Canada's move may enhance institutional crypto adoption, influencing market dynamics and potentially altering Bitcoin's future price expectations.

The post Canada confirms bank-issued crypto deposits are legally equivalent to traditional bank deposits appeared first on Crypto Briefing.

The rise of stablecoins could reinforce US monetary dominance but also introduces systemic risks with potential global financial repercussions.

The post Stablecoins surge past $300 billion, forcing a reckoning over the dollar’s future appeared first on Crypto Briefing.

India's diplomatic engagement may enhance regional stability and influence positive shifts in geopolitical tensions and ceasefire prospects.

The post Modi, Pezeshkian discuss regional peace amid US-Iran tensions appeared first on Crypto Briefing.

The introduction of BTC-backed preferred stock in the UK could pave the way for innovative crypto-linked financial products in European markets.

The post The Smarter Web Company plans UK’s first BTC-backed preferred stock appeared first on Crypto Briefing.

RBI's bond sales aim to curb excess liquidity, potentially stabilizing interest rates and mitigating inflation risks amid economic pressures.

The post Reserve Bank of India drains 1 trillion rupees through bond sales appeared first on Crypto Briefing.

Bitcoin Magazine

Ringleader of $245M Crypto Theft Pleads Guilty 

The man behind one of the biggest bitcoin thefts in history this week pleaded guilty.

Malone Lam, 22, a Miami resident from Singapore, on Tuesday admitted his role as ringleader of the international crime group which stole 4,100 bitcoins — worth over $230 million at the time — to fund a life of luxury. 

The U.S. Department of Justice said that from October 2023 and through at least May 2025, Lam and others hacked databases to steal crypto users’ information and con them into providing user logins and private keys. Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies worth $245 million were taken in the theft. 

On one occasion, a co-defendant broke into a residence in New Mexico and stole a hardware wallet while Lam monitored the victim’s movements by hacking their iCloud account.

“This defendant led an international network that preyed on victims through deception, invaded their privacy, and stole hundreds of millions of dollars in cryptocurrency,” U.S. Attorney Jeanine Ferris Pirro said in a statement. 

“If you build a cybercrime empire, we will find you, dismantle your operation, and hold you accountable,” Attorney Pirro added. 

The DOJ said: “The Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act conspiracy used social engineering and occasional home break-ins to obtain information that allowed the conspirators to drain their victims’ cryptocurrency wallets.” 

The crimes started after a group of online gamers became friends before working together to commit the cybercrimes, the indictment read.

Lam and co-defendants laundered the stolen bitcoin and spent it on bottle service parties, private jet rentals, security guards, luxury handbags and watches, and properties in Los Angeles, the Hamptons, and Miami. 

The defendants would spend up to $500,000 a night on parties and give away designer handbags worth tens of thousands of dollars, Tuesday’s announcement read. 

Lam was arrested in 2024 at his rental home in Miami. 

This post Ringleader of $245M Crypto Theft Pleads Guilty  first appeared on Bitcoin Magazine and is written by Mathew Di Salvo.

Bitcoin Magazine

Trezor Reveals Another Data Breach After Scammers Target Marketing Platform 

Trezor has warned that a data breach at the third-party marketing platform it uses for sending newsletters is leading criminals to target customers with phishing attacks. 

The top hardware wallet manufacturer said Wednesday that an unauthorized actor got access to Brevo’s system and sent emails to 347,000 Trezor customers. Brevo is a platform businesses use to send customer communications. 

Scammers managed to use Trezor’s domain name to send the email, making the phishing attempt all the more believable. The email contained a malicious link asking users to download an app and enter their wallet backup. 

The news comes after Trezor last month announced that data from 11,742 customers had been exposed after its third-party fulfillment partner, ShipMonk, was targeted. 

It then said last week that an additional 67,000 U.S. customers had their names, emails, phone numbers, shipping addresses and order numbers leaked in the breach. 

“We took down the domain at the DNS level within 20 minutes, preventing the link from working for anyone else and limiting access to 2,500 people who had clicked it before we took it down,” Trezor said on Wednesday. 

“These addresses might be potentially used for other phishing attacks in the future. No other Trezor system was touched,” Trezor added.

“We have suspended the Brevo account to stop further email distribution.”

Trezor reminded users that it never asks customers to ask for their wallet backups. 

Criminals have been targeting data this year, with scammers getting hold of customer information via crypto wallet Ledger’s payment processor Global-e to send phishing emails. 

Crypto wallet provider SafePal last month also announced a data breach that involved ​unauthorized access to about 39,798 customers’ order information, ‌including personal details such as names, addresses and purchase data.

This post Trezor Reveals Another Data Breach After Scammers Target Marketing Platform  first appeared on Bitcoin Magazine and is written by Mathew Di Salvo.

Bitcoin Magazine

Updated Crypto Clarity Act Starts Circulating Days Before Key Vote 

A new draft of the long-awaited crypto Clarity Act has dropped with amendments.

As first reported by Eleanor Terrett from Crypto in America and Punchbowl’s Brendan Pedersen, the updated bill contains changes including requiring non-decentralized DeFi protocols to register with the CFTC, and changes around how credit unions deal in crypto, according to reporters. 

The specifics include that a decentralized finance app fails the test of being such a protocol test if someone can control or materially alter its functionality, if it doesn’t run solely on pre-established transparent encoded rules, or if someone can restrict or censor its use.

It also adds that a federal credit union may use a digital asset or distributed ledger system to perform, provide, or deliver any activity, function, product, or service it is otherwise authorized by law to perform.

Lawmakers were hoping a crucial vote on the crypto market structure bill would go ahead in August before their five-week recess. It was delayed and the Senate will now vote on it on September 15. 

The bill is not bipartisan yet, according to the reporters. Senate Republicans started circulating the updated legislation on Thursday. 

The Clarity Act drafts a framework to formally divide oversight between regulators, distinguishing which digital assets are securities, commodities or stablecoins. Crypto industry executives have long called for such rules to be in place. 

Though passed by the House of Representatives last July, it has been stalled this year, mostly because the banking lobby clashed with crypto companies over paying customers stablecoin yield. 

A new draft tackling the issue of ethics started circulating in July, banning government officials from promoting or making money from crypto — something Democrats have criticized the Trump family for doing. 

Despite the changes, a group of Democrats said the bill fell short and demanded amendments to the bill. 

Pro-crypto lawmakers have blasted Democratic politicians who they think are deliberately holding back the bill.  

President Donald Trump has urged lawmakers to get the legislation over the line. In August, he said that in order for the U.S. to remain the “undisputed leader in Bitcoin and crypto,” they had to pass the “very, very powerful legislation.”

This post Updated Crypto Clarity Act Starts Circulating Days Before Key Vote  first appeared on Bitcoin Magazine and is written by Mathew Di Salvo.

Bitcoin Magazine

Nasdaq Invests $100M in Kraken Parent Company: Report 

Nasdaq Inc. is investing $100 million in crypto exchange Kraken’s parent company, Payward, according to reports. 

The deal — not yet announced by either party — will help build out structure for tokenized stocks, Bloomberg reported Thursday, citing people familiar with the matter. The deal values the crypto company at $21 billion, according to the report. 

It comes as Wall Street increasingly eyes up bitcoin and crypto-related infrastructure. Kraken has made deals this year and last with traditional finance firms and the S&P Dow Jones Indices in March made a deal to debut a new derivative contract on decentralized exchange Hyperliquid. 

Bloomberg’s report said that Kraken will distribute Nasdaq’s tokenized stocks on its own platform, giving customers the ability to own Nasdaq-listed stocks in a tokenized form. 

Wall Street has been eying up crypto companies and their infrastructure particularly because its interested in tokenizing assets like stocks. 

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

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

Under the agreement, SoFi will send its digital asset order flow to Kraken Prime, Kraken’s prime brokerage arm, which launched in 2025. 

Kraken — like other crypto exchanges — is pushing into the traditional finance world, allowing users to trade stocks, bonds and other assets. The company has sold its app as a “primary account for everything.”

This post Nasdaq Invests $100M in Kraken Parent Company: Report  first appeared on Bitcoin Magazine and is written by Mathew Di Salvo.

Bitcoin Magazine

Bitcoin Suffers On Renewed US-Iran Fighting 

Bitcoin’s price slid on Thursday after the price of oil shot over $105 a barrel thanks to renewed tensions in the Middle East. 

The biggest and oldest cryptocurrency was recently trading for $77,208 after sliding as low as $76,748 — down more than 2% over the past day. 

Its dip came after Iran signaled that it had no intention of backing down against U.S. forces. The two countries earlier this week stepped up attacks in some of the heaviest fighting since the war started in February. 

Tehran-backed Houthis in Yemen this week hit Saudi Arabian assets, also pushing the price of oil up. 

War in the Middle East pushes oil prices higher and makes the chances of interest rate cuts lower because of inflation. Bitcoin has typically performed well in a low interest rate environment and has experienced sell-offs when the Federal Reserve pivots to hawkishness. 

The U.S. is currently in the grips of an affordability crisis and rising oil prices are a hot topic ahead of the midterm elections. U.S. President Donald Trump has reassured voters that prices will get under control. 

Federal Reserve Chair Kevin Warsh said at his first speech as leader of the central bank and said that inflation in the world’s largest economy had not come down enough. 

Traders are now pricing in an interest rate hike next week when the bank meets. 

Still,  bitcoin had one of its best runs in August after the U.S. Treasury said it would at least double the size of its liquidity-support buyback operations, in response to surging borrowing costs. 

The announcement hurt the dollar but non-yielding assets like bitcoin and gold have benefited. 

Despite previously trading in line with risk-on assets like tech stocks, bitcoin has this year traded more in tandem with gold as the so-called debasement trade becomes hot again. 

Investors have bought the largest cryptocurrency — along with the precious metal — to hedge against the dollar’s decline. 

This post Bitcoin Suffers On Renewed US-Iran Fighting  first appeared on Bitcoin Magazine and is written by Mathew Di Salvo.

Circle is pulling its USD Coin (USDC) stablecoin from Noble, forcing Cosmos to migrate its main digital dollar rail to Injective before January.

The wind-down puts roughly $92 million of USDC on a deadline and requires exchanges, decentralized-finance protocols, and more than 50 Cosmos-linked chains to shift liquidity and integrations away from Noble, the appchain that had served as the ecosystem’s canonical issuance point for Circle’s stablecoin.

Noble holds about $102.2 million in stablecoins, DeFiLlama data show, with USDC accounting for more than 90% of the total. Ondo US Dollar Yield, at nearly $8 million, is the next-largest stablecoin on the network.

Circle will stop minting new USDC on Noble through Circle Mint on Oct. 13, while redemptions remain available until Jan. 12, 2027. Cross-chain capacity will start tightening sooner, with burn limits on the legacy version of Circle’s Cross-Chain Transfer Protocol beginning to decline on Oct. 31.

Cosmos Labs has coordinated a replacement route through Injective, where Circle already issues native USDC. Users will be able to migrate Noble-based USDC, now displayed as USDC.n, into Injective-issued USDC, or USDC.inj, through Skip:Go beginning Sept. 11.

That makes the next four months a test of whether Cosmos can move a stablecoin distribution system that Noble spent three years consolidating without splintering liquidity across incompatible assets and routes.

Cosmos moves its USDC hub from Noble to Injective

Noble was built to solve an earlier fragmentation problem inside Cosmos.

Before its launch, appchains relied on more than 100 bridged versions of USDC, each with different trust assumptions and limited fungibility across the Inter-Blockchain Communication ecosystem. Noble created a single native issuance point that could distribute Circle-issued USDC through IBC to networks including Osmosis and dYdX.

The chain said in January that it had processed more than $22 billion in transaction volume since 2023, served about 30,000 monthly active users, and acted as a primary liquidity layer for more than 50 blockchains.

That role will now migrate to Injective.

Circle’s native USDC on Injective uses CCTP V2 and can move across Cosmos through IBC, with Skip:Go handling routing. The first migration flow will support dYdX, Osmosis, Cosmos Hub, Terra 2.0, Neutron, ZIGChain, XPLA and Initia. Additional chains will need IBC relayers connected to Injective before they can join the route.

The process returns users to the same chain where they started. A holder selects USDC.n as the source and USDC.inj as the destination, signs one transaction on the origin chain and another on Injective, while a Skip relayer handles the intermediate CCTP steps.

That reduces the burden on retail users, but the larger migration sits with protocols and infrastructure providers that need to replace Noble-linked markets, liquidity pools, wallets and routing logic before the old rails disappear.

The easiest exits start narrowing before January

The Jan. 12 contract pause is the final deadline, but several exit routes deteriorate well before then.

Circle Mint will continue normal Noble operations through Oct. 12. New issuance stops the following day, though redemptions remain open. Legacy CCTP burn limits begin stepping down on Oct. 31 and are scheduled to reach zero when Noble support ends in January.

After Dec. 1, exits through CCTP may be limited to destination chains that continue accepting legacy V1 burns, further reducing the number of available paths.

Circle has also told users they can exit through centralized exchanges that still support Noble deposits or swap into another asset on a Noble decentralized exchange. Exchange access has already narrowed. Coinbase stopped USDC deposits and withdrawals on Noble on Aug. 17, weeks before Circle announced the wind-down.

Cosmos Labs is therefore urging holders to migrate before Oct. 31 rather than treat January as the practical deadline.

The stakes are higher for liquidity providers.

Circle plans to snapshot remaining Noble USDC balances on Jan. 12 and open a manual redemption process the following day. Eligibility requires that the USDC be held in a wallet controlled by the user at the snapshot and that the holder pass Circle’s compliance and security checks.

USDC left inside liquidity pools or smart contracts at the snapshot will not qualify for that backstop, making protocol-level migration more urgent than the headline January cutoff suggests.

Osmosis and other decentralized exchanges are already preparing USDC.inj markets, while developers are being asked to update wallets, explorers and integrations to recognize the Injective-issued asset as Cosmos’ new primary USDC deployment.

The post Circle’s Noble shutdown leaves Cosmos racing to move $92 million in USDC appeared first on CryptoSlate.

The U.S. Treasury bought $5.187 billion of long-dated government bonds on Sept. 10, completing the first operation under its expanded program as Bitcoin investors watched for evidence of easier liquidity.

The immediate cross-market readout moved the other way. Treasury’s daily nominal yield curve showed the 10-year yield rising 12 basis points from 4.83% to 4.95%. Its real yield curve, which adjusts the return for expected inflation, showed the 10-year real yield climbing 9 basis points from 2.46% to 2.55%.

Higher real yields raise the return hurdle for a non-yielding asset such as Bitcoin. At the same time, U.S. spot Bitcoin ETFs posted another net outflow of roughly $282 million. The combination separates two mechanisms: Treasury improved a trading outlet for selected older bonds, while the broader cost of money and regulated-fund demand remained unfavorable.

The buyback targeted off-the-run liquidity

Treasury’s official result showed $10.489 billion of securities offered against a $6 billion maximum. It accepted 23 of 40 eligible issues maturing from February 2037 through August 2046.

The $6 billion figure was a ceiling. Treasury describes itself as a price-sensitive buyer in its buyback guidance, allowing it to accept less than the maximum when offers do not meet its criteria. The department retires accepted securities after settlement, managing the composition of its own debt rather than conducting a Federal Reserve monetary-policy purchase.

The operation was designed to support liquidity in off-the-run securities, older Treasury issues that tend to trade less actively than the newest benchmark bonds. Treasury announced in August that maximums for longer-dated nominal buybacks would at least double from the previous $2 billion level beginning Sept. 9.

Research from the Federal Reserve Bank of New York explains why that outlet can help: off-the-run bonds trade less frequently, rely more on dealer intermediation and can benefit from a predictable buyer. The study also describes the program as modest relative to overall Treasury market volumes and dealer holdings.

The accepted amount therefore shows the operation found more than $5 billion of eligible offers at acceptable prices. It does not establish whether bid-ask spreads, dealer capacity or economy-wide financing costs improved. Those outcomes require separate market evidence.

U.S. spot Bitcoin ETFs recorded a net outflow of $282.7 million on Sept. 10, according to Farside Investors.

ETF flows are a signal of demand through regulated funds, rather than proof of one-for-one selling in the spot market. Even with that caveat, the latest outflow offered no evidence that easier conditions were reaching Bitcoin funds.

CryptoSlate’s Bitcoin market page recorded a Sept. 10 reference close of $76,568 before recovering to around $77,800 at press time. That rebound left the asset close to the $76,000 support cluster identified in recent market coverage, while real yields and ETF flows still pointed to pressure.

The next test comes from inflation, yields and demand

The buyback shared the session with several macro forces that can influence bond yields and risk appetite. Those concurrent events prevent a clean causal reading of the Treasury operation.

The Bureau of Labor Statistics reported that final-demand producer prices rose 0.4% in August and 5.4% from a year earlier. Goods prices increased 1.1%, led partly by a 4.2% rise in energy. Persistent pipeline inflation can keep market rates elevated because investors demand more compensation for inflation risk and expect tighter monetary policy.

The European Central Bank added another tightening signal by raising its three key rates 25 basis points on Sept. 10. It also said its asset-purchase and pandemic-program portfolios continued to decline as maturing principal was no longer reinvested.

August U.S. consumer inflation is scheduled for 8:30 a.m. ET on Sept. 11, according to the BLS release calendar. That release is the next immediate test: inflation data consistent with cooling price pressure could pull nominal and real yields lower, while an upside surprise could extend the higher-yield backdrop.

CryptoSlate’s analysis identified accepted purchases and subsequent funding conditions, rather than the headline ceiling, as the meaningful test. The completed purchase now supplies the first half of that test. The second half must come from markets.

A convincing transmission signal would combine lower real yields with evidence that easier cash conditions persist beyond settlement. Renewed spot Bitcoin ETF inflows across more than one session would add a demand-side confirmation. Bitcoin holding above the recent support cluster while those macro and flow measures improve would strengthen the case further.

A continued squeeze would produce the reverse pattern: elevated real yields, repeated ETF outflows and Bitcoin losing support while Treasury continues buying selected off-the-run bonds. Each indicator can move for its own reasons, so the case depends on alignment rather than any single print.

Treasury’s purchase may improve liquidity in a specific corner of the government-bond market. The first post-operation readings showed that benefit had yet to appear in the financial conditions most relevant to Bitcoin.

The post Treasury buys $5.2 billion of bonds as Bitcoin ETF flows stay negative appeared first on CryptoSlate.

Bitcoin trades nonstop, but a decade of data shows its volatility increasingly follows Wall Street’s clock.

A recent study found that the nine hours from 13:00 to 21:59 UTC accounted for 50.6% of Bitcoin’s daily realized variance between 2022 and 2025, up from 38.4% in 2016-2018. Those hours represent just 37.5% of a full day, suggesting price discovery has become increasingly concentrated while Bitcoin itself continues trading around the clock.

The research, based on 87,672 hourly observations from Kraken’s XBT/USD market between 2016 and 2025, found the shift extends beyond higher activity during American business hours. Bitcoin’s volatility peak now moves when New York changes its clocks and fades when the New York Stock Exchange closes, tying the market’s most active period increasingly closely to the US equity calendar.

That pattern has developed alongside the institutionalization of crypto through regulated futures, publicly traded companies and US-listed investment products. The study stops short of assigning the change to any single channel, leaving ETF creation and redemption, futures activity, market-maker hedging and other institutional flows as potential drivers.

Bitcoin’s volatility clock started following New York

The most compelling evidence comes from what happens when Wall Street’s schedule itself changes.

Researchers used US daylight-saving transitions to distinguish Wall Street’s influence from activity that simply happens to occur during similar hours. The US equity market opens at 9:30 a.m. New York time, which shifts by one hour in UTC when American clocks change, while Asian trading hours and strategies operating on fixed UTC schedules remain unaffected.

During 2022-2025, Bitcoin’s most volatile hour moved from 14:00 UTC during US daylight-saving time to 15:00 UTC during standard time, moving with the shift in the American trading session. The variance-weighted center of the US window also moved 0.33 hours later, a statistically significant change.

No comparable pattern appeared in 2016-2018, when Bitcoin’s intraday volatility profile showed no distinct response to US clock changes.

NYSE holidays provided a second test. On weekday US market holidays during the recent period, Bitcoin’s share of variance occurring during US hours fell by 13.9 percentage points compared with matched trading days, dropping from 55.7% to about 41.9%.

The resulting distribution moved close enough to the 37.5% benchmark for volatility spread evenly through the day that the difference was statistically insignificant.

Those changes make the effect harder to explain through Asian or European trading alone. If the concentration were driven primarily by automated strategies operating on fixed UTC schedules, shifting the New York session would not be expected to move Bitcoin’s volatility peak with it.

The market’s center of volatility has also moved deeper into the American session. A window-free measure used by the study placed Bitcoin’s variance-weighted center at 14.1 UTC in 2016-2018, close to the overlap between London trading and the New York open. By 2022-2025, it had moved to 17.1 UTC, while the study’s concentration index increased more than 40%.

The ETF launch didn’t start the shift

The timing complicates the assumption that US spot Bitcoin ETFs suddenly transformed the market after their January 2024 debut.

A statistical change-point analysis identified November 2021 as the single major break in Bitcoin’s US-hours volatility trend. Researchers found no comparable local break around either the December 2017 introduction of CME Bitcoin futures or the approval of US spot ETFs in January 2024.

The distinction becomes stark depending on how the data are measured.

A broad comparison of all observations before and after the ETF launch produces an apparent 9.6-percentage-point increase in Bitcoin’s US-hours variance share. Restricting the analysis to a symmetric 12-month window around the event reduces the change to just 0.1 percentage point, with no statistically significant break.

CME futures show the same problem. An apparent 7.1-point increase using the full before-and-after sample shrinks to 0.3 point when the analysis focuses on the period immediately surrounding the launch.

The study tested that statistical problem by selecting 1,000 random dates and treating each as though a market-changing event had occurred. The broad before-and-after method produced statistical significance at the 0.1% level for all 1,000 fake events, showing how a long-running trend can make almost any chosen milestone appear responsible for a structural change.

The symmetric approach produced the same result in just 4.7% of cases.

That leaves institutionalization as a broader explanation rather than assigning the shift to one product. The findings identify the US cash session as the timing anchor while leaving unresolved whether ETF flows, derivatives activity, market-maker hedging or other institutional channels are doing the most to pull Bitcoin’s price discovery toward New York.

Crypto’s 24/7 market is developing office hours

The shift is also appearing across the weekly calendar.

Bitcoin’s weekend-to-weekday volatility ratio fell from 0.96 in 2016, when Saturdays and Sundays were almost as volatile as weekdays, to 0.60 in 2024 and 0.64 in 2025. The equivalent trading-volume ratio dropped from 0.78 to 0.43 in 2024 before edging to 0.46 last year.

The trend extends beyond Bitcoin. Similar increases in the US-hours share of variance appeared in six of seven other long-listed crypto assets tested on Kraken, including Ethereum, XRP, Solana, Cardano, Dogecoin and Chainlink.

XRP’s share rose from 37.2% in its earliest two-year period to 46.2% in its latest, while ETH moved from 41.8% to 48.2%. Litecoin was the only asset without a statistically significant trend.

For trading firms, the change carries a more immediate consequence than the symbolism of a 24-hour market adopting Wall Street hours. Risk models that assume volatility is distributed relatively evenly across the day can understate exposure during the US session and overstate it overnight.

Thinner weekends can further widen the gap between continuously traded spot crypto and futures or options linked to traditional-market calendars, complicating hedging when institutional venues are less active.

The study relies primarily on one exchange and stops at the end of 2025, leaving multi-venue confirmation as the next test. Order-book and trade-level data would also be needed to determine how much of the pattern comes from ETF creations and redemptions, futures positioning, market-maker hedging or other institutional flows.

For trading desks, that distinction could determine whether Bitcoin’s emerging volatility clock becomes useful for margin requirements, liquidity provisioning and hedging schedules. A market that remains open every hour now gives them a narrower question to manage: which hours increasingly carry the risk.

The post Crypto never closes, but Bitcoin, Ethereum, XRP and Solana now move on Wall Street time appeared first on CryptoSlate.

Bitcoin fell into Deribit’s Sept. 11 options expiry, rebounded during the first hour after settlement, then surrendered the move before a two-hour post-expiry window ended.

The sequence resembled only part of a pattern documented in a recent peer-reviewed study. Friday’s price path did not complete the reversal, while the study’s high at-the-money open-interest condition could not be matched with public data and its strongest negative-gamma regime was not corroborated.

Across Deribit’s BTC perpetual, Coinbase spot and Kraken spot, Bitcoin declined about 0.16% to 0.18% from 07:00 to 08:00 UTC. It then gained about 0.19% to 0.21% by 09:00.

The rebound did not hold. From 08:00 to 10:00 UTC, the Deribit perpetual slipped 0.014%, Coinbase fell 0.025% and Kraken lost 0.038%. Bitcoin therefore ended slightly below its expiry-time level on all three venues.

What Friday’s expiry showed

A PerpFinder market-data snapshot at 06:40 UTC placed the expiring Bitcoin options at about $2.24 billion, comprising roughly $1.40 billion of calls and $844 million of puts. Deribit’s official delivery price was $77,234.

Bitcoin fell as low as $76,000 into the Europe afternoon trading session before recovering back toward $77,500 as of press time.

Under Deribit’s settlement rules, the options expired at 08:00 UTC. The delivery price is a 30-minute time-weighted average of the exchange’s Bitcoin index from 07:30 to 08:00 UTC, sampled every four seconds.

Those mechanics created a timely comparison with research published in Finance Research Letters. The peer-reviewed study examined 1,059 Deribit expiry days from January 2021 through December 2023 using five-minute returns.

Its authors found a statistically significant tendency for Bitcoin to fall in the hour before expiry and reverse during the following two hours when at-the-money open interest ranked in the sample’s top decile.

The result was strongest when a reconstructed cumulative gamma proxy was negative. The paper did not infer market-maker positioning from total open interest or a put/call ratio. Its underlying methodology estimated a market-maker proxy from contract trading history and assumptions about which side initiated each trade.

The pattern, however, does not seem to be playing out in 2026 as three model-based dashboards, Optionly, CryptoGamma and ByKaranteli, did not show a negative cumulative gamma proxy near spot.

The post Bitcoin’s $2.24 billion Friday options expiry teased a reversal then fell to $76k again appeared first on CryptoSlate.

BitMine Immersion Technologies has amassed a staked ETH position equivalent to almost 12% of Ethereum’s active stake, without disclosing who controls the validators behind it.

The company reported 5.07 million ETH staked as of Sept. 7, representing about 85% of its 5.93 million ETH holdings and worth roughly $12.6 billion at prices used in its latest filing. Using the roughly 43.03 million ETH actively securing Ethereum as of press time, BitMine’s position was equivalent to about 11.8% of the network’s active stake.

That establishes the scale of BitMine’s economic exposure. Measuring its influence over Ethereum’s consensus requires another set of information: how those assets are distributed among validator operators and who controls the signing keys used to propose blocks and attest to transactions.

BitMine has not provided that breakdown.

Its Sept. 8 operational update said only “a portion” of its ETH was already staked through MAVAN, its institutional staking platform. The company also said that, at scale, it would stake ETH through “MAVAN and its staking partners,” leaving the split between BitMine’s own infrastructure and outside operators undisclosed.

BitMine’s economic stake outruns its validator disclosures

The distinction grows more consequential as BitMine approaches its goal of owning 5% of Ethereum’s total supply and directs most of those holdings toward staking.

Ethereum’s proof-of-stake system assigns consensus influence through validators, whose signing keys authorize block proposals and attestations. Ownership of the ETH funding those validators does not by itself disclose who can exercise those duties.

That separation is important because Ethereum’s security model becomes increasingly sensitive as signing authority concentrates. The network requires attestations representing two-thirds of staked ETH to finalize checkpoints, while an operator controlling at least one-third could prevent finality by withholding its votes.

BitMine’s 11.8% economic position remains well below that threshold. Public disclosures also provide no basis for assigning the full percentage to BitMine, MAVAN, or any single staking provider.

An earlier quarterly filing described BitMine as the principal node operator while also outlining its reliance on outside infrastructure. Its latest disclosures add further participants without showing how validator responsibilities are divided.

BitMine ended a management-services agreement with Ethereum Tower on Sept. 3 and appointed its affiliate American Validator the following day to advise MAVAN Holdings. American Validator will receive a fee equal to 1.5% of rewards generated from company-staked ETH, but the agreement does not identify it as the operator of the entire validator fleet or assign it signing authority.

MAVAN’s documentation similarly separates the destination of withdrawn ETH from validator operations, allowing users to designate where funds ultimately return while using its staking infrastructure.

A clearer concentration assessment would require BitMine to disclose the validator cohorts operated by each provider, their signing-key arrangements and how infrastructure is distributed across software clients and hosting environments.

Those details could become more important if BitMine continues expanding MAVAN beyond its own treasury.

The company says the platform has grown to serve institutional investors, custodians and ecosystem partners, potentially putting more third-party ETH onto infrastructure associated with the BitMine staking business.

For Ethereum investors, the next number to watch therefore extends beyond how much ETH BitMine stakes. Its growing validator business will determine whether the company eventually provides enough operational data to show where the corresponding consensus authority actually resides.

The post BitMine’s staked ETH equals nearly 12% of Ethereum’s active stake, but who controls it? appeared first on CryptoSlate.

The liquidation price is the level at which your trading platform closes a leveraged position without asking, because the collateral you posted no longer covers the accumulated loss. You need that single number before you enter, not afterwards. For a long position it can be estimated in one line: liquidation price ≈ entry price × (1 − 1 ÷ leverage + maintenance margin rate). With an entry at $77,000, ten times leverage and a maintenance margin rate of 0.5 percent, the liquidation price works out at roughly $69,685, or 9.5 percent below the entry. The rest of this article explains where each part of that formula comes from, why your exchange shows a slightly different figure, and which running costs squeeze the buffer further.

What Is a Liquidation Price in Crypto Trading?

Opening a leveraged position means borrowing buying power. You put up an amount as margin, the exchange supplies the rest, and the position moves at full size. Margin is simply the collateral you post for that one trade. If the price runs against you, that amount melts away. The liquidation price marks the point at which it has melted so far that the exchange will no longer carry the risk.

The term liquidation describes the forced close itself: the platform sells your long position, or buys back your short position, without needing your consent. On most trading screens the liquidation price sits right next to the entry price, usually in red. For Bitcoin you see this figure in every perpetual view; where the price has gone since is covered in our Bitcoin price prediction.

Liquidation Is Not a Stop-Loss

A stop-loss is your own order: you set the price at which the position closes, and you decide how much loss you accept. Liquidation is the exchange pulling the emergency brake, and it carries an extra liquidation fee. The practical difference is large, because an exit you set yourself usually leaves capital behind, while a liquidation at high leverage consumes the entire margin of that position. Anyone trading with leverage therefore sets the exit personally instead of leaving it to the emergency brake.

How to Calculate the Liquidation Price for a Long Position

The underlying idea is simple. Your collateral covers a certain drawdown, roughly the inverse of the leverage. At ten times leverage you post ten percent of the position value, so the position tolerates around ten percent of decline. Because the exchange steps in before that point, the maintenance margin is added on top.

The calculation needs three inputs:

1. Entry price — the price at which the position was actually filled, not the price you meant to enter.
2. Leverage — the ratio of position size to your margin. With $1,000 of collateral and a $10,000 position, leverage is ten.
3. Maintenance margin rate — the share of the position value you have to keep at a minimum for the position to stay open.

For a long that gives: entry price × (1 − 1 ÷ leverage + maintenance margin rate). For a short the signs flip: entry price × (1 + 1 ÷ leverage − maintenance margin rate). The calculation applies to an isolated position in a linear USDT contract and leaves out fees and funding costs. As an estimate before entry that is enough; the binding figure sits in the position row on your platform.

Why the Maintenance Margin Shifts the Calculation

The maintenance margin is the floor below which a position counts as undercollateralised. That floor always sits below the initial margin, and the gap between the two is your room to move. The rate depends on position size and on the asset traded; the leverage you choose plays no part in it. The larger the position, the higher the tier and the higher the percentage required. Exchanges publish tier tables for this, in which the rate rises with the position value.

A solid order of magnitude comes from the documentation of the decentralised exchange Hyperliquid: there the maintenance margin equals half the initial margin at maximum leverage, which depending on the asset works out at between 1.25 percent for assets with 40x maximum leverage and 16.7 percent for assets with 3x maximum leverage. In practice that means a liquid asset such as Bitcoin carries a rate in the low fractions of a percent up to a few percent, while a thinly traded altcoin can carry a multiple of that. Applying the same leverage to a small coin therefore leaves less buffer than with Bitcoin, even though the leverage number looks identical.

Why Your Number Differs Slightly

Run the numbers yourself and compare them with the exchange display, and a few dollars of difference usually remain. Three items that feed into the platform's own calculation explain it: the opening fee already paid, the closing fee held in reserve and, depending on the model, a liquidation fee. All three reduce the available margin before the price has moved at all. The difference always points the same way: the real liquidation price sits closer to the entry than the estimate.

Worked Example: 10x Long on Bitcoin at $77,000

Assume you open a long position on Bitcoin at an entry price of $77,000. You post 1,000 USDT as isolated margin, leverage is ten, so the position size is 10,000 USDT. Your exchange applies a maintenance margin rate of 0.5 percent at this tier.

Filling in the numbers: 77,000 × (1 − 0.1 + 0.005) = 77,000 × 0.905 = $69,685. If the relevant price falls to that level, the position is closed. The distance is $7,315, or 9.5 percent. Without the maintenance margin the arithmetic point would sit at $69,300, so the exchange steps in around $385 earlier.

The Same Entry, Three Leverage Levels

The calculation becomes interesting in comparison. With an identical entry price of $77,000 and the same maintenance margin rate, the picture is this:

• Leverage 2: liquidation at around $38,885, which is 49.5 percent of room.
• Leverage 10: liquidation at around $69,685, 9.5 percent of room.
• Leverage 25: liquidation at around $73,535, 3.5 percent of room.
• Leverage 100: liquidation at around $76,615, 0.5 percent of room.

The last line is the real finding. A hundred times leverage does not survive a price move of half a percent. Bitcoin produces moves of that size regularly within minutes, around inflation data or central bank meetings for instance. A 100x trade is therefore less a bet on direction than a bet that the market will stand still for the next few minutes.

Short Positions: Why the Liquidation Price Sits Above Your Entry

On a short you earn when prices fall, so a rally is what threatens you. The liquidation price moves upwards accordingly. For a 20x short entered at $77,000 with a 0.5 percent maintenance margin rate, the formula gives: 77,000 × (1 + 0.05 − 0.005) = $80,465. A rise of 4.5 percent ends the position.

One structural difference from a long matters here. A long position's loss is capped at zero on the downside, while a short position's loss is arithmetically open to the upside. In practice liquidation catches that case long before, which is why short traders find the liquidation threshold sitting particularly close to the entry as soon as a market turns into a recovery. Anyone trading both sides should therefore set up the calculation separately for each direction rather than mirroring a rule of thumb.

Isolated Margin or Cross Margin: Which Margin Mode Sets Your Buffer

The margin mode decides which capital is liable for a position, and it shifts the liquidation price more sharply than most settings in the trading menu. In isolated margin mode, only the amount you assigned to that single position is liable. If the trade goes wrong, you lose that amount and nothing else. In cross margin mode, the entire free balance of your trading account is liable. The liquidation price moves further away as a result, because more capital stands ready to absorb the loss.

The price of that greater distance is the size of the damage. A liquidation in cross mode can empty the trading account in one go, while in isolated mode only the assigned margin is affected. For building a position that means: cross moves the threshold, isolated limits the consequences. Anyone holding several positions at once should also bear in mind that in cross mode a single bad trade eats into the buffer of every other position.

Adding Margin Moves the Threshold but Solves Nothing

Almost every platform allows you to add margin to an isolated position after the fact. That pushes the liquidation price further away and buys time. Arithmetically, paying into the position is the same as lowering the effective leverage. The function becomes dangerous when it turns into a habit: every top-up raises the amount lost in a later liquidation. A limited loss turns step by step into a large one.

Mark Price Instead of Last Price: Which Price Triggers Liquidation

What triggers the close is, as a rule, not the last traded price on your own exchange but the mark price. That is a smoothed reference price built from prices on several venues. Hyperliquid describes its own method as liquidations using the mark price, which combines external exchange prices with the state of its own order book.

This construction protects you from a whole class of incidents. If the order book on a single exchange thins out for a moment and one sell order pushes the last price far down, that spike triggers no wave of liquidations as long as the reference price stays stable. The flip side: you can be liquidated even though the price on your chart never touched the liquidation price, because the reference price stood lower elsewhere. Anyone checking their threshold should therefore use the platform's mark price display rather than the candle chart.

What Funding Rate, Fees and Slippage Take Out of Your Buffer

A perpetual contract has no expiry date. To keep its price tethered to the spot market, the long and short sides pay each other a balancing payment at fixed intervals, the funding rate. When the market sits in a pronounced bullish mood, the longs pay, and the payment is taken from the margin. Over several days that adds up to a noticeable amount, which shrinks the distance to liquidation without the price having moved at all. How this mechanism works in detail, and what part it plays on decentralised venues, is taken apart in our piece on what a perp DEX is.

On top of that come the trading fees on opening and closing, plus slippage, the difference between the expected and the actual execution price. In fast market phases slippage is no marginal item: when the liquidation is triggered, the exchange sells at exactly the moment when many positions are being closed in the same direction anyway. The price achieved then regularly sits below the arithmetic liquidation price. That is precisely why at high leverage levels no remainder of the margin is usually left, even though the calculation before entry produced a small residual amount.

A Realistic Buffer Instead of a Bullseye

From these items follows a workable rule. Treat the calculated liquidation price as an optimistic boundary and plan your own exit noticeably ahead of it. Putting the stop-loss at the same price where the forced close is waiting effectively gives you a second liquidation at the same spot. A distance that can absorb fees, funding and an unfavourable fill is the actual purpose of the whole calculation.

Partial Liquidation, Insurance Fund and Auto-Deleveraging: What Happens Next

For large positions the forced close does not run in a single step. Hyperliquid, for instance, initially places only 20 percent of the position into the order book as a market order for positions above 100,000 USDC, and then waits 30 seconds before the orders cover the whole position. The purpose of that staging is to protect the market: a large position thrown into a thin order book all at once moves the price and thereby liquidates the next position.

If the proceeds are not enough, the second safeguard takes over. When a position falls below two-thirds of the maintenance margin, a dedicated liquidator pool at Hyperliquid takes on the position, and its earnings go to the community of depositors. Centralised exchanges run an insurance fund for this, fed by the surpluses of successful liquidations and covering shortfalls. Only when that buffer is not enough either does auto-deleveraging come into play: the exchange then forcibly closes the opposing positions of profitable traders to balance the books.

For you as a user an uncomfortable conclusion follows. Even a position that is right can be closed in an extreme market phase, because the other side has defaulted. Anyone deploying larger amounts should therefore check how the chosen platform handles that case and how large its insurance fund is. If you want to compare venues on those terms, the conditions and safeguards are set out in our overview of crypto brokers.

How Much Leverage German Retail Traders Are Allowed

The calculation above applies everywhere in technical terms. Legally, in Germany, it runs into a hard limit. In its general decree on contracts for difference, BaFin laid down that a provider must demand an initial margin of 50 percent of the notional value from a retail client on a CFD on a cryptocurrency. That corresponds to leverage of two to one, and therefore to the most generous buffer in the whole table above: close to 50 percent of price decline before the threshold is reached.

The same decree sets out two further protections that matter in connection with liquidations: a margin close-out protection, which closes the position automatically when it is undercollateralised, and negative balance protection, which prevents a trade from turning into a claim against you. Anyone trading perpetual contracts at 20 or 50 times leverage on a platform outside that framework is operating in an environment where neither guarantee applies. Between two percent and fifty percent of room lies the actual substance of this regulation.

Why the Number in the Menu Is Not the Whole Truth

Many platforms show a slider up to 100x but apply the high tier only to small position sizes. As soon as the position grows, the next tier of the maintenance margin table takes effect and the effective leverage falls automatically. The leverage figure on display is therefore an upper limit for small amounts, not a guarantee for every position size. Check your exchange's tier table before you deploy a larger sum.

Five Mistakes That Pull the Liquidation Price Closer

Most forced closes originate in the position size, not in a wrong view of the market. Five patterns come up again and again:

1. Leverage is mistaken for a measure of risk. What counts is the position size relative to the whole account, not the number in the menu. Twenty times leverage on two percent of the account is more harmless than three times leverage on the entire balance.
2. The buffer is calculated without costs. Funding, fees and slippage are missing from the estimate and push the actual threshold closer to the entry.
3. Nobody recalculates after adding to a position. Every increase in size shifts the average entry price and with it the threshold. The old figure carried in your head is then wrong.
4. The margin mode stays on cross although the position was meant as a single bet. The entire account balance is liable, without anyone having decided that consciously.
5. The position is held over a weekend or a data release. Thin order books and scheduled figures produce exactly the short, violent moves that a tight buffer cannot absorb.

All five points can be checked in two minutes before entry. Public data sites such as Coinglass additionally show how much capital was force-closed across the market per 24 hours; a glance at that places your own position size in the context of what the market is doing.

After a Liquidation: Why You Should Save the Exchange Statement Immediately

A liquidation is a completed event with a realised result. For sorting it out later you need three records from your account: the statement of the closed position with timestamp and execution price, the breakdown of funding amounts paid, and the fee statement for the period. Many exchanges keep these extracts available in the account only for a limited window, and after a delisting or an account closure they are sometimes no longer retrievable at all.

How it is treated for tax depends on which instrument you traded and in which country you are liable to tax; that question belongs in the hands of a tax adviser and cannot be answered in general terms. What you can do regardless is document everything without gaps. A portfolio tracker that pulls the trading history from the exchange automatically takes that work off your hands and keeps the data even once the trading account has long been empty. The effort is a one-off, the benefit stays.

Calculating Your Liquidation Price: What to Take Away

1. Work out the threshold before every entry. Entry price × (1 − 1 ÷ leverage + maintenance margin rate) for a long, with the signs reversed for a short. Note the figure together with the planned exit before the order goes out. Which venues offer which maintenance margins and safeguards is set out in our comparison of the best perp DEXs.
2. Check the margin mode and the position size separately. Isolated limits the damage, cross moves the threshold. Together the two decide how much a single bad trade costs your account. Calculators and position monitoring are covered in our overview of the best analytics tools.
3. Save the statement as soon as a position has been closed. Trading history, funding and fees belong exported and archived, ideally automatically. Suitable tools are set out in our comparison of crypto tax tools and portfolio trackers.

(As of September 11, 2026. This article is not investment advice. Prices and fee structures change; check the terms with the provider before you buy.)

An inactivity fee is a fixed amount a provider debits purely because nothing has happened on an account for a defined period. It does not depend on trading, on a withdrawal or on the size of the balance, but on standstill. Anyone who opened a second account at a crypto exchange years ago and then forgot about it may have been paying there for months without noticing.

Two providers have touched their rates in recent weeks, and in both cases the move was upwards. This article explains the mechanics behind it, shows with two documented cases how high the amounts now run, and walks through checking your own dormant account. First, though, the result of our own survey, which is decisive for that check: on publicly accessible fee pages, the answer is very rarely there.

What an inactivity fee is and when a crypto exchange charges it

The term comes from the classic brokerage business. A broker earns on orders; if those dry up, the account still costs money, because account and reporting obligations carry on. The inactivity fee shifts those costs to the customer. Crypto trading venues have adopted the model, partly for trading accounts, partly for the payment cards that go with them.

The trigger is almost always a period without defined activity, twelve months being the usual span. What counts as activity differs considerably, and this is the point where most readers get it wrong: a mere login counts with some providers, not with others. What matters there is a movement of money, that is, a purchase, a sale, a deposit or a withdrawal.

The second peculiarity concerns how it is calculated. Unlike a trading fee, the amount is a flat rate. On an account holding 4,000 euros it is barely noticeable. On a residual balance of 60 euros it eats the account up in less than a year. That is exactly why the fee systematically hits the small, forgotten holdings and not the large ones.

Crypto.com raises its inactivity fee to 5.95 dollars from September 1, 2026

The first documented case concerns the Crypto.com prepaid card. The provider's fee and limit overview states that after twelve months without cardholder-initiated financial activity, a fee of 4.95 US dollars applies for each month of inactivity. It goes on to say that this amount will be raised to 5.95 US dollars with effect from September 1, 2026. As soon as there is activity on the card again, the charge ends and the twelve-month counter starts over.

Two qualifications belong with it, so the figure is placed correctly. The overview quoted applies to the prepaid card in the United States, not automatically to card products from the same provider in the European Union. And it concerns the card, not the trading account. The value of the example therefore lies less in the amount than in the mechanics: a provider states openly from when it charges a dormant product, how high the rate is and what stops it. Those are precisely the three pieces of information you need for your own account.

The increase of one dollar looks small. Over twelve months it is 71.40 US dollars instead of 59.40, and it runs on quietly for as long as nobody touches the card.

Dormancy fee after a withdrawal from the EU: the second case

The second case comes from Luno and shows the harsher variant. The provider has pulled out of several regions, among them the European Economic Area, and has asked customers there to close their accounts. For balances still sitting there after the communicated cut-off date, consistent reports from several trade outlets say a monthly inactivity fee of 2 US dollars applies from September; from December a dormancy fee of 50 US dollars is added, making up to 52 dollars a month in total. The provider's help page on this process does not answer automated requests; in a browser it is reachable.

How this withdrawal played out for the customers affected was described in detail by cryptoticker.io on August 8, 2026. What counts for the context here is the order of magnitude: 52 US dollars a month is no longer an administrative contribution but an amount that consumes a typical residual balance entirely within a few months. The difference between 2 and 52 dollars lies in the word alone. An inactivity fee charges a dormant account; a dormancy fee charges an account the provider regards as definitively abandoned.

Our own survey: 15 fee pages retrieved, 6 were usable

That leaves the question facing every reader with a dormant account: how do you find out whether your provider charges something like this? To answer it, we measured the obvious route a customer takes first, namely a look at the public fee page without logging in.

cryptoticker.io compiled this survey itself on September 11, 2026. Method: for 15 trading venues and brokers relevant to European investors, one publicly linked fee or terms page each was retrieved using an ordinary browser identifier, the visible text was extracted from the source code and searched for the keywords inactivity, dormant, dormancy and the German equivalents.

The result came out more clearly than expected. Eleven of the 15 addresses answered with status code 200; four rejected the automated request with a 403. Of the eleven reachable pages, however, only six delivered enough readable text at all to answer the question; with the remaining five, the content is only assembled in the browser through JavaScript loaded afterwards, so the retrieved document contains practically nothing. On balance, the question could not be answered from the public document on nine of the 15 pages.

Of the six usable pages, exactly one mentioned the keyword at all. At eToro, the fee overview lists, in the section on the money account, the entry inactivity fee with the value free. Third-party sources list a monthly inactivity fee for trading accounts at the same provider; that statement could not be confirmed on the provider's page, and it is therefore not passed on here as fact. At Kraken, Bitpanda, OKX, Bybit and BISON, the keyword did not appear in the retrieved text.

What this survey expressly does not do: it is no proof that the providers named charge no such fee. One page each was checked, not the complete schedule of prices and services, not the terms of use in full and not the logged-in customer area. Four pages were blocked for retrieval, five more were unreadable without a browser. The survey therefore measures how findable the information is, nothing more.

Why the fee is rarely on the public fee page

There is a sober reason for that. Fee pages are sales pages. They set trading fees, spreads and savings plans side by side, because that is exactly what new customers compare. A charge that only bites after a year of standstill plays no part in that decision and therefore sits elsewhere: in the schedule of prices and services, in the general terms and conditions, or in an article in the help section.

On top of that comes the technical hurdle from the survey. Five of the pages checked only assemble their tables in the browser. For a reader that is invisible; for any search across pages it is a wall. Anyone wanting to know what applies at several providers cannot avoid visiting each one. For choosing a new trading venue, an ordered overview of the crypto exchanges relevant to European investors helps, but the question of dormant accounts remains, in every case, one you settle inside your own account.

Inactivity fee and dormancy fee: the difference that decides the amount

The two terms get mixed up in everyday use, but they describe different stages. An inactivity fee is an ongoing contribution for an account the provider continues to run. A dormancy fee is the rate for an account that, from the provider's point of view, has been given up and is only being administered because money is sitting in it.

The sequence is typical: first a small monthly amount runs, then after a further period the large one is added. The Luno case shows both stages on a timetable, September for one, December for the other. For your own check that means searching the terms for both terms and watching for deadlines that come in stages.

A third variant belongs here too, even though it is not a fee in the narrow sense: the minimum withdrawal. If the balance falls below it, the money can no longer be moved out, and the fee runs regardless. In that case the amount is effectively lost without anyone having withheld it.

What resets the counter: login, trading or payments

This is the most important detail in the terms, and it decides how much work is involved. If a provider requires only a login, a date in the calendar will do. If it requires customer-initiated financial activity, as the quoted Crypto.com overview puts it for the card, logging in is not enough.

What counts in such cases is a real movement: a purchase, a sale, a deposit or a withdrawal. Anyone who only wants to keep a dormant account alive typically triggers a small purchase. That incurs trading fees and possibly a spread, and on a sale in Germany the one-year holding period for a private disposal transaction starts running again for the holdings concerned. A transaction made purely to avoid the fee can therefore end up costing more than the fee.

For most dormant accounts, closing is the cheaper route. If you have not used an account for years, you lose nothing by withdrawing the balance and closing it.

Checking your dormant account: these five steps in this order

First: draw up a list of all your accounts. Search your inbox for confirmation emails from the years of the last market cycles, supplemented by your browser's password store. Anyone who bought Bitcoin on a second or third platform in 2021 typically finds more there than expected.

Second: log in and look at the actual balance, separated into crypto holdings and cash in euros or dollars. The two can be treated differently.

Third: in the logged-in area, open the schedule of prices and services or the fee page and search for inactivity, dormant and dormancy. Judging by the survey above, the public page is enough in only a few cases.

Fourth: go through the account statements or the transaction history for the past twelve months. A charge already running shows up there as a recurring entry with an identical amount each time, usually at the start of the month.

Fifth: decide. Either withdraw the balance and have the account closed, or set a reminder that prompts you to generate activity before the deadline expires. A middle course, in which you simply leave the account lying there, is precisely the case the fee charges for.

Minimum withdrawal and residual balance: when the fee eats the account

The unpleasant situation arises when the fee is larger than what could still be withdrawn. With a minimum withdrawal of ten dollars and a balance of eight, there is no regular way out while the monthly charge keeps running. What applies in that position is set out solely in the terms of the provider in question, and the rules differ: some houses cap the fee at the balance available, others stop charging at a balance of zero and close the account.

No general legal advice can be derived from that, because the applicable law, the provider's place of business and the agreed terms interact. Anyone affected with a meaningful amount at stake should settle it with the provider in writing and ask to be told the legal basis for the charge. The related case of a balance left behind after an exchange closes has been worked through by cryptoticker.io in a separate article on residual balances and cut-off date fees.

What a MiCA licence regulates here and what it does not

Since the transition periods ended, providers serving customers in the European Economic Area need authorisation under the EU regulation on markets in crypto-assets. That authorisation requires, among other things, holding client assets separately from the firm's own, and it obliges providers to state costs clearly. It contains no upper limit for account maintenance, inactivity or dormancy fees.

A practical distinction follows from this. A licence raises the likelihood that the fee is set out cleanly somewhere at all and that a contact inside the EU remains reachable. It says nothing about how high the rate may be. And it no longer bites where a provider leaves the market: that is precisely the situation in which the highest of the amounts documented here have appeared.

Announcing fee changes: how the message reaches you at all

Fee changes are announced, usually by email to the address on file and with a few weeks' notice. This is the point at which the system becomes unreliable for dormant accounts: anyone who has not used an account for years often has an old address on file there, filed the sender into the promotions folder at some point, or simply does not read the message.

Anyone deliberately keeping a dormant account should therefore do two things: bring the address on file up to date and put the provider's sender on an allow list in the inbox. Both take a few minutes and are the only connection through which a change reaches you at all.

For taking stock, the same thinking applies as with a tax return: an account that appears in no overview does not get checked either. If you bring your holdings together in one place anyway, a dormant account shows up at the next reconciliation.

Checking the inactivity fee: what to take away

1. List every account before you check anything. Search the inbox and the password store and note down the providers. A tool that brings holdings together across several platforms makes this inventory permanent rather than a one-off; you will find the selection in the overview of crypto tax software and portfolio trackers.
2. Search for the terms in the logged-in area, not on the public fee page. According to the survey of September 11, 2026, the question could not be answered at all on nine of 15 public pages. While you are at it, note where the provider is based and whether it is authorised in the EU; which houses those are is shown in the overview of regulated crypto exchanges.
3. Decide instead of letting it lie. Either withdraw the balance and close the account, or set a reminder before the deadline and update the email address on file. If you want to consolidate your holdings anyway, move them to a trading venue you use regularly; the candidates are in the comparison of crypto exchanges for European investors.

Sources to read up on: the Crypto.com fee and limit overview for the prepaid card with the rate of 4.95 US dollars and the increase from September 1, 2026, as well as the eToro fee overview, the only one of the six usable pages on which the keyword appeared at all.

(As of September 11, 2026. This article is not investment advice. Prices and fee structures change; check the terms with the provider before you buy.)

Bitwise is closing its Dogecoin ETF. The fund trading under the ticker BWOW is being wound up: the last trading day on NYSE Arca is October 14, 2026, and anyone who has not sold their shares by then will receive the cash equivalent on October 22, 2026. The provider announced this on September 10, 2026 at 3:28 p.m. New York time.

For most European readers this is not a portfolio question but a market question. BWOW was a US product that a retail investor could not normally reach through a European broker at all. The episode is interesting all the same, because it answers a question that has been hanging over the altcoin funds since they launched: is it enough for a crypto product to be approved and tradable for it to actually be bought? For this fund the answer is demonstrably no. And something practical follows from that for you, whether you buy Dogecoin through a securities wrapper or directly at a crypto exchange.

What “Dogecoin ETF discontinued” means: the three Bitwise dates

Bitwise Investment Advisers, the fund's sponsor, resolved on the liquidation with effect from September 10, 2026. Three dates structure the process, and they appear verbatim in the provider's announcement.

October 14, 2026: the last trading day on NYSE Arca. Until the close on that day, shareholders can sell their shares on the secondary market, that is, on the exchange to another buyer. The same day the fund converts its Dogecoin holdings into cash. After the close it ceases operations.

October 15, 2026: before the opening bell, the creation of new BWOW shares ends. That is the mechanism through which an exchange-traded fund grows; take it away and the product can only shrink.

October 22, 2026: remaining shareholders receive the net asset value of their shares, calculated as of October 21, paid out in cash. Net asset value, usually abbreviated NAV, is the fund's assets divided by the number of shares outstanding, in other words the arithmetic value of a single share.

Bitwise adds one sentence that matters more than it sounds: “Shareholders do not need to take any action during this process.” No application is required; the wind-up runs automatically. Anyone who would rather sell than be paid out, though, has to act by October 14.

Why Bitwise is closing the Dogecoin ETF: 722,000 dollars in fund assets

The official reasoning is brief. Bitwise says it is liquidating the fund “as it continues to optimize its product range to meet evolving investor needs”. The company expressly does not cite trading volume, fund size or outflows as the reason. That reticence is standard in the industry and no reproach in itself.

The fund's figures are public, however, and they are clear. The trade publication Cryptopolitan compiled them on September 11, drawing on the fund documents as well as data from The Block, SoSoValue and ETF.com. According to those, on September 8, 2026 BWOW held assets of around 722,000 US dollars (721,815 dollars precisely) and roughly 8.2 million DOGE. For comparison: Bitwise says it manages around 9 billion US dollars in client money.

The decline can be traced quarter by quarter. At the end of 2025 the fund reported net assets of 1.15 million US dollars; by June 30, 2026 it was 473,547 dollars. In the first half of 2026, according to these documents, no new shares were created while 20,000 shares were redeemed. Cumulative performance since inception stood at minus 45.37 percent in the August monthly data. Part of that is simply how Dogecoin traded over the same period, not a flaw in the product.

Trading stayed thin as well. In its opening week BWOW reached around 3 million US dollars in daily turnover and never came close to that figure again. Bitwise announced the fund on November 25, 2025; trading began on November 26.

What is happening to Dogecoin right now: price, market cap and ETF outflows

The coin itself is technically untouched by the fund closure. Dogecoin traded at around 0.0836 US dollars at about 09:50 UTC on September 11, 2026, with a market capitalisation of roughly 14.3 billion US dollars, ranking twelfth among the largest cryptocurrencies; those are our own readings, taken from Coinpaprika. On the day it was down a good 2 percent. The all-time high of around 0.753 US dollars dates from May 8, 2021 and is therefore more than five years old.

More telling than the daily price is demand through the fund wrapper. Over the preceding 30 days the three US Dogecoin funds together recorded around 670,530 US dollars in net outflows, according to the SoSoValue data cited by Cryptopolitan. Cumulative net inflows since inception added up to a mere 11.77 million US dollars. Across all US Dogecoin products, cumulative trading volume to September 10 came to about 300 million US dollars.

Liquidation explained: what happens to the shares between October 14 and 22

Liquidation at an exchange-traded fund means the fund's assets are sold and the proceeds distributed to shareholders. The fund disappears, the money does not. That is precisely what separates an orderly fund closure from an insolvency, where creditors are served and investors stand in line.

In practice two routes run side by side. Sell on the exchange by October 14 and you get the market price a buyer is paying at that moment. That price can deviate from net asset value in either direction, and with a thinly traded product the deviation tends to be larger. Don't sell, and on October 22 you are wired the NAV as of October 21, carrying the full Dogecoin price risk until then.

Bitwise says it has coordinated the wind-up with the NYSE so that delisting and liquidation proceed in an orderly fashion. The company also filed a Form 8-K with the US securities regulator SEC, according to Cryptopolitan — the mandatory disclosure for material events at a listed issuer.

Why BWOW mostly does not concern you as a European investor

Some context matters here, so that this news does not turn into false urgency. BWOW is a US trust under American securities law, not a fund set up under European rules. For distribution to retail investors in the EU it lacks the key information document required by the PRIIPs regulation, that three-page mandatory document without which a broker may not sell a packaged investment product to retail clients in Europe.

Concretely that means BWOW was, as a rule, not available through a European securities account at a local crypto broker. Those affected are above all investors holding through a US broker. If you are unsure whether that includes you, a sober look at your portfolio overview settles it: no BWOW listed there, and the matter is closed for you.

ETF, ETP and ETN: the difference that counts for a European portfolio

Because the terms get muddled in everyday use, a clean separation is worth the space. An ETF is an exchange-traded investment fund whose assets are legally segregated from the assets of the fund company. An ETP is the umbrella term for exchange-traded products as a whole. An ETN, finally, is an exchange-traded note, that is, a claim against the issuer.

For cryptocurrencies this is not hair-splitting. In Europe, individual coins cannot be packaged as a classic UCITS fund for regulatory reasons, because such a fund has to diversify broadly. That is why local products come almost without exception as collateralised bearer notes: legally you hold a claim that is backed by deposited crypto holdings. If the issuer fails, the collateral is what protects you, not the segregation of fund assets.

Alongside that stands the direct route, where you hold the coins yourself, in your own wallet or at an exchange. Choosing between these routes is a trade-off between portfolio convenience and self-custody, and it has tangible consequences for fees, taxes and for whom you are trusting when it matters.

The 21Shares Dogecoin ETP: what is tradable in Europe and what it costs

Anyone in Europe wanting exposure to Dogecoin through a securities account currently ends up, in practice, at the 21Shares Dogecoin ETP with the ISIN CH1431521033 and the German securities number A4A5WJ. The key data come from the product profile at justETF, retrieved on September 11, 2026.

The product was launched in Switzerland on April 8, 2025 and tracks the performance of Dogecoin through a bearer note collateralised with corresponding crypto holdings. Replication is physical and income is accumulated, that is, retained in the product rather than distributed. Fund assets come to around 9 million euros, and the paper is eligible for savings plans.

The most important item sits in the line below: the total expense ratio is 2.50 percent a year. This ongoing fee, usually referred to as the TER, is taken out of the product's value day by day, regardless of whether the price rises or falls. On an investment of 1,000 euros that works out at 25 euros a year for the wrapper alone. It is a multiple of what broadly diversified equity ETFs cost, and it is the price of the convenience of holding a coin in your familiar portfolio. Whether that is worth it depends on how long you intend to hold and how high the fees are on the alternative; a look at an exchange comparison answers the second half of that question.

One note on scale that fits this article's theme: 9 million euros is not an unusual figure for a European crypto ETP, but nor is it a comfortable one. Anyone taking the lesson of BWOW seriously keeps an eye on their product's fund size instead of glancing at it once at purchase.

Approval is not demand: what the SEC listing standards changed in September 2025

The backdrop to the flood of products in recent months is a rule change. On September 17, 2025 the US regulator SEC approved generic listing standards for exchange-traded commodity and trust shares. Since then not every single product needs its own rule-change procedure; if a fund meets the criteria, it can be listed.

That has noticeably increased the number of filings and launches and shortened the time to listing. It has changed nothing about demand. This is exactly the gap that the BWOW closure makes visible: a product can clear every hurdle, list on one of the world's largest exchanges, be reachable through every major US broker, and still be discontinued after ten months for lack of interest.

Where the ETF money went instead: Hyperliquid, Zcash and Chainlink

The figures from the Cryptopolitan analysis allow a comparison within the same product class, and it is unambiguous. To September 10, 2026 the US Dogecoin products reached around 300 million US dollars in cumulative trading volume. Products on Hyperliquid stood at about 2.1 billion over the same period, Zcash products at around 1.5 billion and Chainlink funds at roughly 680 million.

Inflows show the same picture in a different currency. According to estimates compiled by ETF.com and quoted by Cryptopolitan, Solana spot products gathered almost 880 million US dollars in total and XRP products around a billion. Cumulative net inflows across all three US Dogecoin funds came to 11.77 million dollars by contrast.

Putting those numbers in context belongs to the job: they are snapshots from third-party sources, not audited annual accounts, and they measure trading activity and fund flows, not the quality of a network. What they show reliably is a ranking of institutional interest as of the reporting date.

What the closure says about memecoins as an investment product

Dogecoin is the oldest and best known memecoin, meaning a cryptocurrency whose value derives largely from recognition and community rather than from a technical application. At rank twelve and a good 14 billion US dollars in market capitalisation, the coin is anything but a footnote.

That is exactly what makes the finding interesting. A large, visible and loud following evidently does not translate automatically into demand through a securities account. The people who trade Dogecoin mostly do so where they already are: on crypto exchanges, in wallets, through apps. Too little was left over for the route through a fund wrapper with an annual fee.

No verdict on the coin follows from this, and certainly no forecast for its price. What follows is a sober observation about distribution channels: with Dogecoin, demand sits in the crypto-native channel, while for other assets it migrates more strongly into the regulated securities world.

Tax: why a cash settlement can work like a sale

Caution is in order here, in two directions. According to Cryptopolitan's account, the SEC filing notes that the distributions are taxable events. That statement refers to US tax law and to US shareholders. The Bitwise press release itself says nothing about tax treatment; I checked it expressly on that point.

Nothing can be derived from it for taxation in Europe, and I am not claiming anything here either. The general mechanism is no secret, though: when a fund is wound up and you receive a cash payment, your position ends, and an ended position is as a rule a disposal for tax purposes. How it is classified in your specific case depends on the product type, the location of your account and your personal circumstances.

In practice that means: if a wind-up does affect you, collect the settlement statement and the provider's notice for your tax records, and clarify the classification with your tax adviser. Anyone wanting to keep track of many transactions will find suitable support in a specialised tax tool. This article is not tax advice.

How to spot that a crypto product is heading for closure

The warning signs at BWOW sat openly in the documents for months. These patterns transfer to any exchange-traded crypto product you hold.

The first sign is shrinking fund assets. At the Bitwise product, net assets fell from 1.15 million to 473,547 US dollars within six months. Every provider publishes this figure, usually updated daily on the product page.

The second sign is an absence of share creations. In the first half of 2026 not a single new BWOW share was added, while shares were redeemed. A product no fresh money flows into has its growth behind it.

The third sign is thin exchange trading. After an opening week of around 3 million US dollars in daily turnover, the fund never reached that level again. For you as an investor that is doubly unpleasant, because thin trading widens the gap between bid and ask and makes every exit more expensive.

A fourth point concerns the provider's communication: when a product is pulled from marketing material and product overviews, that is often the harbinger. Check these metrics once a quarter and a wind-up will not take you by surprise; you can decide at your own pace instead.

Dogecoin ETF discontinued: what to take away

1. Check whether this affects you at all. BWOW is a US product without a PRIIPs key information document and was as a rule not available through European portfolios. If the ticker is not in your portfolio overview, you need do nothing. Anyone holding through a US broker has until October 14, 2026 to choose between selling themselves and the automatic cash payout on October 22. Which providers come into question for the securities route is shown in the crypto broker comparison.
2. Compare the cost of your wrapper against the direct route. The Dogecoin ETP tradable in Europe carries an ongoing fee of 2.50 percent a year. Weigh that amount against the fees and effort of buying directly before you settle on a route; the terms offered by the trading venues are in the crypto exchange comparison.
3. Keep an eye on fund assets and trading turnover. Shrinking assets, absent share creation and thin trading were readable at BWOW for months. Put a quarterly date in the calendar for that check, and file the statements from any wind-up for tax purposes straight away, for which a portfolio tracker is well suited.

One closing point of context, because it tends to get lost in the excitement around individual products: a fund closure is not a default and not a loss of your money. The process is an orderly retreat in which the assets are sold and paid out. A wind-up only becomes unpleasant when it catches you unprepared and forces you to exit at a bad moment. The story of the first altcoin funds can thus be carried a little further: we covered the launch of the Dogecoin ETF in September 2025, and this is now the other end of the same story.

(As of September 11, 2026. This article is not investment advice. Prices and fee structures change; check the terms with the provider before you buy.)

Sources: press release from Bitwise Investment Advisers of September 10, 2026 on the liquidation of the Bitwise Dogecoin ETF, published via PR Newswire; product profile of the 21Shares Dogecoin ETP (ISIN CH1431521033) at justETF, retrieved on September 11, 2026; analysis of the fund data by Cryptopolitan of September 11, 2026 citing The Block, SoSoValue and ETF.com; own price reading at Coinpaprika on September 11, 2026.

If you run your own node on the Lightning Network using the Alby Hub software, you have had one concrete job since September 9, 2026: check the version number. If it reads anything between v1.7.0 and v1.18.5, and the management interface is reachable from the open internet, an attacker can gain unauthorised access and drain funds, according to the provider. Which puts the answer to the central question right at the top: check the version, close off access from the internet, update to v1.24.0, and change the unlock password afterwards.

Everything else in this article answers the questions that follow from there. Who is actually affected by the flaw, how do you tell that your installation was never exposed in the first place, and why is the fix older than the warning now making the rounds in the trade press.

What Alby Hub is and who actually runs this software

Alby Hub is software that lets you run a node on the Lightning Network yourself. The Lightning Network is a payment layer built on top of Bitcoin that moves small amounts almost instantly and at very low fees: two participants open a payment channel and only the opening and closing of that channel are recorded on the blockchain. A node, in that picture, is the machine that keeps such channels open and forwards payments.

The difference from an ordinary wallet app is decisive in this case. An app on your phone connects to somebody else's service and has no address of its own on the network. Alby Hub, by contrast, is a program that runs permanently, on a small machine at home, on a rented server, or as an application on a desktop computer. And a program that runs permanently has an interface through which it is administered.

That interface is precisely what the September 9 report is about. The people affected are therefore those who settle their bitcoin payments themselves rather than having somebody settle them. For the variant hosted by Alby, none of the reports describes a case.

Which Alby Hub versions are affected: v1.7.0 through v1.18.5

The provider has rated the flaw as critical and drawn a clear line around the affected range: versions v1.7.0 up to and including v1.18.5, all of them releases from before August 2025. From the 1.19 series onwards the flaw is fixed. According to reports so far, exactly one user is confirmed as affected.

A CVE number, the internationally standard identifier for a vulnerability, does not appear in the September 9 reports. The provider has announced that technical details will follow later, as is customary with responsible disclosure: first as many operators as possible should update, then the precise workings of the attack are described. For you that means you cannot yet check the provider's assessment for yourself. The recommended course of action does not depend on it.

One point that tends to get lost in the excitement: the version range alone does not decide the matter. An old release on a machine reachable only within your own home network was, by the provider's description, never exposed. The version number is one half of the check, reachability the other.

Why only a publicly reachable management API is exposed

The management API is the interface through which Alby Hub is administered: opening channels, triggering payments, issuing access for apps. A programming interface of this kind is at heart an address that accepts commands. Sitting behind the front door of your own network, it can only be reached by someone already inside that network. Sitting openly on the internet, it can be reached by anyone who knows or finds the address.

By the provider's account, the flaw only becomes exploitable in that second situation. Anyone who has deliberately made their node reachable from outside, say to operate it from a phone while travelling, belongs to the group at risk. Anyone who only operates it inside the home network does not.

That distinction is why the first recommended measure is not the update but the lock-down. An update takes a few minutes and, if it comes to it, a restart. Taking access off the internet takes one move in the router and works immediately.

Checking your Alby Hub version: where the number sits and what it tells you

The Alby Hub interface carries an information page showing the version alongside the node backend in use; the release notes for v1.24.0 point to exactly that page. Read the string off there and compare it against the range above. Anything below 1.19 needs updating, regardless of whether your node was ever reachable from outside.

If you have no access to the interface, the installation itself offers a way in: the file name of the downloaded package carries the version, and with a container installation it is written into the image used. If none of these routes gives an unambiguous answer, treat the installation as affected and update.

The checks in the right order

Reachability first, then the version, then the update. That order is not a formality. Update first and you leave access open throughout the download and the restart. Lock down first and you take away the flaw's precondition, then handle the rest at your own pace.

The fix is a good twelve months older than the warning

This is where the case gets more interesting than a routine call to update. For this article, cryptoticker.io retrieved the project's release overview on September 11, 2026 and evaluated the 40 most recent entries. The result puts the timeline in order.

The last affected release, v1.18.5, was published on July 31, 2025. The first entry of the 1.19 series in that overview is v1.19.1 of August 29, 2025; v1.19.2 followed the same day and v1.19.3 a day later. The current release, v1.24.0, dates from August 14, 2026. Between the first corrected release and the public warning of September 9, 2026 there is therefore a good twelve months.

One observation from the same evaluation belongs here, because it can cause confusion during the check: a standalone release numbered v1.19.0 does not appear in that overview, even though the coverage names it as the first corrected version. So if you search the list for v1.19.0 and come up empty, you have not searched wrong. What matters for you is the current release anyway, not the first corrected one.

cryptoticker.io compiled this evaluation itself on September 11, 2026. Method: retrieval of the project's release overview via the GitHub programming interface, evaluation of the 40 most recent entries by number and publication date. What could not be verified is which code change exactly fixed the flaw, since the technical details have not yet been published. Nor is it possible to establish from outside how many operators are still running an old release today.

The release notes for v1.24.0 also list a series of hardening measures that all point in the same direction: sensitive calls such as access to the recovery words and to the log now require a key with full access; the limit on failed unlock attempts was moved from the individual address to the installation as a whole; the silent acceptance of an empty unlock password inherited from old releases was removed; and a security policy was added to the documentation. Whether any of these changes is connected to the flaw now reported, the provider does not say.

Updating to v1.24.0: these steps in this order

The provider recommends raising the installation to v1.24.0. The routes there differ depending on how you run it, but the pattern stays the same.

1. End reachability from the internet before you do anything else.
2. Check that you have a backup of the recovery words and the channel data. A node with open payment channels is not a program you can simply reinstall at will.
3. Apply the update and restart the installation.
4. Look at the information page to see whether the new number is actually there.
5. Change the unlock password if the node was ever openly reachable.

A warning that comes from running Lightning nodes in general rather than from this report: restoring a node with open channels from an old backup risks publishing an outdated channel state. That can cost you funds. So read the provider's notes on backups before the update instead of working from memory.

Port forwarding, reverse proxy, tunnel: where reachability actually comes from

Hardly anyone makes their node public by accident. It happens at three typical points, and all three are deliberate decisions that are later forgotten.

The first is port forwarding in the router. It passes requests from the internet through to a device on the home network, and it stays in place until somebody removes it. The second is a web server placed in front, publishing the interface under an address of its own, often set up so the connection runs encrypted. The third is a tunnelling service that builds a connection from outside to inside without anything being changed on the router. The third route in particular is convenient and leaves no trace in the router to remind you later.

If you genuinely need access while out and about, you are better off putting it inside a private network that the phone dials into, rather than placing the management interface openly on the net. And anyone holding meaningful amounts sensibly separates the sum kept ready for everyday payments from the rest, which belongs on a device with no network connection. Which devices qualify and what sets them apart is covered in the hardware wallet comparison.

Changing the unlock password: why the update alone is not enough

The unlock password protects the running installation: without it, the software does not release its keys. The provider explicitly recommends changing it after the update if the installation was openly reachable before, and contacting the provider's security address on any suspicion of an incident.

The thinking behind it is simple. An update closes the door. What it does not undo is that somebody may have walked through that door beforehand and taken a key with them. Raise the version and leave the password as it is, and you have fixed the cause while leaving the possible consequence in place.

The same goes for the access you have granted to individual apps. Go through the list of those connections once after the update and remove anything you no longer use or cannot place.

What happens if you do nothing

Two things should be kept apart. Funds in payment channels are tied to keys that sit on your device; they do not vanish because a report appears, and they do not hang on a deadline either. There is no deadline in this case, unlike with a delisting at an exchange.

The risk is a different one: for as long as an affected release sits openly on the net, the route the provider describes stays open. And the technical details can be expected to be published at some point. From that moment the flaw is reproducible for anyone who cares to look for it. Anyone who has updated by then is out of it.

Run it yourself or have it held for you: what this case says about self-hosting

It would be the wrong conclusion to take from this report that running things yourself is a mistake. A node you run yourself makes you independent of a provider's opening hours, freezes and withdrawal deadlines. The price is the duty to keep software current, and that duty is exactly what has become visible here.

What the case shows is something more modest: the attack surface does not arise from holding the keys, but from being operable remotely. Add convenience and you add attack surface. That equation cannot be configured away, only entered into knowingly.

For most readers, a sober split follows from it. The amount you pay with day to day belongs in a software wallet or in a node that is conveniently reachable. The rest belongs on a device that is not attached to the network and makes nothing operable.

Ledger, BitBox02 and Core Lightning: the fourth wallet incident in four weeks

The case is one in a series. On August 21, 2026, BitBox closed three security holes with firmware 9.26.5; on August 25, Ledger fixed a flaw in its Ethereum app where the display could show something other than what was actually signed; and at the end of August a vulnerability in Core Lightning became known that forced node operators to act. Now Alby Hub joins them.

The cluster is no proof that self-custody has become less safe. It suggests rather that this field is now being searched and disclosed systematically. For you as an operator, one unspectacular habit follows: once a month, check whether a new release exists for every device and every piece of software that holds keys. That costs ten minutes and deals with most such reports before they reach you.

If you want first-hand evidence: the September 9 report is documented at The Hacker News, among other places, and the current release together with its release notes sits in the project's overview for v1.24.0.

Closing the Alby Hub flaw: what to take away

1. Check reachability today, then the version. If the management interface is reachable from the internet and a release below 1.19 is running, take it off the net immediately. If you would rather keep your everyday amount in a lean application than in a node of your own, you will find the candidates in the software wallet comparison.
2. Update to v1.24.0 and change the unlock password. Back up first, then update, then read the version number back. And separate the amount you move daily from the amount that just sits there; the devices for that are in the hardware wallet comparison.
3. Put a monthly update slot in the calendar. Four incidents in four weeks are not an outlier but the normal state of an industry where people are actively looking. Ten minutes a month for every device and program that holds keys, plus a look at the software wallet comparison if you want to replace an application.

(As of September 11, 2026. This article is not investment advice. Prices and fee structures change; check the terms with the provider before you buy.)

If you are holding Viction (VIC) or Layer3 (L3) on Bybit, one hard date matters above all others: trading in both tokens ends there on September 17, 2026 at 08:00 UTC. After that you can no longer sell them on Bybit, but you can still move them out. For VIC that withdrawal window runs until December 16, 2026, 08:00 UTC; for L3, Bybit names no end date at all. The Bybit delisting therefore sets a withdrawal deadline that looks completely different depending on which token you hold.

There is a second calendar on top of that, and almost nobody has it in view. Binance dropped VIC from spot trading back on August 17, and withdrawals there close on October 17, 2026, 03:00 UTC. Anyone holding VIC on both crypto exchanges is working against two clocks that sit two months apart. This piece sorts out both calendars, explains the terms behind them, and tells you which step in the next few days is actually yours to take.

What Bybit is switching off for VIC and L3: the four dates

Bybit published the removal on September 10, 2026. The exchange names the two affected spot trading pairs directly: L3USDT and VICUSDT. The process consists of four dates that fall due one after another.

• Deposits for L3 and VIC close after September 16, 2026, 08:00 UTC. Send tokens to your Bybit account after that and you risk them never being credited.
• Spot trading and Convert end after September 17, 2026, 08:00 UTC. Open orders on the two pairs are removed automatically, so you do not have to cancel them yourself.
• DCA bots and spot grid bots on L3USDT and VICUSDT are yours to close before that moment. If you do not, the system ends them for you.
• Withdrawals stay open for now. For VIC, Bybit draws the line at December 16, 2026, 08:00 UTC; for L3 the notice gives no date and merely recommends withdrawing early.

All four figures appear in the official Bybit announcement of September 10, 2026. Convert the times for your own zone: in September, 08:00 UTC is 10:00 Central European Summer Time. The close of trading therefore lands on Thursday, September 17, at 10:00 CEST.

How to find the details in the original announcement

The notice is written in English and carries the title “Delisting of L3, VIC”. If you want to check the details at the source, use the subheadings as your guide: the line “Delisted trading pairs” names L3USDT and VICUSDT. The close of trading sits under “Spot”, written there as “Sep 17, 2026, 8:00AM UTC”. The block that takes effect a day earlier is under “Deposits”. The request to shut down running bots yourself hides behind the heading “DCA Bot & Spot Grid Bot”, and the end of VIC withdrawals is right at the bottom under “Asset retirement”.

Close of trading, deposit freeze and withdrawal deadline are three different dates

The most common mistake when reading notices like this is to lump all the dates together. The three cut-offs mean very different things, and only one of them can cost you your balance.

Delisting

A delisting is the removal of a token from an exchange's offering. The token disappears from the venue, not from the blockchain: your VIC still exist unchanged after September 17, they are simply no longer tradable on Bybit.

Trading pair and close of trading

A trading pair is the combination of the token and the currency you swap it against. Bybit is not removing the tokens as such here, but the pairs against USDT. When trading closes the sell button disappears, while your balance stays visible in the account.

Deposit freeze

The deposit freeze only cuts off new supply. For anything already sitting in the account it is harmless, and at Bybit it takes effect one day before trading closes. In practice that means one thing: moving tokens from another exchange to Bybit after September 16 in order to sell them there will fail.

Withdrawal deadline

The withdrawal deadline is the last moment at which you can transfer the token from the exchange to an address you own yourself. This is the date where things get expensive, because after it your balance depends on a goodwill decision by the exchange. We have described how this chain plays out in practice in our primer on a delisting at a crypto exchange.

Why VIC holders now face two withdrawal deadlines at two exchanges

Viction is the more unusual of the two cases, because the token already has one delisting round behind it. On August 3, Binance announced it would drop six tokens, VIC among them, and ended spot trading on August 17, 2026 at 03:00 UTC. We wrote it up in detail at the time: Binance delisting on August 17: ACX, HFT, PIVX, PYR, VANRY and VIC leave spot trading.

The decisive line is the one that still looked far off back then. The Binance notice states in so many words that withdrawals of these tokens will no longer be supported after October 17, 2026, 03:00 UTC. So if you hold VIC at both venues, your calendar looks like this:

• Binance: trading ended on August 17, withdrawals until October 17, 2026, 03:00 UTC.
• Bybit: trading until September 17, 2026, 08:00 UTC, withdrawals until December 16, 2026, 08:00 UTC.

That is two cut-offs 60 days apart for one and the same token. Remember the later one and forget the earlier one, and the Binance balance drops off your radar even though the clock there runs faster. This confusion is exactly why one calendar entry per exchange and per token works better than one entry per token. And if you spread your holdings across several venues anyway, it is worth taking a sober look beforehand at which crypto exchange is actually good for which purpose.

L3 has no stated withdrawal end at Bybit, and that is no all-clear

For Layer3, the Bybit notice says only that you can continue to withdraw your holdings once trading has ended, together with a recommendation to do so early. The exchange names no end date for L3. The December 16 deadline in the notice applies to VIC alone.

Two conclusions follow from that, and a third does not. You may conclude, first, that no countdown is currently running for L3, and second, that Bybit is keeping the option open to set one later. What you may not conclude is that withdrawals will stay open indefinitely. A missing deadline is certainly not a promise; it marks a gap in the notice, and exchanges routinely add such deadlines in a second announcement. Leave L3 sitting in your account after trading closes and you are relying on reading a future announcement in time.

Forced conversion into stablecoins is a possibility, not a commitment by the exchange

Both exchanges describe the same procedure for tokens still sitting in an account once the withdrawal deadline has passed: the balance may be converted into stablecoins and credited. What matters is how carefully both houses phrase it.

Bybit writes that VIC may be converted into stablecoins on your behalf, “though this is not guaranteed” — explicitly without any guarantee. Binance puts it almost the same way and adds a second line that regularly gets lost: where a conversion is not feasible, Binance says it will keep withdrawals open, subject to the availability of the respective network.

For you that means two things. The conversion is a safety net, not an entitlement you can plan around. And it depends on conditions outside your reach, such as whether any trading venue for the conversion still exists for the token in question. With a token at VIC's trading volume that is a real question, not a theoretical one. No sentence in this announcement hands you a payout the exchanges do not promise themselves.

The system ends DCA bots and spot grid bots by itself on September 17

A spot grid bot is an automated tool that places a stream of small buy and sell orders within a defined price range. A DCA bot instead buys a fixed amount at fixed intervals, regardless of the price. Both tie up capital, and both keep running quietly if you set them up once and then forgot about them.

Bybit explicitly asks users to close active DCA and spot grid bots on L3USDT and VICUSDT before September 17, 2026, 08:00 UTC, failing which the system will end them automatically. That automation is convenient, but it comes with a catch: you no longer decide at what price the last position is unwound. Close the bot yourself and you choose the moment. Leave it to the system and you take whatever a thinned-out market offers on the day. Checking the bot overview in your account takes two minutes and belongs on the list of things you want done before the weekend.

Is Bybit authorised in the EU, and does the delisting affect you as an EU customer?

Yes, Bybit is authorised in the EU. Austria's financial market authority FMA authorised Bybit EU GmbH on May 28, 2025 as a provider of crypto-asset services under Article 63 of the European MiCA regulation. Via the European passport that authorisation applies across the entire European Economic Area, with the European seat in Vienna.

That brings a limitation you have to check yourself. The delisting notice comes from the exchange's global announcement service. If your account is held with the European entity, the range available there can differ from the global one, because MiCA sets its own requirements for listed crypto assets. So do not assume the pairs in your account are named exactly as they are in the notice. Open your balance instead and look for yourself whether VIC or L3 are actually there. If licensing is something you want to be certain about in general, our overview of regulated crypto exchanges lists the providers holding a European licence.

Where to send VIC and L3 after the withdrawal: wallet, second exchange or sale

If you have decided not to sell the tokens before trading closes, you need a destination for the withdrawal. There are three workable routes, and they differ less in effort than in the question of who holds the key afterwards.

Your own wallet

Withdrawing to an address whose key is in your hands makes you independent of any further exchange decision. For a token that has just been dropped by two venues, that is the strongest argument there is. Take care to pick the right network: Viction runs on a chain of its own, Layer3 as an ERC-20 token on Ethereum. A withdrawal sent to the wrong network is as a rule not recoverable. Our hardware wallet comparison shows which devices are suited to the job.

A second exchange

Transferring to another exchange makes sense if you can still sell the token there. Check two things first: whether the venue lists the pair at all, and whether it is currently accepting deposits for that token. After a wave of delistings it happens regularly that several houses drop the same token within a short span. A transfer into an account that blocks the token three weeks later merely postpones the problem.

Selling before trading closes

Selling by September 17 is the simplest route, and for the amounts involved here often the most sensible one. Expect liquidity to thin out in the final days before a delisting, though, with the gap between bid and ask wider than usual. A limit order protects you from exiting at a price you never intended.

What a delisting triggers for tax purposes and what it does not

In our experience this distinction costs people the most nerves, even though the core of it is simple. What counts is whether a transaction qualifies as a disposal.

A withdrawal to your own wallet is not a disposal. No owner changes, no gain or loss arises, and the holding period keeps running unchanged. In tax terms, nothing happens at all.

A sale before trading closes, by contrast, is a private disposal transaction under section 23 of the German Income Tax Act. If the purchase was more than a year ago, the gain remains tax free. Within the year, an exemption threshold of 1,000 euros has applied since 2024 for all private disposal transactions combined. Exceed it and the entire gain becomes taxable, not just the part above the threshold.

The third case is where it gets interesting. A forced conversion into stablecoins is economically an exchange, and tax law usually treats exchanges like a disposal. That argues for classifying this transaction as tax relevant too, at a moment you did not choose yourself. Which is precisely why it is cleaner to sell or withdraw under your own steam rather than leave the decision to the exchange. For larger amounts this question belongs in front of a tax adviser, not in a forum. If you have your transactions recorded on an ongoing basis anyway, our comparison of crypto tax software and portfolio trackers covers the suitable tools.

One practical note: secure the trade history and account statement for both tokens while you still have access. After a delisting, export functions for removed pairs disappear at some houses sooner than expected, and without acquisition data every later calculation turns into an estimate.

How big Viction and Layer3 actually still are

To keep the scale straight, a look at the numbers helps. According to CoinGecko data retrieved on September 11, 2026 at 08:17 UTC, Layer3 (L3) stands at around 0.0033 US dollars, a market capitalisation of roughly 5.97 million US dollars and rank 1521. Viction (VIC) trades at around 0.0047 US dollars with a good 0.6 million US dollars in market capitalisation at rank 3351. Daily volume comes to about 370,000 and 91,000 US dollars respectively.

This is not a market event, and this article is not trying to turn it into one. It is a portfolio matter. Those affected are the people still holding these tokens, often from an airdrop round or an old purchase, and who for that reason no longer check the account regularly. For that group the date very much counts, because at volumes like these even the forced conversion is anything but a given.

Your checklist for the next few days

Work through the points in this order; it follows the deadlines:

1. Check your balance. Open your Bybit holdings and look for VIC or L3. Switch on the display of small balances while you are there, otherwise the overview hides tiny amounts.
2. Switch off the bots. Check the bot overview for active DCA or spot grid bots on L3USDT and VICUSDT and close them yourself.
3. No more deposits. From September 16, 08:00 UTC, send nothing further to Bybit from outside.
4. Decide by September 17, 08:00 UTC. Sell while the pair is still running, or deliberately switch to withdrawal.
5. Check the second calendar. If you also hold VIC at Binance: withdrawals there run until October 17, 2026, 03:00 UTC. That date sits two months ahead of the Bybit one.
6. Secure your records. Export the trade history and acquisition data before the pairs vanish from the interface.

Checking the Bybit delisting: what to take away

1. September 17 is your decision day, not your end date. Until 08:00 UTC you can sell on Bybit; after that you can only withdraw. If you opt for the withdrawal, you need a destination where the key belongs to you: the selection is in the hardware wallet comparison.
2. Keep a separate deadline for each exchange. Two clocks are running for VIC: October 17 at Binance and December 16 at Bybit. If you spread holdings across several venues, you should know which provider is good for what: our overview of the best crypto exchanges sorts that out.
3. Document the transaction immediately. Whether you sell, withdraw or are converted later: without an acquisition date and purchase price, the tax return turns into an estimate. You will find the right tools in the comparison of crypto tax software.

(As of September 11, 2026. This article is not investment advice. Prices and fee structures change; check the terms with the provider before you buy.)

With 598.5 BTC still outstanding, the company says it will go to law enforcement should the funds not be returned.

Crypto majors are shaky ahead of this morning’s CPI print, but onchain is heating up for another big potential weekend.

ESMA also asks why Kalshi and Polymarket block some EU countries but not others, and notes VPNs get around the blocks.

A councilor said 90% of crypto kiosk transactions in the city are tied to fraud, calling the machines a conduit for crime.

SBF’s lawyers say he was barred from arguing customers lost nothing, and call the $11 billion forfeiture an "crushing fine."

XRP Ledger gets fresh boost as much-awaited fix amendment activates.

The $0.20 level has emerged as a key support for traders watching whether Cardano (ADA) can recover or extend its decline.

XRP might eventually overtake Binance Chain, but it requires serious architectural move up.

Key crypto updates for Sep. 11: XRP Ledger tests native ZK-privacy as Ripple launches GSmart AI, countering a chaotic breach of Anthropic's Claude models.

An emerging fraudulent scheme targeting the XRP community has been discovered, and XRPL users have been warned to stay vigilant.

TLDR:

• U.S. inflation held at 3.4% in August as gasoline prices surged 3.9% and drove one-third of CPI gains.
• Core CPI eased to 2.4% annually, its lowest since March 2021, despite a 0.3% monthly increase in August.
• September Fed hike odds rose to 82% from 68% after core CPI beat the 0.2% consensus with a 0.3% gain.
• Bitcoin held near $77,000 as two-year Treasury yields rose and broader crypto value stood near $2.63 trillion.

U.S. inflation held at 3.4% in August, but a sharp gasoline rebound pushed monthly consumer prices higher and strengthened expectations for another Federal Reserve increase. The Consumer Price Index rose 0.4% from July, accelerating from the previous month’s 0.1% gain. Annual inflation remained unchanged at 3.4%, matching economists’ expectations.

However, the report also showed further improvement beneath the headline number. Core CPI rose 0.3% monthly, while its annual rate eased to 2.4% from 2.5%. That marked the lowest core inflation reading since March 2021 and highlighted the widening gap between underlying prices and energy-driven inflation.

Gasoline Surge Keeps U.S. Inflation at 3.4%, Lifts Fed Hike Odds

Gasoline prices climbed 3.9% in August and contributed roughly one-third of the monthly CPI increase. That rebound followed a 2.9% gasoline decline during July. Energy prices were also 16.3% higher than a year earlier, while food prices increased 2.7% annually. Shelter costs, another major household expense, rose 0.3% during August.

The latest figures therefore produced a mixed picture for U.S. inflation. Core pressures continued easing annually, while energy became a stronger contributor to headline consumer costs. That shift followed several months of changing inflation conditions.

Source: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics

Headline inflation stood near 2.4% early this year before reaching approximately 4.2% in May. It then retreated to 3.4% in July and remained at that level during August. However, oil prices have since climbed above $100 per barrel amid Middle East supply concerns.

Higher energy costs have already appeared further along the production chain. August producer prices increased 0.4% monthly and 5.4% from a year earlier. Producer energy prices climbed 4.2%, while diesel prices surged 24.1%. Together, those readings reinforced the renewed focus on energy before the Fed’s September meeting.

Core CPI Hits 2021 Low as Markets Brace for Fed Decision

The CPI report arrived before the Federal Reserve’s September 15-16 policy meeting, placing inflation back at the center of the policy debate. Markets increased their expectations for a rate increase after monthly core CPI advanced 0.3%, exceeding the 0.2% consensus estimate.

Market-implied odds of a September increase climbed to about 82% following the report, compared with approximately 68% beforehand. The Fed currently holds rates at 3.50%-3.75%. The labor market also provided policymakers with another important data point.

The U.S. economy added 162,000 jobs in August, while unemployment remained at 4.1%. Financial markets initially absorbed the inflation report without a broad sell-off. S&P 500 futures gained about 1%, while Nasdaq futures advanced roughly 1.1%.

However, the two-year Treasury yield moved higher as traders increased expectations for tighter monetary policy. Meanwhile, Bitcoin remained near $77,000 after retreating amid inflation concerns and elevated yields.

The broader cryptocurrency market capitalization stood near $2.63 trillion. August therefore left policymakers facing two contrasting inflation signals. Core inflation reached its lowest annual level since 2021, while gasoline and producer energy prices accelerated.

With employment remaining resilient, the September Fed decision now becomes the next major scheduled catalyst for Treasury markets, equities and cryptocurrencies.

The post U.S. Inflation Holds at 3.4% as Gasoline Surge Revives Fed Rate Hike Risk appeared first on Blockonomi.

Key Takeaways

• The benchmark 10-year Treasury yield surpassed the 5% threshold temporarily for the first time since 2024 after August’s inflation report
• Year-over-year CPI for August remained steady at 3.4%, while core monthly inflation exceeded expectations at 0.3%
• Market probability for a Federal Reserve interest rate increase at the upcoming September 15-16 policy meeting climbed to 88% post-data release
• Brent crude prices maintained levels around $109 per barrel following a substantial weekly rally of nearly 13% amid geopolitical concerns in the Strait of Hormuz
• A persistent rise beyond the 5% level may elevate home loan costs, weigh on stock valuations, and restrict overall financial conditions

The US 10-year Treasury yield punctured the psychologically significant 5% level on Friday, marking its first breach of this threshold since 2024. The move came after August’s inflation figures registered above market expectations, prompting traders to dramatically increase bets on an imminent Federal Reserve interest rate adjustment this month.

The benchmark yield spiked sharply from 4.942% to 5.005% within moments of the Labor Department’s publication of the Consumer Price Index figures.

Breaking Down the Inflation Numbers

The annual Consumer Price Index for August remained unchanged at 3.4%. Meanwhile, the core CPI reading on a monthly basis—excluding volatile food and energy components—registered at 0.3%, surpassing the consensus estimate of 0.2%.

This came on the heels of Thursday’s Producer Price Index data showing 5.4% growth, another figure that exceeded analyst projections. Energy price increases are rapidly transmitting through production and distribution networks.

Global oil benchmark Brent crude remained anchored near $109 per barrel, completing a remarkable weekly advance of approximately 13%. Armed conflicts affecting the Strait of Hormuz shipping lane and Houthi militant operations in the Red Sea corridor have constrained petroleum shipments from major producing nations.

Market Pricing for Federal Reserve Action

In the immediate aftermath of the inflation data release, interest rate futures contracts indicated an 88% probability of a 25-basis-point rate elevation at the Federal Reserve’s September 15-16 policy deliberations, up substantially from the 71% probability calculated earlier that trading session.

The European Central Bank implemented a quarter-percentage-point rate increase to 2.50% on Thursday, contributing to the global monetary tightening trend.

Shorter-duration two-year Treasury yields, which exhibit greater responsiveness to imminent Fed policy adjustments, advanced to 4.61%. Long-dated thirty-year yields climbed to 5.338%, representing their most elevated reading since 2007.

The fixed-income selloff has reverberated internationally. Australia’s government bond yields reached levels not witnessed since 2011. Japanese sovereign yields are approaching the 3% mark.

“Reaching 5% on the 10-year Treasury yield appears more like a certainty at this juncture rather than merely a projection,” observed Padhraic Garvey, Americas research director at ING Groep.

Economic Implications of 5% Treasury Yields

When the 10-year yield exceeds 5%, it elevates borrowing expenses throughout the broader economy. Home mortgage pricing, business debt refinancing expenses, and consumer lending rates all track movements in Treasury yields.

Additionally, it narrows the equity risk premium, enhancing the relative attractiveness of fixed-income securities versus equity investments.

“Though we remain skeptical that 5% represents some ‘magical’ threshold, elevated Treasury yields would undoubtedly present challenges to the sustainability of America’s government finances while potentially undermining equity markets,” noted John Higgins from Capital Economics.

For Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, a prolonged period above 5% generates political headwinds approaching midterm elections, particularly as home mortgage rates have already reached their peak levels in more than a year.

The Federal Reserve’s policy gathering scheduled for September 15-16 has emerged as the pivotal event commanding market attention.

The post 10-Year Treasury Yield Surges Past 5% Following Hot August Inflation Data appeared first on Blockonomi.

Key Highlights

• Silver Lake-affiliated entities offloaded more than $41 million worth of Dell shares on September 8, 2026
• Transaction prices ranged between $515.87 and $537.00 per share
• Dell’s stock has surged 309% in the past 12 months
• Analysts including JPMorgan and Bernstein boosted targets to $635 and $650
• Company maintains a massive $95 billion AI server order backlog

Shares of Dell Technologies (DELL) climbed more than 10% to $559 during Thursday’s session, shrugging off significant insider selling that occurred earlier in the week from major stakeholders.

Dell Technologies Inc., DELL

According to regulatory filings, SL SPV-2, L.P., which serves as both a director and holds over 10% ownership in Dell, disposed of 49,909 Class C shares on September 8. The sale generated approximately $26.3 million, with individual share prices spanning from $515.87 to $537.00.

That same trading day saw Silver Lake Partners V DE (AIV), L.P., another entity with 10% ownership status, unload 29,504 Class C shares valued at $15.1 million. These transactions occurred within the identical price band of $515.87 to $537.00 per share.

Combined, these Silver Lake-connected entities shed over $41 million worth of Dell stock within a 24-hour period.

The filings reveal that both organizations simultaneously converted Class B shares into Class C shares at no cost. SL SPV-2 executed a conversion of 74,083 shares, while Silver Lake Partners V converted 41,165 shares through this mechanism.

Post-transaction records show SL SPV-2 maintaining indirect ownership of 24,134 Class C shares. The entity continues to control 16,383,250 Class B shares, which carry conversion rights into Class C stock.

Egon Durban, who heads Silver Lake Group and sits on Dell’s board, maintains direct ownership of 1,398,935 Class C shares. An additional 51,173 shares are controlled indirectly via a family trust structure.

According to InvestingPro analysis, Dell currently trades above its calculated Fair Value estimate, placing it among the platform’s most overvalued tracked equities. The company’s PEG ratio registers at 0.2, while its market capitalization has reached $322 billion.

Wall Street Raises Expectations

The insider selling hasn’t deterred analyst enthusiasm for Dell. JPMorgan elevated its price objective to $635, emphasizing robust fiscal Q2 2027 performance and an enhanced full-year guidance powered by artificial intelligence demand and enterprise IT infrastructure investments.

Bernstein pushed its target even higher to $650, referencing impressive 26% year-over-year storage revenue expansion and unprecedented profitability stemming from competitive market share capture.

TD Cowen adjusted its target upward to $500, projecting AI server demand to triple throughout fiscal year 2027.

Truist Securities established its objective at $505, emphasizing Dell’s enormous $95 billion AI server pipeline, which provides revenue clarity extending well into fiscal year 2028.

Record Pipeline Fuels Optimism

KeyBanc maintained its Sector Weight stance following impressive quarterly earnings, though analysts expressed measured caution regarding additional near-term appreciation from present valuation levels.

Dell’s remarkable 309% gain over the trailing twelve months positions it among the elite performers within the large-capitalization technology sector.

The unprecedented $95 billion AI server backlog continues to capture significant analyst attention, viewed as a critical indicator of sustained demand momentum extending into fiscal 2028.

Among recent Wall Street revisions, JPMorgan’s $635 projection and Bernstein’s $650 target represent the most optimistic forecasts currently published.

The post Dell Technologies (DELL) Stock Surges 10% Despite $41M Insider Sale by Silver Lake appeared first on Blockonomi.

Key Takeaways

• Wedbush launched cybersecurity sector coverage, assigning outperform designations to CrowdStrike, Palo Alto Networks, Rubrik, and Datadog
• CrowdStrike earned recognition as a premier tech selection for the upcoming 12-18 months, featuring a $250 target driven by AI-powered platform capabilities
• Palo Alto Networks joined Wedbush’s Best Ideas List with a $400 target, supported by impressive 34% annual revenue expansion
• Four companies faced downgrades: Check Point, Fortinet, Varonis, and Telos, with Fortinet and Varonis seeing price target increases despite rating cuts
• Wedbush emphasized that cybersecurity spending is shifting toward platform consolidation rather than overall budget expansion

On September 11, Wedbush Securities launched comprehensive coverage of cybersecurity equities, awarding outperform designations to select companies while reducing ratings for others. The investment firm highlighted artificial intelligence as the primary catalyst transforming corporate cybersecurity investment strategies.

The analysis identified five foundational trends influencing cybersecurity expenditure patterns: AI-powered defense mechanisms spanning technology infrastructure, platform consolidation among vendors, enhanced data protection, improved observability solutions, and evolving vulnerability management approaches. Wedbush emphasized that enterprise budgets are consolidating around fewer platforms rather than expanding overall.

CrowdStrike Earns Premium Tech Status

CrowdStrike secured an outperform designation alongside a $250 price objective, adjusted to account for the company’s recent 4-for-1 stock division. Wedbush characterized it as among their highest-conviction cybersecurity investments and a preferred technology selection for the subsequent 12-18 month period.

CrowdStrike Holdings, Inc., CRWD

Analysts highlighted CrowdStrike’s Falcon platform and its leadership position in AI-enhanced endpoint security solutions. The firm also emphasized the company’s advancements in autonomous security agents and security operations center automation as promising expansion opportunities.

CrowdStrike delivered 25% annual recurring revenue expansion, accompanied by 51% growth in net new ARR during its latest reporting period. The organization also released preliminary fiscal 2028 net new ARR growth projections of minimum 20%, exceeding Wall Street expectations.

Palo Alto Networks earned placement on Wedbush’s Best Ideas List with a $400 valuation target. Analysts described it as the most successful platform consolidation story in the cybersecurity landscape. The company achieved 34% revenue growth annually in fiscal 2026, while platform-based transactions surged 78% year-over-year to reach 2,500.

Rubrik received a $120 price objective and was identified as the premier cyber resilience investment among publicly traded companies. The firm demonstrated 38% annual revenue acceleration and maintained 119% net retention metrics.

Datadog garnered an outperform rating with a $275 target. Wedbush positioned it as the leading dedicated solution for cloud-native monitoring and observability. The company reported 36% revenue growth year-over-year, marking its sixth consecutive quarter of accelerating performance.

Rating Reductions Impact Check Point, Fortinet, Varonis, and Telos

Check Point received a downgrade to neutral accompanied by a reduced $135 price target, declining from the previous $160 level. While Wedbush recognized the organization’s transformation initiatives under executive leadership, analysts noted decelerating growth momentum entering fiscal 2027.

Fortinet similarly faced a neutral downgrade, though its price target rose to $155 from $125. Wedbush suggested the stock’s approximately 100% year-to-date appreciation has already incorporated optimistic scenario expectations.

Varonis was moved to neutral with an elevated $46 price target. While Wedbush acknowledged the company’s favorable positioning for autonomous AI applications and data security solutions, analysts noted that growth metrics continue trailing industry peers.

Telos received the most severe assessment, downgraded to underperform with a $5 price objective. The firm cited concerns regarding inconsistency in government contract performance and limited early adoption of the Xacta.ai platform offering.

CrowdStrike shares advanced approximately 0.5% during early September 11 trading activity, while Check Point and Fortinet experienced modest declines.

The post Wedbush Elevates CrowdStrike (CRWD) and Palo Alto Networks as Leading Cybersecurity Investment Choices appeared first on Blockonomi.

Key Takeaways

• JPMorgan initiated coverage on HIMS with a Neutral stance and $32 price objective, representing approximately 16% potential gain from present levels
• Analysts highlight concerns regarding the company’s strategic pivot from compounded GLP-1 medications to FDA-sanctioned branded alternatives such as Wegovy
• Through its collaboration with Novo Nordisk, the telehealth platform delivered more than 125,000 Wegovy orders within the initial six-week period
• Second-quarter revenue reached $753.21 million, reflecting a 38.2% year-over-year increase, though the firm significantly underperformed on profitability with a $0.37 per share loss against consensus expectations of a $0.05 loss
• Additional challenges stem from an FTC regulatory complaint and ongoing securities litigation

HIMS began Friday’s session at $27.52, substantially below its 52-week peak of $65.30. The $32 valuation from JPMorgan suggests measured optimism rather than strong bullishness. Shares declined roughly 1% during trading.

Hims & Hers Health, Inc., HIMS

Investment analyst Bryan Smilek from JPMorgan launched coverage with a Neutral assessment, acknowledging the firm’s impressive expansion while highlighting meaningful implementation challenges connected to its GLP-1 product transformation.

The telehealth provider announced in March its decision to cease marketing compounded GLP-1 treatments and transition completely to branded, FDA-sanctioned medications. This strategic shift introduces uncertainty. Compounded product sales are declining as branded prescription volumes continue building.

Smilek forecasts 2026 GLP-1 revenue reaching $1.1 billion, representing 46% year-over-year growth, fueled by the Novo Nordisk collaboration. His analysis suggests the Wegovy arrangement should sufficiently offset losses from discontinued compounded sales.

The Novo collaboration started strongly. The platform processed over 125,000 Wegovy orders during the initial six-week window.

JPMorgan identifies substantial opportunity in the GLP-1 sector. The investment firm projects U.S. cash-paying GLP-1 consumers could expand from approximately 2.8 million currently to beyond 8 million by 2030.

Management is pursuing 2030 revenue exceeding $6.5 billion with adjusted EBITDA surpassing $1.3 billion, powered by global expansion and additional product categories including peptide therapies.

Financial Performance

Recent quarterly results presented contrasting signals. Revenue of $753.21 million exceeded the $698.90 million consensus and increased 38.2% year over year.

However, profitability proved disappointing. The firm recorded a loss of $0.37 per share, significantly worse than the anticipated loss of $0.05. This substantial shortfall concerned investors.

Shares fell 7.7% after the earnings announcement, according to Zacks, demonstrating HIMS’s vulnerability to profitability concerns.

Regulatory and Legal Challenges

Beyond disappointing earnings, HIMS confronts two regulatory issues. The FTC has filed a complaint alleging misleading and illegal privacy practices. Additionally, a securities class action encompasses shareholders who owned HIMS between August 2025 and July 2026, with a lead-plaintiff filing deadline of November 2, 2026.

While neither matter has reached resolution, both create additional uncertainty.

Wall Street consensus reflects a Hold recommendation. Among 16 analysts monitored by MarketBeat, 12 assign Hold ratings, three recommend Buy, and one suggests Sell. The consensus price objective stands at $32.43.

JPMorgan’s Smilek indicates he needs evidence that the branded GLP-1 transition succeeds, emerging specialties demonstrate sustainable growth, and profit margins improve before adopting a more optimistic stance.

Company insiders have reduced positions. During the past 90 days, insiders disposed of 190,227 shares valued at more than $6.1 million.

The post JPMorgan Assigns Neutral Rating to Hims & Hers (HIMS) Stock Amid GLP-1 Strategy Transition appeared first on Blockonomi.