Renishaw's growth highlights robust AI-driven semiconductor demand, signaling sustained capital investment in the global chip supply chain.

The post Renishaw reports record results amid AI chip demand surge appeared first on Crypto Briefing.

The rapid growth in Base financing markets highlights the increasing mainstream adoption and regulatory acceptance of DeFi lending.

The post Base financing markets grow 133% this year, driven by Morpho and Coinbase integration appeared first on Crypto Briefing.

Rising oil prices and bond yields amid geopolitical tensions could lead to tighter financial conditions and impact global economic stability.

The post Wall Street falls as oil rebounds amid Middle East tensions appeared first on Crypto Briefing.

Microsoft's investment in UAE AI infrastructure could shift global tech dynamics, enhancing regional influence and fostering innovation leadership.

The post Microsoft commits $15.2 billion to UAE as Middle East AI push accelerates appeared first on Crypto Briefing.

The invitation could reshape diplomatic dynamics, offering a platform for dialogue amid ongoing geopolitical tensions and international scrutiny.

The post USA invites Putin to G20 summit in Miami this December appeared first on Crypto Briefing.

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.

Bitcoin Magazine

BitGo CEO Mike Belshe: Why Dollar Debasement Fuels the K-Shaped Economy

Mike Belshe says tokenization isn’t really about trading — it’s about access. The BitGo CEO walks through how the current system dates back to the 1960s paper crisis, when the New York Stock Exchange had to shut down weekly just to settle physical share certificates, and why the structure built to fix it still caters to the largest players. He explains why retail’s inability to borrow against assets, rather than sell them, is what drives the K-shaped economy. In this BMTV interview he describes what ghost stocks and tokenized equities change about that.

Chapters:
00:00 — Does Custody Concentration Create a New Centralization Risk
00:35 — Multisig, MPC, and Eliminating Single Points of Failure
01:49 — What the US Regulatory Framework Still Needs Beyond Clarity
02:39 — How Boardrooms Actually Decide Without a Legislative Path
04:17 — Ghost Stocks and Tokenized Equities
04:51 — The 1960s Paper Crisis and the System Built to Fix It
05:31 — The K-Shaped Economy and Who Can Borrow Against Assets
06:54 — Proof of Reserves and Time-Locking Shares to Show Conviction
08:18 — Where AI Agents Fit Into Managing Assets
10:04 — What He Actually Meant About the Dollar Going to Zero

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

This post BitGo CEO Mike Belshe: Why Dollar Debasement Fuels the K-Shaped Economy first appeared on Bitcoin Magazine and is written by Patrick Green.

Bitcoin Magazine

BTC Market & Institutional Adoption Forecast with UTXO’s Daniel Hinton

“Bitcoin plays on hard mode.” Daniel Hinton spent years managing global liquidity relationships at SFOX, and he explains why a 24/7 global market with no clearinghouse outside the blockchain itself is so hard to keep efficient. He describes the multi-percentage-point dislocations that were routine between exchanges in 2018, why they’ve largely disappeared, and how the recent BitMEX wind-down still produced a perp market wick above $150,000 on thin liquidity. Hosts Grace Remington and Sean Hagan dig into what that means for anyone running margin or stop losses.

Chapters:
00:00 — Where the Most Sophisticated Bitcoin Capital Is Going Right Now
01:41 — Exchange Dislocations, OTC Desks, and Why Bitcoin Plays on Hard Mode
03:18 — The BitMEX Wind-Down and a Perp Wick Above $150,000
04:01 — Why Custody Is Back on the Underdeveloped List
05:30 — Building the UTXO Oracle for a Market With No Single Price
07:25 — Running Free Open Source Price Software Next to Your Node
08:21 — Sustainable Balance Sheets Versus Pure Leverage
10:20 — Hunting Dislocated Assets Across a Dozen Global Markets
12:02 — What Has to Be Built for Institutional Mandates to Allow Bitcoin
14:18 — Rounded Bottoms, the Honey Badger, and Resistance Priced in Gold

This video is for informational purposes only and does not constitute an offer to sell or a solicitation of an offer to buy any securities. Past performance is not indicative of future results. Investments in digital assets involve significant risk and may result in loss of capital. Both UTXO Management and BTC Inc., producer of BMTV, are owned by Nakamoto Inc. (NASDAQ: NAKA)

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

This post BTC Market & Institutional Adoption Forecast with UTXO’s Daniel Hinton first appeared on Bitcoin Magazine and is written by Patrick Green.

Bitcoin Magazine

Assessing the Quantum Threat to Bitcoin w/ Shinobi

The quantum threat to Bitcoin is no longer purely theoretical, so what would an actual attack look like on chain? Bitcoin Magazine technical editor Shinobi says you likely wouldn’t get much warning, just movement people slowly realize is illegitimate, either a fast grab at major exchanges and the ETFs or a quiet drain of Satoshi-era coins moved in chunks. In this conversation with Grace Remington and Sean Hagan, he breaks down the real exposure numbers and why an attacker’s motivation determines everything about how it plays out.

Chapters:
00:00 — What a Quantum Attack on Bitcoin Would Look Like On Chain
01:19 — Whether an Attacker Wants Profit or Wants to Cause Damage
01:52 — How Many Coins Are Vulnerable and How Fast They Could Move
03:07 — Why Exchanges Would Be Negligent Not to Migrate Immediately
03:57 — The Assumption That Dormant Coins Are Lost Coins
05:00 — Migration, Satoshi’s Coins, and the Coins That Won’t Move
06:35 — Post-Quantum Signature Work and Taproot Optionality
07:58 — Three Things That Put You in Control of Your Exposure
09:25 — Why Consensus Changes Wait for Audits
10:11 — Inside Bitcoin Magazine’s Quantum Issue and Its Contributors

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

This post Assessing the Quantum Threat to Bitcoin w/ Shinobi first appeared on Bitcoin Magazine and is written by Patrick Green.

Bitcoin Magazine

Dave Weisberger on Why Bitcoin FOMO Hasn’t Even Started Yet

Bitcoin’s biggest remaining unlock isn’t an ETF or a treasury company it’s collateral treatment. Dave Weisberger, co-founder of CoinRoutes, explains that the haircut banks face on Bitcoin is close to 100%, and that once it’s treated like any other asset based on volatility and liquidity, everything changes for lenders and for companies like Strategy Inc (formerly MicroStrategy). He calls it the final boss, and notes the Basel committee and rulemakers have all described it as inevitable without it actually happening yet. In this conversation with Grace Remington and Sean Hagan, he also covers tokenization, Hyperliquid, and the Fed.

Chapters:
00:00 — Why Every Asset Gets Tokenized and Wall Street Is Backing It
02:00 — Bitcoin, Gold, and Equities as One Global Liquidity Pool
03:53 — Hyperliquid’s Rise and the Appeal of Controlling Your Own Assets
05:27 — Perpetual Swaps, Segregated Accounts, and What Liquidations Really Mean
06:39 — Waves of Disruption From Program Trading to Citadel and Jane Street
08:06 — Tokenized Stocks, Walled Gardens, and the Open Source Alternative
10:05 — Why Every 25 Basis Points Adds $100 Billion to the Deficit
13:19 — Why ETF Money Lowered Bitcoin’s Volatility
15:24 — Covered Call Replacement Buying and Why FOMO Hasn’t Started
18:18 — Bitcoin as an Asymmetric Option and the Pristine Collateral Problem

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

This post Dave Weisberger on Why Bitcoin FOMO Hasn’t Even Started Yet first appeared on Bitcoin Magazine and is written by Patrick Green.

Money-market mutual funds absorbed approximately 85% of the US government's latest Treasury-bill surge, giving traditional cash managers the clearest claim to the marginal demand behind the summer issuance wave.

The Treasury Department said net bill supply grew by more than $550 billion in July and August, an increase of about 8% in two months. Money funds took down most of that additional supply, according to remarks delivered Sept. 22 by Deputy Treasury Secretary Francis Brooke.

Stablecoin providers remain important holders of short-dated government debt. Treasury puts their holdings at nearly $200 billion. Yet that number measures a stock of Treasury bills and other close-to-maturity securities, while the money-fund figure measures purchases associated with a specific two-month supply increase. The categories can also overlap because stablecoin reserves may be invested through government money-market funds and repurchase agreements.

The result is a more precise picture of crypto's role in government finance. Stablecoins are already material Treasury-linked investors and could become a larger source of demand as regulation takes shape. The documented incremental buying in 2026, however, has come primarily from money funds and the Federal Reserve, with foreign investors returning in July.

What Treasury's buyer breakdown shows

Four figures frame the market, but they use different clocks and measure different things. They are context for one another, not amounts that can be added into a single buyer total.

Treasury's 85% estimate directly addresses the latest increase in supply. It applies to the additional bills issued during July and August rather than the entire bill market. The remaining share was not allocated among other buyers in the speech.

The stablecoin total serves a different purpose. It shows that issuers have become a meaningful source of demand for short-dated government assets. Treasury described the nearly $200 billion as bills and other close-to-maturity Treasury securities, without splitting the total by security type or specifying how much was acquired during the summer.

Issuer disclosures show why stablecoins and money funds are not always cleanly separated. Circle said in its second-quarter filing that approximately 84% of USDC reserves were held in the Circle Reserve Fund at June 30. The company describes the vehicle as a Rule 2a-7 government money-market fund.

USDC reserve demand can therefore appear inside the money-fund category. Circle is one issuer, so its allocation does not describe the whole stablecoin market, but it demonstrates the accounting overlap behind the broad buyer labels.

The fund's assets also show that Treasury exposure is broader than direct bill ownership. Its annual shareholder report listed $19.111 billion of direct Treasury obligations and $46.998 billion of repurchase agreements at April 30. The repos were collateralized by Treasuries, but remained a separate asset category. The portfolio date precedes Circle's June reserve disclosure and the mix can change, so the filings establish the structure rather than an exact June allocation.

Treasury presented stablecoin demand as a source of potential growth. Brooke said providers may continue expanding and add to their Treasury holdings as rules implementing the GENIUS Act are finalized. That conditional language makes the regulatory channel an option for future demand, rather than a quantified forecast or an explanation for the July-August absorption.

The Fed and foreign buyers add demand on different timelines

The Federal Reserve has also become a major bill buyer in 2026. Treasury said the Fed purchased more than $300 billion through reserve-management purchases and reinvestment of principal payments from agency securities.

The Fed's July monetary policy report had recorded nearly $250 billion of bill purchases through July 1. About $160 billion came from reserve-management purchases and roughly $90 billion from the reinvestment of agency mortgage-backed security principal. The later Treasury figure reflects a more recent cutoff.

These purchases occur in the secondary market, rather than directly at Treasury auctions. The operations are designed to maintain ample reserves and manage the composition of the System Open Market Account, which separates them from both direct government financing and conventional quantitative easing.

The Fed's published balance sheet corroborates the scale of the expansion. Bill holdings were $233.592 billion on Dec. 31, 2025 in the Jan. 2 H.4.1 release and $550.482 billion on Sept. 16 in the Sept. 17 release. The change is a net stock movement rather than a gross-purchase figure, and it does not allocate the July-August issuance. It does show how quickly bills became a larger part of the Fed's portfolio.

Foreign demand turned positive before Treasury published its buyer breakdown. Foreign residents increased their bill holdings by $38.8 billion in July, according to the Treasury International Capital release. That followed declines of $20.0 billion in April, $43.5 billion in May and $29.0 billion in June.

Private foreign holdings rose by $45.0 billion in July, while foreign official holdings fell by $6.3 billion. The rebound shows overseas buyers returning after three monthly declines, but it covers July alone and tracks foreign holdings rather than every buyer class. Treasury also cautions that custody-based TIC data can obscure the beneficial owner when securities are held through third countries or managed by foreign portfolio managers.

Together, the data show broad demand for short-term government debt without making each buyer measure interchangeable. Money funds dominate Treasury's account of the July-August supply increase. The Fed supplied substantial year-to-date secondary-market demand, and foreign holdings rebounded in July. Stablecoin issuers sit inside that market as large holders whose reserve structures can channel demand through money funds and repo.

The regulatory outlook could make stablecoins a bigger force in future Treasury financing. The latest issuance surge arrived before that possibility could be measured as a distinct flow, leaving traditional money funds as the buyer class Treasury identified most clearly.

The post Stablecoins hold nearly $200 billion in US debt, but money funds bought the surge appeared first on CryptoSlate.

Coin Metrics corrected more than 19 months of Bitcoin ETF-related on-chain data, leaving users of its identified-wallet series to reassess any analysis built on the affected history.

The Sept. 22 status notice says the correction covers Bitcoin data from Feb. 7, 2025 through Sept. 17, 2026. Coin Metrics listed 35 affected daily series and 25 hourly series, including ETF deposits, withdrawals, transfer counts and transactions. The daily list also included net-flow and supply measures.

These are provider-derived observations of activity involving blockchain addresses Coin Metrics identifies as ETF-owned, rather than official ETF share-creation, redemption or fund-accounting records.

The notice does not state what caused the recalculation. Moreover, it gives no before-and-after values, aggregate difference or percentage change; does not say whether the revisions generally raised or lowered the figures; and does not identify the largest adjustment or any affected research.

What the correction can change

Coin Metrics' deposit methodology defines an ETF deposit as assets sent during an interval to an address the company identifies as ETF-owned. Dollar-denominated deposit flows are calculated from native-unit flows using its PriceUSD metric.

Its withdrawal methodology counts assets leaving the control of identified ETF addresses. For Bitcoin withdrawals, Coin Metrics excludes the effect of change outputs, so coins returned to the same fund cluster are not counted as a separate inflow.

Coverage is another constraint. Coin Metrics says its ETF transaction-count metric includes only ETFs and addresses it has identified, making that specific metric a minimum potential value. The daily correction list also reaches its ETF supply series.

Wallet movements cannot be treated as a one-to-one proxy for authorized-participant creations or redemptions. Coin Metrics measures attributed blockchain activity, while the regulated fund process concerns orders for ETF shares, including the in-kind mechanism permitted under the SEC's July 2025 approval. The Sept. 22 notice describes a correction to Coin Metrics Network Data, not a revision to issuer records.

The practical impact is therefore limited to work that used the affected Coin Metrics series. Anyone who stored those daily or hourly values, or used them in models, charts or research covering the corrected interval, may need to backfill the history and rerun that work. The notice does not show that unrelated ETF analysis changed.

Until Coin Metrics publishes deltas or a fuller explanation, the responsible conclusion remains narrow: the provider changed a broad slice of its ETF-wallet picture, but has not shown the public how much that picture moved.

The post Coin Metrics revises 19 months of ETF wallet data but by how much? appeared first on CryptoSlate.

Bitcoin exchange-traded funds (ETFs) have erased their 2026 flow deficit after a sharp buying revival, even as the top crypto struggles to hold its latest gains.

Data from SoSoValue shows that the US-listed funds have attracted more than $1.7 billion in fresh capital this week, with the products drawing $999 million on Sept. 21 and $715 million on Sept. 22.

At the current pace, the funds are positioned to surpass their strongest inflow week of the year, when they drew about $1.92 billion during the week ended Aug. 21.

BlackRock has captured a disproportionate share of the latest demand, with its iShares Bitcoin Trust (IBIT) attracting roughly $1.02 billion over four trading sessions, according to Arkham Intelligence.

ETF buying repairs a $5.7 billion hole

The latest inflows cap a sharp reversal for a market that had accumulated a $5.69 billion year-to-date deficit by July 13.

Askthetape data show roughly $6.04 billion has flowed back into the products since that trough, pushing the annual tally to about $349 million in net inflows. About $3.17 billion of the recovery came during the past 30 days.

Bloomberg Intelligence ETF analyst Eric Balchunas said the renewed demand began gathering pace in August after Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent signaled increased purchases of longer-dated government bonds, a development some market participants interpreted as evidence of mounting pressure in long-duration debt markets.

Bitcoin has risen about 35% since then, climbing from roughly $64,100 to above $85,000, while the ETFs absorbed about $4.6 billion over the same period, Balchunas said.

The rebound has also repaired losses for investors who spent parts of 2026 holding ETF positions below their purchase price. The average cost basis of Bitcoin held through the funds is estimated near $82,000, leaving the cohort back in unrealized profit with BTC trading above $85,000.

That marks a clear shift from July, when persistent redemptions were adding pressure to an already weak market. ETF investors are now increasing exposure after a roughly one-third rally, with fresh creations arriving as Bitcoin trades near eight-month highs.

Profit-taking absorbs the ETF bid as Bitcoin slips below $85,000

That stronger demand helped push Bitcoin as high as $87,265 over the past 24 hours, but the rally has since lost momentum. Data from CryptoSlate shows the cryptocurrency traded at $84,589 as of press time as investors increasingly took profits in the advance.

CryptoQuant data show short-term holders sent about 47,600 BTC held at a profit to exchanges as Bitcoin approached $88,000, one of the largest spikes in the series. At prices near $85,000, the coins were worth more than $4 billion, highlighting the scale of potential supply moving toward trading venues as ETF demand accelerated.

Exchange deposits do not mean every transferred coin was sold. Still, the surge shows that profitable short-term holders became considerably more active around the local high.

That supply helps explain why more than $1.7 billion of ETF inflows this week has not produced an uninterrupted advance. Fresh institutional money continues to enter through the funds, while investors who accumulated Bitcoin at lower prices are using the rebound to lock in gains.

However, Santiment warned that strong ETF demand could itself become a source of caution.

The analytics firm said unusually large ETF inflows have repeatedly clustered around local market turning points, as investors tend to chase exposure after Bitcoin has already made a substantial move. The latest surge fits that pattern, with ETF demand reaching an extreme after Bitcoin climbed about 35% over the past month.

Santiment stressed that such inflows do not guarantee an immediate reversal. Strong buying can continue to carry prices higher, but past episodes suggest exceptionally large creations can coincide with rising euphoria and leave the market more vulnerable once marginal demand begins to fade.

That risk is now developing alongside heavier profit-taking. Bitcoin’s rally has returned the average ETF investor to unrealized profit while also giving short-term holders acquired at lower prices an opportunity to distribute coins into strength.

Continued ETF creations would give the market more capacity to absorb that supply. A slowdown in fund demand while short-term-holder exchange deposits remain elevated would leave Bitcoin increasingly reliant on other spot buyers to sustain a rally that has already brought a large share of recent investors back into profit.

The post Bitcoin ETFs just erased a $5.7 billion hole, but profit-taking is swallowing the new demand appeared first on CryptoSlate.

Solana has begun rolling out Alpenglow on testnet, moving its planned blockchain consensus overhaul into a public testing environment.

The upgrade targets finality of about 150 milliseconds, down from roughly 12.8 seconds under TowerBFT, the system Solana validators currently use to agree on blocks. Alpenglow replaces that consensus layer while leaving the Solana Virtual Machine, transactions, programs, and fees unchanged.

Its first phase introduces Votor, which replaces the vote transactions validators currently put onchain with votes sent directly between validators. Those votes are combined into certificates that can finalize a block within one or two voting rounds, cutting the wait for an irreversible transaction by about 99%.

Anza, the developer behind Solana’s Agave validator software, said that testnet was entering the rollout process, ahead of deployments on devnet and eventually mainnet-beta. The migration builds on months of preparation across validators and infrastructure providers, which must adjust systems that stream blocks, track votes, or rely on Solana’s existing commitment structure.

Alpenglow will later add Rotor, a replacement for Turbine, Solana’s system for distributing block data across the network. Rotor is scheduled separately, leaving Votor and faster finality as the rollout's immediate focus.

The consensus overhaul follows another wave of performance upgrades. Solana activated Transaction V1 this month, lifting maximum transaction size to 4,096 bytes from 1,232, while its slot-time roadmap has progressively cut the target from 400 milliseconds toward 200 milliseconds.

SOL approaches January levels as network activity expands

The technical push is arriving alongside a recovery in SOL and expanding activity across several parts of the ecosystem.

SOL traded around $117 as of press time after reaching almost $120 this week, putting the token around its strongest level since late January. It has gained roughly 25% over the past month, CryptoSlate's data shows.

Solana has also been drawing more tokenized traditional assets. Real-world assets on the network reached about $4.6 billion in early September, extending a climb that took the sector through $4 billion for the first time in August.

Trading activity has accelerated alongside it. Solana decentralized exchanges recorded about 208 million individual spot trades in the week ending Sept. 13, compared with roughly 190 million on the New York Stock Exchange, according to data cited by the Kobeissi Letter. The gap with Nasdaq narrowed to about 47 million trades. Jupiter accounted for more than 80 million trades during September, up 38% from the previous month.

That growth has strengthened an increasingly aggressive investment case from some of Solana’s longtime backers. Multicoin Capital co-founder Kyle Samani reportedly said that he expects SOL’s market capitalization to surpass Ethereum's during the current market cycle, arguing that developers are increasingly choosing Solana and pointing to its recent lead over Ethereum in network fees.

The gap remains substantial: Samani’s comparison put Solana near $58 billion against about $293 billion for ETH.

For Solana, the more immediate test now moves back to the network itself. Testnet gives validators and infrastructure providers the first broad environment to run Alpenglow before the consensus system advances to devnet and, ultimately, the mainnet that will carry Solana’s growing trading and tokenized-asset economy.

The post Solana moves Alpenglow into testnet as SOL nears January highs appeared first on CryptoSlate.

In the markets Talos tracked, daily volume in RWA perpetual futures tied to equities, commodities and indices rose from less than $1 billion in January to $18.8 billion during Sept. 3-9. That represented 18.5% of futures volume across those venues.

Crypto exchanges built their derivatives businesses around perpetual futures, and the same contract structure now wraps exposure to oil, gold, stocks, indices, and pre-IPO companies.

The Talos data show that crypto-perpetual volume declined over the comparison period while total futures activity in its sample remained roughly flat, with traditional-asset contracts filling the volume gap.

The changing product mix creates a real competitive threat for altcoins. Traders no longer need a new token to find leverage, volatility, or a market that stays open around the clock.

Wallet behavior on Hyperliquid points to mostly separate customer groups, with a smaller group trading across both markets.

Hyperliquid’s traders mostly stay in their lanes

Talos found that traditional asset perps represented 28% of futures volume on Hyperliquid and 24.8% on Binance in its sample. Oil led the weekly increase as Brent crossed $100, showing how crypto venues can capture trading around an event unrelated to cryptocurrency.

CoinDesk Research reported that centralized-exchange volume rose 12.7% month over month to $4.29 trillion in August. Spot increased 18.7%, derivatives rose 11.3%, and traditional-asset perpetual volume increased 2.37% to $602 billion.

Both traditional-asset and crypto activity expanded during that month. Substitution could still occur within a specific venue or account, while the aggregate figures show that the two categories can also grow together.

Hyperliquid's HIP-3 framework lets outside builders deploy markets, including contracts linked to stocks and commodities. DefiLlama divided new wallets into RWA-first and “Other-first” cohorts based on the market of their first Hyperliquid trade.

From Jan. 1 through June 30, DefiLlama classified 169,514 new wallets as RWA-first. They represented 31.7% of new wallets and generated $111.6 billion (31.5%) of the trading volume produced by new users.

The economics of this acquisition cohort differed sharply from its share of activity: RWA-first wallets generated only 8.3% of the main trading fees paid by new users in the study.

RWA-first wallets kept 83.6% of their volume in RWA markets, while Other-first wallets, whose first trade was in crypto or another non-RWA market, sent 22.8% of their volume into RWA markets and produced roughly 40% of RWA-market volume.

A DefiLlama follow-up found that 80.9% of RWA-first wallets never crossed into the other market, while 82% of Other-first wallets never crossed into RWA markets.

Cross-market activity increased among the most frequent traders who did cross. The user base divides into three broad groups: RWA-first wallets that mostly stay with those products, crypto-first wallets that mostly stay with crypto, and a smaller high-frequency core that treats both as trading opportunities.

Altcoins face a tougher contest for attention

CryptoRank counted 351 new listings across 10 major centralized exchanges in the second quarter, the fewest since the third quarter of 2023. Tokenized assets accounted for 42 additions, while categories associated with the previous speculative cycle lost momentum.

Gate was responsible for 573 removals, nearly 60% of delistings in the first half. MEXC rarely reported delistings and was effectively excluded from that part of the analysis.

Inside CryptoRank's sample, exchange priorities changed as one venue's cleanup dominated removals and reporting gaps limited the cross-exchange picture. RWA trading cannot be blamed for those delistings.

Binance's tokenized-stock figures also show overlap but do not reveal portfolio rotation. Binance Research reported that 58.5% of early bStocks users also used perpetuals, direct equities, or both.

For altcoin holders, the practical risk is competition at the margin. Market makers have finite balance sheets, exchanges have limited promotional capacity, and traders have limited attention. Familiar stocks and commodities now compete with them inside the same apps and collateral systems.

Altcoins have a new competitor for speculative demand. Another example is the HIP-3, which lets outside builders deploy perpetual markets.

Hyperliquid's fee documentation says deployers may retain up to 50% of trading fees generated by their assets. Trading fees directed to the protocol's Assistance Fund are converted automatically into HYPE, Hyperliquid's native token, and the acquired HYPE is burned.

Only a portion of builder-market activity reaches HYPE-related mechanisms. Assistance Fund burns can reduce token supply, while market price still depends on demand, liquidity and the broader market.

Activity and retained economics can move apart

The divergence appeared in first-half figures calculated by 21Shares, which estimated that Hyperliquid's gross fees rose from $320 million in the first half of 2025 to $419.3 million in the first half of 2026. Its measure of core protocol revenue, the fee share flowing back to the platform treasury, fell from $317.5 million to $305.3 million.

Gross fees and core revenue moved in opposite directions as builder-deployed markets captured a larger share of activity.

Crypto perps led the next monthly expansion, as Hyperliquid's total open interest rose from $6.6 billion to $8.8 billion in September. Meanwhile, HIP-3's share declined from 34% to 25%.

Traditional asset trading can fill a crypto-volume gap in one period and grow alongside crypto in another. It can bring in new wallets, give existing users more products, and create fee streams divided among the protocol, builders, and token-linked mechanisms, making exchanges less dependent on crypto's cycles.

For altcoins, the outcome is more ambiguous. Crypto's trading rails can thrive even when demand for the assets that built them grows more slowly.

The post Altcoin demand meets $18B threat as flows move into RWA perps as just 19% of traders keep alts appeared first on CryptoSlate.

On September 16, 2026, the financial services committee of the US House of Representatives advanced a bill, by 28 votes to 21, that would make America's government-held Bitcoin unsellable for at least twenty years. For you as a German investor it changes neither your tax burden nor your holding period today. It does change a quantity you will not see in any portfolio statement: how much Bitcoin in state hands can reach the market at all over the medium term.

This article draws a clean line between what the bill says and what market commentary makes of it. The draft is publicly available, and in several places it reads considerably more soberly than its headlines.

What the US financial services committee decided on September 16

The House Committee on Financial Services debated the bill in what is known as a markup session and then released it for a floor vote. Markup means the committee goes through the text section by section, accepts or rejects amendments and finally votes on the version it recommends to the chamber. The result of 28 votes to 21 fell largely along party lines.

A committee vote of this kind is not legislation. It is the stage at which the vast majority of bills get stuck, and that is exactly why it counts as a signal: no bill on a government Bitcoin reserve had come that far in the United States before.

American Reserve Modernization Act: what the text of H.R. 8957 says

The bill carries the number H.R. 8957 and the short title "American Reserve Modernization Act of 2026". It was introduced on May 21, 2026 by Representative Nicholas J. Begich III of Alaska and then referred to the financial services committee. The official long title states the purpose: to establish a strategic Bitcoin reserve, to manage the federal government's Bitcoin holdings transparently, and to offset the costs through certain funds of the Federal Reserve System.

Operationally the text governs four things. Section 4(a)(1) obliges the Treasury to set up a secure custody facility for Bitcoin within the department. Section 4(d)(1) channels all "qualifying Bitcoin" of the federal government into it. What qualifies is defined narrowly by section 3(4): Bitcoin finally forfeited in a criminal or civil proceeding. And section 5 sets out how long the state has to hold the holdings.

Anyone reading the bill as a purchase programme is reading it wrongly. First and foremost it puts order into what the state already owns.

At least 20 years of holding: why section 5 is the decisive clause

Section 5(a) provides that the Treasury holds all Bitcoin "for not less than 20 years from the date of deposit into the strategic Bitcoin reserve". Section 5(b) prohibits any sale or other disposal during that minimum period. The period runs per deposit, not for the total holding from a cut-off date: if Bitcoin forfeited in 2029 is added, it is locked up until 2049.

This is the clause where something would actually be decided for the market. Government holdings have so far been a latent source of supply; every forfeiture can at some point land on the market as an offer. A statutory lock-up over two decades takes that source out of the equation for as long as the law stands. How large the effect would be hangs on a figure nobody knows reliably.

How much Bitcoin the US actually holds, and why nobody knows exactly

The estimates diverge. The executive order of March 6, 2025, which first established the strategic Bitcoin reserve by decree, capitalised it, on concurring accounts, with around 198,000 BTC originating from forfeitures. For the entire federal holding, by contrast, surveys from early 2026 put the figure at around 328,000 BTC. The range persists because the two numbers measure different things and neither comes from an official, continuously maintained schedule.

The bill itself addresses precisely that gap. Section 6 requires quarterly reports with detailed information on total holdings, transactions and demonstrated control over the private keys, plus a cryptographic attestation, published on the Treasury's website; the Comptroller General, the head of the US audit office, is to review this regularly. That such a duty is needed at all says more about today's state of the data than any single estimate.

No taxpayer money for Bitcoin purchases: the line drawn by section 9

Section 9 instructs the Treasury to examine budget-neutral routes for acquisitions. Named are the conversion of other federal digital assets, surplus remittances from the Federal Reserve System or a revaluation of the gold certificates, as well as proceeds from forfeitures, fines and settlements. Section 9(d) then draws the line and expressly prohibits any borrowing, any new tax and any deficit-financed spending for the acquisition of Bitcoin.

For market expectations this is the coolest passage in the bill. A state that may only reallocate but not buy with fresh money is not a source of demand on which a price forecast can rest. If you need a figure to place the current market situation: Bitcoin was quoted at $84,534.90 on September 23, 2026 at 14:59 UTC on the spot market of the OKX exchange, after $87,283.00 at the day's high and $83,856.40 at the day's low, down 2.0 percent over 24 hours.

From committee to statute: which hurdles H.R. 8957 still has to clear

Several steps are missing before the bill becomes law. The House floor has to call it up and pass it, the Senate has to agree, differences between the two versions have to be resolved, and at the end comes the president's signature. Each of those stations can change the text, and a committee vote along party lines is no indication that it will go quickly.

Then there is the calendar. The 119th Congress ends in early January 2027. Whatever has not been passed by then lapses and would have to be reintroduced in the new Congress. The recent history of US crypto legislation offers plenty of illustration: the CLARITY Act, the far larger market structure bill, did not survive a vote in September 2026. Anyone treating H.R. 8957 as settled today is pre-empting the most likely outcome instead of waiting for it.

Saxony sold 49,858 Bitcoin: what the German comparison case shows

Germany has already taken the opposite route, and did so without a statutory basis for either course. In January 2024 a defendant in the proceedings concerning the movie2k.to portal transferred around 49,858 Bitcoin to the Federal Criminal Police Office; at the then price of about 39,400 euros that came to roughly 1.96 billion euros. Between June 19 and July 12, 2024 the Saxon authorities sold the entire holding in tranches, realising around 2.6 billion euros. The Saxon justice ministry described the exercise as an emergency disposal.

To this day the proceeds are not budget money. They are held on deposit for the criminal proceedings at the Leipzig regional court and will remain so until those conclude. And the much-quoted calculation of how much more a later sale would have brought is hindsight: it presupposes that the authority could know a price path it could not know.

The comparison is therefore no good as a reproach, but it works as an illustration. In the United States a statute is meant to take the timing of a sale out of the realm of discretion and fix it for twenty years. In Germany procedural law decided, and it decided on an immediate sale. They are two answers to the same question, and neither is a recommendation for your own portfolio.

Custody, holding period, concentration risk: what German Bitcoin holders should check now

A US bill is no reason to rebuild your portfolio. It is a good reason to look over three points that decide your outcome regardless of Washington.

The holding period. In Germany, Section 23 of the Income Tax Act applies to privately held crypto-assets: if more than a year lies between purchase and sale, the gain is tax free. Below that it counts as other income, and the 1,000 euro threshold per calendar year is a cliff, not an allowance. Exceed it by one euro and the entire gain is taxable. Check which of your positions reach the one-year mark and when, before you think about selling.

Custody. The bill requires the US Treasury to demonstrate control of the private keys. You can put the same question to yourself: who holds your keys? If the holdings sit on an exchange, you hold a claim against a company, not the coins themselves. For an investment horizon of years that argues for self-custody; which devices come into question and how to recognise a solid model is set out in the hardware wallet comparison.

Concentration risk. A state buyer that, by its own bill, may not buy with fresh money justifies no higher weighting. If a report like this one makes you want to add, first check what share of your total wealth Bitcoin already accounts for. The cost side is the part you can reliably influence: trading fees, spread and withdrawal costs differ markedly between providers, and one percentage point of difference at purchase weighs more over an investment horizon of years than most headlines.

Spot, ETN or your own wallet: which buying route suits which horizon

The twenty-year lock-up in the US bill raises a question that is practically more relevant to you than any price forecast: in what wrapper do you want to hold Bitcoin over long periods? In Germany three routes are essentially open to you, and they differ in tax and legal terms.

With a direct purchase through an exchange or a broker you acquire the coins themselves. Under the European crypto regulation MiCA, providers addressing retail clients in the EU need authorisation as a crypto-asset service provider; whether a provider holds such a licence can be looked up in the register of the competent supervisor and is the first check worth making. For this route the one-year period under Section 23 of the Income Tax Act applies.

With a crypto exchange followed by a transfer to your own wallet, one step is added that takes you out of the provider's counterparty risk. The transfer itself is not a sale and triggers no tax, but it does bring effort and duties of care in securing the recovery words.

Exchange-traded notes on Bitcoin, traded in Europe as ETNs or ETPs, you buy through your existing securities account. They are convenient but carry issuer risk, and their tax treatment is not in every case the same as for direct holdings: depending on the structure, a paper may fall under the flat-rate withholding tax rather than under the one-year period. Which products are tradable in Germany and what to look out for when selecting is worked through in the overview of crypto ETFs and ETNs in Germany. If in doubt, have the specific classification of your paper confirmed by a tax adviser.

Levels above and below: what the Bitcoin price is currently orienting on

The short-term situation has little to do with the bill. Above, the next notable level is $87,283, the high of the past 24 hours; beyond that begins the zone around $90,000, which has not been sustainably overcome so far this year. Below, the day's low at $83,856 marks the first line of support, and beneath it the round number at $80,000, which the market has oriented on several times in mid-September.

These levels are observation points, not signals. They tell you where many market participants are looking, not what happens next.

Bull and bear case: what speaks for and against the supply thesis

The mechanics of the lock-up speak for the bull case. If a structural source of supply falls away over two decades while further forfeitures keep being added, that tightens the freely tradable supply, and does so independently of the demand side. Were a copycat effect among other states to come on top, the impact would be larger than the US holding alone.

Against the thesis speaks, first of all, the text of the bill itself: without permission to buy with fresh money, no new source of demand arises. On top of that, the holdings are not being sold today either, so to that extent a statute fixes an existing state of affairs rather than changing it. And third, every statute is reversible: what one Congress passes a later one can amend, particularly with a period stretching across five electoral terms. Anyone basing a purchase decision on this supply thesis alone is basing it on a law that is not yet one.

Placing the Bitcoin state reserve: what to take away

1. Treat the bill as news, not as a buy signal. H.R. 8957 has passed a committee and nothing else. If you were going to build or reallocate your Bitcoin position anyway, your outcome is decided by the cost side and not by the headline; the differences in fees and spread are in the crypto exchange comparison.
2. Check your own holding period before you sell anything. A sale one day before the one-year mark costs you tax exemption on the entire gain. Which position falls due when is something you should have documented rather than estimated; which tools keep the periods and acquisition dates cleanly is set out in the comparison of crypto tax software.
3. Settle the custody question for your actual horizon. Anyone intending to hold for years should not be left sitting on an exchange permanently. What self-custody achieves and which mistakes get expensive is broken down in the hardware wallet comparison.

You can read the full text of H.R. 8957 in the original at the US publishing office; the procedural status including co-sponsors is tracked by Congress.gov.

(As of September 23, 2026. This article is not investment advice. Prices and fee structures change; check the terms with the provider before you buy.)

If you accept a fee in Bitcoin as a freelancer or a trader, two separate tax events arise from it, and the second one surprises most people. The first is the inflow: the fee is perfectly ordinary business income, valued at the euro equivalent on the day it reaches you. The second is everything that happens to those coins afterwards. And that is exactly where something different applies to you than to a private investor, because the familiar one-year holding period does not apply to business assets.

This text answers the question for Germany, along the lines of the Income Tax Act, the VAT Act and the two relevant circulars of the Federal Ministry of Finance. It does not replace advice in an individual case, but it shows you which questions to put to your tax adviser and what to document yourself before the first invoice goes out.

Bitcoin as a fee: why the inflow is perfectly ordinary business income

Business income is any accrual of assets in money or money's worth that is occasioned by the business. Bitcoin falls under "money's worth", not under money, and the whole treatment follows from that. For tax purposes, the form of payment does nothing to change the fact that you performed a service and received consideration for it. A graphic designer who builds a campaign has made a sale, whether the client transfers euros or pays in coins.

That accrual is valued at its euro amount at the time of the inflow. Under a cash-basis profit calculation pursuant to Section 4(3) of the Income Tax Act, the inflow principle applies: what counts is the day on which you can economically dispose of the coins, which as a rule means the day they arrive in your wallet and are confirmed. Not the invoice date, and not the day you eventually swap them into euros.

From that follows the first practical piece of advice, and it costs you nothing: record the price at the moment of inflow, ideally with a screenshot, a source and a time of day. That single figure determines two things at once, namely the amount of your business income and the acquisition cost of the coins for everything that comes afterwards. Anyone who fails to document it has to reconstruct it later, and with volatile prices that rarely works out in your favour.

Invoicing in Bitcoin: what really happens for VAT purposes

Here we clear up the most stubborn misunderstanding. It is true that Bitcoin enjoys privileged treatment for VAT, but that concerns the exchange, not your service. Your own service remains subject to VAT, exactly as with any euro invoice. Anyone selling web design for 5,000 euros owes VAT on it, even if the client pays in coins.

The basis for this is the Federal Ministry of Finance circular of February 27, 2018 on the VAT treatment of Bitcoin, which implements a judgment of the European Court of Justice (Hedqvist, C-264/14, judgment of October 22, 2015). Two statements from it are worth knowing:

• Handing over Bitcoin merely to settle a payment is not a taxable transaction. To that extent the use of Bitcoin is treated the same as the use of conventional means of payment. Your client is therefore not supplying you with an additional service by paying in coins.
• The exchange of Bitcoin into conventional currency is exempt, based on Section 4 no. 8(b) of the VAT Act read in conformity with EU law. If you later swap the coins you received into euros, that exchange does not in itself trigger VAT.

That leaves the question of the amount on which you calculate VAT. What counts is the euro equivalent at the time your service is performed, converted at the last published selling rate. In practice that means: your invoice states a euro amount and the VAT attributable to it in euros, and payment in coins is merely the way that amount is settled. An invoice that names only a coin amount is useless to the tax office.

The small business scheme under Section 19 of the VAT Act: when you charge no VAT

If you fall under the small business scheme, the VAT element drops away and matters become considerably simpler. Under the wording of Section 19 of the VAT Act in force since 2025, your turnover is exempt if total turnover in the preceding calendar year did not exceed 25,000 euros and does not exceed 100,000 euros in the current calendar year. If the second threshold is breached during the year, the relief ends from that point.

Two things are not changed by it, though. First, income tax is unaffected: your fee remains business income in full. Second, you still have to establish the euro equivalent cleanly, because that figure is what determines whether you are still within the thresholds at all. With sharply fluctuating prices, that is no detail: a job that was below the threshold when invoiced may be above it on inflow.

The real trap: business assets carry no one-year holding period

This is the point where business and private treatment part company for good, and in practice it costs the most money. As a private investor you know Section 23(1) sentence 1 no. 2 of the Income Tax Act: if more than a year lies between acquisition and sale, the gain stays tax free. That does not apply to crypto-assets held as business assets. There, all changes in value are subject to ongoing taxation, regardless of how long you have held the coins.

A worked example makes the consequence tangible. Suppose you issue an invoice for 10,000 euros and let yourself be paid in Bitcoin. On the day of inflow the coins are worth 10,000 euros, so you book 10,000 euros of business income. Two years later you sell the same coins for 18,000 euros. As a private investor the 8,000 euros of price gain would be tax free once the one-year period had run. As business assets they are a further 8,000 euros of business income and are taxed at your personal rate, and for traders with trade tax on top.

The reverse applies equally, and it is the consolation in this rule: if the value falls between inflow and sale, that loss reduces your business profit without the offsetting restrictions that apply in the private sphere. In private assets, losses from private disposal transactions may only be set against gains of the same kind. In a business they are simply an expense.

Private or business assets: what the allocation turns on

Because so much hangs on this distinction, a closer look pays off. Coins you receive as consideration for a business service enter your business assets upon inflow. That is not a choice you make but a consequence of the transaction, because the coins stem from your business activity. The revised Federal Ministry of Finance circular of March 6, 2025 expressly distinguishes crypto-assets in private and in business assets and places particular weight on the allocation.

If you want to move the coins into private assets, that is a withdrawal, and a withdrawal is valued at going-concern value. Any hidden reserve built up until then is thereby realised and taxed. Switching to the private sphere is therefore not a way to escape business taxation; it merely brings it forward. From the withdrawal onwards, however, the private period does start running, with the withdrawal value as the acquisition cost.

So keep business and private holdings technically separate, ideally in different wallets. Anyone mixing the two in the same address will barely be able to evidence the allocation later, and the burden of proof is on you. It is the same thought that lies behind separating a business account from a private one.

Bookkeeping and records: what you have to capture per payment

The circular of March 6, 2025 considerably expanded the requirements on tax return, cooperation and record-keeping obligations compared with the 2022 predecessor. For you as a self-employed person that means, concretely, that you have to record more per incoming payment than you would for a bank transfer. A fixed set of details you capture every time makes sense:

1. Date and time of the inflow, meaning the moment the coins were available, not the moment of the invoice.
2. Quantity and type of the crypto-asset, in the unit in which it arrived.
3. The price used, together with its source, so the euro figure stays traceable and is not disputed later.
4. The euro amount derived from it, which serves both as business income and as acquisition cost.
5. The receiving address or account, so the allocation to business assets can be evidenced.
6. The associated invoice with the euro amount and separately stated VAT, to the extent you charge any.

Because doing this by hand adds up quickly, software that brings inflows and prices together automatically, and can distinguish between business and private holdings, is worth having. Which tools manage that and where the differences lie is set out in the comparison of crypto tax software and portfolio trackers. When choosing, make sure business holdings can be kept separately, because many programs are cut for private investors and do not know the distinction at all.

Price risk between invoice and payment: what to settle in the contract

Between the day you write the invoice and the day the coins arrive there are often weeks. Over that time the price moves, and without a provision you carry that risk alone. Two routes are customary, and both belong in the contract, not in an arrangement by message.

One route is denominated in euros: you agree a euro amount and record that the client owes the coin amount corresponding to it at the time of payment. Then they carry the price risk, and your bookkeeping stays simple because the invoice amount and the business income agree in euros. The other route is denominated in a fixed quantity of coins. That can make sense if you intend to hold the coins anyway, but it shifts the entire price risk to you and means the invoice amount and the actual inflow diverge.

Also settle which price and which source apply, how long your offer is binding, and who bears the network fee. The network fee is no detail: if less arrives with you because the fee was deducted, the inflow is correspondingly lower, while your claim stood at the full amount.

Trader or freelancer: where the difference lies for you

For income tax it initially makes no difference whether you work in a liberal profession under Section 18 of the Income Tax Act or in a trade under Section 15: in both cases the fee is business income, and in both cases the coins belong to business assets with no holding period. The difference lies in trade tax, which falls only on trades and thus burdens the later price gain additionally.

A second difference concerns the method of calculating profit. Members of the liberal professions may use the cash-basis profit calculation regardless of their size, and there the inflow principle applies. If, on the other hand, you are required to keep double-entry books, it is not the inflow that counts but the arising of the receivable, and the crypto-assets have to be valued as at the balance sheet date. That is a different arithmetical world with valuation questions of its own, and at this point at the latest you should not think the matter through alone.

Swap into euros immediately or hold: the practical trade-off

Many self-employed people swap the coins they receive straight into euros. For tax that is the cleanest route, for a simple reason: if inflow and sale take place on the same day at practically the same price, no appreciable change in value arises that you would have to capture and tax separately later. You then have exactly one event instead of two, and the exchange itself is VAT exempt.

If, on the other hand, you want to hold the coins, do so with your eyes open. Every price move afterwards is taxable in the business, you need a solid valuation, and you are tying up business assets in a fluctuating value while your tax liability arises and falls due in euros. Anyone who collects a large fee in the spring and has to pay the tax on it the following year can run into a liquidity gap if the price has fallen, even though they never sold a cent. The tax is measured on the value at inflow, not on today's price.

If you do intend to hold balances for longer, the question of custody belongs with it. Coins that sit permanently in business assets should not be left indefinitely on a trading account.

Taxing Bitcoin received as a fee: what to take away

Three steps with which you set the matter up correctly from the start.

1. Agree in euros and document the inflow. Write the invoice for a euro amount with separately stated VAT, and on receipt record the date, time, quantity, price and source. Where you can reliably realise the equivalent in euros is shown by the crypto exchange comparison.
2. Separate business and private holdings technically. Use a dedicated address for fees, so the allocation stays provable later and private holdings are not pulled into business taxation. For balances held permanently, a custody solution of its own is worth having; the candidates are in the hardware wallet comparison.
3. Plan the tax in euros and decide deliberately about holding. Set the tax portion aside as soon as the fee comes in, and reckon with every later price move remaining taxable in the business. Anyone regularly shifting larger amounts will find the right trading routes in the broker comparison.

You can read the two governing administrative instructions yourself: the income tax treatment in the Federal Ministry of Finance circular of March 6, 2025 on individual questions of the income tax treatment of certain crypto-assets and the VAT side in the Federal Ministry of Finance circular of February 27, 2018 on the VAT treatment of Bitcoin. What the taxation looks like when you receive crypto not as a self-employed person but as an employee is covered in our piece on a salary paid in Bitcoin; the basics for private investors we have written up separately.

(As of September 23, 2026. This article is not investment advice. Prices and fee structures change; check the terms with the provider before you buy.)

If you have ZEC sitting in a wallet file from 2016 or 2017 and your Zcash addresses begin with the letters zc, then your balance is in what is known as the Sprout pool, and you should move it. The reason is set out in a change proposal numbered ZIP 2003, due to ship with the NU7 network upgrade: it disallows transactions of the old v4 format, and that is the only format with which Sprout funds can be spent at all. The planned activation date for NU7 on mainnet is November 5, 2026.

One point of context before the panic sets in: this is not about all ZEC, only about the balance in this single, oldest shielded pool. Anyone who keeps their Zcash on an exchange, uses a modern wallet, or created their addresses only in recent years is very unlikely to be affected. Those affected are the small group who have not looked in years. Which is precisely why they would otherwise hear about it too late.

What the Sprout pool in Zcash is and why it concerns you now

A value pool in Zcash is a separate accounting circle with its own cryptographic machinery, holding shielded funds. Zcash has renewed that machinery several times over the years, and each renewal created a new pool rather than rebuilding the old one. Sprout is the first of them, launched with the network in 2016. It was the first large-scale application of general zero-knowledge proofs anywhere, but suffered from long computation times and high memory requirements. Its successors Sapling and Orchard fixed exactly that and brought additional features such as viewing keys and diversified addresses.

The consequence of that design: your balance does not migrate automatically when the protocol moves up a step. It stays in the pool it once arrived in until you move it yourself. Anyone who sent ZEC to a shielded address in 2016 or 2017 and never touched the wallet again still has that balance in Sprout. The ZIP 2003 specification puts it drily: Sprout is at this point "essentially unused". That low usage is exactly the developers' argument for retiring the pool now.

For the Zcash project this is housekeeping. The parts of Sprout that do not overlap with Sapling, such as the JoinSplit circuit and the handling of Sprout nullifiers, weigh on the complexity and the attack surface of every full-node implementation. Because Sprout is barely used, node developers have little incentive to optimise its verification, which makes denial-of-service attacks at that point comparatively cheap. For you as a holder it is nonetheless simply a deadline.

ZIP 2003 in its own words: why the end of v4 transactions closes the Sprout pool

The technical link is explained in one sentence, and it is worth understanding, because it is why no later wallet version can simply solve the problem. The NU5 upgrade introduced the v5 transaction format. That format plainly does not support Sprout. The specification puts it this way: "The v5 transaction format introduced in the NU5 network upgrade does not support Sprout, and so this will have the effect of disabling the ability to spend Sprout funds." As long as the network still accepts v4 transactions alongside it, there is a way out. ZIP 2003 closes exactly that way out.

Formally, the proposal changes a single consensus rule. Since NU5 the rule has been that the transaction version must be 4 or 5. In future that rule is to apply only "[NU5 and NU6, pre-NU7]", and from NU7 version 4 is no longer to be permitted. The change works identically on mainnet and testnet. The author is Daira-Emma Hopwood; the category is Consensus.

There is one caveat you should know, and it is left out of many short reports: ZIP 2003 still carries the status Draft, and the reference implementation is marked "TBD" in the specification. This is not settled yet. According to Cointelegraph, the Zcash project intends to decide on October 20, 2026 whether the targeted mainnet activation on November 5 will actually take place. You should act now regardless, and the reason is further down, in the section on zcashd.

Are my ZEC burned? What really happens to funds in the Sprout pool

This is where the most common misunderstanding sits, and the answer is more cheerful than the headlines suggest. Nothing is burned. The specification says explicitly that it is not intended to unissue, burn or permanently strand Sprout funds: "It is not proposed in this ZIP to unissue, burn, or otherwise make Sprout funds permanently unavailable." The amounts remain issued and in circulation for accounting purposes. For the planned Network Sustainability Mechanism, too, the Sprout value pool is explicitly not counted towards the "Money Reserve".

What is lost is the ability to move the balance. The door could in theory be reopened by permitting v4 transactions again or by creating a dedicated recovery mechanism. But the specification itself does not rely on that; it states the call to action unambiguously: "since it is possible the ability to spend Sprout funds will never be re-enabled, holders of these funds should move them out of the Sprout pool without delay."

In practice, then, you should treat this as a final deadline. A later recovery effort would be a political decision by the Zcash community that nobody has promised you, and it would depend on developer capacity that is currently being invested in the opposite direction.

zc, zs and t1: how to spot a Sprout address in your wallet

The check takes a minute once you can reach your old addresses, because the prefixes are unambiguous. The official Zcash documentation describes the types as follows:

• Begins with zc — a shielded Sprout address, the legacy type. This is the case at issue here. Such addresses are conspicuously long; the example in the documentation runs to well over eighty characters.
• Begins with zs — a shielded Sapling address, introduced with the Sapling upgrade. Not affected by ZIP 2003.
• Begins with t1 or t3 — a transparent address, technically comparable to a Bitcoin address and without privacy properties. Likewise not affected.
• Begins with u1 — a unified address, the newer combined type used by modern wallets. Likewise not affected.

A second point from the same documentation matters at least as much in practice and is mentioned almost nowhere: HD support is not enabled for Sprout addresses or for transparent addresses. With Sapling the entire set of addresses can be restored from a master seed; with Sprout it cannot. So anyone who only has a recovery phrase on paper but has lost or overwritten the old wallet file can no longer reach a Sprout balance. The file itself is the backup. If you still have it, copy it before you do anything else, and put the copy on a second medium.

It is also useful to know that Sprout supports incoming viewing keys only. You may therefore be able to see incoming payments without that implying any ability to spend. A visible balance is no proof that you hold the key to spend it.

Why the retirement of zcashd is the harder deadline than November 5

This is the point that determines your window, and it appears in ZIP 2003 as a subordinate clause rather than a headline. The zcashd software is the only maintained application that still provides wallet functionality for Sprout at all, and its discontinuation is explicitly planned for before NU7. In the wording: "The deprecation of zcashd, planned to be in advance of NU7, will also remove the only maintained software that still provides wallet functionality for Sprout, which would in any case make it impractical to move funds out of the Sprout pool."

An uncomfortable sequence follows. November 5 is the outer limit at which the network closes the door. The practical limit lies before it, namely on the day the last piece of software disappears with which you can operate that door at all. The specification names no fixed date for it, and that is precisely what makes this awkward: you cannot rely on a calendar entry, only on being early.

The Zcash project has been working for some time on replacing zcashd with the Zebra node implementation and the new Zallet wallet software. For everyday use that is the better foundation. For Sprout holders it means the successors are not meant to carry the old function over at all. If you have a working zcashd installation or a backup of one, that is your most valuable tool right now.

The zcashd migration tool: how z_setmigration works

A migration tool has been built into zcashd since version 2.0.5-2, and the documentation explicitly recommends using it instead of migrating by hand. The reason is privacy, not convenience, and it leads to a quirk that matters in a moment.

The background: zcashd's ordinary payment commands, z_sendmany and z_mergetoaddress, forbid sending directly from a Sprout address to a Sapling address. Anyone who wants to take that route by hand has to use a transparent address as a staging post, and in doing so the amount becomes publicly visible and stays linked to that transparent address. At the consensus level a direct transition is possible, but even then the amount passes through the transparent value pool and becomes visible. Because that is not obvious to users, the function was deliberately kept out of the standard commands and moved into a tool of its own, whose design is set out in ZIP 308.

The tool is controlled by two commands. zcash-cli z_setmigration true switches it on, zcash-cli z_setmigration false switches it off again. You read the progress with z_getmigrationstatus. By default the destination is the first Sapling address derived from your wallet's master seed; if you want a different one, you enter it as -migrationdestaddress in the zcash.conf file before starting. The tool consolidates all Sprout addresses in the wallet onto a single Sapling destination address.

Why the migration takes weeks and is not done in one evening

This is where most people underestimate the deadline. The tool does not send your balance in one transaction; it deliberately spreads it out. According to the documentation it creates at most five transactions each time the blockchain reaches an interval of 500 blocks, with the amounts randomly distributed. That way your move disappears into the crowd of everyone else's moves happening at the same time. The process only ends once the wallet's Sprout balance falls below 0.01 ZEC.

Work that through once and the timing problem becomes clear. At the current target of 75 seconds per block, 500 blocks come to about ten and a half hours — that is a simple multiplication of block time by interval size, not a figure from the project. Per interval, at most five part-transfers are possible. How many intervals you need depends on how many individual notes make up your balance. With a holding grown over years, that can easily turn into several days or weeks.

On top of that comes a condition that often fails in practice: the node has to keep running until all funds have been transferred. A laptop you close in between extends the whole thing accordingly. So anyone who starts only in late October can do everything right and still be too late. The clock that counts is not the one running to November 5, but the one running to the end of your own migration. And if you intend to dispose of the holdings anyway, settle early which crypto trading venue that should run through, rather than picking the first available one under time pressure at the end.

Which dates in the NU7 timetable matter for you

So that you can place the reports of the coming weeks, here are the dates on the table as things stand. Two of them are decision dates; one is the event itself:

1. October 20, 2026 — the decision. According to Cointelegraph, the project intends to settle on that day whether mainnet activation takes place as targeted. Until then ZIP 2003 remains a draft.
2. November 5, 2026 — the targeted activation of NU7 on mainnet. From that point v4 transactions are to be invalid, and with them the ability to spend in the Sprout pool ends.
3. No fixed date: the discontinuation of zcashd, planned per the specification for before NU7. For Sprout holders this is the date that really counts, and it is the only one of the three you cannot look up in a calendar.

Besides the Sprout question, NU7 brings further changes that affect all ZEC holders, among them a markedly shorter target block time of 25 seconds instead of 75. What else this upgrade changes, and who actually has to do something about it, we set out in our overview of the NU7 upgrade on November 5. One qualification on our own account: that piece says holders of ZEC need not move anything. For Sapling, Orchard and transparent holdings that is correct. For Sprout funds, ZIP 2003 says the opposite, and this text is the addition to it.

Holding period and tax: what the move out of the Sprout pool triggers in Germany

A transfer between addresses that belong to you is, on the reading customary in Germany, not a disposal. Simply shifting funds out of the Sprout pool into your own Sapling address therefore does not in itself trigger a taxable event, and the original acquisition date remains the relevant one. The one-year holding period under Section 23(1) sentence 1 no. 2 of the Income Tax Act thus continues to run and does not start afresh. With ZEC untouched since 2016 or 2017 it has long since expired in any case.

The authority for the treatment of crypto-assets in Germany is the Federal Ministry of Finance circular on individual questions of the income tax treatment of crypto-assets of March 6, 2025, which updates the earlier 2022 version. Two things are still worth observing. First, document the move cleanly, meaning date, amount, source and destination address, because otherwise you will struggle to show the tax office that this was a transfer and not a sale. With Sprout that is particularly delicate, because shielded transactions by their nature leave little public evidence; your own wallet records are then your proof. Second, a migration in which the amount passes through the transparent value pool remains a transfer for tax purposes, even though it becomes visible on chain.

If, on the other hand, you sell in the course of the exercise, or swap ZEC for another cryptocurrency, that very much is a disposal with all the consequences. Anyone holding several tranches of differing age should work that through beforehand. Tools that handle exactly this allocation exist as a category of their own; the comparison is linked below. This section is a general orientation and does not replace tax advice in an individual case.

Where to put the ZEC after migration: Sapling wallet, hardware wallet or exchange

The migration tool first brings your balance onto a Sapling address in your own wallet. That settles the deadline and gives you time for the second decision. In principle three routes are open to you, and which one fits depends on what you intend to do with the holdings.

If you want to stay shielded, a current Zcash wallet with Sapling or Orchard support is the obvious place. The same lesson applies here that you have just learned, though: Sapling and Orchard are not built for eternity either, and the project has already shown that it retires old pools. How a migration between newer pools works, and how to tell whether your balance still has to move, we have already described using the Orchard pool and its turnstile as the example.

If your concern is above all secure long-term custody, there is much to be said for a hardware device, provided it supports ZEC in the address form you want. Check that before buying rather than after, because support for shielded addresses is considerably rarer among hardware wallets than support for transparent addresses. And if you intend to sell or actively trade the holdings anyway, an exchange is the easier place, with the familiar drawback that the keys are then no longer with you.

Beware of wallet recovery offers: how to spot dubious help

Whenever a deadline goes through the trade press, offers appear that use exactly that deadline as leverage. The pattern is predictable, and you should know it before someone writes to you in a forum or by direct message. Work from these principles:

• Nobody helping you legitimately needs your wallet file, your private keys or your recovery phrase. Anyone asking for them gains full access to your funds with that data, immediately and irreversibly.
• Supposedly official help desks that contact you unprompted are a warning sign. The specification and the documentation are publicly available, and the tools are part of the software.
• Time pressure as a sales argument is a warning sign in itself. The real deadline is real, but it does not change the fact that every step can be checked calmly.
• Paid recovery that demands payment up front is a classic pattern in the crypto space. Reputable providers bill on success and do not work with your keys in the clear.
• Download wallet software exclusively from the project's official source and, where possible, check the file's signature.

If you have found an old wallet file, the safest order is: first make a copy, then work on a machine that holds nothing else of importance, and take the file offline again afterwards.

If your ZEC sit on an exchange: why this mostly does not concern you

For most readers the matter ends here with an all-clear. If you hold ZEC on a trading platform, that platform manages the addresses, and the vast majority of venues moved their holdings out of Sprout long ago, because they have to keep adapting their systems to new protocol versions. In that case you do not have a Sprout address yourself, but a claim against the platform.

What you can still do is a simple check. Look through your records for withdrawal addresses from the years 2016 to 2018 and check whether one of them begins with zc. If you withdrew to your own shielded address back then, there may be a remainder sitting there that you have not thought about in years. Precisely such forgotten remainders are the typical case this whole deadline is about.

Also worth noting: anything you hold in ZEC through an exchange-traded product is untouched by the Sprout question. There you hold not a network balance but a security, and the protocol's pool mechanics do not reach you. How these products work in Germany we have described using the first European Zcash ETP as the example.

Moving Zcash Sprout funds: what to take away

The situation boils down to three steps, and the first costs you five minutes.

1. Check whether you are affected at all. Look through old wallet files, backups and withdrawal records for addresses beginning with zc. If you find none, you are done. If you find one, copy the wallet file onto a second medium immediately, because with Sprout there is no recovery from a seed phrase. Which current application shows you the address form in plain text is set out in the software wallet comparison.
2. Start the migration early, not just before the date. With a working zcashd installation you switch the tool on with z_setmigration true and track progress with z_getmigrationstatus. Reckon with several days, keep the node online throughout, and budget the time until zcashd is discontinued, not the time until November 5. Where the ZEC then go for long-term custody is settled by the hardware wallet comparison.
3. Document the move and plan the tax side with it. Record the date, the amount and the source and destination addresses so the transfer stays provable. If you sell or swap in the same move, check the holding periods of your individual tranches first; suitable tools are listed in the comparison of crypto tax software and portfolio trackers.

You can read the wording of the planned rule yourself at any time: the specification is public as ZIP 2003 "Disallow version 4 transactions", and the operation of the migration tool is described in the official documentation on the Sprout-to-Sapling migration. Both pages are the solid ground, while reports about the upgrade may still change over the coming weeks.

(As of September 23, 2026. This article is not investment advice. Prices and fee structures change; check the terms with the provider before you buy.)

If you hold FET, AGIX or NTX, two things need to be kept apart right now. The tokens in your own wallet were not attacked. What was attacked is the bridge used to convert legacy AGIX holdings into FET. That conversion has been frozen since September 19, and anyone who still has it ahead of them cannot get through at the moment.

On the evening of September 19, 2026, the TokenConversionManagerV3 contract on Ethereum was drained of its entire FET liquidity. In the hours that followed, the same address minted hundreds of millions of new tokens belonging to three further projects. Here is the sequence, with the figures that can be evidenced, and what it means for you as an investor in Germany.

What happened in TokenConversionManagerV3 on September 19

The TokenConversionManagerV3 is the Ethereum side of the official SingularityNET bridge. A token bridge is a contract that collects tokens on one chain and releases a matching amount on the other. This bridge connected Ethereum with Cardano and also served to swap legacy AGIX holdings into FET.

According to the available on-chain analysis, a single call to the conversionIn function went through at 20:21:47 UTC in block 26,013,913, paying out 8,721,530.40 FET to an address controlled by the attacker. Depending on the source, the value is put at roughly $1.53 million to $1.55 million. Less than half an hour later, at 20:50:11 UTC, came the minting of 408.53 million NTX, the token of the NuNet project, with a reported value of about $462,730.

One point matters for the interpretation: no wallet was cracked here and no seed phrase was harvested. The attacker used a valid authorisation signature. Analytics firm SlowMist concludes that the infrastructure's signing keys had been compromised.

Why a single signature was enough: the flaw in conversionIn()

The technical core is quickly told and worth understanding, because it recurs across bridges. On SlowMist's analysis, the conversionIn() function accepted the signature of a single external account as sole authorisation. An external account, an Externally Owned Account or EOA in the jargon, is an ordinary address with exactly one private key behind it. Whoever holds that key is, as far as the contract is concerned, the legitimate counterparty.

A second point is what made the damage large: the counterpart function conversionOut() checks an amount limit, and conversionIn() did not. There was therefore no ceiling to cap any single call. A compromised key plus a missing amount check add up to a drain in one step.

The comparison with earlier cases is close at hand. In the two perp DEX incidents on Arbitrum over the summer, the decisive question was likewise who holds the keys, rather than whether a protocol calls itself decentralised. A single trust assumption is enough to bring an otherwise cleanly built system down in one move.

Unauthorised minting: 408m NTX, 260m AGIX, 53.8m WMTx

On September 20 the incident widened. According to PeckShield, the same address additionally minted 260 million AGIX and 53.838 million WMTx on Ethereum. WMTx is the token of World Mobile Chain; the project has confirmed that WMTx was minted without authorisation via the SingularityNET bridge.

PeckShield put the attacker cluster's holdings at about $16.77 million as of 09:21 UTC on September 20. The breakdown on that analysis: roughly 198.3 million AGIX worth about $14.42 million, 649 Ether worth about $1.67 million, and 33.538 million WMTx worth about $627,350. An analysis by Bitquery the same day, at 17:20 UTC, arrived at roughly 2.3 billion units created without authorisation across AGIX, NTX, CGV and WMTx combined.

The gap between the two figures is not a contradiction but a question of what is being measured. The $16.77 million is a market value at a point in time; the 2.3 billion is a unit count. And a unit count out of nowhere means the same thing for every existing holder: the share their stack represents of total supply has shrunk overnight.

What Fetch.ai halted: AGIX-to-FET conversion and the Ethereum bridge

By its own account, Fetch.ai flipped two switches. First, the conversion of AGIX into FET was paused until further notice. Second, the Ethereum-side bridge was halted as a precaution, alongside the statement that there is no indication its own contract is vulnerable. In coordination with SingularityNET, affected wallets and contracts were disabled.

In practical terms for you: if you still hold legacy AGIX and have been putting off the swap into FET, you cannot execute it at the moment. No date has been given for when the conversion reopens. Anyone who has treated the deadline as open-ended should start watching the process rather than leaving it to sit.

Are you affected? How to check your wallet and exchange in five steps

The honest answer for the large majority is: probably not directly. What is affected in the narrow sense is the bridge liquidity, not your holdings. Even so, there are five things that can be settled in a few minutes.

1. Check what you actually hold. FET, AGIX, NTX, WMTx and CGV are the tokens in question. If none of them is in your stack, the case is a lesson for you rather than an event.
2. Check for open conversions. If you hold AGIX that has not yet been swapped into FET, that route is closed for now.
3. Check the status at your exchange. Trading venues routinely suspend deposits and withdrawals for individual tokens after incidents like this. It appears in the provider's status notice, not in the price window.
4. Revoke old approvals. If you ever granted the bridge contract an unlimited token approval, it deserves a review. That is good practice independently of this incident.
5. Expect phishing now. Every major incident is followed by fake reimbursement forms and supposed support channels. No reputable project will ask you by direct message to enter a seed phrase or connect a wallet for a refund.

FET, NTX and WMTx price reaction: what the numbers show

The prices reacted very differently, and the difference is instructive. FET was trading near $0.18 at the time of the drain and was quoted at $0.172 on September 20, down about 5 percent over 24 hours. For NTX the move was dramatic: the figures range from 65 percent to about 95 percent down, depending on the window and the source, with a reported all-time low of $0.00004075 on September 20. WMTx lost about 43 percent on the same analyses.

The reason for the spread lies in the mechanics. With FET, existing liquidity was withdrawn and supply stayed the same. With NTX, new tokens were created and supply grew abruptly. A drain costs confidence; an unauthorised mint costs confidence and dilutes every existing share on top. That is why smaller tokens are hit harder in such cases than an ecosystem's main asset.

Buying in Germany: FET, MiCA and regulated trading venues

Anyone trading from Germany has bought these tokens through licensed providers since the MiCA transition period expired. MiCA is the EU regulation on markets in crypto-assets; serving customers here requires a CASP licence. In practice that means the choice of trading venues has narrowed and status communication has as a rule become more binding. Which houses hold a licence is set out in our overview of regulated crypto exchanges.

Two things should be kept apart on the buying side. Whether a token is tradable on a regulated exchange says nothing about the security of the bridges its project operates. And suspended deposits or withdrawals are not a sign that your exchange was attacked, but as a rule a precaution while units minted without authorisation may be in circulation.

German tax: holding period, losses and loss offsetting on FET

Under current German law, crypto-assets held privately are private disposal transactions under Section 23 of the Income Tax Act. Three points follow that become practical in this situation.

If you sell at a loss within one year of acquisition, that loss can be used for tax purposes, but only against gains from other private disposal transactions in the same year, against a carry-forward or in a carry-back. If you hold the tokens for more than a year, a gain is tax free, and by the same token the loss is then irrelevant for tax. The exemption threshold for gains from private disposal transactions is 1,000 euros per calendar year; once it is exceeded, the entire gain is taxable.

Anyone now considering realising a loss and buying back shortly afterwards should know the side effects: the repurchase restarts the holding period for the new units. So if you want to buy back in the short term, you are pushing out the point from which a later gain would be tax free again. And regardless of that: document acquisition dates and unit counts cleanly, because the burden of proof is on you.

Custody after a bridge hack: what self-custody really protects

One uncomfortable lesson can be drawn from this incident. A hardware wallet would have protected nobody here who swapped via the bridge, because the target was not the user keys but the infrastructure's signing keys. Self-custody protects your holdings for as long as they sit with you. The moment you hand tokens to someone else's contract, that contract's security level applies, and no longer yours.

In practice: separate holdings you are keeping from holdings you are moving. A hardware wallet for the long-term stack and a separate address for contract interactions cost little effort and limit the damage to what you actually put at risk. For day-to-day interaction a properly set up software wallet is often enough, as long as only small amounts sit there.

Putting bridge risk in context: what this case shows about token bridges

Bridges have been the most vulnerable part of the token landscape for years, and the reason is structural. A bridge has to collect something on one side and release something on the other. In between sits an authority that authorises the process. The narrower that authority, the greater the leverage when it falls. A single signature with no amount cap is the narrowest conceivable end of that scale.

For assessing a project, that means asking a question that rarely appears in the marketing: who may authorise a payout, how many keys are needed for it, and is there a ceiling per transaction? Where the answer is "one key, no cap", that is a risk that exists independently of the quality of the rest of the technology. This is not a statement about the integrity of the people involved, but about architecture.

The question of what comes afterwards matters just as much. Projects able to identify and freeze units minted without authorisation limit the damage. Projects that cannot carry it in circulation permanently. That distinction will be readable off the three affected tokens over the coming weeks.

Fetch.ai exploit check: what to take away

1. Settle your own holdings before you look at the price. Check whether you hold FET, AGIX, NTX, WMTx or CGV, whether a conversion is open on your side, and whether your trading venue has suspended deposits and withdrawals. Where you can trade under a licence in Germany is shown by our comparison of crypto exchanges.
2. Separate your long-term stack from contract interaction. What you intend to hold for years belongs on an address that has granted no approvals to third-party contracts. Which devices cover that is set out in the hardware wallet comparison.
3. Decide on tax deliberately, not in a hurry. Before selling, check whether your units sit inside or outside the one-year period, and what a repurchase does to that period. Clean records of those dates spare you the discussion with the tax office later; tools for it are listed under crypto tax software.

Sources on the incident: the analysis of the mints and the cluster holdings at The Crypto Times, and the account of the compromised signing keys and the official statement at Cryptopolitan.

(As of September 23, 2026. This article is not investment advice. Prices and fee structures change; check the terms with the provider before you buy.)

As of today, September 23, 2026, an exchange-traded product on the LIT token is trading on the Deutsche Börse in Frankfurt: the Bitwise Lighter Staking ETP, ticker BLIT, ISIN DE000A4AV9T5. You buy it through an ordinary securities account, you need neither a wallet nor an account at a crypto exchange, and you pay a total expense ratio of 0.85 percent a year. One point is worth knowing before you open the order screen: although the word staking appears in the product name, no staking income is flowing at present. Bitwise states on its own product page that the LIT holdings behind the product are currently not being staked.

This article sets out what the launch means for investors in Germany: what sits inside the product, what Lighter actually is, what buying through a securities account costs, who holds the tokens, and why the holding period is a different question for an ETP than it is for a directly held token.

Bitwise Lighter Staking ETP: the key facts from ticker to expense ratio

The issuer is Bitwise Europe GmbH, based in Germany. The product carries the ticker BLIT, the ISIN DE000A4AV9T5 and the German security number A4AV9T. It trades in euros on Xetra, the electronic trading venue of the Deutsche Börse. The minimum investment is one unit. The reference is the Kaiko Lighter Reference Rate, a price index on the LIT token.

One point matters for understanding the structure: in legal terms an ETP is a debt security issued by the provider, not ring-fenced fund assets. In a fund, your holding would be legally separated from the company’s own assets should the provider fail. In an ETP, the collateral protects you instead: Bitwise backs the notes with LIT tokens physically and in full. Both structures can work, but they work differently, and the distinction is one of the things a product name does not reveal.

The key facts at a glance:

• Name: Bitwise Lighter Staking ETP
• Ticker / ISIN / WKN: BLIT / DE000A4AV9T5 / A4AV9T
• Issuer: Bitwise Europe GmbH, Germany
• Venue: Deutsche Börse Xetra, trading currency euro
• Launch: September 23, 2026
• Total expense ratio: 0.85 percent a year
• Reference index: Kaiko Lighter Reference Rate
• Collateral: 100 percent physically backed with LIT tokens
• Custodian: BitGo Europe GmbH, cold storage

Why staking is in the name while no staking income is flowing yet

Staking means locking tokens in a blockchain network, for which the protocol pays an ongoing reward. That reward is exactly what BLIT is meant to pass on to investors later: according to the Bitwise announcement, the product is designed so that staking income is earned on the Lighter network and credited daily to the individual ETP units.

The conditional here is no accident. On its product page, Bitwise explicitly notes that the Bitwise Lighter Staking ETP does not currently stake its LIT holdings. The announcement adds that the staking function is intended to start once assets under management reach a sufficient size. The company gives no date for that.

For you this simply means that anyone buying BLIT today is buying pure price exposure to the LIT token for now, and paying 0.85 percent a year for it. The yield component the product is named after is an announcement, not a running feature. If the staking income were the reason for your purchase, that is an argument for waiting until it starts and checking the product page again from time to time.

What Lighter is: perpetual futures on Apple, Amazon and Tesla around the clock

Behind the underlying sits a trading venue that is still little known in Germany. Lighter is a decentralised derivatives platform settled entirely on the blockchain. Alongside cryptocurrencies, it also lists large equities as perpetual futures contracts, among them Apple, Amazon and Tesla.

A perpetual future, or perp, is a futures contract without an expiry date: it runs indefinitely for as long as the position is held and the margin is served. It is tied to the spot price through the funding rate, a payment exchanged between the long and the short side. The practical difference from conventional brokerage lies in the trading hours: a share trades on its home exchange only during market hours, while a perp on it can be traded around the clock.

Lighter says it charges retail clients no trading fees, earning instead through market making, liquidations and its own treasury. Technically the platform relies on zero-knowledge proofs. Founder and chief executive Vladimir Novakovski is quoted in the announcement as saying that Lighter enables institutional perpetual trading fully on-chain and delivers fair, verifiable execution without giving up speed. That is the provider’s account, not a verified property.

In the announcement, Bitwise explicitly positions Lighter as a fast-growing challenger to Hyperliquid, currently the best-known name in this product class. For how this market segment is set up overall, which platforms can be used from Germany, and how to tell a sound one from a risky one, see our overview of the best perp DEX platforms.

How to buy BLIT through your securities account, and what can block the trade

The decisive advantage of the ETP wrapper is the route in. Because BLIT is a security with an ISIN listed on a German exchange, the purchase works exactly as it does for a share: open your account, put the ISIN into the search field, select Xetra as the venue, place the order. You need no wallet, no seed phrase and no registration at a crypto exchange, and the position appears in the same portfolio overview as your other securities.

Two things can still block the trade. First, not every bank offers every ETP: some branch banks and individual direct banks exclude crypto ETPs across the board, or release them only after a separate opt-in. The most reliable way to see whether your provider carries BLIT is whether the ISIN returns a tradable result in the securities search. Second, a freshly listed product is rarely liquid on day one. Until regular trading settles in, the spread between the bid and the offer can be noticeable.

In practice that means using a limit order rather than a market order, and setting the limit deliberately instead of being filled at any price. Trade within Xetra hours of 9:00 to 17:30 where possible, when the market makers are active. The LIT token itself trades around the clock; the ETP does not, and the exchange price catches up with overnight moves only at the open.

The reason the route runs through an ETP rather than a spot ETF lies in European fund regulation: a UCITS fund has to be diversified and therefore cannot track a single crypto underlying. For which exchange-traded crypto products are available in Germany and how they differ, see our guide to crypto ETFs and ETPs in Germany.

A 0.85 percent expense ratio: what the product actually costs you a year

The total expense ratio, usually shortened to TER, is the annual management fee taken continuously from the product’s assets. It is not billed separately; it reduces the value of your unit on a daily pro-rata basis. For BLIT it is 0.85 percent a year.

In numbers: on 5,000 euros invested that is roughly 42.50 euros a year, on 10,000 euros roughly 85 euros, in each case measured against the market value and therefore variable. On top come your broker’s order fees on the way in and out, plus the trading spread. There is no front-end load.

You give up those costs in exchange for something harder to put a number on: you do not have to secure private keys, manage a wallet backup or arrange access to a venue that lists the LIT token. Holding LIT directly costs no ongoing fee, but custody is then your own responsibility. Whether 0.85 percent a year is a fair price for that convenience depends on how much you invest and for how long; over a long holding period the ratio adds up noticeably.

Cold storage at BitGo Europe: who actually holds the LIT tokens

Custody of the tokens behind the product sits with BitGo Europe GmbH, and in cold storage: the private keys are kept offline, separated from the internet, which closes off the attack route over the network. This is the industry standard for institutional custody, and the reason you do not have to organise your own wallet security with an ETP.

The flip side: you never hold tokens yourself at any point. What sits in your account is a collateralised debt security, not LIT. According to the product documents, units can in principle be redeemed in kind, meaning you receive the underlying LIT, or in cash where delivery in cryptocurrency is not permitted for regulatory reasons. In practice this route is usually handled by authorised participants, not by retail investors through their custodian bank.

Assessing the risk therefore still requires a double look: at the creditworthiness and diligence of the issuer, and at the quality of the collateral. Full physical backing exists for precisely that purpose. It does not, however, replace the legal separation a fund would bring with it.

Holding period and tax: why an ETP is not certain to be treated like the token

This is where investors in Germany most often go wrong. For a directly held token the legal position is settled: cryptocurrencies count as other economic assets within the meaning of section 23 of the German Income Tax Act, and the Federal Fiscal Court has confirmed the tax authorities’ view. After a holding period of more than one year, a disposal gain is tax-free.

For a crypto ETP that read-across is precisely not automatic. If section 20 of the Income Tax Act applies instead, because the note is classified as a capital claim, withholding tax of 25 percent plus the solidarity surcharge and, where applicable, church tax falls due, regardless of the holding period. The argument for the more favourable treatment under section 23 rests on the full physical backing and the claim to delivery of the underlying. The question has not been settled conclusively for crypto ETPs; the tax literature continues to judge it differently.

Three things follow in practice. First, do not carry the one-year logic over from the direct investment to the ETP without checking. Second, document the purchase date, the number of units and the price from the outset, because you need those details under either reading. Third, settle the classification for your own case with a tax adviser before you sell, not afterwards. Once staking income actually starts to flow, a second question is added, namely how the daily credits are to be treated at ETP level. That one cannot be answered today, because the product is not yet staking.

Slashing, lock-ups and liquidity: the risks Bitwise names itself

The product documents set the risks out openly, and they are worth a look of their own. They name price swings, liquidity risk, custody risk, regulatory risk, lock-up periods in staking, slashing risk and risks arising from changes to the underlying protocol.

Slashing is a penalty a blockchain network imposes on a validator that breaches its duties, through downtime or contradictory attestations for example. Part of the locked tokens is withheld in the process. This risk only reaches you once the product actually stakes, but it belongs in the assessment, because staking is exactly what has been announced. The same applies to lock-up periods: staked tokens cannot be moved freely again straight away, which can make redemption harder in a hectic market.

The most tangible risk from today’s vantage point is a different one: LIT is a young token with a comparatively thin market. The liquidity of an ETP can never be better than that of its underlying. If trading in the token becomes tight, the spread in the exchange price of the ETP widens too, and it does so precisely when many want to sell at once. That is not a design flaw but a property of niche assets.

ETP or LIT directly: when each wrapper suits you

Both routes lead to the same underlying, and neither is generally the better one. They differ in what they take off your hands and what they load onto them.

In favour of the ETP is access: a familiar securities account, an ISIN, settlement through your own bank, plus professional custody in cold storage and a counterparty based in Germany and subject to a prospectus regime. Anyone who could not otherwise buy LIT at all, because no accessible venue lists the token, gets a route in for the first time.

Against the ETP are the ongoing fee of 0.85 percent, the unsettled tax classification and the fact that the staking yield it is named after does not yet exist. Holding the token directly costs no management fee, allows you to stake yourself and leaves you on firmer ground on the holding period, but the key management and the risk of ending up at an unsuitable venue are then yours.

A sober rule of thumb: the larger the intended position and the longer the horizon, the more the fee and the tax question weigh. The smaller the position and the more you value settlement in a familiar account, the more the ETP wrapper carries.

Checking the Bitwise Lighter Staking ETP: what to take away

1. First establish whether your account trades the note at all. Enter the ISIN DE000A4AV9T5 in the securities search and check whether Xetra is offered as a venue. If your provider does not carry crypto ETPs, it is worth looking at alternatives: our overview of the best crypto brokers shows which providers list exchange-traded crypto products and what trading costs there.
2. Open the tax file before you buy, not in the following year. Record the purchase date, the number of units, the price and the fees, because the classification of the ETP between sections 20 and 23 of the Income Tax Act is not conclusively settled and you need the same evidence either way. For what records this cleanly and automatically, see our overview of crypto tax tools and portfolio trackers.
3. Decide deliberately whether to wait for the staking yield. Today you pay 0.85 percent a year for pure price exposure, because the product does not yet stake. If running income is what you are after, compare that with what direct staking currently pays: our overview of the best staking platforms sets out the terms and the respective lock-up periods.

Sources: the Bitwise announcement of the Lighter Staking ETP launch of September 23, 2026 and the product page for the Bitwise Lighter Staking ETP, with fees, custody and a note on the current staking status.

(As of September 23, 2026. This article is not investment advice. Prices and fee structures change; check the terms with the provider before you buy.)

Blockchain.com and NYSE Group signed a preliminary agreement to give the crypto exchange's users access to tokenized U.S. stocks and ETFs, pending regulatory approval.

A Visa survey found U.S. willingness to use stablecoins for cross-border transfers rises from 36% to 56% when paired with hypothetical bank-level fraud protection and deposit insurance.

A CME futures listing and a fresh Grayscale ETF filing sent Bitcoin's two biggest forks soaring, even as the flagship coin cooled off its seven-month high.

The world's largest asset manager argues that autonomous AI agents buying data, paying for services, and renting computing power could quietly become one of the biggest forces pushing money into crypto.

Crypto majors continue their climb while alt leaders hit new ATHs. What’s driving the recent run up?

Zcash cofounder Eli Ben-Sasson names two features that could eventually become baseline requirements across the crypto industry.

A 3,049% liquidation imbalance slams overheated BTC, XRP, and ETH buyers as global markets pivot to $101 Brent oil.

The total value of assets on the Solana blockchain has climbed to over $4.6 billion amid growing adoption as Circle leads the pack.

Cardano's Genesis block was created on September 23, 2017, marking the beginning of the network.

Shiba Inu coin finishes its most bullish Q3 in history, paving the way for October’s hidden 167% historical price pattern.

Key Takeaways

• ONDS shares showed modest gains Wednesday following a 4.6% increase to $7.72 on Tuesday.
• Three defense technology companies were purchased for a combined $56 million.
• New capabilities include drone detection systems, secure battlefield communications, and satellite-independent navigation.
• Performance-based earnout payments could reach an additional $32 million by 2028.
• Significant stock issuance and resale registrations pose potential dilution concerns for shareholders.

Ondas (ONDS) shares registered modest gains Wednesday following Tuesday’s close at $7.72, representing a 4.6% increase. The wireless technology company revealed it has finalized the purchase of three specialized defense firms for a total consideration of $56 million.

Ondas Holdings Inc., ONDS

The trio of acquisitions—Insignito, Ottopia Defense, and Caribou Labs—are designed to strengthen Ondas’ autonomous defense capabilities spanning drone identification, resilient battlefield communications, and navigation systems that function without GPS availability.

The purchase price of $56 million will be settled through a combination of cash and company equity. Additional performance-based payments totaling up to $32 million could be triggered if the acquired entities achieve specified milestones between now and 2028.

Strategic Acquisitions Strengthen Defense Technology Portfolio

Insignito brings passive acoustic detection capabilities specifically engineered to identify and monitor unmanned aerial vehicles through their acoustic profiles. The company’s DUMBO platform has seen deployment in active combat zones and excels at detecting smaller first-person-view drones and low-flying craft that evade conventional radar systems.

Ottopia Defense specializes in communications infrastructure and remote operation software for unmanned platforms. The technology enables reliable transmission of video feeds, telemetry data, and control commands across networks with limited bandwidth or unstable connectivity, ensuring operators maintain effective control in challenging operational conditions.

Caribou Labs delivers resilient positioning and communications technology designed for scenarios where GPS signals are compromised or completely unavailable. The company’s solutions are currently operational in active conflict theaters and are positioned to integrate seamlessly with Ondas‘ existing aerial, ground-based, and command infrastructure.

According to company leadership, these acquisitions advance its comprehensive “Systems-of-Systems” approach by merging detection, connectivity, positioning, and autonomous capabilities into unified defense offerings.

Management emphasized that the $56 million transaction value represents under three times the projected combined 2027 revenues for the three businesses. However, this multiple is calculated using Ondas’ internal projections rather than independently verified financial forecasts.

Equity Issuance Raises Shareholder Dilution Concerns

The transactions involve substantial new stock creation. Ondas has authorized approximately 2.98 million restricted stock units plus options covering an additional 80,000 shares for 37 employees transitioning from the acquired companies.

A companion Securities and Exchange Commission filing registered roughly 7.82 million ONDS shares for potential resale by stakeholders associated with the Insignito, Caribou Labs, and Ottopia transactions. The company will not receive any proceeds from these secondary sales.

While the resale registration represents a relatively small fraction of the approximately 582 million outstanding ONDS shares, it nevertheless introduces additional selling pressure into the market. Contractual restrictions limit the pace at which acquisition-related shareholders can liquidate their positions.

Primary investment concerns center on successful integration, shareholder dilution, and operational execution. Ondas must demonstrate that the newly acquired technologies can deliver projected revenues and create sufficient synergies with existing operations to validate the acquisition costs.

Share price volatility remains a consideration. Although ONDS closed Tuesday at $7.72 following a 4.6% gain, the stock continues trading significantly below its 52-week peak above $15.

The completed acquisitions represent the most significant near-term catalyst for the company. With all three transactions finalized, Ondas is transitioning to the integration phase while the market evaluates whether enhanced defense capabilities offset concerns about earnout obligations and equity-based transaction financing.

The post Ondas (ONDS) Stock Climbs on $56M Triple Defense Technology Acquisition appeared first on Blockonomi.

Key Highlights

• Apple shares reached an all-time peak of $345.34 during Tuesday’s session.
• AAPL declined approximately 0.4% on Wednesday, trading around $338.50.
• Robust initial reception for the iPhone 18 series has fueled the recent upward momentum.
• The company’s foldable device, the $1,999 iPhone Duo, arrives in late October.
• Stock valuation and market expectations have climbed following a roughly 25% advance this year.

Apple (AAPL) shares declined approximately 0.4% during Wednesday’s trading session, hovering near $338.50 after establishing a new all-time high of $345.34 the previous day. The stock concluded Tuesday at $339.75 following its brief venture above the $345 threshold.

Apple Inc., AAPL

The modest retreat comes on the heels of a powerful September surge primarily connected to the tech giant’s newest product launches. Shares have advanced approximately 25% year-to-date in 2026, with significant gains accumulating since the company’s September product unveiling.

No significant negative corporate development appears responsible for Wednesday’s downward movement. The decline seems more characteristic of a natural consolidation after achieving a fresh milestone.

Strong iPhone 18 Reception Fuels Momentum

Initial consumer response to the iPhone 18 portfolio has exceeded several analyst projections. Evercore ISI reported that its comprehensive survey of nearly 4,000 American consumers indicated a more robust upgrade trend than anticipated.

The research revealed that 53% of survey participants planning device upgrades favored either the iPhone 18 Pro or Pro Max variants. Approximately 32% specifically indicated preference for the Pro Max model, representing an increase from 29% in the previous year’s survey.

Evercore also identifies elevated pricing as a prospective revenue enhancement factor. The research firm projects that average selling prices could increase by roughly 28% as consumers gravitate toward premium configurations and expanded storage capacities.

Apple’s upcoming foldable device, the iPhone Duo, represents an additional growth driver. Priced from $1,999, the innovative device transforms from a 5.4-inch exterior display into a spacious 7.6-inch screen.

The Duo is scheduled to begin shipping to customers in late October. Evercore’s consumer research indicated that 14% of participants expressed purchase interest, though the firm anticipates demand could strengthen once the device becomes available for hands-on evaluation at retail locations.

Demand for standard iPhone 18 models also appears solid. Evercore analyst Amit Daryanani noted that initial week demand remained strong despite certain supply limitations.

Premium Valuation Sparks Questions

Apple’s impressive rally has elevated its market capitalization to nearly $5 trillion. The stock recently commanded a price-to-earnings multiple of almost 39, substantially higher than levels observed throughout much of recent years.

This elevated valuation provides limited cushion should iPhone demand weaken or the Duo fail to trigger the anticipated upgrade wave. Additional concerns include supply-chain vulnerabilities, China market exposure, and potentially decelerating services segment growth.

Analyst sentiment remains divided despite recent positive momentum. Evercore recently increased its price target to $380, while certain other analysts maintain projections below current trading levels.

The company’s most recent quarterly results continue supporting the bullish narrative. Revenue climbed 16.4% year-over-year to $109.42 billion, while earnings of $2.02 per share surpassed the consensus forecast of $1.89.

Currently, the latest market action displays Apple experiencing a modest pullback following Tuesday’s milestone. The primary driver behind the recent advance remains stronger-than-expected early iPhone 18 demand, with the iPhone Duo debut representing the next significant hardware evaluation point.

The post Apple (AAPL) Stock Retreats Following Record-Breaking Peak Driven by iPhone Momentum appeared first on Blockonomi.

TLDR

• Major US equity indexes declined Wednesday amid a surge in government bond yields.
• The benchmark 10-year Treasury yield broke above 5%, marking its highest point in seventeen years.
• Technology shares experienced significant selling pressure following consecutive record closes for the Nasdaq.
• Market participants are focused on Thursday’s scheduled summit between President Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping.
• Crude oil prices continued their ascent as geopolitical tensions involving Iran and inflation worries persisted.

US stocks experienced losses Wednesday as government bond yields surged dramatically, creating headwinds for technology companies while market participants anticipated the upcoming meeting between President Donald Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping.

The Dow Jones Industrial Average retreated approximately 0.3%, while the S&P 500 shed roughly 0.4%. The Nasdaq Composite declined around 0.8% following its achievement of back-to-back all-time highs during the previous sessions.

Benchmark Treasury Yield Breaches Critical 5% Level

The primary source of market pressure originated from fixed-income markets. The 10-year Treasury yield advanced past 5.05%, representing its most elevated reading since 2007, after crossing back above the psychologically significant 5% threshold.

Elevated yields typically create substantial headwinds for growth-oriented and technology equities because they diminish the calculated present value of anticipated future profits. The upward movement occurred as market participants continued evaluating inflationary risks connected to energy commodity prices and the continuing strength of the US economic environment.

S&P Global’s preliminary US composite PMI indicated business activity expansion exceeded forecasts, while simultaneously highlighting elevated input costs associated with energy expenses. This data strengthened concerns that inflationary pressures could prove challenging to contain.

Crude oil prices amplified these concerns. Brent crude advanced beyond $101 per barrel, while West Texas Intermediate approached $92 following recent volatility related to the conflict in Iran and expectations for potential diplomatic progress.

Trump-Xi Summit Commands Market Attention

Financial markets are positioning themselves for Thursday’s scheduled dialogue between Trump and Xi in Washington. Reuters has indicated that discussions will likely encompass trade relations, rare earth element supplies, artificial intelligence development, Taiwan issues, and Iran diplomacy.

Xi is conducting his US visit from September 23 through September 25, representing his first American state visit in several years. Market participants generally aren’t anticipating comprehensive breakthrough agreements, but any statements regarding tariff policies, semiconductor export restrictions, or rare earth mineral trade could significantly impact technology and chip manufacturing equities.

Artificial intelligence topics will receive particularly intense scrutiny following competition between Washington and Beijing becoming a defining element of their economic relationship. Reuters noted that investors maintain exposure to AI development ecosystems in both nations despite mounting political tensions and expanding technology transfer limitations.

Iran continues to factor into market calculations. Trump indicated that US-Iran negotiations were progressing and expressed optimism that an eventual settlement could materialize, though geopolitical risk factors remain substantially elevated.

For market participants, the immediate market trajectory may hinge less on Wednesday’s equity declines than on whether yields maintain levels above 5%, oil prices remain at elevated levels, and Thursday’s Trump-Xi discussions yield any unanticipated policy announcements.

The post Markets Tumble as Treasury Yields Break Through 5% Barrier appeared first on Blockonomi.

Key Highlights

• Micron shares dipped approximately 0.3% on Wednesday, trading around $1,093.
• Citi elevated its price objective from $1,150 to $1,300.
• Analysts anticipate robust DRAM and NAND price momentum will bolster financial performance.
• The company’s fiscal Q4 earnings announcement is scheduled for September 30.
• SEMICON West in October may serve as an additional tailwind for memory market sentiment.

Micron Technology (MU) shares experienced a modest 0.3% decline Wednesday, hovering near $1,093 after settling at $1,096.16 the previous session. This minor retreat came after four consecutive sessions of gains, including a notable 5% surge on Tuesday.

Micron Technology, Inc., MU

Citi upgraded its price objective for Micron to $1,300 from its previous $1,150 mark, sustaining an optimistic stance on the memory semiconductor manufacturer. This revised forecast suggests approximately 19% potential appreciation from Tuesday’s close.

Analysts at the financial institution anticipate Micron will capitalize on better-than-projected memory chip valuations alongside persistent artificial intelligence-fueled demand. Citi further projects that capacity limitations may maintain tightness across both DRAM and NAND sectors through 2027.

Analyst Projections Rise Before Quarterly Report

Citi adjusted its financial projections for Micron’s August and November reporting periods following an upward revision to blended DRAM pricing assumptions. The firm currently anticipates fiscal fourth-quarter revenue reaching approximately $51 billion with earnings of $31.45 per share, surpassing prevailing market consensus.

Micron has confirmed its fiscal fourth-quarter financial release for September 30. This announcement represents the company’s nearest significant market-moving event, arriving roughly fourteen days ahead of SEMICON West.

Citi projects both reported figures and forward guidance will exceed current market expectations. These remain analyst projections rather than official company forecasts, meaning market participants will closely monitor whether Micron’s actual pricing dynamics and profitability metrics align with the bank’s assumptions.

Memory chip valuation trends form the cornerstone of this bullish perspective. Citi projects blended DRAM average selling prices will climb 20% sequentially in the present period, followed by an additional 13% increase in the subsequent quarter, while NAND pricing advances 34% initially, then 15%.

These forecasts reflect a marketplace where artificial intelligence infrastructure deployment continues absorbing substantial volumes of high-performance memory products. Citi additionally anticipates enterprise solid-state drive demand linked to AI inference workloads will help counterbalance softer consumer NAND activity.

Industry Conference May Underscore Capacity Limitations

Citi identifies SEMICON West as an additional potential catalyst for Micron’s valuation. The industry gathering takes place October 13-15 in San Francisco, assembling semiconductor equipment vendors, materials providers and fabrication companies.

Analysts expect equipment manufacturers at the conference to address shortages affecting various components including DRAM, multilayer ceramic capacitors, printed circuit boards and optical elements. These bottlenecks could restrict how rapidly memory producers expand production capacity.

Citi projects DRAM and NAND capacity expansion may hold steady in the low-20% range. Should demand continue outpacing this growth trajectory, memory valuations could sustain elevated levels into the coming year, with Citi forecasting peak pricing around the second quarter of 2027.

Micron has already delivered substantial returns throughout 2026, positioning the stock vulnerable to any negative surprises. MU currently trades near $1,100 after reaching a 52-week peak of $1,255, with Tuesday’s 5% advance pushing market capitalization above $1.2 trillion.

Primary downside considerations include a more rapid deterioration in memory pricing than anticipated, weakening artificial intelligence expenditures, accelerated capacity additions and lofty expectations that have climbed alongside the stock price. Citi’s $1,300 objective also provides reduced upside potential compared to earlier stages of the rally should earnings disappoint.

Presently, MU is consolidating following four consecutive positive sessions. The next confirmed milestone is Micron’s September 30 earnings disclosure, followed by SEMICON West spanning October 13-15, where Citi anticipates industry dialogue will validate the constrained memory supply environment.

The post Micron Technology (MU) Target Lifted to $1,300 by Citi on Memory Market Strength appeared first on Blockonomi.

Key Takeaways

• HSBC maintains its strongest possible overweight allocation to global stocks.
• U.S. and Asian technology sectors receive the bank’s highest conviction ratings.
• The firm prioritizes U.S. tech investments over small-cap stocks while supporting European financials.
• The Nasdaq 100 reached an all-time closing high on Tuesday before retreating Wednesday.
• Elevated energy costs, rising yields, and elevated tech multiples pose significant challenges.

HSBC continues to advocate for its most aggressive positioning in global equities, recommending that investors maintain substantial exposure to the technology sector. Max Kettner, the bank’s chief multi-asset strategist, confirmed that HSBC remains at “maximum overweight” on stocks, with particular emphasis on U.S. and Asian technology companies.

The recommendation arrives as tech shares experienced a pause on Wednesday. The Nasdaq Composite dipped approximately 0.1% at the opening bell amid climbing oil prices and ascending Treasury yields, while the S&P 500 traded near unchanged levels.

This follows robust performance earlier in the week. The Nasdaq 100 surged 2.8% on Monday and added another 0.8% on Tuesday, achieving a record closing level of 30,732.40, buoyed by renewed confidence in artificial intelligence investment and revenue generation potential.

Technology Remains HSBC’s Primary Focus

HSBC expresses clear preference for U.S. and Asian technology equities and ranks American tech higher than small-capitalization companies. The banking institution also maintains constructive views on European financial stocks and holds modest overweight positions in emerging-market and high-yield fixed income.

Kettner contends that macroeconomic indicators have demonstrated resilience despite elevated energy costs and higher bond yields. According to HSBC’s assessment, these pressures have already been reflected in equity and credit market pricing, diminishing the likelihood that investors are completely overlooking these factors.

Technology continues to represent the bank’s most confident equity call. The sector has recaptured positive momentum following Monday’s AI-driven rally, with semiconductor manufacturers and Meta providing significant upward thrust.

Tuesday delivered another milestone for the Nasdaq as market participants remained focused on AI implementation, strengthening corporate profitability, and expectations for enhanced returns from infrastructure investments.

HSBC’s current allocation therefore presumes the recent AI-fueled advance has additional upside rather than marking its conclusion.

The institution holds more cautious views on certain fixed-income segments. HSBC maintains underweight stances on eurozone sovereign debt and Japanese government bonds, particularly at extended durations, while upgrading U.K. gilts to overweight.

Energy Prices, Interest Rates, and Political Factors May Dictate Future Direction

HSBC identifies energy market developments as a potential market catalyst. Kettner highlighted positive oil-supply news, including Saudi Arabia’s East-West pipeline infrastructure, as factors that could alleviate inflationary pressures and reduce financial market stress.

The bank also addressed November’s U.S. midterm elections. Kettner noted that shifting dynamics in election prediction markets might shape expectations for American policy direction, though he emphasized this represents HSBC’s market analysis rather than an electoral forecast.

Markets continue confronting tangible risks. Oil prices advanced again on Wednesday, while elevated Treasury yields applied pressure on equities, particularly interest-rate-sensitive technology names.

Valuation presents another area of concern following the Nasdaq’s swift rebound. Robust earnings performance would need to persist in justifying current price levels, especially if financing costs remain elevated or excitement surrounding AI capital expenditure diminishes.

Nevertheless, HSBC remains positioned for additional equity market appreciation. Its current asset allocation maintains stocks at maximum overweight, with technology serving as the cornerstone of the strategy despite Wednesday’s moderate retreat.

The post HSBC Maintains Maximum Bullish Stance on Equities with Tech as Leading Choice appeared first on Blockonomi.

The primary cryptocurrency has climbed roughly 15% over the past week and briefly reached an eight-month high above $87,000. As of this writing, it trades just below $86,000, but overall bullish sentiment remains.

Popular analyst Ali Martinez set $100,000 as the next target, and here’s why it might come sooner than you think.

The Positive Factors

The renowned X user started his bullish observation by noting that BTC has risen more than 50% since bottoming below $58,000 in July. He claimed that even after this evident resurgence, large investors seem reluctant to take profits.

“Yesterday alone, the BTC network recorded more than 2,722 transactions, each worth over $1 million, showing that large entities remain active during the rally,” he said.

Martinez then turned to the ETF front, highlighting that spot Bitcoin exchange-traded funds have accumulated more than $1.6 billion worth of the cryptocurrency over the past 72 hours, adding significant buying pressure.

The analyst claimed that BTC continues trading above strong support at $84,569, where nearly 600,000 coins previously changed hands. The second major demand zone sits near $77,000, he added.

“With strong support below, overhead resistance is thinning out. The next major URPD resistance sits near $104,765, where roughly 283,000 BTC were traded,” Martinez revealed.

Last but not least, he paid attention to the MVRV Pricing Bands, which tell a similar story. Martinez said the mean band near $100,670 is the next key resistance for BTC, while the -0.5 band around $74,361 acts as a major support.

“As long as demand remains strong, $100,000 is in focus,” he concluded.

Don’t FOMO Here?

Bitcoin’s $10,000 price increase in less than a week has undoubtedly sparked huge enthusiasm across the crypto world and has led to the highest FOMO (Fear of Missing Out) since 2024.

This phenomenon happens when traders rush to buy the asset after a strong rally, fearing they will miss the chance to make substantial profits. It is worth noting that such crowded positioning often leaves the market vulnerable, and even a small wave of profit-taking can trigger a pullback, sending prices significantly lower.

X user Gerla recently advised traders and investors not to FOMO at current levels, expecting BTC to potentially correct to roughly $80,000 or higher, which could offer another buying opportunity.

“If we get that chance, I’d rather DCA there than chase $95K-$100K,” he concluded.

The post Bitcoin (BTC) Eyes $100K as Key Bullish Signals Emerge appeared first on CryptoPotato.

BlackRock is arguing that the wider adoption of AI could create new demand for stablecoins and blockchain payments.

According to the asset manager, autonomous AI systems may require financial infrastructure built for machines, and blockchains could also become a way to pay for the computing resources those systems use.

Three Areas of Convergence

In a paper it published on September 22, the firm described AI as “machine-native intelligence” and digital assets as “machine-native money.”

It argued that the technologies, which have largely developed along separate tracks, are beginning to converge as AI systems gain the ability to interact with financial networks and carry out transactions with limited human involvement.

BlackRock focused on three areas of overlap, with the first being tokenization. Here, large language models divide text into tokens that can be processed numerically, while blockchains represent value and ownership claims as digital tokens. Their functions may be different, but both systems translate information into standardized formats that machines can handle.

Another area BlackRock identified was agentic commerce, where AI agents can make financial transactions. According to the company, this could increase demand for programmable payment infrastructure, and stablecoins and other cryptocurrencies could serve as payment and settlement instruments.

Traditional systems such as card networks and the Automated Clearing House (ACH) already support automated payments; however, per the paper, their onboarding requirements and settlement economics can make them less suited to continuous, very low-value transactions that require programmable execution.

The third area is computing capacity. BlackRock cited analyst estimates that hyperscaler cloud revenue could exceed $1 trillion annually by 2030, and standardized claims on computing capacity, the paper argues, could become a digital asset use case for financing and programmable settlement.

CZ and Arthur Hayes Have the Same Idea

The firm’s argument extended beyond using crypto to pay for goods and services. It also posited that as AI agents become more capable and operate for longer periods, they need access to computing resources through standardized, transferable claims.

Such assets could then allow financing and settlement to take place through programmable systems rather than relying entirely on conventional processes. The report also drew a distinction between the two technologies’ roles. AI interprets information and directs activity, while blockchains can provide machine-readable assets and rules for transferring them.

Smart contracts can apply predefined conditions to transactions, allowing assets to move when the required criteria are met. Essentially, BlackRock describes AI as a potential structural catalyst for digital asset adoption, while presenting digital assets as possible infrastructure for an increasingly autonomous economy.

However, the paper’s case rests on whether autonomous systems can create enough demand for programmable payments and tokenized claims to justify broader use.

As CryptoPotato reported previously, Arthur Hayes has argued that agents consume floating-point operations, not groceries, and may want a token redeemable for compute. Additionally, in June, Changpeng Zhao told Galaxy Research that agentic trading and payments would arrive in months, not years, and would use crypto because blockchains already speak in APIs.

The post BlackRock: AI Agents Will Drive Major Demand for Stablecoins and Blockchain Payments appeared first on CryptoPotato.

CryptoQuant founder Ki Young Ju has said that he expects Bitcoin’s current cycle to deliver a 3-to-5x rally rather than another 10x-plus parabolic run, followed by a milder bear market than past cycles produced.

His case rests on how much the market has grown, with a larger base of institutional buyers dampening both the euphoric highs and the brutal drawdowns that defined BTC’s early years.

Ki Young Ju’s Case for a Calmer Cycle

The analyst pointed to the PnL Index, which tracks aggregate holder profitability, as evidence that the extremes are already narrowing, with cycle tops and bottoms forming at higher profitability levels than before. MVRV never fell below 1 this cycle, he noted, meaning holders as a whole never went underwater even at the lows.

He also cited a rising realized cap and OG whales who have stopped selling, as well as futures whales who built large long positions near the bottom.

“None of this means Bitcoin has a ceiling. It means the trade-off has changed,” he wrote. “Giving up the 10x parabola also means giving up the 80% crash.”

Additionally, he argued that the trade-off is what will draw patient, long-horizon capital instead of hot money.

CryptoQuant’s own research backs the bullish read: Bitcoin closed above its 365-day moving average near $80,500 for the first time since March 2023, a level that previously marked the 2019 and 2023 bull markets.

On-chain indicators turned bullish in mid-August, and BTC has since cleared the $76,000-$81,000 zone where long-term holders had been selling heavily. The firm has put the next resistance at $88,000 to $90,000.

Technician Jamie Coutts flagged the same $80,000 area as the market’s biggest cluster of long-term resistance, citing ETF cost basis and long-term holder averages, and noted his volatility breakout model found seven of eight similar setups since 2016 up a median of 41% six months later.

How Bitcoin Got Here

Bitcoin was trading near $86,500 at the time of writing, up 1.5% over 24 hours and 14% in the past week. It had also gained over 12% over the last month, although it is still down more than 23% from where it was a year ago.

That run started after a rough stretch that saw the CLARITY Act fail a Senate vote and the Federal Reserve raise rates for the first time since July 2023.

That pressure pushed BTC down to $75,000 more than once, but it recovered through last week, then broke higher on Monday as ETF inflows accelerated, adding about $7,000 to its price in under a day and pushing past $87,000 for the first time since late January.

Market watchers at Bitfinex believe the next test will land on September 25, when a large options expiry could add volatility, while US real yields near 2.68% remain a headwind for risk assets broadly.

The post Bitcoin Could Still Explode 5x, but the 10x Days Are Over: CryptoQuant CEO appeared first on CryptoPotato.

Bitcoin’s latest leg up has carried the price directly into a major overhead supply region, putting the rally at an important test. Momentum remains constructive, but the reaction around the $86K-$89K area could determine whether the move develops into another bullish leg or pauses for a deeper retest.

Bitcoin Price Analysis: The Daily Chart

On the daily timeframe, Bitcoin has extended its recovery significantly after breaking out of the previous corrective structure. The asset is now trading around $86K and has entered the major $86K-$89K resistance zone highlighted on the chart.

The broader structure remains bullish. BTC is comfortably above both moving averages, while the sharp recovery from the $75K area has established a clear sequence of higher prices. However, the current resistance zone is substantial, and the latest candles show some hesitation after reaching it.

There is also a notable momentum divergence developing. While the price has pushed to a higher high, the RSI has failed to confirm that strength and remains below its previous peak. This bearish divergence does not necessarily signal an immediate reversal, but it suggests that upside momentum is not expanding at the same rate as price.

As a result, a rejection from the $86K-$89K resistance could trigger a corrective move toward the first demand zone around $80K-$82K. Below that, the $75K-$78K area represents the next major support. Conversely, a decisive daily breakout above $89K would invalidate the immediate bearish divergence concern and strengthen the case for continuation.

BTC/USDT 4-Hour Chart

The 4-hour chart emphasizes just how aggressive the latest move has been. After consolidating around the $80K-$82K demand zone, Bitcoin broke higher with a large impulsive candle and quickly reached the $86K region.

The price is now consolidating just inside the $86K-$89K supply zone rather than immediately reversing, which suggests buyers are still attempting to absorb the available selling pressure. The rising trendline from the $75K low also remains intact, supporting the short-term bullish structure.

Nevertheless, BTC is extended from its nearest demand area. If sellers gain control at the current resistance, the $80K-$82K zone would be the most important initial area to monitor for a pullback. Holding that region would preserve the breakout structure and could provide the foundation for another attempt at $89K.

A breakdown below $80K would weaken the short-term setup and increase the probability of a deeper correction toward the $75K-$78K demand zone.

Sentiment Analysis

The Realized Price UTXO Age Bands chart provides additional context for Bitcoin’s current position by showing the average acquisition prices of different holder cohorts.

BTC, currently around the mid-$80K region on this chart, has moved above the realized prices of several younger and intermediate cohorts. Most notably, price is approaching the 18-month-to-2-year cohort’s realized price, which sits around $88K. The 6-to-12-month cohort is also positioned near $90K.

These levels closely overlap with the $86K-$89K technical resistance identified on the price charts, creating an important confluence. Investors belonging to these cohorts may be approaching their aggregate cost basis, potentially increasing selling or breakeven supply as BTC moves higher.

At the same time, Bitcoin trading above the realized prices of several other active cohorts indicates that a larger portion of those holders has returned to unrealized profit. Therefore, the $88K-$90K region appears particularly important. A sustained move through it would place Bitcoin above another significant cluster of holder cost bases and could reinforce the bullish continuation scenario, while rejection would leave the current resistance confluence intact.

The post Bitcoin Price Analysis: BTC Faces First Major Test After 13% Weekly Rally appeared first on CryptoPotato.

Ripple’s XRP climbed above $1.60 on Tuesday for the first time since early February, aside from a brief uptick in August, as network activity increased alongside the price move. Data from blockchain analytics firm Santiment showed a rise in large transactions and the creation of thousands of new XRP addresses during the latest advance.

The firm recorded 1,917 XRP transactions worth at least $100,000, the highest level of such activity in roughly a month. While the figure points to increased activity among larger holders, Santiment noted that the transfers do not reveal whether whales were buying or selling.

XRP Network Activity Picks Up

The network also added 3,647 new XRP addresses during the period tracked by the analytics firm. That increase suggests participation extended beyond existing users, although new addresses do not necessarily represent new investors or independent individuals.

Santiment’s data covering mid-April to late September showed both whale transaction activity and network growth rising as XRP moved above $1.60. At its latest snapshot, XRP traded near $1.60, with 2,479 new addresses and 1,281 whale transactions.

Beyond wallet and whale activity, the XRP Ledger has also continued to expand across tokenized assets and stablecoins. Tokenized assets and RLUSD balances on the network recently reached about $4.26 billion. Ripple has reported roughly $2.4 billion of RLUSD in circulation.

Interest in XRP has also extended into investment products. Bitwise filed an updated registration for an XRP exchange-traded fund with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on September 18. The filing adds to a market that already includes several XRP exchange-traded products.

Whale Activity Gets Mixed Readings

The whale data has drawn different interpretations from market observers. One view is that 1,917 large transactions remain relatively small compared with XRP’s market capitalization of about $99 billion. Others see the increase in new addresses as a broader sign of network participation.

The 12.6% rise in XRP over seven days when the data was assessed also makes the increase in large transfers harder to interpret as clear accumulation. Santiment said the combination of price growth, address creation, whale activity and expanding infrastructure could remain important if those trends continue.

The post XRP Pushes Above $1.60 as Network Activity Picks Up appeared first on CryptoPotato.