The sanctions on A7 highlight increased US efforts to disrupt global financial networks aiding sanctioned states, impacting crypto compliance.

The post US sanctions A7 network for allegedly aiding Iran’s sanctions evasion appeared first on Crypto Briefing.

The tight race could lead to increased political polarization and uncertainty, impacting Brazil's economic stability and investor confidence.

The post Brazil’s Lula and Bolsonaro tied in early polls ahead of 2026 election appeared first on Crypto Briefing.

Affordable AI video generation democratizes content creation, enabling small creators to innovate and compete without high costs.

The post Grok Imagine 1.5 Lite lands on Venice at $0.04 per clip appeared first on Crypto Briefing.

Armadin's proactive AI-driven approach could redefine cybersecurity, emphasizing preemptive defense strategies over traditional reactive measures.

The post Kevin Mandia’s Armadin raises $255.5M for AI agent swarms that attack your network first appeared first on Crypto Briefing.

Cloudflare's AI model launch signifies a strategic shift towards in-house AI development, potentially enhancing its competitive edge in cloud services.

The post Cloudflare releases Clef and Clef-flash decision models on Workers AI appeared first on Crypto Briefing.

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.

Bitcoin Magazine

Nico Lechuga: Bitcoin Will Revolutionize the $4T Private Equity Industry

Traditional private equity is always on a clock, says Nico Lechuga. Funds run seven to ten years, so businesses get flipped in three to five. Lechuga, a founding partner at Ego Death Capital and co-founder of ORANGE JUICE, explains how permanent capital and a Bitcoin treasury could give owner-operators another option.

Chapters:
0:00 Meet Nico Lechuga of ego death capital and ORANGE JUICE
0:31 Why Private Equity’s Fund Model Keeps Owners on a Clock
1:16 What Makes a Good Acquisition Target for a Permanent Holding Company
3:11 Bitcoin or Another Business: How Free Cash Flow Gets Allocated
4:33 Why Debt Is a Drag and How Permanent Capital Differs
7:23 Owner-Operators as Frontline Intelligence, and the Role of Roll-Ups
9:12 How to Tell a Real Bitcoin Business From a Pitch
11:30 Competing With MBA Search Funds for Small Businesses
12:29 Brand as an Edge: The People Behind ORANGE JUICE
13:34 Acquisition Currency and Crossing the Chasm

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 Nico Lechuga: Bitcoin Will Revolutionize the $4T Private Equity Industry first appeared on Bitcoin Magazine and is written by Patrick Green.

Bitcoin Magazine

Darius Dale: Will Global Liquidity Send Bitcoin Higher in 2027?

Are we headed for a period of chop before a bigger move in Bitcoin? Darius Dale, founder of 42 Macro, says a decline in funding liquidity could mean near-term volatility, but that if liquidity comes back in 2027, which he sees as more likely than not, Bitcoin could resolve higher over the following 12 to 18 months. He also explains why Bitcoin deserves a portfolio allocation as a different exposure from stocks and gold.

Chapters:
0:00 Darius Dale on Who Benefits From Rising Treasury Yields
1:06 Why Higher Rates Haven’t Hit the Economy Yet: The AI Capex Boom
2:02 Default via Debasement and a Fed–Treasury Accord 2.0
4:30 Five Paths Out of the Debt Problem, and Only Three Are Acceptable
6:32 Risk Management, Asset Allocation, and Why No Bonds
8:22 Bitcoin Outlook: Near-Term Chop and the 2027 Liquidity Case
9:34 Bitcoin’s Role vs. Gold and Stocks, and Where Bond Yields Reach Fair Value
10:53 The “Wealth Pump” and Money in Politics
17:09 Why AI Is Too Big to Fail and What a Bust Would Look Like
19:11 Running for Office, Why He’s Not a Socialist, and Jackie Robinson

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 Darius Dale: Will Global Liquidity Send Bitcoin Higher in 2027? first appeared on Bitcoin Magazine and is written by Patrick Green.

Bitcoin Magazine

SEC Proposes New Rules On Crypto Custody 

The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission has proposed new rules to update how investment advisers and regulated funds hold assets, with a big focus on crypto.

In a statement Thursday, the Wall Street watchdog said it would allow advisers and funds acting through their advisers, to hold client crypto themselves, but only if no permitted custodian is available. 

Regulators are pushing ahead with rulemaking for the digital asset space despite lawmakers blocking the Clarity Act last month. 

The long-awaited legislation — a framework for distinguishing between digital assets that are securities, commodities or payment stablecoins — didn’t get the votes needed to advance. 

“Since the advent of Bitcoin in 2008, the crypto asset market has grown from a niche curiosity into a multi-trillion-dollar asset class to which investors actively seek exposure. Unfortunately, our rules and regulations have not kept pace,” SEC Chairman Paul S. Atkins said in a statement.

“To that end, today’s proposal would provide a clear regulatory framework for the custody of crypto assets, giving investment advisers and funds a compliant pathway where none existed before — and replacing the grey of uncertainty created by custody rules crafted for a bygone era.”

The regulator said in its proposed rules that records kept on a blockchain could count toward compliance, subject to conditions. 

It added that it would allow use of state trust companies as custodians for client and regulated fund crypto assets, subject to conditions.

Lawmakers blocked the Clarity Act in a procedural vote last month. Regulators had said before the vote that regardless of whether the landmark legislation passed, they’d still start regulating the crypto industry.  

The SEC before the vote sent a proposal to the White House aiming to “clarify the framework for the custody of crypto assets” for investment advisers and companies. 

Pro-crypto Atkins said he would still work to make the U.S. the “crypto capital of the world” regardless of the landmark legislation getting through. 

This post SEC Proposes New Rules On Crypto Custody  first appeared on Bitcoin Magazine and is written by Mathew Di Salvo.

Bitcoin Magazine

Sazmining Launches the Wild Sats Club, a Loyalty Program That Discounts Mining Management Fees as Customer Hashrate Grows

Most mining customers pay the same management fee whether they run a quarter of a petahash or twenty-five. The Wild Sats Club ties that fee to the hashrate a customer already runs with Sazmining, and applies the lower rate across their entire fleet, not just to newly purchased machines.

The Phase 1 discount starts at 1.0 PH with a 1% management fee discount, rising to 3% from 2.5 PH and 6% from 5.0 PH, with the tier recalculated every month. A customer activates once with a qualifying purchase from Sazmining that meets the hashrate to activate: 0.25 PH for Bronze, 0.50 PH for Silver, or 1.0 PH for Gold, in a single order or in orders within a 30 day period. New, pre-owned, and refurbished rigs purchased from Sazmining can qualify. Full terms are at https://www.sazmining.com/wildsatsclub/terms

Customers who make a qualifying purchase during the founding-member window, September 1 to December 31, 2026, activate at their full earned tier, with the lower fee starting on their first monthly recalculation after their new hardware is energized. Every benefit at launch is a management fee discount, never cash or transferable value.

“Mining customers have been asked to accept the same fee whether they run a quarter of a petahash or twenty-five,” said Kent Halliburton, CEO and Co-Founder of Sazmining. “This program fixes that. As a customer’s hashrate grows, their cost of having us run it comes down, and it comes down on everything they already own. We are building long-term relationships with our clients, not one-off transactions, which means advising them on what fleet growth can realistically look like against the goals they are actually trying to reach. We expect this program to appeal in particular to the family offices that want Bitcoin exposure with the depreciation benefits of owning the equipment, real estate investors looking to diversify, and the customers who are simply growing one rig at a time. We are looking forward to adapting and evolving the program so that Sazmining customers keep getting the very best product we can build.”

The program is built to keep opening up as customers grow with Sazmining. Further member benefits will be announced as each becomes available.

To learn more about the Wild Sats Club, visit the program page, or book a consultation with one of Sazmining’s Bitcoin Strategy Advisors here. 

Disclaimer: This is a sponsored press release. Readers are encouraged to perform their own due diligence before acting on any information presented in this article.

This post Sazmining Launches the Wild Sats Club, a Loyalty Program That Discounts Mining Management Fees as Customer Hashrate Grows first appeared on Bitcoin Magazine and is written by Bitcoin Magazine.

NEAR’s new US ETF is facing its first stress test days after launch as a $3.8 million ecosystem exploit hit the token.

NEAR fell about 10% to $4.86 after NEAR Intents disclosed a security incident involving its Omni deposit-and-withdrawal infrastructure. The selloff came less than two days after Bitwise opened the token to US exchange-traded fund investors through its NEAR ETF, with the ticker NRR.

The fund began trading on NYSE Arca on Sept. 29 and attracted $35.5 million of net inflows on its first day. By Sept. 30, cumulative inflows had risen to over $50 million, while total net assets reached $52.8 million, equivalent to about 0.76% of NEAR’s market capitalization, according to SoSoValue data.

That timing gives the newly launched product an unusually early test of investor conviction. The ETF protects buyers from the operational burden of wallets, private keys, and direct staking, but its value still moves with NEAR, leaving shareholders exposed when problems elsewhere in the ecosystem undermine confidence in the token.

A $3.8 million exploit hits NEAR Intents

In an X statement, NEAR Intents said it temporarily halted services after detecting what it described as a bug in the interaction between its Omni infrastructure and the Intents smart contract.

The preliminary loss was about $3.8 million, and the project said it would fully compensate affected users. The team patched the contract vulnerability, and NEAR Intents and near.com resumed operations after a temporary suspension.

Some deposit and withdrawal routes remained unavailable for longer while the team completed fixes to Omni infrastructure covering networks including BSC, Polygon, TON, Optimism, Avalanche, Stellar and Scroll.

NEAR co-founder Illia Polosukhin said the exploit was isolated to USDT on BSC and that NEAR Intents’ SHIELD security system detected unusual activity before pausing services. He said the team identified and fixed the vulnerability within an hour.

The base NEAR blockchain continued operating throughout the incident. NEAR Protocol said the exploit did not involve a vulnerability in the network or the native NEAR token, and that block production and transaction processing continued without interruption.

That separation limits the direct operational impact on Bitwise’s ETF, which holds exposure to NEAR rather than assets deposited through NEAR Intents. The market reaction nevertheless shows how quickly application-level failures can feed through to an asset newly packaged for traditional investors.

The Intents business is also large enough to make the incident more than a peripheral ecosystem problem. Polosukhin said the service now processes more than $4 billion a month in trading and payments volume, positioning it as one of NEAR’s major connections to other chains and applications.

The team has reported the incident to law enforcement and is working with blockchain analytics and security firms to trace the stolen funds. A fuller postmortem is expected in the coming days.

Polosukhin said the ecosystem plans to expand its use of formal verification and other security tools after the breach, including work already underway on a verification system for NEAR smart contracts.

He stated:

“The crypto space is entering a new era of far more sophisticated cyber attacks. Recently, we have seen BitGet, Metamask, Lido all being targeted by criminals equipped with AI systems that are continuously trying to hack all infrastructure. As a space, we need to be far more vigilant and raise the bar on both onchain contract standards and offchain monitoring and proactive prevention.”

The ETF arrived after leverage had already started leaving

The price decline also landed in a market whose speculative positioning had already changed substantially before NRR began trading.

Blockchain analysis firm Santiment said NEAR-denominated futures open interest peaked at roughly 215 million NEAR on Sept. 21, eight days before the ETF launch. By Sept. 29, that figure had dropped about 21% to 169 million NEAR, even as the token’s price had risen roughly 86% from Sept. 16.

Dollar-denominated open interest continued climbing for several days, reaching about $1 billion on Sept. 27, but the declining number of NEAR committed to derivatives suggested leverage was already thinning before the ETF opened.

That makes the post-exploit move different from a straightforward leveraged unwind. Spot demand had strengthened into the launch while speculative positioning was being reduced, according to Santiment, giving the ETF inflows a more prominent role in the market structure.

NRR’s first two days showed that institutional demand was present, but the harder test begins after the breach.

If inflows continue despite the 10% drop, investors would be signaling that they are willing to separate an application-specific exploit from the investment case for the underlying network. A reversal in flows would show how quickly an ecosystem security event can interrupt demand for an ETF that has existed for only a handful of trading sessions.

The post Wall Street arrived in NEAR just as a $4 billion-a-month app got hacked appeared first on CryptoSlate.

XRP is beginning to support live dollar borrowing on Ethereum, though the market remains heavily concentrated among a handful of borrowers.

A Morpho market backed by FXRP, a tokenized representation of XRP, had about 7.18 million RLUSD in outstanding loans against 10.76 million FXRP as of Oct. 1. The three largest addresses accounted for almost all of that debt, limiting how far the activity can be read as broad adoption.

The market, launched in August through Flare, lets XRP holders mint FXRP, move it to Ethereum, and borrow Ripple's RLUSD stablecoin without immediately selling their XRP exposure.

That adds a new credit use case for XRP, but also introduces bridge, collateral, and redemption dependencies that borrowers do not face when holding native XRP directly.

Three borrowers dominate XRP’s emerging credit market

The early borrowing activity is heavily concentrated among a small number of participants.

The three largest addresses account for 93% of roughly $7.2 million in outstanding debt, giving a handful of positions outsized influence over the market's size. A large repayment could sharply shrink borrowing, while another loan from the same wallets could lift the total without bringing in many new users.

The concentration may be even greater than the address count suggests. On-chain records identify wallets rather than their owners, so several addresses could belong to the same investor or institution.

Funding is similarly concentrated. Sentora RLUSD Main supplied about 8.53 million RLUSD, providing nearly all of the liquidity available to borrowers at the time observed. Even so, the FXRP market represents only about 2.03% of Sentora's broader vault allocations, leaving room to commit more capital if demand increases.

Sentora can supply up to 10 million RLUSD under the current limit. That gives borrowers room to take on more debt, though the spare capacity says little about whether a wider group of XRP holders will actually use it.

The same concentration could become more important if XRP price weakens.

Morpho allows lenders to liquidate a position once the value of its debt rises above 77% of the collateral backing it. The three biggest borrowers remain well away from that point. Based on their current debt and collateral, the largest position could withstand roughly a 45% decline in the FXRP-to-RLUSD ratio, while the next two have buffers of about 38%.

Some smaller borrowers have less room. One position with about 121,000 RLUSD of debt against 133,000 FXRP could reach its liquidation threshold after roughly a 21% decline, assuming the position otherwise remains unchanged.

The market recorded some liquidations in September but showed no realized or unrealized bad debt as of Oct. 1. A sharper move would provide a more meaningful test because a liquidator taking over one of the largest positions would suddenly have to absorb a sizeable amount of FXRP.

That would not necessarily mean the underlying XRP is immediately sold. A liquidator could hold the FXRP, sell it, move it back toward Flare, or redeem it for native XRP.

For now, the bigger issue is how quickly a few large wallets can reshape the market. New borrowers spreading the debt across more addresses would make the $7.2 million total more representative of broader demand. If activity remains concentrated, a single large repayment, new loan, or liquidation could materially change the market almost overnight.

Native lending could broaden XRP credit without creating new buyers

The concentration in Morpho may prove temporary as developers prepare to bring lending directly onto the XRP Ledger.

XRPL’s proposed lending architecture, which is currently undergoing security reviews, would allow fixed-term credit to originate on the network rather than requiring XRP holders to mint FXRP, bridge it to Ethereum, and borrow through Morpho.

Removing those steps could make XRP-backed credit easier to access and give institutions another way to use XRPL assets for financing and liquidity management. It would also introduce a different credit model from Morpho’s overcollateralized loans, with underwriting handled before fixed-term loans are created.

More lending, however, would not necessarily translate into fresh demand for XRP. Existing holders could simply deploy XRP they already own, while institutions could recycle existing balances through lending markets. Outstanding debt could therefore rise substantially without a corresponding increase in the number of XRP owners or the amount of new capital entering the token.

That makes borrower composition as important as loan volume. A market that grows because the same large holders increase their borrowing would deepen XRP’s utility without demonstrating broader adoption. Growth spread across new borrowers, larger lending pools, and sustained activity after repayments would provide stronger evidence that credit is widening the asset’s economic use.

Native lending will provide the next test. If the amendments clear their security reviews and gain validator approval, XRP holders would have a direct lending route on XRPL alongside the existing Ethereum-based Morpho market.

The comparison will show whether reducing cross-chain friction attracts a broader borrower base or simply gives existing XRP holders another way to leverage the same capital.

The post XRP is becoming collateral for real loans and the first market is already dominated by whales appeared first on CryptoSlate.

US spot Bitcoin exchange-traded funds (ETFs) recorded their first daily outflow in more than two weeks, interrupting a recovery that had pushed cumulative flows close to a record.

The funds posted $148.7 million of net withdrawals on Sept. 30, ending nine consecutive positive sessions that brought in about $3.08 billion, according to Farside Investors.

Fidelity’s FBTC drove most of the reversal, with $125.6 million in outflows. Bitwise’s BITB lost $13.6 million, and BlackRock’s IBIT shed $9.5 million, while the other nine listed funds recorded no net flows.

Despite the setback, September remained strongly positive. The products attracted about $2.65 billion during the month, their strongest monthly flow this year behind August's $3.52 billion.

Meanwhile, the positive September flow brought 2026 net inflows to roughly $930 million after much of the year was spent underwater.

The recovery has also brought lifetime cumulative flows back toward their previous high. Bloomberg Intelligence data show the products peaked at about $62.8 billion in cumulative inflows on Oct. 10, 2025, before months of redemptions erased much of that progress.

By July 13, the cumulative drawdown from that peak had reached about $12 billion, leaving lifetime flows near $50.9 billion. Fresh demand since then has narrowed the deficit considerably, with cumulative flows recovering to around $57.7 billion by late September.

That leaves the products roughly $5 billion short of their previous high-water mark.

Bitcoin ETF recovery faces its first interruption

Bloomberg ETF analyst Eric Balchunas said the rebound was notable given the pressure Bitcoin ETFs had endured over the previous 11 months.

He said flows had returned to levels reminiscent of their earlier strength even as Bitcoin contended with higher yields and lingering negative sentiment. The recovery, he added, had made the bearish case harder to sustain as price continued grinding higher.

This suggests the Sept. 30 outflow does little on its own to settle whether the rebound has run its course. The withdrawal was heavily concentrated in Fidelity’s fund, while most of the complex registered no movement.

That makes the next sessions more consequential. A broader run of redemptions across BlackRock, Fidelity and other large issuers would suggest the recent recovery is losing momentum. However, renewed inflows would leave Tuesday’s move looking more like a pause after more than $3 billion of buying.

Bitcoin traded around $83,800 early Oct. 1, leaving ETF demand as one of the clearest gauges of whether institutional buyers continue adding exposure near current levels.

The next milestone is straightforward: the funds need roughly another $5 billion of cumulative inflows to erase the drawdown from last October’s peak. Whether they continue closing that gap will depend on how quickly buyers return after September’s final-session reversal.

The post Bitcoin ETFs are $5 billion away from a new flow record after a brutal 11-month reset appeared first on CryptoSlate.

Bitcoin’s monetary case is growing stronger as governments face more expensive borrowing, and software is becoming a buyer of services. Sovereign financing pressure gives people a reason to consider money issued outside government policy. Agent commerce gives that money another way to circulate.

The Bank of England put sovereign-bond stress and the borrowing that finances artificial intelligence in the same warning on September 30. Its financial-stability record describes an extended energy shock pushing government yields higher, while growing AI-related debt leaves more investors exposed to the technology’s fortunes.

I see a credible catalyst for hyperbitcoinization in that combination. A transition toward Bitcoin as widely used money would require people and businesses to hold it, spend it and price services in it. If they retain bitcoin for future purchases, more payment utility could reinforce demand for the balance itself.

On the same day as the Bank’s warning, Mastercard announced new trust and intelligence services for its Agent Pay program, including a score designed to identify AI-initiated transactions. That score is rolling out for testing in the United States.

September’s developments bring a widening financial-risk debate together with an active race to serve software customers. Bitcoin has a route into that race through tools built earlier this year; established payment companies are preparing to serve the same buyers.

Higher yields sharpen Bitcoin’s argument and its competition

The pressure is visible in the cost of government borrowing. CryptoSlate’s 10-year Treasury series displays a September 30 daily par yield of 5.29%. The Fed’s September 30 release reports 5.26% for September 29. The observations describe different days and should be compared on that basis.

The policy backdrop is also tighter in important places. The Fed raised its target range by a quarter of a percentage point to 3.75%–4% on September 16, under Chair Kevin Warsh, who took office May 22. The Bank of Japan set its overnight call-rate guideline at around 1.25% on September 18, effective September 24.

The Bank of England held Bank Rate at 3.75% in its September 17 announcement, although three policymakers wanted an increase to 4%. Market yields can tighten financing conditions even when a central bank leaves its policy benchmark unchanged.

Higher yields create two competing effects for Bitcoin. They make the long-term cost of financing government debt more conspicuous, which can strengthen interest in money whose issuance is independent of a government’s borrowing needs. They also offer investors a higher contractual return for holding bonds, raising the hurdle for an asset that pays no native interest.

Investors still have to weigh a bond’s contractual income against inflation and their time horizon. Bitcoin’s capped supply governs how many coins can exist; demand determines their purchasing power. The tension between income and independently issued money already examined in CryptoSlate’s bond-market coverage remains central.

Bitcoin traded at roughly $83,530 near press time, after reaching both a new all-time high of $125,000 and a low of $57,500 over the last 12 months. That volatile price can reflect many sources of demand. The monetary argument has to stand on how people hold and use bitcoin as well as what they pay for it.

The same Bank assessment described a financial system that had remained resilient, with mostly gradual market adjustments. That is the backdrop for the bullish argument: financing pressures can make independent issuance more attractive even while existing institutions continue to function.

Satoshi Nakamoto’s whitepaper begins with electronic payments sent directly between parties without going through a financial institution. Its solution replaces a trusted intermediary’s double-spending checks with a peer-to-peer network and proof of work, subject to the design’s security assumptions.

Its design gives Bitcoin a different relationship with authority. Its issuance does not expand because a government needs to refinance debt or a central bank decides the economy needs additional support. Under the protocol’s existing rules, issuance moves toward a maximum of 21 million bitcoins.

Someone seeking money outside a particular issuer’s policy decisions can choose an asset with an independently verifiable supply rule. Market volatility and custody responsibility remain the cost of that choice.

Bitcoin cannot remove an energy shortage or make borrowed capital cheap. It can offer a monetary asset whose issuance is separate from the institutions managing those problems. Treating that property as valuable is a coherent position even when higher interest rates make the asset less attractive in the short term.

Agents give Bitcoin a practical route into commerce

An AI agent cannot hand over a banknote. It can request data, receive an invoice, authorize a payment and continue its task. For commerce to work, that transaction needs little overhead, clear spending authority and reliable settlement.

Bitcoin has concrete infrastructure for that pattern. In February, Lightning Labs released agent tools that let software pay for APIs through L402, a protocol combining Lightning payments with access credentials. An API can request payment, the agent pays a Lightning invoice, and payment unlocks the resource.

This gives Bitcoin utility beyond an investor buying and waiting. A software buyer can pay for a piece of data at the point it needs it, instead of having a person arrange another subscription. A service provider can charge for individual requests. Lightning supplies the payment layer that makes small, repeated Bitcoin transactions practical.

Lightning Labs also announced Wavelength in July, an alpha toolkit intended to make wallet integration easier for developers and agents. At launch, it was open on test networks with mainnet access by invitation. Broad commercial adoption would require developers and customers to put that infrastructure to use.

Security is a design requirement here. The documented tools use measures such as remote signing, restricted credentials and spending limits; Wavelength says wallet creation and unlock keep seeds and passwords outside the agent channel. Those controls can reduce what a model can expose or spend. Intelligence alone does not make an agent a safer custodian than a human.

An agent should receive enough authority to pay for its task without receiving unrestricted access to its owner’s savings. A useful machine economy needs bounded financial authority as much as it needs faster reasoning.

Software buyers already have several other ways to pay.

Google’s AP2 framework, announced in September 2025, supports cards, stablecoins and bank transfers, using signed mandates to record what a user authorized. Coinbase’s September 22 agent announcement adds equities trading and x402 micropayments for data, models and services within user-defined limits. Mastercard’s latest testing builds another path inside established payment relationships.

For an agent buying a dollar-priced service, a dollar-linked balance can simplify budgeting. A business paying expenses in dollars may prefer to receive dollars too. As CryptoSlate’s recent stablecoin coverage explored, the rise of software buyers can extend digital-dollar use rather than displace it.

Bitcoin’s distinctive opportunity lies in the users who value independently issued money and direct settlement enough to retain bitcoin between transactions. An agent that briefly converts a dollar balance into bitcoin to make a payment demonstrates useful infrastructure. An agent or business that earns, holds and spends bitcoin demonstrates a deeper monetary choice.

Those choices may coexist. Bitcoin could become more useful for saving and settlement while dollars remain common for pricing everyday services. That would be meaningful progress for Bitcoin without meeting the stronger definition of hyperbitcoinization.

The catalyst is credible; the adoption test is concrete

Sovereign stress supplies a reason to reconsider what money people hold. Agent commerce supplies a way for digital money to circulate with less human administration. Together they give Bitcoin a more substantial opportunity than a narrative built only around the next rate decision.

AI can also intensify the financing problem. The Bank of England warns that debt-funded AI investment expands financial exposure and that disappointment in expected productivity gains could reach sovereign markets. The technology creating new payment users is being built within the same credit system Bitcoin offers an alternative to.

That is why I am bullish about Bitcoin’s monetary role. A reason to hold bitcoin and more ways to use the balance could reinforce each other. Turning that opportunity into adoption will depend on the choices people and businesses make.

The signs of that shift would be repeat commercial payments in bitcoin, recipients keeping part of their earnings in bitcoin, operating balances held in bitcoin and services priced directly in it. Those behaviors would move the argument beyond payment announcements and into monetary adoption.

If agents mainly spend stablecoins or authorized card balances, machine commerce will have modernized fiat. If businesses and their software start retaining and pricing value in bitcoin, the monetary transition will have a firmer foundation. Bitcoin’s opportunity grows when its users choose to keep the money they can now move.

The post Bond yield explosion gives Bitcoin a strong signal – is now finally Satoshi’s time? appeared first on CryptoSlate.

The Financial Conduct Authority opened its authorization gateway for the new UK crypto rules on Sept. 30, starting an application window that can protect existing Bitcoin providers' ability to keep serving UK customers and take new business if approval is still pending when the full regime begins.

The window closes Feb. 28, 2027. The full regime starts Oct. 25, 2027, according to the FCA's announcement. February is the deadline for qualifying for the saving provision, a temporary protection for pending applicants, rather than a date when Bitcoin services must immediately stop.

For eligible existing firms applying within the window, an undecided application at commencement can allow the relevant services to continue, including new business. The protection covers the activities in the application, so it does not amount to unrestricted permission for every service a platform offers.

The statutory protection is bounded: the saving chapter expires two years after full commencement, and submitting an application does not guarantee authorization.

The protection can also cover a refusal still open to review. But the FCA can direct such a firm into restricted run-off when necessary for criminal enforcement, consumer protection or its objectives.

UK crypto rules change customer access for late applicants

Platforms can still apply after February. But a late applicant that files before commencement and is still awaiting a decision on Oct. 25, 2027 enters the transitional provision while its application is assessed, according to the gateway rules. A late applicant authorized before commencement avoids that pending-application restriction.

That route permits newly regulated activities only as necessary to perform contracts entered into before the firm entered transition. It prohibits new contracts with both existing UK customers and new UK customers. Having an account already does not, by itself, preserve access to new business.

The run-off arrangements last a maximum of two years. Firms must notify the FCA and existing contract parties. Customer notices must explain the lack of relevant authorization and whether asset protection, dispute resolution or compensation arrangements have materially changed.

A firm with business within scope that does not apply before commencement must complete its UK run-off beforehand. An application rejected for missing minimum information counts as no application unless a valid one is subsequently submitted.

For Bitcoin providers, the relevant activities include trading platforms, dealing and arranging transactions, and custody. Overseas firms serving UK consumers can also fall within scope, although the territorial rules include specific intermediary and custody exceptions.

Existing anti-money-laundering registration does not automatically convert into authorization under the new regime. Firms already authorized under the Financial Services and Markets Act for other activities must vary their permissions if they intend to undertake the new crypto activities.

An existing registration therefore does not settle whether a provider will hold the required permission, qualify for pending-application protection or be restricted to run-off when October 2027 arrives.

The post UK’s 2027 crypto rules could block new business with existing customers appeared first on CryptoSlate.

The German Federal Ministry of Finance’s draft bill on the taxation of crypto assets held privately has had a date since September 30, 2026: on October 14, 2026 the federal cabinet is due to take it up. For you, what matters about it is less the date than a figure that has barely featured in the coverage so far: January 1, 2028. From that day, crypto exchanges and other service providers are to withhold the tax on your gains directly and pass it to the tax office, the way a German bank does today with shares.

The short answer to the question of what that means for your trading account: for most purchases, nothing at all changes at first about the duty to declare for yourself. Deduction at source comes two years after the new rules, it affects only certain providers, and with self-custody it does not apply at all under the draft. Anyone who mixes that up is counting on relief that never arrives.

A note on the sources, because it counts for placing all this: the draft is not publicly available on the ministry’s pages. What is public is the covering letter, which Blocktrainer has published, and a detailed legal assessment of the draft version presented by the tax lawyer David Hötzel in the specialist portal Der Betrieb. Everything below is the state of the draft, not law in force.

Two dates the draft keeps strictly apart: January 1, 2027 and January 1, 2028

The draft works with two points in time that are often thrown together, although they govern different things.

January 1, 2027 is the start of the new substantive tax rules. Gains from crypto assets acquired or received after December 31, 2026 then fall under investment income within the meaning of Section 20 of the German Income Tax Act. For those holdings, the tax exemption after one year of holding therefore falls away. They are taxed at the rate for investment income, under the draft 25 percent plus the solidarity surcharge, and that applies after five, ten or twenty years as well.

January 1, 2028 is the start of the deduction of tax at source. Only from that day is a service provider to withhold the tax on investment income. The year 2027 is therefore a transitional year with new substantive law and old procedural practice: gains from new holdings will as a rule not yet be taxed at source and have to be entered in the tax return.

By exchange crypto assets the draft means crypto assets within the meaning of the European MiCA regulation that are accepted as a means of exchange without being issued or guaranteed by a central bank. The explanatory memorandum expressly names Bitcoin and Ether. NFTs, security tokens and e-money tokens under Title IV of the MiCA regulation are to remain excluded; for them, what follows from the right conveyed in each case continues to apply.

The timetable up to cabinet: consultation deadline October 6, deliberation on October 14

The ministry sent the draft to associations and interest groups on September 30. Comments are to be submitted by October 6, 2026. Six days is a very tight allowance for a consultation of associations on a change of system, and that is precisely the signal: the pace here is being forced.

On October 14 the cabinet is to deal with the draft. If it clears that hurdle, the ministerial draft becomes a government bill. That is more than a formality, because the content thereby moves from one ministry’s working version to the declared line of the federal government. The Bundestag and the Bundesrat follow, and amendments remain possible there.

A cabinet deliberation, incidentally, is an agenda item, not a decision on the wording. Appointments of this kind get postponed, and drafts change between consultation and cabinet, which is what the October 6 deadline is for. The sentence “from 2027 this applies” is therefore wrong today. What is right: this is how it stands in the draft the cabinet is due to deal with on October 14.

Is the December 31, 2026 cut-off date certain, then?

No, it is not certain, and for two reasons that stand independently of one another.

First, the grandfathering of existing holdings is so far only the content of a ministry draft and not a legally secured position. Cabinet, Bundestag and Bundesrat are still to come. Second, the cut-off date can shift during the procedure if the timetable shifts. Until then, only this is dependable: under the current draft, crypto assets acquired up to December 31, 2026 remain within the old regime of private disposals.

What this grandfathering concretely means under the draft: holdings that are already tax-free remain disposable tax-free. For old holdings whose one-year period is still running on January 1, 2027, the tax exemption can still arise once that year has elapsed. There is no step-up; the historical date of acquisition remains decisive. We wrote up the placing of the cut-off date in the draft at the beginning of September in a separate analysis of the grandfathering; the cabinet date has only now been added.

In practice, two regimes therefore arise permanently, hanging on the date of acquisition or receipt. For your records that means: proof of when a coin came to you becomes the most important document you hold about it.

Who is to withhold the tax from 2028: domestic crypto asset service providers

This is where it becomes concrete for your trading account. Those to be obliged to deduct tax under the draft are domestic crypto asset service providers and crypto asset operators, as well as domestic branches or permanent establishments of foreign providers, in each case to the extent that they pay out or credit the corresponding income.

The decisive term is the domestic paying agent. What is meant by it is not simply “a large, well-known exchange” but an entity that sits in Germany for tax purposes and actually credits the amount to you. A platform with a European authorisation but without a domestic branch does not automatically satisfy that criterion on the wording.

For the choice of your trading venue this becomes a hard distinguishing feature from 2028 that appears on no product page today. Anyone wanting to know which providers are authorised in the European Union at all and where they are based will find the overview in our comparison of regulated crypto exchanges. The question of whether a given provider will deduct for you cannot be answered from it today, because the law is not settled, but the question of domicile already can be.

Self-custody, DeFi and foreign platforms stay in the assessment procedure

Even from 2028, the deduction of tax will under the draft not apply across the board. Anyone who holds their coins in self-custody, who trades through decentralised applications, or who uses a foreign platform without a domestic paying agent remains obliged in principle to act for themselves: those gains still belong in the tax return.

The common line that “crypto will then run like shares” therefore covers only some of the cases. The assessment does not disappear, it becomes rarer. In practice two worlds arise side by side: domestic deduction cases, in which the provider does the arithmetic, and foreign or decentralised cases, in which you do. That both worlds together generate more administrative effort than one uniform solution has been noted expressly in the legal assessment of the draft.

From that follows an uncomfortable consequence for practice: you still need a complete record of your own, and precisely so if you move between wallets and platforms. Anyone whose purchase dates and purchase prices exist only in the interface of an exchange does not hold proof but a display.

Crypto-to-crypto swaps: the provider liquidates coins in order to pay the tax in euros

One point of the draft is usually skipped in the general coverage, although it reaches directly into your account. Swapping one crypto asset for another remains a tax-relevant transaction, because what is captured is the gain on disposal, and that term covered crypto-for-crypto swaps under the previous law too, in the view of the tax authorities and the tax courts.

From that arises a procedural problem the draft solves expressly: in a swap, no euro flows to you, yet the tax has to be paid in euros. The explanatory memorandum therefore sets out that the party obliged to deduct must be able to liquidate part of the crypto assets used in order to pay the tax in money.

The upshot is this: on a swap carried out on a platform obliged to deduct, part of the position may from 2028 be sold so that the tax can be paid. Anyone counting on a particular number of units should factor that deduction in. Exactly how the liquidation proceeds, what order applies to it and how the valuation is done is not settled in the draft down to the last question.

Missing acquisition data: 50 percent of the disposal proceeds as a substitute basis

If the platform does not know the date and the cost of acquisition, it may under the draft in principle fall back on your own particulars, as long as no contradictory data are available. Where those particulars cannot be applied, the procedure assumes the coins were acquired after December 31, 2026, and the deduction of tax is then measured on 50 percent of the entire disposal proceeds.

Two points of placing belong together here. The 50 percent are not a final fiction of profit: a deduction that is too high can be corrected in the assessment procedure. Until then, however, the money is gone, and from that arises a considerable liquidity risk. Particularly affected are transfers from a self-custodied wallet or from a foreign platform to a German platform obliged to deduct, which is precisely the route many take when selling. We worked that mechanism through in detail in a separate article on the substitute basis of assessment.

From that follows the one preparation that already helps for certain today, regardless of how the law ends up looking: a complete history of all purchases with date, quantity and price, together with the transfers between your addresses. Which tools pull that history together automatically from exchanges and wallets and build a report for the tax office out of it is in our comparison of crypto tax tools.

Loss offsetting without carryback: from 2027 there are two separate loss pools

Losses from new holdings are in future to be recognised within the system of investment income. They can therefore in principle be offset against other positive investment income and carried forward into future years. What falls away: a carryback into the immediately preceding year, as was possible in the regime of private disposals, is no longer provided for in the new system.

Old losses remain in the previous offsetting pool. The draft contains no transitional rule making losses from before the change of system offsettable, for a limited period, against gains from new crypto assets. From 2027 there are therefore two separate loss pools: one for old holdings and other private disposals, one for new crypto assets and the remaining investment income.

Anyone still holding unrealised losses in their old holdings should look at this separation before the end of the year, because under the draft it cannot be bridged after the fact. How a loss carryforward works under the law in force and which deadlines apply to it we wrote up in an article on the loss carryforward.

Crypto flat-rate tax compared with the taxation of shares from 2009

Structurally the model resembles the introduction of the flat-rate withholding tax for private share investments in 2009: a hard cut-off date, two regimes running permanently side by side, the date of acquisition as the switch. In one place, though, the draft departs from that precedent, and to your disadvantage: in 2009 there was a time-limited transitional rule for old losses, here none is provided for.

One more difference that matters for placing it: with shares, deduction by the bank came together with the new law. With crypto assets a year lies between the two, and even after that a large part of the cases stays with the taxpayer. The flat-rate tax on shares works because almost every custodian bank is a domestic paying agent. With crypto assets that is the exception.

Who gains and who loses cannot be stated across the board here. Long-term holders lose the complete tax exemption after one year. Short-term traders can come out better if their gains were previously charged at a personal marginal rate above 25 percent, and their losses become usable within a broader pool. So the model does not necessarily favour holding for a long time.

Lending and passive staking become investment income

The draft reaches beyond disposal gains to the running income as well. Receipts from making crypto assets available and from participating in transaction processing are likewise to count as investment income. What is meant by that is above all classic lending and passive staking.

One detail of this matters for old holdings and is easily read past: according to the explanatory memorandum, lending or staking rewards that flow in after December 31, 2026 out of an old holding count themselves as a new holding. The underlying old holding stays in the old regime, the reward from it does not. So anyone who lends or stakes a position held for years is, from 2027, continuously generating new holdings with their own tax consequence.

Many questions in the decentralised area remain open in the process: liquid staking, pools, wrapped tokens, the exact moment of inflow and the boundary with commercial transaction processing. Also unresolved is a point that can have considerable consequences for gifts and inheritance: crypto assets received without consideration are to be entered with acquisition costs of 0 euros. Whether that also catches the relative receiving a gift or an inheritance who gets a Bitcoin bought before 2027 cannot be taken unambiguously from the draft. That ought to be clarified in the legislative procedure.

160 million euros for 2028: the additional revenue the draft itself expects

The draft names the additional revenue expected for the state as a whole, and the series is remarkably modest: zero euros in 2027, around 160 million euros in 2028, around 305 million in 2029, around 325 million in 2030 and around 350 million euros in 2031. The zero for 2027 fits the logic of the procedure, because without deduction at source the money only flows with the assessment.

For comparison: in the budget debate of the spring, amounts in the billions per year were in circulation. Nothing of that is left in the draft’s impact assessment. The compliance cost for citizens, business and administration is so far marked “to follow” in the draft, so it has not yet been priced. The provisions are to be evaluated six years after they come into force.

For the political placing that means: by its own calculation the reform brings the state less than a medium-sized item in the federal budget, while demanding a new documentary discipline from every private holder. That discrepancy is an argument certain to turn up in the comments submitted by October 6.

Crypto tax: the key points for your decision

Three things can already be dealt with now, regardless of how the law ends up looking. None of these steps presupposes that the draft goes through unchanged.

1. Secure the acquisition data in full. Date, quantity and price of every purchase, plus the transfers between your addresses. That is the proof that prevents the substitute basis of 50 percent, and it helps you in every conceivable legislative scenario. Where you made your purchases and how you export the history depends on the provider; the export routes of the common trading venues are in our exchange comparison.
2. Keep custody and responsibility apart. With self-custody the duty to declare stays with you under the draft, even after 2028. Anyone considering their own custody anyway should know that no service provider will then do the tax arithmetic for them; the types of device and how they are operated are in the hardware wallet comparison.
3. Go through the running income before the turn of the year. Rewards from lending and staking that flow in from 2027 out of an old holding count as a new holding under the draft. Anyone holding such positions should look at the terms and the inflow rhythms; an overview of the providers and their models is in the lending comparison.

What you should not derive from this text, by contrast, is a buying decision. That an acquisition before December 31, 2026 stays within the old regime on the current state of the draft is a tax consequence. Whether a purchase makes sense for you is an entirely different question, and no explanatory memorandum answers it.

(As of October 1, 2026. This article is not investment advice. Prices and fee structures change; check the terms with the provider before you buy.)

Shiba Inu is quoted at $0.00000573 on Thursday afternoon, that is 5.73 millionths of a dollar, and 1.97 percent below the previous day. The short answer to the question of what matters over the next few days: the price sits inside a triangle whose apex, according to the technical assessment by Blockchain.News of September 30, falls on October 4. Until then a falling upper edge and a rising lower edge compress the price; after that the tension resolves in one direction. For you as an investor in Germany, that is the one date you can pin the next few days to.

A triangle in chart analysis is a phase in which every recovery ends a little earlier and every setback is bought a little earlier. The two lines meet at some point, and at that point one side is forced to act. The pattern does not predict the direction. It only says when the decision falls due.

The second date is in the calendar of the German Federal Ministry of Finance and has nothing to do with the chart, but a great deal to do with your return. The draft bill reforming crypto taxation is due to pass cabinet on October 14, and it draws a line at December 31, 2026. Both deadlines appear further down in this article with their consequences.

Shiba Inu price prediction: the triangle in the SHIB chart runs out on October 4

The current position of Shiba Inu is easier to read if you separate three time frames. Over one year SHIB is down 53.34 percent, and around 30 percent since January 2026. Over the quarter it looks different: from the cycle low at $0.0000041 in July the price has recovered by 39.3 percent, and September, with a gain of a good 10 percent, was the strongest month of the year. Over the week there is a loss of 0.83 percent, so the market is marking time.

That stagnation is precisely the triangle. The swing high of September 22 at $0.0000063 marks the falling upper edge, the rising lows since July the lower edge. The Blockchain.News analysis dates the intersection to October 4 and puts the probabilities at 40 to 45 percent for the breakout to the upside and 55 to 60 percent for the break to the downside. That is the assessment of the analysts there and not a certainty, and it comes from a reading of the daily chart.

Important for placing it: a triangle breakout is a signal over days, not over months. Anyone building an annual forecast on it is overstretching the pattern.

Resistance at 6.00 and support at 5.00 millionths of a dollar

The levels from the same analysis can be sorted into a table. The percentages relate to the price of $0.00000573 on Thursday afternoon.

Why the 200-day line is the hinge here

The exponential 200-day average, 200-EMA for short, is a moving mean of the last 200 closing prices that weights more recent days more heavily. It sits at around $0.0000057, so practically on the current price. As long as SHIB closes above it, the recovery since July remains technically intact. If the price falls below and stays there, the triangle loses its lower edge, and the next dependable catching zone only comes at $0.0000052.

The momentum readings currently support neither side clearly. The relative strength index stands at 55.67 and therefore in the neutral middle between the usual thresholds of 30 and 70. The stochastic, at 61.65, is above its signal line at 49.32, which speaks mildly for the buyers. Both are indicators that can turn within two trading days.

October seasonality in SHIB: an 80 percent hit rate in the record

October is historically the most stable month for Shiba Inu. According to the Blockchain.News assessment, the hit rate of positive Octobers is 80 percent, and across the whole recorded price history the month closed down only once. That is a real pattern, and it is also a narrow one: SHIB has existed only since 2020, so the sample covers a handful of Octobers.

Seasonality remains an observation and does not become a mechanism through repetition. This observation describes what happened more often in the past and supplies no reason for it to happen again. Anyone translating it into a position size should treat it as one argument among several and not as the load-bearing one.

Price targets for the end of October: Finbold, DeepSeek and Gemini are far apart

The publicly documented expectations for the end of the month range from a clear loss to a double-digit gain, and that range is itself the most honest statement about the situation.

• The AI agent of the finance portal Finbold names $0.000005835 for October 31. Measured against the price of $0.00000576 on which that calculation was based, that is around 1.3 percent more.
• The language model DeepSeek Chat arrived, in the same survey, at $0.00000642 for the end of the month, around 12 percent above today’s price.
• Google’s model Gemini expects a loss of 8.85 percent over the same period, to $0.00000525.
• The forecasting service Changelly puts an average of $0.00000562 on the middle of the autumn.

These figures come from models and not from analysts with liability, and they contradict one another by more than 20 percentage points. For your decision they therefore serve as a range, not as a target. The more dependable part of the forecast is in the chart: $0.0000060 as the first hurdle to the upside, $0.0000050 as the breaking point to the downside.

A burn rate of 68 million SHIB a day: 0.00001 percent of the circulating supply

Burning tokens means that SHIB is sent to an address from which nobody can retrieve them again. The amount in circulation falls permanently as a result. On September 30, according to the data from Shibburn, around 68 million SHIB were burned, and the daily rate jumped by 154.33 percent.

The percentage sounds like an event; the absolute figure clears that up. The amount burned corresponded to a value of about 395 dollars and to around 0.00001 percent of the circulating supply. With 589.24 trillion tokens in circulation, a daily amount of that size does not change the supply measurably. Anyone reading the burn rate as a price driver is measuring a large percentage on a very small base.

The total supply, at 589.50 trillion, sits only just above the circulating supply. So there is no large locked reserve that will come to market later, but also no mechanism that tightens supply at any appreciable pace.

Shibarium activity: 1,680 transactions a day

Shibarium is the Shiba Inu project’s own network, a so-called layer 2 solution meant to settle transactions more cheaply than Ethereum itself. Usage has fallen, according to the figures in the same analysis, to around 1,680 transactions a day, compared with 4.69 million daily transactions in August 2025. That is the real fundamental finding behind the price.

An observation from our own coverage fits with it: for 167 days validator staking on Shibarium has been switched off. Anyone who was counting on running income from the network is not getting it at present. For the forecast that means the price currently lives on seasonality, liquidity and market sentiment, not on growing usage.

The December 31, 2026 cut-off: grandfathering separates two tax worlds

Here lies the action you can take today, independently of the chart. The German Federal Ministry of Finance’s draft bill on the reform of the taxation of certain crypto assets held privately is due to pass cabinet on October 14, 2026. Associations and law firms were able to comment until October 6, 2026. The substantive rules are to take effect on January 1, 2027, the automatic deduction of tax by the platforms only on January 1, 2028.

What matters is the cut-off date. Crypto assets you acquire up to December 31, 2026 remain, under the draft, within the old law with its one-year holding period. Those holdings therefore stay tax-free after twelve months of holding, even if you sell them only years later. For everything that enters your portfolio from January 1, 2027, the new regime applies. Two layers therefore arise in every holding, and you have to keep them apart. The details and the state of the procedure we have written up in our article on the substitute assessment without a purchase record.

For SHIB holders this is particularly tangible, because positions in this token almost always consist of many small purchases. At a price of 0.00000511 euros you get around 19.57 million tokens for 100 euros, and around 195.69 million for 1,000 euros. Anyone who has been buying more over months is carrying a correspondingly large number of individual transactions around.

A substitute assessment of 50 percent: where the gap in proof arises with SHIB

The point in the draft that has so far been lost in the debate about the holding period is an estimating rule. If you cannot document the acquisition costs, the tax office treats 50 percent of the sale proceeds as the gain, under what is called the substitute assessment. For securities a comparable rule with 30 percent has applied for years where the bank lacks the acquisition data. The crypto draft sits above that. So the analysis by the specialist portal Der Betrieb of September 14, 2026 describes it, and the tax advisory firm GTKP placed the difference on September 15.

A worked example in SHIB sizes makes the span visible. You sell tokens for 5,000 euros that cost you 4,500 euros. Your actual gain is 500 euros. Without proof, the substitute assessment assumes a gain of 2,500 euros. At a tax rate of 25 percent, around 500 euros lie between the two cases, which is exactly your real gain.

The gap does not arise with an ordinary exchange purchase. If you buy on a platform, leave the tokens there and sell them there, the platform knows the date and the price. It gets tight with a transaction that is common in the everyday life of meme coin holders: a deposit from your own wallet or from another exchange. The receiving platform then sees an inflow without a history. That platform does not know when the tokens came into being and what they cost. That is exactly where the 50 percent rule bites.

With SHIB there is the added difficulty that many holdings have run through the Shibarium bridge or through decentralised exchanges. Each of those steps is a change of place without the acquisition data travelling along. A tax tool or portfolio tracker takes on the job here that you would otherwise have to keep by hand: it holds the chain of purchase date, purchase price and transfer together, even across a change of platform.

Buying and storing SHIB: the purchase route under MiCA and ERC-20 custody

SHIB is technically an ERC-20 token, so it lives on the Ethereum blockchain and is held in any wallet that supports Ethereum. You do not need a dedicated Shiba wallet. Anyone holding larger amounts puts the private key on a device that is never connected to the network; the differences between the models are in our hardware wallet comparison.

On the purchase route, since the EU regulation MiCA took effect, providers need an authorisation for crypto business in the EU. In practice that means this for you: an authorised platform supplies you with statements that will later serve as proof of acquisition, and it remains reachable if you need a summary in three years. Which houses are tradable in Germany and what they cost is in the overview of the regulated crypto exchanges.

What is different with a token in the millionths range

At a price of 0.00000511 euros you are working with eight decimal places. Two things follow from that. First, every platform rounds differently, and the number of units in your statement can deviate minimally from the amount that arrives in your wallet. Second, a spread, meaning the gap between the buy and the sell price, weighs more heavily here in percentage terms than with Bitcoin, because the order book is thinner.

Market thinness in SHIB: 84 million dollars of daily turnover against a 3.4 billion market capitalisation

Shiba Inu stands, with a market capitalisation of 3.38 billion dollars, at number 37 among the largest crypto assets. Trading turnover over the past 24 hours was 84.2 million dollars, which corresponds to around 2.5 percent of the market capitalisation. That ratio is unremarkable for a token of this size, but it is spread across many venues.

For you that means two things. Large orders move the price, and in both directions; anyone unwinding a bigger position is better off doing it in parts. And the distance from the all-time high of $0.00008616 of October 27, 2021 is 93.34 percent. To reach that level again the price would have to multiply roughly fifteenfold, which at a circulating supply of 589.24 trillion tokens would mean a market capitalisation in the order of 50 billion dollars. That belongs in every honest Shiba Inu price prediction.

Shiba Inu price prediction: your next three steps

1. Note the two levels. Write down $0.0000060 to the upside and $0.0000050 to the downside and set an alert on both values at your platform. October 4 is the day the triangle runs out; which platforms offer price alerts you can see in the comparison of the crypto exchanges.
2. Secure the acquisition data. Download the purchase date, purchase price and number of units for every SHIB position from your platform this year still, and save the file outside the platform. A portfolio tracker with a tax function holds this chain together even if you later move between exchanges.
3. Match the custody to the position size. Examine whether the amount you hold sits right on an exchange or belongs on a device of your own, and note the date and the origin with every transfer. Which devices are suitable for ERC-20 tokens is in the hardware wallet comparison.

(As of October 1, 2026. This article is not investment advice. Prices and fee structures change; check the terms with the provider before you buy.)

Anyone buying crypto on Bitpanda pays a trading fee of between 0.99 and 2.49 percent. Which of the four tiers applies to your coin is set out in a mandatory disclosure document that few buyers ever open. The current version is dated July 8, 2026, and for the trading fee it answers the question “what does a purchase on Bitpanda cost me?” very precisely. A second type of cost, one that arises at every broker, does not appear in it at all. This article covers both: the numbers you can check yourself, and the point where you have to look for them yourself.

The reason the arithmetic is worth doing is unspectacular. On a savings plan of 100 euros a month, the gap between the cheapest and the most expensive tier comes to 18 euros a year. On a single purchase of 1,000 euros it is 15 euros. That decides no investment, but it is money you hand over for nothing if you do not know which tier your coin sits in.

Four price tiers from 0.99 to 2.49 percent: how Bitpanda sorts every coin

At Bitpanda the trading fee is not one uniform figure. It depends on the price tier a coin has been assigned to. The cost information document for crypto assets, in its version of July 8, 2026, names four of them:

• Tier 1 — stablecoins: 0.99 percent. For the euro stablecoin EURCV the document states 0 percent.
• Tier 2 — Bitcoin and VSN: 0.99 percent. Bitcoin therefore sits in the cheapest group for a freely tradable coin.
• Tier 3 — all other crypto assets: 1.49 percent. This is where everything lands that is neither a stablecoin nor Bitcoin and that clears the threshold set in tier 4, so Ethereum and Solana too.
• Tier 4 — small caps and Spotlight assets: 2.49 percent. The classification applies at a market capitalisation below 100 million euros and to the assets from the company’s own Spotlight programme.

Price tier here means a fixed percentage service fee charged at the level of the individual coin, for market access and execution. According to the document, this rate is calculated on the basis of a binding quote from Bitpanda. That half-sentence matters more than it looks, and the section on the spread comes back to it.

What the classification means for you in practice: the same order costs two and a half times as much depending on the coin. A coin can also change tier when its market capitalisation rises above or falls below the 100 million mark. The tier of an individual coin is not in this document, however; it is shown to you during the purchase process.

What 100 euros costs: the arithmetic for buying and selling

A percentage on its own says little, because the fee is charged twice: once on the purchase and once on the sale. On the sale it applies to the then smaller amount. Calculated on a stake of 100 euros, once in and once out, that gives:

• Tier 2 at 0.99 percent: 0.99 euros on the purchase, so 99.01 euros end up in the coin. On the sale 0.98 euros comes off and you get 98.03 euros back. Total cost: 1.97 euros.
• Tier 3 at 1.49 percent: 1.49 euros on the purchase, 98.51 euros in the coin, 1.47 euros on the sale, 97.04 euros back. Total cost: 2.96 euros.
• Tier 4 at 2.49 percent: 2.49 euros on the purchase, 97.51 euros in the coin, 2.43 euros on the sale, 95.08 euros back. Total cost: 4.92 euros.

From that follows a threshold you can keep in your head: a tier 4 coin has to gain around 5 percent before a purchase and a later sale leave you at break-even. At tier 2, just under 2 percent is enough. Anyone who reshuffles often pays that span again every time.

The spread does not appear in the cost document

In its standard business Bitpanda acts as a broker: you are not trading against other users in an order book, you are accepting a quote from the house. That is what the wording about a “binding quote” in the cost document refers to. Under this model there is always a second quantity alongside the trading fee: the spread, meaning the gap between the price at which you can buy and the price at which you could sell at the same moment.

The cost information document in its version of July 8, 2026 describes the trading fee, the tiered scale for Bitpanda Fusion, the staking commission, the blockchain fees, the margin rates and a recovery fee. The word spread does not appear in it at any point. The same goes for the public price display: it shows one rate per coin, without a bid and an ask next to each other.

That is not an accusation, nor is it a peculiarity of this provider. It is the nature of the broker model, and it runs right through the German market: at the Bison app it is 1.25 percent of spread, disclosed as the only block of cost; at Trade Republic no spread is published at all; and through Sparkasse and Volksbank, 1.5 percent of commission plus the spread add up. At Coinbase, too, part of the cost sits in the rate rather than in the fee line.

The difference lies in what follows from it for you: the trading fee you can look up before you buy, the spread you have to read off yourself. That takes two minutes in any app. Display the buy price and the sell price for the same coin and divide the difference by the buy price. That number is added to the trading fee, it appears in no table, and it moves with the market. A provider comparison that merely lines up the disclosed percentages should therefore be read with care, including our comparison of crypto brokers, which collects the published terms and cannot show the spread, because hardly anyone publishes it.

Bitpanda Fusion: 0.25 percent instead of 1.49 percent under the same roof

The same cost document contains a second fee schedule that has little to do with the first. Bitpanda Fusion is the provider’s trading interface for active users, and there billing goes by volume rather than by coin tier. The scale starts at 0.25 percent for a trading volume up to 100,000 euros and falls through six further steps to 0.02 percent above 250 million euros.

The bottom Fusion step therefore applies to practically every retail investor, because 100,000 euros of volume is not something you normally reach. And it changes the arithmetic above considerably: the same 100 euros in and out costs 50 cents through Fusion instead of 2.96 euros. At tier 3 that is almost a sixfold difference, at tier 4 almost tenfold.

On a savings plan it adds up. Anyone paying in 100 euros a month for twelve months pays 11.88 euros of purchase fees on Bitcoin through the standard interface, and 17.88 euros on a tier 3 coin. Through Fusion it is 3 euros. What is added there in spread depends on the order book and is a different quantity from the broker quote: with an order book you see both sides of the market.

The catch is in the handling, not in the price. An interface with an order book, order types and charts takes more learning than a buy button. For an investor who buys twice a year and leaves it alone, six euros of saving a year is not worth that. For a savings plan running over several years, or for larger single amounts, the calculation turns out differently.

Staking commission: 20 percent of the rewards goes to the provider

Anyone who signs their coins up for staking through Bitpanda, handing them to the blockchain for a fee to help secure it, does not receive the proceeds in full. The cost document names a commission of 20 percent of the rewards, deducted automatically before the rest reaches the customer.

A gross yield of 4 percent therefore becomes 3.2 percent, 5 percent becomes 4 percent, and 8 percent becomes 6.4 percent. For “Passive Earn” the document describes the same order of magnitude the other way round: the passive rewards there correspond to 20 percent of the attributable net income, pro rata by the amount signed up and by time.

Some context: 20 percent is within the usual range for custodial staking through a platform. The Bison app says it keeps 27 percent. Anyone who runs a validator themselves or delegates from their own wallet pays less, and carries the technology and the downtime risk instead. Nor is the commission a fixed quantity over the years; it stands in this particular document and can change with the next version.

Crypto indices and the monthly rebalancing at 1.99 percent

The Bitpanda Crypto Indices bundle several coins into one product that is adjusted monthly to a model portfolio from MarketVector. Buying and selling an index costs 1.99 percent according to the cost document. For holding it, no additional fee applies.

The figure that is easy to miss comes one sentence later: in the monthly adjustment, crypto assets are swapped automatically, and those automatic transactions also carry 1.99 percent. How much that amounts to over a year depends on how far the weightings shift. In a quiet month little is swapped; after a strong move in individual positions, more. No fixed annual figure can be derived from it, and the document names none.

There is also a detail for the exit: if individual assets are requested out of an index, trading fees may apply, provided those assets are reported on an index basis only. An index is therefore not a product to reshuffle often without a look at the costs.

Margin trading: 0.18 percent a day, 5.4 percent a month

Leveraged positions have a schedule of their own, and it is the most expensive in the whole document. The purchase fee is 0 percent; instead a daily fee runs, charged every four hours and falling with the holding period: 0.18 percent a day for days 1 to 60, then 0.12 percent to day 100, 0.06 percent to day 180 and 0.0312 percent from day 181. Closing adds 0.3 percent, and a liquidation a further 1 percent.

In absolute numbers: a week costs 1.26 percent of the position value, a month 5.4 percent, and the full 60 days at the most expensive rate 10.8 percent plus the 0.3 percent for closing. These costs run regardless of where the price moves. For shares, ETFs and ETCs on margin the same scale applies.

Hence the real point of this section: under this cost model a leveraged position is not an instrument to leave lying around. Anyone holding one for weeks needs a price move in the high single digits for the holding costs alone, on top of the risk that a liquidation ends the position first and costs 1 percent extra.

MiCA and the BaFin register: where the duty to disclose costs comes from

That this document exists at all is not a courtesy but European law. The Markets in Crypto-Assets Regulation, MiCA for short, obliges authorised providers among other things to disclose their costs. Bitpanda collects the mandatory documents, the cost information, the crypto white papers and the reference to the MiCA register of the European supervisor ESMA, on its legal page.

For you as an investor in Germany, one check follows from that which costs nothing: whether a provider is authorised in Germany can be looked up in BaFin’s company database, rather than relying on a marketing claim. The same regulation is also the reason the figures above can be recalculated at all, and the reason a provider without such documents is a warning sign. What obligations the regulation places on companies up to 2026 is set out together in our overview of the MiCA obligations.

That an authorisation is no blank cheque is clear from a look at enforcement: the first published MiCA penalty was imposed on Bitpanda, and it concerned a white paper. What that case means for the reading of white papers we have taken apart in a piece of its own. The lesson for the cost view is the same as there: the mandatory documents are the starting point of the check, not its end.

A savings plan over one year: 11.88 or 17.88 euros, depending on the coin

For a savings plan what counts is the sum over the term, not the single order. Twelve instalments of 100 euros make a stake of 1,200 euros a year. Of that, the purchase fee takes:

• Bitcoin or a stablecoin, tiers 1 and 2: 11.88 euros a year.
• A tier 3 coin, Ethereum or Solana for instance: 17.88 euros a year.
• A small cap from tier 4: 29.88 euros a year.
• The same instalments through Fusion: 3 euros a year.

The sale is not yet in these figures, and the spread is added on top of every single instalment. Anyone planning a savings plan over ten years should therefore work out the cost side once before placing the first instalment: at tier 4 it comes to almost 300 euros over ten years in purchase fees alone. How savings plans are built at the various providers is collected in our comparison of Bitcoin savings plans.

A second lever is the number of instalments. Four quarterly instalments of 300 euros cost the same percentage fee as twelve monthly instalments of 100 euros, because the fee is a percentage and has no minimum flat charge. At providers with a fixed order fee it would be otherwise. Here the question of rhythm changes nothing about the cost; it is a question of entry prices, not of price.

What the fees do to your tax bill

Fees are not lost on the tax authority. When crypto assets are sold as a private disposal under Section 23 of the German Income Tax Act (Einkommensteuergesetz), what counts is the gain, and incidental acquisition costs reduce the taxable amount. The trading fee on the purchase is one of them, as is the fee on the sale as a cost of disposal. Anyone who invests 1,200 euros a year and pays 17.88 euros in fees therefore also has a taxable gain lower by that amount, provided the sale falls within the one-year period.

That presupposes that you can document the fees. At most providers the statements remain available only for a limited time, and anyone trying to reconstruct their purchase fees after three years has a problem. How big that can become is shown by the planned reform, under which the tax office is to treat half of the sale price as the gain where there is no record of the purchase. A portfolio tracker that collects the statements continuously takes that work off your hands; the common programmes are in our comparison of tax tools.

Two points that often get mixed up here: the one-year holding period applies to the sale, not to the purchase, and it runs separately for each purchase tranche. And staking proceeds are a category of income in their own right, on which the one-year period for selling the staked coins does not automatically have the same effect. Where there is doubt, you settle that allocation with a tax adviser, not with a spreadsheet.

Bitpanda alongside Bison, Trade Republic and the Sparkasse

The interesting question is not whether 1.49 percent is a lot, but how it stands within the German market. The comparison with what other providers publish gives this picture:

• Bitpanda, standard interface: 0.99 to 2.49 percent trading fee by tier, spread not disclosed.
• Bitpanda Fusion: from 0.25 percent by volume, plus the spread of the order book.
• Bison app: 1.25 percent, disclosed as a spread rather than as a fee.
• Sparkasse and Volksbank: 1.5 percent commission, with the spread on top.
• Trade Republic: an order fee, with no published spread.

Two things stand out. First, Bitpanda with Bitcoin on the cheapest tier sits below what the high-street banks charge and above what an exchange with an order book costs. Second, comparability is limited as long as the spread is missing at almost all of them: a disclosed fee of 1.25 percent can be more expensive than one of 1.49 percent if the rate behind it sits further from the market.

Anyone wanting to derive a decision from this should therefore work through a test purchase of a small amount instead of sorting the percentages: how many coins do you get for 50 euros, and what would the same coins be worth at another provider at the same moment? That single number contains the fee and the spread together. Which houses are authorised in Germany at all is in our overview of the crypto exchanges.

What the cost document does not answer

Honesty requires saying what remains open even after reading it. The document covers the trading, staking, index and margin fees, as well as the recovery fee of 15 percent for crypto assets deposited incorrectly. Deposits and withdrawals in euros do not appear in it, and the statements of third-party portals on the subject contradict one another: sometimes all routes are said to be free, sometimes a surcharge of 1.5 percent is named for card payments.

As long as that cannot be documented from a source of the provider, the same applies to this point as to the spread: the figure appears in the purchase process, before you confirm. Blockchain fees for withdrawing to your own wallet are independent of this; they go to the network and, according to the document, are neither set nor retained by Bitpanda.

Bitpanda fees: your next three steps

1. Establish the tier of your coin. Look in the purchase process to see which percentage is shown for the coin you want to buy, and scale it up to the amount you are planning: at 1,000 euros it is 9.90 or 24.90 euros depending on the tier. How this looks at other houses is in the broker comparison.
2. Read the spread off yourself. Have the buy price and the sell price displayed for the same coin and divide the difference by the buy price. You add the result to the trading fee. Only that sum can sensibly be laid alongside the terms from our exchange comparison.
3. Keep the statements from the start. Download the purchase statement after every order and file it, so the fees can reduce the taxable gain later. A tracker from the tax tool comparison handles the collecting automatically.

(As of October 1, 2026. This article is not investment advice. Prices and fee structures change; check the terms with the provider before you buy.)

Ripple released one billion XRP from its escrow accounts on Thursday morning, spread across four transfers of 400, 300, 200 and 100 million tokens. Measured at Thursday afternoon's price, that is worth around $1.49 billion. The price itself barely reacted: XRP traded at $1.48 to $1.49 on Thursday afternoon, just under one percent below the previous day, according to CoinGecko data. Anyone wanting to derive a forecast from this release therefore needs less of the chart and more of an understanding of what this money actually does over the next 24 hours.

The escrow is no secret compartment, but a series of trust accounts on the XRP Ledger that Ripple set up in 2017. At the start of each month part of it expires, and the company can dispose of the amount that comes free. What matters is that Ripple has put most of this monthly release back into new trust accounts in recent years. That return is the number which decides supply pressure, not the billion in the headline.

1 billion XRP out of escrow: what actually happened on October 1

It was the tenth monthly release of 2026 and it followed the familiar pattern. Four transactions, one billion tokens together, settled over the course of the morning. The specialist service U.Today puts the holding that remained in the trust accounts afterwards at 31.845 billion XRP. With a total supply of 100 billion tokens, just under 32 percent therefore remains locked.

Escrow explained briefly

An escrow on the XRP Ledger is a payment fitted with a time lock: the tokens sit on the ledger but cannot be moved until a set point in time. That is not a promise of trust and not a bank's undertaking, but a function of the protocol. Anyone can read which locks exist and when they expire.

31.85 billion XRP stay locked: the arithmetic behind the circulating supply

This is where it gets uncomfortably precise for investors, and for a good reason. The figures for the circulating supply differ markedly depending on the source. U.Today gives a circulating supply of 68.126 billion XRP for the point after the release. CoinGecko, by contrast, reports around 63.09 billion XRP as the circulating amount on Thursday afternoon. The gap of about five billion tokens is not sloppiness on either side.

Why two sources give different circulating supplies

The difference arises at the definition. Count everything that is not in escrow as circulating and you arrive at the higher figure. If a data provider additionally deducts holdings that demonstrably sit with Ripple itself and are not on the market, the figure comes out lower. For your assessment that means market capitalisation and any metric built on the circulating supply carry an uncertainty of several percent in the case of XRP. See two services with different market capitalisations and you have not necessarily found an error.

The second number in this arithmetic is the distance to the peak. The all-time high stands at $3.65 from July 17, 2025. From Thursday afternoon's level, around 59 percent is missing before that value would be reached again. The quarterly comparison looks friendlier: XRP traded at $1.05 at the end of June, which means the third quarter ended with a gain of about 41 percent, calculated on the CoinGecko values for June 30 and October 1.

Return to escrow within 24 hours: where the state of play sits in the ledger

This is the one point in this story you can work out for yourself, without waiting for a report. The XRP Ledger is public, and the escrow holdings of the Ripple accounts can be inspected there. The balance overview at XRPSCAN lets you follow how much of the released billion goes back into new trust accounts within the next day.

As an order of magnitude for placing it: in recent months the return has typically been 700 to 800 million tokens, leaving 200 to 300 million XRP for ongoing purposes and ecosystem programmes. If the return stays in that range, the actual increase in supply is small against a daily turnover that stood at around $2.3 billion on Thursday. Should the return come out markedly smaller, that would be the real story of the month, and it was in none of the morning's headlines.

XRP at $1.49: the next price target sits at $1.70

The range the price has moved in for days is narrow. On Thursday the daily high was $1.51 and the daily low $1.48, with a gain of 0.6 percent over the week and 8.8 percent over the month. In euros that came to about €1.31 per token on Thursday afternoon.

On the upside, the common market commentaries name two levels. The nearer one sits at $1.50 and is the threshold XRP failed at repeatedly through September. The further one sits at $1.70 and counts as the resistance capping October's range. On the downside the area around $1.25 is named. The forecast ranges of the data services diverge, and that is part of the picture: DigitalCoinPrice expects an average of around $1.37 for October, LongForecast month-end prices around $1.13, and CoinDCX a channel between $1.48 and $1.94. These are the respective providers' model calculations and not undertakings.

What you can practically take from this is less a direction than a size. A range of $1.25 to $1.70 means, at an entry of $1.49, around 16 percent of room on the downside and around 14 percent on the upside. Anyone working with leverage should set that width against their own liquidation distance before the next monthly release falls due on November 1.

US spot ETFs hold 1.18 billion XRP: why fund assets are shrinking all the same

On the demand side something shifted in September that has nothing to do with the escrow. The seven American spot ETFs on XRP hold around 1.18 billion tokens between them, which is about 1.18 percent of total supply. In the week from September 21 to 25, a net $75.59 million flowed in, $58.99 million of it into Bitwise's product alone, which with around 413.1 million XRP is the largest holder among the funds. Across September as a whole, net inflows added up to $121.4 million.

The apparent contradiction in this: despite those inflows, the funds' assets under management fell in September. That is no arithmetic error, but a consequence of valuation. A fund that buys new tokens while the price of those tokens falls can be worth less on balance than before. Inflows and fund assets are two different measures, and only the first says anything about institutional investors' willingness to buy. Cumulatively since the products launched at the end of 2025, net inflows stand at about $1.79 billion.

Fed decision on October 28: the date that decides October's range

The date the market commentaries point to most often for October is the US Federal Reserve's interest rate decision on October 28. For XRP that is no coin-specific event, but the usual connection: a market that lives strongly off risk appetite reacts to the rate path. That the commentaries put the date so clearly in the foreground has an uncomfortable side effect for the forecast. It means that expectations for XRP in October are barely driven by XRP itself.

For you this yields a sober order of dates in this quarter: the return to escrow over the coming 24 hours, the Fed decision on October 28, the next monthly release on November 1, and, as the last and most important date for your tax bill, December 31, 2026.

XRP ETN versus direct purchase: 25 percent withholding tax or free of tax after a year

Before the deadline itself, the difference many only notice on selling. There are two ways to bet on XRP in Germany, and they are treated completely differently for tax.

On a direct purchase you hold the tokens yourself, at an exchange or in your own wallet. The sale is a private disposal under section 23 of the Income Tax Act. If more than twelve months lie between purchase and sale, the gain is free of tax, whatever its size. Under one year, a threshold of 1,000 euros a calendar year applies to all private disposals together. The word threshold is to be taken literally: one euro over, and the entire gain becomes taxable, not merely the part above the limit.

An exchange-traded certificate on XRP, so an ETN or ETP at a German trading venue, works differently. The gain from it is investment income. On that, 25 percent withholding tax plus the solidarity surcharge and church tax where applicable fall due, and from the first day. There is no holding period there after which anything becomes free of tax. In return the saver's allowance of 1,000 euros applies, and the custodian usually remits the tax automatically. The running costs of such products are also to be considered, given as 0.95 to 2.50 percent a year depending on the provider. Which products are tradable in Germany and what they cost is set out in the overview of crypto ETFs and ETNs in Germany.

The American spot ETFs are not available to you

The US funds named above, with their 1.18 billion XRP, are in practice not accessible to you as a retail investor in Germany. These funds are not UCITS funds and supply no key information document under the PRIIPs regulation that a broker would have to present to retail clients in the EU. The inflow figures are therefore a sentiment indicator for you, not a route to investing.

Deadline of December 31, 2026: the draft bill and the one-year holding period

This is the number that decides more about your return this quarter than any price level. Since September 8, 2026 a draft bill from the federal finance ministry has been on the table that would bring the taxation of crypto assets closer to that of shares. The one-year holding period would fall away, and withholding tax would apply instead. The draft names a deadline for this: crypto assets acquired after December 31, 2026 are to be covered. For holdings acquired earlier, the existing rule is to continue to apply.

The placing of this matters, and in both directions. A draft bill is not a law. None of it is decided, and the deadline and its design can change in the further process or fall away entirely. At the same time the deadline, should it arrive as described, cannot be made up later. An XRP holding you buy in December 2026 would be free of tax after a year; the same holding bought in January 2027 would not. That is no argument for buying now, and none against it either. It is the point that with XRP this quarter the purchase date has a meaning of its own that the chart does not show.

What you have to document for it

The burden of proof for the time of acquisition and the acquisition cost falls on you. Without a purchase receipt the tax office can estimate the acquisition cost, and such estimates regularly turn out to your disadvantage. In practice that means saving the exchange's transaction overviews as a file rather than leaving them sitting in the account, keeping the order traceable where there are several part purchases, and noting the transaction identifiers when transferring between your own wallets. Tools that keep this record as you go are in the overview of tax tools and portfolio trackers.

Destination tag and MiCA licence: two stumbling blocks when buying XRP in Germany

Two things go wrong more often with XRP than with other coins, and neither has anything to do with the price.

The first is the destination tag. Exchanges keep many customers' XRP at a shared address and distinguish the accounts by a number attached to the transfer. If that tag is missing on a deposit, the payment lands in the pooled account without an allocation. The money is usually recoverable, though it takes a support case with evidence, and that takes time. On a withdrawal from the exchange to your own wallet the tag is as a rule not needed.

The second is the reserve on the XRP Ledger. An XRP address of your own has to keep a minimum balance that is not transferable. Set up a new wallet and transfer exactly the amount you want to hold, and you cannot activate the address with it. That is protocol design and not a fault of the wallet.

One point of context that has applied since MiCA: trading venues offering crypto assets in the EU need an authorisation as a crypto-asset service provider. Whether a provider holds that licence is in the supervisor's registers and not in the provider's advertising. And one more distinction, because it is regularly confused with XRP: the XRP Ledger has no protocol staking. Anyone offering you a yield on XRP is lending out your tokens or deploying them some other way, with the counterparty's corresponding default risk. There is no network reward here as there is with Ethereum or Solana.

XRP price prediction: The key points for your decision

The release of one billion XRP is the occasion of this day, but not the number that determines your result. Three steps follow from it:

1. Read the return before you judge the release. If it stays at 700 to 800 million tokens, the supply effect is small. If you need an account at a regulated trading venue for that anyway, compare the terms beforehand in the overview of crypto exchanges, because the fee on the purchase costs you something for certain, while the monthly release only might.
2. Decide the route before the timing. Direct purchase and ETN differ for tax by 25 percent withholding tax and on an ongoing basis by up to 2.50 percent in costs a year. What is tradable in Germany is set out in the overview of crypto ETFs and ETNs.
3. Save the receipts from today, not in March. Should the December 31, 2026 deadline become law, your purchase date decides the taxation of your entire holding, and you have to prove it yourself. How to keep that record as you go is shown in the overview of tax tools.

(As of October 1, 2026. This article is not investment advice. Prices and fee structures change; check the terms with the provider before you buy. Tax information is not tax advice; the draft bill mentioned is not law in force.)

The token of the layer-1 blockchain Sui (SUI) cost €1.028 on Thursday, October 1, according to CoinGecko. Seven days earlier it was €0.843, a gain of 21.9 percent. Over 30 days SUI is up around 60 percent. With a market capitalisation of around €4.2 billion, Sui sits at number 28 on CoinGecko.

The week is remarkable for two reasons. On September 24 the Phantom wallet, through which many users managed their SUI, ended its support for the network, and the price rose all the same. And on October 7 and 8, Sui Basecamp in Singapore brings the project's most important conference, together with a publicly announced speed test.

The SUI price over the week: from €0.83 to €1.03

The low of the week was €0.828 on Wednesday, September 24, at around 12:00, according to CoinGecko's hourly data, so on the day Phantom pulled out. From there SUI climbed to the weekly high of €1.119 in the night into Sunday, September 28. Since then the price has given back around 8 percent of that, and over the past 24 hours it has barely moved.

The long view helps with placing all this: the all-time high of €5.19 dates from January 4, 2025. Today's price sits around 80 percent below it. The recovery of recent weeks therefore starts from a low base.

The capital in Sui applications is growing again

A second number is moving in the same direction as the price. The capital locked in Sui applications, known as total value locked, stood at $551 million on September 30 according to the data service DefiLlama. At the end of August it was $440 million, a rise of around a quarter in a month.

The distance to the peak remains large, however. In October 2025 the figure stood at $2.64 billion, and today's level is around 79 percent below that. Part of that decline goes back to fallen prices, because the value is measured in dollars, and part to capital withdrawn. September's recovery is therefore a first sign and not yet a return to the old level.

Phantom left Sui on September 24

Phantom announced the step on August 24 and described it as a joint decision with Sui, saying the door remains open for later cooperation. Since September 24 the wallet no longer displays Sui balances, and sending and swapping are no longer possible there. The details are in Phantom's help article, and our report on the announcement is in the piece on the end of Sui support in Phantom.

Important for anyone who missed the date: the tokens are not lost. They sit on the Sui blockchain and depend on the recovery phrase, not on the app. Enter the same phrase in another wallet with Sui support and you see the same addresses and balances. Phantom itself names Slush, the Sui Foundation's wallet, as an alternative.

The price marked its weekly low on the day of the exit and rose again afterwards. A month lay between the announcement on August 24 and it taking effect on September 24. Whether the market priced the step in during that time cannot be read from the price history alone.

Sui Basecamp on October 7 and 8 in Singapore

The in-house conference takes place on October 7 and 8 at Marina Bay Sands in Singapore, alongside the large industry conference TOKEN2049. According to Sui's programme, the focus is on automated payments by AI agents, along with instant settlement, private transactions and stablecoins.

A public speed test is announced for October 7. Kostas Chalkias, co-founder and chief cryptographer of the developer firm Mysten Labs, intends to push the network to its limit live on the main stage. Sui gives its existing record as 6,086,766 transactions per second, reached on July 4, 2026. Figures like that arise under test conditions and say little about everyday life on the network, but they are a date on which a lot of attention rests on Sui.

21Shares pays staking income for its Sui fund

A smaller signal came out of the United States on September 30. The provider 21Shares paid a distribution of $0.052939 per unit for its Sui staking fund TSUI, with September 29 as the ex-date. For investors in Germany the product is as a rule not available to buy, because a key information document is missing. Why that is and which routes exist via Xetra is explained in our piece on the 21Shares distributions.

These levels show the course of the week

The round level of one euro lies directly below the current price, and SUI crossed it in the second half of the week. Below that comes the weekly low at €0.828. On the upside, the weekly high at €1.119 is the first level. These values describe where the price last turned. Price targets they are not, and a conference with announced news can shift the course in either direction.

Buying and holding SUI in Germany

SUI is listed on large exchanges that operate in the EU with an authorisation under the MiCA regulation, among them Coinbase, Kraken, Bitvavo and Bybit EU according to CoinGecko's venue list. An exchange without EU authorisation is an additional risk with a token that rises 60 percent within a month, and it is a risk that can be avoided.

Anyone wanting to hold SUI themselves needs a wallet that explicitly supports the network after Phantom's exit. That is the real lesson of the week: a wallet can drop a network at any time, while the recovery phrase stays valid. Keep it safe and you can move at any time.

On tax in Germany: gains from selling SUI are free of tax after a holding period of one year. Sell earlier and you pay tax on the gain at your personal rate, provided all private disposal gains of the year together reach the threshold of 1,000 euros. Staking rewards are taxable on receipt but do not extend the holding period.

Perpetual futures on SUI exist on many exchanges. Ahead of a conference date with announced news, leverage is especially risky, because expectations can reverse quickly. At five times leverage, the margin is used up by a counter-move of 20 percent.

The risk behind the recovery

Around 4.1 billion of the 10 billion SUI in total are in circulation according to CoinGecko, so 41 percent. The remaining tokens are released under a plan running to 2030, and according to the data service Tokenomist the next release was due on October 1, in favour of the community reserve. Every release brings additional supply that the market has to absorb.

On top of that comes the distance to the peak in locked capital. A price gain of 60 percent in a month with a total value locked that sits around 79 percent below its high shows a change in mood, but not yet a broad return of users. Whether that follows can be checked week by week in DefiLlama's figures.

Sui showed in May 2025 how sensitive a young network can be. Back then the decentralised exchange Cetus, the largest trading venue in the Sui ecosystem, was relieved of around $223 million. A large part of the haul could be frozen, because the network's validators jointly blocked the affected addresses. For those harmed that was good news, and at the same time it showed how much influence a manageable group of validators has over the network. Both belong to the picture when SUI rises as quickly as it has in these weeks.

Sui: Your next three steps

1. Check whether your exchange holds a MiCA authorisation and lists SUI, in the comparison of regulated crypto exchanges.
2. If your SUI were still in Phantom, move them with your recovery phrase into a wallet with Sui support. Suitable apps are in the comparison of software wallets.
3. Record the purchase date and the purchase price so that you can document the one-year holding period. The programmes in the comparison of crypto tax tools help with that.

(As of October 1, 2026. This article is not investment advice. Prices and fee structures change; check the terms with the provider before you buy.)

ZEC is 21% off its $1,698 peak after ETF outflows and a suspected North Korean heist routed money through its shielded pool. Is the run over, or will traders buy the dip?

The proposal would let advisers and funds use state trust companies as custodians and permit self-custody under certain conditions, aiming to replace years of ambiguity with a clear compliance path.

Reddit RSS dies November 13 and outside apps lose their data pipeline by March 2027. Reddit blames scraping bots, though it licenses its own content to AI companies.

OpenAI says it disrupted a campaign involving 15,000+ users and ties a core cluster to people associated with Moonshot, the startup behind Kimi.

Communications chief Andy Stone said reading Messages requires two permissions the user controls, disputing a journalist who reported Muse synced his texts despite his settings.

XRP trader sentiment has plunged to its lowest level since mid-August, with bearish commentary now overwhelmingly dominating social media despite the token’s recent rally.

A highly persistent WordPress malware strain is using Ethereum infrastructure to stay alive, with redundant copies scattered across compromised sites allowing it to rebuild itself even after attempted cleanup.

Dogecoin gains more US ground as Kalshi launches fully regulated onshore perps with strict leverage limits and Section 1256 tax perks.

Evernorth clears the final hurdle to debut the first actively managed, Ripple-backed XRP treasury on Nasdaq this October 8.

Wall Street banking giant Citi has dramatically raised its 12-month Bitcoin price target to $113,000, reversing a major bearish revision made only three months ago as renewed ETF inflows.

TLDR

• SEC proposes a tailored crypto custody framework for investment advisers and regulated funds.
• Advisers could self-custody certain crypto assets when specified conditions are met.
• State trust companies could qualify to safeguard crypto assets for advisers and regulated funds.
• The proposal updates custody requirements under two major federal investment laws.
• Public comments will remain open for 60 days following Federal Register publication.

The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission has proposed new rules governing how investment advisers and regulated funds can hold crypto assets. The plan would create a dedicated custody framework while updating requirements written primarily for traditional financial assets.

SEC Chairman Paul Atkins linked the proposal to the growth of crypto from a niche market into a major asset class. He argued that advisers need clearer options to safeguard digital assets while staying within federal securities laws.

SEC Proposal Opens a Path to Crypto Self-Custody

Under the proposal, registered investment advisers could self-custody crypto assets if they meet specified requirements. The framework would also cover registered investment companies and business development companies.

Atkins had previewed that approach in September because suitable third-party custodians remain unavailable for some digital assets. His earlier plan for adviser crypto self-custody also included a role for state trust companies.

The latest proposal turns those earlier policy remarks into formal rulemaking. It would amend requirements under the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 and the Investment Company Act of 1940.

The changes would also address financial statement audits for registered advisers and broker-dealer custody services used by regulated funds. The SEC has not adopted the framework, so the proposed provisions are not yet in effect.

State Trust Companies Could Expand Custody Options

The SEC would also permit advisers and regulated funds to use qualifying state trust companies for crypto custody. This could provide another option alongside banks and other permitted custodians.

The agency had already moved toward that model through 2025 staff guidance. That guidance provided conditional no-action relief involving certain state-chartered trust companies holding crypto assets.

The broader rulemaking has been developing for months. The SEC previously sent its crypto custody framework for White House review as work continued on a replacement for earlier custody proposals.

State trust custody has also drawn disagreement inside the Commission. Commissioner Caroline Crenshaw previously argued that state oversight can vary and may offer fewer safeguards than federal banking supervision.

The current effort follows an adviser custody proposal introduced under the SEC’s previous leadership that never became a final rule. The agency later revived its crypto custody rulemaking as part of its wider digital asset agenda.

Crypto Custody Joins Broader SEC Rulemaking

The custody plan arrives alongside other SEC work covering crypto offerings, tokenized securities, and market infrastructure. Atkins has presented those initiatives as connected parts of the agency’s approach to digital assets.

In August, the Commission proposed Regulation Crypto Assets, which would create tailored exemptions for some investment contracts involving digital assets. The SEC has also updated its approach to transfer agents as securities increasingly use blockchain-based records.

The new custody framework addresses how regulated firms hold crypto rather than determining whether particular tokens qualify as securities. Those classification questions remain subject to separate SEC interpretations and rules.

Public comments will remain open for 60 days after the custody proposal appears in the Federal Register. The Commission can revise the proposed requirements after reviewing feedback before considering whether to adopt final rules.

The post US SEC Proposes New Crypto Custody Rules for Investment Advisers and Funds appeared first on Blockonomi.

TLDR

• STLA stock gained 5.39% as stronger U.S. vehicle sales supported the rally.
• Ram 1500 sales surged 73% year over year, leading Stellantis U.S. sales growth.
• Jeep Cherokee hybrid retail sales climbed 53% from the prior quarter in Q3.
• Dodge sales rose 2%, while Durango posted its strongest third quarter since 2005.
• Chrysler Pacifica sales increased 6%, supporting broader U.S. sales growth.

Stellantis N.V. (STLA) stock rose 5.39% to $4.595 as stronger U.S. sales supported the afternoon rally. The automaker reported a 3% year-to-date sales increase. Third-quarter sales held steady at 324,277 vehicles, while core brands posted stronger retail demand.

Stellantis N.V., STLA

Stellantis Stock Gains as U.S. Sales Improve

Stellantis shares extended their advance through the afternoon and traded near the session high. Fresh U.S. sales data showed continued strength across major models. The company maintained stable quarterly sales despite a competitive industry environment.

Year-to-date sales rose 3% from the same period in 2025, giving the company momentum. Retail demand improved across pickup trucks, SUVs, and minivans, supporting the broader sales picture. Dealer activity supported the company’s U.S. retail performance.

The data supported STLA stock after shares gained more than 5% during the session. The rally highlighted the company’s U.S. vehicle mix and improving brand performance. Stellantis continues to expand product launches across American nameplates.

Ram Sales Surge 73% in Third Quarter

Ram delivered the strongest growth among Stellantis brands during the third quarter. Ram 1500 total sales jumped 73% from the same quarter in 2025. Total Ram pickup sales increased 34% during the period.

The Ram brand posted a 29% overall sales increase from the third quarter of 2025. Retail sales for the Ram 1500 increased 42%, showing stronger demand across the pickup lineup. The model also led its large light-duty segment in a 2026 JD Power study.

Orders opened for the 2027 Ram 1500 Rumble Bee 5.7L during the quarter. Initial allocation for the 2026 calendar year sold out within 90 minutes. Stellantis expects the Rumble Bee to reach dealerships during the fourth quarter.

Jeep Dodge and Chrysler Add Sales Support

Jeep recorded a 5% increase in Wrangler sales compared with the third quarter of 2025. Cherokee hybrid retail sales increased 53% from the second quarter of 2026. The Cherokee hybrid later posted its strongest retail month in September.

Dodge reported a 2% increase in total sales from the same quarter last year. Charger retail sales increased 22%, while Durango posted its strongest third-quarter sales result since 2005. Dodge also began production of the 2026 Durango R/T 392 Launch Edition.

Chrysler added support as Pacifica sales increased 6% from the third quarter of 2025. Total Chrysler brand sales also rose 6% during the period. Together, the results strengthened Stellantis’ U.S. sales profile and supported the STLA stock rally.

The post Stellantis N.V. (STLA) Stock: Rise 5% as Ram Sales Surge 73% and U.S. Sales Growth Fuels Rally  appeared first on Blockonomi.

TLDR

• Bank of America stock trades at $53.58 after falling 1.57% on Thursday.
• Bank of America gives $10 million toward Boston Children’s Brighton campus.
• The project will combine behavioral health, outpatient and rehabilitation care.
• The Brighton expansion will create up to 200 jobs and 3,320 construction roles.
• New programs will support autism, developmental care and early intervention.

Bank of America (BAC) shares traded at $53.58, down 1.57%, as the bank announced a $10 million healthcare grant. The funding will help Boston Children’s Hospital develop a new pediatric behavioral health campus in Brighton, Massachusetts. The project will expand treatment capacity while adding inpatient, outpatient and rehabilitation services for children and adolescents.

Bank of America Corporation, BAC

$10 Million Grant Supports Brighton Expansion

Bank of America will provide $10 million to Boston Children’s Hospital for the planned behavioral health campus. The facility will rise on the Franciscan Children’s campus, which joined Boston Children’s health system in 2023. The project will create new clinical space and increase access to behavioral health services across Greater Boston.

The new campus will combine inpatient treatment, outpatient care and rehabilitation services within one integrated location. It will also include single-patient rooms and dedicated programs for children with developmental and intellectual disabilities. Boston Children’s expects the expanded capacity to improve early intervention and reduce treatment delays for families.

The hospital also plans partial hospitalization and intensive outpatient programs for pediatric and adolescent patients. Rehabilitation services will cover both post-acute care and outpatient treatment for children with different medical needs. These services will broaden the campus beyond traditional behavioral health care and create a more complete treatment network.

New Campus Adds Jobs and Specialized Services

Boston Children’s expects the Brighton project to create between 150 and 200 permanent jobs in the community. Construction work will also support more than 3,320 jobs throughout development of the new campus. That expansion adds an economic component to Bank of America’s healthcare-focused community investment.

The project will serve children with behavioral health needs and patients requiring specialized neurodevelopmental care. It will also create spaces designed for children with autism and intellectual and developmental disabilities. Families will participate more directly in care through layouts designed around long-term treatment and clinical support.

Beyond patient care, the campus will support research, workforce development and collaboration with schools and community organizations. Boston Children’s plans to use the site as a broader center for behavioral health innovation. Those programs could extend treatment and support beyond hospital walls and into surrounding communities.

Bank of America Extends Greater Boston Giving

Bank of America has built a substantial operating presence across Greater Boston through employees, branches and community programs. The company has more than 3,600 employees and nearly 130 locations serving customers throughout the region. Since 2021, it has contributed more than $53 million through philanthropic programs across Greater Boston.

Bank employees have also completed more than 216,000 volunteer hours across community programs since 2021. The bank has provided $963 million in home loans and $651 million in small business loans locally. These programs complement its financial support for healthcare, housing, economic mobility and community development.

Bank of America also marked the healthcare commitment through employee volunteer activities at Franciscan Children’s. Staff members participated in recreational and creative activities with patients across rehabilitation and behavioral health units. The grant therefore combines direct capital support with broader community participation around the planned Brighton campus.

The post Bank of America (BAC) Stock: Boston Children’s Lands $10 Million Grant for New Campus appeared first on Blockonomi.

TLDR

• Sandisk stock gains 2.27% as Citi maintains its $2,100 price target on shares.

• Tight NAND supply could support Sandisk pricing and margins through 2028 ahead.

• Micron’s NAND revenue jumped 42% sequentially as selling prices strengthened.

• AI data centers are increasing demand for SSD storage and NAND-based products.

• Industry NAND shipments may grow at a mid-20% pace during both 2027 and 2028.

Sandisk Corporation (SNDK) stock rose 2.27% to $1,779.38 as stronger NAND pricing supported the company’s storage outlook on Thursday. Citi maintained a $2,100 price target while highlighting tighter NAND supply and stronger artificial intelligence infrastructure demand. The outlook extends through 2028, when supply growth may still trail rising storage requirements across major data center markets.

Sandisk Corporation, SNDK

Citi Sees Tight NAND Supply Supporting Sandisk

Citi’s view followed Micron Technology’s latest quarterly results, which showed a sharp improvement in its NAND business performance. Micron reported a 42% sequential increase in NAND revenue during its fourth quarter, reflecting stronger demand and pricing. Bit shipments climbed 10%, while average selling prices increased by almost 30% during the reporting period.

That pricing increase exceeded Citi’s earlier expectation for roughly 20% average NAND price growth across the market. The stronger move suggested that industry supply remains constrained even as storage demand continues expanding across enterprise applications. Sandisk could benefit because firmer pricing can support margins across flash memory and solid-state storage products over coming quarters.

Micron expects its NAND supply growth in 2026 to trail overall industry expansion as manufacturers manage production carefully. Industry NAND bit shipments could rise at a mid-20% pace during 2027 and 2028. That combination could keep market conditions tight if data center demand grows faster than new production capacity.

AI Data Centers Increase Demand for SSD Storage

Artificial intelligence infrastructure continues creating larger storage requirements across data centers and cloud computing systems worldwide. Operators need fast storage for model training, inference workloads, caching, and large-scale data movement across computing clusters. Solid-state drives are becoming more important across high-performance computing environments and modern data center architectures.

Citi analyst Atif Malik highlighted AI key-value cache workloads as another source of storage demand. Data centers can shift some of these tasks toward lower-cost SSDs instead of more expensive memory products. That approach could expand demand for NAND-based products as companies seek lower costs without sacrificing storage performance.

Sandisk sells flash-memory products and storage solutions that serve consumer, enterprise, and data center markets globally. Rising enterprise SSD demand could give the company another growth channel beyond traditional device storage. Stronger pricing would also improve revenue visibility if supply remains disciplined across the broader NAND industry through 2028.

Sandisk Outlook Strengthens Through 2028

Citi kept its buy rating and $2,100 price target for Sandisk following the updated NAND outlook. The target reflects expectations that constrained supply and higher demand could support stronger earnings conditions over several years. Sandisk stock’s 2.27% gain places shares closer to that target after recent shifts across semiconductor and storage stocks.

The wider memory industry is also recovering from an earlier downturn that pressured prices and production plans. Producers previously reduced output and capital spending after excess inventories weakened memory pricing across several technology markets. Now, stronger data center spending and tighter inventories are helping support a more favorable supply environment.

Future performance will still depend on NAND pricing, shipment growth, and the pace of capacity additions. Industry conditions could shift if producers expand output faster than expected during the next two years. Demand growth must also remain strong enough to absorb additional supply without weakening pricing across the storage market.

Sandisk’s current setup links its growth outlook directly to the broader expansion of artificial intelligence infrastructure. Data centers require more storage as models generate larger datasets and increasingly complex workloads across enterprise systems. That trend could keep NAND demand elevated through 2028 if infrastructure spending remains strong and production growth stays controlled.

The post Sandisk Corporation (SNDK) Stock: AI Storage Boom Could Keep NAND Supply Tight Through 2028 appeared first on Blockonomi.

TLDR

• Greenland Mines stock slides 13% after breaking sharply below the key $10 level.
• The Skaergaard campaign completed 4,480 meters of drilling across 17 holes.
• More than 104 tons of bulk material will support larger metallurgical tests.
• New LiDAR, magnetic, and bathymetric data strengthen future mine planning work.
• Environmental baseline work advances Skaergaard toward an Initial Assessment.

Greenland Mines Ltd fell 13.21% to $9.21 after breaking below the $10 level during Thursday trading. The decline came as the company completed its 2026 Skaergaard field program in southeast Greenland. The program now moves Skaergaard toward metallurgical studies, mine planning, environmental work, and an Initial Assessment.

Greenland Mines Ltd., GRML

Greenland Mines Completes 4,480-Meter Drilling Program

Greenland Mines completed 4,480 meters of diamond drilling across 17 holes during the field season. Global Drilling recovered both HQ and NQ core from several parts of the mineralized system. The company designed the work to support metallurgy, geotechnical studies, geochemistry, and future mine planning.

The program also produced more than 104 tons of bulk material from blasted mineralized sites. Greenland Mines mapped and sampled each site before contractors completed the blasting work. The larger samples will support more representative testing of gold, palladium, platinum, vanadium, iron, and gallium.

GTK Mintec will assess metal recovery, material variability, comminution needs, and potential by-product recovery. The company also collected large-diameter HQ core for deeper metallurgical testing. Meanwhile, NQ core will support assays and geotechnical analysis for possible open-pit and underground development.

Skaergaard Data Expands Mine Planning Work

Greenland Mines added new structural, geophysical, terrain, and hydrological data during the campaign. Teams used core photography, density measurements, point-load testing, televiewer surveys, and deviation surveys. These datasets will support future mine design, groundwater studies, and geological model updates.

The company also completed detailed drone LiDAR and photogrammetry across development areas. The surveys covered possible mine access, waste areas, tailings locations, and infrastructure zones near Miki Fjord. Greenland Mines reported LiDAR precision of about three to four centimeters across surveyed areas.

A drone aeromagnetic survey covered about 482 line-kilometers across 10.8 square kilometers. The survey focused on geological correlation, structural interpretation, drill targeting, and mine-planning applications. Greenland Mines also completed bathymetry and ground-penetrating radar work for access and infrastructure studies.

Environmental Work Supports Initial Assessment

WSP Denmark completed the first year of environmental baseline studies at Skaergaard during the 2026 campaign. The work starts a multi-year dataset for future environmental assessment and permitting requirements. Greenland Mines will combine those findings with engineering and technical studies during the next development phase.

The company also tested portable X-ray fluorescence methods against decades of historical drilling and assay data. That work identified geochemical patterns that could improve logging and mineralized-horizon targeting. Greenland Mines plans further laboratory validation before using the method more widely in project development.

Skaergaard contains gold and palladium-platinum mineralization within gabbro host rocks in East Greenland. Greenland Mines also controls the Sarfartoq project in West Greenland, which adds rare earth exposure. Together, the projects give the company exposure to precious metals and several critical mineral categories.

The post Greenland Mines Ltd (GRML) Stock: Slides 13% as 4,480-Meter Drilling Program Moves Skaergaard Toward Assessment appeared first on Blockonomi.

EU regulators are reportedly questioning Binance over its use of a legal exemption to keep serving some European customers after the exchange failed to win a MiCA license.

Enforcement action is possible if they reject its interpretation of the rule.

Regulators Weigh the Reverse Solicitation Exemption

The Financial Times, citing people familiar with the matter, reported that the European Securities and Markets Authority (ESMA) and regulators in France, Germany and Greece are reviewing whether Binance qualifies for MiCA’s “reverse solicitation” exemption.

The platform was ordered to wind down its EU business after it failed to secure a license this summer. Under the rules, unlicensed firms were supposed to take “immediate steps” to wind down from July 1 and stop serving customers, other than to help them transfer or sell their holdings.

In June, Binance had said that it had worked with regulators for about 18 months and had received no formal sign of rejection. But it later withdrew an application in Greece and stated it would pursue authorization in another member state.

Another report from the Wall Street Journal alleged that European Central Bank President Christine Lagarde personally asked Greek Prime Minister Kyriakos Mitsotakis to block Binance’s application after Greek regulators had all but approved it.

By early June, the application had cleared its technical review, and the mandatory 40-day assessment period had ended without objections. Her reasoning traced back to the exchange’s earlier guilty plea to US money-laundering and sanctions violations, and to a worry that letting it in would push more people toward dollar-denominated stablecoins while the ECB works on a digital euro.

ESMA Asks for More Enforcement Powers

A day before the FT report, ESMA stated that European regulators should get more powers to enforce MiCA. According to Reuters, it wants authority to order crypto companies to freeze assets when there are reasonable grounds to suspect links to crime, arguing that current procedures are so slow that suspicious assets have often disappeared by the time a freeze is requested.

National regulators could also be able to remove websites tied to scams or unauthorized crypto firms, and to act against non-EU companies that actively solicit EU investors without authorization.

ESMA also proposed banning certain misleading marketing techniques, adding rules for third-party marketing and requiring full cost information for customers. The proposals form part of its response to a consultation on MiCA, which is under review. A group of European central banks published its own response last week, and Reuters noted that some regulators have voiced concern about divergence and patchy enforcement of the rules.

The post Report: Binance Under EU Review Over Continued Operations After MiCA Miss appeared first on CryptoPotato.

Cardano’s native cryptocurrency posted an impressive 23% price increase over the past month and is currently trading just under $0.25.

Many analysts expect October to bring further gains, but Ali Martinez outlined several important factors that could trigger a short-term pullback.

Time to Cool Off?

The popular X user started his analysis by noting that demand for ADA in the futures market is cooling. He said open interest has declined 9% over the last week, from almost $2 billion to about $1.81 billion.

“This suggests traders are reducing leveraged exposure,” he explained.

Martinez then turned to whale activity, which should serve as a clear bearish signal. According to him, large investors have offloaded 90 million tokens (worth around $22.5 million) since September 20, adding to the recent selling pressure.

His third negative factor is the Tom DeMark Sequential indicator, which flashed a sell signal on ADA’s daily chart on September 26. Martinez noted that the asset’s valuation has plunged 10% since then and hinted that the correction may not be over yet.

Subsequently, the market observer focused on $0.24, calling it the key mid-range support. He believes that losing that level could lead to a further drop to $0.21. At the same time, holding the lower boundary could present the next buying opportunity, targeting the channel top near $0.28.

ADA’s seasonality should also be mentioned. Unlike BTC, which often thrives in October, Cardano’s native token has historically underperformed during this period, finishing in the red six times over the past nine years.

The Bullish Scenario

Recently, Brazil’s state oil giant Petrobras reportedly tapped the Cardano blockchain to verify environmental data related to low-carbon fuels.

Several popular X users quickly reposted the development, including TMA | The Money Ape. They suggested that “Cardano real-world use case is here,” reminding that ADA skyrocketed by over 17,000% during the 2021 bull run.

Another market observer who envisioned a major rally is JAVON MARKS. Earlier this month, they said that ADA appears to have “based” just like in 2020 before a massive price increase. That said, the analyst expects another “monstrous run” and set $2.90 as a target.

The post Cardano (ADA) Ends September With Massive Gains: But Major Bearish Signals Are Flashing appeared first on CryptoPotato.

Crypto may have benefited from the failure of the US CLARITY Act, according to Bitwise Chief Investment Officer Matt Hougan.

The CLARITY Act failed to get the 60 votes needed to move forward in the US Senate after years of negotiations. But instead of hurting the crypto market, its failure was followed by a strong rally across several digital assets.

Unexpected Wins in Washington

Both Bitcoin and Ethereum rose about 11% after the vote. Some other tokens posted much bigger gains. NEAR jumped 125%, Uniswap rose 49%, and Avalanche gained 44%, according to Hougan. The reaction may seem surprising because the crypto industry had strongly supported the bill. Hougan said the industry wanted the legal certainty that CLARITY promised. But added that the final version also included several compromises that could have created new restrictions for crypto companies.

One major area is stablecoins. The exec explained that the proposed legislation would have restricted platforms from paying customers interest or rewards on stablecoin balances. With the bill now stalled, existing stablecoin rules remain in place. Hougan said this could benefit companies such as Coinbase, which use stablecoin rewards to attract users.

CLARITY would have created a national licensing system for spot crypto exchanges. It also could have placed limits on the way exchanges combine trading and brokerage services. With the bill gone, established exchanges such as Coinbase and Kraken avoid those changes for now.

Instead of waiting for new legislation and lengthy studies, the SEC recently allowed certain tokenized US stocks to trade through blockchain-based systems under temporary rules, which, according to Hougan, could give tokenization companies a chance to test the technology in real markets sooner.

Revenue-generating tokens are another area that has benefited from clearer regulatory guidance. Several tokens, including NEAR and Uniswap, have gained strongly while using protocol revenue for token buybacks. The SEC has also clarified that, once a blockchain network is functional, announcing a buyback program does not by itself turn a token into a security.

There is still a major risk as regulation can change when a new administration takes office. A future SEC or CFTC leadership could take a tougher approach to crypto. Despite this, Hougan expects “crypto to be too big to crush.”

Progress Under Existing Rules

Michael Saylor, co-founder and former CEO of Strategy, also sees the failure differently. He recently argued that crypto may be better served by working with supportive regulators at the SEC, CFTC, Treasury, and banking agencies than accepting the restrictions included in the bill’s final version.

Saylor believes the sector should use the next few years to build compliant crypto products under existing rules instead of rushing to accept a compromise simply to get legislation passed. His focus is on products that can lower costs, expand access, and give users more control over their money.

The post Crypto May Be Better Off Without CLARITY Act, Says Bitwise CIO: ‘Too Big to Crush’ appeared first on CryptoPotato.

September was a strong month for many cryptocurrencies, including Bitcoin (BTC), Ethereum (ETH), and Zcash (ZEC), all of which posted significant gains.

Nonetheless, their pumps can’t be compared to what happened with Quant (QNT). The altcoin became a sensation after surging nearly 400% in a month, fueling expectations of a continued bull run among top analysts. On the other hand, traders and investors should tread lightly, as key signals suggest a short-term pullback may be coming.

Final Barrier Before the Real Boom?

As of this writing, it seems surreal that less than two weeks ago QNT was worth around $60. By the end of September, the token’s price skyrocketed to nearly $350, and now it trades just under $280.

Perhaps the biggest catalyst for the rally was the announcement that The Clearing House (which operates payment networks that process over $2 trillion each day) selected Quant to power its On-Chain Money Initiative.

One of the many analysts commenting on the token’s bull run lately is Ali Martinez. Earlier today (October 1), he set $430 as key resistance, which sits at the top of a certain channel.

In his view, a decisive break above this level could send QNT into price discovery mode, potentially triggering another parabolic expansion toward an all-time high of $2,000.

Jia Crypto also made an optimistic prediction, albeit far less bullish than Martinez’s take. She believes QNT could cross $300 “soon with big profits,” and then might rise to $400.

Beware, Bulls

Despite the overall optimism, a further price uptrend is not guaranteed. Lookonchain revealed that the Quant Network founder’s wallet has woken up after seven years of inactivity and has moved almost $7 million worth of QNT. Even if no actual sale occurs, traders may interpret the move as a sign of potential profit-taking, which can trigger uncertainty and panic selling.

Meanwhile, QNT investors have been abandoning self-custody en masse and flocking to centralized exchanges over the past several days. This in turn increases immediate selling pressure.

The token’s Relative Strength Index (RSI) should also serve as a warning. The ratio has surged past 70, suggesting that QNT has entered overbought territory and could be on the verge of a short-term correction. The index ranges from 0 to 100, where anything below 30 is considered a buying opportunity.

The post Quant (QNT) Could Explode to $2,000: Analyst Reveals the Critical Factor appeared first on CryptoPotato.

Evernorth’s merger with Armada Acquisition Corp. II won shareholder approval on Wednesday, putting its 473 million XRP treasury on course for a Nasdaq listing.

The vote passed with about 20.5 million shares in favor and 1.4 million against, according to Armada II’s filing on Thursday. It came five weeks after the SEC declared Evernorth’s registration statement effective on August 27.

Evernorth expects the deal to close on October 7. The company’s shares should start trading the next day under XRPN, the ticker the SPAC already uses.

Over $1 Billion Raised

The firm said the deal and its private placements have raised more than $1 billion, the total it first put on the merger in October 2025. Investors contributed part of that total as XRP, which the release does not value in dollars.

Evernorth’s release puts about $300 million of the total in gross cash. Private placements supply $225 million of that cash. Another $30 million comes from convertible notes the company agreed to sell in September.

Advance funding investors provided $214 million of the private placement money, according to the proxy statement. Evernorth spent it in late 2025 on 84.4 million XRP, at an average of $2.54 per token. Those tokens are already part of its holdings.

The SPAC’s trust adds about $48 million of cash. That trust held about $241.9 million on the August 20 record date. Public shareholders could redeem their shares from the trust at an estimated $10.52 each until September 28. Neither Thursday’s release nor the vote filing says how many shareholders did.

RippleWorks supplied the largest block of Evernorth’s XRP, 211.3 million tokens, by investing them in the SPAC’s sponsor, Arrington XRP Capital Fund. The sponsor must exchange those tokens for Evernorth shares at closing. It has agreed to vote the shares as RippleWorks directs. Ripple co-founder and Executive Chairman Chris Larsen co-founded RippleWorks and sits on its board.

Ripple itself contributed 126.8 million XRP when the merger agreement was signed. A further 50 million comes from the Larsen Lam Children’s Remainder Trust.

Books Carry XRP Below Cost

Evernorth Holdings’ financial statements in the proxy put the cost of 346.3 million of its XRP at $846.6 million. By June 30, 2026, the company carried those tokens at $348.8 million. It recorded impairment charges of $233.7 million in 2025 and $264.1 million in the first half of 2026.

Evernorth books XRP at cost and writes it down to the lowest intraday price seen since it acquired each lot. The written-down value is not adjusted upward when the price recovers.

The post XRP Is Coming to Nasdaq: Evernorth Clears Key Vote With 473M Treasury appeared first on CryptoPotato.