Cornell's engagement of Sally Yates may lead to policy reforms and influence legal outcomes, reflecting a shift towards accountability in academia.

The post Cornell taps Sally Yates for review of sexual assault case response appeared first on Crypto Briefing.

SpaceX's potential $40B financing could significantly boost AI infrastructure, but reliance on large tenants poses revenue concentration risks.

The post SpaceX reportedly seeks $40 billion in Apollo-led financing for Nvidia chips appeared first on Crypto Briefing.

Circle's misstep highlights the risks of celebrity associations in crypto, emphasizing the need for clear communication and thorough due diligence.

The post Circle welcomes DJ Khaled to team USDC, sparking backlash on X appeared first on Crypto Briefing.

TRXS ETF enhances institutional access to TRX, integrating staking rewards, but fees and crypto volatility may impact investor returns.

The post Canary’s TRXS ETF brings staked TRX to US brokerage accounts appeared first on Crypto Briefing.

Waymo's $5B debt raise highlights the growing financial demands of global expansion and AI costs, impacting tech financing trends and equity dynamics.

The post Waymo upsizes its first debt deal to $5 billion to fund global expansion appeared first on Crypto Briefing.

Bitcoin Magazine

Crypto Card Payments Hit Record $12.5 Billion as Stablecoin Adoption Surges

Payment volume processed on crypto cards has climbed to a record $12.5 billion, up 140% year-to-date, according to data from paymentscan.xyz, first shared by The Kobeissi Letter.

The figure is also 247% higher than levels recorded in October 2025.

The surge is being driven by growing use of stablecoins as a payment rail and a broader push for cheaper, faster cross-border transactions, The Kobeissi Letter said.

QR-code payments are another bright spot: demand for QR-based spending helped push activated cards on Jupiter Spend, one of the largest on-chain card providers, up 55% quarter-over-quarter.

“Crypto cards are the next phase of crypto adoption,” The Kobeissi Letter said.

The figures come as major players move into the space of crypto cards. Fold Holdings (NASDAQ: FLD) announced earlier this year that it had started issuing its Fold Bitcoin Credit Card to select waitlist members, with wider access rolling out in batches over the coming weeks and months. 

The card runs on the Visa network, is powered by Stripe Issuing and is accepted at 175 million merchants. It offers a base rate of 1.5% back in bitcoin, rising to as much as 4% through behavior-based boosts and partner offers. Cardholders who pay their bill in bitcoin earn an extra 0.5% back.

Aven has taken a different approach. Its Aven Bitcoin Visa Card, unveiled at the Bitcoin Conference 2026 in Las Vegas, lets holders borrow up to $1 million against their bitcoin without selling it, with rates starting at 7.99% APR and repayment terms of up to 10 years. 

Collateral is held by BitGo, while Coastal Community Bank issues the card.

This post Crypto Card Payments Hit Record $12.5 Billion as Stablecoin Adoption Surges first appeared on Bitcoin Magazine and is written by Mathew Di Salvo.

Bitcoin Magazine

$350M St Cloud CEO: The First Credit Union to Put Bitcoin on Core Ledger | Jed Meyer

A credit union founded by postal workers in 1930 is now custodying real Bitcoin for its members. St. Cloud Financial Credit Union CEO Jed Meyer explains how its patent-pending hybrid custody model gives each member individual Bitcoin ownership in a multisig vault. He also covers how the credit union has grown to more than 20 BTC under custody without even trying.

Chapters:
00:00 St. Cloud Financial Credit Union’s Path to Bitcoin
01:08 Stablecoins, Dollars, and Bitcoin as New Money Networks
02:26 Bitcoin ETF vs. Credit Union Custody: The Hybrid Custody Model
03:18 Bringing Main Street Into Bitcoin With Direct Buy and Sell
04:45 Minnesota Custody Law, NCUA Exams, and the CLARITY Act
07:32 20+ Bitcoin in Member Vaults and Lightning Plans
09:38 What It Takes for a Credit Union to Own Bitcoin
10:57 The Cloud Dollar Stablecoin and the Cooperative Ownership Model
12:59 How Credit Unions Decide Which Digital Assets to Offer
14:10 Educating Skeptics and Why Credit Unions Must Own Their Rails

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

This post $350M St Cloud CEO: The First Credit Union to Put Bitcoin on Core Ledger | Jed Meyer first appeared on Bitcoin Magazine and is written by Patrick Green.

Bitcoin Magazine

Housingwire’s Logan Mohtashami: Real Estate vs Bitcoin & Bond Market Outlook

Mortgage rates just hit their highest level in nearly three years, and homebuyers are already pulling back. HousingWire Lead Analyst Logan Mohtashami explains why the 10-year Treasury yield keeps climbing since talks with Iran broke down, and why the Federal Reserve has turned hawkish. He also explains how mortgage spreads are keeping 30-year rates from climbing above 8%.

Chapters:
00:00 30-Year Mortgage Rates Hit 7.28%, Highest in Nearly Three Years
00:52 Iran Talks, the Fed, and Why the 10-Year Yield Keeps Rising
01:58 Mortgage Spreads Explained: Why Rates Aren’t Above 8.6%
03:28 What It Would Take to Get Meaningful Home Price Cuts
04:43 Homebuilders, Profit Margins, and Mortgage Rate Buydowns
06:17 Why Today’s Housing Market Isn’t 2008
08:13 Bitcoin vs. Real Estate: Competing for Monetary Premium?
09:52 Borrowing Against Bitcoin for a Home Down Payment
10:52 Grant Cardone’s Bitcoin and Real Estate Model
13:15 2027 Outlook for Mortgage Rates, Home Prices, and Affordability

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

This post Housingwire’s Logan Mohtashami: Real Estate vs Bitcoin & Bond Market Outlook first appeared on Bitcoin Magazine and is written by Patrick Green.

Bitcoin Magazine

Leon Wankum: BTC Taking on Real Estate’s $300T Monetary Premium

For generations, property has been the default place to store wealth, but Leon Wankum says that run is over. The author of Digital Real Estate, published by Bitcoin Magazine Books, explains how fiat debasement since 1971 inflated a monetary premium in real estate. He argues Bitcoin, as absolutely scarce money, is now pulling that premium away. He also explains why both residential and commercial real estate will feel the shift.

“Digital Real Estate is required reading for anyone who owns property and hasn’t yet considered how Bitcoin is set to disrupt the real estate market.”

Buy Leon Wankum’s ‘Digital Real Estate’ now in the Bitcoin Magazine bookstore
https://store.bitcoinmagazine.com/collections/books/products/digital-real-estate

Chapters:
00:00 Leon Wankum’s “Digital Real Estate” Thesis
00:35 Why Real Estate’s Run Since 1971 Is Over
01:39 The Monetary Premium in Residential and Commercial Real Estate
03:58 Saving in Bitcoin vs. Spending It on a Home
05:57 Bitcoin as Collateral: Borrowing vs. Renting and Stacking
08:19 Why the Housing Crisis Is a Crisis of Ownership
09:56 Pricing Real Estate in Bitcoin
10:57 Homeowners, Banks, and Bitcoin-Backed Mortgages
14:14 Bitcoin Mining and Treasury Strategies for Real Estate Developers
16:04 Why Grant Cardone’s Bitcoin Real Estate Funds Could Lead

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

This post Leon Wankum: BTC Taking on Real Estate’s $300T Monetary Premium first appeared on Bitcoin Magazine and is written by Patrick Green.

Bitcoin Magazine

StoneX’s Mark Palmer: $435 MSTR Price Target Explained – DAT Consolidation Outlook

Strategy just spent six times more buying back Stretch than buying Bitcoin. Is that the right move for MSTR shareholders? StoneX Senior Equity Research Analyst Mark Palmer explains why STRC is foundational to Strategy’s fundraising, and how the $4.9B USD Reserve is pushing the preferred stock back toward par. He also explains why Strategy won’t simply raise the dividend rate.

Chapters:
00:00 StoneX Analyst Mark Palmer on Strategy (MSTR)
00:12 Stretch Buybacks vs. Buying Bitcoin: $176M vs. $29M
01:00 The $4.9B USD Reserve and Stretch’s Path Back to Par
01:56 Why Strategy Won’t Raise the Stretch Dividend Rate
04:17 Daily Dividends and Ex-Dividend Date Volatility
06:53 June’s Stretch Sell-Off and Institutional Investors
07:21 Where Bitcoin Treasury Balance Sheet Stress Shows Up First
09:21 Perpetual Preferreds vs. Convertible Notes: Strive’s Approach
11:54 USD Cash, Convert Paydowns, and Metaplanet’s U.S. Push
13:09 Why StoneX Cut Its MSTR Price Target to $435

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

This post StoneX’s Mark Palmer: $435 MSTR Price Target Explained – DAT Consolidation Outlook first appeared on Bitcoin Magazine and is written by Patrick Green.

Strategy estimated a $4.1 billion income-tax benefit after Bitcoin's fair value rose above cost as of Sept. 30, according to its Oct. 5 filing. The benefit comes from a lower estimated tax expense through an accounting adjustment.

The filing shows what can change when Bitcoin crosses a large holder’s cost basis. The next consequence depends on the position being measured: a company’s Bitcoin holdings, an ETF’s underlying assets and an investor’s ETF shares each have their own purchase history.

Strategy said it reversed a deferred tax asset related to its Bitcoin and released the associated valuation allowance. These management-prepared financial figures had neither been audited nor reviewed by KPMG.

The estimated benefit concerns the company’s own tax accounts and its September valuation-allowance adjustment.

The company disclosed 848,000 BTC at an average purchase price of $75,440.70, including fees and expenses, as of Oct. 4 at 4 p.m. Eastern time. That later acquisition figure has a separate cutoff from the Sept. 30 accounting comparison.

Fund cost and shareholder break-even are separate

An ETF acquisition estimate measures the fund’s underlying holdings. Maketo estimated the average cost of Bitcoin remaining in BlackRock’s iShares Bitcoin Trust ETF (IBIT) at $81,188 per BTC as of Oct. 2. Its model reconstructs underlying Bitcoin costs from daily money flows and prices.

An IBIT shareholder buys shares at a market price, so investors entering on different dates can have different break-even prices, even though their shares represent interests in the same pool of Bitcoin. The fund’s estimated acquisition cost measures a different position from each shareholder’s investment.

BlackRock’s Oct. 5 holdings file listed about 806,038 BTC, and its fund page reported nearly $69 billion in net assets and a Bitcoin benchmark level of $85,694.41 that day.

Its June 30 quarterly filing recorded 734,261 BTC with an investment cost of about $61 billion and a fair value of about $43.4 billion. That historical comparison places the same holdings below cost at the same cutoff.

IBIT calculates realized gains and losses on Bitcoin disposals using average cost, and the June filing records substantial activity in both directions. During the six months ended June 30, the Trust acquired 157,501 BTC and disposed of 192,970 BTC for share redemptions. Those categories include in-kind transfers.

Testing whether redemptions accelerated below cost requires daily flows, prices and cost estimates aligned to the same dates. The first-half totals leave the timing of trades relative to cost crossings, and investors’ motives, unresolved.

How a shareholder exit reaches Bitcoin

An investor can sell ETF shares in the secondary market. Redemption with IBIT is a separate transaction: only authorized participants can create or redeem baskets directly with the Trust.

IBIT’s prospectus distinguishes cash redemptions from redemptions in Bitcoin. With a cash redemption, the Trust converts underlying Bitcoin into cash, while an in-kind redemption delivers Bitcoin.

Share trading, cash redemptions and Bitcoin transfers describe different steps. The fund’s acquisition cost alone leaves those steps and the recipient’s subsequent decisions unmeasured.

US spot Bitcoin ETFs recorded net outflows of $89.8 million on Oct. 5, while Farside Investors’ data show that BlackRock’s fund recorded inflows in that same session.

That split captures a day of different flow directions across funds. Establishing whether cost-basis crossings influence those decisions requires comparing flows before and after the crossings over a longer period.

Crossing cost changes the gain-or-loss comparison on the underlying position, and Strategy’s filing demonstrates a material tax-accounting consequence.

Actual creations, redemptions, and the handling of redeemed Bitcoin are the next signals to watch for market impact. A shared price level, on its own, leaves the identity and motivation of the next buyer or seller unresolved.

The post Bitcoin rally delivers $4.1 billion tax windfall for Strategy appeared first on CryptoSlate.

The US services prices gauge reached a four-year high in September even as growth slowed, a combination that could keep leveraged Bitcoin positions exposed to restrictive financing conditions. The October 5 survey pairs softer activity with more widespread reports of rising input costs.

The Institute for Supply Management's services report, issued on its October 5 release date, put the prices index at 74.0, up from 72.6 in August. That was its highest reading since July 2022, when it reached 74.5.

The headline services PMI eased to 54.9 from 55.4, while business activity dropped to 56.5 from 61.7. Both remained above the 50 expansion threshold. Employment moved the other way, rising from 47.8 to 50.1 and returning to slight expansion after two months of contraction.

Growth therefore lost momentum while reported input-cost increases became more widespread. ISM's prices gauge is a diffusion index describing the direction and breadth of monthly input-cost changes across survey respondents. Its 74.0 reading provides no estimate of the size of price increases and cannot be read as a consumer-inflation rate.

Why the rates risk persists for Bitcoin

Fed Vice Chair Philip Jefferson said on October 1 that inflation risks tilted upward. He also described September's quarter-point increase in the federal funds target range to 3.75%-4.00% and said future adjustments should depend on the data, outlook and balance of risks.

His remarks preceded the services release. The survey adds cost-pressure evidence to a policy debate already underway. Slower expansion gives investors one part of the picture; rising input-cost pressure keeps the prospect of rate relief uncertain.

For leveraged Bitcoin exposure, the concern is how that uncertainty affects financing and willingness to take risk. If persistent costs make rate relief less likely and investors become more cautious, financing-sensitive positions could face pressure. Leverage would magnify a trader's losses from an adverse price move: the CFTC explains that margined virtual-currency futures traders can be forced to replenish collateral or close positions when markets move against them.

The Fed's policy rate and perpetual-futures funding operate differently. Coinbase's documentation describes funding as payments between long and short positions that help align perpetual prices with spot prices. Bitcoin perpetual funding needs its own market observation; it cannot be inferred from the federal funds target.

Historical evidence also cautions against treating the price connection as automatic. A February 2023 New York Fed study using intraday data found Bitcoin largely disconnected from monetary and macroeconomic news in its sample.

Bitcoin traded near $85,580 on CryptoSlate's October 6 page, down 0.04% over 24 hours. That rolling change cannot identify a reaction to the ISM release.

The funding-risk case would strengthen if adverse policy or yield repricing coincided with weaker leveraged demand. Easing cost pressure, stable rate expectations or stronger buying without leverage would weaken it. Slower services expansion alone offers little assurance of relief for leveraged Bitcoin positions; the effect on their financing still needs evidence from markets.

The post US services price gauge hits a four-year high, clouding Bitcoin’s rate-relief outlook appeared first on CryptoSlate.

Bitcoin's estimated US mining footprint shrank as Russia's grew, with little change in top-three country concentration.

Hashrate Index's Oct. 5 country estimates put the US at about 335 EH/s, down from 345 EH/s in the previous edition, while Russia rose from 162 to 170 EH/s.

The US, Russia and China still account for roughly 66% of the estimated network. Their combined share slipped by about 0.8%, even as the global hashrate estimate stayed almost flat.

That is a modest change in geographic concentration, with a clearer shift in the balance between the two largest mining locations.

Luxor Technology's mining data platform Hashrate Index labels the report its fourth-quarter update, but the figures describe observations from the preceding third quarter. Its July 16 comparison edition described June estimates.

The October publication is neither a completed fourth-quarter result nor a live census of where machines are operating on Oct. 6.

A smaller US share leaves the same three leaders

The comparison separates absolute mining activity from network share. Estimated US hashrate declined as its share fell from 36.7% to 35.6%, while Russia gained both estimated hashrate and share, rising from 17.2% to 18.1%. China's estimate declined from about 115 to 110 EH/s.

The network total is a 30-day simple moving average of hashrate, the computing work devoted to mining.

The provider's methodology summary describes a weighted combination of pool data, ASIC trading flows, and firmware adoption trends.

Cambridge's separate mining-map methodology warns that a pool sample may be unrepresentative and that VPNs or proxies can distort inferred location.

Hashrate Index's October comparison puts the top three countries' combined share at 65.4%, down from 66.2%. Calculating from the rounded EH/s inputs reproduces approximately that 0.8% decline. The resulting balance leaves the US with a smaller share and Russia with a larger one, while the same three countries remain dominant.

July's printed country shares add to 66.1%, while the rounded EH/s figures reproduce the provider's 66.2% aggregate after rounding. These differences are distinct from sampling or estimation error, and the comparison provides no confidence range to demonstrate statistical significance.

A smaller estimated US share reduces the portion attributed to that jurisdiction, while a larger Russian share increases the portion attributed to Russia. Those movements change exposure to particular locations without showing that the network has acquired many more independent sources of mining capacity.

Machines switching off in one country and other machines switching on elsewhere can change the distribution without the same equipment moving between them. The country totals do not establish a transfer from the US to Russia.

Location leaves ownership and operating status unresolved

A country's mining share describes where computing activity is estimated to occur, and beneficial ownership asks who ultimately owns that equipment.

Pool control asks who coordinates mining work and selects the transactions proposed for blocks. Treating these as interchangeable would turn a location estimate into a claim about decision-making power.

The Bitcoin developer guide's pooled-mining explanation separates the miners supplying hashing work from the pool that coordinates it and distributes rewards. In its legacy Stratum example, miners receive the information needed to construct block headers without being able to inspect or add transactions to the block.

That arrangement makes transaction selection independent of the machines' physical location. Spreading hardware across more countries does not show that more independent parties choose block contents.

Equally, a pool coordinating work is not automatically the beneficial owner of all the equipment contributing to it.

Stratum V2's transaction-selection design allows miners to choose a transaction set optionally, a capability that does not establish how widely it is used today.

A fuller assessment would need ownership information and contemporaneous evidence about pool participation and block-template selection. The quarterly country figures establish neither improved ownership diversity nor unchanged pool concentration.

Geography also leaves open what is happening at individual sites. Luxor attributes some regional mining declines to the switch toward artificial intelligence and high-performance computing. Individual company disclosures show that conversion activity is real.

In its Aug. 10 operational disclosure, Keel Infrastructure said it had completed decommissioning all its US Bitcoin mining operations in preparation for HPC construction.

Core Scientific's July 28 results described an ongoing process of repurposing its remaining mining facilities for high-density colocation services as circumstances allow. That is a different operating status from a completed mining exit.

These examples substantiate particular companies' actions. Reports on miners' AI commitments examined the execution question before this country comparison appeared.

Temporarily idled equipment may resume work if the conditions that caused curtailment improve. A site being reconstructed or committed to another workload faces a different path back. A hashrate decline alone does not tell readers what happened or how durable it will be.

Luxor also describes an Ethiopian power restriction in explaining that country's decline. Such explanations need their own evidence: a country delta cannot establish the contribution of power rationing, seasonal conditions, or policy. The geographic estimates and the proposed causes remain separate claims.

The network estimate barely changed, from about 940 to 941 EH/s. That aggregate can coexist with lower US activity because gains elsewhere offset losses, saying little about whether US miners have recovered operating capacity or improved their own economics.

The next useful evidence is specific to the mining risk being assessed: repeated country observations for persistence, company disclosures distinguishing actual conversion from curtailment, and ownership and pool data for control. A single nearly flat network total cannot answer all three.

For now, geographic exposure has shifted within a still concentrated mining network. Establishing broader decentralization gains requires evidence about who owns and coordinates the capacity, as well as where it sits.

The post 3 countries control 66% of Bitcoin mining, but 1 rival is gaining appeared first on CryptoSlate.

US Treasury’s Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) announced on Oct. 5 that it is withdrawing a reporting proposal for crypto mixing, the use of techniques that obscure a transaction’s source, destination, or amount.

The plan reached beyond dedicated mixing services and would have required financial institutions to report information about covered transactions and their customers.

The agency is withdrawing both its 2023 finding that international crypto mixing is a class of transactions of primary money laundering concern and the proposed recordkeeping and reporting rule.

The withdrawal notice lists Oct. 6 as its scheduled Federal Register publication date and states that withdrawal will take effect upon publication. FinCEN cited commenters’ concerns that the expansive definition could chill legitimate activity and impose a large reporting burden.

The proposed definition applied regardless of the protocol or service used. Examples included pooling funds, coordinating transactions with code, splitting transfers, routing funds through a series of single-use wallets, exchanging between crypto assets, and introducing user-initiated delays.

The proposed obligation applied when a covered domestic financial institution knew, suspected or had reason to suspect that a crypto transaction by, through or to it involved mixing within or involving a jurisdiction outside the US.

The definition also excluded certain internal processes used to execute transactions at banks, broker-dealers and money services businesses, provided they retained source and destination records and supplied them when legally required.

For wallet users, the proposed privacy exposure came through institutions’ reports. These would have included wallet addresses, transaction hashes, IP addresses, and customer identity information in the institution’s possession. Institutions would also have had to document compliance.

Compliance checks remain

Under FinCEN’s existing guidance, covered crypto money transmitters remain subject to registration, risk-based anti-money-laundering programs, applicable customer checks, recordkeeping and suspicious activity reporting. Qualifying transfers also remain subject to the Funds Travel Rule.

The guidance distinguishes an anonymizing service that accepts and retransmits value from a supplier of anonymizing software. Supplying a tool alone does not make someone a money transmitter, although operating a transmission business can.

An unhosted-wallet user paying for goods or services on their own behalf is not a money transmitter on that basis.

FinCEN’s announcement also covers the separate unhosted-wallet proposal published in December 2020. That proposal was already listed as withdrawn on April 12, 2024, in the Spring 2024 regulatory agenda. The new notice says the agency will take no further action.

FinCEN says it will continue monitoring crypto mixing for money laundering, terrorist financing, and other illicit activity, and may take further steps. Financial institutions’ existing obligations remain relevant when assessing privacy-related transactions.

The post FinCEN drops crypto mixing proposal as backlash kills rule appeared first on CryptoSlate.

Federal prosecutors are using a new Bitcoin Fog appeal to defend trying two counts against Roman Storm in New York. Their Oct. 5 letter asks Judge Katherine Polk Failla to reject his venue challenge on the money-laundering and money-transmission conspiracy counts. Storm co-founded Tornado Cash, a cryptocurrency mixer that obscures transaction trails.

The filing arrived as Treasury moved to withdraw a broad mixer-reporting proposal. The continuing case turns on prosecutors' allegation that Storm knowingly participated in criminal activity, while the policy changes recognize lawful privacy and limit particular charging decisions. Whether his software work crossed that criminal boundary remains disputed.

Storm, posting as @rstormsf, described potential imprisonment as punishment “for writing code” and contrasted the case with Treasury's retreat. His criticism captures the stakes for privacy developers, but the latest filing concerns where the case can be tried.

Storm already has an August 2025 conviction on one money-transmission conspiracy count carrying a statutory maximum of five years. An Aug. 25, 2026 court order scheduled his retrial for April 26, 2027, citing his pending acquittal motion and requested continuance.

Southern District of New York prosecutors rely on the D.C. Circuit's Sept. 25 decision in United States v. Sterlingov, involving Bitcoin Fog, a different cryptocurrency mixer. Prosecutors cite its venue holdings as persuasive authority for Storm's pending challenge.

Their argument centers on a Manhattan customer, Shakeeb Ahmed. They say his deposits helped enlarge the anonymity pool, making funds harder to trace, even though the money remained there only briefly. They also argue that serving a customer in the district supports venue for the money-transmission count.

Why the crypto policy shift has not ended the case

Treasury's Financial Crimes Enforcement Network is withdrawing its 2023 finding and proposed enhanced reporting and recordkeeping measure for international cryptocurrency mixing. The withdrawal notice, filed Oct. 5 for Oct. 6 publication, cites concerns about a “chilling effect on legitimate activity” and burdens on financial institutions.

FinCEN recognizes lawful financial privacy while retaining monitoring for money laundering, terrorist financing and other illicit activity. The withdrawal addresses an administrative reporting proposal. It does not repeal criminal offenses or decide Storm's case.

DOJ's own shift contains a similar boundary. Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche's April 7, 2025 memo directed prosecutors away from targeting mixers for their users' conduct or unwitting regulatory violations and called for review of ongoing cases.

But the memo expressly excludes section 1960(b)(1)(C), concerning funds known to come from crime or intended for unlawful activity, from its regulatory charging restriction.

In August 2025 remarks, DOJ official Matthew Galeotti added protection against new charges under that provision for qualifying software: it must be truly decentralized, solely automate peer-to-peer transactions, and leave the third party without custody and control over user assets. Other charges could remain appropriate where criminal intent exists.

That conditional promise about new charges did not set aside Storm's existing conviction.

DOJ described Storm's conduct as building, maintaining and profiting from a service despite knowing it transmitted criminal proceeds. Storm contests criminal treatment of his developer activity.

The April 9, 2026 hearing exposes the breadth of the government's theory. Prosecutor Ben Arad argued that legitimate deposits helped conceal criminal funds, supporting his case against the developers. He expressly distinguished innocent depositors' knowledge and perspective from that of Storm and his alleged coconspirators.

The dispute therefore centers on the developers' responsibility for running and improving a service used by criminals.

Failla challenged whether the broader theory established willful conduct. Arad later emphasized active steps to maintain and improve the service, rather than merely leaving its pools operational. The judge scrutinized the government's theory.

Why Ulbricht's pardon is different

The comparison with Ross Ulbricht raises a separate question of individual clemency. Trump's Jan. 21, 2025 pardon granted individual clemency to Ross Ulbricht for specified convictions. It did not extend to Storm or establish a general exemption for crypto developers.

The next consequential developments are judicial decisions on the challenges and any changes to that schedule. Washington's support for lawful crypto privacy has not itself settled the contested criminal case.

The post DOJ presses Tornado Cash prosecution as Treasury drops mixer reporting plan appeared first on CryptoSlate.

Anyone in Germany who wants to buy Monero will no longer find the coin at the large trading venues. On October 5, 2026 we went through the publicly available trading pair lists of eight exchanges. At Bitpanda, Bitvavo, Coinbase, Bitstamp, Gate.io and OKX there is not a single XMR pair. At Kraken five XMR pairs are listed, among them XMR/EUR, but they have been blocked for customers in the European Economic Area since the end of 2024. That leaves KuCoin with four pairs, and there both a euro market and authorisation for the German market are missing.

The coin itself is untouched by this. XMR costs around €499 and reaches a market capitalisation of about €9.4 billion, up 2.8 percent on Monday. Holding and custody are permitted in Germany. What falls away is the convenient route via an authorised exchange, and there are two concrete legal bases for that, with two different dates.

Eight exchanges checked: where XMR was still in the trading list on October 5, 2026

For the count we pulled the market lists that each exchange publishes, and searched them for the ticker XMR. The list says what an exchange carries in principle. Whether a market is open to German customers is a second question that goes beyond it.

Two notes on how to read this. First, a ticker appears at OKX that resembles Monero's, belongs to an entirely different project and is therefore not counted here. Second, Binance could not be queried from our network because access was refused on location grounds; the exchange had, however, already discontinued XMR trading worldwide in February 2024.

The Kraken case shows how a delisting works in practice

Kraken has documented the process for the European Economic Area in its own help section. On October 31, 2024 at 15:00 UTC, trading and deposits were stopped for all XMR markets held by customers registered in the EEA. Those affected could withdraw their holdings until December 31, 2024. For anyone who let the deadline pass, the exchange converted their XMR into Bitcoin at the prevailing market price and credited it in early January 2025. As justification, Kraken cites regulatory changes without naming a single provision.

For investors, that contains the most important practical lesson of this article: a delisting does not only take away your ability to buy, it also sets you a deadline for what is already there. Anyone whose coins are still sitting on the exchange after that deadline gets a forced conversion at a price they do not decide. This mechanism is no isolated case; we described it on September 19, 2026 using Monero as the example once before.

MiCA Article 76(3) excludes coins with an inbuilt anonymisation function

The Regulation on Markets in Crypto-Assets, MiCA for short, has governed the operation of trading platforms in the EU since the end of 2024. Its Article 76(3) reads: “The operating rules of the trading platform for crypto-assets shall prevent the admission to trading of crypto-assets that have an inbuilt anonymisation function unless the crypto-asset service providers operating a trading platform for crypto-assets can identify the holders of those crypto-assets and their transaction history.”

It is precisely that exception which comes to nothing with Monero. The protocol conceals the sender, the recipient and the amount of every transfer through methods that are built in: ring signatures for the sender, one-time receiving addresses for the recipient, and a procedure that hides the amount. An exchange therefore cannot trace the transaction history of an XMR holding, even if it wanted to. The exclusion applies, and the pair has to leave trading.

Important for context: the provision addresses the platform, not you. What is excluded is solely the admission to trading at an authorised provider. Holding and custody in your own wallet are untouched by it. What other duties a licence brings with it is set out in our overview of the MiCA obligations for crypto companies.

From July 10, 2027 the tougher ban from the anti-money-laundering regulation arrives

The second legal basis has drawn little attention so far and bites harder. The EU anti-money-laundering regulation, Regulation (EU) 2024/1624, provides in Article 79(1) that credit institutions, financial institutions and crypto-asset service providers may not keep anonymous crypto-asset accounts or any other accounts that allow the holder or transactions to be anonymised or heavily obscured, “including through anonymity-enhancing coins”.

Under Article 90 of the same regulation, it applies from July 10, 2027. The difference from the MiCA rule is considerable. MiCA excludes admission to trading; the anti-money-laundering regulation forbids the provider from keeping an account holding such assets at all. From July 2027, therefore, even the mere custody of XMR at an authorised European service provider would be ruled out, not only trading.

What that means for holdings on a platform

Anyone whose XMR still sits with a provider authorised in the EU should plan for July 2027 as the outer limit. Experience from the Kraken case shows what the sequence typically looks like: first a halt to trading and deposits, then a withdrawal window of a few weeks, then the forced conversion into another coin. How long that window is, the provider decides.

Which routes to XMR are left, and what is risky about them

Three routes remain that work technically. All three have drawbacks that an authorised trading venue would not have.

Exchanges without EU authorisation. Platforms outside the EU continue to carry XMR, KuCoin among them in our count. A provider without a licence may not, however, actively approach customers in Germany. For you that means: no deposit protection, no supervisor you can call, and in a dispute a place of jurisdiction that is a long way off. On top of that, a euro deposit is usually not possible at all, so you have to buy Bitcoin or a stablecoin elsewhere first anyway. How to recognise a provider authorised in the EU is set out in the overview of regulated crypto exchanges.

Atomic swaps. Here two parties exchange Bitcoin for Monero directly, secured by the two blockchains themselves, without anyone holding the coins in between. That works, but it is markedly more error-prone than buying on an exchange: you need suitable software, you have to operate both wallets correctly, and the rates often sit noticeably away from the market price because liquidity is thin. An aborted swap can leave funds temporarily locked.

Decentralised exchanges without custody. Here users trade among themselves and the software merely brokers. There is no central body keeping accounts, and therefore nobody to make good a mistake. Pricing hangs on individual counterparties, and protection against fraud is limited to whatever collateral the software holds.

What is in no case a solution: a provider who promises you a purchase without any identity check and demands payment up front. For years, operators of fraudulent sites have exploited precisely the gap a delisting leaves behind, and BaFin publishes consumer notices on this on a rolling basis. Before every transfer, check whether the provider appears in a public register.

For tax, swapping into XMR is a sale of your Bitcoin

Anyone who gets to Monero via an atomic swap or a foreign exchange generally triggers a taxable event first. Swapping Bitcoin into Monero counts as a disposal of the Bitcoin. If less than twelve months lie between their acquisition and the swap, the gain is taxable under the rules for private disposals; it remains tax-free if the total gain from such transactions in the calendar year is below €1,000.

A holding period of its own, of one year, then begins for the XMR received. The documentation is harder than usual here, because outside authorised platforms no statement is produced that the tax office knows. Record the date, the amount and the euro equivalent of every swap yourself, and keep the counterparty's receipts. There are tax tools and portfolio trackers for this that can also read in wallet addresses.

Custody: why your own wallet matters more with XMR than with Bitcoin

With most coins, self-custody is a question of caution. With Monero a second reason is added, which follows from the two provisions above: every authorised custodian in the EU will sooner or later have to give up XMR. A holding in your own wallet is unaffected, because no service provider keeps an account there.

Technically, Monero is more wilful than Bitcoin. The official wallet has to reconcile the blockchain with a node of its own or connect to someone else's node; in the second case the operator of that node sees when you synchronise. There is also the so-called view key, which allows incoming payments to be inspected without money being movable with it. Anyone who passes it on, to a tax adviser for instance, grants a view of incoming payments without giving up control. Which classes of device are candidates for custody and how they differ is set out in the hardware wallet comparison.

The network side carries on independently of the exchanges

The fact that trading in Europe is falling away does not mean the project is standing still. On October 5, 2026 a fork went live on the test network to trial a new cryptographic procedure, which we placed in context the day before. For the question of where you can buy XMR that changes nothing; for judging the project, it does.

What happens if you do nothing at all

For holdings on a European platform, waiting is the most expensive option. You leave the timing of the conversion, and with it the price at which it is settled, to the provider. A forced conversion into Bitcoin also triggers the same thing for tax as a voluntary swap, namely a disposal of your XMR, with all the consequences for the holding period, and you only find out afterwards.

For holdings in your own wallet, by contrast, there is no pressure to act from the two provisions. There only what applies anyway applies: backing up the recovery words, a tested recovery route and documentation of the purchase data for tax.

Buying Monero: Your next three steps

1. Check where your XMR sits today. Everything held with a provider authorised in the EU has an expiry date that bites by July 2027 at the latest. Which providers hold a licence at all is shown by the exchange comparison.
2. Set up custody before you buy. Without a working wallet and a recovery route you have tested once, every route to buying is the wrong one. The differences between the classes of device are set out in the hardware wallet comparison.
3. Document every swap on the same day. Date, amount, euro equivalent and the counterparty. Outside authorised platforms no statement is created that does this for you; tax tools and portfolio trackers help with it.

(As of October 5, 2026. This article is not investment advice. Prices and fee structures change; check the terms with the provider before you buy.)

On Monday, October 12, 2026, the petitions committee of the German Bundestag will debate the tax holding period for crypto assets in public from 12 noon. The sitting is not a closed deliberation: anyone who wants to attend can register until Friday, October 9, at 12 noon, and anyone who misses that can follow the date via livestream. Nothing is decided on that Monday. What happens there is nonetheless the last dated point at which something can move in public before the cabinet takes up the matter on October 14.

This article sorts out three things: what exactly is on the agenda on October 12, what petition 201716 demands, and what the planned cutoff date of December 31, 2026 means for holdings that already sit in a portfolio or in a self-custodied wallet today.

The petitions committee debates the crypto holding period on October 12 from 12 to 2 pm

The German Bundestag has set the date and published it itself. The petitions committee will deliberate two petitions in succession in a public committee sitting. At 12 noon the item in question is the one the agenda words as “income tax – preservation of the tax holding period for private disposals of crypto assets”. At 1 pm a second, substantively unrelated item on animal testing follows. The slot runs from 12 to 2 pm, which leaves around an hour for the crypto item.

The venue is committee room 3.101 in the Marie-Elisabeth-Lüders-Haus in Berlin. In the sitting, the petitioners have the opportunity to present their case briefly and to explain it in response to questions from committee members. The most important sentence of the announcement for investors is a different one: representatives of the federal government will be available to answer questions from members of parliament. The government therefore has to speak publicly and on the record about the holding period two days before its own cabinet session. All the details are set out in the petitions committee's announcement on bundestag.de.

Petition 201716: what 44,439 co-signatories demand of the Bundestag

The petition carries the number 201716 and calls for the one-year holding period for private disposals of crypto assets to be preserved. It is therefore aimed directly at the plan to tax gains on crypto assets in future regardless of how long they were held.

A public petition to the Bundestag needs a quorum, meaning a minimum number of co-signatures within the signing period, for the committee to deliberate it in a public sitting. That threshold stands at 30,000 signatures. According to BTC-ECHO, the quorum was reached a good day after public signing opened; the final count was 44,439 co-signatures. The petition text itself and the course of the discussion are hosted by the Bundestag on its portal for public petitions under number 201716.

The signing period closed on September 15. What would come next we left open in our article on the end of the signing period, because at the time the committee had not yet set a date. The Bundestag's announcement now closes that gap.

Holding period under Section 23 EStG: the classification in one sentence

The holding period is the span between acquisition and sale after which a gain on privately held assets remains tax-free. For crypto assets held privately it is one year under current law, governed by Section 23 of the German Income Tax Act on private disposals. Anyone who holds Bitcoin or another crypto asset for more than twelve months and then sells pays no income tax on the gain. Anyone who sells earlier pays tax on the gain at their personal income tax rate, once the threshold for private disposals is exceeded.

It is precisely this mechanism that is up for disposal. If the period falls, the moment of sale no longer counts for tax purposes: a gain would then be taxable regardless of whether the position was held for two weeks or six years. For holders with a long-term horizon that is the real cut, not the level of the tax rate.

Registration by October 9 at 12 noon: how to get into the committee room

Interested members of the public and media representatives can register with the secretariat of the petitions committee by October 9, 2026, 12:00, giving their name and date of birth. Registration runs via the address vorzimmer.peta@bundestag.de.

Two points of the announcement are easily skimmed over. First: if capacity is exceeded, places are allocated solely on the basis of when the registration arrived. Anyone who wants to be there has to be early, not merely on time. Second: a valid identity card is required for admission, and the police at the German Bundestag carry out a reliability check on registered guests. The data submitted for this – surname, first name and date of birth – is deleted or destroyed after the visit.

Media representatives additionally require accreditation to enter the Bundestag buildings. Unauthorised photography and recording, for instance with a mobile phone, is not permitted; mobile phones are to be switched off in the committee room.

Livestream and parliamentary television: where to watch the sitting

Anyone who lets the registration deadline pass, or does not want to travel to Berlin, misses nothing of substance. The sitting will be broadcast live online at bundestag.de and on the German Bundestag's parliamentary television channel. The recording will then be made permanently available on the Bundestag's pages.

In practice that means: the livestream is enough for everyone who only wants to know what the federal government's representatives answer to specific questions. The permanent recording is the underrated part. Anyone unable to follow the sitting on Monday lunchtime will find the statements verifiable later in the same place, in their exact wording rather than in a summary.

What the finance ministry's draft bill says

A draft bill is a piece of draft legislation from the working level of a ministry. It first goes to associations and interest groups for comment, then the cabinet takes it up, and only a resolution by the Bundestag and the Bundesrat turns it into applicable law. At this stage, therefore, nothing is binding.

In substance, the finance ministry's draft provides for crypto assets held privately to be assigned in future to income from capital assets under Section 20 of the German Income Tax Act. With that shift the one-year holding period falls away, because Section 23 with its speculation period no longer applies. Gains would instead be charged the flat-rate withholding tax of 25 percent, plus the solidarity surcharge and, where applicable, church tax. The consultation of associations rested on a tight timetable: comments were only possible until October 6. The draft's path to the cabinet is set out in our analysis of the cabinet date.

For placing October 12 in context, it matters that the petition and the draft bill are two separate routes. The committee deliberates a request to the Bundestag. The ministry runs a legislative procedure in parallel. The two only meet in parliament, and parliament is not yet up at the time of the sitting.

Grandfathering and the December 31, 2026 cutoff date

The point on which most hangs for existing portfolios is grandfathering. Under the draft bill, the new taxation is to apply to crypto assets acquired or received after December 31, 2026. For holdings acquired earlier, the provision is that the previous legal position continues to apply, so the one-year holding period is retained for them.

From that follows an inconspicuous but consequential shift: the decisive date is no longer the sale but the acquisition. Anyone who, in case of doubt, cannot show when a holding was acquired will struggle to invoke grandfathering. For purchases via an exchange the date is on the statement; with transfers between wallets, with swaps and with inflows from staking or airdrops, the documentation quickly becomes unwieldy. A portfolio tracker with a tax function brings these moments together while the data can still be retrieved from the exchanges. Why the draft puts the cutoff at the turn of the year in the first place is something we took apart in our analysis of grandfathering.

The sequence remains important: this grandfathering has not been adopted. It stands in a draft that still has to pass the cabinet and parliament, and cutoff dates have been moved before in the legislative process.

Petition procedure: what effect a committee vote has

The right of petition is set out in Article 17 of the Basic Law: everyone may address requests and complaints to the competent authorities and to the legislature. The petitions committee examines such submissions and closes a procedure with a recommendation for a decision by the Bundestag, on which the plenary then rules.

Realistically, that means for October 12: no change to the draft bill follows from the sitting, and a committee vote does not bind the federal government. Anyone counting on the petition to save the holding period overestimates the instrument. What the public deliberation does deliver can be named: the public sitting forces government representatives to answer questions from members of parliament on camera, and it makes those answers permanently verifiable. For judging how firm the ministry's timetable is, that is worth more than any speculation about majorities.

Why the hearing falls two days before the cabinet meets on October 14

The order of the dates produces a dense picture. The starting point was the cabinet decision of July 6, 2026 on the 2027 budget bill, which contained the tax reordering of crypto assets. The petition followed, with signing closing on September 15. In parallel the draft bill went to the associations, whose comment period ran out on October 6. On October 12 the petitions committee deliberates in public; on October 14 the cabinet is to adopt the draft.

Those two days of distance are why the date is more than a parliamentary routine item for investors. After October 14 a cabinet decision exists, and from then on the discussion shifts from the question of whether the holding period falls to the question of what the transitional rules look like. Before October 14, the 12th is the only public occasion on which the government answers for this project.

What investors in Germany can check before December 31

The honest starting position is this: there is no adopted law, and nobody can seriously say in which version the rule will finally appear in the federal law gazette. Something can nonetheless be prepared, and it is precisely what will be needed in every conceivable version.

The first point is the evidence. Under the draft, the moment of acquisition decides whether a holding falls under grandfathering. Anyone whose purchases are spread over several years and several platforms should export the statements and transaction histories now, while the accounts still exist and the data can be retrieved. Exchanges shut down old accounts, switch report formats or drop trading pairs; a history that takes two clicks to pull today can cost a support request in a year's time. Which platforms supply complete tax reports and which only a raw data list is shown in our comparison of crypto exchanges.

The second point is self-custody. Anyone holding assets in a self-custodied wallet has no provider to issue confirmation of acquisition in case of doubt. Here your own documentation carries everything: the purchase receipt from the original exchange, the date and transaction ID of the transfer, the address of the destination wallet. That chain should be complete before it is needed.

The third point is restraint with reallocations driven only by tax. A swap from one crypto asset into another is, for tax purposes, a disposal and a fresh acquisition. Anyone reallocating shortly before a possible cutoff date can destroy precisely the moment of acquisition that matters later. For an individual situation the tax adviser is responsible, not an article; this text is no substitute for tax advice.

Crypto holding period: What to take away

October 12 brings no decision, but the last public exchange before the cabinet. Three steps follow from it:

1. Gather your acquisition dates. Collect all purchases, swaps and inflows with their dates in one place, because the moment of acquisition decides on the planned grandfathering. A tax tool or portfolio tracker takes over the consolidation across several platforms.
2. Pull the evidence from the exchanges. Export your transaction history and tax report and save them locally before accounts or report formats change. Which providers put out usable reports is set out in the exchange comparison.
3. Document self-custodied holdings. For coins in your own wallet there is no provider receipt, so the purchase receipt, transfer date and destination address belong on file together. Which device is suitable for that is shown in our hardware wallet comparison.

And on the Monday itself, the livestream at bundestag.de is enough once the registration deadline has passed on October 9.

(As of October 6, 2026. This article is not investment advice. Prices and fee structures change; check the terms with the provider before you buy.)

Shiba Inu price today: $0.00000578 and €0.00000514

The Shiba Inu price is trading between $0.00000576 and $0.00000578 on the evening of Tuesday, October 6, 2026. In euros that is €0.00000511 to €0.00000514. The range exists because two queries to the same data source sit a few minutes apart, and the market kept moving in between. It is deliberately not smoothed here: with a price that carries six zeros after the decimal point, the last digit decides whole percentage points.

Against the previous day the price is down 2.0 percent in dollars and 2.35 percent in euros. Market capitalisation stands at $3.39 billion, or €3.01 billion, ranking 35th in the overall market. There are 589.24 trillion SHIB in circulation. All market figures in this article come from CoinGecko, as of October 6, 2026.

What stands out on this day is not the move itself, which at two percent stays within the normal range. What stands out is that the same move looks different depending on the currency — right down to the sign in front of it.

Euro to dollar exchange rate: the weekly balance flips the sign

Over seven days the Shiba Inu price is down 0.63 percent in dollars. Over the same period it is up 0.10 percent in euros. The week therefore closes either in the red or in the black, depending on your account currency. The gap of 0.73 percentage points does not come from the crypto market but from the currency market: the euro has weakened against the dollar this week, and every asset quoted in dollars gains in euro terms as a result.

That sounds like a technicality, but it has a concrete consequence. Almost every headline on the SHIB price, every percentage figure in a charting tool and almost every international analysis works in dollars. Your portfolio statement at a German or European provider works in euros. If you read that the price fell over the week while your portfolio shows a small gain, nobody has miscalculated.

Which figure is the right one

Both are correct; they simply measure different things. The dollar figure measures what the market pays for one SHIB. The euro figure measures what your holdings are worth in the currency you use to pay rent, taxes and the weekly shop. For an investment decision in Germany the second figure counts; for a comparison with other crypto assets, the first.

In practice: decide which currency you keep your books in, and stick to it. Anyone who takes whichever figure looks friendlier is measuring success against a moving yardstick and will at some point no longer know whether a position is working. Which currency your provider uses as a reference, and whether it offers a euro pair at all, is set out in its trading terms; a comparison of the terms at the large crypto exchanges shows where SHIB trades directly against the euro and where the route runs via the dollar.

Thirty days, two figures: 6.07 percent in dollars, 9.41 percent in euros

Over thirty days the difference is larger. In dollars the gain is 6.07 percent, in euros 9.41 percent. The gap of 3.34 percentage points is entirely down to the exchange rate. Anyone who bought €1,000 worth on September 6 is up by roughly €94 today; measured in dollars the gain is just under $61. Over a full year the relationship flips: there the dollar figure is down 55.67 percent and the euro figure down 53.88 percent, because the euro moved differently over twelve months than it did over one.

The starting value thirty days ago was therefore around $0.00000545, or €0.00000470. That value is calculated back from today's price and the reported change; nothing about it is estimated. Both numbers matter for the sections that follow, because they mark the point at which the monthly gain would be used up.

Levels on the downside: $0.00000545 and the monthly mark

The first level on the downside is the start of the month at $0.00000545. If the price falls below it, the entire gain of the past thirty days has gone — though in euro terms only at around €0.00000470. The level carries no chart-technical blessing; it is simply the point at which a good month turns into a neutral one.

Below that sits the level that the balance held at trading venues presses on. Our own analysis of October 5, 2026 on Shiba Inu exchange balances put around 88 trillion SHIB on trading venues, a good 15 percent of the circulating supply that can be sold at any time. That is not a sell signal; it is a measure of supply. The more inventory lies within reach, the faster a wave of selling meets fresh supply rather than scarcity.

Levels on the upside: $0.00000582 and the round number at $0.00000600

On the upside the first hurdle is the start of the week at around $0.00000582. As long as the price stays below it, the seven-day balance in dollars remains negative, however friendly the euro figure looks. Only above it do both signs agree again, and that matters more for market perception than it sounds, because most reporting works in dollars.

The next level is $0.00000600. Its weight is psychological: limit orders and alerts cluster at the next round number. From today's level that is about 3.8 percent away. The same holds on the downside for $0.00000550, some 4.8 percent away and close to the monthly mark from the previous section.

Round numbers carry extra weight with SHIB

With a price that carries six zeros after the decimal point there are only a few round numbers, and they lie far apart. Between $0.0000055 and $0.0000060 there is almost nine percent of price movement. With Bitcoin the distance between two round levels would be far smaller. Which means: when the SHIB price takes a round number, the move to get there has almost always been a noticeable percentage jump already.

One cent per SHIB: $5,892 billion in market capitalisation

Price targets for Shiba Inu circulate at remarkable heights, and they can be checked for plausibility in a matter of seconds. The calculation is always the same: circulating supply times target price gives the market capitalisation the market would have to put up.

With 589.24 trillion SHIB in circulation, a target price of $0.00001 produces a market capitalisation of $5.89 billion. That would be a rise of 74 percent and sits within reach. A target price of $0.0001 would produce $58.9 billion, roughly the order of magnitude Solana currently occupies. And the much-quoted one cent would produce $5,892 billion, which is 3.4 times Bitcoin's entire market capitalisation on this day.

Even the old all-time high of $0.00008616 from October 27, 2021 requires around $50.8 billion in market capitalisation at today's supply, and a fifteenfold jump in the price. The price currently sits 93.3 percent below that high, or 93.1 percent in euros. If you read a price target, the best thing to do is run the numbers yourself before adopting it as an expectation.

Trading volume at 2.0 percent of market capitalisation

Over twenty-four hours, SHIB worth $67.85 million changed hands, the equivalent of €60.26 million. Measured against market capitalisation of $3.39 billion that is 2.0 percent. The figure tells you how easily a position changes owner.

For you as a private investor with four- or five-figure amounts, that ratio is uncritical. It becomes relevant in two places: at the euro order book, which at many providers is thinner than the dollar order book, and with market orders outside the main trading hours. A limit order costs nothing extra and fixes the price at which you are willing to trade. With a price whose next decimal place already accounts for one percent, that is no detail.

Contract address on Ethereum: only one token carries the name

SHIB is an ERC-20 token, which means a token on the Ethereum blockchain. An ERC-20 token does not form a network of its own; it is an entry in a contract that runs on Ethereum. CoinGecko's database lists exactly one platform and exactly one contract address for Shiba Inu, namely 0x95ad61b0a150d79219dcf64e1e6cc01f0b64c4ce on Ethereum.

That is why the contract address belongs to the mandatory checks as soon as you buy SHIB outside a large exchange. On decentralised trading venues anyone can create a token and call it Shiba Inu. On other chains there are also bridged variants, economically tied to SHIB but technically a different instrument, carrying an additional bridge risk. Buying at a regulated exchange with a euro pair sidesteps the question; using a wallet means matching the address character by character.

To place the network side: our analysis of October 6, 2026 on the indexing status of Shibarium shows that the project's layer-2 chain is still not fully indexed. For the price of the ERC-20 token that has no immediate consequence; for judging the project, it does.

Holding period under Section 23 EStG: one year and the €1,000 threshold

For investors in Germany there is always a tax question attached to the price, and with a monthly gain it is particularly concrete. Profits from selling crypto assets held privately are private disposals under Section 23 of the German Income Tax Act. If more than one year passes between acquisition and sale, the gain is tax-free. Below that it counts as taxable income and is charged at your personal rate.

On top of that comes the €1,000 threshold per calendar year for the sum of all private disposals. A threshold is not an allowance: if you come in at €1,001, the entire amount is taxable, not just the single euro. With a token where €1,000 buys around 194.6 million units, a position often spreads across many part-purchases, and each part-purchase has its own acquisition date.

That is exactly where most hand-built records fail. Which units count as sold follows a fixed order per wallet, and with hundreds of millions of units across several tranches it is barely traceable without a tool. A tax tool with a portfolio tracker reads in the exchange's transactions and tracks the deadlines tranche by tranche. The tax return stays your job; the bookkeeping does not have to be.

Custody of SHIB: gas fees on every transfer

Because SHIB sits on Ethereum, every transfer from an exchange into your own wallet costs gas fees in ether, not in SHIB. That is the overlooked item with small positions: buy €200 of SHIB and withdraw it, and you pay a fee out of all proportion to the position, one that moves with network load.

No advice to leave holdings on the exchange follows from that. What follows is a sequence: first bring the position to a size at which a transfer is economic, then withdraw, and place the transfer in a quiet phase of the network. If you intend to hold for longer and have the one-year deadline in view anyway, you are better off with your own custody, because the holdings then do not hang on a provider's default risk.

Shiba Inu price: Your next three steps

1. Fix your accounting currency. Decide whether you value your SHIB position in euros or in dollars, and keep to it. The weekly balance today reads minus 0.63 percent in dollars and plus 0.10 percent in euros; switching currency to suit the situation means you are no longer valuing yourself honestly.
2. Enter the levels rather than watching them. Set alerts at $0.00000582 on the upside, where the weekly balance turns in dollars too, and at $0.00000545 on the downside, where the monthly gain would be used up. Both values come from calculating back the reported changes, not from a chart reading.
3. Secure your acquisition dates. Export your exchange's transaction list before you sell anything, and note the acquisition date for each tranche. If you are planning your own custody, choose the wallet by its Ethereum support; the hardware wallet comparison shows which devices display ERC-20 tokens properly.

(As of October 6, 2026. This article is not investment advice. Prices and fee structures change; check the terms with the provider before you buy.)

The US derivatives regulator CFTC did not issue any new rules for leveraged crypto trading on October 5, 2026. It asked questions. The paper that made the rounds on Monday is a consultation: 109 pages, 60 days for comments, not a single binding sentence in it. Many reports read differently on Tuesday, talking about a registration requirement and about a duty to prove reserves. Neither of those appears in the document in that form.

For you as an investor in Germany, that is the more important half of the news. What governs your portfolio, your leverage and your tax return is called MiCA and the BaFin general administrative act, and nothing about that changed on October 5. It is still worth reading the paper, because it shows quite precisely which questions a regulator asks before it allows leveraged crypto trading for retail clients. You can measure your own platform against that list, wherever it is based.

Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking: what the CFTC set in motion on October 5

The Commodity Futures Trading Commission, CFTC for short, is the US supervisor of futures and derivatives markets. On October 5, 2026 it published press release number 9307-26 together with a document under file reference RIN 3038-AF80, which prepares amendments to parts 1, 38 and 39 of title 17 of the US Code of Federal Regulations.

The decisive line is the one missing from most reports. Under “ACTION” the original reads: Advanced notice of proposed rulemaking. An Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, ANPRM for short, is the earliest stage of a US rulemaking procedure: the agency announces that it intends to develop rules and asks for feedback beforehand. Only after that comes the actual draft rule, the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, and only after a second comment round the final rule. Between Monday's paper and an applicable regulation there are therefore at least two further procedural steps.

CFTC chairman Michael S. Selig is quoted in the release as follows: “The American people deserve clarity, reliability and consumer protection in the markets for crypto assets, and the agency is determined to deliver that by bringing transactions in crypto assets into its uniform national regulatory framework.” Elsewhere he calls the project a step meant to prevent rather than to prosecute after the fact, pointing to the collapse of FTX.

What the document expressly does not do, it states itself: it does not set any final rules and it does not create any specific obligations. Without an act of Congress it also does not force anyone to trade crypto assets on a venue registered with the CFTC.

Section 2(c)(2)(D) and the 28-day rule: why leveraged spot trading counts as a future

The legal core is older than any crypto exchange. Section 2(c)(2)(D) of the Commodity Exchange Act covers transactions with retail clients that are offered on a leveraged basis, on margin or with other financing, and it does so expressly even where the offer is not accepted. Such transactions count in principle as futures contracts and therefore have to run on an authorised exchange.

There are exceptions, and one of them matters most to crypto exchanges. A purchase contract drops out if it leads to actual delivery within 28 days. Actual delivery means in this context that the buyer receives the asset in reality and can dispose of it freely, and that control over it does not remain with the dealer. Whether a leveraged crypto platform falls under futures market law has hung on exactly that question for years.

The document describes these exceptions as the only exits from the exchange requirement. It also makes clear how the agency views a case that occurs constantly in practice: if a retail client declines a leverage offer and buys fully paid, the agency's jurisdiction does not automatically fall away on this reading. The transaction remains subject to the law until one of the statutory exceptions applies.

Regulation CTX and Regulation CAM: the two building blocks of the draft

The paper carries two working titles that you will read more often in the coming months. Regulation CTX stands for Crypto Asset Transactions and concerns the transactions themselves, meaning the interpretation of terms such as “offer” and “actual delivery”. Regulation CAM stands for Crypto Asset Market and describes a new cut of trading venue: a sub-category of the Designated Contract Market, the classic US futures exchange.

For this new cut the document lists six blocks of topics on which the agency requests feedback. They concern listing standards for individual crypto assets and their susceptibility to manipulation, position limits, the reporting and retention of trading data, the execution of transactions, operational risks including system security, and finally the custody of client assets.

Those six blocks are the real news. They show what a regulator measures a trading venue against when retail clients are to trade there with leverage. Anyone choosing an exchange today can use the same six points as a grid, even without any agency prescribing them. Which platforms in Germany hold a licence at all is shown in the overview of the best crypto brokers.

Proof of reserves appears in the document as a question, not as a duty

Several reports wrote of a duty to prove reserves. In the document the section sits under the heading “Proof of Reserves”, and it consists of two requests for comment.

The agency first describes current practice: crypto exchanges hold client assets in pooled accounts, so-called omnibus accounts, maintained for the benefit of clients. On this it asks for comments on all risks arising from that custody practice. It then notes that individual market participants have already introduced safeguards for segregated client assets, under which the custodian has an external auditor confirm that the reserves cover all liabilities towards clients. In everyday language that is called proof of reserves. On this too the agency expressly invites proposals on which practices it should take into account.

Between “we request proposals” and “we prescribe” lies about a year and two comment rounds in a US rulemaking procedure. For you that means a published reserve attestation remains a voluntary promise by the exchange for the time being, in the United States as in Europe. MiCA requires authorised crypto service providers to hold client funds and crypto assets separately from their own assets. A published reserve audit by a third party, of the kind the CFTC puts up for discussion, is not required by the European regulation.

No leverage cap in the paper: the margin regime stays open

The most striking blank space concerns the figure everyone looks for first. The document names an upper limit for leverage nowhere.

Instead it describes a model: the new trading venue is to allow retail clients to obtain financing from a suitable provider, an eligible leverage provider. The terms of that financing are to be set out in the venue's rulebook, following the principle that a futures exchange must inform accurately about its terms. The document lists what would have to be governed there: purchase price, margin requirements, collateral, fees and financing costs, procedures for forced liquidation and disclosures to clients.

How high the margin requirements turn out, the agency leaves open. It places two paths side by side: the existing mechanism in which the clearing house sets the rates, or a stricter approach in which the agency sets requirements itself. It asks whether the determination should be delegated to the self-regulatory National Futures Association, as already happens with foreign exchange dealers, and how quickly rates could be adjusted in periods of stress.

One point deserves particular attention because it makes the difference in liquidations. The agency asks whether certain crypto assets should be excluded as collateral, and names as a possible criterion a minimum market capitalisation and a minimum trading volume, so that the asset survives a sale under stress. Anyone who posts a thinly traded position as collateral today already carries exactly that risk, only without a rule. How forced liquidations run on derivatives platforms is explained in the overview of the best perp DEX.

A 60-day comment period: when the clock starts running

At the place where the deadline will be stated, the document still carries a placeholder line: comments must be received within 60 days of publication in the Federal Register, the official gazette of the US federal agencies. The press release of October 5 therefore does not start the period yet.

Submissions go through the Regulations.gov portal, or alternatively by post to the agency in Washington. Comments must be written in English or include an English translation, and they are published unreviewed, including any personal details someone writes into them. The procedure is open to everyone, including filers from Europe.

In practical terms for the timetable: the deadline will not expire before December 2026, after which comes the evaluation, then the actual draft rule with a further comment round. Anyone who reads in reports that a new framework for leveraged trading now applies in the United States is reading something that can be true in 2028 at the earliest.

What the US framework changes for investors in Germany

Today, nothing. A Crypto Asset Market would be a US trading venue under US supervision, and retail clients from Germany generally cannot open an account there anyway. The market reaction also failed to appear: bitcoin traded at $85,698 at around 6:50 pm German time on October 6, 2026, roughly half a percent above the previous day, according to CoinGecko price data. How the levels have developed since then is covered in the bitcoin price prediction.

Indirectly the matter is relevant all the same. Large trading venues do not build their rulebooks country by country but once, and then adapt them. If a US regulator enforces listing standards for crypto assets, position limits and external reserve attestations, that reaches platforms serving European clients too. The reverse route has been more common in recent years: European requirements from MiCA became the benchmark because nobody wanted to maintain two products in parallel.

MiCA, the BaFin general administrative act and the limits for retail clients in Germany

Anyone betting on crypto assets with leverage in Germany moves within two separate sets of rules, and many people confuse them. Trading in crypto assets itself falls under the European MiCA regulation, which makes crypto service providers subject to authorisation and obliges them, among other things, to segregate client assets. Which duties that brings for providers is broken down in the overview of the MiCA licence.

Leveraged trading via contracts for difference, by contrast, falls under securities law. Here the BaFin general administrative act of July 23, 2019 applies. It prohibits the marketing, distribution and sale of contracts for difference to retail clients in Germany unless four conditions are met: a guaranteed initial margin protection, which the regulator itself describes as a leverage limit, a mandatory margin close-out protection, a mandatory negative balance protection, called a ban on additional payment obligations by BaFin, and a ban on bonus incentives. The negative balance protection is the part that saves your assets in an emergency: with a supervised provider you cannot lose more than the capital you put in.

The leverage limit is tiered by underlying asset class, and crypto assets sit in the strictest tier. An assessment of October 2, 2026 on cryptoticker.io on the classification of perpetual futures puts that tier at leverage of 2:1 and explains why perpetual futures contracts run in the same direction. Between that 2:1 and what platforms without a European licence offer lies the real difference, and you should know about it before opening any position.

Spot or derivative: the holding period under section 23 EStG splits the tax paths

The difference between a directly held coin and a leveraged derivative on it is above all a tax matter in Germany, and it turns out considerably larger than most people expect.

If you buy a coin and hold it in custody, the sale is a private disposal under section 23 of the German Income Tax Act. After one year of holding the gain stays tax-free, below that your personal tax rate applies, and there is an exemption limit. If you instead trade a derivative on the same coin, such as a contract for difference or a perpetual futures contract, the result lands in investment income under section 20 of the German Income Tax Act. There is no holding period there and no tax exemption after a year, but there is the separate tax rate and its own rules for offsetting losses.

This split has an unpleasant side effect. Anyone who hedges a spot position via a derivative shortly before the one-year deadline expires may destroy that deadline, depending on how the hedge is structured. This is no edge case but the most frequent error in mixed portfolios. A tool that keeps both pots cleanly apart is half the battle; the comparison of crypto tax tools gives an overview. For the assessment of an individual case there is no way around tax advice.

Offshore platforms remain the real gap

The CFTC paper describes a trading venue that places itself under federal supervision voluntarily. It obliges nobody to do so as long as Congress passes no law. That is exactly where the problem sits which neither Washington nor Brussels has solved so far.

A platform without a licence in the European Union and without registration in the United States is subject to neither set of rules. There is no negative balance protection there, no leverage limit, no duty to segregate client assets and no supervisor you can turn to. Double-digit to triple-digit leverage is everyday business there. BaFin maintains the list of authorised providers itself, and it can be read through in a few minutes; that look costs less time than any attempt to unwind a trade.

That the CFTC puts listing standards, susceptibility to manipulation and reserve attestations at the front of its paper is in that sense an indication of which three questions a regulator considers the riskiest. You can put them to your platform before an agency does.

Leveraged trading: How to proceed now

1. Clarify the licence. Check whether your provider holds a MiCA authorisation or an investment services licence for contracts for difference in the European Union. Without either, neither negative balance protection nor a leverage limit applies to you. The comparison of the best crypto brokers offers an entry point to the provider landscape.
2. Work through the liquidation logic. Have your platform's rulebook show you at which price a position is closed, which collateral is recognised and which financing costs accrue per day. Those are exactly the points the CFTC puts up for discussion in its paper. How this looks on derivatives platforms is shown in the overview of the best perp DEX.
3. Separate the tax pots. Keep spot holdings and derivatives separate so that the one-year deadline under section 23 EStG stays documentable. Which programmes manage that without manual work is covered in the comparison of crypto tax tools.

The key points in brief

The CFTC opened a consultation on October 5, 2026, it did not issue a rule. The document runs to 109 pages and the comment period is 60 days from publication in the Federal Register. It names no upper leverage limit, and the reserve attestation appears in it as a question. For investors in Germany, MiCA and the BaFin general administrative act of July 23, 2019 remain decisive, and for tax purposes section 23 EStG still separates the directly held coin from the derivative.

(As of October 6, 2026. This article is not investment advice. Prices and fee structures change; check the terms with the provider before you buy.)

Sources: CFTC, press release 9307-26 of October 5, 2026 and BaFin, general administrative act on contracts for difference of July 23, 2019.

Ripple plans to use XRP as collateral for short-term payment credit from 2027. The technology for that does not sit in a contract but in the protocol of the XRP Ledger, and there it has not been approved yet. The amendment responsible for it, LendingProtocolV1_1, stood at 14 of 35 validator votes on Tuesday afternoon. Twenty-eight are needed. Two other updates, by contrast, are on the verge of activation. For any XRP forecast that means a clear split: the calendar for the next 72 hours is reliable, the credit plan is not.

XRP price today: $1.50 and €1.34 on Tuesday evening

XRP traded at $1.5024 and €1.3351 on Tuesday evening, measured against the closing prices of the XRP/USD and XRP/EUR pairs on Kraken. Over the preceding 24 hours the range in dollars ran between $1.4869 and $1.5238, in euros between €1.3280 and €1.3535. The daily gain is therefore less than one percent, and anyone who looks at the chart without the numbers beside it sees a sideways move.

Over a longer horizon the picture is more mixed. According to CoinGecko market data, XRP stood 0.74 percent above the previous day on Tuesday, 2.64 percent below its level a week earlier and 6.7 percent above its level 30 days ago. Market capitalisation was around $94.6 billion, trading turnover over the past 24 hours around $1.54 billion. That leaves the price almost 59 percent short of the all-time high of $3.65 reached on July 17, 2025.

The weekly comparison within the large tokens puts that in context. Bitcoin gained 2.46 percent over seven days and Solana 0.41 percent, while Ethereum lost 0.24 percent and Dogecoin 0.04 percent. At minus 2.64 percent, XRP sits at the bottom of that group. This is no slump, but it is the weakest week among the six most searched tokens, and it explains why attention has moved away from the chart towards what is happening inside the protocol.

Ripple's credit plan: XRP as collateral in lending pools from 2027

At the XRP Seoul event on October 3, 2026, Ripple president Monica Long said, according to matching reports from the conference, that Ripple is preparing a credit service. Customers are to be able to pledge XRP deposited in lending pools as collateral in order to finance short-term payment obligations. The launch is planned for 2027, with a pilot on the decentralised exchange of the XRP Ledger running before it. The statement comes from the event and not from a mandatory company filing, so it is a declaration of intent and not a date.

A lending pool is a shared pot into which several holders deposit the same token and from which borrowers draw against collateral and interest. The difference from the payment business so far is considerable. In a bridge payment a service provider holds XRP for seconds, after which the token is free again. As credit collateral it is tied up for the full term of the loan. That is exactly where the economic expectation hangs that some market participants attach to the plan.

Anyone who wants to test that expectation measures it against the size of the market. At a daily turnover of around $1.54 billion, substantial amounts would have to be locked up permanently before any of it shows up in the price. A comparison helps: the Nasdaq vehicle approach we covered in the Evernorth treasury with 473 million XRP ties up tokens permanently and is still only one building block among many. A declaration of intent for 2027 is a weaker building block than a balance sheet that has already been filled.

The lending amendment in the XRP Ledger: 14 of 35 validators, 28 are needed

An amendment is a rule change to the XRP Ledger that the validators of the network vote on before it applies. A validator is a server that checks transactions and confirms blocks; the jointly evaluated default list currently covers 35 such servers. For an amendment to pass it needs the approval of 80 percent of that list, which means 28 votes, and it needs that majority continuously for two weeks.

The voting status for the credit technology is clear and sobering. LendingProtocolV1_1, introduced with version 3.4.0 in September, stood at 14 votes on Tuesday. The older LendingProtocol reached 17, the accompanying SingleAssetVault 19. None of these three amendments has ever reached the majority, so no two-week clock is running either. Even if all three crossed the threshold tomorrow, the earliest activation would be two weeks after that.

Batch and Permission Delegation: October 8 and October 9 are in the calendar

While the credit technology lags far behind, three other amendments are close to the finish line. Permission Delegation, in its patched version PermissionDelegationV1_1, allows an account to hand narrowly defined signing rights to another account without giving up control of the key. Batch, as BatchV1_1, bundles several transactions into a single operation that is either carried out in full or not at all. Both returned with version 3.3.0 after earlier versions had been pulled from the vote over security flaws.

All times in this table are German time, and they are lower bounds rather than appointments. The network activates an amendment at the first ledger close after the deadline has expired, and that can shift by minutes. We have already broken down the sequence of these three activations in the XRP price prediction on the XRPL updates from October 8; the voting status has not turned since.

The two-week rule in the XRP Ledger: 80 percent of validators, 14 days in a row

The mechanism behind it is the reason these dates can be predicted at all. When an amendment reaches 80 percent approval for the first time, the network records that moment. From then on a two-week deadline runs. If approval falls below the threshold during that time, the record is deleted and counting starts again from the next majority. That is the one way in which the dates on October 8 and 9 can still move.

How thin that buffer is depends on the individual amendment. fixBatchV1_2 carries all 35 votes and therefore has seven votes of room. BatchV1_1 sits two above the threshold with 30 votes, PermissionDelegationV1_1 exactly one with 29. With Permission Delegation a single operator withdrawing approval is enough to reset the clock to zero. This is not a hypothetical risk: these two functions in particular were pulled from the vote in earlier versions after security findings.

You can look up this status yourself, and it is the most useful check this article offers. The public amendment overview in the XRPL explorer shows the vote count, the threshold and the time of the majority for each amendment. Anyone who looks on Wednesday evening and still sees 29 votes at PermissionDelegationV1_1 knows the activation is on track. If the number drops to 27, the date is off the table.

Supply and demand: locked XRP in pools against $1.54 billion in daily turnover

The bridge from the protocol to the price is shorter than it looks and at the same time weaker than the headlines suggest. Batch lowers costs and the risk of error for transactions that belong together, and Permission Delegation makes third-party custody cleaner to model. Both are infrastructure for institutional users. Neither of them locks a single XRP out of circulation.

The credit plan would do exactly that, which is why the economic expectation hangs on it and not on the two updates of this week. Work through the order of magnitude: at around $1.54 billion in daily turnover, one percent of the daily volume comes to roughly $15 million. For a permanent lock-up of tokens to become visible in the price, it would have to reach a multiple of that figure and stay there. Volumes of that size do not come out of a pilot.

Anyone looking for yield on existing holdings should also compare the terms before depositing tokens anywhere. Which platforms offer which payouts and which lock-up periods is something we have set side by side in our comparison of staking and yield platforms. Every form of lending trades availability for return, and when you lend you also carry the default risk of the counterparty.

XRP price prediction: the levels analysts name for October 2026

Price targets belong to those who set them, not to this editorial team. A technical assessment by Coin Edition from September 30 sees XRP above $1.37 in a narrowing triangle and names $1.65 as a first and $1.70 as a second target. The same analysis lists $1.51, $1.65 and $1.70 as resistances and $1.46, $1.37 and $1.31 as supports; the apex of the triangle sits at around $1.60 towards the end of October. Other model calculations, such as the average values compiled by 24/7 Wall St., are considerably lower with a range of $1.12 to $1.16.

That spread is the result, not the error. Between $1.12 and $1.70 lie around 52 percent, and smoothing it over conceals the uncertainty instead of showing it. What can be documented are the levels from trading itself: $1.4869 as the daily low, $1.5238 as the daily high, and below those the round number of $1.50, at which the price has turned several times since the end of September.

For the coming days the only hard metronome is the calendar of the protocol. If Permission Delegation and Batch go live as calculated, the XRP Ledger gains two functions that institutional users have been asking for over a long period. If the activation fails to happen because an operator drops out, that is the more tangible piece of news, and the worse one.

Holding period and tax: one year of holding, a €1,000 exemption limit

For investors in Germany the tax framework is often a bigger lever than any price target. Crypto assets held as private assets fall under private disposals under section 23 of the German Income Tax Act. The holding period is one year: anyone who holds XRP for more than twelve months and then sells realises a tax-free gain. Within that period the gain is taxable at the personal income tax rate.

On top of that comes the exemption limit of €1,000 per calendar year. An exemption limit is not an allowance. If the sum of all gains from private disposals in the year comes to €999, it stays untaxed; if it comes to €1,001, the entire amount is taxable and not only the euro above the line. Anyone who has already realised gains this year works out where they stand before the next sale.

In practice that means two things. First, you need the date and the purchase price for every additional buy, otherwise the period cannot be documented later on. Second, swapping XRP for another token also counts as a disposal, not only the sale into euros. Anyone who has bought several tranches at different prices cannot avoid keeping clean records; the common tax tools and portfolio trackers read in the trading data from the exchanges and allocate the tranches on a first-in, first-out basis.

Buying route and custody in Germany: licence, exchange or your own wallet

Since the European regulation on markets in crypto assets came into force, service providers addressing customers in the EU need authorisation as a crypto-asset service provider. In Germany, BaFin supervises these providers. For you that is above all a selection criterion: before buying, check whether the provider can show authorisation for the German market, and compare the trading costs before you place an order. The fee models differ more than the prices themselves, and when trading small amounts the spread often weighs more heavily than the stated order fee.

Two routes part ways when it comes to custody. If you leave XRP on the exchange, you hold a claim against the company rather than the token itself. If you hold it yourself, you hold the private key and carry the responsibility for securing it. On the XRP Ledger one peculiarity is added that many only notice on their first transfer: every account must keep a minimum reserve in XRP that cannot be spent as long as the account exists. Check the current reserve value before you try to withdraw a remaining balance in full.

Permission Delegation touches exactly this area, even if at first glance it looks like pure institutional plumbing. The function makes it possible to hand over individual rights on an account in a targeted way, for example the right to sign one particular type of transaction. Service providers can use it to build custody models that today either do not work at all or work only with full access to the key. For self-custodians nothing changes for the time being.

The counter-check: three points that can slow the plan down

First, the vote. Without LendingProtocolV1_1 and the associated vault amendments there are no lending pools on the XRP Ledger into which Ripple could deposit anything. At 14 of 35 votes the threshold of 28 is not within reach, and the two-week deadline only begins after it has been crossed.

Second, the timeline. An announcement for 2027 leaves more than a year of room for market conditions, regulation and business decisions. Ripple has announced products in the past whose scope had shifted by the time they launched; a declaration of intent from a stage is not a commitment with a date.

Third, the order of magnitude. For locked tokens to carry the price, they would have to matter in relation to daily trading volume. A pilot on a decentralised exchange moves in a different league to begin with. That is no argument against the plan, but it is an argument against the expectation that it will work quickly.

XRP price prediction: How to proceed now

1. Look up the voting status and get your buying route ready. Open the amendment overview of the XRPL explorer before October 8 and note the votes at PermissionDelegationV1_1 and BatchV1_1. If they stay at 29 and 30, the deadlines keep running. If you want to trade afterwards, compare spread and order fee first in the overview of crypto exchanges, because with a daily range below three percent the side costs weigh in noticeably.
2. Set out your holding period and your annual gain. Pull together the purchase date and the purchase price for each tranche and check where you stand against the €1,000 exemption limit for the current year. The tax tools and portfolio trackers in comparison allocate the tranches on a first-in, first-out basis.
3. Do the maths on the terms before you lend. If the credit idea appeals to you, read the lock-up periods and the default rules before you deposit tokens. The terms of the staking and yield platforms sit side by side in the comparison, and on the XRP Ledger itself there is no pool at all until the lending amendment is activated.

(As of October 6, 2026. This article is not investment advice. Prices and fee structures change; check the terms with the provider before you buy.)

Google's new image model, Nano Banana 2.1, is live. It costs about half as much as its predecessor, but the performance claims come from Google's own tests.

Nothing in Circle's posts announces a sponsorship, but replies dug up Khaled's 2018 SEC settlement over a crypto fraud he promoted. The internet never forgets.

A developer posted metadata for about 5.6 billion public TikTok videos, scraped through the app's private API in a way TikTok's terms prohibit. The free dataset also doubles as a storefront.

Abstract will shut down Dec. 15, saying a chain focused solely on consumer crypto proved unsustainable, and is urging users to bridge their assets off before then.

The payments firm alleges Tether froze its treasury wallet on its own initiative over a Brazilian investigation it has no connection to—and has profited from the reserves while refusing to release the funds for more than a year.

NEAR has emerged as one of the crypto market's strongest-performing major altcoins, climbing from around $1.80 in early September to above $5 as ETF demand and AI-related developments strengthen the bullish narrative.

The Winklevoss twins have filed to launch a spot Zcash ETF.

Ripple has joined Circle, Qube Research & Technologies and Standard Chartered’s SC Ventures in backing crypto exchange OKX at a $25 billion valuation.

XRP Ledger beats Ethereum in commodity tokenization growth, capturing $2.2B in year-to-date inflows.

Wintermute reports the crypto bull cycle is early, explaining why top alts like NEAR, XRP, and ARB have suddenly stalled.

TLDR:

• Cardano market cap is up 42% since September 16, with ADA moving from about $0.19 to $0.27. 
• Whale transactions above $100K reached 413 in a single day, the highest count since June 4. 
• ADA open interest rose about 25% to $304M in two days, its highest daily close since at least April.
• Giannis Andreou says reclaiming $0.32 to $0.40 would strengthen ADA’s recovery case, with $0.426 next. 

The ADA rally has drawn large holders back to Cardano, with market capitalization up 42% since September 16. On-chain data shows 413 transactions worth at least $100,000 on a single day.

That is the highest count since June 4. Social dominance for the token also reached 1.16%, its highest level of 2026.

Price moved from roughly $0.19 to $0.27 during the period. Meanwhile, new project launches and upcoming integrations have kept the network in focus.

Whale Activity and Social Interest Climb

Santiment Intelligence reported the figures in a post on X. The firm said the 42% run has whales moving again. It added that whale transactions of $100,000 or more reached 413 in one day. Activity at that level had not appeared since June 4.

Retail interest also grew during the ADA rally. Social dominance for ADA reached 1.16%, the highest reading of 2026. The crowd arrived suddenly, according to Santiment. The firm tied the attention to the price move from about $0.19 to $0.27.

Project news added to the discussion. RealFi launched on Cardano mainnet on October 1. In addition, anticipation around Leios, Fireblocks support, and new institutional integrations drove the biggest discussion spike of the year. Santiment listed these items as the likely drivers behind the surge in attention.

Open Interest Data Challenges the Short Squeeze Claim

Some coverage described the ADA rally as a short squeeze, citing falling open interest. Santiment published a second post to test that claim. Its daily closing data shows the opposite.

ADA rose about 10% from October 3 to October 5. Over the same two days, open interest climbed about 25% to $304 million.

That figure is the highest daily close since at least early April. Measured in coins, open interest still rose about 13%. This points to new positioning rather than a higher price alone.

Whale transactions on October 5 ran about 2.2 times the weekday average from September 7 to October 2. Social volume stood near 1.1 times that same baseline.

Funding data adds more detail. It reached its most negative reading of the past month on October 2, then turned positive. Santiment said short covering likely helped the move.

However, covering shrinks open interest instead of growing it. Therefore, the firm treated the ADA rally as fresh leverage entering the market.

Analyst Maps Key Price Levels for ADA

Analyst Giannis Andreou shared a technical view of the ADA rally on X. ADA traded at $0.2644 at the time of his snapshot. Andreou said the price is back where previous cycles found their floor.

He described the token as testing the historical $0.20 to $0.28 band after a bounce from a potential local base.

Andreou noted that the weekly structure still shows lower highs. A reclaim of $0.32 to $0.40, followed by a held retest, would strengthen the recovery case.

The next levels to watch are $0.426 and the $0.55 to $0.65 supply zone. From the snapshot, $0.40 represents roughly 51% upside.

On the downside, a weekly close below $0.20 would bring $0.14 to $0.18 back into focus. A move below $0.14 would invalidate the local base.

Andreou ended his post by asking whether ADA is building a floor. He also asked if the token is preparing for another resistance rejection.

The post Cardano Whale Activity Surges as ADA Market Cap Jumps 42% appeared first on Blockonomi.

TLDR:

• Abstract will shut down on December 15, 2026, and funds not bridged by then will become inaccessible.
• Igloo said it lost tens of millions of dollars over two years while seeking profitability for the chain.
• Users can bridge assets through the Migration Hub or the native bridge, which has a three-hour delay. 
• Igloo will refocus its resources on Pudgy Penguins, Pudgy NFTs and PENGU after the Abstract shutdown.

Abstract shutdown is scheduled for December 15, 2026, according to the chain’s parent company, Igloo. The team cited high operating costs, limited liquidity, a restricted DeFi ecosystem, and weaker market demand.

Igloo said it lost tens of millions of dollars over two years while searching for product-market fit and profitability. Users must bridge their assets off the chain before the deadline. Funds left on the network after that date will become inaccessible.

Why Abstract Is Winding Down

The Abstract team announced the decision in a post on X. “After almost three years, we are saddened to share that Abstract is winding down,” the team wrote. The team said its Portal became an industry benchmark for onchain discovery and distribution.

Abstract said operating a chain focused exclusively on consumer crypto “has ultimately proven to be unsustainable as a standalone model.”

Growth began to stagnate because of a restricted DeFi ecosystem and thin liquidity. Minimal institutional crossover and a limited budget compared to competitors also played a role.

Abstract said it explored several options over the last 12 months. The goal was to find product-market fit and help the chain scale. However, the team said the chain landscape had changed radically, and it faced serious headwinds.

The Abstract shutdown followed a choice between two options. The team could keep spending resources on an unsustainable chain, or it could shut the network down. After extensive deliberation, the team agreed that “the best path forward was to wind down the chain.”

Migration Steps and Igloo’s Next Focus

Users can move funds through the Migration Hub at migrate.abs.xyz. They can also use the native bridge at native-bridge.abs.xyz.

The native bridge carries an expected delay of three hours. The Abstract shutdown gives users a fixed window to move funds.

All users have until December 15, 2026, to migrate their assets. The team stated that users who miss the date “will lose access to their funds.”

Abstract also urged users to “beware of impersonation, fake migration sites, and DMs claiming to represent Abstract.” It advised using only the official link and cross-checking it with Discord and other official channels.

Abstract’s engineering and ecosystem team will help Abstract-based projects migrate to other chains. The network had more than 144 unique apps deployed on it.

Abstract Global Wallet also became the most adopted smart contract wallet in crypto, according to the team. The team thanked its partners, builders, and community for their support since the mainnet launch.

Igloo raised over $11 million in a Founders Fund-led round in July 2024. The funding helped establish Cube Labs and support Abstract’s development.

Igloo will now refocus its resources on Pudgy Penguins, Pudgy NFTs, and PENGU. The Abstract shutdown follows two years of losses for the parent company.

The post Abstract Shutdown Set for Dec. 15 as Igloo Reports Tens of Millions in Losses appeared first on Blockonomi.

TLDR

• RCL rises 4.81% as Silversea unveils 103 voyages across 56 countries.
• Silversea adds 29 new ports across Europe, Asia, and the Americas.
• Caribbean deployment includes 38 voyages across 34 destinations.
• Silver Nova will operate a 75-night Grand South America journey.
• Asia expansion adds eight new ports and new turnaround points.

Royal Caribbean Group (RCL) traded at $288.25, up 4.81%, as Silversea unveiled a major global voyage expansion. The luxury cruise brand announced 103 voyages covering 219 destinations across 56 countries for its 2028-2029 collection. The program also adds 29 new ports and expands Royal Caribbean’s reach across several major cruise regions.

Royal Caribbean Cruises Ltd., RCL

Silversea Expands 2028-2029 Global Voyage Collection

Silversea will operate the new program from September 2028 through May 2029 across Europe, Asia, and the Americas. The collection includes Mediterranean, Caribbean, Australia, New Zealand, South America, and Asian itineraries. General sales open October 8, following an earlier preview for Venetian Society members.

The Mediterranean schedule includes 17 voyages aboard Silver Nova and Silver Dawn between October 2028 and March 2029. Those sailings will reach 53 destinations across 12 countries, including new calls at Brindisi and Imperia. Several itineraries will also include overnight stays in Venice, Istanbul, Naples, Genoa, Valletta, and other major destinations.

Silversea is also expanding its S.A.L.T. Culinary Voyages with programs focused on regional food and seasonal travel. Three Wine and Truffle voyages will cross Italy and Spain, while four Asian Markets sailings connect Singapore and Hong Kong. These itineraries include local markets, vineyard visits, food experiences, and chef-led destination programs.

Caribbean and South America Sailings Broaden Royal Caribbean Reach

Silversea will deploy four ships across the Caribbean and Central America between November 2028 and March 2029. Silver Ray, Silver Nova, Silver Spirit, and Silver Shadow will operate 38 voyages across 34 destinations in 21 countries. The season also introduces La Romana in the Dominican Republic as a new port.

Round-trip Caribbean departures will operate from Miami, Fort Lauderdale, and San Juan, adding flexibility across several major embarkation markets. Silversea will also introduce a destination experience at Canouan in St. Vincent and the Grenadines. The program combines a local Carnival-style welcome, live music, food, drinks, and a private beach event.

Silver Nova will also operate a 75-night Grand South America voyage beginning January 13, 2029, from Fort Lauderdale. The itinerary includes the Panama Canal, Antarctic Peninsula scenic cruising, and overnight calls across several major South American cities. The ship will return to Fort Lauderdale on March 29 after completing the continental journey.

Asia and Australia Add New Ports and Seasonal Events

Silversea will expand its Australia and New Zealand schedule with 10 voyages aboard Silver Moon. Those voyages will cover 42 destinations across three countries between October 2028 and March 2029. New stops include Batemans Bay and Phillip Island, while Sydney will host an overnight New Year’s Eve call.

Silver Moon and Silver Muse will also operate 26 Asian voyages between September 2028 and May 2029. The schedule covers 62 destinations across 11 countries and adds eight new ports to Silversea’s regional network. New turnaround points at Kobe and Bali will also expand the available itinerary combinations for guests.

The wider rollout supports Royal Caribbean Group’s broader strategy across cruise brands, destinations, and land-based vacation experiences. Royal Caribbean operates 71 ships through Royal Caribbean, Celebrity Cruises, Silversea, and its TUI Cruises joint venture. The group is also expanding private destinations and plans to enter river cruising with Celebrity River Cruises in 2027.

The post Royal Caribbean Group (RCL) Stock: Surge as Silversea Launches Major Global Voyage Expansion appeared first on Blockonomi.

TLDR

• Ondo Finance introduced Ondo Private Markets, enabling tokenized exposure to pre-IPO companies
• The debut offering tracks an undisclosed artificial intelligence firm preparing for public markets
• These digital notes provide value exposure but exclude equity ownership, voting privileges, or dividend payments
• A British Virgin Islands-based special purpose vehicle issues the securities, separate from the underlying company
• Access is restricted to qualified non-US individuals under SEC Regulation S requirements

Ondo Finance has introduced a new service named Ondo Private Markets. The platform provides pathways for investors to participate in the value growth of private enterprises before they transition to public exchanges.

The inaugural offering consists of a blockchain-based note. Its value tracks an artificial intelligence business whose identity remains undisclosed.

These instruments differ fundamentally from traditional equity. Their performance correlates with the potential valuation of the underlying company’s shares during a future liquidity event rather than granting direct ownership.

Token holders receive no corporate ownership stake. Voting rights and dividend distributions are also absent from this structure.

Structure and Mechanics of the Token Notes

Returns materialize through a “qualifying liquidity event.” Such events include initial public offerings or corporate acquisitions.

Participants maintain custody of the digital tokens in their personal wallets. Secondary market trading operates continuously around the clock without traditional market hour restrictions.

According to Ondo, the initial notes should commence trading within the current week. Additional offerings referencing companies in robotics, cybersecurity, biotechnology, and infrastructure development will follow in subsequent launches.

Ondo Global Markets (BVI) Limited serves as the issuing authority for these financial instruments. This entity operates as a distinct legal structure established in the British Virgin Islands.

This arrangement is significant because purchasers depend on this intermediary entity for payment fulfillment rather than maintaining direct claims against the private company’s actual shares.

Ondo’s pre-existing offering, Ondo Stocks, operates through a different mechanism. That service provides blockchain versions of publicly traded equities and exchange-traded funds supported by authentic securities.

Ondo Stocks currently manages over one billion dollars in total value locked. The platform features access to more than 450 tokenized equities and investment funds.

Eligibility Requirements for Token Purchases

The recently launched private market notes are distributed through SEC Regulation S frameworks. This regulatory pathway limits availability exclusively to qualified individuals residing outside United States borders.

American retail investors face restrictions preventing them from purchasing, maintaining custody of, or redeeming these digital tokens under existing regulations.

Ian De Bode, currently serving as acting leader of Ondo Finance, observed that retail investors predominantly access investment opportunities in publicly traded corporations. He noted that 87 percent of American companies generating over 100 million dollars in annual revenue operate as private entities.

Ondo contends this regulatory landscape excludes numerous technology-focused enterprises developing innovative solutions before pursuing stock exchange listings.

Several other financial institutions have pursued comparable strategies for private company exposure this year. A venture investment vehicle associated with Robinhood allocated 75 million dollars toward OpenAI common stock earlier in the year.

That transaction provided retail investors with indirect participation through a publicly traded investment vehicle.

Citi received media coverage earlier this year regarding development of a blockchain-based marketplace designed for private company equity transactions.

Existing platforms including Hiive and EquityZen currently facilitate private share transactions for accredited investors. Hiive achieved a valuation of 650 million dollars in late 2025. EquityZen operates under Morgan Stanley ownership.

Both platforms encounter operational delays stemming from regulations granting companies rights of first refusal before external share sales proceed.

Ondo asserts its note structure circumvents these constraints through unrestricted transferability on blockchain infrastructures.

The comprehensive market for tokenized real-world assets currently stands near 39 billion dollars in valuation, based on data compiled by tracking platform rwa.xyz.

Ondo intends to broaden its private market note offerings across additional industry sectors throughout upcoming months, beginning with the singular AI-referenced product launching this week.

The post Ondo Finance Opens Platform for Blockchain-Based Private Company Investment Access appeared first on Blockonomi.

TLDR

• Both the S&P 500 and Nasdaq notched fresh all-time highs this week even as the 10-year Treasury yield holds above 5%.
• Corporate earnings are projected to grow more than 30% compared to the prior year, providing support despite elevated borrowing costs.
• Nvidia’s valuation is approaching the $6 trillion mark, propelled by continued investment in artificial intelligence infrastructure.
• Tuesday’s trading session saw gains across every S&P 500 sector, indicating the advance extends well beyond mega-cap technology stocks.
• Market strategists remain divided, with projections ranging from the S&P 500 climbing to 10,000 by 2030 to potentially retreating to 5,000 by 2027.

Financial markets hit new milestones this week despite government bond yields hovering near their highest levels in more than two decades. The S&P 500 and Nasdaq both registered record closes on Tuesday, while the Dow Jones Industrial Average also advanced.

Meanwhile, the benchmark 10-year Treasury yield continues trading above the 5% threshold, recently climbing to levels last witnessed in 2002.

Under typical market conditions, elevated bond yields create headwinds for equity valuations. When Treasury securities offer attractive risk-free returns, investors have less incentive to allocate capital toward volatile stocks. Growth-oriented technology companies generally feel this pressure most acutely.

Yet the current environment is proving different.

Robust Profit Growth Provides Market Support

The primary factor sustaining the equity rally is corporate earnings momentum. Wall Street analysts are forecasting that S&P 500 constituent companies will deliver profit growth exceeding 30% on a year-over-year basis.

Artificial intelligence companies are leading this expansion. Nvidia’s stock price climbed again during Tuesday’s session, bringing the semiconductor giant’s total market capitalization within striking distance of $6 trillion.

Additional chipmakers also posted gains as market participants continue anticipating sustained investment in data center capacity and AI computing resources.

The market’s strength extends well beyond a handful of technology titans. Every one of the S&P 500’s 11 sectors posted advances on Tuesday. Utilities and real estate names performed particularly well as Treasury yields pulled back modestly from recent peaks.

The Significance of Rising Treasury Yields

The 10-year Treasury yield recently climbed to approximately 5.34%, marking its highest reading in roughly 24 years. This increase reflects market concerns about persistent inflation, expanding government debt levels and economic resilience.

Elevated yields present a challenge for equity markets. When investors can secure returns above 5% from government-backed securities, the relative attractiveness of stocks diminishes.

Rising rates also increase financing costs across the economy for corporations, households and government entities. This dynamic particularly affects growth stocks, whose valuations rely heavily on profit projections extending years into the future.

As interest rates climb, the present value of those anticipated future earnings decreases. Until now, powerful earnings growth has been sufficient to offset this valuation pressure.

Some market observers are now questioning whether 6% yields, rather than the current 5% level, might represent the true tipping point where equities face meaningful headwinds.

Expert opinions about the market’s trajectory diverge dramatically. With the S&P 500 trading near 8,000, certain strategists project the index could climb to 10,000 before the decade ends.

Conversely, other analysts paint a more cautious picture. Panmure Liberum recently published research suggesting the S&P 500 might retreat to approximately 5,000 by late 2027 if inflation remains sticky and interest rates stay elevated.

This divergence in professional forecasts underscores the delicate balance characterizing current market conditions.

Market participants will closely monitor upcoming third-quarter earnings releases, Federal Reserve policy signals, inflation readings and Treasury market movements in coming weeks. Continued strong earnings combined with moderating yields could propel the S&P 500 well beyond 8,000.

The greater risk scenario involves disappointing corporate results coinciding with further yield increases.

For the moment, record equity valuations signal that investors maintain confidence that corporate profit growth will continue outpacing the burden of higher financing costs.

The post S&P 500 Defies 5% Treasury Yields With AI-Fueled Rally to New Records appeared first on Blockonomi.

The new federal framework was proposed by the US Commodity Futures Trading Commission for crypto exchanges that offer leveraged trading to retail customers. The move could give US crypto platforms a clearer route to federal oversight at a time when the country still lacks a broad crypto market law.

CFTC Chairman Michael S. Selig announced the proposals on October 5 during remarks at the Fordham Law Blockchain Regulatory Symposium in New York. The agency is seeking public input on proposals covering Regulation Crypto Asset Transactions (CTX) and Regulation Crypto Asset Markets (CAM).

New Federal Path for Leveraged Trading

The framework would be a federal option for crypto exchanges. Platforms would not automatically be forced into the CFTC system. They could continue operating under state licenses if their business model allows it. Exchanges offering certain types of leveraged crypto trading, however, already fall under CFTC registration requirements under existing law.

The CFTC described the crypto market through a three-level structure. Ordinary spot exchanges would remain largely under state money transmission rules, while the CFTC would continue to have anti-fraud and anti-manipulation powers. Exchanges offering retail margin, leveraged, or financed crypto trading would fall into the second category. Platforms offering derivatives such as perpetual contracts would sit in the third category. The new proposals mainly target that second group.

Under the plan, exchanges that only want to offer leveraged crypto transactions could register as a new type of derivatives exchange called a crypto asset market (CAM). Existing CFTC-registered derivatives exchanges could also offer these products under the proposed rules.

The framework would bring several customer protections into the picture. CAMs could face requirements covering market surveillance, financial safeguards, as well as customer funds. The CFTC is also considering proof-of-reserves rules for exchanges holding customer assets in omnibus accounts.

Another major piece involves futures commission merchants (FCMs). These firms would handle customer accounts and funds and would have to follow existing customer protection requirements. Their involvement would also bring anti-money laundering and customer identification rules into the process. The CFTC is looking at how the rules could work with self-custody as well. Under the proposal, crypto assets sent to a customer’s external wallet within 28 days could generally meet the agency’s interpretation of “actual delivery.”

“The framework I have outlined is an important step towards bringing crypto asset markets within the protections of the CEA. It will establish clear rules of the road for firms that want to serve American customers, strengthen the integrity of these markets, and provide a path for responsible innovation to take place here in America.”

On Onchain Finance

Selig also pointed to the agency’s wider interest in onchain finance. He said developers who simply publish software and do not control trades or hold customer assets should not automatically be treated like traditional intermediaries.

The proposal does not create a full federal crypto regime on its own. Congress would still have to decide whether all exchanges should be required to register federally.

The post CFTC Wants Clearer Rules for Leveraged Crypto Trading in Major US Regulatory Push appeared first on CryptoPotato.

Bitcoin treasury companies can give investors greater exposure to the cryptocurrency’s gains, but the amplification works in both directions, according to The Smarter Web Company CEO Andrew Webley.

In a recent interview with BTC advocate Stephen Livera, Webley also warned that unlike Bitcoin itself, these companies depend on management teams whose capital allocation decisions can materially affect shareholder returns.

Bitcoin Exposure Comes With Added Volatility

Webley identified two risks investors need to understand, the first being volatility. Bitcoin is less volatile than it used to be, the CEO conceded, but it still swings more than many assets investors hold, and a treasury company “amplifies that volatility,” and investors cheer that on the way up and mostly dislike it on the way down.

“People don’t like it when I say it, but you can’t have it both ways,” Webley remarked. “You can’t have performance and no volatility.”

The second risk is management execution, which decides whether these companies work or not. According to Webley, executives have numerous decisions to make, particularly around capital structure, and choices that might allow a firm to grow faster could come at the expense of shareholders.

“Bitcoin has no management,” he stated. “A Bitcoin treasury company, the management could really, really mess it up.”

That leaves treasury-stock investors with a choice that Bitcoin holders do not face in the same form: accepting Bitcoin’s volatility while also trusting a management team to make the right financing and accumulation decisions.

Strategy and Strive Show the Trade-Off

The scale of the current treasury operations helps explain why those decisions matter. As CryptoPotato reported yesterday, Strategy bought another 334 BTC for $28.7 million, taking its holdings to 848,000 BTC. The company has spent almost $64 billion accumulating Bitcoin at an average price of $75,441.

On the same day, Strive bought 2,000 BTC for $169 million at an average price of $84,422, bringing its holdings to 29,462 BTC. The company’s CEO Matt Cole argued that his firm can generate greater returns than their bigger rival through a higher amplification ratio, with Strive’s ratio at 51.4%, compared with roughly 25% for Strategy. Cole also projected that Bitcoin could reach $400,000 to $500,000 by late 2029.

At the time of writing, the OG cryptocurrency’s price was still some way from that target. It was rejected at $87,000 on Monday morning after a weak US jobs report had pushed it above that level on Friday for the first time in ten days, but it fell below $84,000 within hours, leaving nearly $600 million in liquidations.

The latest CoinGecko reading has it within touching distance of $86,000, down half a percent in 24 hours but up nearly 7% across 30 days. However, it is still about 32% below its $126,000 all-time high.

The post This Is Why Bitcoin Treasury Companies Can Be Riskier Than BTC appeared first on CryptoPotato.

Analyst Dennis Liu, who posts on X as VirtualBacon, says altcoin season has not started, because the average altcoin is only about 10% ahead of BTC since the primary cryptocurrency’s bottom.

According to him, a handful of strong coins are making the market feel hotter than the data supports.

Most Altcoins Still Trail Bitcoin

Liu’s argument rests on relative performance rather than a few eye-catching rallies. He pointed to the Total 2-to-Bitcoin ratio, which compares the market value of cryptocurrencies other than Bitcoin with BTC, and described the chart as “very flat.”

Since Bitcoin’s bottom, the average altcoin has gained 10% more than BTC, he noted. That is far removed from the kind of broad outperformance associated with previous alt seasons.

The coins that are ahead make a short list. Zcash has done well since the start of the year, while Venice and Quant have also outperformed more recently. The privacy coin is up more than 726% over a year, and Quant jumped 530% within days, from $59 to $370, before settling near $255, but Liu stressed that these are isolated examples.

Not even XRP has outperformed Bitcoin, while Ethereum, Solana and BNB are barely ahead.

“That’s why I say altcoins are actually still very cheap. And we are not confirming a full-on alt season type of scenario yet. We are just barely getting started,” Liu explained.

Asked how far off it was, the analyst answered “nowhere close.”

Bitcoin itself has been stuck. It was rejected at $87,000 on Monday, bounced off $85,000 and has moved sideways between that level and $86,000 since, with a market cap of $1.72 trillion and a nearly 58% share of the total crypto market.

Larger altcoins have been sluggish over 24 hours. ETH holds above $2,700 and XRP sits at $1.50. BNB, Solana, Dogecoin and Chainlink are slightly lower, and RAIN was one of the biggest losers in 24 hours, dropping over 7%, while FIL and ZRO gained 8% and 10%, respectively.

Why Isolated Rallies Can Be Misleading

Liu also warned traders against waiting for Bitcoin to reach a new all-time high before looking at altcoins. He noted that this pattern worked in 2017 and late 2020, but failed in 2024 when Bitcoin broke its previous record while many altcoins continued to lose ground against it. His approach is therefore to trade individual altcoin rallies rather than wait for a broad signal.

In a separate video, the market watcher called $83,000 Bitcoin’s daily pivot, with a break below that possibly sending it toward bull market support at $78,000, while holding above leaves room to move past $87,000.

The post Altcoins Are Rallying, But Analyst Says Alt Season Has Yet to Begin appeared first on CryptoPotato.

OKX announced Tuesday that Circle (CRCL), Ripple, Qube Research & Technologies (QRT), and SC Ventures by Standard Chartered have invested in the exchange at a $25 billion valuation.

The exchange said the round extends the stake NYSE parent Intercontinental Exchange (ICE) took in March, and it described this week’s valuation as pre-money, before counting the new capital.

Each Investor Already Works With OKX

Each of the four firms already supports one layer of its business, from stablecoin issuance to liquidity, collateral, and custody. QRT, a multi-strategy investment manager, is an institutional counterparty that supplies liquidity and risk capacity to the exchange.

Meanwhile, Ripple’s RLUSD stablecoin trades across OKX’s unified order book. RLUSD went live on more than 280 OKX trading pairs in April, including against XRP.

“Our investment reflects our conviction in what they’re building and opens the door to deepen our work together across stablecoins, payments and institutional markets,” said Jack McDonald, SVP of Stablecoins at Ripple.

Standard Chartered’s link runs through BlackRock’s BUIDL tokenized Treasury fund. On April 28, OKX, BlackRock and the bank launched a framework that lets VIP and institutional clients post BUIDL as trading collateral. The bank holds those fund shares in custody off the exchange while the clients trade on OKX Middle East.

Tokenized Stocks and a Dollar App

The round landed two days after OKXICE, the joint venture between OKX and ICE, filed with the SEC to offer 63 tokenized NYSE stocks to US users on October 4. Those tokens must carry the same dividend and voting rights as the underlying shares. Listed companies have 30 days to opt out before trading can begin.

OKX also launched OKX Money on Tuesday, a standalone app for saving, sending and spending dollar stablecoins. OKX Money users can fund accounts in more than 50 currencies and hold USDG, USDC or Tether’s USDT. Qualifying customers can earn up to 10% a year on eligible USDG balances, with no staking or lockup. Those USDG rewards, like the app itself, are available only in select regions for now.

Founder and CEO Star Xu said the new capital will help OKX keep growing and tokenize real-world assets.

“The exchange was our starting point, and we are evolving into a broader global financial technology platform,” Xu said.

The post OKX Adds Circle, Ripple, QRT, and SC Ventures as Investors at $25B Valuation appeared first on CryptoPotato.

XRP is consolidating around $1.50 after a strong rebound from the $1.00 area. The broader structure has improved considerably, but the latest price action suggests that buyers are struggling to push through the overhead resistance zone. The key question now is whether the asset can break the $1.70 resistance, or whether another pullback toward support develops.

Ripple Price Analysis: The USDT Pair

The daily chart shows a major structural recovery from the $1.00 support zone. XRP broke sharply higher in August and subsequently reclaimed both the 100-day and 200-day moving averages. The 100-day MA is now around $1.25, while the 200-day MA is around $1.28, with the 100-day average aggressively approaching the other for a potential bullish crossover. This is a constructive development from a medium-term perspective.

The main resistance is located between $1.60 and $1.70. XRP has already tested this area twice in recent weeks, with the latest attempt in September failing to break out. A daily close above $1.70 would represent a significant structural improvement and could open the door toward the next major resistance around $2. Above that, the next resistance zone sits around $2.40, which coincides with a major high formed early this year.

On the downside, the $1.25-$1.30 region has become particularly important. It contains the 100-day and 200-day moving averages and coincides with a marked demand zone. As long as XRP remains above this support area, the broader recovery structure remains intact. A deeper decline back toward the $1.00 area would become more relevant if this support is decisively lost, which would reverse all the recent gains and put the market under immense pressure once more.

The 4-Hour Chart

The 4-hour chart shows XRP trading inside a tightening structure beneath a descending trendline. The trendline currently acts as dynamic resistance, with XRP repeatedly failing to establish a decisive move above it. At the same time, buyers have continued to defend the green support zone around $1.45, creating a relatively well-defined consolidation range.

The immediate resistance is around $1.70, followed by the significant $2 supply zone. A breakout above the descending trendline and subsequent move through $1.70 would strengthen the bullish case and could bring the $2 level into play.

Conversely, a loss of the $1.45 support zone would weaken the short-term structure. In that scenario, XRP could retrace toward the $1.30 area, which is a clear demand zone that buyers should defend at all costs in the short term. Otherwise, a bearish reversal scenario would materialize, which could once again send XRP back toward the $1 area, and potentially lower this time. Still, the current structure is better viewed as consolidation, with a higher probability of a bullish breakout, rather than a bearish reversal forming.

The post Ripple Price Analysis: Is XRP Consolidation Almost Over as the Range Tightens? appeared first on CryptoPotato.