OpenAI's watermarking initiative may set a precedent for global AI transparency standards, influencing practices beyond the EU's jurisdiction.

The post OpenAI adds optional text watermark API feature to meet EU AI Act rules appeared first on Crypto Briefing.

The token migration signifies a strategic pivot towards AI data infrastructure, potentially enhancing data rights management in a growing market.

The post Story pauses IP trading for October token migration to DATA appeared first on Crypto Briefing.

The integration could boost Hyperliquid's market presence, potentially driving adoption and influencing its valuation and market cap trajectory.

The post Bloomberg Terminal adds Hyperliquid perpetual futures quotes for live tracking appeared first on Crypto Briefing.

Anthropic's stock-matching program may reshape corporate philanthropy norms, but raises concerns about financial transparency and investor perceptions.

The post Anthropic’s charitable stock-matching program racks up over $660 million in expenses appeared first on Crypto Briefing.

Lola Vision Systems' edge AI chip could revolutionize defense tech by enhancing power efficiency and security, impacting future AI deployments.

The post Lola Vision Systems aims to simplify AI model deployment on chips appeared first on Crypto Briefing.

Bitcoin Magazine

IMF Praises El Salvador — But Still Tries To Scale Back Its Bitcoin Project

The International Monetary Fund has praised El Salvador for improving its economy — but scolded it at the same time for its ongoing Bitcoin experiment. 

In a statement Friday, the IMF said that it had  approved a $139 million disbursement to the Central American nation while also trying to “reduce the state’s involvement in Bitcoin-related activities.”

El Salvador in 2021 made Bitcoin legal tender, much to the ire of the IMF and other major institutions. The Latin American country was at the time negotiating a development loan with the agency. 

The IMF in September said that El Salvador wasn’t buying bitcoin; the country’s Bitcoin Office has repeatedly said that it does buy the cryptocurrency. 

“Economic activity has exceeded expectations, supported by sustained improvements in security and investor confidence, as macroeconomic imbalances continue to be addressed,” the IMF said. 

It continued: “However, certain performance criteria were not met, including on the Bitcoin accumulation front, for which waivers were granted based on strong corrective measures and renewed commitments.”

The IMF further said that the Salvadoran state’s involvement in Bitcoin-related activities is being unwound and that “no further bitcoin accumulation is envisaged beyond the documented donations.”

Salvadoran president Nayib Bukele in 2022 said the country would buy one bitcoin per day but it was never clear where the money was coming from — or if he was actually buying at all.  

The IMF said in September that El Salvador was — at least for some time —not using public funds to accumulate bitcoin but rather had received bitcoin from private donations. 

El Salvador and the IMF entered a $1.4 billion loan agreement at the end of December but the fund asked for the country to scale back certain aspects of its Bitcoin strategy.  

The Salvadoran state gifted its citizens bitcoin in 2021 and debuted a wallet with the hope of getting more citizens using the cryptocurrency in the dollarized country. 

President Bukele in 2024 admitted that Salvadorans weren’t using the cryptocurrency to buy things as expected, but always boasted that the government was still stacking sats.  

This post IMF Praises El Salvador — But Still Tries To Scale Back Its Bitcoin Project first appeared on Bitcoin Magazine and is written by Mathew Di Salvo.

Bitcoin Magazine

South Africa’s Absa Becomes First Bank on the Continent to Custody Bitcoin: Report

South African bank Absa has become the first African lender to custody bitcoin, according to reports. 

As reported first by Bloomberg on Friday, the Johannesburg-based lender will serve institutional clients, mostly by custodying bitcoin — but other digital assets will also be a part of the service. 

Banks worldwide are integrating or offering bitcoin-related products and services. A number of U.S. and European banks have started offering crypto-related services by custodying assets for institutions.

Rob Downes, head of digital assets at Absa’s corporate and investment banking unit, was quoted saying that while bitcoin was the biggest asset the bank would custody, others would follow. 

Absa did not immediately respond to questions from Bitcoin Magazine. 

The African continent has a large crypto-native base, with data firms frequently highlighting the high adoption — particularly in countries where currencies have been significantly debased. 

In Chainalysis’s 2025 report, South Africa’s $36.0 billion in on-chain value made it second in Sub-Saharan Africa. Nigeria alone received $92.1 billion, nearly three times the total of second-place South Africa. 

On the global index, South Africa ranked 30th for crypto adoption. 

The character of its market is different from Nigeria‘s: it’s more institutional, with regulatory clarity resulting in hundreds of licenses being issued to VASPs and attracting professional investors and traditional finance. 

BNY Mellon in 2022 became the first major U.S. bank to offer digital asset custody services. And this month, German multinational Deutsche Bank said it would debut a bitcoin custody service for European corporate and institutional clients later in 2026.  

This post South Africa’s Absa Becomes First Bank on the Continent to Custody Bitcoin: Report first appeared on Bitcoin Magazine and is written by Mathew Di Salvo.

Bitcoin Magazine

Bitcoin Price Surges Above $87,000 on Softer-Than-Expected Jobs Data

The price of bitcoin surged above $87,000 on Friday morning in New York, buoyed by constant exchange-traded fund flows and a jobs report showing that unemployment in the U.S. had ticked up. 

Bitcoin’s price recently stood at $85,990 after a 2% jump over a 24-hour period. Over the past week, it has also risen by more than 2%. 

Nonfarm payrolls increased 29,000 last month after a downward revision to the prior two months, Bureau of Labor Statistics data showed Friday. 

Weaker-than-expected jobs data can give a lift to riskier assets like bitcoin and stocks, whose prices tend to swing more sharply. 

A softer labor market typically means less consumer spending, which eases pressure on prices. That could make the Federal Reserve less inclined to keep raising interest rates to fight inflation.

Many economists and politicians have said the U.S. is in the midst of an affordability crisis, and the topic is a hot one ahead of the November midterm elections. 

The Federal Reserve’s new chair, Kevin Warsh, has said that prices in the world’s biggest economy are too high and that the central bank is fully focused on making life more affordable again. 

Bitcoin investors shrugged off the central bank’s interest rate hike in September, climbing on the news. 

The largest cryptocurrency started rallying in August on news that the U.S. Treasury Department said it would more than double the size of its government debt repurchases. The coin had its best run in three years and third best August ever.  

The coin’s price has benefited from the so-called debasement trade: when investors buy certain assets to hedge against currency being devalued. The dollar slid in value in August. 

It continued to have a good September, rising nearly 6% over a 30-day period. 

October has historically delivered good returns for bitcoin investors, with traders dubbing the phenomenon “Uptober.” 

This post Bitcoin Price Surges Above $87,000 on Softer-Than-Expected Jobs Data first appeared on Bitcoin Magazine and is written by Mathew Di Salvo.

Bitcoin Magazine

Impacts of Daily Dividends on Digital Credit

In May 2026, Strive rebranded itself as “The Daily Dividend Company,” then moved SATA to daily cash dividends beginning June 16. Strategy has now pushed the same idea into its own digital credit engine. On September 24, its board proposed moving STRC, STRF, STRK and STRD to daily dividends, subject to shareholder approval at an October 28 special meeting. The proposal keeps the annual dividend economics unchanged and changes the cadence of cash payments.

STRC spent much of the summer below its $100 stated amount even as Strategy raised its dividend rate to 12% and deployed more than $1 billion buying back STRC. The move to daily dividends by Strategy could be seen as the latest attempt to make the security more attractive and help it trade near par.

Now that the overton window has fully shifted in favor of digital credit paying daily dividends, we should take a look at the actual impacts of daily dividends. 

Daily Dividends Fit Onchain Finance

Digital credit is increasingly becoming an input for other financial products—so called “digital money” or “digital yield” products. Strategy estimated in mid-May that more than $440 million of STRC exposure had moved into DeFi through stablecoins, tokenized securities, yield products and other structures.

However, there is a cash flow mismatch. Crypto products commonly accrue and distribute yield at high frequency. A security that pays monthly or twice monthly forces the product sitting on top of it to bridge the period between economic accrual and actual cash receipt.

Daily dividends compress that gap to one day. The protocol, fund or issuer receives cash from the underlying asset at almost the same cadence that users expect to receive yield. That simplifies liquidity management and reduces the cash needed between dividend dates. This is much more impactful to a financial product funding daily distributions or redemptions than to a long term investor focused on total return. The crypto-heavy setting of the “Layer 3” products on top of digital credit raises the attractiveness of daily dividends. 

Daily Dividends Are Primarily a Retail Feature

For investors focused strictly on total return, dividend payment frequency makes little difference in underlying economic value. The asset’s price accrues between distribution dates and adjusts post-payment, meaning annual, quarterly, monthly, and daily payouts produce comparable long-term results.

The true advantage of daily dividends lies in product psychology and user experience. Cash arriving every day provides immediate visibility and an engaging feedback loop. Investors can spend, withdraw, or automatically reinvest the payout while leaving their principal position intact, turning an abstract yield metric into tangible recurring cash flow.

This dynamic mirrors the strategy of Realty Income, which built a massive retail follower base by branding itself as “The Monthly Dividend Company.” As a member of the S&P 500 Dividend Aristocrats Index, Realty Income has paid and raised dividends for 31 consecutive years. 

Daily dividends on digital credit extends this product concept even further: SATA pairs frequent daily payouts with a target price near $100 and a double-digit yield.

While institutional investors prioritize yield spreads, liquidity, tax structure, and balance sheet coverage, daily payments offer their strongest appeal to retail buyers. If the overarching objective is to raise capital to purchase Bitcoin, optimizing security design for retail investor preferences is the most effective approach.

Options Get Cleaner Too

Daily dividends also change options mechanics. STRC currently pays $0.50 twice monthly. SATA pays roughly five cents each business day. Larger dividend events create larger discrete adjustments in the underlying price, which affects option pricing and early exercise decisions. Daily payments spread the same annual cash flow across much smaller adjustments.

The total value of dividends over an option’s life is a key economic input. The more interesting effect comes from the price stability created by daily dividends. If daily dividends, variable rates and active par management keep SATA and STRC trading in narrower ranges, realized volatility should fall. Implied volatility can follow as the market gains confidence in that behavior.

The Biggest Test

The real test is whether daily dividends increase demand enough to eventually lower the required yield.

If investors consistently support SATA near the top of its target range, Strive can theoretically reduce the dividend rate while attempting to keep SATA near par. Success would show that a Bitcoin company can issue permanent preferred capital, manage it around a stable price, and adjust its yield with market demand. The benefit of the variable rate preferreds was, from inception, the eventual opportunity to lower the rate and reduce the cost of capital without upsetting price stability. In comparison, fixed rate credit locks in fixed rate forever. 

Conclusion 

Strategy adopting daily dividends would move the feature from a SATA differentiator toward a digital credit category standard. The annual economics barely change but the retail appeal and crypto composability become meaningful improvements. 

This post Impacts of Daily Dividends on Digital Credit first appeared on Bitcoin Magazine and is written by Allard Peng.

Bitcoin Magazine

Frank Holmes: They Will Print $100 Trillion – Why to Buy Bitcoin & Gold

Bitcoin miners already have the power, the land, and the substations that AI needs. Frank Holmes, executive chairman of HIVE Digital Technologies, explains why he calls Bitcoin mining a “tier one” data center, how GPUs that once mined Ethereum led HIVE into AI, and why he thinks the next wave of AI factories will be built on mining infrastructure from Paraguay to Canada.

Chapters:
0:00 Frank Holmes on HIVE: From Gold Investor to Bitcoin Miner to AI Compute
2:12 How ETFs Changed Bitcoin: From the Fear Trade to the Love Trade
4:20 The Binance $19 Billion Liquidation and the $350 Trillion Money Supply
5:45 Gamers, Younger Quants, and Why Bitcoin Will Keep Gaining Adoption
7:29 Covid’s $40 Trillion of Money Printing and the Global MMT Risk
9:24 China, Russia, and Why Bitcoin Is a Tier One Data Center
11:33 China’s Bitcoin Mining, $1.4 Trillion of Lending, and Central Banks Buying Gold
13:44 Paraguay’s Central Bank and Bitcoin Mining as an Export
14:57 Compute as a Commodity: Canada’s AI Push and Bitcoin Miners’ Power Advantage
20:34 Where to Find Frank Holmes’s Weekly Investor Alert Newsletter

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 Frank Holmes: They Will Print $100 Trillion – Why to Buy Bitcoin & Gold first appeared on Bitcoin Magazine and is written by Patrick Green.

Coinbase says it can now complete a support-testing cycle of roughly 90 cases in 30–45 minutes, work that previously took one to two weeks of manual setup and execution. The figure, disclosed by its engineers on Sept. 21, gives Coinbase CEO Brian Armstrong’s push for an AI-native company a concrete example of automation reducing repetitive work.

The system, called Autopilot, tests the procedures that support bots follow when handling customer problems. It also retains human approval before procedure changes reach production. The next test for Armstrong’s operating model is whether faster procedure development produces reliable support and accountable actions on customer accounts.

Customers need their account problems resolved correctly and their data accessed only with proper authority. Coinbase’s disclosures describe work to address both needs, while leaving the effect on customers unmeasured. Approving changes, restricting permissions and measuring real results remain operating responsibilities as the company automates more work.

Where the time saving comes from

Armstrong announced an approximately 14% workforce reduction in his May 5 memo, citing both a weak crypto market and AI changing how employees work. He proposed fewer management layers, leaders who also contribute directly, smaller AI-native teams and experiments with one-person teams.

The September engineering account moves that operating argument into a specific support process. Coinbase says its bots look up account state, take bounded actions and escalate problems requiring greater judgment to a person. Autopilot helps maintain the procedures those bots follow.

Its testing service creates isolated test users and mock account states, simulates conversations, records transcripts and tool results, and grades what happened against expected behavior. Agents can help generate tests; a repeatable runner executes them. Coinbase says it shipped a hybrid system combining the service, GitHub Actions release gates and a user interface that engineering and non-engineering teams can use.

That division explains why the time comparison is useful. Repeatedly setting up test accounts, driving conversations and collecting results is work a shared service can perform consistently. Faster validation could make it practical to check procedure changes more often, provided the cases and expected outcomes remain appropriate.

The reported comparison measures the validation cycle, leaving customer response times and staffing savings outside its scope. Connecting that cycle to the workforce reduction would require evidence of which tasks were displaced and the resulting costs.

A shorter testing cycle gives Coinbase more capacity to evaluate changes. Whether that capacity produces better support depends on what the tests cover, what reviewers do with their findings and how the resulting procedures perform after deployment.

Autopilot uses adversarial conversations as well as tests of expected behavior. Coinbase says an AI model scores those conversations, but acknowledges that the judge can be wrong. Scores feed human review and release gates rather than independently deciding that a procedure is ready.

The release boundary separates a proposed procedure from one that a support bot can use with customers. Agents can suggest changes, while a person must approve production writes and enablement.

That is a safeguard against an automated quality loop promoting its own work without review. It also means review remains an operating responsibility as the system accelerates.

The approval scope should be read precisely. Coinbase’s statement concerns changes to the support procedures and their enablement. It does not say a human approves every action a deployed bot takes on an individual customer’s account.

Further automation remains unfinished. Coinbase says discovery, authoring, testing and analysis exist, while orchestration from an identified performance gap to a promoted procedure is still being developed. A fully shared contract for conversation summaries also remains unfinished.

That leaves integration work alongside the automation gain. A system that identifies a weak flow, generates a revision and tests it still needs reliable information passed between those steps and an accountable decision about release.

Permission to act is a separate control

Coinbase’s Aug. 18 internal-operations disclosure addresses another part of customer protection: who can access customer data and who can change it.

The company describes Control Center as a separate shared platform for support, compliance, legal, risk and engineering. Coinbase has not specified its coverage of Autopilot. Within the platform, authorization, audit records, approvals and rate limits sit in front of the underlying services.

Its permission checks consider both the requested action and the particular customer. Missing customer context on a customer-scoped operation means denial. Access is tied to assigned cases, limited to the customers involved and set to expire.

For designated sensitive changes, including refunds, account-state changes and limit overrides, the platform separates proposing a change from executing it. The proposal enters review, the required approvals must arrive, and a separate executor then performs the change. Failures are reserved for human handling.

Those controls answer questions that conversational testing cannot answer on its own. A procedure can describe the expected response, while an authorization system determines whether the caller may reach the relevant customer data. Approval rules determine whether a sensitive change can proceed.

Control Center also makes the continuing work explicit. Coinbase says new client types, including automated agents, must be brought under the authorization, audit and rate-limiting rules, with authentication boundaries revalidated as callers change.

Establishing how these controls apply to support automation would require a clearer account of which bots and actions pass through the permission and approval checks. The relevant coverage measure is the set of customer operations governed by those rules.

For the AI-native operating model, the consequence is straightforward: adding automated callers still requires someone to maintain the rules governing their authority. The architecture can make that work more consistent. Its effectiveness still depends on keeping each new caller within the rules.

Case-linked access provides a concrete example: permissions must continue to match the assigned work as cases and callers change. The account boundary needs to hold alongside faster procedure development.

More testing needs an outcome measure

The same need to connect activity to outcomes extends to Coinbase’s separate Continuous Adversarial Testing (CAT) security platform. On Sept. 15, Coinbase reported more than 150,000 scans of its production estate since mid-2026, including over 128,000 pull-request reviews, and more penetration-test findings being fixed. Those reported activities and fixes provide security context.

The distinction between testing and deployed performance is also central to the National Institute of Standards and Technology’s (NIST) July 2024 generative-AI risk profile. The voluntary framework recommends evaluating systems in real-world scenarios because controlled testing may miss problems and discusses measurement gaps between laboratory and deployment conditions. The framework offers a general standard for evaluating these claims.

Autopilot already points toward customer measures. Coinbase says customer-intent labels, resolution and customer-satisfaction signals help identify weak high-volume support flows. That suggests the company recognizes that completing tests and solving customer problems are different measures.

Yet the September disclosure does not publish quantified before-and-after customer-resolution or safety results. The useful next evidence would connect the deployed procedures to those outcomes, alongside the share of relevant support activity covered by the testing and permission systems.

Resolution quality would help show whether automation solves the customer’s problem. Escalation performance would help show whether cases requiring human judgment reach it. Evidence about unauthorized actions and errors would address protection more directly than the time required to run a test suite.

The reported 30–45-minute validation cycle is a concrete example of work being automated. The disclosed approval gates and access restrictions make accountability part of the operating model. Demonstrating the value to customers requires connecting both to results in live support, while carrying the review and governance work that the disclosed systems still require.

The post Coinbase says it cut a 90-case AI support test from 1–2 weeks to 30–45 minutes appeared first on CryptoSlate.

The G7’s emergency diesel plan has created a near-term test of whether cheaper energy can ease pressure on Bitcoin.

Leaders on Oct. 2 agreed to accelerate releases from emergency fuel reserves, including a substantial amount of diesel within 20 days, as governments try to contain shortages and elevated prices that have added to inflation pressures.

The group said the International Energy Agency would make 100 million barrels available over four months, beginning immediately. It did not specify how much of the initial release would be diesel or how supplies would be divided among countries.

For crypto markets, the significance lies less in the barrels themselves than in whether they can push refined-fuel prices low enough to shift inflation and interest-rate expectations. Bitcoin remains sensitive to changes in Treasury yields, the dollar and broader liquidity conditions after the Federal Reserve raised rates last month.

The Sept. 16 increase lifted the Fed’s target range by 25 basis points to 3.75% to 4%, with policymakers again citing elevated inflation. A sustained decline in energy costs could weaken one source of price pressure, though the G7 plan alone gives investors little basis to expect a reversal in monetary policy.

The headline supply figure also requires caution. The latest agreement implements commitments first made in March, when the IEA’s 32 member countries pledged to make 400 million barrels available from emergency reserves following disruption linked to the Middle East conflict.

That means the 100 million barrels scheduled under the October plan cannot simply be added to the March commitment as entirely new supply. The incremental volume remains unclear.

Diesel prices set the next test

US diesel prices were already retreating before the G7 announcement. The Energy Information Administration put the average on-highway price at $6.382 a gallon on Sept. 28, down 14.7 cents from a week earlier.

That decline predates the Oct. 2 agreement, making subsequent readings more useful for assessing whether the coordinated intervention is having an additional effect. Diesel remained $2.628 a gallon above its year-earlier level, leaving fuel costs elevated enough to remain relevant for transportation and goods inflation.

The G7 is also seeking to increase refinery utilization where possible and coordinate maintenance schedules to prevent simultaneous shutdowns. Those measures could prove more important for diesel availability than crude releases if refining capacity remains the binding constraint.

Investors will get the first fresh US price reading on Oct. 6. The IEA has also been asked to report within 20 days on implementation and market impact, including whether further action or eventual stock replenishment is needed.

For Bitcoin, the clearest signal would come if falling fuel prices begin pulling inflation expectations and bond yields lower. Without that transmission, cheaper diesel would remain largely an energy-market development rather than a meaningful liquidity catalyst for crypto.

The next several weeks will therefore give traders two separate checks: whether physical diesel supply reaches the market as promised, and whether any resulting price relief is large enough to alter the rate outlook that has tightened financial conditions since the Fed’s September increase.

The post Bitcoin gets a 20-day window to see whether energy relief can move the Fed appeared first on CryptoSlate.

European USDC holders seeking dollars from Circle could have to wait if reserves cannot move between its French and U.S. issuers, even while retaining their claim to a dollar. Circle’s current European redemption policy allows temporary delays during failed reserve rebalancing, exposing a cash-access boundary inside a token that is interchangeable worldwide.

That boundary matters as Circle presses Europe to preserve cross-border co-issuance. Its Oct. 1 response to the European Commission’s MiCA review argues that the structure keeps global stablecoin liquidity within Europe’s regulatory perimeter. The existing terms show what can happen when the reserve transfers supporting that structure cannot be completed.

The controls distinguish authorized crypto service providers from other European Economic Area holders. Providers may face a redemption cap based on previously reported holdings; other holders may face checks establishing that their holdings originated within the EEA before the stress began.

These are contingency provisions. The public documents reviewed do not establish an active reserve-transfer failure or an imposed reserve-stress redemption restriction as of Oct. 4. They nevertheless qualify what European users can assume about access to issuer cash during stress.

Under Circle’s MiCA redemption policy, Circle France, formally Circle Internet Financial Europe SAS, handles redemption for USDC holders established in the EEA. Holders established outside the EEA exercise their redemption rights with Circle Internet Financial, LLC under its own agreement.

The policy says that allocation preserves the right to redemption at par under Article 49 of MiCA. For a holder, however, the amount of the claim and the timing of the payment are separate questions.

Circle’s current EEA Mint terms make the timing distinction explicit. A customer may submit a redemption request at any time, but execution remains subject to legal, regulatory, compliance, prudential, liquidity and operational conditions.

The redemption policy is marked Sept. 15, 2026, and the USDC white paper lists an amendment on that date.

Two ways redemption can be deferred

Section 8.4 of the redemption policy defines a Stress Event as a period when USDC reserves cannot be rebalanced between Circle France and Circle LLC, before a Recovery Plan or Redemption Plan is activated. During that period, Circle can adjust the processing and order of redemption requests, including deferring execution beyond ordinary policy timing.

The USDC white paper, in Section F.4(1.4), sets out the holder-specific measures:

• Authorized crypto-asset service providers: Circle France may impose a temporary maximum redemption limit referenced to the provider’s total USDC holdings as last reported under its mandatory reporting obligation. Requests above it would be deferred until the stress is resolved.
• Other EEA holders: Circle France may temporarily restrict redemption to holdings that enhanced checks clearly identify as originating from USDC holdings within the EEA before stress. Other requests could be deferred until resolution.

Circle describes the adjustments as temporary and non-discriminatory, preserving redemption at par. Its policy provides for informing holders through its website and distributing providers. If rebalancing is not restored, redemption is managed under the recovery or redemption arrangements.

The controls can therefore affect both an intermediary seeking issuer cash and an EEA holder seeking to redeem directly. Being able to receive USDC during stress would not, by itself, establish that a non-provider’s new holdings satisfy the pre-stress EEA condition.

A secondary-market sale could still provide an immediate exit while issuer redemption waits, if a buyer or intermediary is willing to pay. The conditional cash-flow implication is that another party must supply the cash before Circle settles. A buyer could purchase the tokens outright using its own liquidity; no loan would necessarily be involved.

An exchange promising to pay before Circle would depend on its own cash arrangements and available liquidity. The token’s continuing par-value claim does not automatically fund that payment. An intermediary choosing to advance cash would take on the timing gap until it could redeem or otherwise dispose of the tokens.

The reviewed documents identify no named intermediary commitment to provide unrestricted immediate cash-outs under this reserve-stress scenario, nor an available stress-market bid or financing cost. A sale would depend on a willing buyer and the terms offered.

Global backing disclosures answer a different question. Circle’s transparency page describes reserve disclosures and monthly third-party assurance of backing.

The white paper describes a French minimum reserve requirement equal to EEA USDC holdings and an inter-issuer rebalancing procedure. That requirement has to accommodate changes in where tokens are held. The paper expressly identifies the risk that Circle LLC cannot rebalance reserves when holdings and redemption requests shift toward the EEA.

The reserve-transfer test behind Circle’s policy case

Circle’s Oct. 1 response recommends preserving multi-issuance and formalizing safeguards, including dynamic rebalancing between global and EU-specific reserves. It argues that restricting the structure would push stablecoin use toward offshore providers and outside MiCA’s protections.

Europe’s systemic-risk watchdog has advanced a different position. In its 2025 recommendation on third-country multi-issuer stablecoins, the European Systemic Risk Board asked the Commission to interpret the existing MiCA framework as not permitting such schemes. If the Commission considered otherwise, it recommended a dedicated framework with safeguards.

Adopted Sept. 25, 2025, the recommendation also called for assessing barriers to reserve mobility and obtaining evidence that supporting institutions can promptly sell assets, transfer funds across borders and retain access to payment systems.

Circle’s terms show why those operational questions matter to holders. Rebalancing is a safeguard when cash can move to the issuer facing redemption requests. When it cannot, temporary restrictions can shift the wait onto service providers and other EEA holders, even while the par-value right continues.

The practical tests are therefore reserve-transfer readiness, the treatment of holders’ requests and any intermediary’s actual cash-out undertaking. Circle’s policy case depends on keeping global liquidity accessible in Europe; its current redemption terms acknowledge the conditions under which European access to that liquidity could slow.

The post Circle can delay European USDC redemptions if reserves cannot cross borders appeared first on CryptoSlate.

The US Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) revised July and August payroll gains down by 60,000 on Oct. 2, weakening the labor-based case for another Federal Reserve hike and potentially easing one policy pressure on Bitcoin.

The September employment report put payroll growth at 29,000. July’s estimate flipped from 21,000 jobs added to 10,000 lost; August’s fell from 162,000 to 133,000. The 60,000 adjustment revises earlier estimates, rather than identifying new September job losses.

Average hourly earnings for all employees on private nonfarm payrolls rose 0.1% monthly and 3.0% annually, below the 0.3% and 3.1% originally reported for August.

The numbers arrive after the Fed’s Sept. 16 quarter-point hike to a 3.75%–4% target range. Its statement said job gains had kept pace with the workforce and inflation remained elevated. Friday’s release gives policymakers a softer payroll picture than the earlier estimates suggested.

Weak hiring and slower reported wage growth provide less support for tightening policy to restrain labor demand.

Inflation still gives the Fed a reason to consider further tightening. August personal consumption expenditures (PCE) inflation, released Sept. 30, ran at 3.4% annually, or 3.0% excluding food and energy. Both exceeded the Fed’s 2% goal.

For Bitcoin, a softer labor case could reduce the threat of higher discount rates, a potential pressure on speculative assets. A February 2023 New York Fed staff study found Bitcoin largely unresponsive to monetary and macroeconomic surprises in an intraday event study.

The separate household survey offered a different picture. Employment rose an estimated 406,000, participation moved from 61.6% to 61.8%, and unemployment edged from 4.1% to 4.2%. The labor force grew by 485,000, allowing employment and unemployment to rise together.

These figures count people, while payrolls count jobs. The household survey also covers workers excluded from payroll data. September’s monthly employment changes were below BLS’s approximate significance thresholds of 650,000 for households and 122,000 for payrolls.

The mixed picture limits both a recession declaration and a claim of a decisive employment rebound. Weaker payrolls offer a reason to question further tightening, while the household figures complicate treating the report as evidence of an employment slump.

Stronger subsequent inflation or hiring would weaken that interpretation. The next jobs release is scheduled for Nov. 6.

The post US jobs revision turns July’s 21,000 gain into a 10,000 loss appeared first on CryptoSlate.

Ten tokens accounted for 62% of outstanding altcoin futures exposure, known as open interest, in Talos’s weekly market report covering September 24–30, 2026. That concentrated exposure came with different financing burdens: the report put SOL funding below zero while PUMP funding reached +21.8% annualized.

Published October 1, the market report also put altcoin open interest relative to market capitalization at 5.6%, a record in Talos’s series. For investors entering the October trading week, those numbers identify a concentrated derivatives footprint, while later Binance settlements show how quickly the cost of holding a particular contract can change.

Funding pressure can change within hours

Perpetual futures use funding payments to help keep the contract price aligned with the underlying market. As Hyperliquid’s funding mechanics explain, positive rates transfer money from long holders to short holders. Negative rates reverse that direction. A trader’s financing burden therefore depends on the contract, side and funding interval, even when two tokens both have substantial open interest.

The October 5 refresh covers two Binance contracts, rather than a matching update to Talos’s altcoin aggregate. Their settled payment records, retrieved shortly after 04:20 UTC, show positive SOL funding and a PUMP rate that changed sign within four hours.

Sources: Binance’s SOL settlements and PUMP settlements. Rates are native settlement percentages, not annualized rates.

SOL’s preceding observed payment, at 16:00 UTC on October 4, was also +0.010000%, eight hours before the midnight payment. PUMP’s two observed payments were four hours apart.

PUMP’s midnight payment charged shorts; its 04:00 payment charged longs. The change illustrates a financing burden that can reverse while the underlying contract remains the same. SOL’s positive midnight payment also differs from the negative funding described in the earlier Talos snapshot.

Annualization puts periodic rates on a common comparison basis, rather than locking in a year’s costs. Coin Metrics’ per-market documentation distinguishes the period a rate applies to from the input window used to calculate it. Hyperliquid settles hourly while dividing an eight-hour formula into hourly payments.

Coin Metrics’ aggregate methodology weights normalized market rates by dollar open interest and scales longer aggregate periods linearly. Its daily series is a boundary sample rather than a daily average. Those definitions describe available metrics; they do not identify the precise series or averaging window behind Talos’s +21.8% PUMP figure.

What the concentration figures measure

Talos named SOL, XRP, HYPE and ZEC among the largest markets in its top-ten group. The 62% share identifies where exposure sat within its tracked altcoin bucket. Establishing whether those tokens carried unusually large derivatives positions for their size would require comparing their exposure share with their share of market value, using the same assets and timestamp.

The report’s text leaves the historical starting date and precise ETH treatment unspecified. These limits keep the record tied to Talos’s series and prevent extending the 62% share into a claim of disproportionate crowding.

The 5.6% ratio answers a separate question: how large outstanding exposure was relative to the value of the covered tokens. Coin Metrics’ capitalization definitions distinguish the value of current issued supply, estimated circulating supply and free-float supply. Those measures can assign different values to the same token, especially when supply sits in escrow or with strategic holders. The report’s text does not identify which convention supplies its denominator, so the 5.6% should remain a Talos-reported ratio rather than a universal measure of altcoin leverage.

Under the standard open-interest definition, every outstanding contract has a buyer and a seller, with one side counted. Open interest therefore describes unresolved contractual exposure.

Dollar values add another distinction. Binance’s market-data fields separate outstanding quantities from their value. A higher dollar figure can reflect changes in prices, quantities or both. For a single linear contract with a matched price basis and unchanged quantity and supply definition, a price move can cancel out in the ratio. Across a basket, relative prices and constituents still matter.

The refreshed exposure observations are similarly specific. Binance reported approximately $1.045 billion of SOLUSDT open-interest value at 04:20 UTC on October 5. Its PUMPUSDT observation was approximately $142.876 million at 04:15 UTC.

Concentrated positions can share collateral

Talos interpreted its exposure concentration as limiting risk to relatively few tokens. Its September 29 sector analysis also characterized the rally as higher quality.

Hyperliquid’s margin rules illustrate why the distinction matters. Cross margin shares collateral across eligible positions; isolated margin confines collateral to a position. With shared collateral, losses in one holding can affect the resources supporting another. The scope of that sharing depends on the account mode and markets involved.

Its liquidation rules trigger action when account equity falls below maintenance requirements. The venue initially attempts to close positions through the order book, with a backstop available under specified conditions. Funding payments and losses on other cross-margin positions can affect an account’s actual liquidation conditions.

An exposure share cannot reveal those account balances, liquidation distances or available book depth. It consequently cannot establish either that a cascade is inevitable or that risk remains contained within the tokens with the largest open interest.

CryptoSlate’s earlier coverage of ETF concentration and altcoin spot turnover examined other dimensions of the rotation. Fund flows describe allocations, turnover describes trading activity, open interest describes outstanding contracts, and funding describes periodic financing conditions.

For investors assessing this market, the next useful evidence is a matched comparison of exposure and token value, a sequence of settled funding payments, and the collateral and liquidity conditions behind the positions. The reported 62% concentration identifies a starting point for that assessment. The October 5 settlements show how quickly the financing burden at that starting point can move.

The post Ten tokens held 62% of altcoin futures exposure, but shared collateral can put other positions at risk appeared first on CryptoSlate.

The report on the World Liberty Financial US Trust Bank ties an alleged investment from Abu Dhabi to a planned regulated US trust structure. The subject is in focus because World Liberty Financial is treated as potential stablecoin infrastructure, and the public attention around Trump crypto gives it additional reach. One qualification matters: the stake itself cannot be independently confirmed from the available sources, whereas the regulatory side can at least be partly traced through published OCC filings. This article therefore keeps three levels apart on purpose: the reported transaction, the actual state of the charter process, and the business model that might be attached to it.

What the reports actually say

On August 28, 2026, Cointelegraph wrote about a stake in WLTC Holdings LLC, citing the Wall Street Journal and people familiar with the matter. According to that account, StringZ Holding RSC, in places also referred to as StringZ Holdings RSC (DE) LLC, holds 49 percent of the holding company behind the World Liberty Trust Company. That is a reported figure, not a confirmed fact. The actual percentage, the purchase price, a possible closing date, the voting rights, the beneficial owners and the precise link to Abu Dhabi all remain open.

The comparison with the OCC decision is instructive: StringZ is indeed named there as an investor, together with passivity commitments covering its indirect stake. A specific 49 percent figure, or a particular ultimate backer, is not disclosed in the OCC decision Corporate Decision #1385. It is exactly that gap which makes the Cointelegraph report a story to be placed in context rather than equated with the official record.

The decisive difference: capital, charter and opening for business

A holding company owns stakes in subsidiaries. Capital at holding level can fund build-out, staff, technology and compliance, but it does not replace a supervisory permission. That is where the confusion starts: on August 14, 2026, the OCC granted the World Liberty Trust Company, N.A. a preliminary conditional approval. That is not a final authorisation to begin operations. Only once every pre-opening condition has been met can a final clearance follow.

The label crypto bank is therefore too loose. Depending on the charter and the conditions attached, custody, fiduciary administration, payment or exchange services may be permitted without the institution offering the full range of a conventional commercial bank. Anyone wanting to verify the licensing status should cross-check Corporate Decision #1385, later final OCC publications and the list of active, nationally regulated institutions. For state-chartered institutions, the relevant state regulator, the FDIC or the Federal Reserve would matter as well.

What the planned institution could do

A national trust company is a specialised institution for fiduciary, custody and settlement services, not a conventional deposit-taking and lending bank. The public charter application and the conditional approval provide for USD1 issuance and redemption, reserve management, digital custody and exchange services for custody clients. That is a planned, or conditionally approved, range of services, not business already under way.

One point matters for consumer protection: according to the application, the company is not to carry FDIC deposit insurance. The word "bank" therefore implies neither automatic deposit insurance nor permission for every kind of banking business.

Why reserves and custody are at the centre

A stablecoin is a digital token designed to track a value, typically the US dollar. A stablecoin bank would therefore matter above all at the intersection of issuance, reserve management, redemption and custody. Stablecoin reserves are meant to back the tokens outstanding, and client money and client crypto assets have to be kept separate from them in legal, accounting and operational terms.

Issuers of payment stablecoins must, under 12 U.S.C. § 5903, hold identifiable reserves on at least a one-to-one basis, disclose their redemption procedures and meet requirements on liquidity, risk, IT, sanctions and anti-money-laundering. Payment stablecoins are also not FDIC-insured and may not be marketed as if they were. On custody itself, what counts is who controls the private keys, which access rights exist, whether client holdings are separated from company assets, and how recovery works after a loss or a cyberattack.

The checklist before any assessment

Before the report can support a firm view, a structured run-through is worth the effort, with none of the points counting as already answered either way:

• Transaction: Is there a company announcement, a register entry or another primary document covering the stake, the price, the date and the voting rights?
• Ownership: Who is the direct shareholder, who is the beneficial owner, and what concrete role does Abu Dhabi play as a fund, as a company, or merely as a reported source of capital?
• Regulation: Which company holds which permission? Have the OCC pre-opening conditions been met, and is a final authorisation to operate documented publicly?
• Business model: Are USD1, reserves, exchange and custody actually on offer, and which services are expressly permitted?
• Safeguards: Are there audited reserve reports, a separation of client assets, security arrangements and procedures for BSA/AML and sanctions?

The Bank Secrecy Act is what establishes the central US reporting and record-keeping duties aimed at money laundering and financial crime.

World Liberty Trust Bank: attention is not evidence

The combination of World Liberty Financial, reported capital from Abu Dhabi and a planned piece of US financial infrastructure is a genuinely relevant theme. Trump crypto also explains the high level of public attention, but it is evidence of neither political influence nor commercial success. At the World Liberty Financial US Trust Bank the transaction details are still open, while the regulatory interim position is clearer: a conditional OCC approval, no final authorisation to operate. Anyone following the story should keep the report in view but assess the stake, the licence and the operating stablecoin business strictly apart.

Why Is October 2026 a Big Month for Altcoins?

$Bitcoin is back above $86,000 after three straight weekly gains, spot ETFs just logged a third week of inflows, and a soft September jobs report has taken an October Fed hike off the table. That is the kind of backdrop altcoins love: a steady Bitcoin, cheaper money expectations and a market that is starting to look past the big one for its next move.

The rotation has already started. Quant ripped more than 300% in a week after The Clearing House picked it for tokenized deposit settlement, AAVE jumped from around $159 to above $180 in the first three days of the month, and Sui is pressing into resistance ahead of its Basecamp conference. Chasing a coin that already tripled is a quick way to lose money, though, so this list focuses on five altcoins with liquidity, real catalysts dated inside October and prices that still sit well below their all-time highs.

Here are the top 5 altcoins to buy in October 2026, with current prices as of 5 October. You can track all of them live on the CryptoTicker crypto prices page.

1. Ethereum (ETH): Is the Glamsterdam Upgrade the Catalyst Ethereum Needs?

Ethereum price today: around $2,720

Ethereum opened Monday at $2,727 and is trading just under that level, roughly 1.5% higher than Sunday. ETH beat Bitcoin in the third quarter, yet it has now been rejected three times at $2,800, so the chart is coiled and waiting for a reason to break out.

That reason has a date. Glamsterdam, the biggest Ethereum upgrade since the Merge, goes live on the Sepolia testnet on 6 October, with mainnet targeted for the fourth quarter of 2026. The upgrade bundles two heavy hitters: enshrined proposer-builder separation (EIP-7732), which pulls block building into the protocol and cuts reliance on MEV-Boost middleware, and Block-Level Access Lists (EIP-7928), which let clients process transactions in parallel. The Ethereum Foundation says testing supports a gas-limit floor of 200 million after the fork, more than three times today's capacity.

Add a growing tokenization pipeline (ARK just put tokenized fund shares on Ethereum via Securitize) and spot ETH ETFs that keep absorbing supply, and you get the one large cap with a hard, scheduled event this month. The risk is the usual one: upgrade timelines slip, and a messy Sepolia fork would push the mainnet date and the narrative into 2027.

What to watch: a daily close above $2,800. Below $2,600 the breakout thesis is on hold.

2. Solana (SOL): Can Solana Reclaim $150 After a 60% Discount?

Solana price today: around $121

Solana trades at roughly $121, up about 2% on the day and still almost 60% below its all-time high of $295. That gap is the whole pitch. Solana is one of only a handful of networks where the ecosystem kept growing while the token went nowhere: DEX volumes remain among the highest in crypto, consumer apps keep launching, and in late August Charles Schwab added SOL alongside Avalanche and Chainlink for its 39 million clients.

Spot Solana ETFs exist, but their inflows have cooled, which is why the rally has stalled around $120 for weeks. Note the quirk for European readers: SOL is up for the year in euros and down in dollars, so your entry currency matters more than usual.

Solana does not have a single hard-dated catalyst in October the way Ethereum does. Its case is cheaper beta on a broad altcoin recovery, backed by the strongest on-chain activity of any large-cap alternative to Ethereum. If capital rotates out of Bitcoin, SOL has historically moved first and hardest.

What to watch: ETF flow data turning positive again, and a weekly close above $130. Support sits around $109, the level SOL bounced from in late September.

3. Chainlink (LINK): Is Chainlink the Best Tokenization Play for 2026?

Chainlink price today: around $11.40

Chainlink changes hands near $11.40 after a quiet grind higher from the $8 to $9 range it spent most of the summer in. Of the five coins here, LINK has the strongest institutional story and the weakest price action, which is exactly the combination contrarians look for.

The story: Chainlink is the plumbing behind tokenized finance. Its network now counts the US Department of Commerce, S&P Global Ratings, FTSE Russell, Deutsche Börse and Tradeweb among data providers, it signed a deal with Switzerland's SIX Group, and CCIP 2.0 added the compliance and configurable settlement features banks asked for before moving real assets across chains. Charles Schwab's August decision to list LINK next to SOL and AVAX put it in front of a mainstream US brokerage audience for the first time.

The catch is well known: network adoption and token price have decoupled for years. LINK needs the tokenization boom to show up in fee revenue and staking demand, not just press releases. With Bitcoin steady and the Quant deal reminding everyone that banks are actually settling tokenized deposits on-chain now, October is as good a month as any for that gap to start closing.

What to watch: $12 is the level LINK has failed at repeatedly. A clean break opens the door to $13 to $14; losing $10.20 would put it back in the summer range.

4. Sui (SUI): Will Sui Basecamp Push SUI Past $1.30?

Sui price today: around $1.23

Sui is the momentum pick. SUI trades near $1.23, up around 5% in 24 hours and more than 60% in a month, after a strong support zone sent it on an 80% run. It is still 77% below its all-time high of $5.37, so there is room to run, but it is also the most stretched chart on this list.

The catalyst is two days away. Sui Basecamp 2026 takes place on 7 and 8 October at Marina Bay Sands in Singapore, and Mysten Labs has been loud about what comes next: global payments, stablecoins and AI-agent transactions. The numbers back the pitch. The Sui Foundation says the network has processed more than $1 trillion in stablecoin transfers since August 2025, USDsui launched in March through Stripe-owned Bridge as a native dollar for payments apps, and the Hashi protocol recently enabled Bitcoin as collateral on Sui, which triggered the latest leg up.

Two caveats. A token unlock landed on 3 October and the market absorbed it, but more are scheduled, and SUI has a habit of selling off once a conference ends and the announcements are priced in. Buying into Basecamp is a trade, not a long-term thesis, unless DeFi TVL finally catches up with the payments volume.

What to watch: $1.27 is the immediate hurdle and $1.34 the one that matters. A rejection there with a close under $1.10 would signal the Basecamp pop has faded.

5. Aave (AAVE): Why Are Whales Buying Aave in October 2026?

Aave price today: around $180

Aave is the DeFi pick, and it enters October with the strongest on-chain signals of any blue-chip protocol token. AAVE trades near $180 after climbing from roughly $159 on 1 October, with a single 13.8% candle on 3 October. It sits about 73% below its all-time high of $670, with a hard-capped supply of 16 million tokens, more than 96% of which are already circulating. There is no unlock overhang here.

The interesting part is who is buying. Wallets holding between 100,000 and 1 million AAVE added around 190,000 tokens since 28 September, worth roughly $30 million. Weighted sentiment turned positive alongside price rather than lagging it, and renewed DeFi borrowing activity, helped by Bitcoin's recovery and Fed hike bets fading, is lifting protocol revenue. Aave remains the largest lending market in crypto by a wide margin, so when DeFi wakes up, AAVE is where the money goes first.

The risk is correlation. A sharp Bitcoin pullback would trigger liquidations across lending markets, and AAVE tends to fall harder than ETH in those moments. The token has also doubled since July, so a cooling phase between $160 and $180 would be healthy rather than alarming.

What to watch: holding $170 keeps the uptrend intact. A move through $200 would be the first time since the spring and would likely pull the rest of DeFi with it.

Which Altcoin Should You Buy First in October 2026?

If you only pick one, $Ethereum is the anchor: biggest market, a dated catalyst and the least chance of a surprise. Solana and Chainlink are the recovery plays for anyone who thinks the next leg of this cycle rewards fundamentals that the price has ignored. Sui and Aave are the momentum names, best sized small and watched daily.

A note on what is missing: Quant, XRP and Avalanche all have October stories too. Quant is excluded because a 300% weekly move is not an entry point, and XRP at around $1.39 lacks a specific catalyst this month. Both belong on a watchlist.

All prices in this article are snapshots from 5 October 2026. Check the live numbers on the CryptoTicker crypto prices page and market-wide metrics such as altcoin season and Fear and Greed on the CryptoTicker charts page before making any decision.

A paper wallet is a sheet of paper with a single private key and the matching bitcoin address printed on it. For a few years that counted as the safest way to store coins, because the key touched no device and no network. Today developers and wallet makers advise against this form of storage, and not because of the idea behind it but because of the many points at which it goes wrong in practice. The Bitcoin Wiki lists it as an obsolete and insecure method that was widespread between 2011 and 2016.

This article explains what is actually written on such a sheet, which six weak points the storage method has, and how to wind up an existing paper wallet today without losing coins along the way. Where your key is best kept, if not on paper, is covered in the second half.

What a paper wallet is: a printed key pair with no wallet functions

The name is misleading. A wallet in the usual sense is a program that manages keys, knows the balance and builds transfers. A paper wallet can do none of that. It carries two strings of characters: the address someone can send bitcoin to, and the private key with which those coins can be spent again. Usually both also appear on the sheet as a QR code, so that they do not have to be typed out.

A private key is simply a very large random number. Anyone who knows it can dispose of the coins at the matching address, with no password, no account and no further question asked. That is precisely why everything about this form of storage comes down to how the key came into being and who set eyes on it along the way.

The difference from a seed phrase

A seed phrase is a sequence of twelve or twenty-four words from which a wallet derives as many keys as it needs, rather than just a single one. The standard behind it is called BIP-39, the derivation itself BIP-32. You copy the words down by hand, no printer is involved, and the wallet generates a fresh address for every incoming payment. That difference sounds technical, but it explains almost all the problems below.

Why paper wallets were popular between 2011 and 2016

In those years there were no widely available hardware devices and no established word list. Anyone wanting to put coins away for the long term had the choice between a program file on a computer that was attached to the network and a printout that went into the safe. The printout looked like the lesser evil, and websites that generated such key pairs in the browser made it convenient.

On top of that came the physical variant: metal coins with a private key stuck under a hologram. It was for exactly this purpose that BIP-38 was created in 2012, a standard that encrypts a private key with a passphrase so that a printed sheet is not immediately loot if somebody finds it. That the same standard today carries, in its official comment line, the note that implementing it is unanimously discouraged says a great deal about the road the industry has travelled since.

The printer as a weak point: spooled jobs, the network and shared devices

To get a key pair onto paper, it has to go through a printer. Many office machines have a built-in hard drive and file every print job there. Anyone who later reads out that device finds the key in plain text. Machines in offices, schools or copy shops log jobs centrally as well, and with a wireless connection the job travels unencrypted through the air if the network is poorly secured.

This gap cannot be configured away, it belongs to the method. A seed phrase avoids it entirely, because the words appear on the device that generated them and travel from there onto paper or metal by hand. What such a record should look like is set out in our guide to storing a seed phrase safely.

One key, one address: address reuse and the trail in the blockchain

A paper wallet has exactly one address. Anyone using it more than once collects every payment in one place, and because every transfer stands publicly in the blockchain, any observer can read off the entire holding and the whole payment history at that address. With a modern wallet every incoming payment gets a new address, and the connection between the payments is considerably harder for outsiders to establish.

There is also a practical point that is often overlooked: the sheet itself does not know whether any money has arrived at all. To see the balance you have to look the address up with a blockchain explorer, that is, with an outside service that can remember who took an interest in which address.

The change problem: after a partial payment the remainder sits on a change address

This is where owners most often lose money. A bitcoin transfer always spends the entire amount sitting at an address and sends the part that is not needed back to a new address as change. This change address belongs to the software that built the transfer, not to the paper.

So anyone who imports the key into a wallet, sends a partial amount and then believes the remainder is still sitting on the sheet is mistaken. The remainder sits in the software. If that software is lost and the paper was kept as a supposed backup, the change is no longer reachable.

Importing and sweeping are two different things

When importing, a wallet takes on the foreign key and manages it alongside its own. The key remains a one-off, though, and is not covered by that wallet's seed phrase. Anyone who destroys the paper afterwards and later restores the wallet from its words no longer has the imported key. When sweeping, by contrast, the wallet transfers the entire amount from the old key to an address of its own that belongs to the seed phrase. After that the paper is worthless, and that is precisely the aim.

Misread characters, water damage and QR codes: weak error correction on paper

A private key is usually printed in small type. A capital B and an eight, a one and a lower-case L look almost the same in many typefaces, and a single character read wrongly makes the key useless. The format does contain a checksum that reports the error, but no tool for lay users that corrects it.

QR codes are not built for that either. The patterns tolerate a little dirt, but water, heavy creasing and folding make them unreadable. A word list is far more forgiving at this point: words remain legible even in poor handwriting, and the list is chosen so that the first four letters identify a word unambiguously.

A third point concerns the formats themselves. Whether a wallet understands an old key depends on the notation it was printed in. There have been cases in which coins were initially stuck after a format change. How differently manufacturers handle standards is shown in our article on restoring a seed phrase with a different manufacturer.

BIP-38 and passphrase encryption: a standard its own developers advise against

BIP-38 was the attempt to fix the paper's biggest weakness. The private key is encrypted with a passphrase and printed as a string of 58 characters, protected by a procedure that makes brute-force attacks expensive. Anyone finding the sheet can do nothing with it without the passphrase.

The price for that is a second secret that can be lost just as easily as the first, and a dependency on software that still handles the format. The BIP-38 specification states in the header of its comments that implementing it is unanimously discouraged. A technical community can hardly bury a procedure of its own making more clearly than that.

Sweep instead of import: winding up an existing paper wallet safely

If there is still a printed sheet in your drawer, the cleanest route is to move the entire amount into a modern wallet and to treat the paper afterwards as done with. For that you need a wallet that can sweep, and a little calm.

1. Set the destination wallet up completely and back up its seed phrase before you even pick up the old key. Which programs are candidates for that is set out in our comparison of software wallets.
2. Look at the holding of the old address in a blockchain explorer, so that you know which amount has to arrive.
3. In the new wallet, expressly choose the function for sweeping, not the one for importing, and enter the private key from the sheet.
4. Wait for the transfer to be confirmed and make sure the old address is empty afterwards and the amount, less the network fee, is in the new wallet.
5. Destroy the sheet only once that reconciliation adds up. As long as something is still sitting at the old address, the paper is the only way in.

What matters is the place where you enter the key. Never type it on someone else's computer, and never on a website that offers to build the transfer for you. From the moment of entry the key is known on that device, which is why the address counts as permanently burned afterwards.

Seed phrase and hardware wallet: today's alternatives to paper storage

The job the paper was meant to do is handled today by two building blocks. A hardware device generates and keeps the keys without ever releasing them, and signs transfers on the device itself. The seed phrase serves as the backup should the device break, be lost or be replaced. The two together keep the key away from every printer and every browser.

The difference between a permanently connected wallet on a phone and separated storage remains in place, and for the choice it matters more than the brand of the device. How the two forms differ is something we took apart in our article on hot wallets and cold wallets. Which devices are available in Europe and what they cost is shown by our hardware wallet comparison.

Tax and proof in Germany: what applies when winding up an old paper wallet

A sweep is not a sale. You are transferring coins between two addresses that both belong to you, and no change of ownership takes place. For the holding period under section 23 of the Income Tax Act, what therefore still counts is the day on which you originally acquired the coins, not the day of the transfer. Tax only arises on a sale within a year of acquisition, and gains remain tax-free if the total gain from all private disposal transactions in a calendar year stays below 1,000 euros.

Harder than the legal position, with old holdings, is the proof. Anyone who printed a sheet in 2014 rarely still has the purchase receipts. So collect everything that supports the acquisition date: the time of the first payment to the address from the explorer, old bank statements, confirmation emails from the exchange of the day. Tools that document such holdings on a lasting basis are set out in our comparison of crypto tax tools and portfolio trackers. This section is no substitute for tax advice, and with old holdings carrying large gains a trip to a specialist is worth the money.

When a printed sheet still turns up anyway

The form has not vanished entirely. Some cryptocurrency cash machines print customers without a wallet of their own a receipt carrying a key, and at trade fairs or as gifts, metal coins with a key under the hologram are still going round. For these cases the same rule applies as above: the receipt is a means of transport, not a store. Anyone who receives one moves the amount promptly into a wallet of their own.

A second case is inheritances and house clearances. If such a sheet turns up, a look in the explorer is worth it before it ends up in the waste paper. The reverse also holds: a sheet whose address is empty has no value, even if it once did.

Paper wallet: How to proceed now

1. Look at the holding and prepare the destination. See in an explorer whether anything is still sitting at the address, and set the new wallet up beforehand. The candidates are in our comparison of software wallets.
2. Wind it up with a sweep. Move the entire amount to an address of your new wallet and destroy the paper only after the reconciliation. For larger amounts the key belongs on a separate device, as the hardware wallet comparison shows.
3. Document the acquisition. Record the date, the number of coins and where they came from, while you can still gather the receipts. The tools for that are in the comparison of crypto tax tools.

(As of October 4, 2026. This article is not investment advice. Prices and fee structures change; check the terms with the provider before you buy.)

XRP is trading at $1.51 or €1.35 on Monday morning, 0.7 percent above the previous day. This week's pacemaker, though, is not in the chart but in the protocol: three voting deadlines are running out on the XRP Ledger, and they go live one after another on Thursday evening and Friday afternoon. We did not take the deadlines from a press release but read them directly from the chain's ledger. Between the first and the last activation lie 17 hours and 21 minutes.

What that means for you depends on where your coins are kept. Anyone holding XRP on a trading platform may run into brief maintenance stops in these two windows. Anyone holding their own coins needs wallet software that knows the new rules. And anyone planning to sell should know beforehand how the German holding period counts to the day.

XRP price at $1.51: the ledger is counting down three deadlines

The price stands at $1.51 on Monday morning, €1.35 in euros. Over 24 hours that is a gain of 0.74 percent in dollars and 1.22 percent in euros, over a week 2.95 percent and over 30 days 7.84 percent. Market capitalisation comes to around $95.4 billion, and $1.65 billion changed hands in trading over the most recent day. All figures in this paragraph are based on market data from CoinGecko.

Among the six large names that puts XRP in the middle of the field. Bitcoin managed 3.94 percent over the week, Dogecoin 4.58 percent, Ethereum 2.86 percent and Solana 2.52 percent. XRP remains just under 59 percent away from its record of $3.65 set on July 17, 2025. So there is no exceptional move this week that would justify any haste, just a calendar of dates.

Three amendments in 17 hours: the deadlines sit in the mainnet, not in a press release

An amendment is a protocol change to the XRP Ledger that the chain's validators vote on and that only takes effect after an uninterrupted majority of 14 days. The validated ledger carries its own entry for this, and that entry can be queried from any public node.

That is exactly what we did on Monday morning. In the ledger with sequence number 107,446,929, 94 amendments were active, and three more were sitting in the waiting window with a majority:

• PermissionDelegationV1_1, majority since September 24, activation on Thursday, October 8, 11:25 p.m. German time (9:25 p.m. UTC).
• A second entry with the identifier 14A2B45E, majority since September 25, activation on Friday, October 9, 4:12 p.m. Consistent trade reports list it as a security fix, fixBatchV1_2; at the time of our query it was not yet listed in the developers' public amendment list.
• BatchV1_1, majority since September 25, activation on Friday, October 9, 4:46 p.m.

We matched the first and the third identifier against the public amendment list of the XRP Ledger developers, where the same checksums appear. That Permission Delegation is not due on October 5, as initially reported, but only on October 8, is something we had already recorded in our report on the activation in the XRP Ledger; Monday's measurement confirms it to the minute.

Permission Delegation explained: one account hands individual rights to another

Permission Delegation means that an account on the XRP Ledger can assign individual powers to another account without handing over the private key. Until now the chain mainly knew the coarse grid of full access or no access at all.

For private investors that changes little at first. It becomes interesting for custodians, payment service providers and companies that run accounts under dual control: an accounting department can then initiate payments without at the same time being able to change trust lines or re-key the account. That separation is exactly what auditors demand of regulated institutions, and it is why the function counts in the industry as a building block for institutional use.

The back story belongs with the assessment. An initial version of the function was already contained in an earlier release of the node software and was switched off again after a reported bug: one account could charge transaction fees to any other account and drain it that way. The developers documented the finding in a separate disclosure report; the version now coming up therefore carries the suffix V1_1.

Batch and the correction: both functions had been switched off once before

Batch groups several transactions together so that they apply together or fail together. For trading applications that is the difference between a clean swap and a half-executed operation that has to be cleaned up. This amendment too ran once already and was deactivated again after a bug, before it came back as BatchV1_1.

Two of this week's three changes are therefore repairs of the project's own mistakes, and the third is explicitly a security fix to the batch procedure. That is no cause for concern, because public bug handling is the desired behaviour in protocols. It is, however, a good reason to look at the week soberly: technology is being brought up to date here, no product is being launched.

The XRP Ledger's two-week rule: a supermajority, 14 days in a row

An amendment needs the approval of at least 80 percent of the trusted validators, and for two weeks without interruption. If approval drops below the threshold in between, the count starts again from the beginning. That is why the three dates above are not a guarantee but a projection from the current state of the ledger.

How real that caveat is BatchV1_1 shows itself. Activation had, according to industry reports, already been expected for September, then support slipped below the necessary threshold, and the counter jumped to October 9. So anyone tying a selling decision to an exact date is building on a value that can still shift until Thursday.

Amendment and the XRP price: the billion from escrow moved almost nothing on October 1

The obvious question is whether such dates feed through to the price at all. For XRP there is a fresh test case, and it is only four days old: on October 1 one billion XRP was released from the monthly escrow plan, which we covered in our analysis of the escrow release.

We recalculated the daily closing prices around that event: $1.4901 on September 30, $1.4896 on October 1, $1.4941 on October 2. The release day therefore cost 0.03 percent, and that is less than the usual swing of a quiet trading hour. An announced event with a known date is in the price before it happens.

For the protocol change the same logic applies with one limitation: announced technology rarely moves the price, a botched changeover does. So the sensible way to handle these two days is not a bet on a direction but the question of whether your access to the market works during these hours. If you are planning to switch trading venue anyway, it is worth looking at fees and deposit routes first in the crypto exchange comparison.

Software version before October 9: node release, maintenance windows and the amendment blocked state

A node that does not know an activated protocol change stops following the network. In the jargon this state is called amendment blocked: the software keeps running but no longer delivers reliable data and no longer accepts transactions. That is precisely why trading venues and wallet providers announce maintenance windows ahead of such dates.

Our query on Monday morning went to a public node of the XRPL cluster. It reported software version 3.4.1, 200 connected peers and no blocked state. The infrastructure is therefore prepared; the open question is whether every individual provider has followed suit.

In practice that means for you: do not schedule XRP deposits and withdrawals for Thursday evening after 11:25 p.m. or Friday afternoon between 4 p.m. and 5 p.m. of all times. Your provider's status page will tell you whether a maintenance window has been set. And if you are considering moving to a provider under German supervision: since the end of the national transition period every service provider in the EU needs an authorisation as a crypto-asset service provider under the MiCA regulation. Whether your provider holds one is listed in BaFin's company database.

Self-custody for XRP: account reserve 1 XRP, object reserve 0.2 XRP, network fee 0.00001 XRP

Anyone moving their coins off the exchange this week meets a peculiarity on the XRP Ledger that does not exist in this form at Bitcoin or Ethereum: every address has to hold a minimum amount permanently. We queried these values too directly at the node on Monday.

• Account reserve: 1 XRP. This amount stays locked as long as the address exists and corresponds, at the current price, to around $1.51 or €1.35.
• Object reserve: 0.2 XRP. Every additional trust line, every order in the decentralised order book and every further object locks this amount on top.
• Network fee: 0.00001 XRP per transaction, that is, ten drops. It rises at load peaks; the base value was at the bottom end on Monday.

From that follows a rule that first transfers regularly fall foul of: a new XRP address that has never been used cannot receive an amount that is below the account reserve. The first transfer to a fresh address therefore has to be larger than 1 XRP, otherwise the network rejects it. Which device is suitable for that and what it costs is set out in the hardware wallet comparison.

Holding period and the exemption limit: what a sale around October 9 triggers for tax

In Germany, section 23 of the Income Tax Act applies to crypto assets held privately. If you sell XRP within a year of buying, the gain is a private disposal transaction and is taxable at your personal rate. After a year has passed the gain is tax-free, regardless of its size.

Two points are often confused here. First, the exemption limit of 1,000 euros per calendar year: this limit applies to the total of all private disposal transactions, and it is not an allowance. If you are at 1,001 euros of gain, the entire amount is taxable and not just the one euro above it. Second, the ordering: for matching purchases to sales, the first in, first out method generally applies per wallet or account, so the coin bought first counts as the one sold first.

A transfer from the exchange to your own address is not a sale and triggers no tax. Nor does it interrupt the holding period. Even so, you should record the date, the amount and the price of the transfer, because the burden of proving the acquisition rests with you. Anyone with many movements gets through considerably faster with one of the tools from our overview of crypto tax tools than with a spreadsheet of their own.

The range of the past ten days: $1.4846 at the bottom, $1.5681 at the top

For levels without reading the tea leaves, a look at our own daily closing prices of the past ten days is enough. The high is $1.5681 from September 26, the low $1.4846 from October 3. Between them lie 5.6 percent, and the current price of $1.51 sits in the upper third of that range.

On the downside, the October low of $1.4846 is therefore the first line at which it will show whether the recovery of the past two days holds. On the upside, the September high at $1.5681 stands in the way first, and it has capped the market for nine trading days. Both values are observed prices and not a forecast; they say where trading last took place, not where it will take place next.

Anyone looking for an outside assessment will find it at the moment mainly on the supply side: the monthly escrow releases increase the theoretically available stock, while this week's activations change nothing about the circulating amount. A protocol change creates no new coins and burns none. Anyone expecting a price reaction expects it from changed usage, and that shows up at the earliest in the weeks afterwards.

XRP price prediction: How to proceed now

1. Test your access before the windows open. Look at your trading venue's status page by Thursday evening and move planned XRP deposits or withdrawals out of the two time windows. If your provider does not inform you, that is an argument for moving to an exchange with clean status communication.
2. Sort out custody and the reserve. If you move coins to an address of your own, allow for the account reserve of 1 XRP and send more than that amount to a fresh address. The devices and their costs are in the hardware wallet comparison.
3. Look up the holding period before you sell. Use your purchase records to work out which partial holdings have been sitting for more than a year; only there is the gain tax-free. A tool from the tax tool overview pulls the deadlines for you automatically.

(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.)

Anyone still holding unclaimed S tokens from the first two airdrop rounds of Sonic has until October 15, 2026 to act. After that date the amounts that have not been claimed are removed from the contract and are gone for good. The Sonic airdrop therefore has a hard ending, and it is not a deadline anyone can extend: the project has ruled out minting new tokens for these allocations.

The good news for everyone who still has something sitting there: claiming has not cost a penalty since the spring. Holders who claimed in the first few months had to hand back part of their allocation. That window is over, and until the cut-off date the full allocation is available.

32.69 million S sit unclaimed in the airdrop contract

Sonic Labs put the figure out itself: around 32,690,000 S from the Season 1 and Season 2 allocations are still sitting unclaimed in the contract and will be burned on October 15, 2026 if they have not been collected by then. That is what the project's announcement says, and it has been up since the beginning of April. The end point has been fixed for half a year, and hardly any German-language outlet has picked it up so far.

For a sense of scale: at a price of around four cents, 32.69 million S come to roughly 1.19 million euros. Spread across everyone who is eligible, that is often a three-figure sum for the individual holder, sometimes more. So it is worth a quick look, even if the position had long been forgotten.

Until now the matter has shown up here only as a line in the weekly round-up, most recently in the most profitable crypto airdrops of the week. Other distributions that are still running, and their deadlines, are collected in the airdrop overview.

fNFT: the locked position the S tokens are released from

An fNFT is a non-divisible token that represents a locked balance and can only be converted into the actual coin once a lock-up period has expired. That is exactly the form the Sonic airdrop takes: eligible users did not receive the S tokens themselves, but a position they have to unlock.

This is the most common reason why people assume they received nothing. Instead of an S balance, the wallet shows only an inconspicuous entry that looks like nothing without the claim portal. Anyone who took part in Season 1 or Season 2 back then should therefore query their address directly in the project's portal. The token balance in the wallet says nothing about it.

How to tell whether this concerns you

Eligible addresses are the ones that collected points in the two seasons at the time. There is no qualifying after the fact, and no way to buy an entitlement either. Anyone who used several addresses goes through each one separately: the allocation is attached to the address, not to a person or an account.

Season 1 claimable without a penalty since April 18, Season 2 since May 24

The schedule ran in two stages, and both seasons went through it independently. In the first stage a claim was possible, but it cost a penalty on the portion that was still locked. In the second stage the lock-up has run out completely, and the remaining allocation can be claimed without any deduction.

• Season 1: until April 18, 2026 a claim came with a penalty, since April 18, 2026 in full and without a penalty.
• Season 2: until May 24, 2026 a claim came with a penalty, since May 24, 2026 in full and without a penalty.

As things stand today, that means anyone claiming now hands back nothing. The penalty that put so many people off has not been an issue for months. Anyone who deliberately waited back then waited correctly, but now has to see the decision through.

October 15, 2026 closes both claim windows at the same time

Although the two seasons were unlocked at different points in time, they end on the same day. The project names October 15, 2026 as the date without specifying a time of day. Betting on the last day therefore carries an avoidable risk: an hour of uncertainty is enough to lose a position that would have taken a few minutes to claim.

In practice that argues for a buffer of a few days. Network trouble, a forgotten recovery phrase or a hardware wallet that is not to hand right now quickly cost more time than expected.

After the cut-off date any address can trigger the burn in the contract

A burn is the permanent removal of tokens from circulation, usually by a transfer to an address nobody can access. At Sonic this step is built into the contract, and the project describes it explicitly as open: once the date is reached, the burn of the remaining locked amount can be triggered by anyone.

This design is the reason there will be no leniency. There is nobody who could grant an exception, because the process hangs on a condition in the code and not on a decision. A request to support will not change anything after the cut-off date either.

Claiming through the portal and the gas fee on Sonic

The claim runs through the project's airdrop portal at my.soniclabs.com/airdrop. The wallet is connected, the position you are entitled to appears, and the claim is confirmed as an ordinary transaction on the Sonic network. A gas fee is the charge a network levies for executing a transaction; it is payable in the network's own currency and is low on Sonic, but not zero.

From that follows a small detail that is regularly overlooked: a wallet that holds nothing except the locked position cannot pay for the transaction. A small balance of the network currency is needed on the same address before the claim can even start.

The usual stumbling blocks

• The address used to take part back then is a different one from the address in use today.
• The balance for the gas fee is missing on precisely that address.
• The recovery phrase of an old wallet can no longer be found. In that case the position is lost regardless of the deadline.
• Fake claim pages are going round for every well-known deadline. The portal address belongs typed in by hand, never taken from a direct message or a search advert.
• A page that asks for the recovery phrase is a fraud attempt in every case. A genuine claim asks only for a signature in the wallet.

Anyone who wants to hold the claimed tokens for longer is better off not keeping them in the hot wallet the portal was connected to. Which devices are suitable for that and how they differ is set out in the hardware wallet comparison.

Selling instead of claiming: the fNFT order book on PaintSwap

There is a second route, and the project names it itself: the locked positions are tradable. An order book on PaintSwap at airdrop.paintswap.io lets fNFT positions be sold to other participants instead of being claimed.

For the vast majority of holders this is now the worse route. As long as a penalty was looming, selling below value had a logic to it. Since both seasons are fully unlocked, a direct claim delivers the whole amount, while selling the position requires a buyer, a price and a spread. The route remains interesting mainly for holders who, for tax or practical reasons, do not want to come into contact with the tokens at all.

Anyone who wants to sell the claimed S afterwards needs a trading venue that lists the token. Whether a provider is authorised in the EU can be looked up in the company database of BaFin, the German financial supervisor; which venues are an option for European investors in the first place is set out in our crypto exchange comparison.

Tax in Germany: the finance ministry letter separates allocation and consideration

The letter of March 6, 2025 from the German Federal Ministry of Finance deals with airdrops explicitly and distinguishes two cases. If someone is allocated crypto assets without doing anything for them, then on this reading of the administration there is no taxable income at the moment of allocation. If, on the other hand, the recipient has to provide something, such as supplying data or carrying out an action on social networks, other income under section 22 number 3 of the German Income Tax Act comes into consideration.

The letter also records that an element of chance can override the link between the service and the consideration, and that crypto assets are to be recognised at the market price at the time of acquisition. If no market price can be established at that moment, a valuation of zero euros is also possible.

For the Sonic airdrop that means the classification depends on what exactly was required in the two seasons, and that is a question of the individual case. Anyone claiming a larger position settles it with the tax office or a tax adviser rather than relying on a blanket answer. Tools that document inflows and disposals automatically are set side by side in our comparison of crypto tax tools.

Holding period, the exemption limit and the open point on the acquisition date

The holding period under section 23 of the German Income Tax Act is one year for crypto assets held privately; once it has run out a disposal gain remains tax-free, before that it counts as a private disposal transaction, for which an exemption limit of 1,000 euros per calendar year has applied since 2024. If that limit is exceeded, the whole gain is taxable and not just the part above it.

The delicate point in this case is when the period starts. Whether it runs from the original allocation of the locked position or only from the claim of the S tokens cannot be answered across the board and depends on how the individual case is set up. So anyone planning to sell soon after claiming should put exactly that question first, because it decides whether the gain is taxable. What belongs in the records in any case is the date of the claim, the amount claimed and the price on that day.

1.19 million euros against a 158 million market capitalisation: no supply pressure

For context, because the matter is easily mistaken for a price story: the 32.69 million S amount to just under 0.9 percent of the circulating supply and to about four percent of what is traded on a single day. Measured against a market capitalisation of around 158 million US dollars, that is a small figure.

On top of that comes the direction: a burn reduces supply, it does not increase it. Reading looming selling pressure into the date gets the matter the wrong way round. Nor does it work as a price driver, for which the amount is too small. The value of this date lies solely with the people affected, and there it is concrete.

For the price itself, the same applies as to every smaller token: a total loss is possible, and the swings are considerably larger than with the big names. Claiming an allocation is no reason to keep it, and just as little a reason to sell it immediately.

After the claim: self-custody and the trading venue

With the claim, a locked position turns into ordinary tokens on your own address. That shifts the task from the deadline to custody. Anyone holding larger amounts is well advised to separate the wallet used to connect to portals from the wallet the holdings sit in.

MiCA is the EU regulation on markets in crypto assets, which has applied in stages since 2024 and requires providers to hold an authorisation and to meet uniform obligations. For a sale that means, in practical terms: before tokens move to a trading venue, it is worth looking at whether the provider is authorised in the EU and how it holds customer balances.

Sonic airdrop: The key points for your decision

The date is irreversible, the effort is small, and the penalty that used to argue against claiming no longer exists. Anyone with an entitlement from Season 1 or Season 2 should settle the matter in the next few days rather than in the final week.

1. Go through the addresses and claim. Query each address separately in the portal, keep a small balance ready for the gas fee and complete the claim before October 15. For custody afterwards, the hardware wallet comparison helps.
2. Document the transaction. Record the date, the amount and the price on the day of the claim, and settle the open question on when the holding period begins before you sell. Tools for that are in the comparison of tax tools.
3. Only then decide about selling. The trading venue should list the token and be authorised in the EU; an overview is offered by the exchange comparison.

(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.)

The purchase lifts Bitmine's stash past 6 million ETH—4.9% of supply and 99% of the way to its "Alchemy of 5%" goal—as chairman Tom Lee says Ethereum is "dwarfing" other macro assets.

The firm's Bitcoin holdings hit a record 848,000 BTC, while the quarterly gain is a fair-value mark carrying $1.88 billion in deferred tax.

Rating agencies ask if a Bitcoin company will actually sell when obligations fall due. "We answered by doing it," said CEO Simon Gerovich.

Crypto majors and alts are rallying to start October. What’s driving the early action and will it continue?

An association for AI enthusiasts was allegedly the recruiting vehicle, and two anonymous tips to a government portal started the case.

Morgan Stanley emerges as one of the fastest-growing Bitcoin ETFs ever launched as it continues to accumulate Bitcoin without selling.

The countdown for Glamsterdam hard fork testnet launch is nearing its final hours.

XRP claims the top trading spot in South Korea following new infrastructure announcements at a Seoul event.

XRP Ledger fee burn model gets a strong defense from Ripple CTO Emeritus David Schwartz.

Shiba Inu just launched on Solana via Sunrise bridge, sparking an immediate 4% price surge for the coin.

TLDR:

• South Korea led East Asia with a $449.1B crypto economy and strong AI-token trading.
• Hong Kong’s institutional platforms captured 16% of service inflows during 2026.
• Japan’s DEX market share reached 34.5%, led by growing retail participation.
• China’s unique stablecoin P2P wallets grew 43x between Q1 2024 and Q2 2026.

East Asia’s crypto economy exceeded $1.2 trillion, with South Korea leading at $449.1 billion during 2026. Chainalysis found sharply different market structures across South Korea, Japan, Hong Kong, China, and Taiwan.

The region contracted modestly overall during the period, aligning with the global bear market. Yet individual markets moved in different directions, shaped by regulation, taxation, institutional access, and local trading preferences.

South Korea Leads East Asia’s Crypto Economy

South Korea recorded a $449.1 billion crypto economy, growing 12.3% period over period. Exchange-related flows also increased by $51.1 billion, reflecting the strength of its retail-driven market.

The Chainalysis blog report found that South Korean traders showed an unusually strong preference for AI-related cryptocurrencies. By June 2026, AI cryptocurrencies represented the largest defined thematic category by won-denominated trading volume.

Worldcoin (WLD) led the category with $7.41 billion in volume. SAHARA recorded $3.2 billion, followed by VIRTUAL at $2.7 billion, BIO at $2 billion, and NEAR at $1.7 billion.

AI-crypto activity was far stronger in South Korea than comparable markets. AI assets accounted for a 19.5-times larger share of won trading than yen trading.

Japan’s $228.3 billion crypto economy showed a different pattern. DEX activity reached 34.5% of its services market, while DEX engagement rose more than 200% since 2022.

Chainalysis also found that roughly one in four Japanese exchange users later deposited funds into DeFi protocols. Smart contract tokens increased their share of yen trading volume from 10% to 15.4%.

Tax treatment remains a major factor for both markets. Japan’s maximum marginal crypto tax rate reached 55% during the study period, while South Korea had no crypto profits tax.

South Korea has a 22% crypto profits tax scheduled for 2027. Japan also advanced tax reforms in July 2026 that could shift eligible crypto gains toward roughly 20% separate taxation.

Hong Kong and China Show Opposite Crypto Trends

Hong Kong’s $192.2 billion crypto economy stood out for its institutional activity. Institutional platforms captured 16% of service inflows, nearly three times higher than any regional neighbor.

That share rose from around 9% two years earlier. Custody providers, prime brokers, and market-making desks represented 85% of the institutional category.

Hong Kong also received nearly $24 billion in inbound service-to-service transfers. Cumulative net business-to-business inflows reached $17.4 billion by mid-2026.

China presented the opposite model. Despite its longstanding ban on crypto services, Chainalysis estimated its crypto economy at least $176.3 billion.

Domestic peer-to-peer activity represented 59.1% of China’s crypto economy. Unique wallets sending stablecoin P2P transactions grew 43 times between Q1 2024 and Q2 2026.

Stablecoin activity accelerated from March 2025, with monthly additions rising from roughly $240 million to nearly $5 billion a year later. However, Chainalysis described the potential connection with China’s expanded social credit system as a working hypothesis.

China’s self-custodied stablecoins also showed unusually high turnover. Holdings circulated at 33.2 times annually, compared with a global average of 9.3 times.

East Asia has no single crypto-market model. South Korea remains retail-led, Japan combines retail and institutional activity, Hong Kong concentrates regulated institutional flows, while China relies heavily on P2P stablecoin transactions.

The post East Asia’s $1.2T Crypto Economy Splits Between Retail and Institutions: Chainalysis appeared first on Blockonomi.

TLDR:

• Plume launched nBND, a tokenized vault primarily backed by Fidelity’s FBND bond ETF.
• FBND provides exposure to investment-grade, high-yield, and emerging markets debt.
• The launch expands tokenized fixed income beyond short-duration Treasury products.
• Plume says institutional allocators increasingly want duration and active bond management.

Plume has launched nBND, a tokenized vault primarily backed by Fidelity Total Bond ETF (FBND), expanding onchain fixed-income access.

FBND is an actively managed ETF focused on investment-grade, high-yield, and emerging markets debt. The launch moves tokenized fixed income beyond short-duration Treasuries and money market equivalents.

The product targets capital allocators seeking longer duration and actively managed strategies onchain. It also brings traditional fixed-income exposure into Plume’s infrastructure for institutional assets.

Why is Plume Expanding Tokenized Fixed Income With nBND?

Plume said nBND responds to demand from capital allocators seeking longer duration and actively managed products. The vault gives allocators onchain exposure to a bond strategy managed by a major financial institution.

Chris Yin, Plume’s CEO and co-founder, said short-duration Treasuries were an initial step for onchain fixed income. He added that institutional allocators now want duration and active management.

The distinction matters because bond portfolios can carry different maturity profiles and credit exposures. Short-duration products generally focus on assets with limited interest-rate sensitivity.

nBND instead uses FBND as its primary reserve asset, bringing broader fixed-income exposure into Plume’s onchain environment. The structure connects traditional portfolio management with blockchain-based infrastructure.

Plume describes itself as an Open Finance platform for institutional assets. Its EVM-compatible chain provides infrastructure for tokenized financial products and related applications.

The launch also reflects a broader shift in how real-world assets can be represented onchain. Instead of focusing only on Treasury products, issuers are adding diversified financial assets.

That expansion gives the tokenized fixed-income market a wider range of potential portfolio building blocks. It also creates a bridge between established asset managers and crypto-native infrastructure.

nBND Adds Institutional Bond Exposure to Plume’s Tokenized Fixed-Income Market

The launch comes as tokenized U.S. Treasuries continue to expand. According to Plume’s press release, the market grew from $12 billion in April 2026 to $15 billion in June.

That $3 billion increase occurred over two months, while the global fixed-income market exceeds $100 trillion in assets. Plume said this highlights the potential scope for broader fixed-income tokenization.

The company is positioning nBND as part of a wider fixed-income market rather than another isolated yield product. That distinction centers on access to established financial assets through programmable blockchain infrastructure.

Fidelity’s Cynthia Lo Bessette said tokenized assets and onchain applications are becoming more integrated with mainstream market infrastructure. She said collaboration can expand investment access and enable greater portfolio programmability.

She also pointed to potential collateral utility and access to capital. Those functions could make tokenized assets useful beyond simply holding an investment product.

For traders and investors, the key development is the expansion of tokenized fixed income into actively managed bond exposure. nBND links an established ETF structure with an onchain vault.

The post Plume Brings Fidelity’s Bond ETF Onchain With New nBND Vault appeared first on Blockonomi.

TLDR:

• Bitmine holds 6,016,414 ETH, about 4.9% of total supply, and now sits 99% of the way to its 5% ETH goal.
• Strategy bought 334 BTC at an average of $85,839 from October 1-4, lifting total holdings to 848,000 BTC.
• Bitmine has staked 5,067,309 ETH worth $13.8 billion and projects $363 million in yearly staking revenue.
• Strategy repurchased $176.3 million of STRC shares and estimates a $20.91 billion Q3 digital asset gain.

Bitmine is now 99% of the way to owning 5% of all ETH. The firm added 15,112 ETH last week. Its total stands at 6,016,414 ETH, or about 4.9% of the 122.1 million supply.

Strategy, the world’s largest crypto treasury, kept stacking BTC at the same time. It bought 334 BTC for $28.7 million between October 1 and 4, bringing its total to 848,000 BTC. It also repurchased about $176.3 million of STRC shares between September 28 and October 4.

Crypto Treasury Leaders Bitmine and Strategy Add to Their Stack

Bitmine’s holdings now equal about 4.9% of Ethereum’s 122.1 million supply. The firm says it is 99% of the way toward owning 5% of all ETH.

Bitmine has bought ETH every week since launching its ETH treasury strategy on June 30, 2025. Chairman Tom Lee called that record unmatched among public companies.

According to the company’s release, 5,067,309 ETH is staked. That stake is worth $13.8 billion at $2,726 per ETH. Staking means locking ETH to help secure the network in return for rewards.

Lee said annualized staking revenue is now projected at $363 million. Bitmine’s total crypto, cash, marketable securities and other investments stand at $17.4 billion.

Its portfolio also includes 214 BTC, a $180 million stake in Beast Industries and a $117 million stake in Eightco Holdings. Cash and marketable securities total $643 million.

Strategy took a different route. As reported by WuBlockchain, it bought 334 BTC between October 1 and 4 at an average price of $85,839. Total holdings now cost about $63.97 billion.

The purchase was funded with $15.7 million from MSTR share sales and $13 million in cash. Strategy also repurchased about $176.3 million of STRC preferred shares between September 28 and October 4.

Why the Crypto Treasury Model Matters for Markets

Strategy’s 8-K filing estimates a $20.91 billion gain on digital assets for Q3. Its bitcoin was valued at $70.82 billion as of September 30.

Bitmine’s release ranks Strategy as the top global treasury and itself as number two. It cites Strategy’s holdings at 847,666 BTC, worth roughly $78 billion.

Lee argues that crypto is entering a bull market. He said ETH fell 10% in the first nine months of 2026, while BMNR fell 3%. He also said ETH beat the S&P 500 by 6,832 basis points in the third quarter. These are the company’s claims, not independent findings.

The two strategies differ in one key way. Bitmine stakes its ETH to earn yield. Strategy holds bitcoin, which does not generate staking rewards, and leans on equity sales and buybacks.

Liquidity is another signal. Fundstrat data shows BMNR averaged $827 million in daily dollar volume over five days to October 2. That ranks it 125th among 5,704 US-listed stocks.

Lee will give a keynote at Token2049 on October 7 at 10 a.m. in Singapore. Traders will watch for any update on the 5% goal.

Bitmine is nearly at its 5% ETH target, and Strategy keeps stacking BTC while buying back preferred stock. The crypto treasury race is still running at scale.

The post Crypto Treasury Giants Keep Buying: Bitmine Nears 5% of All ETH as Strategy Hits 848,000 BTC appeared first on Blockonomi.

TLDR:

• Payward will offer 24/7 instant settlement through SGB Net to selected institutional clients.
• The service initially supports U.S. dollar transactions across selected Asian and Gulf markets.
• SGB Net now processes more than $20 billion in fiat transactions each month.
• SGB will use Kraken Prime for digital-asset liquidity and pricing for its customers.

Payward, the parent company of Kraken, has partnered with Singapore Gulf Bank (SGB) to provide 24/7 instant settlement for institutional digital asset clients in selected Asian and Gulf markets.

The partnership connects Payward to SGB Net, SGB’s real-time, multi-currency clearing network. The service will initially support U.S. dollar transactions for a select group of clients, with more clients and currencies planned.

How Payward’s 24/7 Settlement Network Works

SGB Net allows institutional clients to move funds between banking and digital asset infrastructure without waiting for traditional banking cut-off times.

Historically, bank settlement has followed business hours and fixed processing windows. Digital asset markets, however, operate continuously throughout the week.

Under the new arrangement, an SGB client can deposit funds with Payward and deploy them instantly. This could reduce delays between funding an account and accessing digital asset markets.

The initial rollout covers U.S. dollar transactions for selected clients in specific jurisdictions across Asia and the Gulf region. Payward and SGB plan to expand the service over time.

SGB Net launched in 2025 for digital asset businesses with increasing operational requirements. According to the companies, the network now processes more than $20 billion in fiat transactions each month.

The partnership also links SGB with Kraken Prime, Payward’s full-service prime brokerage platform. SGB will use Kraken Prime as an additional source of digital asset liquidity and pricing for its customers.

Payward Banking Expansion Connects Settlement and Liquidity

The partnership extends Payward’s broader effort to strengthen its banking infrastructure for institutional clients.

Payward Banking serves as the money layer supporting deposits, payments, cards, custody, and lending across the platform. Adding regulated banking partners can help connect traditional financial services with continuously operating digital asset markets.

For institutional traders, the key change is the timing of capital movement. Faster settlement can allow eligible clients to fund digital asset activity without waiting for the next banking window.

SGB is regulated by the Central Bank of Bahrain and is backed by Bahrain’s sovereign wealth fund Mumtalakat and Singapore’s Whampoa Group.

SGB Chief Executive Officer Shawn Chan said liquidity becomes more useful when clients can move funds when needed. The partnership therefore combines two important parts of institutional crypto infrastructure: access to liquidity and access to settlement.

For traders and institutions, the immediate offering remains limited to selected clients and U.S. dollar transactions. Its broader significance depends on whether Payward expands access across additional jurisdictions and currencies.

The SGB Net handles real-time fiat clearing while Kraken Prime provides digital asset market access. Together, the infrastructure will bring banking settlement closer to the continuous operating model of crypto markets.

The post Kraken’s Parent Payward Taps SGB for Instant Crypto Settlement appeared first on Blockonomi.

TLDR

• S&P Global launches a new risk tool for the $10 billion crypto vault market.
• The framework assesses six major risks across digital asset lending vaults.
• Crypto vault deposits surged from $1.5 billion in 2024 to $10 billion in 2026.
• SPGI stock closed 0.49% lower before edging 0.07% higher in pre-market trade.
• The launch extends S&P Global’s broader push into blockchain finance and data.

S&P Global has launched a new risk assessment framework for digital asset lending vaults, targeting a rapidly expanding $10 billion market. The move strengthens the company’s growing role in blockchain-based finance and expands its analytical services beyond traditional credit markets. SPGI stock closed at $386.27, down 0.49%, before rising 0.07% to $386.54 in pre-market trading.

S&P Global Inc., SPGI

S&P Global Launches Vault Risk Assessment

S&P Global Ratings introduced the Vault Risk Assessment to evaluate impairment risks linked to digital asset lending vaults. The framework provides forward-looking analysis designed to improve transparency across blockchain-based pooled investment structures. It also addresses limited strategy and risk disclosures across many existing vault products.

The assessment covers six major areas that influence the overall risk profile of a digital asset vault. These include portfolio credit quality, liquidity mismatches, curator exposure, blockchain risks, protocol weaknesses, and governance security. S&P Global designed the approach to offer a standardized view across different vault structures.

However, the company does not classify the assessment as a traditional credit rating. The framework also avoids evaluating potential yields offered through specific vault strategies. Instead, it measures relative impairment risks affecting deposited capital and positions within individual vaults.

Digital Asset Vault Market Reaches $10 Billion

Digital asset lending vaults have expanded rapidly as blockchain finance attracts more institutional activity. Total deposits reached about $10 billion by September 2026, according to S&P Global. That figure stood near $1.5 billion during September 2024.

Vaults pool digital asset deposits and deploy those funds under defined lending or investment strategies. Smart contracts can manage these strategies automatically, while human managers can also control allocations. Depositors generally receive blockchain tokens representing their proportional ownership of underlying vault assets.

These structures increasingly mirror products found across traditional financial markets. Their functions can resemble money market funds, private credit vehicles, private equity structures, or hedge funds. However, blockchain technology allows these pooled strategies to operate directly through onchain infrastructure.

S&P Global Expands Digital Asset Strategy

The new product extends S&P Global’s broader expansion into digital asset risk, data, and blockchain infrastructure. The company previously introduced stablecoin assessments and issued a credit rating covering decentralized finance protocol Sky. It also rated a Bitcoin-backed structured finance transaction linked to digital asset lender Ledn.

S&P Dow Jones Indices has also worked with Kaiko to tokenize the iBoxx U.S. Treasuries Index. Meanwhile, S&P Global led a strategic investment in Kaiko during September 2026. That transaction deepened the company’s exposure to digital asset data, indices, and market infrastructure.

S&P Global also announced an agreement to acquire blockchain security company OpenZeppelin during September. The planned acquisition adds security expertise to its expanding portfolio of digital asset services. S&P Global Ratings plans to publish its first Vault Risk Assessments through future announcements.

The post S&P Global (SPGI) Stock: New Vault Risk Tool Targets $10B Crypto Market appeared first on Blockonomi.

BitMine has acquired 15,112 ETH in the week to October 4, taking its treasury to 6,016,414 tokens, though that purchase was smaller than the 17,362 ETH BitMine bought a week earlier.

It was also the company’s smallest weekly buy since the week to August 16, when it added 9,926 ETH, according to its SEC filings. The treasury now equals 4.9% of the 122.1 million ETH in supply, short of BitMine’s 5% target.

Buyback Total Matches August Figure

BitMine valued its ETH at $2,726 per token, using Coinbase prices. At that price, its ETH, other crypto, cash and equity stakes total $17.4 billion. The total also covers 214 Bitcoin (BTC), a $180 million stake in Beast Industries and $117 million of Eightco Holdings (ORBS).

Cash and marketable securities account for $643 million of that total. That figure fell from $672 million a week earlier and from $714 million on September 20.

“We believe that as crypto enters a cycle we view as a bull market, what is notable is Bitmine’s share price outperformance of ETH during the bear market of 2025-2026,” said BitMine Chairman Tom Lee.

Lee said the company’s shares fell 3% in the first nine months of this year, while ETH fell 10%, and he tied that gap partly to BitMine’s share buyback. He said the company has acquired 21 million of its own shares this year, and called it the largest equity buyback by any crypto treasury.

Moreover, BitMine’s August 17 update put repurchases since July 1 at 20.8 million shares, which they ran under a $4 billion authorization. None of the six weekly updates filed from August 24 to September 28 reported a repurchase.

New Staking Deal Sets 1.5% Fee

Ethereum Towers had managed BitMine’s staking operations since March, in return for a share of net staking revenue. The two companies ended that agreement on September 3, as BitMine disclosed in a September 8 filing, with the company stating it incurred no material early termination penalty.

Likewise, since September 4, Ethereum Towers affiliate American Validator has advised MAVAN, the staking platform BitMine launched in March. The affiliate earns 1.5% of the rewards on ETH that BitMine stakes.

BitMine reported 5,067,309 ETH staked, or 84% of its Ether. That staked count has not moved in nine weekly updates, starting August 9.

The post BitMine Lifts ETH Treasury to 6.02 Million With Smallest Buy Since Mid-August appeared first on CryptoPotato.

AI agents are moving beyond support tools in cybersecurity and financial-crime investigations, according to a new Intel3D report by blockchain security firm CertiK. The paper, shared with CryptoPotato, says newer systems can reason through steps, use tools, gather evidence, act in live environments, and review results with limited human input.

For years, machine-learning systems mainly supported analysts by flagging unusual logins, scoring transactions, and preparing reports. CertiK says newer agents can perform wider tasks, shifting their role from identifying problems to helping execute responses.

AI Agents Take on More Security Tasks

In a security operations center, an agent could investigate a suspicious login by checking device records, location data, and threat feeds before acting. It could suspend an account and record its steps for human review.

CertiK says similar systems are emerging across Web3 security, including contract triage, transaction risk scoring and tracing stolen funds. The firm expects humans to focus more on supervision as agents handle routine investigations.

One reason for this shift is the speed of some attacks. Flash-loan exploits can drain protocols within seconds, while stolen crypto can move across bridges and mixers within hours. This leaves human teams with little time to investigate and respond.

A shortage of cybersecurity and compliance professionals is another factor, while regulatory pressure is increasing workloads. The security firm cites more than $900 million in AML penalties during the first half of 2025, showing the consequences firms can face when controls fail.

AI Autonomy Raises New Risks

CertiK argues that companies should treat autonomous agents as workforce participants rather than ordinary software. Their actions do not remove human accountability, so deploying companies remain responsible for outcomes.

That accountability becomes more important as agents take on tasks across financial and crypto operations. In finance, agents could handle AML tasks, while in crypto, they could detect exploits, trace funds, and monitor transactions.

However, the report highlights risks from incorrect outputs, weaker human scrutiny, and deliberate attacks against AI systems. CertiK recommends records of inputs and actions, clear limits on autonomous decisions, adversarial testing, and a named owner for every agent.

As AI systems gain greater authority over security and compliance tasks, firms will need controls that match their expanded role. CertiK says that without strong oversight, automation could replace familiar problems with failures that are harder to explain.

The post AI Agents Take on Bigger Role in Cybersecurity, CertiK Says appeared first on CryptoPotato.

One of the largest corporate holders of bitcoin sold 10,000 units during the third quarter of the year, according to the company’s most recent filing, only to buy more back.

This rather surprising move was designed to prove that its massive bitcoin treasury can be converted into cash when needed.

The filing reveals that the company sold 10,000 BTC for ¥124.7 billion (approximately $790 million) and held the proceeds temporarily in cash. Shortly after, it purchased 11,000 BTC for almost ¥150 billion and ultimately increased its holdings by an additional 1,000 units.

Consequently, its total stash grew to 44,000 BTC as of September 30. The purchase, the firm explained, was completed to demonstrate to credit-rating agencies and fixed-income investors that its bitcoin fortune is genuinely liquid.

The cash raised from the sale exceeded the company’s roughly ¥122.4 billion in net bonds, borrowings, and other relevant liabilities. It’s worth noting that those debts were not repaid. Instead, Metaplanet wanted to show that it could monetize enough BTC to cover its obligations if necessary.

The move was a part of a broader plan to obtain a credit rating and expand financing options through bonds and preferred stock.

On the downside, Metaplanet sold at slightly lower prices and had to repurchase its stash at higher levels. The stash also generated a US tax capital loss that could potentially create a deferred tax asset of approximately $97 million. Nevertheless, the firm stressed that this remains preliminary and unaudited.

Aside from its accumulation, Metaplanet recently made another BTC move, investing 2,100 BTC and $2.5 million to transfer from Super League Enterprise into Superplanet, a US Bitcoin treasury platform.

The post Metaplanet Sold 10,000 BTC – Then Bought Back Even More: Here’s Why appeared first on CryptoPotato.

Strive CEO Matt Cole just announced that the company spent $169 million to acquire 2,000 BTC last week at an average price of $84,422.

This brings its total holdings to 29,462 units, accumulated at an average price of somewhere between $90,400 and $90,700.

Strive acquired 2,000 $BTC for $169M at an average cost of $84,422 per bitcoin, bringing total holdings to ₿29,462.

61.5% of capital raised came from SATA, with warrants generating $56.7M.

Today’s 8-K also highlights key metrics and KPIs through 3Q26.

$ASST $SATA https://t.co/HS4ADPQ8mJ

— Matt Cole (@ColeMacro) October 5, 2026

This rather impressive weekly purchase, significantly larger than the one from the previous week, is actually the third-largest in the company’s history according to on-chain data.

The single biggest was actually not a direct buy, but came from the merger with Semler Scientific, in which 5,816-5,817 BTC (worth $675 million) were involved. Then came the 2026 record of 2,500 BTC, accumulated for $185.2 million in late May and early June.

Thus, the company has ramped up its accumulation spree at times when the largest corporate holder of bitcoin has slowed down. Although Strategy has extended its consecutive weekly purchase streak to three now, its actual buy was a lot lower than Strive’s at just 334 BTC.

The post Strive Completes Its Third-Largest Bitcoin Purchase, Adding 2,000 BTC appeared first on CryptoPotato.

Macro uncertainty and political turmoil have failed to deter Strategy from continuing its recent bitcoin accumulation spree, with the company adding another 334 units for $28.7 million.

Although this particular purchase was a relatively modest one compared with some of the firm’s massive acquisitions completed until several months ago, its impact was still significant and two-fold. First, Strategy extended its weekly accumulation spree to three in a row. Second, and perhaps more importantly, its total holdings reached a new all-time high of 848,000 BTC.

Strategy has solidified its spot as the world’s largest corporate holder of the leading cryptocurrency. Its purchases began over six years ago, and the firm has spent almost $64 billion (average price of $75,441 per unit) to build its fortune.

Given today’s prices of around $86,000, Strategy sits at an unrealized gain of almost $9 billion. Interestingly, Saylor’s post reads that the company has reported a $21 billion gain on digital assets in Q3 2026.

Strategy reports a $21 billion gain on digital assets in Q3 2026. Last week, we acquired 334 $BTC and repurchased $176M of $STRC. As of 10/4/26, we hold 848,000 BTC and $5.7B of USD Assets. $MSTR https://t.co/jvwiJahdMm

— Michael Saylor (@saylor) October 5, 2026

The company has also repurchased $176 million worth of STRC as its recovery continues. The stock’s price slumped far below its par level of $100 to $75 during the summer, but it has rebounded to nearly $99.5 as of Friday’s close.

The post 3 in a Row: Strategy Ramps Up Bitcoin Purchases as Holdings Hit 848,000 BTC appeared first on CryptoPotato.