The concentration of bullish capital at $78K could establish a new psychological floor, testing market conviction and influencing future trends.

The post Largest cluster of net long Bitcoin positions enters at $78,057 appeared first on Crypto Briefing.

The potential sale of Allspring highlights the increasing trend of consolidation in asset management, driven by economic and strategic pressures.

The post Allspring Global Investments explores $4B sale as asset management M&A hits record highs appeared first on Crypto Briefing.

Infrastructure limitations could hinder AI advancements, necessitating urgent policy reforms and massive investments to meet future demands.

The post Brookfield CEO Bruce Flatt warns AI race is slowing due to infrastructure gaps appeared first on Crypto Briefing.

Turkey's intervention highlights the need for regulatory reforms in asset management, potentially reshaping market stability and investor confidence.

The post Turkey’s sovereign wealth fund buys blue-chip stocks to stabilize market after fund sector meltdown appeared first on Crypto Briefing.

AI-driven agricultural tools could revolutionize smallholder farming, enhancing resilience and productivity, but data governance remains a concern.

The post Gates Foundation and Google direct $100M to AI tools for smallholder farmers appeared first on Crypto Briefing.

Bitcoin Magazine

The Next 3-5 Years of Bitcoin Lending

SALT Lending CRO Hunter Albright says a growing number of Bitcoin holders may eventually borrow against their bitcoin rather than sell it, creating a new relationship between bitcoin, credit and stablecoins.

Bitcoin-backed lending could become an increasingly important part of how holders access the value of their bitcoin without selling it, according to Hunter Albright, Chief Revenue Officer of SALT Lending.

Speaking on BMTV, Albright said he expects borrowing against bitcoin to become more common as the market matures and holders become more comfortable using bitcoin as collateral.

“I’d like to think we will see a growing percentage of the population of bitcoin holders borrow against it,” Albright said.

For Albright, that shift could also change how bitcoin and stablecoins function alongside one another.

“I do believe people borrowing against their bitcoin and leveraging stables is the difference between money in motion and money at rest,” he said. “The speed of conversion really creates a utility and advantage for people willing to operate in that ecosystem.”

In that framework, bitcoin increasingly becomes “money at rest” – an asset held for the long term – while stablecoins serve as “money in motion,” providing liquidity that can be transferred and used more easily without requiring holders to sell their bitcoin.

A Behavioral Shift for Bitcoin Holders

Getting there, however, will require more than simply building lending products.

Albright said greater education around both Bitcoin itself and the mechanics of borrowing against bitcoin will be necessary before the behavior becomes mainstream – something SALT Lending has made part of its own efforts in the market.

It also requires a change in how Bitcoin holders think about the value stored in their assets.

Instead of viewing bitcoin only as something to accumulate and eventually sell, holders can potentially use it as collateral to access liquidity while maintaining their bitcoin exposure.

That model is already common elsewhere in finance, where owners of real estate, equities and other assets regularly borrow against their holdings rather than liquidating them.

For Bitcoin holders, there can also be tax advantages. In the U.S., borrowing against an asset generally does not itself constitute a taxable sale, whereas selling appreciated bitcoin can trigger capital gains taxes. Individual tax consequences depend on the structure of the transaction and the borrower’s circumstances, readers should consult a tax advisor.

Albright sees that combination – long-term bitcoin holdings, growing stablecoin adoption and easier access to credit – as part of a broader shift in how Bitcoin holders may eventually use their wealth.

Rather than bitcoin needing to move every time its value is put to use, bitcoin can remain at rest while liquidity moves around it.

SALT Lending is the Official Liquidity Sponsor of BMTV. Learn more about borrowing against your bitcoin and explore SALT’s BMTV offer at https://saltlending.com/bmtv/?utm_source=bmtv&utm_medium=article&utm_campaign=52783658-BMTV%20article&utm_term=BMTV

Disclaimer: SALT Lending is a paid sponsor of BMTV and serves as BMTV’s Official Liquidity Sponsor. This article is sponsored content and does not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of Bitcoin Magazine. The information provided is for promotional purposes and should not be considered financial advice. Readers are encouraged to conduct their own research before making any investment decisions related to Bitcoin or other financial products mentioned herein.

This post The Next 3-5 Years of Bitcoin Lending first appeared on Bitcoin Magazine and is written by Josh Plischke.

Bitcoin Magazine

Dan Hillery: Digital Credit Could Rival BTC’s $1.5 Trillion Market Cap

Two years ago, Bitcoin-backed digital credit barely existed. Today it’s a roughly $16 billion market and Dan Hillery of UXTO thinks the financialization layer on top of Bitcoin could one day rival the network itself. In the debut episode of The Allocators Edge, Hillery breaks down how variable-rate preferred securities like STRC and SATA are priced, why buybacks keep them anchored near $100 par, and what separates digital credit risk from digital equity risk. He also walks through the structured credit fund he’s building, including its senior and junior tranches.

0:00 — Digital Credit Is the Fastest-Growing Part of Bitcoin’s Capital Structure
1:18 — Why STRC’s Variable Rate Design Has No Precedent in Market History
2:59 — What Flat or Falling Bitcoin Prices Mean for Strategy and Strive
4:17 — Short-Duration Bitcoin-Backed Notes and the Next Five Years of Products
5:45 — The Biggest Misconceptions Investors Have About Preferred Securities
6:58 — How Buybacks and Capital Markets Activity Anchor STRC Near $100 Par
8:09 — Why Major Fund Classes Still Can’t Touch Digital Credit Today
9:10 — Inside the UXTO Credit Fund: Senior and Junior Tranche Structure
10:35 — Where the Leverage Comes From and How Volatility Risk Gets Transferred
11:50 — Liquidity, Redemptions, and Digital Credit in a 60/40 Portfolio

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 Dan Hillery: Digital Credit Could Rival BTC’s $1.5 Trillion Market Cap first appeared on Bitcoin Magazine and is written by Patrick Green.

Bitcoin Magazine

Treasury Sanctions Iranian Crypto Exchange BitBank Over Bitcoin Transfers to IRGC

The U.S. is continuing to target Iran’s use of bitcoin. 

In a Thursday statement, the U.S. Department of the Treasury designated BitBank, an Iranian crypto exchange, as part of Operation Economic Outcast — the Trump Administration’s whole-of-government economic campaign against the Islamic Republic of Iran and its enablers. 

The U.S. has sanctioned Iran for decades. This year, the Middle Eastern country has stepped up its use of cryptocurrencies — including bitcoin — in order to skirt around economic penalties. 

“Today’s designations of Iranian digital asset infrastructure make perfectly clear that efforts to finance the Iranian regime using cryptocurrencies are not beyond OFAC’s reach,” Secretary of the Treasury Scott Bessent said in a statement. 

“If you support the Iranian regime, the Department of the Treasury will sanction you.”

The sanctions target designated Iranian financier Babak Zanjani, along with its software developer, Pishtaz Simorgh Electronic Trade Company, and three of Zanjani’s associates: Hossein Ali Zaker Hossein, Mohammad Mahdi Zaker Hossein, and Seyed Adel Heidari.

Since June, the Iranian Hormuz Safe Marine Services Authority has used BitBank to move bitcoin to the Iranian regime, according to the Treasury. 

Thursday’s sanctions aim to hit the “architecture Zanjani built to launder funds,” it added. 

“The Department of the Treasury will continue to not only target the Iranian digital asset ecosystem, but also international entities and actors which help facilitate it,” the statement continued. 

Iran started a bitcoin-backed insurance service for its counties shipping companies earlier this year.

The U.S. in July said that it had frozen crypto linked to the Iranian regime, mostly in the form of Tether’s stablecoin. 

Stablecoins like Tether’s USDT can be frozen by the company that issues the asset. But bitcoin, being decentralized and having no single issuer, cannot. 

The U.S. Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets Control in July said Iran had been dodging sanctions by accepting pay in bitcoin from ships passing through the Strait of Hormuz. 

OFAC said at the time that Hormuz Safe, developed by Iran’s Ministry of Economy, “accepts payment in Bitcoin and other digital assets” so it can bypass sanctions. 

This post Treasury Sanctions Iranian Crypto Exchange BitBank Over Bitcoin Transfers to IRGC first appeared on Bitcoin Magazine and is written by Mathew Di Salvo.

Bitcoin Magazine

Bitcoin Price Unlikely To Be Bothered by Interest Rate Hike: Grayscale

The Federal Reserve hiked interest rates for the first time since 2023 on Wednesday and it sent the bitcoin price — briefly — all over the place. 

But then it settled and currently sits a modest 1% higher over a 24-hour period. 

And according to asset manager Grayscale’s crypto research team, bitcoin is unlikely to be bothered by the Fed’s decision. 

“We believe yesterday’s move was a mid-cycle adjustment, not a cyclical change,” wrote the firm’s head of research, Zach Pandl, in a Thursday note. 

“And we doubt the one or two rate hikes expected for 2026 will lead to much change in capital allocation.”

Bitcoin has — in the past but not always — done well in a low interest rate environment. And when the Federal Reserve has in the past increased borrowing costs, the price of the leading digital asset has slid. 

That’s because low interest rates means more liquidity for investors to take risks and buy assets like bitcoin. 

Pandl added that when the Fed in 2022 started ramping up interest rates to contain inflation, it “probably weighed on the price of bitcoin” because it “meaningfully affected the opportunity cost of holding non-interest-bearing assets.” 

But this time feels more like 1997, argued Pandl, when the Federal Reserve did a one off hike and the Nasdaq kept moving higher.

Bitcoin’s price recently stood at close to $76,581, up 18% over the past 30 days. The coin  in August benefited from news that the U.S. Treasury would at least double the size of its liquidity-support buyback operations.

The U.S. is currently in the grips of an affordability crisis and inflation is hurting households as oil prices surge. 

Federal Reserve Chair Kevin Warsh said the central bank was focused on bringing down inflation. 

“The plain fact is that inflation is too high, and has been for too long,” he said on Wednesday. 

U.S. President Donald Trump has repeatedly said that he wants interest rates to be lower. Writing on his Truth Social platform on Wednesday, he said: “Interest Rates in the United States should be 1%, or less, because we are the Best Credit in the World — BY FAR.”

This post Bitcoin Price Unlikely To Be Bothered by Interest Rate Hike: Grayscale first appeared on Bitcoin Magazine and is written by Mathew Di Salvo.

Bitcoin Magazine

Bitcoin ETFs Could Triple Gold Counterparts as Asset Matures: Expert

Bitcoin exchange-traded funds could be three times bigger than their gold counterparts as younger investors grow up, an ETF expert has said. 

Speaking to Bitcoin Magazine TV on Thursday, Bloomberg senior ETF analyst, Eric Balchunas, said that while bitcoin’s price is currently volatile, things would change in the future. 

Bitcoin ETFs debuted in 2024 after a decade of denials from the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. The ETFs had the most successful launch in the history of the products and currently manage nearly $100 billion in assets, according to Coinglass data. 

“I do believe the Bitcoin ETFs will triple gold in assets,” said Balchunas. 

“I always say Bitcoin is like gold as a teenager — you know, gold is 5,000 years old, it was mentioned 450 times in the Bible. I mean that’s old, and Bitcoin is 17 years old.” 

Balchunas went on to say that younger generations could end up being drawn to Bitcoin as the government continues to spend wildly and things become to expensive. 

He said that right now, Generation Z is rebelling against government deficits and inflation by voting for socialist politicians, but Bitcoin might be a better bet — because the government can’t confiscate it. 

One of Bitcoin’s selling points is its censorship resistance but investors appear to be more focused on buying the asset as a way of hedging against currency debasement. 

The so-called debasement trade was hot last year and is becoming popular again in 2026 as investors buy non-yielding assets like gold and bitcoin while the dollar becomes weaker. 

Balchunas added that as bitcoin’s price becomes less volatile, big institutions will be more interested in buying the asset as a store of value. 

Bitcoin in 2025 has its least volatile year in its short history. 

“As that volatility and correlation get closer to gold — look out,” he said. 

“I think that’s when you have the inflection moment where even the big institutions are like, okay, it’s finally ready for me to use as a sort of reliable store of value, possibly even a safe haven and an alternative.”

This post Bitcoin ETFs Could Triple Gold Counterparts as Asset Matures: Expert first appeared on Bitcoin Magazine and is written by Mathew Di Salvo.

XRP Ledger (XRPL) developers are using mathematical proofs to test whether the network’s forthcoming lending market can be drained or become insolvent.

On Sept. 17, protocol research firm Common Prefix said it is formally verifying XRPL’s Lending Protocol with Lean 4, a theorem-proving language designed to establish whether software satisfies defined mathematical properties across possible system states.

The firm said the work is intended to show that the protocol cannot enter states that violate its accounting and safety rules.

The work has taken on greater significance after xrpld version 3.4.0 shipped this week with LendingProtocolV1_1, an amendment that introduces closed-ended lending vaults and cash-basis accounting. The amendment is included in the server software but still requires approval through the XRP Ledger’s amendment process before taking effect.

XRPL’s lending design would allow depositors to pool assets that loan brokers can deploy into fixed-term, uncollateralized loans. Borrower underwriting and credit assessment happen off-chain, while the ledger records loan origination, repayments, and accounting.

That puts a premium on getting the protocol’s internal bookkeeping right. Errors involving vault balances, loan payments, or share calculations could affect pooled depositor funds rather than an isolated application.

Locked capital raises the stakes for XRPL lending

LendingProtocolV1_1 increases the consequences of accounting failures because depositor assets can remain committed through a predetermined investment period.

Closed-ended vaults move through three stages: subscription, investment, and redemption. Depositors can add or withdraw assets during the subscription phase, but both actions are blocked once the vault enters its investment period and the capital becomes available for lending. Withdrawals resume when the vault reaches redemption.

The timetable is set when the vault is created and cannot be changed later, giving participants advance visibility into how long their capital may remain committed.

Version 3.4.0 also changes how new vaults recognize interest income.

Under the earlier design, scheduled interest could be recorded as income when a loan was originated, even before the borrower made those payments. Cash-basis accounting instead recognizes interest only as payments arrive, reducing the risk that vault-share values reflect income not yet received.

Those changes add more states and transitions that must remain consistent as deposits are accepted, loans are issued, repayments arrive, borrowers default, and vaults eventually reopen for withdrawals.

Common Prefix is using formal verification to test those relationships beyond the scenarios engineers might anticipate in a conventional test suite.

Researchers are not attempting to mathematically verify the entire xrpld C++ codebase. They instead recreate the relevant protocol logic in Lean 4 and define the properties the system is expected to preserve.

An oracle can then run equivalent inputs against the mathematical model and the production implementation, helping identify cases where the two behave differently.

That distinction matters because a mathematical proof is only as strong as the model and assumptions behind it. The process can establish that defined properties hold across the modeled state space, while comparisons with the implementation help test whether the production code continues to match those assumptions.

Earlier proofs already exposed XRPL failures

The approach has already uncovered edge cases that conventional testing missed.

During an exploratory verification phase between February and April, Common Prefix modeled parts of the Lending Protocol and defined invariants the system was expected to maintain.

RippleX said the work uncovered vault invariant violations, loan-payment assertion failures, arithmetic rounding errors, and differences between written XLS specifications and their implementation.

The identified issues were subsequently addressed across xrpld versions 3.1.3 and 3.2.0.

That record gives the current verification effort a practical role before significant depositor capital is placed behind the protocol. Formal methods can challenge assumptions embedded in the lending logic, while developers can still change the implementation before broader adoption.

The problem becomes more complex as native lending interacts with existing ledger functions, including asset transfers, freezes and clawbacks. Each additional interaction expands the number of system states developers must account for.

RippleX has previously argued that this complexity raises the limits of relying solely on functional tests, audits, bug bounties and validator testing.

The stakes are also becoming commercial.

RippleX has identified Evernorth, which is preparing to become a Nasdaq-listed XRP treasury company, and VS1.Finance as among the companies preparing to use or build around Single Asset Vaults and the Lending Protocol, putting more pressure on the underlying accounting rules to behave predictably before institutional capital arrives.

Mathematical proofs still leave credit risk outside the ledger

Even successful verification would leave one of XRPL lending’s largest risks outside the mathematical model: whether borrowers repay.

The protocol relies on off-chain underwriting to determine borrower creditworthiness and does not currently depend on automated on-chain collateral and liquidation mechanisms commonly used in decentralized lending markets.

Loan brokers can supply first-loss capital intended to absorb part of a default before losses reach depositors, but XRPL’s documentation notes that the mechanism does not eliminate credit risk.

Formal verification also cannot prove that every external integration, operational process, or underwriting decision will behave safely. Its guarantees extend only to the properties developers define and the assumptions represented in the model.

That creates two separate layers of assurance for depositors.

The first is whether XRPL’s own accounting machinery behaves consistently across deposits, lending, repayments, and withdrawals. The second is whether loan brokers correctly price and manage borrowers whose obligations remain subject to real-world credit risk.

Common Prefix’s work is focused on strengthening the first. With LendingProtocolV1_1 now distributed in xrpld 3.4.0, validators will ultimately determine whether the amendment becomes active.

Before that happens, developers are trying to establish stronger evidence that the lending machinery itself behaves as specified when real capital, loan brokers, and off-chain credit decisions begin interacting with it.

The post XRPL tries to mathematically prove its new lending market cannot be drained appeared first on CryptoSlate.

Hyperliquid has launched native manual borrowing, extending its trading infrastructure into credit as HYPE climbed to a fresh all-time high above $90.

The Sept. 18 rollout lets users pledge HYPE or Bitcoin as collateral to borrow USDC or USDT directly through HyperCore. Hyperliquid said $269 million in assets were borrowed Friday, giving the new product immediate scale.

The launch comes as Hyperliquid broadens the financial functions available inside its core infrastructure, allowing users to move between trading, collateral and credit without relying on separate lending protocols.

HYPE has risen roughly 15% this week and traded above $90 on Friday, with CryptoSlate's data recording an intraday high of about $91.06. That surpassed the token’s previous record near $89.60 and extended a rally from roughly $77 earlier in the week.

Manual borrowing opens HyperCore’s existing credit engine

The new product exposes lending infrastructure that had largely operated beneath Hyperliquid’s portfolio-margin system.

Founder Jeff Yan said Hyperliquid built borrowing and lending as a separate HyperCore primitive rather than embedding credit directly into margin accounts. Every borrowed asset comes from supplied liquidity, allowing other products to tap the same market while keeping lending risk separate from derivatives exposure.

Portfolio margin then operates as an orchestration layer, combining borrowing with perpetuals, spot markets and other HyperCore products.

That design meant Hyperliquid did not need to create a lending market from scratch for Friday’s launch. Yan said borrowers had access to more than $400 million of supplied liquidity from the outset because the same pools were already supporting portfolio-margin activity.

The $269 million reported as borrowed on Friday indicates the scale of the underlying credit market.

HYPE carries a 65% loan-to-value ratio, while Bitcoin has a 50% LTV. Liquidation thresholds are 82.5% for HYPE and 75% for Bitcoin. Stablecoin suppliers earn variable interest based on utilization, while borrowers pay interest on USDC and USDT.

Portfolio-margin users can also earn interest on idle stablecoin balances because those assets feed the same pools borrowers use.

Yan compared the architecture with Amazon’s decision to separate its computing infrastructure into Amazon Web Services, allowing one underlying system to support products beyond its original retail business.

“Do one thing and do it well,” Yan said, invoking the Unix design principle.

Hyperliquid argues that separating lending from perpetual-margin risk makes the system easier to manage because each financial primitive retains its own risk parameters even when users access them through the same platform.

Lending lands as HYPE and US access expand

The lending rollout comes as Hyperliquid gains broader distribution and accumulates a larger pool of dollar liquidity across its ecosystem.

Two days before the launch, Payward, Kraken’s parent company, announced plans to deploy on-chain perpetual futures markets for US clients, starting with Hyperliquid’s HIP-3 framework.

That push would give Hyperliquid another route into a market where perpetual futures have historically faced tighter restrictions than offshore crypto derivatives, potentially widening access to its ecosystem-tied products.

Hyperliquid is also drawing a growing pool of stablecoin liquidity, with total stablecoin supply on the network approaching $7 billion. DeFiLlama data show the blockchain network's circulating USDC supply at about $6.77 billion, slightly above Solana’s roughly $6.72 billion and leaving Hyperliquid behind only Ethereum in USDC supply.

The ranking can shift as balances move between networks, but the size of Hyperliquid’s stablecoin base gives its expanding credit markets a substantial pool of potential collateral and supplied liquidity.

USDC already serves as a core settlement and collateral asset across Hyperliquid’s trading markets. Native borrowing extends that capital's role by letting suppliers earn yield while traders borrow stablecoins against HYPE or Bitcoin.

For HYPE holders, the product also creates a way to access dollar liquidity without selling their tokens, adding another use for the asset within HyperCore.

Meanwhile, the lending rollout expands a set of financial primitives that increasingly resembles the product stack normally spread across several DeFi protocols.

Ryan Watkins, co-founder of Syncracy Capital, pointed to HyperCore’s combination of perpetuals, spot trading, prediction markets, lending and vaults as evidence of that expansion.

HyperCore is integrating those products rather than developing them as separate applications around the network, allowing collateral, liquidity, and trading activity to move more directly between them.

That gives Hyperliquid a broader strategic objective beyond adding individual products: building a financial system where trading, credit and liquidity increasingly operate through the same underlying infrastructure.

The post Hyperliquid opens native lending as HYPE hits new ATH above $90 appeared first on CryptoSlate.

Participating Zcash coinholders have overwhelmingly favored keeping scheduled halvings and waiting until February 2031 to begin returning ZEC collected by the Network Sustainability Mechanism to future block rewards.

The choices were part of a five-question poll on NU7, Zcash's next network upgrade. Between 2.399 million and 2.404 million ZEC participated in each question. All five cleared 1 million ZEC, although the poll rules required only one question to reach that threshold for the overall poll to be considered representative.

The result gives implementers a strong signal from participating economic stake. It does not activate any change, schedule NU7 or guarantee that every preferred feature will ship.

ZEC poll favors halvings over smoother issuance

The largest monetary-policy result came on whether the Network Sustainability Mechanism should replace periodic halvings with a smoother issuance curve. The final tally put 2,375,932.375 ZEC behind preserving halvings, compared with 22,384.875 ZEC for smoothing issuance.

A separate timing question put 2,319,643.75 ZEC behind February 2031 as the date to begin recycling funds that the mechanism removes from circulation. Starting as soon as possible drew 70,239.625 ZEC, while February 2027 received 6,283 ZEC. That preference selects a timetable, but the advisory poll neither encodes the date nor commits the network to activating it.

The remaining questions also produced clear results. About 2.33 million ZEC supported disabling Sprout-era v4 transactions at NU7 activation. Nearly 2.4 million ZEC favored cutting target block spacing from 75 seconds to 25 seconds alongside per-pool action limits. Another 2.38 million ZEC supported shipping NU7 without any applicable feature that misses a Sept. 30 implementation deadline.

Other Zcash constituencies showed less unanimity on the monetary questions. The Zcash Community Advisory Panel, a group that provides community input to the Zcash Foundation, drew 135 of 198 eligible members for a 68% response rate. A community-authored recap characterized ZCAP as narrowly favoring smoother issuance and other panels collectively as preferring recycled issuance to begin as soon as possible. Those signals differ from the ZEC-weighted poll and remain separate advisory inputs.

On Sept. 15, a public post in the results discussion said Shielded Labs, Project Tachyon, ZODL, the Zcash Foundation and Valar Group had aligned on February 2031 as the most conservative interpretation of the outcome. It added that another poll could revisit the timing if conditions change.

As of Sept. 17, Zcash's official NU7 page said the upgrade's activation height had not been set. The preserve-halvings specification work also remained open, with relevant deployment values unassigned.

The next consequential step is therefore implementation rather than another tally. Specifications, code, review, testing and a final activation decision will determine which preferences reach mainnet and when.

The post Zcash holders vote to preserve halvings and defer recycled ZEC until 2031 appeared first on CryptoSlate.

Two days after the US Senate failed to advance the CLARITY Act, federal regulators opened two narrower routes for crypto-linked market access under existing law.

The Securities and Exchange Commission created a five-year path for permissioned venues to trade tokenized US stocks through automated market makers. The Commodity Futures Trading Commission broadened staff no-action relief so qualifying software providers can connect users to regulated derivatives markets without registering as introducing brokers for the covered activity.

The actions can support real products, but they do not recreate market-structure legislation. The SEC route is capped and conditional. The CFTC route still relies on registered derivatives firms for onboarding, trading and custody, and it rests on a staff position that can change.

The SEC turns existing authority into a five-year test

The timing was direct. On Sept. 15, senators voted 49-50 against cloture on the motion to proceed to H.R. 3633, according to the official roll call. That was a procedural failure to advance the CLARITY Act, not a final vote on the bill's merits.

On Sept. 17, SEC Chairman Paul Atkins connected the congressional setback to the Commission's next move. In a statement accompanying the Innovation Exemption, Atkins said the agency was acting within its existing statutory authority. He also characterized the exemption as a bridge that should be followed by durable rulemaking.

The SEC order creates a new category called a Tokenized Securities Venue, or TSV. A qualifying venue can bring buyers and sellers together through permissioned automated market maker liquidity pools without being treated as an exchange under the Exchange Act. Certain firms that supply tokenized stock from proprietary accounts can also receive conditional relief from the dealer definition for that activity.

The exemptions run through Sept. 17, 2031, unless the SEC modifies them. Their limits make the experiment deliberately small relative to the US equity market.

Across a TSV and its affiliates, Tier 1 stocks are limited to 75 symbols and no more than 0.25% of the prior month's average daily share volume in each relevant stock. Tier 2 stocks are limited to 250 symbols and 2.5% of average daily share volume.

Eligible tokenized stocks must preserve the economic and governance rights attached to equivalent traditional shares, including dividend and voting rights. Synthetic-exposure tokens, rights, warrants, primary issuances and initial offerings do not qualify.

Issuers also receive a direct control point. Before a TSV can trade stock tokenized by an unaffiliated third party, the venue must notify the issuer and wait at least 30 calendar days after receipt. An objection delivered within that window blocks the tokenized stock from trading on that TSV.

The blockchain may be public and permissionless, but the market is permissioned. TSVs must set access standards, verify participants or wallet addresses, and disclose when access can be denied or limited. Smart contracts must be public and auditable, while the venue remains responsible for delegated verification.

The order replaces full exchange oversight with tailored conditions rather than removing market safeguards. TSVs must publish transaction data, keep records, stop trading when the underlying stock is halted on its primary exchange, disclose operational risks and report significant systems events.

Other laws still apply. The order preserves Securities Act requirements, federal antifraud and antimanipulation rules and sanctions compliance. SEC, self-regulatory organization and anti-money laundering duties can still apply to participants based on their activities. The exemption covers the defined TSV model, not securities activity outside it.

The CFTC opens an interface while registered firms keep control

The Commodity Futures Trading Commission‘s Market Participants Division moved on the same day with Letter 26-25. The letter generalizes relief that the division granted to Phantom in Letter 26-09 in March. The earlier position applied only to Phantom; the new one is available to passive software providers on substantially the same terms and is not limited to crypto wallets.

A qualifying provider can display market and position data, market particular derivatives contracts and registered firms, solicit users, receive revenue sharing or transaction-based fees, and transmit user-directed orders. Those activities could otherwise trigger introducing-broker or associated-person registration.

The relief is narrow. The software provider cannot hold customer assets, generate express buy or sell signals, or exercise discretion over order routing or execution. Letter 26-25 addresses only whether the division will recommend enforcement for failure to register as an introducing broker or associated person for the covered activities. It does not provide a general exemption from other registration categories or laws.

Users must be onboarded directly with a designated contract market, futures commission merchant or introducing broker. They must be able to reach that registered firm independently of the software provider. Funds securing derivatives positions remain with a derivatives clearing organization and/or a clearing-member futures commission merchant.

The provider also assumes conditions covering conflict and risk disclosures, marketing controls modeled on National Futures Association rules, recordkeeping, regulatory notices and joint liability with each participating registrant for violations connected to the covered activity.

This creates a clearer role for wallets and other interfaces without moving the regulated market's core functions into the software layer. A provider can make derivatives easier to discover and access, but the designated market handles trading, registered firms onboard users, and a DCO or FCM holds collateral.

The legal foundation is also less durable than the SEC's time-limited Commission order. Letter 26-25 represents the views of one CFTC division, is not binding on the Commission and may be modified, suspended or terminated. Unless changed earlier, it runs only until relevant Commission rulemaking or guidance takes effect.

Useful permits still fall short of market structure

The SEC and CFTC actions solve different registration problems. Their shared feature is that both create conditional operating space without establishing general market-wide rights.

For tokenized stocks, access depends on a TSV's permissioning standards, symbol and volume caps, issuer objections and continuing compliance with the order. For regulated derivatives, the interface provider must remain passive while users, collateral and execution stay inside registered market infrastructure.

That distinction makes the new routes useful for controlled launches. A firm can build to specified conditions instead of waiting for Congress. Users may gain easier paths to tokenized stocks or regulated derivatives. Regulators can observe activity before writing permanent rules.

The same design creates uncertainty. Neither action settles the broader allocation of authority between the SEC and CFTC. Neither grants an unconditional right for a venue, wallet or user to enter these markets. Other applicable federal and state obligations remain outside the narrow relief, and future agency interpretations could change the economics of relying on it.

No company is named in the SEC order or CFTC Letter 26-25 as committed to launch under the Sept. 17 pathways. The CFTC letter says only that unnamed similarly situated providers and their counsel made inquiries after the Phantom relief.

The first practical test will be public commitments. For the SEC route, that means notices from operators willing to accept the caps, disclosure duties and issuer-objection process, followed by evidence that liquidity can develop within those limits. For the CFTC route, it means software providers signing agreements with registered derivatives firms, filing the required undertakings and offering an interface that remains passive in practice.

Market behavior will then reveal whether conditional access can scale. Issuer objections, participant onboarding, liquidity, transaction volumes and any regulatory modifications will show whether the pathways become durable market channels or remain experiments.

The agencies have demonstrated that US crypto access can grow without a new act of Congress. They have not shown that temporary exemptions and revocable staff relief can provide the certainty, uniformity or jurisdictional settlement that legislation could deliver.

The post SEC and CFTC bypass Congress to open crypto access after CLARITY fails – with a catch appeared first on CryptoSlate.

Two wallet incidents this week exposed a growing weakness in crypto self-custody: the systems surrounding hardware devices.

D’CENT, a popular hardware wallet in South Korea, said it is investigating unauthorized transfers from some users of its software-based App Wallet, while Trezor, another crypto hardware firm, disclosed that attackers exported 347,149 customer email contacts after breaching third-party marketing provider Brevo.

Neither company has reported a compromise of its hardware-wallet security.

Yet both incidents created routes to the same prize: the recovery phrase that can reconstruct a wallet and control its assets.

D’CENT phrase reuse pulls hardware assets into software risk

D’CENT’s investigation shows how moving a recovery phrase into software can extend risk beyond the device where the wallet was originally created.

The company first received reports of unauthorized transfers on Sept. 16 and found that most affected users were operating its App Wallet, which stores or imports keys on a phone. D’CENT has not confirmed a compromise affecting its hardware products and continues to investigate the cause and total scope of the transfers.

Its current criteria focus on wallets whose recovery phrases were entered into the App Wallet and that had transaction-signing history on versions earlier than 8.1.0, released Nov. 5, 2025. The potential exposure spans Bitcoin, Ethereum, XRP Ledger, Tron, and other EVM-compatible networks.

That creates a potential crossover for hardware users. A recovery phrase generated on a D’CENT device can reconstruct the same private keys elsewhere if the user later imports those words into the software wallet. D’CENT said connecting a hardware device to its app normally does not transfer the recovery phrase onto the phone; manually importing the phrase into App Wallet does.

The company is advising users who meet its criteria to update the app before signing another transaction, create a wallet backed by a new recovery phrase, and transfer affected assets rather than restoring the old phrase onto another device.

D’CENT is also working with exchanges, law enforcement and blockchain investigators to trace and potentially freeze stolen assets.

Trezor breach turns customer data into an attack surface

Trezor’s incident began further from the wallet itself, showing how information about who owns a device can become useful infrastructure for attackers.

Brevo said an attacker exploited a flaw in its SAML single-sign-on implementation to reach 138 customer accounts. Contacts were exported from 43 accounts, while six were used to send phishing emails through legitimate customer infrastructure. The messages therefore passed normal email-authentication checks and appeared to originate from trusted systems.

For Trezor, the breach exposed 347,149 marketing email contacts. Attackers sent a message claiming a critical hardware vulnerability and requiring customers to download an application that then requested their wallet backup. About 2,500 recipients reached the malicious domain before Trezor disabled it.

Trezor said clicking the link alone did not expose funds. However, the risk arose if a user entered the backup into the malicious application, allowing an attacker to recreate the wallet elsewhere.

The exported email list creates a longer-lived problem even after the first phishing domain has disappeared. Verified contact details for hardware-wallet users can be reused in follow-up campaigns tailored around future security alerts, software updates, or support requests.

Trezor had already confronted a related exposure in August when a shipping-provider incident disclosed customer identity and order information. The company said that breach exposed phone numbers and shipping addresses while leaving its wallets unaffected.

The two events show how vendors outside a hardware maker’s direct infrastructure can supply attackers with information needed to identify likely crypto holders and build more convincing approaches.

Wallet makers face a wider security burden

The incidents are likely to increase pressure on wallet companies to treat customer databases and software workflows as part of the same security program as their devices.

Trezor said it has suspended its Brevo account and is reviewing vendor relationships and security requirements following the breach. Brevo closed the SSO route used by the attacker, reset active sessions, and said it was deploying a permanent fix that restricts authentication to the organization that owns each SSO configuration.

D’CENT, meanwhile, said it is adding safeguards and pre-release verification procedures while its investigation continues. Its immediate challenge is determining the full set of affected addresses and whether assets already moved can be recovered through exchanges or law enforcement.

Both companies still depend on users keeping recovery phrases offline. Once those words are entered into compromised software or surrendered through phishing, the attacker no longer needs to defeat the hardware device.

That shifts part of the competitive burden for wallet makers beyond secure chips and signing architecture.

Companies selling self-custody products will increasingly have to show how they limit retained customer data, vet outside vendors, and design companion software so a compromise elsewhere in the stack doesn't provide another path to the keys their hardware was built to protect.

The post Your crypto hardware wallet can stay secure while everything around it fails appeared first on CryptoSlate.

Ethereum spent most of this year looking like the coin everybody had given up on. Then one candle in August changed the entire picture, and ETH has been quietly building a launchpad ever since. The $3,000 level is no longer a fantasy number. It is roughly 19% away, and the chart is doing exactly what it needs to do to get there.

Where Is the ETH Price Right Now?

$Ethereum is trading at $2,510 on the daily, up 2.65% on the session, after opening at $2,445 and tagging $2,518 intraday. The low of the day was $2,435, which is the important part, because that is the third time in a month buyers have shown up in that exact zone.

Step back and the year looks brutal. ETH ground sideways through April near $2,400, rolled over in May, and collapsed through June into a low around $1,550. That is a drawdown of more than 65% from the August 2025 all-time high near $4,946. July was a slow repair job above $1,600. August was a boring drift between $1,900 and $2,050.

Then came the candle. In mid-August, Ethereum went vertical in a single daily session, ripping from roughly $1,950 through $2,000, through the 200 EMA, through $2,400, and closing near $2,500. That is a 28% expansion move in one bar, and it did not retrace. Everything since has been consolidation, not distribution.

What Does the ETH Chart Say About $3,000?

The structure right now is a textbook range. $2,400 is the floor. $2,600 is the ceiling. Ethereum has been locked between them for a full month, and neither side has broken.

That matters more than it sounds. When a market makes a violent vertical move and then goes sideways at the highs instead of giving the move back, it is usually absorbing supply rather than topping out. Sellers who wanted out at $2,400 have been getting filled for four weeks, and price has not cracked.

The measured move math is clean. The $1,600 to $2,000 base was 400 points wide, and the breakout above $2,000 projected $2,400. That target was hit almost exactly. The current $2,400 to $2,600 range is 200 points wide, so a clean daily close above $2,600 projects $2,800. From there, $3,000 is the next horizontal level on the chart, and it is the level that was acting as resistance through the entire first half of the year.

So the path is not a single leap. It is two steps: reclaim and hold $2,600, then run the gap to $2,800 where there is almost no historical resistance, then attack $3,000.

Is the 200 EMA Turning Bullish for Ethereum?

The 200-day EMA sits at $2,212. For eight straight months it pointed down, and every rally in spring and summer died against it. Ethereum is now trading roughly 13% above it, and more importantly, the line itself has flattened and hooked upward for the first time this year.

A rising 200 EMA underneath price is what separates a dead-cat bounce from a trend reversal. As long as ETH stays above it, the medium-term bias flips from bearish to constructive, and pullbacks become buyable instead of terrifying.

RSI backs this up without screaming. The 14-period reading is 59.73, sitting just above its own signal line at 58.70. That is the bullish half of the range with no overbought condition anywhere in sight. Ethereum can rally another 15% before RSI even starts flashing warnings, which is exactly the kind of fuel tank you want before a breakout attempt.

Are ETF Inflows Strong Enough to Push ETH to $3,000?

The chart is not moving in a vacuum. Institutional flow has flipped hard in Ethereum's favor.

US spot Ethereum ETFs pulled in roughly $1.75 billion to $1.85 billion in August 2026, their best month since August 2025, after more than $1 billion had left the funds in May and June. The week ending September 11 added another $197 million, a fourth consecutive positive week, while Bitcoin ETFs bled $463 million over the same stretch. A single session on September 11 brought in $216 million, the largest daily total of that week.

That divergence is the story. Money is not leaving crypto, it is rotating from Bitcoin into Ethereum, and the staking yield inside the newer ETH products is a large part of why. Ethereum spot ETFs now hold $16.31 billion in total net assets, around 5.28% of Ethereum's entire market capitalization.

One caveat worth being honest about: the buying is heavily concentrated, with BlackRock's ETHA accounting for roughly 72% of the inflow streak that began in mid-August. A trend carried by one issuer is a trend with a single point of failure.

The other catalyst is on the roadmap. The Glamsterdam upgrade has slipped to Q4 2026, with the Sepolia testnet fork scheduled for 28 September. A delayed catalyst is still a catalyst, and it lands right in the seasonal window where crypto tends to get interesting.

What Would Invalidate This Ethereum Price Prediction?

$2,400 is the line. It is the breakout level, it is the range floor, and it has now been defended three separate times. Bitfinex analysts also flagged the September 11 daily low near $2,432 as the level to watch on pullbacks. 

A daily close below $2,400 kills the range and puts the $2,212 EMA directly in play. Lose that, and the August candle starts looking like a liquidity event rather than a trend change, with $2,000 the next real shelf underneath.

The bearish case is not just technical. ETF flows can stop as fast as they started, and the macro backdrop around Fed policy has been the single biggest driver of crypto beta all year.

Ethereum Price Prediction: How Soon Can ETH Hit $3,000?

Analyst targets are scattered across a wide band, which tells you the market genuinely does not know. CoinDCX puts September at a $2,800 target with a $2,405 to $2,950 range. LongForecast is far more aggressive, modelling a September close near $2,959 and October at $3,432. Messari's base case is $3,200 to $3,800 by December, with VanEck pointing to $4,500 if macro conditions improve. Prediction markets are more sober, giving roughly a 31% chance of a $3,500 touch before year end.

Strip out the noise and the chart gives a cleaner answer. Ethereum does not need a miracle to see $3,000. It needs one daily close above $2,600 with volume, and the structure opens up. Given the range has already compressed for four weeks with a rising 200 EMA underneath and RSI holding the bullish band, a breakout attempt in October is the base case, not the moonshot case.

Fail at $2,600 again and $ETH simply keeps grinding between $2,400 and $2,600 until something forces a decision. Ranges do not last forever.

This week was supposed to be the one that ended the rally. The Senate killed the crypto industry's biggest legislative push in years on Tuesday. The Federal Reserve raised interest rates for the first time since 2023 on Wednesday. Two catalysts, 24 hours apart, both pointing down.

$Bitcoin is trading near $77,900 as of Friday, after a previous close of $76,559 and a day range between $76,289 and $78,051. It gave up ground, took it back, and is now sitting almost exactly where it started the week. That is not weakness. That is consolidation, and there are three solid reasons behind it.

What Is Actually Happening in the Crypto Market Right Now?

Over the past 30 days Bitcoin is up 20.5%, having run from roughly $64,000 in mid-August to the high $70,000s, with an average price of $77,286 across the period. August alone delivered a 25% gain.

A market that has just added a fifth of its value in a month does not usually push straight through. It ranges, it shakes out leverage, and it waits for the next input. That is exactly what the $75,000 to $78,000 band has been doing.

Reason 1: The Bad News Was Already in the Price

The Fed hike was priced at roughly 93% odds in futures markets going into the meeting. When the 12-0 decision landed, Bitcoin spiked to about $76,500 within five minutes and gave the move back within half an hour. A market that barely reacts to a confirmed hawkish event has already absorbed it.

The CLARITY Act was a similar story. Bitwise's CIO had already revised his outlook on the bill and argued the bull market can continue without legislation, pointing out that Bitcoin climbed above $80,000 in early September even as the odds of passage were falling. Traders had been repricing the legislative path for weeks before the vote.

Reason 2: Institutional Demand Has Not Left the Table

This is the strongest leg of the argument. Total Bitcoin ETF assets sit above $103 billion after August pulled in $3.52 billion, the best month of 2026.

The altcoin funds tell the same story. On days when spot prices fell, $Ethereum, $Solana and XRP ETFs still posted net inflows of $10.95 million, $10.19 million and $14.38 million, and $XRP funds ran 11 consecutive days of net buying worth roughly $170 million. Nasdaq put $100 million into Payward, Kraken's parent, on September 10 at a $21 billion valuation, and the Canary staked TRX ETF launched on September 9 as the first spot staked crypto fund in the US.

Positioning adds to the case. JPMorgan noted on September 16 that gold ETFs have recovered all of their 2026 outflows while Bitcoin ETFs have recovered only about half, and that short interest in BlackRock's IBIT remains near its highest level of the year. If that hedging pressure unwinds, it becomes fuel rather than drag.

Reason 3: Regulation Is Moving Without Congress

The CLARITY Act failing 49-50 looked like a wall. It is closer to a detour.

The SEC put Regulation Crypto Assets out for comment in August and has since opened a five-year pathway for tokenized US stock trading. The CFTC chair had already instructed staff to build a market-structure regime under existing Commodity Exchange Act authority. Neither depended on the Senate.

Congress has not gone quiet either. The House Financial Services Committee advanced the American Reserve Modernization Act, H.R. 8957, by 28-21, keeping the US Bitcoin reserve idea alive. Outside the US, Canada's financial regulator clarified that tokenized bank deposits are legally equivalent to traditional deposits. The direction of travel has not reversed, only the vehicle has changed.

What Could Still Break the Bull Case?

Being honest about the other side matters. Bitcoin remains roughly 39% below its October 2025 all-time high of $128,198, and the 52-week range runs from $57,833 to $126,186, so this is still a recovery, not a breakout.

The Fed is the real risk. Sixteen of eighteen officials project at least one more hike this year and four expect two, which puts December in play. With the 10-year Treasury yield near 5% and Bitcoin carrying a 0.89 correlation to the S&P 500 and 0.91 to the Nasdaq, crypto is trading as a risk asset right now, not as a hedge. If equities crack, crypto follows.

The short answer first: if you hold Bitcoin privately and move away from Germany, the move itself triggers no tax on your capital gains. There is no deemed sale on the day you deregister and no taxation of unrealised gains on your wallet balance. The exit tax that so many emigrants warn about catches something other than crypto assets.

The move can still become expensive if you overlook the four places where German tax law reaches you even after departure: the moment your tax residence genuinely ends, the one-year holding period that keeps running when you sell, the legal form of your crypto investment, and the question of what your tax office will learn automatically from the 2026 reporting year onwards. This article works through those points in order, under German law, with the statutory references you can put in front of your tax adviser if in doubt.

Does the exit tax under Section 6 AStG apply to Bitcoin held privately?

Exit taxation means the state treats an asset as if you had sold it on the day you left and taxes the increase in value, although not a single euro has reached you. That is a hard intervention, and it is precisely why the legislator drew the scope narrowly.

Section 6 of the Foreign Transactions Tax Act attaches to shareholdings within the meaning of Section 17(1) sentence 1 EStG, meaning holdings in corporations from a stake of one percent upwards. Shares in a German GmbH fall under it, and so do equity blocks above that threshold. A Bitcoin, an Ether or a stablecoin in your own wallet is not a holding in a corporation. The wording of the provision leaves no room here, and that is why there is no German exit tax on directly held crypto assets in private hands. You can read the statute yourself if you want to: Section 6 AStG on the portal of the Federal Ministry of Justice.

The distinction matters in both directions. Anyone holding their coins through their own GmbH is not safe merely because the underlying asset is crypto. In that case the GmbH share is the asset that triggers the exit tax, and the value of the coins inside it helps determine how much tax falls due. The structure is widespread among German investors, and it turns the outcome on its head. Readers interested in the motives behind such departures will find the reasons and the destination countries set out in our survey of why crypto investors emigrate.

When does your unlimited tax liability end: residence under Section 8 AO and habitual abode under Section 9 AO

The decisive question when you leave is not when you boarded the plane but when your unlimited tax liability ends. You are subject to unlimited tax liability for as long as you have a residence or your habitual abode in Germany. The German tax authorities then capture your worldwide income, including gains made on a crypto exchange in Singapore.

Residence: the key counts, not the deregistration certificate

Section 8 of the Fiscal Code defines residence by the facts on the ground: you keep a dwelling under circumstances suggesting that you will retain and use it. Deregistering at the residents' registration office is evidence of that and nothing more. Anyone who leaves the old flat standing empty, who keeps a room in the family home available at any time, or who has held on to the key to a shared flat risks the tax office treating the residence, and with it full tax liability, as continuing. A genuine tenancy agreement solves the problem. An accommodation arranged as a favour among relatives usually does not.

Habitual abode: the six-month line

Section 9 of the Fiscal Code adds the habitual abode: anyone staying in Germany for more than six consecutive months is subject to unlimited tax liability even without a dwelling, and short interruptions count towards the period. For emigrants with a German client base this is the most common trap. Spend every summer in Germany without ever documenting the days and you will have nothing to set against a tax audit later. Keep a plain travel log from day one, with dates, border crossings and evidence.

If your unlimited tax liability ends mid-year, you also need a tax report that separates the periods cleanly. Many portfolio tools default to full calendar years. Which programs handle partial periods and several tax jurisdictions is set out in our comparison of crypto tax software and portfolio trackers.

The one-year holding period under Section 23 EStG keeps running when you leave

For as long as you are subject to unlimited tax liability in Germany, gains on the sale of crypto assets are private disposal transactions under Section 23(1) sentence 1 no. 2 EStG. If more than a year lies between acquisition and sale, the gain stays tax-free. Below that it counts as taxable income and is charged at your personal rate. An exemption limit of 1,000 euros applies to all private disposal transactions of a year taken together. An exemption limit is not an allowance: one euro above it makes the entire gain taxable.

Leaving the country does not interrupt that period, it only shifts who taxes at the end. What counts is the actual sale or swap, and where you are tax resident at that moment. From this follows the most practical rule in this article: do not sell while your change of residence is still incomplete. Cash in coins inside the one-year period two weeks before you deregister and you pay the full German rate on the entire gain.

The reverse holds as well. Your acquisition data does not disappear because you leave the country. Your new country of residence will ask, by its own rules, when you bought and at what price, and some states use the value at the time of arrival. Which records support a German holding period is something we have written up in detail elsewhere, and the same paperwork will serve you abroad.

Crypto ETPs, ETFs and fund units: where the exit tax under Section 19 InvStG does bite

This is where matters turn unexpectedly serious for many German investors. Since 1 January 2025 the Investment Tax Act has had its own exit tax for fund units held privately. Under Section 19(3) InvStG, the end of unlimited tax liability through giving up a residence or a habitual abode is treated as a disposal at fair market value. The tax authorities therefore act as though you had sold your fund units on the day you left.

That is triggered only above two thresholds, either of which suffices: you held at least one percent of a fund's issued units at some point in the past five years, or your units in that fund carry acquisition costs of at least 500,000 euros. Anyone with a larger portfolio of broad equity ETFs alongside a crypto allocation breaches the second threshold sooner than they would like.

Whether your crypto position itself falls under this depends purely on the legal form of the product. An investment unit is a unit in an investment fund within the meaning of the Investment Tax Act. The crypto ETPs common in Europe, by contrast, are mostly structured as debt securities, meaning ETNs, and therefore precisely not fund units. A US spot ETF on Bitcoin, on the other hand, is a fund. Check each position individually for what you actually hold, and use the terms of issue or the key information document for that, not the product name on your brokerage statement. On departure this distinction decides a five-figure tax bill.

Extended limited tax liability under Section 2 AStG: when a low-tax country holds you for ten years

Extended limited tax liability is a run-on. Germany continues to tax you after you leave, though only on certain categories of income and only under narrow conditions. It is governed by Section 2 AStG and catches only those who meet every criterion at once.

First, in the ten years before the end of your unlimited tax liability you must have been subject to unlimited income tax as a German national for at least five years in total. Second, you must be resident in a low-tax territory or in no state at all; the law measures this against a comparative income of 77,000 euros and a burden of less than two thirds of the German income tax. Third, you need substantial economic interests in Germany, which Section 2(3) AStG assumes among other things where domestic income exceeds 62,000 euros or domestic assets exceed 154,000 euros. Where all of that applies, the run-on lasts until ten years after the end of the year of departure, and it takes effect only above 16,500 euros of income subject to limited tax liability in an assessment period.

For crypto investors the point is delicate, because Section 2 AStG captures all income that does not constitute foreign income within the meaning of Section 34d EStG. A gain on the sale of coins can be allocated neither to foreign real estate nor to a foreign permanent establishment, so the classification has to be settled case by case. Anyone moving to Dubai, Paraguay or a similarly taxing country while keeping German rental income or a stake in a German company should settle that question with a tax adviser before the move rather than after it.

Commercial trading and business assets: deemed disposal instead of exit tax

If you hold your crypto assets as business assets, a different system applies. Deemed disposal means that Germany treats an asset as withdrawn as soon as the German right of taxation over it is excluded or restricted; the legal basis is Section 4(1) sentence 3 EStG. Move your business abroad and cessation of business under Section 16(3a) EStG comes into play on top.

So anyone trading commercially, mining commercially or running a trading structure can well trigger taxation of unrealised gains on departure, and that without Section 6 AStG being needed at all. The line between private asset management and a trade depends on scale, external financing, organisation and outward appearance. If that question gives you pause, that in itself is a sign that a case-by-case review is needed.

Double tax treaties: who taxes when both states see you as resident

In the first months after a move it often happens that two states treat you as tax resident at the same time. German double tax treaties provide an order of precedence for this, modelled on Article 4 of the OECD Model Convention: first the permanent home, then the centre of vital interests, then the habitual abode, and finally nationality.

The centre of vital interests is where most emigrants come unstuck, and it is measured by mundane things. Where does your family live, where is your doctor, where is the sports club, where is the current account that pays the running costs. You do not change country with a passport alone. Most treaties, incidentally, allocate gains on the sale of crypto assets to the state of residence, because they fall under the catch-all clause for other property. That too is what makes a clean determination of residence so important.

Where your coins sit: self-custody, exchange accounts and the duty to cooperate under Section 90 AO

The location of your coins is irrelevant for tax purposes; the location of your records is not. The Federal Ministry of Finance circular of 6 March 2025 on individual questions of the income tax treatment of certain crypto assets regulated the duties to cooperate and to keep records explicitly for the first time, and it replaces the older circular of 10 May 2022. Anyone buying or selling through centralised trading platforms run by foreign operators is subject to the extended duty to cooperate in cross-border matters under Section 90(2) AO. In plain terms, you have to establish the facts and obtain the evidence yourself, and the tax office may estimate if you cannot. The full text is available as a PDF from the Federal Ministry of Finance.

That creates a practical difference between the forms of custody. An exchange account is tied to an identity and to a country: many providers block or restrict accounts when the registered address changes to a country they do not serve, and exporting the trading history then becomes difficult. A self-custody wallet moves with you and needs nobody's consent. The price is that nobody else keeps your records. If you are switching to self-custody, do it before you leave rather than after, and download every transaction history first. Which device suits you is covered in our hardware wallet comparison.

What the tax office learns about your crypto accounts from 2026: DAC8 and the KStTG

DAC8 is EU Directive 2023/2226 on cooperation between tax administrations, which obliges providers of crypto services to report on their customers. Germany implemented it through the Crypto Asset Tax Transparency Act, which came into force on 1 January 2026. The first reporting period is the 2026 calendar year; providers transmit the data by 31 July 2027 to the Federal Central Tax Office, which exchanges it with partner states.

For a departure that has two consequences. First, your master data and aggregated transactions for 2026 are reported even if you move away in the course of that year, and the comparison with your final German tax return does take place. Second, the report follows the country of residence that you give your provider. An out-of-date address in your customer account therefore generates reports to the wrong country, and untangling that costs more time than updating it in good time. How the reported amount is arrived at, and why it does not correspond to your gain, is explained in our piece on crypto reporting duties and the difference between the gross amount and the gain.

The misconceptions that get expensive when you emigrate with Bitcoin

“I have deregistered, so I am out.” Deregistration is registration law, not tax law. What counts is dwelling and abode under Sections 8 and 9 AO.

“Crypto falls under the exit tax.” For directly held coins in private assets it does not arise. For fund units above the thresholds of Section 19 InvStG, and for shares in corporations, the picture is different.

“After the move I can sell tax-free.” That holds only if your unlimited tax liability had genuinely ended at the time of sale, no run-on under Section 2 AStG applies, and your new country of residence does not tax the transaction itself.

“My exchange is abroad, so nobody finds out.” Since the 2026 reporting year that is a mistaken assumption made with fair warning, and the cross-border element triggers the stricter duty to cooperate on top.

“I will sort that out after the move.” Almost every planning option in this article requires you to use it before the cut-off date. After that, all you are doing is documenting.

Which records to secure before you move

The burden of proof for the date and the cost of acquisition lies with you, and it does not lapse with your residence. Before you leave, download the complete transaction export as a CSV from every platform, along with the annual statements, the bank's deposit and withdrawal receipts, and the account statements showing the euro inflows.

What is usually missing once it is needed

Records from trading venues that have since closed. Wallet addresses you never wrote down and whose link to you only you know. Documentation of swaps between two coins that never touched a euro account and are therefore absent from the bank statement. Evidence of staking and lending income, which many platforms keep for only twelve months. And the record of which units were disposed of in a partial sale, which you have to keep per wallet anyway once you use more than one.

Put the export on a medium that survives the move and keep a second copy separately. A tax report that cleanly closes out your German period is the best investment of this move.

Bitcoin and moving abroad: what to take away

1. Settle the cut-off date first, not the tax. Determine the date on which your dwelling and abode in Germany demonstrably end, and place every sale deliberately before or after it. Keep your position data cleanly separated as you go; the tools that handle partial periods are in the comparison of crypto tax software.
2. Check every position for its legal form. Directly held coins are not caught by the exit tax, while fund units from 500,000 euros of acquisition costs and holdings in corporations are. At the same time, move your custody into a form that travels with you: the options are in the hardware wallet comparison.
3. Secure the records before you go. Complete transaction export, bank records, wallet addresses and a closing report for your German period. If you notice that a year has gaps, close it now with one of the portfolio trackers and not when the tax office asks.

This article sets out the legal position and does not replace tax advice in an individual case. On departure in particular the outcome turns on details that only someone who knows your paperwork can judge.

(As of September 18, 2026. This article is not investment advice. Prices and fee structures change; check the terms with the provider before you buy.)

On September 29, 2026 at 14:06:41 UTC, a protocol upgrade on the XRP Ledger arms itself: the batch amendment carrying the internal name BatchV1_1. If you hold XRP on an exchange or in a custodial wallet, there is nothing for you to do. If you run a node of your own, or run a service against a node of your own, this date is a hard deadline, after which your server drops out of the network.

This article explains what the amendment changes, where the date comes from, how to check the status yourself and which caveats are attached to the date. Every figure in this article comes from the validated ledger and from the protocol documentation, not from announcements.

What an amendment on the XRP Ledger is and why it needs no shutdown date

An amendment is a change to the rules of the XRP Ledger protocol that the network's trusted validators vote on, rather than a company scheduling it. That is what separates the process from a classic hard fork with an announced block height: there is no calendar entry that somebody sets, only a condition that the network either meets or does not.

The rule behind it is written into the protocol documentation and it is short. An amendment needs the approval of more than 80 percent of the trusted validators, and it has to hold that approval continuously for two weeks. Only then is it activated. Should approval slip below the threshold at any point during those two weeks, even briefly, the count starts again from the beginning.

For you as a reader that means two things. First, a date of this kind can be verified, because it sits in the ledger and not in a press release. Second, it is not immovable while the two weeks are still running. Both points are the heart of the matter for the date at issue here.

What the BatchV1_1 batch amendment changes technically

Batch is a new transaction type that bundles several individual transactions into one package processed together. According to the protocol reference, a package holds at least two and at most eight inner transactions, which may also come from different accounts. Until now the XRP Ledger required you to submit every step on its own and to hope, with each one, that it went through.

The practical gain lies in the certainty. Anyone submitting two steps one after the other today, say an approval and then a swap, carries the risk that the first step succeeds and the second fails. A package closes that gap, because the network knows the processing rule and enforces it.

Do I have to do anything if my XRP sits on an exchange?

No. That is the most common situation, and the least dramatic one. If your XRP sits with a trading platform or in a custodial wallet, the provider runs the infrastructure and the duty to upgrade is theirs. You do not have to move holdings, sell, or change an address. Shuffling balances in a hurry because of a protocol date mainly produces fees and, in case of doubt, a taxable event that was never needed.

The occasion is still worth a calm inventory that has nothing to do with the date. Do you know which provider holds which part of your balance, how high the withdrawal fee is there, and whether the provider is supervised in the EU? Regardless of the protocol date, those are the more important questions.

What to check if you hold your XRP in self-custody

Even in self-custody the case is usually a simple one. A hardware wallet stores your private key and signs transactions with it; as a rule it reaches the network through the servers of the wallet provider. The keys themselves are never affected by an amendment, because an amendment changes the rules of the chain, not your address and not your access.

What you can do is keep the software you use to reach the wallet up to date, and check once before the date that your recovery words are where you believe them to be. That is basic hygiene and it is right independently of September 29. If you are still undecided about which device to pick, our hardware wallet comparison helps.

Amendment-blocked: what happens to an outdated xrpld node on September 29

Amendment-blocked is the state a server falls into when it does not know an activated protocol rule. The protocol documentation describes the consequences unambiguously: a blocked server can no longer validate ledgers, can no longer submit or process transactions, can no longer take part in consensus and can no longer vote on future amendments.

The decisive sentence stands right beside it: a server's voting configuration has no bearing on this. Anyone who has set their xrpld to vote against the amendment is just as blocked after activation as someone who voted in favour. What gets a server blocked is the missing code that understands the new rule. There is no carrying on against an activated majority decision.

The server does not crash while this happens, and it throws no conspicuous error message on the wall. It keeps answering, only no longer with valid data from the running chain. That is exactly what makes the state dangerous for services that query a node of their own in the background: the application looks healthy and serves a data state that has stopped moving.

Where the September 29, 2026 date comes from and how it is arrived at

The date is calculated, neither derived nor estimated. The validated ledger holds an object that tracks the state of every amendment. It contains a field called Majorities, and for every amendment that has reached the threshold, that field records the point in time from which the two-week period runs.

This editorial team queried the object on September 18, 2026 at around 00:35 UTC through a public XRP Ledger node (ledger index 107058182, response HTTP 200). The Majorities field held exactly one entry: the amendment with the identifier 9F287AED3CDB50A7BD1ACEC24296A30C9B5230CCD136219317AC790E3B884377 and the CloseTime value 842796401.

The XRP Ledger counts time from January 1, 2000. Converting that value gives September 15, 2026, 14:06:41 UTC as the start of the period. Two weeks later falls September 29, 2026, 14:06:41 UTC. The cross-check through the feature query on the same node returned the name BatchV1_1 for the same identifier, along with the values enabled: false and supported: true. The amendment is therefore known to the network and supported, but not yet active.

How to check the status of the amendment yourself

You do not need a node of your own for this. A public XRP Ledger endpoint answers the question with a single request. Anyone comfortable with the command line sends a feature request carrying the identifier above to a public node and reads three fields out of the answer:

• enabled: if this reads false, the amendment is not yet active. Once the value flips to true, activation has taken place.
• supported: if this reads true, the software of the node you asked already knows the rule. If it reads false, that very node will be blocked at activation.
• majority: the timestamp from which the two-week period runs. Should this field disappear again, the majority has slipped and the countdown has been reset.

That third point is precisely why you should look at the status once more shortly before the date, instead of writing the date down and ticking it off. The same route applies to a node of your own, with one important difference: send the feature query to your server, not to somebody else's. Only the answer of your own node tells you anything about your own node.

Which software version brings the new rule with it

The server software of the XRP Ledger is called xrpld and is published as open software. The current release is 3.4.0, published on September 17, 2026; before that came 3.3.0 of August 6, 2026 (both dates taken from the release dates of the official source code archive, retrieved on September 18, 2026).

Copying a version number out of an article is still the weaker route. The reliable answer comes from your own server through the supported field: it answers the question of whether the running software actually knows the rule. Which version you believe you are running plays no part in it. If false stands there, only an update helps, and it has to happen before September 29.

Why the date carries a caveat

The two-week period runs for as long as approval stays above 80 percent. Should it fall below, the counter is reset and September 29 lapses. That clause is no theoretical footnote; it is the safety mechanism built into the procedure. It leaves the validators the option, right up to the last moment, of stopping a change if a problem surfaces in the meantime.

For your planning, one simple stance follows from this. Treat September 29 as the deadline you prepare for, and treat its arrival as unsettled. Anyone who updates a node loses nothing if the countdown is reset. Anyone who postpones the update because the date might still fall through ends up, in the opposite case, with a system cut off from the chain.

The four modes of a batch package and what they mean in daily use

A package is given a mode when it is submitted, and that mode determines how the network deals with failures. The protocol reference names four:

• AllOrNothing: every single transaction in the package has to succeed. If one fails, the whole package fails. This is the mode for sequences that only make sense in full.
• OnlyOne: as soon as the first transaction has succeeded, the remaining ones are skipped. It allows alternatives to be submitted of which exactly one should take effect.
• UntilFailure: the transactions run in order until one fails; everything after that is dropped. This suits sequences that build on one another.
• Independent: all transactions are processed independently of one another, regardless of whether individual ones fail. This is pure bundling without chaining.

As a holder you will rarely set these modes yourself. The difference becomes visible where applications make use of it: in wallet interfaces that gather several steps into one confirmation, and in trading applications, where a half-executed sequence has so far been the most awkward case of all.

What services, wallet providers and payment processors should clarify now

Anyone who reaches the XRP Ledger through infrastructure of their own rather than through an outside provider is affected. That includes payment services, trading applications, accounting tools with their own data feed and every wallet whose provider runs a node. For this group, three questions need answering before the date.

1. Does the feed run against a node of your own or against an outside endpoint? With an outside endpoint the duty lies with its operator, and you should ask there instead of acting yourself.
2. Does your own node report the value supported: true for BatchV1_1? If not, an update is due, with the usual lead time for testing and a maintenance window.
3. Would a data state that has stopped moving show up in your monitoring at all? A blocked node keeps answering. Monitoring that only checks reachability notices nothing of it. Whoever monitors the gap between the last validated ledger and the current time notices it immediately.

Experience says the third question is the one on which everything hangs. An outage that disguises itself as normal operation is discovered late, and in the meantime bookings and displays carry on working with old data.

How this date fits into the run of amendments so far

The procedure is routine on the XRP Ledger and runs several times a year. Most recently, on September 9, 2026, we described the activation of the previous amendment; anyone who wants to read the sequence through from the start again will find it in our article on which points to check on wallet, node and position. The mechanics are the same, only this time a concrete date and an open condition hang on it.

For placing the network as a whole, a look at what is being built on it remains more telling than any single protocol step. One example from February 2026 is the euro stablecoin of Société Générale, which is issued on the XRP Ledger. Applications of that kind are the reason binding transaction packages are in demand at all: anyone automating payment sequences wants no half-executed chains.

XRP Ledger batch amendment: what you take away from it

1. If your XRP sits with a provider, you do nothing. Use the date at most for a calm check on whether the provider still suits you: the overview of the best crypto exchanges puts fees and withdrawal routes side by side.
2. If you hold your own coins, check access and recovery, not the protocol. Your keys are not affected by an amendment. Which device is up to the job is shown by the hardware wallet comparison.
3. If you run a node of your own, send the feature query before September 29. If supported: false stands there, update the software. Anyone who also needs an overview of their holdings and how they are recorded for tax will find the tools for it under crypto tax software and portfolio trackers.

The primary sources for this article: the description of the amendment procedure and the protocol reference for the batch transaction, both in the official documentation of the XRP Ledger.

(As of September 18, 2026. This article is not investment advice. Prices and fee structures change; check the terms with the provider before you buy.)

Anyone who sells a bitcoin position at a loss in order to use that loss for tax purposes, and buys the same quantity back shortly afterwards, triggers two things at once in Germany. The loss is realized and remains deductible. At the same time, the one-year holding period starts again from scratch for the quantity bought back. That is the price of the decision, and it hangs on a single date: the acquisition date of the new units.

The occasion is this week's slide. On September 17, 2026, Bitcoin stood at $76,555, or €66,712, and Ethereum at $2,453 and €2,138. Cryptoticker.io retrieved these figures on the same day through CoinGecko's public price interface. Many positions opened over the past year are therefore under water, and the question of whether to take the loss and get straight back in is coming up in a great many German portfolios at the same time.

Selling at a loss and buying back: what really happens for tax

In Germany, crypto assets count as other economic assets. Selling them therefore falls under private disposal transactions in section 23 of the Income Tax Act, not under the flat withholding tax. That sounds like a technicality, but it determines everything that follows.

A private disposal transaction is a sale within one year of acquisition. The gain from it is taxed at your personal income tax rate, and in return the loss from it can be offset. Anyone who sells after the year has elapsed stays tax-free, and that cuts both ways: the gain goes untaxed, but the loss is equally without effect.

That second half is routinely overlooked. A position bought eighteen months ago and sitting 30 percent under water today no longer carries any usable tax loss. That position is outside the period. Selling it brings nothing except liquidity.

The three figures you need for every lot

For each individual lot in your holdings, three pieces of information count: the acquisition date, the acquisition cost and the quantity. The acquisition date tells you whether the one-year period is still running. The acquisition cost tells you whether there is a loss at all. The quantity tells you how much of it you can move without touching other lots. Crypto tax software with portfolio tracking shows you these three values separately for each purchase, and without them the decision about a loss sale cannot be taken cleanly.

The one-year period in section 23: why a buyback starts a new clock

The holding period is the time between the acquisition and the disposal of a particular unit. That period attaches to the unit, not to the coin and not to the account. Every purchase starts its own clock.

From this follows the central point of this article. If you sell 0.3 bitcoin today that you bought in January 2026, and buy 0.3 bitcoin again ten minutes later, you have not restored the same position. You have a new position with a new acquisition date. The old eight months of holding time are not transferable; they were used up by the sale. The new unit does not become tax-free until September 2027.

On a position that is only a few weeks old anyway, this costs almost nothing. On a position that would have reached the one-year mark in three months, it costs those three months plus another twelve. That is the real calculation, and it comes out differently for every lot.

Is there a wash sale rule in Germany as there is in the US?

No. Under US tax law, a wash sale is a loss-making sale in which the same or a substantially identical security is bought back within thirty days before or after the sale. Section 1091 of the Internal Revenue Code denies the deduction of the loss in that case; it is added to the cost basis of the new position instead.

German income tax law has no equivalent for private disposal transactions. Section 23 contains no blocking period for re-entry, and there is no provision that shifts the loss into the new acquisition cost. The loss stays where it arose, in the year of the sale.

Anyone reading American guides or using an international tax tool should know this difference before deriving rules for the German tax office from them. The thirty-day window that regularly appears in such texts has no bearing on a German tax return.

Section 42 of the Fiscal Code and the same-day buyback: what the Federal Fiscal Court decided

That leaves the objection tax offices occasionally raise in such cases: abuse of legal structuring. Under section 42 of the German Fiscal Code, this exists where a legal arrangement essentially serves to obtain a tax advantage not provided for by law.

There is a decision directly on point, and it concerns precisely the provision discussed here. In a judgment of August 25, 2009, case reference IX R 60/07, the Federal Fiscal Court held that there is no abuse of structuring where a taxpayer sells securities at a loss within the one-year period and buys back securities of the same type and number at a different price on the same day. Sale and buyback, the court held, are to be assessed as separate transactions. The matter in dispute was a private disposal transaction under section 23, that is, the same provision crypto assets fall under today.

The judgment was handed down on shares and not on crypto assets, and it is not a blank cheque. It is, however, the closest thing to a supreme court statement on this constellation, and it supports the view that re-entry as such does not endanger the loss. Anyone wanting full certainty should have the case reviewed by a tax adviser before filing; a binding ruling from the tax office is the only route to genuine legal certainty in an individual case.

FIFO: why the bitcoin you buy back joins the back of the queue

FIFO stands for first in, first out and means that the unit acquired first counts as the one disposed of first. For crypto assets, the German Federal Ministry of Finance set out this consumption order in more detail in its circular of March 6, 2025, together with the record-keeping and cooperation duties attached to it. The circular carries the file number IV C 1 - S 2256/00042/064/043 and replaces the version from May 2022. It is publicly available from the Federal Ministry of Finance.

In practice that means your purchases stand in a line, ordered by date. When you sell, the line is cleared from the front. The buyback joins the end of that line.

This creates a trap that springs particularly often in a drawdown. The units at the front of the line are the oldest, and therefore often the ones with the longest holding time and the best tax position. Anyone triggering a partial sale in order to realize a loss reaches, under FIFO, for exactly those old units first, and those may well not be under water at all. A loss sale that hits the wrong lot produces a taxable gain instead of a usable loss.

How to keep them apart in practice

The wording of the law can be read in the full text of section 23 of the Income Tax Act. The consumption order can only be controlled cleanly if holdings are kept separately per wallet and per exchange account, because under the ministry circular the assessment is made in principle per individual wallet or per individual account. Anyone holding the same coin on three platforms has three separate lines and not one shared one. Which exchange gives you which export formats differs considerably; a look at our crypto exchange comparison is worth the time before you plan a loss sale spanning several accounts.

The price of the buyback: when you trade an almost tax-free lot for a loss

The decision can be boiled down to one question: which is worth more, the loss today or the remaining holding time?

On a lot that is only two months old, the answer is usually clear. Ten months of remaining period is a manageable stake, and the loss takes effect immediately. On a lot that is eleven months old, the picture flips. One month separates it from tax exemption; a buyback resets it to twelve months and extends the window in which a later gain would be taxable by eleven months.

On top of that comes a point easily lost in the arithmetic: a loss is only worth something if a gain from a private disposal transaction stands against it in the same year or in a later one. Losses under section 23 land in their own offsetting pot. They cannot be set against employment income, rental income or investment income from shares. Anyone not expecting corresponding gains realizes a loss that sits unused for years. We set out the mechanics of this offsetting and the deadlines in detail in our article on crypto losses before the one-year period expires of September 9, 2026.

The 1,000 euro exemption threshold: when a loss sale is worth it at all

An exemption threshold is a limit at which the entire amount becomes taxable once it is exceeded, not just the excess. For private disposal transactions it stands at €1,000 of total gains in a calendar year.

For the buyback decision this means two things. If your annual gain from private disposal transactions stays below the threshold anyway, an additionally realized loss is worthless for tax, because there is nothing to reduce. And conversely: if you are just above the threshold, a targeted loss sale can push the total gain below €1,000 and thereby make the entire amount tax-free. That is the only case in which a loss sale pays off in a jump rather than proportionally.

Grandfathering at December 31, 2026: what a buyback next year could change

A draft bill on the future taxation of crypto assets is on the table, providing for a switch to the flat withholding tax from 2027 and for grandfathering of holdings acquired before then. It is a draft and not applicable law; none of it has been adopted, and the cut-off date may move or disappear entirely.

But if it does come to pass, the acquisition date takes on a second meaning beyond the one-year period. Units you buy back today would have been acquired before the cut-off date. Units you only buy back in January would not. Anyone already weighing a loss sale with a subsequent buyback therefore has an argument for not pushing it into next year. We gathered the state of the draft and the open questions in our piece on the holding period and grandfathering of September 8, 2026.

What matters is the order of certainty: the one-year period applies today and is law. Grandfathering is an expectation. A decision resting on the expectation alone stands on one leg.

What proof the tax office wants for the loss and the buyback

The ministry circular of March 6, 2025 framed the record-keeping and cooperation duties considerably more sharply than its predecessor. For a loss sale with a buyback this means, concretely: both transactions must be individually documented, with time, quantity, price and platform.

In practice you need the exchange's transaction export for the sale and for the buyback, each with a timestamp. If the position came from your own wallet, proof of origin is required on top. A statement showing the holding only as a total is not enough, because the one-year period attaches to the individual lot.

The mistake that is hardest to correct

Export the data promptly. Anyone who discovers after a delisting, an account closure or a change of provider that the history is no longer retrievable has lost the proof and with it the loss. That is not a theoretical risk: in the past few weeks alone, several trading venues have set deadlines for withdrawing balances, after which the account interface was no longer reachable.

Three cases from the current drawdown worked through

The amounts below are freely chosen worked examples and not a price forecast. The cases only show how the variables interact.

Case one, a young lot at a loss. Bought in July 2026 for €8,000, current value €6,400. Loss €1,600, remaining period around ten months. A sale with an immediate buyback realizes the loss and resets the clock to twelve months. Anyone with gains from other crypto sales in the same year comes out clearly ahead here.

Case two, an old lot just short of the finish line. Bought in October 2025 for €10,000, current value €8,500. The loss of €1,500 is real, but the period runs out in a few weeks. A buyback trades an almost achieved tax exemption for a loss that is only worth something if there are enough offsettable gains. In most portfolios, waiting is the calmer option here.

Case three, a lot outside the period. Bought in February 2025, current value well below. Nothing happens for tax on a sale, neither a gain nor a usable loss. A sale here is a pure investment decision with no tax effect. We worked through a similar constellation on the gains side for Ethereum profits and the holding period on September 14, 2026.

Bitcoin losses and buybacks: what to take away

1. Sort by acquisition date first, not by price. Check for each lot whether the one-year period is still running. Only within the period is a loss worth anything at all, and only there does a buyback cost you holding time. Tax software with portfolio tracking compiles this list automatically for each purchase.
2. Weigh the loss against the remaining period. Young lots at a loss are the obvious candidates, lots just short of the anniversary the most expensive. And check beforehand whether you have any gains from private disposal transactions in the same year for the loss to be offset against.
3. Secure the records the same day. Export the sale and the buyback with timestamps, separated by wallet and account. Which exports your exchange offers is shown in our crypto exchange comparison; if the proof is missing later, the loss goes with it.

(As of September 17, 2026. This article is not investment advice. Prices and fee structures change; check the terms with the provider before you buy.)

Bitcoin just ripped 5.88% higher in a single session, tearing back toward its 2026 highs. The charts say the move is real, but they also say it's gotten ahead of itself.

Internal memos warned of a "doom loop" threatening the quality of the very models it was building with OpenAI.

It came just hours after S&P Global announced its acquisition of OpenZeppelin, as everything TradFi moves onchain.

Investigators say tracing the network's crypto transactions exposed links to organized crime and murder-for-hire.

OFAC says hundreds of millions of dollars in Bitcoin moved through BitBank to the Revolutionary Guards in two months.

XRP whales moving big with Binance inflows reaching 1.6 billion tokens.

Following a record ATH, Hyperliquid hits the top 10 as analyst Aksel Kibar predicts a 3-digit price tag.

XRP Ledger payment volume has surged above 1.1 billion XRP, more than twice the 30-day average, as XRP attempts to recover from its latest decline.

Bloomberg strategist Mike McGlone reveals why 5% US Treasuries are now worth selling Bitcoin and gold for.

Ripple CTO Emeritus David Schwartz suggests reasons why exchanges are holding back from listing a Bitcoin-split asset, while they had previously supported other Bitcoin forks.

Key Takeaways

• Over the last three weeks, retail traders have offloaded approximately $570 million worth of SpaceX shares, including $250 million in the most recent week.
• CFO Bret Johnsen reinforced SpaceX’s goal of reaching $100 billion in annual revenue, supported by a fresh AI computing contract valued at $1.11 billion monthly.
• Index funds are expected to purchase approximately $15.5 billion in SpaceX shares following a Nasdaq-100 weighting adjustment scheduled for September 21.
• Second-quarter revenue totaled $7.8 billion, representing a 92% increase compared to the prior year, with $2.6 billion attributed to AI operations.
• Analyst consensus points to a Moderate Buy recommendation with an average price objective of $219, suggesting potential gains of approximately 51%.

SpaceX (SPCX) shares traded at $153.37 during early Friday sessions, declining 0.8% while broader market indices remained largely unchanged. Despite trading roughly 15% above its $135 initial public offering price, the stock has witnessed sustained retail investor departures.

Space Exploration Technologies Corp., SPCX

According to JPMorgan analyst Arun Jain, who monitors retail trading patterns, SpaceX has experienced approximately $570 million in retail outflows during the past three-week period. The most recent week witnessed nearly $250 million in withdrawals, marking the highest single-week retail exodus Jain has documented for the company.

The selloff isn’t tied to poor stock performance. SpaceX shares have actually appreciated by approximately $20 since the selling wave commenced. The more plausible interpretation involves profit-taking following the initial surge of post-IPO purchasing, when everyday investors gained their first opportunity to acquire shares in Musk’s aerospace venture.

Despite the recent selling pressure, cumulative retail investment in SpaceX remains around $3.4 billion. This represents a substantial position. For comparison, retail traders control approximately 40% of Tesla’s available float, roughly double the typical percentage for major technology companies, and this dedicated shareholder base has provided critical support for Tesla’s elevated valuation of 174 times projected earnings.

SpaceX presently commands a forward earnings multiple of approximately 138 times. While this represents a discount relative to Tesla, it remains an elevated valuation that signals substantial market expectations.

New AI Contract Reinforces $100 Billion Revenue Ambition

During a Goldman Sachs investment conference, SpaceX CFO Bret Johnsen expressed increased confidence in achieving the company’s $100 billion annualized revenue target. The primary driver is a newly secured AI computing agreement valued at $1.11 billion monthly beginning in December, translating to roughly $13 billion on an annual basis, with a customer whose identity has not been disclosed.

This arrangement complements current AI compute partnerships with Google and Anthropic, which collectively generate over $2 billion in monthly revenue. An additional $6.7 billion cloud infrastructure agreement is scheduled to scale up in October. Johnsen noted that the AI infrastructure investments can achieve full payback in less than twelve months based on contracted commitments.

The company posted $7.8 billion in second-quarter revenue, reflecting 92% year-over-year growth. The connectivity division accounted for $4.3 billion of total revenue. Achieving the $100 billion annualized revenue objective by year-end would require monthly revenues to exceed triple the current run rate of approximately $2.6 billion.

Nasdaq-100 Adjustment May Provide Share Price Support

An imminent catalyst arrives on September 21. SpaceX’s allocation within the Nasdaq-100 index is projected to expand from approximately 1.25% to roughly 2.25%, following the expiration of lockup restrictions on over one billion shares, which elevated the freely tradable float to nearly 30%. JPMorgan projects this rebalancing will necessitate approximately $15.5 billion in passive fund purchases.

Morgan Stanley analyst Adam Jonas initiated coverage on September 15 with a Buy recommendation and $300 price objective, implying 100% appreciation potential. Bernstein analyst Douglas Harned maintains a Buy rating with a $248 target. MoffettNathanson preserved its Hold stance while increasing its price target from $131 to $142.

Among 36 Wall Street analysts covering the stock, the consensus rating stands at Moderate Buy with an average price target of $219. The highest analyst projection reaches $800.

Additionally, SpaceX secured a NASA launch services contract for the StarBurst gamma ray detection instrument, scheduled for deployment no earlier than 2028.

The post SpaceX (SPCX) Stock: Retail Traders Exit with $570M in Sales Despite Wall Street’s Optimistic Outlook appeared first on Blockonomi.

Key Highlights

• On September 17, 2026, Cathie Wood’s ARK ETFs acquired 239,083 shares of CoreWeave (CRWV), valued at roughly $19.9 million
• Rosenblatt Securities maintained its “Buy” recommendation with a $250 target price, suggesting potential upside exceeding 212% from the $79.88 opening level
• The company delivered Q2 revenue of $2.58 billion, representing 112.5% year-over-year growth and surpassing EPS expectations
• Company insiders have divested more than $629 million in shares over the past 90 days, including transactions by CEO Michael Intrator and significant stakeholder Magnetar Financial
• Shares currently trade significantly beneath the 52-week peak of $153.20, while analysts maintain a consensus target of $142.31

In a substantial portfolio expansion on Thursday, September 17, ARK Invest made a significant move into CoreWeave (CRWV), acquiring 239,083 shares distributed across several ETFs, totaling approximately $19.9 million.

CoreWeave, Inc. Class A Common Stock, CRWV

The majority of this acquisition, comprising 191,868 shares, was allocated to the ARKK ETF, while the ARKW ETF received an additional 47,215 shares. This represents one of ARK’s more notable single-session transactions in recent weeks.

Trading commenced at $79.88 on Friday, September 18 for CoreWeave. This price point marks a substantial decline from the stock’s 52-week peak of $153.20, and trails both the 50-day moving average of $85.23 and the 200-day moving average of $94.04.

Coinciding with ARK’s purchase, Rosenblatt Securities reaffirmed its “Buy” stance on CRWV, maintaining a $250 price objective. This projection suggests approximately 213% potential appreciation from Friday’s opening level.

The wider analyst community demonstrates a more measured outlook. Among 34 analysts tracking the stock, 21 recommend purchasing, 10 advise holding, and three suggest selling. The average price objective stands at $142.31, yielding a “Moderate Buy” consensus rating.

In its latest quarterly report released August 11, CoreWeave disclosed revenue of $2.58 billion, marking a 112.5% increase compared to the prior-year period. The firm recorded a per-share loss of $1.14, which nonetheless exceeded the consensus forecast of a $1.52 loss.

Wall Street Firms Increase Projections

Following these earnings results, multiple investment firms elevated their price objectives. Robert W. Baird adjusted its target upward from $100 to $130, maintaining an “Outperform” designation. Truist Financial increased its projection from $155 to $165. Wells Fargo raised its estimate from $155 to $160 alongside an “Overweight” rating.

However, not all analysts remain optimistic. In July, Jefferies revised its rating on CRWV from Buy to Hold.

CoreWeave reports a debt-to-equity ratio of 5.53, a negative return on equity measuring 47.95%, and a negative net margin of 25.41%. The organization has not yet achieved profitability. Analysts project a full-year per-share loss of $5.19.

Additionally, the company has announced plans for a $3 billion convertible-debt issuance and a possible $500 million expansion fundraising round, initiatives that may elevate interest expenses and dilute current shareholder positions.

Significant Insider Divestment Ongoing

Insider transaction activity has been predominantly characterized by selling. Over the preceding 90-day period, company insiders have sold in excess of 7 million shares valued at approximately $630 million.

Major stakeholder Magnetar Financial divested 307,131 shares on August 14 at an average price point of $108.75, diminishing its ownership by 58.18%. CEO Michael Intrator sold 278,560 shares on June 30 at $97.43 each, representing an 8.15% reduction in his holdings. This transaction occurred through a pre-established Rule 10b5-1 trading plan designed to satisfy tax liabilities.

Regarding institutional investors, Alyeska Investment Group expanded its stake by 55.7% during Q2, now controlling more than 10.8 million shares. Deutsche Bank, Altimeter Capital, and Amundi have similarly established or increased positions.

ARK also reduced its holdings in Brera Holdings (SLMT), divesting 4,619 shares valued at $14,134 across the ARKK, ARKW, and ARKF ETFs.

The post CoreWeave (CRWV) Stock: ARK Invest Scoops Up $20M While Insiders Cash Out $630M appeared first on Blockonomi.

Key Highlights

• Qorvo reached a fresh 52-week peak of $120.76, with current trading near $119.51
• Shares have climbed approximately 55% in the last half-year period
• Bank of America established a substantial $182.13 million position during Q2, accounting for 2.21% of shares
• Company exceeded Q1 projections with $1.64 EPS versus analyst expectations of $1.11
• Consensus analyst recommendation stands at “Hold” with a mean price objective of $94

Shares of Qorvo (QRVO) touched a new 52-week pinnacle of $120.76 this Friday, beginning the session at $119.51 with a total market capitalization reaching $10.54 billion. This performance represents an impressive climb of nearly 55% across the previous six-month stretch, significantly outpacing the 33% appreciation seen over twelve months.

Qorvo, Inc., QRVO

The upward trajectory coincides with significant institutional activity. Bank of America established an entirely new position valued at $182.13 million in Qorvo throughout the second quarter, accumulating 1,952,729 shares. This acquisition provides the financial institution with approximately 2.21% ownership in the chip manufacturer.

Bank of America joined numerous other institutional participants in building Qorvo positions. Amundi expanded its stake by 197.2% during the first quarter, while LSV Asset Management increased its holdings by 2.3% in the fourth quarter. Currently, institutional stakeholders control 88.57% of outstanding shares.

Strong Quarterly Performance Fuels Advance

The semiconductor company’s latest financial disclosure provided substantial momentum for shareholders. Qorvo delivered earnings per share of $1.64 for the quarter concluding July 28, substantially surpassing the Wall Street consensus of $1.11 by $0.53. Sales totaled $784.79 million, exceeding analyst projections of $743.28 million.

While revenue declined 4.2% on a year-over-year basis, compared to the $0.92 earnings per share from the comparable prior-year quarter, the magnitude of the earnings surprise captured market attention. Subsequently, nine research analysts have raised their profit forecasts for the coming period.

Looking ahead to fiscal 2027, Qorvo has established earnings guidance of $7.00 per share. The analyst community collectively anticipates $6.42 in EPS for the current fiscal year.

Wall Street Price Objectives Trail Stock Performance

Notwithstanding the substantial rally, analyst price targets haven’t kept pace with the stock’s advance. The average Wall Street price objective remains at $94.00, representing a considerable discount to current QRVO trading levels.

Among equity analysts tracking the stock, three maintain Buy recommendations, fourteen assign Hold ratings, and one carries a Sell rating.

UBS Group emerged as one of the more optimistic firms, elevating its price target from $91 to $96 while maintaining a “Buy” stance on July 29. Wall Street Zen upgraded QRVO from “Hold” to “Buy” in early August. Conversely, Citigroup reduced its target from $100 to $95 while sustaining a “Neutral” position.

Both TD Cowen and Weiss Ratings preserved their “Hold” recommendations.

Technical indicators show the stock’s 50-day moving average at $96.22 and its 200-day moving average at $91.31, positioning the current share price significantly above both benchmarks. The trailing 12-month low registered at $74.92.

Regarding insider transactions, SVP Frank P. Stewart divested 8,279 shares on August 31 at a mean price of $94.72. CFO Grant Brown sold 5,179 shares on August 17 at $97.50 per share. Company insiders have collectively disposed of 62,309 shares valued at approximately $6.3 million during the past 90-day window.

Despite the recent share price appreciation, InvestingPro continues to classify QRVO among its most undervalued equity opportunities.

The post Qorvo (QRVO) Stock Surges to 52-Week Peak Following $182M Bank of America Investment appeared first on Blockonomi.

Key Highlights

• UNI token rallied from $6.63 to $8.49 following the SEC’s establishment of a permissioned AMM trading pathway
• While the SEC hasn’t explicitly approved Uniswap, it established a regulatory structure compatible with the platform’s v4 architecture
• The decentralized exchange introduced Permissioned Pools in July, partnering with Superstate, Securitize, and Dowgo
• Open interest expanded to 11.21 million UNI tokens; derivatives trading volume jumped 64.27% to $1.23 billion
• Critical resistance zones are positioned at $8.86, $9.35, and $10.15, with analysts targeting $12 monthly

The Uniswap (UNI) token experienced a significant rally, climbing from $6.63 to $8.49 after the United States Securities and Exchange Commission unveiled a temporary regulatory structure permitting specific tokenized US equities to be traded via permissioned automated market maker (AMM) systems.

While the regulatory agency hasn’t provided explicit approval or endorsement of Uniswap or its v4 protocol specifically, it has established a compliant pathway for tokenized equity trading utilizing permissioned AMM technology—a framework that corresponds remarkably well with Uniswap’s existing infrastructure.

The decentralized exchange rolled out its Permissioned Pools feature in July 2026, collaborating with financial technology firms such as Superstate, Securitize, and Dowgo. These specialized pools limit participation to verified wallet addresses through blockchain-based compliance mechanisms, positioning them ideally for the SEC’s newly announced regulatory structure.

Additionally, the SEC’s framework provides conditional regulatory exemptions to qualified liquidity providers who support these compliant liquidity pools, potentially creating additional revenue opportunities for participants within Uniswap’s broader ecosystem.

The UNI token broke through the $6.50 resistance barrier and momentarily reached $8.86 before stabilizing around $8.53. This price movement coincided with elevated trading activity, while open interest expanded to 11.21 million UNI tokens, indicating increased involvement in the derivatives marketplace.

Market analyst Crypto Patel highlighted on X that UNI has gained 285% from his recommended accumulation range, emphasizing that focus has shifted to the $9.50 level. He indicated that successfully breaking and maintaining above $9.50 could pave the way toward $14, $26, and ultimately $50, whereas a rejection might establish $5.40 as the critical support threshold.

Technical Analysis of UNI

The Relative Strength Index (RSI) climbed to 76.24, positioning UNI within overbought territory. Although this indicator reinforces the bullish momentum, it simultaneously suggests the potential for near-term price consolidation.

The token is currently trading above its 20, 50, 100, and 200 exponential moving averages. Bollinger Bands show expansion, with the upper boundary positioned near $7.55 and the 20-period simple moving average around $5.99 providing dynamic support.

Platform Development Provides Fundamental Strength

Looking beyond price movements, Uniswap facilitated more than $70 billion in transaction volume during the previous month. The decentralized exchange currently supports over 1,700 tokenized real-world assets across its platform.

Latest platform expansions include Ink integration throughout Uniswap’s Web Application, Wallet, and API infrastructure, alongside Arc deployment across Uniswap v2, v3, v4, UniswapX, and the Trading API systems.

Derivatives market information from Coinglass reveals a 64.27% surge in trading volume reaching $1.23 billion, accompanied by a 16.19% expansion in open interest totaling $569.95 million.

Near-term resistance zones are located between $8.63 and $8.86. Successfully breaking through this range could drive UNI toward $9.30 and subsequently $10.15, with $12 representing the extended monthly objective.

The post Uniswap (UNI) Soars 28% as SEC Introduces AMM Framework for Tokenized Securities appeared first on Blockonomi.

Key Takeaways

• Nearly $7 trillion in notional value of US options contracts reaches expiration today during a triple witching event
• According to Citadel Securities, this represents the second-largest options expiry in recorded history
• Citadel’s Scott Rubner notes that 60% of this expiration volume hits at market open
• Current options positioning provides downside cushioning, potentially absorbing selloffs rather than amplifying them
• The S&P 500 experiences a short-term rally but confronts headwinds from Federal Reserve policy tightening and historically weak September trends

Financial markets face one of the most significant options expiry events in history today, with approximately $7 trillion worth of US options contracts reaching their expiration date.

This phenomenon is referred to as triple witching—a quarterly occurrence when S&P 500 index options and individual equity options all expire simultaneously. According to data from Citadel Securities, today’s event ranks as the second-biggest in market history.

Scott Rubner, along with his market intelligence colleagues at Citadel, highlighted that the majority—60%—of this expiration volume takes place right at the opening bell. Such concentrated trading activity has the potential to trigger rapid shifts in market dynamics.

Market Implications of Triple Witching

As these massive options positions either expire or get rolled into future contracts, the stabilizing mechanisms that have been dampening volatility can suddenly evaporate. Citadel characterized this situation as representing a “potential reset in the market’s technical backdrop.”

Following this reset, markets often become more responsive to fundamental order flow dynamics.

When examining historical market performance from 2000 through 2026, approximately 75% of September triple witching events resulted in lower prices five trading sessions afterward. This recurring pattern deserves attention from traders and investors.

The S&P 500 exchange-traded fund SPY currently trades around the 762.70 level. Dealer gamma positioning stands at approximately $883 million in positive territory, indicating that current market structure provides support rather than creating downward pressure.

The critical gamma flip threshold is located at 761.34. When trading above this level, the market tends to exhibit range-bound behavior with built-in support mechanisms.

Should prices drop beneath 761.34, support mechanisms weaken considerably, and downside volatility can accelerate unpredictably. A break below 760 would activate the historically bearish September triple witching pattern with greater force.

Broader Economic Context

Equity markets rallied following the Federal Reserve’s decision to increase interest rates by 25 basis points, bringing the target range to 3.75%-4.00%. Since 92% of traders monitored by the Fedwatch tool anticipated this move, much of the negative reaction likely occurred in advance.

The US Dollar Index has displayed signs of weakness recently, which typically provides short-term relief for equity valuations.

Substantial short interest in the market may also be fueling the current upward momentum as traders buy back their bearish positions.

Nevertheless, market analysts emphasize that temporary relief rallies don’t eliminate fundamental challenges: restrictive Federal Reserve policy, persistent energy-driven inflation, and September’s historically unfavorable seasonal patterns.

The critical test for the S&P 500 centers on its ability to maintain support within the 760-762 range and break through the 765 level. That price point represents the next significant options-related resistance.

Should the index breach its current support zone and face rejection on subsequent recovery attempts, the short-term uptrend could lose momentum. Conversely, holding support positions the market to challenge the descending resistance trendline overhead.

The post $7 Trillion Options Expiry: What September Triple Witching Means for Markets in 2026 appeared first on Blockonomi.

Ethereum has recovered sharply from its mid-year lows and jumped past the key $2.5K level on Friday. The charts show a constructive improvement in the broader market structure, although ETH remains below several important higher-timeframe resistance levels.

Meanwhile, the Coinbase Premium Index is once again negative, suggesting that the recent recovery has not been accompanied by consistently strong spot demand from U.S. investors.

Ethereum Price Analysis: The Daily Chart

On the daily timeframe, ETH has undergone a significant structural recovery from the $1.5K support area. The rebound has pushed price back above both the 100-day and 200-day major moving averages shown on the chart, with the 100-day yellow average aggressively pushing toward the 200-day one from below, likely to form a bullish crossover around $2K.

ETH is currently trading around $2.5K, directly inside a key resistance zone. This area has repeatedly contained price during the recent consolidation. Yet, a valid daily breakout above it can lead to continuation of the recovery.

A successful move above the $2.5K area could expose the next major resistance around $3.0K. Beyond that, the larger daily resistance zone sits around $3.3K-$3.4K, which coincides with the broader structure established earlier in the year.

On the downside, the first important support is around $2.1K, where the moving averages are also currently clustered. Below this area, the $1.9K zone becomes the next notable support. Still, the daily RSI is around the mid-to-upper 50s, meaning momentum is still bullish but not showing an overbought reading anymore. Therefore, there could still be room to the upside if sufficient demand emerges.

ETH/USDT 4-Hour Chart

The 4-hour chart provides a clearer picture of the current consolidation. ETH has been trading inside a broad range roughly between $2.35K and $2.65K since the sharp late-August advance.

The latest price action shows ETH recovering from the lower portion of the range and returning toward the $2.5K area. The repeated reactions around the range boundaries suggest that the market is still in consolidation rather than an established directional breakout.

The immediate resistance is around $2.5K, followed by the upper range boundary near $2.65K. A decisive 4-hour breakout above the latter would provide a clearer structural shift and could open the way toward the higher daily resistance zones.

Conversely, rejection around the current resistance and a move back below $2.35K would weaken the short-term structure. Losing that zone would invalidate much of the current range-based bullish setup and bring the next major support into consideration, as a deeper retracement would be probable.

On-Chain Analysis

The Coinbase Premium Index is currently around -0.07, with the indicator spending much of the recent period below the zero line. The metric compares ETH prices on Coinbase with those on other major exchanges and is commonly used as an indication of relative buying or selling pressure from Coinbase’s predominantly U.S.-based market.

The notable point is the divergence between price and the premium index. ETH has recovered from roughly $1.5K to around $2.5K, yet the Coinbase Premium has generally remained negative during much of that advance. This suggests that the recovery visible on the price chart has not been accompanied by consistently strong US-based spot demand.

There have been brief positive spikes, particularly during parts of the summer, but they have not developed into a sustained positive trend. The latest reading has also returned firmly below zero.

This does not necessarily invalidate the broader recovery, since ETH can rise through demand from other venues and derivatives markets. However, a sustained move back above the zero line in the Coinbase Premium Index, particularly alongside a breakout above $2.5K, would provide additional confirmation that spot demand is strengthening, and that the recovery is likely to continue.

The post Ethereum Price Analysis: ETH Jumps Past $2.5K as Moving Averages Eye Bullish Cross appeared first on CryptoPotato.

XRP is consolidating after a sharp recovery from the sub-$1 area, with the price now attempting to stabilize around $1.35. The daily chart shows a major structural improvement following the recent rally, while the 4-hour timeframe suggests that the asset is still trading inside a descending channel that is guiding a corrective price action.

Ripple Price Analysis: The USDT Pair

On the daily timeframe, XRP staged a strong impulsive move from the $1.00 support area to roughly $1.70 before entering a prolonged consolidation. The rally also pushed the RSI sharply into overbought territory, but the subsequent cooling-off phase has brought the indicator back toward the neutral 50 area.

The price is currently around $1.35, sitting just above the 200-day moving average at approximately $1.30. This is an important near-term area because holding above this zone would keep the recent structural recovery intact. The yellow 100-day moving average is also located lower, around $1.18, providing a deeper dynamic support area if the correction extends.

On the upside, the most visible resistance is the $1.60-$1.70 zone, marked by the recent swing high. A successful move through this region would put the larger $1.90 resistance zone back into focus.

On the downside, the chart’s major structural support remains around $1.00. This is substantially below the current market and therefore represents a broader invalidation area rather than an immediate support level.

The 4-Hour Chart

The 4-hour chart provides a more cautious picture. XRP has been moving inside a descending channel, with both the upper and lower trendlines sloping downward. The latest rejection from approximately $1.48 resulted in a sharp decline toward the $1.25 support zone and the lower boundary of the channel.

That support area has so far held, and XRP has started to recover toward $1.35. The immediate obstacle, however, is the $1.33-$1.37 resistance zone, which is currently being approached from below. A clean breakout and hold above this area would improve the short-term structure and could open the way toward the channel’s upper boundary around $1.40-$1.45.

Conversely, a rejection around this resistance area could lead to a move back toward the $1.25 support zone again. The lower channel trendline is also located in this area, making it an important level for the current consolidation and for investors, as losing it could lead to a much deeper correction in the coming weeks.

The post Ripple Price Analysis: What’s Next for XRP After an 8% Daily Surge? appeared first on CryptoPotato.

It was expected to be a massively eventful week for the entire cryptocurrency industry, and it was.

But first, let’s see what happened precisely seven days ago. The US CPI data had just come out, confirming that inflation is still persistent. As such, the US Federal Reserve had all the missing pieces to its monetary puzzle, and experts predicted a rate hike on September 16.

BTC went wild after the CPI data was announced, going from $77,000 to $76,000 before it suddenly exploded to $79,800, where it was violently rejected and driven south to its starting point. All of this took place within an hour or so. After this enhanced volatility, the market calmed during the weekend, with BTC trading sideways at around $77,000.

It dipped to $76,400 on Monday before the bulls took control and drove it to $79,600 ahead of the key CLARITY Act vote a day later. BTC had already retreated to $77,000 when it became official that the Senate rejected cloture to advance the bill, and bitcoin plunged to a three-week low of $75,000.

The bulls managed to defend that level, but the next day was anticipated to be just as eventful with the conclusion of the FOMC meeting. The Fed indeed hiked the rates for the first time in over three years, but BTC’s reaction was more modest and somewhat surprising. The asset slipped to $75,000 once again initially, but rocketed to over $76,000 within minutes.

It kept climbing gradually on Thursday and especially on Friday. Although the BOJ also increased the rates by 25 bps to a 31-year high, BTC actually reclaimed $78,000 during the morning trading session. It stood there for a while, but initiated another leg up as US trading hours began and rocketed to a two-week peak of $81,000, where it was stopped, at least for now.

This means that BTC is actually in the green during the week in which all major events went against it. Meanwhile, ZEC continues its massive rally, while NEAR has rocketed by 35%. UNI is up by over 30% as well, followed by HYPE, BCH, and a few others. RAIN has plummeted by 22%.

Market Data

Market Cap: $2.770T | 24H Vol: $96B | BTC Dominance: 58.6%

BTC: $80,600 (+0.9%) | ETH: $2,570 (-3%) | XRP: $1.37 (-4%)

This Week’s Crypto Headlines You Can’t Miss

Strategy Stays on the Sidelines Again, but Strive Buys More Bitcoin. The week began with a familiar announcement: Strategy refused to buy more BTC while it continues to focus on rebuilding its USD stash. At the same time, Strive keeps accumulating more BTC, adding another 469 units.

Bitcoin Could Get More Support Than Gold as ETF Hedging Eases: JPMorgan. Analysts at the Wall Street behemoth said BTC may gain more price support than the precious metal amid easing ETF hedging demand, with BlackRock’s iShares Bitcoin Trust showing high short interest.

From Bear to Bull: Analyst Says Bitcoin UTXO Data Points to a Cycle Shift. Bitcoin’s share of addresses sitting at a loss has dropped sharply, and an on-chain analyst said moves of that size have historically ended bear markets and are not just producing a short bounce.

SEC Opens Door to Onchain Stock Trading With New ‘Innovation Exemption’. The regulator has launched an “Innovation Exemption” to promote secondary trading of tokenized stocks on blockchain platforms, easing regulatory burdens for Tokenized Securities Venues.

Seven Democrats Refuse to Give Up on CLARITY Act After Senate Setback. Despite the latest developments on the matter, several Democrats stated that this is not the end, pledging to continue bipartisan efforts for crypto regulatory clarity.

CoinEx Calls Time After Nearly Nine Years as Crypto Market Pressure Mounts. After nine years in existence, CoinEx has decided to shut down its platform by the end of the year due to declining crypto market conditions and increased regulatory pressures. As such, the exchange joins other major names that fell during the 2026 bear market, such as BitMart and BitMEX.

Charts

This week, we have a chart analysis of Ethereum, Ripple, Cardano, Binance Coin, and Hyperliquid – click here for the complete price analysis.

The post Bitcoin Hits 14-Day High Despite CLARITY Setback, Fed and BOJ Rate Hikes: Weekly Recap appeared first on CryptoPotato.

Just a few days after receiving major blows from the US Federal Reserve and the Senate, bitcoin’s price suddenly skyrocketed by a few grand and topped $80,000 for the first time in over ten days.

The altcoins have followed suit, with ETH surging past $2,550, while XRP has rocketed to over $1.35. Naturally, the liquidations are on the rise.

Recall that the primary cryptocurrency slumped to $75,000 on Tuesday evening after the CLARITY Act setback in the US Senate. Although the asset defended that zone, more volatility ensued a day later when the Fed hiked rates for the first time since July 2023.

However, BTC rebounded almost immediately after the initial shock and went past $76,000. It kept fluctuating in the following days, but the bulls appeared to be in control. Today’s decision by the Bank of Japan to increase the rates to a 31-year high was well received by the cryptocurrency, which jumped to just over $78,000.

It remained there for hours before it went on the offensive minutes ago, skyrocketing to over $80,000. This level was last breached on September 7.

Most altcoins have marked substantial 2-3% gains over the past hours as well. Ethereum has seemingly reclaimed the $2,550 level after a 2.3% hourly jump, while XRP is above $1.35 after a 3% increase. SOL and BNB have marked slightly more modest gains.

Data from CoinGlass shows that $192 million worth of over-leveraged positions were wrecked in the past hour, with shorts responsible for more than $183 million. BTC holds the lion’s share ($119 million), followed by ETH ($36 million).

On a daily scale, the numbers are even higher, with $450 million wrecked. $390 million was from shorts. In total, more than 100,000 traders have been wiped out within this timeframe.

The post Bitcoin Price Suddenly Rockets Past $80K Leaving $180M in Shorts Liquidated appeared first on CryptoPotato.

NEAR exploded 25% in the past day to reach about $3.60, its highest level since the start of 2025.

Many analysts have praised its strong performance and expect further short-term gains. At the same time, two important indicators suggest a correction is just as plausible.

‘Phenomenal’ and ‘Fabulous’

The broader cryptocurrency market has flashed green today (September 18), and NEAR is among the top performers. However, the sector’s revival isn’t the sole reason for the asset’s rally.

Several hours ago, NEAR Protocol revealed on X that users can now trade perpetual futures by default. Specifically, they can open a position from the account they already use, and no one can trace their actions. The feature is powered by Hyperliquid.

Michael van de Poppe classified the asset’s price chart following the resurgence as “absolutely phenomenal.” He suggested NEAR is nearing its final point of resistance and said it’s just a matter of time before it reaches $5. Shortly after, he used another superlative to describe what has happened to the token:

“NEAR is such a fabulous chart. Probably we’ll be getting near towards a short-term top on this one, and therefore, buying the dip is the game. Next target remains to be $5 for me.”

Other market observers who recently chipped in include X users CW and Altcoin Sherpa. The former claimed that NEAR has three sell walls up to $4.80, with the first almost broken. The latter said they are waiting for a potential dip to $3.20 to enter but think “this goes decently higher in the future.”

The Bearish Signals

NEAR’s sudden price explosion has pushed its Relative Strength Index (RSI) into overbought territory at 82. This typically indicates the asset may be gearing up for a pullback, while ratios below 30 are often seen as buying opportunities.

Another cause for concern is NEAR’s exchange netflow. Over the past few days, inflows have significantly outpaced outflows, suggesting some investors have shifted from self-custody to centralized platforms, increasing immediate selling pressure.

The post NEAR Hits Highest Price in 20 Months: Why One Analyst Calls the Chart ‘Phenomenal’ appeared first on CryptoPotato.