The increased dividend rate may attract more investors, enhancing capital for Solana acquisitions but also heightening exposure to market volatility.

The post Solana treasury firm DeFi Development raises CHAD preferred stock dividend rate to 14% appeared first on Crypto Briefing.

Multiliquid's funding could accelerate the adoption of instant settlement in tokenized finance, enhancing liquidity and efficiency in the market.

The post Multiliquid raises $8M to speed up tokenized asset settlement appeared first on Crypto Briefing.

The Bank of Russia bans transfers from regulated accounts to self-custody wallets as Sberbank wins approval to offer crypto exchange services.

The post Russia’s central bank bans Bitcoin transfers to self-custody wallets appeared first on Crypto Briefing.

Ethereum's dominance in stablecoin transfers highlights the growing importance of layer-2 networks, emphasizing cost efficiency and scalability.

The post Ethereum and its L2s settled 77% of stablecoin volume, with $16.75 trillion in transfers appeared first on Crypto Briefing.

Small businesses gain competitive edge with free access to advanced AI tools, potentially leveling the playing field in digital content creation.

The post Black Forest Labs releases FLUX 3 Image Klein with free commercial use for small businesses appeared first on Crypto Briefing.

Bitcoin Magazine

Ledger Says Organized Crime Group Spent Millions Targeting Hardware Wallet Users

Ledger has issued a statement following reports from customers of loss of funds and tampered devices, calling it one the most “sophisticated attacks” the digital asset industry has experienced. 

The hardware manufacturer said Thursday that a “highly organized criminal group” bought Ledger devices and installed implants that could read users’ seedphrases before then putting them back into the supply chain via resellers. 

Paris-based Ledger last week said it had started an investigation after customers in South East Asia reported they’d lost funds after buying from Malaysia-based reseller, CryptoBilis. 

The company then said it confirmed that one of the impacted users’ devices contained an unauthorized hardware implant. 

It isn’t clear how much money has been lost from the tampered devices but blockchain investigator Specter said $86 million had been drained. Ledger did not respond to Bitcoin Magazine’s written questions. 

“[The criminal group] built their own logistics and technology infrastructure with seeds collector servers, draining and laundering infrastructures. They were patient, they spent millions, and they struck in one coordinated operation, draining wallets,” Ledger said in a Thursday statement. 

“There was no flaw in Ledger’s chip, operating system or servers. Ledger’s systems were not compromised. This was an attack on the distribution channel after the devices left our control.”

The company said that in its “largest investigation to date” it sent employees to other markets — including Europe — to make sure other supply chains hadn’t been targeted. 

It said that screened devices were clean and authorized resellers and distributors in Southeast Asia and Hong Kong have suspended their sales. 

Ledger added that it was working with law enforcement to “follow the funds and dismantle the attackers’ infrastructure.”

It isn’t clear how many customers had been targeted from Ledger’s statement. 

The crypto industry is still reeling after hackers in July were able to steal close to $120 million in bitcoin from Coldcard users.  

There have also been a number of data breaches this year, with scammers targeting Ledger to get customer information via the company’s payment processor Global-e.

This post Ledger Says Organized Crime Group Spent Millions Targeting Hardware Wallet Users first appeared on Bitcoin Magazine and is written by Mathew Di Salvo.

Bitcoin Magazine

Bitcoin Briefly Slides Below $80,000 On More Hot Inflation Data

Bitcoin’s price momentarily dipped below $80,000 on Thursday following more hotter-than-expected U.S. inflation data. 

The price of the biggest cryptocurrency recently stood at $81,028 after dropping as low as $79,805 on Thursday morning in New York. 

Over a 24-hour period, it’s only down over 1% after making a recovery. But over the past week, it’s shed nearly 3% of its value. 

Data Thursday from the Labor Department’s Bureau of Labor Statistics showed U.S. producer prices rose in September at the fastest pace in more than four years.

The numbers came one day after September’s Consumer Price Index came out higher than expected. 

Bitcoin has news that high prices won’t go away in the world’s largest economy — leading traders to bet that the Federal Reserve may keep interest rates higher for longer. 

The Federal Reserve will make a decision on what to do with interest rates at the end of this month. 

Bitcoin’s price has previously done well in a low interest rate environment as when borrowing costs are cut, more liquidity can be used to buy the cryptocurrency. 

But the Fed this year has raised interest rates, with the head of the central bank claiming that getting inflation down in the U.S. is its number one priority. 

The biggest cryptocurrency is currently nearly 36% below the record of $126,080 it touched last October. 

Despite the dip this week, analysts have declared the asset to be out of the bear market it spent most of 2026 following a rally in August and September. 

This post Bitcoin Briefly Slides Below $80,000 On More Hot Inflation Data first appeared on Bitcoin Magazine and is written by Mathew Di Salvo.

Bitcoin Magazine

Latin America’s MSTR: How OranjeBTC is Running the Saylor Playbook in Brazil | Gui Gomes

Bitcoin is “likely the best collateral one could ask for,” says OranjeBTC CEO Gui Gomes. He explains how digital credit, Bitcoin-backed loans, and new financial products are pushing Bitcoin deeper into global financial markets, including a first-of-its-kind Bitcoin-backed loan in Brazil. He also shares why every step brings Bitcoin closer to becoming the world’s reserve currency.

Chapters:
0:00 – OranjeBTC CEO Gui Gomes on Running the Strategy Playbook in Latin America
0:32 – Why Brazil Ranks No. 1 in Grassroots Bitcoin Adoption
1:57 – Brazil’s Advantages for Building a Bitcoin Treasury Company
3:38 – Brazil’s New Bitcoin Regulations and VASP Licensing
5:23 – Brazil’s Elections and the Shift Toward a Pro-Market Economy
7:22 – Lower Rates, the Real and Brazil’s Next Growth Phase
8:27 – How Global Investors Can Buy OranjeBTC Shares
9:21 – DIGI11: Bringing STRC and SATA to Brazilian Investors
11:21 – How DIGI11 Delivered Its First Dividend
14:08 – Bitcoin as Collateral and the Future of Digital Credit

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

This post Latin America’s MSTR: How OranjeBTC is Running the Saylor Playbook in Brazil | Gui Gomes first appeared on Bitcoin Magazine and is written by Patrick Green.

Bitcoin Magazine

Charles Edwards: Why Quantum Risk Could Be MASSIVE BTC Upside Catalyst

What will it take for Bitcoin to break to new all-time highs? Charles Edwards says something substantial has to happen, whether it’s real progress on quantum, a shift in Fed policy, the U.S. government buying Bitcoin, or a stimulus event. He also discusses how institutional buying through ETFs is keeping the backdrop strong.

Chapters:
0:00 – Charles Edwards on Rates, Liquidity and Bitcoin’s Market Outlook
1:36 – ETFs vs. Treasury Companies: Who’s Driving Bitcoin Buying?
2:54 – How AI-Driven Unemployment Could Change the Fed and Bitcoin
4:01 – Hash Ribbons: Why Rising Hash Rate Is a Bullish Signal
6:13 – Is This Hash Rate Cycle Different With AI?
8:14 – Is Bitcoin Still Undervalued? Production Cost, Energy Value and MVRV
10:37 – Global Liquidity, 5% Rates and Bitcoin’s Uncharted Territory
14:50 – Quantum Computing: Why a Roadmap Could Be an Upside Catalyst
17:21 – Can AI Break Bitcoin? Superintelligence and Encryption Risk
19:15 – What Could Trigger Bitcoin’s Next All-Time High

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

This post Charles Edwards: Why Quantum Risk Could Be MASSIVE BTC Upside Catalyst first appeared on Bitcoin Magazine and is written by Patrick Green.

Bitcoin Magazine

Wellington-Altus’ James Thorne: Bitcoin “Supercycle” has Begun

“The next run in Bitcoin is going to be one for the ages.” Economist James Thorne, Chief Market Strategist at Wellington-Altus Private Wealth, joins Grace Remington and Sean Hagan to explain why he believes Bitcoin is entering a generational supercycle. Drawing on his experience with the commodities supercycle, he explains why a changing market structure makes this time different. He also explains why he thinks the four-year cycle is done.

Chapters:
0:00 – James Thorne on Hot Core CPI: Why Shelter, Not Energy, Drove It
1:30 – Is the Fed Making a Policy Mistake by Hiking?
5:35 – Why Hedge Funds Are Acting Like the New Bond Vigilantes
6:42 – Can AI Deliver a Greenspan Moment? Warsh’s Jackson Hole Miss
10:22 – Why Bitcoin Is Entering a Generational Supercycle
14:11 – The Four-Year Cycle Is Done and Who Buys Bitcoin Next
18:45 – Why Bitcoin Solves the Settlement Problem
21:15 – Strategy, Pristine Collateral and Harvesting Bitcoin Volatility
24:59 – Tokenization and the End of Delayed Innovation
27:04 – Bitcoin vs. Gold: Will Bitcoin’s Market Cap Surpass Gold?

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

This post Wellington-Altus’ James Thorne: Bitcoin “Supercycle” has Begun first appeared on Bitcoin Magazine and is written by Patrick Green.

The proposed A$200,000 custody floor comes with asset and revenue tests and requirements for the outside custodian.

Read the full story on CryptoSlate

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

Chainalysis’s rate covers wallets already active on multiple days, leaving overall retention and independent commercial demand unmeasured.

Read the full story on CryptoSlate

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

A dated three-week entry estimate shows how direct deposits and pooled holdings bear the cost of inactive staking capital.

Read the full story on CryptoSlate

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

Prosecutors say recovered data showed the same scammers returning weeks later with false promises to recover stolen assets.

Read the full story on CryptoSlate

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

Bitwise CIO Matt Hougan argued in an Oct. 14 memo that nearly every macroeconomic path ends with Bitcoin higher, including an extraordinary AI productivity boom that makes scarce assets more valuable. Two days earlier, the Bank for International Settlements published a working paper that models a fourth path. In it, AI automates work and lifts…

Read the full story on CryptoSlate

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

The first American spot fund on Polkadot manages $11,567,725.24, according to its provider. That is the reading from October 14, 2026, a good seven months after it launched on March 6. By way of comparison: the DOT spot market turned over $160.9 million in the past 24 hours. The fund meant to bring institutional money into Polkadot is therefore smaller than a fifteenth of a single trading day.

This article answers three questions. What exactly sits inside the fund, and what that says about demand for DOT. Why a vehicle of this size neither carries the price nor weighs on it. And what investors in Germany gain from it when they cannot buy the product in the first place. The shortest answer to the third question up front: the American fund costs 0.30 percent a year, while the route open to you in Germany costs 2.50 percent. More hangs on that gap than on any price level this week.

What the 21Shares Polkadot ETF has gathered since March 6

The product is called the 21shares Polkadot Staking ETF and trades under the ticker TDOT on the Nasdaq. On the issuer's product page, 21Shares gives March 6, 2026 as the launch date, 0.30 percent as the management fee and the $11,567,725.24 above as assets under management, as of October 14. The page lists BitGo Bank & Trust, Coinbase Custody and Anchorage Digital Bank as custodians. The word staking in the name means the fund does not merely hold the DOT in custody but stakes them in the network and collects the rewards.

A spot ETF is an exchange-traded fund that holds the asset itself, here real DOT with a custodian, rather than futures contracts on it. The share price therefore follows the coin price directly, less the fee.

At the data service SoSoValue, whose daily figures the industry outlet TokenPost reported on October 14, TDOT shows cumulative net inflows of $3.33 million. The fund was unchanged that day and the day before, so no money flowed in or out. The same table gives trading turnover of $111,586 and a ratio of 0.62 percent. It names no reference figure for that percentage. Checked against the market capitalisation of DOT, which stood at $1.847 billion on Thursday, $11.57 million comes to exactly 0.626 percent. The figure therefore refers to the share of the entire Polkadot market.

Measured in DOT, at a price of $1.082 that is around 10.7 million units. Circulating supply is 1.707 billion DOT. The largest American fund on Polkadot thus holds fewer than one in every hundred coins.

$111,586 in a trading day: the size against the DOT spot market

The more telling figure is not the assets but the turnover. Trading volume of $111,586 in a day sounds like little, and in relative terms it is less still: the DOT spot market turned over $160,945,583 in the same period. By our calculation, ETF trading accounts for 0.069 percent of that, barely seven hundredths of a percent.

That ratio is why the fund figures are practically meaningless for the price. A spot ETF acts on the price by buying coins in the market on inflows and selling them on outflows. No inflows, no buying power. At the Bitcoin ETF launch in January 2024 precisely the reverse happened: billions flowed in over the first weeks, and the funds had to buy in the spot market every day. At TDOT, seven months have produced $3.33 million of net inflows.

The Dogecoin case: the size at which an altcoin fund gets closed

How small an altcoin fund can get before its provider gives up has just been shown elsewhere. On October 10 we wrote about the wind-down of the Bitwise Dogecoin ETF. That vehicle, ticker BWOW, held around 8.2 million DOGE according to the holdings on its fund page, roughly $707,000 at the price of the time. It traded for the last time on October 14, just under eleven months after launch.

At $11.57 million, TDOT is therefore about sixteen times the size of the Dogecoin fund on its final trading day. The product is a long way from closure, and nobody should read an imminent wind-down out of the weak inflows. What the comparison shows is something else: the American fund industry launched a run of altcoin products in 2026, and demand is spread very unevenly. Bitcoin and Ethereum draw the money, while the remaining funds collect sums that have no measurable effect on the price of their coin.

Polkadot price at $1.08: 14 percent below the September 28 high

DOT trades at $1.082 on Thursday afternoon, 3.4 percent below the previous day. The high of the day was $1.16, the low $1.05. The wider market gave up considerably less that day: Bitcoin lost 0.5 percent, Ethereum 1.6 percent. Polkadot is therefore falling about six times as hard as Bitcoin.

Over 30 days the picture is the one in the chart above. CoinGecko daily closes give a low of $0.9441 on September 16 and a high of $1.2677 on September 28. DOT has recovered 15.4 percent from the low and is 14.1 percent short of the high. The average of those 30 days is $1.1652, putting today's price 6.5 percent below it.

From the all-time high of $54.98, reached on November 4, 2021, the price is around 98 percent away. That number belongs in any honest assessment of DOT, even if it says little about today's question.

Authorized participants: when a spot ETF has to buy DOT at all

The mechanism takes three sentences. A spot ETF creates and destroys shares through so-called authorized participants, large traders who deliver or take in coins in exchange for shares. When demand for shares appears, those traders have to source DOT in the market, and that purchase hits the order book. When demand stays away, nothing happens at this point.

What counts is the ratio between the volume to be moved and daily turnover. At a 0.069 percent share of trading volume, any move by the fund disappears into the noise of an ordinary morning. Even if TDOT had to sell its entire assets on a single day, that would be 7.2 percent of one day's turnover, spread across several venues. The daily range between $1.05 and $1.16 is 10.5 percent today. The fund's move would therefore stay inside what the market produces on a normal day anyway.

For the price question that means anyone betting on ETF inflows as a driver for DOT is waiting for leverage that does not work at this order of magnitude. This week's price move comes from the wider market and the futures market, not from Nasdaq share certificates.

Since October 13: what has changed since referendum 1954

We last wrote about Polkadot on October 13, then on the vote 1954 and the mandate of the DOT DAO, which stood at 73 percent against. The price that day was $1.1679. DOT has lost 6.7 percent since. The $1.10 level, which held twice over the past fortnight, was breached intraday today for the first time since October 9.

The governance question of then and the fund question of today are connected more loosely than they appear. Both are attempts to pull money and attention towards Polkadot, once through the treasury, once through the American capital market. The fund figures deliver a sober verdict on the second: the Wall Street route has produced $3.33 million in seven months.

0.30 against 2.50 percent: European investors pay eight times the rate

Here is the part that counts in practice. The American fund cannot be bought in Germany. US ETFs may not be offered to retail investors in the EU because they lack the key information document in German required under the PRIIPs regulation. Your broker will not put TDOT in your portfolio, however cheap the product is.

The route open to you runs through an exchange-traded product of European construction. 21Shares offers the 21Shares Polkadot ETP for that purpose, listed on the SIX Swiss Exchange in dollars and on Börse Stuttgart in euros, with the ISIN CH0593331561. The ongoing charges of that product are 2.50 percent a year. The same fund house charges 0.30 percent in America and more than eight times the rate in Europe.

What that difference adds up to over time is quickly worked out. Invest 5,000 euros and you pay 125 euros in the first year with the European product, against 15 euros with the American one. Over five years and at an unchanged price it is around 595 euros against 75 euros. That fee keeps running whether the price rises, falls or stands still. For a wider view of the products tradable in Germany, see our overview on buying crypto ETFs and ETPs in Germany.

The alternative is a direct purchase on an authorised exchange. There you pay a trading fee and a spread on the way in and on the way out, and no ongoing product fee after that, but you carry responsibility for custody yourself. Which providers are authorised in Germany and what their trading costs is set out in the comparison of regulated crypto exchanges.

How to check the delivery claim on your certificate

The second difference between the portfolio route and a direct purchase is a tax one, and over a longer holding period it weighs more than the fee. On a direct purchase the holding period under Section 23 of the German Income Tax Act applies: hold a crypto asset for more than a year and the gain is untaxed. That rule continues unchanged. The federal cabinet did not pass the decision on abolishing the holding period expected for October 14, the draft is stuck in departmental consultation, and the December 31, 2026 cut-off date named in it would separate old holdings from new ones.

With an exchange-traded product the position cannot be answered across the board. We set that out in detail on October 10 on the crypto offering at ING: whether the one-year period applies to your certificate depends on whether it grants you a delivery claim on the real coin. Certificates without that claim are treated as a capital claim, and there the flat-rate withholding tax applies with no one-year period. Certificates with a delivery claim are classed by parts of the advisory profession like a direct investment. There is no supreme court ruling covering every product design, and no issuer decides this for your tax office.

Three steps lead to a sound answer. First, take the ISIN of your certificate and read in the key information document which product type is stated there. Second, request the final terms from the issuer and look in them for a provision on physical delivery. Third, have the result confirmed for your case by a tax adviser before you rely on the one-year period. Document the acquisition dates with a tool from our comparison of crypto tax software, because with a savings plan the period runs separately for every instalment.

Our assessment: the fee is certain, the tax effect is not

In the view of the editorial team, the product question at Polkadot currently matters more than the price question, and the answer is an uncomfortable one. What is evidenced: the European product costs 2.50 percent a year, the American one 0.30 percent, and both come from the same provider. Evidenced too: the one-year holding period applies on a direct purchase, while on a certificate it depends on a delivery claim that few investors have checked. Our conclusion: hold DOT for longer than two years and you pay a certain fee in a securities account for an uncertain tax effect. There is a serious argument against, and we do not play it down: lose your private key and you lose everything, and not everyone wants to carry that responsibility. For investors who prefer the securities account for exactly that reason, the surcharge is the price of custody they need not attend to. This assessment weighs up the situation and is not a recommendation to buy or sell.

Polkadot in a securities account: 2.50 percent a year against an open tax question

The first American spot fund on DOT manages $11.57 million after seven months and trades $111,586 in a day, which is 0.069 percent of the spot market. For the price that carries no weight. What counts for you is the layer beneath: which product you buy, and what it costs over the years.

1. Project the product fee onto your intended holding period. At 2.50 percent a year that is around 595 euros on 5,000 euros over five years. Set that against the one-off trading fee of a direct purchase, which you can look up in the comparison of regulated crypto exchanges.
2. Settle the delivery claim before you rely on the one-year period. The ISIN, the key information document and the final terms supply the answer, and a tax adviser confirms it. Which products are tradable in Germany at all is set out in the overview of crypto ETFs and ETPs.
3. Document every acquisition date from today. Should the draft with its December 31, 2026 cut-off arrive, that date decides between old and new holdings. A tool from the comparison of crypto tax software keeps track of the periods for you.

(As of October 15, 2026. This article is not investment advice. Prices and fee structures change; check the terms with the provider before you buy.)

On Friday, October 16, 18,029 Bitcoin contracts expire on the options exchange Deribit. The calculated pain point of this expiry sits at $83,000, while the price on Thursday afternoon was $80,771. That leaves $2,229 between the market and the level at which options buyers collectively gain the least. Whether the gap closes on Friday is not for the expiry alone to decide, and the structure of the open contracts explains fairly precisely why.

Bitcoin traded at $80,771, or 72,029 euros, at around 2:50 pm German time on October 15, down 2.46 percent over 24 hours (source: CoinGecko). The high of the day was $83,005, the low $80,444. Over a week the loss stands at 2.12 percent, and the price is 35.9 percent below the record of $126,080 set on October 6, 2025.

Friday's Bitcoin options expiry: 18,029 contracts on Deribit

Deribit is the largest venue for Bitcoin options. An option is a right, not an obligation: the buyer of a call may buy Bitcoin at an agreed strike price, the buyer of a put may sell at that price. If the option runs out without the right being worth exercising, it expires worthless.

For Friday's expiry, our own reading of the Deribit raw data from October 15, 12:50 pm UTC, shows 18,029 open contracts. Of those, 10,410 are puts and 7,619 are calls. Measured against a price of roughly $80,800, that is a notional value of a good $1.45 billion. One Deribit contract covers one Bitcoin.

For a sense of scale: the monthly expiry on October 30 carries 148,348 contracts, more than eight times as many. Friday is one of the small weekly dates, not a quarterly event.

Max pain at $83,000: what the Bitcoin options figure measures

Max pain is the strike price at which the sum of all payouts to options buyers comes out smallest. The calculation is plain: for every conceivable closing price, the combined worth of all calls and all puts is added up, and the price with the smallest result is the point of maximum pain.

For October 16 our own calculation puts that point at $83,000. At $80,000 the options together would be worth around 8.2 million units, at $83,000 only 2.3 million, and at $86,000 again 7.2 million. The curve has a clear trough, and the trough lies above today's price.

What the figure is not: a price target. Max pain describes where the interests of the options writers lie, not a forecast. The notion that the market drifts towards maximum pain on expiry day is an observation with plenty of counter-examples, not a law. Read the number as a target and you have mistaken a statistic for an intention.

A Bitcoin put-call ratio of 1.37: hedging has the upper hand

Divide the open puts by the open calls and Friday comes out at a ratio of 1.37. For every three calls there are a good four puts. A reading above 1 means more capital is positioned for falling prices, or for protection, than for rising ones.

The comparison with the monthly expiry makes the difference visible. For October 30 the ratio is 0.52, with 97,612 calls against 50,736 puts. Positioning further out is therefore mostly bullish, while the near term looks defensive. Together the two describe a market that is hedging the next few days without writing off the month.

How a Bitcoin options expiry affects the price at all

The mechanism runs through the traders who sold the options. A writer carries the other side's risk and offsets it on the futures market by buying or selling Bitcoin. How much they have to move depends on how close the price is to the strikes at which they hold open contracts.

As the price approaches a strike with many open contracts, the hedge required changes quickly, and the trader has to adjust more often. In quiet phases that adjustment dampens the market, because it works against the move. It can also amplify, when the price cuts through a densely occupied level and many traders have to buy or sell in the same direction.

After the expiry that tie is cut. The bigger move therefore often comes not on expiry day itself but in the days that follow, once the hedge is no longer needed.

The Bitcoin put clusters at $78,000 and $80,000

The densest positions into Friday are the puts below the price. At $78,000 there are 2,746 contracts, at $80,000 2,142, at $76,000 1,150 and at $79,000 777. Those four strikes alone carry 6,815 contracts, or 38 percent of the entire expiry.

On the other side the calls sit far above: 1,144 contracts at $90,000, 835 at $87,000, 690 at $85,000 and 606 at $92,000. Those levels are 5 to 11 percent away from today's price and play practically no part in Friday.

The $80,000 level deserves particular attention because it counts twice: as the second-largest put cluster of the expiry, and as a level $771 below the current price. Should Bitcoin fall through it, those 2,142 contracts move into the money, and the writers on the other side have to widen their hedge.

The monthly Bitcoin expiry on October 30: 148,348 contracts

The month's real date falls on October 30, two days after the next US Federal Reserve rate decision on October 28. It carries 148,348 open contracts, by far the largest position of the coming weeks. The expiry on November 27 follows with 25,150 contracts.

For placing Friday in context, that means the small date clears out short-dated hedging while positioning for the end of the month is left untouched. The next larger turning point is more likely to come at the end of October than on Friday.

What has changed since Tuesday's inflation reading

In our article of October 14 on US inflation at 3.7 percent and the core rate above forecast, Bitcoin stood at $83,115 on the day. The price has since given up 2.8 percent and sits at $80,771. The $82,000 level discussed at the time broke during Wednesday and has not been recovered.

In between came a wave of liquidations on Thursday morning, in which market data show $489 million of leveraged positions closed within an hour; the details are in our report on the liquidation cascade. What is new since Tuesday is therefore less the direction than the nature of the move: the selling pressure now comes from the futures market rather than from the macro headline.

Sentiment has turned accordingly. The Fear and Greed Index from alternative.me stands at 53 points on October 15, which is neutral, after 62 points and greed the day before.

Our assessment: Friday's expiry will not carry the big move

In the view of the editorial team, Friday's expiry is too small to pull the price to $83,000 on its own. Three pieces of evidence support that. First, the volume of 18,029 contracts is only a good eighth of the monthly expiry on October 30. Second, the futures market is not stretched right now: the funding rate on the Deribit perpetual is 0.0041 percent per eight hours and 0.0046 percent at OKX, both close to zero and therefore without an imbalance on either side. Third, historical volatility at Deribit stands at 32.8, in the lower range of recent months.

The argument against: the put clusters at $78,000 and $80,000 sit tightly below the price. If the $80,000 level goes, the writers' hedging amplifies the move downwards instead of damping it. The expiry is then not a driver, but an amplifier. Our assessment weighs up the situation and is not a recommendation to buy or sell.

Leverage and liquidation on a Bitcoin expiry day

Open positions in the Deribit perpetual add up to $881.5 million. Perpetuals are futures contracts without an expiry date, tied to the spot price through a funding rate. When that rate sits near zero as it does today, the long and short sides pay each other almost nothing, and the market carries no pronounced imbalance.

For leveraged positions an expiry day is still the more uncomfortable part of the week, because swings around densely occupied levels increase. The liquidation price is the price at which the exchange force-closes a position because the posted collateral has run out. At five times leverage it sits around 20 percent from entry, at ten times around 10 percent, at twenty times still around 5 percent.

Applied to today's price, twenty times leverage means a liquidation price of roughly $76,700. That value sits between the two largest put clusters of the expiry. If you hold a leveraged position, set your own liquidation distance against the $80,000, $78,000 and $76,000 levels instead of thinking of it in percent. Which venues charge which fees and demand which collateral is set out in our comparison of the best perp DEXs.

Thursday morning's wave shows how fast that happens: $489 million in one hour is more than half of all open interest in the Deribit perpetual.

Holding period and exemption limit: December 31 is closing in

For investors in Germany, more hangs on the turn of the year than the price question. Under Section 23 of the German Income Tax Act, the gain on a Bitcoin sale is tax-free if more than a year lies between purchase and sale. Inside that window the gain is taxed at the personal income tax rate, though an exemption limit of 1,000 euros per calendar year applies to all private disposals taken together.

Exemption limit means a gain of 999 euros is taxed at nothing, while a gain of 1,001 euros is taxed in full. The difference from a tax-free allowance is expensive here, and it is regularly confused.

A planned extension of the holding period was recently on the political agenda without a decision being taken. The cabinet date passed without a result, so the December 31 cut-off stands unchanged. To offset this year's losses against gains, you need your transactions documented cleanly by the turn of the year; a tax tool with a portfolio tracker takes that work off your hands.

Buying route and custody under MiCA

Since the EU's MiCA regulation applied in full, providers of crypto services in the EU need authorisation and are supervised, in Germany by BaFin. For the buying route that means an authorised provider must hold client funds separately from its own assets and must evidence custody.

The choice between an exchange and self-custody is untouched by that. Leave Bitcoin sitting on an exchange and you hold a claim against that exchange, not Bitcoin on the blockchain. Move it to your own wallet and you carry responsibility for the key yourself. For amounts beyond what you intend to trade at short notice, self-custody is the safer route.

Bitcoin expiry on October 16: $2,229 short of max pain

With 18,029 contracts, Friday's expiry is a small date with a clear tilt to the downside. The deciding question is not the $83,000 calculation but whether the $80,000 level holds.

1. Recalculate your liquidation distance. Put your own liquidation price next to the $80,000, $78,000 and $76,000 levels. If it falls between them, the leverage is too high for this expiry day. The terms offered by the venues are in the perp DEX comparison.
2. Sort the holding periods in your portfolio. Every position that completes its year before December 31 can be sold tax-free afterwards. Which transaction was bought when is settled faster by a tax tool with a portfolio tracker than by a spreadsheet kept by hand.
3. Check the buying route for authorisation. Before the next purchase it is worth looking at fees, withdrawal costs and the provider's MiCA authorisation; the exchange comparison provides the overview.

The next test comes on October 28 with the US Federal Reserve's rate decision, two days before the monthly expiry and its 148,348 contracts. Until then the $80,000 level remains the line on which October is decided.

(As of October 15, 2026. This article is not investment advice. Prices and fee structures change; check the terms with the provider before you buy.)

On Wednesday, 15 October 2026, forced closures on the crypto market wiped out roughly $489 million in leveraged positions within a single hour. That is more than half the sum that accumulated over the full 24 hours. Across the day, traders lost about $942.1 million according to figures from CoinGlass, and $863.3 million of that fell on long positions, that is, on bets that prices would rise.

For anyone trading with leverage, the decisive number is not the price loss. Bitcoin gave up just under three percent that day, Ethereum a good five. Holding without leverage, you see a red day in the portfolio. Being long with tenfold leverage at a five percent price loss means half the stake is gone, and at ten percent the position is closed before any recovery can catch up with it. That is exactly what happened on a mass scale in this one hour.

$942 million in 24 hours, more than half in 60 minutes

The numbers diverge depending on the time window and the provider, and they are not going to be smoothed over here. CoinGlass reports $489.4 million for the hour in question. The news service PANews names $476 million for a window as of 10:35, of which $457 million on long and $18.2 million on short positions. The range therefore lies between $476 million and $489 million, depending on where the hour begins. Both are robust on the point that matters: the lion's share of the day's losses fell into a very short window.

A liquidation is not a decision to sell but an enforcement measure by the exchange. Once the posted margin no longer covers the accumulated loss, the risk system closes the position automatically at the market price. The client is not asked, and gets no grace period. CoinCentral traces the course of the day with the values for the individual coins.

Leverage works in both directions, and that is what makes it dangerous in down phases: the larger it is, the smaller the price move that wipes out the stake. At fivefold leverage that threshold sits at a 20 percent price loss, at twentyfold at five, at fiftyfold at two. Fees and funding costs move the point forward further still.

Long positions carry 91.6 percent of the losses

Of the day's $942.1 million, $863.3 million fell on long positions. That is 91.6 percent. A distribution that lopsided says something about sentiment in the preceding days: the market was predominantly positioned for rising prices, and the other side was thinly occupied.

From that arises the mechanism that turns a pullback into a cascade. A forced closure is a sale into the market. That sale pushes the price down another notch. A notch lower sit the liquidation prices of the next positions, and those get closed too. In a market where almost everyone has bet in the same direction, one initial nudge is enough to set that sequence in motion. It explains why the losses clustered into a single hour instead of spreading evenly across the day.

Why Ether was hit harder than Bitcoin

According to the daily data, roughly $286 million in liquidations fell on Ethereum and roughly $197 million on Bitcoin. That is remarkable, because Bitcoin is considerably larger by market value. A market worth three times as much carried a third fewer forced closures that day.

Reports say that on Binance alone more than $106 million in Ether long positions were closed within about an hour. The explanation lies not in the price but in how the futures market was positioned: before the slump, markedly more accounts stood on the long side in Ether than in Bitcoin. That claim can be recalculated, and we did it.

Our analysis: 2.36 long accounts per short account in Ether

This analysis was compiled by cryptoticker.io itself on 15 October 2026. It is based on the public market data of the exchange OKX on its perpetual futures contracts on Bitcoin and Ether, queried across ten individual data points: account ratio, open contracts, funding rate, daily range and turnover, in each case for both coins.

The result: for every account betting on falling prices in Ether there are 2.36 accounts betting on rising ones. In Bitcoin the figure is 1.73. The long overhang in Ether is therefore a good third larger. In the hours before the slump the Ether ratio even stood at 2.65 to one, the highest reading in the series examined.

Add to that the open contracts. On the Ether contract, 622,656 ETH were open at the time of the query, equivalent to $1.47 billion. On the Bitcoin contract it was 30,777 BTC, or $2.49 billion. Over the past thirty days the dollar value of open Ether positions has fallen by just under two percent, that of Bitcoin risen by a good 16 percent. Against its respective monthly high, Ether sits just under 15 percent lower, Bitcoin only just under four percent.

Both funding rates were still positive at the time of the query, at 0.0051 percent for Bitcoin and 0.0036 percent for Ether per settlement period. A positive funding rate means the long side pays the short side. As long as that figure sits above zero, the overhang on the long side has not been worked off, not even after a cascade of this size.

What has changed since the deleveraging of 13 October

On 13 October 2026 we described in this space how the Ether futures market had shed 16 percent of its leverage within five days, at a price of $2,534 (Ethereum price $2,534, 16 percent less leverage in five days). Two days later the price stands at roughly $2,364, that is $170 lower. The $2,500 level, which held back then, has fallen.

The deleveraging, in other words, did not settle the matter. It brought the market into a new long-overhang position at a lower price, and that position was unwound for the second time this Wednesday. The difference from 13 October lies in the speed: back then the unwind spread across five days, this time more than half of it fell into one hour.

Liquidation price and margin: how a forced closure runs

The liquidation price is the price at which the posted margin is used up. Every exchange calculates it from position size, leverage, maintenance margin and fees, and displays it in the trading window before the position is opened. Trading without knowing that number is trading blind.

Two points are regularly overlooked here. First, many platforms work with a reference price drawn from several exchanges rather than their own last traded price. A brief spike on a single venue therefore does not necessarily trigger a closure, whereas a market-wide move very much does. Second, risk systems tier the maintenance margin by position size: a large position needs proportionally more margin than a small one, and its liquidation price therefore sits closer to the current price.

In practice that means the distance between the current price and the liquidation price is the only buffer there is. That distance can be widened in three ways, and all three cost something. Adding margin ties up additional capital. Partly closing the position shrinks the possible gain. Lowering the leverage means putting up more equity for the same position size. What does not exist is a way to widen the buffer for free.

The daily ranges and what they offer as levels

According to our query at OKX, Bitcoin moved between $80,168 and $83,910 that day and was last quoted at $80,913.70. Ether ran between $2,315.26 and $2,520 and stood at $2,363.78. Those daily lows are the levels that matter now for leveraged positions, because below them there are no fresh reference points from current trading.

The distance is narrow in both cases. Bitcoin sits less than one percent above its daily low, Ether around two percent. A position with twentyfold leverage opened this morning is therefore already close, on the arithmetic, to its closure threshold. Waiting in that situation for a quick counter-move relies on the cascade being complete. The positive funding rates argue against it.

Leveraged trading in Europe: what is permitted and what is not

Retail clients in the European Union can trade crypto contracts for difference only with leverage of at most 2:1. That cap has applied since the product intervention measures of the European securities authority and was adopted for Germany by BaFin. Negative balance protection applies for retail clients: the loss cannot exceed the stake.

The leverage of ten, twenty or fifty that produced this day's liquidations comes predominantly from platforms outside that framework. Trading there means giving up two things: the leverage cap and the protection against a loss beyond the stake. On top of that, no deposit guarantee exists for crypto assets in any case, neither here nor there. An orderly overview of providers with clear leverage limits and local settlement is given in our crypto broker comparison; for trading perpetual futures contracts on decentralised venues, the differences in funding costs and risk systems are set out in our perp DEX overview.

Spot instead of leverage: holding period and custody

For investors watching this day from the outside, the real point lies elsewhere. A cascade of this kind hits leveraged positions exclusively. Holding coins directly and keeping them in self-custody means having no risk system above you that sells in a price slide. A red day stays a red day.

Added to that is the tax difference, and in Germany it is considerable. Gains from selling directly held crypto assets are tax-free after one year of holding, provided the coins were not used for staking or lending in that time. Gains from contracts for difference and other derivatives, by contrast, fall under capital gains tax, and losses from futures transactions are restricted in how they can be offset. One year of holding is therefore no side issue but the most tax-efficient route German law provides for crypto assets. If you prefer the spot purchase to leverage, the best way to compare venues and fees is our crypto exchange overview.

Our assessment: the deleveraging is not complete

In this newsroom's view the data argues that this Wednesday was not a clean-out but a stage. Three pieces of evidence carry that assessment. The account ratio in Ether, at 2.36 to one after the cascade, still sits above the Bitcoin figure, and Bitcoin came through the cascade better. The funding rates are positive for both coins, so the long side keeps paying for its positions. And the dollar value of open Ether contracts sits only just under 15 percent below the monthly high, after a day in which roughly $286 million in forced closures fell on this coin alone.

Against that stands the speed of the sequence. A cascade that works through more than half its volume in one hour clears out the most thinly margined positions thoroughly. The accounts still long now are on average better cushioned than those closed at ten o'clock. That makes a second wave of the same size less likely, but does not rule it out. This assessment evaluates the market situation and is not a recommendation to buy or sell; with crypto assets a total loss is possible.

Liquidation cascade: below $80,168 it gets tighter for longs

Bitcoin's daily low at $80,168 and Ether's at $2,315.26 are the two levels from which the coming trading days will show whether the market has digested the cascade. If the distance above them holds, this Wednesday was a clean-out. If the levels fall, the next nudge meets a futures market that by our measurement still stands predominantly long.

1. Look up the distance to the liquidation price. Every open leveraged position shows that price in the trading window. If it sits closer than today's daily range of three to four percent, a day like this one is enough for the forced closure. How platforms differ on leverage limits, maintenance margin and funding costs is set out in the broker comparison.
2. Check the funding rate before the next position. It is quoted on every perpetual contract and says which side pays. Positive values mean running costs for long positions, which add up over a longer holding period. The differences between the decentralised venues are broken down in the perp DEX overview.
3. Set the spot share against the leveraged share. Directly held coins are tax-free after one year and are sold by no risk system. Which venues charge what on a plain purchase is shown by the exchange overview.

(As of October 15, 2026. This article is not investment advice. Prices and fee structures change; check the terms with the provider before you buy.)

Dogecoin trades at $0.0801 on Thursday midday, down 8.6 percent over seven days. Bitcoin gave up 2.0 percent in the same period. That distance is the real finding of the day: Dogecoin is falling more than four times as hard as the market's largest asset, and it is doing so at a point the price already visited four weeks ago.

Dogecoin at $0.0801: the numbers at Thursday midday

As of 15 October the price stands at $0.080056. Over 24 hours that is 5.0 percent lower, over seven days 8.6 percent, over 30 days 3.0 percent. On a one-year view there is a loss of 61.1 percent. Spot turnover over the past 24 hours is $1.07 billion and market capitalisation $12.52 billion. That is rank twelve in the overall market. All figures come from CoinGecko and were read off at Thursday midday.

CoinGecko reports the day's low from tick data at $0.078426. On hourly values, which allow lows to be compared cleanly across weeks, the lowest hourly print of the day is $0.078951, reached in the early morning. The two numbers do not contradict each other; they measure at different resolutions. For the comparison with September, the second one counts.

Seven days down 8.6 percent, Bitcoin down 2 percent

The weekly comparison places the move. Over seven days Ethereum loses 7.3 percent, XRP 6.6 percent, Shiba Inu 7.8 percent, Litecoin 9.3 percent, Solana 10.2 percent and Cardano 11.5 percent. At 8.6 percent, Dogecoin sits in the middle of that group. The only striking figure is the distance to Bitcoin, which at 2.0 percent is almost unmoved and over 30 days is even 5.5 percent up.

That yields a plain reading which needs no speculation. What is under way bears the marks of a rotation out of the smaller assets into the largest. Managing a portfolio by weights shows it in Dogecoin's share of the overall market, which has fallen this week, while Bitcoin's share has risen.

What the term rotation means here

Rotation describes capital shifting between segments of the same market without money leaving that market. It is recognisable when one segment falls while another holds or rises, with turnover overall normal. That is precisely the picture this week's numbers show.

Since yesterday: $0.0845 has become $0.0801

On 14 October the price stood at $0.0845 in our look at the large-address share, as set out in Wednesday's edition on the Dogecoin price and the share held by large addresses. Since then 5.2 percent has been given up. The level named there as the next test has now been reached and was briefly breached during the day.

What matters here is keeping the time frames apart. This year's February low was $0.0887, measured on 6 February. That line has been history since June, a month that brought hourly prints down to $0.0731. The line where something is being decided today is younger and sits lower.

The $0.08 line and the September low at $0.078889

On 16 September the lowest hourly print fell to $0.078889. On 15 October it was $0.078951. Between the two values lie $0.000062, less than a tenth of a percent. Two attempts 28 days apart therefore ended at practically the same point.

Alongside that stands September as a month with a lowest daily value of $0.080051 and October with $0.080024. On a daily basis the round $0.08 line has held twice; on an hourly basis it was briefly breached both times. In practice a level is rarely an exact line. Usually it is a zone a few tenths of a percent wide.

To the upside the next well-founded level is the October high of $0.097149 from 2 October. To the downside the year's low sits at $0.06902, reached on 7 August. The current price is 89.1 percent away from the all-time high of $0.7316.

The last test on 16 September and the recovery to $0.1039

The comparable case is four weeks back and can be recalculated to the hour. After the low of 16 September the price turned up and reached $0.103908 on 23 September. That is 31.7 percent above the low, achieved in seven days. After that it went down again in stages: $0.097149 on 2 October, $0.088349 on 8 October, $0.0801 today.

For investors that means two things. The line held at the last test, and it brought no trend reversal. The recovery ended 32 percent higher and then retraced in full. Taking September as a template means taking both halves of the template.

Where Dogecoin is traded and at what cost differs markedly from venue to venue. A look at the crypto exchange comparison shows the ranges on trading fee, spread and withdrawal, which weigh more heavily on a price with four decimal places than they do on Bitcoin.

Mining supply: 13.64 million new DOGE a day

A second way into the subject lies not in the chart but in the blockchain itself. Dogecoin has no cap on total supply. Each block creates 10,000 new DOGE, as the project site at dogecoin.com describes it. Over the past 24 hours, 1,364 blocks were found according to Blockchair.

That works out to 13.64 million new DOGE in a day and around 4.98 billion a year. At the current price the daily amount corresponds to a value of roughly $1.09 million. Circulating supply lies between 156.3 billion units at CoinGecko and 172.0 billion at Blockchair, depending on the count. Annual expansion thus comes to just under three percent.

Why that number does not explain today

$1.09 million in new supply faces $1.07 billion in spot turnover. New supply therefore accounts for roughly one part in a thousand of daily turnover. As an explanation for a weekly loss of 8.6 percent it does not serve. It works as a permanent drag over years, not as the trigger of a single trading day. Anyone seeking to understand the annual balance of minus 61.1 percent finds one building block here. For today it contributes nothing.

The blockchain, incidentally, shows no congestion. 23,015 transactions in 24 hours, 17 items in the mempool, an average fee of $0.028. Panic-driven movement on the blockchain looks different.

Holding period and the exemption limit: 31 December under section 23 of the German Income Tax Act

Here lies the concrete check an investor in Germany can carry out today, and it has little to do with the chart. Crypto falls under private disposal transactions. The governing rule is section 23 of the German Income Tax Act. It sets the period between acquisition and disposal at "not more than one year", and it sets the exemption limit: gains stay tax-free if the total gain from private disposal transactions in the calendar year comes to less than 1,000 euros.

What the annual balance of minus 61.1 percent has to do with it

Anyone who bought Dogecoin within the past twelve months is, at today's price, sitting on a loss on paper. Losses from private disposal transactions realised within the one-year period can be offset against gains in the same category in the same year, for instance gains from other coins or from gold. The calendar year ends on 31 December, and a disposal takes effect only in the year in which it occurs.

Two points belong with that. First, with every month a part of the holding runs out of the one-year period, and what lies outside the period has no tax effect, in gain or in loss. Second, the order of acquisitions is decisive, which is why a clean record per purchase matters more than any view on the price. Which tools keep that record and track the deadlines per lot is shown in the overview of tax software and portfolio trackers.

This account is no substitute for tax advice. What is named here is the deadline, the section and the exemption limit, so that the question to check is on the table before the turn of the year.

Buying route and custody: fees, spread and your own keys

At a price of $0.08 the buying route decides a noticeable part of the outcome. On the cost side at entry we have already broken down the ranges between instant buy and order book, as set out in our look at the buying route for Dogecoin. The finding there still holds: the convenient route costs the larger mark-up.

For custody the usual trade-off applies. On the exchange the holding stays quickly tradable and sits with a third party. On your own hardware it sits with you, with full responsibility for securing the recovery words. Which devices support Dogecoin and what they cost is set out in the hardware wallet comparison. For amounts earmarked for a sale within the one-year period anyway, moving to your own hardware is rarely the first job.

Our assessment: the line is holding so far, the annual balance is not

In this newsroom's view the situation is less dramatic than the daily loss of 5.0 percent suggests, and at the same time less reassuring than the line holding makes it look. Three documented points support that. First, the zone around $0.0789 has stopped the price twice within 28 days, at $0.078889 on 16 September and at $0.078951 on 15 October. Second, the blockchain is unremarkable: 17 items in the mempool and an average fee of $0.028 show no selling pressure backing up in the network. Third, the weekly loss sits in the middle of the larger altcoins, not at the bottom of them.

Against that stands the longer view. On a one-year basis there is a 61.1 percent loss, over 30 days 3.0 percent, while Bitcoin gained 5.5 percent in the same month. The recovery after the September low ended at $0.103908 and retraced in full. A line that holds twice is a floor and not yet a turn. A turn can only be proven once an attempt ends above the October high of $0.097149. This assessment evaluates the situation and is not a buy or sell recommendation.

Dogecoin: below $0.078889 the path to the August low opens

Three steps order the coming weeks, each of them checkable.

1. Watch the zone around $0.0789. If it holds a third time, the picture of the past four weeks stays intact. If a daily close lands clearly below it, the year's low of $0.06902 from 7 August is the next figure the market can refer to. To be ready to trade on that, know the costs of your venue and check them against the exchange comparison.
2. Write down the one-year deadline for each purchase lot. Purchase date, quantity, price, and from that the date on which the one-year period under section 23 of the German Income Tax Act ends. Until 31 December this list decides which losses can still be offset. The tools for it are in the overview of tax software.
3. Match the place of custody to the investment horizon. Holdings that will sit longer than the one-year period belong on your own hardware rather than at a trading venue. The devices and their costs are in the hardware wallet comparison.

(As of October 15, 2026. This article is not investment advice. Prices and fee structures change; check the terms with the provider before you buy. Crypto investments can lead to a total loss.)

Chainlink has been delivering its price data on Stellar since 14 October. Applications on that blockchain can now pull quotes for Bitcoin, Ether, LINK, XLM and USDC without building a data supply of their own. The token price is not following the news: Chainlink trades at $12.13 on 15 October, 6.12 percent below the previous day. The day's low was $11.98, the high $12.99.

That gap between network expansion and price action is the real story of the day. An oracle network wins another blockchain as a customer, and the paper on it gives way because the whole market gives way. The two are connected far less tightly than they look at first glance. This case shows precisely why.

What Chainlink delivers on Stellar: Data Feeds and Data Streams

Chainlink is an oracle network. An oracle is a service that brings data from outside a blockchain onto the blockchain in a form that contracts there can compute with. A blockchain knows no prices of its own; it knows only what sits in its own blocks.

Two products are available on Stellar. Data Feeds are continuously updated price readings that sit on the blockchain as a contract and can be queried by any application. Data Streams deliver the same data at a higher cadence and are written to the blockchain only when they are called, which is aimed at trading applications that need fast quotes.

Reports on the launch name feeds for BTC/USD, ETH/USD, LINK/USD, XLM/USD and USDC/USD. Developers select a single feed through an identifier addressed via a shared contract. Data like this is used above all where collateral has to be valued: in lending applications, with stablecoins, with tokenised equities and with derivatives.

Chainlink Scale: who carries the cost of the oracles

The launch runs through a programme called Chainlink Scale. The announcement by the Stellar Development Foundation describes joining that programme and the intention to adopt Data Feeds, Data Streams and CCIP. CCIP is Chainlink's protocol for transfers between different blockchains.

Economically this is the most interesting point. Under the Scale programme the adopting network carries the running cost of oracle operation, not the individual application and not Chainlink. Reports on the 14 October launch describe exactly that: the foundation behind Stellar bears the operating cost. That lowers the barrier for developers on Stellar to use this data. For demand for the LINK token, little follows for now, because payment happens at the level of the foundation rather than through every single call made by an application.

Two executives speak in the announcement. Johann Eid, Chief Business Officer at Chainlink Labs, calls the move an entry point to the infrastructure needed for institutional tokenisation. Raja Chakravorti, Chief Business Officer of the Stellar Development Foundation, says that once the integration is complete Stellar will be a step closer to a unified financial system on the blockchain. The announcement itself is written in the future tense and describes the integration as a plan; the reports of 14 October cover the feeds going into operation.

Stellar's tokenised assets: $3.54 billion to more than $4 billion

The size of the target market is stated differently in different places, and those differences are not a trifle. Several reports on the launch put the stock of tokenised assets on Stellar at roughly $3.54 billion, others at more than $4 billion, depending on cut-off date and definition. One of those figures refers explicitly to the position on 1 September 2026.

The foundation itself cites a different measure in its announcement: $5.4 billion in payment volume with tokenised assets per quarter. That is not the same as a stock. A payment volume counts movements over a period; a stock counts what exists on a given date. Setting the two numbers side by side without naming the difference compares two different things. On DeFi activity on Stellar, the foundation writes that it has grown more than threefold this year.

The LINK price on 15 October: $12.13 after $11.98 at the low

The price figures in this article come from a direct query at CoinGecko on 15 October 2026. LINK stands at $12.13, or 10.82 euros. Over 24 hours that is 6.12 percent down, and 7.23 percent down over one week.

Longer periods look different. Over 30 days LINK is 7.01 percent up. The month, in other words, was friendly, and the weak day falls within a phase that trended higher overall. Over twelve months there is a loss of 35.71 percent. From the May 2021 record high of $52.70 the price is almost 77 percent away.

Market capitalisation is $9.30 billion and daily turnover $382.56 million. There are 766.85 million LINK in circulation out of a total supply of one billion. A good fifth of the supply, then, is not yet in the market.

Oracles explained: how a price feed triggers a liquidation

The path from a price reading to a change in a position is shorter than many assume. Borrowing on a blockchain means posting collateral, Ether for example. The contract that manages that loan has to know continuously what the collateral is worth. It takes that reading from a price feed.

If the posted value falls below a defined threshold, the contract sells the collateral by itself. This is called a liquidation. What decides the outcome is not what is happening on a trading venue, but the value standing in the feed. A feed that delivers late or delivers wrong triggers liquidations that should never have happened, or prevents ones that were needed.

That is why the choice of oracle is a decision about liability and trust for a blockchain, and not merely a technical detail. And that is why landing an established provider weighs heavily for Stellar. The foundation notes in its announcement that the security layer of CCIP builds on infrastructure which, on its account, secures value in the region of nearly $100 billion across DeFi.

Why network expansion and token demand drift apart

An oracle network earns money when applications call data and pay for it. When a network such as Stellar covers those costs in a lump sum, reach is created without an amount in LINK falling due for every call. The link between distribution and token demand does exist, but it is indirect and lagged.

There is also the question of scale. Even a stock of $4 billion in tokenised assets is, measured against a market capitalisation of $9.30 billion, not a sum that moves a price on its own. Chainlink has reported several integrations in recent weeks alone, most recently the CCIP Vault Adapters on 8 October. The price has not turned any of them into a lasting uptrend.

Terms at the trading venues are set out in the crypto exchange comparison for anyone looking to buy in. The spread between bid and ask barely matters for an asset of this size; at $382.56 million in daily turnover the market is deep enough that larger orders also fill at the quoted price.

What the funds hold in Chainlink

Alongside buying directly, there are exchange-traded products on LINK. According to SoSoValue data cited by Coingape, the two US funds together held $244.34 million, of which $175.69 million sat with Grayscale and $68.64 million with Bitwise. On 1 October, $2.62 million flowed in, all of it into the Bitwise product.

Measured against a market capitalisation of $9.30 billion, $244.34 million is around 2.6 percent. These products are a factor, then, but not a dominant one. How the inflows have developed lately was set out by cryptoticker.io on 10 October in its piece on the first fund inflow after five trading days.

The broad decline on 15 October

The day was weak for almost every large crypto asset. Bitcoin gave up 2.54 percent, Ether 5.20 percent. At 6.12 percent, LINK sat clearly below Bitcoin and somewhat below Ether. That pattern is not unusual for Chainlink: in broad declines the asset usually falls harder than the two largest ones, and in recoveries it rises harder.

For reading the day, that leaves one conclusion: the price loss cannot be attributed to the Stellar news. It fits a market that gave way across the board that day. The only robust statement is that the news did not prevent the decline.

Access in Europe: MiCA licensing, custody and the holding period

For investors in Europe the Stellar launch changes nothing about the practical questions. LINK is tradable at the large venues that hold a licence under the MiCA regulation in the European Union. MiCA is the single European legal framework for crypto assets; a licence under it means the provider is supervised and has to meet certain obligations to protect client funds.

On custody the familiar trade-off remains. Leaving the coins at the trading venue is more convenient and carries the provider's risk. Moving them to a wallet of your own means taking responsibility for securing the keys yourself.

For tax, private sales in Germany fall under the one-year holding period set out in section 23 of the Income Tax Act. Hold for at least a year and no income tax is due on the gain from the sale. Staking income has to be treated separately. On the deadlines in Chainlink staking, cryptoticker.io reported on 12 October ahead of the 29 October date.

Our assessment: the reach is documented, demand for the token is not

In this newsroom's view the Stellar launch is a good day for Chainlink as a company and a neutral one for the token. Three documented points support that. First, the foundation behind Stellar carries the operating cost, which aids distribution but triggers no per-call payment in LINK. Second, the target market, with a stock between $3.54 billion and a good $4 billion, is smaller than LINK's market capitalisation. Third, the price has not reacted lastingly to comparable announcements in recent weeks.

Against that stands the fact that the value of infrastructure only shows over years. If lending and trading applications do emerge on Stellar that need these feeds permanently, business will follow later. That is not measurable today, and selling it as a price argument claims more than the figures support. This is an assessment of the situation, not a recommendation to buy or sell; with crypto assets a total loss is possible.

Chainlink on Stellar: only fees turn reach into demand

1. Check the terms before buying. Venue, fee model and withdrawal costs differ markedly. The terms are set out in the crypto exchange comparison.
2. Look for the EU licence. A provider with a MiCA licence is supervised. Which venues meet that is shown in the overview of regulated crypto exchanges.
3. Record the purchase date. The one-year holding period can only be proven if the data is captured cleanly. The tax software and portfolio trackers help with that.

(As of October 15, 2026. This article is not investment advice. Prices and fee structures change; check the terms with the provider before you buy.)

Hot inflation data revived Fed rate-hike bets, and leveraged bulls paid the bill as nearly $1 billion in crypto positions were liquidated.

Market analysts say that macro factors are pushing altcoin prices down, after ETH, XRP, and SOL all dropped on the day.

Ledger says the Android-based Atom will carry anti-tamper protections and be sold only on its site, as it probes tampered resold wallets.

Experts blame a build up in leverage for Zcash's drop in value, as well as growing concerns about AI breaking crypto encryption.

Alpenglow is coming next week, slashing Solana finality from 12.8 seconds to a target of about 150 milliseconds—some 85 times faster.

Dogecoin whale activity may be rising as the ongoing market volatility pushes traders to dump their crypto holdings to hedge against further losses.

Bitcoin is missing from Google trends as global search interest collapses to multi-year lows.

Cardano’s 5,747% liquidation Imbalance raises fresh questions for ADA bulls.

Ripple is expanding its Wall Street ambitions by giving institutional investors access to perpetual futures tied to more than 100 traditional asset markets, tapping into a rapidly growing $9 billion trading sector.

Zcash co-founder Eli Ben-Sasson revives bold ZEC call with new prediction.

TLDR

• SpaceX (SPCX) shares fall 3.02% despite United’s growing Starlink Wi-Fi rollout.
• United equips over 635 aircraft with Starlink, covering nearly half its flights.
• Over 250,000 United passengers fly daily on aircraft offering Starlink Wi-Fi.
• American Airlines plans Starlink installations on more than 1,030 aircraft.
• United extends its Wi-Fi status match offer after applications surge by 275%.

SpaceX (SPCX) stock fell 3.02% to $147.56 on Thursday morning, losing $4.60 despite United Airlines expanding its Starlink Wi-Fi rollout. Shares recovered from sharp intraday lows but remained in negative territory during the morning session. Meanwhile, United reported significant progress in installing SpaceX’s satellite internet service across its commercial aircraft fleet.

Space Exploration Technologies Corp., SPCX

United Airlines Expands Starlink Wi-Fi Across 635 Aircraft

United Airlines announced Thursday that more than 635 aircraft now offer Starlink Wi-Fi across its domestic and international network. The installations cover nearly half of the carrier’s daily departures, marking another milestone in its satellite connectivity program. Furthermore, United continues installing the technology on approximately 20 aircraft weekly as it expands coverage.

The airline expects to complete its planned fleetwide rollout by the end of 2027. Currently, more than 250,000 passengers access Starlink-equipped aircraft daily across approximately 2,500 flights. Since launching the service, United has carried over 37.7 million passengers across 538,000 flights featuring Starlink connectivity.

Additionally, United introduced a digital tracking platform that allows customers to check Starlink availability before departure. Passengers can enter their flight numbers and travel dates within three days of their scheduled journeys. The platform also provides installation statistics across major hubs, including Chicago, Newark, Houston, Denver, Los Angeles, and San Francisco.

SpaceX Starlink Expands Commercial Aviation Partnerships

SpaceX continues strengthening Starlink’s commercial aviation presence as additional airlines adopt its satellite internet technology. American Airlines recently announced plans to install Starlink across more than 1,030 mainline aircraft beginning in early 2027. The expansion will cover narrowbody and widebody aircraft, extending Starlink’s reach across another major American carrier.

Alaska Air Group has introduced Starlink connectivity across approximately 38% of its combined airline fleet. Qatar Airways also provides the service aboard 150 widebody aircraft, while Air France targets broader coverage. Emirates has announced plans to introduce Starlink, further expanding the service’s international aviation presence.

Beyond aviation, SpaceX recently announced an agreement to acquire Grain Management’s nationwide 800 MHz wireless spectrum portfolio. The transaction would support Starlink Mobile’s expansion through satellite connectivity and terrestrial wireless network integration. Consequently, the company continues developing communications services beyond its existing residential and commercial satellite internet operations.

United Introduces Starlink Tracker and Extends Loyalty Campaign

United’s new Starlink tracking platform highlights differences in installation progress across aircraft types and operating hubs. A recent platform preview showed Starlink availability on 48% of departures, with 43% of the fleet equipped. Chicago recorded 55% coverage, while San Francisco reported 35%, reflecting differences in aircraft deployment.

The airline also extended its Switch to Better Wi-Fi status match campaign through October 22. Eligible American Airlines and Delta Air Lines loyalty members can qualify for United Premier status through January 2028. Participants must meet spending requirements between $1,500 and $7,000 and complete a qualifying flight within 90 days.

United reported a 275% increase in status match applications compared with levels before the campaign. New York City, Los Angeles, and San Francisco generated the highest participation volumes during the promotional period. Meanwhile, United continues using Starlink connectivity to support its passenger experience and loyalty program strategy.

The post SpaceX (SPCX) Stock: Falls as United Airlines Expands Starlink Wi-Fi to 635 Aircraft appeared first on Blockonomi.

TLDR

• FreeCast (CAST) shares drop 1.89% as the company announces a Louisiana deal.
• Cajun Broadband will offer FreeCast streaming services across rural Louisiana.
• FreeCast’s SmartGuide combines free TV, premium content, and subscriptions.
• The partnership could create new revenue from ads and digital subscriptions.
• FreeCast’s partner-led strategy expands reach without building cable networks.

FreeCast, Inc. (CAST) stock fell 1.89% to $1.05 Thursday morning following a Louisiana distribution announcement. The agreement will let Cajun Broadband offer FreeCast’s media marketplace to customers across its service areas. The deal expands FreeCast’s reach into communities where providers are seeking additional service options.

FreeCast, Inc. Class A Common Stock, CAST

Cajun Broadband Deal Expands Louisiana Access

Under the agreement, Cajun Broadband will incorporate FreeCast’s streaming tools into its customer offering. The Louisiana company operates fiber-optic and fixed wireless networks, including services in rural locations. Those connections give FreeCast a distribution route without requiring new infrastructure.

Customers will access an entertainment marketplace combining free television, on-demand programming, and premium subscription options. FreeCast’s SmartGuide technology gathers viewing choices across devices into a unified discovery system. The platform supports subscription management and advertising-funded content through one interface.

Cajun Broadband can use those features to offer more than internet access to existing subscribers. The company may earn revenue from advertising, subscriptions, and other digital purchases. FreeCast has not disclosed the partnership’s financial terms or projected customer activations.

FreeCast’s Software Model Reduces Infrastructure Needs

FreeCast operates a Platform-as-a-Service model aimed at businesses with established customer relationships. Its software gives broadband and telecom operators media services without requiring proprietary television systems. This approach separates entertainment delivery from the cost of conventional cable infrastructure.

Instead of pursuing each streaming subscriber directly, FreeCast distributes technology through commercial partners. Internet providers, wireless operators, and satellite companies can connect their subscribers to its marketplace. The arrangement allows businesses to introduce digital services alongside their core connectivity products.

FreeCast calls its potential partner reach Partner-Enabled Addressable Customers, or PEAC. The measure estimates available customer exposure through distribution relationships rather than actual paying subscribers. Consequently, a larger partner network does not establish subscriber growth or new revenue.

Rural Expansion Adds Another Distribution Channel

Cajun Broadband’s networks serve parts of Louisiana where conventional television options may remain limited. The agreement brings FreeCast’s software into both fiber-connected households and fixed wireless service areas. It allows the provider to build entertainment offerings without installing cable television equipment.

FreeCast has positioned enterprise distribution as a way to scale across network sizes. The company targets telecommunications firms, broadband operators, satellite providers, and multifamily housing operators. Each partnership may expand its potential audience while its partners maintain direct customer relationships.

Chief Executive William Mobley described broadband connections as a foundation for media services. His comments emphasized software infrastructure rather than direct competition for individual streaming subscriptions. For now, the Louisiana agreement adds distribution capacity, while use and revenue depend on adoption.

The post FreeCast, Inc. (CAST) Stock: Cajun Broadband Deal Targets Louisiana Media Market appeared first on Blockonomi.

TLDR

• Verizon (VZ) shares rise 1.77% as Ericsson delivers a major 6G field milestone.
• Verizon and Ericsson complete a pre-standard 6G field call using the 7 GHz band.
• California trial moves 6G technology beyond labs and into a commercial network.
• Engineers examine 6G coverage, latency, stability and signals entering buildings.
• 6G remains in testing, with no commercial launch or finalized standards announced.

Verizon Communications (VZ) stock rose 1.77% to $45.21 Thursday morning following a milestone in its Ericsson partnership. Shares gained $0.79 before retreating from an intraday high near $45.55. The companies completed a pre-standard 6G outdoor field call at a commercial network site in Concord, California.

Verizon Communications Inc., VZ

Verizon and Ericsson Complete First 7 GHz 6G Field Call

Verizon and Ericsson described the demonstration as the first pre-standard 6G field call using the 7 GHz band. Ericsson deployed its 6G proof-of-concept equipment at Verizon’s commercial network site. The test moved their research beyond laboratory systems and into a network setting.

The trial used a pre-standard 6G system with a 400 MHz carrier. Engineers placed the base station equipment inside a shelter at the Concord location. Meanwhile, they positioned the test user equipment inside a small mobile structure nearby.

That structure measured 12 feet by eight feet and supported different testing arrangements. The enclosure included power supplies and battery backup to support the equipment. It also offered different wall and window materials for examining signal behavior.

Field Testing Examines Network Performance in Real Conditions

The companies confirmed an outdoor call, while their wider program also examines signals entering buildings. Engineers will study how radio coverage changes across indoor and outdoor environments. Their work will help identify practical limits before developers finalize future network designs.

The testing program evaluates connection speed, delay, reliability, coverage and network feature performance. It also examines direct signal paths and routes that encounter obstacles. Trees, buildings and other barriers create conditions that laboratory testing cannot reproduce.

Different glass types and construction materials form another part of the evaluation. These tests help engineers understand how higher-frequency signals travel from outdoor equipment into enclosed spaces. However, the announced milestone does not establish a completed indoor 6G call.

Verizon Outlines Next Steps for 6G Development

Verizon and Ericsson will use the field findings to guide further 6G experiments and network planning. Their work also supports technical discussions as industry groups develop common 6G standards. Both companies participate in broader efforts to shape the next generation of wireless infrastructure.

Verizon views the partnership as part of its efforts to expand practical network research. Ericsson contributes radio technology and engineering support through the joint field program. The collaboration brings early 6G equipment into environments that resemble future deployment locations.

The demonstration does not mark a commercial 6G launch or a finished standard. Future networks could support industrial robotics, artificial intelligence services and more responsive wireless applications. For now, Verizon and Ericsson will continue gathering field data before making deployment decisions.

The post Verizon Communications (VZ) Stock: Surges as Ericsson Partnership Delivers First 6G Field Call appeared first on Blockonomi.

TLDR

• Tesla (TSLA) stock slides 2.82% to $356.80 ahead of the new Roadster unveiling.
• Tesla prepares to unveil its redesigned Roadster nine years after its debut.
• Tesla’s Roadster was priced at $200,000 in 2017, with reservations at $50,000.
• Tesla targets a 620-mile range and sub-one-second acceleration for Roadster.
• Tesla’s Roadster revival comes as it shifts toward AI, robots and Cybercab.

Tesla (TSLA) stock fell 2.82% to $356.80 on Thursday morning, losing $10.36 as the company prepared to unveil its redesigned Roadster. The electric sports car returns nearly nine years after Tesla introduced its next-generation prototype in 2017. The unveiling marks another step in Tesla’s product strategy as the company expands its focus on robotics and autonomous driving.

Tesla, Inc., TSLA

Tesla Roadster Returns After Years of Production Delays

Tesla originally introduced the second-generation Roadster in 2017 and scheduled deliveries for 2020. However, repeated delays pushed the project beyond its initial timeline and left reservation holders waiting. The company now plans to present the redesigned model on October 15, 2026.

The original prototype carried a $200,000 price tag, while Tesla required customers to pay $50,000 for reservations. Tesla has not announced a revised price despite the extended development period. Meanwhile, the upcoming presentation will provide another opportunity to demonstrate the vehicle’s engineering capabilities.

Chief Executive Elon Musk previously outlined ambitious performance targets for the electric sports car. He projected a driving range of 620 miles per charge and acceleration from zero to 60 mph within one second. Furthermore, Musk announced a redesign in 2024 and linked the project to collaboration with SpaceX.

Tesla Roadster Targets Premium Electric Sports Car Market

The Roadster will serve as Tesla’s flagship performance vehicle rather than a major source of revenue. Morningstar analyst Seth Goldstein expects annual sales of approximately 2,000 units. That estimate represents a small share of the 1.6 million vehicles Tesla sold during 2025.

Goldstein also identified the Roadster as an important addition to Tesla’s vehicle lineup. The company currently lacks a dedicated luxury performance model that demonstrates its highest engineering capabilities. Therefore, the redesigned Roadster could strengthen Tesla’s position in the premium electric sports car segment.

Tesla’s first Roadster entered production in 2008 and remained available until 2012. The vehicle used a Lotus Elise chassis and introduced Tesla’s electric performance technology to the automotive market. Subsequently, Tesla expanded its lineup through the Model S, Model 3, Model X, and Model Y.

Tesla Expands Robotics and Autonomous Driving Strategy

The Roadster unveiling comes as Tesla directs more resources toward artificial intelligence and autonomous transportation. The company has increasingly emphasized software development, robotics, and vehicles that operate without human drivers. Consequently, its long-term business strategy now extends beyond conventional electric vehicle manufacturing.

Tesla discontinued sales of the Model S and Model X during 2026 to support its manufacturing transition. The company plans to use the additional production capacity for its Optimus humanoid robots. Meanwhile, Tesla introduced the Cybercab, a two-seat autonomous vehicle without conventional driving controls.

The Cybercab removes steering wheels, pedals, and mirrors from its design to support driverless transportation. Tesla continues developing these technologies alongside its existing electric vehicle operations. The Roadster’s return therefore combines the company’s performance heritage with its broader technological ambitions.

The post Tesla (TSLA) Stock: Drops as Roadster Returns After Nine Years of Delays appeared first on Blockonomi.

TLDR

• SCHW stock slides 5.05% to $91.91 despite its strong third-quarter earnings.
• Schwab’s Q3 revenue jumps 17% to $7.2 billion as net income hits $2.9 billion.
• Client assets climb 15% to $13.33 trillion as new inflows reach $190.4 billion.
• Schwab adds 1.2 million brokerage accounts, lifting the total to 48.6 million.
• Schwab expands AI offerings through Charley and its new Anthropic partnership.

Charles Schwab Corporation (SCHW) stock fell 5.05% to $91.91 on Thursday, losing $4.88 despite reporting strong third-quarter financial results. The financial services company recorded $7.2 billion in revenue, representing 17% annual growth. Meanwhile, quarterly net income reached $2.9 billion as the company expanded client assets and brokerage accounts.

The Charles Schwab Corporation, SCHW

Charles Schwab Reports Strong Q3 Earnings and Revenue Growth

Charles Schwab reported third-quarter net income of $2.91 billion, up 23% from $2.36 billion last year. Additionally, diluted earnings per share increased 29% to $1.62 from $1.26 in the comparable period. The company recorded adjusted earnings of $1.69 per share after excluding transaction-related expenses.

Quarterly revenue reached $7.17 billion, compared with $6.14 billion during the third quarter of 2025. Furthermore, the company’s GAAP pre-tax profit margin improved to 52.7% from 49.2% a year earlier. Its adjusted pre-tax profit margin also increased to 54.8%, reflecting stronger operating performance.

Schwab reported $20.73 billion in revenue during the first nine months of 2026, representing 18% annual growth. Meanwhile, nine-month net income increased 28% to $8.19 billion, supported by broader revenue growth. The company also repurchased 4.7 million common shares for approximately $500 million during the quarter.

Charles Schwab Client Assets Reach $13.33 Trillion

Charles Schwab reported $13.33 trillion in total client assets, representing 15% growth from the previous year. Additionally, clients contributed $190.4 billion in core net new assets during the quarter. These contributions represented 38% annual growth and an annualized organic growth rate of 5.8%.

The company opened 1.2 million new brokerage accounts, bringing its total client accounts to 48.6 million. Schwab Wealth Advisory net flows increased 55% compared with the third quarter of 2025. Managed Investing Solutions also recorded 22% annual growth in net flows.

Bank loan balances reached $72.3 billion at September’s end, representing 35% annual growth. Furthermore, margin loan balances increased 14% quarterly to $187.9 billion, including financing for long/short strategies. Pledged Asset Line balances also climbed 59% annually to $37.3 billion.

Schwab Expands Financial Services and Digital Capabilities

Schwab generated $1.9 billion in asset management and administration fees, representing 14% annual growth. Meanwhile, trading revenue increased 16% to $1.2 billion as daily average trading volume reached 10.7 million. The company also expanded its net interest margin to 3.04% during the quarter.

Schwab introduced Charley, an artificial intelligence assistant that provides retail clients with access to financial tools and information. Additionally, the company partnered with Anthropic to offer Claude for Financial Advisors to independent registered investment advisers. It also announced single-stock futures for thinkorswim and plans to expand digital assets through Schwab Crypto.

Operating expenses increased 9% annually, while average interest-earning assets reached $451.5 billion. Meanwhile, client transactional sweep cash balances rose to $492.8 billion, supported partly by organic growth. Schwab maintained a preliminary consolidated Tier 1 leverage ratio of 8.9%, supporting its capital position.

The post Charles Schwab (SCHW) Stock: Slides as Q3 Revenue Surges 17% to $7.2B appeared first on Blockonomi.