto prediction markets are operated by Kalshi, according to Coinbase’s help center.  The partnership gives Coinbase access to event contracts without building an exchange operator itself. Coinbase’s markets cover crypto prices and other outcomes, subject to regional availability and eligibility. Coinbase says BTC and ETH price contracts settle using a 60-second CF Benchmarks average.Kalshi determines outcomes under each contract’s rules. The arrangement shows how dedicated operators can power prediction products inside broader financial platforms.

Sports contracts face legal challenges in several states. Regulators argue that event contracts tied to games fall under state gambling laws, while platforms cite federal derivatives oversight. Michigan’s gaming regulator said Coinbase agreed to stop offering new sports contracts in the state and close existing positions by October 10. The restriction applied to sports contracts, not all event markets. The agreement did not settle the wider dispute. As reported,  dozens of states have taken legal action over sports-related contracts. 

These disputes may shape how far crypto exchanges expand. State-by-state restrictions can complicate nationwide launches, while unclear product boundaries raise compliance costs. Coinbase’s Michigan agreement shows that access to one category can be limited even as the broader product grows. Exchanges must weigh expected demand against legal risk before adding markets or opening them in new jurisdictions. Court rulings could change product availability.

The post Crypto Prediction Markets Set New $2.7B Weekly Volume Record appeared first on Blockonomi.

Some of the largest publicly traded BTC miners are cutting production and redirecting power toward the highly popular, increasingly concentrated sector of artificial intelligence (AI), or, if President Trump’s demand comes to fruition, perhaps we should call it super-intelligence.

Interestingly, the network’s hash rate has rebounded sharply from its summer lows and now sits less than 9% below its all-time high, suggesting that other operators are quickly filling the gap.

5 Big Names Are Dropping Out

CryptoQuant’s latest report shared with CryptoPotato found that five major listed miners, namely IREN, Core Scientific, Bitfarms, TeraWulf, and Cipher, have shifted toward AI and high-performance computing and produced 47% fewer BTC this year than during the same period in 2025. In bitcoin terms, their production fell from 13,263 last year to 7,075 units.

Production at IREN, Core Scientific, and TeraWulf fell by over 50% each, while Bitfarms’ production fell 49%. Cipher’s production decreased by the smallest percentage at just 18%. In contrast, those companies have announced more than $50 billion worth of AI and HPC leases.

IREN, for example, has a $9.7 billion contract with Microsoft and expects its mining fleet to be effectively decommissioned by year-end. Core Scientific has leased large amounts of power to CoreWeave and AMD, while TeraWulf, Cipher, and others have committed infrastructure to AI customers.

As we recently reported, the same industry transformation was evident for months, including mining stocks being valued as power and AI-infrastructure plays rather than pure Bitcoin businesses.

Hash Rate Is Still Recovering

Although all of the above sounds quite unfavorable for the broader Bitcoin ecosystem, especially the network health, the actual data shows that the hash rate has been climbing hard lately. The metric had dumped by over 18% from its November 2025 peak to under 900 EH/s on August 6, which was its deepest drawdown since the 2021 Chinese mining ban.

However, it has rebounded by 11.7% in the following months, with more than half of that recovery occurring during the first three weeks of October.

CryptoQuant explained that the hash rate is fungible. While at least 35 EH/s is estimated to be leaving with the aforementioned companies, the overall Bitcoin network has added 105 EH/s since the August low. New-generation machines operated by private miners, sovereign-backed operations, and non-US companies are replacing the capacity being retired.

Miners who had stayed within the Bitcoin ecosystem have regained ground as well. MARA, CleanSpark, Riot, HIVE, and American Bitcoin increased combined output by 16% year-over-year, helping offset some losses from their AI-transitioning peers.

Miner conditions have also improved with BTC’s price recovery from under $60,000 to over $80,000. Miner revenues have rebounded sharply, and extreme outflows have disappeared, reducing the pressure on operators to sell BTC just to cover expenses.

The post Bitcoin Miners Are Fleeing to AI: So Why Is the Hash Rate Surging? appeared first on CryptoPotato.

The first retail Bitcoin ETF in Switzerland is not just another product, according to analysts at the monitoring firm Santiment Intelligence.

They argued that the real importance lies in bringing direct BTC exposure into a regulated fund structure familiar to ordinary investors, while opening the door for more issuers, competition, and broader portfolio adoption.

Why This ETF Is Different?

As reported earlier this week, Switzerland’s FINMA approved the first publicly available fund that invests directly in BTC. The key difference between that product and most others is that it doesn’t restrict which investors can get exposure to it. The previous Swiss-based ETF, greenlit years ago, was designed for professional investors. This one is open to the retail public.

This distinction matters because it pushes the cryptocurrency further into the same financial channels ordinary investors already use for stocks, bonds, and retirement products. Santiment noted that many European crypto ETPs are legally structured as debt securities, whereas the new Bitcoin ETF falls under Swiss collective investment fund rules.

In reality, this allows retail investors direct exposure to the largest digital asset through a familiar regulated structure without requiring them to manage exchanges, private keys, wallets, or seed phrases themselves.

FINMA’s decision to grant an exception to its normal diversification rules is another detail worth noting. The regulator justified the move partly on BTC’s relatively long trading history and deep liquidity compared with other cryptocurrencies.

However, this doesn’t necessarily mean that FINMA considers bitcoin a safe investment tool. It still warned that the cryptocurrency remains highly volatile and can produce substantial losses. The ETF approval suggests the regulator views bitcoin as sufficiently established and liquid to support a single-asset retail fund under specific safeguards.

Access, Not Price Impact

The strongest bullish argument is not that one Swiss-based ETF will suddenly absorb huge amounts of BTC. Instead, Santiment argued that every new regulated gateway expands the asset’s potential investor base. A retail investor who would never open a crypto exchange account can gain exposure through an existing brokerage relationship, while wealth managers and advisers gain another regulated product to offer clients.

Santiment’s report added that the first phase of Bitcoin ETF adoption was about simply making spot BTC available through traditional financial markets. The second stage is increasingly about making exposure to the cryptocurrency easier to package for different types of investors – retail clients, advisers, retirees, and more risk-conscious portfolios.

None of those guarantee a BTC price ascent. Santiment cautioned that easier access creates the ability to buy, not the obligation to do so.

The post Switzerland’s Bitcoin ETF Is More Important Than It Looks: Here’s Why appeared first on CryptoPotato.

Tesla hasn’t sold any of its remaining Bitcoin. And a possible merger with SpaceX could put both companies’ Bitcoin under one corporate roof.

SpaceX disclosed 18,712 BTC in its June IPO filing. Tesla reported this week that it still holds 11,509 BTC. That brings their combined stash to 30,221 BTC, worth around $2.5 billion at current prices. If the two companies merge, their combined stash would rank sixth among public companies, ahead of Coinbase and Bullish but behind MARA Holdings.

Musk’s Potential SpaceX-Tesla Merger

Elon Musk discussed the proposed merger during SpaceX’s earnings call on Tuesday. He said both companies had formed special committees of independent directors to study the idea. Musk thinks a merger would make sense, but there’s no deal yet. The committees haven’t agreed on terms, and shareholders would still need to approve it. Tesla needs backing from holders of 50% of all shares, which Musk called a high hurdle.

Tesla hasn’t always held on to its Bitcoin. It first disclosed a $1.5 billion purchase in February 2021, saying the move would diversify its cash reserves. Two months later, it sold 10% of its holdings for $272 million. Musk said the sale was meant to demonstrate Bitcoin’s liquidity as an alternative to cash.

Then came the bigger sale in July 2022. Tesla converted 75% of its remaining Bitcoin into fiat currency, which brought in $936 million. Musk said the company wanted to preserve cash while uncertainty over China’s COVID-19 lockdowns weighed on its outlook.

No New Bitcoin Demand

For now, prominent trader Scott Melker believes that Tesla’s remaining position shows that holding can be “uneventful even when the accounting isn’t.” In a recent blog post, Melker explained that the move would create “no new demand” for the crypto asset since it already exists on those balance sheets.

“A merger would consolidate their ownership, not take more supply off the market. Neither company has signaled that it plans to buy or sell. If this moves forward, I’ll be interested in what management wants to do with the combined holdings, but adding the balances together is not itself a bullish flow.”

The post Tesla and SpaceX Could Unite $2.5B in Bitcoin Without Buying a Single BTC appeared first on CryptoPotato.

Bitcoin’s adverse price movements that began with the rejection at $85,000 on Wednesday continue, with the asset sliding to $80,400 earlier this morning, perhaps due to the latest Trump comments on the war against Iran.

Most altcoins have followed suit, with ETH dropping further below $2,400, and XRP seemingly losing the crucial $1.30 support. NEAR, BTW, PUMP, WLD, and DOT have slumped even more.

Will $80K Hold?

After the intense volatility experienced in the previous business week following the release of the CPI and PPI data, and BTC’s subsequent retreat to under $80,000, the cryptocurrency tried to rebound almost immediately and stood above $82,000 over the weekend. Then came a flash crash that brought it south by a grand on Saturday evening, before the bulls tried to take down the $83,000 resistance on Monday.

They failed at first, and bitcoin slipped to $81,000. A sudden uptick on Tuesday drove it to just over that line before the bulls took it a step further on Wednesday, driving BTC to a two-week peak of almost $85,000.

However, this was a short-lived rally, and the rejection was quite rapid and painful. At first, BTC tanked to under $83,000, but the bears took complete control of the market on Friday and Saturday morning, at least for now, driving bitcoin to $80,400 for the first time in about ten days.

Although BTC remains above $80,000 as of now, it’s still 1% down for the day again. Its market cap has pulled back to $1.620 trillion, but its dominance over the alts stands tall at 60% on CMC.

Alts in the Red Again

ETH is down by a similar percentage to BTC and sits well below $2,400. Ripple’s native token has dived by over 2%, and it’s now below $1.30. Recall that the asset neared $1.40 on Wednesday before the market-wide pullback. SOL is close to breaking below $100, while ZEC has tanked below $1,200.

Further losses are evident from XMR, XLM, LINK, RAIN, LTC, and NEAR. WLD is the only double-digit loser, while M has defied the broader market’s move with a 10% surge.

The total crypto market cap is down by over 1% daily to $2.7 trillion on CMC.

The post Bitcoin (BTC) Tanks Toward $80K, Ripple (XRP) Loses Key Support: Weekend Watch appeared first on CryptoPotato.

Bank Negara Malaysia (BNM) and the Bank of Thailand (BOT) joined BLOOM, Singapore’s cross-border settlement initiative for stablecoins and tokenized deposits, on Friday.

The Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS) announced the move. It launched BLOOM in October 2025 as a public-private group of banks, payment networks and tech firms. The two central banks now sit beside MAS as policymaker members. Together, they will work with industry on how different forms of digital money are accepted, exchanged and settled across borders.

Home Banks Already on the Roster

MAS also added nine participants, including Mastercard, Visa, and Ripple. In March, Ripple said it would test RLUSD for trade finance payments with Unloq inside BLOOM. Mastercard, for its part, already settles merchant transactions in stablecoins such as RLUSD and USDC. Outside payments, the new names include the World Bank Group, which MAS said will bring the needs of developing economies to the table.

Each new central bank has a home lender on the list. For Malaysia, that lender is Maybank, which joined on Friday. Maybank already leads one of three ringgit pilots that BNM onboarded in February. Those pilots test ringgit stablecoins and tokenized deposits for wholesale payments, both domestic and cross-border. BNM has said it will give clearer guidance on both instruments by the end of 2026.

Thailand’s Kasikornbank was a BLOOM member before its central bank signed on. The roster now counts 24 industry members, from Circle and Coinbase to DBS, J.P. Morgan and Standard Chartered.

Settlement Rules Before Scale

Participants will work on three areas. The first covers how institutions accept and settle digital money across jurisdictions. The second covers interoperability between networks and systems. The third covers programmable controls such as identity verification, sanctions screening and transaction limits.

MAS argued that shared frameworks would spare banks from building separate arrangements with each counterparty or market. That, it said, should lower costs and speed up launches.

BNM Deputy Governor Aznan bin Abdul Aziz struck an upbeat tone.

“A future where frictionless cross-border payments can be made using multiple digital monies is now closer to a tangible reality than a far-fetched fantasy,” he said.

BOT sounded more cautious. Its deputy governor, Dr Daranee Saeju, said the bank would use BLOOM to inform regulatory approaches for tokenized money, particularly in wholesale settlement.

“The initiative also allows us to carefully explore emerging innovations, while ensuring our oversight remains prudent, proportionate, and responsive to evolving risks,” she said.

The post Malaysia and Thailand Central Banks Join Singapore’s BLOOM as Roster Hits 24 Firms appeared first on CryptoPotato.