Nvidia's robust earnings and growth projections suggest sustainable AI sector expansion, challenging bubble concerns and guiding strategic investments.

The post Nvidia’s earnings growth signals AI stocks are not in a bubble, says DBS appeared first on Crypto Briefing.

SwissBorg's involvement in the Eurpe Consortium could accelerate euro stablecoin adoption, enhancing digital euro infrastructure and integration.

The post SwissBorg joins Eurøpe Consortium to back euro stablecoin EURØP appeared first on Crypto Briefing.

Plume's nBND vault could accelerate institutional adoption of tokenized assets, blending traditional finance with blockchain innovation.

The post Plume launches nBND vault backed by Fidelity Total Bond ETF appeared first on Crypto Briefing.

Ethereum's liquidity challenges could lead to increased market volatility, impacting traders' strategies and potentially amplifying price swings.

The post Ethereum surges nearly 70% in Q3, but its order books thin out against Bitcoin appeared first on Crypto Briefing.

The escalating costs of AI training could lead to industry consolidation, limiting competition to a few major players, while cheaper inference may democratize AI usage.

The post Microsoft AI CEO Mustafa Suleyman says $100 billion training runs are coming appeared first on Crypto Briefing.

Bitcoin Magazine

IMF Praises El Salvador — But Still Tries To Scale Back Its Bitcoin Project

The International Monetary Fund has praised El Salvador for improving its economy — but scolded it at the same time for its ongoing Bitcoin experiment. 

In a statement Friday, the IMF said that it had  approved a $139 million disbursement to the Central American nation while also trying to “reduce the state’s involvement in Bitcoin-related activities.”

El Salvador in 2021 made Bitcoin legal tender, much to the ire of the IMF and other major institutions. The Latin American country was at the time negotiating a development loan with the agency. 

The IMF in September said that El Salvador wasn’t buying bitcoin; the country’s Bitcoin Office has repeatedly said that it does buy the cryptocurrency. 

“Economic activity has exceeded expectations, supported by sustained improvements in security and investor confidence, as macroeconomic imbalances continue to be addressed,” the IMF said. 

It continued: “However, certain performance criteria were not met, including on the Bitcoin accumulation front, for which waivers were granted based on strong corrective measures and renewed commitments.”

The IMF further said that the Salvadoran state’s involvement in Bitcoin-related activities is being unwound and that “no further bitcoin accumulation is envisaged beyond the documented donations.”

Salvadoran president Nayib Bukele in 2022 said the country would buy one bitcoin per day but it was never clear where the money was coming from — or if he was actually buying at all.  

The IMF said in September that El Salvador was — at least for some time —not using public funds to accumulate bitcoin but rather had received bitcoin from private donations. 

El Salvador and the IMF entered a $1.4 billion loan agreement at the end of December but the fund asked for the country to scale back certain aspects of its Bitcoin strategy.  

The Salvadoran state gifted its citizens bitcoin in 2021 and debuted a wallet with the hope of getting more citizens using the cryptocurrency in the dollarized country. 

President Bukele in 2024 admitted that Salvadorans weren’t using the cryptocurrency to buy things as expected, but always boasted that the government was still stacking sats.  

This post IMF Praises El Salvador — But Still Tries To Scale Back Its Bitcoin Project first appeared on Bitcoin Magazine and is written by Mathew Di Salvo.

Bitcoin Magazine

South Africa’s Absa Becomes First Bank on the Continent to Custody Bitcoin: Report

South African bank Absa has become the first African lender to custody bitcoin, according to reports. 

As reported first by Bloomberg on Friday, the Johannesburg-based lender will serve institutional clients, mostly by custodying bitcoin — but other digital assets will also be a part of the service. 

Banks worldwide are integrating or offering bitcoin-related products and services. A number of U.S. and European banks have started offering crypto-related services by custodying assets for institutions.

Rob Downes, head of digital assets at Absa’s corporate and investment banking unit, was quoted saying that while bitcoin was the biggest asset the bank would custody, others would follow. 

Absa did not immediately respond to questions from Bitcoin Magazine. 

The African continent has a large crypto-native base, with data firms frequently highlighting the high adoption — particularly in countries where currencies have been significantly debased. 

In Chainalysis’s 2025 report, South Africa’s $36.0 billion in on-chain value made it second in Sub-Saharan Africa. Nigeria alone received $92.1 billion, nearly three times the total of second-place South Africa. 

On the global index, South Africa ranked 30th for crypto adoption. 

The character of its market is different from Nigeria‘s: it’s more institutional, with regulatory clarity resulting in hundreds of licenses being issued to VASPs and attracting professional investors and traditional finance. 

BNY Mellon in 2022 became the first major U.S. bank to offer digital asset custody services. And this month, German multinational Deutsche Bank said it would debut a bitcoin custody service for European corporate and institutional clients later in 2026.  

This post South Africa’s Absa Becomes First Bank on the Continent to Custody Bitcoin: Report first appeared on Bitcoin Magazine and is written by Mathew Di Salvo.

Bitcoin Magazine

Bitcoin Price Surges Above $87,000 on Softer-Than-Expected Jobs Data

The price of bitcoin surged above $87,000 on Friday morning in New York, buoyed by constant exchange-traded fund flows and a jobs report showing that unemployment in the U.S. had ticked up. 

Bitcoin’s price recently stood at $85,990 after a 2% jump over a 24-hour period. Over the past week, it has also risen by more than 2%. 

Nonfarm payrolls increased 29,000 last month after a downward revision to the prior two months, Bureau of Labor Statistics data showed Friday. 

Weaker-than-expected jobs data can give a lift to riskier assets like bitcoin and stocks, whose prices tend to swing more sharply. 

A softer labor market typically means less consumer spending, which eases pressure on prices. That could make the Federal Reserve less inclined to keep raising interest rates to fight inflation.

Many economists and politicians have said the U.S. is in the midst of an affordability crisis, and the topic is a hot one ahead of the November midterm elections. 

The Federal Reserve’s new chair, Kevin Warsh, has said that prices in the world’s biggest economy are too high and that the central bank is fully focused on making life more affordable again. 

Bitcoin investors shrugged off the central bank’s interest rate hike in September, climbing on the news. 

The largest cryptocurrency started rallying in August on news that the U.S. Treasury Department said it would more than double the size of its government debt repurchases. The coin had its best run in three years and third best August ever.  

The coin’s price has benefited from the so-called debasement trade: when investors buy certain assets to hedge against currency being devalued. The dollar slid in value in August. 

It continued to have a good September, rising nearly 6% over a 30-day period. 

October has historically delivered good returns for bitcoin investors, with traders dubbing the phenomenon “Uptober.” 

This post Bitcoin Price Surges Above $87,000 on Softer-Than-Expected Jobs Data first appeared on Bitcoin Magazine and is written by Mathew Di Salvo.

Bitcoin Magazine

Impacts of Daily Dividends on Digital Credit

In May 2026, Strive rebranded itself as “The Daily Dividend Company,” then moved SATA to daily cash dividends beginning June 16. Strategy has now pushed the same idea into its own digital credit engine. On September 24, its board proposed moving STRC, STRF, STRK and STRD to daily dividends, subject to shareholder approval at an October 28 special meeting. The proposal keeps the annual dividend economics unchanged and changes the cadence of cash payments.

STRC spent much of the summer below its $100 stated amount even as Strategy raised its dividend rate to 12% and deployed more than $1 billion buying back STRC. The move to daily dividends by Strategy could be seen as the latest attempt to make the security more attractive and help it trade near par.

Now that the overton window has fully shifted in favor of digital credit paying daily dividends, we should take a look at the actual impacts of daily dividends. 

Daily Dividends Fit Onchain Finance

Digital credit is increasingly becoming an input for other financial products—so called “digital money” or “digital yield” products. Strategy estimated in mid-May that more than $440 million of STRC exposure had moved into DeFi through stablecoins, tokenized securities, yield products and other structures.

However, there is a cash flow mismatch. Crypto products commonly accrue and distribute yield at high frequency. A security that pays monthly or twice monthly forces the product sitting on top of it to bridge the period between economic accrual and actual cash receipt.

Daily dividends compress that gap to one day. The protocol, fund or issuer receives cash from the underlying asset at almost the same cadence that users expect to receive yield. That simplifies liquidity management and reduces the cash needed between dividend dates. This is much more impactful to a financial product funding daily distributions or redemptions than to a long term investor focused on total return. The crypto-heavy setting of the “Layer 3” products on top of digital credit raises the attractiveness of daily dividends. 

Daily Dividends Are Primarily a Retail Feature

For investors focused strictly on total return, dividend payment frequency makes little difference in underlying economic value. The asset’s price accrues between distribution dates and adjusts post-payment, meaning annual, quarterly, monthly, and daily payouts produce comparable long-term results.

The true advantage of daily dividends lies in product psychology and user experience. Cash arriving every day provides immediate visibility and an engaging feedback loop. Investors can spend, withdraw, or automatically reinvest the payout while leaving their principal position intact, turning an abstract yield metric into tangible recurring cash flow.

This dynamic mirrors the strategy of Realty Income, which built a massive retail follower base by branding itself as “The Monthly Dividend Company.” As a member of the S&P 500 Dividend Aristocrats Index, Realty Income has paid and raised dividends for 31 consecutive years. 

Daily dividends on digital credit extends this product concept even further: SATA pairs frequent daily payouts with a target price near $100 and a double-digit yield.

While institutional investors prioritize yield spreads, liquidity, tax structure, and balance sheet coverage, daily payments offer their strongest appeal to retail buyers. If the overarching objective is to raise capital to purchase Bitcoin, optimizing security design for retail investor preferences is the most effective approach.

Options Get Cleaner Too

Daily dividends also change options mechanics. STRC currently pays $0.50 twice monthly. SATA pays roughly five cents each business day. Larger dividend events create larger discrete adjustments in the underlying price, which affects option pricing and early exercise decisions. Daily payments spread the same annual cash flow across much smaller adjustments.

The total value of dividends over an option’s life is a key economic input. The more interesting effect comes from the price stability created by daily dividends. If daily dividends, variable rates and active par management keep SATA and STRC trading in narrower ranges, realized volatility should fall. Implied volatility can follow as the market gains confidence in that behavior.

The Biggest Test

The real test is whether daily dividends increase demand enough to eventually lower the required yield.

If investors consistently support SATA near the top of its target range, Strive can theoretically reduce the dividend rate while attempting to keep SATA near par. Success would show that a Bitcoin company can issue permanent preferred capital, manage it around a stable price, and adjust its yield with market demand. The benefit of the variable rate preferreds was, from inception, the eventual opportunity to lower the rate and reduce the cost of capital without upsetting price stability. In comparison, fixed rate credit locks in fixed rate forever. 

Conclusion 

Strategy adopting daily dividends would move the feature from a SATA differentiator toward a digital credit category standard. The annual economics barely change but the retail appeal and crypto composability become meaningful improvements. 

This post Impacts of Daily Dividends on Digital Credit first appeared on Bitcoin Magazine and is written by Allard Peng.

Bitcoin Magazine

Frank Holmes: They Will Print $100 Trillion – Why to Buy Bitcoin & Gold

Bitcoin miners already have the power, the land, and the substations that AI needs. Frank Holmes, executive chairman of HIVE Digital Technologies, explains why he calls Bitcoin mining a “tier one” data center, how GPUs that once mined Ethereum led HIVE into AI, and why he thinks the next wave of AI factories will be built on mining infrastructure from Paraguay to Canada.

Chapters:
0:00 Frank Holmes on HIVE: From Gold Investor to Bitcoin Miner to AI Compute
2:12 How ETFs Changed Bitcoin: From the Fear Trade to the Love Trade
4:20 The Binance $19 Billion Liquidation and the $350 Trillion Money Supply
5:45 Gamers, Younger Quants, and Why Bitcoin Will Keep Gaining Adoption
7:29 Covid’s $40 Trillion of Money Printing and the Global MMT Risk
9:24 China, Russia, and Why Bitcoin Is a Tier One Data Center
11:33 China’s Bitcoin Mining, $1.4 Trillion of Lending, and Central Banks Buying Gold
13:44 Paraguay’s Central Bank and Bitcoin Mining as an Export
14:57 Compute as a Commodity: Canada’s AI Push and Bitcoin Miners’ Power Advantage
20:34 Where to Find Frank Holmes’s Weekly Investor Alert Newsletter

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in this show are those of the participants and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of BTC Inc., Bitcoin Magazine, or any affiliated entities. This content is provided for informational and educational purposes only and should not be construed as investment, legal, tax, or accounting advice. Nothing contained in this show constitutes a solicitation, recommendation, endorsement, or offer to buy or sell any securities or financial instruments. Viewers should consult their own advisors before making financial or business decisions.

This post Frank Holmes: They Will Print $100 Trillion – Why to Buy Bitcoin & Gold first appeared on Bitcoin Magazine and is written by Patrick Green.

Illinois officials have joined crypto industry groups in seeking a six-month delay to the state’s controversial digital-asset tax.

The agreed motion, filed Oct. 1 in Sangamon County, asks a judge to postpone the levy’s Jan. 1 start until July 1, 2027, while a constitutional challenge brought by The Digital Chamber and the Illinois Blockchain Association proceeds.

Revenue Director David Harris and Attorney General Kwame Raoul joined the request even as the state continues to dispute the industry groups’ claims against the law. If granted, the injunction would temporarily spare brokers from collecting the tax and defer corresponding liabilities for covered customers.

The court had not been confirmed to have entered the order as of Oct. 4.

The move marks a shift in the immediate battle over a levy that crypto firms have spent months warning could raise compliance costs and push activity outside Illinois. The law remains in force, and the joint filing does not concede that it is unconstitutional or seek its repeal.

Instead, both sides would preserve their legal positions while delaying collection as the lawsuit and the state’s rulemaking process continue.

Illinois crypto tax burden moves back six months

Illinois enacted the Digital Asset Tax in June, imposing a 0.2% levy on the value of digital assets involved in certain covered transactions rather than on investors’ trading profits.

Draft rules from the Illinois Department of Revenue show how broadly that structure could reach. A fee-paid withdrawal from a broker to a self-custody wallet can qualify when the statutory conditions are met, while a direct transfer without a covered broker may fall outside the levy.

Brokers are responsible for collecting and remitting the tax and can remain liable when they fail to collect it. Customers face a separate fallback obligation: if the tax is not charged, they may have to calculate and pay the amount themselves by the 20th of the following month.

Those obligations were due to begin in January despite the pending lawsuit. A court-approved delay would remove that immediate deadline for the first half of 2027, giving exchanges and other affected firms more time before they have to build collection and reporting procedures around the new regime.

However, the pause would not necessarily halt all compliance work.

Illinois’ draft rules remain under consultation, with public comments open through Oct. 30. The rules have not yet been filed with the Secretary of State or submitted to the Joint Committee on Administrative Rules, leaving key implementation details unsettled.

The parties have also asked to move the state’s deadline for responding to the lawsuit to Nov. 13.

That leaves crypto companies with two separate questions before year-end: whether the judge grants the agreed delay and how the Revenue Department changes its rules after receiving industry feedback.

If the injunction is entered, firms would gain another six months before customers begin seeing the tax on covered transactions. The legal challenge would continue during that window, leaving open the possibility that companies could use the reprieve to prepare for a levy whose ultimate validity remains before the court.

The post Illinois backs delay to crypto tax rule after months of industry pushback appeared first on CryptoSlate.

El Salvador secured access to $138 million from the IMF while recommitting to limits on further state Bitcoin accumulation.

The International Monetary Fund (IMF) completed the second and third reviews of the country’s $1.4 billion loan program on Oct. 1, allowing an immediate disbursement equivalent to SDR 101.96 million, or $138 million. The board also granted waivers for unmet performance criteria tied to Bitcoin accumulation after authorities took corrective measures and renewed their commitments.

Those waivers keep financing flowing despite earlier breaches, while leaving the program’s direction on Bitcoin unchanged. The IMF said no further accumulation is envisaged beyond documented donations, preserving a constraint that prevents the government from resuming publicly funded purchases under the program.

El Salvador currently holds about 7,794.37 Bitcoin valued at roughly $666.1 million. The size of that reserve has continued to draw attention because additions to government-linked wallets appear inconsistent with the IMF agreement.

The Fund has previously distinguished between Bitcoin acquired with public money and coins received through documented donations. That distinction remains central after the latest review: reserve balances can still rise without signaling that President Nayib Bukele’s government has restarted purchases.

Bitcoin waiver keeps restrictions intact

The Bitcoin concession formed part of a broader review in which the IMF said fiscal consolidation was advancing broadly in line with program objectives and reserve and liquidity targets had been comfortably met. The 40-month Extended Fund Facility was approved in February 2025 and is designed to support fiscal adjustment, stronger reserves and financial-sector reforms.

The Fund also cited progress in reducing the state’s direct role in crypto. The government has transferred majority ownership and control of the government-backed Chivo wallet to a private operator, though the IMF said remaining public-sector exposure should still be fully unwound.

That leaves several Bitcoin-related obligations unresolved even as another tranche of financing becomes available.

The IMF wants El Salvador to improve disclosure of public-sector crypto holdings, strengthen regulation and governance for digital-asset providers and amend its Digital Asset Issuance Law where necessary. Those measures sit alongside the continued commitment to avoid additional government-funded Bitcoin accumulation.

The restrictions give the government less room to use its balance sheet to expand the Bitcoin reserve while remaining inside the IMF program, even as higher BTC prices increase the value of the holdings it already controls.

Future reviews will therefore hinge partly on whether El Salvador can document how its Bitcoin balance changes while completing the remaining Chivo unwind and transparency reforms. Any unexplained accumulation could again force the government to seek waivers before accessing further program financing.

The post El Salvador’s $666 million Bitcoin reserve survives IMF review appeared first on CryptoSlate.

Coin Metrics has rebuilt Ethereum's historical Standard Flow Metrics, raising a timing problem for tests that treat exchange outflows as a trading signal.

The crypto data provider's Oct. 1 notice says it recomputed Ethereum Standard Flow Metrics from the network's first block using its most up-to-date information as part of its Ethereum Point-in-Time release. The affected scope is all ETH Flow Metrics at daily and hourly frequencies, with corrected history available for backfilling.

That creates a practical distinction for investment research. A chart downloaded today can describe past flows using knowledge acquired later. A backtest, which replays a trading rule through historical data, needs the information available when each decision would have occurred.

The immediate consequence is a need to identify data vintage, meaning the version of the data used in the test; any effect on returns still requires measurement.

Why the same historical date can tell a different story

Coin Metrics' flow methodology makes the distinction concrete. Standard metrics use all addresses currently known to belong to an exchange or other tracked entity, with each address's history starting at its first nonzero balance. Past values can be restated when additional entity addresses are identified.

Its Point-in-Time, or PIT, series instead uses addresses known to belong to the entity during the historical interval. An address contributes from its discovery date, and later discoveries do not rewrite earlier PIT intervals. The provider documents daily and hourly PIT counterparts to Standard exchange-flow metrics.

The underlying issue is attribution. A transfer can be assigned to an exchange retrospectively once the provider identifies the wallet. That fuller reconstruction may be useful for analyzing past supply movements with today's address coverage. Establishing what a trader could have recognized requires the address information and values available at that earlier moment.

Coin Metrics had outlined the recomputation on Sept. 28 to maintain that distinction, expecting ETH completion on Sept. 30. Its completion notice was posted Oct. 1 at 17:04 UTC; notice timing alone does not date every affected value's availability.

Standard versus PIT tests different address-knowledge rules. Retained Standard history from before and after the rebuild is the comparison needed to measure this particular revision. PIT is a distinct attribution method. A copy of pre-rebuild Standard values preserves a particular version of the Standard product.

CryptoQuant's ETH Exchange Flows documentation explicitly warns that the endpoint does not support PIT accuracy. It says historical values may change as exchange wallets are discovered, added and validated through periodic clustering updates.

CryptoQuant schedules automatic updates for Tuesday at 00:00 UTC each week and says values can change slightly, especially recent observations. Each provider's revisions require their own measurements and update records.

For an analyst, retaining an old query date is therefore insufficient if the historical values are fetched again from a mutable endpoint. The dates of the observations may remain the same while the information used to construct them changes.

The interpretation of an outflow also needs restraint. A withdrawal measures movement relative to attributed exchange wallets. A claim about buying or profitable trading requires additional evidence.

Glassnode's BTC illustration isolates data-vintage risk

Glassnode supplied an illustration of the problem in a March 13, 2026, hypothetical backtest. It used Binance's BTC exchange balance to enter the market when a five-day moving average fell below a 14-day average and exit when the shorter average rose above the longer one.

The test covered Jan. 1, 2024, through March 9, 2026, starting with $1,000 and charging 0.1% per trade. Glassnode said it repeated the test using PIT balances while keeping the signal logic, parameters, dates and fees unchanged. The provider reported worse performance with PIT data than with revised balances.

The useful comparison is that the rule stayed fixed while the data variant changed. A historical balance pattern reconstructed with later knowledge can trigger different decisions from a pattern built from contemporaneous knowledge.

Glassnode supplied this BTC balance result, and the test remains unreplicated in this analysis. Its relevance to ETH is the measurement approach: hold the rule fixed and compare the data vintages. ETH signal and return effects require their own experiment.

The availability clock adds a further constraint. Glassnode's PIT documentation adds two limits to the shorthand promise of replaying the past.

First, PIT history exists only from the date tracking began for each metric. Before July 2025, coverage was limited to BTC, ETH and selected tokens and metrics; tracking expanded across all platform metrics from July 2025. A metric added then does not acquire earlier PIT observations merely because regular historical data exists.

Second, the timestamp attached to an observation is not necessarily when a trader could retrieve it. Glassnode says it has recorded relevant computed_at timestamps since September 2024, omitting the field when unavailable, and that API publication follows computation with a delay.

An unchanged historical value addresses later revision. Replaying a trading decision also requires placing the input after its actual publication. A test that acts before the input could be accessed still uses information from the future.

For Coin Metrics' ETH series, that means documenting each metric's first tracking date and historical customer availability. Glassnode's coverage dates and publication disclosures apply to its own products.

The evidence needed to measure an ETH trading effect

Measuring this rebuild requires paired observations from the same provider and metric, with matching exchange coverage, intervals and dates. For the revision question, that means retained pre-rebuild Standard values alongside the post-rebuild Standard history. For the trading question, it also means an information set demonstrably available at each decision time.

The rule must remain fixed across the comparison: the same entry and exit conditions, parameters and evaluation window. Availability cutoffs and execution timing belong in the test, alongside trading costs. Otherwise, changing the strategy while changing the data would leave the source of any performance difference unclear.

The comparison should then distinguish changed input values from changed signals, changed trades and changed returns. A revision can matter to the dataset without changing a particular rule's decisions.

The decisive follow-up is a paired ETH dataset and a fixed-rule replay that separates data changes from trading changes. Revised history can describe supply with today's address knowledge. A claim that outflows offered a usable trading edge requires reproducible inputs, publication timing and trading decisions.

The post Ethereum’s past outflow charts can change when more exchange wallets are identified appeared first on CryptoSlate.

Bitcoin's recovery above $85,000 faces a demand test after a sharp fall in bets on another Federal Reserve rate hike. A new post-payroll study places the strongest burst of forced buying before Friday's jobs report, while Bitcoin retreated after the release.

Bitcoin was $85,276 around press time, up 0.83% over 24 hours. The Sunday price remained below the $86,000 area reached before payrolls.

For holders tracking Bitcoin's recovery, the gap raises a practical question: who will sustain the recovery after the initial short squeeze? Thursday's ETF inflows provided a buying signal, but incomplete Friday figures leave the industry's response to payrolls unresolved heading into Monday's US session.

The squeeze came before payrolls

Glassnode's Oct. 3 post-payroll study estimated the probability of an additional quarter-point hike at the Oct. 28 meeting fell from 66% on Sept. 28 to 22% by 15:00 UTC on Oct. 2. The estimate comes from Glassnode's calculations using fed funds futures and the effective federal funds rate.

The timing of the strongest forced buying is revealing. Glassnode measured $50 million of short liquidations in ten minutes at 04:20 UTC on Oct. 2, eight hours before the jobs release. By 15:40 UTC, Bitcoin was more than 1% below its immediate pre-release level.

Short sellers can add buying pressure when rising prices force them to close their positions. Once those positions are closed, maintaining the higher price requires other buyers to absorb continuing offers. Friday's sequence supports caution about extrapolating the overnight advance into lasting investor commitment.

Open interest, the value of outstanding futures positions, rose $2.1 billion in the 24 hours before payrolls, according to Glassnode. Positions also grew about 2.5% when measured in coins. Open interest then fell $1.5 billion after continuing to rise for roughly an hour following the release.

The dollar change tracks outstanding exposure and is affected by valuation; investment capital lost is a different measure. The study's sequence links expanding positions to the advance and their subsequent retreat to falling prices, while leaving the cause of the reversal unresolved.

The fund market supplies a separate piece of evidence. US spot Bitcoin ETFs recorded net inflows of $102 million on Oct. 1, according to Farside Investors' flow table.

That positive session followed Wednesday's redemptions, showing that fund buying had returned before payrolls. It gives the recovery more substance than a short-covering explanation alone. Thursday's flow, however, describes a session before the report, leaving Friday's response to be measured separately.

Repeated inflows would extend Thursday's evidence across more sessions and show whether investors keep committing money after the release. Renewed redemptions would instead put that positive day in the context of a recovery struggling for sustained fund support.

Participation also matters beyond fund subscriptions. In its Sept. 30 market study, Glassnode put combined spot-exchange and US spot-ETF trading volume at about $6.4 billion a day, near the bottom of its range since the ETFs launched. That pre-payroll assessment provides a dated baseline for judging whether activity broadens.

Trading volume measures transactions, including repeated trades. A rise would indicate greater activity, while fund flows provide a separate measure of subscriptions and redemptions. Read together with price, these observations can help distinguish broader participation from an advance dominated by the closing of futures positions.

Monday tests the path from policy relief to buying

The latest observed Fed decision was a rate increase. Its Sept. 16 announcement raised the target range by a quarter percentage point to 3.75%-4%. Falling October hike odds leave that increase in place; a cut would require a separate policy decision.

The September employment report, released on Oct. 2, recorded 29,000 payroll gains and 4.2% unemployment. The Bureau of Labor Statistics described both as little changed. Slower hiring can give policymakers reason for patience, making the report relevant to the next decision even while September's increase remains the policy baseline.

Longer-term rates present another hurdle. Glassnode's Friday intraday study showed short-term yields falling while long-term yields rose, with the ten-year near 5.2%. That divergence matters because a reduced prospect of further Fed hikes can coexist with elevated longer-term borrowing costs.

For Bitcoin, the benefit depends on how investors respond. A more favorable outlook for the next policy meeting may encourage additional exposure. Whether that becomes sustained buying must be observed in the market, alongside the financing conditions investors still face.

The Institute for Supply Management's September services report is scheduled for Monday, Oct. 5 at 10:00 a.m. ET. Its previous August survey combined a headline PMI of 55.4 with employment at 47.8 and a prices index of 72.6: expanding activity, contracting employment and broad input-cost pressure.

That combination makes the next report's details relevant alongside its headline. Softer employment accompanied by easing price pressure could reinforce the argument for policy patience. Persistent price pressure or stronger activity could complicate it. The services release therefore supplies a fresh check on the rate outlook that emerged from payrolls.

The next US ETF sessions will show whether fund investors keep buying as the market absorbs that outlook. Their timing matters: flows reported after the release can extend the evidence beyond the Thursday inflow already recorded, while a completed Friday row would clarify the initial response.

Bitcoin stood above $85,000 in Sunday's snapshot but below its pre-payroll $86,000 area. Sustaining a recovery toward that level with repeated fund inflows and stronger spot participation would weaken the demand concern. Another rejection without those supporting signals would strengthen it. Those combined observations would give holders firmer evidence of follow-through than a lower hike-probability estimate alone.

The post Bitcoin’s $85,000 recovery awaits proof that ETF investors kept buying after payrolls appeared first on CryptoSlate.

Bitcoin Core has added a safeguard against signing transactions that may not bind funds to the payment destination a user approved.

The change, merged into Bitcoin Core’s master development branch on Sept. 25, targets a narrow flaw in partially signed Bitcoin transactions, or PSBTs, that could produce a valid signature without protecting the intended output.

Bitcoin Optech highlighted the update on Oct. 2. The issue does not expose a user’s private key, but creates a different risk: a signature can remain valid even when the transaction’s recipient is changed under specific conditions.

The weakness involves SIGHASH_SINGLEwhich is a signing mode designed to commit an input to the output in the corresponding position. If the transaction contains no output at that position, the protection breaks down differently depending on the type of Bitcoin being spent.

For legacy inputs, the missing-output case can produce a signature over a fixed hash value. Bitcoin Core developers said that signature may then be reusable against other unspent outputs controlled by the same key when the same structural conditions are present.

SegWit v0 transactions retain stronger protections because the signature still commits to the specific coin being spent and its amount. The destination output, however, can remain unbound.

That creates an authorization problem for wallets and signing devices: software could present one payment to the user while producing a signature that does not cryptographically guarantee that the approved recipient remains unchanged.

Bitcoin Core blocks the risky signing request

Bitcoin Core already rejected the edge case through its raw-transaction signing interface. Its PSBT path, including walletprocesspsbtcould still sign it.

The new code moves the check into Bitcoin Core’s shared signature-creation logic, preventing affected legacy and SegWit v0 inputs from being signed while allowing other valid inputs in the same PSBT to proceed.

PSBTs are commonly used to coordinate transactions between software wallets, hardware devices and offline signers. They allow transaction builders to pass information to a separate signer without giving that system control of the private keys.

The fix therefore reinforces a boundary that wallet developers must enforce independently of key security: a valid cryptographic signature must commit to the transaction details the user actually authorized.

Bitcoin Improvement Proposal 174, which defines PSBTs, already tells signers to reject unacceptable signing modes and recommends SIGHASH_ALL when no alternative is specified. The Bitcoin Core change explicitly prevents this missing-output configuration from reaching the signing stage.

Users do not yet have a confirmed production release containing the safeguard. The Sept. 25 change was merged into Bitcoin Core’s development branch, while the project’s published release listings had not identified a fixed version or confirmed backport as of Oct. 4.

That leaves wallet providers and hardware-signing integrations with the more immediate decision: review their own handling of SIGHASH_SINGLE requests rather than waiting for a Bitcoin Core release to enforce the same protection downstream.

The post Bitcoin Core’s new fix closes gap that could redirect funds without stealing keys appeared first on CryptoSlate.

Crypto airdrops in week 41: the deadlines running right now

This week brings a hard line in the calendar: on October 15, 2026, Sonic burns around 32,690,000 unclaimed S tokens from the Season 1 and Season 2 airdrops. Anyone who has not claimed by then gets nothing — no grace period is provided. Ten days remain.

A second date with a fixed end: the claim portal for the Pharos airdrop closes on October 25, 2026. And at Grass the window for the Stage 2 rewards runs until January 22, 2027 — payment there is in USDC, not in GRASS. The deadlines from last week have therefore partly expired and partly carried over into the new week.

If you are new to the subject: what an airdrop is, how snapshots work and how to spot a dubious offer is set out in our airdrop guide.

The dates at a glance

1. Sonic (S): ten days until 32.69 million tokens are burned

Sonic Labs has set a final cut-off for the Season 1 and Season 2 airdrops. According to the project, around 32,690,000 S across both seasons have gone unclaimed; those tokens will be burned on October 15, 2026. The project names no time of day — after the date the burn can be triggered at any moment, without further notice.

Important for anyone who has hesitated so far: the penalty deductions that applied to early claims at the start are over. Season 1 carried a deduction until April 18, 2026, Season 2 until May 24, 2026. Since then, and up to October 15, 2026, the claim is possible without any deduction. So there is no reason left to wait — and after the date, no way to catch up.

Claims are made in the project's portal at my.soniclabs.com/airdrop. All the details are in the Sonic Labs announcement on the burn and the final claim deadline.

2. Pharos (PROS): the claim portal closes on October 25

The Pharos airdrop has been running since April 28, 2026, with a clearly stated duration: 180 days. That gives October 25, 2026 as the last day. What happens afterwards is written down by the project itself — unclaimed tokens return to the Pharos Foundation, and the airdrop page is closed.

This is the rare case of a date where both ends are documented: the start and the finish. Eligible, according to the project, are testnet participants, contributors to the “Stake Before the Stake” campaign, holders of certain Discord roles and users of the OKX wallet campaign. Anyone eligible across several categories has the entitlements combined automatically into a single claim.

The conditions and the closing date are set out in the FAQ of the Pharos claim portal. The project names no time of day for October 25; do not plan for the last day.

3. Grass (Stage 2): until January 22, 2027 — and the payout comes in USDC

At Grass this concerns the rewards for taking part in the network in Stage 2. Anyone who shared bandwidth in epochs 1 to 19 is taken into account — that is the period from October 14, 2024 to June 8, 2026. The claim has been open since July 22, 2026, and the hard deadline runs until January 22, 2027. After that, unclaimed rewards are retained.

The point many readers skip: the payout is in USDC, not in GRASS. The Grass Foundation puts that down to regulatory uncertainty in the eligible countries. For you it means you do not receive a project token whose price you have to watch, but a dollar stablecoin — for tax purposes that is a different event from a token airdrop, more on which below.

Checking and claiming run exclusively through the project's official dashboard; the explanation of the Stage 2 distribution is in the Grass blog. Grass states itself: the project does not contact you by direct message first, never asks for a seed phrase or private keys, and runs no check through third-party sites.

Not included — and why

This section is the more important part of the research. The following candidates were checked this week and deliberately left out:

• LAPTOP at Bitvavo, registration deadline October 10, 2026 at 11:59 p.m. CEST — the date falls in the middle of this week, and we have covered it in detail. It still appears only in the exchange's help section and in the banner of your own account, not on a publicly verifiable project page: laptopcoin.com has been a domain sales page for weeks. That is why the entry stays out of the table. Anyone who sees an invitation in their account will find the details in our piece on the LAPTOP claim at Bitvavo; what binds are the exchange's own terms.
• CZR Genesis airdrop — the campaign deadline of September 30 doing the rounds has passed, and the notice from CZR Fndn Ltd. never carried an airdrop date at any point. In any case another sentence from it is decisive: the token is not available to persons resident or habitually located in the European Union. An offer that, on the provider's own terms, is not open to our readers does not belong on this list.
• Aster Phase 2 with “claim from October 14” — the statement is correct, only for 2025. The checking portal opened on October 10 and the claim on October 14, both in the previous year. The candidate keeps circulating and remains wrongly dated.
• GRVT — the tranches continue, 30 days per tranche. The project still publishes no date for the next unlock; it appears only in your own account. No documented date, no entry.
• Plume (Season 2) and dappOS (DOS) — claims still open, but with no published end date. We do not invent one and we do not round one.
• ETHGas (GWEI) — the snapshot and claim dates being shared anew date from January 2026. No running deadline.

Also not on this list are the conversion and realisation deadlines that exchanges are currently setting for individual tokens, for instance with SWEAT or ICX. Those are forced conversions on a delisting, not airdrops — even if both show up in the calendar as a deadline.

What to watch on every claim

The deadlines are one part, the route to them the other. Three things that cost money every week:

• Only the project's own address, never a link from a message. Open the claim portal via the official project page and, in case of doubt, type the address by hand. Fake claim pages are the most common route by which airdrop hunting ends in an empty wallet.
• No seed phrase, no private keys, no blanket approval. A claim needs a signature, never your recovery words. Anyone asking for them wants your wallet. For larger holdings it is worth separating the claim wallet from storage; our hardware wallet comparison sorts the devices.
• Budget for fees in advance. The claim itself is usually free, the transaction is not. With small allocations the network fee can exceed the value received — do the arithmetic before you sign.

And then? The token sits in the wallet

With the claim the real decision only begins: hold, swap or sell. With freshly distributed tokens from small market capitalisations that is no academic question, because prices often move violently in the first few days. Where the tokens stand you can see in our crypto prices.

Anyone who wants not merely to watch such tokens but to trade them straight from a phone needs something other than a charting tool: Dexscreener and TradingView display, they do not let you trade. The app FOMO Family is built for that — discover meme and low-cap tokens in the app, swipe through them and trade directly, with fast deposits. Download the app through the link and secure ten percent off trading fees. That trading becomes easier does not make it safer: meme and low-cap tokens are highly volatile, a total loss is possible at any time, and you should stake only what you can afford to lose entirely.

Think about tax straight away

An airdrop is not a tax-free gift in Germany merely because it cost nothing. What governs is still the Federal Ministry of Finance letter of March 6, 2025. What matters is that you record the time, the quantity and the market value at the moment of receipt — later it is barely possible to reconstruct. Which data you should secure immediately is set out point by point in our piece on the records to save as soon as an airdrop arrives.

And the most common error alongside it: the fact that you have sold nothing does not mean there is nothing to declare. Why unsold airdrops can be taxable too is something we explain there.

One note on the state of play, so you file it correctly: on September 25, 2026 the Federal Ministry of Finance presented a draft bill that would bring exchange cryptocurrencies under withholding tax and abolish the one-year holding period for newly acquired holdings — envisaged for acquisitions from January 1, 2027. That is a draft, not applicable law, and it does not address airdrops specifically. For everything you claim this week, the existing legal position applies.

Conclusion

Week 41 has one date that really presses: after October 15, 32.69 million S tokens from the Sonic airdrops are gone for good, and claiming without deduction has been possible for months. Pharos gives you ten more days, Grass months. Everything else circulating as an airdrop this week does not stand up to a check at the project source — and a date that exists only in reports about the date is not a documented date.

Disclosure: some of the providers named in this article work with us through partner programmes. That has no influence on the editorial assessment.

(As of October 5, 2026. This article is not investment advice. Deadlines and terms of participation change; check them with the provider before taking part.)

If you are holding a tokenized stock as collateral in a margin account, October 14, 2026 is a deadline for you, not a news item. At 6:00 a.m. New York time that day, the next lock-up tranche at chipmaker Cerebras comes free, covering up to around 19.4 million shares. The previous tranche of the same size was released on September 30. The share price closed 8.87 percent lower that day than the day before. An investor who merely holds the token sees a red number in the portfolio. An investor who has pledged it sees something else: a shrunken credit line, possibly in the middle of the night in Europe.

This article explains what actually happens to a pledged stock token on a date like this, which levers your provider pulls in the process, and which rules apply in Germany. The plain calendar with every Cerebras date through November is in our release schedule for the Cerebras lock-up. What follows is the mechanism behind it, which works the same way at every newly listed company.

What the Cerebras prospectus actually says about October 14, 2026

The source is not market chatter but the prospectus the company filed with the US Securities and Exchange Commission. It sets out a staged plan: 8.9 percent of the locked stock held by directors, officers, other employees and further existing shareholders comes free on each of three dates, September 30, October 14 and October 28, 2026, each at 6:00 a.m. New York time. Three smaller steps of 6.7 percent each preceded them in August and September. The document puts each of the three October steps at up to roughly 19.4 million shares.

That volume has to be set in proportion. The prospectus names 215,110,345 outstanding shares across all classes after the listing. That works out at 9.02 percent per tranche. Had the underwriters exercised their over-allotment option in full, the figure would be 219,610,345 shares and therefore 8.83 percent. Both calculations are defensible; mixing them is not. The final end of the lock-up lies further out still: it falls on the earlier of two points, either two trading days after third-quarter results are filed or 180 days after the date of the prospectus.

One phrase in the prospectus decides how far all this reaches: up to. What is released is permission to sell, not a sale. Whether those entitled actually bring their shares to market is written nowhere and cannot be forecast seriously either.

Tokenized stock, stock token, bStock, xStock: how the terms differ

A tokenized stock is an instrument recorded on a blockchain whose value is tied to the price of a listed share. As a rule you are not buying a share with it, but a claim against the issuer of the token. Depending on the provider, the legal substance is a bearer note, a certificate or a contractual promise of economic participation. A vote at the annual general meeting is almost never part of it. Why that is not a detail is something we took apart in tokenized stocks and issuer risk.

The common product families carry different names and work differently. xStocks come from Backed Finance, run as tokens on Solana and are legally tracker certificates in the form of bearer notes; the base prospectus was approved by Liechtenstein's financial market authority and then passported into the European Economic Area. bStocks are issued by a company in the Binance group; they are meant to be backed one to one by the underlying share, held in regulated custody. Robinhood runs its own tokens on US equities, among them one on Cerebras. Several tokens on the same company therefore exist side by side, differing in issuer, custodian and legal form, even though the quoted price looks almost identical.

In practice that means the ticker tells you nothing about the legal position. Two tokens on the same chipmaker can have entirely different debtors. Which questions you can put to the issuer, and how to recognise a solid answer, is set out in our guide to the rights behind a stock token.

Why the Cerebras share price fell 8.87 percent on September 30

September 30 provides the rare case of a measured run-up rather than a presumption. Cerebras closing prices stood at $194.95 on September 29 and at $177.65 on September 30, the day of the release. That is 8.87 percent down in a single trading session. The slide continued from there: $169.52 on October 1, $166.43 on October 2. From the interim high of $206.75 on September 25 through October 2 that adds up to 19.5 percent.

The series proves no cause. The listing fell into a phase in which stocks around artificial intelligence were already swinging hard, and reports on large customers along with analyst verdicts moved the price over the same days. What the series does show is the order of magnitude: a release on this scale can accompany double-digit percentage moves within a week. That order of magnitude is precisely what makes a pledged token in a margin account delicate.

Haircut, collateral value and margin calls: how a stock token counts towards your credit line

When you pledge an asset as collateral, the trading platform does not credit it at the full market price. Instead it applies a discount, the haircut. With a haircut of 30 percent, 1,000 euros of token value count as only 700 euros of collateral value. That collateral value and your open positions together produce your margin ratio. If it falls below a set threshold, the platform calls for more margin, and if that is not provided, it closes positions on its own.

Now comes the part many underestimate. In a price move of almost 9 percent in one day, it is not only the value of your position that falls, but at the same time the collateral value of your security. Both sides of the calculation move in the same direction, and their effect adds up. Anyone holding stock tokens and at the same time running positions secured with them carries the same price risk twice.

On top of that comes a lever that sits with the provider: platforms may change haircuts and lending limits when they reassess the volatility of an instrument. Raising the haircut ahead of a known release date is an ordinary risk measure and can narrow your room for manoeuvre before the price reacts at all. With such a date approaching, it is worth looking at your provider's list of eligible collateral, because that is where discounts change first.

Binance, Kraken and Robinhood: which routes are open to investors in Germany

For investors in Germany the first question is not whether a token exists, but whether it is tradable for you. This is where providers part ways. Kraken opened the xStocks range to customers in the European Economic Area last year and rests that offer on an authorisation under the European markets in financial instruments directive. The issuer, Backed Finance, now belongs to Kraken. On the other side stands Robinhood, whose token offer on US equities is aimed at a different audience and is not readily accessible in Germany.

Binance launched its bStocks range in the summer and widened the circle of those allowed to use such tokens as collateral at the end of September. Previously that was essentially reserved for accounts at the top trading tiers; since then all eligible users can pledge them in cross-margin and portfolio-margin accounts, though the lower tiers must first pass a suitability check. On September 30 further instruments joined the list of eligible collateral. Which stock tokens sit on that list changes continuously, and what counts is always the provider's own list, not a report about it.

A third route runs through regulated trading venues in Germany. On the 360X platform, which comes out of the Deutsche Börse orbit, several xStocks have been tradable against stablecoins since February, within a framework supervised by BaFin. The offer so far covers only a handful of instruments, but it shows the direction of travel: tokenized stocks are migrating out of the purely crypto-adjacent world into supervised structures. When you compare providers, look first at authorisation and registered office and only then at the fee; our overview of crypto brokers offering leverage ranks the houses by exactly those features.

Trading hours: the token runs around the clock, the Nasdaq does not

The release on October 14 takes effect at 6:00 a.m. New York time, that is noon in Germany, while the clock change has yet to happen in either country. The US exchange itself does not open until three and a half hours later. In between lies pre-market trading, which is thin and allows large price jumps.

A stock token knows no such pause. It trades on venues that run around the clock, weekends included. That sounds like an advantage and is in truth double-edged. Outside regular exchange hours the token lacks the reference price of the underlying instrument; the price then arises solely from supply and demand in the order book of the token market, which is usually far thinner than that of the share. Deviations from the later opening price are normal in such phases, and sales at the wrong moment land precisely in that gap.

For a margin account this has an uncomfortable consequence. A platform that values collateral around the clock can trigger a margin call at a time when you are not at your desk and the reference exchange is closed. Anyone leaving positions open across such a date should know which notifications their provider sends and whether there is a deadline before automatic closure.

MiFID II instead of MiCA: why regulators classify stock tokens differently

Many investors assume that the European crypto regulation MiCA applies to anything involving a blockchain. For tokenized stocks that is as a rule wrong. MiCA expressly excludes financial instruments from its scope. A token structured as a certificate or a note falls under the markets in financial instruments directive, MiFID II, and under securities supervision law, not under the crypto regime.

This is not an academic distinction; it determines what you may expect. Under the securities regime, prospectus obligations, investor-protection rules on suitability and supervision of the trading venue all apply. BaFin supervises providers active in Germany accordingly, and jurisdiction follows the classification of the product. Which obligations conversely apply to companies that do fall under the crypto regime, we have collected on our page on MiCA licensing duties.

In practice that means: check under which authorisation your provider is selling you the token. A house holding only a crypto permission may not simply offer you a financial instrument. If the small print names a registered office outside the European Union and a clause excluding distribution to European retail clients, that is not a formality but a statement about your legal recourse in a dispute.

Tax in Germany: capital income instead of a one-year holding period

Tax treatment is the point where most misunderstandings arise. For crypto assets such as Bitcoin or Ether, Germany has so far treated trading as a private disposal transaction: after a holding period of one year, a gain remains tax-free. For a tokenized equity instrument the prevailing view is that this is precisely not the case, because it is classified as an investment in the sense of income from capital assets. Withholding tax then applies, plus the solidarity surcharge and, where applicable, church tax, regardless of how long you have held the instrument.

Whether your provider withholds the tax straight away depends on whether it acts as a paying agent in Germany. With foreign trading venues that is usually not the case, and you then have to declare the income yourself in the annex for capital income. What a release such as the one on October 14 adds: if you sell under pressure, a loss arises, and that too needs to be allocated correctly, because losses from capital assets can only be offset against gains of the same kind. We have written up the details of the classification in paying tax on tokenized stocks in Germany. Since the classification depends on the specific design of the token, a trip to a tax adviser is no empty phrase here.

What the unlock does not say: “up to” is a ceiling

The caveat belongs at the end, the one that tends to get lost in the excitement around dates like this. The prospectus releases permission to sell, nothing more. Whether a single share is sold on October 14 nobody knows, and the size of any supply depends on decisions taken by hundreds of individual entitled holders. Several things argue against a sell-off: executives often sell through pre-arranged trading plans in small slices, the publication of quarterly figures is close at hand, and part of the released stock is tied up in options and employee claims that must first be exercised.

Conversely, it cannot be claimed that the market priced the date in long ago. Against that stands the measured move of September 30, which accompanied a known date that had been sitting in the prospectus for months. Taken together, that gives the honest position: the date is fixed, its effect is not. Anyone running a leveraged position with that uncertainty is placing a bet; anyone holding the token unencumbered is making a decision about conviction. Those are two different risks, and only one of them can cost you more than your stake.

One last point stays the same across all three October dates: the stock token tracks the price, not the voting position and not access to company information. Anyone who first reads news of a lock-up in the chat of a trading venue rather than in the prospectus has already given away the information advantage.

Tokenized stocks: Your next three steps

1. Establish your provider's authorisation and registered office. Look in the customer agreement to see who issues the token, which authority supervises it and whether distribution to retail clients in the European Economic Area is envisaged at all. An overview of houses with European authorisation can be found under regulated crypto exchanges compared.
2. Check the collateral list and the haircut before the date. Note the discount at which your stock token is currently credited and where the margin-call threshold sits. Work through what a price drop of ten percent does to your margin ratio. Document entry price, date and quantity cleanly so the income can be allocated later; the tax tools and portfolio trackers compared help with that.
3. Decide whether the position stays open past October 14. Anyone who does not need the collateral can wind down the borrowing before the date and so defuse the double effect of losses on position and collateral. Anyone who needs the liquidity should compare the terms of secured loans, for instance in our overview of crypto lending.

(As of October 5, 2026. This article is not investment advice. Prices and fee structures change; check the terms with the provider before you buy.)

Sources for further reading: the Cerebras prospectus with the full release schedule and the Kraken announcement on the acquisition of Backed Finance.

With Ethereum staking, the network currently pays around 2.66 percent a year, and just over 2.2 percent reaches you through a provider. That gap is the real answer to the question of what staking delivers: the protocol sets the gross yield, the provider sets the net yield. On top of that come a waiting period on the way out, a tax treatment of its own in Germany, and a risk that has nothing to do with the price.

This piece explains how the reward arises, how much Ethereum actually pays out in October 2026, which four routes lead into staking, and what the provider's cut does to the result. We collected every yield figure in this article ourselves on October 4, 2026, from the network data and from two of the largest providers.

What Ethereum staking is and how the reward arises

At Ethereum, staking means this: you deposit ether as security so that a validator may propose and confirm new blocks. A validator is a machine with its own key pair that takes part in consensus. For correct work the protocol issues new ether; for negligence it deducts part of the security. Anyone working against the rules loses more, and that is called slashing.

The reward draws on three sources: the issuance of new ether by the protocol, users' priority fees, and additional income from the ordering of transactions within a block. How the procedure works in detail is set out in Ethereum's staking documentation. What matters for the yield: the first two sources fluctuate with network load, and none of them is guaranteed.

2.66 percent gross: what the network pays out in October 2026

The protocol's gross yield stood at around 2.66 percent a year on October 4, 2026. That is the figure achieved by a validator run by its owner, who hands over no cut. It is not a fixed quantity: the more ether staked in total, the smaller the share per validator, and the quieter the network, the lower the fees.

For comparison: on other networks the figures sit considerably higher, and there too they fall as the stake rises. What that means on another chain we worked through for Solana at the end of August, which can be read in our article on the falling Solana staking yield. A higher yield is no mark of quality in that context, but usually the price of higher issuance of new units.

Anyone wanting to know what a provider makes of this gross figure will find the terms gathered in our comparison of staking platforms. The span between gross and net is the lever you hold yourself.

871,303 validators and 35.8 percent of supply at work

The scale explains why the yield is so low. On October 4, 2026, around 871,300 validators were active, and roughly 43.7 million ether were staked. Against a total supply of around 122.1 million ether, that is 35.8 percent, so a good one ether in three. The price stood at about $2,687.

A market in which a third of supply is tied up spreads the issuance across many participants. That is why the yield of more than 5 percent that was usual in the first years after the switch to proof of stake is no longer the benchmark today. Anyone working with older figures overestimates the return by more than double.

The provider's cut: why just over 2.2 percent is left of 2.66

This is where the difference is settled. Two of the largest providers reported the following figures on October 4, 2026: at Lido, the yield on the liquid staking token stETH stood at 2.19 percent, and at 2.24 percent averaged over the preceding seven days. At Rocket Pool, the yield on the rETH token stood at 2.17 percent, with a base commission for node operators of 5 percent. There, 4,159 operators were registered, 1,410 of whom were active.

Against the gross yield of 2.66 percent, around half a percentage point therefore stays with the provider and the operators. In relative terms that is roughly 17 to 18 percent of the return. At exchanges the deduction is often higher, because a service fee applies there on top. How large the differences between houses are was counted across 14 providers in September by our article on checking the Ethereum staking commission.

One sentence is often misread: the cut is measured against the return, not against your stake. A deduction of 10 percent therefore does not mean you lose 10 percent of your ether, but 10 percent of the reward. On a gross yield of around 2.66 percent, that comes to roughly 0.27 percentage points a year.

Four routes into staking: solo, pool, liquid staking and the exchange

The route you choose determines yield, effort and risk all at once. Four forms are common in Germany.

Solo staking means: your own validator, your own keys, a stake of 32 ether. You keep the full gross yield and carry full responsibility for uptime and keys. Pool staking bundles smaller amounts into validators; the operator runs the technology and you pay a cut. Liquid staking hands you a token for your stake that documents the claim and remains tradable in its own right. Staking through an exchange is the most convenient route: the venue takes care of everything, but also holds the keys.

The further down that list you go, the smaller the yield and the more counterparties are added. For the decision, that makes the question less “which route pays most” than “how many other hands do I want between me and my ether”.

32 ether as the entry threshold: what solo staking costs today

Your own validator requires exactly 32 ether. At a price of around $2,687 that works out at roughly $86,000 of stake for a single position. On top of that comes a machine that runs without interruption, a stable connection and maintenance of the software. If the validator drops out there is no reward, and small deductions apply.

That is why solo staking is in practice a solution for large holdings, or for technically adept holders who deliberately want to run the operation themselves. For everyone else, the difference between 2.66 and 2.2 percent is smaller than what a failed validator and a lost key can cost. That is a sober calculation and not an argument against self-custody in general.

Lock-up and queue: how long the exit takes

Staked ether is not immediately available. The exit runs through deregistering the validator, after which comes a waiting period set by the length of the queue. That queue can fill up badly: in August 2026, more than two million ether were lined up, with waiting times of around 39 days. We broke down the situation at the time in our article on the Ethereum staking queue.

For planning, that means two things. First, yield is no substitute for liquidity: anyone who needs the money in six weeks should not stake it. Second, liquid staking genuinely does help here, because the token issued stays sellable on the market without waiting for deregistration. In exchange you accept a discount when many want to sell at the same time.

Slashing, contract risk and custody: the risks behind the yield

Three risks in staking stand on their own, that is, independently of price risk. Slashing hits validators that make contradictory attestations; in that case part of the security is seized. For pool and liquid staking the operators carry this risk, but they pass losses on to depositors. The second risk lies in the contract work: liquid staking runs on program code, and a fault in it hits all depositors at once. The third is custody: anyone staking through an exchange has handed over their keys.

The last risk can be limited most clearly. Anyone holding the holdings that are not staked in self-custody does not depend on the operation of a trading venue; the devices for that are in our hardware wallet comparison. For the staked ether itself, that applies only with solo staking, because the keys stay with you there.

A guaranteed yield exists in none of these forms. Anyone promising a fixed rate of interest is not running staking but a lending business with your stake, and the payout then hangs on the provider's solvency.

Staking income in Germany: section 22 of the Income Tax Act and the exemption threshold

For private investors, the German tax administration treats staking rewards as income from services under section 22 number 3 of the Income Tax Act. They are captured at your personal tax rate, and in the year they accrue. The provision contains an exemption threshold of 256 euros a year: if income from services stays below it, none is charged. Once the threshold is exceeded, the entire amount is taxable, not only the part above it.

For the ether received, a holding period of its own begins on accrual. If you sell it later, the framework for private disposal transactions under section 23 of the Income Tax Act applies, with its one-year window. Under the final version of the administrative guidance, that one-year window also applies to ether that was previously staked; an extended ten-year window, which appeared in an earlier draft, did not become part of the governing line.

In practice that means: for every reward you need the day it accrued and the price on that day. With daily or weekly payouts, that quickly runs to several hundred individual entries a year, which can hardly be kept by hand. Which providers record inflows and holding periods per position is shown in our comparison of crypto tax tools. Only a tax adviser can settle your case bindingly, because the classification hangs on the extent and the structure of your participation.

Liquid staking: what sets a token like stETH apart from ether

Liquid staking is the most widespread route and at the same time the most frequently misunderstood. You hand over ether, you receive a token that represents your claim to it and whose value grows with the rewards. That token is tradable, but it is not ether. Its price can diverge from the ether price, upwards as well as downwards, and in nervous phases a small divergence turns into a noticeable discount.

On top of that comes a tax point that is often overlooked: swapping ether into a liquid staking token and back can itself be a disposal, depending on how it is structured. Anyone switching back and forth between the two forms may therefore create events that have to be recorded individually. That too is a point for a tax adviser and not for a gut feeling.

In choosing a provider, three things therefore count for more than the yield on display: how liquid the token is in trading, how the program code was audited, and whether the rewards are accounted for per day in a way you can follow.

Ethereum staking: what to take away

Ethereum staking today is a return in the region of just over two percent, not five. The difference between providers is small in percentage points and large as a share of the return, and the real decisions lie with liquidity, custody and record-keeping.

1. Compare net yields, not gross promises. Set every figure against the network's current gross yield and look at how much of the return the provider retains. The terms are gathered in the comparison of staking platforms.
2. Record inflows from day one. Date, amount and daily price for each reward decide your tax return later, and the 256-euro threshold is reached sooner than many expect. A tool from the comparison of crypto tax tools takes the bookkeeping off your hands.
3. Stake only what you will not need for a while. The queue on the way out can take weeks, and selling the liquid staking token costs a discount in restless phases. Anyone staking through an exchange should also know which supervisor it works under; the comparison of crypto exchanges sets that out.

(As of October 4, 2026. This article is not investment advice. Prices and fee structures change; check the terms with the provider before you buy.)

Cardano stands at $0.2597 on October 4, 2026, which is 6.29 percent above yesterday's level. No other asset among the 25 largest cryptocurrencies gained more on the day. The explanations doing the rounds in the trade press are weeks old, however, and the figure that ought to show whether more is actually happening on Cardano has been moving in the other direction since October 1. This piece puts both side by side: the price, and the trading volume on the blockchain's own venues.

For an overview of the price history and the key metrics, our Cardano price prediction brings the running figures together. What follows is about this weekend's trigger, and about the question of what a move of this size actually rests on.

Cardano DEX volume: from $11.74 million on October 1 to $5.72 million on October 3

Trading volume on Cardano's decentralised exchanges is the most honest metric for the question of whether a blockchain is being used. A decentralised exchange, or DEX, is a venue that settles directly on the blockchain with no company in between; every swap leaves a trace that nobody can smooth over after the fact.

cryptoticker.io reviewed the daily turnover of all eight venues listed on Cardano over the past twelve days. The picture is unambiguous. From September 26, the weakest day at $1.63 million, daily turnover climbed to $11.74 million by October 1. That was the highest reading in at least a month. Three consecutive days of decline followed: $6.08 million on October 2, $5.72 million on October 3, and October 4 stood at $4.05 million as this went to press.

Between the October 1 high and the last full day, that amounts to a drop of a good 51 percent. cryptoticker.io compiled this review itself on October 4, 2026.

Both directions belong in the same picture, otherwise a false impression takes hold. Over seven days, turnover adds up to $41.22 million, and that is roughly three and a half times the previous week. Against the previous month the figure is just under 184 percent higher. The week was strong, then. It is simply past its peak, and has been for three days.

Who carries the volume on Cardano

On October 3, SundaeSwap alone accounted for $2.27 million of the $5.72 million, or around 40 percent. Minswap followed with $1.12 million, Dano Finance with $0.54 million, WingRiders with $0.11 million. The remaining venues moved less than ten thousand dollars between them. Volume on Cardano therefore hangs on two addresses, and a disruption at either one would show up in the headline figure immediately.

The second figure that speaks to usage is the capital deposited on Cardano. It stood at $68.06 million on October 4, after $65.09 million the day before. So this figure is rising while turnover falls. More capital is standing ready, it is just being traded less.

ADA price at $0.2597: the daily range runs from $0.2425 to $0.2679

In euros the price works out at 0.2308 euros. The range over the past 24 hours ran from $0.2425 to $0.2679, so the day's gain came almost entirely out of the lower half of that range. Over seven days ADA is only 2.8 percent higher; the month, by contrast, delivers 23.68 percent. This day's jump therefore falls inside a longer upward move, it does not begin one.

For a sense of scale: with a market value of $9.75 billion, Cardano is the seventeenth-largest cryptocurrency. In circulation are 37.54 billion ADA out of the 45 billion that will ever exist at most. The price sits 91.59 percent below the all-time high of $3.09 from September 2021. Anyone holding ADA from that period is looking at a deep red statement even after a month that was up 23 percent.

Exchange turnover versus DEX turnover: $602 million against $5.72 million

Here is the finding that explains the day. Across all venues, $602.48 million of ADA changed hands in 24 hours. On the decentralised exchanges of the Cardano blockchain itself, the last full day brought $5.72 million. For every dollar swapped directly on Cardano, then, around $105 moves elsewhere, overwhelmingly on centralised venues.

Taken on its own that is neither good nor bad; it is the normal state of affairs for large cryptocurrencies. For reading the day it is nonetheless decisive: this move originates on venues where companies run order books, not in the blockchain's application landscape. Anyone reading the rise as evidence that Cardano is being used more heavily right now is confusing two different numbers.

x402 and ADA: the integration has been in the code since September 9

The most frequently cited reason for ADA's strength at the moment is x402. Behind the name sits an open payment standard for the internet, originally from Coinbase and now looked after by the Linux Foundation. The idea in one sentence: a piece of software requests a service over an ordinary web call, is told that there is a charge, pays, and receives the service, all without a user account, without an access key and without a checkout page.

The Cardano Foundation announced on its @Cardano_CF account that Cardano is now part of the official x402 development kit and that any application or software agent can pay for an interface call in ADA or in a Cardano-native token. According to Crypto Briefing, the relevant code was merged into the project's repository around September 9, 2026; the report on it appeared on September 21. Cardano thereby joins the EVM chains, Solana, the XRP Ledger, Algorand, Stellar, Hedera and NEAR. Support is available in the TypeScript package for now, with a Python version announced but undated.

That also settles what x402 cannot be for today's price jump: a trigger from yesterday. The step is around four weeks old. On top of that comes an observation we made ourselves: as of August 25, 2026, the x402 project's overview page still lists only EVM-compatible chains and Solana. The code is therefore further along than the standard's own public face. The standard is further along than its own documentation suggests.

What a machine payment means in practice

The appeal lies in very small amounts. A program that needs a single weather data set or one translation would today have to open an account, store a credit card and take out a subscription. Over x402 it pays a fraction of a cent and is done. Whether that turns into meaningful revenue for Cardano cannot be quantified today, and any figure put on it would be guesswork. All that is measurable so far is that the technical precondition exists.

SundaeSwap V4 and concentrated liquidity: what changes for liquidity providers

The second point cited often is the fourth edition of SundaeSwap. Sundae Labs presented the details on July 30, 2026 and announced a phased rollout that is still running today. The most important change is called concentrated liquidity.

What lies behind it is this. Anyone providing liquidity on a decentralised exchange puts two assets into a pool that others swap out of, and receives a share of the trading fees for it. Classically this capital spreads across every conceivable price, including ranges the price will never reach. Concentrated liquidity makes it possible to bundle the same capital into a narrow price band. Within that band, price slippage on a swap falls and fee income per euro deployed rises considerably.

The price for that is a risk many underestimate. If the price leaves the chosen band, the capital earns nothing more and ends up consisting largely of the weaker of the two assets. What was a quiet holding becomes a position that demands watching. For beginners it is no substitute for a simple purchase, and anyone who cannot follow the mechanics should stay away from it.

One detail from our own review is worth noting: SundaeSwap's turnover still runs under the protocol's second edition in the public data. That fits the phased rollout that was announced, and it counsels caution about the claim that the new edition carried last week's jump in turnover.

Buying Cardano from Germany: MiCA licence, spread and custody

For a purchase from Germany, a single framework has applied since the European regulation on markets in crypto-assets, or MiCA. Providers need a licence as a crypto-asset service provider, and it is valid in every EU state. For you that means two things: the provider must be able to produce the licence, and you can find it in the supervisor's public register. A venue without that evidence is not a serious option for a purchase from Germany, however cheap the fees may look.

The second cost question is the gap between the buying and the selling price. On an asset worth 25 cents, a gap of one percent is barely noticeable and still costs money on every round trip. Our comparison of the best crypto exchanges sets fees, licensing and deposit routes side by side so that you see the total cost rather than the advertised order fee alone.

On custody: ADA held at a venue belongs to you economically but sits within the provider's reach. Anyone holding larger amounts, or planning to leave them untouched for longer, is better off in self-custody. A hardware wallet keeps the private key off the internet; responsibility for the recovery words then rests entirely with you.

Holding period: after twelve months the gain stays tax-free in Germany

For private investors with unlimited tax liability in Germany, crypto-assets fall under the private disposal transaction set out in section 23 of the Income Tax Act. If you sell ADA at a profit within one year of buying, that profit is taxable and is charged at your personal income tax rate. If more than twelve months lie between purchase and sale, the gain stays tax-free, and does so without any upper limit on the amount.

Two points are regularly overlooked here. First, inside the one-year window there is an exemption threshold, not an allowance: once it is exceeded, the entire gain is taxable and not merely the excess. Second, swapping ADA into another cryptocurrency also counts as a sale. Anyone reshuffling several times in a lively week creates several events for tax purposes, each carrying its own acquisition date.

That is precisely why the tax question is settled not in April but at the click of the sell button. Anyone keeping a clean record of their purchases with date and price can use the one-year window deliberately; our overview of crypto tax software and portfolio trackers shows which programs track acquisition dates automatically. This account is general in nature and is no substitute for tax advice.

Staking with ADA: delegation, epochs and the yield in the network

Cardano secures itself through proof of stake. Anyone holding ADA can delegate it to a stake pool and receives a share of the network rewards for doing so. The distinctive feature compared with many other networks: the coins stay in your own wallet and are not locked. There is no notice period and no waiting time on withdrawal; you can sell at any time.

Settlement runs in epochs of five days, and several of those pass after delegation before the first rewards arrive. Anyone wanting to check an individual provider's yield looks at its fee and at whether the pool produces blocks reliably. The route through a provider and the route through your own wallet differ above all on the question of who holds the key.

For tax purposes, staking is no sideshow: rewards received are to be valued as other income at the moment they accrue, and a fresh window begins for the coins that are later sold. Anyone delegating needs the records all the more.

Leverage on ADA: liquidation price and funding rate on a six percent day

A day with a six percent swing is exactly the situation in which leveraged positions get closed out in series. In leveraged trading you borrow capital in order to move a larger position than your own stake supports. The liquidation price is the price at which the exchange closes the position by force because the margin has been used up. At five times leverage, an adverse move of around 20 percent is arithmetically enough to do that, and rather less once fees are deducted.

The second running cost is the funding rate. This is a payment that flows at short intervals between the buying and selling side on perpetual futures and ties the contract price to the spot price. After a sharp rise it is regularly positive, so buyers pay sellers. Anyone holding a position over several days carries that payment again and again. This instrument is not intended for building wealth.

Levels up and down: $0.2679 and $0.2425

The two levels of this day are fixed, because they were traded. On the upside the price turned at $0.2679, and the daily low was $0.2425. As long as ADA stays above the daily low, the move is intact; a slip below it would wipe out the day's gain entirely.

The more telling observation, though, is not a price level but the volume on the blockchain. If daily turnover on the Cardano venues climbs back towards the October 1 reading, the price move has a foundation in usage. If it stays close to four or five million dollars instead, the rise remains a pure exchange phenomenon. That figure is publicly visible and costs you nothing more than one look a day.

We are deliberately not naming price targets here. Any figure going beyond the levels that were traded would be an assertion without foundation, and there are already plenty of those around this asset.

Cardano DEX volume: the key points for your decision

1. Separate the trigger from the price. ADA stands 6.29 percent higher, while volume on the Cardano venues has been falling since October 1. Watch for a week to see which of the two figures follows the other; our overview of analytics platforms shows where both figures can be followed side by side.
2. Settle licensing and costs before you buy. A provider without a MiCA licence is out. Which venues hold the licence is set out in our overview of regulated crypto exchanges.
3. Decide on the holding period and staking together. The one-year window makes gains tax-free, staking at Cardano runs on without a lock-up and generates taxable inflows of its own. Which route suits you is set out in our overview of staking platforms.

(As of October 4, 2026. This article is not investment advice. Prices and fee structures change; check the terms with the provider before you buy.)

At comdirect you have been able to bet on Bitcoin and Ethereum for years without owning a wallet. What you do not get is a real coin: the bank puts crypto certificates into your securities account, that is, debt instruments tracking the price. How much this route costs you hangs on a single figure from the price list, the minimum fee of 9.90 euros per order. Anyone investing 100 euros in one go therefore pays 9.90 percent in fees. Anyone investing the same amount through a savings plan currently pays nothing.

We evaluated the product page and the schedule of prices and services on October 4, 2026 and recalculated the costs for order sizes from 50 to 25,000 euros. The result separates two groups of investors very clearly from one another.

Crypto trading at comdirect means a certificate, not a coin

comdirect is a brand of Commerzbank AG. On the product page there is the sentence that explains the whole construction: you are not buying a “‘real' coin (cryptocurrency), but a derivative on that cryptocurrency”. The security tracks the price almost one to one, in both directions.

A crypto certificate, often also called an ETP for exchange traded product, is an exchange-listed bearer debt instrument: a loan to the issuer whose repayment is tied to the price of an underlying. That is the decisive difference from an investment fund. comdirect writes it itself: with ETPs and certificates there is “no protection against the insolvency risk of the issuer”. An ETF, by contrast, is ring-fenced assets and stays untouched if the fund company fails.

In practice that means: the units sit in your comdirect securities account like shares or fund units. You do not need a wallet, and you do not get a private key either. Anyone wanting to hold Bitcoin in their own custody is in the wrong place here. Anyone who instead wants everything bundled in one securities account and deliberately forgoes key management gets exactly that.

29 crypto certificates from five issuers: our count

comdirect's savings plan promotion lists the participating securities individually by issuer. We counted them. This analysis was carried out by cryptoticker.io itself on October 4, 2026; the basis is the product page on crypto trading, and 29 securities identification numbers were checked.

The distribution by issuer: 21Shares supplies 15 securities, Bitwise 5, VanEck 5, nxtAssets 3 and Invesco 1. Of the 29 certificates, 22 relate to a single cryptocurrency, the remaining 7 to baskets and indices such as the Krypto Basket 10 or the Krypto Mid-Cap Index.

Twelve cryptocurrencies are covered individually. Five securities run on Bitcoin, 4 on Ethereum, 2 each on XRP, Cardano and Solana, plus one each on Bitcoin Cash, Polkadot, Stellar, Polygon, Litecoin, TRON and Avalanche. What is missing from the list stands out: no security on Dogecoin, none on Monero, none on the big perpetual or staking tokens of the past two years. Anyone wanting to spread more widely has to move to an exchange with a MiCA licence or to a broker with a larger product universe; which providers carry what is shown by our comparison of crypto brokers.

A note beneath the 21Shares tables deserves a sentence of its own: the issuer is domiciled in Switzerland, “so that in the event of the issuer's insolvency Swiss insolvency law applies”. That concerns more than half of the promotion's securities.

Order fee on a one-off purchase: 4.90 euros plus 0.25 percent

For purchases outside a savings plan the normal schedule of prices and services applies. For execution in Germany it sets a basic fee plus order commission of 4.90 euros plus 0.25 percent of the order volume, a minimum of 9.90 euros up to an order volume of 2,000 euros and a maximum of 59.90 euros. On top of that there can be venue-dependent charges and third-party costs. An order by telephone costs an extra 14.90 euros, by fax or letter likewise 14.90 euros. The heavy-trader discount of 15 percent expressly does not apply to savings plan executions.

New securities account customers get a reduction: 3.90 euros order fee per trade on German trading venues and in over-the-counter trading, limited to 12 months. A new customer is anyone who has not held a securities account at comdirect in the past six months. Once those twelve months are up, you trade from 9.90 euros per trade again.

Minimum fee of 9.90 euros: the cost ratio from 50 to 25,000 euros

With small amounts the minimum fee is the entire price. We ran the formula from the price list through typical order sizes, without spreads and product costs, so as a pure fee ratio on the order volume.

Two thresholds shape the table. Up to an order volume of 2,000 euros you always pay 9.90 euros, because the formula of 4.90 euros plus 0.25 percent still sits below the minimum amount there; at exactly 2,000 euros the two values meet. At the upper end the cap of 59.90 euros kicks in, from an order volume of 22,000 euros. Anyone investing larger sums in one go therefore pays more in absolute terms but steadily less in percentage terms.

A plain relationship follows from this: small one-off purchases of crypto certificates are expensive at comdirect. An entry with 100 euros costs almost a tenth of the amount invested before the price has moved at all. At an exchange with a MiCA licence, trading fees for the same amount are typically in the range of tenths of a percent plus spread; which providers are licensed in Germany and what they charge is in our overview of crypto exchanges.

Savings plan promotion until December 31, 2027: the 1.5 percent is waived

Here the calculation flips into the opposite. For the 29 securities on the promotion list, the order fee of 1.5 percent of the order volume per transaction and securities identification number is waived in a savings plan until December 31, 2027. You can invest from 1 euro a month, and up to ten securities can be set up in one pass. Market-standard spreads, inducements and product costs are unaffected by this, as are telephone, fax and letter surcharges.

What that means in figures is shown by a year at 50 euros a month. Normally 1.5 percent would be due on the annual total of 600 euros, that is 9.00 euros in order fees, spread across twelve executions. Under the promotion it is 0.00 euros. The same amount as a one-off purchase costs 9.90 euros. In this product segment the savings plan is therefore not only the more convenient option but, until the end of 2027, by far the cheaper one as well.

Two restrictions belong with it. First, the promotion is time-limited, and comdirect expressly reserves the right to change, extend or end the offer at any time. Second, it does not apply to every type of securities account: accounts of customers who are looked after by a financial services provider, as well as Pure accounts, are excluded. If a certificate drops out of the promotion, the regular terms apply to that security again.

Issuer risk with an ETP: a debt instrument without insolvency protection

The product construction is the point at which crypto certificates differ from everything else in a securities account that otherwise looks like a fund. As a bearer debt instrument, the security carries the risk that the issuer becomes insolvent. comdirect names this issuer risk in its own list of risks and refers to the respective issuer for details of the collateral.

The usual collateral runs through physical backing. According to the account on the product page, the issuers buy the underlying cryptocurrencies in the corresponding quantities and deposit them with independent trustees licensed as custodians for cold wallets. A cold wallet means a storage medium that is not connected to a computer at all, or only briefly. Whether and how far an individual security is backed in this way is disclosed by the issuer in the product details; that belongs to the information you should read up on in the prospectus before buying, not in the marketing copy.

How this product family relates to genuine funds and to the exchange-traded crypto products in Germany is set out in our overview of crypto ETFs in Germany. The short version: what is sold in Germany as a crypto ETF is in most cases legally an ETP or ETN, and therefore exactly the construction comdirect offers.

Spread and product costs: the items beside the order fee

The order fee is the visible part of the costs, but not the only one. In every statement of terms on crypto trading, comdirect names three further items: market-standard spreads, inducements and product costs. The spread is the difference between the bid and the ask price and arises on purchase as well as on sale. The product costs are the issuer's ongoing management fee, which is taken from the security daily and which, with crypto ETPs on the market, is usually well above that of equity ETFs.

For an honest calculation that means: the fee ratio in the table above is a lower bound. The figure names only what the bank takes for execution and says nothing about the ongoing costs of the security. The two values sit in different documents, one in the bank's schedule of prices and services, the other in the issuer's key information document. Anyone looking only at the order fee is comparing half the bill.

Holding period and tax: an ETP in a securities account versus the coin on an exchange

For tax purposes a certificate and a coin are two different things, and the classification depends on the concrete design of the security. comdirect makes no statements on tax on the product page, and we are not asserting any here that cannot be substantiated. What you should clarify before buying is therefore a question for the issuer and for your own tax adviser: is the security treated as an investment product or as a disposal of the underlying cryptocurrency? That determines whether a holding period plays any role at all.

That this question is currently in motion is shown by the Federal Ministry of Finance's draft bill on crypto taxation, which we reported on on October 2, 2026 and which is due to go before the cabinet on October 14. As long as nothing has been decided there, the state of affairs remains today's. For the cost question in this article that changes nothing; for the after-tax return it can change a great deal.

Cost comparison with neo-brokers and licensed exchanges

comdirect plays a clear role in this product class. The bank is strong if you hold a securities account there anyway, think in securities and want to put small amounts into a certificate each month: until the end of 2027 execution in a savings plan costs you nothing. The offer fits less well if you want to buy irregularly and in small sums on a one-off basis, because the minimum fee of 9.90 euros then eats up any return before it arises.

Anyone wanting real coins with their own key will find no offer at comdirect and needs an exchange with a MiCA licence. Anyone wanting to use a hardware wallet needs one in any case. And anyone looking above all at the ongoing costs should lay the issuer's key information document next to the bank's price list before deciding on a route.

Crypto at comdirect: How to proceed now

1. Measure your planned order size against the table above. If your one-off amount is below 1,000 euros, execution costs you at least one percent; in that case the savings plan with 0.00 euros in order fees until the end of 2027 is the cheaper route, and you will find suitable alternatives along with their costs in our broker comparison.
2. Check the issuer's key information document for the ongoing product costs and the type of collateral. For the 15 securities from 21Shares, Swiss law applies in the event of insolvency; that is stated on comdirect's product page. How these securities are to be classified legally is explained by our overview of crypto ETFs in Germany.
3. Decide deliberately about custody. A certificate gives you no private key; if you want one, the route runs via a licensed exchange and from there onto your own device, for which our hardware wallet comparison shows the selection.

What to take away from this: the offer is not crypto trading in the narrower sense but a securities transaction on crypto prices. 29 certificates from five issuers cover 12 cryptocurrencies individually; Dogecoin and Monero are missing. The savings plan carries no order fee until December 31, 2027, while a one-off purchase costs at least 9.90 euros and therefore 9.90 percent on an investment of 100 euros. On top of that come the spread and the product costs, which are waived in neither case. The primary source for all the offer details is the page on crypto trading at comdirect; the fees are in the bank's schedule of prices and services as at June 2026.

(As of October 4, 2026. This article is not investment advice. Prices and fee structures change; check the terms with the provider before you buy.)

President Trump named a new "Super Intelligence Force" to coordinate federal AI policy, with Director of National Intelligence Jay Clayton at the helm. As SEC chair, Clayton launched crypto lawsuits including the agency's case against Ripple.

The Independent Community Bankers of America argues the OCC's national trust charters give crypto firms a "side door into the banking system" without the safeguards that bind traditional banks.

Spot Bitcoin ETFs took in $134.4 million over the first two trading days of October, rebounding from a Sept. 30 outflow as a weak jobs report cooled Fed rate-hike bets.

Near Intents said the roughly $3.8 million drained in an exploit on Thursday was returned in full, a day after the team said it had identified the attacker and gave them 48 hours to return the funds.

The firm says the Sept. 24 breach pushed North Korea's 2026 crypto haul past $1 billion, and detailed how it used in-house AI to trace the stolen funds across four blockchains in a race against the attackers.

Binance will tighten controls on cross-border crypto transfers involving Brazilian users from Nov. 1, blocking withdrawals and potentially freezing incoming funds when required transaction details are missing.

Bitcoin bulls are once again closing in on the crucial $87,200 resistance zone, a level that has repeatedly rejected the cryptocurrency in recent weeks.

Major cryptocurrencies are approaching decisive support and resistance levels as traders assess whether recent bullish momentum can continue.

Shiba Inu (SHIB) has expanded to Solana through Wormhole Labs-powered Sunrise.

XRP traps price in a tight 4-hour triangle under $1.53 resistance as largest holders pause all market activity.

TLDR:

• Horsley says busy investors are the final barrier to crypto adoption after exchanges and custody. 
• Horsley says Bitcoin needs steady gains, not a sharp dip or a run to $150,000 by October’s end.
• Horsley sees no clients or partners waiting on Clarity as institutions keep moving into crypto. 
• Bitwise’s NEAR ETF has drawn over $50 million in net inflows since its late September launch. 

Hunter Horsley, CEO of Bitwise, said investors being too busy is now the biggest barrier to crypto adoption. He made the remarks in an interview on Sunday with Wolf Of The All Street.

According to Horsley, regulation and access no longer rank among the industry’s main concerns. He also said institutions are not waiting on Clarity before entering the sector. Separately, Bitwise’s NEAR ETF has drawn over $50 million in net inflows.

Busy Investors and Advisor Demand

Hunter Horsley said crypto has met the “final boss of reasons” people avoid acting. He said the reason is simple: “They’re just busy.” Crypto spent ten years clearing other hurdles, he added.

The most common pushback Bitwise hears now comes from advisors. Many say their clients are not asking about crypto. Some advisors at large firms still do not know they can access Bitcoin. Their firms approved Bitwise products more than a year ago.

Horsley called that situation “almost hard to fathom.” The earlier obstacles, he said, included no exchanges, no qualified custodians, and fears of a government shutdown. Investor attention now ranks ahead of regulation and access.

Some advisors once set clients up with spot Bitcoin or Solana through crypto custodians. They now want to swap into ETF shares, Hunter Horsley said. He said those swaps are due in the third quarter. “Peace of mind, simplicity is the order of the day,” he said.

Price Range Matters for Adoption

Hunter Horsley said Bitcoin’s price needs to rise steadily rather than dip sharply or surge. Rising prices help Bitwise’s sales, but only up to a point. A balanced market, he added, is more conducive to adoption.

A falling market, he explained, leads many investors to wait and see whether prices drop further. A sudden run to $150,000 by the end of October would also cause a pause. Investors would worry that the market had overheated.

Horsley described the ideal as “positive price performance, not too slow, not too fast, and not too high too quickly.” He said the crypto sector is close to that point at present.

Bitcoin traded near $85,200 on Sunday, up 0.5% over 24 hours. On Stocktwits, retail sentiment around Bitcoin remained in the “bearish” zone. Chatter fell to “low” from “normal” levels over the past day.

Regulation, Clarity, and the NEAR ETF

Horsley shared remarks on the Clarity legislation. “I don’t see any clients or partners waiting for Clarity,” he said. He said the most regulated institutions are moving forward regardless of the outcome.

Clarity “could be an asset if written well,” Horsley said. Some use cases, he added, would be challenged without that clarity. Hunter Horsley also said the space is not lawless or ruleless, citing the GENIUS Act as “extremely powerful.”

Horsley said there is “no stopping this train.” He also said the SEC’s proposed custody framework does not greatly change how advisors add crypto.

It would open the door to stablecoin holdings, on-chain vaults, and tokenized assets, with use cases expected next year.

Bitwise launched the Bitwise NEAR ETF (NRR) on the New York Stock Exchange in late September. Hunter Horsley said the fund sits “squarely” at the intersection of AI and crypto.

He said index products have lagged single-asset funds so far. “The story is just getting started on the index front,” he said. NEAR’s price rose over 3% in the last 24 hours.

The post Bitwise CEO Hunter Horsley Says Busy Investors Are Crypto’s ‘Final Boss’ appeared first on Blockonomi.

TLDR:

• U.S. ETF inflows reached a record $1.93T through Sept. 29, up $580B, or 43%, from the same 2025 period.
• Q3 delivered a record $771B in U.S.-listed ETF inflows, lifting the monthly pace to roughly $214B in 2026.
• Equity ETFs drew more than $1T in 2026, while fixed-income ETFs attracted over $469B through September.
• Spot Bitcoin ETFs added $2.65B in September, while spot Ether ETFs drew about $832M during the month.

U.S.-listed exchange-traded funds are drawing capital at a record pace, with net inflows reaching about $1.93 trillion through September 29. Bloomberg data compiled by Citadel Securities showed the total running $580 billion, or 43%, above the comparable 2025 period.

Source: Citadel Securities

The third quarter delivered the strongest contribution, attracting $771 billion and setting a new quarterly inflow record. The pace equates to roughly $214 billion monthly, putting annual flows on track to exceed $2.5 trillion if maintained.

The surge reflects broad demand rather than strength in a single investment category. Equity and fixed-income products have both absorbed substantial capital, reinforcing ETFs as a dominant vehicle for allocating money across markets. That breadth makes the record notable across both risk and income markets.

U.S. ETF Demand Spreads Across Equities and Bonds

State Street Investment Management separately estimated more than $1.54 trillion of U.S.-listed ETF inflows through September. That total already exceeded its $1.52 trillion full-year record from 2025.

State Street projected flows near $2.3 trillion by year-end. Its figures showed equity ETFs leading with more than $1 trillion, while fixed-income products attracted over $469 billion. Within equities, funds tracking U.S. stocks received about $655 billion.

Moreover, technology sector ETFs added more than $59 billion, highlighting the scale of allocations reaching market-leading companies. The State Street and Citadel totals differ as their datasets use different coverage or methodologies.

Neither report reconciled the gap, but both recorded historically strong ETF demand. Industry assets expanded alongside those inflows. Investment Company Institute data placed U.S. ETF assets at $16.27 trillion in August, while indexed funds held $22.4 trillion.

Those indexed mutual funds and ETFs represented 54.3% of combined long-term fund assets, showing how index-linked products now account for more than half of that market.

Record ETF Flows Boost Mega-Cap Exposure and Crypto Access

Citadel estimated the 10 largest S&P 500 companies receive about 41 cents from every dollar allocated to the index. Similarly, the Magnificent Seven receive roughly 35 cents. That structure means large index inflows direct substantial capital toward the biggest companies.

Meanwhile, only 25% of S&P 500 constituents traded above 50-day averages in late September. Crypto ETFs also participated in the broader shift toward regulated fund wrappers, although their flows remained much smaller than traditional ETF totals.

U.S. spot Bitcoin ETFs attracted about $2.65 billion in September, while spot Ether ETFs received roughly $832 million, according to SoSoValue data.These figures show investors using ETFs across stocks, bonds, Bitcoin and Ether. However, crypto remained a small share of the record industry-wide inflow total.

The post U.S. ETF Inflows Hit Record $1.93T as Q3 Delivers Historic $771B Surge appeared first on Blockonomi.

TLDR:

• Binance TRX netflow reached +79.8 million TRX on October 1, the largest daily net inflow in 99 days.
• The seven-day net of +75.3 million TRX turns negative at −30.4 million over 14 days without October 1.
• Netflow showed a +0.62 same-day return correlation, but next-day and two-day readings stayed weak at −0.05 and +0.19.
• TRX trades near $0.3357 inside a rectangle, with resistance at $0.35 and support around $0.322.

Binance TRX netflow reached +79.8 million TRX on October 1, marking the largest daily net inflow in 99 days. Inflow totaled 136.9 million TRX, which was 3.1 times the 30-day daily mean of 44.4 million TRX.

TRX closed the day at $0.33, down 0.79%. The spike came one day before the October 2 NFP release. No scheduled macroeconomic event took place on October 1, according to the dataset covering June 27 to October 3.

One Deposit Day Drives Weekly Net Inflow

The seven-day Binance TRX netflow stood at +75.3 million TRX, compared with −25.9 million in the previous seven days. However, October 1 alone exceeded that weekly total.

Source: Cryptoquant

The other six days recorded combined net outflows of 4.5 million TRX. Likewise, the 14-day net was +49.4 million TRX, but it turned to −30.4 million without October 1. This pattern shows the spike carried the entire weekly reading.

Cumulative netflow reached 37.7 million on October 1. Afterward, it fell to 35.4 million by October 3. Therefore, one exceptional deposit day explains the weekly Binance TRX netflow, not a sustained inflow trend.

Netflow Shows No Clear Link to Later Returns

Across the 99-day sample, Binance TRX netflow had a rank correlation of +0.62 with same-day returns. Meanwhile, correlations with next-day and two-day-ahead returns were −0.05 and +0.19. Only the same-day reading showed a notable relationship.

These readings suggest no clear predictive relationship with subsequent returns. TRX moved just −0.04% on NFP day, despite the prior deposit spike. The latest inflation data in the dataset showed August CPI at 3.4% YoY. Core CPI stood at 2.4%, while PPI reached 5.4% YoY.

Pre-NFP positioning by a few large depositors is one possible explanation. However, this remains unverified. Further sessions are needed to confirm whether the Binance TRX netflow trend persists or the event was an isolated transfer.

The dataset flagged 17 days as network-unclean, which left network-side metrics blank. All of the last 14 days pass this check. Two of the last 30 days carry whale-outlier flags.

TRX Price Action and Technical Levels

TRX trades at $0.3357, according to market data. The price is up 0.10% over 24 hours and 0.46% over seven days. Meanwhile, 24-hour trading volume stands at $201,739,711. Price action therefore remained near the middle of the reported range.

Separately, analyst Crypto With Gopal posted on X on October 3 about the 4H chart. The analyst described TRX as consolidating inside a rectangle pattern near $0.335. Resistance sits near $0.35, while support is around $0.322.

According to the post, the range has held for weeks. A breakout above $0.35 could open an upside target near $0.38. Conversely, a breakdown below $0.322 could shift focus toward $0.29. The post labeled market sentiment as breakout watch.

The post Binance TRX Inflow Surges to 136.9M as Price Holds Near $0.335 appeared first on Blockonomi.

TLDR:

• Bitcoin starts near $85,000 as bond yields, Fed minutes and ISM data shape this week’s crypto outlook.
• September payrolls rose 29,000 versus 90,000 expected, while unemployment increased to 4.2% overall.
• The 10-year Treasury yield recently hit 5.34%, its highest level in roughly 24 years, pressuring risk assets.
• A $39B 10-year Treasury reopening and Fed minutes make Wednesday the week’s key bond-market test for crypto.

Cryptocurrency markets enter a macro-heavy week with Treasury yields again shaping the outlook for Bitcoin and other risk-sensitive assets. The schedule includes services data, a major Treasury auction, Federal Reserve minutes, and consumer inflation expectations.

The Kobeissi Letter highlighted six events across Monday, Wednesday, and Friday, placing the bond market at the center of this week’s trading focus. Basically, higher Treasury yields raise returns on lower-risk assets and can tighten financial conditions, limiting demand for speculative assets.

Bitcoin began the week near $85,000 after reaching about $87,000 following Friday’s weaker employment report. September payrolls rose by 29,000, below the 90,000 expected, while unemployment increased to 4.2%. The weaker labor figures shifted attention toward whether incoming inflation and activity data support another Fed increase. That makes this week’s bond moves especially important for crypto pricing.

Bond-Heavy Week Puts Bitcoin in Focus Before ISM and Fed Minutes

Monday’s first major catalyst arrives at 10:00 a.m. ET with the September ISM Services PMI. The August index stood at 55.4, while the Prices Index reached 72.6. As a result, economists expect the September headline reading near 55.

Attention will also center on prices after September manufacturing prices jumped to 77.9 from 71.1. A strong services reading alongside elevated prices would keep inflation pressures in focus. That combination could lift Treasury yields and the dollar, adding pressure across the crypto market.

Softer activity and weaker price pressures would instead reinforce expectations that the Fed can pause after September’s increase. The employment report already reduced expectations for another immediate rate rise.

$39B Treasury Auction and 5.34% Yield Raise Wednesday Stakes

Wednesday concentrates the week’s largest bond-related events, starting with Treasury’s scheduled 10-year note reopening. Officials had previously outlined a $39 billion October auction size, keeping demand for government debt firmly in focus. Meanwhile, the 10-year Treasury yield recently reached 5.34%, its highest level in about 24 years.

That rise in yields has already affected Bitcoin’s short-term performance. Earlier last week, Bitcoin moved above $85,500 before giving back gains as the 10-year yield remained near 5.3%. Later Wednesday, Fed minutes will offer more detail on how officials viewed the September policy decision. Policymakers unanimously raised rates by 25 basis points to 3.75%-4.00%.

Attention will then shift to Friday, when preliminary October University of Michigan sentiment and inflation expectations are released. September sentiment fell to 48.1, while one-year inflation expectations climbed to 4.6%. At the same time, five-year expectations increased to 3.4%. Together, those figures will provide another measure of whether inflation pressures remain embedded as markets assess the Fed’s next move.

Friday’s readings will therefore close a week dominated by interest rates and Treasury yields. For the crypto market, the key issue remains whether bond yields retreat from recent highs or stay elevated. As a result, macroeconomic data and rate expectations are likely to remain more influential than crypto-specific catalysts during the week.

The post Crypto Markets Brace for Bond-Heavy Week as Fed Minutes and ISM Loom appeared first on Blockonomi.

TLDR:

• Bitcoin’s Sunday moves have often reversed on Monday over the past month, according to Ali Charts. 
• A TD Sequential sell signal on Bitcoin’s four-hour chart followed four past corrections each time. 
• Ethereum’s last two TD Sequential sell signals were followed by declines of 5.40% and 3.31%. 
• Solana’s last three comparable signals preceded corrections of 2.44%, 5.76%, and 5.30%.

Sunday pump Monday dump is back in focus as Bitcoin climbed more than 1% on October 4. Over the past month, the cryptocurrency’s Sunday moves have often reversed at the start of the week.

A TD Sequential sell signal has also appeared on the four-hour charts of Bitcoin, Ethereum, and Solana. In earlier cases, similar signals were followed by corrections. Together, these readings point to a possible pullback when markets open on Monday.

Sunday Pump Monday Dump Pattern Draws Attention

Market analyst Ali Charts raised the topic in a six-part thread on X. The opening post framed the idea as Sunday pump equals Monday dump.

In the second post, the analyst said Bitcoin’s Sunday moves have often reversed on Monday over the past month. Sunday rallies were followed by pullbacks. Sunday declines, on the other hand, were followed by rebounds. The same reversal appeared in both directions, according to the analyst.

Bitcoin was up more than 1% on Sunday as of time of publication trading at $85,845. As a result, the analyst said the pattern is back in focus. The first post had recorded 3,604 views at that point. The follow-up posts appeared minutes after the first one.

TD Sequential Flashes Sell Signal on Bitcoin

The third post added a technical warning to the weekly pattern. According to Ali Charts, the TD Sequential indicator has flashed a sell signal on Bitcoin’s four-hour chart. The signal appeared while Bitcoin traded higher on the day.

The analyst noted that each of the last four similar signals was followed by a price correction. Ali Charts did not list the size of those four corrections. Based on that record, the thread pointed to another Monday dump.

Therefore, the sell signal and the Sunday pump Monday dump pattern lead to the same outcome. Both readings suggest a pullback at the start of the week. The next posts extend the signal to other major assets.

Ethereum and Solana Show Matching Signals

The fourth post covered Ethereum. The asset shows the same TD Sequential sell signal on its four-hour chart. Its last two signals were followed by declines of 5.40% and 3.31%, respectively. The two earlier declines serve as the reference points for Ethereum.

Solana was addressed in the fifth post. It has flashed a four-hour TD Sequential sell signal as well. Its last three comparable signals preceded corrections of 2.44%, 5.76%, and 5.30%. The analyst used these readings as a historical reference for the current setup.

The final post combined all the data points. It cited a Sunday pump, a recent run of Monday dumps, and sell signals across BTC, ETH, and SOL.

Ali Charts said these factors point to a possible pullback. The Sunday pump Monday dump setup, therefore, rests on both calendar behavior and chart signals. The thread ended with that post, and no further posts followed.

The post Sunday Pump, Monday Dump: Bitcoin Pattern Returns as TD Sequential Signals Flash on BTC, ETH, SOL appeared first on Blockonomi.

Although it will probably not be as impactful as the previous one (or the next), the current business week will still outline several important US economic releases that could move the crypto market in either direction.

Services activity, the latest Fed minutes, which are perhaps the most anticipated piece of news, jobless claims, and consumer sentiment will all offer fresh clues about growth and the path of interest rates at the end of this otherwise very eventful month.

FOMC Minutes and Services PMI

The first more notable release arrives today when the Institute for Supply Management publishes its September Services PMI. The sector represents the largest part of the US economy. As such, the report can materially affect expectations for growth and inflation.

A surprisingly strong reading could revive concerns that the economy remains hot enough to tolerate higher rates, especially if price pressures inside the survey remain elevated. In contrast, a weaker reading could further reinforce the argument for the Fed to pause the hikes, especially after last week’s PCE data and jobs report.

Wednesday will bring the aforementioned FOMC minutes from the September 15-16 meeting, in which the Fed increased rates for the first time in three years. The minutes should provide more detail on how divided officials were over the decision and how concerned they remain about inflation, the labor market, and another possible increase later this year.

Markets will pay close attention, including BTC investors, as expectations for the Fed’s next move influence Treasury yields, the dollar, and overall risk appetite.

Jobless Claims and Consumer Sentiment

On Thursday, markets will receive the latest weekly unemployment claims data, with the initial figure standing at 197,000 in the latest report, while the four-week moving average declined to 200,000. Another unusually low reading would suggest the labor market remains relatively resilient despite weak September payroll growth.

The final major event of the week comes on Friday, with the University of Michigan’s preliminary October consumer sentiment survey. Neither development is likely to impact crypto much, as the interpretations are not straightforward.

Nevertheless, there’s also the dark horse. After the new developments on the Middle East front from Friday and the weekend, markets anticipate more movements from the US and Iran, especially as both nations are reportedly bracing for fresh attacks.

The post Bitcoin Traders Brace for These 4 Key Macro Events This Week appeared first on CryptoPotato.

Ethereum is holding at $2.7K after another rejection from overhead resistance. Buyers have preserved the broader upward structure, but a sustained breakout is still needed to turn the current consolidation into a fresh bullish leg.

Ethereum Price Analysis: The Daily Chart

On the daily chart, Ethereum continues to consolidate around the lower boundary of the $2.68K–$2.77K resistance zone. Several candles have produced upper wicks within this area, highlighting persistent selling pressure. However, the relatively shallow pullback suggests that buyers remain active beneath resistance.

The broader outlook remains constructive, with ETH trading above the ascending trendline and both displayed moving averages. The yellow moving average has crossed above the orange average and continues to rise, reinforcing the recovery structure. This bullish crossover provides a supportive backdrop, although price still needs to clear the nearby supply zone.

A decisive daily close above $2.77K, followed by a break of the recent high around $2.8K, could pave the way toward the $2.9K–$3K resistance zone. Conversely, a loss of the consolidation lows around $2.64K would increase the likelihood of a deeper correction toward the rising trendline and the highlighted $2.36K–$2.42K support zone.

ETH/USDT 4-Hour Chart

The 4-hour chart shows Ethereum trading within an ascending channel. Following its rejection near the upper boundary around $2.78K, the price pulled back toward the channel’s midpoint and has since recovered to approximately $2.7K. This suggests that the latest decline has so far remained a correction within the broader upward structure.

The immediate obstacle remains the $2.68K–$2.77K supply zone. Holding above the channel midpoint around $2.67K could support another attempt to clear this barrier. A successful breakout would bring the upper channel boundary, currently around $2.8K–$2.82K, into focus.

However, a sustained move below the midpoint and the recent $2.65K lows would weaken the near-term outlook. Such a development could expose the $2.63K and $2.58K support areas, followed by the $2.44K–$2.48K demand zone. The channel’s lower boundary approaches this demand area, making it an important region for preserving the broader bullish structure.

Sentiment Analysis

The two-week Binance ETH/USDT liquidation heatmap shows substantial estimated liquidation clusters above and below the current price. A particularly bright overhead band sits around $2.78K–$2.8K, with additional concentrations extending toward $2.85K. Below price, a prominent cluster appears around $2.61K–$2.63K, alongside a broader concentration across the $2.55K–$2.6K region.

The overhead cluster closely aligns with the recent price highs and the upper portion of the technical resistance area. If buyers establish a sustained breakout above $2.77K, short liquidations around $2.78K–$2.8K could amplify the advance. Nevertheless, reaching this liquidity would not itself confirm that ETH can sustain higher prices.

Conversely, losing the nearby channel support could bring the $2.61K–$2.63K liquidation pool into play, potentially accelerating a decline as leveraged longs unwind. Ethereum therefore remains between two substantial liquidity concentrations, with the direction of a confirmed technical break likely to determine which pool becomes relevant first.

The post Ethereum Price Analysis: ETH Holds Bullish Structure, but $2.8K Remains the Key Hurdle appeared first on CryptoPotato.

Although the spot XRP ETFs have maintained their positive net flow streak, the actual numbers are quite concerning as the weekly decline is roughly 94%.

The funds tracking the performance of Solana’s SOL experienced an even more profound drop in the numbers, going down from over $188 million to under $2.5 million.

94% Decline in XRP ETF Inflows

The business week began on a higher note for the Ripple ETFs, with investors pouring in almost $4 million. However, a familiar sight returned on Tuesday and Wednesday, as SoSoValue shows $0.00 for both days. In other words, the demand simply evaporated for two straight days. This was common during the sluggish summer months, but it hasn’t been the case for the past several weeks.

Investors allocated another $4.07 million on October 1, thus ending the two-day dry spell. However, the tide turned on Friday, with $3.28 million in net outflows. This became the first red day for the XRP ETFs since September 18. Consequently, the week ended with $4.74 million in net inflows.

On the positive side, this means that the financial vehicles extended their streak of consecutive green weeks to 12. However, a deeper look into the actual numbers shows that the funds experienced a 94% decline in weekly net inflows, as they attracted $75.59 million during the previous five-day trading period that ended on September 25.

Meanwhile, the underlying asset was rejected twice in the past week at $1.55 and even dipped to $1.45 on Friday during the market-wide correction. It has recovered some ground since then and currently fights for the $1.50 level.

SOL ETFs in a Worse State

The spot Solana ETFs had their second-best week in terms of net inflows last week, with $188.22 million entering the funds. However, their five-day performance slumped by over 97% to $2.43 million. This was somewhat surprising given how the week started, as the financial products gained $12.70 million on Monday and another $5.44 million on Tuesday.

However, investors reversed their stance on Wednesday with $11.10 million in net inflows and $5.91 million on Thursday. Friday was slightly in the green ($1.30 million), which helped save the weekly inflow streak.

SOL’s price jumped above $123 in the middle of the week, but the Friday crash pushed it to under $118. The subsequent recovery has helped it reclaim the $129 level as of press time.

The post XRP and SOL ETF Demand Craters as Weekly Inflows Drop 94%+ appeared first on CryptoPotato.

Most retail traders on Polymarket lose money. A Galaxy Research study of 2.9 million human-paced accounts found that more than 69% finished below break-even. The group recorded aggregate losses of $338.9 million.

The research used Polymarket’s full on-chain history, covering positions, entry prices, holding periods, as well as payouts. Galaxy excluded 125,429 accounts that averaged more than 50 orders per active trading day, treating them as likely automated. These accounts made up just 4.1% of wallets but accounted for 80.8% of all orders.

Behavior of Polymarket Traders

Among the remaining accounts, the median retail account lost around $3, which indicates that most losses were relatively small, while a smaller group lost thousands. Galaxy also found that losing money was linked to higher churn. About 15.2% of accounts did not trade again within 30 days after a loss, compared with 6.1% after a win.

The study also examined whether traders increased risk after winning or losing. Both groups usually returned with slightly smaller positions, but traders reduced risk less after a win.

Specialization was another major finding. Around 44% of traders focused more than 60% of their activity on one topic. However, specialists were slightly less likely to be profitable than generalists. Only 28% of specialists finished profitably, compared with 30.4% of generalists.

Sports made up the largest specialist group and had the lowest profitability rate. Tech and science specialists performed better, with 41.2% finishing profitably. Galaxy said this could reflect stronger subject knowledge, although the data cannot establish why these traders performed better.

Profitable traders also tended to make larger bets. They also traded more frequently. Holding time, however, did not show a clear link with profitability. Galaxy’s research covered Polymarket’s international platform, not its separate US exchange. It also noted an important limitation: the analysis tracks wallet addresses rather than individual people. A trader using multiple wallets could therefore appear as several accounts.

Legal Woes

The legal problems around prediction markets are starting to pile up as platforms like Polymarket expand into more countries and markets. In the US, cities and states are increasingly arguing that contracts on sports results, player stats, and other uncertain outcomes look a lot like ordinary gambling. Baltimore, for example, sued Polymarket and Kalshi in August, claiming that both platforms were offering sports bets without the licenses required in Maryland.

New York followed in September, suing Polymarket’s US arm over alleged unlicensed gambling and claims that users aged 18 to 20 could trade, despite the state’s 21-year minimum age for mobile sports betting. The legal questions go beyond the US.

South Korean police opened cases against 26 Polymarket users and referred 18 to prosecutors over about $12.7 million in bets. Authorities there are examining whether its trading should be treated as illegal gambling under Korean law.

The post Galaxy Finds 7 in 10 Polymarket Retail Traders Lost Money appeared first on CryptoPotato.

The International Monetary Fund has approved a disbursement worth SDR 101.96 million ($138 million) for El Salvador after granting the government a waiver for its failure to meet a condition related to Bitcoin accumulation.

The IMF Executive Board completed the second and third reviews of El Salvador’s Extended Fund Facility program on October 1.

Limits for Bitcoin Accumulation

The IMF said El Salvador’s economy has performed better than expected, helped by improved security and stronger investor confidence. The country has also made progress in reducing fiscal imbalances. Its reserve and liquidity buffers have strengthened, while fiscal consolidation has broadly stayed on track. However, some program conditions were not met. One of them involved the government’s Bitcoin accumulation. The IMF granted waivers based on “corrective measures and renewed commitments” from the Salvadoran authorities.

Under the latest program commitments, El Salvador is not expected to accumulate more Bitcoin beyond documented donations. The IMF also said the government is working to reduce its role in BTC-related activities, which includes plans to improve transparency around public-sector crypto holdings and strengthen rules governing crypto-asset companies.

“Efforts will continue to reduce the state’s involvement in Bitcoin-related activities, strengthen crypto‑asset regulation and governance, and enhance transparency regarding public-sector crypto‑asset holdings. No further Bitcoin accumulation is envisaged beyond the documented donations.”

Chivo’s Government Role Shrinks

The government’s Chivo digital wallet has also moved toward private control. According to the IMF, majority ownership and control of Chivo have been transferred to a private operator. The remaining public-sector exposure should eventually be unwound.

El Salvador agreed to a 40-month IMF program in February 2025. The program provides total access of about $1.4 billion. The latest disbursement is part of that broader financial arrangement. The IMF said the country still needs to carry out further reforms to strengthen public finances, rebuild external reserves and improve financial-sector resilience. Pension and civil service reforms are also expected to move forward after earlier delays.

The IMF also called for stronger governance and greater transparency while highlighting areas such as public-sector reporting, beneficial ownership disclosures, asset declarations, and anti-money laundering rules. These reforms were crucial for maintaining economic stability.

The post IMF Approves $138M for El Salvador After Bitcoin Accumulation Waiver appeared first on CryptoPotato.