Meta's halted AI workforce overhaul highlights the challenges of balancing technological ambition with operational stability and employee morale.

The post Meta’s AI workforce overhaul collapses under the weight of its own ambition appeared first on Crypto Briefing.

The US's potential stake in Venezuela's oil fields could reshape global energy dynamics, bolster US energy security, and aid Venezuela's recovery.

The post US in talks to acquire large stake in Venezuela’s oil fields appeared first on Crypto Briefing.

Andreessen Horowitz's fund could accelerate AI hardware innovation, addressing infrastructure bottlenecks and boosting U.S. tech capabilities.

The post Andreessen Horowitz raises $1.1B for AI infrastructure fund targeting chips, data centers, and robotics appeared first on Crypto Briefing.

The U.S. pursuit of Venezuelan oil stakes could reshape global energy dynamics, influencing oil supply perceptions and market stability.

The post US in talks for major stake in Venezuela oil fields, boosting energy security appeared first on Crypto Briefing.

Coinbase's suspension of low-liquidity tokens signals a strategic shift towards maintaining higher-quality listings, impacting market dynamics.

The post Coinbase suspends trading for Badger DAO and Storj on September 28 appeared first on Crypto Briefing.

Bitcoin Magazine

Capital B Raises €21M From Adam Back and TOBAM To Buy More BTC

Capital B, the Euronext Growth-listed company that bills itself as Europe’s first bitcoin treasury company, has raised €21 million ($24 million) in a private placement backed by Blockstream’s Adam Back and asset manager TOBAM — money it says could buy 270 more bitcoin and push its stack to roughly 3,415 BTC.

The company said Friday that a total of 36,219,070 shares were sold at €0.58 each as part of the deal, a 6.45% discount to Wednesday’s closing price.

Capital B said the net proceeds are expected to reach about €19.9 million after fees and transaction costs.

Capital B is the 27th biggest publicly traded bitcoin treasury in the world, according to Bitcoin Treasuries, with a total of 3,145 bitcoins in its stash — worth $245 million at today’s bitcoin price of $77,960. 

Capital B, which describes itself as Europe’s first bitcoin treasury, built much of that position through fundraising rounds during the first half of 2026. 

In May, it acquired 192 coins for €13 million after completing three capital raises.

Capital B’s announcement as other treasuries look to raise funds and accelerate their buys. Just this week, NYSE-listed AI-powered education company Genius Group said it was aiming to build parallel AI and bitcoin treasuries worth a combined $1.6 billion, after the company sold its entire bitcoin reserves to repay $8.5 million in debt. 

Bitcoin treasuries have faced headwinds since 2025 when the price of the leading cryptocurrency took a hit. A number of companies in the space have had to liquidate their holdings, including the biggest corporate holder of bitcoin, Nasdaq-listed Strategy.

This post Capital B Raises €21M From Adam Back and TOBAM To Buy More BTC first appeared on Bitcoin Magazine and is written by Mathew Di Salvo.

Bitcoin Magazine

Bitcoin Drops Before Shrugging Off Fed Chair’s Inflation Comments 

Bitcoin dropped, then popped after Federal Reserve Chair Kevin Warsh gave his first major speech as head of the U.S. central bank and said he had “more work to do” to fight inflation. 

The leading cryptocurrency was recently trading for $79,474 after dropping as low as $78,630 before quickly rising again. 

Bitcoin has typically done well in a low interest rate environment but the Federal Reserve has been reluctant to lower borrowing costs due to sticky inflation in the world’s biggest economy. 

“But on the price-stability side of our mandate, the numbers are more concerning,” Warsh said after talking about employment. 

He added: “We must be confident that underlying inflation is moving to our objective, clearly and at sufficient speed. Otherwise, we have work to do.”

Bitcoin has in the past dropped on news that the Federal Reserve thinks inflation is too high because it means less chance of a rate cut. Following Warsh’s speech, traders priced in a 50% chance of rate hike in September. 

But Bitcoin has appeared to — at least for now — shrug off the speech. 

Bitcoin’s started surging last week after the U.S. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent announced the department would double the size of its long-dated bond buybacks. 

The news sent yields down lower, and the dollar slid while non-yielding assets like bitcoin and gold jumped. 

Positive regulatory news also helped the coin: President Donald Trump last week said that the long-awaited crypto Clarity Act was a “very, very powerful” piece of legislation, and urged lawmakers to get it over the line. 

The proposed law will establish a framework for distinguishing between digital assets that are securities, commodities or payment stablecoins — legislation that the crypto industry has long called for. 

The Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City is on Friday holding the annual event at Jackson Hole, Wyoming, where central bankers, Federal Reserve officials, policymakers and academics will gather to discuss “Financial Innovation: Implications for Payments and Policy.”

According to the Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City website, this year’s event will touch on how “recent years have seen a dramatic increase in innovation in financial intermediation and payments,” including new technologies such as “cryptocurrencies and stablecoins.” 

This post Bitcoin Drops Before Shrugging Off Fed Chair’s Inflation Comments  first appeared on Bitcoin Magazine and is written by Mathew Di Salvo.

Bitcoin Magazine

Pakistan Built Its Crypto Regulatory Regime Using Just 8% of Its Budget, Minister Bilal Bin Saqib Reveals at Bitcoin Asia

Pakistan has launched its virtual asset regulatory regime in less than six months while using just 8% of the budget allocated to build it, according to Bilal Bin Saqib, the country’s Minister of State and Chairman of the Pakistan Virtual Assets Regulatory Authority (PVARA).

Speaking at Bitcoin Asia in Hong Kong on August 28, Saqib said approximately $200,000 was used to build and operationalize the new regulatory framework, leaving roughly 92% of the approved budget unspent.

“We used only 8% of our approved budget to get this done,” Saqib announced. “Government should not measure success by how much money it spends. It should measure success by how much it delivers.”

Pakistan moved from primary legislation to notified regulations and a live licensing regime in under six months, establishing a formal pathway for companies operating in the digital asset sector.

The framework covers activities including exchanges, custody, brokerage, asset management, lending and settlement, while introducing requirements around governance, anti-money laundering and counter-terrorism financing, customer asset safeguarding, cybersecurity and market conduct.

For Pakistan, the regulatory rollout represents a significant shift toward bringing Bitcoin and digital asset activity into the formal financial system and providing companies with a defined framework for operating in the country.

Rethinking How Governments Build

Saqib framed the PVARA rollout as more than a regulatory achievement, arguing that it demonstrates how governments can operate differently in an environment where technology is developing rapidly.

Rather than building a large bureaucracy, the authority focused on smaller teams, technology-driven workflows and delivering a functioning regulatory framework.

“Technology is moving at machine speed. Government has to learn how to move much faster without compromising structure, accountability or consumer protection,” Saqib stated.

Saqib argued that governments need to balance speed with institutional credibility as emerging technologies continue to develop.

“Speed without structure can be dangerous. But structure without speed can become irrelevant.”

The approach reflects a broader vision for how Pakistan intends to compete in financial technology. Rather than simply adopting technologies developed elsewhere, the country is positioning itself to participate in the development of new financial infrastructure.

Beyond Crypto: The Agentic Economy

Saqib said Pakistan’s regulatory ambitions extend beyond today’s digital asset market.

The country is looking toward an economy increasingly shaped by tokenized markets, programmable payments, stablecoins, machine-to-machine commerce and artificial intelligence agents.

AI agents could eventually transact on behalf of individuals, companies and other machines, creating new questions around financial authority, identity, compliance and consumer protection.

Among the questions governments may need to address are who is responsible when an AI agent executes a financial transaction, how delegated authority should work and how anti-money laundering controls can function when machines transact directly with one another.

“Today we are regulating virtual asset service providers,” Saqib stated. “Tomorrow we will need regulation around agentic payments and the agentic economy.”

Saqib described the country’s virtual asset framework as an initial building block for this broader financial system.

Pakistan Wants to Build at the Frontier

The strategy represents an attempt to compress the traditional timeline for emerging markets, which often adopt financial and technological innovations after they have already matured in larger economies.

“Emerging markets do not have to spend the next decade catching up. We can build at the frontier,” Saqib said.

With a population of more than 240 million, Pakistan represents a potentially significant market for emerging financial technologies.

For PVARA, the immediate test will be whether the new regulatory regime can attract legitimate digital asset businesses while maintaining the consumer protections and oversight built into the framework.

But Saqib’s vision extends beyond regulation itself.

Pakistan’s rapid transition from legislation to live licensing — accomplished with only 8% of its approved budget — is being presented as a model for how governments can approach the next generation of financial infrastructure.

The country now wants to apply that same philosophy to an economy where digital assets, artificial intelligence and programmable finance increasingly converge.

You can watch Saqib’s full appearance at Bitcoin Asia 2026 below.

This post Pakistan Built Its Crypto Regulatory Regime Using Just 8% of Its Budget, Minister Bilal Bin Saqib Reveals at Bitcoin Asia first appeared on Bitcoin Magazine and is written by Nik.

Bitcoin Magazine

Genius Group Sets $2B Dual Treasury Target Months After Liquidating Bitcoin Holdings

Genius Group has announced a new plan to buy bitcoin — just months after selling its entire stash. 

The NYSE-listed AI-powered education company said in a Thursday statement that it was aiming to build parallel AI and bitcoin treasuries worth a combined $1.6 billion, with total company assets targeted at $2 billion by fiscal year 2031. 

Just in April, Genius Group sold its entire bitcoin reserves to repay $8.5 million in debt. The sale came as a number of digital asset treasuries were struggling due to a drop in crypto prices. 

“Every dollar of preferred capital deployed into our bitcoin and AI Treasury that generates returns above the preferred dividend rate flows directly to our ordinary shareholders’ net asset value,” Genius Group CEO Roger James Hamilton said. 

Genius Group first adopted a “Bitcoin first” strategy in late 2024, building a position that grew to 440 BTC by February 2025. 

That effort was disrupted when a court order blocked the company from raising funds or issuing shares, forcing a series of sales that reduced its holdings — including roughly 86 BTC sold in a single month, leaving about 84 BTC by February 2026. 

The company has now sold its remaining bitcoin entirely, using the proceeds to eliminate $8.5 million in debt. The liquidation reportedly came at a loss, leaving Genius Group with no crypto reserves.

Against that backdrop, the company is now proposing to rebuild a bitcoin treasury — this time alongside a similarly sized AI treasury — funded not through equity sales but through a new preferred stock offering.

Genius Group intends to draw on its $1.2 billion SEC-cleared shelf registration to issue Perpetual Preferred Securities, targeting an initial $12.5 million raise. Proceeds would be split between the AI treasury, the bitcoin treasury and a cash reserve covering about 18 months of dividend payments. 

The plan mirrors moves by the biggest corporate holder of bitcoin, Strategy. The company has raised over $16 billion via perpetual preferred stock for its bitcoin holdings. Nasdaq-listed Strive Asset Management has raised more than $150 million similarly. 

Genius Group says preferred capital will become its primary funding tool going forward, reducing reliance on its ordinary share ATM program.

This post Genius Group Sets $2B Dual Treasury Target Months After Liquidating Bitcoin Holdings first appeared on Bitcoin Magazine and is written by Mathew Di Salvo.

Bitcoin Magazine

Japanese Bitcoin Industry Unveils ‘Aurora’ to Let Global Anime Fans Support $2 Trillion Yen Space

Japan Bitcoin Industry Co., Ltd. has debuted a self-custodial Bitcoin payments platform designed to help Japanese companies sell to international fans who are often shut out by traditional payment systems.

Using this week’s Bitcoin Asia conference in Hong Kong to introduce the product, JPI dropped Aurora — aiming to reach an audience that could not be serviced before. 

The pitch is simple: anime, manga, games, and other Japanese content have a massive global following, but the payment rails supporting that content haven’t kept pace. 

Aurora aims to close that gap by letting international customers pay in Bitcoin over the Lightning Network, while giving Japanese merchants a simple point-of-sale and API layer to manage invoicing, payment tracking, and integrations.

According to JBI, the market for Japanese anime content outside Japan reached ¥2.17 trillion in 2024, up 26% year-over-year — yet many overseas fans still struggle to pay for streaming subscriptions, digital merchandise and limited-access drops due to geographic payment restrictions.

The platform’s core design principle is that JBI never touches the money. Each merchant runs its own self-custodial Lightning node, receiving Bitcoin directly from customers. 

JBI says this setup gives businesses cleaner regulatory footing, since the company isn’t acting as a custodian, while still handling the harder operational lift — node uptime, liquidity, accounting and auditing, and conversion to fiat — that has historically kept enterprises from adopting Bitcoin payments on their own.

JBI says aurora draws on lessons from its existing consumer business, UseBitcoin.jp, which has let customers buy digital gift cards — including au PAY, V-Preca and Kyash cards — using Lightning payments for the past two years.

The company is inviting media, prospective merchants and wallet providers to connect with the team at Bitcoin Asia 2026 in Hong Kong.

This post Japanese Bitcoin Industry Unveils ‘Aurora’ to Let Global Anime Fans Support $2 Trillion Yen Space first appeared on Bitcoin Magazine and is written by Mathew Di Salvo.

Selling Bitcoin Privately: What Tax Applies to Direct Sales in Austria

Bitcoin does not have to be sold through a crypto exchange. Buyer and seller can also agree directly and move the coins from one private wallet to another.

For tax purposes in Austria, however, that generally makes no difference. Anyone who disposes of bitcoin for euros or another legal currency generally realises a taxable event, regardless of whether a crypto exchange sits in between.

The Gain Is Taxed, Not the Sale Price

What matters is the difference between the sale proceeds and the acquisition cost for tax purposes.

Example:

• bitcoin bought for 15,000 euros
• later sold directly to a private buyer for 30,000 euros
• taxable gain: 15,000 euros

For bitcoin acquired after February 28, 2021, the special tax rate of 27.5 percent generally applies. In the example, that would generally come to 4,125 euros in tax.

Cash Changes Nothing About the Bitcoin Tax

Payment in cash does not make the transaction tax-free either.

Whether the buyer:

• transfers euros,
• hands over cash,
• pays in another legal currency,

generally makes no difference to the fact that bitcoin has been disposed of for fiat money. A swap for goods or services can likewise constitute a taxable realisation event.

How a Private Sale Differs From Selling on an Austrian Exchange

The decisive practical difference lies in the tax deduction. Where a domestic crypto service provider is involved, the tax is in many cases withheld automatically as capital gains tax and paid over to the tax office. In a direct private sale, by contrast, there is regularly no party obliged to withhold it.

The seller therefore has to:

• determine the sale proceeds,
• establish the acquisition cost,
• calculate the gain,
• account for the taxable income in the assessment.

Worked Example: Tax on a Private Bitcoin Sale in Austria

Written Proof Matters Especially Here

Private bitcoin sales should be documented in detail.

The following are particularly worth recording:

• date of the sale
• BTC amount
• agreed euro price
• proof of payment
• transaction ID
• sender and recipient address
• original acquisition cost
• any fees

Where payment is made in cash, a written receipt should be drawn up as well. Years later the blockchain will still show that the bitcoin was transferred, but not automatically which purchase price was agreed and actually paid.

What Happens When You Swap Bitcoin for Other Cryptocurrencies?

A direct private sale has to be distinguished from a swap into another cryptocurrency. Swapping bitcoin for another cryptocurrency that qualifies for tax purposes is generally not a taxable disposal in Austria. The existing acquisition cost carries over to the cryptocurrency received instead. Bitcoin for euros and bitcoin for ether can therefore have completely different tax consequences.

Legacy Holdings Can Still Be Free of Bitcoin Tax

Bitcoin acquired up to and including February 28, 2021 generally counts as a legacy holding and does not automatically fall under the current crypto tax regime. For legacy holdings held privately, a sale can generally be tax-free under the earlier rules once the speculation period that applied back then has expired. Anyone selling old bitcoin privately in 2026 should therefore document the original date of acquisition with particular care.

Selling Bitcoin to Friends Counts as a Sale Too

Whether buyer and seller are related or friends is generally not decisive for the question of a disposal for consideration. Anyone who sells bitcoin to a friend at the market price has made a sale.

Where bitcoin is genuinely transferred without consideration, it is a gift. The Austrian rules on reporting gifts can then become relevant in place of the taxation of a sale.

Documentation deserves particular care where bitcoin is transferred well below its market value. Depending on how the transfer is arranged, it can be partly for consideration and partly without.

Conclusion

For tax purposes in Austria, a direct bitcoin sale between private individuals generally has to be taken just as seriously as a sale through a crypto exchange. For bitcoin acquired after February 28, 2021, a realised capital gain is generally taxed at 27.5 percent.

The key difference: in a private sale there is regularly no Austrian crypto service provider that handles the capital gains tax deduction automatically. The seller therefore has to document the taxable gain and, where applicable, declare it through the income tax assessment.

(As of August 28, 2026. This article is not investment advice. Prices and fee structures change; check the terms with the provider before you buy.)

Bitcoin is holding just above $80,000 after climbing from the low $60,000s earlier this month. That is a gain of about 23% in August, putting it on track for its best August since 2017, in a month whose median historical return is actually negative 7%. The total crypto market sits near $2.75 trillion.

Almost all of it comes down to three things. Notably, only one of them has anything to do with crypto itself.

Top 3 Reasons Why Crypto Prices Are Up

1. The Treasury pushed liquidity into the system

This is the trigger, and it is the one most people are underweighting.

The rally started when the US Treasury expanded its bond buyback operations, which pushed long-term yields and the dollar lower. Cheaper money and a weaker dollar send capital toward risk assets, and crypto sits at the far end of that curve. Adding to it are reports that the Treasury could draw on its cash account of nearly $1 trillion, which would put more money into financial markets still.

Samir Kerbage, CIO at Hashdex, described the move as mostly a liquidity event. That is the cleanest summary available. $Bitcoin did not rally because something changed about Bitcoin. It rallied because the cost of money changed.

Worth knowing: the Fed has held its benchmark rate at 3.50% to 3.75%, and three policymakers voted for a quarter-point increase in July. Traders currently price September rate-hike odds at roughly one in three. This is not a market with confirmed monetary support behind it.

2. ETF inflows came back, and they are large

US spot Bitcoin ETFs pulled in $2.72 billion during August, taking total assets under management to $98.56 billion and within reach of the $100 billion mark. BlackRock's IBIT alone accounted for $1.33 billion of weekly inflows, and total ETF turnover hit $22.1 billion last week.

That matters because ETF flows were negative for part of 2026. Their return means the institutional bid is back rather than merely holding steady. CryptoQuant data shows capital in the Bitcoin market rising from $20.6 billion to $24.9 billion.

This is the most durable of the three reasons, because it reflects allocation decisions rather than positioning. It is also the slowest to reverse.

3. Short sellers were forced out

The third reason amplified the first two rather than causing anything.

Traders positioned for further downside after Bitcoin's June low near $59,300 were caught badly. Billions of dollars in short positions were force-closed as the price climbed, and each liquidation becomes a forced buy order. That is what turns a steady rise into a vertical one, and it explains why the sharpest part of the move came in a single week rather than spread across the month.

Squeeze-driven gains are the least reliable kind. Once the shorts are gone, that particular buying pressure is gone with them. The Crypto Greed index has climbed to 74 out of 100, its highest in nearly 11 months, which tells you the positioning that fuelled this move has already flipped to the other side.

Will Crypto Prices stay UP?

Two things decide the near term. Fed Chair Kevin Warsh delivers his first Jackson Hole keynote today at 10am ET, and he has given markets very little forward guidance since taking office in May. He described the speech in July as a blank piece of paper. That leaves unusually wide room for a surprise in either direction.

The levels traders are watching are $82,800 on the upside and the $74,000 to $75,000 zone on the downside. Losing the latter would put the move in question.

The honest framing is this: a rally built primarily on liquidity conditions lasts exactly as long as those conditions do. The ETF flows are real and the on-chain activity is real, but neither started this, and neither is large enough to hold it up alone if the macro picture turns.

Anyone who sets out to send crypto and picks the wrong network along the way will as a rule lose the balance for good. The exchange executes the withdrawal correctly, the chain confirms it, and still nothing arrives at the other end. Kraken puts this in its own withdrawal guide without softening it: a withdrawal to an unsuitable network can lead to the permanent loss of the funds.

How large that risk is across the market is a question nobody had counted out. We have. Of the 100 largest crypto assets by market capitalisation, 51 exist on two or more blockchains at the same time, 22 of them on five or more. For every one of those 51, the network selector in the withdrawal form is not a detail. It is the decision over whether the money arrives. cryptoticker.io compiled this analysis itself on August 26, 2026; the method and its limits are set out openly further down.

The timing is no coincidence. Several transfer deadlines are running out at once in these weeks, and tens of thousands of accounts have to move holdings that sat untouched on an exchange for years. Anyone who rarely transfers meets the network question for the first time at exactly the moment when the pressure is greatest.

Sending Crypto: What Technically Happens With the Wrong Network

A withdrawal consists of two entries that have to match each other: the destination address and the network the exchange sends over. Both are asked for separately, and the exchange checks only the form of the address, not where it belongs.

That is the core of the problem. An address beginning with 0x is valid on Ethereum, on BNB Smart Chain, on Arbitrum, on Base, on Polygon and on a dozen further chains. All of these chains use the same address format. The withdrawal form therefore has no way of recognising that you have entered an address belonging to an account on a chain other than the one being sent over.

The transfer then goes through cleanly. A valid transaction to a valid address comes into being on the chosen chain. It is just that nobody controls that address there, or it belongs to an exchange that accepts no deposits for this token on this chain at all. The balance is visible on the chain and out of reach all the same.

Why Nobody Retrieves the Transfer

A confirmed transaction on a blockchain cannot technically be reversed. Whoever holds the private key to the receiving address can move the balance. Whoever does not hold it cannot. There is nothing in between.

In a share of cases an exchange controls the key, because the address belongs to its deposit system. A way back then exists in theory, but it runs through support, takes weeks, costs fees and is expressly voluntary. Several large providers rule out recovery outside a list of supported chains from the outset.

Network, Chain and Layer 2: What These Terms Mean for a Transfer

Three terms turn up in the withdrawal form and are regularly confused with one another. A brief clarification, because the rest does not hold without it.

A network, in the withdrawal form, is the transfer route over which the exchange sends your coins. A blockchain, or chain, is the independent ledger on which that transfer is recorded. A layer 2 is a chain of its own that passes its results to a larger chain for security, but appears in the withdrawal form as its own entry and carries a balance of its own.

A wrapped token is an issue of a crypto asset on a foreign chain, backed by the original on its home chain. It often carries the same name and, in case of doubt, the same ticker, yet it is a different asset with a contract address of its own.

For a transfer this yields a single rule, and Kraken writes it into its guide in exactly those terms: always choose the same network your receiving wallet uses. Not the cheapest, not the fastest, not the preselected one.

Our Own Analysis: 51 of the 100 Largest Crypto Assets Sit on Several Chains

To put a figure on the risk, on August 26, 2026 we retrieved two public data sets from the CoinGecko programming interface and set them against each other. The first supplies the 100 largest crypto assets by market capitalisation, the second the complete list of all crypto assets held there, together with the chains on which they are recorded as a contract. On the day of collection that list ran to 18,684 entries. Both retrievals answered with HTTP 200.

For each of the 100 assets we evaluated how many different chains carry a contract entry. All 100 could be matched, and there was no gap. The result:

• 51 crypto assets are recorded on two or more chains.
• 22 of those on five or more chains.
• 10 of those on ten or more chains.
• 23 crypto assets sit on exactly one chain.
• 26 crypto assets carry no contract entry at all, because they run a blockchain of their own. Among them are Bitcoin, Ethereum, XRP, Solana, Litecoin and Monero.

Ethereum appears most often as the host chain: 57 of the 100 largest crypto assets are recorded there. BNB Smart Chain follows with 25, Solana with 23, Arbitrum with 19 and Base with 16.

What the Numbers Do Not Say

The analysis measures how many chains record a crypto asset as a contract. The count does not measure which networks a particular exchange actually offers for withdrawing that asset. An exchange can support considerably fewer chains than there are contract issues, and precisely that gap is a source of error in its own right: the token exists on the destination chain, but your exchange does not send there.

Second, the figure is a snapshot from August 26, 2026. New issues on further chains are added continuously.

Third, we did not check whether every recorded contract actually carries trading volume. For the question of whether a misdirected transfer is possible, that plays no role, because an address on a chain accepts a transfer even when nobody trades there.

Chainlink, USDC and Tether: The Crypto Assets With the Most Chains

The top of the analysis shows how far a single crypto asset can spread. Chainlink leads the field with contract entries on 87 different chains, well clear of USDC with 34 and Ethena USDe with 30. Then come Ethena with 19, Aave with 15, Ondo US Dollar Yield with 14, Uniswap with 13 and Tether with 11 chains. Cosmos Hub and PancakeSwap reach ten each.

The stablecoins on this list deserve a look of their own, because they are moved most often. Withdraw USDC or Tether from an exchange and you are choosing from a dozen chains or more, and the balances on those chains are entirely separate. A Tether holding on Tron does not exist for a wallet that knows only Ethereum.

Why Bitcoin and Ethereum Are Special Cases in This Count

The 26 assets without a contract entry are the point at which the numbers are easily misread. These assets run a blockchain of their own, which is why the database lists no host chain for them. That does not remotely mean the network question fails to arise for them.

With Ethereum the opposite is true. Withdraw ether from an exchange and you will usually be choosing between Ethereum mainnet, Arbitrum, Base, Optimism and further layer 2 networks. All of them carry genuine ether, all use the same address format, and the balances are separate. That choice does not show up in our count, because these are not contract issues.

With Bitcoin there are additionally wrapped issues on foreign chains, which the database keeps as entries of their own and which therefore also fall outside the count. In practice that means the 51 is a lower bound. The number of cases in which the network choice decides between arrival and loss is higher.

Withdrawal Deadlines When an Exchange Closes: Why the Network Choice Counts Right Now

Misdirected transfers pile up when many people transfer at the same time and under time pressure. That is exactly the situation in August 2026. On August 20 Binance announced that it would end trading in ICON, Secret and Storj on September 3 at 03:00 UTC; deposits will no longer be credited after September 4, withdrawals remain possible until November 3, after which the exchange automatically converts residual holdings into stablecoins. Several trade publications reproduced this schedule independently of one another from the announcement.

Further transfer deadlines are running in parallel. Our own reporting has documented them one by one, most recently on August 22 on the withdrawal cut-off at OKX for MAJOR and J and on August 11 on the Kraken forced liquidation of 56 tokens. Anyone clearing several accounts faces the network decision repeatedly in short order, and each time in a different form with a different default.

On top of that comes a cost effect that tempts people into the wrong decisions. The fee differs between networks by a factor of a hundred in some cases, as we broke down in our overview of withdrawal fees at crypto exchanges. The cheapest chain is tempting, but it only serves if the receiving side carries it too. If you do not yet have a suitable destination address, it is better to look for one beforehand among the regulated crypto exchanges with EU authorisation, or to set up a wallet of your own, rather than improvising under deadline pressure.

The Reflex That Costs the Most

Under time pressure many people reach for the preselected chain, because the form suggests it anyway. That default follows what is favourable for the exchange, not what your receiving address accepts. This preselection is the most common starting point of a misdirected transfer.

Checking the Address Format: How to Recognise the Right Chain

The receiving side dictates the chain, not the sending side. Every withdrawal therefore begins with you having your wallet or the destination exchange display the deposit address for exactly this crypto asset and exactly this network. Most wallets name the network directly above the address.

The address format gives a first indication, but it does not replace the check. An address with the prefix 0x and 42 characters belongs to the Ethereum family and therefore to dozens of possible chains. Bitcoin addresses begin with 1, 3 or bc1. Solana addresses are a longer character string with no fixed prefix. Tron addresses begin with T.

What is practically useful above all is the direction of exclusion: if the format does not fit, the chain is certainly wrong. If it does fit, the chain may be right. With all addresses in the Ethereum family, the only remaining route is to look the network up explicitly in the receiving wallet.

Three Entries That Have to Match

Before sending, you reconcile three things: the crypto asset, the network and the address. All three appear both in the exchange's withdrawal form and in the receiving wallet. If one of them fails to match, you break off. This check takes a minute and is the only step that reliably prevents a misdirected transfer.

Sending a Test Amount: When It Pays Off and What It Costs

A test amount is a small advance transfer over the same route, with which you play through the whole path once before the main amount follows. It costs the network fee a second time, and that is exactly why many people do without it.

The arithmetic is unambiguous all the same. With a fee in the range of a few euros and a holding in the four- or five-figure range, the price of the insurance lies in the per-mille range. It pays off whenever you are using this route for the first time, whenever you have newly created the destination address, or whenever the crypto asset exists on several chains according to our analysis.

What matters is that the test amount lies above the other side's minimum deposit. Many exchanges do not credit amounts below their threshold, and then you have no misdirected transfer but no confirmation either. Wait for the credit as well, not merely the confirmation on the chain. Only the credit proves that the receiving side really carries the chain.

Anyone taking their holding off the exchange anyway should think a step further at this point. A transfer to a wallet of your own does not dissolve the network question, but it moves it into your hands; which devices and programs come into consideration for that is covered in the hardware wallet comparison and in the software wallet comparison.

Memo and Tag: The Second Common Source of Error in a Transfer

Not every misdirected transfer goes back to the network. With some crypto assets the receiving side additionally requires a second entry, called a memo, a tag or a destination tag depending on the chain. That entry assigns the transfer to your account within the exchange, because many customers there share the same deposit address.

If the entry is missing, the balance does land on an address the exchange controls, but with no assignment to you. The way back then runs through support and is an application, not an entitlement. Affected assets include XRP, Stellar and Cosmos Hub, along with some exchanges on deposits to their own chains.

Caught by the Wrong Network: Which Routes Are Left

Once the transfer has gone out, everything turns on who holds the key to the receiving address. That yields three situations whose prospects differ markedly.

If the address belongs to your own wallet and that wallet also handles the chain the balance landed on, the case is harmless. You add the network in the wallet, along with the token's contract where necessary, and the holding appears. To move it on you then need some of that chain's fee currency.

If the address belongs to an exchange, everything hangs on its recovery procedure. Some providers offer one for a fee, many only for a limited list of chains, and some not at all. The application belongs submitted immediately in any case, with the transaction identifier, the time, the chosen network and the destination address.

If the address belongs to nobody who can be reached, there is no route. All that remains then is documentation. Record the process in full regardless, because for tax purposes a loss can only be presented with supporting evidence; how that looks in combination with a forced sale is something we described in our article on the forced sale at a crypto exchange.

What You Should Secure Immediately

Secure the transaction identifier, the screenshot of the withdrawal form showing the chosen network, and the exchange's confirmation email. You need these documents both for a recovery application and for the tax file. Anyone closing an account anyway should take the complete history along while access still exists.

When the Exchange Itself Closes: Order Before Haste

In a closure two deadlines come together that are often confused: the end of trading and the end of withdrawals. Depending on the provider, hours or weeks lie between them. For the network question it is the withdrawal cut-off that counts, because the transfer has to be initiated by then.

A fixed order makes sense. First you settle where the holding is to go and create the deposit address there. Then you check which networks both sides carry and look for the overlap. Only after that do you send the test amount, and last of all the remainder. What happens when this order can no longer be kept is something we described in the article Crypto Exchange Shutting Down: What to Do Now; for holdings with no remaining trading venue, what stands in the article on transferring delisted tokens applies in addition.

One special case deserves attention: some providers require proof that the destination address belongs to you before the withdrawal. That costs additional time, which is missing when a deadline is tight. We gathered the requirements for it in the article on proof of ownership for your own wallet.

What the Network Choice Means for Tax

A transfer between your own addresses is not a sale and triggers no tax in itself. The holding period runs on. That applies regardless of the network you send over.

Two points remain to be observed all the same. The network fee is not to be treated identically for tax purposes in every case; we broke the question down in the article on sending bitcoin between wallets. And a switch between an original and its wrapped issue on another chain is not mere transport, because a different asset comes into being in the process. Anyone taking that route should settle the classification beforehand rather than at the tax return.

For record-keeping the same applies in both cases: every movement needs a date, an amount, an address and a network. Anyone using several chains loses that overview quickly, and a portfolio tracker with a tax function takes the assignment off your hands.

Sending Crypto Without a Misdirected Transfer: What to Take Away

1. Before every withdrawal, check whether your crypto asset exists on several chains. For 51 of the 100 largest that is the case, and the network selector in the form then decides between arrival and loss. If you lack a reliable destination address, set one up beforehand, for instance at one of the regulated crypto exchanges with EU authorisation.
2. Look the network up in the receiving wallet and send a test amount. The receiving side dictates the chain, and only the credit proves that the route carries. Anyone taking a holding into their own custody will find the matching devices in the hardware wallet comparison.
3. Document every movement with the network and the transaction identifier. You need those entries for a recovery application just as much as for the tax file. The running assignment across several chains is handled by a portfolio tracker with a tax function.

To place our own analysis in context: the basis was the public data sets of the CoinGecko programming interface, retrieved on August 26, 2026. The network rule itself stands in Kraken's withdrawal guide, which expressly names the permanent loss that follows from an unsuitable network.

(As of August 26, 2026. This article is not investment advice. Prices and fee structures change; check the terms with the provider before you buy.)

The deadline that Cardano's self-governance is hanging on right now does not fall on September 1. It falls on September 6, 2026, at around 21:45 UTC. By then a governance action has to be ratified on chain that fills four of the seven seats on the constitutional committee. If that does not happen, the committee shrinks to three members and drops below the minimum size the protocol requires. From that moment on it can no longer confirm any governance action. This piece sets out what is actually happening, where the vote stands, and what you as an ADA holder can genuinely do in the days that remain.

Cardano Constitutional Committee: What Really Expires on September 6, 2026

Every governance action on Cardano has a fixed lifespan. The protocol parameter govActionLifetime is set to six epochs: if an action is not ratified within that window, it lapses with nothing to replace it, and the 100,000 ADA deposit returns to the submitting address.

The action at issue here is of the type NewCommittee. It was submitted in epoch 646 and carries epoch 653 as its expiry mark. An on-chain query of our own through the public Koios interface on August 27, 2026 at 00:38 UTC shows it still open: neither ratified_epoch nor enacted_epoch nor expired_epoch carries a value.

The exact window can be calculated from the chain tip. Epoch 651 began on August 22, 2026 at 21:44:51 UTC, and an epoch on Cardano lasts exactly five days. That places epoch 653 between September 1, 2026, 21:44:51 UTC, and September 6, 2026, 21:44:51 UTC. The deadline is therefore a piece of chain mechanics that runs down on its own. No editorial calendar governs it, and nobody can move it.

Four of the Seven Seats Expire: What the Constitutional Committee on Cardano Actually Does

The constitutional committee is a body of elected members whose only task in a governance action is to check whether a proposal is compatible with the Cardano constitution. It does not comment on the merits of a proposal; its sole yardstick is constitutionality.

On-chain governance means that the rules of self-governance sit in the protocol itself and every decision is recorded as a transaction on the blockchain. On Cardano that has applied to all governance actions since the move into the Conway era. There is no parallel body that could decide around the chain.

The committee is therefore the third chamber alongside the delegated representatives and the stake pool operators. Most governance actions need the approval of two or three of these groups, and the committee is involved in almost all of them.

The current line-up can be read straight off the chain. It lists eight entries, one of them marked resigned, meaning that member stepped down voluntarily. Of the seven remaining active members, four carry expiration epoch 653 and three carry expiration epoch 726. That is the figure at issue: four of the seven seats expire in the same epoch in which the renewal action lapses.

Why the Reports Say September 1 and What the Chain Says

Practically every German-language report on this subject names September 1 as the cut-off. That is understandable but imprecise: September 1 is the start of epoch 653, not its end. Anyone going by that date gives away five days.

The difference is not academic. Five days is a full epoch on Cardano, and the movement in the vote count over the past week shows that double-digit percentage points can accumulate in that span. Give up on September 1 and you give up an epoch too early.

One qualification belongs here, and I am not smoothing it over: what I measured was the expiration field of the governance action together with the epoch boundaries taken from the chain tip. Whether the ledger discards an action at the beginning or at the end of its expiration epoch is a question of ledger semantics that I have not worked through myself. The window between September 1 and September 6 is certain; the later date is the conservative reading.

Governance Standstill Explained: What Happens if the Committee Falls Below Five Members

The protocol parameter committeeMinSize is set to five. That figure has the standing of a hard ledger rule, not of a recommendation.

CIP-1694, the underlying standard, spells out the consequence unambiguously: if the number of non-expired committee members falls below the minimum size, the constitutional committee can no longer ratify governance actions. Only those actions that manage without committee votes can still proceed.

Governance standstill therefore does not mean the blockchain halts. Blocks continue to be produced, transactions confirmed, staking rewards paid out. What comes to a stop is the administration of the network: parameter changes, treasury withdrawals and the initiation of a hard fork all require the committee's approval.

Two types of action manage without it, and both are aimed at the committee itself: the no-confidence motion and the action that installs a new body. That is the built-in emergency brake. The way out of a standstill therefore runs through the very same vote that is currently not getting through, only under time pressure and by way of a fresh submission with a fresh deposit.

The On-Chain Vote Count: 51.68 Percent Among DReps, 18.16 Percent Among Stake Pool Operators

The figures below come from a query of our own on the Koios interface on August 27, 2026 at 00:38 UTC, epoch 651. They shift with every vote cast; anyone who wants to look them up runs the same query again.

The direction is right, the pace is an open question. The trade publication CryptoSlate still reported 32.46 percent approval among DReps for August 17. An on-chain measurement by this desk on August 24 produced 39.52 percent. On August 27 the chain shows 51.68 percent. That amounts to roughly 19 percentage points in ten days.

Whether that will be enough cannot responsibly be forecast, and both readings are defensible. The optimistic calculation sees an accelerating pace and around fifteen points still missing with ten days to go. The sceptical one looks at the stake pool operators: more than thirty points are missing there, and that group has moved considerably more slowly so far.

The 67 and 51 Percent Thresholds: How a Governance Action Is Ratified on Cardano

Both thresholds sit on the chain as protocol parameters and can be read off it. For a committee change under normal conditions, dvt_committee_normal stands at 0.67 and pvt_committee_normal at 0.51.

Stake pool operators are the operators of the nodes that produce blocks on Cardano. In governance they form a chamber of their own with a threshold of their own; their voting weight follows from how much stake is delegated to them.

Both thresholds have to be cleared at the same time. An action that would sail through among the delegated representatives while staying below 51 percent among the stake pool operators is not ratified. That second threshold is the larger one at present.

The count works in voting power, not in heads. A DRep with a great deal of ADA delegated to them weighs more heavily than one with little delegation. That is how 115 votes in favour against 3 votes opposed can still add up to no more than 51.68 percent.

What Delegating to Always Abstain Does to Your Voting Power

Always abstain is a predefined delegation option. Give your voting power to it and you remain registered for staking rewards, but under CIP-1694 your ADA expressly do not count towards active voting power.

The ADA token carries two functions at once: it is the means of payment on the network and at the same time the weight by which governance is counted. Anyone who holds the cryptocurrency automatically holds voting power, whether they use it or not.

And this is where the real obstacle to this vote lies. Around 9.75 billion ADA of voting power sits on always abstain among the DReps. At the stake pools, a further 10.51 billion ADA from 563 pools sit passively on the same option.

These amounts are not missing from the count; they have been taken out of it. The percentages above refer to active voting power, which is to say to whatever is left. Move your delegation from always abstain to an active DRep and you enlarge the denominator, which shifts those percentages.

The second option belongs in the picture as well: delegating to always no confidence does count towards active voting power, but it automatically casts a no to everything except a no-confidence motion. That is a deliberate vote against rather than an abstention.

What You as an ADA Holder Can Do Right Now

The honest answer first: if your coins are sitting on an exchange, you have no vote. Voting power attaches to the stake address in your own wallet, not to an account balance with a provider. Anyone who wants a say needs a wallet in self-custody.

Step 1: Check where your voting power is delegated

The common Cardano wallets have a governance section of their own. It shows whether your voting power points to a named DRep, to always abstain or to always no confidence. The community's official governance explorer carries the same information along with each DRep's voting record.

Step 2: Check whether your DRep is still active at all

The parameter drepActivity is set to twenty epochs, roughly a hundred days. A DRep who has not voted for that long counts as inactive, and the voting power delegated to them no longer counts towards active voting power. That is the most common quiet reason for a delegation running into the void.

Step 3: Change your delegation if that is what you want

Re-delegating costs network fees in the cent range and changes nothing about your staking: vote delegation and stake delegation are two separate processes. Your rewards carry on unchanged while you move your voting power. If you want to know how rewards are put together in the first place, the basics are in the comparison of staking platforms.

Becoming a DRep yourself is possible too, but it costs a deposit of 500 ADA. For most holders, delegating to an active representative is the more practical route.

Dijkstra Upgrade and Hard Fork: What a Standstill Means for Cardano's Next Upgrade

Cardano currently runs on protocol version 11, which can be read off in the epoch parameters. That version comes out of the van Rossem hard fork and is the basis the next set of rules builds on. The next major upgrade goes by the name Dijkstra and is meant to lift the network to protocol version 12 in a first phase, together with the Ouroboros Linear Leios scaling method. The development teams involved name the fourth quarter of 2026 as their target and point out expressly that this is a target corridor and not a fixed date.

The connection to the constitutional committee is direct: a hard fork on Cardano is initiated through a governance action of the type HardForkInitiation, and that action needs committee votes. A body below the minimum size cannot confirm it. The same applies to the parameter change through which the Dijkstra parameters are to be written into the constitution.

A governance standstill from September onwards would therefore reach beyond procedure and hit the network's upgrade schedule as well. How long it would last depends solely on how quickly a new renewal action is submitted and ratified.

Putting the Governance Risk in Context: What This Means for Staking and Custody of Your ADA

For the everyday life of an ADA holder, a standstill changes little at first. Staking carries on, rewards continue to be paid out, transactions are confirmed. What does change is the network's ability to react to problems: fee parameters, block sizes and treasury withdrawals are then fixed in place.

For assessing this cryptocurrency as an investment, this is one governance risk among several, and a different one from the risk of a technical fault. If your question is about the current valuation, the arguments are laid out in our stocktake, Is Cardano a Good Buy at Current Prices?

What this piece deliberately does not contain is any statement about how the market will react to one outcome or the other. The chain data says something about procedure and deadlines. About prices it says nothing.

Cardano Constitutional Committee: What to Take Away

1. Remember September 6, not September 1. The renewal action can still be ratified up to the end of epoch 653. Anyone holding ADA in self-custody should look into the governance section of their wallet during this period; the hardware for it is covered in the hardware wallet comparison.
2. Check where your voting power sits. If it rests on always abstain or with a representative who has been inactive for more than twenty epochs, it does not count. Re-delegating costs a matter of cents and leaves your staking rewards untouched, as the comparison of staking platforms shows.
3. Keep procedural risk separate from the price question. A governance standstill blocks upgrades and treasury withdrawals, not block production. If you are drawing conclusions from it for your own choice of provider, work with the comparison of regulated crypto exchanges.

The rules at issue here are publicly available to read: the Cardano constitution in its German version and the governance standard CIP-1694, the source of the rule on the committee's minimum size.

(As of August 27, 2026. This article is not investment advice. Prices and fee structures change; check the terms with the provider before you buy.)

Solana traded at $109.41 on 27 August at 17:08 UTC, its highest level of the year. Bitcoin was hovering just below $80,000 at the same time. For the first sustained stretch in months, the larger asset is not setting the pace. The timing is not a coincidence. Solana's first formal on-chain governance vote closed at roughly 15:30 UTC on 27 August, at the end of epoch 1023. SOL cleared $109 within about two hours of that deadline, taking out the $102.70 level that had rejected it a day earlier.

How far has Solana actually run?

$SOL has gained roughly 46% since mid-August, rising from near $75 to above $109.

The move has three distinct phases visible on the chart. Through late July and the first half of August, SOL held a tight range around $75, drifting slightly lower into the 7 August low. From 9 to 18 August it ground upward to about $78, still without much conviction. Then on 19 August the character of the move changed completely: an almost vertical leg carried SOL from the high $70s into the $90s within days.

That third phase is what most traders are reacting to. The 7-day gain sat at 31.87% as of 25 August, with a 30-day move near 35.6%. Both figures are now higher after today's push.

It is worth being precise about what got broken. SOL briefly touched $102.88 on 26 August and was immediately rejected, falling back to the mid-$90s while leveraged longs took $17.51 million in liquidations in a single day. Resistance around $102.70 marked a 13-week high. Today's move through $109 is the second attempt at that level, and this time it held.

Is Solana really outperforming Bitcoin?

Yes, on both the weekly and monthly view, though the gap is narrower than it feels.

Over the seven days to 25 August, Solana rose about 27% against Bitcoin's 23%. On 26 August, SOL gained 1.5% while $Bitcoin lost 0.2% and slipped back below $79,000. Today's move widens that spread further.

The nuance worth holding onto is that this is not capital leaving Bitcoin for Solana. On 24 August, US-listed Bitcoin, Ether, Solana and Hyperliquid products drew nearly $192.6 million in combined demand. Bitcoin ETFs alone took $208.9 million that day, following roughly $1.6 billion the previous week. Both assets are absorbing inflows at the same time.

That distinction matters for how you read the ratio. A genuine rotation means money moving out of one asset and into another. What is happening here looks more like fresh capital arriving across the board, with Solana capturing a disproportionate share of it relative to its size. The outperformance is real. The rotation framing is not, at least not yet.

What did the governance vote actually decide?

Three proposals went to a stake-weighted vote between 22 and 27 August, two of which would tighten SOL supply meaningfully.

This is the substance behind the price move, and it is the part most of the commentary is skipping.

• SGP-0001, the Solana Constitution. Ratifies a canonical governance framework and activates Solana's on-chain governance system, svmgov.
• SGP-0002, faster disinflation. Doubles the annual disinflation rate from 15% to 30%. Under SIMD-0550, this would cut future issuance by roughly 18.9 million SOL over six years, worth around $1.7 billion at current prices.
• SGP-0003, fee restructuring. SIMD-0553 proposes a fixed inclusion fee of 2,500 lamports per transaction, with a resource component scaling to computational demand and burned rather than paid out. This could lift daily burns from roughly 648 SOL toward 9,000, close to a fourteenfold increase.

Two caveats deserve more weight than they are getting. First, an approving vote only green-lights development. Technical implementation, testing and on-chain activation all follow separately through the SIMD process, so nothing changes about SOL's supply the moment the vote closes. Second, Solana Company, listed on Nasdaq as HSDT, backed the constitution but voted against both the faster disinflation and the fee changes. When a major stakeholder splits its vote that way, the supply-shock narrative is less unanimous than the price action suggests.

Do the three technical claims hold up?

Partly, and one of them cuts both ways.

Three claims are circulating alongside this move: that SOL/BTC hit a seven-month high, that RSI broke out of a five-year downtrend, and that SOL bounced from support held since 2021. All three come from chart reading rather than reported data, so treat them as one analyst's interpretation rather than established fact.

The SOL/BTC observation is directionally consistent with the price data. At $109.41 against Bitcoin near $79,000, the ratio sits around 0.00138, and SOL last traded above $100 in February 2026. Whether that constitutes a clean seven-month high depends on where you measure Bitcoin, and we have not independently verified the exact reading.

The support claim rests on a trendline drawn from 2021. SOL/BTC has been in a broad downtrend since mid-2021, so a bounce from a level with that much history would be meaningful if it holds. It also cannot be confirmed from reported data, and trendlines drawn across five years are unusually sensitive to where you place them.

The RSI claim is the one that needs care, because it points in two directions at once. A breakout from a long-term RSI downtrend is a momentum signal. But the same indicator on the 14-day timeframe recently read 84.31, and touched roughly 79 during the 26 August rejection. Both readings are deep in overbought territory. Anyone citing RSI as evidence of strength here should also be citing it as evidence of exhaustion, because it is the same number.

Is the ETF bid real money?

This is the most solid part of the case, because it is reported rather than inferred.

US spot Solana ETFs took $33.5 million on 24 August, the largest single-day inflow since December 2025 and the biggest of the year to date. That extended the streak to five consecutive sessions and pushed cumulative net inflows to a record $1.22 billion.

The on-chain picture supports it. Solana processed 4.2 billion transactions in July. Stablecoins on the network sit around $15.94 billion, with weekly DEX volume near $19.74 billion, and tokenized assets on Solana are approaching $4 billion. Galaxy Digital launched SOL-backed lending on 26 August, letting holders borrow against staked SOL without selling, which adds a channel for holding rather than rotating out.

Corporate treasury demand is present too. Forward Industries holds over 6.9 million SOL and runs its own validator.

What could break this?

The overbought reading, the gap between voting and shipping, and Bitcoin itself.

The most immediate risk is positioning. An RSI in the 80s after a 46% run is the textbook setup for a sharp unwind, and yesterday's $17.51 million in long liquidations showed how quickly it happens when a breakout fails. The first attempt at $102.88 was rejected within hours.

The second risk is the gap between a vote passing and supply actually changing. If traders bought a supply shock that will not touch circulating SOL for months, the catalyst is spent while the fundamentals are unchanged. Votes that only authorise development are the easiest kind to overprice.

On the downside, the levels to watch are $94.42, the 23.6% Fibonacci retracement, then $88.18, and the 200-day EMA near $81.15 below that.

The third risk is the one nobody controls. Bitcoin needs to hold the $75,000 to $76,000 zone. High-beta assets that have run 46% do not fall proportionally when the market turns, they fall harder, and SOL currently carries elevated funding. Fed Chair Kevin Warsh delivers his first Jackson Hole keynote on 28 August, which puts a macro event directly in front of a heavily positioned market.

Solana is outperforming Bitcoin, and unlike most claims of that kind this month, it has identifiable reasons behind it: record ETF demand, genuine network usage, and a credible supply argument. Whether the outperformance survives contact with an overbought chart and a governance process that has only just begun is a separate question.

The "Double Disinflation" proposal squeaked through by a razor-thin margin after Kraken nearly sank it, while a separate fee-burning measure failed.

Fed Chair Warsh devoted a full section of his speech today at Jackson Hole to AI's weight on the economy. Here are the biggest takeaways.

The brokerage will expand Schwab Crypto trading to Solana, Avalanche, and Chainlink, but has not given a launch date for the three tokens.

Strategy’s co-founder Michael Saylor pioneered the Bitcoin treasury playbook. Here’s what you need to know.

AI cloud revenue topped Bitcoin mining for the first time as IREN accelerated its data center conversion.

Michael Saylor has responded to a viral AI-generated video featuring Fundstrat co-founder Tom Lee with a video of his own, using the joke to double down on his long-standing Bitcoin maximalist stance.

Lazarus Group moves $19.4 million in dormant Bitcoin, leaving the market guessing if this sudden North Korean transfer is enough to trigger a crash.

Shiba Inu has slowed down on its recent price rally as selling pressure appears to be mounting again, suggesting that investors may be taking profits.

Solana governance hits a crisis as Kraken flips its vote on the $1.5 billion inflation plan under intense retail community pressure.

RLUSD crossing the $1 billion supply mark on XRP marks a notable milestone for both Ripple and the XRP Ledger.

Key Takeaways

• Shares of Take-Two (TTWO) jumped 2.6% to $239.93 on Friday following the third GTA VI trailer launch
• A 26-minute gameplay trailer premiered exclusively on Netflix before becoming available on YouTube later that day
• Rockstar Games confirmed November 19, 2026 as the official release date for the first new GTA title in over thirteen years
• J.P. Morgan maintained its Overweight rating and set a $310 price target through December 2027
• Internet search activity for “GTA VI” surged 200%, exceeding 200,000 queries on Friday morning

Shares of Take-Two Interactive (TTWO) advanced 2.6% to reach $239.93 during Friday’s session after Rockstar Games unveiled the third official trailer for Grand Theft Auto VI. The gaming stock had closed at $233.00 on Wednesday before pre-market trading lifted it to $239.50, marking a 2.79% increase.

Take-Two Interactive Software, Inc., TTWO

The extensive 26-minute gameplay trailer premiered exclusively on Netflix’s platform Thursday afternoon before expanding to YouTube for wider distribution that same evening. Showcasing PlayStation 5 gameplay footage set in Vice City—the franchise’s fictional Miami-inspired location—the trailer officially announced the November 19, 2026 release date.

The timing proved beneficial for Take-Two. The company had experienced approximately $2.83 billion in market capitalization losses after unauthorized gameplay footage surfaced online on August 18. Thursday’s official presentation effectively helped restore investor confidence.

Online search interest for “GTA VI” jumped 200% on Friday morning, surpassing 200,000 queries according to Google Search trends, demonstrating substantial public engagement with the new trailer.

Wall Street Weighs In

J.P. Morgan’s Bryan Smilek indicated the latest trailer should amplify consumer interest in the upcoming release. He highlighted the strategic value of the Netflix collaboration, noting its “extensive reach and subscriber base” could stimulate pre-launch orders. Smilek maintained his Overweight rating alongside a December 2027 price objective of $310.

Morgan Stanley’s Matt Cost anticipates “investor excitement” surrounding the game will drive share price appreciation. He referenced historical data showing publisher stocks typically gained approximately 13% during the three-month period preceding major game releases.

Current analyst consensus price targets range from $270 to $313, suggesting approximately 24.5% potential upside from recent trading levels. The optimistic scenario assumes 37 million units sold during FY2027 at an $80 retail price point.

Financial Performance Context

Take-Two’s financial metrics show positive momentum. Free cash flow shifted from negative $235 million in FY2025 to positive $434 million in FY2026. Total revenue expanded from $5.35 billion in FY2024 to $6.66 billion in FY2026. Net profit margins, though still negative at -4.5%, demonstrate meaningful improvement.

Wall Street consensus projects Q3 FY2027 revenue—the period encompassing GTA VI’s release—at $3.38 billion. This represents a significant jump from the company’s standard quarterly revenue range of $1.7 to $2.0 billion.

Investment considerations include Take-Two’s $2.94 billion debt load. The company’s EV/EBITDA multiple of 58.3x reflects expectations of flawless execution. FinQL’s valuation analysis estimates intrinsic value at $203.70, approximately 12.6% below current market prices.

Grand Theft Auto VI was initially scheduled for release last autumn before delays pushed it to May 2026, and subsequently to the current November 19 date. The previous mainline GTA entry launched in 2013.

Despite sustained GTA VI anticipation throughout the market, the stock has remained relatively stagnant over the past twelve months, declining 0.8%.

The post Take-Two Interactive (TTWO) Stock Jumps Following GTA VI Netflix Trailer Release appeared first on Blockonomi.

TLDR:

• Core Lightning 26.06.7 fixes multiple vulnerabilities while technical details remain under a 14-day embargo.
• Developers urged every Core Lightning node runner to upgrade immediately and avoid waiting for Docker images.
• AI-generated vulnerability reports increased the volume and pace of security findings across open-source Bitcoin projects.
• Signed binaries let operators upgrade and verify releases before full vulnerability details become publicly available.

Core Lightning has released version 26.06.7, urging every node runner to upgrade immediately. The update fixes multiple vulnerabilities reported during the past three weeks.

Developers will keep technical details and source code private for 14 days. The embargo aims to prevent attackers from exploiting unpatched nodes before operators complete upgrades.

Core Lightning Security Update Starts Two-Week Embargo

The release arrives amid a rise in AI-generated vulnerability reports targeting open-source Bitcoin projects.

According to Core Lightning, increasingly capable AI models have increased both the volume and pace of security reports.

The development team received and triaged several vulnerability reports from multiple sources. Developers then resolved the issues before compiling the emergency point release.

Core Lightning said it withheld technical details because attackers could reverse-engineer the fixes. That process could expose node operators who delay their upgrades.

The embargo will last 14 days from the release. Developers will publish the full vulnerability details and source code afterward.

Core Lightning previously warned operators about the upcoming security release. Blockonomi reported that developers had received several AI-generated reports within a 10-day period.

The earlier report also said developers planned to distribute signed binaries before publishing source-level details. No confirmed fund losses or active exploitation had been reported.

The latest release now puts that plan into action. Node runners can access the binaries while developers maintain the temporary disclosure restrictions.

Core Lightning 26.06.7 Upgrade Instructions Target Node Runners

Core Lightning has told all node runners not to delay the upgrade. The team specifically warned users against waiting for Docker images.

Docker images were unavailable when the release launched. Developers instead directed operators to use the available tarballs for immediate upgrades.

The upgrade process requires downloading and verifying the appropriate platform tarball. Operators then unpack it over their existing installation and restart lightningd.

Core Lightning said the update requires no manual database migration. The software automatically handles the required migration steps during startup.

The release also includes signed manifests for binary verification. Operators can check file integrity through checksums and verify signatures with GPG.

The project listed separate signed files for amd64 and arm64 builds. Maintainers provided signing fingerprints to help users verify authentic releases.

The security update follows a broader period of change for Bitcoin’s Lightning Network. Blockonomi reported Lightning capacity had fallen to 3,998 BTC from 5,891 BTC in December 2025.

That represented a 32.1% decline during the period. Meanwhile, Core Lightning’s latest stable public release before this update was version 26.06.6.

Version 26.09 remains scheduled for September, according to the earlier report. For now, version 26.06.7 remains the immediate priority for Core Lightning node operators.

The post Core Lightning Security Update Urges Immediate Node Upgrade appeared first on Blockonomi.

TLDR

• Corvex stock rises 1.25% as Garrett Brams takes charge of data center growth.
• Garrett Brams will lead site sourcing, leasing, power access, and development.
• Corvex expands its AI Factory platform as GPU computing demand keeps growing.
• Power, cooling, storage, and networking remain central to Corvex expansion.
• Brams brings mission-critical infrastructure experience from Cushman & Wakefield.

Corvex, Inc. (MOVE) shares traded at $11.30, up 1.25%, after the company expanded its data center development leadership. Corvex appointed Garrett Brams to lead data center sourcing and development for its growing AI Factory platform. The appointment targets stronger access to power, strategic sites, and infrastructure needed for GPU-accelerated computing deployments.

Corvex, Inc., MOVE

Corvex operates an AI cloud computing platform built around GPU-accelerated infrastructure for demanding artificial intelligence workloads. The company provides computing clusters, high-throughput storage, security systems, and supporting architecture for large-scale customer deployments. Its expansion strategy depends on securing enough power and suitable facilities as computing requirements become more complex.

Corvex Expands Data Center Leadership

Brams will oversee sourcing, evaluation, leasing, and development of mission-critical data center projects supporting Corvex’s platform. His responsibilities cover site selection and infrastructure planning as the company adds capacity for high-performance computing customers. Corvex expects the role to strengthen early access to locations and power before new infrastructure reaches the market.

The appointment comes as Corvex expands its AI Factory platform to serve growing demand for secure computing capacity. GPU-heavy workloads require coordinated planning across electrical systems, cooling, networking, storage, procurement, construction, and daily operations. That complexity makes experienced infrastructure leadership important when companies need to bring large computing environments online efficiently.

Brams previously served as managing director at Cushman & Wakefield and advised clients on capital-intensive infrastructure projects. His work covered acquisitions, development, leasing, operations, and dispositions across the lifecycle of mission-critical real estate assets. He also focused on power availability, resilience, scalability, and speed when evaluating data center and infrastructure opportunities.

Power Access Supports AI Factory Expansion

Power availability has become a major development requirement because GPU clusters can place heavy demands on electrical infrastructure. Dense computing deployments also require advanced cooling systems, high-capacity networks, reliable storage, and carefully planned facility operations. Corvex is strengthening its sourcing function as those requirements shape where and how quickly new AI capacity can launch.

Brams will help identify sites that combine available power with land, connectivity, construction potential, and suitable commercial terms. His role also includes evaluating leasing opportunities and development projects that can support future AI Factory deployments. Earlier visibility into infrastructure supply could give Corvex more options when matching new capacity with customer requirements.

The company describes its AI Factory model as an integrated approach to building and operating GPU-based computing infrastructure. Corvex combines computing hardware with storage, networking, security, and facility systems rather than treating each requirement separately. This approach requires coordination across engineering and real estate teams before a new site can support production workloads.

Corvex Builds GPU Computing Infrastructure

Corvex offers AI Factories and GPU Clusters as part of its broader infrastructure product suite for computing customers. The company also provides Confidential Computing and continues developing its Corvex Token Factory inference platform. Corvex said the Token Factory currently operates in closed alpha as development continues across its computing products.

The company’s architecture aims to provide secure, scalable, and cost-efficient computing resources for advanced artificial intelligence workloads. High-throughput storage supports data-heavy applications, while the layered infrastructure design targets reliability and performance at larger scales. Physical expansion remains necessary because each GPU deployment needs enough electricity, cooling, network capacity, space, and operational support.

Brams’ appointment adds dedicated leadership for data center projects as Corvex expands its infrastructure footprint and AI Factory capacity. His experience links property sourcing with power planning, leasing, development, construction requirements, and mission-critical operations. Corvex is using that experience to support faster infrastructure execution while demand grows for GPU-accelerated computing resources.

The post Corvex, Inc. (MOVE) Stock: Surge as New Executive Hire Targets Power and AI Data Centre Expansion appeared first on Blockonomi.

TLDR

• BOT+BAL delivers 21.2-month median survival in refractory MSS colorectal cancer.
• Three-year overall survival reaches 33% in Agenus’ fully enrolled Phase 1b cohort.
• Confirmed response rate hits 21%, including three complete and 23 partial responses.
• BOT+BAL responses appear even in tumors with low TMB and no detectable PD-L1.
• Extended follow-up finds no new safety signals and no treatment-related deaths.

Agenus Inc. (AGEN) shares traded at $7.67, down 1.79%, as newly published BOT+BAL colorectal cancer data drew attention. The company reported mature Phase 1b results from 123 heavily pretreated patients with microsatellite-stable metastatic colorectal cancer. The study showed median overall survival of 21.2 months and a three-year overall survival rate of 33%.

Agenus Inc., AGEN

C-800-01 enrolled patients receiving BOT at 1 mg/kg or 2 mg/kg every six weeks alongside BAL. BAL was administered at 3 mg/kg every two weeks, while safety and tolerability served as the primary endpoint. Secondary endpoints included response, response duration, disease control, and progression-free survival, while overall survival remained exploratory.

BOT+BAL Shows Durable Survival in Refractory MSS Colorectal Cancer

Agenus tested botensilimab with balstilimab in patients without active liver metastases and limited remaining treatment options. Participants had received a median of three prior treatment lines before entering the fully enrolled C-800-01 cohort. Clinical Cancer Research published the findings after three-year efficacy data were presented at the ESMO GI Congress 2026.

MSS tumors represent most metastatic colorectal cancer cases and usually respond poorly to conventional checkpoint immunotherapy. Available later-line treatments have reported median overall survival near 10 to 14 months in comparable refractory patients. Against that historical range, BOT+BAL produced median overall survival of 21.2 months across the Phase 1b cohort.

The confirmed objective response rate reached 21%, including three complete responses and 23 partial responses. Median response duration was not reached, while reported responses continued for at least 37.4 months during follow-up. Disease control reached 69% at six weeks, while the 24-week clinical benefit rate stood at 28%.

Heavily Pretreated Patients Maintain Clinical Benefit

The study also examined 37 patients who had already exhausted available later-line therapies before receiving BOT+BAL. These patients had received a median of five earlier treatment lines, reflecting a particularly refractory disease setting. Even there, the confirmed objective response rate reached 22%, while median overall survival reached 16.2 months.

The subgroup posted a three-year overall survival rate of 30%, showing continued activity after several earlier treatments. Median response duration reached 16.6 months, while disease control reached 70% during the exploratory subgroup analysis. The clinical benefit rate reached 27% at 24 weeks, indicating preserved activity despite extensive prior therapy.

Across the broader cohort, 17% of patients remained alive without any systemic anticancer therapy at last follow-up. That treatment-free group included 13 responders, showing that several patients maintained clinical benefit after study treatment ended. Patients received a median of only two BOT doses and six BAL doses, despite the durable activity reported.

Biomarker Results and Safety Support Further BOT+BAL Development

Exploratory biomarker work showed responses in tumors with low tumor mutational burden and no detectable PD-L1 expression. Neither biomarker showed an association with response across the evaluable population included in the publication. Therefore, BOT+BAL activity was not confined to tumors carrying conventional biological markers linked with checkpoint sensitivity.

Agenus designed botensilimab as an Fc-enhanced anti-CTLA-4 antibody supporting both innate and adaptive immune responses. Its mechanism aims to activate Fc-gamma receptors, promote T-cell priming, reduce regulatory T cells, and reshape the tumor environment. Balstilimab blocks PD-1 interactions, while the combined evidence supports planned Phase 3 ROBBIN testing alongside neoadjuvant NEST data.

Extended follow-up identified no new safety signals, and researchers reported no treatment-related deaths across the cohort. Immune-mediated diarrhea or colitis resolved in 98% of affected patients, with median resolution taking 14 days. Both BOT dose levels produced 21% response rates, while the 1 mg/kg regimen showed fewer immune-mediated adverse events.

The post Agenus Inc. (AGEN) Stock: BOT+BAL Delivers 21.2-Month Survival in Colorectal Cancer Trial appeared first on Blockonomi.

TLDR:

• Solana spot ETFs pulled $138M across 10 days, their strongest net inflow stretch recorded to date.
• Bitwise BSOL crossed $1B AUM with 9.3M SOL, becoming the first Solana ETF to reach that threshold.
• Solana ETF products have attracted $1.7B cumulatively while avoiding a prolonged stretch of net outflows.
• SOL fell 4.26% to $103.58 as broad risk aversion outweighed record ETF demand and strong fund accumulation.

Solana spot ETFs posted their strongest 10-day inflow stretch on record, drawing $138 million in net inflows. The surge included a $47 million single-day inflow on Tuesday.

Bitwise’s BSOL also crossed $1 billion in assets under management, becoming the first Solana ETF to reach that level. The milestone arrived as SOL fell 4.26% to $103.58 during a broader crypto market sell-off.

Solana Spot ETFs Record $138 Million Inflows as BSOL Reaches $1 Billion

Glassnode reported that Solana spot ETFs accumulated $138 million in net inflows across the latest 10-day period. The data marked the category’s strongest stretch on record.

Tuesday delivered the largest single-day inflow, with funds attracting $47 million. Recent inflow charts also showed ETF balances rising across several issuers.

Bitwise’s BSOL led the group, according to Glassnode’s figures. The fund now holds about 9.3 million SOL and manages more than $1 billion.

Bitwise said BSOL reached the milestone exactly 10 months after its launch. The firm also stated that roughly $1 billion entered the fund during a bear market.

Bloomberg ETF analyst Eric Balchunas said Solana investment products have recorded $1.7 billion in cumulative flows. He noted the category avoided an extended period of net outflows.

Teddy Fusaro, Bitwise president, also pointed to the gap between BSOL’s asset growth and its market performance. He said BSOL remained roughly 40% below its listing price.

Fusaro added that Solana remained about 60% below its all-time high. He described the product as the third crypto asset ETP to surpass $1 billion.

SOL Price Falls 4.26% Despite Strong Solana ETF Demand

SOL traded at $103.58 after falling 4.26% over 24 hours, according to CoinMarketCap data. The decline tracked a wider sell-off across the crypto market.

CoinMarketCap linked the move primarily to rising risk aversion following hawkish Federal Reserve commentary. Bitcoin also declined 4.24%, keeping SOL closely aligned with broader market direction.

The data provider also cited profit-taking after SOL recently rallied toward $110. A modest rotation away from altcoins followed as Bitcoin dominance increased.

CoinMarketCap identified $104.41 as an important Fibonacci support level for SOL. Holding that area could support another move toward $110.

However, a sustained move below that level could expose SOL to a deeper pullback toward $100. The price decline therefore contrasted with continued accumulation across Solana ETF products.

The divergence showed that ETF demand continued even as spot prices weakened. BSOL’s asset milestone and the sector’s record inflow stretch occurred during the same period.

The post Solana Spot ETFs Hit Record Inflows as Bitwise BSOL Tops $1 Billion appeared first on Blockonomi.