Oracle's strategy of leveraging customer prepayments for data center expansion highlights a shift towards customer-funded infrastructure growth.

The post Oracle secures billions from AI customers for data center expansion appeared first on Crypto Briefing.

Accelerated EU banking reforms could enhance financial integration, boost investment, and improve competitiveness against global counterparts.

The post Banco Santander, BNP Paribas, Barclays push for faster EU banking reforms appeared first on Crypto Briefing.

Regional tensions may escalate, impacting maritime security and market stability, with potential shifts in military and diplomatic strategies.

The post Admiral Cooper in Saudi Arabia for talks on Houthi advances in Yemen appeared first on Crypto Briefing.

The UK's adoption of Starshield highlights a shift towards reliance on private satellite networks, raising strategic dependency concerns in Europe.

The post Britain confirms use of SpaceX’s Starshield for military communications appeared first on Crypto Briefing.

Sustained outflows from Chinese equities highlight growing investor skepticism, potentially impacting China's economic growth and market stability.

The post IIF reports $3.5B outflow from China equities in August as foreign investors stay cautious appeared first on Crypto Briefing.

Bitcoin Magazine

Bitcoin Price Spikes, Shrugs off Hot US Inflation Data

Bitcoin’s price rose on Friday — despite data revealing that U.S. inflation had risen. 

The biggest cryptocurrency by market cap was recently trading for close to $78,749 after jumping 2% over a 24-hour period. At one point on Friday morning in New York, bitcoin rose as high as $79,607. 

Bitcoin’s price spike came after news dropped that U.S. consumer prices accelerated in August, reinforcing ​expectations that the Federal Reserve will raise interest rates next week.

The consumer price index, excluding food and energy, climbed 0.3% in August from a month earlier, which was higher than expected. 

Inflation in the U.S. has been difficult to tame due to the war with Iran, which has lifted oil prices, in turn raising the costs of food, gasoline and other goods. 

Higher inflation typically means the Federal Reserve will raise interest rates, which in turn could stop bitcoin’s price climbing higher. 

According to CME’s FedWatch tool, traders think there is a 85% chance interest rates will be higher by next week. The Federal Reserve will meet next week and reveal what it will do with borrowing costs. 

Bitcoin has typically performed well in a low interest rate environment because it means people can buy more of the cryptocurrency with increased liquidity. 

Federal Reserve Chairman Kevin Warsh, who took the helm in January, last month gave his first speech as head of the U.S. central bank and said he had “more work to do” to fight inflation. 

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 and repeatedly put pressure on the central bank to lower interest rates. 

Bitcoin in August had its biggest run in years following positive regulatory news and an announcement from the U.S. Treasury. 

Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent announced the department would double the size of its long-dated bond buybacks, helping non-yielding assets like bitcoin and gold. The cryptocurrency then benefited from President Trump urging lawmakers to get key crypto legislation, the Clarity Act, over the line. 

This post Bitcoin Price Spikes, Shrugs off Hot US Inflation Data first appeared on Bitcoin Magazine and is written by Mathew Di Salvo.

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.

US consumer prices increased faster in August, giving the Federal Reserve another reason to be cautious about lowering interest rates and leaving Bitcoin investors exposed to a prolonged period of expensive borrowing.

The Consumer Price Index (CPI) rose 0.4% from July, when it increased 0.1%, while the annual inflation rate held at 3.4%. Excluding food and energy, prices rose 0.3%, compared with 0.2% a month earlier, even as the annual core rate eased to 2.4% from 2.5%.

Thursday's producer price report (PPI) showed a 0.4% monthly increase and a 5.4% annual gain. Energy accounted for much of the increase in both reports, although the faster monthly core CPI reading showed that consumer inflation also picked up outside fuel and food.

That combination weakens the argument that slower annual inflation will soon bring lower interest rates. Investors holding cash can continue earning interest elsewhere, while those borrowing to invest face financing costs that reduce what they can earn from an increase in Bitcoin's price.

The Fed's Sept. 15–16 meeting will put those costs back in the spotlight. The releases will enable officials to keep policy restrictive, but their decision will also depend on employment and their assessment of how long the latest price increases will last.

CPI jumped on energy while core inflation accelerated too

Source: BLS releases linked above. Monthly figures are seasonally adjusted; annual figures are unadjusted. July PPI figures reflect the latest published estimates.

Gasoline prices rose 3.9% in August, accounting for more than a third of the monthly CPI increase, while shelter costs rose 0.3%. The producer report showed energy prices up 4.2%, accounting for more than three-quarters of the increase in final-demand goods prices.

The concentration in energy gives policymakers a reason to look beyond the headline numbers when judging whether inflation will persist. Fuel prices can reverse, and interest rates have limited influence over the supply disruptions that can make energy more expensive. Higher fuel bills can also leave households with less money for other purchases, weakening overall demand.

The difficulty for the Fed is that sustained energy increases can become part of other businesses' costs. Transport companies may charge customers more, while manufacturers may seek to recover higher delivery expenses through their selling prices. How much reaches consumers depends on contracts and whether businesses can raise prices without losing sales.

Producer prices therefore offer information about costs moving through the economy, although PPI covers domestic producers' sales for business investment and exports as well as household consumption. Its annual rate measures a different set of transactions from CPI, so it cannot be treated as a forecast of the inflation consumers will experience next.

However, some producer details were more reassuring.

Services prices rose just 0.1%, while the measure excluding food, energy, and trade services slowed to 0.3% from 0.4%. Trade services measure reseller margins, which is why that exclusion makes it different from the familiar core CPI measure.

But consumer inflation was less reassuring at the monthly level. In a preview published Thursday, StoneX's Matt Weller cited expectations for a 0.2% core increase and argued that a reading rounding to 0.3% could support a rate increase. Friday's result met that threshold, although his assessment was a forecast of how officials might respond rather than a rule governing their decision.

The lower annual core reading can coexist with that result because it compares prices with a year earlier, while the monthly figure measures the latest movement. Annual inflation can ease as an older, larger increase drops out of the comparison, even when the recent pace accelerates.

The Fed also targets overall PCE inflation, a separate measure of consumer spending that draws on both CPI and some producer prices. Friday's annual core CPI reading is therefore only part of the evidence officials will use to judge progress toward their 2% objective.

Higher rates affect who is willing to buy Bitcoin

Bitcoin's appeal as protection against a loss of purchasing power can coexist with sensitivity to interest rates because investors have to decide what to hold while waiting for that long-term argument to pay off.

Someone buying Bitcoin with their own cash gives up the interest they could earn on government debt. Higher returns on those securities can make waiting more attractive, particularly to investors who want exposure to Bitcoin but have no immediate reason to add to their holdings. Borrowers face a more direct expense because interest payments reduce their eventual profit or deepen a loss.

Those decisions can easily change before the Fed acts. Expectations of higher rates influence bond yields and lending conditions, allowing an inflation release to affect investment decisions even when the official policy rate hasn't moved.

The return available elsewhere also depends on inflation itself. Investors watching inflation-protected Treasury yields can assess what government debt offers in inflation-adjusted terms, which helps explain why the direction of ordinary bond yields alone gives an incomplete account of Bitcoin's competition for capital.

Bitcoin's price also depends on what investors had already expected, and crypto-specific buying can outweigh an uncomfortable inflation number.

The reports do, however, make it harder to argue that a lower annual core reading has removed the interest rate risk. Bitcoin can attract buyers on its own merits while still facing an economy in which financing stays costly and investors are paid to keep their money elsewhere.

The post CPI and PPI climb, crushing hopes for cheap money and leaving Bitcoin traders with an expensive dilemma appeared first on CryptoSlate.

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.

When a crypto exchange reports that deposits and withdrawals are “delayed”, it sounds like a footnote. At Kraken it has turned this week into a condition that has now lasted seven days, and that falls on this particular day together with a deadline that is final for one of the affected tokens. The short answer to the question of what you have to do: check today whether your coin is listed as disrupted on the exchange's status page, and do not rely on what the trading view shows you. Both sources come from Kraken, and they contradict each other.

This analysis was carried out by cryptoticker.io on September 11, 2026. We pulled the exchange's public status page and its public market data interface on the same morning and compared them line by line. What came out of it appears in no announcement by the exchange.

What Kraken Reports as a Funding Incident and What It Means for Your Account

Funding is the umbrella term at a crypto exchange for everything that brings balance onto the account or takes it off again: deposits from your own wallet, withdrawals to your own wallet, plus transfers in euros or dollars. Trading itself is expressly not part of it. That very separation explains why the current situation feels so harmless: prices are running, charts are updating, buying and selling work. Only the way out is blocked for part of the networks.

Kraken keeps a separate entry for every single network on its public status page. Such an entry can take four states, and the most important dividing line runs between “operational” and everything else. Where it says degraded performance, it means in the language of the exchange: the gateway for this network is working, but not reliably. A withdrawal may go through, it may take hours, it may get stuck. No commitment as to when the condition ends comes with it.

Disrupted Since September 4: 19 Networks From the Cosmos Ecosystem

The incident at issue carries the title “Funding delays for select blockchain networks” at Kraken and was opened on September 4, 2026 at 21:43 UTC. It names 19 affected networks: Akash (AKT), Babylon (BABY), Celestia (TIA), Cosmos (ATOM), dYdX (DYDX), Dymension (DYM), Fetch.ai (FET), Initia (INIT), Injective (INJ), Juno (JUNO), Kava (KAVA), Mantra (MANTRA), Neutron (NTRN), Osmosis (OSMO), Saga (SAGA), Secret Network (SCRT), Sei (SEI), Terra Classic (LUNA) and THORChain (RUNE).

That list has a pattern you should not miss. Almost all the chains named belong to the Cosmos ecosystem or speak its transfer protocol. That points to a shared technical cause in the connection path rather than 19 independent failures on the same evening. Kraken itself has published nothing on the cause to date. Eight status updates since September 4 contain essentially the same sentence: work on a solution continues. The most recent of those updates is dated September 10, 12:33 UTC.

The incident still sits at the processing state “identified”. That means the cause is known to the exchange and the fix is in progress. This state names no target date, and Kraken has not supplied one since.

Our Own Analysis: 725 Funding Services Checked, Nine Flagged as Disrupted

For this article we pulled the status page on September 11, 2026 at around 12:55 UTC via its public data interface. The page timestamp reported in the response itself is 12:29:12 UTC on the same day. The analysis covers 831 entries spread across seven areas. By far the largest of them is “Digital Currency Funding” with exactly 725 individual services, meaning one entry for every combination of coin and network.

Of those 725 services, nine were not on “operational” at the moment we pulled the data. Sorted by the time since which each entry has been flagged as disrupted:

• Stablr Euro (EURR) and Stablr USD (USDR) on Ethereum — both since August 12, 2026, 10:16 UTC. The associated incident reaches back further: it was opened on May 24, 2026, after a problem occurred in the underlying smart contract. Kraken suspended deposits and withdrawals for both tokens and set the markets to “post only”.
• MemeCore (M) on BNB Chain — since August 19, 2026, 08:20 UTC. Here the exchange released withdrawals again after a few hours and instead switched off deposits as a precaution.
• Fetch.ai (FET), Juno (JUNO), Mantra (MANTRA), Osmosis (OSMO) and THORChain (RUNE) — all since September 4, 2026, 21:43 UTC, so for exactly one week.
• Polkadot (DOT) — since September 11, 2026, 10:05 UTC, the morning of this article.

What is remarkable about this list is less its length than what is missing from it. Of the 19 networks the September 4 incident originally named, only five are flagged as disrupted today. Cosmos (ATOM), Celestia (TIA), Injective (INJ), Sei (SEI) and ten others are back on “operational”, while the incident itself formally stays open. Anyone reading only the incident notice therefore assumes 19 networks are affected, while by our measurement it is five. The reliable information sits in the individual service entries, not in the headline above them.

One limit of this survey belongs with it: it is a snapshot of a single data pull. It says nothing about how many withdrawals were actually delayed, how long an individual transaction took and how many customers were affected. Only the exchange has those figures, and it does not publish them.

Polkadot (DOT) Since This Morning: The Second, Separate Incident

The Polkadot entry is not part of the Cosmos disruption but an incident of its own with its own notice. Kraken opened it today at 10:05 UTC: it was investigating a problem with the Polkadot funding gateway, deposits and withdrawals might be delayed, all other funding methods were working normally. At 11:14 UTC came the follow-up that the cause had been found and a fix was being deployed.

That is the usual course of events, and in most cases such an entry has disappeared again after a few hours. It is still relevant to you, because it shows how quickly a network can slip into this state. Anyone who checked yesterday evening whether DOT was withdrawable had a green display in front of them. This morning that answer no longer holds.

Why the Trading Interface Reports “enabled” While the Status Page Shows a Disruption

Alongside the status page, Kraken runs an open market data interface that keeps a status entry for every tradable asset. We pulled it in the same working step: 843 entries, of which 841 carry the note “enabled”. Only two assets, ANSEM and NATG, sit there on “withdrawal_only”, meaning they may be withdrawn but not deposited.

JUNO shows as “enabled” in that interface. So do FET, MANTRA, OSMO, RUNE and DOT. The same exchange, the same minute, two opposing statements about the same coin.

Technically that is not a contradiction, because the two systems answer different questions. The market data interface describes whether an asset is generally cleared for trading. The status page describes whether the gateway to the respective network is working right now. In practice the difference is awkward all the same, because many portfolio trackers, trading apps and tax tools read their status information from the market data interface. Anyone relying on that gets a completely unremarkable display for a disrupted coin. The disruption is simply not provided for in these tools.

The JUNO Case: A Delisting Deadline Meets a Broken Withdrawal Gateway

Two processes converge here that are each known on their own and together add up to a problem. At the end of August, Kraken announced that it would remove 21 assets from its offering. Affected are XTER, IR, GAIA, SCA, VANRY, BNC, SBR, RBC, MIR, JUNO, HDX, ACA, MULTI, RIZE, EPT, MAT, CQT, CXT, BKS, VULT and M. The dates are set out in the exchange's notice and are unambiguous: deposits and trading end on September 11, 2026 at 14:00 UTC, withdrawals on December 10, 2026 at 15:00 UTC. Whatever is still sitting in the account after that, Kraken sells itself between December 14 and 18.

The exchange states the consequence of that sale unusually plainly. Several of the affected assets have only thin or inactive markets left, it says, so the proceeds could be well below the prices last seen and in some cases minimal or zero. That is not our reading; it is what the delisting notice says.

Two names from that list now also appear in our disruption analysis: JUNO has been flagged as disrupted since September 4, MemeCore (M) since August 19. For JUNO that means in concrete terms: trading ends today at 14:00 UTC, so the convenient route of simply selling the position and leaving the proceeds in euros falls away. What remains is the withdrawal to your own wallet, and that runs through exactly the gateway that has been flagged as disrupted for a week. Anyone who does not get that withdrawal through by December 10 ends up in the automatic disposal.

Three months is a lot of time for that, and the disruption will in all likelihood be fixed long before. Even so, it is the difference between a task you handle today in five minutes and one you have to sort out with customer support in December under time pressure. For MemeCore (M) the situation is more relaxed: there, according to the status notice, only deposits are switched off, while withdrawals were released again on the same day.

Checking the Funding Status Yourself: The Two Addresses You Need

The good news about this case is that you need neither an account nor a tool for the check. Kraken puts its status page openly on the web, and it is readable in a browser. At status.kraken.com you will find the “Digital Currency Funding” area with the 725 individual services. There you look for the name of your coin and read off the state next to it. Anything other than “operational” is a reason not to leave your withdrawal until the last day.

The second address is the exchange's own delisting notice. It sits at support.kraken.com and names the affected assets along with all three dates. You can open both pages without signing in, and both are the position the exchange commits to itself.

This check is not a Kraken peculiarity. Almost every larger exchange runs a page of this kind, and in a separate analysis of several exchange status pages on September 7 we showed how differently detailed these pages are kept. Anyone regularly active on several venues should bookmark the relevant addresses once. Which venues offer that kind of transparency at all is, incidentally, a usable selection criterion and feeds into our crypto exchange comparison.

Stablr USD and Stablr Euro: When a Disruption Lasts Three Months

The oldest open entry in our analysis is also the most uncomfortable one. On May 24, 2026, Kraken suspended deposits and withdrawals for the two stablecoins Stablr USD (USDR) and Stablr Euro (EURR), because a problem had occurred in the underlying smart contract. In the same breath the exchange stated that there was no indication its own wallets or systems were affected, and set the markets to “post only”. The last substantive status update on this is dated July 1, 2026 and says work on a solution continues.

That leaves this incident open for more than three and a half months. For a stablecoin, a token whose entire purpose is to be redeemable one to one against a currency at any time, that is a remarkable condition. It shows that “temporarily suspended” is a very elastic statement at an exchange. There is no deadline by which an exchange would have to resolve such a state.

What “degraded performance” Does Not Mean Legally at an Exchange

A status notice is operational information, not a commitment. No entitlement to a withdrawal within a particular period follows from the entry “degraded performance”, and it is not an admission of fault either. Conversely, “operational” does not mean that an individual withdrawal will go through; it can get stuck for entirely different reasons, such as a source-of-funds check or a missing approval on your side.

This distinction matters so that you hold the right expectation. The status page tells you whether a known problem exists. It does not tell you when it will be fixed, and it does not replace a query to customer support when a specific transaction is stuck.

Withdrawal Stuck: These Steps, in This Order

If a withdrawal is not going through for you right now, work through the following order before you write to customer support. It costs a few minutes and answers most cases.

Network Status First, Everything Else After

Check on the status page whether your coin or your chosen network is listed as disrupted. Many coins can be withdrawn over several chains, and the entries differ: a token can run normally on Ethereum and stand still on a second chain. If the entry is disrupted, your withdrawal is as a rule still sitting in the queue and is not lost.

Check Whether Another Network Is Open

If your preferred route is flagged as disrupted but another one is on “operational”, you can often simply switch the withdrawal route. Make sure that your receiving wallet really supports the chain you choose. A withdrawal to an address on the wrong chain is the most expensive mistake in this whole process and is usually not recoverable.

Only Then Support and Documentation

If the status stays green and your withdrawal is stuck anyway, the cause most likely lies with your account rather than with the network. Then it is a matter of approvals, checks or a stored withdrawal address. How to secure that route in advance is something we have described using the example of the withdrawal whitelist.

Move Delisted Tokens in Time Instead of Letting Them Be Liquidated

For the 21 assets whose trading ends today at 14:00 UTC, a logic of their own applies. After the trading halt only the transfer remains. Where to depends on the token: some remain listed on other venues, others practically nowhere. Which routes exist for this and what to watch out for during the transfer is set out in our piece on delisted tokens and fallback exchanges. The announcement itself and its dates we wrote up in our coverage of the trading halt for 21 tokens.

Anyone shying away from the effort should take the exchange's warning seriously that the disposal proceeds in December may be minimal or zero. With a holding of a few euros that is a defensible decision. With a position of any size it is not.

What This Case Says About Custody on an Exchange

The actual lesson of this episode has little to do with Kraken. As long as your coins sit on a trading venue, your access depends on that venue's infrastructure. If a gateway is not running, your balance is there, visible and tradable, but it does not come out. That is no accusation against a single exchange but a property of custody with a third party.

No panic follows from this, and no immediate withdrawal of all holdings. What follows is a split: what you actively trade belongs on the trading venue. What you want to hold for longer belongs in custody that nobody else has a switch for. Which devices come into question for that and how they differ is set out in our hardware wallet comparison, linked in the final section.

Checking Kraken's Funding Status: What to Take Away

1. Check today whether your coin is affected. Open the “Digital Currency Funding” area on the status page and look for your asset. If it says anything other than “operational”, do not plan your withdrawal for the last day. Where else you can trade is set out with the respective providers in our exchange comparison.
2. If you hold one of the 21 delisted assets, act before 14:00 UTC. After that, selling is no longer possible and only the withdrawal until December 10 remains. For JUNO that route currently runs through a disrupted gateway. Whether your venue is supervised at all is answered by a look at the comparison of regulated crypto exchanges.
3. Separate your trading holdings from your long-term holdings. What you do not move does not have to sit on the exchange. The right custody for the dormant part is set out in our hardware wallet comparison.

(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.)

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.)

Inflation held at 3.4% and core cooled annually, but a hot monthly core reading kept Fed hike odds near 62% while crypto markets rallied broadly.

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.

BlackRock has accumulated about $250 million of Ethereum’s over the last 20 days while the asset continues to show mixed price actions.

21Shares explains why US ETFs doubled their XRP holdings to $200 million after the SEC verdict.

Grayscale Head of Research Zach Pandl says hotter-than-expected U.S. inflation could create a temporary “speed bump” for crypto.

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.

TLDR

• Celestica stock jumps 5.74% as the company unveils new executive leadership roles.
• Mandeep Chawla moves from CFO to the new Group President Global Markets role.
• Todd Ankenmann becomes Celestica CFO when the leadership changes begin October 1.
• The leadership changes aim to strengthen execution across Celestica’s markets.
• Celestica expands its management structure as data center demand supports growth.

Celestica Inc. (CLS) stock climbed sharply as the company announced executive changes designed to support its expanding global operations. CLS traded at $343.88, gaining 5.74% after rising from earlier levels near $325. The appointments strengthen Celestica’s leadership structure as demand grows across its data center and advanced technology businesses.

Celestica Inc., CLS

Celestica Stock Rises as Company Reshapes Executive Leadership

Celestica named Mandeep Chawla Group President of Global Markets, creating a new senior leadership position within the company. Chawla will take the role on October 1, 2026, after serving as Celestica’s Chief Financial Officer. The company expects the new structure to support stronger commercial execution across its expanding international markets.

Chawla will oversee global market expansion while coordinating Celestica’s broader commercial activities across major business segments. His responsibilities will include supporting business growth, improving execution, and helping the company address rising customer demand. Therefore, the appointment gives Celestica a dedicated executive focused on scaling commercial operations across its global markets.

Chawla has served as Celestica’s CFO since 2017 and has supported several major changes within the company. He joined Celestica in 2010 after spending nearly a decade working at General Electric. His previous roles also included senior positions across engineering and life sciences businesses before joining Celestica.

Todd Ankenmann Takes Over as Celestica CFO

Celestica appointed Todd Ankenmann as Chief Financial Officer, replacing Chawla when the leadership changes take effect. Ankenmann currently serves as Senior Vice President of Finance and joined Celestica in 2018. He has worked across strategic planning, commercial execution, and financial reporting during his time with the company.

Ankenmann also brings experience from Celestica’s Advanced Technology Solutions and Connectivity and Cloud Solutions operations. That background gives him direct knowledge of the business units driving important parts of Celestica’s revenue base. Consequently, the company expects the internal appointment to support continuity across its finance operations and growth plans.

Before joining Celestica, Ankenmann spent more than ten years holding senior finance positions at General Electric. His experience included financial management responsibilities across large and complex operating businesses. Celestica selected him as the company expands its infrastructure business and manages increasing demand from technology customers.

Celestica Targets Multi-Year Global Market Expansion

Celestica has expanded its role in data center infrastructure as computing demand drives spending on advanced hardware systems. The company also serves customers across aerospace, defense, industrial, health technology, communications, and other specialized markets. These operations have increased the importance of efficient production, financial control, and coordinated commercial execution.

The latest leadership changes separate major commercial responsibilities from the company’s core financial management functions. Chawla will concentrate on global markets, while Ankenmann will lead financial strategy and reporting as CFO. This division gives each executive a defined responsibility as Celestica manages a larger and more complex business.

Celestica trades on both the New York Stock Exchange and Toronto Stock Exchange under the CLS ticker. Its latest stock advance followed continued market interest in companies supporting expanding data center infrastructure requirements. The leadership appointments now add another development as Celestica targets sustainable growth across its global technology markets.

The post Celestica Inc. (CLS) Stock: Surge as New Executive Roles Target Global Market Expansion  appeared first on Blockonomi.

TLDR:

• OSFI’s 2027 rules let qualifying tokenized deposits keep bank-like treatment when legal rights stay intact.
• Qualifying deposit tokens fall into Group 1a and generally receive the same credit-risk treatment as deposits.
• Banks must keep tokenized deposits redeemable at par, legally binding, and tied to issuer creditworthiness.
• OSFI can impose stricter liquidity treatment when wallets, blockchains, or redemption structures add risk.

Canada’s banking regulator is drawing a clear line around blockchain-based deposits, showing that the technology can change while the underlying bank claim remains the same. Against that backdrop, the Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions, or OSFI, finalized its 2027 crypto-asset capital and liquidity guideline on September 10. 

The framework allows qualifying tokenized deposits to remain classified as tokenized traditional assets when they preserve ordinary deposit rights and risks. That means Canadian banks can represent existing deposit claims on distributed ledgers without automatically creating a separate prudential category.

However, OSFI makes that treatment conditional on the token’s legal structure, redemption terms, and holder protections. For banks, that creates a path to modernize settlement infrastructure without changing the deposit’s regulatory identity.

OSFI’s 2027 Rules Keep Tokenized Deposits Bank-Like

Under the framework, a tokenized traditional asset must provide the same legal rights as its conventional equivalent. For bank deposits, those rights include access to cash flows and claims during insolvency.

The token also cannot introduce features that materially weaken the bank’s ability to meet its obligations. Products meeting those tests fall into Group 1a, which generally receives the same credit-risk treatment as traditional assets.

OSFI’s position closely follows Basel Committee standards for tokenized financial instruments. Basel also places qualifying tokenized bank claims, including deposits, in Group 1a when credit and market risks remain equivalent.

That classification creates an important separation from many stablecoins. Tokenized deposits remain direct claims on the issuing bank and depend on that institution’s balance sheet and creditworthiness.

Stablecoins can instead depend on separate reserve assets and may receive different prudential treatment. As a result, the regulatory focus remains on economic substance rather than the use of blockchain infrastructure.

Liquidity, Redemption, and Legal Rights Still Set the Limits

However, the bank-like treatment does not remove liquidity or risk controls. OSFI requires qualifying tokenized bank claims to be legally binding and redeemable in fiat at par.

Their value must also reflect the issuing bank’s creditworthiness and asset-liability position. Nevertheless, banks cannot automatically treat their own tokenized liabilities as stable retail deposits for liquidity purposes.

Regulators can apply stricter treatment when wallet providers, blockchain operators, or redemption structures introduce added operational or liquidity risks. That keeps technology-related risks inside the prudential framework instead of ignoring them.

The 2027 update also recognizes qualifying cross-exchange hedges for Group 2a crypto-assets. It also removes certain client-clearing derivatives from the Group 2 exposure-limit calculation.

OSFI said those changes better align capital requirements with the risks banks actually carry. The broader framework therefore combines technology-neutral treatment with specific safeguards around legal enforceability, redemption, and liquidity.

Canada is also examining tokenized finance beyond domestic bank balance sheets. In May, the Bank of Canada joined BIS Project Agorá, which tests tokenized commercial bank deposits with wholesale central bank money.

Still, OSFI’s guideline does not authorize every tokenized product. The regulator states that its prudential rules do not determine whether the Bank Act permits a specific issuance.

Deposit-insurance eligibility also remains governed by existing Canadian law. The result is a narrow but important rule: qualifying tokenized deposits can receive bank-like treatment when their legal rights and financial risks remain unchanged.

The post Canada’s OSFI Gives Tokenized Deposits Bank-Like Treatment Under 2027 Rules appeared first on Blockonomi.

TLDR

• Microsoft plans to more than triple its global data center capacity by 2032
• AI workloads could account for roughly one-third of Microsoft’s planned capacity
• Microsoft currently operates about 12 GW of data center capacity worldwide
• Server shortages have pushed some Microsoft cloud customers toward rival providers
• MSFT trades at $496.65 as the stock moves closer to the $497.50 resistance level

Microsoft (MSFT) stock rose to $496.65, gaining 0.85%, as the company prepares a major global data-center expansion. The company plans to increase capacity beyond 38 gigawatts by 2032 from roughly 12 gigawatts today. Meanwhile, rising cloud and AI demand has exposed shortages across Microsoft services.

Microsoft Corporation, MSFT

Microsoft Plans Major Data-Center Expansion

Microsoft plans to more than triple its global data-center footprint over the next six years. The expansion reflects growing demand for cloud computing and AI services. In addition, the company already faces shortages that have limited its ability to serve customers.

According to a Bloomberg report, Microsoft expects data-center capacity to exceed 38 gigawatts by 2032. That target compares with approximately 12 gigawatts currently operating across its footprint. Therefore, the planned increase would add more than 26 gigawatts of capacity.

Capacity pressure has also affected customer decisions and services. Temu reportedly moved a major cloud agreement to Oracle after Microsoft could not provide capacity in preferred regions. Meanwhile, GitHub experienced an eight-hour outage in August linked to server constraints.

AI Demand Drives Capacity Requirements

AI workloads form a growing part of Microsoft’s planned infrastructure expansion. The company currently has about 2 gigawatts dedicated to AI workloads. By 2032, AI capacity could account for roughly one-third of the planned 38-gigawatt footprint.

The expansion will require substantial spending because Microsoft must build more data centers and supporting infrastructure. However, the company faces a capacity challenge as demand exceeds available computing resources. At the same time, Microsoft has introduced limits on Xbox cloud-gaming usage.

Microsoft’s cloud business relies heavily on data-center infrastructure to deliver computing, storage, and software services. Azure also supports AI workloads, which require computing power and infrastructure. As a result, additional capacity will support cloud services and expanding AI workloads overall.

Capacity Shortages Shape Microsoft’s Growth

Microsoft’s current capacity constraints show how quickly demand has increased across its cloud and AI operations. The company has reportedly turned away some customers because available server capacity could not meet requirements. Consequently, expanding infrastructure has become a key part of Microsoft’s operational plans.

The planned 38-gigawatt footprint represents a major increase from Microsoft’s current infrastructure base. At the same time, dedicating about one-third of future capacity to AI highlights its growing infrastructure needs. This shift also requires Microsoft to expand physical facilities, computing systems, and data-center resources.

For MSFT stock, Microsoft traded at $496.65 during the session, up 0.85%. The stock rebounded from $492.44 support and moved toward the $497.50 resistance area. A break above that level would mark a move beyond resistance, while $495.00 and $492.44 remain chart levels.

The post Microsoft (MSFT) Stock: Expands Data Centers as AI Demand Surges appeared first on Blockonomi.

TLDR

• DDI stock trades at $12.74 as DoubleDown unveils its $10,000 ASPCA donation.
• Huggable Hounds giveaway launches September 13 inside the DoubleDown Casino app.
• DoubleDown links its charity push with Hug Your Hound Day player engagement.
• The ASPCA donation follows recent support for cancer care and Meals on Wheels.
• DoubleDown uses its flagship social casino to expand animal welfare awareness.

DoubleDown Interactive (DDI) stock traded at $12.74, down 0.86%, after the company announced a new animal welfare initiative Friday. The gaming publisher will donate $10,000 to the ASPCA and connect the contribution with a special in-game promotion. The campaign will run through DoubleDown Casino and will coincide with Hug Your Hound Day on September 13, 2026.

DoubleDown Interactive Co., Ltd., DDI

DoubleDown Interactive Links Donation With Casino Giveaway

DoubleDown Interactive said the contribution will support the ASPCA’s work protecting vulnerable animals across the United States. The organization focuses on dogs, cats, horses, and farm animals, while it also supports wider cruelty prevention programs nationwide. DoubleDown will use its flagship social casino title to increase awareness of the nonprofit’s work among its large player community.

The Huggable Hounds event will begin on September 13 and will operate as a play-to-enter giveaway for participating users. Players can join through DoubleDown Casino, which serves users across desktop and mobile platforms in several global markets. The event will also highlight the company’s ASPCA support and provide players with information about animal protection programs nationwide.

DoubleDown Casino reaches millions of players worldwide and serves as the company’s main social gaming property across major platforms. Therefore, the promotion gives DoubleDown a direct channel for connecting entertainment activity with a charitable campaign and wider awareness. The company announced no revenue targets, user growth goals, or financial expectations linked directly to the one-day promotional event.

ASPCA Support Extends DoubleDown’s Recent Charity Activity

The $10,000 donation adds another nonprofit partnership to DoubleDown Interactive’s recent corporate giving and community outreach activity. The company has also supported the American Cancer Society and Meals on Wheels through separate charitable efforts in recent periods. Those contributions show a broader pattern of using the company’s platform and brand reach for nonprofit campaigns and public causes.

DoubleDown said its employees and players share a strong interest in animal welfare and related charitable causes across communities. As a result, the ASPCA partnership fits the company’s recent community engagement strategy and its wider social initiatives. The September campaign also combines a direct donation with customer participation instead of limiting support to corporate funding alone.

The ASPCA works nationwide to prevent animal cruelty and provide support for vulnerable animals facing unsafe or harmful conditions. Its programs cover rescue work, adoption support, advocacy, veterinary services, and initiatives for farm and equine welfare nationwide. The DoubleDown partnership gives the organization another route to digital audiences through an established and widely used gaming platform.

DDI Stock Holds Near $13 as Company Expands Brand Outreach

DoubleDown Interactive develops and publishes digital games for mobile devices and web-based platforms across several international markets. Its flagship product, DoubleDown Casino, offers social casino entertainment built around classic and modern gaming formats for casual users. The title has operated for years and remains central to the company’s consumer-facing business, audience reach, and brand identity.

The company uses its gaming portfolio to reach casual players and provide digital entertainment without real-money wagering activity. That model gives DoubleDown a large audience for promotions, community campaigns, charitable messaging, and other brand engagement efforts. The Huggable Hounds giveaway adds a social impact element to that existing marketing and user engagement framework this month.

DDI stock stood at $12.74 after falling 0.86% during the reported trading session on September 11. The charitable announcement included no new earnings guidance, revenue forecasts, acquisition plans, capital changes, or operating targets. However, the campaign adds another public-facing initiative as DoubleDown extends community outreach beyond its core gaming products and services.

The post DoubleDown Interactive (DDI) Stock: Casino Giveaway Supports Animal Welfare appeared first on Blockonomi.

TLDR

• Amazon stock rises as Prime Air nears wider UK drone delivery approval
• Amazon seeks approval to expand drone deliveries across Darlington
• Prime Air completes more than 500 flights during its UK delivery trial
• Amazon’s MK30 drones can deliver eligible packages weighing under five pounds
• Darlington expansion could support Amazon’s broader UK drone delivery plans

Amazon (AMZN) stock rose 1.48% to $255.62 as Prime Air moved closer to wider drone delivery coverage across Darlington. The company has completed more than 500 drone flights and deliveries from its County Durham site. Amazon now seeks Civil Aviation Authority approval to extend coverage across the entire town.

Amazon.com, Inc., AMZN

Amazon Stock Gains as Drone Expansion Advances

AMZN moved above the $255.00 level and approached resistance between $256.00 and $257.00 during trading. A move above $256.00 would place the stock closer to the $257.00 level. Meanwhile, a decline below $255.00 could return attention toward the $254.00 support area.

Amazon launched limited Prime Air operations in Darlington during February, marking its first UK expansion. The company selected Darlington as its UK test centre after announcing the plan in January. The service currently reaches customers within a 7.5-mile radius of the County Durham facility.

Amazon wants regulatory approval before extending the operation across the entire town. The company expects that approval soon as it continues developing its UK drone network. Prime Air ultimately targets wider availability across the United Kingdom.

Prime Air Expands Its Darlington Service

Eligible Darlington customers can receive selected orders within two hours through the current Prime Air service. Packages must weigh less than 5lb and fit inside a large shoebox for drone delivery. Customers also need a suitable garden, yard, or driveway for the designated delivery area.

Amazon uses satellite maps, digital mapping, and artificial intelligence systems to identify possible delivery zones. Customers select an available drop-off area during checkout and must keep that location clear. Amazon estimates that the size and weight limits make about 68% of orders eligible.

Prime Air currently comes with Amazon Prime membership in the UK without an additional delivery charge. However, Amazon plans to review delivery pricing as the service expands further. Staff at the Darlington site have recorded a fastest delivery time of 39 minutes.

Amazon Addresses Safety and UK Growth Plans

Amazon operates MK30 drones at around 400 feet, where the aircraft can remain difficult to notice from the ground. The drones can handle light rain, light snow, and wind gusts reaching 28mph. However, Amazon stops flights when weather conditions create unsafe operating conditions.

An investigation began in July after a Prime Air drone crashed into a garden in Darlington. Amazon reported that nobody suffered injuries during the incident involving the delivery aircraft. The company attributed the event to contact with an object extending above a moving vehicle.

Amazon says its drone design includes systems intended to maintain control during operational failures. The company also continues working with the Civil Aviation Authority on regulatory requirements. The Darlington expansion would represent another step toward Amazon’s broader UK Prime Air rollout.

The post Amazon (AMZN) Stock: Moves Closer to Expanding Drone Deliveries Across the UK appeared first on Blockonomi.

Bitcoin is approaching a critical point after spending the past several weeks digesting its powerful August rally. With the price slipping back toward the lower boundary of its recent structure and participation remaining relatively subdued, the market is increasingly dependent on the $76K-$77K area to prevent the current correction from extending further.

Bitcoin Price Analysis: The Daily Chart

Bitcoin’s daily structure remains significantly stronger than it was before the August breakout. The impulsive rally carried the asset through the major $66K-$67K and $72K-$74K resistance zones, as well as both major moving averages, before reaching the $80K-$82K supply area.

However, the price has repeatedly failed to establish acceptance above this upper resistance zone. The latest sequence of candles shows declining momentum and a gradual retreat toward $77K, while the RSI has cooled considerably from its previous overbought readings. This suggests that the initial bullish impulse is losing strength, at least temporarily.

The $76K-$77K region is now the first important support area. Holding it could allow BTC to continue consolidating beneath the $80K-$82K resistance zone before another breakout attempt. Yet a decisive daily breakdown below $76K would make a deeper correction increasingly likely, with the $72K-$74K former resistance zone representing the next major support.

Despite the short-term weakness, the broader structure would remain relatively constructive while BTC stays above $72K-$74K. A recovery above $80K followed by acceptance beyond the $80K-$82K supply zone would instead signal renewed bullish momentum.

BTC/USDT 4-Hour Chart

The 4-hour timeframe provides a clearer view of Bitcoin’s immediate decision point. BTC has been trading inside a broad ascending channel since the initial surge, but price action has weakened considerably after the most recent rejection from the channel’s upper region and the $80K-$82K resistance zone.

Since that rejection, Bitcoin has formed a sequence of lower short-term highs and has now fallen toward the channel’s rising lower boundary around $76K-$77K. The latest candles show an initial reaction from this support, but the rebound remains relatively modest.

This makes the lower trendline critical. A convincing bounce could keep the channel intact and initially target the $79K-$80K region, followed by the major $80K-$82K resistance zone. However, a confirmed breakdown below the $76K-$77K channel support would represent a short-term structural shift and increase the probability of a move toward the $72K-$74K support zone.

The repeated inability to sustain rallies toward the upper boundary also suggests that buyers currently lack the momentum required for an immediate breakout. Unless that changes, choppy price action near the lower half of the channel may persist.

Sentiment Analysis

Bitcoin’s Spot Average Order Size reinforces the picture of weakening conviction. The latest observations around the $77K-$80K region are predominantly gray, representing normal-sized orders, with only a limited number of green dots indicating big whale orders.

This is notably different from periods earlier in the chart, where clusters of whale-sized orders accompanied more directional price movements. Although a few large orders have recently appeared, there is not yet a sustained concentration suggesting aggressive whale participation around current prices.

As a result, the spot market appears to lack a strong directional catalyst from larger participants. This fits the technical structure, where BTC is drifting lower rather than experiencing an aggressive selloff. Unless whale activity becomes more pronounced, Bitcoin could remain vulnerable to low-momentum consolidation and potentially a deeper pullback before a more decisive trend develops.

The post BTC Price Analysis: What Are Bitcoin’s Key Support Levels After $80K Rejection? appeared first on CryptoPotato.

What a wild end to the business week we just experienced after the release of the final piece of the Fed puzzle – the CPI data. But before we get into the details of what happened earlier today, let’s quickly recap the events from the past week.

A week ago, the US jobs report for July had come out, which was substantially stronger than anticipated. Markets reacted immediately as it gave the Fed more leeway to hike the rates in the upcoming FOMC meeting on September 15-16. BTC was already stopped at $82,400 earlier that day, but the report led to another massive sell-off, and the asset slumped below $79,000 in minutes.

It rebounded during the weekend and even challenged $80,000 once again on Monday, but to no avail. The subsequent leg down was more gradual and led to a drop to $77,600 a day later. The bulls tried to retake control and drove BTC north to $79,400 twice on Wednesday, but the asset couldn’t push through.

Instead, it slipped to $77,000 after the first inflation data of the week, the PPI. More volatility was expected today before and after the release of the CPI data, which is arguably the most important part of the Fed puzzle. Once the numbers came out, which actually matched expectations almost perfectly, BTC reacted with an immediate leg down to a three-week low of $76,000.

However, the bulls stepped up and helped the cryptocurrency recover the losses within minutes. Moreover, they stepped up on the gas pedal in the following hours, driving the asset north to nearly $80,000. BTC’s progress was halted there, and now it sits below $79,000 as all eyes have turned to next week’s Fed decision.

Meanwhile, ETH skyrocketed to $2,660 earlier today for the first time in eight months, and now sits above $2,600 after a 6% weekly surge. ZEC, NEAR, DOT, and ICP have marked major gains on a 7-day scale as well.

Market Data

Market Cap: $2.715T | 24H Vol: $87B | BTC Dominance: 57.1%

BTC: $78,750 (-0.8%) | ETH: $2,610 (+6%) | XRP: $1.39 (-1%)

This Week’s Crypto Headlines You Can’t Miss

Senate Republicans Update CLARITY Act Before September 15 Vote. Aside from the FOMC meeting, the other major crypto-focused event next week on US soil will be the cloture vote on the CLARITY Act. Senate Republicans updated the bill, adding new rules for non-decentralized DeFi protocols and clarifying how credit unions can deal in crypto.

Bitcoin Whales Remain on the Sidelines Ahead of Chaotic 10 Days: What’s Coming? On-chain data ahead of the so-called chaotic 10 days of inflation data, CLARITY Act voting, Fed and BOJ decisions, showed that BTC whales had remained on the sidelines, showing no major accumulation or distribution activity.

Fake Trezor Warning Claims 25% of Devices Are Vulnerable in Latest Phishing Campaign. The hardware wallet maker can’t catch a break these days, as it just warned users about a phishing scam disguised as a security alert, claiming a vulnerability in STM32 microcontrollers, which was not sent by Trezor itself.

‘We Will Not Pay’: Blockstream Rejects 10% Bounty Demand From Liquid Hackers. The latest development in the self-described white-hat hack came earlier today when the victim, Blockstream, refused to pay the ransom for the stolen BTC from the Liquid Network, asserting that the incident constitutes theft, not responsible disclosure.

Trump’s $5K Proposal Could Ignite an ‘Insane’ Altcoin Season: Analyst. The POTUS continues to make the headlines with some spectacular claims, including a promise of a $5,000 payment for every American adult if Republicans win the midterm elections. If that happens, a crypto analyst predicted it would lead to an ‘insane’ altseason.

Shocking: Hunter Biden’s LAPTOP Meme Coin Crashes 99% Within Hours of Launch. Hunter Biden, the son of the former US President Joe Biden, released a LAPTOP meme coin earlier this week on the Base network. To the surprise of literally no one, the token crashed by over 99% within minutes of going live for trading.

Charts

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

The post BTC Volatility Returns, ETH Taps 8-Month High, While CPI Sets the Stage for the Fed: Weekly Recap appeared first on CryptoPotato.

The cryptocurrency market is on the move again on Friday, but this time in the right direction. Just an hour or so after the US CPI data came out, which initially pushed all assets south, BTC has exploded out of the gate, surging to almost $80,000.

Ethereum has stolen the show, posting a massive 8% surge on a daily scale (and over 5% in the last hour alone). Just minutes ago, ETH topped $2,660 for the first time since late January, before it was stopped and pushed south slightly.

A lot can change in the cryptocurrency markets very quickly, sometimes in just an hour or so. Recall that less than two hours ago, the overall market structure was quite bearish, with experts anticipating the last nail in the Fed’s rate coffin – the US CPI data.

BTC and the entire crypto market were already feeling the pressure, and once the numbers were released, which actually matched expectations almost perfectly, bitcoin slipped from over $77,000 to a weekly low of $76,000.

That’s where the landscape changed, and the primary digital asset rebounded swiftly. It first climbed to its starting point before it jumped to $78,000 and then to almost $79,000 minutes ago, bringing the rest of the market with it. ETH, as mentioned above, is among the biggest beneficiaries.

Naturally, such rapid and intense market moves led to a sharp uptick in the value of wrecked positions. Data from CoinGlass over the past hour alone shows that over $250 million in shorts were liquidated, and over half of that amount was in ETH.

On a daily scale, the total value of wiped-out positions is up to $660 million. Nearly 100,000 traders have been wrecked.

The post Bitcoin and Ethereum Explode, Wrecking Over $250M in Shorts in an Hour appeared first on CryptoPotato.

This Friday, we examine Ethereum, Ripple, Cardano, Binance Coin, and Hyperliquid in greater detail.

Ethereum (ETH)

Ethereum fell 3% this week as the price curved down once it touched $2,500. The current support is found at $2,400 and may soon be tested, considering that momentum has turned somewhat bearish and a pullback is ongoing.

As long as the price can hold above $2,400, ETH has a good chance to make higher highs. However, any weakness at this key level could put sellers back in charge as they seek to send this cryptocurrency lower.

Looking ahead, Ethereum has to consolidate around existing levels if it wants to maintain its rally. The challenge is that buy volume is declining, and bulls are showing signs of exhaustion. This makes a deeper correction more likely if nothing changes.

Ripple (XRP)

XRP had a bad week after the price crashed 9%. This follows sellers rejecting a breakout at the $1.6 resistance. With bulls on the defensive, they have retreated at the $1.3 support level.

A test of the key support appears imminent based on the current price action. If it holds, then this cryptocurrency can book a higher low and encourage buyers to return for another go at $1.6.

Looking ahead, XRP is at a key turning point. The $1.3 level can make or break the momentum that drove the price up 60% in less than a week in late August.

Cardano (ADA)

ADA is similar to XRP as it also failed to clear the resistance at $0.23. This is bad news for bulls, and the price closed 9% lower this week. With bullish momentum under threat, buyers will struggle to regain control here.

If nothing changes, then Cardano will have no other choice but to fall below $0.20 and maybe even re-test the key support at $0.15. While a consolidation period would be normal, it could give sellers a chance to return in force.

Looking ahead, ADA needs to find renewed interest from buyers if it wants to escape its current range between $0.23 and $0.15. Anything less would see bears take control again.

Binance Coin (BNB)

Binance Coin dropped a modest 2% this week after sellers reversed the price action around $780. Since then, BNB has been pulling back, and a test of support at $690 appears likely in the coming days.

Ideally, this cryptocurrency will hold above $690 if buyers want to maintain their advantage and momentum. Any price below this key level will see it turn into a resistance, which could push BNB much lower.

Looking ahead, even if the ongoing pullback turns into a more significant correction, this cryptocurrency will remain bullish as long as it can secure a higher low. That includes any price above $580, which is the next key support level.

Hype (HYPE)

Hyperliquid made a new record price at almost $90 last week. However, this week, the price pulled back and closed 10% lower. This is unfortunate, and if the current weekly bearish engulfing candle remains as it is, that will be a bad signal for the market.

Taken together, this suggests a bearish bias, at least in the short term, with key support at $76 and $70. Even so, as long as the price can stay above $70, the overall uptrend channel will remain intact.

Looking ahead, HYPE has continued to impress in 2026 despite any volatility, with consistently higher highs. A test of the $100 psychological level seems likely before any significant selling returns.

The post Crypto Price Analysis Sep-11: ETH, XRP, ADA, BNB, and HYPE appeared first on CryptoPotato.

Somewhat expected, bitcoin’s price dived once again on Friday after the United States Bureau of Labor Statistics released the Consumer Price Index data for August, which matched expectations to a large degree.

The regular CPI showed a 3.4% year-over-year increase, which is exactly as anticipated. The monthly increase is 0.4% – again, as expected.

The core CPI, which excludes more volatile sectors like food and energy, showed a 2.4% YoY jump. The only minor difference from expectations was the core CPI monthly increase of 0.3% versus the anticipated 0.2% bump.

BTC’s reaction is rather interesting. As the chart above shows, it immediately dumped after the news went live by roughly a grand. However, it recovered just as quickly to over $77,000 as of press time.

This was the second inflation report of the week after yesterday’s release of PPI data. It showed a more notable jump of 5.4%.

With the conclusion of this week, meaning that all inflation data has been announced, all eyes have now turned to the United States Federal Reserve. The central bank will hold its next FOMC meeting on September 15-16, with the interest rate decision announced on the second day.

Current odds indicate that experts expect the Fed to hike rates by 25 bps.

The post Bitcoin Price Reacts to August US CPI Data: Here’s What Happened appeared first on CryptoPotato.