The prolonged LNG supply disruption could exacerbate global energy insecurity, driving up prices and forcing nations to seek alternative sources.

The post Qatar extends force majeure on LNG supplies by one month as Strait of Hormuz tensions persist appeared first on Crypto Briefing.

Japan's record currency intervention highlights the unsustainable reliance on foreign reserves, risking economic stability and global market impacts.

The post Japan’s foreign exchange intervention hits record 15.4 trillion yen in a single month appeared first on Crypto Briefing.

Metaplanet's rise highlights growing investor interest in Bitcoin exposure through traditional equity markets, impacting Japan's financial landscape.

The post Metaplanet ranks 33rd among Japanese equities by trading value appeared first on Crypto Briefing.

Shein's Hong Kong IPO reflects shifting geopolitical dynamics and highlights the challenges Chinese firms face in Western financial markets.

The post Shein shifts IPO plans from New York and London to Hong Kong appeared first on Crypto Briefing.

Tencent's Hy4 model testing signifies China's escalating AI competition, potentially reshaping global tech dynamics and innovation leadership.

The post Tencent spotted testing Hy4 model in Yuanbao app as expert-level model appeared first on Crypto Briefing.

Bitcoin Magazine

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rethinking How Governments Build

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

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

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

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

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

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

Beyond Crypto: The Agentic Economy

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

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

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

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

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

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

Pakistan Wants to Build at the Frontier

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

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

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

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

But Saqib’s vision extends beyond regulation itself.

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

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

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

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

Bitcoin Magazine

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bitcoin Magazine

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bitcoin Magazine

Bitcoin Again Flirts With $81,000 Ahead of Fed’s Jackson Hole Meeting 

Bitcoin again closed in on the $81,000 mark on Thursday before dropping again as its stellar week continued. 

The leading cryptocurrency was recently trading for $80,236 after notching as high as $80,793 earlier in the day in New York. 

Bitcoin is now up more than 2% over the past day after gaining 10% in a week. The coin’s rise comes ahead of Federal Reserve Chair Kevin Warsh’s keynote on Friday where he is expected to talk about digital payments — including crypto. 

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

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

It will be Warsh’s first major speech as chairman of the Federal Reserve. Warsh, who has made pro-Bitcoin statements in the past, has been reluctant to lower interest rates; President Donald Trump, who nominated Warsh, has since last year pushed for borrowing costs to come down. 

Bitcoin in the past has done well in a low interest rate environment. 

Bitcoin’s run started last week when it sustained its biggest run in years following positive regulatory news and an announcement from the U.S. Treasury. 

But recent positive regulatory news has helped the coin. While a vote on the long-awaited crypto Clarity Act has been delayed until September, President Donald Trump last week said that the bill was a “very, very powerful” piece of legislation, and urged lawmakers to get it over the line. 

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

And U.S. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent also last week announced the department would double the size of its long-dated bond buybacks. 

The news sent yields down lower; lower long-term yields reduces the opportunity cost of holding non-yielding assets like bitcoin and gold, and generally supports risk-on sentiment. 

This post Bitcoin Again Flirts With $81,000 Ahead of Fed’s Jackson Hole Meeting  first appeared on Bitcoin Magazine and is written by Mathew Di Salvo.

Bitcoin Magazine

No Fork Required: Bitcoin’s First Quantum-Safe Transaction Just Happened

Should fund managers dealing in Bitcoin be worried about the threat of quantum computing? 

The short answer is yes — but there’s time to prepare and solutions are already being found.

One of them? Post-quantum Bitcoin transactions on the mainnet. And the first one happened this week thanks to the Starknet Foundation. 

Speaking at Bitcoin Asia in Hong Kong on Thursday, Damian Chen, VP of growth at the Starknet Foundation, demonstrated how funds vulnerable to future quantum attacks can be secured without requiring a network-wide fork, thanks to the company’s latest solution. 

“This is a monumental moment,” Chen said. “This is the first post-quantum-resistant Bitcoin transaction on bitcoin mainnet today. It required no soft forks; it required no hard forks; it required no core protocol upgrades, and it’s live today.”

The transaction happened using a method created by StarkWare researcher Avihu Levy. It works like this: Bitcoin transactions sit briefly in a public queue before confirmation. During that window, they expose cryptographic material that a sufficiently powerful quantum computer could use to forge a signature and steal the funds before the transaction is confirmed.

But rather than accepting the first valid signature, his method generates millions of signature candidates until it finds one with a specific structural property that doesn’t expose that vulnerable material while waiting in the mempool. 

This “signature grinding” is deliberately computationally expensive — a single transaction takes hours to produce — but that cost is what makes it resistant to quantum shortcuts.

Touting Quantum safe Bitcoin transactions — dubbed “QSB” — to institutions, Chen said that even if attackers have a fund’s private keys, they couldn’t make a fraudulent transfer. 

“QSB introduces a new hash authorization, and so an attacker with a sufficiently capable computer, even if they have your exposed public key, even if they derive your private key from your public key, even if they try to use that to authorize a spend to move your coins out of your wallet, those things are not enough for them to do so,” he said. 

It’s worth noting that ordinary Bitcoin nodes currently don’t recognize this non-standard transaction format, so it couldn’t go into the public mempool and instead had to be handed straight to a miner willing to accept it — with mining company MARA’s Slipstream service being the one that mined the QSB transaction. 

Quantum researchers have warned that a time will come when Bitcoin’s software — which underpins the biggest and strongest computer network in the world — will need to be upgraded to deal with quantum computing. 

While some crypto VC firms have urged action, top Bitcoin developers have argued that many of today’s quantum computers have limited capabilities, and have only demonstrated trivial computations. 

Still, they have noted that their development could arrive unexpectedly — just like advances with artificial intelligence — and have started developing some solutions. 

Chen added: “The question to me has never been when will quantum arrive. We all know quantum will arrive at one stage, but the question to me has always been, how long will it take for you to be ready when quantum does arrive?”

This post No Fork Required: Bitcoin’s First Quantum-Safe Transaction Just Happened first appeared on Bitcoin Magazine and is written by Mathew Di Salvo.

Every summer in Gothic, Colorado, a yellow-bellied marmot walks into a wire trap baited with oats and peanut butter. A scientist weighs it, takes samples, checks its ear tags, paints a temporary identification mark on its back, and releases it back into the mountain meadow.

The scientific value of this emerges through accumulation, with thousands of encounters repeated for more than six decades creating the second-longest study of individually identified wild mammals in the world. The record follows family lines, health, behavior, reproduction, and survival across generations, allowing biologists to see patterns that take much longer than a typical three-year research grant to emerge.

That record came close to acquiring a permanent blank this year when the National Science Foundation declined the team's latest request for continued support. The scientists then began looking for money in places Kenneth Armitage, the biologist who started the project in 1962, could hardly have imagined.

UCLA professor Daniel Blumstein proposed a G-rated OnlyFans account called OnlyMarms, and an independent group of crypto traders later created a Solana meme coin whose creator fees have generated more than $150,000 for the research project.

All of this sounds like it was made for the internet, complete with comically chubby rodents, an adult platform, and a memecoin.

But the problem it addressed is much less playful because researchers can never return to 2026 and reconstruct which marmot emerged from hibernation, produced offspring, joined a new colony, or disappeared.

The value of never missing a summer

Armitage began tracking the Gothic marmot population in 1962 and directed the work until 2001, when Blumstein took over. Blumstein now runs it with University of Ottawa professor Julien Martin, preserving the basic routine that gives the record its power: researchers repeatedly observe identifiable animals in the same valleys using compatible methods.

The repetition has produced a very detailed genealogy, and a 2025 study used a pedigree spanning 11 generations and 2,196 animals to examine whether warning behavior can be inherited. Other work from the project has connected early hardship with longevity, mapped the relationship between social behavior and survival, and examined how an alpine mammal responds to warmer temperatures and erratic snowfall.

A single season gives researchers a population count, while six decades let them identify what altered its size and which animals fared best.

Winter supplies the smaller part of the record because marmots spend most of the year underground, living on fat accumulated during summer. Their heart rate, breathing, metabolism, and body temperature fall sharply during hibernation, making snow cover above the burrow an important layer of insulation.

Blumstein said the team monitored more than 160 animals before the last hibernation period and found about 60 when fieldwork resumed. He associated most of the loss with inadequate snow cover, an assessment that the longer record can place beside body condition, kinship, temperature, and conditions from earlier winters. The value comes from having every season available for comparison, including the bad ones.

Federal support arrived through a sequence of separate grants over six decades. UCLA's account of the funding loss says the NSF declined the latest continuation request in late May as American universities were absorbing broader research cuts. That rejected renewal placed an uninterrupted record at risk.

Marmot's Got Money Troubles

Blumstein borrowed the OnlyFans idea from the Apple TV series Margo's Got Money Troubles and applied its premise to marmots with money troubles of their own. Graduate student Emily Renkey created OnlyMarms, filled it with nearly daily field videos and explanations, and worked through a verification process built for human creators.

The account is free, with visitors able to leave tips for photographs and videos of marmot life. It attracted thousands of visitors and raised roughly $6,000 in its first months, according to UCLA, before OnlyFans took its 20% share. That covered some supplies and staff time while leaving the team far short of any kind of dependable funding for recurring fieldwork.

The stranger source of money came when a group outside the project launched $OnlyMarms through Pump.fun, a platform that makes it easy to create and trade tokens on Solana, then directed the token's creator royalties to the marmot researchers. Launched independently, the coin later got Martin's support, and he accepted the fees and added its contract address to the project's fundraising page.

The OnlyMarms token runs on a royalty system in which trading activity generates fees that accrue to a wallet controlled by the lab, allowing the team to claim them as donations. Martin's project page now reports more than $150,000 raised for marmot research, while the community's token page says every creator royalty goes to the project.

Token issuance, team allocation, trading, and buyers' return expectations have nothing to do with the lab, leaving the researchers free to receive creator royalties as donations. The arrangement resembles Vitalik Buterin's proposal for philanthropic meme coins, with speculative activity sending money toward a public purpose.

Token-generated donations are already more than 25 times the OnlyFans account's gross tips, although future income depends on traders continuing to care when the hype fades. A longitudinal project needs money on a calendar, with trained field staff returning every summer regardless of whether marmots are trending or not on Pump.fun.

The internet picks a species

Marmots are the perfect animal for the attention economy that runs both the culture and the market. With names like Jamba Juice and Egg, these oversized squirrels gain significant fat before the winter.

The team has built on that advantage with the first Fat Marmot Week, a public tournament that ran from Aug. 24 through 28 before a winner was crowned Aug. 29. Visitors voted for the marmot that best represented healthy preparation for hibernation.

That campaign was a hit because it essentially recruited future donors while exposing the lottery inside viral patronage.

Because its payoff may take years, research has always required persuasion, and social platforms compress that process into a contest for attention that asks scientists to cultivate an audience alongside their animals and data.

OnlyMarms shows what a small crypto community can accomplish when the target is concrete, and the payments are direct. Trading gave one field team more time during a lapse in formal support, with the duration of that reprieve still tied to the internet's appetite.

The marmot researchers have kept the science in view while enjoying the absurdity surrounding their new patrons. That money buys the one resource this project can never recover: another uninterrupted field season.

Gothic's marmots will soon seal their burrows and slow their bodies through the winter while the researchers wait for spring. Thousands of strangers found the animals online, enjoyed the absurdity, and then helped preserve a 64-year scientific record whose real value comes from never having to start over.

The post Solana traders on OnlyFans just saved a 64-year marmot wildlife study after federal funding stopped appeared first on CryptoSlate.

A US Securities and Exchange Commission proposal to create two crypto fundraising exemptions had drawn 31 posted public comments as of Aug. 27, plus one separately labeled meeting memorandum.

With comments due Oct. 20, remaining commenters had 54 days to seek changes to the framework.

The proposed exemptions would let eligible crypto ventures raise up to $5 million in any four-year period under one path and up to $75 million in each 12-month period under another.

The posted comment file did not identify a major crypto exchange, large asset manager, large token issuer, or established investor advocacy group in its visible row labels.

Crypto commenters target the exemptions’ mechanics

The early letters test where the SEC sets boundaries around disclosure, investor protections, non-cash compensation, and the $75 million ceiling.

Ohanae Securities, an SEC- and FINRA-registered broker-dealer, asked the agency to clarify the $75 million exemption’s availability and proposed Rule 500 preemption. Its comment letter also proposed an EDGAR status hub, stronger Form TR disclosures, and good-faith protection for unaffiliated regulated intermediaries that rely on issuer representations.

ARKONIX focused on whether independent offerings should share the $75 million ceiling merely because they use the same infrastructure. It argued that separate partner vaults should not be aggregated, using an example in which 10 partners each raise $20 million rather than treating their provider as a $200 million issuer.

Other letters challenged the $5 million path. Beeezo asked the SEC to distinguish genuine commercial activity paid with predetermined, stable-value compensation from services furnished to an issuer for its own token when calculating non-cash consideration.

Tilden Moschetti opposed the startup exemption as proposed and sought entity eligibility, individual investment limits, scaled financial assurance, permanent EDGAR disclosure, four-business-day material updates, and tighter resale and insider safeguards.

The Digital Chamber’s docket presence argued that the SEC item is a memorandum recording an Aug. 19 meeting, rather than a public comment, and that it states no substantive positions. Separately, the Chamber says its Token Alliance submitted 13 responses covering all 48 questions in an earlier SEC request, with input from more than 75 members.

Those materials sit in a pre-proposal written-input archive, outside the S7-2026-27 comment tally.

Larger institutions may have engaged elsewhere, but the letters already posted show the concrete choices still open for debate. The Oct. 20 deadline leaves a shrinking window to add more positions to the formal rulemaking record.

The post Crypto startups have 54 days left to shape the SEC’s proposed $75 million fundraising cap appeared first on CryptoSlate.

MANTRA Chain restored mainnet block production on v8.4.0 six days after a security incident forced a chainwide halt. The promised technical account remains unpublished, leaving the exploitation of the upstream dependency and the activity inside two project-managed wallets unexplained.

The official incident timeline says mainnet resumed at approximately 05:30 UTC on Aug. 22. The chain said there was no rollback or state change between the halt and restart, user balances were not altered, and token holders did not need to take action.

The team behind the chain marked the incident resolved on Aug. 24 but again said a postmortem would arrive in the coming days. Its current status page and official announcement channel contained no link to that report when checked on Aug. 27.

MANTRA said its analysis found that the incident affected two MANTRA-managed wallets and that no user, exchange, or partner funds were affected. The public account stops short of identifying the wallet addresses, transaction hashes, amounts, or technical exploit steps.

When the halt was reported on Aug. 21, patch testing was still underway. The network's return resolves that operational question while leaving the attacker's method and MANTRA's containment assessment unexplained.

For node operators, the public code record has an immediate implication: identify which v8.4.0 build is running. The current release page points to full commit 5c08d7bd9e2619952707dae1258d2a30bf024721, while MANTRA warns that the tag was re-pushed during recovery and tells operators to re-pull it.

The release changelog lists an intermediate MANTRA EVM fork bump from v0.6.0-v8-mantra-3 to v0.6.0-v8-mantra-4. The final tagged go.mod replaces the dependency with the chain's v0.6.2-v8-mantra-1 fork.

The final upgrade handler blocklists one address and disables three Cosmos vesting-account creation messages through the circuit breaker. Those changes describe the deployed mitigation while leaving the attack path undisclosed.

Why the March ICS20 flaw remains only a theory for MANTRA users

A March Cosmos Labs advisory described a critical ICS20 precompile flaw, said known affected chains had mitigated or upgraded, and named Mantra among remediation collaborators. Its timeline ends with the March disclosure, leaving the August incident outside its documented scope.

Users can verify the restart, the exact final code, and stated impact. Wallet addresses, transaction hashes, amounts, and a technical explanation remain necessary to trace the disclosed wallet impact from MANTRA's public account and determine whether the incident repeated the earlier ICS20 bug.

The post MANTRA Chain is back online, but silent code changes spark developer concerns appeared first on CryptoSlate.

Ethereum's next attempt to expand base-layer throughput includes contracts and transactions that create persistent state, which would cost far more gas for new accounts, storage slots, and deployed bytecode.

The Ethereum Foundation said the candidate Glamsterdam schedule is designed to support roughly three times more base throughput by aligning gas charges with the network resources each operation consumes.

The two proposals are scheduled for Glamsterdam, yet EIP-8037 and EIP-8038 both retain formal Review status. Ethereum's official roadmap plans the upgrade for the fourth quarter of 2026, with fixed Sepolia, Hoodi, and mainnet fork dates still unannounced.

That leaves builders a testing window before the candidate parameters and deployment schedule harden.

Higher throughput moves the bill to state creation

Every new account, storage slot, and byte of contract code expands the persistent state that nodes retain and serve. EIP-8037 says the state portion of a Geth database was about 390 GiB in January 2026.

After Ethereum's gas limit rose from 30 million to 60 million, average new state created each day increased from roughly 105 MiB to 326 MiB, an annual pace of about 116 GiB.

The proposal takes that post-increase rate and scales it proportionally to a deliberately severe 200 million gas-limit scenario. The result is roughly 387 GiB of annual growth, enough to cross a cited 650 GiB performance threshold within a year from the 390 GiB starting point.

The EIP describes the earlier 30 million-to-60 million response as non-linear, making 387 GiB a motivating extrapolation rather than a measured forecast.

Its proposed control is a common cost of 1,530 gas for every byte of new state and a separate state-gas dimension. At a reference block limit of 150 million, that parameter targets average growth of 120 GiB a year.

The proposal lists 160 GiB a year as the worst case at a 200 million limit after repricing.

At the transaction level, users pay for both execution and state gas. The split preserves room for computational work while placing a separate ceiling on permanent additions to network state.

EIP-8038 tackles access to and writes of existing state, raising selected account and storage costs from client benchmarks conducted against a state snapshot comparable to mainnet in March 2026.

Together, the proposals use the roughly threefold throughput figure as an engineering support target. Activation would create headroom for higher limits rather than guarantee an immediate tripling of mainnet capacity.

A 929.7 million-transaction replay separates higher-limit fixes from code changes

The public repricing impact dashboard covers 929,731,274 transactions in 4 million blocks from Dec. 3, 2024, through June 15, 2026.

Each transaction was replayed independently against its canonical pre-transaction state under the existing schedule and one candidate schedule. Researchers first used the transaction's original gas limit, then allowed a ceiling up to 10 times that limit.

The comparison covered success, gas consumption, logs, output, and execution traces.

Under EIP-8037, 174,473,898 transaction replays failed at their original limit but succeeded with more gas, while 2,687,652 entered the potentially broken group. Under EIP-8038, 84,708,228 were fixable with a higher limit, and 3,036,537 were potentially broken.

Repeated activity from a busy application can dominate the count, so the figures do not describe millions of separate contracts at risk.

The dashboard defines potentially broken as a baseline-successful transaction that the candidate schedule failed to rescue at the tested 10-times ceiling.

That group includes out-of-gas cases and transactions that reverted for another reason after the new costs changed execution behavior. It is a counterfactual risk classification: users, wallets, contracts, builders, and fee markets can adapt before mainnet.

The much larger fixable cohort chiefly shifts work to frontends, bundlers and infrastructure providers, which must submit limits that reflect the new schedule. The harder cohort exposes assumptions that more top-level gas cannot cure, including fixed 2,300-gas stipends, hardcoded gas forwarded to internal calls, logic that branches on gasleft() and presigned transactions with fixed limits.

A public outreach report prioritizes versions of the eth-infinitism ERC-4337 EntryPoint and related smart-account stacks, including ZeroDev and Alchemy. It also identifies recurring counterfactual failures involving Across, Socket/Bungee, CoW Protocol, and 0x.

Immutable contracts make the toughest cases operationally expensive. A durable response can require a new EntryPoint, account, factory, or validator implementation followed by user migration. Other systems may be repaired through routing, batching, or gas-accounting changes.

ERC-4337 bundlers also need to distinguish the two classes: better simulation and higher submitted limits can resolve fixable failures, while a validation guard or internal gas assumption still reverts when the outer transaction receives more gas.

Who must update before Glamsterdam

Wallets, RPC providers, indexers, node tooling, and gas estimators must incorporate the new rules, while frontends and bundlers need to stop relying on cached constants or limits calibrated to the old schedule.

Both EIPs require eth_estimateGas and related logic to account for the new costs. The Platåberget testnet announcement also warns that tools built around a hardcoded maximum gas limit or a single gas dimension will break.

A plain ETH transfer to an existing account can still use 21,000 gas. Sending value to an account that does not yet exist adds a state-creation charge at runtime, so software that assumes every transfer fits the old constant needs revision.

Regular users can keep familiar workflows if wallets and infrastructure update correctly. Meanwhile, developers carry the immediate burden of resimulating transactions, reviewing fixed stipends and internal call limits, and testing affected paths against the candidate schedule.

The Glamsterdam fork was scheduled for Aug. 20 and was reported live with the repricing schedule by Aug. 24. The published sequence moves from stable devnets to the long-lived Sepolia and Hoodi public testnets, then to mainnet, with the 2026 roadmap target still subject to testing.

Ethereum can price its way toward more throughput, but builders that encoded yesterday's gas assumptions now have a limited window to prove their contracts and tools can survive tomorrow's schedule.

The post Ethereum’s plan to triple network speed could silently break millions of existing smart contracts appeared first on CryptoSlate.

Matt Corallo followed up on an earlier post on Aug. 25, addressing what stablecoin users increasingly see: apps routing around ETH, SOL, and other non-stablecoin tokens.

A wallet can let someone receive and send USDC without displaying a native-token balance. Behind that interface, an app, paymaster, sponsor, or infrastructure provider still settles the network fee in the asset the chain accepts.

The native-token demand debate turns on who funds execution, manages the fee balance, and absorbs volatility after the user-facing requirement disappears.

The scale of the stablecoin rail makes that question more than a user-experience footnote. Visa's Onchain Analytics dashboard showed about $1.3 trillion in adjusted stablecoin volume and 230.3 million adjusted transactions over the 30 days viewed on Aug. 27.

Before adjustment, the same window contained about $6.8 trillion and 1.75 billion transactions.

Visa and Allium's adjusted methodology uses probabilistic labels for more than 3 million addresses, counts only the largest stablecoin transfer within a single transaction, and filters unlabeled addresses that exceed 1,000 transactions or $10 million in rolling 30-day volume.

The data still includes exchange, decentralized exchange, lending, mint-and-burn, and ramp activity. Visa's “retail-sized” bucket logged about $7.6 billion across 158.8 million adjusted transactions below $250.

Gasless is a change of payer, Ethereum makes the example

Fee abstraction separates three roles that conventional wallets often bundle together: the user authorizes an action, an intermediary funds its execution, and the network charges its native fee.

“Gasless” can be accurate for the customer's wallet while still being misleading about chain economics.

Ethereum's documentation notes that reads can be performed without gas, while state-changing contract writes cost gas. Ethereum denominates gas in ETH, burns the protocol-set base fee, and sends the priority fee to the validator.

Under ERC-4337, which introduced account abstraction, users submit operations that a bundler packages into an Ethereum transaction. A paymaster can cover an operation instead of the smart account, but it must maintain a native-currency deposit at the EntryPoint contract. EntryPoint checks whether that deposit can cover the operation's maximum cost and charges the actual cost against it.

No universal “enough ETH” balance exists for a paymaster. The requirement moves with the operation's gas limits, maximum fee settings, transaction volume, and the buffer an operator maintains for service continuity.

Coinbase's ERC-20 gas-payment flow can quote a fee in USDC while the paymaster covers native gas, while Alchemy's Gas Manager fronts gas and bills separately. The user can remain economically inside the stablecoin while the provider funds and manages native-fee capacity.

At the retail layer, the design reduces the need for users to maintain ETH balances. At the execution layer, it replaces that scattered requirement with managed payer accounts or services whose operators replenish balances and recover costs through token, fiat, or service billing.

Solana changes the signer

Solana's fee documentation states that every transaction requires a fee paid in SOL. The base fee is 5,000 lamports per signature, split evenly between burning and the validator, while an optional priority fee can raise the total and goes to the validator.

By default, the fee payer is the first signer, but an app can name a sponsor instead. The user signs to authorize the stablecoin transfer and the sponsor signs to authorize the SOL fee.

Solana's fee-abstraction guide makes the resulting requirement explicit: the sponsor needs SOL for fees, though it does not need to hold the token being transferred. Kora packages that primitive into a service that can fully sponsor fees or accept payment in an SPL token such as USDC.

The user may therefore experience an all-dollar transaction while the Solana transaction fee is still paid in SOL by the sponsor or Kora operator.

The 5,000-lamport base fee also shows why transaction count alone cannot establish large SOL demand. Signature counts and priority fees affect the bill, while service volume and the operator's funding buffer determine how much SOL a sponsor needs.

Solana's fee sponsorship, like Ethereum's paymasters, changes who holds the fee balance. It gives the application control over when the user pays, which asset the user sees, and whether the app subsidizes the cost.

For a sponsor, the user-facing payment asset changes the recovery leg rather than the network leg. The service still needs a funded SOL fee-payer account before submission, while its USDC billing or subsidy policy operates around that requirement. A larger stream of sponsored transfers therefore increases the number of fees the operator must fund, even though signatures and priority settings determine each transaction's SOL cost.

Native-token demand becomes wholesale

With sponsorship, an app or provider can aggregate the requirement that each active user needs a native-token balance. It may replenish a managed ETH or SOL balance and recover the cost in USDC, fiat, or a service charge.

That architecture can shift operational exposure toward fewer payers as stablecoin adoption grows. Sponsors must manage fee funding, pricing, and abuse controls even though their customers never see a gas balance.

Representative Coinbase, Alchemy and Kora implementations establish how the architecture works, while leaving its market-wide distribution unresolved. Any claim that a handful of providers already dominate Ethereum or Solana gas demand would require payer-level onchain analysis beyond these sources.

Aggregation can also reduce the need for every user to hold a dormant native-token balance. Managed services can replenish balances as needed and recover costs through their own billing models.

Native-asset demand also depends on how many transactions settle, the fees attached to them, execution efficiency, and the balances payers maintain. Value capture depends on what is burned, what validators receive, and whether activity moves to cheaper environments.

Solana activity can grow while SOL value capture remains limited, particularly when stablecoin users need little SOL beyond fees. Ethereum can host a large stablecoin economy while base-chain revenue remains comparatively thin.

Fee abstraction changes the customer for the native asset. ETH and SOL can disappear from the user journey while remaining mandatory at the network layer. The gas bill moves upstream to the companies making stablecoin payments feel like ordinary money, concentrating operational responsibility even as the effect on aggregate token demand remains unmeasured.

The post Ethereum and Solana are hosting trillions in dollar volume, yet their native tokens risk losing direct consumer demand appeared first on CryptoSlate.

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

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

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

The Gain Is Taxed, Not the Sale Price

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

Example:

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

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

Cash Changes Nothing About the Bitcoin Tax

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

Whether the buyer:

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

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

How a Private Sale Differs From Selling on an Austrian Exchange

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

The seller therefore has to:

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

Worked Example: Tax on a Private Bitcoin Sale in Austria

Written Proof Matters Especially Here

Private bitcoin sales should be documented in detail.

The following are particularly worth recording:

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

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

What Happens When You Swap Bitcoin for Other Cryptocurrencies?

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

Legacy Holdings Can Still Be Free of Bitcoin Tax

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

Selling Bitcoin to Friends Counts as a Sale Too

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

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

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

Conclusion

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

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

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

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

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

Top 3 Reasons Why Crypto Prices Are Up

1. The Treasury pushed liquidity into the system

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

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

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

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

2. ETF inflows came back, and they are large

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

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

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

3. Short sellers were forced out

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

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

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

Will Crypto Prices stay UP?

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sending Crypto: What Technically Happens With the Wrong Network

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

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

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

Why Nobody Retrieves the Transfer

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What the Numbers Do Not Say

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

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

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

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

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

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

Why Bitcoin and Ethereum Are Special Cases in This Count

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Reflex That Costs the Most

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

Checking the Address Format: How to Recognise the Right Chain

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

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

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

Three Entries That Have to Match

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Caught by the Wrong Network: Which Routes Are Left

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

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

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

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

What You Should Secure Immediately

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

When the Exchange Itself Closes: Order Before Haste

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

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

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

What the Network Choice Means for Tax

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

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

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

Sending Crypto Without a Misdirected Transfer: What to Take Away

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Why the Reports Say September 1 and What the Chain Says

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What Delegating to Always Abstain Does to Your Voting Power

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

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

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

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

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

What You as an ADA Holder Can Do Right Now

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

Step 1: Check where your voting power is delegated

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Cardano Constitutional Committee: What to Take Away

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

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

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

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

How far has Solana actually run?

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

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

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

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

Is Solana really outperforming Bitcoin?

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

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

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

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

What did the governance vote actually decide?

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

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

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

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

Do the three technical claims hold up?

Partly, and one of them cuts both ways.

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

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

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

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

Is the ETF bid real money?

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

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

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

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

What could break this?

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rita Lin vacated the supply chain designation and issued a permanent injunction, refusing the government even a seven-day stay.

The transaction used Bitcoin’s existing rules to protect funds from a future quantum attack without requiring a network upgrade.

Google's new privacy standard scrambles the one field of a web request that still travels in the clear: the name of the site being opened.

Developer Craig Raw said an AI-assisted review produced most of the fixes in version 2.5.4, though none appeared likely to put users’ funds at risk.

OpenAI says the model never sees your password—but a signed-in session can persist across tasks, and you can step away while it works.

SEC finally greenlights Evernorth’s billion-dollar Nasdaq listing under XRPN despite a $233 million impairment hit from the recent XRP market slump.

Ethereum breakthrough needs support, but it's not clear if golden cross will become one.

Bitwise’s U.S. crypto exchange-traded products attracted roughly $100 million in inflows in a single day.

Bitcoin has once again failed to decisively break above the $82,000 resistance zone, but veteran trader Peter Brandt says he remains long on the cryptocurrency.

The market is battling for momentum at this point in time as bears are finally ready to step up.

TLDR

• OneKey’s security team recreated a transaction substitution flaw against an outdated version of Ledger’s Ethereum app.
• Ledger says it patched the issue with app version 1.22.2 before OneKey went public with its findings.
• The bug let a compromised host swap transaction details after a user approved what they saw on screen.
• An attacker needed control of the connection between the device and host, through malware or a hostile webpage.
• Ledger found no evidence anyone exploited the flaw or lost funds because of it.

A dispute broke out this week between Ledger and rival hardware wallet maker OneKey over whether a security flaw counted as a real hack. OneKey’s Anzen security team said it reproduced a transaction replacement bug against Ledger’s Ethereum app.

Ledger pushed back on that framing. The company said the flaw was already fixed in an earlier update before OneKey shared its results.

OneKey founder Yishi Wang posted on August 27 that his team completed the attack in a lab setting. He said the test targeted Ethereum app version 1.22.1.

Ledger confirmed the bug was real. But the company said app version 1.22.2, released on August 13, already contained fixes for the exact issue OneKey demonstrated.

How the Vulnerability Worked

The flaw involved commands sent from a computer or phone to the Ledger device. These commands, called APDUs, tell the device what transaction to sign.

Under the bug, a second command could arrive while a user was still looking at an earlier transaction on their screen. That new command could quietly change the signing details without updating what the screen showed.

In practice, a user might approve a transaction they saw on screen while the device actually signed a different one. Ledger called this a race condition between checking data and using it.

The bug did not expose seed phrases or private keys stored in the secure chip. It only affected what data got signed.

To pull off the attack, someone needed control over the connection between the app and the host device. Ledger listed malware, a hacked wallet app, or a malicious webpage as possible entry points.

The attack could not work on a device that wasn’t plugged in or actively signing something. A user still had to approve a transaction while the attack was running in the background.

Ledger’s Patch Timeline

Ledger says the underlying weakness was introduced in August 2025. It affected Secure SDK versions used to build the Ethereum app, up through version 26.6.0.

The company released app version 1.22.2 on August 13 with state checks meant to block the attack. It followed that with Secure SDK 26.6.1 on August 21, which blocks the bad commands at a deeper level before they reach any app.

Ledger’s Chief Technology Officer Charles Guillemet said reproducing an already patched bug does not amount to hacking the company. He described OneKey’s test as a lab exercise against an outdated app.

Ledger now recommends users run Ethereum app 1.22.3 or later. That version includes the newer SDK protections plus a fix for a separate display issue.

The company said it has not found any evidence the bug was used against real users. No stolen funds have been tied to this issue publicly.

Ledger is telling users to open Ledger Live, update their device apps, and check their Ethereum app version. It noted that updating device firmware alone does not fix apps built with the older SDK.

Other wallet makers using the affected SDK were told to review their own code and rebuild with the patched version. The issue is not limited to Ledger’s own apps.

This story follows a separate case involving rival hardware wallet maker BitBox, which recently patched two unrelated flaws in its firmware installation and Bitcoin address handling. No exploitation was reported in that case either.

The post Ledger Denies Hack After OneKey Recreates Ethereum Signing Bug appeared first on Blockonomi.

TLDR

• ADA trades at $0.2147, up 1.08% in 24 hours, holding above the $0.2004 support level.
• An Ouroboros Leios test reportedly increased Cardano’s throughput capacity by 500% on its first run.
• Four more Leios testing stages remain before the expected mainnet hard fork.
• Open interest peaked near $580 million before dropping to about $480 million on August 27.
• CoinCodex predicts a gradual rise toward $0.2177 by September 1, not an instant breakout.

Cardano is trading at $0.2147 at the time of writing. That marks a rise of 1.08% over the past 24 hours.

The price is holding above the $0.2004 level. This level has acted as a floor during the recent recovery.

Traders are now watching the $0.23 zone. A move above this area could confirm a stronger breakout for ADA.

Part of the current attention on Cardano comes from a network update. The Ouroboros Leios protocol recently completed its first test run.

The account Cardanians shared the results on X. It stated that Leios increased Cardano’s throughput capacity by 500% on the first test.

The same post noted that four more testing stages are planned. These will happen before the expected mainnet hard fork.

Leios is designed to improve how many transactions Cardano can process. A successful rollout could strengthen sentiment around the network’s development.

Cardano Price Chart Signals

Data from TradingView shows ADA sitting above its $0.2004 support. The middle Bollinger Band sits lower, at $0.1972.

Both levels remain below the current price. This points to a short-term structure that favors continued gains.

The upper Bollinger Band is at $0.2344. This puts the $0.23 to $0.2344 range in focus as the next resistance area.

A break above this zone could open the door to further upside. A drop below $0.2004 would weaken the current setup and shift attention back to $0.1972.

Open Interest and Price Forecast

CoinGlass data shows Cardano’s open interest climbed to around $580 million during the recent price move. It has since eased to about $480 million as of August 27.

The pullback suggests some derivatives traders closed positions after the rally. Open interest still remains higher than most levels seen in July.

CoinCodex’s short-term model points to $0.2148 for August 28. Its forecast then shows a slow climb to $0.2155, $0.2162, $0.2170, and $0.2177 by September 1.

This data suggests a mild upward drift rather than a sudden breakout. ADA’s next moves will depend on whether it holds above $0.2004 and how it reacts near the $0.23 resistance band.

The post Cardano (ADA) Price: Traders Watch $0.23 Resistance After Leios Update appeared first on Blockonomi.

Key Highlights

• ARK Invest offloaded 37,977 shares of AMD valued at approximately $18.1 million on Wednesday
• The firm acquired 57,705 Broadcom shares and 69,585 Cerebras Systems shares as semiconductor alternatives
• ARK divested 59,276 Tempus AI shares via ARKK ETF, totaling more than $4 million
• The fund purchased 47,793 Veracyte shares worth $2.1 million distributed between ARKK and ARKG ETFs
• Additional portfolio reductions included Twist Bioscience, Roblox, and Brera Holdings

This week witnessed significant portfolio adjustments at Cathie Wood’s ARK Invest, with the firm divesting millions in tech holdings while establishing fresh positions in biotechnology and semiconductor companies.

The most substantial transaction occurred on Wednesday, when ARK disposed of 37,977 Advanced Micro Devices shares valued at approximately $18.1 million. AMD stock concluded the trading session with a 0.9% decline at $476.67.

Advanced Micro Devices, Inc., AMD

This divestment represents a continuation of an established pattern. Wood has been systematically reducing ARK’s AMD holdings during recent months, despite the stock experiencing gains exceeding 100% year-to-date.

As a semiconductor replacement strategy, ARK acquired 57,705 Broadcom shares alongside 69,585 Cerebras Systems shares during the identical trading session. Broadcom concluded trading with a 4.5% gain at $371.54, while Cerebras advanced 2.5% to reach $186.67.

Notwithstanding these sales, ARK maintains larger AMD holdings compared to either replacement position. The flagship ARK Innovation ETF currently holds $193.3 million in AMD, contrasted with $149.5 million in Cerebras and $95.3 million in Broadcom.

Continued Reduction in Tempus AI Holdings

Thursday witnessed ARK selling an additional 59,276 Tempus AI shares through the ARKK ETF, representing slightly over $4 million. This transaction extends a sequence of Tempus AI reductions executed earlier during the week.

The firm simultaneously divested 22,225 Twist Bioscience shares distributed across ARKK and ARKG ETFs, generating $3.3 million in proceeds. This represents another recurring transaction pattern observed throughout the week.

Additional modest reductions encompassed 1,001 Roblox shares worth $37,597 and 29,385 Brera Holdings shares totaling $116,658.

Increased Investment in Biotechnology Sector

Regarding acquisitions, ARK purchased 47,793 Veracyte shares for $2.1 million, distributed between ARKK and ARKG portfolios. This transaction signals heightened conviction in the oncological diagnostics specialist.

Additionally, ARK acquired 5,085 Scribe Therapeutics shares through the ARKG ETF for $161,194, maintaining its consistent biotechnology investment approach.

These transactions demonstrate ARK’s capital reallocation from select technology holdings toward genomics and biotechnology—sectors that have consistently anchored Wood’s investment philosophy.

Wood established ARK’s prominence through concentrated positions in genomics, robotics, and artificial intelligence sectors, notably including an early Tesla investment. Nevertheless, the flagship ARKK fund has generated approximately -9% annualized returns throughout the previous five-year period.

Current trading activity indicates Wood is executing another strategic repositioning, reducing AMD and Tempus AI exposure while expanding positions in Broadcom, Cerebras, and Veracyte.

ARK’s ARKK ETF advanced 1.87% while the ARKG ETF climbed 0.85% during Thursday’s trading session.

The post ARK Invest Exits AMD (AMD) Position, Reallocates to Broadcom and Cerebras appeared first on Blockonomi.

TLDR

• Hyperliquid Strategies raised $647 million in equity capital during its latest fiscal year.
• The company’s HYPE token treasury grew to 29.3 million tokens by August 19, up from 12.5 million earlier in the year.
• Net income for the fiscal year ending June 30, 2026 came in at $305.5 million.
• The HYPE position was valued at about $1.9 billion by the end of June, with the token trading at $65.04.
• PURR shares rose almost 18% to $13.59 after the earnings report, pushing the company’s market value close to $1.8 billion.

Hyperliquid Strategies raised $647 million in new equity capital during its latest fiscal year. The company used the funds to grow its holdings of HYPE, the token tied to the Hyperliquid trading platform.

The firm’s HYPE treasury grew to 29.3 million tokens by August 19. That is up from an initial 12.5 million tokens held earlier in the year.

By June 30, the HYPE position was worth about $1.9 billion. HYPE traded at $65.04 at that time.

Hyperliquid Strategies also reported $305.5 million in net income for the fiscal year ending June 30, 2026. The results were shared in the company’s fiscal year report.

How the Profit Was Built

The company’s income included $709.9 million in unrealized gains from HYPE. It also included $9.5 million from staking and validator commissions plus $2.7 million in interest income.

Costs for the year, covering selling, general, administrative, and research spending, totaled $14 million. The firm also recorded a $35.6 million write-off tied to Sonnet operations.

A deferred tax charge of $183.5 million was also part of the year’s results.

Cash and cash equivalents stood at $149.9 million, including $12 million in USDC. Total assets reached $2.06 billion, and stockholders’ equity was $1.87 billion. The company reported zero debt at year end.

Nearly all HYPE tokens held by the company have been staked, according to the report.

Building the HYPE Treasury

Since completing its business combination on December 2, 2025, Hyperliquid Strategies has spent $773.4 million buying about 16.5 million HYPE tokens. The average purchase price was $46.77 per token.

Most of the funding came through an equity facility. That program brought in $646.6 million at an average issuance price of $8.70 per PURR share.

The company also spent $27.8 million buying about 5.8 million PURR shares, at an average price of $4.80 each.

As of August 19, cash on hand was $132.6 million, including the $12 million in USDC. The company still carried no debt.

Some investors have gained indirect exposure to HYPE through PURR shares rather than owning HYPE directly. Duquesne Family Office reported a $23 million position in a recent filing, and Wyoming also disclosed indirect exposure through PURR.

Hyperliquid Strategies said the wider Hyperliquid ecosystem generated about $945 million in value over the twelve months through June. Hyperliquid made up roughly 9.4% of global perpetual futures trading volume by the end of June.

By August 23, the platform accounted for about 63% of open interest across decentralized perpetual markets. Open interest in its HIP-3 markets topped $4 billion in August, while total open interest across Hyperliquid rose to about $13 billion.

PURR shares rose almost 18% to $13.59 after the earnings were released. That move pushed the company’s market value close to $1.8 billion.

The post Hyperliquid Strategies Reports $305.5 Million Net Income as PURR Stock Rises appeared first on Blockonomi.

Key Takeaways

• PayPal shares plummeted more than 12% during premarket hours following news that Stripe and Advent International terminated their $60.50-per-share acquisition proposal
• The buyout consortium’s proposal placed PayPal’s value at approximately $53 billion, dramatically lower than its 2021 valuation high of roughly $360 billion
• PayPal’s leadership had dismissed the acquisition proposal as insufficient, with industry experts pointing out it represented under 9x free cash flow
• Investment manager Thomas Hayes supported the board’s rejection, arguing it maintained “meaningful upside” for current investors
• Under CEO Enrique Lores, PayPal has undergone restructuring into three divisions: checkout, Venmo, and payments and crypto, driving a comprehensive transformation strategy

Shares of PayPal (PYPL) plunged to approximately $53.20 during Friday’s premarket session, falling sharply from Thursday’s closing price of $61.47, following Bloomberg News’ confirmation that Stripe and Advent International officially terminated their acquisition efforts.

PayPal Holdings, Inc., PYPL

The acquisition group had presented an offer of $60.50 per share during mid-July. This proposal placed PayPal’s total valuation at around $53 billion. The company’s board of directors turned down the offer, characterizing it as insufficient.

The announcement triggered an overnight decline exceeding 12%, erasing the stock appreciation that accumulated following the initial takeover reports in July.

To provide perspective, PayPal reached a valuation of approximately $360 billion during its 2021 pandemic boom. The proposed $53 billion represented just a small fraction of that former valuation.

Financial analyst Sam Badawi offered a straightforward assessment: the consortium’s withdrawal indicates their conviction that PayPal’s value doesn’t exceed the $53 billion offer.

However, not all market participants are disappointed by the deal’s collapse. Thomas Hayes, who manages portfolios at Great Hill Capital, openly commended the board for declining what he characterized as an undervalued proposal.

“Kudos to the $PYPL board for not allowing them to steal meaningful upside from current owners,” Hayes stated. He emphasized that the offer represented less than nine times free cash flow, which he considered significantly below appropriate valuation.

Lores Drives Transformation Efforts

CEO Enrique Lores assumed leadership in March and has implemented changes rapidly. He restructured PayPal into three separate divisions: checkout, Venmo, and payments and crypto. This reorganization aims to streamline operations and enhance strategic focus.

In recent weeks, PayPal increased its 2026 profit projections and detailed efficiency initiatives as components of its transformation strategy. During the latest quarterly earnings discussion, Lores avoided addressing acquisition rumors but emphasized the company would “carefully consider any opportunity or strategic option” that delivers shareholder value.

Hayes encouraged the company to maintain independence while continuing execution: repurchase shares, develop the advertising business, and improve profit margins progressively.

Competitive Pressures Impact Valuation

PayPal has faced mounting challenges for several years. The post-pandemic deceleration in digital payment adoption created significant headwinds, while rivalry from Apple Pay and Google Pay has eroded its traditional market position.

The organization has counteracted these pressures through leadership transitions, staff reductions, and strategic emphasis on higher-margin offerings.

Before Friday’s decline, PYPL had gained merely 5.29% year-to-date. The trailing twelve-month performance showed an 11.74% decrease. The six-month performance was more encouraging, with shares climbing 33% prior to Friday’s selloff.

PYPL finished Thursday’s session at $61.47. During Friday’s premarket trading, shares dropped to approximately $53.20.

The post PayPal (PYPL) Plunges 13% After Stripe-Advent Consortium Abandons Takeover Bid appeared first on Blockonomi.

Pi Network announced yesterday another expansion of SoloHost, adding OpenClaw and Atlassian MCP Server as featured applications available through the native Pi Desktop.

The two new additions were initially introduced alongside the recent Node 0.6.2 update, which we reported a few weeks ago, but are not being formally highlighted by the team as examples of how they intend to expand the utility of their Nodes beyond simply supporting the blockchain.

AI Push Expanded

The official blog post from the team highlighted the more broadly applicable addition called OpenClaw. It’s a locally run AI agent capable of assisting users with various tasks and operating using either a locally hosted AI model or external ones such as ChatGPT and Claude.

Its memory is stored locally on the user’s computer in either configuration, although requests sent to cloud models are still processed by the external providers.

The team explained that running OpenClaw through SoloHost places the agent inside a container that restricts its default access to unrelated files and resources on the user’s computer. Pi Desktop handles much of the technical setup automatically, reducing the need for Pioneers to manually configure servers, Docker environments, and other infrastructure.

OpenClaw joins Hermes, another local AI agent already available through SoloHost.

Second Addition

The Core Team outlined the second major change, Atlassian MCP Server, which targets a more specialized audience. It allows developers and professional teams to run their own local MCP server and connect compatible AI tools with Jira.

Pi Network said both of these new additions aim to transform its infrastructure into a practical computing platform. Recall that SoloHost saw the light of day on Pi2Day (June 28) and enables third-party devs to publish self-hosted applications that Pioneers can run through Pi Desktop.

In theory, this allows developers to access Pi’s network of over 420,000 claimed node operators, while providing Pioneers with additional uses for the computing resources they already operate.

Aside from the aforementioned additions, the Core Team recently introduced new pricing for its App Studio model, moving away from subsidized rates to reflect the actual AI service costs. The change went live on August 24.

The post Pi Network’s Major AI Change Is Now Live: Here’s What Pioneers Need to Know appeared first on CryptoPotato.

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

Ethereum (ETH)

Ethereum closed another week in the green after pushing above $2,400, ending 6% higher. If buyers manage to hold this key support level, higher highs may continue.

Bulls should do their best to consolidate their recent gains after the massive rally from the $1,500 level. To achieve this, defending $2,400 as support is key. The current resistance is at $2,800.

Looking ahead, this is the first time since 2025 that ETH has made a higher high. This halts the downtrend and positions this cryptocurrency for a sustained rally. The question is how far bulls can take it before they show signs of weakness.

Ripple (XRP)

After XRP pumped to $1.6, the price entered a pullback, which is still ongoing at the time of this post. Nevertheless, this cryptocurrency closed the week 9% higher. This recent performance is impressive and a significant change in the market structure.

With a higher high secured, XRP could be consolidating between the key support at $1.3 and the resistance at $1.6. Once the price settles, a renewed push higher could follow, sending XRP back into a rally.

Looking ahead, the most significant target, at this time, is $2. For that to happen, XRP will need to turn $1.6 into a support first. The odds favor this outcome considering that buyers have the advantage right now.

Cardano (ADA)

Cardano ended this week flat after the price failed to break the resistance at $0.23. Buyers tried to push ADA higher, but sellers would not budge. For this reason, the price is in a pullback at the time of this post.

While a consolidation period under the key resistance is normal, this cryptocurrency needs to avoid a long delay in breaking $0.23, as that may encourage sellers to step up their presence on the order book.

Looking ahead, Cardano needs to make a higher high to confirm the bottom under $0.15. So far, this has not happened, which may give bears a chance to retest the previous lows in the future.

Binance Coin (BNB)

Binance Coin had a good week, closing 7% higher. The price also broke the $690 resistance and appears close to forming a higher high. If confirmed next week, BNB may be well on its way to visit $900 next.

It is critical for the price to continue its rally, as any price below $740 would paint a lower high on the chart, which would be a bearish signal. Nevertheless, as long as the $690 level holds as support, buyers have control over the price.

Looking ahead, the recent drop under $580 could be the bottom. To confirm it, BNB needs to rally and sustain its recent gains. If so, the $900 and $1,000 targets will act as magnets for the price in the near future.

Hype (HYPE)

Hyperliquid had another fantastic week, closing 14% higher after setting a new record price of almost $87. Right now, HYPE is trading in a key range between $ 76 and $ 85 as it plans its next move.

To continue the rally, the price has to clear $85 as support and aim for $90 next. However, considering the strength of the recent move, a consolidation period would be welcomed to avoid a sharper correction later.

Looking ahead, HYPE has a real chance to hit a three-digit price in the near future if this bullish momentum is sustained. A price of $100 or higher is only a 20% rally from current levels.

The post Crypto Price Analysis August-28: ETH, XRP, ADA, BNB, and HYPE appeared first on CryptoPotato.

Bitcoin’s $80,000 level has emerged as a major threshold as the crypto asset attempts to break out of the current bear market. Several technical and on-chain measures are converging around this level.

At the same time, the traditional realized price has become less relevant because of the large amount of illiquid BTC supply, according to CryptoQuant analyst Darkfost.

$80K Breakout Test

In his latest post, Darkfost noted that Bitcoin’s market capitalization has been on the rise. At the cycle peak, the figure even reached $1.75 trillion. Because coins bought more than 10 years ago are now largely considered illiquid, they represent a much smaller share of the market capitalization than Bitcoin purchased more recently. This makes it necessary to adjust the realized price by weighting it according to the amount of capital invested.

Using this capital-weighted approach, the analyst calculated a Bitcoin cost basis of approximately $79,600. That figure places the average invested capital near the $80,000 mark, which makes the level a significant barrier for the crypto asset at present.

Darkfost explained that this area more clearly identifies where the average invested capital reaches neutrality. A daily close above $80,000, followed by a weekly close above the same level, would represent a strong signal. Such a move would also return a large portion of BTC’s invested capital to profit.

Next Buying Opportunity

Meanwhile, Ali Martinez said that the crypto asset could be heading toward another buying opportunity if its current market structure follows the pattern seen during the 2022-2023 bottom. The analyst stated that Bitcoin broke above a descending resistance trendline on Thursday, similar to the move seen in early 2023, which has brought back the May 2026 high near $83,000 into focus.

This level could lead to a retracement before Bitcoin makes another move higher. URPD data reveals a major resistance zone between $83,307 and $84,569, where nearly 975,000 BTC were previously acquired. This concentration of supply could make it difficult for Bitcoin to push through the zone on its first attempt.

Additionally, on-chain trader profit margins have climbed to 25%, a level that has often been followed by increased profit-taking and short-term corrections over the past year. Whales also appear to be taking profits, with roughly $88 million in gains already realized.

If selling pressure increases, he identified $76,996 to $78,258 as a crucial support range, where 843,000 BTC were previously traded. A break below that zone could shift attention to the next major demand area around $63,111, where roughly 925,000 BTC were traded.

Martinez said a pullback toward these support levels could present another opportunity before Bitcoin pushes towards $100,000.

The post Why $80,000 Could Be Bitcoin’s (BTC) Most Important Level Right Now appeared first on CryptoPotato.

Evernorth said on August 27 that the US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) had declared its registration statement effective, moving its proposed merger with Armada Acquisition Corp. II closer to completion.

The development puts the XRP treasury company one step closer to a Nasdaq listing, although shareholders still need to approve the deal before it can close.

Evernorth Moves Closer to Nasdaq

The company announced that Armada Acquisition Corp. II shareholders will vote on the proposed business combination on September 30, 2026. Closing remains subject to that vote and other customary conditions.

Evernorth CEO Asheesh Birla said the company plans to enter public markets as blockchain utility grows, adding that it expects institutional finance to increasingly be built on-chain. “Evernorth is designed to accelerate XRP’s role in that work,” he noted in the announcement.

The effective registration statement follows a process that started publicly in March when Evernorth filed its Form S-4 in connection with its planned combination with Armada II, a special purpose acquisition company sponsored by Arrington Capital.

As CryptoPotato reported at the time, the filing provided the first detailed look at Evernorth’s plan to give public-market investors exposure to XRP through an actively managed treasury. The company said then that it had raised more than $1 billion in gross proceeds from institutional and strategic investors, including Ripple, SBI Holdings, Pantera Capital, Kraken, and Arrington Capital.

The latest filing moves the transaction beyond the SEC review stage, but it does not mean the merger has already closed. If shareholders approve the deal and the remaining conditions are satisfied, the combined firm is expected to become publicly traded on Nasdaq under the ticker XRPN, subject to exchange approval.

What the SEC Decision Changes

The registration statement becoming effective removes one major procedural hurdle, but as pointed out before, the shareholder vote remains ahead.

Evernorth’s March filing described the proposed transaction as a combination involving it, Armada II, and Ripple. Under the agreement, holders of company units and Armada stock would receive shares in the resulting public company, subject to the terms and limitations set out in the transaction document.

The proposed structure is also different from simply launching an XRP-focused fund. Evernorth is being organized as a public company whose strategy centers on holding and managing XRP. That gives investors exposure through corporate equity rather than direct ownership of the underlying token.

For XRP holders, the more interesting question may come after the merger. Evernorth, as said earlier, has raised more than $1 billion for its treasury strategy and has said it wants to build what it expects to be Nasdaq’s largest publicly traded XRP treasury company, and the community will be waiting to see whether that translates into sustained XRP demand or meaningful activity on the XRP Ledger.

At the time of writing, the fifth-largest cryptocurrency was trading just above $1.40, up almost 10% over one week and nearly 32% in the last 30 days.

The post XRP Treasury Giant Evernorth Moves Closer to Nasdaq Debut After SEC Milestone appeared first on CryptoPotato.

Bitcoin’s latest rally appears to be driven partly by short covering rather than fresh leveraged positions, according to QCP Research. Open interest has fallen as BTC advanced, while strong spot ETF inflows have provided additional demand, the firm noted.

Spot demand is also strengthening, with QCP noting that ETF inflows are nearing the 95th percentile of the past year. However, the firm warned that the rally could become more fragile if short covering loses momentum and new demand does not replace it.

Strategy Raises Cash Without Adding Bitcoin

The market structure comes as Strategy raised more than $1.9 billion without adding Bitcoin to its holdings. The company reported 840,447 BTC for a second consecutive week, leaving its BTC reserve unchanged.

Strategy raised $2.01 billion through an at-the-market equity sale between August 17 and 23. It also built a $1.59 billion flexible cash reserve, bringing its total dollar assets to $6.69 billion.

The latest financing points to liquidity management rather than immediate accumulation. Strategy’s average purchase price remains $75,385 per BTC, with QCP viewing its cash reserve as support for preferred stock and post-dilution flexibility.

Macro Signals Keep Markets on Edge

Broader macroeconomic signals have also added uncertainty to the market. Minutes from the July Federal Open Market Committee meeting showed a 9-3 vote, with three officials preferring a 25-basis-point rate hike.

Attention now turns to Kevin Warsh’s appearance at Jackson Hole on Friday, although no specific policy guidance has been promised. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent also announced plans to double the maximum size of long-term Treasury buybacks to $4 billion per operation from September 9.

The announcement pushed Treasury yields lower and the US dollar to a three-month low. QCP called the buyback plan a liquidity overlay, while the weaker dollar and elevated long-term yields could support Bitcoin and gold amid ongoing fiscal concerns.

Energy markets add another layer of uncertainty. Tensions around Iran and the Strait of Hormuz are raising supply concerns as tanker crossings decline and reserves fall below 300 million barrels.

With jobless claims due Thursday and Warsh speaking Friday, several near-term catalysts remain in focus. Bitcoin could remain range-bound into the September Federal Reserve meeting as markets assess whether current demand can sustain the rally.

The post Bitcoin Rally Could Lose Steam as Short Covering Fades: QCP appeared first on CryptoPotato.