Google's Gemini update enhances AI integration in daily workflows, potentially transforming user interaction with technology through seamless voice and reasoning capabilities.

The post Google tests Gemini reasoning mode with voice control and app settings appeared first on Crypto Briefing.

BlackRock's increased stake in Strategy highlights growing institutional interest in Bitcoin exposure through equity investments.

The post BlackRock’s iShares ETF boosts stake in Strategy by $20M appeared first on Crypto Briefing.

The increased capital requirements for UBS highlight Switzerland's commitment to financial stability, potentially reshaping its banking landscape.

The post Swiss National Bank welcomes lawmaker support for UBS capital plan appeared first on Crypto Briefing.

HIFI's funding boost signals growing trust in tokenized finance, potentially reshaping capital markets with enhanced efficiency and security.

The post HIFI raises $37M Series A to expand tokenized capital markets infrastructure appeared first on Crypto Briefing.

Tokenized deposits could revolutionize banking by enhancing transaction efficiency, reducing risks, and integrating digital assets with traditional finance.

The post Barclays, HSBC, Lloyds and other UK banks test tokenized deposits in first live customer transactions appeared first on Crypto Briefing.

Bitcoin Magazine

Bitcoin Price Slips While US Treasury Yields Soar, Oil Prices Climb

Bitcoin’s price slid on Wednesday, just as U.S. Treasuries surged, with the 10-year yield climbing above 5% and reaching — its highest level since 2007. 

The price of the leading cryptocurrency was down 2% over a 24-hour period Wednesday afternoon in New York, and was trading hands for $84,357. 

Bitcoin’s price had surged earlier in the week as investors piled into exchange-traded funds. At one point, it soared as high as nearly $87,330. 

But its rally has since cooled. It dropped further on Wednesday afternoon around the time the U.S. Treasury said it will purchase up to $6 billion of longer-dated government debt on Thursday. 

Bitcoin previously benefited from the Treasury Department’s announcement of buybacks — having its best run in months — but this time dropped.

The 10-year Treasury yield climbed above 5% on Wednesday for the first time in 19 years, after September’s flash PMI data came in well ahead of forecasts and pushed the composite index to a five-year high.

Inflation details added to the pressure: input costs across manufacturing and services rose to their highest level since October 2022, driven largely by fuel and transportation, while wage pressure also strengthened. 

Rising yields are typically a headwind for bitcoin’s price. When safe government bonds pay 5%, holding an asset that generates no income becomes more expensive. 

Higher rates also tend to strengthen the dollar and dampen appetite for risk-on assets. Bitcoin has repeatedly retreated this year when yields rose on inflation fears, often with ETF outflows and forced selling by leveraged traders amplifying the move.

This post Bitcoin Price Slips While US Treasury Yields Soar, Oil Prices Climb first appeared on Bitcoin Magazine and is written by Mathew Di Salvo.

Bitcoin Magazine

CFTC Chair Selig Says Regulator Is Preparing for ‘24-7, On-Chain’ Markets

Commodity Futures Trading Commission Chair Mike Selig has said that the regulator was preparing for the transition of markets moving “24-7, on-chain.” 

Speaking to CNBC on Wednesday, the regulator said that it was an exciting time to be regulating markets related to crypto and artificial intelligence. 

The CFTC is fast pushing ahead with rulemaking for the crypto space, despite lawmakers last week blocking the long-awaited Clarity Act. Following the vote on the landmark crypto legislation, Selig said that the watchdog would still help U.S. President Trump “get the job done” in regulating digital assets. 

“Our markets are rapidly evolving,” Selig said. “We really have to reevaluate all of our rules and regulations to make sure that we’re ready and prepared for this transition to 24-7 on-chain and these automated markets that are facilitated through the use of algorithms and agentic finance.”

The Clarity Act wants to formally divide oversight between regulators, distinguishing which digital assets are securities, commodities or stablecoins. 

But the bill stalled and stumbled this year as the banking lobby had issues with crypto companies paying customers stablecoin rewards and some lawmakers — mostly Democrats — were concerned about the ethics side of the legislation. 

Trump received backing from major industry players while campaigning and since becoming president, his family has made money from digital asset ventures. 

Some lawmakers have alleged conflicts of interest; the White House has always denied any wrongdoing. 

Despite lawmakers blocking the Clarity Act, the CFTC and Securities and Exchange Commission have charged ahead with rulemaking. The CFTC last week sent a proposal to the White House to regulate crypto transactions and markets. 

And the SEC went ahead and approved tokenized stocks trading the same week. In August, it also proposed its own framework for crypto asset offerings, pressing ahead while the landmark legislation stalled.  

Formerly chief counsel at the SEC’s Crypto Task Force, Selig was described by White House’s Crypto and AI Tsar, David Sacks, as “instrumental in driving forward the President’s crypto agenda” 

President Trump in August urged lawmakers to get the Clarity Act over the line, referring to the legislation as “very, very powerful.” 

This post CFTC Chair Selig Says Regulator Is Preparing for ‘24-7, On-Chain’ Markets first appeared on Bitcoin Magazine and is written by Mathew Di Salvo.

Bitcoin Magazine

NYSE and Blockchain.com Working Together To List Tokenized Stocks

The New ​York Stock Exchange and crypto exchange Blockchain.com have signed a memorandum of understanding to debut tokenized stocks. 

According to a Wednesday statement, if approved, Blockchain.com users would be able to trade tokenized U.S.-listed stocks and exchange-traded funds on NYSE’s planned digital alternative trading system. 

It comes as Wall Street increasingly eyes up Bitcoin and its related infrastructure. NYSE’s  parent company, Intercontinental Exchange, earlier this year announced it had invested in crypto exchange OKX. 

“People shouldn’t be limited in owning stocks based on where they happen to live or the brokerage and information they may or may not have access to,” Peter Smith, Blockchain.com’s executive chairman and CEO, said in a statement. 

“Connecting to the NYSE digital alternative trading system will enable us to extend the opportunity to invest in these digital assets to tens of millions of Blockchain.com users around the world.”

And NYSE Group President Lynn Martin added: “The future of capital markets belongs to institutions that unite the trust of traditional finance with the innovation and accessibility of digital assets.” 

In January, the NYSE said it was building a platform allowing traders to buy and sell tokenized versions of U.S.-listed equities and exchange-traded funds and settle those trades on the blockchain, 24/7. 

Wall Street has been eying up crypto companies and their infrastructure particularly because it’s interested in tokenizing assets like stocks. Traditional finance titans like BlackRock and Franklin Templeton for years have used blockchain rails to tokenize money funds.

But things have accelerated since the U.S. elected pro-crypto president Donald Trump and regulators have taken a more friendly stance to watchdogging the space. The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission last week approved tokenized stocks trading. 

In January, the S&P 500 gave crypto platform Trade[XYZ] the green light to debut a new derivative contract on decentralized exchange Hyperliquid, giving traders the ability to trade the stock index 24-7. 

And Last month, Payward, the parent company of crypto exchange Kraken, and fintech company SoFi Technologies, announced a deal to route SoFi customers’ crypto orders through Kraken’s institutional trading platform and list SoFi’s stablecoin on the exchange.

This post NYSE and Blockchain.com Working Together To List Tokenized Stocks first appeared on Bitcoin Magazine and is written by Mathew Di Salvo.

Bitcoin Magazine

The Quantum Issue: You Never Really Know The Future

People have been debating whether a quantum computer presents a realistic threat to the Bitcoin network for over a decade. It was a serious topic of conversation over 13 years ago when I first discovered Bitcoin myself. 

There has been quite a lot of progress, both in terms of theory and real-world engineering, since long ago when I was just a bumbling idiot trying to figure out what was going on here. 

Two major milestones have been reached since then that make a material difference in the likelihood of a viable quantum computer actually being produced sometime in the next decade or so. That doesn’t inherently mean that it will reach a point of ubiquity, or even relative ease of access for those with large amounts of capital. 

But it is very possible that a number of viable machines will be produced in the near future. 

Error Correction Improvements

The first major improvement has been in error correction. To account for the inherent noise in working with things at this kind of tiny scale, to get a logical qubit that is useful in computation in practice requires the use of multiple redundant physical qubits. 

The prior state of the art way of doing this was surface codes, a way of bundling multiple physical qubits together in a grid and using some of them as check qubits that periodically “check on” their neighbors to ensure no internal errors in the superposition have occurred (without collapsing the superposition). Each grid’s empty spaces need to be filled with check qubits. 

This check qubit requirement creates an extra overhead that can get close to 1,000 physical qubits per logical qubit in total, and it gets bad at scale because check qubits can only check on the qubits immediately next to them. So every grouping of qubits needs to have checkers in equidistant spacing. 

Quantum low-density parity-check (qLDPC) codes remove this bottleneck, allowing check qubits to check other qubits at large distances (either through traces interwoven to communicate across chip sections, or by physically moving atoms like with the neutral atom design) across the device. This has allowed a 10x reduction in the amount of physical qubits necessary to produce a reliable logical qubit. 

That is not something to sneeze at. While it might not be a fully functional machine making progress at gaining more efficiency, it is material efficiency gains in the engineering processes that underlie the production of a fully functional quantum computer. 

Progress In Proving Fundamentals

The second has to do with a more fundamental question around the assertion that adding more physical qubits leads to a reduction in overall noise in the system rather than an increase. This is really at this point still theory, and you have to keep in mind that to this day there has never been a fully functional quantum computer that has end-to-end performed a computation a classical computer is incapable of. 

Google performed an experiment using their Sycamore (and later Willow) chips to experimentally verify the effect of adding more physical qubits. To be very clear, this was not a demonstration of performing computations, but simply a demonstration of storing information in memory without it decaying. 

They demonstrated through the use of logical qubits composed of a bundle of 17 physical qubits, a bundle of 49 physical qubits, and a bundle of 101 physical qubits that the logical error rate, the frequency of data corruption, decreased as the physical qubit count went up. This test passed a critical threshold, where the logical qubit being created out of the independent physical qubits maintained coherence longer than any individual physical qubit it was composed of. 

Now again, this is not a jump to a fully functional quantum computer performing computations that classical machines are incapable of, but it is material progress proving one of the fundamental assumptions underlying quantum computers. 

AI

These aren’t the only things that we are finding better solutions to in this problem space either. Artificial intelligence has become a big component in these systems. It is being used in the actual process of reading and decoding information from a quantum computer, a big bottleneck for actually making use of it at scale. 

AI is also being used in the development of new quantum algorithms optimized for these types of machines, and given the recent spate of AI helping to solve (or even disprove existing conjectures) major problems in the field of mathematics, this isn’t really that crazy of a leap to consider the possibility of major breakthroughs brought about by AI. 

They are being put to the same use in actually designing the actual physical quantum circuits that are built using different architectures. This is a very complex problem, actually, finding the optimal way to lay out quantum gates in a physical space to minimize noise at the quantum level, without creating so much empty space that you introduce latency, inefficiency, and other problems to solve. 

This is a factor that very well could hypercharge progress at solving the necessary fundamental problems. 

Outlook Ahead

Ultimately, in my opinion, this comes down to one question: does the assumption that adding more physical qubits reduce noise actually hold when it comes to computation and the active manipulation of quantum information. 

If that assumption does hold, and isn’t experimentally disproven sometime in the near future, then I think there is a very realistic case for a viable quantum computer being produced in the next ten years. 

There is a massive amount of resources being thrown at this problem, significant (but not overwhelming) progress at solving pieces of the problem, and if there fundamentally is a way to do something, human beings usually figure it out. 

I’m not saying that it’s time to panic, but don’t discount the possibility. 

This piece is featured in the latest Print edition of Bitcoin Magazine, The Quantum Issue. We’re sharing it here as an early look at the ideas explored throughout the full issue.

This post The Quantum Issue: You Never Really Know The Future first appeared on Bitcoin Magazine and is written by Shinobi.

Bitcoin Magazine

Raiffeisen Bank International to Roll Out Bitcoin Services Across Europe in Expanded Bitpanda Deal

Austrian banking group Raiffeisen is rolling out bitcoin trading for its 18 million customers.

The firm said in a Wednesday statement that it was working with brokerage Bitpanda as part of the initiative. 

Raiffeisen’s announcement comes as top banks worldwide launch crypto trading and custody services. BBVA, Santander’s Openbank, Germany’s cooperative and savings banks, SoFi, PNC, Charles Schwab and Morgan Stanley have all either launched or announced retail crypto trading over the past 18 months.

RBI chief executive Michael Höllerer pointed to customer demand as the driving force. “We are seeing growing demand for crypto assets in our markets, which we are addressing with a strong, reputable partner,” he said, adding that the bank is committed to “meeting our customers’ needs in the best possible way.”

The deal builds on an arrangement that began in Austria. In 2024, Raiffeisen Landesbank Niederösterreich-Wien (RLB NÖ-Wien) became the first traditional bank in the European Union to offer crypto trading within its existing banking environment, using Bitpanda’s technology. 

The new agreement moves away from striking separate integrations market by market and instead sets up a single approach for the whole group.

Bitpanda Enterprise provides banks, fintechs, brokers, trading firms and family offices with the tools to offer digital asset products to retail and corporate clients. Its services include investment infrastructure, liquidity, custody, payments, stablecoins and tokenisation, with an emphasis on compliance and scalability.

RBI treats Austria and Central and Eastern Europe as its home market, with subsidiary banks in 11 countries in the region. The group has about 42,000 employees serving 18.8 million customers through roughly 1,300 branches, most of them in CEE. Its shares trade on the Vienna Stock Exchange, and the regional Raiffeisen banks own about 61.2 per cent of the company, with the rest in free float.

This post Raiffeisen Bank International to Roll Out Bitcoin Services Across Europe in Expanded Bitpanda Deal first appeared on Bitcoin Magazine and is written by Mathew Di Salvo.

Cosmos Hub restarted after a nearly day-long halt, moving 1.23 million ATOM linked to a governance exploit on Neutron.

Validators resumed block production on Sept. 23 after stopping the network a day earlier, with the first block after the restart moving 1,227,121.37 ATOM, worth about $2.2 million, from an attacker-linked address.

The intervention followed the movement of funds stolen from Neutron onto Cosmos Hub, extending the fallout from an attack that began on a separate blockchain in the Cosmos ecosystem. Cosmos Hub said its network was not exploited and that the halt was intended to secure assets bridged from Neutron before they could move further.

Block production resumed at block 33,086,741, with the upgrade transferring the attacker-linked balance into a recovery address before ordinary activity continued. Cosmos Hub later said the secured assets had been placed in a community validator multisig while participants coordinated their return.

Former Neutron contributor Spaydh said the attack began after an attacker accumulated enough NTRN voting power to pass an expedited governance proposal that reassigned administrative rights over 11 smart contracts.

The affected contracts included infrastructure used by Astroport, Drop, and other protocols and were subsequently migrated to malicious code that allowed assets to be withdrawn.

Spaydh estimated the initial impact at roughly $4.4 million, comprising about $3 million in ATOM, $1.2 million in USDC, around $100,000 in DYDX and smaller amounts of wstETH and WETH. Notably, CryptoSlate previously reported that the losses amounted to roughly $9.3 million.

Neutron’s rate limits and subsequent halt prevented some of those assets from leaving the network. Spaydh said more than $1.6 million in USDC was protected, along with significant amounts of NTRN and ASTRO.

Roughly 70% of the stolen ATOM remained on Cosmos Hub when validators stopped block production, leaving about $2.15 million of ATOM within reach of the recovery operation.

Cosmos recovery leaves one gap as Neutron prepares restart

The first-block sweep secured most of the stranded ATOM, but a later refund from THORChain reached the attacker after the recovery transaction had already executed.

Crypto analyst Rarma said 168,990.9 ATOM arrived at the attacker-linked address seven blocks after the restart.

The tokens remained there for almost six hours before being transferred to Osmosis and sold in batches for about 266,841 USDC, with much of the proceeds subsequently converted into Ethereum.

The THORChain refund arrived after the sweep, leaving the newly returned ATOM outside the recovery transaction.

Rarma said an earlier attempt to transfer 500,000 ATOM was also included in a block and paid a fee before failing because the wallet lacked sufficient funds. He said the transaction showed the attacker-linked address could still submit an IBC transfer after the restart.

Cosmos Hub has not publicly explained why the later transfer proceeded or whether additional restrictions were intended for funds reaching the address after the initial sweep.

The bulk of the recovered ATOM remains under community control. Cosmos Hub said the funds captured during the restart came from the Neutron attack and are being held in a validator multisig while Hub validators, Neutron participants and affected protocols coordinate their return.

Meanwhile, attention is now shifting back to Neutron.

Spaydh said contributors have prepared a new binary that would restore affected contracts to their previous code and administrators, tighten governance controls, and move remaining attacker-controlled assets into a validator multisig.

The asset-return process is still being finalized, with recovered funds expected to be sent back to their original contracts and users after Neutron resumes block production.

Spaydh said Neutron was targeting a restart within roughly 24 hours and expected asset returns to begin afterward. The project also plans to publish a full post-mortem once the chain is back online.

Cosmos Hub said a separate forum update will follow with further details on the secured ATOM, leaving validators and affected protocols to reconcile the recovered balance against the portion that escaped after the restart.

The post Cosmos restarted to seize $2.2 million in stolen ATOM, but 169,000 tokens still escaped appeared first on CryptoSlate.

21Shares has launched a Zcash ETP, a physically backed exchange-traded product, on Euronext Paris and Amsterdam, opening a brokerage route to ZEC for European investors. The issuer announced the listing on Sept. 22 as Zcash rallied, but the price advance began before the product arrived.

The 21Shares Zcash ETP trades as ZCASH, with a euro listing in Paris and a dollar listing in Amsterdam. Its ISIN is CH1608218801. The product holds ZEC through its structure, giving investors price exposure without requiring them to buy or custody tokens directly. Its annual fee is 2.5%, and brokerage charges may add to the cost. The investor holds the listed product while the underlying ZEC is kept within its custody structure, a different experience from acquiring coins and moving them between personal wallets. In its launch post, 21Shares called it the first Zcash ETP available to European investors.

The distinction between product inception and public launch matters here. The issuer's product page gives Sept. 21 as the inception date, while its listing announcement came Sept. 22. ZEC was already trading around $1,540 on Sept. 19, when CryptoSlate covered a rally tied to growing attention on Grayscale's separate U.S. Zcash ETF. The European product therefore adds a new access point to an established price move.

On Sept. 23, Zcash recorded a 24-hour ZEC high of $1,651 before retracing to around $1,487 as of press time.

Weekly activity reaches multiyear highs

Messari reported more than $23 billion in Zcash transfer volume last week, its highest weekly total since 2021 and second-highest on record. That measure counts value moving on the network. Capital flows into ZEC or the new ETP require different data, so the $23 billion figure describes network movement rather than fresh investment.

On X, Zodl reported 62,379 shielded transactions last week, the highest weekly reading since 2022. Shielded transactions conceal details that would otherwise be visible on the public chain. The count measures transactions rather than distinct users. Subsequent weekly readings will show whether that level of shielded activity persists.

The new European listing and the two activity readings give investors fresh ways to assess Zcash beyond its price. Changes in ZCASH's assets will offer a separate gauge of take-up through European brokerage accounts. Those signals will develop on different timelines as the product begins trading.

The post Why Zcash soared to $1,600 as Europe unlocks new ETP access appeared first on CryptoSlate.

Bitcoin registered an intraday low at $83,500 on Sept. 23, the same day the US 10-year Treasury yield closed at 5.11%, up 15 basis points in a single session, as a hotter-than-expected business activity survey pushed investors to reprice interest rates.

Bitcoin now sits inside the $84,000 to $85,000 zone Glassnode identifies as its nearest on-chain support.

Real yields carried most of the move

The 10-year real yield, which strips out expected inflation, climbed from 2.63% to 2.76% on Treasury's curve, accounting for 13 of the 15 basis points added to the nominal yield. Implied 10-year inflation compensation, the gap between the two, edged from about 2.33% to 2.35%.

Investors demanded a higher inflation-adjusted return on government debt, which raises the opportunity cost of holding Bitcoin, an asset that pays no yield of its own.

The trigger came from S&P Global's September Purchasing Managers' Index. The composite reading jumped to 58.4 from 56.0, with services at 58.7 and manufacturing at 57.0, the strongest expansion in the survey since July 2021.

An economy running that hot leaves the Federal Reserve less room to ease, one week on from its Sept. 16 hike to a 3.75% to 4.00% target range. Intraday reports put the 10-year near 5.058% within minutes of the PMI release, and Treasury's end-of-day curve settled at 5.11%.

Bitcoin's decline played out in the same session, with roughly $280 million in long liquidations as price broke below $84,000, according to CoinGlass.

Glassnode's map puts support at $84,000 to $85,000

Glassnode's Sept. 23 report places the largest cluster of long-term holder supply between $84,000 and $85,000, the price range where the biggest block of patient holders acquired their coins.

Bitcoin also trades above the short-term holder cost basis and above the True Market Mean at $77,000, which Glassnode describes as the main downside reference if the market loses $84,000.

On the upside, the report puts the next major resistance at $96,700, derived from the mean MVRV price.

From the current quote near $84,282, the $77,000 level sits about 8.6% lower and the $96,700 level about 14.7% higher. Glassnode's framework rests on sustained trading beneath the supply zone, so daily closes carry the weight in reading the Sept. 23 dip.

An intraday wick through $84,000 leaves the structure intact, while a run of closes below it would bring the $77,000 reference into play.

The buyers who returned before the bond move

Glassnode's demand data shows spot Bitcoin ETFs took in about $1.3 billion over the five days since the recent squeeze began, ending two weeks of outflows.

Over the same stretch, 24-hour spot volume across exchanges climbed 121% from its August trough. Farside Investors' figures show $999 million of ETF inflows on Sept. 21 and $714.7 million on Sept. 22 and $346.9 million on Sept. 23. IBIT led the second day with $350.3 million, with FBTC at $257.4 million and MSBT at $99 million.

Glassnode’s on-chain and ETF observations run mostly through Sept. 21, and its spot-volume data through Sept. 22. Farside’s Sept. 23 figures show inflows persisted during Wednesday’s bond selloff, though at a slower pace than Tuesday.

Friday brings roughly $16 billion in Bitcoin options expiring on Deribit, US durable goods and consumer sentiment data a few hours later, and CME's September Bitcoin futures settlement in the afternoon.

Whether $84,000 holds or $77,000 comes into view

The bull case has the 10-year real yield retracing below roughly 2.65% while ETF inflows stay positive and spot volume expands on up days. Bitcoin holds daily closes inside the $84,000 to $85,000 zone, and buyers who returned last week absorb the macro hit.

Under that path, attention moves from defending support toward the $95,000 to $97,000 region, with Glassnode's $96,700 resistance as the test that would confirm the recovery has room to run.

The bear case has real yields extending toward 2.85% to 2.90% as markets price a longer stretch of restrictive Fed policy. Bitcoin loses the $84,000 to $85,000 zone on sustained daily closes while ETF flows slow or turn negative.

In that scenario, the $77,000 True Market Mean becomes the active downside reference, and the long-term holders clustered at $84,000 turn into overhead supply for any rebound that follows.

Bitcoin's next few daily closes and the 10-year real yield's next moves will decide which of Glassnode's two reference points, $77,000 or $96,700, the market reaches first.

The post Why surging US real yields are quietly forcing Bitcoin under $84,000 appeared first on CryptoSlate.

Neutron voters passed proposal #9 on Sept. 22, with 11 “Update Admin” actions listed on the chain explorer. The same day, security tracker SlowMist recorded estimated losses of $4.9 million at Astroport and $4.4 million at Drop.

The tracker’s combined estimate of $9.3 million reflects the reported incidents.

Neutron’s governance documentation calls its DAO the network’s highest governing authority and describes its power to execute messages through governance. “Update Admin” is the action identified on the proposal index.

In practical terms, the network’s governance process can change control of a contract’s administrator, even when users experience Astroport or Drop as separate services.

The proposal was titled “AIATO: AI Agent Takeover. Phase 1: Agent Admin Registration.” The explorer marks it as passed and lists 11 administrator updates.

That count describes the proposal’s administrative scope. SlowMist names Astroport and Drop in its Sept. 22 records.

The proposal shows the chain-level route to changing administrators, while the SlowMist entries show the reported financial impact at two applications. Together they point to a risk that is easy to overlook when assessing an application only by its procedures: network governance may retain consequential authority over the software it hosts.

What remains recoverable

The incident estimates leave the final loss unsettled. Protos reported on Sept. 23 that network halts stranded most of the initially affected assets and that the attacker had extracted around one-fifth at the time of its report.

A network halt can contain assets without returning them to users. The reported extraction share measures movement beyond halted networks, but it gives a different view from the incident estimates for application funds.

A final recovery figure requires knowing which assets remain contained, which have been restored, and which have left defenders’ reach. Withdrawal from an application, movement between networks, containment during a halt, and eventual return to a user account are key steps.

For affected users, the unresolved issue is how much of that reported value can actually be returned.

The post Neutron DAO passes a new proposal, and $9.3M in crypto disappears appeared first on CryptoSlate.

MoonPay has signed a definitive agreement to buy North Capital Investment Technology, a deal that would bring an existing private-securities trading venue into the crypto payments company's group if it closes.

The companies announced the agreement on Sept. 23, and said both boards had approved it. Regulatory approvals and other closing conditions still stand between the agreement and a completed acquisition.

For MoonPay customers, the announcement changes nothing about stated access to private-securities trading. It gives no launch date, eligibility rules, or path into the venue.

The question for customers is whether MoonPay will eventually offer access to North Capital, and under what terms.

What the MoonPay deal would bring

North Capital supplies technology and regulated services to private securities issuers, professional intermediaries, fund managers and investors. Its business spans investor onboarding, transaction processing, custody and secondary trading.

The subsidiary North Capital Private Securities Corporation is a registered broker-dealer and, according to the company's announcement, operates PPEX, an alternative trading system where eligible securities can trade outside a traditional stock exchange.

The SEC's June 30 ATS list named the firm and PPEX before this proposed acquisition.

The deal would add an operating securities venue and brokerage business to MoonPay's existing infrastructure for moving money between conventional and digital assets. North Capital also has an investment-advisory business.

The companies have yet to describe a MoonPay customer-facing securities product. The regulated entities, trading system and customer interface are distinct pieces of that potential offering, and the announcement describes the first two as existing North Capital capabilities.

The deal announcement calls for North Capital to become a wholly owned MoonPay subsidiary upon completion. Until then, its businesses remain the target of a proposed transaction. The companies did not disclose the purchase price or provide a firm closing date.

The key near-term milestone is regulatory clearance and merger completion. MoonPay and North Capital said the transaction also depends on other customary conditions and cautioned that there is no assurance it will close, or when.

Even after a close, customers would need a separate announcement explaining what securities could be offered, through which entity, to whom and when.

PPEX shows what MoonPay may add to its platform if the deal succeeds: infrastructure for secondary trading in private and other exempt securities, including tokenized securities.

The announcement describes existing capability and a plan to combine businesses. MoonPay user access remains a prospective step, with no announced terms.

The post MoonPay targets $8.7B trading venue, but the features remain unrevealed appeared first on CryptoSlate.

Stellar has been a payment rail at BVNK since September 22, 2026. BVNK settles stablecoin payments and has belonged to Mastercard since this summer. According to the company, the rail is live for business customers in more than 130 countries. On the first trading day afterwards, the price of Stellar's XLM token fell by around seven percent.

The two developments belong together, but they call for different responses. The integration concerns the network and how companies use it. The pullback concerns your portfolio, your holding period and, if you are leveraged, your liquidation price. This article separates the two and names, for each point, what you can actually check: the buying route under MiCA, the memo field on deposits, the one-year period under section 23 of the German Income Tax Act, custody, and the price levels that follow from documented daily data.

XLM price on September 24: The numbers behind the pullback

The price of Stellar (XLM) stood at $0.20348 and €0.178583 at 07:49 UTC on September 24, 2026. On CoinGecko data that is 6.98 percent lower than 24 hours earlier. The daily high was $0.220096, the daily low $0.198654. Market capitalisation is around $7.11 billion, which ranks 20th in the overall market, on turnover of $345.8 million in 24 hours.

As a cross-check we pulled the euro price independently from Kraken. There the XLM/EUR pair last traded at €0.178424 at 07:52 UTC, with a 24-hour high of €0.192692 and a low of €0.174634; a good 10.09 million XLM changed hands. The two sources are therefore about two ten-thousandths of a euro apart, which is within the usual range for daily data from different venues.

The day's loss looks smaller over the week. On a seven-day view XLM is still 11.38 percent higher, and 3.77 percent higher over 30 days. Over a year, by contrast, the price is 44.6 percent lower, and it remains far from its all-time high of $0.875563 set on January 2, 2018. Anyone who bought this week is sitting on a pullback inside an upswing. Anyone holding for longer is watching a move that changes little in the annual picture.

Around 34.94 billion XLM are in circulation out of a total supply of 50.0 billion. That gap is not hidden inflation in the sense of a running issuance into the market; it is the portion of the supply held by the Stellar Development Foundation. The circulating amount is nonetheless what counts for the price calculation, because only that part is tradable.

BVNK adds Stellar: What the new payment rail does

A payment rail is the technical route a service provider uses to move money from one account to the next. BVNK runs such infrastructure for stablecoin payments: companies pay out through a single interface and the firm picks the network in the background. A stablecoin is a crypto asset whose value is pegged to an official currency and is meant to be backed by reserves.

According to BVNK's statement of September 22, 2026, Stellar is live for all customers across more than 130 supported countries. Three use cases are named: cross-border payments, merchant payouts and treasury transfers within corporate groups. The company cites technical metrics of the network as its reasoning: average settlement in five seconds, transaction costs in the range of a fraction of a cent, and availability of 99.99 percent.

The statement gives two figures for scale. BVNK itself processes an annualised volume of $39 billion. The Stellar network handled payment volume of $55.6 billion in 2025. Both numbers come from the respective provider and are not independently audited; we report them as statements by the parties involved.

Kim Mescal Julien, Head of Partnerships at BVNK, explains the step in the statement: "The future of global payments is multi-chain and multi-asset, but businesses shouldn't have to carry the technical burden of connecting to dozens of individual blockchains." Denelle Dixon, CEO and Executive Director of the Stellar Development Foundation, adds: "Businesses moving money at scale need to know that it works every time, in every corridor." Those are statements by the parties about their own product, not independent findings.

Mastercard behind BVNK: Why the owner gives the news more weight

BVNK was an independent fintech until recently. The firm now belongs to Mastercard; the acquisition is documented in BVNK's press room. That changes the reading. When an independent settlement provider adds another blockchain, it is a product decision. When the same decision is taken under the roof of one of the two big card networks, it carries weight, because behind it stand distribution channels to banks and merchants that a fintech does not have on its own.

What matters just as much is what the news does not say. It announces no card payments in XLM, no integration into Mastercard's card network and no retail product. It concerns settlement between businesses. Anyone who infers immediate demand pressure on the XLM price from it is assuming a link the statement does not support.

What the XLM token actually does in the Stellar network

Stellar is a public payment network and XLM is its native token. Its jobs are narrowly defined: it pays the network fees, which come to a tiny fraction of a cent per transaction, and it serves as the minimum reserve every account on the network has to hold so that storage space on the blockchain is not occupied for free.

For valuation, that is the decisive distinction. If BVNK moves stablecoins over Stellar in future, those payments run in the stablecoins themselves. XLM is needed for fees and reserves, in an amount that is vanishingly small per payment. Growing payment volume on the network therefore does not create proportionally growing demand for XLM. What it does create is a larger economic base for the network itself, and with it an argument that works over years rather than days.

That assessment is labelled as such. The token's functions and the volume figures are documented. How both feed through to the price is an expectation, not a fact.

Buying XLM in Europe: Which buying route counts under MiCA

Since the European crypto regulation MiCA came fully into force, any provider selling or holding crypto assets for you in Germany needs authorisation as a crypto-asset service provider. BaFin maintains the list of authorised firms, and ESMA collects the national registers across Europe. What that means in practice for providers is set out in our overview of MiCA licensing duties for crypto companies.

Three practical things hang on this for you as a buyer. First, the complaints route: with an authorised provider there is a competent supervisor, with an unauthorised one there generally is not. Second, the separation of client assets from the firm's own holdings, which MiCA requires. Third, the records you will later need for the tax office, which a regulated provider as a rule delivers more cleanly. Which firms are authorised in Germany can be found in our comparison of regulated crypto exchanges.

Check as well whether your provider quotes a genuine euro pair for XLM. If the purchase runs via the detour of a dollar stablecoin, you pay trading fees twice and additionally carry the exchange-rate risk between euro and dollar. With an asset that swings seven percent in a single day, a detour margin is less noticeable than usual, but it is no smaller for that.

EURAU on Stellar: The MiCAR-compliant euro stablecoin

For European readers a second strand of this story matters more than the news itself. EURAU, a euro-denominated stablecoin issued by AllUnity GmbH, runs on Stellar. According to the statement from the Stellar Development Foundation, AllUnity is a regulated e-money institution founded by DWS, Flow Traders and Galaxy. DWS is Deutsche Bank's asset management arm.

The legal core is in the same statement: under article 49 of MiCAR, holders of such e-money tokens have a statutory right at any time to redeem their holdings with the issuer at par. That is the difference between a regulated e-money token and a stablecoin without European authorisation: with the one, a redemption right is written into law; with the other, there is a promise from the issuer.

In practice that means: if a German company wants to settle in euros over a rail like BVNK's, without the detour via the dollar, a purpose-built, European-supervised building block exists on Stellar. Whether and when BVNK will actually offer EURAU over Stellar is not stated in the integration announcement, so we do not claim it either. What is documented is that the token is available on the network.

For you as a retail investor, EURAU changes little for now. It becomes interesting as soon as your provider represents euro balances through such a token, because the relevant question then is who you have a claim against if the worst happens: the exchange holding the balance, or the issuer of the token.

Crypto capital gains holding period: What taking profits on XLM triggers

In Germany, crypto assets held privately count as other assets. If you sell them at a profit within a year of buying, that gain is taxable as a private disposal under section 23 of the Income Tax Act, and at your personal income tax rate rather than the flat withholding rate. After a year has passed, the sale is tax-free. The exemption limit for private disposals is the amount named in section 23(3) of the Income Tax Act; it is a threshold and not an allowance, so once it is exceeded the entire gain becomes taxable.

This is exactly where today's pullback sets a trap. Anyone wanting to bank profits after the weekly gain of 11.38 percent will be selling holdings they bought, as a rule, over the past few weeks. Their one-year period cannot have run. A paper gain thus turns into a taxable one, while older holdings of the same coin may long since be out of the period.

Which holdings you sell is determined in practice by the tax authorities on a first-in, first-out basis: what you bought first counts as sold. If you hold XLM in several tranches and on several platforms, you need a continuous record across all accounts, with date, quantity and acquisition price. An exchange statement alone rarely suffices, because it only knows its own slice. Anyone who has made transfers between platforms should keep the records: a transfer into your own wallet is not a sale and does not interrupt the period, but you must be able to show that if challenged.

Memo and destination tag: The most common mistake on Stellar deposits

Stellar has a field that many other networks do not have in this form: the memo. It is a short note the sender attaches to a payment. Technically it is optional; in practice it is almost always mandatory for deposits to exchange accounts.

The reason lies in how the platforms are built. Many exchanges run a single Stellar address for all customers and assign incoming payments to the right account using the memo. If you send XLM there without a memo, the money arrives correctly on the network but lands in the exchange's pooled holdings and not visibly in your account. Recovery is then a support case with processing time, sometimes a fee, and in unfavourable cases the outcome that the amount cannot be assigned at all.

This is not an exotic edge case. It is by far the most common way users lose funds on Stellar, and it hits beginners making their first deposit from a wallet particularly often. On XRP the same field is called the destination tag; the logic is identical. So before you think about buying routes and price levels, check the banal question: does your platform's deposit page ask for a memo, and did you send one? When in doubt, transfer a small test amount first and only send the rest once it has been credited.

Leverage and liquidation: What the pullback means for leveraged XLM positions

Leverage means you trade with borrowed capital and your position is a multiple of your own stake. The liquidation price is the price at which the platform forcibly closes your position because your margin is used up. It is not a warning signal but an automatic execution.

Work through today's daily data to see how tight that can get. Between the daily high of $0.220096 and the daily low of $0.198654 lies around 9.7 percent. A position with tenfold leverage opened at the high would arithmetically have lost its entire stake at that low, before any assessment of the payment rail played any role at all. At fivefold leverage, roughly half would remain.

If you are leveraged, these are the points that count today: the current distance between market price and liquidation price in percent, the level of funding costs, which are settled every few hours on open positions, and the question of whether your margin is posted in XLM itself. That last point is regularly underestimated: if the collateral falls in step with the position, the liquidation price moves against you while the market falls.

For investors without leverage the picture is simple. A daily loss of seven percent in an asset that is eleven percent higher over the week is a normal pullback and calls for no action.

XLM custody: Exchange account, software wallet or hardware wallet

Where your XLM sit decides who holds the keys. On an exchange account the exchange holds them; you have a claim against the firm. That is convenient, allows immediate trading and is defensible with an authorised provider that segregates client assets. It remains counterparty risk.

In a software wallet on your phone or computer you hold the keys yourself, tied to a device that is online. A hardware wallet keeps the keys in a separate device that never has to go online to sign; it is the choice for amounts you do not intend to move for some time.

Two Stellar-specific quirks come on top. First, the minimum reserve mentioned above: a Stellar account must permanently hold a small amount of XLM, so you cannot empty a wallet to zero. Second, the memo, which is also needed on the way back from the wallet to the exchange. Knowing both before making your first transfer saves you the support case.

Whichever route you take, the same sentence always applies: your wallet's recovery words are the only way back to your funds. They do not belong in a screenshot, in a cloud password manager or in any chat.

XLM price levels: Which documented levels frame the next few days

Rather than naming price targets nobody can document, we stick to the day's numbers. On the downside the daily low of $0.198654 is the first level at which it becomes clear whether the pullback is petering out; below that lies the round $0.19 mark, which Stellar took from below only a few days ago. On the upside the daily high of $0.220096 marks the point at which the day's loss would be recovered.

In euro terms the corresponding levels are the Kraken daily low of €0.174634 and the daily high of €0.192692. Anyone buying and selling in euros should calculate in euros, because otherwise the currency move gets lost in the judgement.

Whether any of these levels holds, we do not predict. All that is documented is that trading actually took place at them on this day, and that makes them traceable reference points for your own order.

Checking the Stellar payment rail: What to take away

1. Clarify the buying route and the euro pair. Check whether your provider is authorised under MiCA and whether it quotes a direct XLM/EUR pair or sends you via a dollar stablecoin. An overview of the venues can be found in our comparison of the best crypto exchanges.
2. Sort out the holding period and your records. Note the date, quantity and acquisition price for each tranche before you think about taking profits, so that you can document the one-year period under section 23 of the Income Tax Act and the FIFO order. Tools for this are set out in our overview of crypto tax software and portfolio trackers.
3. Settle custody and the memo. Decide which part of your holdings stays on the exchange and which moves into your own custody, and test every new transfer route once with a small amount, memo included. Devices and differences are covered in our hardware wallet comparison.

(As of September 24, 2026. This article is not investment advice. Prices and fee structures change; check the terms with the provider before you buy.)

The most important date for the crypto market in the coming weeks is October 28. That is when the US Federal Reserve decides on the policy rate again, and since September 23 the futures markets have held a further increase to be more likely than a pause. One economic figure caused that turn: the flash purchasing managers' index for the United States jumped to 58.4 points, its highest level since July 2021.

For you as an investor in Germany, what counts is less the figure itself than the chain it sets off. Rising rate expectations make credit more expensive, lift the return on safe assets and therefore weigh on everything that throws off no running income. On the morning of September 24, Bitcoin was trading around 2.8 percent below the previous day's level, with individual names in the top 25 considerably weaker. This piece places the data in context and then works through what there is to check in concrete terms: leveraged positions, the one-year deadline under Section 23 EStG, the buying route and custody.

US PMI Jumps to 58.4: What the Purchasing Managers' Index Actually Measures

The purchasing managers' index, or PMI, is a monthly survey of company purchasing managers that puts every answer on a scale around 50 points: readings above 50 mean growth against the previous month, readings below it contraction. The index therefore measures the direction and pace of change; it says nothing about the absolute size of the economy.

The flash reading for September 2026, published on September 23, took the composite index for the United States to 58.4 points. In August it had stood at 56.0. The jump of 2.4 points carries the index to its highest value since July 2021. S&P Global converts the survey readings into annualised growth of roughly 5 percent. That is the relevant order of magnitude: not a mild pick-up but a pace that makes a central bank with inflation concerns sit up.

A second finding from the same survey is often overlooked. Supplier delays were as widespread as at any time since July 2022. S&P Global attributes that to a lack of operating capacity, meaning that companies can no longer serve demand with the plant and workforces they have. Whoever is short on supply has pricing power. That finding therefore leads straight to the second part of the survey.

Input Prices at Their Highest Since October 2022

Alongside activity, the survey also records how companies' input prices are developing. That sub-index came in at 66.4 points in September, and the rate of input price inflation derived from it reached its highest level since October 2022. S&P Global names higher fuel and transport costs along with wage pressure as the drivers. The figures are in the S&P Global press release, which is blocked to automated retrieval but reads normally in a browser.

Why that matters for crypto prices can be said in one sentence: costs that rise at the input stage travel into consumer prices with a lag, and consumer prices are the measure against which the Fed has its 2 percent target judged. A survey nonetheless remains a leading indicator: available earlier than an official price index, and more volatile for it. Reading it as inflation already settled stretches it too far.

Fed Funds Rate at 3.75 to 4.00 Percent: What Was Decided on September 16

The starting point for the current expectation lies a week back. On September 16, 2026, the Fed's Open Market Committee raised the target range for the overnight rate by a quarter point to 3.75 to 4.00 percent, the first increase since July 2023. The decision was unanimous at twelve votes to none. In the text the committee records that inflation remains elevated and justifies the step on the grounds that it supports a more timely return to the 2 percent target. You can read that in the FOMC decision of September 16, 2026.

The direction is what stands out. For two years the question was when the Fed would cut. Since September the question has been how much further it will raise. That reversal is the frame in which the PMI data is read: a central bank that has just raised and expressly calls inflation elevated is handed two arguments for a further step by a jump in activity and firming input prices.

A Rate Hike on October 28: What the Futures Market Prices In Under CME FedWatch

The CME FedWatch tool is not a bank's forecast but a derivation: it works back from the prices of futures contracts on the US overnight rate traded on the CME to establish which rate decision the market is pricing in for each meeting date. The value is a market opinion in percent, and it changes with every trading day.

Following the PMI release, the daily market report of the KuCoin exchange dated September 24 gives a probability of 69.7 percent for an increase of 25 basis points in October. A German-language analysis of the same futures market data most recently put the October 28 meeting at 41.1 percent. Both values were read off at different moments, and the tool updates continuously. What is reliable is therefore the range: the market moved within a few days from a good 40 to almost 70 percent. Treating either figure as settled confuses a snapshot with a decision.

The next meeting falls on October 28, 2026. Several official data releases lie before it, among them the final PMI reading and US consumer prices. Any of them can turn the priced-in probability back the other way.

Crypto Market Falls Broadly: Bitcoin, Ether and the Top 25 Over 24 Hours

We counted for ourselves how broad the reaction is. This analysis was compiled by cryptoticker.io on September 24, 2026. Method: a single pull of the list of the 25 largest cryptocurrencies by market capitalisation from CoinGecko at 06:48 UTC, response HTTP 200, followed by a count of the 24-hour change for each asset excluding stablecoins and the tokenised credit products in the list.

Of the 18 assets remaining, 17 were in the red. Seven lost at least 5 percent, the weakest 10.51 percent. Exactly one gained, by 5.83 percent. Bitcoin traded at $84,160 and therefore 2.75 percent below the previous day, within a daily range of $83,654 to $86,459. Ether stood at $2,688, down 2.53 percent, with a daily range of $2,643 to $2,754. What we could not check is what share of that move came from the spot market and what share from futures positions; the list retrieved does not yield that split.

The picture is therefore clear: the move hits the whole market, not individual projects, and it hits the smaller names harder than the two large ones. The weekly comparison puts it in perspective at the same time. Despite the pullback, Bitcoin stood 9.85 percent above its level seven days earlier, Ether 9.97 percent. The decline gives back part of a strong week.

Inflows into exchange-traded crypto products run the other way. On one trading day of the current week, market reports put $925.82 million into US crypto ETFs, of which $714.7 million went into Bitcoin products; BTC-Echo puts the two trading days of September 21 and 22 together at around $1.7 billion and speaks of the strongest days in months, expressly not of an all-time record. For you in Germany the access route is what matters here: the US spot ETFs cannot be traded here, and the exchange route runs through debt securities on crypto, that is ETNs and ETPs. What that means for your account, fees and taxation is set out in our overview of crypto ETFs in Germany.

Why Rising Rates Weigh on Crypto Prices

The relationship holds for any asset without a running distribution and is therefore no crypto peculiarity. If the yield on short-dated government bonds rises, so does the return an investor receives without price risk. Everything that draws its return solely from a future price gain has to compete against that. Financing becomes more expensive at the same time: anyone holding positions on credit pays more for them, and part of those positions is closed as soon as the arithmetic no longer holds.

That second channel explains why a moderate decline in Bitcoin coincides with considerably larger swings in smaller names. In thinner order books the same amount sold moves the price further. An analyst's view of how much further this runs deliberately has no place here; the mechanism is evidenced, its end point is not.

Leverage and Liquidation: How a Rate Shock Closes a Position Early

Liquidation means that an exchange closes a position held on credit of its own accord, because the collateral lodged no longer covers the loss. The position then ends at the market price at that moment, regardless of what you had expected. In a market-wide pullback such as the one on September 24, that is the point at which a paper loss becomes a realised one.

Liquidation Price, Funding Rate and Margin Call: The Three Numbers That Count

The liquidation price is shown in your exchange's position overview and shifts as soon as you add or withdraw collateral. Check it against the measured daily range: if Bitcoin's daily low was $83,654 and your liquidation price sits close to it, the question is not theoretical. The funding rate is the payment that flows at fixed intervals between the long and short side on perpetual futures; it is the running price of your leverage and accrues regardless of whether the price moves. The margin call, finally, is the collateral you have to supply to avert a liquidation, and the deadline for it is shorter than a trading day at many houses.

In practice that means: note down your liquidation price, the current funding rate and the distance to the collateral threshold before the next data release comes up. Which venues for perpetual contracts set which fees, leverage limits and liquidation rules you will find in our comparison of perp DEX platforms. The rules differ considerably from house to house and are set out in the respective contract terms.

Holding Period and Tax: What Selling Into the Pullback Triggers With the Tax Office

Section 23 EStG applies in Germany to privately held cryptocurrencies. Gains from a sale within a year of purchase are taxable as a private disposal transaction and charged at your personal income tax rate; once a year has passed since acquisition, the gain remains tax free. The deadline runs per acquisition, not per holding, and that is the point at which a pullback can become expensive.

Anyone selling in September 2026 disposes, under the sequence usually applied, of the oldest acquisitions first. With purchases made in the summer of 2026 the one-year deadline cannot arithmetically have been met. A sale made out of nerves ahead of a rate decision can therefore trigger a tax charge that would not have arisen had you sat still. For that you need an unbroken record for each acquisition: date of acquisition, quantity, acquisition cost and venue.

The exemption limit of Section 23(3) EStG also has to be borne in mind. If that amount is exceeded, the entire gain is taxable and not just the excess. The amount in force is best checked against the statutory text or with a tax adviser, because it has been adjusted several times in recent years. Which tools carry acquisitions, deadlines and sequence along automatically is set out in our comparison of crypto tax software.

Buying Route and Custody: Exchange, ETN or Your Own Keys Under MiCA

Since the EU regulation on markets in crypto assets, MiCA for short, has been in application, providers addressing customers in the EU need authorisation as crypto asset service providers. For you that has two practical consequences. First, it is visible who operates under supervision and who does not; the authorisation can be traced with the provider and in the supervisor's registers. Second, the authorisation changes nothing about the question of ownership: a balance in an exchange account is a claim against that company, not direct access to the coins.

Three routes are open to you, and they differ in cost, tax treatment and access. Buying directly on a supervised trading platform and then withdrawing to a wallet of your own gives you the keys and keeps the one-year deadline under Section 23 EStG open. Holding on the exchange account is convenient and lets you act quickly if in doubt, but ties you to the solvency and the trading rules of the house. The exchange route through ETNs and ETPs runs in your usual securities account but follows the taxation of investment products and not the private one-year deadline. Ahead of a rate decision it is worth looking above all at two points: how long a withdrawal takes at your provider, and up to what time of day trading happens at all.

Levels Above and Below: Which Price Levels Are in View Now

Levels here are measured values, not price targets. To the downside sits Bitcoin's daily low of September 24 at $83,654; below that begins territory the retrieved daily range no longer covers. To the upside, the daily high of $86,459 marks the zone in which the week had begun, and market reports place the price on September 24 close to its highest level of the past eight months. For Ether the day spans $2,643 to $2,754.

The frame for that is the calendar. Until October 28 it is the data rather than the chart that decides: final PMI figures, US consumer prices, statements from the board of governors. Anyone setting markers in this phase sensibly sets them against dates and not against prices alone.

Fed Rate Hike and the Crypto Market: What to Take Away

1. Check leverage first. Open your position overview and note the liquidation price, the funding rate and the distance to the collateral threshold. Compare the liquidation price against the daily low. Which platform sets which leverage limits and liquidation rules is set out in the perp DEX comparison.
2. Settle the buying route and trading hours. Check before October 28 how quickly your provider pays out and takes deposits and whether it is authorised under MiCA. A side-by-side of supervised venues with fees and withdrawal routes is under best crypto exchanges.
3. Document acquisitions and deadlines. Record the date, quantity, cost and venue for every acquisition, so that a sale does not fall unintentionally within the one-year deadline of Section 23 EStG. Tools that carry this along continuously are in the tax tool comparison.

(As of September 24, 2026. This article is not investment advice. Prices and fee structures change; check the terms with the provider before you buy.)

If your bank terminates your account after money has arrived from a crypto exchange, that one banking relationship ends, but your participation in the payment system does not. The German Payment Accounts Act (Zahlungskontengesetz, ZKG) gives every consumer lawfully resident in the European Union a right to a basic payment account, and Section 35(1) sentence 3 ZKG expressly forbids a bank from refusing that right on the grounds that another account still exists, when that very account has been terminated. Everything that follows turns on that sentence.

This piece explains what happens legally when an institution ends a banking relationship over crypto payments: which notice period applies, why the letter usually gives no reason, which documents actually bring an anti-money-laundering review to a close, and in what order you approach the consumer arbitration body, the supervisor and the courts. The details relate to German law and to institutions based in Germany.

A Frozen Account and a Terminated Account Are Two Different Things

The two words get mixed up in everyday use, but they lead to completely different steps. A freeze is a temporary measure: the contract continues to exist, the institution merely holds payments or blocks transactions while an internal review runs. A termination ends the payment services framework contract itself. In both cases the balance remains your money; ownership is never in dispute, only access to it.

In practice that means: with a freeze you work towards release and give the bank the documents it lacks. With a termination that route is closed, because nobody can force an institution to continue an ordinary business relationship. Your objective then shifts to two other things: full payout of the balance, and a replacement account that is ready in time.

Often the two come one after the other. First a credit is held up, then a query follows, and if the answer does not come or the institution considers it inadequate, the termination letter arrives weeks later. Taking that first query seriously often prevents the second step.

Why Crypto Payments in Particular Trigger a Review

The trigger sits in the German Anti-Money Laundering Act (Geldwäschegesetz, GwG), and it is not one case handler's discretionary decision. Section 10(1) no. 5 GwG obliges banks to carry out continuous monitoring of the business relationship including transactions and requires a comparison with the information held on business activity and customer profile and, where necessary, on the source of the assets. A credit that does not fit the existing picture of a current account has to stand out under that rule.

Customer profile here simply means the pattern the bank has known from you over the years: salary, rent, direct debits, the occasional saving. A six-figure credit from a payment institution elsewhere in Europe does not fit that pattern, even if it is entirely lawful. It is precisely that deviation that triggers the review, not the word crypto on the statement.

Section 15 GwG comes on top. The provision requires enhanced due diligence as soon as an institution identifies a higher risk of money laundering in the individual case or in its own risk analysis. The extent of the measures follows that risk; the statute sets out no fixed list. That is why the response differs from house to house: one bank asks once, another freezes immediately.

With Bitcoin there is a technical detail that sharpens the problem. If you self-custody, you may have moved a holding across several addresses over years without that producing any evidence in the sense a bank means. The blockchain shows transfers, but neither purchase price nor counterparty, and without supplementary documents an institution can do little with it.

What Section 10(9) GwG Requires and What It Does Not Say

This provision is often cited in blanket terms in termination letters, and a look at the wording is worth the trouble. Subsection 9 sentence 1 states that a business relationship may not be entered into or continued if the obliged entity cannot fulfil the general due diligence obligations under subsection 1 nos. 1 to 4; sentence 2 then requires termination by notice or by other means. What is named there is identification, clarification of the beneficial owner, the purpose of the business relationship and classification as a politically exposed person.

Continuous monitoring including the source of assets sits in no. 5 and therefore outside that list. A missing answer to a source-of-funds question does not, then, automatically trigger the statutory duty to terminate under subsection 9. That does not make a termination ineffective, since the contractual route is sufficient for that in any case. But it shifts the weight in a conversation, because the institution is then relying on its contract law and not on a statutory duty that, at this point, is no duty at all.

Two Months: What Section 675h BGB Requires of the Bank

For an ordinary current account the notice period sits in the German Civil Code. Under Section 675h(2) BGB a payment service provider may terminate the framework contract only where the contract was concluded for an indefinite period and the right of termination has been agreed; the notice period may not fall short of two months. Subsection 4 also forbids the institution from agreeing a charge for the termination.

Two months is the statutory minimum, not a guideline. If your letter states a shorter period, it is worth looking into your institution's general terms and into the question of whether ordinary termination is meant at all. Alongside it, the general right remains to terminate a continuing obligation without notice for good cause under Section 314(1) BGB, where continuation cannot reasonably be expected of the terminating party after weighing the interests on both sides.

The practical consequence of that split matters more than the statutory references. Termination without notice requires a serious individual reason and is therefore open to challenge. Ordinary termination on two months' notice, by contrast, needs no reason, and as a rule you will not get anywhere against it. Your energy therefore belongs not in the fight over the old account but in the new one.

Why the Termination Letter Usually Gives No Reason

For an ordinary current account there is simply no statutory duty to give reasons. With the basic payment account the position is different, and looking there explains the silence in the first case too. Section 43(2) ZKG requires the reason for termination to be stated, but its second sentence expressly provides that this is omitted where it would endanger public security, in particular the rules on preventing money laundering, or would breach a prohibition on disclosure.

A termination letter without a reason is therefore neither an oversight nor a discourtesy but a case the statute provides for. Section 43(5) ZKG closes the circle: if the institution withholds the reason on those grounds, it must inform the competent authority of the termination and the reason. Under Section 46(2) ZKG the competent authority is the Federal Financial Supervisory Authority, BaFin.

For you one thing above all follows from that: pressing the point achieves nothing in this configuration, and irritation at the missing explanation takes you no further. The question you settle instead is whether a working replacement account is in place within the notice period and whether your balance arrives on it in full.

Proof of the Source of Funds Decides More Often Than Any Letter of Objection

As long as the account is merely frozen, the situation can almost always be resolved with documents. Proof of the source of funds is the unbroken account of where the money arriving in the account comes from. With crypto gains that requires a chain beginning with the euro you once transferred to the exchange and ending with the euro now coming back.

That chain can be assembled from:

• the exchange's complete transaction export covering the entire period, not just the year in question
• the bank statements showing your original deposits to the exchange
• purchase and sale confirmations for the individual positions
• a list of your own wallet addresses, where amounts were self-custodied in between
• evidence for special cases such as mining, staking, airdrops or a gift
• your tax return or the tax assessment for the year concerned, in so far as the gains are already recorded there
• a short covering letter that tells the chain in a few sentences and refers to the annexes

The last item is left out most often and works hardest. A stack of uncommented exports generates follow-up questions; one page of prose with clear references ends them. If you buy from the outset through a venue that supplies a clean export across all years, you have that evidence together in a few minutes; our comparison of crypto exchanges shows which providers make history and withdrawal routes available in a form a bank will accept. What a bank checks on the way in we have broken down in our analysis of source of funds on crypto deposits.

Where Proof Fails in Practice

The typical gap rarely sits where investors suspect it. Problems arise where an exchange has closed in the meantime and the export can no longer be retrieved, where holdings were bought over a peer-to-peer platform or privately, or where part of the assets dates from a time when nobody kept records. A reconstructed proof is better than none in such cases, and an openly stated break in the chain reads as more credible than a smoothed-over account.

The second common mistake is timing. If you only react when the termination arrives, you have missed the moment at which documents could still achieve something. The bank's query is the real deadline, not the date in the termination letter.

Your Right to a Basic Payment Account Under Section 31 ZKG

Here lies the most robust lever in the whole subject. Under Section 31(1) ZKG an institution that offers payment accounts to consumers is required to conclude a basic payment account contract with an entitled person, provided the application meets the conditions of Section 33. Entitled is every consumer lawfully resident in the European Union. Subsection 2 sets the institution a deadline: the offer must be made without undue delay, at the latest within ten business days of receipt of the application.

Under Section 34(1) ZKG an institution may refuse such an application only on the grounds named in Sections 35 to 37. That list is exhaustive, and two points within it are decisive for crypto investors:

• Section 35(1) ZKG permits refusal where the applicant already holds a usable payment account. Sentence 3 expressly excepts from that the case where the account has been terminated or the entitled person has been notified of its closure. The termination of your current account is therefore not an obstacle to the basic payment account but precisely the reason why the refusal falls away.
• Section 37 ZKG permits refusal where the same institution lawfully terminated an earlier basic payment account of the same customer within the past year under Section 42(3) no. 2. That bar applies only in relation to that one house.

The charge is not arbitrary either. Section 41(2) ZKG requires the charge for the services provided for by statute to be reasonable, measured against customary market charges and against user behaviour; a contractual penalty in connection with the basic payment account contract is impermissible under subsection 3. And the basic payment account itself is harder to terminate than an ordinary current account: Section 42 ZKG allows termination only on the conditions listed there, for instance after 24 consecutive months without an instructed payment transaction, and even then on at least two months' notice.

What is striking about the situation is that many of the same institutions now offer crypto themselves. The launch of crypto trading at the German savings banks shows how far sales and anti-money-laundering review have drifted apart within a single house.

The BaFin Procedure Under Section 48 ZKG and the Order That Matters

If an institution refuses you the basic payment account, you do not have to go straight to court. Section 48(1) ZKG opens an administrative procedure before the Federal Authority in three cases: where the application is refused, where no decision is taken on it within ten business days, or where the account is not opened within ten business days of the contract being concluded. The Federal Authority confirms receipt and conclusion of the procedure in writing or electronically.

If it concludes that the refusal does not hold, it orders the conclusion of the contract or the opening of the account under Section 49(1) ZKG. The burden of proof sits with the institution: it has to make out the conditions for a permissible refusal to the satisfaction of the supervisor. The Federal Authority may charge the institution a fee for the order. How the procedure runs from a consumer's point of view is described by BaFin on its basic payment account page.

Now the point at which most mistakes happen. Section 48(2) ZKG declares the application inadmissible where proceedings have already been brought before the ordinary courts on the same grounds and are still pending or have been finally decided, or where proceedings are pending before the consumer arbitration body competent under Section 14(1) UKlaG. Whoever goes to arbitration or to court first thereby closes off the fast route through the supervisor. The order is therefore a genuine fork in the road and not a formality.

Equally important is the limit of this procedure: it concerns the basic payment account alone. There is no procedure under Section 48 ZKG against the termination of an ordinary current account, and the supervisor will not get that account back for you either.

Arbitration or Court: What Is Left for the Terminated Current Account

Two routes remain for the old account, and both are limited in effect. The first runs through consumer arbitration. For the basic payment account, Section 43(3) ZKG even obliges the institution to point out in the termination the competent authority under Section 46(2) and the consumer arbitration body competent under Section 14(1) UKlaG, and to give the contact details. Where the house provides its own complaints procedure, the same duty to inform applies under subsection 4.

The second route is an action before the ordinary courts. That rarely makes sense with an ordinary termination on two months' notice, because no reason is required for it. With a termination without notice, with a withheld balance or with loss arising from a delayed payout, the calculation looks different. Both routes bar the administrative procedure on the basic payment account under Section 48(2) ZKG, which is why the replacement account sensibly comes first.

What to Change Before Your Next Withdrawal

The most effective part of this subject is the preventive one. An account that has been terminated is hard to get back; a withdrawal that is explicable from the outset is usually not held up at all.

• Announce larger withdrawals to your bank in advance, informally and in text form, with a line on the source.
• Do not break a large sale into many small transfers. Structuring looks like an attempt at concealment in anti-money-laundering monitoring and generates exactly the attention you want to avoid.
• Download the complete transaction export from your venues at least once a year and keep it outside the platform. Exchanges that have closed supply no history any more.
• Keep a second current account at another institution that serves solely as a fallback and is used regularly.
• Prefer venues with authorisation under the European crypto regulation and with a withdrawal route through an account in the euro area. Which providers meet that is set out in our comparison of regulated crypto exchanges.
• Keep your acquisition records as you go rather than retrospectively. A portfolio and tax tool produces the same history that later serves as proof of source; the selection is in our comparison of crypto tax software.

Frequently Asked Questions on Account Termination Over Crypto

May a bank terminate the account without giving reasons?

With an ordinary current account, yes, provided the contract is open-ended and a right of termination has been agreed; the period is at least two months under Section 675h(2) BGB. With the basic payment account, Section 43(2) ZKG requires reasons, which are however omitted where the anti-money-laundering rules or a prohibition on disclosure would otherwise be affected.

Will I get my balance paid out?

The balance is yours and is to be paid out once the contract ends. Delays almost always arise where an anti-money-laundering review is running in parallel or where no recipient account has been named. A second account at another institution resolves that point in advance.

Do I have to tell the bank I trade crypto?

There is no general duty of disclosure. You should, however, answer specific queries raised in the course of due diligence, because unanswered queries are the most common route from a freeze to a termination.

Will BaFin help against the termination of my current account?

The administrative procedure under Section 48 ZKG applies only to the basic payment account and only in the three cases named there. A general complaint to the supervisor is possible alongside it, but gives you no right to continuation of the old account.

How long does it take for a basic payment account to be in place?

The statute gives the institution ten business days for the offer after receipt of the application. If that period passes without a decision, that is already one of the cases in which Section 48(1) ZKG opens the procedure before the Federal Authority.

Can I simply switch to a direct bank?

That is possible, but it solves the underlying problem only if the new bank assesses the same payment flows differently. The due diligence obligations under the Anti-Money Laundering Act apply equally to every institution; what differs is solely the internal risk classifications.

Account Terminated Over Crypto: What to Take Away

1. Answer the query, not the termination. The moment at which documents work lies before the termination letter. Put the proof of source together from the exchange export, bank statements and a short covering letter; which venues supply a history usable for that is shown in the exchange comparison.
2. Secure the replacement account immediately. The right under Section 31 ZKG exists regardless of why the old account ended, and Section 35(1) sentence 3 ZKG takes away from the bank precisely the argument that you still have an account. Set up your ongoing documentation correctly at the same time, for instance with a tool from the comparison of crypto tax software.
3. Keep to the order. First the application for the basic payment account, then, on refusal or expiry of the period, the procedure under Section 48 ZKG, and only after that arbitration or court, because both bar the supervisory procedure. For future withdrawals you cut the risk most effectively through a regulated venue from our comparison of regulated crypto exchanges.

(As of September 24, 2026. This article is not investment advice and not legal advice. The state of the law, terms and fee structures change; check the terms with the provider before you buy.)

Uniswap lost eleven percent of its value on Wednesday morning, and even so the price stands higher than on any day of the summer. Anyone who bought UNI over the past four weeks is sitting on a paper gain that has shrunk by more than a tenth within a single trading day. The question that follows is not a price question but a tax one: selling now almost inevitably triggers a taxable private disposal transaction in Germany, because the one-year deadline cannot possibly have been met on a purchase made this summer.

The UNI Price on September 24: Numbers, Daily High and Low

This analysis was compiled by cryptoticker.io on September 24, 2026. Market data was pulled from CoinGecko at 05:47 UTC and, as an independent cross-check, from the public ticker of the Kraken exchange at 05:49 UTC. Both pulls returned HTTP 200.

CoinGecko reports a price of $9.31 for UNI, down 11.75 percent against the level 24 hours earlier. The daily high was $10.55, the daily low $9.07. Kraken arrives at a last price of $9.30 for the same period, with a high of $10.56 and a low of $9.04. The divergence between the two sources is in the cents and is the usual difference between a volume-weighted index across many venues and the order book of a single exchange.

Two further values from the same pull put the pullback in context. Over seven days UNI is up 37.66 percent, over 30 days up 113.85 percent. The price has therefore more than doubled within a month. Working the 30-day change backwards, UNI stood at around $4.35 at the end of August. Market capitalisation is $5.78 billion on a circulating supply of 620.66 million UNI, which corresponds to rank 23 by market capitalisation. Trading turnover over the past 24 hours was $1.44 billion. The price remains 79.27 percent below its all-time high of $44.92.

What we did not check is how turnover splits across individual venues and what share falls on derivatives. Both would be needed to judge how much of the decline comes from spot selling and how much from closed futures positions.

The pullback does not stand alone. Bitcoin gave up 2.95 percent over the same window, Ethereum 2.81 percent. UNI therefore fell roughly four times as hard as the wider market, which is an ordinary pattern for a coin that has doubled over the course of a month: where the largest paper gains sit, selling comes first.

Uniswap Fee Switch: Why UNI Rose 114 Percent in the First Place

The fee switch is a decision of Uniswap governance to stop paying part of the protocol's trading fees out to liquidity providers in full and to direct it to the protocol itself instead. On Ethereum it has been live since December 28, 2025; votes in March and June 2026 extended it to several layer-2 networks.

In economic terms this is the point at which UNI stopped being a pure governance token. Before that, UNI conferred the right to take part in votes and nothing else. Since then the token carries a measurable stream of payments from the trading business of the largest decentralised exchange.

The order of magnitude can be quantified. According to an analysis by Crypto Briefing, around $23.15 million in protocol revenue has accrued since activation, of which roughly $4.9 million came in the past 30 days, at a recent run rate of about $129,000 a day. The decisions themselves can be inspected publicly in the Uniswap governance forum.

Extrapolations to a full year vary between $26 million and around $58 million depending on the time window and the data provider. You should leave that range as it is rather than smoothing it into a single number. The spread arises because trading fees move with market activity, and a month of high volatility throws off a multiple of a quiet one.

TokenJar and Firepit: How the Revenue Reaches UNI Holders

Here lies the point many investors misread, and it has immediate tax consequences. Around 17 percent of swap fees flow into protocol revenue. That revenue is not, however, distributed to holders. It accumulates in a contract called TokenJar and can only be released by burning UNI through the Firepit mechanism.

For you as a holder that means: nothing is transferred to you. The benefit arises solely through a tightening of supply, and therefore through the price of the coins you already hold. A token burn is the permanent destruction of coins by sending them to an address from which nobody can ever move them again.

For tax purposes that is a distinction that can be worth several thousand euros. Ongoing income from crypto assets, from lending for instance, is regularly treated in Germany as income from other services and taxed at your personal income tax rate as soon as it accrues to you. With Uniswap, nothing accrues to you. The entire economic benefit sits in the price of the coin itself and therefore only becomes relevant on a sale, as a private disposal transaction under Section 23 EStG. That is the cheaper variant for you, because it becomes tax free after a year of holding.

Crypto Holding Period Under Section 23 EStG: Why Taking Profits on UNI Gets Expensive Now

A private disposal transaction under Section 23 EStG arises when you sell a crypto asset again within a year of acquiring it. The gain is then taxable in full at your personal income tax rate, not at the 25 percent flat withholding tax that applies to shares and interest. If more than a year lies between purchase and sale, the gain stays tax free.

Work that through for your own situation before you place a sell order. A purchase from August 2026 carries a holding period of a good month. If you sell today on a gain of 100 percent, a marginal rate of 42 percent leaves you a little over half of it after tax. If you wait until the anniversary of your purchase, you keep all of it, provided the deadline is met and you do nothing in the meantime that interrupts it.

This comparison is not an argument for waiting at any cost. It is an argument for knowing the tax effect before the order rather than after it. A price decline of eleven percent costs less than a tax charge carelessly triggered on a gain of more than a hundred percent. If you have documented your purchases cleanly you can set out this calculation in a few minutes; if you have not, our overview of crypto tax software and portfolio trackers lists the programs that pull purchase dates and holding periods out of exchange data automatically.

FIFO and the Exemption Limit: How to Work Out Your Taxable Gain on UNI

If you have bought UNI at several points you need a rule for which coins you give up on a sale. In Germany the consumption sequence method applied in practice is FIFO: first in, first out, meaning the coins bought first also count as the ones sold first. With a coin that has doubled that is an advantage, provided your oldest holdings really are older than a year, because the sale then falls into the tax-free bracket.

The calculation is also made wallet by wallet and exchange by exchange. If you spread your UNI across several accounts, you have to consider each position on its own. That is exactly where many self-declarations to the tax office come apart: the total is right, the attribution of the individual acquisition dates is not.

On top of that there is an exemption limit for private disposal transactions. If the sum of all gains from such transactions in a calendar year stays below the limit, it remains tax free. Note the difference between an exemption limit and an allowance: once the limit is exceeded, the entire gain is taxable, not just the excess. You should check the amount currently in force against the statutory text in Section 23(3) EStG before filing, because it has been raised in recent years.

Losses from such transactions can only be offset against gains from transactions of the same kind, not against your employment income and not against gains on shares. If you have realised losses elsewhere this year, you can set them against a UNI gain.

Buying and Selling UNI in Germany: Which Buying Route Counts Under MiCA

Since the European regulation on markets in crypto assets, MiCA for short, became fully applicable, providers addressing retail customers in the EU need authorisation as crypto asset service providers. For you that is the practical filter when choosing a venue.

Check three things specifically at your exchange: whether the operator holds a European authorisation and under which supervisory authority, whether your contract is concluded with the European entity and not with an offshore sister company, and whether the exchange supplies you with a complete transaction export containing purchase date, quantity and euro value. The third point decides later how hard your tax return will be. If you want to change venue for that reason, our overview of the best crypto exchanges lists the houses with European authorisation and a usable data export.

Changing exchange in the middle of a running gain has a side effect that is often overlooked. A transfer of your own coins from one exchange to another is not a sale and triggers no tax. Nor does it interrupt the holding period. It does tear up your chain of evidence if the receiving exchange does not carry over the original acquisition data, and without that data your tax office cannot trace the holding period. Export your history before the transfer, therefore, not after it.

Leverage and Liquidation: What the Pullback Means for Leveraged UNI Positions

The span between the daily high and the daily low came to $1.48 on our pull, or around 14 percent of the high. For an unleveraged position that is a bad day. For a leveraged position it is the order of magnitude at which forced liquidation takes hold.

A liquidation is the forced closure of your position by the exchange as soon as the collateral you have lodged no longer covers the loss. At five times leverage a decline of about 20 percent is arithmetically enough, and correspondingly less once fees and funding costs are deducted. The actual threshold is set out in your provider's terms and depends on the maintenance margin rate for the trading pair in question.

With perpetual futures the funding rate is added, a periodic payment between buyers and sellers that holds the contract price to the spot price. After an upward move like the one in UNI it is typically positive, so long positions pay the other side continuously. These costs run on regardless of whether your position is currently in profit, and they are one reason leveraged positions are closed unusually often after a rally. Check the maintenance margin rate and the current funding rate at your venue before you leave a leveraged position open through the pullback.

For tax purposes derivatives are a chapter of their own and do not follow Section 23 EStG. Gains from futures transactions are subject to different rules, and the offsetting of losses is separately restricted there. If you mix spot holdings and derivatives, document the two separately.

Custody After the Rally: Exchange Account, Software Wallet or Hardware Wallet

A holding that has doubled in thirty days is a different item in your wealth after the move than it was before. Someone who held 2,000 euros of UNI in August is now keeping a good 4,000 euros in the same place. The question is whether the form of custody still fits the size.

In an exchange account your coins sit in the provider's care. That is convenient for active trading and practical for tax documentation, because the exchange supplies the export. The counterpart is counterparty risk: in an insolvency, the separation of client and proprietary holdings is a legal question and not a technical certainty.

When Moving to Self-Custody Is Worth It

A hardware wallet is a standalone device that generates your private key and never passes it to a computer connected to the internet. For amounts whose loss would genuinely hurt, that is the more robust solution; the price is that you have to secure the recovery phrase yourself and nobody can replace it for you. When choosing a device, make sure the model supports UNI as an ERC-20 token on Ethereum.

Moving to self-custody is tax neutral. It is not a sale, it does not interrupt the one-year deadline, and it costs you only the network fee. Document the transfer all the same, with date, quantity and destination address, so the chain from purchase to eventual sale stays unbroken.

UNI Levels: Which Documented Price Levels Count Now

There are no forecasts of future price levels here, but there are levels that follow from the data collected and that you can anchor your own decision to.

To the downside sits the daily low at $9.07 (Kraken: $9.04). Below that begins the range in which last week's buyers move into the red, because seven days ago UNI stood at roughly $6.76 on the same calculation. The price crossed the $9 mark for the first time in this move on September 18, as we reported at the time.

To the upside the daily high of $10.55 is the next documented level. Beyond it there is nothing close by: 79.27 percent separates the price from the all-time high of $44.92, and that level dates from a different market cycle. A further date sits in the calendar for October 19, when the CME derivatives exchange adds futures on Uniswap. What effect that has on the price cannot be evidenced today; that the date changes liquidity in derivatives trading can be.

We deliberately leave analyst views on price targets out here. Where they are quoted, a name and a date belong with them, and the assessments of UNI available to us date from before the pullback and are therefore out of date.

Reading the Uniswap Pullback: What to Take Away

1. Purchase date before sell order. Look up when you bought your UNI before you decide on taking profits. If the purchase is less than a year old, the entire gain is charged at your personal tax rate. The fastest way to pull purchase dates together from several exchanges is with one of the programs in our comparison of crypto tax software.
2. Check the venue and the data export. Satisfy yourself that your exchange holds a European authorisation and supplies you with a complete transaction export including euro values. If the export is missing, change venue before you next trade, and export the history before the transfer. The houses with authorisation and a usable export are listed in our overview of the best crypto exchanges.
3. Match the form of custody to the new sum. Work out how many euros your UNI holding is worth after the doubling, then decide afresh whether it belongs in the exchange account. For amounts whose loss would hurt, it belongs in self-custody; the suitable devices are in our hardware wallet comparison.

(As of September 24, 2026. This article is not investment advice. Prices and fee structures change; check the terms with the provider before you buy.)

XRP has fallen between 9.3 and 9.7 percent over the past 24 hours, depending on when the data was pulled, and trades at around $1.49, or roughly €1.31, on the morning of September 24, 2026. The wider market gave up far less over the same period: Bitcoin lost 3.8 percent. Anyone minded to act today is not really deciding on the price level. Three things settle the matter independently of the price: the day you bought, the route you bought through, and whether an open leveraged position sits in the way.

This article places the pullback in context using our own figures, then sets out what you can actually check. The current price action and the chart levels are tracked continuously on our XRP price prediction.

XRP Falls 9.7 Percent: The Numbers for September 24, 2026

Pulls from the public CoinGecko interface on September 24, 2026 at 04:48 and 04:50 UTC give the following picture. XRP trades at $1.49. The daily range runs from $1.48 at the low end to $1.64 at the high end, which puts the price close to its daily low. Volume over 24 hours stands at $5.46 billion and market capitalisation at $93.94 billion, leaving XRP in fifth place among the largest crypto assets.

Two figures take the edge off the first shock. Over seven days XRP is up between 14.8 and 14.9 percent. Over 30 days the figure is minus 1.2 percent, which is effectively where it stood at the end of August. The pullback therefore claws back part of a strong week, but it does not turn the month around.

XRP sits 59.0 percent below its all-time high of $3.65, set on July 17, 2025. That number matters more for the tax discussion further down than it first appears: it shows that a substantial share of the holdings sitting in German brokerage accounts and wallets comes from purchases that are underwater today.

XRP Against the Top 25: Our Count of 18 Coins

To establish whether XRP is simply falling with the market or giving up more than its share, we counted the daily change across every asset in the top 25 by market capitalisation. We stripped out stablecoins along with exchange and platform tokens that have no free market price; 18 coins remained.

The result: the median of the 18 assets checked is minus 4.87 percent. XRP, down 9.7 percent, is falling roughly twice as hard as the typical member of that group. Only three of the 18 coins fell further, namely Uniswap at 12.0 percent, Dogecoin at 9.9 percent and Stellar at 9.9 percent. Of the 18 assets, 15 are in the red on the day, while 17 of the 18 are up on the week.

This analysis was compiled by cryptoticker.io on September 24, 2026. Method: a pull of the public CoinGecko market data interface for the 25 largest crypto assets including 24-hour and 7-day change, response code HTTP 200, followed by a count and a median across the 18 remaining assets. What we could not check: we have no data on liquidation volumes at the derivatives venues, no order book depth and no attribution of selling to individual addresses. Statements about the cause of the pullback would be speculation, so we make none.

Why a Pullback After a Positive Week Works Differently From a Crash

The distinction matters for what you should do. A price loss that follows a losing stretch hits holdings that were already underwater. A price loss that follows a positive week hits mainly those who bought during that week. That is precisely the group that has spent the past seven days building positions whose holding period has only just started.

From that follows a practical point that often gets lost: selling quickly out of nerves costs you, in Germany, not only the possible recovery but also the tax treatment that kicks in after a year. If you sell at a loss today, you may well have good reason to. If you sell at a profit today because you got in long ago, do the arithmetic first.

Weekly and Daily Performance Are Two Different Metrics

Price reports almost always quote the 24-hour change, because it produces the biggest number. For a buying decision it is the least reliable of the three time frames. The 7-day figure shows whether a move has staying power; the 30-day figure shows whether anything has changed at all. For XRP all three values are available at the same time this morning, and they tell three different stories.

Crypto Capital Gains Holding Period Under Section 23 EStG: Why Your Purchase Date Decides Your Tax

In Germany, crypto assets held in private wealth count as other economic goods. A sale is a private disposal transaction under Section 23 of the German Income Tax Act. The central variable is the one-year holding period: if more than twelve months lie between acquisition and disposal, the gain is tax free. If fewer than twelve months lie between them, the gain is taxed at your personal income tax rate.

On top of that sits an exemption limit. If total gains from all private disposal transactions in a calendar year stay below 1,000 euros, no tax is due. The term exemption limit is to be read literally: once the amount is exceeded, the entire gain becomes taxable, not just the excess. A sale that nudges you narrowly over that threshold can therefore cost more than you expect.

In practice, for this morning, that means: before you react to the price level, look up when you bought. Purchases made during last week's rally carry a holding period that ends in September 2027. Purchases from the summer of 2025, when XRP was running towards its all-time high, are long past the one-year mark.

FIFO: Which Coins Count as Sold

If you have bought XRP several times at different points, the question is which units a sale affects. For crypto assets the tax authorities accept the first in, first out method, or FIFO: the units acquired first count as the ones sold first. In a situation like today's that means a partial sale typically hits the oldest and therefore possibly tax-free holdings, not the freshly bought ones. Anyone who wants to shed the young positions specifically will get nowhere with a single wallet address.

Documentation Is the Real Work

Proving the acquisition date and the acquisition cost is on you. If you trade across several exchanges and wallets, there is no way round a clean set of records. Which tools read in a transaction history and produce a usable statement is something we have broken down in our comparison of crypto tax software and portfolio trackers.

Loss Offsetting: What Selling at a Loss Actually Buys You

If your position is underwater after the pullback and the purchase is less than a year old, a sale counts for tax purposes as a loss from a private disposal transaction. Such losses cannot be offset against employment income, interest or dividends. They reduce gains from other private disposal transactions in the same year and nothing else; beyond that, a carry-back to the previous year and a carry-forward to coming years are possible.

The converse matters: a loss realised after the one-year deadline has expired is worthless for tax purposes, because the transaction behind it is no longer taxable at all. If you have held a position deeply underwater for more than a year, selling gains you nothing on the tax side. Hardly anyone is aware of that asymmetry, and after a year like the last one it applies to a great many XRP holdings.

Buying XRP Under MiCA: Exchange, Custody and Destination Tag

If you want to use the pullback to buy more, the first decision is the route. Since Regulation (EU) 2023/1114 on markets in crypto assets, known as MiCA, became applicable in the parts covering service providers, firms addressing customers in the EU need authorisation as a crypto asset service provider. For you this is not a formality: authorisation brings obligations on segregating client assets, on handling complaints and on disclosing fees.

Which houses can evidence that authorisation, and how fees, spreads and deposit routes differ, is set out in our overview of the best crypto exchanges; if you want to filter specifically by supervisory status, the list of regulated crypto exchanges sits alongside it.

Destination Tag: The One Mistake That Costs Money With XRP

XRP has a quirk that Bitcoin and Ethereum lack. Many exchanges pool customer balances on a single XRP address and allocate incoming payments using a numeric code, the destination tag. If that code is missing from a deposit, the balance lands on the pooled address without being assigned to your account. Recovery is possible, but it takes time and depends on support playing along. Check the tag before every transfer, including a repeat transfer to the same address.

Minimum Reserve on the Ledger

A second peculiarity concerns self-custody. An address on the XRP Ledger has to hold a reserve in XRP for it to be active at all; that amount is locked and cannot be spent. If you are sending small sums to a freshly created wallet of your own, factor that in, or a noticeable share of the transfer will be tied up.

Leverage and Liquidation: Why XRP Positions Break Sooner Than BTC Positions

The numbers from our count have a direct consequence for leveraged positions. If the median of the large crypto assets sits at minus 4.9 percent and XRP at minus 9.7, then with XRP half the leverage is enough to produce the same loss. A position at ten times leverage is arithmetically wiped out by a ten percent move against it, before fees and funding costs are taken into account at all.

Then there is the funding rate on perpetual futures, the so-called perpetuals. It is settled at short intervals between the long and the short side and typically runs against the long side after a phase of gains. If you hold a long position open over several days in that configuration, you pay continuously, whichever way the price goes.

Derivatives Are a Separate Tax Chapter

Gains from futures transactions do not fall under the one-year deadline of Section 23 EStG but are treated as investment income. Separate and narrower rules apply to offsetting losses from futures transactions. If you hold spot positions and derivatives in the same account, you are effectively running two distinct tax calculations. That is one reason not to mix the two where it can be avoided.

Levels Above and Below: Which Price Zones XRP Now Has in View

To the downside the first zone is the daily low at $1.48, which the price came close to on the morning of September 24. To the upside the first zone is the daily high at $1.64; the distance there from the current level is around ten percent. Both figures come from the same pull as the rest of the numbers in this article and are not a forecast but the documented range of the past 24 hours.

For the medium-term picture the 30-day figure of minus 1.2 percent is the soberest number: XRP stands roughly where it stood a month ago. What happened in between was movement without net change. If you are looking to build a position, the inference is that timing and haste have bought little over the month.

For a sense of market breadth it is worth a look at the largest asset: Bitcoin trades at $83,860 and has given up 3.8 percent; we track the action and the relevant levels there continuously in our Bitcoin price prediction.

What the Pullback Does Not Prove

An interpretation is only worth as much as its limits. What follows from the figures to hand is that XRP is losing more on this day than the typical large crypto asset. What does not follow is that a particular event is responsible, that a trend has been broken, or that the move will continue. If you come across an explanation online that names a single cause, ask what data supports it. We had no such data this morning, and we therefore assert nothing about it.

XRP Price Drop: What to Take Away

1. Look at your purchase history first, not at the price. Note the acquisition date for every XRP position and check which holdings have already passed the one-year deadline under Section 23 EStG. A tool that reads in your transactions and tracks the deadlines is in our comparison of crypto tax software and portfolio trackers.
2. Check the buying route before you buy more. Establish whether your provider can evidence MiCA authorisation as a crypto asset service provider, how large the actual spread is when you buy, and whether deposits and withdrawals in euros work without a detour. The side-by-side sits in our overview of the best crypto exchanges.
3. Keep holdings and leverage apart. Check whether an open futures position is forcing a decision on you that you would not have to take on the holding alone. If you hold spot only, a ten percent daily loss brings no liquidation pressure. Which providers offer which products is shown in the overview of regulated crypto exchanges.

(As of September 24, 2026. This article is not investment advice. Prices and fee structures change; check the terms with the provider before you buy.)

The CFTC has been extremely busy ever since the Clarity Act failed its vote, and it appears they’re ready to accelerate.

The threat could arrive before quantum computers are commercially useful, and member states have until the end of 2026 to plan for it.

He posed as support staff, emptied about 100 accounts, then lost $6 million of the proceeds gambling, according to his own messages.

Anthropic says Claude autonomously found a new CRISPR-like enzyme system. Even Dario Amodei admits nobody knows what it actually does.

Anthony Albanese said the agent accessed public and non-public files on a Medicare statistics portal in June, calling OpenAI's three-month delay in disclosing the breach "unacceptable."

XRP Ledger account creation surged more than fourfold above its 30-day average, signaling an unusual burst of network activity.

A sudden price drop accross the market catches traders betting on an increase off guard.

Morgan Stanley has become the only Bitcoin ETF that has not sold Bitcoin in the last 20 days, consistently accumulating the asset amid sustained demand.

Macro models fail as Bitcoin clears $83,000, putting the entire cycle trend on a high-stakes weekly close.

Uniswap’s 72% rally has pushed UNI to multi-month highs, but a sharp increase in Binance reserves could introduce additional selling pressure.

TLDR

• Shares of Airbnb plummeted approximately 7% Wednesday following news that Meta’s Muse AI can facilitate direct booking transactions.
• The AI agent also handles flight and hotel reservations, creating competitive pressure for Expedia and Booking Holdings as well.
• The decline coincided with broader travel sector weakness driven by escalating oil prices and geopolitical uncertainties.
• Investor sentiment turned cautious over Airbnb’s expansion into lower-margin offerings, including a grocery partnership with Instacart.
• Trading at $152.29, ABNB remains 20% beneath its $190.50 peak from August 2026.

Shares of Airbnb (ABNB) tumbled approximately 7% during Wednesday’s session, settling around $152.29 per share. The selloff followed a Barron’s analysis highlighting potential disruption to the company’s booking engine.

Airbnb, Inc., ABNB

According to Anita Hamilton’s reporting, Meta’s recently launched Muse AI assistant possesses the capability to finalize reservations autonomously. This development poses a direct challenge to Airbnb’s revenue model, which depends on commission fees from completed transactions.

The ripple effects extended to competitors Expedia and Booking Holdings, both experiencing declines. Airbnb’s percentage loss exceeded the broader group average, though Booking demonstrated relatively stronger resilience.

The competitive threat centers on control of the user interface. Traditional travel platforms profit by dominating the final selection screen where consumers commit to purchases. Muse aims to relocate this critical decision point into conversational AI interactions.

Barron’s cited analyst projections from Singh and Tong suggesting Muse might eventually capture between 5% and 10% of total bookings. These remain forward-looking estimates rather than confirmed user behavior patterns.

What Investors Are Watching

The critical question centers on transaction completion pathways—specifically whether bookings finalize within Muse’s interface or redirect users to Airbnb‘s native platforms. This technical detail determines whether the company experiences revenue loss or merely reduced direct traffic.

Significant daily volatility is unusual for Airbnb shares. The stock has registered only seven single-day movements exceeding 5% over the trailing twelve months, making Wednesday’s decline particularly noteworthy.

The Muse development wasn’t the sole headwind. Airbnb simultaneously announced strategic expansion beyond traditional lodging, highlighted by an Instacart collaboration bringing grocery delivery to its ecosystem.

Market participants expressed concern that integrating lower-margin businesses such as grocery services could compress overall profitability if execution falters. Recent insider selling activity amplified these worries.

Broader market dynamics also contributed to the weakness. Travel and discretionary consumer stocks faced headwinds throughout the week as crude oil prices climbed and geopolitical tensions intensified.

The Bigger Picture on Growth

Despite Wednesday’s setback, Airbnb’s fundamental performance remains robust across most metrics. The company reported quarterly revenue of $3.61 billion, representing 16.5% year-over-year expansion and surpassing Wall Street expectations.

Operating margins improved to 21%, advancing from the prior year’s 19.8%. Free cash flow margin registered at 34.7%.

The platform processed 148 million Nights and Experiences Booked, an increase of 14 million units, prompting management to elevate full-year forecasts. Leadership attributed much of this momentum to the company’s transition toward AI-powered infrastructure.

AI automation now resolves nearly 45% of customer service inquiries, driving a 16% year-over-year reduction in per-booking support expenses. The hotel category is expanding at triple the rate of traditional home rentals.

Year-to-date, Airbnb stock maintains a 14.5% gain despite Wednesday’s decline. However, shares trade significantly below their August peak, and a hypothetical $1,000 investment from five years ago would currently be valued at just $869.58.

The post Airbnb (ABNB) Stock Plunges 7% as Meta’s Muse AI Disrupts Travel Booking appeared first on Blockonomi.

Key Takeaways

• Artelo Biosciences (ARTL) shares skyrocketed over 200% during Wednesday’s trading session.
• The dramatic increase followed the company’s provisional patent application for its obesity treatment candidate ART27.13.
• The patent application encompasses both standalone use and combination therapy with GLP-1 medications such as semaglutide.
• Research in mice demonstrated up to 40% body weight reduction when ART27.13 was administered alongside semaglutide.
• Despite Wednesday’s surge, ARTL shares remain 59% lower year-to-date.

Artelo Biosciences (ARTL) shares experienced a remarkable surge exceeding 200% during Wednesday’s session, reaching a peak of $12.20 before closing with approximately 206% gains. The explosive movement occurred following the clinical-stage pharmaceutical company’s announcement of a provisional patent application for its experimental compound ART27.13.

Artelo Biosciences, Inc., ARTL

The patent application encompasses ART27.13’s use as an independent obesity treatment option. Additionally, it protects the compound’s application in combination with GLP-1 receptor agonist therapies, particularly semaglutide.

This patent submission follows recent findings from the company’s DIO-2 obesity research conducted in mouse models. These latest results expand upon preliminary data initially disclosed on September 16.

Research Findings Breakdown

During the four-week study period, ART27.13 administered independently resulted in approximately 20% body weight reduction in obese mice. This outcome mirrored the weight loss achieved with semaglutide monotherapy.

The most striking results emerged from combination therapy. When scientists administered ART27.13 alongside semaglutide, test subjects experienced approximately 40% total body weight reduction. Notably, around 80% of weight loss in ART27.13-treated groups consisted of fat mass, surpassing the 70% fat mass reduction observed with semaglutide alone.

The dual therapy also enhanced glucose metabolism in test subjects. Additional benefits included appetite reduction and increased bone mineral density—a particularly significant finding given current concerns surrounding GLP-1 medications available today.

Cholesterol profiles improved across the board. Both treatments reduced total cholesterol along with LDL and HDL levels. The combination therapy generated more substantial reductions than either compound administered independently. Liver dimensions also decreased uniformly across all treatment cohorts.

Executive Commentary

Chief Executive Officer Gregory Gorgas characterized the results as surprising. He indicated these findings may significantly broaden ART27.13’s commercial potential beyond initial projections.

Gorgas emphasized the bone density improvements as particularly noteworthy. He highlighted this benefit’s relevance considering widespread pharmaceutical industry concerns regarding bone and muscle deterioration associated with conventional GLP-1 treatments.

He further noted that the compound’s dual capability—enhancing existing GLP-1 therapy while functioning as standalone treatment—creates fresh development opportunities. The organization aims to secure intellectual property protection throughout ongoing research initiatives.

ART27.13 targets two cannabinoid receptors, CB1 and CB2, positioned outside the central nervous system. Testing in lean mice revealed no significant effects on primary metabolic markers. Artelo suggests this selectivity may indicate the drug’s mechanism relates specifically to energy metabolism rather than broad pharmacological activity.

The organization has accumulated substantial human safety evidence. This database encompasses findings from six completed clinical trials, two active studies, and nearly 300 individuals who have received the experimental treatment.

Wednesday’s trading activity reflected exceptional investor interest. Over 10 million ARTL shares traded hands, dramatically exceeding the three-month daily average of approximately 95,000 shares.

However, the single-day rally hasn’t reversed longer-term losses. ARTL stock continues to trade 59% below its year-to-date opening price. Over the trailing twelve months, shares have declined 97%.

The company indicated it will pursue additional investigations to understand ART27.13’s mechanisms of action, particularly regarding fat mass reduction and bone density enhancement when combined with GLP-1 treatment protocols.

The post Artelo Biosciences (ARTL) Stock Rockets 206% After Obesity Treatment Patent Filing appeared first on Blockonomi.

Key Takeaways

• Fastly (FSLY) shares surged 14% Wednesday after the company’s investor day presentation in New York.
• The company set 2029 revenue goals ranging from $1.1 billion to $1.3 billion.
• AI-related traffic on Fastly’s network is expanding 6.5 times faster than traditional human traffic.
• New AI Firewall and AI Runtime Control products were introduced to secure customer AI deployments.
• RBC Capital maintained its Sector Perform rating with a $25 target, noting concerns about the broad guidance range.

Fastly (FSLY) shares experienced a sharp 14% rally on Wednesday, finishing at $29.65 following the edge computing firm’s investor day presentation that attracted strong buyer interest. The surge marked a dramatic reversal from Tuesday’s session, when the stock fell approximately 5% as the company first disclosed its extended-term projections.

Fastly, Inc., FSLY

The sharp reversal highlights the divided sentiment on Wall Street regarding the stock’s prospects. While some market participants embraced the company’s vision, others remain on the sidelines awaiting tangible results.

Fastly’s value proposition centers on delivering an integrated platform combining content delivery networks, security solutions, and edge computing capabilities that enable websites to operate more efficiently and cost-effectively. The company now aims to capitalize significantly on the artificial intelligence wave.

During the investor day, Fastly disclosed that AI-driven traffic across its infrastructure is expanding at 6.5 times the rate of conventional human traffic. This metric represents a cornerstone of the company’s future expansion narrative.

Long-Range Financial Projections Through 2029

Company leadership unveiled updated financial objectives extending to fiscal 2029. Fastly projects revenues ranging from $1.1 billion to $1.3 billion, representing annual growth rates of 14% to 21% beginning in fiscal 2026.

The edge computing provider also outlined gross margin targets of 67% to 71% alongside operating margin expectations of 20% to 22%. Management anticipates free cash flow yield will reach 12% to 15%.

Platform expansion through cross-selling represents a critical strategic element. The company reports that 30% of its enterprise customers currently utilize four or more products from its portfolio, with management seeking to expand this penetration.

In the security domain, Fastly introduced two fresh offerings this week: AI Firewall and AI Runtime Control. These solutions aim to enable customers to monitor and safeguard their artificial intelligence deployments as adoption accelerates.

The platform is also benefiting from Meta Platforms’ recently launched AI agent, Muse. Fastly reportedly manages a substantial portion of the traffic generated by Muse, positioning it as a key infrastructure partner for one of this year’s highest-profile AI launches.

Wall Street Maintains Mixed Outlook

Analyst sentiment remains divided. RBC Capital maintained its Sector Perform rating alongside a $25 price objective following the presentation, highlighting Tuesday’s decline as evidence that investors harbor reservations about the expansive 2029 revenue projection range.

RBC did increase its fiscal 2027 projections, acknowledging consistent content delivery network results and expanding security revenues. However, the firm emphasized it requires evidence of execution before adopting a more optimistic stance.

Other research firms expressed greater enthusiasm. Evercore ISI sustained an Outperform rating with a $32 target, emphasizing three consecutive quarters of revenue expansion exceeding 20%. Raymond James also retained Outperform, highlighting fiscal 2026 revenue guidance of $732 million to $746 million.

KeyBanc reaffirmed an Overweight rating with a $30 objective, pointing to margin improvements and stable consumption patterns in network services. BofA Securities lifted its target to $22 from $20 while maintaining an Underperform rating, expressing ongoing valuation concerns.

DA Davidson reduced its price target to $23 from $26 while keeping a Neutral rating. The firm cited valuation headwinds despite recognizing Fastly’s progress in expanding platform adoption.

Fastly shares have more than doubled during the past twelve months. The company anticipates achieving profitability this year, with 11 analysts having increased their earnings projections for the coming period.

The post Fastly (FSLY) Stock Soars 14% on Ambitious 2029 Revenue Forecast and AI Push appeared first on Blockonomi.

Key Highlights

• aTyr Pharma secured FDA alignment on its Phase 3 trial protocol for efzofitimod targeting pulmonary sarcoidosis patients.
• Study activities are scheduled to commence in Q4 2026.
• Shares of ATYR jumped 5% following the regulatory update.
• The clinical trial will recruit approximately 372 participants over a 54-week period.
• Trial parameters are supported by positive subgroup findings from the preceding EFZO-FIT Phase 3 study.

aTyr Pharma (ATYR) shares advanced 5% during Wednesday’s trading session after the biotech firm disclosed successful protocol alignment with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for its planned Phase 3 clinical trial. The study will evaluate efzofitimod’s effectiveness in treating chronic pulmonary sarcoidosis patients.

aTyr Pharma, Inc., ATYR

The San Diego headquartered biotechnology company revealed plans to initiate trial-related operations during the fourth quarter of 2026. Concurrent regulatory submission efforts will proceed in both United States and European markets as the study advances.

Pulmonary sarcoidosis represents a type of interstitial lung disease where affected individuals frequently encounter scarce therapeutic alternatives, particularly those requiring sustained medical intervention.

Trial Design and Structure

The upcoming Phase 3 investigation will employ a global, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled methodology. Scientists structured the study to assess both therapeutic effectiveness and safety profiles of efzofitimod among patients experiencing moderate to severe disease manifestations.

Spanning 54 weeks, the clinical trial will divide participants into two equal cohorts. One group will receive 5.0 mg/kg efzofitimod while the control group gets placebo treatment, both administered intravenously every three weeks for 17 total doses.

aTyr plans to recruit approximately 372 study participants. Qualified candidates must maintain stable, low-dose oral corticosteroid therapy or background immunosuppressant treatment, which will remain constant throughout the study duration.

Researchers established forced vital capacity change from baseline measurement at week 48 as the primary endpoint. An important secondary endpoint will monitor shifts in King’s Sarcoidosis Questionnaire-Lung scores during the identical timeframe.

Foundation in Previous Clinical Evidence

The current trial framework stems from rigorous analysis. It draws upon subgroup data extracted from the preceding EFZO-FIT Phase 3 investigation.

That subgroup examination concentrated on individuals with restrictive lung disease, characterized by forced vital capacity at 80% or below of predicted values with normal FEV1/FVC ratios. These participants demonstrated notable lung function improvements when administered the 5.0 mg/kg dosage versus placebo treatment.

Additional benefits emerged across various patient-reported outcome measures, including KSQ-Lung assessments. aTyr unveiled these results during the World Association of Sarcoidosis and Other Granulomatous Disorders 2026 Congress.

Chief Executive Officer Sanjay Shukla indicated the company obtained FDA feedback early in the week and characterized the regulatory alignment as a significant developmental milestone. He emphasized the scarcity of therapeutic options for chronic sarcoidosis sufferers as evidence of the drug’s potential impact within this treatment landscape.

Efzofitimod functions as a biologic immunomodulator. Its mechanism involves targeting activated myeloid cells via neuropilin-2, seeking to address inflammation without causing broad-spectrum immune system suppression.

The therapeutic candidate is simultaneously undergoing evaluation in a separate Phase 2 investigation for systemic sclerosis-related interstitial lung disease. That study, designated EFZO-CONNECT, operates in parallel with the sarcoidosis development program.

aTyr acknowledged that advancing the Phase 3 sarcoidosis trial necessitates securing additional financial resources. The company indicated potential funding avenues including equity or debt financing instruments, grant opportunities, strategic partnerships or licensing arrangements.

The announcement contained no specific funding schedule or monetary requirements.

The post aTyr Pharma (ATYR) Gains 5% After Securing FDA Protocol Approval for Phase 3 Sarcoidosis Study appeared first on Blockonomi.

Key Highlights

• GCTK shares skyrocketed approximately 118% during premarket hours, reaching $4.42 per share.
• The rally was triggered by Lōkahi Therapeutics securing its inaugural external fee-for-service collaboration.
• Glioblastoma research nonprofit Innovate GBM contracted two ai² PIPELINE teams from Lōkahi to identify potential brain tumor treatment assets for licensing.
• The company released a comprehensive post-merger strategic overview, dividing attention between glucose monitoring technology and Lōkahi’s therapeutic development pipeline.
• The osteoarthritis treatment candidate LT-100 continues as the organization’s primary near-term development focus.

Shares of GlucoTrack (GCTK) exploded approximately 118% during Thursday’s premarket session, climbing to $4.42. The dramatic price movement followed an announcement that Lōkahi Therapeutics, the company’s subsidiary, secured its first fee-for-service agreement with an external partner.

GlucoTrack, Inc., GCTK

The partnership involves Innovate GBM, a charitable organization dedicated to glioblastoma brain cancer research. The nonprofit has retained two project teams from Lōkahi’s ai² PIPELINE division to conduct searches for brain tumor treatment candidates suitable for licensing and subsequent development.

This collaboration represents a significant achievement for Lōkahi, becoming the inaugural external entity to utilize the company’s proprietary asset discovery methodology, which leverages relationships with 14 academic institutions.

The premarket momentum positioned GlucoTrack among the session’s top performers, alongside companies such as Digital Currency X Technology and Greenland Mines.

Strategic Direction Following Business Combination

The partnership announcement coincided with GlucoTrack providing shareholders with a comprehensive strategic overview. Chief Executive Officer Erik Emerson outlined the organization’s operational roadmap following the July 14 business combination transaction.

Glucotrack Technologies, the diabetes-focused division, maintains its status as a fully controlled subsidiary and continues advancing continuous glucose monitoring solutions.

Simultaneously, the parent organization is channeling capital resources and primary operational focus toward Lōkahi’s therapeutic asset discovery platform. This business model emphasizes acquiring clinical-stage pharmaceutical candidates at favorable valuations, advancing development with strategic discipline, and generating returns through licensing arrangements.

Currently, LT-100 represents the flagship development program—a biologic therapy designed to address osteoarthritis-related knee pain.

A revised clinical trial protocol is currently undergoing regulatory assessment. The proposed study will compare a once-weekly subcutaneous dosing schedule against the previous intradermal administration approach.

Company leadership indicated ongoing expansion of regulatory affairs, clinical operations infrastructure, and manufacturing capabilities to support LT-100’s progression through subsequent development milestones.

Expanding the ai² Platform Capabilities

Emerson provided additional details regarding expansion plans for the ai² platform infrastructure. The Pipeline component evaluates thousands of discontinued late-stage pharmaceutical programs through established university and industry networks.

This evaluation methodology has already identified numerous promising candidates, with several advancing into preliminary business development discussions.

The platform architecture includes two additional components: ai² Talent and ai² Accelerator. These divisions focus on cultivating pharmaceutical industry expertise and supporting emerging ventures, including an initiative named Qare.

The overarching approach follows a cyclical pattern: asset identification, development advancement, followed by monetization. Leadership positioned this framework as generating diversified pathways for value creation.

Market analysts remain skeptical about the company’s current position. TipRanks’ AI-powered analyst, Spark, assigns GCTK an Underperform rating.

This assessment reflects challenging financial metrics, including zero revenue generation and substantial continuing losses. Cash consumption rates have also accelerated in recent periods.

Technical indicators compound the bearish outlook. Spark highlighted that share prices trade significantly beneath critical moving averages, accompanied by negative MACD momentum signals.

Valuation support remains constrained given persistent losses and absence of dividend distributions. Corporate developments were characterized as inconsistent, with enhanced funding flexibility counterbalanced by increasing shareholder dilution.

GlucoTrack maintains its listing on the Nasdaq exchange under ticker symbol GCTK. The stock records average daily volume of 767,577 shares, with a current market capitalization of $1.84 million.

The post GlucoTrack (GCTK) Stock Soars 118% on Lōkahi’s Debut Partnership Agreement appeared first on Blockonomi.

XRP’s breakout from its descending channel delivered a strong rally, but the move has now met substantial selling pressure at a major resistance area. The resulting pullback puts the recent breakout to the test, with the next reaction around former resistance likely to be important for the short-term structure.

Ripple Price Analysis: The Daily Chart

On the daily chart, Ripple’s XRP remains structurally stronger following its sharp rebound from the $1.27 region. The asset rallied rapidly toward the major $1.61-$1.70 resistance zone, briefly entering this area before sellers stepped in aggressively.

The rejection has pushed XRP back toward $1.47, showing that supply around $1.61-$1.70 remains significant. Nevertheless, the broader recovery structure has not yet been invalidated. The price remains well above the moving averages, with the higher one currently positioned around $1.27 and potentially acting as an important dynamic support if a deeper correction develops.

For buyers, reclaiming $1.55 and eventually breaking through the $1.61-$1.70 resistance zone would be required to resume the bullish leg. Conversely, continued selling could lead to a broader retracement, with the $1.40 area becoming relevant before the more substantial $1.27 region comes back into focus.

XRP/USDT 4-Hour Chart

The 4-hour timeframe provides a clearer view of the current retest. XRP successfully broke above the descending channel that had contained the price action for several weeks and subsequently accelerated toward $1.65. However, the rally was rejected almost immediately after entering the $1.61-$1.69 supply zone.

The resulting correction has now brought XRP back toward the $1.42-$1.45 demand zone. Crucially, this area overlaps with the former descending channel resistance, creating a potential breakout-retest setup.

Therefore, the reaction around $1.42-$1.45 could determine the next short-term move. If buyers defend this zone and price establishes support above the broken trendline, the recent decline could simply represent a healthy retest before another attempt toward $1.60-$1.65.

On the other hand, a decisive breakdown below the $1.42 area would weaken the breakout structure and increase the likelihood of a deeper correction. In that case, attention could shift toward the $1.28-$1.22 major demand zone, where XRP previously attracted strong buying pressure.

The post Ripple Price Analysis: Is It All Doom and Gloom for XRP After the Latest Rejection at $1.60? appeared first on CryptoPotato.

[PRESS RELEASE – GEORGE TOWN, Cayman Islands, September 23rd, 2026]

BTCC, one of the world’s longest-serving cryptocurrency exchanges, today announced a promotional collaboration with Markets.com, a global CFD trading platform.

The collaboration will see BTCC feature and promote the Markets.com brand to audiences interested in both digital assets and traditional financial markets. BTCC and Markets.com remain separate and independent entities, each operating its own platform, products and services and retaining responsibility for its respective regulatory obligations.

Meeting at the Intersection of TradFi and Crypto

As part of this collaboration, BTCC and Markets.com will both be present at TOKEN2049 Singapore, one of the world’s premier Web3 and digital finance events, taking place from October 7 to October 8 at Marina Bay Sands, Singapore.

Through the collaboration, BTCC will provide visibility to the Markets.com brand and introduce attendees to its CFD trading offering, including access to a range of global markets and 24/7 trading on selected CFDs on digital assets.

Attendees will have the opportunity to meet representatives from both businesses and learn more about their respective platforms, products and services, subject to jurisdiction, eligibility and applicable regulatory requirements.

“This collaboration reflects the increasing interest we are seeing across both digital assets and traditional financial markets,” said Alex Hung, Head of Operations at BTCC Exchange. “We are pleased to feature Markets.com and introduce its offering to audiences interested in accessing a broader range of financial markets.”Elva Mok, Head of Operations at Markets.com added:“Markets.com is a global online trading platform and multi-asset CFD broker providing access to a broad range of global markets through an intuitive, transparent platform built on secure technology. We are pleased to collaborate with BTCC in introducing the Markets.com brand to a wider audience and showcasing our market access, trading tools and 24/7 trading on selected CFDs on digital assets.”

The collaboration is promotional in nature and does not involve the integration of BTCC’s and Markets.com’s respective platforms or services. Both businesses continue to operate independently and remain solely responsible for their own products, services, clients, and regulatory obligations.

For the latest updates on TOKEN2049 and the collaboration, follow BTCC on X at @BTCCExchange.

About BTCC

Founded in 2011, BTCC is a global cryptocurrency exchange serving over 12 million users across 100+ countries. As the official regional sponsor of the Argentine Football Association (AFA), BTCC provides cryptocurrency trading services focused on accessibility, security, and user experience while operating in accordance with applicable regulatory requirements.

Official website: https://www.btcc.com/en-US

X: https://x.com/BTCCexchange

Contact: press@btcc.com

About Markets.com

Markets.com is a global, regulated CFD trading platform that gives traders access to a broad range of financial markets, including 24/7 trading on selected CFDs on digital assets. With over a decade of operations through its group entities, Markets.com serves a large global client base across numerous jurisdictions through an intuitive, transparent platform built on secure technology. This is the place to trade.

Official website: https://www.markets.com/

X: https://x.com/marketscomMena

Contact: affiliate@markets.com

Disclaimer

The relevant provider is Markets South Africa (Pty) Ltd, an FSCA-regulated Financial Services Provider and authorised Over-the-Counter Derivatives Provider.

BTCC and Markets.com are separate and independent entities. The collaboration described above is promotional in nature and does not constitute a partnership, joint venture, agency relationship, integration of services or regulatory association between the parties. Both businesses continue to operate independently and remain solely responsible for their own products, services, clients and regulatory obligations.

Products, services and regulatory protections may vary depending on the client’s jurisdiction and eligibility.

Trading in financial instruments, including CFDs and other derivatives, involves a high level of risk and may not be suitable for all investors. Leverage can amplify both gains and losses and may result in the loss of the entire amount invested. You should ensure that you understand the risks involved and consider whether trading is appropriate for your circumstances.

The post BTCC Exchange and Markets.com Announce Promotional Collaboration Ahead of TOKEN2049 Singapore appeared first on CryptoPotato.

[PRESS RELEASE – San José, Costa Rica, September 24th, 2026]

Guardis, an on-chain trading and security platform that detects scams and tracks smart money, today announced the addition of tokenized stocks and commodities to its platform. The expansion lets traders track and trade equities and commodities issued on-chain, including assets from xStocks and Ondo.

The new section ranks tokenized stocks and commodities by price change, market cap, trading volume, and liquidity, using the same interface users can already access for Solana token discovery, smart money signal tracking, and Warden AI scam protection. As more traditional assets move on-chain, this gives traders a single place to monitor both stocks and crypto on Solana rather than switching between separate platforms.

“Traders have been asking for a way to watch tokenized equities and commodities with the same tools they use for everything else on-chain,” said a Guardis spokesperson. “Bringing stocks and commodities into the same workspace as our smart money signals and security scoring means people don’t have to leave the platform, or lose visibility.”

The expansion builds on Guardis’s existing platform, which combines real-time smart money and whale tracking, Warden AI’s automated token safety scoring, a professional trading terminal, and native Telegram integration for alerts and execution. Guardis does not custody user funds or private keys, relying on social-based authentication so traders retain full control of their assets at all times.

Users can begin to trade tokenized stocks and commodities here.

About Guardis

Guardis is an on-chain trading and security platform built to help crypto traders move faster, identify smarter opportunities, and avoid scams before they happen. The platform combines real-time token discovery, wallet intelligence, AI-powered trading signals, and automated threat detection into a unified non-custodial trading experience. Initially launched on Solana, Guardis enables users to analyze, monitor, and trade tokens directly on-chain while maintaining full control over their assets.

Website | X | Telegram

The post Guardis Adds Tokenized Stocks and Commodities For Trading appeared first on CryptoPotato.

The S&P 500 is hovering near record highs, but a majority of its constituents are trading below their 200-day moving averages, according to data shared by analyst Scott Melker on X.

On the other hand, 88 of the top 100 cryptocurrencies are above their MAs, highlighting the contrast in market breadth, with Melker arguing that crypto’s technical position looks healthier even though many major tokens are still well below their all-time highs.

Most of the S&P 500 Sits Below Its 200-Day Line

In his post, the trader reported that 257 S&P 500 stocks were below their 200-day averages as of Wednesday, leaving roughly 49% of the index above that widely watched trend measure. He described the market’s internal condition as bearish despite the index’s proximity to record levels.

Crypto presented a different picture. Bitcoin and Ethereum were among the 88 top-100 tokens above their 200-day simple moving averages, and most of those assets were also holding above their 50-day and 100-day averages.

Melker called the combination a “clean, bullish configuration across the board.” He also pointed to the distance between current crypto prices and previous highs, contrasting them with equities that, in his view, have already priced in substantial good news.

“Weak breadth in stocks near highs has historically been a yellow flag,” stated the market watcher. “Strong breadth in crypto while prices remain far from peaks is the opposite setup.”

Remember, the figures measure how many assets are trading above a long-term average, rather than how far prices have risen or whether gains are sustainable, so they only offer a snapshot of market participation, not a guarantee that either market will continue in its current direction.

Top Cryptocurrencies See Red

Bitcoin’s recent price behavior can add context to the comparison, having rebounded from around $75,000 after setbacks including the failed CLARITY Act vote and the Federal Reserve raising interest rates for the first time since July 2023, to briefly move above $87,000 before facing renewed selling.

At the time of writing, CoinGecko data put BTC around $84,000, down nearly 3% over 24 hours, but up by about 10% in the last seven days. Ethereum was trading near $2,700, also down close to 3% in one day while having gained 10% in a week.

XRP’s 6.5% drop in 24 hours was only beaten by Dogecoin’s nearly 7% plunge in the same period and was nearly matched by Zcash, which also shaved more than 6% from its price. The dips pushed the broader crypto market capitalization to around $2.96 trillion, nearly 3% lower than where it was yesterday, with Bitcoin dominance at just over 57%.

Meanwhile, Santiment data shows Bitcoin’s correlations with stocks, gold, and the dollar have weakened, and that shift complicates any assumption that crypto will simply follow equities.

The post Crypto vs Stocks: What the 200-Day Moving Average Shows Now appeared first on CryptoPotato.

After the explosive start to the business week, in which BTC gained $7,000 in 12 hours or so, the asset was primed for a correction, which began yesterday evening and culminated today with a price drop to under $84,000.

The altcoins have followed suit as they usually do, with ETH slumping below $2,700 and Ripple’s XRP plunging by more than 7% to under $1.50. LTC is among the few exceptions today.

BTC Dips Below $84K

After the seemingly negative week in terms of macro developments, in which the CLARITY Act was voted down and the Fed hiked rates in the US, BTC had dropped to $75,000 last Wednesday, and the overall sentiment had flipped. However, the asset ended the week on a strong note, surging past $80,000 on Friday to the surprise of many.

It climbed to $82,000 on Saturday, where it was stopped, and slipped to $80,300 after the new escalations on the two major war fronts. Bitcoin couldn’t be contained on Monday, though. In the span of just 12 hours or so, the asset blasted through a few major resistance levels and skyrocketed to an eight-month peak of over $87,000.

It pulled back to $85,000 on Tuesday but went on the offensive again on Wednesday morning and topped $87,000 for the second time in 48 hours. However, another rejection followed that drove it south to under $84,000, where it currently struggles while analysts debate whether this is just a healthy correction or there’s more to the story.

For now, its market cap has dropped to $1.680 trillion on CMC, while its dominance over the alts stands flat at 59%.

Alts See Red

Ripple’s native token is among the poorest performers in the past 24 hours. The asset flew to over $1.60 just yesterday, but the subsequent rejection has pushed it south hard, and it now struggles below $1.50. Other major losers include DOGE, ADA, XLM, BCH, UNI, CRO, ZEC, NEAR, and RAIN.

ETH, BNB, SOL, TRX, HYPE, and XMR are also in the red, albeit in a less painful manner. In contrast, LTC has rocketed by almost 8% to $68. BTC and MORPHO are also slightly in the green among the larger-cap alts.

The total crypto market cap has shed nearly 3% daily and it’s down to $2.850 trillion on CMC.

The post XRP Slumps Hard After Another $1.60 Rejection, BTC Slips Below $84K: Market Watch appeared first on CryptoPotato.