Prolonged Hormuz disruptions could exacerbate global economic instability, influencing energy markets and geopolitical dynamics significantly.

The post Goldman sees Brent crude hitting $120 if Hormuz disruptions last until 2027 appeared first on Crypto Briefing.

The trial could exacerbate US-China tensions, impacting global tech supply chains and international diplomatic relations significantly.

The post Huawei heads to trial in US over alleged business dealings in Iran appeared first on Crypto Briefing.

Iran's AI-enhanced cyber tactics amplify existing threats, potentially destabilizing geopolitical landscapes and complicating global cybersecurity efforts.

The post Google warns Iran expands AI use in cyberattacks and influence operations appeared first on Crypto Briefing.

Sweden's tax crackdown on crypto miners highlights regulatory risks, potentially reshaping industry practices and investor strategies globally.

The post Sweden demands $56M from six crypto miners for invalid tax breaks appeared first on Crypto Briefing.

OpenAI's announcement highlights ethical concerns in AI research, emphasizing the need for transparency and proper attribution in scientific advancements.

The post OpenAI faces backlash over controversial math discovery announcement appeared first on Crypto Briefing.

Bitcoin Magazine

Castle Opens Its Bitcoin Savings Stack to Individuals

Castle, the company behind an automated bitcoin financial stack for businesses, has said it is opening its platform to individuals, bringing its high-yield product to personal accounts along with a first for the category: the option to take dividend income in bitcoin at whatever ratio the customer picks.

The yield comes from STRC, Strategy‘s perpetual preferred stock, which Castle added earlier this year and which currently pays a 12% annual dividend on a semi-monthly schedule. 

Holders can take 100% of that payout in cash, 100% in bitcoin, or anything in between, according to a Tuesday statement. Most Castle customers land in the middle, the company said, covering operating expenses with cash while the remainder compounds into bitcoin automatically at every payout.

“Investors have long faced a choice between earning steady yield and holding bitcoin. Castle eliminates that trade-off,” co-founder and CTO João Almeida said. “By enabling a portion of dividend income to be automatically converted into bitcoin, so customers get both cash flow and long-term upside.”

The broader pitch is consolidation: Castle puts operating cash, fixed income, and bitcoin accumulation on one platform, cutting out the shuffle between a bank, an onramp, and a brokerage. The system is built automation-first: users define a strategy once and the platform executes it.

Until now, Castle served business entities exclusively — restaurants, gyms, churches, accounting firms, e-commerce shops, auto dealers, SaaS companies, real estate, and non-profits among them. The push into personal accounts came from those same customers.

“Feedback we heard over and over from business owners was: ‘I love this stack — when can I use it personally?'” co-founder and CEO Stephen Cole said. “Today we’re answering that. The same automated bitcoin-powered financial stack that runs their company’s balance sheet can now run their personal finances.”

Castle was founded by Cole and Almeida and is backed by Boost VC and Winklevoss Capital. More information about the company’s product can be found here.

This post Castle Opens Its Bitcoin Savings Stack to Individuals first appeared on Bitcoin Magazine and is written by Mathew Di Salvo.

Bitcoin Magazine

Strategy Halted Its Bitcoin Buys Again Last Week 

Bitcoin treasury Strategy has halted stacking sats — again. 

Just one week after resuming its bitcoin buying following a 10-week hiatus, the Nasdaq-listed company has put its BTC purchases on hold again. 

Instead, the firm continued buying back its stock, repurchasing $176 million of STRC and increasing the size of its digital credit securities repurchase program from $1 billion to $2 billion, according to a Tuesday regulatory filing and announcement from founder and chairman Michael Saylor.  

The company still holds 845,050 bitcoins worth over $66 billion at today’s prices and $6.5 billion in dollar reserves. The bitcoins were bought at an average price of $63.73 billion, according to Tuesday’s filing. 

Strategy shares (NASDAQ: MSTR) were trading more than 3% lower Tuesday morning in New York. 

The company paused its bitcoin buys in June, instead focusing on building a cash buffer, buying back its stock and even sometimes selling some of its holdings. 

Strategy has defended its bitcoin sales, with CEO Phong Le saying that the company now has a “bullet-proof balance sheet” because of the move, and that it was the “right trade at the time” to sell when it did. 

In the company’s quarterly earnings in July, Strategy posted a $8.22 billion loss. But Le reassured investors that the firm’s current paper loss was nothing to worry about.

“We’re the J.P. Morgan of the crypto economy, so whether we sell 1,000 Bitcoin out of 840,000 to me is irrelevant to the conversation,” Le said. 

Strategy — formerly MicroStrategy — is an enterprise software company that pivoted to buying and holding bitcoin in 2020. 

It first bought the cryptocurrency to protect its shareholders from inflation. Since then, it has aggressively bought the asset and pivoted to being a bitcoin treasury. 

Investors can now buy its shares to get heightened exposure to the cryptocurrency, or get paid a yield via its digital credit products. 

This post Strategy Halted Its Bitcoin Buys Again Last Week  first appeared on Bitcoin Magazine and is written by Mathew Di Salvo.

Bitcoin Magazine

How One Executive Recruitment Firm Is Using M&A to Turn Earnings Into Bitcoin

Connecting Excellence Group (XCE) has signed binding Heads of Terms for its first proposed recruitment acquisition, targeting a specialist UK and U.S. recruitment business that generated £1.79 million in revenue and £431,000 in EBITDA over the last 12 months. The target also holds 8.216 Bitcoin.

The deal has not yet closed and remains subject to further due diligence, funding and a definitive purchase agreement. [Read XCE’s full announcement.]

Beyond the headline, the structure of the deal offers an interesting look at how an operating company can use M&A as part of a broader Bitcoin strategy.

XCE (AQSE: XCE | OTCQB: XCELF) wants to acquire profitable recruitment businesses, retain much of the earnings they generate, and expand the pool of internally generated capital available for growth and Bitcoin.

There is also a notable symmetry between buyer and target. XCE’s existing operating business, Spencer Riley, grew revenue 20.6% over its latest 12-month period. The acquisition target grew revenue 21.5% over the same period.

XCE is not simply looking to add scale. It is attempting to acquire growing, profitable businesses and bring them into a listed group with Bitcoin on its balance sheet.

Acquiring Earnings Power

XCE expects to pay £575,000 in initial cash consideration at completion. Approximately £425,000 would settle amounts owed to the target companies by the vendors and return to the group, resulting in an estimated net cash outflow of roughly £150,000 before transaction costs.

Another £60,000 cash payment is due in 2028, while much of the remaining consideration is deferred and tied to EBITDA performance through fiscal 2029. XCE expects to retain approximately 75% to 85% of the acquired business’s cumulative EBITDA during the earn-out period.

Compare that with the business being acquired: £1.79 million in trailing revenue, £1.27 million in gross profit and £431,000 in EBITDA, with revenue growing 21.5% year over year.

The objective isn’t simply to buy more revenue. XCE is attempting to acquire additional earnings power while preserving as much capital as possible.

If the business continues performing after completion, those earnings become another source of capital available for reinvestment, additional acquisitions and Bitcoin.

That is where M&A starts to become part of the Bitcoin strategy.

Acquiring the Balance Sheet, Too

The model can extend beyond revenue and earnings.

When an acquisition target holds cash reserves, XCE can structure a transaction to acquire that reserve from the seller and then change how that capital is held once it sits inside the group. In practice, that could mean raising capital to acquire £1 million of existing cash reserves and subsequently converting that reserve to Bitcoin.

The result is different from simply raising £1 million and spending it on Bitcoin. XCE is acquiring the operating business around the reserve as well: its revenue, earnings and future cash-generating capacity.

This proposed deal provides a direct example of the same principle, except the target has already made the conversion.

It holds 8.216 BTC.

Under the proposed terms, XCE would purchase that Bitcoin at market value with no premium. The cash paid would be matched by Bitcoin of equivalent value moving onto XCE’s balance sheet.

So the Bitcoin isn’t being acquired for free with the operating business. XCE is effectively exchanging cash for an equivalent amount of Bitcoin while separately acquiring the underlying earnings stream.

If completed, however, the transaction would expand both sides of XCE at once: another growing, profitable operating business and another 8.216 BTC on its balance sheet.

That combination is central to the model. An acquisition can potentially add revenue, EBITDA and balance-sheet assets at the same time.

A Decentralized Acquisition Compounder

How XCE intends to operate the businesses after acquisition is another important part of the strategy.

The company is targeting profitable, owner-managed specialist recruitment businesses, but it does not intend to absorb them into a single centralized operating brand.

Acquired companies retain their existing brands, management teams and operating independence while joining a publicly listed group backed by a Bitcoin balance sheet. That makes XCE’s model closer to a decentralized acquisition compounder.

Rather than attempting to create value primarily through integration and cost cutting, the strategy is designed to let individual businesses continue operating with autonomy while XCE provides permanent ownership, access to the listed group and centralized capital allocation.

XCE’s existing business gives some context for the type of growth it is looking to add. Spencer Riley generated approximately £1.84 million in revenue during the 12 months ended June 30, up 20.6% from the prior year. The proposed acquisition target grew at a similar rate, with revenue rising 21.5%.

If XCE can continue acquiring businesses with similar economics, the group can potentially compound by adding new earnings streams without dismantling the businesses producing them. Those earnings then feed into a common capital allocation framework in which Bitcoin is one potential destination.

Building More Than One Source of Capital

XCE isn’t relying on operating earnings alone to grow its Bitcoin position. The company reported 72.94 BTC as of September 1, up from 9.27 BTC at its December 2025 IPO. Capital markets activity has contributed to that growth.

Most recently, longtime investor Adam Back subscribed for new XCE shares through the transfer of 10 BTC to the company, increasing its Bitcoin holdings by 15.9%.

M&A introduces another source of potential capital alongside those transactions: earnings and balance-sheet assets acquired with the operating businesses themselves.

Put together, the model looks something like this:

Acquire profitable businesses → retain their autonomy and earnings power → grow group cash generation → allocate capital across further acquisitions and Bitcoin → repeat.

External capital can provide immediate purchasing power, as the Adam Back transaction demonstrates. Acquired reserves can add balance-sheet capital. Profitable operating businesses can continue generating capital as long as they perform. XCE is attempting to combine all three.

The Operating Economics Come First

Bitcoin does not make a poor acquisition a good one. XCE still has to acquire quality businesses at sensible prices, preserve their earnings power and allocate the resulting capital effectively. But the strategy illustrates how Bitcoin can fit inside a traditional operating company without becoming disconnected from the business underneath it.

The decentralized structure is important here. XCE does not need every acquired company to become a “Bitcoin business.” The recruitment companies can continue serving their customers, operating under their existing brands and generating earnings. Bitcoin sits at the group level as part of the broader capital allocation strategy.

That creates a different way to think about Bitcoin on a corporate balance sheet.

The company can raise outside capital. It can acquire existing reserves and change how they are held. It can acquire profitable businesses and retain the cash they generate. Management can then allocate capital between operations, additional acquisitions, other corporate needs and Bitcoin. That is how XCE is using M&A to turn earnings into Bitcoin.

Not by automatically converting every pound of profit into BTC, but by building a decentralized group of profitable businesses capable of producing more earnings and making Bitcoin one destination for the capital they generate.

For operators, that may be the more interesting question: not simply how to find more capital to buy Bitcoin, but how to build a business capable of generating more capital in the first place.

Disclaimer: This content was prepared on behalf of Bitcoin For Corporations for informational purposes only. It reflects the author’s own analysis and opinion and should not be relied upon as investment advice. Nothing in this article constitutes an offer, invitation, or solicitation to purchase, sell, or subscribe for any security or financial product.

This post How One Executive Recruitment Firm Is Using M&A to Turn Earnings Into Bitcoin first appeared on Bitcoin Magazine and is written by Nick Ward.

Bitcoin Magazine

Liquid Gets 3,400 BTC Back After On-Chain Talks; White Hats Keep 598.5 BTC

The “White hat” party that withdrew nearly 4,000 bitcoin from the Liquid Network federation wallet on Sunday returned 3,400 BTC to the wallet on Monday. About 598 BTC, or 15% of the consolidated pile, stayed at the same holder address as an implied bounty fee worth 48 million dollars.

The return transaction (bc49a46d), confirmed at 16:09 UTC on September 7. It returned exactly 3,400 BTC to the labeled Liquid peg script address and sent the 598.5 BTC change back to the “White hat” hacker address as change. 

The transfer followed a day of messages written into Bitcoin blocks. The White hats first published transaction on chain with a message in the OP_RETURN arbitrary data field “contact us on chain”; the message came from the address holding the 4000 BTC taken from the Liquid Network. 

A Blockstream-linked address answered with “Please contact security@blockstream.com”. Later notes from that sender carried Electrum-encrypted payloads and PGP signatures that can be verified against Blockstream’s published security key.

In block 965869, the White hats asked in the clear text whether sending “most” back to the federation script was acceptable. The 1,000-sat output on that transaction was only a message carrier. 

Soon after, the White hats wrote “Please fix the bug first. The chain is under risk at latest commit right now. Make sure every node is patched. Then we will transfer the money back safely after confirming the fix.” followed by an encrypted blurb of text to Blockstream’s PGP key. 

In the same block, a clear-signed reply from the Blockstream sender said “Yes, thank you.” Hours later, the same Blockstream posted another clear-text note: “Bridge nodes are patched, safe to return the funds”. 

Minutes after the 3,400 BTC landed. The white hats sent back 85% of the funds, keeping 15% as an implied finder’s fee. The choice was celebrated by some on X as ‘better than keeping 100%’ while others were a bit shocked at the amount. While 15% might sound reasonable, the total sum is so large that it nears $50 million at today’s prices. Blockstream was clearly not happy about the finder’s fee, as four encrypted messages followed onchain a few hours later, likely after the main fires had been put out at the office and the lawyers had a chance to have a say in the matter. An hour later, one more encrypted message was posted from Blockstream.

The White hats replied with two encrypted messages. Blockstream replied once an hour later. Then the White hats published a simple yet meaningful “ ” sad face emoji. This emoji does a lot of work. It suggests that negotiations did not go well over reducing the size of the bounty. Blockstream wizards are clearly ‘big mad’ about the size of that finder’s fee. What exactly was said in those encrypted messages is not known and Blockstream has made no public statements on the matter. But we can only assume the saga is not over.

The full chat can be easily followed on this vibe-coded site (by yours truly). A couple of other researchers are keeping tabs on the conversation and on-chain data, such as Sjors’s GitHub gist and Alex Thorn from Galaxy Research. 

Liquid’s Sunday statement is still the network’s last official account post: purported whitehats withdrew about 4,000 BTC through the SideSwap peg-out path, the PAK itself was not compromised, other issued assets were unaffected, and the sidechain was paused. Liquid and Blockstream had not posted a new statement on the 3,400 BTC return as of this writing. SideSwap had said the L-BTC in the original peg-out “came from an Elements bug.” 

This post Liquid Gets 3,400 BTC Back After On-Chain Talks; White Hats Keep 598.5 BTC first appeared on Bitcoin Magazine and is written by Juan Galt.

Bitcoin Magazine

Alleged White-Hat Hackers Withdraw 4,000 bitcoin from Blockstream’s Liquid Network Federation Reserves

The Liquid Network said Sunday that purported white-hat hackers withdrew about 4,000 bitcoin, worth about $320 million, from the federation wallet that backs L-BTC. Bridge nodes were disabled, and the sidechain was paused. Other issued assets, including USDT, DePix and RWAs, were unaffected, the official account said on X.

The Liquid Network is a federated sidechain of Bitcoin, founded by Adam Back’s Blockstream. The Liquid chain issues a variety of assets such as LBTC, which it backs with BTC on the Bitcoin main chain, held in a large multisig of 15 corporate and known members. 11 of the 15 members need to sign a valid multi-signature transaction to move coins from the treasury. Before the hack, the treasury held over 4200 BTC; after the hack, Blockstream’s proof of reserves page reports a little over 207 BTC left. 

The hackers withdrew 4,019.4 BTC from the reserve address in a peg-out transaction using the SideSwap Peg-out Authorization Key. SideWap is a bridge exchange and a member of the Liquid Federation. While details on the mechanism of the hack are not confirmed yet, it appears an inflation bug on the LBTC side chain was exploited by the hackers to create over 4,000 LBTC that did not exist before, and cash them out for on-chain bitcoin from the federation. Because the transaction appeared as valid, given the consensus bug, the federation members’ HSM security servers signed the BTC withdrawal transaction, worth roughly 320 million at the time. 

The hacker moved the funds to an address ending in 6gyqjlte, from which they quickly signed a new transaction with a message on the OP_RETURN arbitrary data field saying “we are whitehats. contact us on chain.” Those coins were still at that address at the time of writing.

A small mainnet transaction to the hacker address followed by an OP_RETURN saying “Please contact security@blockstream.com”, presumably from a Blockstream public address, though that remains unconfirmed. A later OP_RETURN spend from the hacker address carried “Please contact us on Signal @m671aw.70”, however, this may be spam and does not share a link to the address with the stolen funds.

In response to the breach, exchanges were told to pause L-BTC deposits and withdrawals. Bridge nodes on the Liquid Network have been paused, limiting access to the side chain, which continues to produce blocks. 

JAN3 CEO Samson Mow said Aqua’s Liquid features were affected and that on-chain bitcoin still worked. Other wallets in the industry that use the Liquid Network are expected to be affected. Users holding LBTC now effectively have their savings at risk, since the underlying BTC is currently not redeemable. Given the private nature of the Liquid chain, user onchain analytics are scarce and not much public information is known about how much LBTC is held by retail users versus corporations of Blockstream itself. Nevertheless, should the funds not be returned, it would be a heavy blow to the Liquid Network’s user base.

Users of LBTC don’t have many options but to wait for conversations with the hackers to resolve. Given the size of the hack, it would be difficult for the hackers to get away with stealing all that bitcoin, though perhaps not impossible. What may happen is that the hackers ask for a finder’s fee and return the majority of the funds. 

This post Alleged White-Hat Hackers Withdraw 4,000 bitcoin from Blockstream’s Liquid Network Federation Reserves first appeared on Bitcoin Magazine and is written by Juan Galt.

Bitcoin trades below $80,000 on Sept. 8 as oil approached $100 a barrel following a fresh disruption to Saudi energy facilities. The new energy shock could complicate the inflation outlook even if Friday's US consumer-price report brings encouraging news.

Bitcoin's price stood near $78,300 at press time, down 1.52% over 24 hours, although it remained up 20% over the past 30 days. Its monthly gains therefore remained intact as the latest energy disruption added uncertainty.

Reuters reported that operations at some Saudi energy facilities halted Tuesday following attacks by Yemen's Houthi movement, citing Saudi authorities. Brent crude futures touched $99.46 a barrel before trading at $98.63 around press time. Spot Brent price touched $101 intraday before European trading began.

For Bitcoin's recovery, the distinction is between inflation already measured and price pressure still developing. A softer August reading could ease interest-rate concerns without resolving the newer risk from oil.

Friday's CPI looks backward

The Bureau of Labor Statistics calendar schedules August's Consumer Price Index for Sept. 11 at 8:30 a.m. Eastern. It measures August prices, so it cannot reflect a disruption that happened on Sept. 8. September's CPI is not scheduled until Oct. 14.

That creates a gap between the inflation data arriving before the Federal Reserve's Sept. 15-16 meeting and the energy risk developing now. Bitcoin would enter that policy decision with the latest consumer-price figures describing conditions before Tuesday's attacks.

The inflation backdrop was already uneven. July CPI rose 0.1% over the month and 3.4% over the year. Excluding food and energy, prices increased 0.2% monthly and 2.5% annually. None of those figures tells investors how much the new disruption will affect subsequent inflation.

Fed Governor Christopher Waller said Sept. 3 that continued disinflation would incline him to support holding rates, while hot August inflation could lead him to consider a hike.

He also identified renewed energy-price increases as an upside risk. But he said earlier fears that energy costs would spread more broadly through goods and services had not materialized so far. His comments describe a conditional position, not a commitment by the committee.

The labor backdrop remains part of that decision: BLS reported 162,000 additional jobs in August and unemployment of 4.1% on Sept. 4. Those figures sit alongside the tension between oil and labor data that predated Tuesday's fresh disruption.

For Bitcoin, the near-term question is whether cooler inflation data arrives alongside easing energy pressure. Persistent expensive oil could complicate the case for a Fed hold; a retreat in crude would reduce that particular risk.

Friday's release will provide the August figures. Whether the new energy shock persists remains a separate question for the inflation outlook facing Bitcoin.

The post Fed inflation trap threatens Bitcoin below $80k as $100 oil blindsides Friday’s CPI report appeared first on CryptoSlate.

Tether CEO Paolo Ardoino’s vision of financial autonomy for people and machines puts a practical decision in developers’ hands: how much spending authority should an AI agent receive when a wallet’s owner unlocks it?

Tether’s Sept. 3 explanation of WDK CLI, the local command-line wallet built with its Wallet Development Kit, gives a concrete answer for that product. The human opens a timed session. On macOS and Linux, another process running as the wallet owner can request transactions if it can reach the unlocked wallet’s local endpoint. The CLI daemon does not require fresh approval of each payment.

That distinction matters for anyone building an assistant that can move money. Keeping wallet keys under the owner’s control establishes custody. Deciding which recipient, amount and operation an automated system may authorize is a separate design choice.

Ardoino set out the broader ambition when Tether announced WDK on Nov. 11, 2024. His statement described programmable monetary systems connecting people, machines and AI agents while preserving financial control. The September explanation shows how that longstanding strategy translates into one local wallet interface.

It also shows why the answer cannot be reduced to whether WDK “has safeguards.” Its CLI, software development kit and customizable MCP Toolkit offer different controls at different points in the transaction process. A developer’s choice of integration determines which protections apply.

Unlocking grants a session

The CLI documentation describes three components: terminal commands, a background process called a daemon that holds the unlocked wallet, and a bundled Model Context Protocol server. MCP lets an AI client call structured software tools. Both interfaces use the same local wallet.

Under the documented security model, a locked seed is encrypted with AES-256-GCM using a key derived through scrypt. Unlocking changes the access model. On macOS and Linux, the daemon’s socket is restricted to its operating-system owner, but it has no separate credential for each program.

A process running as that owner, if it can reach the socket, can ask the unlocked wallet to sign without knowing or re-entering the passphrase. The account boundary therefore matters alongside the wallet password.

The default session lasts five minutes from unlock. Ordinary activity does not extend it. The user can lock the wallet sooner, explicitly unlock it again to reset the timer, or disable automatic expiry with a zero lifetime.

These are useful session controls. They determine when access begins and ends. A short timer, however, does not by itself establish an amount limit or require a fresh decision about each recipient.

Tether describes the same-user access as an accepted hot-wallet trade-off. Its precautions include a dedicated wallet with limited funds, short sessions and separation under a dedicated operating-system account. These are disclosed operating constraints, not a reported theft or exploit.

The bundled MCP interface keeps wallet creation, seed export, unlocking and other administration outside its tool menu. That reduces what an agent can request through that server. It does not confine an AI client that also has independent shell access.

For transfers, the MCP guide says send_token defaults to a dry run. The recommended sequence is to preview a payment, show its network, token, recipient, amount and estimated fee, obtain confirmation, then execute.

The daemon does not require proof that those earlier steps happened. An otherwise valid execution request can broadcast from an unlocked wallet. A second route, call_method, can invoke declared chain-specific write operations without a dry run or enforced confirmation.

That makes the location of the check consequential. A client can present a careful approval screen while the underlying wallet remains willing to accept requests through another permitted path. For that screen to define spending authority, the product must control the other paths too.

The documentation’s tool counts need a qualification. The September blog mixes references to eleven tools with a nine-tool table, while the current MCP guide lists eleven. The additional entries are list_methods and call_method. Their significance is the ability to discover and invoke declared methods, rather than the size of the menu.

There is also a version mismatch. The CLI guide describes 1.0.0-beta.3, while Tether’s Aug. 27 changelog records beta.4. That entry describes a configuration-override fix and says public commands, configuration keys and stored-data behavior are otherwise unchanged. The guide’s beta.3 label therefore should not be read as the latest release number.

WDK offers more than the CLI’s controls

Developers building an application can use WDK’s SDK directly. Its local transaction policies provide configurable ALLOW and DENY rules before governed wallet or protocol operations execute. Examples cover approved recipients and amount conditions.

Those checks can block a governed call. They are opt-in local controls, with a defined scope, rather than rules enforced on the blockchain. The documentation says they are not a complete sandbox: separately retained raw account references and certain internal module calls remain outside their interception.

The SDK also leaves important inputs to the application. It does not automatically maintain recipient lists, fetch prices, decode contract-call data or persist spending counters. Developers own durability and concurrency when a limit depends on cumulative activity.

A daily budget illustrates the consequence. Checking the size of one payment cannot establish how much an agent has already spent that day. A product must record prior spending and handle simultaneous requests consistently if it promises a cumulative ceiling. The implication is that a cumulative budget needs application-level accounting as well as a check on each payment.

The separate MCP Toolkit, documented as beta.1, provides another approach. Tether says its built-in write tools use MCP elicitations to obtain explicit user approval before broadcasting. Its configuration options let developers expose read-only tools, choose individual operations or add their own.

These approval flows deserve to be distinguished from the bundled CLI server’s recommended preview sequence. Customization also means the developer must decide what any added operation is allowed to do.

Tether’s own division of uses places the CLI in local operator workflows, the SDK inside applications and the Toolkit in custom agent servers. That gives builders options as they move from experimentation to a product handling user funds.

The choice involves a practical trade-off. Requiring a person to approve every payment gives that person a transaction-level decision. Allowing an agent to operate within a preset budget permits more automation, but requires a reliable rule for what counts against the budget and which operations it covers.

For a user, the meaningful promise is therefore specific: what can this assistant spend, where can it send funds, and what ends its authority? A wallet password or an approval prompt answers only part of that question unless the surrounding software makes the intended restriction effective.

Ardoino’s self-custody strategy gives developers the means to build without handing wallet ownership to a custodian. The next responsibility sits with the product: make the authority delegated to the agent match the limits the owner believes they have set.

The post Paolo Ardoino wants AI agents to hold Tether, but developers are left on the hook for overspending appeared first on CryptoSlate.

The Aug. 31 disruption of the Sality botnet cut off its operator's ability to deliver new malicious software to infected computers, while malware already on those devices remained active, according to CrowdStrike's Sept. 1 report. Users of infected machines still need to remove the installed malware, including a tool that swaps cryptocurrency addresses and can redirect payments.

CrowdStrike said the botnet enabled payload distribution to more than 33,000 infected machines worldwide. The figure measures compromised computers; the number of users who lost cryptocurrency remains unspecified.

The Justice Department announced the multinational operation on Sept. 1, 2026, following the action the previous day. U.S. authorities seized Sality-linked domains, while partners in Bulgaria, Hungary and Romania acted against additional domains.

How the payment risk survives

CrowdStrike identified EggJagger as Sality's primary payload over the preceding eight years. The tool watches the clipboard for cryptocurrency addresses and substitutes ones controlled by the operator, including when someone copies a Bitcoin or Ethereum address for a payment.

The dangerous step is sending to the substituted address. A user can intend to pay the correct recipient yet paste a different destination into the payment form. The redirection takes effect if the user sends funds to that destination.

Address-swapping software already installed on a computer can keep operating after Sality's communications are cut off. Users with a confirmed infection therefore still need to have the malware removed from their devices.

CrowdStrike describes Sality as a file infector: it attaches to executable files and spreads through network shares, removable drives and file sharing. Those infected files are a separate problem from the network connections disrupted by the operation.

The disruption changed the lists of peers that infected machines use to communicate, isolating them from the operator and inserting defender-controlled servers known as sinkholes. CrowdStrike said isolated bots could no longer receive payload download instructions or direct transfers of malicious files. Partners also took down URLs hosting payloads.

For network operators, CrowdStrike recommends checking network logs and device telemetry for UDP traffic to its lighthouse address, 188.166.101[.]148. The company says a match indicates a Sality infection requiring remediation. Its technical report also provides YARA detection rules for scanning running processes.

The Justice Department said the Shadowserver Foundation is working with internet service providers and computer security incident response teams to identify infections and help notify affected users and support remediation.

For users of infected computers, remediation addresses the malware that can still replace a copied payment address. The botnet disruption alone leaves that local threat in place.

The post Active crypto address “copy and paste attack” threatens users even after major malware cleanup cut off hackers appeared first on CryptoSlate.

BitFuFu, a Bitcoin miner and cloud-mining provider, reported a 55.4% rebound in August production as additional capacity came online. Cloud-mining customers accounted for about three quarters of the extra output, while the company's Bitcoin holdings increased by 59 BTC.

The unaudited Sept. 3 operating update put total production at 174 BTC, up from 112 BTC in July. Cloud-mining production rose from 40 to 86 BTC, contributing 46 BTC of the 62 BTC increase. Self-mining added the remaining 16 BTC, rising from 72 to 88 BTC.

That split matters for shareholders assessing BitFuFu's decision to spend Bitcoin on future mining capacity. The company defines cloud output as Bitcoin produced by customers using purchased hashrate. Those coins are excluded from BitFuFu's holdings. Customer activity supports a separately reported revenue business, but its production cannot be counted as company treasury replenishment.

Capacity arrives, reserves partly recover

BitFuFu ended August with 1,373 BTC, up 59 BTC from July's 1,314 BTC. Both balances include 44 BTC pledged for loans and miner procurement payables. The increase in holdings is a net balance change, distinct from the 88 BTC produced through self-mining.

The reserve remains 298 BTC below June's 1,671 BTC. In its July disclosure, BitFuFu attributed that month's decline primarily to advance payments for hashrate capacity scheduled to start in August and run for 330 days. The 357 BTC net decline does not identify the exact contract price or establish an open-market sale.

The operating expansion is now visible. Managed hashrate, a measure of mining computing capacity, reached 20.6 EH/s at Aug. 31, compared with 14.2 EH/s a month earlier. BitFuFu said capacity secured in June and July had come online.

Management had already reported progress before month-end: in the Aug. 17 earnings release, CEO Leo Lu said managed hashrate had returned to approximately 20 EH/s by mid-August. The September update adds the full-month production and holdings result to the capacity question covered in CryptoSlate's Aug. 9 report.

Shareholders gained a larger operating platform, higher self-mining output and a partial reserve recovery. Yet the August release supplies no incremental profit or payback figure for the capacity funded with Bitcoin.

Further operating updates can show whether the recovery continues. For shareholders, the next test is whether the expanded business generates earnings that justify the Bitcoin committed, which requires contract economics and financial results beyond the monthly production total.

The post Bitcoin miner burns through millions in BTC to buy compute, but new coins are not returning to treasury appeared first on CryptoSlate.

The Ethereum Foundation’s Protocol cluster says Ethereum’s issuance policy belongs in a broader ecosystem process than fork scoping.

In its Sept. 7 assessment of proposals for the Hegotá upgrade, EF Protocol graded EIP-8363, a proposal to burn part of validators’ issuance rewards, as declined for inclusion in its own priorities. Its four graders were unanimous. But the cluster reserved judgment on the proposal’s merits and called for a broader ecosystem process, saying policy affecting stakers, holders and the network’s security budget requires participation beyond EF Protocol.

That leaves an economic choice running while the governance question remains open. Existing issuance continues to dilute holdings while compensating validators; unstaked holders bear that dilution without receiving issuance rewards. Cutting it would reduce that dilution, but the claim that doing so would protect smaller operators remains contested. The task for Ethereum is to decide both how much security to pay for and whose evidence and consent can justify changing the bill.

What unchanged issuance costs

New ETH issued to validators expands the supply against which every holding is measured. Those issuance rewards go to stakers, leaving unstaked holders exposed to dilution. Stakers also experience dilution, but receive issuance in return for participating in consensus and retaining the associated risks.

The holder keeps the same number of ETH, but owns a smaller share of the expanded supply. Ethereum’s base-fee burn can offset issuance. Net supply growth depends on both flows; ETH’s market return remains a separate measure.

The current staking picture makes that distinction consequential. Validator Queue, retrieved at 15:37 UTC on Sept. 7, showed 42.9 million ETH staked, or 35.13% of supply. Another 1,975,361 ETH was waiting to enter, with a displayed wait of 34 days and seven hours. Pending ETH remains in the entry queue until validator activation.

The displayed share is consistent with the 122.03 million ETH supply on CryptoSlate’s Ethereum page: 35.13% of that total is about 42.87 million ETH. These rounded dashboard figures establish an approximate staking share; the proposal’s calculation requires the exact active effective balance. Applying a reward-cut percentage directly to them would imply more precision than the measurements support.

To compare the issuance paid to validators with the dilution borne by holders, the calculations below use three explicit scenarios around the displayed staking share. Each assumes perfect participation, a constant active balance and 122.03 million ETH as the starting supply reference. They exclude compounding, execution income, fee burn, costs, taxes and penalties. They illustrate annualized policy effects under those assumptions; future staking participation remains variable.

Source: CryptoSlate calculations using the EIP-8363 formulas and the supply reference above. Proposed returns use the draft’s fixed 60.25 million ETH saturation balance.

Under the existing curve, more active stake lowers the reward rate per ETH while increasing total issuance. In the 35% scenario, about 1.086 million ETH would be issued over a year. Before fee burn, an unchanged unstaked holding’s share of supply would fall by about 0.88%.

For a performing 32 ETH stake, the same scenario produces about 0.81 ETH in annual consensus rewards before expenses and penalties. That is the distribution preserved by leaving policy unchanged: holders who remain unstaked bear dilution without receiving the issuance that compensates validators.

The reward cut and the solo-validator test

EIP-8363 remains a draft. It would deduct and burn a fraction of idealized rewards for assigned consensus duties. The fraction rises with active balance until issuance is offset at the saturation threshold.

The specification lists that threshold as 60.25 million ETH, intended to represent roughly half the supply at the fork. That fixed balance stays in place as supply changes, so its percentage of total supply can drift. That distinction matters when estimating the size of a cut.

The proposed transition also matters. At activation, the base reward factor would rise from 64 to 128 and then return to 64 over approximately 18 months. That temporary increase cushions the change, with initial returns varying by staking level. In the illustrative 35% case, consensus APR would begin near 2.05% and reach about 1.03% after the transition, compared with 2.54% under the existing formula.

The corresponding 32 ETH annual consensus reward would be about 0.33 ETH after the transition. That comparison holds stake constant to isolate the policy effect. Actual participation could change in response.

MEV and execution priority fees would remain outside this issuance burn. Additional staking would remain possible at the saturation balance, and validators could still receive execution income. The proposal changes the issuance component of compensation, and its activation epoch is unset.

The case for reducing issuance is broader than saving holders dilution. The EIP’s proponents argue that rising staking participation could increase dependence on custodians and other intermediaries, making Ethereum more vulnerable to capture. The argument centers on who controls the stake and how that control affects Ethereum’s independence.

The opposing case challenges whether cutting rewards improves that composition. In the public discussion, participant goodroot questioned whether higher-cost solo operators would become uneconomic before large providers able to spread costs across more validators. Participant vshvsh likewise warned that worsening operator economics could increase concentration.

Resolving that dispute requires evidence about operator costs as well as reward revenue. Operating costs determine how much of that revenue becomes profit, and those costs vary even when the protocol treats validators equally. The same reduction in rewards could have different consequences for an independent validator and an intermediary managing many customers’ stakes.

The interests of holders and stakers overlap. Stakers own ETH too, so they also benefit from less dilution. Unstaked holders, meanwhile, depend on the security that rewards help fund. A credible decision must weigh those overlapping interests rather than treat either lower issuance or preserved yield as a sufficient measure of success.

Who can authorize the change?

Ethereum’s documented governance process is offchain and includes holders, application users and developers, node operators, validators and protocol developers. Community consensus involves broad participation rather than any single measure, including a coin vote. Writing a specification, agreeing to include it and activating tested software are separate steps.

Against that background, EF Protocol’s position creates a practical test for the broader process it wants. Participants need a shared baseline for active stake and issuance, evidence about the security budget, and an account of how different operator costs affect survival. Otherwise, the same reward calculation can be presented as either protection against concentration or a reason to expect more of it.

Representation matters for the same reason. A process dominated by reward recipients could underweight the dilution borne elsewhere; one focused only on scarcity could underweight the costs of operating the network. A deliberative process needs to account for both risks without assuming either group has captured the decision.

Solana offers a useful distinction between endorsement and execution. Its SGP-0002 governance proposal is marked Accepted, but explicitly depends on acceptance and activation of SIMD-0550. The technical document remains marked Review, with its feature key and implementation tracking unset in the Sept. 7 record.

That specification describes preserving the inflation rate at the activation boundary before applying faster disinflation, with consistent client calculations required. The governance label establishes endorsement; implementation and activation remain separate requirements. Ethereum likewise needs a visible route from broad agreement to implementation, testing and activation before holders can treat changed rewards as policy.

EF Protocol has announced a Sept. 16 Reddit AMA at 14:00 UTC and invited challenges to its tier list. The announcement offers a discussion forum, with an issuance decision and activation schedule still outstanding.

The decision ahead is whether the dilution saved by a lower reward budget can be reconciled with a validator set that remains viable and sufficiently independent. Until that is resolved, the existing allocation continues: validators receive issuance for their participation, while unstaked holders retain the asset without sharing in those rewards.

The post The fight over Ethereum’s supply is forcing a choice between high staking yields and the value of your ETH appeared first on CryptoSlate.

Bitcoin mining in Austria: when rewards are taxed at 27.5 percent and when at the income tax rate

Anyone who receives bitcoin through mining does not automatically end up with tax-free coins in Austria. Tax law treats the acquisition of cryptocurrencies through a technical process for transaction processing as current income from cryptocurrencies as a matter of principle.

As long as the activity can still be assigned to private asset management for tax purposes, crypto income of this kind is in principle subject to the special tax rate of 27.5 percent. If, by contrast, the mining becomes a commercial business by its nature and scale, different rules apply.

Mining rewards are valued as soon as they are received

Unlike in certain staking or airdrop situations, with mining it can be the receipt of the new bitcoin itself that is taxable. What matters, in principle, is the market value of the coins received at the time they are received. That value then also forms the acquisition cost of the bitcoin received for tax purposes.

Example:

• mining reward on receipt: 1,000 euros
• taxable current crypto income: 1,000 euros
• acquisition cost of the bitcoin for tax purposes: 1,000 euros

If the value then rises to 1,500 euros and the bitcoin are sold, a further capital gain of 500 euros can arise.

When does the 27.5 percent rate apply?

Income from cryptocurrencies is in principle subject to the special tax rate of 27.5 percent. That covers both current crypto income and later realised gains in value, provided no statutory exception applies. A smaller mining setup is therefore not automatically taxed at the progressive income tax rate.

When does mining become a commercial business?

The decisive line runs where the activity goes beyond pure asset management by its nature and scale.

The Austrian Ministry of Finance points out explicitly that income from a commercial business can then be present.

The following can be relevant, for example:

• the scale and organisation of the mining,
• substantial use of your own infrastructure,
• sustained professional activity,
• entrepreneurial organisation,
• overall economic scale.

There is, however, no simple statutory threshold along the lines of "commercial from three mining devices upwards". What is decisive is the overall picture.

Commercial mining changes the taxation

If the activity is classified as a commercial business, the mining proceeds become part of business income. The general income tax rate and the rules on determining business profits can then become relevant.

Costs such as hardware, electricity or depreciation can also be treated differently from the way they are treated for private investment income. That is a material difference: for investment income taxed at the special rate, the restrictions on deducting running expenses are considerably tighter.

Which bitcoin price is used?

The coins received have to be valued in euros for tax purposes. In principle an available exchange price is used for this. If no suitable exchange price exists, the Austrian rules provide for further valuation options via crypto dealers or recognised price sources.

Miners should therefore document on a regular basis:

• the time the reward was received,
• the BTC amount,
• the euro value,
• the price source used,
• the wallet address,
• mining pool statements.

Conclusion

Bitcoin mining does not become relevant for tax in Austria only when the coins are sold. Mining rewards can already be taxed as current crypto income when they are received. As long as the activity remains within asset management for tax purposes, the special tax rate of 27.5 percent is in principle the one to consider.

If the mining grows into a commercial activity, on the other hand, the progressive income tax rate can apply. With larger mining setups in particular, this distinction should be clarified early.

On September 21, 2026, the swap window from STPT to AWE closes for good. Anyone still holding the old STPT tokens in self-custody after that date can no longer exchange them for AWE. The AWE set aside for those tokens but never collected will then be decided by a vote of token holders. You are affected only if your STPT sit in a wallet you control, or on an exchange that did not carry out the swap in spring 2025.

This guide answers four questions: whether you need to act at all, how the swap works through the official portal, why your personal deadline can fall a week earlier depending on the network, and how the process is treated for tax purposes. In that order.

What happens to your STPT tokens on September 21, 2026

Since its rebranding, the project behind the token has been called AWE Network; before that it ran as STP Network. On August 20, 2026, it set the closing date in a blog post of its own: after September 21, 2026, STPT is no longer eligible to be swapped for AWE. The swap window has been open since May 2025, it is now being closed, and after that there is no official route left from the old token to the new one.

A quick definition: a token migration is the exchange of an old project token for a new one, usually because the project is switching blockchain or changing its name. The old token loses its role and the new one takes it over. Here the ratio is 1 STPT on Ethereum to 1 AWE on Base. The project charges no fee of its own for the swap; you pay the network fees on both chains yourself, and on Ethereum those are noticeably higher than on Base.

One detail is missing from the primary source, and no text should invent it: the blog post gives no time of day and no time zone for September 21. The safe reading follows from that. Treat September 20, 2026 as your last working day and do not plan the swap for the final hour. Anyone who starts on the deadline itself is relying on it still being midnight somewhere in the world.

Are you affected? The five-minute check for wallet and exchange account

The large majority of holders have nothing to do, and that is why the topic has gone unnoticed in the German-speaking market so far. The project names the venues that handled the swap automatically in 2025 in its official migration guide: Binance, Upbit, HTX, MEXC, Gate, Bitget and Bithumb. If your balance sat with one of them during that period, you have held AWE for a long time and can stop reading here.

You need to act in three situations. First, if STPT sit in a wallet of your own, whether software or hardware. Second, if your exchange did not support the swap and still displays an STPT balance for you. Third, if you withdrew STPT from an exchange in 2025 and have not looked at them since. That third group is the one that regularly slips through in deadline cases: the money is not gone, it has merely dropped out of sight.

The check takes a few minutes. Open your wallet and look for STPT in the token list. If your wallet only displays known tokens, check the balance through a block explorer for the address you traded under in 2025. The relevant contract on Ethereum carries the address 0xde7d85157d9714eadf595045cc12ca4a5f3e2adb; on Base there is a second, older version of STPT at 0x4489d0a0345eCB216A3994De780d453c7fA6312C. Both addresses appear in exactly that form in the project's technical documentation. If you are sorting through your holdings anyway, the hardware wallet comparison lists the devices that allow such a check without the detour through an exchange.

Why the Ethereum contract still reports 1.94 billion STPT

Here lies the misunderstanding that leaves most holders feeling safe. The project states that around 99 percent of the tokens have already migrated. That figure comes from the project itself and has not been independently verified by us. It also describes AWE claimed on Base rather than STPT destroyed on Ethereum. The old contract is in fact not reduced by the swap at all.

You can check that arithmetic yourself. On September 8, 2026 at 06:38 UTC we queried the totalSupply() function of the STPT contract through a public Ethereum node, at block 25,930,906: the result reads 1,942,419,283.03 STPT at 18 decimal places. For comparison we queried the same function on the AWE contract on Base, at block 51,030,084: a round 2,000,000,000 AWE there. The supply of the old token therefore stands unchanged in the books of the chain.

totalSupply denotes the total quantity of a token that a contract reports. If that value stays constant through a migration, the swap is a portal exchange and not a burn, meaning there is no destruction at contract level. In practice that means your STPT will not disappear from your wallet on September 21. The tokens stay visible, keep their number and lose only their claim to the new token. A glance into your wallet after the deadline will therefore reassure you about something that no longer holds true.

How the swap works through the official swap portal

For self-custody holders the route runs through the project's official portal, reachable at the address upgrade.stp.network. A swap portal is a web application operated by the project, to which you send the old token and through which you then collect the new one. The process has three stations: you deposit your STPT on Ethereum through the portal, wait for the automatic confirmation, which the project puts at around three minutes, and then claim your AWE on Base through the same interface.

The migration guide stresses two points explicitly, and both are security points. There is no separate contract address to which you are supposed to send tokens manually. And you should not use third-party bridges. Anyone who transfers STPT on their own initiative to some address that another person has given them has no claim to AWE and, as a rule, no one left to talk to either.

If you would rather take the detour through an exchange: a few venues folded the swap into their own processes at the time. Whether that is still offered today, shortly before the deadline, is for each exchange to decide and can change at short notice. Check it in your provider's support section instead of assuming it. And if you are thinking about switching venues anyway, the overview of crypto exchanges in comparison helps with the question of which venue handles such changeovers cleanly in the first place.

The hidden deadline: seven days of bridge time for STPT on Base

This calculation has not appeared in German anywhere so far, and it is the most practically important part of this text. There is an older version of STPT on Base. Anyone holding it cannot swap directly, because a Base-to-Base swap does not exist. The guide prescribes the route: first you have to bridge your STPT from Base back to Ethereum, then you can submit them through the portal and claim your AWE on Base.

A bridge is an application that transfers tokens from one blockchain to another. For the return trip from Base to Ethereum the project explicitly names a waiting period of seven days and urges you to factor it into your planning. Those seven days are not an estimate by the project; they are the usual challenge period for return routes of this kind.

September 21 minus seven days of bridge time makes September 14, 2026 the realistic last starting date, and only if everything goes smoothly. Anyone who discovers STPT sitting on Base on September 18 will not make it, arithmetically speaking. Anyone whose holdings are on Ethereum has an easier time and is well served by September 20. So clarify first of all which chain your balance sits on, because your calendar depends on it.

What happens to unclaimed AWE after the deadline?

The project puts it this way: unclaimed AWE that was earmarked for the migration will become the subject of a community governance proposal once the window closes. A governance proposal is a motion that the holders of a token vote on; the outcome then binds the project. Which options will be put to the vote is open. Destruction, redistribution or a lock-up over a longer period are all conceivable. The project intends to publish further details after the deadline.

For you as a holder this amounts to a plain shift of responsibility. Until September 21 you decide whether to collect your share. After that a vote decides, one you cannot take part in with an unswapped token, because voting rights attach to AWE and not to STPT. That is no reproach to the project; it is the normal mechanics of windows like this one. It is, however, the reason why working through such a deadline pays off even when the balance is small.

What the swap means for taxes

Caution is warranted here, and this section does not replace tax advice. The starting point: on March 6, 2025 the German Federal Ministry of Finance published a circular on individual questions of the income tax treatment of crypto assets. It confirms the familiar line that swapping one crypto asset for another within the one-year holding period triggers a private disposal transaction, while gains remain tax-free after a year has elapsed.

Whether a pure one-to-one migration even counts as a swap in that sense is answered inconsistently in the specialist literature. Tax firms and crypto tax providers largely take the view that in a migration the acquisition date and acquisition costs carry over to the new token, and that no taxable event therefore occurs. That view is well founded, but it is an interpretation and not an explicit statement by the ministry on this precise case.

In practice what mainly follows from this is a duty to document things for yourself. Record when you originally bought STPT, what quantity you submitted and when, and when you claimed AWE, together with the transaction identifiers on both chains. A tax tool with portfolio tracking takes that matching off your hands and carries the old holding period correctly over to the new position. Anyone who reconstructs it only next spring will be searching two blockchains for transactions they no longer remember.

How to tell a genuine migration page from a fake

Deadlines that create pressure to act are the preferred setting for counterfeit portals, and that applies to every migration. Four checks cost you under two minutes in total and rule out the most common cases.

1. Take the address from the source, not from a search. Open the portal address via the project's blog post or documentation and, if in doubt, type it out. Paid search ads on typed brand names are a known attack route.
2. Never enter your recovery words. A swap portal never asks for your seed. It connects to your wallet and lets you confirm a transaction, nothing more.
3. No manual transfers to addresses someone names. The project's guide states explicitly that there is no separate deposit address.
4. Read the approval you are signing. Check in your wallet which contract you are approving for which amount, and cap the approval at the amount you actually intend to swap.

Anyone who observes these four points has cleared away the largest part of the risk that lies in your own hands during a migration at all.

What this deadline has in common with the year's other migration dates

The STPT case is no one-off; it is the latest in a series. In August we covered the VANRY migration to Base, where the swap window likewise dragged on for weeks and self-custody holders were the real target group. In early September we checked nine crypto deadlines this autumn in an overview; September 21 was not among them at the time and is now the next of those to fall due.

The pattern repeats with remarkable regularity. An exchange or a project announces a changeover, the large trading venues handle it automatically for their customers, coverage ends at that point, and what remains is precisely the group that did everything right: the self-custody holders. Anyone who takes their tokens into their own keeping also takes on the dates that an exchange would otherwise work through in the background. That is the price of independence, and it is low as long as you know about it.

From this follows a habit worth more than any single deadline: go through your self-custodied holdings once a quarter and check, for every project you have not watched for a while, whether there has been an announcement. For dormant positions, half an hour per quarter is a good trade.

Checking the STPT swap: what to take away

1. Check today whether you hold STPT at all, and on which chain. If the balance sits on Base, your starting date is September 14 because of the seven-day bridge time, and not September 21. If you find in the process that your custody arrangements have become hard to survey, the hardware wallet comparison lists the devices that handle such checks without an exchange account.
2. Swap through the official portal and plan for September 20 as your latest date. Check your exchange's support section beforehand to see whether it will handle the swap for you; the comparison of crypto exchanges shows which venues see changeovers through reliably.
3. Document the process immediately, and not at tax return time. Acquisition date, quantity, both transaction identifiers. A tax tool with portfolio tracking transfers the holding period to the new position instead of leaving you to guess in the spring.

Two sources for further reading, both from the project itself: the announcement on the close of the swap window dated August 20, 2026 and the official migration guide setting out the process for self-custody holders, exchange customers and liquidity providers.

(As of September 8, 2026. This article is not investment advice. Prices and fee structures change; check the terms with the provider before you buy.)

If someone has your password and your second factor, only one question still decides whether your balance leaves the exchange: is the attacker's destination address already in your account, or do they have to enter it first? This is exactly where the withdrawal whitelist comes in. It is a list of approved destination addresses, and while it is active, withdrawals go solely to addresses on that list. Everything else is refused, even with the correct password.

September 2026 has made this question very practical. On September 7, Bloomberg reported the outflow of around $320 million from a Liquid Network wallet, in which, according to the operator, roughly 4,000 of 4,200 bitcoin were moved. TRM Labs puts the damage from the wave of attacks on Coldcard devices at $116 million. Neither case was an account takeover at an exchange, but both have the same effect on reader behaviour: many are shifting balances between exchanges and their own wallets these days, and every one of those movements runs through precisely the withdrawal path at issue here.

Withdrawal whitelist: what the function blocks and what it leaves open

Definition in one sentence: a withdrawal whitelist is an address book in the exchange account that permits withdrawals only to recipient addresses approved beforehand.

The protection works against two very different attacks. The first is account takeover: anyone who can log in can, without a whitelist, immediately enter an address of their own and withdraw. The second is the swapped address, for instance through malware that replaces the contents of the clipboard, or through a prepared address taken from the transaction history. How this second trick works and how to spot a slipped-in address is set out at length in our article on checking recipient addresses.

The whitelist leaves open everything that happens within the approved addresses. Anyone who gets you to enter and approve their address yourself bypasses the protection entirely. That is the usual course of support fraud over the phone, and it is the reason a whitelist is a barrier against strangers and not against deception.

Why two-factor sign-in does not secure the withdrawal

Two-factor sign-in and a withdrawal whitelist solve different problems. The second factor decides who gets in. The whitelist decides where something goes out. If the second factor falls, for example because it runs by SMS and the phone number has been taken over, the withdrawal path is open immediately without a whitelist. Why SMS is the weakest variant here, we took apart in our overview of two-factor methods at crypto exchanges.

The German Federal Office for Information Security recommends two-factor authentication as basic protection for accounts involving money. That recommendation remains correct. But it describes only the front door. For an exchange account you additionally need a rule for the exit, and that is precisely what is missing from most default settings: among providers that offer a whitelist at all, it is in practice always voluntary and switched off by default.

A second point is often overlooked. The whitelist also protects you from yourself. An address checked and saved once does not have to be copied afresh out of an app for every withdrawal, which removes the occasion on which a wrong address gets into the form in the first place. Anyone withdrawing regularly to the same hardware wallet reduces the number of risky moments to a single one, namely the first. Which devices come into question and how they differ is set out in the hardware wallet comparison.

The time lock in the exchange account: why the waiting period is the real protection

A whitelist on its own has a weak spot every attacker knows: it can be changed. Whoever is sitting in the account enters a new address and waits for confirmation. That is why providers who are serious about it tie the address list to a delay. New or altered entries take effect only after a fixed period, and that period runs regardless of whether the attacker is still in the account.

The effect is simple to describe. An attacker who wants to withdraw at once fails against the clock. An attacker who waits risks the notification about the change reaching you before the period expires. That does presuppose, though, that you actually receive that notification, meaning that the address on file is current and the mail account itself is well protected.

Kraken's global settings lock: what the help page actually promises

The most thoroughly documented of the providers examined is Kraken. The function is called Global Settings Lock there, GSL for short. According to the description on the help page on preventing unwanted withdrawals, last updated on March 23, 2026, the lock prevents changes to the account and hides sensitive account information.

You set the waiting period yourself

When switching it on you determine how long unlocking takes without a master key. Kraken describes this waiting period in the instructions as a mandatory entry during setup. The decisive sentence in the documentation is that support cannot help remove the lock when the unlock period lies between one and thirty days. That is unusually plainly put and the actual core of the function: the lock works against the provider as well, and thus against the route attackers take in support fraud.

With the lock active, no new address can be entered

The instructions for adding a new withdrawal address carry the note that no withdrawal address can be added while the global settings lock is active. That closes the chain: withdrawals go to entered addresses, and nothing can be entered while the lock stands. Every newly added address has to be confirmed via a link in an email in any case.

Even without the lock, a short holding period applies

Independently of the global settings lock, Kraken describes a delay after a password change: for anyone who changes their password and has set up neither two-factor sign-in nor a master key, withdrawals to new addresses are held back for 24 hours. Addresses already entered are not affected. That is exactly the pattern that makes a whitelist so valuable: the trouble hits the new destinations, while the familiar route to your own wallet keeps working.

Master key: the spare key that lifts the waiting period again

The lock comes with a counterpart that the documentation names openly. The master key can switch off the global settings lock at any time. Kraken writes expressly that this convenient option comes with an increased security risk should the master key be compromised. And there is an order of operations you only get wrong once: once the lock is active, no master key can be created any more.

From this follows a decision nobody takes off your hands. With a master key you stay able to act if you change your mind, and your protection is only as good as the safekeeping of that key. Without one the lock is harder, and you have to sit out the period you set yourself if it comes to it, even as the rightful account holder. A long period is therefore no pure gain, it is a trade: more protection against strangers, less freedom of movement for you.

In practice this means: choose the period by the amount you leave on the exchange, and not by feel. Anyone who keeps only trading balance there and withdraws regularly to the same wallet gets by with a short period. Anyone leaving larger holdings on the account should first check whether those holdings need to be there at all.

The survey: 13 providers, 23 pages, three explicit statements

This evaluation was carried out by cryptoticker.io itself on September 8, 2026. The method in one sentence: for thirteen providers with a German-language presence, the publicly reachable security and help pages were retrieved with an ordinary browser identifier, the HTTP status code was noted and the visible text without HTML scaffolding was searched for any mention of a whitelist, an allowlist or an address book for withdrawals.

Examined were 23 pages from 13 providers: Kraken, Binance, Coinbase, Bitpanda, Bitvavo, BISON, OKX, Bybit, Bitget, Crypto.com, KuCoin, Bitstamp and Nexo. Evaluable in terms of the method were four provider pages. Three of them name the function explicitly, one does not. Nine providers could not be examined by this procedure.

Crypto.com and Nexo: what the readable security pages say

The security page of Crypto.com carries the sentence that approving external addresses via an email confirmation is mandatory. It is the only finding in the survey that describes a whitelist not as an option but as a requirement. The same page also names passkeys, hardware security modules and FIDO2 as sign-in methods.

Nexo lists an address whitelist as a point of its own on its security page and describes it as managing your own crypto addresses for error-free transfers. The emphasis there is recognisably on the typo and not on the attacker. The page additionally names an anti-phishing code for the authenticity of messages and an automatic check of every withdrawal.

The security page of Bitpanda was likewise reachable, but its visible text contains no statement on a withdrawal whitelist. That is a finding about the page and not a statement about the function: from a missing sentence on a marketing page it does not follow that the setting is absent from the account.

For Binance, the relevant help page on the whitelist for withdrawal addresses is publicly available, but it could not be retrieved by machine in the test: the response came back without content. Via web search the content is confirmed, namely that with the function activated no withdrawals are possible to addresses that are not on the list. We therefore list this as a confirmed indication and not as a measurement of our own.

Nine provider pages could not be examined: what this evaluation does not show

Honesty about the gaps is part of the survey. At Coinbase and Bitvavo the help pages answered with a defence against automated retrieval, visible as status code 403. At OKX the addresses checked led nowhere. Bybit, KuCoin, Bitget and Bitstamp did return a successful status code, but their content is loaded only later in the browser, so the retrieved document holds no evaluable text. The security address checked at BISON did not exist.

From this follows a clear limit to the statement. What was measured is what a provider documents publicly and machine-readably, not which settings actually exist inside a logged-in account. Several of the providers that could not be examined very probably do offer address approval. Anyone wanting to know for certain finds the answer in one place no survey from outside can reach: in the security settings of their own account.

The distribution is striking all the same. Of thirteen large providers, at four it is possible to read up at all on how the withdrawal path is secured, and at only one is the lock described in enough detail that you know what you are letting yourself in for before switching it on. For a function that in an emergency decides over the entire account balance, that is thin.

Switching on the whitelist: the order that does not lock you out

Depending on the provider the settings are called address book, address whitelist, allowlist or withdrawal addresses, and they nearly always sit in the security area of the account, not in the withdrawal form. The order matters more than the label, because two of the steps are hard to make up later.

1. First enter the receiving address of your own wallet and test it with a minimal amount, while nothing is locked yet.
2. Then check whether the provider offers a master key or a comparable emergency function, and set it up before the lock becomes active.
3. Only after that arm the whitelist and, where available, set the waiting period for changes.
4. Finally check the email address on file, because confirmation and warning both run through it.
5. If your provider runs several networks for the same coin, enter and label each address separately.

What you see in the withdrawal form afterwards

After switching it on, the free input field for the address disappears at most providers and is replaced by a selection list. That visible difference is precisely your check: if you can still type in a foreign address and use it straight away, the whitelist is not active, whatever the settings say.

Withdrawing this week: the sequence from request to confirmation

September brings many readers a concrete occasion to move balances. When an exchange discontinues trading in a coin, a longer withdrawal window often remains, and experience from recent weeks shows that many holders react only shortly before it closes. Which deadlines are currently running we keep in our continuously checked deadline overview.

For the sequence this means: set up the whitelist before you are under time pressure. A newly entered address needs a confirmation by email, and where a waiting period applies, it comes on top. Anyone entering an address for the first time on the last day of a deadline is working against the very delay that is supposed to protect them.

And if something does flow out, speed counts. Lock the account, secure the records from the activity log and document the destination address before you change anything. How to proceed afterwards and what a police report achieves in practice, we described in a separate article on what to do after a crypto theft.

Setting up a withdrawal whitelist: what to take away

1. Open your account's security settings today and see whether address approval exists. It is publicly documented at only four of thirteen providers examined; in the account itself you see it in two minutes. If your provider offers none, that is an argument for your next switch, and the selection is in the crypto exchange comparison.
2. Enter your own wallet address, test it and only then lock. A minimal amount up front costs fees in the cent range and rules out the most expensive mistake. Which device is suitable is set out in the hardware wallet comparison.
3. Choose the waiting period deliberately and create the master key beforehand. Anyone holding larger balances on an exchange should additionally check whether the provider is supervised at all; the starting point for that is our list of regulated crypto exchanges.

A closing note, because it often gets lost in the discussion about security functions: every one of these locks works only on balances held at a provider. What sits in your own wallet is protected by no whitelist; different rules apply there. Protecting the withdrawal path is therefore no substitute for the decision about how much stays on an exchange at all.

(As of September 8, 2026. This article is not investment advice. Prices and fee structures change; check the terms with the provider before you buy.)

When customer holdings are stolen from a crypto exchange, the exchange as a rule does not make good the loss, and no state body steps in either. That is the short answer, and it appears in those or similar words in the providers' own public documents. On September 8, 2026 we retrieved the security, legal and protection-fund pages of twelve providers that address customers in Germany with German-language sites, and looked at what is actually promised there. For seven of them a solid statement could be evaluated. Exactly one provider names a fund of its own with a figure attached. Not a single one promises a private account reimbursement for stolen coins.

The occasion is recent. In the first week of September 2026, around $322 million flowed out of crypto systems according to a count by The Crypto Times, of which roughly $320 million came from the Liquid Network peg-out alone, reported by Bloomberg on September 7. We described the incident the same day in our report on the Liquid Network peg-out. The second half of the question stayed open there, and it is the subject here: who actually pays when your balance is hit?

Who reimburses stolen coins? The legal position in three sentences

Germany has two statutory safety nets for money held at a financial company. Deposit guarantee is the statutory claim to have your bank balance replaced up to a fixed amount if the bank fails. Investor compensation is the counterpart for securities business: it applies when an investment firm can no longer hand over securities or funds from such business.

Both nets are tied to a precondition that crypto-assets usually do not meet. On its consumer page on deposit guarantee and investor compensation, BaFin writes on the question of whether these systems cover crypto-assets: “As a rule, no. In particular, the assets known as cryptocurrencies, which became popular recently, are mostly not protected. Protection applies only if the crypto-asset counts as a security or if it involves fund units investing in crypto-assets.” The consumer association Verbraucherzentrale puts the same point more briefly in its risk overview: crypto investments have no deposit guarantee.

The difference between failure and theft

Even where a net applies, it covers a different case from the one at issue here. Deposit guarantee and investor compensation are built for the failure of the company, meaning insolvency or an officially established inability to pay. A theft at a provider that stays open afterwards and remains solvent does not trigger these nets at all. How the insolvency case differs from this, and what segregation of your coins means there, we took apart on August 18, 2026 in our article on segregation at an insolvent crypto exchange.

Deposit guarantee and the 100,000 euros: what the amount really covers

The figure almost everyone knows appears on the same BaFin page: the statutory compensation claim for deposits amounts to a maximum of 100,000 euros per customer and per bank, regardless of the number of accounts. With a joint account each holder has a claim of their own, so with two holders the amount doubles to 200,000 euros.

The decisive word is deposits. What is meant is a balance in a currency such as the euro in an account at a CRR credit institution. Bitcoin, ether and the rest of your portfolio are not deposits in this sense, which is why the holdings you keep on a trading platform do not count towards this pot. If you want to know how the price of the largest of these assets is currently moving, our Bitcoin price prediction keeps it continuously updated; for the compensation question, however, the size of the holding makes no difference. It is unprotected either way.

The survey: twelve provider sites, seven evaluable statements

This evaluation was carried out by cryptoticker.io itself on September 8, 2026. The method in one sentence: for twelve providers with a German-language presence we retrieved the publicly reachable security, legal or protection-fund page over HTTP, noted the response code and searched the visible text on it for any mention of compensation, insurance or a protection fund for customer holdings.

Objects examined: twelve provider sites, seventeen pages retrieved in total. The result was evaluable for seven providers. For five it was not, for reasons that have nothing to do with the content of the pages. We set that part out openly further below, because a survey that conceals its gaps is no survey.

What we counted and what we did not

Only what stands on the page itself was counted. A statement in the promotional text of a comparison portal or in an interview does not count here, because it does not bind the provider and cannot be looked up. Nor did we count details of technical security. Cold storage, two-factor sign-in and penetration tests say something about how likely a loss is, and nothing about who bears it if it happens anyway.

Kraken writes it out itself: “No Insurance” in the legal disclosures

The clearest statement in the whole survey comes from Kraken, and it does not sit in the small print of a footnote but as a paragraph of its own in the exchange's Legal Disclosures. It reads: “No Insurance. Digital assets and Kraken accounts are not covered by insurance against losses.” The paragraph then states expressly that the US systems FDIC and SIPC do not apply either, and that there is no comparable protection.

The security page of the same exchange carries the second half of the same thought: for many products and countries the customer may not be protected by state compensation or supervisory systems. One can read that as uncomfortable candour. For the question this article asks, it is the most usable answer in the entire field, because it is unambiguous and can be quoted.

Trust arrangement and cold storage at Bitpanda: segregation is no substitute

On its German security page, Bitpanda describes two things that are frequently confused. First, crypto holdings are said to lie in cold storage, meaning stores without a permanent network connection, whose contents are checked externally at intervals. Second, Bitpanda states that it holds its customers' crypto assets as a trustee on the basis of a legally binding trust agreement; the customer remains the beneficial owner, and there is a legally binding separation between the company's own assets and customer holdings.

This separation is valuable, but it answers a different question. It ensures that your coins do not fall into the estate in an insolvency. Against theft it does not help: what flows out of a separately kept holding is gone just as surely as from a commingled one. The term insurance also appears on the page, though there in connection with Bitpanda Custody, the safekeeping offer for institutional clients. For a private trading account, no promise follows from it.

BISON and the 100,000 euros: the protection applies to the euro balance

On the site of BISON, the trading platform from the Börse Stuttgart group, the familiar figure stands right beside the crypto offering: the euro balance is said to be kept by Solaris SE and at Deutsche Bank, and up to 100,000 euros per investor and bank are protected by German law.

The sentence is correct, and it is meant exactly as narrowly as it stands. What is protected is the euro balance at the partner bank. The crypto-assets displayed on the same interface are not covered by that sentence. Anyone who reads the 100,000 euros in passing and applies it to their entire portfolio has miscalculated on precisely the part at issue here. This mix-up is the most common error we met in this survey. It arises from the proximity of two pieces of information on one screen, not from any incorrect statement by the provider.

Protection fund at Bitget, proof of reserves at OKX: two promises that are not the same

Bitget runs a German-language page on a protection fund of its own and puts it there at $300 million; the page notes that users can file a claim through this fund in the event of a loss. It is the only figure named in the entire survey. A fund of this kind is a voluntary undertaking by the company and not a legal entitlement: how an individual case is decided does not emerge from the page, and it is not a state-supervised compensation system.

OKX takes a different route. The provider's German-language page describes a one-to-one reserve for all holdings in platform accounts and publishes regular reports on it; at the time of retrieval the 46th of these reports was shown, with $22.96 billion in primary holdings. Proof of reserves is the demonstration that a custodian actually holds its customers' assets. It answers the coverage question, not the liability question. How to recompute such a proof yourself, we showed step by step on August 18, 2026 in our guide to proof of reserves.

Crypto.com and the FDIC line: why US deposit insurance is of no use here

The security page of Crypto.com carries a paragraph that is often quoted in comparisons as a protection promise, and that on close reading says the opposite. Fiat balances are said to be held in accounts at regulated custodian banks; for customers resident in the United States, dollar balances are passed on to partner banks that are members of the FDIC. The qualification follows immediately: FDIC protection applies only if the member bank concerned fails, and it protects the funds neither against a failure of Crypto.com nor against the risk of theft or fraud.

For an account in Germany the paragraph is therefore doubly without effect. It concerns persons resident in the US, it concerns fiat balances only, and it expressly excludes the theft case. Anyone who takes such a line as cover for their crypto holdings is reading a promise that is not there.

Naming custodians is not the same as being liable

On its security page, Nexo lists by name the custodians it works with, among them a Munich company licensed as a custodian for digital assets under MiCAR and supervised by BaFin, plus a further custodian for the US business. That is a useful disclosure, because it makes it verifiable who holds the keys. It is not a statement about who replaces a loss, and the page does not claim otherwise.

Five provider pages could not be examined: what this survey does not show

For five of the twelve providers we could evaluate no statement on the survey date. At Bitvavo and Coinbase the servers answered the automated retrieval with code 403 and delivered no page content; in a browser both pages are normally reachable for readers. At Bitstamp and Bybit the server did answer with code 200, but returned virtually no evaluable text, because the content is loaded only later in the browser. A security page at Trade Republic did not exist under the address checked and answered with code 404.

Expressly, nothing follows from this about the security of these providers. All that follows is that we could not capture their promises that day with the same method as those of the other seven. For Bitvavo, German-language comparison portals report a voluntary account guarantee of up to 100,000 euros that is said to include crypto-assets as well. We list this as an unconfirmed indication and not as a finding, because we could not read the statement on a page of the provider itself on September 8.

The result in one line

Of seven evaluable providers, exactly one names a protection fund of its own with a figure. Two point to protective mechanisms that cover a different case from theft, namely separation from own assets and cover for the euro balance at a partner bank. One cites a deposit guarantee that does not apply to German customers. One demonstrates coverage without assuming liability. One names its custodians. And one states in bare words that there is no insurance.

What to check at your own provider in ten minutes

The survey above is a snapshot of seven providers. Yours may not be among them, and terms change. The check can be carried out yourself in a few minutes, though, and it works the same way at every provider.

Open the legal documents, not the security page. The security page is marketing and describes measures; the liability question sits in the terms of use, in the risk warnings or in a document called legal disclosures or risk disclosure. Search there for the words insurance, compensation and liability. If you find none of these terms in connection with your holdings, that is already the answer.

Then check what any figure named actually refers to. If a sum such as 100,000 euros appears on the page, read the sentence before and after it in full and establish whether it speaks of deposits, of euro balances or of crypto-assets. If a bank name appears there, the protection applies to the account at that bank and not to your portfolio. If you are minded to switch provider anyway, a look at our overview of the best regulated crypto exchanges helps, because an authorisation under MiCA brings no compensation with it, but it does bring duties to segregate customer holdings and to report.

The part only you can handle

The most solid protection against a theft at a custodian is to leave no more there than necessary. Holdings you are not trading belong in a wallet whose keys you hold yourself; which devices come into question and how they differ is set out in our hardware wallet comparison. That shifts the risk, it does not remove it: if you lose the key or let it out of your hands, there is all the less any body to compensate you. And if something does go missing, filing a criminal complaint is the first step, as we described on August 21, 2026 in our guide to reporting a crypto theft.

Compensation after crypto theft: what to take away

1. Expect no statutory compensation. On crypto-assets and deposit guarantee, BaFin says “as a rule, no”, and the providers examined do not contradict it. If you want to use a platform at all, choose it deliberately by authorisation and duties, for instance via our overview of the best regulated crypto exchanges.
2. Read the legal documents rather than the security page. Search for insurance, compensation and liability, and check for every figure named whether it applies to the euro balance or to the coins. If comparing several providers interests you, the terms are gathered under best crypto exchanges.
3. Move what you are not trading into your own custody. What is not held at a third party cannot flow out there either. Suitable devices and their differences are set out in the hardware wallet comparison; responsibility for the key then rests entirely with you.

(As of September 8, 2026. This article is not investment advice. Prices and fee structures change; check the terms with the provider before you buy.)

The final say over your USDT does not rest with your wallet. It rests with the owner role of the contract that issues the token. On the chain that holds a little more than half of all Tether dollars, that role sits with a single multisig address where two out of three signatures are enough. This is not conjecture or a second-hand report: it is written openly on the blockchain, anyone can read it, and this article shows you how to do so yourself in five minutes.

The occasion is a review by the security firm Hacken dated September 4, 2026, which gave Tether a cybersecurity score of 3.3 out of 10. At almost the same time, the ratings outfit Bluechip raised its company grade from D to C. Both verdicts are correct, because they measure different things. Anyone who reads only one of them ends up with a skewed picture.

Who can control USDT: the owner role of the token contract

A stablecoin such as USDT is not a network of its own. It is a program that runs on someone else's network. That program is called a smart contract, or contract for short: deposited code that keeps balances and enforces rules without anyone having to intervene by hand. The contract maintains a table recording which address holds how many units.

Within this contract there is one privileged role, the owner. The owner role is the address permitted to call functions that are closed to everyone else. Whoever holds it decides the rules under which the token works for all holders, and not the fate of individual wallets.

On Tron, the network with the largest USDT balance, the contract at address TR7NHqjeKQxGTCi8q8ZY4pL8otSzgjLj6t answers the owner() query with an address that is itself a contract. Its name on the network is MultiSigWallet. For context on how the Tron balance has developed in recent months, see our Tron price prediction.

What a 2-of-3 multisig is, and why the threshold decides everything

A multisig, short for multi-signature wallet, is an address that acts only once a set minimum number of deposited keys have signed the same instruction. Two numbers describe it completely: how many keys exist in total, and how many of them have to come together. That second number is the threshold.

We queried both numbers directly on the network on September 8, 2026 at 00:36 UTC, via the public node api.trongrid.io. The getOwners() query on the owner address returns three addresses. The required() query returns the value 2. That confirms the finding independently: two out of three.

The threshold is the real lever. At three of three, an attacker would need every key at once, and a single lost key would lock the role forever. At two of three, the contract stays operable if one key goes missing, and it is already takeable once two come together. Security and operability pull in opposite directions here, and the threshold sets where the compromise falls.

The order of magnitude behind this can be measured directly as well. The totalSupply() query on the same contract returned 94,268,087,064 USDT at that moment. Hacken cited 91.3 billion in its report four days earlier. Depending on the cut-off date, then, somewhere between a good 91 and a good 94 billion USDT sit on this one chain. Global circulation stood at roughly 183.4 billion USDT on September 8, 2026 at 00:33 UTC, according to CoinGecko. The Tron share therefore comes to about 51 percent.

What key control cannot do: the boundary to your own wallet

This is where the most common misunderstanding lies, and it is worth separating cleanly. The owner role of the contract has no access to your private keys. It cannot open your wallet, read your recovery phrase or touch your bitcoin and other tokens. Your balance in any other currency is likewise untouched, whether you keep it on an exchange or in self-custody with a hardware wallet.

What the role can do concerns the bookkeeping of the token itself. That includes entering an address on a blacklist, with the consequence that its USDT balance can no longer be moved. It includes creating new units. And it includes deleting already blocked balances from the table. The point at which this happens lies in the contract, not in your wallet file.

In practice: self-custody reliably protects you against the failure of an exchange, but it does not protect you against a block at contract level. Those are two separate risks, and they need two separate answers.

How to check the owner role of the USDT contract yourself in five minutes

You need no specialist knowledge and no software for this, only a block explorer. A block explorer is a website that makes the contents of a blockchain readable; for Tron, Tronscan is the most widely used. Four steps are enough.

1. Open the USDT contract TR7NHqjeKQxGTCi8q8ZY4pL8otSzgjLj6t in the explorer. The tab for the contract code holds a list of queryable functions.
2. Call owner(). The answer is an address. In our query it read TBPxhVAsuzoFnKyXtc1o2UySEydPHgATto.
3. Open that address. The explorer shows whether it is an ordinary account or a contract. Here it is a contract carrying the deposited name MultiSigWallet.
4. On this contract, call getOwners() and required(). The first query lists the deposited key addresses, the second gives the threshold.

This check costs nothing, requires no wallet connection and leaves no trace. It also works for other tokens: every contract carrying a blocking function has a role somewhere that is allowed to trigger it. The question is always the same, namely who holds that role and under which threshold.

Which functions the owner role unlocks in the TetherToken contract

The contract carries the internal name TetherToken and publishes its interface openly. The description we retrieved on September 8, 2026 includes, among others, these functions reserved for the owner role:

• addBlackList and removeBlackList: places an address on the blacklist or takes it off again.
• destroyBlackFunds: destroys the balance of an address that has already been blocked.
• issue and redeem: creates new units or withdraws existing ones.
• transferOwnership: hands the owner role on to another address.
• pause and unpause: halts transfers across the entire contract or releases them again.
• deprecate: declares the contract superseded and redirects to a successor.

Alongside these sits the isBlackListed query, which anyone can call without special rights. We described step by step how to check your own address with it on September 6, 2026, in our guide to stablecoin address blocking. The present article answers the question that comes before it: who is allowed to trigger a block at all.

Blocking functions are no design flaw. They exist because an issuer holding balances in real dollars has to be able to respond to orders from authorities. The part open to scrutiny is therefore not whether such a function exists, but how firmly access to it is secured.

Timelock and revocation window: the two building blocks missing here

A timelock is a rule in the contract that places a fixed waiting period between an instruction and its execution. Whoever initiates a change has to wait, and the change is publicly visible during that time. A revocation window is the matching second half: the option to stop an initiated change while the waiting period is still running.

Together the two turn a silent process into an observable one. Large protocols therefore often set deadlines of 24 to 72 hours between decision and effect. Hacken records in its report that the owner role of the USDT contract on Tron has neither. A takeover would take effect immediately.

What matters is how far this finding reaches. It says how quickly a change would take effect if it came. It says nothing about whether it will come. Hacken states explicitly that it found no indication of compromised keys and no security incident.

Which chain your USDT sits on, and why that shifts the control question

USDT does not exist a single time. On every network where the token is offered, there is a contract of its own. Tron, Ethereum and a series of further chains each run their own contracts with their own balances and their own owner roles. A USDT on Tron and a USDT on Ethereum are economically the same claim, but technically two different entries in two different ledgers.

For you this has three practical consequences. First, the control structure that concerns you hangs on the chain your balance actually sits on, and not on a general statement about Tether. Second, you have to know which chain that is before you can check anything; on an exchange the information appears in the withdrawal dialogue, on your own wallet in the network name of the address. Third, a transfer to the wrong chain is the most common way to lose USDT permanently, and it happens without any involvement of an issuer.

Anyone switching between chains regularly should therefore treat the network selection as seriously as the address itself. With providers under European supervision, the selection is usually narrower and thus less prone to error.

Hacken 3.3 and Bluechip C: why two scores measure two different things

Two assessments stood side by side on the same day, and they appear to point in opposite directions. Hacken awarded a cybersecurity score of 3.3 out of 10. Bluechip raised its company grade from D to C, supported by a KPMG review under which reserves exceeded liabilities by 6.8 billion US dollars as of December 31, 2025.

These two verdicts do not contradict each other, because they answer different questions. Bluechip asks whether there is enough backing behind every token issued. Hacken asks how firmly access is secured to the program that keeps those tokens. A fully backed currency can hang on a thin key architecture, and an exemplary secured architecture says nothing about backing.

What the KPMG review covers in detail, which cut-off date it carries and why an audit opinion is no substitute for authorisation, we broke down on August 16, 2026 in our analysis of the Tether audit by KPMG. Tether also publishes its reserve figures on an ongoing basis on its own transparency page. The security finding and the upgrade side by side are documented in the report by CoinDesk of September 4, 2026.

Exchange balances and the custody chain: who actually holds for you when it matters

If your USDT sits on an exchange, a second layer is added on top of the contract layer. The address recorded in the contract then belongs to the exchange, not to you. You hold a claim against the house, and the house holds the entry on the chain. A block at contract level in this case hits the exchange's pooled address first, and reaches you only through the house rules.

That is no argument against exchanges, but it is a reason to know the difference. Under self-custody your own address stands in the ledger, with all the consequences that follow in both directions: nobody can freeze your balance in the name of a third party, and nobody can help you if you lose your keys. On an exchange it works the other way round.

A third case is often overlooked. Some providers do not hold assets themselves and pass them on to a specialist custodian. Another company then sits between you and the entry on the chain. If you want to know how many links your custody chain has, the answer is in the terms of use under headings such as custody, safekeeping or sub-custodian.

What MiCA changes about the control question, and what stays open

The European regulation on markets in crypto-assets, MiCA for short, addresses stablecoins at the level of the issuer. It governs who may issue an asset-referenced token in the EU, how reserves are held and audited, and under which conditions a holder can demand redemption. The regulatory grip therefore falls on the company and its balance sheet.

The key architecture of a contract on a public blockchain is covered only indirectly by this. A supervisory authority can set requirements for the operational organisation of an authorised issuer; it cannot write a rule into a contract already running on someone else's network. For you, the control question therefore remains one you check at the contract yourself, regardless of how the issuer is classified under supervisory law.

Which stablecoins remain regularly tradable in the EU after the transition periods end, and what a forced conversion can trigger for tax purposes, is set out in our analysis of August 16, 2026. The order matters: first establish where your balance sits, then who steers the contract, and only after that the supervisory classification.

A structural finding, not an incident: what does not follow from this situation

Finally, the classification this topic most often lacks. Hacken describes a construction, not an attack. According to the firm there is no indication that keys have gone astray, and no security incident. Anyone deriving an immediate danger to their own balance from this goes beyond the source.

Nor does any recommendation to act follow from it in either direction. This article does not tell you to hold USDT, and it does not tell you to move out. It tells you which questions can be checked and how you answer them: which chain your balance sits on, who holds the owner role of the corresponding contract, under which threshold it stands, and whether a waiting period sits in between.

That is the real strength of a public blockchain on this point. The control structure is a matter of querying rather than of trust. The structure lies open, anyone can read it, and it does not change because somebody writes something else about it.

USDT key control: what to take away

1. Establish the chain first. Check in your wallet or in your exchange's withdrawal dialogue which network your USDT actually sits on. Without that information you are checking the wrong control structure. If you find that several providers are involved, our comparison of regulated crypto exchanges gives you an overview of where the balances lie.
2. Check the owner role yourself. Call owner() on the token contract in the block explorer, open the address returned and read getOwners() and required() there. It takes five minutes and settles the question for good. For the part that then lies in your hands, securing your own keys, the hardware wallet comparison helps with the selection.
3. Keep the two risks apart. The failure of a custodian and a block at contract level are different things and need different answers. If you want to keep track of balances across several chains and providers, our overview of portfolio trackers and tax tools has the right instruments.

(As of September 8, 2026. This article is not investment advice. Prices and fee structures change; check the terms with the provider before you buy.)

Memos from the NYPD to Homeland Security warn the devices could be used for covert filming inside jails and police facilities.

The multi-year deal makes OG.com the infrastructure and clearing engine behind Robinhood's fastest-growing business.

The company says it holds roughly 4.9% of Ethereum’s supply, with most of its tokens staked to earn rewards.

The Bitcoin treasury firm spent $176.3 million on its own preferred stock, and doubled the buyback program's authorization to $2 billion.

Is it a warning sign for a local top? Or is the onchain party just getting started?

Shiba Inu logs explosive surge in burn activity over the last 24 hours as nearly 47 million tokens were permanently destroyed from circulation within the period.

Mexican authorities have dismantled a massive clandestine crypto mining farm in Puebla equipped with around 300 computers and allegedly powered through stolen electricity linked to a federal hydroelectric complex.

5.5 billion XRP suddenly added to Coinbase balance with real trigger explained.

Wintermute explains why the $80,000 Bitcoin run isn't over and breaks down the exact scenarios for investors who fear they missed the rally.

Bitcoin recently had its fourth highest daily transaction count in history, with interest reignited in ancient BTC supply.

TLDR

• Micron stock rises as strong AI memory demand supports its growth outlook
• MU rebounds toward $1,030 as stronger memory demand drives market momentum
• Micron gains as data center demand boosts high-bandwidth memory sales outlook
• Impax highlights Micron as memory demand strengthens across data center markets
• Micron advances as rising memory demand supports stronger quarterly performance

Micron Technology (MU) rose 0.91% to $1,025.81 as demand for memory products continued supporting its growth outlook. The stock recovered after falling toward the $1,010–$1,016 support zone during recent trading. The rebound moved shares toward the $1,025–$1,030 range and kept the $1,030 level in focus.

Micron Technology, Inc., MU

Micron Gains as AI Memory Demand Strengthens

Micron supplies memory and storage products for data centers, computers, automobiles, and other electronic systems. In its second-quarter 2026 investor letter, Impax US Sustainable Economy Fund identified Micron as a material contributor to performance. The fund linked Micron’s strong quarterly performance to rising demand for high-bandwidth memory products.

Demand for high-bandwidth memory increased as companies expanded systems for AI training and inference workloads. Hyperscale data center development increased demand for advanced memory and supported stronger pricing and shipment expectations. Micron also raised its forward guidance during the quarter, which contributed to a sharp increase in its share price.

Micron’s performance also reflected broader strength across technology stocks during the second quarter. Equity markets reached new highs before retreating, while capital continued moving toward AI and technology companies. Data center spending estimates reached between $750 billion and $1 trillion, supporting demand across related technology supply chains.

Impax Fund Highlights Micron’s Contribution

Impax Asset Management manages the Impax US Sustainable Economy Fund and focuses on sustainable economic themes. The fund reported returns of 17.96% for its Institutional Class, 17.95% for Investor Class, and 17.92% for Class A. By comparison, the Russell 1000 returned 15.14% during the same quarter.

Sector allocation and stock selection contributed to the fund’s quarterly performance, while its sustainability frameworks also supported results. The fund uses the Impax Sustainability Lens and Corporate Resilience framework when assessing companies. Micron received a strong sustainability opportunity profile across digital infrastructure, basic needs, and education themes.

The fund also identified Micron’s strong Corporate Resilience score as part of its holding rationale. Its assessment highlighted the company’s position within digital infrastructure and its exposure to growing memory demand. Micron therefore remained among the companies that contributed materially to the fund’s second-quarter performance.

MU Stock Rebounds Toward Key Price Level

Micron closed at $1,016.59 on September 4, 2026, according to the supplied market data. The stock gained 18.07% over one month and advanced 673.31% during the previous 52 weeks. Its reported market capitalization reached approximately $1.15 trillion.

The stock later traded at $1,025.81, representing a 0.91% daily increase. Shares recovered after approaching the $1,010–$1,016 support area and moved back toward $1,025. The $1,030 level now represents the next stated price level for the current trading setup.

Micron also ranked 17th among 40 popular stocks held by hedge funds entering 2026. The number of hedge fund portfolios holding Micron increased to 184 during the second quarter, compared with 154 previously. The figures underline Micron’s stronger presence across institutional portfolios as memory demand expands.

The post Micron (MU) Stock: Rises as AI Demand Boosts Growth Outlook appeared first on Blockonomi.

Key Takeaways

• HSBC has increased its S&P 500 year-end projection to 8,100 from a prior estimate of 7,650
• Robust corporate profits are fueling the revision, with first-half 2026 EPS surging nearly 40%
• The bank anticipates full-year 2026 earnings expansion of 33%, translating to $360 per share
• Artificial intelligence infrastructure investment is highlighted as a critical force behind tech and chip stock performance
• HSBC believes investor anxieties surrounding Fed policy, geopolitics, and elections are exaggerated

In a notable revision this Tuesday, HSBC increased its year-end projection for the S&P 500 to 8,100, marking a significant upgrade from its earlier forecast of 7,650. The financial institution attributes this bullish adjustment primarily to corporate earnings that have substantially exceeded market expectations.

This updated forecast suggests approximately 4.9% potential appreciation from the benchmark index’s most recent closing level. Year-to-date, the S&P 500 has already climbed 12.75%.

Corporate Profits Surpass Projections Comprehensively

According to HSBC strategist Nicole Inui, earnings-per-share expansion during the first six months of 2026 approached the 40% mark. Her projections indicate that growth will maintain momentum above 25% throughout the year’s latter half.

HSBC’s analysis projects annual 2026 earnings growth at 33%, equating to $360 per share. The firm applies a price-to-earnings valuation multiple of 22.5x, which aligns closely with historical norms.

Supporting evidence from LSEG confirms this impressive earnings trajectory. Among 492 S&P 500 constituents that have disclosed quarterly results, approximately 86% exceeded analyst projections. This compares favorably against the long-term average beat rate of 67.5%.

Inui identified artificial intelligence infrastructure expenditure as a pivotal catalyst. This investment wave is providing substantial tailwinds for semiconductor manufacturers and other AI-adjacent equities.

The bank maintains constructive views on technology, financial services, and industrial sectors. Its stance on consumer-facing industries is more discriminating.

HSBC Dismisses Major Market Concerns

Market participants have fixated on four primary risk factors: potential Federal Reserve interest rate increases, geopolitical instability, upcoming U.S. midterm elections, and heightened liquidity demands stemming from IPO activity and AI capital requirements.

HSBC contends these apprehensions are predominantly overblown.

The institution anticipates the Federal Reserve will maintain its current rate stance through this year and beyond. HSBC projects the 10-year Treasury yield will conclude 2026 at 4.65%.

Regarding the midterm electoral cycle, Inui emphasized that election-related market turbulence typically proves transient. She further noted that geopolitical tensions have exerted minimal influence on aggregate consumer expenditure patterns.

However, the bank identified specific risk factors warranting monitoring. Technology sector valuations have remained range-bound despite impressive earnings delivery and record profitability levels. Inui suggested that valuation multiple expansion may prove challenging even as underlying business fundamentals strengthen.

She additionally highlighted historical September market weakness, forthcoming inflation releases, and regulatory scrutiny targeting data center operations and social media platforms as potential sources of near-term price fluctuations.

HSBC’s optimistic stance is shared across Wall Street. Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley, and Citigroup have all published year-end S&P 500 targets at or exceeding the 8,000 threshold.

The post HSBC Elevates S&P 500 Forecast to 8,100 Amid Robust Earnings Surge appeared first on Blockonomi.

TLDR

• EXOZ falls 4.86% to $6.50 after eXoZymes signs its Curia manufacturing deal.
• Curia will scale NCT work across facilities in León, Spain, and Rozzano, Italy.
• The Q4 2026 program will map a route toward larger-scale NCT production in 2027.
• Technology transfer covers enzyme fermentation, cell-free reaction and purification.
• eXoZymes aims to use Curia’s manufacturing network to support future NCT supply.

eXoZymes traded at $6.50, down 4.86%, after the company announced a commercial-scale manufacturing agreement with Curia Global. The deal advances NCT beyond pilot-scale validation and starts a formal technology transfer program during the fourth quarter of 2026. eXoZymes plans to use Curia’s European manufacturing network to prepare NCT for larger-scale production and possible commercialization during 2027.

eXoZymes, Inc., EXOZ

Curia Agreement Advances NCT Manufacturing

eXoZymes will transfer its proprietary NCT manufacturing process to Curia under the newly signed commercial-scale development and manufacturing agreement. Curia will scale the process in León, Spain, and Rozzano, Italy, giving the program access to two manufacturing sites. The companies will focus on process transfer, technical validation, engineering work, and production planning before any broader commercial manufacturing begins.

The program will cross validate enzyme fermentation, cell-free reaction, and purification processes that form eXoZymes’ integrated NCT platform. Curia will also conduct process modeling and engineering analysis to identify equipment, operating conditions, and requirements for larger manufacturing runs. These activities should establish a technical roadmap for scaling NCT while reducing execution risks between pilot operations and commercial production.

The agreement follows eXoZymes’ earlier pilot-scale work, which demonstrated the NCT process and improved both productivity and production economics. Management now wants to move the entire integrated process into a commercial manufacturing environment with established development and manufacturing infrastructure. The transition marks a key operational step because successful transfer could support customer qualification, supply planning, and later commercial agreements.

Q4 Program Builds Path Toward 2027 Production

eXoZymes expects the Curia program to begin during the fourth quarter of 2026 and continue through key technical transfer activities. The companies will use those results to define the recommended route toward larger-scale NCT manufacturing during the following year. That schedule makes 2027 the next major production milestone, although the announcement provides no specific commercial launch date.

Curia operates more than 20 global sites and employs over 3,000 people across its contract research and manufacturing network. Its services cover process development, analytics, drug substance manufacturing, biologics, generic active ingredients, and sterile fill-finish production. The León and Rozzano sites will support technology transfer, process development, scale-up analysis, and NCT manufacturing preparation.

eXoZymes gains access to established manufacturing systems without building equivalent large-scale facilities entirely through its own capital spending. However, the program focuses on technology transfer and manufacturing preparation, rather than immediate commercial production or defined customer supply volumes. Its value will depend on successful validation, reliable scale-up, and a workable production pathway that meets future commercial requirements.

eXoZymes Expands Its Cell-Free Product Pipeline

Founded in 2019, eXoZymes develops a cell-free biomanufacturing platform that uses engineered enzymes to produce high-value molecules outside living cells. The company aims to replace inefficient extraction and petrochemical processes with scalable manufacturing routes for nutraceutical and pharmaceutical products. NCT represents one part of that strategy, while the company also develops cannabinoid analogs, santalene, and other natural-product molecules.

The company plans several commercialization paths, including partnerships, licensing agreements, joint ventures, and direct manufacturing relationships where appropriate. The Curia agreement tests whether eXoZymes can transfer laboratory and pilot processes into established manufacturing environments. A successful NCT scale-up could also provide a template for moving other molecules through similar development and production stages.

EXOZ shares fell despite the announcement, so the market did not immediately translate the agreement into a positive price reaction. The $6.50 price also reflects market expectations around execution, commercialization timing, funding needs, and future customer demand for NCT. For now, the Curia program gives eXoZymes a defined manufacturing path, while 2027 remains the next important operational milestone.

The post eXoZymes (EXOZ) Stock: Curia Deal Moves NCT Toward Commercial Production appeared first on Blockonomi.

Crypto charts have a funny habit: the moment everyone agrees a coin is “done,” the candles suddenly remember how to run. From explosive altcoin rallies to fresh network activity, the latest market action is putting the next big crypto conversation back on center stage.

Hyperliquid has remained a major altcoin name even after Zcash briefly flipped it by market capitalization, while Hedera is showing stronger network activity and a technical setup aimed at $0.10981. Against that backdrop, Apeing is bringing a different proposition to the table: an early-stage Ethereum token with a live Banana Drop presale at $0.0001, putting $APEING directly into the race for the next big crypto.

Apeing ($APEING): The Next Big Crypto Candidate Built for Early Movers

Apeing is positioning itself around early participation, structured progression, and community-powered mechanics, making the project a notable next big crypto contender among early-stage tokens. Built on Ethereum as an ERC-20 token, Apeing benefits from a widely used blockchain infrastructure while its presale follows a defined 33-stage model.

Stage 1, known as Banana Drop, has an allocation of 150 million $APEING at $0.0001 per token. The presale represents 40% of the total 16.75 billion-token supply, or 6.7 billion $APEING, while the planned listing price is $0.01. That pricing structure creates a clear early-entry narrative, with the Stage 1 price representing a 100x crypto difference versus the planned listing price and a stated potential ROI of 9,900%. Early participants can also access tier-based staking opportunities, while the referral system adds another route for earning additional tokens.

Gamified Community Growth With a Low Referral Entry Threshold

Apeing turns participation into a competition through two community systems: Ape Referral League and Ape Wars. A $25 purchase unlocks a personal referral code, while buyers using a referral code receive 10% additional tokens and the referrer earns a 10% reward based on the referred buyer’s spending.

The competitive layer goes further. Ape Referral League tracks the strongest referrers each month, while Ape Wars ranks the highest purchasers. Staking adds another incentive, with APY tiers ranging from 10% for the Chimp Tier to 85% for the Giga Ape Tier. Together, these mechanics give the 100x crypto narrative a community-driven structure rather than relying solely on price speculation.

What Could a $5,000 Apeing Position Look Like at Listing?

At the Stage 1 price of $0.0001, a $5,000 purchase would acquire:

The referral structure could increase the token count further when applicable. A qualifying purchase made through a referral code receives 10% additional tokens:

These figures explain why the Banana Drop stage is central to the next big crypto narrative surrounding Apeing: the earliest presale price sits dramatically below the planned $0.01 listing level.

How to Enter Apeing Before the Banana Drop Moves On

To join the Apeing presale, visit the official Apeing presale page and connect a compatible crypto wallet.

1. Select the Banana Drop Stage 1 presale.
2. Choose the amount of $APEING to purchase at $0.0001 per token.
3. Confirm the transaction through the connected wallet.
4. Receive the purchased $APEING tokens according to the presale terms.
5. Purchase at least $25 to unlock a personal referral code.
6. Qualify for staking tiers with larger purchases: Chimp at $500, Monkey at $1,000, Degen at $3,000, and Giga Ape at $15,000.

Stage 1 includes 150 million $APEING tokens and remains available for one week or until sold out.

Hyperliquid ($HYPE): Price Slides After Market Shift

Hyperliquid recorded a 2.67% decline over the past 24 hours, bringing the latest Hyperliquid price today to $84.07. The move follows recent strength around the $84–$89 range, where HYPE established significant market momentum and continued to attract attention from crypto traders.

Despite the short-term pullback, Hyperliquid remains a prominent altcoin with a strong recent performance profile. HYPE previously climbed above $89 to reach a fresh all-time high, keeping market participants focused on whether the token can regain upward momentum and challenge its recent peak.

Hedera ($HBAR): Transactions Hit Monthly High as Price Climbs 0.56%

Hedera is gaining attention from both its network activity and price structure. The latest data puts HBAR at $0.08163, up 0.56% over the last 24 hours, while Hedera’s network processed approximately 593,000 unique transactions on September 3. That marked the highest single-day transaction figure recorded by the network in more than a month.

The Hedera price prediction setup remains focused on the $0.08675 breakout level. A 4-hour close above that resistance could open a path toward $0.10981, while a breakdown below $0.07288 would expose $0.06448 as the next major support. The combination of rising network activity, reported ETF-flow strength, and an ascending trendline gives HBAR a constructive technical narrative as traders watch for confirmation.

The Next Big Crypto Race Is Heating Up

The next big crypto discussion is being shaped by very different market stories. Zcash has exploded higher on record derivatives leverage and short liquidations, temporarily flipping Hyperliquid, while HYPE remains a major altcoin despite its latest 2.67% pullback to $84.07. Hedera, meanwhile, is combining a 593,000-transaction network day with a technical setup targeting $0.10981.

Apeing brings the early-stage angle through its live Banana Drop presale. At $0.0001, Stage 1 offers a defined entry price, 150 million-token allocation, 33-stage progression, tiered staking, and a referral system that rewards both buyers and community growth. With the stated $0.01 listing price and 9,900% potential ROI, $APEING is built around the kind of early-entry structure that keeps the next big crypto conversation moving.

For More Information:

Website: Visit the Official Apeing Website

Telegram: Join the Apeing Telegram Channel

Twitter: Follow Apeing ON X (Formerly Twitter)

Frequently Asked Questions About the Next Big Crypto

What is the next big crypto to watch?

The next big crypto depends on market conditions and project fundamentals. Current attention spans Zcash, Hyperliquid, Hedera, and emerging presales such as Apeing, each offering a distinct market narrative.

Which crypto could become the next big crypto?

Potential candidates can emerge from established altcoins, network-growth stories, and early-stage projects. HBAR currently has a bullish technical setup, while Apeing offers a structured 33-stage presale opportunity.

What makes a crypto the next big crypto?

Strong candidates typically combine market attention, meaningful adoption, liquidity, clear token mechanics, and compelling narratives. Network activity and structured early participation can also attract interest when momentum accelerates.

What is Apeing’s Stage 1 presale price?

Apeing Stage 1, called Banana Drop, is priced at $0.0001 per $APEING token and has an allocation of 150 million tokens, making it the project’s opening presale stage.

How many $APEING tokens can $5,000 buy?

At the $0.0001 Stage 1 price, $5,000 buys 50 million $APEING tokens. A qualifying referral purchase can receive 10% additional tokens, potentially increasing the allocation to 55 million.

Disclaimer

This article is provided for informational and educational purposes only and does not constitute financial, investment, or trading advice. Apeing states that $APEING is a utility and entertainment token and not a security, investment contract, or financial instrument. It carries no intrinsic or guaranteed value. Purchasing tokens does not grant ownership, governance, or equity rights. Purchases are final and non-refundable. Users are responsible for wallet security and compliance with applicable laws and regulations in their jurisdiction.

The post Can Apeing Be the Next Big Crypto? $0.0001 Entry Puts 100x Crypto Potential in Focus as HYPE Slips and HBAR Hits 593K Transactions appeared first on Blockonomi.

TLDR

• ORBS trades at $1.0250 today as Bitmine discloses a $91 million Eightco stake.
• Bitmine places Eightco among strategic holdings inside its $15.7B portfolio.
• Eightco gains added visibility through Bitmine’s stated indirect OpenAI exposure.
• Bitmine’s 5.93 million ETH treasury remains the core of its wider asset strategy.
• Crypto equity strength provides a supportive backdrop for renewed ORBS attention.

Eightco Holdings Inc. traded at $1.0250, up 13.91%, as Bitmine’s latest disclosure renewed market attention around the company. Bitmine reported a $91 million stake in Eightco, placing ORBS among its selected strategic investments and broader “moonshot” holdings. The update also linked Eightco with one of the market’s largest publicly listed Ethereum treasury strategies and institutional crypto exposure.

Eightco Holdings Inc., ORBS

Bitmine’s $91 Million ORBS Position Adds Weight

Bitmine disclosed the Eightco position alongside substantial cryptocurrency, cash, marketable securities, and strategic investments held across its corporate balance sheet. As of September 7, the company reported 5,929,198 ETH, 211 Bitcoin, and $593 million in cash and securities. It also held a $180 million Beast Industries stake, alongside the separate $91 million investment in Eightco Holdings.

The scale of Bitmine’s broader portfolio gives added context to ORBS without making Eightco a core digital asset treasury position. Bitmine valued its combined crypto, cash, marketable securities, and strategic holdings at $15.7 billion during the latest corporate update. Eightco therefore represents a smaller strategic allocation inside a larger balance sheet centered primarily on Ethereum and long-term crypto exposure.

Bitmine also described Eightco as providing indirect exposure to OpenAI through a publicly listed equity structure available to market participants. That description gives ORBS an angle beyond cryptocurrency because it connects the company with private technology exposure and innovation themes.The supplied disclosure does not explain Eightco’s underlying OpenAI structure, valuation method, ownership terms, or specific economic rights.

Ethereum Strategy Shapes Bitmine’s Wider Portfolio

Bitmine’s Ethereum position remains the dominant asset across its treasury and provides important background for the company’s smaller strategic investments. The company held 5.93 million ETH, representing about 4.9% of Ethereum’s stated total supply of 122 million tokens. Bitmine has also continued adding ETH every week since launching its treasury accumulation strategy on June 30, 2025.
The company reported 5,067,309 staked ETH worth about $12.6 billion using its $2,495 Ethereum reference price. That amount represented roughly 85% of Bitmine’s total ETH holdings and supports a large staking income operation across its infrastructure. Bitmine projected about $330 million in annualized staking revenue based on its current participation levels and stated seven-day yield assumptions.

Bitmine also said its staking operations produced a 2.61% seven-day annualized yield during the latest measured reporting period. At full scale, management projected annualized staking rewards of about $386 million through MAVAN and its network of staking partners. MAVAN serves as Bitmine’s institutional staking platform and has expanded beyond supporting only the company’s own large Ethereum treasury operations.

ORBS Gains Attention Within Strong Crypto Equity Performance

Bitmine’s update arrived while crypto-linked equities continued posting strong gains against the broader Russell 1000 benchmark during the third quarter. Management said four of the top 21 Russell 1000 performers since June 30 were connected with cryptocurrency exposure. Bitmine itself gained 99% quarter to date, compared with a 3% rise for the Russell 1000 over that period.

Ethereum also remained a major driver of that performance during the third quarter, according to Bitmine’s latest public market commentary. The company said ETH outperformed the S&P 500 by 5,430 basis points through the Friday referenced in its update. That performance helped strengthen the wider environment surrounding publicly listed companies with direct or indirect exposure to digital assets.

Against that backdrop, ORBS now carries added visibility through Bitmine’s disclosed stake and its stated indirect OpenAI connection. The investment sits beside larger digital asset positions, while Bitmine continues emphasizing crypto, tokenization, staking, and emerging technology themes. ORBS price action can therefore reflect company developments, Bitmine disclosures, and broader sentiment across crypto-linked equities and technology-related market themes.

The post Eightco Holdings Inc. (ORBS) Stock: Bitmine’s $91M Stake Draws Fresh Attention appeared first on Blockonomi.

Ethereum has entered a consolidation phase after a sharp recovery from the $1.5K area.

The cryptocurrency is now trading slightly below $2.5K, holding relatively firm despite repeated tests of the upper end of its recent range. Meanwhile, exchange reserves continue to decline, pointing to a potentially constructive supply-side backdrop.

Ethereum Price Analysis: The Daily Chart

The daily structure has improved significantly over the past several weeks. ETH broke out of the prolonged base around the $1.9K zone and then reclaimed the $2.1K area, which had previously acted as major resistance.

The breakout was particularly strong, with ETH moving almost vertically from roughly $1.9K toward $2.5K. The price has since established itself above the moving averages shown on the chart, with both the 100-day and 200-day moving averages turning upward. This shows that the broader trend is transitioning from recovery toward a potentially bullish structure.

ETH is now trading inside a significant resistance zone around $2.4K-$2.5K, with the current price near $2.47K. The market has tested this area several times without a decisive daily breakout, making it the key level to watch. A sustained move above $2.5K could open the way toward the next resistance area, which sits around $3.3K.

On the downside, the first important support is the former breakout area around $2.1K. As long as ETH remains above this region, the recent structural improvement remains intact. The daily RSI is also noteworthy, as it has risen considerably from the deeply weak levels seen during the June bottom but has retreated below the traditional overbought threshold.

This points to a potential consolidation or correction until the market cools off and fresh buying pressure emerges.

ETH/USDT 4-Hour Chart

The 4-hour chart shows a much clearer consolidation structure. Following the explosive move from the $1.9K area, ETH has been moving sideways inside a roughly $2.35K-$2.55K range.

Repeated reactions from the upper end of this range suggest sellers remain active around $2.45K-$2.5K, while buyers have consistently defended the lower boundary near $2.35K-$2.4K. ETH is currently positioned toward the middle of the range, as indecisiveness is also evident in the 4-hour RSI, which is hovering around 50.

A confirmed breakout above $2.5K would strengthen the continuation setup and potentially expose higher resistance levels. Conversely, a break below $2.4K would suggest that the consolidation is turning into a deeper correction, with the $2.25K demand zone becoming the next major area of interest.

On-Chain Analysis

The exchange reserve chart provides an interesting backdrop to the technical picture. Ethereum’s exchange reserves have fallen steadily from above 21M ETH during 2025 to approximately 14.9M ETH currently, even as ETH has recovered toward $2.4K.

Exchange reserves measure the amount of ETH held on centralized exchanges. A persistent decline generally means fewer coins are immediately available on exchanges for potential selling, although the metric alone does not prove investors are accumulating.

The divergence is particularly notable in the latest portion of the chart. ETH has recovered sharply from its earlier lows while exchange reserves have continued trending downward. This suggests that the supply available on exchanges has not increased alongside the price recovery.

From a market-structure perspective, that can be supportive if demand continues to expand. With fewer ETH sitting on exchanges, a sustained increase in spot demand could potentially make it easier for price to move higher. However, treat the declining reserve trend as a supporting factor rather than a standalone bullish signal.

The post Ethereum Price Analysis: ETH Struggles Below $2.5K, Is a Deeper Pullback Coming? appeared first on CryptoPotato.

Robinhood is expanding its push into prediction markets through a new multi-year partnership with OG-com, the recently spun-off trading platform from Crypto.com.

Under the agreement, announced minutes ago, Vlad Tenev’s company will route retail event-contract volume through OG.com’s CFTC-regulated derivatives exchange and clearing infrastructure. The rollout begins on September 8 for eligible US customers.

The joint statement reads that this will be OG.com’s largest business-to-business prediction-markets partnership by transaction volume.

Additionally, Robinhood will receive equity stakes in both OG.com and Crypto.com as part of the deal. The stakes will be priced in line with Citadel Securities’ recent investment in Crypto.com Group, which valued the broader entity at $20 billion. OG.com’s valuation was set at $5 billion following the spin-off.

“This is the beginning of a strategic partnership between both companies,” said Kris Marszalek, Founder and CEO of Crypto.com and OG.com. “We’re looking forward to making OG.com the most liquid venue globally for innovative derivative instruments, starting with prediction markets and quickly expanding into futures and perpetuals.”

In reaction to the news going live, the native token of the broader Crypto.com ecosystem, CRO, rocketed from $0.057 to a weekly peak at $0.063. Although it was stopped there, it still sits well above $0.06.

The asset took a major hit a month ago when Trump Media Group, the entity behind Truth Social, canceled two of its deals with Crypto.com, including establishing a company accumulating CRO as a strategic asset. At the time, the token slumped to a three-year low of under $0.045.

The post CRO Rockets as Robinhood Takes Stakes in Crypto.com and OG.com appeared first on CryptoPotato.

Bybit announced today that it’s launching Forex Perpetual Contracts for EUR/USD, GBP/USD, and USD/JPY, extending its derivatives business into the trillion-a-day global forex market.

All the contracts will be settled in USDT. They have no expiry date and track the underlying spot currency pairs, while allowing traders to use crypto assets as collateral.

The move builds on a broader shift in which major cryptocurrency exchanges and trading venues, in general, are increasingly offering access to traditional financial assets through derivatives and tokenization.

FX Perpetuals Expand Bybit’s TradFi Suite

The first listings are EURUSDUSDT, GBPUSDUSDT, and USDJPYUSDT, with leverage of up to 100x, according to a statement by Bybit shared with CryptoPotato.

Unlike conventional Forex markets, Bybit’s contracts can be traded around the clock.

This would allow traders to react to decisions, geopolitical developments, and other macro events, even when the underlying FX market is currently closed.

The exchange also said that these products are designed to potentially help users hedge currency exposure while keeping their collateral in crypto.

Keep in mind that the launch follows the debut of the exchange’s TradFi Perpetual suite in April 2026.

Crypto Platforms Keep Expanding to TradFi Solutions

With the booming sector of real-world assets, more and more crypto-first exchanges are pushing towards traditional finance.

But that’s perhaps to be expected. Crypto traders want access to traditional markets, and providing that access from a single account seems like the most logical next step.

That said, FX perpetuals remain leveraged derivatives, which means that users face funding costs and liquidation risks rather than simply owning the underlying currencies.

It’s interesting to see whether these contracts can attract meaningful, sustained liquidity outside conventional FX trading hours as well.

The post Bybit Launches FX Perpetual Contracts, Starting With EUR, GBP, and USD Pairs appeared first on CryptoPotato.

Strive has continued its tradition of announcing its latest bitcoin purchases on X on Monday or the first business day of the week, similar to what Michael Saylor does for Strategy. In the example, after Labor Day came minutes ago, as CEO Matt Cole outlined a major $109 million BTC acquisition for 1,375 units, accumulated at an average price of $79,281.

Thus, the company’s stash has increased further and has now reached 24,531 BTC. Given the cryptocurrency’s current price tag of $78,200, this puts the USD valuation of Strive’s stash at just over $1.9 billion.

Strive acquired an additional 1,375 BTC for $109M at an average cost of $79,281 per bitcoin, bringing total holdings to ₿24,531.

70% of the capital raised last week came from $SATA, which now has $999M notional outstanding.

Time to break the billion-dollar wall.$ASST $SATA pic.twitter.com/qjjykekHTk

— Matt Cole (@ColeMacro) September 8, 2026

Recall that the company announced an even more significant purchase last week when it added 1,800 BTC for $143 million at a similar average price.

Unlike the events from eight days ago, though, there’s a major discrepancy now. Back then, Strategy also outlined its first BTC purchase in over two months. Now, though, Saylor’s company said it has stood on the sidelines while refocusing on repurchasing STRC shares.

The post Strive Adds More Bitcoin as Total Holdings Rise Above 24,500 BTC appeared first on CryptoPotato.

It appears that last week’s bitcoin purchase from the largest corporate holder of the cryptocurrency was an outlier, as the company has refrained from doubling down. Instead, its former CEO, Michael Saylor, announced minutes ago on X that the firm has repurchased another $176 million worth of STRC.

Moreover, it increased the size of the recently launched Digital Credit Securities Repurchase Program from $1 billion to $2 billion. Saylor’s post also reminded that the company currently holds 845,050 BTC and $6.5 billion in USD assets.

Strategy’s position recently turned green even after the minor correction in the past 24 hours. Its stash was bought at an average price of $75,412 per unit. Given BTC’s current trading price of $78,200, it means that the company stands on an unrealized profit of over $2 billion.

Strategy has repurchased $176M of $STRC and increased the size of its Digital Credit Securities Repurchase Program from $1.0B to $2.0B. As of 9/7/26, we hold 845,050 $BTC and $6.5B of USD Assets. $MSTR https://t.co/mxqv9QCRat

— Michael Saylor (@saylor) September 8, 2026

It’s worth noting that Strategy’s purchase last week raised some eyebrows in the crypto community because it came at prices of over $80,000 while its sales were completed when the asset had tumbled to around $62,000. In other words, Strategy bought high after selling low.

Nevertheless, its STRC repurchasing program has benefited the underlying asset’s recovery. The shares, which are supposed to trade at par levels of $100, dumped to $75 earlier this summer, but have rebounded to almost $98 as of Friday’s close.

The post No Bitcoin for Strategy This Week as Focus Remains on STRC Buybacks appeared first on CryptoPotato.