The scrutiny over Hines' dual roles may undermine trust in stablecoin regulations and impact Tether's US market expansion efforts.

The post Tether paid millions to Bo Hines’ firm while he worked at the White House appeared first on Crypto Briefing.

The liquidation highlights systemic risk concentration in crypto derivatives and suggests traders may not learn from repeated leverage losses.

The post Over $876M in long positions liquidated from crypto market in 24 hours appeared first on Crypto Briefing.

Airbender Prime's real-time proving on a single GPU marks a pivotal shift towards enhancing Ethereum's scalability and security verification.

The post ZKsync’s Airbender hits real-time proving on one GPU, and Vitalik Buterin weighs in appeared first on Crypto Briefing.

The incident underscores the critical need for stringent supply chain security and robust anti-tampering measures in crypto hardware distribution.

The post Ledger tells CryptoBilis buyers to stop using tampered wallets after $86 million to $93 million drain appeared first on Crypto Briefing.

The event underscores the volatility of crypto markets, highlighting the risks of leveraged trading and the influence of macroeconomic factors.

The post Bitcoin falls below $81K, triggering $485M in liquidations appeared first on Crypto Briefing.

Bitcoin Magazine

Russia’s Central Bank Authorizes Sberbank to Exchange Cryptocurrencies

Russia’s central bank has added Sberbank to its register of organizations authorized to exchange digital currencies, according to reports. 

Sberbank was added to the list of digital depositories, which will keep a record of cryptocurrencies and digital rights, earlier this month. 

Now, it joins eight other organizations on the exchange register, including state-controlled VTB, Russia’s second-largest bank, and T-Invest Lab, part of T-Technologies, which also owns online lender T-Bank, according to a Monday report from Interfax. 

The announcement comes as Russia fast moves forward with Bitcoin-related regulation. Sberbank last month announced that it was the first in the country to have been approved to custody bitcoin. 

The Bank of Russia gave it the green light for “digital currency record-keeping” and to facilitate the transfer of such assets, covering bitcoin and other, smaller cryptocurrencies. 

“This status will allow the bank to provide services related to organizing the circulation of digital currency on interfaces which clients already use,” Sberbank was quoted saying in the news report. 

A law on digital currencies and digital rights came into effect in Russia on September 1, creating a comprehensive legal framework for cryptocurrency circulation. Transactions involving cryptocurrencies can be conducted via the existing infrastructure of exchanges, brokers and trustees, and now also via crypto exchanges and digital depositories. 

Cryptocurrency can be bought and sold via crypto exchanges, while the rights to these assets are recorded in digital depositories.

Banks and other organizations have been able to apply to the CBR for the corresponding licenses since October 5. Some existing players have simplified access to the market and can obtain licenses on a notification basis within just one day.

Under the new rules, unqualified investors will be able to buy bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies including stablecoins, within a limit of 300,000 rubles ($3,556) per year through one intermediary. 

Qualified investors will have access to all cryptocurrencies traded on the exchange and over-the-counter markets.

Sberbank will debut its crypto wallet in December — the same month the Moscow Exchange will debut crypto trading.

This post Russia’s Central Bank Authorizes Sberbank to Exchange Cryptocurrencies first appeared on Bitcoin Magazine and is written by Mathew Di Salvo.

Bitcoin Magazine

Kraken Parent Company Payward to Buy Saldo Bank in European Banking Push

Payward, the parent company of crypto exchange Kraken, has signed a definitive agreement to acquire Saldo Bank, gaining an EU banking license and a footprint across five European markets.

Payward is buying Saldo Finance Oy, a Finnish holding company whose subsidiary, Saldo Bank UAB, is a digital-first specialized bank licensed in Lithuania. The bank operates in Lithuania, Finland, Sweden and Germany, with a passport into the Netherlands. 

Payward did not reveal the financial terms of the deal, which is expected to close in 2027, subject to regulatory approvals.

It comes as Kraken, like other crypto exchanges, pushes further into the traditional finance world, allowing users to trade stocks, bonds and other assets. The company has sold its app as a “primary account for everything.”

“A regulated EU bank is the piece that lets us serve European clients the way a primary financial institution should: one place to hold assets, move them freely, and put them to work,” said Arjun Sethi, Payward’s co-CEO. “We are starting in the EU, and the ambition is global.”

Payward said that once completed, the acquisition is expected to let Payward Banking offer interest on deposits, SME and consumer loans, credit cards, and banking-as-a-service tools such as card issuance, SEPA payments access and embedded lending for partners. 

Saldo already offers retail term deposits in all four of its operating markets, consumer lending in Lithuania, Finland and Sweden, and a credit card in Finland.

Payward says it already holds a Federal Reserve limited-purpose master account in the U.S. and an e-money license from the Central Bank of Ireland, and has originated more than $2 billion in loans.

The deal comes shortly after Payward this week announced plans to launch in the UAE following full approval from Dubai’s Virtual Asset Regulatory Authority. 

In September, Bloomberg reported  that Nasdaq Inc. was investing $100 million in Payward at a $21 billion valuation, citing people familiar with the matter. Payward and SoFi Technologies also recently agreed to route SoFi customers’ crypto orders through Kraken Prime, Kraken’s prime brokerage arm.

This post Kraken Parent Company Payward to Buy Saldo Bank in European Banking Push first appeared on Bitcoin Magazine and is written by Mathew Di Salvo.

Bitcoin Magazine

Standard Chartered Debuts Bitcoin Trading For Wealthy UAE Clients 

British multinational Standard Chartered on Wednesday announced a bitcoin trading service for affluent clients in the United Arab Emirates. 

The service is the first such service offered by an international bank in the UAE, Standard Chartered said. 

It comes after the bank last month debuted bitcoin trading for institutional clients in the Arab nation. Standard Chartered became one of the first global banks to enter the spot crypto trading space when in 2025 it set up a trading desk for bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies in London. 

“As client interest in digital assets continues to grow, this launch represents a significant milestone for Standard Chartered as we bring digital assets into our core wealth offering,” said Samir Subberwal, Standard Chartered’s global head of wealth solutions, ​retail products, data and analytics.

“With digital assets moving into mainstream wealth conversations, clients are increasingly looking not only for access, but also for the security, trust and confidence that comes from investing through a regulated and trusted institution.” 

Rola Abu Manneh, Standard Chartered’s chief executive officer UAE, Middle East and Pakistan, added: “We are proud to be the first international bank in the UAE to launch a cryptocurrency trading offering.”

The service will allow clients to buy bitcoin via their bank accounts. No third-party apps or wallets will be needed, the bank said. 

Standard Chartered said it will manage end-to-end custody and settlement through a closed-loop model, reducing exposure to third-party wallet risks. 

The British bank is expanding its crypto-related offerings worldwide. Earlier this month, it said it had plans to offer crypto custody services for institutional clients in Singapore.

Standard Chartered already offers the service in the UAE, Luxembourg, and Hong Kong.

Banks worldwide are integrating or offering bitcoin-related products and services. 

A number of U.S. and European banks have started offering crypto-related services by custodying assets for institutions. Others are offering trading via their flagship apps. 

This post Standard Chartered Debuts Bitcoin Trading For Wealthy UAE Clients  first appeared on Bitcoin Magazine and is written by Mathew Di Salvo.

Bitcoin Magazine

The Undercurrent: Three European Artists on Making Money Visible

Amsterdam helped lay the foundations of modern finance, but its artists were among its earliest critics. When speculative bubbles burst across Europe in 1720, Amsterdam printers and satirists responded with The Great Mirror of Folly, a collection of engravings and plays exposing the excesses of financial speculation.

Nearly three centuries later, the city hosted another monetary experiment. David Chaum, the cryptographer whose work on anonymous communication helped lay the groundwork for the cypherpunk movement, came to Amsterdam in the 1980s to work at CWI, the Dutch national research institute for mathematics and computer science. Around 1990, he founded DigiCash to develop private electronic cash. The company went bankrupt in 1998, a decade before bitcoin, but the dream of digital money was already taking shape.

Last year at Bitcoin Amsterdam, BMAG exhibited The Waterworks of Money, in which Dutch artist Carlijn Kingma, working with financial journalist Thomas Bollen and researcher Martijn Jeroen van der Linden, depicted the monetary system as a vast irrigation network, with some areas flooded by liquidity while others remain dry. The drawing makes a complex financial system legible, exposing the mechanisms through which money is created, distributed, and concentrated.

This tradition of questioning money and making its hidden dimensions visible continues in the work of three European artists exhibiting at Bitcoin Amsterdam this November. ZETRA, RYR, and Cypherpunk Now draw from graffiti, political printmaking, hacker culture, and early bitcoin communities to explore the changing meaning of money.

Martin Fischer joined the Prague art collective Ztohoven in 2003, a group known for inserting a fictional nuclear explosion into a live Czech Television broadcast. In 2014, the collective opened Paralelní Polis, a hackerspace whose café accepted only bitcoin, and Fischer designed its logo. As he told Bitcoin Magazine’s Aaron van Wirdum in 2020, the arrival of a screen-printing press the following year prompted him to produce his first prints. Since 2020, he has worked under the name Cypherpunk Now, developing a visual record of bitcoin’s evolving culture.

RYR and ZETRA both emerged from Germany’s graffiti scene but approach money from different directions. RYR uses currency itself as material, making paper from shredded banknotes, pigment from their ashes, and concrete grenades filled with shredded cash that he calls “artifacts from the future.” ZETRA, who began painting in the early 1990s and discovered bitcoin in 2017, examines what money can buy. His TOMATOSOUP paintings revisit Andy Warhol’s iconic Campbell’s Soup Cans to chart changing prices in dollars and bitcoin, while THE BIP39 SERIES explores the 2,048 words used in bitcoin wallet recovery phrases, including 1206/NOTE, a collaboration with Polymerbit.

Bitcoin has shaped these artists’ practices, their livelihoods, and the communities around them. Its growing acceptance by banks, investment funds, and corporations has also prompted some difficult questions about the movement’s original ideals and where its culture is heading.

BMAG: Andy Warhol turned Campbell’s soup into an icon of consumer culture, taking an ordinary commodity and elevating it into fine art. Your TOMATOSOUP series returns to that image but introduces something Warhol largely left outside the frame: the changing value of money itself. How did the idea of reworking Warhol’s Campbell’s Soup Cans first come about, and do viewers immediately recognize the commentary on inflation?

ZETRA: We frequently see iPhones and houses in our bitcoin Twitter timelines, showing how they become cheaper in BTC terms. I thought it would be fun to take something from art history instead, something more visually appealing, like Warhol’s iconic Campbell’s Soup Can.

For my TOMATOSOUP painting, I used real stickers placed on the can to show how the price of soup has increased in USD over the past decades, compared with the lower prices we might expect in BTC terms in the decades to come.

Bitcoiners looking at TOMATOSOUP generally understand it immediately. They know they’re in a better position as the purchasing power of fiat money continues to decline through inflation. Other viewers usually need a bit of explanation, and I’m always happy to help them understand.

BMAG: In THE BIP39 SERIES, you draw from the 2,048 words used to generate bitcoin wallet recovery phrases, turning ordinary words into artworks with a deeper significance for bitcoin holders. Can you unpack the different layers of inspiration behind the series and what they reveal about bitcoin, language, and the ownership of money for someone unfamiliar with these concepts?

ZETRA: Everyone who moves their precious sats into cold storage encounters 12 or 24 of these significant words, often early in their journey as a bitcoin newcomer. As mentioned, there are 2,048 words in a carefully curated list representing the power of self-custody.

I started going through the words one by one, imagining how each could be visualized in a physical form: the key visual for the word, its corresponding number, the style, and the medium I would choose. There are millions of possibilities for bringing these words to life through bitcoin art.

1044/LIST was the obvious choice to kick off THE BIP39 SERIES. Naturally, it features all 2,048 words presented as a list. As an ’80s kid, I had to choose 1638/SMILE as the second piece: a proper yellow smiley face, with the number 1638 in place of the eyes. It’s a fine art print on Alu-Dibond beneath a 6 mm acrylic glass cover. So clean.

Another work in the series is 0388/CORN, an obvious homage to Warhol once again. THE BIP39 SERIES will be an ongoing project for many years to come.

BMAG: You shred banknotes into paper and burn them to produce pigment. Artists have long manipulated currency to question where its value resides, but your work goes a step further by making destruction part of the creative process. Is there a contradiction in destroying money to create an artwork that may ultimately be worth much more?

RYR: Money is essentially a narrative system built on collective belief and obedience. It has worked for hundreds of years because we collectively agree on the story it tells and the value it represents. I’ve always been fascinated by that idea, particularly how something as ordinary as a banknote can carry so much meaning, authority, and perceived value.

I was looking for a different way to tell that story, both conceptually and physically. Back in 2017, I had an exhibition title in mind: To Cut a Long Story Short. I liked the cheekiness of it, especially in relation to money and the stories we attach to it. Shredding banknotes became a very literal interpretation of that title, but it also opened up an entirely new artistic medium for me.

Ultimately, I’m not simply destroying money. I’m taking an existing story, cutting it into pieces, and using those pieces to tell a new one.

BMAG: Your concrete weapons are presented as relics from a future in which the fiat wars have already ended. Yet bitcoin is increasingly held through the very financial institutions it was designed to circumvent. Is that a victory for the movement, or have the institutions simply absorbed the alternative?

RYR: I think that’s precisely what makes the story so interesting. When I created the concrete weapons, I imagined a future in which the traditional financial system had already fought its battle for survival. The weapons had become fossils, archaeological artifacts from a monetary conflict that future generations might struggle to understand.

My concrete weapons represent a future in which that battle is already history. Whether bitcoin ultimately wins or becomes part of the very system it challenged remains to be seen.

BMAG: Much of your work is made from the physical remains of money, at a time when currency is becoming increasingly digital and invisible. Do you think people are losing something in their understanding of money as it disappears from everyday physical experience?

RYR: I think we’re losing a physical connection to money, but not necessarily our understanding of it. Money has always been a narrative built on collective trust, whether printed on paper or represented by numbers on a screen. What fascinates me is how something as abstract as value can be represented by a physical object.

I don’t necessarily believe that art has to be authentic or entirely original. Almost everything has been done before. To me, art is a wonderfully human, almost plebeian way of expressing an opinion and giving ideas a physical voice.

Bitcoin will likely evolve into a much broader and increasingly regulated financial asset, but I hope its grassroots culture and artistic identity remain visible. That’s something my fellow artists and I will continue to contribute to, preserving the spirit of a movement that was cultural long before it became institutional.

BMAG: Paralelní Polis wasn’t just a place to discuss alternative monetary systems or a hacker meetup; its café was one of the first to adopt bitcoin as money. What were the early years of Paralelní Polis like, and what has your own experience been selling artwork for bitcoin?

Martin Fischer: Paralelní Polis was founded in 2014, during a bear market. The funny thing is, none of us who founded it even knew what a bear market was. We didn’t think of bitcoin as something that could make us rich. We saw it as uncensorable money and understood the changes it could bring to society. There was no speculation involved, and that’s what made those early days so great.

I sold my first screenprint for bitcoin in 2017, almost ten years ago, and many more since then. But practically every sale was a matter of survival. I spent most of the bitcoin I earned financing my next projects and continuing to make art.

I never managed to accumulate much bitcoin, but looking back, it gave me something far more valuable than investment returns: the freedom to remain an independent artist.

BMAG: Political printmaking has a long history in Europe, from Amsterdam’s financial satires of 1720 to twentieth-century protest posters. Your work emerged from Ztohoven, a collective that famously hacked a live television broadcast to show a fictional nuclear explosion—an audacious intervention, even by today’s standards. Ztohoven challenged institutions through disruption, while bitcoin uses game theory and economic incentives to create an alternative. Do you see bitcoin as a continuation of that same spirit of intervention, and your prints as an extension of it?

Martin Fischer: I think there’s a connection, but I wouldn’t say it’s exactly the same thing. With Ztohoven, we used art to question authority, challenge institutions, and expose how easily reality can be manipulated. Bitcoin doesn’t need to make a statement or provoke anyone. It simply offers an alternative that works without asking anyone for permission. That’s a much more interesting form of disruption to me.

But today, bitcoin has become so corporate and so intertwined with traditional banking that it’s hard to still see it as an anti-establishment movement. I don’t see this as a betrayal of its original ideals, but rather as a natural consequence of its success. That doesn’t mean I like where things are going.

What’s strange is that bitcoin’s fundamental principles haven’t really changed, but the way people perceive and use it certainly has.

And my screenprints? I still work with the original idea of separating money from the state while exploring the myths, memes, and legends of the bitcoin age. That’s what I enjoy most.

BMAG: Your Amsterdam presentation brings together more than a decade of work documenting bitcoin’s evolution from an underground movement to an increasingly institutionalized financial system. Looking across those prints today, has the movement changed more than you expected, or has your own perspective changed? Which of your prints are your favorites?

Martin Fischer: I like remembering the old days, when we were all part of the same tribe and our main enemy was Faketoshi.

Today? We have culture wars over JPEGs, Ordinals, BIPs, OP_RETURN, over what’s spam and what should or shouldn’t belong on bitcoin. What makes me saddest is that people who once fought together against censorship and for freedom now spend enormous amounts of energy fighting each other over what others should or shouldn’t be allowed to do with bitcoin.

Maybe it’s a natural consequence of bitcoin’s success. The bitcoin community has changed enormously, and so has my perspective on it. I’m definitely much more skeptical today of the idea that technology alone can automatically change society for the better.

As for my favorite works, Bitcoin Meteorite is definitely one of them. In this piece, I reworked the meme of banking dinosaurs watching their own extinction, incorporating the abstract from the Bitcoin white paper. It gave me my fifteen minutes of fame when Max Keiser and Stacy Herbert brought it into the spotlight.

Then there’s Cypherpunks of the World. This project is important to me not only as a celebration of the cypherpunks and their legacy, but also because of its complexity. It started as a series of original collages, continued through handmade screenprints, and eventually evolved into animated NFTs and a virtual gallery. It’s one of my most elaborate projects, connecting different techniques and media while staying true to the original idea.

Among my more recent works, I really like Out of Order from 2023. It’s an incredibly detailed screenprint, and the first one where I finally managed to make absolutely no printing mistakes. That alone makes it special to me.

I also love St. Satosius Contra Draconem (2025), which is inspired by the classic depiction of Saint George fighting the dragon, reimagined through bitcoin mythology.

Works by ZETRA, RYR, and Cypherpunk Now, alongside other European artists, will be presented at Bitcoin Amsterdam, November 4–6, 2026, as part of the Bitcoin Museum & Art Gallery (BMAG) programming. Additional artworks and editions will be available through https://shop.museum.b.tc.

Explore more work by the featured artists at ZETRA, RYR, Cypherpunk Now, and www.martin-fischer.cz.

The Bitcoin Museum & Art Gallery (BMAG) organizes international exhibitions, auctions, and artist collaborations exploring bitcoin and its cultural implications. Learn more at museum.b.tc.

Join us at Bitcoin Amsterdam, Get your tickets here and use code BA26-BMAG20 for discounted admission.

This post The Undercurrent: Three European Artists on Making Money Visible first appeared on Bitcoin Magazine and is written by Dennis Koch.

Bitcoin Magazine

Bitcoin Slips Below $83,000 After Hotter-Than-Expected US Inflation Data

The price of bitcoin slid Wednesday after data dropped showing that U.S. consumer prices shot up more than expected in September due to rising gasoline prices. 

The biggest cryptocurrency by market cap was recently trading for close to $82,827 after dropping nearly 1% over a 24-hour period. At one point on Wednesday morning in New York, bitcoin fell as low as nearly $82,331. 

Over the past seven days, the coin has dropped by more than 1%. Bitcoin’s price had its best quarter in years after rallying in August and September and leading many analysts to declare it to have exited a bear market. 

But sticky inflation is still weighing — in the short-term — on the cryptocurrency. 

Data Wednesday showed that the Consumer Price Index rose 0.6% in September after climbing 0.4% in August. 

In the 12 months through ​September, the CPI advanced 3.7% after rising 3.4% in August, the Labor Department’s Bureau of Labor Statistics said. 

High prices in the U.S., in part spurred by the Trump Administration’s decision to attack Iran with Israel this year, have led the Federal Reserve to hint it may keep interest rates higher for longer. 

The central bank in September said getting inflation down was its number one priority and hiked rates. 

Bitcoin’s price has been sensitive to interest rate hikes in the past because higher borrowing costs restrict the liquidity the digital coin needs to run — along with other “risk-on” assets like stocks. 

Still, the price of bitcoin rose in September despite the Federal Reserve talking tough on inflation.  

The central bank will reveal what it plans to do with interest rates on October 28. As of Wednesday, fed funds futures were pricing a 47% chance of a rate hike at the Fed’s October meeting, according to CME Group’s FedWatch tool.

This post Bitcoin Slips Below $83,000 After Hotter-Than-Expected US Inflation Data first appeared on Bitcoin Magazine and is written by Mathew Di Salvo.

The company says issuance is planned in the coming months, subject to MiCA requirements and white-paper publication.

Read the full story on CryptoSlate

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

The October 6 activation moved existing FXRP stakes automatically into pooled cover backing, pairing fee income with claim exposure and longer withdrawals.

Read the full story on CryptoSlate

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

The mainnet plan calls for a live consensus replacement, with roughly 150ms finality dependent on network conditions and a coordinated validator handoff.

Read the full story on CryptoSlate

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

Its October 14 response emphasizes controls to exclude offshore gambling operators and says it continues as a BSP-licensed institution.

Read the full story on CryptoSlate

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

September US inflation reached 3.7%, lifting yields as markets increased bets on another rate rise before the October 27–28 Fed meeting.

Read the full story on CryptoSlate

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

Anyone who wants to buy a cryptocurrency usually looks for a name first. That is the most expensive order of operations this asset class offers. On October 15, 2026, CoinGecko lists exactly 22,260 active cryptocurrencies, traded on 1,504 venues and worth 2.76 trillion dollars, or 2.47 trillion euros, in total. A name tells you nothing about any of them. Five criteria do, and you can work through them in a quarter of an hour, before the first euro reaches an exchange account.

The five criteria are market capitalisation, supply, use, custody and tax. None of them is a price forecast, and that is where their value lies: a forecast ages overnight, while these five questions work in October 2026 exactly as they will in two years. What changes are the answers.

22,260 cryptocurrencies and 1,504 venues: why the question about the coin comes too early

The market is heavily concentrated. On October 15, 2026, Bitcoin accounts for around 59.3 percent of total market capitalisation and Ethereum for a further 10.7 percent. The remaining 22,258 cryptocurrencies share roughly 30 percent between them. That distribution is the first useful piece of information you get without having picked a single coin: two names set seven tenths of the market, and the rest spreads across a very long tail of very small positions.

No verdict on individual projects follows from this. What follows is an order of examination. Start with a second-tier coin and you have to answer all five criteria at once with no yardstick for any of them. Start with the largest and you build the yardstick the smaller ones will later be measured against.

What separates a criterion from an argument

A criterion is a question asked the same way of every cryptocurrency, with a verifiable answer. “How many tokens are in circulation?” is a criterion. “The project has a strong community” is an argument, and it has no place on this list, because nobody can measure it. Each of the five questions below has a number, a name or a statutory provision as its answer.

Criterion 1, market capitalisation: the size of the market, not the height of the price

Market capitalisation is the price multiplied by the circulating supply, in other words the total value of all freely tradable units. That figure answers the question of how much money sits in a cryptocurrency, and it is the only value that allows two coins to be compared at all.

The price on its own is no use for that. On October 15, 2026, Bitcoin stands at 72,840 euros, giving it a market capitalisation of 1.464 trillion euros. Dogecoin stands at 0.07292 euros and reaches 11.4 billion euros. The gap in price is a factor of a million; the gap in market capitalisation is a factor of only 128. A low price therefore does not mean a coin is cheap, only that there are many units of it.

In practice, proceed like this: look up where the coin sits in the ranking and note its market capitalisation in euros. Ranks 1 to 10 mean you will find buyers and sellers at every larger venue. From rank 100 it thins out, and from rank 500 a single venue often sets the price. Two values are enough, then: rank and market capitalisation in euros. Both appear on the same line as the price at any price service.

Criterion 2, supply: circulating supply, maximum supply and the tokens still to come

Circulating supply is the number of units in the market today. Maximum supply is the ceiling the protocol permits at all. Where the two figures lie far apart, more supply is still queued up, and every new token spreads the same total value across more holders.

With Bitcoin, 20,098,271 of a maximum 21 million units have been issued, or 95.7 percent. Around 902,000 Bitcoin are still outstanding, 4.5 percent of today's circulating supply, released over the coming decades. With XRP the arithmetic looks different: 63.13 billion units are in circulation and the maximum supply is 100 billion. The difference of 36.87 billion tokens equals 58 percent of today's circulating supply. You can do this calculation yourself for any coin; it takes just two numbers.

The third variant is the open one: Dogecoin has 156.33 billion units in circulation and no maximum supply at all, with new ones arriving continuously. That is neither a flaw nor a merit; it is a property you need to know before you buy. Added supply does not inevitably weigh on the price, but it shifts the relationship between today's valuation and the future quantity, and you can work that relationship out before you buy.

Fully diluted valuation in one sentence

Fully diluted valuation, or FDV, is the price multiplied by the maximum supply rather than the circulating supply. The figure shows what a cryptocurrency would cost if every token already existed. Where FDV diverges sharply from market capitalisation, you know how much dilution is still on the calendar.

Criterion 3, use: what the network actually needs its own token for

This is where it gets uncomfortable, because there is no ranking here. The question is: what happens in the network if nobody holds the token? With Ethereum, every transaction pays its fee in ether, and anyone helping to secure the network posts ether as collateral. Without the token the network does not run. With Bitcoin the token itself is the product, a means of payment and store of value with a limited quantity.

For many smaller projects the honest answer is this: the token grants a vote in a governance ballot and nothing else. That is permissible; it is simply a weaker justification for a price. You will find the answer in the project's documentation, usually under “tokenomics”, where it takes two or three paragraphs. If it is not there, that is an answer in itself.

A second check sits alongside it, and it costs little time: is the token controlled by a company or issued by an open network? With a company, its value hangs on that company's decisions; with an open network, on rules written into the program code. Both models exist, but they carry different risks, and only one of them is something you can read for yourself.

Criterion 4, custody: whoever holds the private keys holds the coins

A private key is the string of characters that moves a balance on a blockchain. Whoever has it controls the coins, regardless of which app displays a balance. The fourth question follows from that: do the keys sit with the venue or with you?

Both routes are legitimate. At a venue the purchase is done in two minutes and you have no credentials to secure, but you carry the provider's risk. With self-custody via a hardware wallet the risk is yours, and losing the recovery words is final. For picking a coin, a third point decides, and many people overlook it: not every cryptocurrency is supported by every wallet. Bitcoin and ether run everywhere; a third-tier token often runs only in the project's own app.

So check before you buy, not afterwards, whether your coin appears on the list of supported networks for the device you intend to use. That list sits with the manufacturer, it is public, and it changes with every firmware release.

What happens when a venue drops a coin

Venues regularly remove tokens from trading, usually with a few weeks' notice. If the token sits there and you miss the deadline, the balance is converted into a stablecoin in the best case; in the worse case you have to supply a withdrawal address, for which you first need a suitable wallet. Settle the custody question before buying and there is nothing to do at this point.

Criterion 5, tax: the one-year holding period under Section 23 of the Income Tax Act and the 1,000-euro threshold

In Germany this criterion decides the return more often than the choice of coin does, and it is the one checked least. Gains from the sale of crypto assets count as a private disposal transaction. The statutory wording is short: transactions are taxable “in the case of other assets where the period between acquisition and disposal is not more than one year”, in the words of Section 23(1) sentence 1 no. 2 of the German Income Tax Act. Once a year has passed from the day of purchase, the gain goes untaxed.

A threshold applies to short-term sales on top of that: gains stay tax free where the total gain from all private disposal transactions in a calendar year stays below 1,000 euros. That is an exemption threshold, not an allowance. The difference is expensive: at a gain of 999 euros you pay nothing, at 1,000 euros the full amount is taxable, not merely the euro above the line.

What is being negotiated about the holding period right now

The period is politically contested. On October 8, 2026 the Bundestag rejected two motions to abolish it, the Greens' motion by a recorded vote of 445 to 132, as we reported on October 9 on the vote in the Bundestag. At the same time the Federal Ministry of Finance is working on a draft that would assign crypto gains to income from capital assets and delete the one-year period for acquisitions from 2027. That draft has not been adopted, and for coins bought today the statutory wording above applies unchanged.

For choosing a coin that means two things. First: anyone intending to hold for more than a year anyway has no need of a coin with large daily swings. Second: anyone swapping more often creates a new disposal transaction with every swap, including a swap from one coin into another. The more positions you run, the more purchase dates you have to be able to prove. How to keep those records clean is shown in our comparison of crypto tax software and portfolio trackers.

Before the first purchase: MiCAR authorisation and who supervises your venue

The five criteria apply to the coin. One question concerns the route to it and is just as verifiable: is the provider allowed to run this business in the EU at all? The basis is Regulation (EU) 2023/1114 on markets in crypto-assets, or MiCAR. Anyone providing crypto-asset services to customers in the EU needs authorisation from a national supervisor, in Germany from BaFin.

The number of providers that have cleared this hurdle is manageable. On October 9, 2026 the EU finance ministers agreed to place only the largest service providers under the direct supervision of ESMA; for the large majority of the roughly 360 providers authorised in the EU, the national authority remains responsible, as we reported on October 13. The figure of 360 is the order of magnitude against which you can check any provider name: if it is not in the supervisor's register, it does not hold the authorisation.

In practice this needs no specialist knowledge. Take the company name from the platform's legal notice, not the brand name of the app, and search for it in BaFin's company database and in the EU register of crypto-asset service providers. If you find it in neither, the question of the right coin is settled before it is asked.

Bitcoin, Ethereum, XRP and Dogecoin: the five criteria across four examples

Here is what the grid looks like filled in, with the values as of October 15, 2026. The examples are not a selection and not a recommendation; they only show how differently the same five questions turn out.

Bitcoin: rank 1, market capitalisation of 1.464 trillion euros. Supply capped at 21 million, of which 95.7 percent issued. Use: the token itself is the product. Custody: supported by every hardware wallet. Tax: free of tax after a holding period of one year.

Ethereum: rank 2, 263.9 billion euros. Supply without a fixed ceiling, 122.13 million units in circulation. Use: fees and collateral in the largest network for applications. Custody: supported everywhere. Tax: take care when posting collateral, because ongoing income can arise in the process.

XRP: rank 5, 74.9 billion euros. Supply capped at 100 billion, 63.13 billion in circulation, so a further 58 percent of the circulating supply still to come. Use: payments within the associated network. Custody: broadly supported. Tax: as for any crypto asset.

Dogecoin: rank 12, 11.4 billion euros. Supply unlimited, 156.33 billion units in circulation. Use: a means of payment with no function in the network beyond that. Custody: broadly supported. Tax: as above.

Our assessment: of the five criteria, supply contributes most to the decision and is checked least. The evidence is above: with XRP it is 36.87 billion tokens that can still arrive within the protocol ceiling, and with Dogecoin the ceiling is open. Against that, added supply does not automatically weigh on the price as long as demand grows with it; with Bitcoin the dilution is stretched over decades and has practically no effect. No buy recommendation follows from this for any of the four names, and a total loss is possible with every crypto asset.

Three mistakes in choosing a coin that beginners pay dearly for

The price as a price tag. “The coin only costs a cent, so there is more room to run” is the most common fallacy. The room to run sits in the market capitalisation, not in the number of digits after the decimal point.

The list of biggest daily gainers as a shortlist. Buy there and you are buying the move that has already happened, and with small market capitalisations often into a market where selling is harder than buying.

Tax at the end of the year. Wait until December to see which purchase dates are documented and you have long since given up control over the one-year period. The period starts on the day of acquisition, and with several partial purchases each tranche has its own date.

How much money into which coin? Allocation comes before selection

Once the five criteria are answered, the question of position size remains. Strictly speaking that question belongs before the choice of coin, because how the money is split affects the outcome more than the choice between two similar cryptocurrencies. One figure we measured ourselves helps here: over twelve months the four largest cryptocurrencies moved with a correlation of 0.82 to 0.90, as set out in our analysis of weighting in a crypto portfolio. Four different names therefore do not yet make four different risks.

A sober order of operations follows: first the amount you could lose in full without it hurting; then the number of positions you can actually manage for tax and for custody; and only then the names. In that order, choosing the coin is the last and smallest step.

Buying a cryptocurrency: the five criteria first, then the coin

1. Check the venue and look up its authorisation. Search for the company name from the legal notice in the supervisor's register and compare the costs alongside it, before you open an account. The terms offered by authorised providers are set out in our comparison of the best crypto exchanges.
2. Settle custody before you buy. Decide whether the coins stay at the venue or move to a device of your own, and check support for the network you want. Which devices carry which networks is shown by the hardware wallet comparison.
3. Record the purchase date and price from the start. Every tranche needs a date, a quantity and a price, otherwise the one-year period cannot be proven later. Which programs log this automatically is set out in the comparison of crypto tax software.

(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.)

Several trade publications have reported in recent weeks on possible new restrictions for crypto-adjacent payment services in the Philippines. Those reports rest on a policy exposure draft published in 2026 by the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas (BSP), the Philippine central bank. The BSP draft covers two distinct subjects: a possible suspension of new applications for Operators of Payment Systems (OPS), and tighter requirements for payment relationships with companies that work with virtual assets. One point matters throughout: a draft of this kind becomes binding only once it is formally issued. Content, timing and transitional rules can still change before then.

What the BSP draft actually proposes

The draft describes several measures that still have to be read in the conditional, since none has been finally adopted. New OPS registration applications would no longer be accepted, or their processing would be suspended, for twelve months from the date the final circular takes effect. Applications already filed would, according to the draft, continue to be reviewed, but would be neither approved nor rejected during the suspension.

VASP-related companies would in addition be classified as high-risk merchants. Payment relationships would then be envisaged only as a direct merchant relationship, while multi-tier or “layered” arrangements would have to undergo particular scrutiny. The draft also provides for enhanced due diligence, ongoing monitoring and risk-appropriate transaction and settlement limits, settlement being the clearing or final discharge of a payment. For existing layered relationships the draft names a review within six months and adjustments within a further six months. Here too: these deadlines are the content of a draft, not confirmed obligations.

Why payment providers and crypto service providers are not the same thing

Placing this in context is easier with a look at the legal basis of payment operator registration. Under the National Payment Systems Act (Republic Act No. 11127), operators of payment systems must be registered with the BSP, which in turn oversees the safety, efficiency and reliability of the payment system. An OPS is a person or company that manages, processes or enables digital or cash-based money transfers and clearing.

A VASP, a virtual asset service provider, is by contrast a provider that transfers or exchanges virtual assets. The BSP places VASPs within the wider supervisory framework for money service businesses. In practice an exchange offering peso deposits and withdrawals may, alongside its crypto functions, also use payment processes, and therefore have several regulatory points of contact at once. A pure payment provider, on the other hand, is not automatically a VASP. For platform operators this distinction is central, because what counts is the services actually provided, the contractual structure and the respective registration, not a company's label alone.

Consequences for market entry, existing platforms and customers

For new providers, a final halt to OPS applications could delay market entry, particularly where a business model depends on holding its own OPS role, or a corresponding partnership, for fiat payment processing. That does not mean every new crypto platform would inevitably be affected. For existing providers, possible stricter VASP checks in the payment environment would bear above all on documentation, risk analysis, monitoring of merchant relationships and adjustment of limits, in other words on classic AML measures (anti-money laundering) and KYC processes (identity verification).

Users and investors may see more cautious deposit and withdrawal channels, longer onboarding processes or a narrower range of new products. The draft makes no mention of existing accounts being blocked. It is worth adding that the BSP has already set out further standing expectations for VASPs: the 2026 listing guidelines require due diligence on tokens, continuous monitoring and delisting thresholds, while privacy coins may not be supported. These listing rules, already in force, should not be confused with the new payments draft.

An existing moratorium must not be mixed up with the new draft

The BSP had already restricted the regular application window for new VASP licences back in September 2022. According to the current BSP Citizen’s Charter, that moratorium was continued by Memorandum M-2025-031 with effect from September 1, 2025, subject to further reassessment. The difference matters: the existing VASP licence moratorium concerns access to a VASP licence, while the new draft deals with OPS registration applications and integrity controls in payments. Earlier moratoria also contained transitions and limited exemptions, which is why market participants should expect neither identical exemptions nor identical consequences automatically.

These documents are the ones market participants should check now

Anyone who could actually be affected should rely on solid sources rather than headlines:

• Check the final BSP issuance and any consultation notices: date of application, definitions, exemptions and transitional periods.
• Check separately in the BSP Verifier and the official OPS list what status payment service providers and crypto providers hold. An entry in a register is not a guarantee of safety or creditworthiness.
• Document your own business model: who accepts peso payments, who holds the crypto assets in custody, who is the customer’s contractual partner, and do direct or layered merchant relationships exist?
• Base no business or investment decision on media reports or social networks alone.

Reading the regional trend without false equivalences

Crypto regulation in Asia is moving in a similar direction across many markets: licensing, anti-money-laundering measures and consumer protection for crypto providers are gaining weight. National categories, agency responsibilities and transitional rules are not interchangeable, however. The FATF notes in its report that differing national licensing and supervisory approaches can create regulatory gaps, which is why activity-based registration, risk-based supervision and cross-border cooperation remain relevant. For international platforms that means local Philippine requirements have to be assessed separately; EU standards do not replace a local classification.

Philippines VASP regulation: three questions decide the actual effect

With Philippines VASP regulation, three questions ultimately decide the real reach: which business models and companies are covered? From when do final obligations apply? And what transitions apply to companies already registered, to pending applications and to existing merchant relationships? The BSP draft could noticeably affect access for new providers and the payment connections of crypto businesses, but until official finalisation its scope and practical consequences remain open. This article offers general orientation and does not replace legal advice.

Germany's federal cabinet did not take up the abolition of the one-year holding period for crypto assets on Wednesday, October 14, 2026. The published results of its 62nd session make no mention of the measure, and the government press conference that followed did not address it either. Current law therefore stands: anyone who holds Bitcoin, Ether or any other crypto asset for more than a year and then sells it pays no income tax on the gain.

For investors in Germany that is a breathing space, not an outcome. The Federal Ministry of Finance told Blocktrainer on request that the internal government consultations were still running. The ministry named no new date for the cabinet to take up the file. The departmental draft that would delete the one-year rule thus remains what it has been since late September: a working paper from the finance minister's house that has not yet passed the cabinet.

What happened in the cabinet on October 14, and what did not

October 14 had been treated as a fixed date in coverage since the start of the month. We named it ourselves on October 3, in our reporting on the departmental draft, as the next step in the procedure. It did not materialise.

Blocktrainer reports that as early as the previous day the ministry had said it knew of no such date. Frank Schäffler, a former FDP member of the Bundestag, wrote on X that the abolition of the holding period was still stuck in interdepartmental consultation. Both accounts match the ministry's official statement.

A missing agenda item is not a withdrawal. Government measures slip as a matter of routine when departments are still arguing over detail. Only one thing is solid on this day: there is no cabinet decision, and without one there is no government bill.

Interdepartmental consultation: why a departmental draft is not yet law

The road from an idea inside the finance ministry to an amendment of the Income Tax Act runs through several stations, and each of them can take time. The departmental draft is the working version produced by a ministry's specialist unit. It has no legal effect and does not bind the federal government.

In interdepartmental consultation, the other ministries check the text against their own remits. Only once they agree can the cabinet adopt the draft. That decision turns the departmental draft into a government bill, which is then introduced in the Bundestag and the Bundesrat. Readings, committee deliberations and finally the assent of both chambers follow.

The measure is stuck at precisely that second station. Associations and interest groups had their chance to comment; according to Blocktrainer, responses were requested by October 6. The Federal Chamber of Tax Advisers publicly doubted that the submissions could be evaluated seriously in the time left.

Section 23 and Section 20 of the Income Tax Act: the difference decides your tax bill

Today, gains from the sale of crypto assets fall under Section 23 of the German Income Tax Act, which covers private disposal transactions. That provision carries two features crypto investors have benefited from for years. First, the one-year rule: after more than twelve months of holding, the gain is tax free. Second, the 1,000-euro exemption threshold for gains realised inside the period.

The finance ministry's draft moves crypto assets to Section 20, in other words to income from capital assets. There the flat withholding tax of 25 percent applies, plus the solidarity surcharge and, where relevant, church tax, regardless of how long someone has held their coins. The saver's allowance takes the place of the one-year rule.

In practice the shift means more than a different section number. Loss offsetting would be affected as well, together with the question of who withholds the tax and how much documentation the tax office demands. Our comparison of crypto tax software and portfolio trackers shows how to keep clean records of your transactions today; the documentation burden rises under either model.

December 31, 2026 separates old holdings from new ones

The most important figure in the draft is not the tax rate but the date of first application. Under the version on the table, the new rules would apply only to crypto assets acquired after December 31, 2026. Everything already sitting in a securities account or a wallet before that would stay under the old law, and therefore inside the one-year rule.

That gives investors a clear dividing line for as long as the draft keeps this shape. Purchases up to the turn of the year follow the existing rule. Purchases after it would fall under the flat withholding tax. A good eleven weeks separate today from that date.

One caveat belongs with it, and it is no formality: this cut-off sits in a draft that neither the cabinet has adopted nor the Bundestag has debated. It can move during the procedure, and with earlier tax measures that is exactly what happened more than once. Basing decisions on this date alone means planning around a number that carries no force of law.

Until new rules arrive, the one-year period applies unchanged

Nothing changes for the current tax year because the date was missed. Anyone who sold crypto assets in 2026 settles under Section 23 as it stands: a holding period of more than a year means no tax, below that the personal income tax rate applies, provided total gains from private disposal transactions exceed the 1,000-euro threshold.

The same holds for swaps. Moving from Bitcoin into a stablecoin or into another coin counts for tax purposes as a disposal and an acquisition at once. Every swap starts a fresh one-year period for the asset received. Reshuffling a portfolio in December may therefore move holdings out of the old regime and into a future one.

Petitions committee and chamber of tax advisers: where the headwind comes from

A second track runs alongside the government procedure. On Monday, October 12, 2026, the Bundestag's petitions committee considered a petition to keep the holding period in a public session. We covered the state of the parliamentary process in our piece on the Bundestag's handling of the crypto holding period.

A hearing in the petitions committee does not change tax law. It builds political pressure and forces the federal government to state a position. Combined with the Federal Chamber of Tax Advisers' criticism of the timetable, a picture emerges that makes the delay plausible: the measure is contested on technical and political grounds, and the consultation window was tight.

Resistance is therefore documented at two levels. What is not documented is how the federal government will respond. Whether it reworks the draft, stretches the timetable or takes it to the cabinet unchanged is open as matters stand.

Gold in the mix: how far the reform could reach

One side track in the debate goes beyond crypto assets. According to a report by BTC-Echo, the finance ministry has floated proposals to extend new rules to physical gold. The one-year speculation period under Section 23 applies there today as well.

That point is revealing for any assessment of the measure. If the reform went beyond crypto, considerably more investors would be affected, and political resistance would grow accordingly. That raises the likelihood of further delay, but says nothing about whether the reform arrives in the end.

Our assessment: the timetable for January 1, 2027 is ambitious

From the newsroom's point of view, entry into force on January 1, 2027 becomes less likely with every date that passes. The evidence is in the open. The draft went to association consultation in late September, responses were requested by October 6, and the cabinet decision expected on October 14 did not come. After the cabinet there are still three readings in the Bundestag, committee deliberation and the passage through the Bundesrat. A good eleven weeks remain in the year.

Against that, the federal government has not withdrawn the measure and the ministry speaks expressly of consultations in progress. Tax legislation has been pushed through the procedure in less time at year-end when the political will was there. We offer no forecast of the outcome; there is no solid basis for one.

What follows for practice is more modest than many posts online suggest: today's legal position is certain, the future one is not. Anyone who makes arrangements depend on a law that does not yet exist carries that risk alone.

Documentation: purchase date and acquisition cost per position

However the procedure ends, a cut-off rule has one consequence: the acquisition date of each individual position becomes the decisive record. Proving in 2027 that a holding was bought before the cut-off takes more than a bank statement.

Each position needs the date, the quantity, the acquisition cost in euros and the exchange or wallet where the purchase took place. Across several years and several platforms, that record does not assemble itself retroactively. Exchanges issue tax reports of varying quality; some provide complete transaction histories for export, others only annual summaries. The depth of those histories differs from venue to venue.

A second point concerns sequence. For crypto assets the tax office works on the FIFO method as a rule, first in, first out. Selling part of a holding therefore touches the oldest positions first, and under a future cut-off rule those are precisely the protected ones.

Crypto holding period: every purchase date counts up to December 31

The cabinet date has passed; the measure has not. These three steps make sense whatever the outcome of the procedure:

1. Record your holdings with purchase dates. Pull the date, quantity and acquisition cost for every position from your exchanges and wallets, and store the exports outside the platform. A tax tool or portfolio tracker handles the reconciliation across several providers.
2. Check where your oldest holdings sit. Because of the FIFO rule, the order of purchases decides which coins a sale hits first. You need that information before you reshuffle at year-end. At regulated crypto exchanges the full history is usually available for export.
3. Look at your venues on record quality. Anyone unable to export a full history has a documentation problem later. Our comparison of crypto exchanges shows which providers deliver usable tax reports.

There is no known next date for the procedure itself. Once the cabinet adopts the draft, the parliamentary stage begins, and only then will it be clear whether December 31, 2026 remains the dividing line.

(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.)

An unlicensed crypto platform gives itself away in two places, and both can be checked in a few minutes: the provider is missing from the financial regulator's register, and its advertising copy appears word for word on dozens of other sites. On 14 October 2026, Germany's BaFin put exactly that pattern on the record. The subject of the warning this time is a whole run of near-identically built websites.

The name on the landing page is therefore the least useful piece of information such a site offers. Name, colour scheme and domain ending are interchangeable; the construction and the sales copy stay the same. Learn the construction and you will also recognise the twenty-fourth address in the same run, the one that appears on no list today.

BaFin names 23 addresses built to a single blueprint

The regulator published a consumer notice on 14 October 2026 headed with the address GainLiteX(.)co and listing 23 further websites in the body. Its reasoning is set out in the notice itself: according to the authority's findings, the operators offer financial and crypto-asset services on these websites without a licence, and the respective operators are not supervised by BaFin.

The form of the notice is what makes it unusual. An ordinary warning names one provider and its domain. This one describes an identifying feature shared by every site in the run first, then attaches the list of known addresses. The authority writes the addresses in defanged form, with a bracketed dot, so that no clickable link appears when they are read. We keep that convention:

• Acmedividends(.)com
• alphasharesmarket(.)com
• aoextrades(.)live
• cloudtinvt(.)pro
• cmetrustgroup(.)com
• copyexpresstrades(.)com
• crownxcapitals(.)com
• dreammfx(.)net
• elitetradehub(.)net
• gifxpartnersltd(.)com
• globalcapitalshares(.)com
• globalmaxinvestment(.)com
• greenpointsllc(.)org
• octapayvest(.)com
• securedcryptoassets(.)com
• sratumcypher(.)com
• standardcapitalfinance(.)ltd
• titanedgefx(.)trade
• trademarketoptionsltd(.)com
• valorstream(.)com
• westgateinvestments(.)org
• zealprimefinance(.)com
• zenithwealthglobals(.)org

The order is alphabetical and the endings run from .com through .org and .net to .live, .pro, .trade and .ltd. Several names carry building blocks that sound like established asset management: capital, trust, wealth, global, dividends, prime. That choice of words belongs to the kit and is no accident.

Licensing duty: which crypto-asset services BaFin has to approve

The law behind the warning is simpler than the official wording suggests. Anyone offering financial and investment services in Germany needs a BaFin licence to do so. The same has applied to crypto-asset services since the European crypto regulation MiCAR took effect, meaning the operation of a trading platform, the exchange of crypto-assets for euros, the custody of crypto-assets belonging to others, and the brokerage of and advice on either.

The term crypto-asset service describes a commercial service around crypto-assets that a provider performs on behalf of third parties. That last part carries the weight. Converting your own money into Bitcoin requires no licence. Taking in, holding or exchanging other people's money requires one in every case.

Germany implements these duties through the Crypto Markets Supervision Act. What role the act plays in the regulator's warning practice is set out in our piece of 4 October 2026 on the Crypto Markets Supervision Act and its licensing duty. The duties facing authorised firms are collected in our overview of the obligations attached to a MiCA licence.

Two sales sentences as the fingerprint of an entire platform run

The most useful part of the notice is a detail the usual warnings leave out. BaFin quotes two formulations that recur across the sites in the run. The first promises comprehensive financial advice and investment services tailored to the individual needs of the client. The second invites the visitor to become part of "the world's leading provider of financial investments".

Both sentences share a property that makes them useful: no serious institution writes like that. A supervised firm advertises products, terms and risk warnings, because it is obliged to and because it has to stand by them. Superlatives with no substance behind them, by contrast, cost nothing. And because the sentences sit in the template rather than being written afresh for each site, they appear identically across every address in the run.

That yields a move which works without any database at all. Copy a conspicuous half-sentence from an unknown platform's marketing and search for it in quotation marks. If several providers with different names and identical wording come back, a kit is at work. The move also works on a domain that has been reported nowhere yet, and that is precisely where its value lies.

Kit-built design: five marks of a run before the first warning list

The regulator describes the sites as near-identically designed. From the 23 addresses, and from the runs we track in our own records, five marks can be derived that together produce a reliable picture. On its own, none of them is proof.

Word modules instead of a company history

The names are assembled from two or three financial terms that can be combined at will. A genuine corporate history, a documented year of incorporation, a commercial register extract or a traceable registered office are all absent. Whatever stands there as a company history could be copied onto any other address in the run without anyone noticing.

Exotic domain endings behind a European front

Endings such as .live, .pro or .trade cost little and are registered within minutes. A firm that intends to collect client money in Germany and holds a licence to do so usually appears under a national or .com address. The ending alone says nothing; combined with a German-language presence and no German office, it is a signal.

No imprint leading to a company you can get hold of

Matching domain against operator is the hardest of the five points. If the imprint names a company, you look it up in the commercial register and in the regulator's database. If the trail runs into nothing, or to a firm with no connection to financial business, the matter is settled. How far such a trail can be laid is shown by the case of a borrowed identity we reported on 28 September 2026 under BaFin warning over a borrowed company identity.

The same sales sentences under different names

This is where the fingerprint from the section above applies. The longer the half-sentence you search for, the more telling the result: a single stock phrase such as "individual investment strategy" sits on thousands of harmless pages, whereas a complete twenty-word sales sentence sits only where the same template was used. Repeat the search with a second sentence from a different subpage, from the about-us section for instance. If both searches land on the same group of unfamiliar domains, the attribution is as good as certain.

Pressure on the first payment

The faster a platform pushes towards the first deposit, the more personal hand-holding it offers over messaging apps, and the less time it leaves for a check, the clearer the picture becomes. An authorised provider has no interest in your leaving its authorisation unverified, because that authorisation is its strongest selling point.

The company database keeps a separate category for crypto-asset service providers

The actual check is the regulator's register, and a detail hides there that many guides miss. BaFin's company database searches several categories separately from one another. Alongside credit institutions and investment firms, the selection field also holds the entries crypto-asset service providers, crypto custodians, crypto securities register administrators and MiCAR issuers.

That separation is why a search sometimes comes back falsely negative. Look for the name of a trading platform under "all institutions" alone and you get an empty answer, even though the provider is listed as a crypto-asset service provider. The correct route is a search under "all companies" or straight through the matching category. We wrote up the path there, field by field, on 12 September 2026 in the guide how to check in three minutes whether a crypto provider holds a licence.

If an authorised trading venue is what is needed at the end of that search, our overview of MiCA-regulated crypto exchanges helps: it lists the providers with an EU licence along with their fees and registered offices.

The database's data cut-off sets a limit on the register

At the top of the search mask sits a field that is easy to read past: the date the data was last updated. When we opened the database for this article, it carried 13 October 2026. The register therefore shows a snapshot with a date attached to it.

Two consequences follow for your check. A freshly granted licence may still be missing from the database even though it is in force. And a platform that went online yesterday is naturally absent, because it never applied for a licence at all. The absence of an entry is exactly what fails to separate those two cases.

The register is therefore the necessary answer, not the sufficient one. A hit in the right category is a strong argument that a supervised firm sits behind the site. A missing hit is a reason to transfer nothing and to work through the remaining marks.

Not supervised and proven fraud are two different findings

This distinction belongs in every piece written about such a list, and it is rarely drawn. BaFin writes in its notice that the operators are active without a licence and are not supervised. Nowhere does the authority claim that the 23 sites steal client money or invent profits.

The difference is practical rather than academic. Where the licence is missing, everything attached to it is missing too: the ongoing supervision of capital and organisation, the duty to hold clients' crypto-assets separately from the firm's own, the formal complaints channels, and the authority's power to prohibit the business. Whether a particular operator also deceives is a question for the public prosecutor.

In the same notice, BaFin joins the Federal Criminal Police Office and the state criminal police offices in a general warning about financial fraud online, and advises thorough research before investing money over the internet. That advice is general and is no verdict on the individual addresses on the list.

The Crypto Markets Supervision Act and MiCAR frame the licence

The phrase "financial and crypto-asset services" in the warning is a precise doubling. Financial services require a licence under the Banking Act and the Investment Firm Act; crypto-asset services have required one under their own law since MiCAR. A platform offering both needs both. Many sites in the run now reported advertise classic investment services and crypto-assets at the same time, which is where the double wording in the notice comes from.

As a client you notice the difference where complaints are concerned. At an authorised firm, the European crypto regulation provides a route with fixed deadlines. Which they are, and how long an exchange has to answer a complaint, is set out in our article on complaining about a crypto exchange under Article 71 MiCAR. Against a provider without a licence that route does not apply, because it never took on the duties that come with it.

Complaints route and evidence after a transfer

Once money has moved, the order of steps matters. Secure first what can disappear within days: screenshots of the account page with the date visible, the complete correspondence including messenger threads, the bank statements for the transfers and, for payments in crypto-assets, the receiving addresses and transaction IDs. These details are the basis for every later report, and they sit with you alone. If the platform disappears, the account page and the chat history go with it.

After that the route leads to the bank or payment service the payment ran through, and to the police. BaFin takes reports of unauthorised business and runs a consumer helpline for the purpose, reachable Monday to Friday from 8am to 6pm on 0800 2 100 500. Recovering the money is beyond the regulator; its remit ends with prohibiting the business.

The 25th run in a body of 639 domains

The 14 October notice does not stand alone. Our own analysis of this year's BaFin warnings, published on 14 August 2026 under BaFin warnings 2026: 24 crypto platform runs with 639 domains, counted 24 such runs with 639 addresses between them. On that count the current list is the 25th run and the first new one in two months.

Our assessment: the value of this notice lies not in the 23 names but in the two sales sentences. The names will be switched off, re-registered and back online within weeks; the kit behind them stays. The figures from our own analysis support that, 639 addresses across 24 runs inside a year, as does the fact that the authority this time names a textual marker at all rather than a bare list of domains. Against it stands the point that a single sales sentence proves nothing, and that a reputable provider can use a stock phrase once too. The picture only becomes reliable when several of the five marks coincide and the register does not know the provider.

Platform runs: 23 addresses, one blueprint, one register

The warning of 14 October 2026 will be overtaken by the next one within days. What remains is a sequence that also works on the address reported nowhere today.

1. Query the register before every deposit. Search the provider's name in the regulator's company database under "all companies" and watch for the crypto-asset service provider category. If the search stays empty, no money moves. A trading venue with a documented EU licence can be found in our overview of MiCA-regulated crypto exchanges.
2. Bring holdings home from third-party platforms. What sits with an unlicensed provider sits without a segregation duty and without supervision. For larger holdings, self-custody is the safest place; the devices for it are compared in our hardware wallet comparison.
3. Document every movement. Transfers, transaction IDs and correspondence belong on the record without gaps, for a report to the regulator as much as for your tax return. Tools that log transactions automatically are listed in our overview of crypto tax software and portfolio trackers.

The full notice with all 23 addresses sits with the regulator itself: BaFin consumer notice of 14 October 2026. With an unlicensed provider, a total loss of the money paid in is possible at any time.

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

Solana gets a new consensus procedure on Wednesday, October 21, 2026, at around 15:00 UTC. The Solana Foundation has set the date for Alpenglow at epoch 1064. For everyone who only holds or transfers Solana, nothing changes: payments become final faster in future, wallets and applications keep running as before. If you have delegated your SOL, by contrast, there is one thing to settle, and to settle beforehand.

The upgrade sets two conditions for every validator. Miss them at the start of epoch 1064 and the validator no longer votes in the following epoch and produces no blocks. For the delegation attached to it, that means no staking rewards for that period. It can be checked beforehand, not afterwards.

Epoch 1064 begins on October 21 at 15:00 UTC

An epoch is the period for which Solana assigns its validators their duties in the network, and it always covers 432,000 slots, meaning 432,000 short time windows in each of which a block can be created. Alpenglow is armed at the start of epoch 1064.

Epoch 1057 was running on Wednesday morning. Seven epochs therefore lie before the switch, and the date is exactly a week away. The Solana Foundation names October 21 “at approximately 15:00 UTC” on its upgrade page; the word approximately is there for good reason, because the start of an epoch hangs on block progress rather than on the clock.

The switch for the upgrade, called a feature gate in Solana, carries the identifier A1pengvuM6JEcyNuTnMqepBKhwHE3N6PmUrdATGawhJS. It is active on testnet and on devnet; on mainnet it reads “not activated”. Alpenglow went live on devnet on September 25.

Alpenglow replaces TowerBFT, execution stays untouched

Consensus describes the procedure by which the machines of a network agree on the order of payments and on the point from which a payment can no longer be reversed. That is exactly the procedure Solana is swapping out: TowerBFT, in operation since the launch in 2020, gives way to Alpenglow.

Today it takes around 12.8 seconds for a payment on Solana to be final. Alpenglow targets about 150 milliseconds, barely a hundredth of that. CoinDesk puts the figure in sober context: the 150 milliseconds are a target, and the actual speed depends on the state of the network. As a side effect, the new procedure tolerates 20 percent malicious plus 20 percent offline stake, according to the Solana Foundation.

Important for everyone using an application on Solana: the execution of payments does not change. The Solana runtime environment SVM, the transaction formats and the fee mechanics stay as they are. Alpenglow intervenes one layer below, in the agreement on blocks.

The primary source clears up a widespread misunderstanding straight away: the 150 milliseconds are the time to finality, not the rhythm in which blocks are created. Block time was lowered independently of this, in four stages from 400 to 200 milliseconds, completed in October 2026.

Votor first, Rotor later: the upgrade comes in two phases

Alpenglow consists of two building blocks that arrive one after the other. On October 21, Votor starts, the voting part. Validators will send their votes directly to one another in future and bundle them into certificates, so that a block is final after one or two rounds of voting. Votor sits in Agave 4.3.

Rotor, the second building block, will later replace the way a block is distributed across the network. It is meant to replace the current distribution layer, called Turbine, with a single relay layer. There is no date for it yet; Rotor only arrives once Votor has settled into operation.

In practice, that means this for next week: on October 21 only the voting changes. Reading about “the Alpenglow upgrade” as a single event is reading a shorthand.

The first 5,000 slots still run on TowerBFT

One peculiarity concerns everyone who wants to watch live on October 21. The feature gate opens at the start of epoch 1064, yet the network works through the first 5,000 slots of the epoch on TowerBFT. Only after that does Alpenglow take over, at slot 459,653,000 according to the Solana Foundation, around 18 minutes after the epoch begins.

That figure can be recalculated, and it adds up. From the block progress on Wednesday morning, the start of epoch 1064 falls at slot 459,648,000. To the switchover named at slot 459,653,000 that is exactly 5,000 slots. The primary source's statement and the state of the blockchain therefore match to the slot.

In that window of a good quarter of an hour, the network still reports that it is running on the old procedure. Check at 15:05 UTC on October 21 and find no Alpenglow confirmation, and you are not looking at a fault but at this transition phase.

Agave 4.3.0 is mandatory, Firedancer is left out of the migration

The first of two conditions concerns the software. A validator has to run an Agave-based client before the start of epoch 1064, and on a version built on Agave 4.3.0. Agave itself, Jito-Solana and Harmonic Salsa are admitted.

A validator client is the program with which an operator takes part in the network. Several teams develop such programs independently of one another, which protects the network against bugs in a single implementation. That very diversity is briefly curtailed during the migration: Firedancer and Frankendancer, the clients from Jump Crypto, are explicitly not supported during the switch. CoinDesk states the consequence independently: operators have to change software temporarily.

For a delegator, that is the first question to put to their validator: is an Agave-based client running there, on a version built on Agave 4.3.0? Validators that rely on Firedancer and do not switch will not be part of the migration.

The Validator Admission Ticket costs 0.8 SOL per epoch

The second condition is a question of money. A validator has to hold at least 0.8 SOL in its vote account, on top of the amount that has to sit there as a minimum balance anyway. The Validator Admission Ticket, VAT for short, is paid out of that balance, a kind of entry fee for taking part in the voting.

The schedule behind it is staggered: the first fee is debited at the start of epoch 1064 and pays for participation in epoch 1065. It continues from there, each epoch paying for the next. The Solana Foundation writes the sentence that matters here: if the fee is not paid, the validator does not vote in the next epoch and produces no blocks.

It even gets cheaper. Until now validators paid for their votes as ordinary transaction fees, around 1 SOL per epoch according to CoinDesk. Those costs fall away and are replaced by the flat 0.8 SOL, a fifth less.

An epoch now lasts around 26 hours instead of two days

A calculation of our own is worth doing here, because it appears in no report. An epoch covers 432,000 slots. As long as a slot lasted 400 milliseconds, that was two days. After the reduction to 200 milliseconds, the epoch shrinks accordingly.

From the gap between the block count on Wednesday morning and the announced start of epoch 1064, a slot time of around 218 milliseconds follows. An epoch therefore lasts a good 26 hours, about a day. Many older explainers still cite 38 or 48 hours; those figures date from before the reduction.

For the fee, that is the actual point. The 0.8 SOL does not fall due every two days but a good once a day. Annualised, that is around 267 SOL per validator, or just under $28,700 at a price of $107. On Wednesday morning the network listed 678 validators with a vote account, 673 of them active and five delinquent. Scaled up, the entire network therefore pays around 542 SOL per epoch, roughly $58,000.

Operators of a validator with little delegated stake have to earn that fee out of block rewards. For large operators, 0.8 SOL a day is a line in the overheads; for small ones it is a hurdle.

Solana's transaction counts collapse on October 21 without usage falling

One consequence of the upgrade will cause confusion in the coming weeks, for everyone who judges Solana by its metrics. Until now the validators' votes were ordinary transactions in the block and were counted as such. With Alpenglow they leave the block entirely.

Addressing developers, the Solana Foundation writes that any metric which counted votes should be put on a new baseline. CoinDesk draws the consequence for outsiders: Solana's reported transaction count could fall sharply without usage by real users declining.

So anyone who sees a chart of Solana's transactions per second pointing steeply downwards after October 21 should check the date first. A break in the measurement looks exactly like a break in the market in a chart. At Solana the share of votes in all transactions has traditionally been high, so the jump will be pronounced.

Two further changes mainly concern developers, but they explain why this is called a breaking change. The two confirmation levels confirmed and finalized merge and will mean the same thing. And Proof of History, Solana's own timekeeping, gives up setting the pace of block production; the timestamps attached to it disappear from the data stream.

The validator behind your delegation: client version and vote balance

Delegating SOL transfers your voting rights to a validator while you keep the coins. The delegator shares that validator's failure risk: if the validator does not vote in epoch 1065, the staking rewards of the delegation attached to it fall away for that period. The SOL themselves are not affected; they stay untouched.

Two details can be settled before October 21. First, the validator's client software including its version. Second, the balance of its vote account, which has to carry the necessary 0.8 SOL on top of the minimum amount. Both appear in the public validator overviews, and staking through a provider means asking them for it.

The situation is simplest with large, professionally operated validators that have worked on the switch anyway. A small validator whose operator rarely publishes anything deserves attention. If the choice is hard: a delegation can be moved to another validator at any time, though the change only takes effect with the next epoch, so it takes a good day.

Staking via exchange, wallet or your own validator: who carries the risk

For investors in Germany three routes come together, and they differ on precisely this question.

Staking through an exchange means having nothing to do with clients and vote accounts. The exchange operates its own validators or works with partners and is responsible for their readiness. In return you carry the exchange's counterparty risk. An overview of the providers and their terms is in the comparison of staking platforms.

Delegating out of your own wallet means choosing the validator yourself. Here the two checks above apply directly, and in return the SOL stay in your own custody.

Running a validator yourself means actively meeting both conditions. For that group, October 21 is a working date, not a reading date.

For tax purposes the upgrade changes nothing. In Germany, staking rewards count as other income under Section 22 number 3 of the Income Tax Act and are taxable in the year they are received, with an exemption threshold of €256 a year. For the staked SOL themselves, the one-year holding period under Section 23 of the Income Tax Act continues to apply; the Federal Ministry of Finance scrapped the earlier extension to ten years for staking back in 2022.

Our assessment: the failure risk is concentrated at small validators

From the editorial team's point of view, the risk for the average German staker is low but not zero, and it is spread unevenly.

Three pieces of evidence argue for that. The switch has been running on devnet since September 25 and on testnet before that, so operators have had weeks. At 0.8 SOL per epoch the fee sits below the previous voting costs of around 1 SOL, so it demands no additional budget. And with 438 million SOL staked, 74.4 percent of circulating supply by our own measurement, the bulk of the stake hangs on a few large validators whose operators are accompanying the switch.

Against that stands the exclusion of Firedancer. It forces precisely those operators who deliberately chose an alternative implementation into a software change, and a change under time pressure is the classic source of error. How much stake hangs on Firedancer validators cannot be read out of the public data; that gap remains. Five delinquent validators out of 678 are the normal state against which it will be possible to read, after October 21, whether the switch went quietly.

No recommendation to buy or sell SOL follows from this. Solana traded at $107 on Wednesday morning, just under 10 percent below its level the week before. Total loss is possible with any cryptocurrency.

What your own holdings say about Alpenglow, and what has changed since September

This date has a backstory that belongs to the picture. At the end of September, September 28 was circulating as the activation date. A mix-up lay behind it: in the roadmap of the developer house Anza, that day merely marked the general resumption of feature activations, without naming Alpenglow. We put the missed date in context at the time.

The checking route for delegators was already in our piece of September 1, though still with the old date there. Exactly three things have changed since: the date is now fixed, the Agave 4.3.0 condition has been named, and the fee has a number at 0.8 SOL. How the stake is distributed across the validators and where the blocking minority sits is something we measured at the beginning of October.

Coverage in German is still lagging behind this state of play. Pieces that carry September 28 as the date or speak of an upgrade “without a fixed date” have been out of date since Wednesday morning. When reading any statement about Alpenglow, look at the publication date.

Alpenglow on October 21: 0.8 SOL decide one epoch of rewards

The date is set, the conditions are named, and both can be settled in the coming week. Three steps are enough:

1. Establish who has delegated your SOL. With a provider, responsibility for the client and the vote balance lies there; ask whether their validators run on Agave 4.3.0. Which providers offer which terms is shown in the comparison of crypto exchanges.
2. With your own delegation, check the two details. Client software including version, and the balance in the vote account. If one of them is wrong, the delegation can be moved before October 21; the change takes effect with the next epoch. To hold your SOL in your own custody while doing so, the devices are in the comparison of hardware wallets.
3. Record your staking rewards for tax. The rewards count in the year they are received, and the exemption threshold is €256. The tools for that are in the comparison of crypto tax software.

The details on the date, on Agave 4.3.0 and on the Validator Admission Ticket come from the Solana Foundation's upgrade page; the framing of the costs and the transaction counts is confirmed independently by CoinDesk.

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

After a summer of AI models escaping test environments and hacking real companies, hundreds of researchers say the internet itself should be treated as a security boundary.

Developer Brandon Thomas used Anthropic's Claude to build free, open-source replicas of Word, Excel and PowerPoint. They're rough, but they show how cheap cloning software has become.

A new Chainalysis report found payments through Coinbase’s x402 protocol surged from about 1,500 in mid-2025 to more than 138 million by Q3 2026, with U.S. wallets dominating spending on AI models.

Sberbank now holds both custody and exchange status under Russia's new crypto law, and plans to bring Bitcoin, Ethereum and USDT to apps used by 110 million retail clients.

Solana's Alpenglow upgrade replaces the TowerBFT voting system on October 21, cutting finality from 12.8 seconds to a target of 150ms and pulling vote transactions out of blocks entirely.

The market is heading down towards major local support levels where bulls and bears are going to clash.

hina is moving to confiscate approximately $5 billion in Bitcoin (BTC), along with millions of XRP, DOGE and other cryptocurrencies.

Ripple is making a major push into traditional finance through a new partnership with global brokerage infrastructure provider DriveWealth.

Phong Le, Strategy CEO, forecasts a historic surge in Bitcoin banking as AI agents and inflation push Wall Street integration to 34%.

Ancient Ethereum whale takes profits after selling nine-year-old Ether stash for $15.95 million, securing substantial gains.

TLDR

• IBRX climbs 1.12% to $9.91 as FDA expands ANKTIVA’s bladder cancer approval.
• FDA clears ANKTIVA plus BCG for papillary-only bladder cancer patients in the U.S.
• ANKTIVA’s wider label opens treatment to more patients with BCG-resistant tumors.
• Clinical trial finds 62% complete response rate among 77 bladder cancer patients.
• ImmunityBio sees a larger U.S. market after ANKTIVA wins expanded FDA approval.

ImmunityBio (IBRX) stock gained 1.12% to close at $9.91 on Wednesday, adding $0.11 after a volatile trading session. Shares advanced another 0.81% to $9.99 in after-hours trading as the company announced a major regulatory development. The FDA expanded ANKTIVA’s approval to include patients with BCG-unresponsive non-muscle invasive bladder cancer (NMIBC) with papillary-only tumors.

ImmunityBio, Inc., IBRX

FDA Expands ANKTIVA Approval to More Bladder Cancer Patients

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration expanded ANKTIVA’s indication in combination with Bacillus Calmette-Guérin (BCG) therapy. The decision adds adults with papillary-only tumors to the treatment’s approved patient population. ImmunityBio can offer the combination to more patients with bladder cancer that no longer responds to BCG.

The latest decision follows the FDA’s initial approval of ANKTIVA in April 2024. That authorization covered patients with BCG-unresponsive NMIBC involving carcinoma in situ (CIS), with or without papillary tumors. However, the earlier indication excluded patients who had papillary-only disease without CIS.

The expanded indication marks the first FDA approval covering this specific group of bladder cancer patients. ImmunityBio now holds approval for ANKTIVA plus BCG across both CIS and papillary-only disease. Additionally, the broader label increases the treatment’s potential reach within the U.S. bladder cancer market.

Clinical Results Support ANKTIVA’s Expanded Use

The FDA reviewed existing scientific evidence supporting ANKTIVA’s effectiveness in treating BCG-unresponsive bladder cancer. This evidence included results from Cohort A of ImmunityBio’s QUILT-3.032 clinical trial. The trial evaluated ANKTIVA plus BCG in patients with CIS, with or without papillary tumors.

Among 77 patients, 62% achieved a complete response to treatment during the clinical study. Furthermore, 58% of responders maintained their response for at least 12 months. Another 40% maintained their response for at least 24 months, demonstrating sustained treatment benefits in some patients.

The treatment also showed a manageable safety profile, with most reported adverse events involving bladder-related symptoms. Common reactions included painful urination, frequent urination, and blood in the urine, mostly at mild or moderate levels. However, the prescribing information warns that delaying bladder removal surgery can allow potentially fatal metastatic cancer to develop.

ImmunityBio Targets a Larger Bladder Cancer Market

Non-muscle invasive bladder cancer accounts for approximately 80% of bladder cancer diagnoses in the United States. Furthermore, an estimated 85% to 90% of newly diagnosed NMIBC patients present with papillary disease. These figures highlight the substantial patient population affected by the disease.

Patients with high-grade papillary tumors face significant risks when their cancer stops responding to BCG treatment. Recurrence and disease progression create additional challenges, particularly for patients seeking alternatives to bladder removal surgery. Therefore, the expanded approval introduces another treatment option for eligible patients within this group.

ImmunityBio expects the broader indication to increase ANKTIVA’s addressable U.S. market beyond its original CIS population. The company also aims to build on commercial growth following the treatment’s initial approval in 2024. Meanwhile, the latest FDA decision strengthens ImmunityBio’s position in bladder cancer immunotherapy and expands its potential commercial opportunities.

The post ImmunityBio (IBRX) Stock: Climbs as FDA Expands ANKTIVA Approval for Bladder Cancer appeared first on Blockonomi.

TLDR

• CEG shares drop 5.49% as Constellation completes its 606 MW plant sale to LS Power.
• Constellation closes Brazos Valley sale while its stock slides 5.49% to $279.54.
• LS Power takes over the 606 MW Brazos Valley plant as CEG shares fall sharply.
• Constellation’s $5 billion PJM asset sale remains on track for a 2026 closing.
• Calpine antitrust commitments drive asset sales despite Constellation’s stock slump.

Constellation Energy Corporation (NASDAQ: CEG) completed the sale of its Brazos Valley Energy Center to LS Power on Wednesday. However, Constellation Energy stock plunged 5.49% to $279.54, losing $16.25 as selling pressure intensified during the session. The transaction advances the company’s regulatory commitments following its $16.4 billion acquisition of Calpine earlier this year.

Constellation Energy Corporation, CEG

Constellation Energy Completes 606 MW Power Plant Sale

Constellation confirmed the transfer of the 606-megawatt Brazos Valley Energy Center to LS Power on October 14, 2026. The natural gas-fired facility operates outside Houston, Texas, within the Electric Reliability Council of Texas market. The sale marks another step toward meeting federal antitrust requirements linked to the company’s expansion.

Constellation initially agreed to sell the facility in August 2026 and disclosed the agreement alongside its second-quarter results. The completed transaction reduces the company’s generation holdings in Texas while fulfilling part of its regulatory obligations. However, Constellation did not disclose the final sale price in its latest announcement.

The company acquired Calpine on January 7, 2026, significantly expanding its electricity generation and competitive retail operations. Consequently, the acquisition created the world’s largest private-sector power producer and strengthened Constellation’s presence across major electricity markets. Federal regulators required several asset sales to address competition concerns arising from the combination.

Constellation Advances $5 Billion Asset Sale to LS Power

Beyond the Brazos Valley transaction, Constellation plans to sell approximately 4.4 gigawatts of generation capacity to LS Power. The proposed $5 billion agreement covers predominantly natural gas-fired facilities across Delaware and Pennsylvania. These assets include the Bethlehem, York 1, York 2, Hay Road, and Edge Moor power plants.

The transaction represents the largest portion of the divestitures required under Constellation’s agreement with the Department of Justice. Additionally, the portfolio includes all generation facilities covered by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission’s divestiture requirements. The agreed valuation equals approximately $1,142 per kilowatt before closing adjustments.

Constellation expects to complete the PJM asset sale before the end of 2026, subject to regulatory approvals. Meanwhile, LS Power plans to strengthen its generation portfolio within a market experiencing growing electricity demand. The acquisition would expand its ownership of dispatchable power facilities serving businesses and households across the region.

Regulatory Commitments Shape Constellation’s Expansion

The Department of Justice reached an agreement with Constellation in December 2025 to address competition concerns surrounding Calpine. Earlier, federal energy regulators approved the acquisition in July 2025 with conditions requiring certain PJM asset sales. Together, these agreements established the divestiture framework governing Constellation’s integration of Calpine’s operations.

Constellation also identified the 606-megawatt Jack Fusco Energy Center near Houston among its remaining divestiture obligations. Separately, the company previously divested its minority ownership interest in the 385-megawatt Gregory Power Plant near Corpus Christi. These transactions form part of the broader restructuring of its generation portfolio following the acquisition.

The completed Brazos Valley sale moves Constellation further through its required asset disposals despite Wednesday’s sharp share decline. Meanwhile, the proposed PJM transaction remains an important part of the company’s regulatory compliance process. Constellation continues integrating Calpine’s operations while working to complete its remaining required divestitures.

The post Constellation Energy (CEG) Stock: Plunges 5.49% Despite Completing Major Power Plant Sale to LS Power appeared first on Blockonomi.

TLDR

• BAC stock closed at $51.39, down 4.76%, after a disappointing earnings report.
• Bank of America’s $1.2 billion regulatory charge cut earnings by $0.17 a share.
• Adjusted expenses rose 6.9%, outpacing revenue growth of approximately 3.2%.
• Bank of America’s adjusted efficiency ratio climbed to 62% from 60% last year.
• Net interest income increased 8%, but total trading revenue dropped 5% to $5.1B.

Bank of America Corporation fell 4.76% to $51.39 on Wednesday, October 14, losing $2.57 per share. The decline followed disappointing third-quarter earnings, a $1.2 billion regulatory settlement, and operating expenses that grew faster than revenue. Although net interest income increased, weaker trading results and rising costs weighed on the bank’s overall financial performance.

Bank of America Corporation, BAC

Earlier Wednesday, shares dropped approximately 7.14% to $50.105 during morning trading, reflecting a sharper intraday decline. The stock recovered some losses before closing at $51.39, while after-hours trading showed a further decline to $51.32. The earnings report highlighted continued pressure on profitability despite stronger lending activity and higher interest income.

Bank of America Earnings Miss Expectations as Settlement Hits Profit

Bank of America reported third-quarter net income of $6.9 billion, compared with $8.3 billion during the previous year. Diluted earnings per share reached $0.91, down from $1.04 in the corresponding quarter of 2025. The bank recorded a $1.2 billion regulatory settlement charge that reduced quarterly earnings by $0.17 per share.

Excluding the settlement, Bank of America reported adjusted earnings of $1.08 per share and adjusted net income of $8.1 billion. Adjusted earnings still fell below analysts’ expectations of approximately $1.10 per share, confirming underlying earnings pressure. The settlement also contributed to higher reported expenses and reduced the bank’s return on common equity.

The regulatory charge followed enforcement actions involving the bank’s anti-money-laundering controls and financial crime reporting obligations. Federal regulators identified compliance failures involving suspicious transactions, which resulted in financial penalties and additional oversight requirements. Consequently, the settlement affected reported profitability, while other operating challenges continued to pressure the bank’s quarterly results.

Rising Operating Expenses Outpace Bank of America Revenue Growth

Bank of America generated approximately $29.96 billion in third-quarter revenue, compared with $29.04 billion a year earlier. This represented growth of roughly 3.2%, supported by higher interest income and continued activity across core banking operations. Adjusted noninterest expenses increased approximately 6.9%, reaching $18.5 billion from $17.3 billion in the previous year.

The bank’s adjusted efficiency ratio increased to 62%, compared with 60% during the corresponding quarter of 2025. This measure compares operating expenses with revenue, and higher readings indicate that costs consume a greater share of income. The reported efficiency ratio reached 66% after including the regulatory settlement charge in total operating expenses.

Higher personnel, technology, and business-related expenses contributed to the overall increase in spending during the quarter. The bank’s operating cost growth exceeded its revenue expansion, placing additional pressure on underlying profit margins. The results showed that removing the settlement charge did not eliminate the wider difference between revenue and expense growth.

Net Interest Income Rises as Trading Revenue Weakens

Bank of America recorded an 8% increase in net interest income, reaching approximately $16.4 billion during the third quarter. Higher loan balances, growing deposits, and changes in fixed-rate asset yields supported the improvement. Additionally, average loan and lease balances increased 6%, reflecting continued borrowing activity across the bank’s business segments.

Weaker capital markets performance offset part of the improvement in traditional banking revenue during the quarter. Sales and trading revenue declined 5% to approximately $5.1 billion, while fixed-income trading revenue fell 17%. Although equities trading revenue increased 11%, that growth failed to offset the broader weakness in trading operations.

Investment banking activity also faced pressure, with lower fees contributing to weaker results across the bank’s capital markets businesses. Bank of America maintained substantial liquidity and capital reserves, supporting its lending operations and shareholder distributions. The bank ended the quarter with a 10.9% common equity Tier 1 ratio and average global liquidity sources of $914 billion.

Bank of America returned $8.3 billion to shareholders through dividends and common stock repurchases during the third quarter. Its reported return on average common equity reached 9.4%, compared with an adjusted return of 11.1%. The earnings results highlighted a widening cost burden, despite stronger interest income and continued growth across core banking activities.

The post Bank of America Corporation (BAC) Stock: Earnings Miss Sparks Selloff as Expenses Outpace Revenue Growth appeared first on Blockonomi.

TLDR

• SKYD stock plunged 22.33% to $7.05 as warrants began separate trading on NYSE.
• Skydance issued 471 million warrants following its Warner Bros. Discovery deal.
• NYSE cut SKYD’s reference price from $9.27 to $9.07 after warrant distribution.
• New SKYD.WS warrants carried a $2.20 closing price on October 13, 2026, on NYSE.
• Skydance valued common shares and warrants together at roughly $46.6 billion.

Paramount Skydance Corporation plunged 22.33% to $7.05 on Wednesday, October 14, losing $2.03 per share. The decline coincided with the separate trading of approximately 471 million warrants following the Warner Bros. Discovery acquisition. Skydance outlined the NYSE’s share price adjustment and explained how the warrants affect its $46.6 billion equity valuation.

Skydance Corporation, SKYD

Skydance Stock Drops as 471 Million Warrants Begin Trading

Skydance completed its acquisition of Warner Bros. Discovery on October 6, 2026, expanding its global entertainment operations. As part of the transaction, the company issued warrants to eligible public shareholders on October 13. The distribution covered approximately 9% of its outstanding Class B common shares, while other shareholders received no warrants.

Each eligible shareholder received one warrant for every Class B share held on the October 5 record date. The warrants give holders the right to purchase one additional Class B common share under their terms. The NYSE began trading the new securities under the ticker SKYD.WS on October 13.

October 14 marked the ex-dividend date, separating the warrant distribution from the underlying common shares. SKYD shares and SKYD.WS warrants now trade independently, allowing the market to establish separate prices. Skydance shares ended Wednesday at $7.05, below the NYSE’s adjusted reference price of approximately $9.07.

NYSE Adjusts Skydance Share Price Following Warrant Distribution

The NYSE announced a $0.19368 adjustment to Skydance’s Class B common stock reference price on October 13. This adjustment reduced the reference value from approximately $9.27 to $9.07 ahead of separate trading. The exchange based its calculation on the warrants’ official closing price of $2.20 that day.

NYSE applied the adjustment proportionally rather than deducting the full warrant price from every common share. Approximately 471 million eligible shares received warrants, compared with about 5 billion Class B shares outstanding. The exchange calculated the adjustment using the eligible shares’ share of the company’s outstanding stock.

Skydance’s illustrative figures placed its market capitalization at $46.6 billion before the warrant separation. Following the adjustment, the company’s calculations showed common share market capitalization declining to approximately $45.6 billion. The new warrants represented approximately $1 billion in additional value, maintaining the illustrative combined equity valuation at $46.6 billion.

Warner Bros. Acquisition Expands Skydance Entertainment Portfolio

The Warner Bros. Discovery acquisition brought several major entertainment businesses into Skydance’s existing corporate structure. These include Warner Bros., HBO, HBO Max, CNN, and popular television brands across entertainment and factual programming. The combined company operates across studios, direct-to-consumer services, and traditional television media.

Skydance’s portfolio also includes Paramount, CBS, Paramount+, Pluto TV, Nickelodeon, MTV, and Comedy Central. These businesses provide film production, streaming distribution, television programming, sports coverage, and advertising services. The wider portfolio gives the company operations across several major segments of the global entertainment market.

The warrant distribution represents a separate financial development following the acquisition rather than another operating transaction. Although the reference adjustment accounted for approximately $1 billion in warrant value, Wednesday’s stock decline extended beyond that calculation. SKYD closed at $7.05, while the company continued trading under its expanded entertainment structure.

The post Paramount Skydance Corporation (SKYD) Stock: Shares and Warrants Begin Separate Trading After $46.6 Billion Valuation appeared first on Blockonomi.

TLDR

• Rivian shares fall 3.14% as Redwood partnership expands battery recycling operations.
• Redwood will collect used Rivian battery packs through nationwide service centers.
• Rivian’s Illinois factory plans 10 MWh of storage using repurposed EV batteries.
• Redwood says its recycling process recovers over 95% of key battery materials.
• Expanded alliance links battery reuse, factory scrap recycling and energy storage.

Rivian Automotive (RIVN) stock fell 3.14% to $12.95 on Wednesday as the automaker expanded its battery recycling partnership with Redwood Materials. The agreement adds battery scrap recycling and broader energy storage services to their existing collaboration. The expansion strengthens Rivian’s battery management operations while its shares ended the session lower.

Rivian Automotive, Inc., RIVN

Rivian and Redwood Strengthen Battery Management Partnership

Rivian and Redwood Materials announced an expanded agreement covering electric vehicle battery recycling and stationary energy storage. The partnership now includes additional services that support battery collection, reuse, and material recovery. Both companies aim to improve battery resource management across Rivian’s manufacturing and service operations.

The expanded partnership covers battery waste from manufacturing operations alongside batteries from retired electric vehicles. This arrangement creates additional opportunities to reuse batteries before recycling their remaining materials. It also gives Redwood a broader role in managing batteries throughout their useful lives.

Under the agreement, Redwood will collect used battery packs through Rivian’s nationwide service center network. The company will assess each pack and determine whether it can support another energy storage application. Redwood will recycle batteries that no longer meet operational requirements.

Rivian and Redwood Expand Battery Recycling Operations

The latest agreement builds on an energy storage partnership that both companies announced in April 2026. That project involves deploying 10 megawatt-hours of repurposed battery storage at Rivian’s Normal, Illinois, factory. The expanded arrangement adds recycling services to the existing storage project.

Redwood will also process battery scrap from Rivian’s vehicle manufacturing activities. Its recycling technology can recover more than 95% of critical materials, including lithium, nickel, cobalt, and copper. These recovered materials can support domestic battery production and reduce reliance on newly mined resources.

The companies plan to extend battery use beyond electric vehicle applications. Batteries that lose sufficient driving capacity can still provide electricity storage for factories and other facilities. This approach allows Rivian to extract additional value from batteries before recycling their remaining materials.

Battery Storage Partnership Supports Rivian’s Manufacturing Strategy

Rivian’s Illinois manufacturing facility will serve as an initial location for the companies’ stationary battery storage systems. These systems can store electricity during periods of lower demand or cheaper power supply. Facilities can then use the stored energy during periods of higher electricity demand.

Redwood’s energy management technology will coordinate battery storage operations according to facility requirements. The system can help manufacturers manage power consumption and reduce exposure to peak electricity costs. It also provides additional energy capacity without relying entirely on conventional grid infrastructure.

The partnership combines battery collection, reuse, energy storage, and mineral recovery under one operating arrangement. For Rivian, the expanded services support battery lifecycle management alongside its electric vehicle manufacturing activities. The agreement also expands Redwood’s role in supporting domestic battery recycling and industrial energy storage.

The post Rivian Automotive (RIVN) Stock: Declines as Rivian and Redwood Expand Battery Recycling Alliance appeared first on Blockonomi.

Evernorth has announced its first institutional execution partners as the XRP-focused treasury company prepares to put its holdings to work. The company has teamed up with Ripple, Kraken, Coinbase, and BitGo.

Together, they will help Evernorth deploy its 473 million XRP treasury into institutional strategies starting in the fourth quarter of 2026.

Institutional Investment Push

The announcement comes shortly after Evernorth debuted as a publicly traded company on Nasdaq under the ticker symbol XRPN. It is also the first step in a broader plan to generate returns from its XRP holdings instead of simply holding the tokens.

In its official press release, Evernorth said it selected the four partners for their institutional infrastructure, licensing, financial strength, and experience working with public companies and asset managers. The partnerships are expected to provide the support needed to manage XRP investments with proper risk controls, reporting, and counterparty oversight.

The longer-term plan also includes DeFi. As the XRP Ledger develops its native lending and on-chain credit features, Evernorth intends to explore opportunities directly on the network.

Commenting on the development, Evernorth’s founder and chief executive Asheesh Birla said,

“We’re putting our treasury to work. We are beginning with some of the strongest institutional counterparties in the industry, and as the XRP Ledger’s own credit markets come online, we intend to be there with capital on day one. That is how we grow XRP per share over time, and that is how we help the ecosystem grow with us.”

Hugo Jeandesboz, who became the company’s chief investment officer on September 28, has been tasked with leading the deployment program. He previously worked at Coinbase Asset Management as co-CIO, where he led its investment strategies for Solutions.

No Reaction From XRPN or XRP

XRPN had a rough Tuesday. The stock closed at $16.48, which is around 2.54% down from the day before.

The latest news had no effect on the price of XRP either. The crypto asset remained unchanged over the past 24 hours. It was trading below $1.4 at the time of writing.

The post 473M XRP at Work: Evernorth’s Game Plan Takes Shape With Ripple, Coinbase, Kraken, and BitGo appeared first on CryptoPotato.

Despite its risks and heightened volatility, the cryptocurrency market can offer people the chance of making substantial gains in a relatively short time. Of course, this usually requires entering the ecosystem early enough and knowing when to cash out.

Check out the crazy story of one trader who dealt with Hyperliquid’s HYPE.

Millions in Less Than 2 Years

Lookonchain revealed the case of a mysterious whale who bought 257,928 HYPE toward the end of 2024. At the time, the price of one token was about $3.50, making the total investment just north of $900,000.

Last week, the anonymous person or entity deposited 131,421 units (worth roughly $11.77 million) into Kraken. The analytics platform did not disclose whether the whale actually sold their stash, but such a move is often seen as the step before cashing out.

Most recently, the investor transferred an additional 100,276 HYPE (equaling $8.17 million) to the same exchange. If those moves resulted in actual sales, the whale would have made more than $19 million in profit in less than two years. Moreover, they keep holding 26,231 HYPE, currently worth over $2.14 million.

Such impressive profits aren’t isolated in the crypto world and usually involve meme coins, which are notorious for their volatility. In spring 2024, one trader generated more than $3 million (at least on paper) after investing in the then-trending Solana-based token Slerf (SLERF).

One of the most shocking cases involves a mysterious market participant who bought $8,000 worth of Shiba Inu (SHIB) in August 2020. In November 2021, the self-proclaimed Dogecoin killer experienced a major bull run, prompting the trader to send a large chunk of their stash to different wallets, perhaps to sell, which would have netted billions in profit.

The Right Time to Sell HYPE?

Cashing out HYPE tokens to generate millions of dollars sure sounds like a great decision, but let’s see whether the asset can post further gains. As of this writing, it trades around $81 (per CoinGecko), up 2% on a monthly scale but down 16% from its historic peak of almost $100 earlier this year.

According to FOUR | Crypto Spaces, the asset has been stuck in a descending channel “long enough,” with expectations of a short-term reversal toward $100. For their part, Aman offered a more bearish prediction, noting the formation of a double-top pattern that could lead to a dip to $75.

It is important to note that HYPE’s recent exchange netflow supports the optimistic scenario. Over the past several weeks, outflows have significantly outpaced inflows, suggesting investors have shifted from centralized platforms to self-custody, reducing immediate selling pressure.

The post Making Millions in 2 Years: Here’s How This Hyperliquid (HYPE) Trader Did It appeared first on CryptoPotato.

Starknet is considering becoming a standalone Layer 1 blockchain, with its builders targeting quantum-resistant security by 2027 as concerns grow about whether artificial intelligence could accelerate attacks on existing cryptography.

The move would give the network more control over its security upgrades rather than leaving parts of its migration dependent on Ethereum.

Starknet Wants Control Over Its Quantum-Security Timeline

In a post on X, Starknet announced that it was “actively considering becoming an L1,” describing the change as a route toward becoming “the first fully quantum-resistant network,” with 2027 as its target.

Starknet already uses zero-knowledge STARK proofs based on hash-based cryptography and has an active roadmap for post-quantum security. But as a Layer 2 on Ethereum, the network still relies on its parent chain for some of its security.

Two areas are still outside the direct control of its builders, including bridge messaging, which uses elliptic-curve cryptography to communicate between Starknet and Ethereum. If that dependency is removed before an Ethereum upgrade, the bridge could break.

The second concerns data availability. Starknet publishes state data to Ethereum through blobs secured by KZG commitments, which rely on cryptography vulnerable to sufficiently powerful quantum computers. A failure in KZG would affect data availability, although Starknet’s STARK proofs would continue to protect the validity of its state.

Ethereum is targeting full Layer 1 quantum resistance by the end of 2029. Starknet’s proposed 2027 timeline would therefore put it ahead of its parent network, provided it can complete the remaining work and settle the architectural questions involved in becoming an independent chain.

The proposal follows growing concerns about advances in AI-assisted mathematics. On October 7, Ethereum researcher Justin Drake urged the blockchain industry to begin preparing for what he called “bunker mode,” recommending a controlled migration of assets to addresses whose public keys remain hidden. However, Vitalik Buterin warned against rushing the process.

Starknet co-founder Eli Ben-Sasson raised similar concerns in posts on October 8, arguing that AI could bring cryptographic threats closer than expected. He identified cryptographic choice and the ability to upgrade security systems as the two foundations of post-quantum readiness.

An Independent Starknet Would Still Face Design Choices

Starknet has already developed infrastructure that could help it operate independently, including STRK staking and multiple sequencers. However, it would still need to resolve data availability, final settlement, and changes to its official bridge.

Still, the bridge question carries particular weight, especially considering that today, Ethereum verifies Starknet withdrawal proofs before bridged funds can be released. If Starknet becomes an L1, it could continue posting STARK proofs to Ethereum, preserving a connection between the networks, or sever that dependency entirely. But those approaches would create different security assumptions for users.

The post Starknet Considers Becoming an L1 to Reach Quantum Resistance by 2027 appeared first on CryptoPotato.

Polymarket CEO Shayne Coplan has renewed speculation about a native cryptocurrency after discussing an on-chain asset at the just-concluded TOKEN2049 conference in Singapore.

However, he offered no launch date or airdrop details, leaving traders guessing whether activity on the prediction market could eventually qualify them for a token allocation.

Coplan Hints at Programmable Utility for Polymarket

Coplan’s remarks at TOKEN2049 centered on an asset with “real programmable utility” tied to Polymarket’s platform economy. During a fireside conversation with Balaji Srinivasan, the founder discussed the idea of an on-chain asset but did not confirm a launch, explain how it would work, or specify what holders might receive.

The phrase “real programmable utility” leaves open several possibilities, but Coplan did not outline whether a future token would grant governance rights, provide access to platform functions, or give holders a claim on revenue. He also offered no indication that existing users would automatically qualify for a distribution.

The latest comments follow an earlier hint that drew attention in October last year, when Coplan posted a list of leading cryptocurrencies on X but replaced XRP with “$POLY,” adding a thinking-face emoji, with the cryptic gesture prompting speculation about a Polymarket token.

In that same month, the firm’s Chief Marketing Officer Matthew Modabber indicated that it intended to launch a token and conduct an airdrop. Polymarket’s parent company later filed trademark applications for POLY and $POLY in February 2026, but neither development established that an issuance was imminent.

As of today, Polymarket has not announced a token generation event, published airdrop eligibility requirements or provided a snapshot date or claim instructions, and its existing pUSD collateral token, used for trading on its Polygon-based system, is separate from the proposed POLY asset.

Airdrop Hopes Meet Trading Losses and Legal Scrutiny

There is also a question of what a token would mean for ordinary traders. A Galaxy Research study published on October 4 examined 2.9 million human-paced Polymarket accounts and found that more than 69% finished below break-even, with combined losses of $338.9 million. The findings concerned the platform’s international operations and tracked wallet addresses rather than verified individual traders.

Meanwhile, a New York lawsuit reported on September 24 alleges that Polymarket’s US operation offered unlicensed gambling and allowed users aged 18 to 20 to trade, despite the state’s minimum age of 21 for mobile sports betting. This is in addition to legal action taken by the city of Baltimore against Polymarket and rival Kalshi for allegedly offering illegal sports betting, and South Korean police opening criminal charges against 26 users of the platform in the country over nearly $13 million in illegal wagers.

The post Shayne Coplan Renews Speculation About Polymarket Token appeared first on CryptoPotato.

The world’s leading cryptocurrency exchange announced it will end all services for two digital assets. The actual delisting is scheduled for October 28, but the news has already negatively affected the involved coins.

Additionally, Binance will briefly suspend key operations on the Ethereum (ETH) network to perform wallet maintenance.

The Delisting

The company said it regularly evaluates each listed cryptocurrency to determine whether it continues to meet rigorous criteria and industry standards.

“When a coin or token no longer meets these standards or the industry landscape changes, we conduct a more in-depth review and potentially delist it. Our priority is to ensure the best services and protections for our users while continuing to adapt to evolving market dynamics,” it explained.

Key factors Binance considers include trading volume, adequate liquidity, the team’s commitment to the project, network security against attacks, development activity, and more. Following its latest review, it decided to terminate all services for Epic Chain (EPIC) and QuickSwap (QUICK).

The company will delist the assets from its Copy Trading section on October 21 and remove all spot trading services a week later. After October 29, deposits of these tokens will not be credited to users’ accounts, while withdrawals will be supported until December 28.

Such announcements usually negatively impact the price of the involved cryptocurrencies. After all, Binance remains the largest crypto exchange, and withdrawing support can damage the assets’ reputation, reduce their liquidity, and limit their availability. That said, it is no wonder EPIC plunged 15% in a single day, while QUICK slipped 22%.

Something similar happened in August this year. Back then, Binance delisted Across Protocol (ACX), Hashflow (HFT), PIVX (PIVX), Vulcan Forged PYR (PYR), Vanar (VANRY), and Viction (VIC), triggering double-digit price declines for the affected tokens.

The Upcoming Disruption

In a separate announcement, Binance revealed that it will perform wallet maintenance for the Ethereum (ETH) network on October 15. To support the process, the exchange will temporarily suspend deposits and withdrawals on that specific blockchain.

The maintenance is expected to take about one hour, after which operations should be resumed. Binance clarified that token trading on the network will not be affected and promised to handle all technical requirements for users.

The company has carried out similar procedures multiple times in recent months, with no reports of major issues.

The post These Altcoins Plunge Hard After Binance Says Goodbye: Details appeared first on CryptoPotato.