OneKey's actions highlight the critical need for stringent supply chain security in the crypto industry to prevent large-scale asset thefts.

The post OneKey cuts off CryptoBilis, offers free wallet replacements appeared first on Crypto Briefing.

The AI-driven chip shortage is reshaping the tech market, pushing manufacturers toward premium models and consumers to hold devices longer.

The post Global smartphone shipments fall 20% in Q3 as AI drives chip shortages appeared first on Crypto Briefing.

Tokenization's growth hinges on boosting buyer interest, as technical readiness alone can't drive liquidity in illiquid asset markets.

The post GSR CEO says tokenization has a buyer problem, not a tech problem appeared first on Crypto Briefing.

DeFi Development Corp.'s focus on Solana treasury highlights the growing trend of crypto integration in traditional investment vehicles.

The post DeFi Development Corp. adds 22,070 SOL to its growing Solana treasury appeared first on Crypto Briefing.

Marvell's advancements in memory expanders could significantly enhance AI inference efficiency, potentially accelerating AI model deployment.

The post Marvell unveils second-generation Structera X memory expanders for AI inference appeared first on Crypto Briefing.

Bitcoin Magazine

Bitcoin Life Insurer Meanwhile Raises $37.5M as Wealthy Families Look to Pass On Their BTC

Meanwhile, the first life insurer licensed to operate entirely in Bitcoin, has raised $37.5 million in new funding from its existing investors, the company announced.

Bain Capital Crypto led the round, with participation from Haun Ventures, Framework Ventures, Pantera Capital, Apollo, Northwestern Mutual Future Ventures and Morgan Creek Digital. The raise brings Meanwhile’s total funding to more than $180 million. Sam Altman is also among its backers.

The company said the round follows a surge in demand for its Bitcoin life insurance policies outside the US, particularly in Asia, Europe and the Middle East, amid broader macroeconomic instability.

“Wealthy families around the world already hold Bitcoin. What they haven’t had is a regulated way to pass it on,” Zac Townsend, Meanwhile’s co-founder and CEO, said in a statement.  

“Brokers came to us because their clients kept asking. This round lets us keep up with them.”

In early 2026, Meanwhile launched BTC Life 1-Pay, a single-premium whole life policy aimed at high-net-worth clients outside the US. It is the company’s second product line, after BTC 10-Pay, which is designed for US taxpayers.

Under BTC Life 1-Pay, a client pays one premium in Bitcoin and receives a guaranteed death benefit in Bitcoin for life. The policy’s value grows in Bitcoin, and after the first year the owner can borrow up to 90% of it, with no repayment schedule and no margin calls.

Policies can be owned by individuals, trusts or companies, which the company says makes them suited to succession and estate planning.

Since launch, Meanwhile has signed 15 brokers serving wealthy families, including in Singapore, Hong Kong, the UAE and Switzerland. Partners include Lioner, an insurance, trust and family office group with offices in Hong Kong, Singapore and Zurich, and Apeiron Group, a marketplace for high-net-worth life insurance.

“We’re reaching a turning point where more high-net-worth clients are asking not just how to hold Bitcoin and digital assets, but how to plan around them and ultimately transfer that wealth to the next generation,” said Justin Man, CEO of Apeiron Group. Digital assets.

Meanwhile said its net long-term underwriting income has already passed last year’s total and is on track to more than double in 2026. The company did not disclose specific figures.

“Meanwhile owns every layer of a regulated life insurer and builds it like an AI-enabled startup,” said Stefan Cohen, partner at Bain Capital Crypto. “The growth this year proves the model, and we’re glad to back them again.” 

The company’s operating entity, Meanwhile Insurance Bitcoin (Bermuda) Limited, holds the first Class IILT license granted by the Bermuda Monetary Authority. It received the license in July 2024 after two years in the regulator’s sandbox.

The insurer’s balance sheet, reserves and audited financial statements are all denominated in Bitcoin. Policyholder Bitcoin is held with regulated institutional custodians.

This post Bitcoin Life Insurer Meanwhile Raises $37.5M as Wealthy Families Look to Pass On Their BTC first appeared on Bitcoin Magazine and is written by Mathew Di Salvo.

Bitcoin Magazine

‘We Know Where It Is’: Treasury Secretary Threatens To Freeze $1B of Iran’s Crypto

U.S. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent has said the American authorities will soon seize $1 billion in crypto from Iran. 

Speaking on Newsmax’s NPolicy Summit in Washington, D.C. on Thursday, Bessent added that economic sanctions on the Middle Eastern country were working. 

Iran has been using bitcoin — and other cryptocurrencies — to skirt around U.S. sanctions. The U.S. in April started targeting crypto wallets linked to the Iranian regime, Bessent said at the time. 

“What we have done has never been seen before,” Bessent said Thursday on Iranian sanctions. 

“We’re probably going to seize $1 billion of crypto this week,” he continued. “We know where it is. We are isolating them. We did have a maximum pressure campaign, now we have an absolute isolation campaign and it’s working.”

Bessent didn’t reveal what cryptocurrencies the U.S. will seize or how. 

It would be very hard — if not impossible — for the U.S. to freeze Iran’s bitcoin unless it keeps it on a centralized exchange. 

Bitcoin, being censorship resistant, cannot be frozen. But many other cryptocurrencies, including Tether’s USDT, can. Bessent previously said the feds had seized Iran’s crypto in the form of the popular stablecoin. 

Iran started a bitcoin-backed insurance service for its counties shipping companies earlier this year.

The Financial Times last month reported that the Middle Eastern country was using bitcoin to settle cross-border transactions through Iranian crypto exchanges after the central bank advised its countrymen to do anything necessary to help the economy.    

U.S. President Donald Trump revived his “maximum pressure” campaign weeks after returning to office. A national security memorandum signed in February 2025 put the Treasury on a sustained campaign against Iran’s shadow banking, money laundering and sanctions-evasion networks.

This post ‘We Know Where It Is’: Treasury Secretary Threatens To Freeze $1B of Iran’s Crypto first appeared on Bitcoin Magazine and is written by Mathew Di Salvo.

Bitcoin Magazine

Here’s How Not To Screw up Your Bitcoin Privacy

Just one transaction can compromise years of discreet Bitcoin activity, Cake Wallet’s chief operating officer has warned. 

Speaking on the Bitcoin Rails podcast this week, activist Seth for Privacy talked about different ways of protecting one’s privacy when using Bitcoin and said that focusing on privacy was a must for the West. 

Bitcoin privacy is a hot topic again ever since the developers of private coin mixer Samourai Wallet went on trial last year and were subsequently imprisoned. 

But just this week, the U.S. Department of Treasury scrapped two long-stalled crypto surveillance proposals, handing a major win to privacy advocates and the digital asset industry.

“If you ever spend your no-KYC coins with one of your KYC coins — which if you just let the wallet do its thing, it could do because it doesn’t know the difference — you immediately connect all of the non-KYC Bitcoin that you spend in that with your identity,” Seth said, referring to UTXO management, also called “coin control” by some wallets. 

Bitcoin wallets don’t hold a single balance but a collection of separate unspent transaction outputs — UTXOs — each one a discrete “coin” from a specific past transaction. 

When you send a payment larger than any one UTXO, the wallet picks several and combines them as inputs to the same transaction — an easy mistake to make, Seth highlighted. 

Seth added that unlike in the global South, where people have experienced more oppressive states, citizens in the West will need to “feel pain” in order to realize how important privacy is.

Still, he added that attitudes were changing and people were getting more serious about protecting their privacy. 

“It has been shifting, in the last five or six years a lot of people — even in the West — are starting to think [privacy] really matters, we really need to think about this seriously now,” he said. 

Cake Wallet is a privacy-oriented, self-custody, open-source wallet. The wallet earlier this year integrated Bitcoin’s Lightning Network into its platform. 

Using the second layer solution is not only faster and cheaper, it also offers more privacy than Bitcoin’s main chain. 

While Cake Wallet supports other cryptocurrencies, including privacy coin Monero, Seth for Privacy added that he’d love it if the digital coin didn’t exist. 

“If Bitcoin’s privacy got good enough that you could use it and have at least almost as good privacy as Monero without massive hoops to jump through, and Monero ceased to exist, that’s fine,” he said. 

“I would much rather the thing that more people use has better privacy than a more niche tool that has perfect privacy, and that’s something that less people are using because it’s less well known.”

This post Here’s How Not To Screw up Your Bitcoin Privacy first appeared on Bitcoin Magazine and is written by Mathew Di Salvo.

Bitcoin Magazine

Bitcoin ETFs Shed $729M in Two Days as Investors Reverse Course

U.S. investors this week reversed course, cashing out $729 million from spot bitcoin exchange-traded funds — putting downward pressure on the leading cryptocurrency’s price. 

Funds managed by BlackRock, Fidelity, Morgan Stanley, and ARK 21-Shares all experienced significant outflows on Wednesday and Thursday, according to data from Farside Investors. 

Investors had started the week by selling close to $90 million in shares but then bought nearly $119 million on Tuesday. 

The rest of the week has seen outflows following news that the Federal Reserve may raise interest rates. Other negative news includes the price of Brent crude jumping following renewed attacks on tankers in the Strait of Hormuz. 

U.S. President Trump also hinted that talks with Iran weren’t bearing fruit — a sign war in the Middle East could continue. 

Bitcoin’s price recently stood at a little over $82,688, down more than 3% over a seven-day period. The leading cryptocurrency has rebounded slightly over the past day, jumping nearly 2% over 24 hours. 

Still, the coin was fast closing in on $90,000 last week. Investors are expecting decent returns as the month dubbed “Uptober” has historically delivered for bitcoin speculators. 

The price of bitcoin has been particularly sensitive to geopolitical headwinds this year — especially since the U.S. and Israel attacked Iran, leading to an oil price surge. 

Oil prices going up tend to lead investors to bet on the Federal Reserve raising interest rates. And with higher interest rates comes less liquidity for the price of bitcoin to do well. 

Still, that’s not always the case: the Fed last month talked tough on getting inflation down and raised interest rates by a quarter of a percentage point and bitcoin’s price rose in the following days. 

Bitcoin’s price is 34% below the all-time high of $126,080 it touched in October. It has spent most of 2026 in a bear market but analysts are now increasingly pointing to evidence of a bull market following a rally in August and September. 

This post Bitcoin ETFs Shed $729M in Two Days as Investors Reverse Course first appeared on Bitcoin Magazine and is written by Mathew Di Salvo.

Bitcoin Magazine

Ledger Warns Buyers Not to Set Up Wallets From Reseller After Users Report Losses

Hardware wallet manufacturer Ledger has said that it is investigating loss of user funds after customers in South East Asia reported issues with devices bought from a reseller. 

The Paris-based company on Friday advised customers who’d bought from vendor CryptoBilis within the last 90 days to not set up their devices. 

Ledger did not reveal how much money users had lost but one blockchain investigator, Specter, wrote on X that he’d traced theft addresses following social media posts and that over $86 million had been lost. 

The issue comes following a number of data breaches this year in the crypto world and a huge hack of popular Coldcard hardware wallet devices in July. 

“Ledger is investigating reports of loss of funds from users in South East Asia who purchased products from a reseller named CryptoBilis,” Ledger said via its support X account. 

Ledger added that it had asked CryptoBilis to pause all sales and shipments of Ledger devices.

“If you have set up your Ledger device, consider moving assets to a new Ledger signer (with new seed). We will continue to inform customers of updates as the investigation progresses,” the company said. 

In a statement to Bitcoin Magazine, Ledger said that based on the information to date, the incident is isolated specifically to this reseller in this specific market. 

“No reports were made of products purchased directly from Ledger, and Ledger’s infrastructure, systems and services were not compromised,” the company added. 

CryptoBilis is a Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia-based hardware wallet vendor, according to its website. The company did not immediately respond to questions from Bitcoin Magazine. 

The crypto industry is still reeling after hackers in July were able to steal close to $120 million in bitcoin from Coldcard users. 

The products, made by Canadian company Coinkite, had a firmware bug which led to faulty seed generation, allowing hackers to essentially guess investor seedphrases. 

Galaxy Research said in the months following the attack various attackers were able to exploit the bug independently. 

In a separate incident, hardware wallet manufacturer Trezor last month reported that close to 81,000 customers had their details leaked after its third-party fulfillment partner had data stolen. 

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

This post Ledger Warns Buyers Not to Set Up Wallets From Reseller After Users Report Losses first appeared on Bitcoin Magazine and is written by Mathew Di Salvo.

EU finance ministers agreed to shift oversight of major crypto companies to a central watchdog, reshaping supervision under MiCA.

The Council of the European Union reached a political agreement on Oct. 9 to give the European Securities and Markets Authority (ESMA) direct responsibility for the bloc's most significant crypto-asset service providers, as part of a wider package to integrate European financial markets.

The proposed overhaul addresses a weakness in the Markets in Crypto-Assets Regulation (MiCA), which allows firms licensed in one member state to serve customers across the 27-country bloc while remaining primarily supervised by their home-country regulator.

The compromise, however, is considerably narrower than the European Commission's original plan to move all crypto service providers under ESMA. Officials estimate that only 10 to 15 of roughly 360 providers would qualify for centralized supervision, Reuters reported.

The agreement sets the Council's negotiating position rather than changing the law immediately. The Council must still negotiate the proposal with the European Parliament.

National licenses expose gap in EU-wide oversight

MiCA's passporting system was designed to provide crypto firms with a single route into the European market. Under the regulation, a provider authorized in one member state can offer approved services elsewhere in the EU without establishing a physical presence in every country it serves.

That arrangement reduces duplication for firms expanding across borders, but it also places considerable responsibility on the national authority issuing the initial approval. This is because a company's operations, client assets, and technology systems can grow well beyond the market where it was licensed.

The consequences emerged in a July 2025 ESMA review of the Malta Financial Services Authority's authorization of an unnamed crypto provider.

ESMA questioned why the company received approval while material issues remained unresolved. Its reviewers found insufficient evidence that the licensing assessment adequately addressed governance, potential conflicts of interest, technology infrastructure, custody arrangements and certain anti-money-laundering risks.

The review did not establish that every Maltese license was deficient. It also credited the Maltese regulator with sector expertise and sufficient supervisory resources, while recommending improvements to its authorization process.

Malta subsequently said it was implementing the recommendations but opposed transferring supervision to ESMA, arguing in September 2025 that MiCA was too new to justify an additional regulatory layer. The authority warned that centralization could introduce bureaucracy and hamper competitiveness.

The dispute highlighted a broader tension: one regulator's authorization decision can affect crypto customers across Europe, even when other national watchdogs view the required level of scrutiny differently.

Largest crypto providers face new thresholds and EU enforcement

In response, EU regulators are proposing a new framework to address these issues.

Under the Council's draft, ESMA would take direct oversight of crypto providers with at least 15 million active EU users, or those meeting three of five additional significance criteria covering their customer base, custody assets, transaction volumes and financial interconnectedness.

Those criteria include more than 1 million active users, over €1 billion in crypto assets under custody and more than €4 billion in annual client transactions.

Together, these factors mean a provider's overall scale and connections to the financial system, rather than its place of incorporation alone, would determine whether supervision moves to ESMA.

The agency would gain powers to request information from directly supervised firms, conduct inspections, investigate breaches, and impose financial penalties. The draft also envisages the authority to restrict services or withdraw authorization where firms do not meet regulatory requirements.

While most crypto service providers would remain under national regulators, ESMA would use guidelines, peer reviews, coordinated investigations, and certain intervention powers to address uneven enforcement across jurisdictions.

The overhaul would also create a full-time ESMA executive board, including a chair and five independent members, to handle operational and company-specific decisions. National regulators would continue participating in broader policy and supervisory coordination.

The Council envisages a two-year transition in which joint teams transfer information, operational responsibilities and expertise to ESMA. Existing MiCA licenses for companies brought under direct supervision would remain valid, avoiding the automatic need to seek new authorization.

The proposed structure would bring greater supervisory scrutiny to a small group of large firms while leaving the majority of the market within the current national model. The decisive questions now concern the final thresholds, ESMA's available resources, and how providers near the boundary are treated.

The Council must formally adopt its negotiating position before talks can begin once the European Parliament establishes its own. Those negotiations will determine how many crypto companies ultimately move from national to EU-level supervision and when the transfer can begin.

The post EU targets MiCA loophole that lets crypto exchanges serve 27 countries with one license appeared first on CryptoSlate.

Thailand has finalized rules allowing domestic Bitcoin and Ethereum ETFs while restricting retail access to competing overseas investment products.

The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) announced on Oct. 8 that 11 regulatory notifications will take effect on Oct. 16, establishing a framework for cryptocurrency exchange-traded funds listed exclusively on the Stock Exchange of Thailand.

Thailand's move follows the success of spot Bitcoin and Ethereum ETFs in the United States, which have attracted about $70.37 billion in combined cumulative net inflows since their launches.

According to SoSoValue data, the funds held about $121 billion in combined net assets as of Oct. 12, illustrating the scale of the market Thailand seeks to enter.

Thailand prioritizes domestic ETFs over foreign competitors

Under the new framework, Thailand will initially prohibit the issuance and offering of investment products linked to foreign crypto ETFs, including depositary receipts that would otherwise allow local investors to gain exposure to overseas funds through domestic securities markets.

Securities companies will also be restricted from facilitating investments in foreign crypto ETFs for clients who do not qualify as institutional or ultra-high-net-worth investors.

The restrictions are targeted rather than a comprehensive prohibition on overseas crypto investments. They primarily affect specified investment products and brokerage services available to ordinary investors.

The SEC said the measures aim to support the development of Thailand's domestic crypto ETF ecosystem and strengthen local financial institutions' capabilities.

The regulator has also expanded the investment options available to existing asset managers.

Previously, Thai mutual funds and private funds could invest in foreign crypto ETFs but not domestic equivalents. Under the revised rules, they may invest in Thai-listed crypto ETFs, subject to existing investment limits.

Together, these changes could establish an additional source of demand for domestic products while reducing the availability of some foreign alternatives.

The framework may also create opportunities for Thai asset managers, custodians and other licensed digital asset businesses to participate in the emerging market.

However, the restrictions could leave retail investors with fewer competing products, making the fees, liquidity and tracking performance of domestically listed funds particularly important once trading begins.

Thailand imposes margin restrictions and investor safeguards

Beyond restrictions on foreign products, Thailand's framework sets operating requirements to limit risk and ensure crypto ETFs function within the country's existing securities market.

Initially, only Bitcoin and Ethereum will qualify as underlying assets, with each ETF required to passively track a single cryptocurrency.

Funds must maintain average net exposure of at least 80% of their net asset value to the chosen asset over each accounting year.

Asset managers must demonstrate adequate personnel, operational systems and service-provider arrangements before establishing a fund. Digital assets held by the ETFs must also be safeguarded by custodians regulated by Thailand's SEC.

Investor protections extend to trading activities.

Securities companies will be prohibited from providing margin loans for crypto ETF purchases, preventing investors from using that form of broker financing to increase their exposure.

Before trading, investors must receive education about the products' characteristics and risks and formally acknowledge their understanding.

Brokers must also emphasize portfolio diversification and investment decisions consistent with individual risk tolerance.

The regulator has separately permitted licensed digital asset fund managers to undertake outsourced investment management functions, while qualified digital asset businesses may apply to serve as mutual fund supervisors.

The final regulations follow consultations conducted between April and September, during which the SEC said most respondents supported the proposals.

The next milestone is Oct. 16, when the regulatory framework becomes effective. The SEC has not yet approved a Bitcoin or Ethereum ETF or announced when either product will begin trading on Thailand's stock exchange.

The post Thailand wants a piece of the $120 billion Bitcoin and Ethereum ETF market, but on its own terms appeared first on CryptoSlate.

Lookalike payment addresses targeted nearly 4.5 million Solana wallets over 11 months, according to blockchain-data firm Bitquery’s Oct. 9, 2026 findings. The findings show why a successful small test transfer can still precede a much larger payment to a scammer.

The technique, known as address poisoning, plants a misleading entry in a wallet’s payment history. A tiny incoming transfer puts the sender’s lookalike address near a legitimate payment. If the user later copies that address, they can send money to the wrong recipient.

A Solana test transfer can reach the wrong address

Bitquery describes a Nov. 17, 2025 case in which a wallet first paid $10 in USDT to its Gate.io deposit address. A lookalike sent dust 12 seconds later. The wallet then sent a second $10 test to the fake, followed by 30,749.80 USDT to that same address.

The implication is that a successful test confirms delivery to the selected address, but cannot establish who controls it. If the destination was copied incorrectly, repeating the payment repeats the mistake.

Receiving dust does not itself drain a wallet in this mechanism. The loss occurs when its owner subsequently authorizes a payment to the lookalike.

Bitquery counted 4,497,798 targeted wallets from Oct. 30, 2025, through Oct. 7, 2026. Its rule required a same-day payment of at least $1 in SOL, USDC or USDT, followed by dust or a fake stablecoin token from a different address matching at least three characters at each end of the payee.

The loss analysis used a smaller subset: approximately 3.0 million wallets poisoned through July 9, 2026. Of those, 1,104 made qualifying payments totaling $940,106. The wider targeting count does not mean 4.5 million wallets lost money.

The loss total is a floor. It counts payments of at least $1 within 90 days of the first dust. Beyond that window, a payment could qualify if more dust arrived that day. Wallets poisoned after July 9 and payments outside those rules were excluded. Bitquery also removed likely existing relationships, such as pairs with earlier payments or repayments; some genuine thefts may have been excluded.

Phantom’s address-poisoning guidance advises avoiding addresses copied from transaction history and verifying the address before sending.

Its receiving-payment instructions separate the checks: first confirm the exact recipient address and network, then look up the transaction status on an explorer. Phantom also says it cannot recover tokens sent to the wrong address.

The post A Solana wallet tested a fake address with $10, then sent it $30,750 appeared first on CryptoSlate.

The UK placed crypto payment brands Cryptomus and Heleket under the same sanctions designation on Oct. 8, 2026, naming Xeltox Enterprises Ltd. as the target. Switching between the two brands leaves the shared designation relevant to the counterparty assessment.

For merchants choosing a payment processor and customers seeking access to funds, the operator matters as much as the name on the checkout. The Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office's notice lists Cryptomus, Heleket and Certa Payments Ltd. as variations of Xeltox's name.

What changes for payments and UK access

Xeltox appears in the notice under unique ID RUS3755. The UK says it has reasonable grounds to suspect the company has supported or benefited from Russia's government through the Russian financial-services sector, citing its ownership of Cryptomus and activities linked to and continued through Heleket.

The listed measures include an asset freeze, restrictions on trust services, director disqualification, internet-services sanctions and correspondent-banking and payment-processing restrictions.

For the banking measure, the notice prohibits UK credit or financial institutions from establishing or continuing correspondent relationships with the designated person and from processing payments to, from or through it. It also extends the measure to credit or financial institutions owned or controlled by that person.

The internet measure imposes a different obligation. Social-media services, internet-access services and application stores must take reasonable steps to prevent UK users from accessing content, websites or applications supplied by the designated person. The requirement establishes a UK access restriction.

Guidance from the Office of Financial Sanctions Implementation (OFSI) says UK financial sanctions apply to people and activities within UK territory and to UK nationals and entities established under UK law wherever they operate. Cryptoassets fall within the broad definitions of funds and economic resources. The effect on a transaction therefore depends on its parties, activity and jurisdiction.

The control question also reaches beyond explicitly named brands. OFSI's ownership and control tests include holding more than 50% of shares or voting rights, having the right to appoint or remove a majority of directors, or a reasonable expectation that a person can ensure an entity conducts its affairs according to their wishes. An unlisted company can therefore fall within applicable financial restrictions because of control.

For a withdrawal within UK sanctions jurisdiction, the transfer's legal basis matters even when the customer is not designated. Whether the transfer is prohibited, covered by an exception or permitted by a license depends on the funds and activity involved.

UK government guidance distinguishes an exception, which applies automatically when its defined conditions are met, from a license giving written permission for otherwise prohibited activity. General licenses also have conditions and can expire, be amended or be revoked. For an otherwise prohibited transfer, moving a customer's funds requires an applicable exception or license. A licensing ground identifies a potential basis for an application; written licensing permission requires an issued license covering the activity.

The current OFSI general-license index illustrates the importance of checking which entities a permission covers. Its Oct. 8 addition, a Zarubezhneft wind-down license, covers that oil company and its owned or controlled subsidiaries.

OFSI also lists a return-of-funds licensing ground for designated money-services businesses that requires UK registration for money-laundering purposes, alongside other conditions. Canadian registration alone does not meet that requirement.

Legal permission and successful execution are separate questions. A provider switch therefore leaves two further requirements: a lawful transfer of the existing balance and a receiving route able to process it.

Separate exchange names can share a route

Separate exchange tracing illustrates a different issue: changing the legal operator may still leave a shared downstream route. TokenSpot CJSC has its own Oct. 8 designation, RUS3758, with the same listed categories of restrictions; its entry designates a separate entity from Xeltox.

Chainalysis reports that downstream funds from TokenSpot, Grinex and Meer converged on one HTX deposit address. Some services reached that destination through intermediary wallets.

In the analysis published Oct. 8, the firm says the address received more than $308 million. This is the address's aggregate receipt total; the narrative gives no observation period or exchange-by-exchange breakdown.

The convergence matters because different exchange brands can send funds into the same downstream route while presenting distinct services to the customer. For a merchant evaluating alternatives, a change in operator and a change in routing are distinct questions: the first concerns the counterparty and legal control; the second concerns where the payment goes after entering the service.

CryptoSlate's earlier coverage of US action against A7 and Iran-Russia settlement links examined the role of payment intermediaries. The new tracing supplies a separate routing example. The described trace concerns TokenSpot, Grinex and Meer. Any connection of Cryptomus or Heleket to this HTX endpoint, or a corporate group with those exchanges, remains unestablished in this analysis.

A Canadian penalty preceded the UK designation

Xeltox also has a Canadian compliance history that predates the UK designation. FINTRAC's Oct. 22, 2025 record says its director confirmed a C$176,960,190 administrative monetary penalty on Oct. 16, 2025, for 2,593 contraventions across six violation types.

The regulator's findings included failures to submit suspicious-transaction reports and comply with Canada's Iran directive. The Oct. 22 record says Xeltox appealed the penalty to the Federal Court.

The UK Sanctions List update log, checked Oct. 11, showed Oct. 8 as its latest update. For a customer considering a switch, the remaining evidence needed is specific to the transaction: the operator, who holds or controls the funds, the route and the applicable permission.

The post Switching from Cryptomus to Heleket leaves the same UK sanctions target appeared first on CryptoSlate.

Sandwich bots extracted about $29.7 million before costs from Solana trades over an 11-month period, according to blockchain data provider Bitquery. It found 96% of detected attacks on memecoin platform Pump.fun's launch curve and its PumpSwap exchange.

The investigation, covering successful swaps, counted 6,850,144 attacks by 2,545 bot wallets affecting 2,154,994 distinct wallets between October 30, 2025, and October 7, 2026. Those addresses do not represent a count of individual people: other bots' trades accounted for 39% of the estimated gross take.

A sandwich places a bot's purchase and sale around another trader's swap. The first purchase raises the pool price; the intervening buyer receives fewer tokens, and the bot sells into the higher price. The cost reaches the trader through execution, even when the swap completes successfully.

Wide slippage marked greater exposure

Among trades sent by swap router Jupiter through Pump.fun's launch curve or PumpSwap, trades allowing 20%–50% slippage were sandwiched 14 times as often as those allowing under 3%, Bitquery found.

Slippage tolerance sets how far execution can depart from a quote. Jupiter's documentation describes a minimum acceptable output after applying that tolerance. A price move beyond the limit can cause a swap to fail; a wider limit permits a worse fill. That creates a tradeoff between completing a volatile trade and limiting the price concession accepted along the way.

The observed attack rates did not rise uniformly with every wider setting. Trades below 0.5% tolerance were hit more often than those at 1%–3%, while the 50%-or-more band was hit less often than the 20%–50% band.

The slippage comparison is observational and covers Jupiter routes through Pump.fun's launch curve or PumpSwap. Jupiter carried only a small share of all victim trades in the investigation.

The $29.7 million estimate values SOL at the minute of each attack and does not measure net profit. In Bitquery's separate 63-attack fee sample, bots retained 68% of aggregate gross proceeds, and 18 attacks lost money after costs. That sample does not establish net earnings for the full period. The report also identifies inconsistent Pump.fun sale-fee recording that affects its gross estimate by about 3%.

Bitquery used repeated trading patterns to identify bots, excluded round trips beginning in a token's first 10 slots, and reports gaps in exchange and block coverage. Chain records cannot prove a bot saw an order beforehand, and some qualifying wallets may be fast traders.

Slippage limits address the price a trader will accept. A separate research preprint submitted September 23, 2026 examined protected order flow, meaning transactions intended to be shielded from front-running, across six blockchains. Its authors found sandwich patterns extending across trades and blocks and concluded these protections can offer weaker guarantees than users expect.

The post Solana sandwich bots took $29.7 million before costs, mostly targeting Pump.fun appeared first on CryptoSlate.

Avalanche costs around $11.09, or €9.92, on October 12, 2026, which is 7.2 percent more than the day before. That is the high of the day: the range over the past 24 hours ran from $10.32 to $11.09. The contrast with the rest of the market is the striking part. Bitcoin lost 3.2 percent over the week, ether 6.0 percent, Solana 7.8 percent and XRP 7.3 percent, while AVAX stayed 1.1 percent up over the same week.

Across 30 days the gap is considerably wider. The AVAX price rose 48.9 percent over that period and 70.7 percent over 60 days. From the monthly low of $7.27 on September 16 to today it is 52.5 percent. Look at the chart alone and you see one of the strongest moves among the 25 largest cryptocurrencies.

This is precisely where a second look pays off. A price rises because buyers pay more than sellers ask, and that may or may not have anything to do with the use of a blockchain. So we looked not only at the price but at the capital actually working on the Avalanche chain. The result carries this article: both are growing, but not at the same pace.

Avalanche price today: $11.09, rank 25 and a $4.92bn market value

Avalanche is a layer-1 blockchain, meaning a self-contained network with its own consensus on which applications and tokens run. AVAX is the associated token, used to pay fees and to collateralise validators. With a market capitalisation of $4.92bn, Avalanche sits at rank 25 among the largest cryptocurrencies. Of a maximum 470.02 million AVAX, 443.35 million are in circulation, or 94.3 percent of the total supply.

Trading volume over the past 24 hours comes to $388.8m. Measured against the market value, that is turnover of roughly eight percent a day, a figure that indicates normal liquidity for a token of this size. For you that means an order of a few hundred or a few thousand euros will not move the price on a liquid exchange.

The distance to the all-time high remains large. On November 21, 2021 AVAX stood at $144.96. From that level it is 92.4 percent short. Over twelve months the books also show a loss of 47.7 percent. The rally of recent weeks is therefore recovering part of a multi-year decline rather than breaking new ground.

The counter-move in figures: AVAX up 7.2 percent, Solana down 7.8 percent

An altcoin running against the broader market does happen, but it rarely lasts. That makes a comparison of the time windows all the more worthwhile, because it shows when the move began. Over 14 days AVAX is 7.0 percent up, and over seven days only 1.1 percent. The bulk of the increase therefore falls in the second half of September and the first week of October rather than the past few days.

The price has in fact already left its monthly high behind. On October 7 AVAX traded at $11.60, then fell back to $10.07 by October 9. Today’s jump to $11.09 therefore returns the price to the top of the range without exceeding it. That $11.60 is the first level against which the move has to be measured.

Two documented developments from September sit in the background. First, the Helicon upgrade went live on September 22, shortening among other things the lock-up period for validators; what that changes for delegators is something we set out on September 17 in a separate piece on the Helicon upgrade and the staking lock-up. Second, the business in tokenised assets on the chain is growing, which we described on October 3 with an increase of $266m over 30 days in tokenised assets on Avalanche.

Total value locked: $643m is working on the Avalanche chain

Total value locked, or TVL, describes the sum of all deposits held in the applications of a blockchain, for instance in lending protocols, trading venues and staking services. What gets measured is the capital users entrust to the network, not the value of a token. The metric therefore provides the obvious cross-check on a rising price.

Avalanche currently holds $643.1m. Thirty days ago it was $471.7m and 60 days ago $416.3m. Chain capital has thus grown 36.3 percent within a month and 54.5 percent within two. The chain is in better shape than it was in the summer, and anyone claiming that only the price is moving here is wrong.

The swing within October is notable. On October 5 the chain held $648.6m, on October 9 only $599.6m, and today $643.1m again. A fall of 7.6 percent in four days and a recovery in three: the capital on Avalanche reacts sensitively to price moves, because part of the deposits are themselves valued in AVAX.

The gap: price up 48.9 percent, chain capital up 36.3 percent in 30 days

Lay the two series on top of each other and a gap of 12.6 percentage points remains over 30 days, and of 16.2 points over 60 days. In both windows the price rose faster than the capital working on the chain. The valuation is running ahead of the usage, not dramatically, but measurably.

Placing that in context requires a comparison with other chains, because an absolute figure says little. According to chain data from October 12, DeFi capital is distributed as follows: Ethereum leads with $51.87bn, followed by Solana with $6.27bn, Base with $6.26bn and Arbitrum with $1.38bn. Avalanche trails with $643m, or roughly a tenth of the Solana figure.

On market value the gap is smaller. Avalanche comes to $4.92bn and Solana to around $49.6bn. Avalanche’s market value therefore amounts to about a tenth of Solana’s, as does its chain capital. On that relation AVAX is not conspicuously expensive, measured by what sits on the chain.

Stablecoins as a second cross-check: $1.39bn on Avalanche

The second metric we examined is stablecoins. These are tokens whose value is pegged to a currency, usually the dollar. For money ready to be deployed on a chain they are a usable gauge, because nobody holds stablecoins waiting for price gains; they sit where trading, lending and paying happen.

Dollar stablecoins worth $1.39bn are in circulation on Avalanche. Solana carries $15.91bn and Ethereum $145.36bn. Avalanche therefore holds just under nine percent of the Solana stock and under one percent of the Ethereum stock. Euro stablecoins are practically absent on Avalanche at $6.7m, which for an investor in Germany means the route onto the chain runs via the dollar or via a swap on an exchange.

This analysis was compiled by cryptoticker.io itself on October 12, 2026. It is based on the public market data of the 25 largest cryptocurrencies, the chain data of five blockchains and 31 daily readings of the capital deposited on Avalanche.

Helicon and the 48-hour lock-up: what applies to AVAX staking since September 22

Staking on Avalanche means depositing AVAX in order to run a validator or to delegate to one, and receiving a share of the network rewards in return. The deposited capital is tied up for the duration of the chosen period. The Helicon upgrade of September 22 shortened that commitment, which speeds up both re-entry and exit.

In practice that changes two things. The lock-up period decides how quickly you can sell again in a falling market, and it decides how often you can reinvest rewards. Both affect the return more than a percentage point more or less in the advertised rate. If you use staking through a provider rather than your own validator, you will find the terms and the minimum amounts in our comparison of staking platforms.

For tax purposes staking has to be treated separately in Germany and should not be confused with a straightforward purchase. The rewards and the later sale of the coins follow different rules, and the documentation is down to you. So record from the very first reward when it arrived, in what quantity and at what price.

Our assessment: the rally is documented, its broadening is not yet

From this newsroom’s point of view the move rests on a real foundation, though a narrower one than the chart suggests. Three figures support it: 36.3 percent more chain capital in 30 days, an upgrade with a concrete effect on lock-up periods since September 22, and a growing business in tokenised assets. Three others cut the other way: the capital on the chain amounts to a tenth of the Solana figure, the stablecoin stock to just under nine percent of it, and the price has yet to regain its monthly high of $11.60 from October 7.

What follows is a reading, not a buying decision: Avalanche is winning institutional applications but broadening its user base more slowly than its price. As long as the gap between the two series widens, the rally carries more expectation than usage. If it narrows, the move becomes more durable. Total loss remains possible with any crypto token.

The buying route in Germany: MiCA exchange, holding period and self-custody

If you want to buy AVAX, the venue is the first decision. Since the European MiCA regulation took effect, providers that hold or broker crypto assets in the EU need an authorisation. A licensed exchange gives you a clear point of contact, regulated complaint channels and the duty to segregate client funds. Which venues list AVAX and what trading costs there is shown by our comparison of the best crypto exchanges.

On price it is worth looking at the difference between instant buy and the order book. The convenient instant buy costs around one percent at many providers, while trading through the order book costs considerably less. At a price of $11.09 and an order of €1,000 that is a difference of roughly ten euros, incurred regardless of how the price moves.

For custody you have two routes. Leave the coins on the exchange and you carry the provider’s risk. Transfer them to your own wallet and you carry responsibility for the access key. Before any transfer, check that you can select the right network, because AVAX exists on several Avalanche chains and a transfer to the wrong one is laborious to correct.

On the holding period: in Germany, gains from selling crypto assets are taxable as a private disposal if less than a year lies between purchase and sale. Buy into a rally and sell soon after and you will regularly land in taxable territory. That is no argument against buying, but it is a reason to record the purchase date and purchase price from the outset.

Levels up and down: $11.60 as the ceiling, $10.07 as the last floor

On the upside the first relevant level is the monthly high of $11.60 from October 7. As long as AVAX stays below it, the price is moving inside the known range, even on a daily gain of seven percent. A close above it would open the range to the upside.

On the downside, October 9 supplies the last interim floor at $10.07. Below that, the area around the level at the start of the month serves as a second reference. The monthly low of $7.27 from September 16 shows how far away the price was before the rally; it is not a forecast but the starting point of the current move.

More important than any of these levels over the coming weeks is the gap between the price and chain capital. Both series can be traced publicly, and anyone laying them side by side regularly will see sooner than from the chart alone whether a move is gaining substance or losing it.

AVAX at $11.09: chain capital trails by 12 points

1. Note both series for your observation window: today’s price level of $11.09 and chain capital of $643.1m. Compare them again in four weeks. If the gap of 12.6 percentage points keeps widening, the move carries more expectation than usage. A venue that lists AVAX can be found in our comparison of the best crypto exchanges.
2. Settle the fee question before buying: instant buy or order book, and at what rate. On an order size of €1,000 there are roughly ten euros between them, which you pay for certain while the price gain stays open.
3. If you are considering staking, check the lock-up period first and the advertised rate only after that. Providers’ terms and minimum amounts are set out in our comparison of staking platforms.

You can review the full chain data yourself on the Avalanche overview at DefiLlama, and technical details of the network are in the developer documentation of the Avalanche project.

(As of October 12, 2026. This article is not investment advice. Prices and fee structures change; check the terms with the provider before you buy.)

Anyone holding an Otherdeed has owned a plot of land in the Otherside metaverse built by Yuga Labs, the company behind the Bored Ape Yacht Club (BAYC), since the spring of 2022. Since September 9, 2026, it has been clear what is eventually meant to happen on that land: Yuga has announced an on-chain resource economy of 74 goods in which ApeCoin is the only route for moving value in and back out again. There is no launch date. This piece collects what is documented, what Yuga has left open, and what a holder in Germany should take from it for their tax return.

The short answer first: what has been announced is a design, not a product. Testing will begin only on plots that Yuga owns itself, and only with a narrow slice of the resources. Nothing measurable changes today for the ApeCoin price, and nothing changes for landowners until the contracts are running on chain.

What Yuga Labs announced about the resource economy on September 9

The announcement came as a post on X and describes an economic system rather than a game. In that post Yuga calls the step “the kickoff of one of the most sophisticated game economies ever built on blockchain” and states explicitly that this is not an ordinary product launch. The trade publication BlockchainGamer.biz broke down the mechanics two days later.

Three things are established. The system is meant to cover 74 resources held directly on the blockchain. Harvesting on someone else’s land means paying the owner a fee, and the owner alone sets how high it is. And ApeCoin is the single channel through which value flows into the economy and out of it.

Almost everything a holder would need in order to do the arithmetic was left open: no launch date, no sign-up route, no participation terms, no cap on the harvest fee, and no word on how payment is handled technically. Yuga says it has already simulated the economic systems internally; the next step is to switch on the contracts on chain.

74 resources on chain: harvesting and crafting in the design

On-chain resource means this: each of the 74 goods is a separate entry in a contract on the Ethereum blockchain, not a row in the operator’s database. Whoever owns one can in theory pass it on without the operator having to agree. That distinction is exactly what makes the resources interesting for tax purposes, and there is more on that below.

Items are meant to be craftable from the resources. One restriction applies in the first test round, and Yuga names it openly: resources can be reset, whereas crafted items stay with the players. Some items are meant to exist only during the test phase. Nowhere does it yet say what triggers a reset or how players would learn about one.

A second layer is formed by the Kodas, an older NFT collection from the Otherside universe. Koda owners are meant to receive gameplay advantages, and MegaKodas are meant to grant further benefits in return for a tribute. Yuga has not spelled out what those advantages consist of, what a tribute costs, or how either feeds into harvesting and crafting.

ApeCoin as the only way in and out: what that means for the price

A game economy with a single token as its gateway is good news for that token at first glance: every euro that wants in or out has to pass through ApeCoin. Whether that turns into noticeable demand depends on two figures, and both are small today.

The first is the price itself. ApeCoin traded on Monday morning at roughly $0.157, or €0.140. Daily turnover runs at $13m to $16m and market capitalisation at somewhere between $118m and $157m depending on the data provider, because providers assume different circulating supplies. The price sits about 99.4 percent below the all-time high of $26.84 set on April 28, 2022. Maximum supply is one billion tokens.

The second figure is the comparison with the 2022 land sale. Yuga issued 100,000 Otherdeeds at the time, 55,000 of them in a public sale at 305 ApeCoin each; the remaining 45,000 could be claimed within 21 days by holders from the Bored Ape Yacht Club and the Mutant Ape Yacht Club (MAYC). Those 55,000 plots therefore brought in 16,775,000 ApeCoin, worth roughly $2.64m at today’s price. Reports from the spring of 2022 put the proceeds at more than $320m. The same token amount, two orders of magnitude apart. How the wider ecosystem around the token and its own chain has fared since then is something we gathered in September in our overview of ApeCoin and ApeChain.

The harvest fee: why the landowner sets the price

The sentence that offers Otherdeed owners the most in economic terms is the shortest in the whole announcement: harvest on someone else’s ground and you owe the owner a fee, with the owner setting the level. That turns a collectible into a plot of land with the prospect of income, on paper at least.

On paper, because three conditions are missing without which no income can be estimated. There is no cap on the fee, and therefore no reference point for a market price. The payment route is not described, so it is unclear whether the fee is settled automatically on chain. And the first test round runs exclusively on plots that Yuga owns itself, where the fee does not arise at all.

Otherdeed and Otherdeed Expanded: the land sits in two collections

Here comes a point that coverage of the announcement has consistently left out, and which affects everyone who wants to buy or sell a plot today. Otherside land no longer sits in a single collection but in two. Yuga had offered holders the chance to burn their original Otherdeed in exchange for an Otherdeed Expanded, which opens access to gaming experiences outside Otherside as well. The fan outlet The Bored Ape Gazette reported some time ago that more than half of the original Otherdeeds had been swapped.

The holdings on OpenSea bear that out as of October 12, 2026: the original “Otherdeed for Otherside” collection still lists 32,860 items across 13,792 owners, while “Otherdeed Expanded” lists 70,311 items across 11,655 owners. Together that comes to 103,171 plots, roughly the 100,000 from the first wave. Looking for a plot therefore means looking at two sets of listings with two different floor prices, and not only on the largest NFT marketplace.

Floor price of 0.075 to 0.084 ETH: what the market pays for the plots

The floor price stands at 0.0840 ether for the original collection and 0.075 ether for Otherdeed Expanded. At an ether price of around $2,562 that works out at roughly $215 and $192 per plot respectively. For comparison: the public sale cost 305 ApeCoin each in 2022.

Turnover says more than the floor price. In the seven days to October 12, plots in the original collection changed hands for roughly $9,140, and for roughly $21,220 in Otherdeed Expanded. Across both collections that is a little over $30,000 in a week, spread across more than 103,000 plots. A venue where fewer than one plot in three hundred trades over seven days has a pricing problem: single sales move the floor sharply, and sellers looking to offload larger numbers find no counterparty. Which venues still exist at all for collections like these is something we set down in our stocktake of NFT marketplaces.

Our assessment: $30,000 of weekly turnover cannot carry an economy

From this newsroom’s point of view, the announcement stands in disproportion to the market it is meant to land in. In favour of the billing as “one of the most sophisticated game economies ever built on blockchain” is the sheer scope of the design: 74 resources, a fee layer between landowners and players, and a single token as the gateway are more than most Web3 games have ever implemented. Against it stand three documented figures from this article: a little over $30,000 in weekly turnover across both land collections, an ApeCoin price 99.4 percent below its high, and a timetable that since September 9 has consisted of exactly one sentence, namely that testing begins on Yuga’s own plots.

Buy an Otherdeed today and you are therefore not buying a source of income but a bet that the contracts arrive and that somebody then harvests on the plot. Both may happen. Total loss is equally possible with a collectible at this level of turnover, and that holds even if the game does ship. We described the same tension between announcement and market reality across four companies in early October, in our overview of Web3 gaming in 2026.

Koda Nexus in the browser: who gets in without a wallet

The metaverse itself has been open to visitors since November 12, 2025. Yuga launched the Otherside metaverse with Koda Nexus as its central world, and did so in the browser: an email address is enough to enter, and a crypto wallet can be connected but is not a requirement. Michael Figge, responsible for the product as chief product officer, justified that with a low barrier to entry: “We think that there should be a very low barrier to entry for somebody to try out Otherside.”

The practical upshot: anyone can look around Otherside without a wallet and without an NFT. Earning from the planned resource economy, by contrast, requires owning land or Kodas. The Voyagers, which Yuga wants to bring into Starpods as playable avatars over the course of 2026, are described by Figge as a “skin” in the sense familiar from conventional games; the company has named no price for them. How the German-speaking community around the project is holding up is something we counted up ahead of this year’s ApeFest.

Tax in Germany: the finance ministry letter is silent on NFTs

Now to the part that appears in no international report and that decides the return in Germany. The authoritative document from the tax administration is the finance ministry letter of March 6, 2025, titled “Einzelfragen zur ertragsteuerrechtlichen Behandlung bestimmter Kryptowerte”, file reference IV C 1 – S 2256/00042/064/043. It replaces the older letter of May 10, 2022, and its most important addition is a dedicated part on filing, cooperation and record-keeping duties.

And the decisive gap sits precisely there. In margin number 5 the ministry, on the reading of the law firm Minoggio Grezesch Bachmann, “explicitly does not” take a position on the income tax treatment of non-fungible crypto assets (non-fungible tokens, NFTs). For Otherdeeds, Kodas and the 74 resources there is therefore no internal administrative guidance that a tax office would have to follow. Anyone who needs a binding ruling gets it from a tax adviser, not from a guide.

Holding period, tax-free threshold and the open question on harvested resources

What can still be said follows from the statute. Sell an Otherdeed at a profit within a year of buying it and that is a private disposal under section 23 of the Income Tax Act. Since the 2024 Annual Tax Act such gains stay tax free up to €1,000 a year, against €600 before. This is a threshold and not an allowance: one euro above it makes the entire gain taxable, and the limit applies to all private disposals in a year taken together, not to crypto alone. After a year has elapsed, the sale is tax free.

It gets harder with the resources and the crafted items. If they are issued as tradable tokens on chain and you sell them on, the same section 23 is the obvious fit. Running income from the harvest fee would sit closer to other income under section 22 number 3 of the Income Tax Act, where a separate threshold of €256 a year applies. One note of caution: for assets that have generated income in at least one calendar year, the section 23 period can extend to ten years. Whether that rule catches a plot of land throwing off fees has not been settled for NFTs, and the finance ministry has precisely not commented on it.

In practice that means one thing above all: anyone wanting to take part needs complete records from day one. The ministry letter demands less for private holdings than for business assets and provides a non-objection rule for assessment periods up to and including 2024, but it does expressly accept tax reports as evidence where they are plausible. Where the tax base cannot be established, the tax office may estimate it. A tax tool with a portfolio tracker takes that work off your hands, provided you record the additions from the start.

Otherside: 74 resources, but no start date for the economy

The September 9 announcement describes a complete economic model and names no day on which it begins. Until the contracts are live on chain, the income from an Otherdeed remains an expectation. Three steps help you judge the situation yourself:

1. Look at both collections side by side. Floor price and weekly turnover differ markedly between “Otherdeed for Otherside” and “Otherdeed Expanded”. Which venues come into question is set out in our comparison of NFT marketplaces.
2. Set up the records before the first purchase. Purchase date, price in euros and fees belong in a list from the first addition onwards, because the one-year period and the €1,000 limit cannot otherwise be evidenced. You will find the providers for that in our overview of crypto tax tools.
3. Settle the route to ApeCoin separately. Using the economy later requires APE, and the buying route decides the fee and the custody. Which venues are licensed in the EU is shown by our exchange comparison.

(As of October 12, 2026. This article is not investment advice. Prices and fee structures change; check the terms with the provider before you buy. Statements on tax are no substitute for advice from a tax adviser.)

Solana trades at $111.84 on Monday midday, or 99.94 euros, up 2.2 percent over 24 hours. The real news of the day, though, is not in the price but in the chain's revenue: over the past seven days the applications on Solana took in $99.6 million in fees, 35.3 percent less than in the week before. The price lost only 7.3 percent over the same period. This gap between willingness to pay and valuation is the subject of this forecast, and it decides whether the 20-day line at $117.05 stays within reach this week.

For holders in Germany one concrete consequence follows: anyone with SOL in the portfolio can use the two levels of $109.21 and $117.05 as a frame for limit orders today instead of waiting for a decision on direction. Which of the two gives way first hangs on numbers anyone can look up.

Solana price at $111.84: the day's numbers

The daily high stood at $113.22, the daily low at $109.17. Trading volume across all exchanges added up to $2.43 billion and market capitalisation to $65.90 billion. Solana therefore sits 7.3 percent below where it stood a week ago, but 10.0 percent above the level of 30 days ago. The figures come from CoinGecko, as of October 12, shortly before 9 a.m. UTC.

More interesting than the daily reading is the position between the moving averages. From the daily closes of the past 90 days, three levels emerge that recur throughout this forecast:

• 7-day line: $112.67. The price sits just below it, so the short-term tendency has not turned yet.
• 20-day line: $117.05. That is the lid on which the recovery of the last two days hangs.
• 50-day line: $109.21. This line caught Friday's daily low and is carrying the price at present.

The 30-day high stands at $122.08, the 30-day low at $96.87. Over 90 days the range runs from $71.89 to $122.08. Solana is therefore moving in the upper third of its quarterly range, but below the monthly high.

Network fees on Solana: $99.6 million in seven days

On a blockchain, fees are what revenue is in a set of accounts, and they show what users are actually willing to pay. According to data from DefiLlama, the applications on Solana took in $11.24 million over the past 24 hours, $99.6 million over seven days and $467.3 million over 30 days. The weekly figure is 35.3 percent below the previous week, the daily figure 5.8 percent below the day before.

The daily series makes the path clearer than any percentage:

From $18.75 million to $10.75 million in nine days is 42.7 percent less. To be looked at separately are the chain's own pure transaction fees, meaning what users pay for a transaction to be included in a block. That item stood at $753,342 over 24 hours, 13.7 percent below the comparable figure of the previous week. The two numbers measure different things: the large item contains the revenue of trading venues and token platforms, the small one only the fee for block space.

How fees and MEV work on the SOL price

The connection is more technical than it sounds, and it can be explained in three sentences. On Solana, 50 percent of every transaction fee is burned and the other half goes to the validator that built the block. Added to that are priority fees, which users pay voluntarily to stand at the front of a crowded block, as well as payments from trading around the ordering of transactions, known in the industry as MEV.

These three items together are the pay from which validators fund their servers and from which stakers receive their yield. If they fall by a third, the part of the staking yield that does not come from newly created tokens but from real demand shrinks. That is the link to the price: the smaller the share of real revenue in the yield, the more the appeal of staking hangs on the chain's inflation, and inflation dilutes existing holders.

The supply provides the yardstick. According to a direct query of the Solana network, 635.66 million SOL exist in total, of which 589.11 million circulate freely. The chain stands in epoch 1,055 and has processed 559.08 billion transactions so far. A fall in fees of $8 million a day corresponds, at this supply, to roughly $0.0000136 of lost revenue per circulating SOL per day, or about $0.005 a year. The number is small, but it works through expectations: anyone valuing Solana as payment infrastructure calculates with fee revenue, not with daily closing prices.

The 50-day line at $109.21 is carrying the price

The daily low of $109.17 came in four cents below the 50-day line. The price therefore touched it and left it upwards immediately, and that is exactly what makes it the reliable level for this week. As long as daily closes stay above $109.21, last week's slide is a correction inside the uptrend that began at the quarterly low of $71.89.

Below it a zone without support begins, running to the 30-day low at $96.87. Between those two values there is no moving average and no multiple high of the past three months, and therefore no chart-based reason for a decline to slow. Anyone working with a stop order has a gap of 11.3 percent ahead of them below $109.

The $117 level from the October 6 article has given way

On October 6 the question in this slot was whether the level at $117 would hold. SOL traded at around $120 at the time, the 20-day line sat at $117 and counted as support. Six days later the answer is unambiguous: the level has given way, the price fell as far as $109.17, and the same $117 line now lies above the price. Support has turned into resistance, at a nearly identical value of $117.05.

In between came two pieces of news that explain the decline. Stablecoin reserves on Solana fell by 6.4 percent, and the inflow streak of the Solana ETFs ended after 14 weeks with an outflow of $24.8 million. Both pull out capital that would have generated fees. The collapse in fees is therefore not an isolated event but the trace of those outflows in the chain's numbers.

DEX volume of $1.25 billion: the second point of entry

Beyond the chart, what is traded on the chain is worth a look. The volume of decentralised trading venues on Solana stood at $1.25 billion over the past 24 hours and $12.88 billion over seven days. The weekly figure is 27.0 percent below the previous week. The capital locked in Solana applications, known in the industry as total value locked, amounts to $6.29 billion; seven days ago it was $6.73 billion, 30 days ago $5.90 billion.

That produces a differentiated picture. On a monthly view there is more capital on the chain than at the start of September, on a weekly view 6.5 percent less. Trading cools faster than locked capital flows out, and fees fall faster than both. The order holds the clue: speculative activity disappears first, then the capital.

Our assessment: the price holds, the revenue does not

From the newsroom's point of view, the situation at Solana is split in two, and the evidence points in different directions. In favour of stability: the 50-day line at $109.21 held to the cent on Friday, locked capital at $6.29 billion sits above the level of early September, and the price at $111.84 is 10 percent above where it stood a month ago. Against a quick return above $117 stands the fee series: 42.7 percent less revenue in nine days, alongside trading volume 27 percent lower. A price that holds while the chain's revenue falls by more than a third is becoming more expensive, measured against what is actually earned on the chain.

What follows from that: the most likely development of the coming days is a sideways move between $109 and $117, until fees either rise again or the 50-day line breaks. What argues against it: if new inflows into the Solana ETFs arrive, the price can take the $117 without anything changing in the fees, because ETF purchases happen on the spot market and generate no transactions on the chain. This is not a buy or sell recommendation but a placing of the levels. A total loss is possible at any time with crypto-assets.

Bull case and bear case: which levels carry the scenarios

Both directions can be pinned to verifiable values rather than to the price targets of outside research houses:

• Upside: a daily close above $112.67 brings the price back above the 7-day line. The next hurdle is the 20-day line at $117.05, after that the 30-day high at $122.08. The precondition would be rising fee revenue, meaning daily figures back above $14 million.
• Downside: a daily close below $109.21 opens the gap to $96.87. A trigger for that would be further ETF outflows on the scale of the $24.8 million from the weekend, or fee figures below $10 million a day.

Long-term price targets from investment houses sit considerably higher, but they are no yardstick in this situation, because such targets describe years rather than weeks and were set at different fee levels. Anyone quoting them has to name the date and the author as well.

Buying Solana in Germany: a MiCA exchange, fees and custody

Since the European crypto regulation MiCA, trading venues need authorisation to serve retail clients in the EU. For buying SOL that means in practice: an authorised exchange states its licence and its supervisory state, keeps client money separate and publishes a fee schedule. The spread between buying and selling price is the item many underestimate; at $111.84 per SOL, a spread of half a percent already costs 56 cents per unit. Anyone buying regularly therefore compares not only the order fee but also the spread and withdrawal costs. Which providers charge what is shown by our comparison of the best crypto exchanges.

After the purchase comes the question of custody. SOL on an exchange sits in the exchange's name, SOL in your own wallet in your own name, with the key as your responsibility. For amounts beyond a few hundred euros a hardware wallet is the more robust route, not least because it supports staking directly.

SOL staking and tax: a 1,000 euro threshold and the one-year rule

Solana is secured by validators, and anyone who deposits SOL receives a share of their revenue. This is exactly where the fee decline bites: the part of the yield that comes from transaction fees and MEV shrinks with the 35.3 percent from the weekly tally, while the part from newly created tokens remains. Anyone comparing returns therefore looks at the composition, not only at the percentage. The providers' terms are in the comparison of staking providers.

On tax, the one-year holding period under Paragraph 23 of the German Income Tax Act applies in Germany to the sale of crypto-assets: hold SOL for longer than a year and you pay no income tax on the gain. Within the year gains are taxable, but stay tax-free up to the threshold of 1,000 euros per calendar year; once it is exceeded, the entire amount is taxable. Staking income counts separately as other income with a threshold of its own, 256 euros. The details on the treatment of crypto-assets, including the duties to cooperate and keep records, are set out in the letter from the German Federal Ministry of Finance of March 6, 2025.

Practical consequence for today: anyone who bought in October 2025 at considerably lower prices reaches the one-year mark in the coming weeks. The purchase date for each position is therefore a number that matters more on a sale between $109 and $117 than the level itself.

Solana at $112: without a fee recovery the $117 line stays the ceiling

The situation can be worked through in three steps, each with a concrete number:

1. Note the two levels. $109.21 as the 50-day line on the downside, $117.05 as the 20-day line on the upside. Limit and stop orders belong at these values, not at round numbers. Where that is possible at what cost is in the exchange comparison.
2. Follow the fee series. Daily figures above $14 million argue for the upside variant, figures below $10 million for the downside variant. The series is public daily at DefiLlama.
3. Check the purchase date. If the purchase is almost a year old, the one-year rule decides the tax burden; if staking income is due, the 256 euro threshold counts separately. Returns and provider terms are compared in the staking comparison.

(As of October 12, 2026. This article is not investment advice. Prices and fee structures change; check the terms with the provider before you buy.)

After the wallet thefts among customers of a Ledger reseller, the stablecoin issuer Tether responded and froze USDT addresses. The freeze only works in part: some of the loot was swapped into the stablecoin USDD, and Tether's reach does not extend there. The episode shows briefly what a freeze function achieves in stablecoins and where it ends. For your own balance this is no side issue, because the question of who can stop your token in an emergency also decides who can stop it when you are the one affected.

A stablecoin is a token whose price is pegged to a currency, usually the US dollar. It is issued by a company that manages the backing and sets the rules of the token. That is precisely where the freeze option at issue here comes from.

Tether freezes more than 20 addresses and locks up around $10 million

Following the thefts, Tether placed more than 20 addresses on a blacklist and locked up around $10 million in USDT in the process. Crypto Briefing reports this with reference to the movements of the affected wallets. The funds stay on the addresses but can no longer be transferred.

Technically a blacklist function sits behind this. The function is written into the token's program code and allows the issuer to exclude individual addresses from transfers. How far Tether reserves this right for itself, and which contractual clause it rests on, we took apart in a separate article on Tether's freeze clause. The core point: the decision rests with the issuer, not with a court and not with the holder.

The blocked sum is small measured against the total damage. The episode does show, however, that a centrally issued stablecoin works differently from a coin without an issuer. With Bitcoin there is no body that could shut down an address. With USDT there is one.

SUN.io on October 9: 14.7 million USDT become 14.6 million USDD

On October 9, according to Crypto Briefing, roughly 14.7 million USDT were swapped into about 14.6 million USDD through the exchange platform SUN.io. USDD is a stablecoin of its own that runs on the Tron network and is not issued by Tether. The difference between the two sums is the discount such a swap costs.

With the change of token, Tether's reach ends. A blacklist only ever works inside the token for which it is kept. As soon as a balance passes into another token with another issuer, the old list is meaningless, even if the address stays the same. The same report names an additional smaller movement of 2 million USDT for the same wallets, traced separately.

The blacklist function in USDT reaches only as far as its own token

Here lies the lesson of the case, and it holds regardless of how the investigation turns out. A freeze is not a net over the whole market but a valve in a single line. Leave the line and you leave the valve behind. That does not make freeze functions worthless, because their effect arrives fast and without a court. It does make them a tool with sharply limited reach.

For a holder the same property turns around. A token whose issuer can freeze stolen goods can in principle freeze your balance too. A token without the function protects you in one case and leaves you alone in the other. Which stablecoins exist and how they differ in backing and control is set out in our overview of stablecoins.

$86 million to $93 million: Specter and MistTrack arrive at different sums

On the total damage the estimates diverge, and that belongs to the picture. The on-chain investigator Specter initially put the suspected thefts at more than $86 million. The security firm MistTrack later arrived at losses closer to $90 million. CryptoSlate reports both, while also recording that these estimates are not confirmed and that investigators have not proven for every wallet that it belongs to the same episode. Crypto Briefing names a range of about $86 million to $93 million from more than 300 wallets.

The range stands here as a range on purpose. Pulling it together into a round number asserts a precision that does not exist. Ledger itself has, according to CryptoSlate, confirmed no damage figure and has not said how many devices could be affected at all. We described the core case as it stood on October 9 in our article on the theft among Ledger buyers.

$70.6 million still sits in flagged wallets

The larger part of the loot has not disappeared but is visible. According to Crypto Briefing's tally, the flagged wallets still hold around $70.6 million. The largest item is 11,406 Ether worth about $28 million, plus 213 Bitcoin for roughly $17.6 million. Also listed are 13.65 million USDD and 10.91 million USDT, part of which is frozen.

Visible and unreachable are two different things

That every one of these movements is publicly traceable easily leads to a misunderstanding. Open bookkeeping does not mean recoverability. An address can be flagged, watched and coloured red in every analysis tool while the owner still disposes of it freely, as long as the token has no freeze function or the function is not used.

Ledger investigates the reseller CryptoBilis in Malaysia, Indonesia and the Philippines

On October 9 Ledger said it was following up reports that customers had lost balances after buying devices from the reseller CryptoBilis. According to CryptoSlate's account, the company asked the reseller to halt sales and shipping. CryptoBilis is described there as an authorised reseller that was listed in Ledger's directory for Malaysia, Indonesia and the Philippines.

What is under investigation is the possibility of an attack through the supply chain. That means a device could have been altered before it reached the buyer. On the reported state of affairs this is not proven. CryptoSlate records explicitly that so far no confirmed evidence links built-in components to the thefts. Changpeng Zhao placed the situation as follows: “Based on information so far, it seems to be localized to a supply chain attack with one vendor.”

What Ledger recommends to buyers

Customers who bought from this reseller in the past 90 days were advised specifically: a device not yet set up should not be put into operation. A device already set up should be emptied, by moving the balance to a new device with a fresh recovery phrase. The recovery phrase is the sequence of words from which all the keys of a wallet can be restored. Whoever knows it disposes of the balance, no matter where the device is.

Tornado Cash: 430 Ether leave open traceability

Around 430 Ether worth about $1.07 million were routed through Tornado Cash, according to Crypto Briefing. A mixer of that kind throws the deposits of many users together and pays them out to new addresses, which breaks the trail between origin and destination. Compared with the $70.6 million still lying in the open, that is a small part.

The direction is recognisable all the same. Someone who gets around a blacklist by changing token, and someone who uses a mixer, are working on the same thing: they are looking for the stretch on which neither an issuer nor an observer can intervene. That stretch exists, and it is the reason recoveries stay partial successes in cases like this.

Our own count: USDD has three trading pairs at Kraken, USDT has 55

That leaves the question of whether a German investor comes into contact with USDD at all. For this we counted the offering of a trading platform authorised in the European Union and went through all the assets listed there and all trading pairs: 856 assets and 1,460 pairs. USDD is listed there, but with only three trading pairs. USDT comes to 55 pairs, USDC to 54. DAI and RLUSD, issued by Ripple, stand at five each, PYUSD at three. cryptoticker.io compiled this analysis itself on October 12, 2026.

The result is clearer than it first sounds. USDD is reachable, but a fringe asset. The great mass of German investors' stablecoin balances sits in USDT and USDC, and both have an issuer with the option to freeze. Anyone choosing a platform by offering and authorisation will find the differences in our comparison of crypto exchanges.

When your own USDT sits on a frozen address

The uncomfortable case is not that of the perpetrator but that of the uninvolved third party. Anyone who receives USDT from an address that later lands on a blacklist can be caught up in it without knowing. There is no deadline within which a freeze has to be lifted, and no appeal procedure in the usual sense either. What Tether's terms say about this, and how much latitude the company grants itself, is in our article on the freeze clause for USDT.

In practical terms: the shorter a large stablecoin balance sits in a place you do not control alone, the smaller the risk. A stablecoin is a means of parking money and paying with it. As a store for large sums over long periods it carries a risk that has nothing to do with price swings.

Sealed box and resale: what undamaged packaging does not prove

The second part of this case concerns not the stablecoin but the device. A hardware wallet protects the private key by generating it itself and never handing it out. That calculation only works if the key really does come into being at your end. If a device was altered before delivery or prepared with a sequence of words already known, a third party knows your keys from day one, and every precaution afterwards comes to nothing.

That is why the purchase route is a security question and not a price question. Undamaged packaging is a weak sign here, because films and seals can be reproduced. What is reliable is what the device itself does during setup: it has to generate a new sequence of words and ask you to confirm it. A device that arrives with a finished phrase, or has one enclosed, is unusable in every case. What else matters in the choice is set out in our comparison of hardware wallets.

Stablecoin freeze: only the token's own issuer can lock it up

The case supplies a rule that reaches beyond it. A freeze works inside a token and ends at its border. That makes USDT partly recoverable in a theft and your own balance attackable in principle. Three steps follow from that.

1. Check which stablecoin you hold and who issues it. USDT and USDC have an issuer with the option to freeze; with other tokens control lies elsewhere. The overview of stablecoins shows how backing and control differ.
2. Check the purchase route of your hardware wallet. If you bought from a reseller in the past 90 days, do not set the device up blind. If it is already in use, move to a new device with a fresh recovery phrase, following Ledger's own recommendation. Which devices are candidates for that is in the hardware wallet comparison.
3. Check how long large sums sit in a place you do not control alone. A platform's authorisation and offering belong to that decision, and the exchange comparison sets them side by side.

What the investigation at Ledger yields remains open, as does whether the route from reseller to device can be proven. Whether anything comes back from the $70.6 million in flagged wallets also remains open. The two sentences about how far a freeze function reaches, by contrast, are already settled.

(As of October 12, 2026. This article is not investment advice. Prices and fee structures change; check the terms with the provider before you buy.)

Zcash costs around $1,332 on Monday morning, a good eight percent more than 24 hours earlier. The remarkable part is not the daily gain but the company it keeps: among the ten largest cryptocurrencies by market capitalisation, Zcash is the only one in positive territory over seven days. Bitcoin has given up 2.6 percent in the same week, Ether 5.9 percent and Solana 7.1 percent.

Holders in Germany face two dates and one deadline that have nothing to do with the price. On October 20 the Zcash developers decide when the NU7 network upgrade takes effect on the main net. November 5 is the date in the air. And anyone still holding a balance in the network's oldest shielded pool has to move it beforehand, otherwise it can no longer be spent afterwards. This article places the price level in context, shows the count behind it and names the points that matter before the two dates.

Zcash at $1,332: daily high $1,348, daily low $1,262

The price stood at $1,332 on October 12, 2026. The day opened at $1,275, the high of the past 24 hours is $1,348 and the low $1,221. The range of a single day therefore comes to roughly $127, about a tenth of the price. A tight limit order easily misses in a market like this.

Two levels can be justified from this day. On the upside it is the high at $1,348, where the price turned during the morning. On the downside it is the daily low at $1,262, which sits above the 24-hour low of $1,221. As long as the daily low holds, the upward move of recent days stays intact. For context on the upside: on September 20, 2026, cryptoticker.io reported a Zcash price above $1,500. The coin remains a good distance from that level, despite the strong week relative to the rest of the market.

Our own count: only four of the 25 largest coins hold a weekly gain

That Zcash stands out this week can be counted. For this article we went through the 40 largest cryptocurrencies by market capitalisation, removed stablecoins and wrapped variants such as Wrapped Bitcoin or staked Ether derivatives, and compared the seven-day change across the remaining 25. The result: four of them are up. NEAR leads with 17.9 percent, followed by Avalanche with 0.6 percent, Canton with 0.5 percent and Zcash with 0.4 percent. The other 21 are down, most clearly Uniswap with 14.4 percent, Bitcoin Cash with 9.9 percent and Stellar with 9.3 percent. cryptoticker.io compiled this analysis itself on October 12, 2026.

For placing the price in context, the count matters more than the daily gain. An eight percent gain in a day occurs several times a quarter in a coin of this size. A week in which only four of 25 large assets are up at all is rarer. At the same time the count puts the role of Zcash in perspective: at 0.4 percent for the week the lead over the rest of the market is slim, and NEAR is many times higher in the same week.

What happened among the ten largest assets

The further up the ranking, the clearer the picture. Over seven days Bitcoin stands at minus 2.6 percent, Ether at minus 5.9 percent, BNB at minus 5.2 percent, XRP at minus 6.8 percent, Solana at minus 7.1 percent and Tron at minus 1.0 percent. The stablecoins in this group barely move by construction, because they are pegged to the dollar. That leaves Zcash as the only asset in the group with a positive sign.

Monero down 1.3 percent: the privacy coins are not moving in step

An obvious explanation for the strength of Zcash would be a rotation into coins that can conceal transfers. Privacy coins are cryptocurrencies in which amounts, senders and recipients are technically not publicly visible. The explanation only half holds this week. Monero, the second large representative of the group, stands at minus 1.3 percent over seven days and plus 0.7 percent over 24 hours. The sector as a whole is therefore not running ahead of the market. What stands out is Zcash itself.

No single documented trigger for the daily gain can be named. Part of the backdrop is that several fund stories have revolved around ZEC in October: cryptoticker.io reported on outflows from a Zcash fund on October 5, 2026, and on the fee of a new Zcash fund on October 9, 2026. What is documented and plannable, by contrast, is the network's technical roadmap, and that has moved in recent days.

Shieldable amounts and proof of work: what separates Zcash from Bitcoin technically

Zcash launched in 2016 as an offshoot of the Bitcoin idea and creates new blocks through computing power, as Bitcoin does. Proof of work is the name of the procedure in which computers compete for the right to write the next block. The difference lies in visibility: alongside open addresses, Zcash has shielded pools. A shielded pool is an area of the blockchain in which amounts and participants are stored encrypted and become visible only with the matching key.

These pools have been renewed several times over the years. The oldest is called Sprout, the current one Orchard. Anyone whose ZEC has sat untouched in an old wallet for years may still hold them in the Sprout pool. The deadline discussed further below hangs on exactly that. For looking at the price, the second technical figure is the important one: the target interval between two blocks. So far it is 75 seconds, and it is the core of the coming upgrade.

The NU7 upgrade: block time from 75 to 25 seconds

NU7 is the seventh major network upgrade for Zcash. It is meant to cut the target interval between two blocks from 75 to 25 seconds, tripling how often the network closes a block. For holders that mainly means shorter waits on transfers, because confirmations arrive in quicker succession. Two further changes belong to the upgrade: version 4 transactions are switched off, and a new mechanism redirects part of the transaction fees into future block rewards. Cointelegraph described these points in detail on October 5, 2026.

Network Sustainability Mechanism

The mechanism goes by the name Network Sustainability Mechanism. It collects a share of the fees paid and pays it out later through block rewards instead of burning it. The background is the capped total supply of 21 million ZEC: the reward for writing new blocks falls with every halving, and the fees are meant to cushion that decline. For holders this is not a change to the money supply but to its distribution over time.

On the test net all of this is already running. The planned activation height, block 4,465,026, was reached on October 4, 2026, according to Cointelegraph, two days earlier than the developers expected. The test net is a copy of the network without real money, in which changes run before the real thing. What works there is therefore not yet active on the main net.

October 20 decides the date on the main net

Here is the point where the situation has shifted since our earlier articles. cryptoticker.io described the upgrade on September 18, 2026, and named November 5 as the date. As things stand, that day is a target and not a fixed date: the developers intend to decide on activation on the main net on October 20, 2026, and only then to set the block height at which NU7 takes effect. A block height is the sequential number of a block in the chain; upgrades are set to such a number rather than to a time of day.

In practice that means two things. First, November 5 is not a date you can mark in the calendar with certainty. Second, October 20 is the day the uncertainty ends. If you have to move a balance, waiting for the announcement is a mistake: the deadline is measured against activation, and on the current plan a good two weeks can sit between decision and activation.

The Sprout pool: old ZEC become immovable without a transfer

Switching off version 4 transactions has a consequence that affects only a small group, but affects it hard. A balance in the old Sprout pool can no longer be spent after NU7 is fully activated unless it has been moved into a current pool beforehand. The coins are not lost, they remain on the chain. Spending them without the matching transaction type is simply not possible.

You are affected if you sent ZEC to a shielded address years ago and have not touched it since. How to check whether your balance sits in the Sprout pool, and how the transfer works, was written up step by step by cryptoticker.io on September 23, 2026: Zcash Sprout pool: why you have to move old ZEC before November 5. Anyone whose ZEC sits on an exchange is not affected by the deadline, because the exchange manages the addresses.

Holding period and custody: what matters for ZEC now

The week with the price gain meets a tax rule that looks different in Germany than in many neighbouring countries. Gains from selling cryptocurrencies are tax-free after a holding period of one year; the basis is Paragraph 23 of the German Income Tax Act on private disposals. Sell within one year and the gain counts towards taxable income and is charged at your personal tax rate. For gains inside the one-year window a threshold of 1,000 euros a year applies, and it works as a limit rather than an allowance: above it, the entire gain is taxed.

One year of holding, a 1,000 euro threshold

In a coin that swings by several hundred dollars within four weeks, the holding period often decides more money than the entry price. The decisive figure is the date of each individual purchase, not the average of your holdings. Anyone who has bought across several years and several platforms needs a clean statement for that; which tools take on the task is shown by our comparison of crypto tax tools and portfolio trackers.

On custody the decision hangs on the deadline from the previous section. If the coins sit in your own wallet, you hold the keys and have to handle the move out of the Sprout pool yourself. If they sit on an exchange, the exchange takes the technical side and you carry the provider's risk in return. Both have their price, and with a coin that has shielded addresses there is the added point that not every wallet supports every pool.

Buying routes in Germany: regulated exchanges and the 2027 date

ZEC is tradable in Germany through crypto exchanges with European authorisation and through listed securities on the coin. The choice of route decides whether you hold the coins yourself or hold a paper in your portfolio that tracks the price. On the route through such a paper, cryptoticker.io set broker, fee and holding period side by side on September 22, 2026.

A further date lies further off and is the most important one for privacy coins: the European anti-money-laundering regulation obliges providers from July 2027 to hold no anonymous accounts and no crypto-assets with built-in anonymisation features. The duty is addressed to supervised companies, not to you as a holder. The practical consequence is mainly that the trading route through European providers may narrow by then, while holding in your own wallet is not covered. What that means for ZEC holdings was covered in detail by cryptoticker.io on August 23, 2026.

Zcash at $1,332: October 20 sets the next date

The week shows a coin pulling away from a weak market, and two dates that are independent of it. The price picture supplies the levels of $1,348 and $1,262. The network roadmap supplies October 20 as the decision day and a deadline for old balances. Three steps follow from that:

1. Check your holdings. Look at whether your ZEC balance sits in an old shielded address, and move it before NU7 is activated. Which wallet supports which pool is shown by our comparison of software wallets.
2. Settle the trading route. If you want to buy more or sell, compare the provider's fees and authorisation beforehand. An overview of the authorised platforms is in the comparison of regulated crypto exchanges.
3. Watch the levels. Note $1,348 on the upside and $1,262 on the downside, and put October 20 in the calendar. Tools that report levels like these are in the comparison of analytics platforms.

(As of October 12, 2026. This article is not investment advice. Prices and fee structures change; check the terms with the provider before you buy.)

The Ethereum treasury firm now holds 6.03 million ETH, 4.9% of supply, as Lee predicts the biggest crypto bull market yet.

The purchase lifts Strategy's holdings to 848,250 BTC and follows a $176 million repurchase of STRC preferred stock the week before.

October rate-hike odds have slumped, but analysts say Treasury yields at two-decade highs are still keeping a lid on risk appetite.

Thet Li is accused of running the finances of a scam empire tied to $14 billion in Bitcoin the U.S. has moved to seize.

An IMF analysis found that more than half of tokenized stock trading happens outside U.S. market hours, though the roughly $2.3 billion market remains more volatile and less liquid than traditional equities.

473 million XRP meets public markets as Evernorth makes Nasdaq debut.

Crypto news this morning, Oct 12: Bitcoin holds $83,300 after a $229 million short squeeze while Standard Chartered launches XRPL custody.

Solana is preparing to launch its second ETF in Hong Kong as Pando schedules the listing of its Solana fund for this month.

The critical bug that was found is apparently not that big of a deal, according to the relatively small bounty issued by the foundation.

Shiba Inu community veteran warns of fake SHIB alert draining crypto wallets.

FUNToken has announced the addition of ENA to its growing list of supported tokens, further strengthening its commitment to improving token accessibility and simplifying participation across its ecosystem.

With this latest integration, users holding ENA can now deposit their tokens directly into the FUNToken platform, where they are automatically converted into $FUN with 0% conversion fees. The process eliminates the need for manual token swaps, offering users a straightforward way to access $FUN and explore its expanding range of utilities.

Making $FUN More Accessible Through Token Integration

As the digital asset landscape continues to evolve, users increasingly hold multiple tokens across different networks. FUNToken aims to simplify the experience of accessing its ecosystem by supporting a growing selection of tokens that can be converted into $FUN.

The addition of ENA (ERC-20) introduces another option for users looking to put their existing digital assets to use without navigating multiple conversion platforms.

Through FUNToken’s automatic conversion system, ENA holders can deposit their tokens and receive $FUN without incurring additional conversion fees.

This streamlined approach is part of FUNToken’s broader effort to reduce unnecessary steps, improve accessibility, and create a more connected experience for its users.

Expanding Utility Beyond Token Conversion

The integration of ENA goes beyond simply adding another supported asset. It creates an additional entry point into FUNToken’s growing ecosystem of gaming experiences, staking opportunities, and token-based rewards.

Once ENA is converted into $FUN, users can explore the different utilities available within the ecosystem.

FUNToken’s expanding Android gaming portfolio features nine titles designed around accessible, engaging gameplay, with no ads, no paywalls, and real $FUN rewards. The ecosystem also includes browser-based gaming experiences, staking features, and referral reward opportunities.

By connecting these experiences through a common token, FUNToken continues to build an environment where $FUN serves multiple purposes across different products and activities.

A Growing List of Supported Tokens

The addition of ENA reflects FUNToken’s ongoing strategy to expand the range of digital assets supported by its automatic conversion system.

Recent integrations have included ONDO, TRUMP, FARTCOIN, and JTO, alongside previously supported tokens such as USDT, USDC, SOL, LINK, UNI, AAVE, and others.

Each new integration provides users with additional flexibility in accessing $FUN while supporting the platform’s objective of making token conversion more convenient.

With 0% conversion fees remaining a central feature of the supported token system, FUNToken continues to focus on simplifying the transition from existing token holdings into its connected gaming and rewards ecosystem.

Continuing to Build a More Connected $FUN Ecosystem

The ENA integration represents another step in FUNToken’s ongoing ecosystem expansion.

Alongside its growing supported token list, FUNToken continues to develop new gaming experiences, expand token utility, and introduce additional opportunities for users to participate.

By combining accessible token conversion with an expanding range of products, FUNToken is working toward an ecosystem where users have greater flexibility in how they access, earn, hold, and use $FUN.

As further integrations and platform developments are introduced, the project remains focused on making participation simpler and creating more practical uses for $FUN.

About FUNToken

FUNToken is a blockchain-powered ecosystem built around $FUN, combining gaming, rewards, staking, and growing token utility within a connected experience.

With an expanding portfolio of Android and browser-based games, supported token integrations, multi-chain accessibility, and reward opportunities, FUNToken is focused on creating more ways for users to access, earn, hold, and use $FUN.

The ecosystem emphasizes accessible gaming experiences, including a growing selection of Android titles featuring no ads, no paywalls, and $FUN rewards.

Through continued product development and ecosystem expansion, FUNToken aims to strengthen the role of $FUN as a common token connecting its growing range of digital experiences.

Website: https://funtoken.io

The post FUNToken Expands Token Accessibility With ENA Integration and 0% Conversion Fees appeared first on Blockonomi.

TLDR:

• Bitcoin whales added 16,010 BTC over five days while the price fell from $87,000 toward $80,000.
• Whale holdings rose from 5,247,316 BTC to 5,263,326 BTC, a 0.305% increase, per Santiment data.
• Nearly 800,000 BTC were previously traded near $84,569, a supply zone Bitcoin must clear first.
• If support holds and $84,569 breaks, Ali Charts eyes $89,000, then $94,000, as Bitcoin upside targets.

Bitcoin whales added 16,010 BTC over five days while the asset fell from $87,000 toward $80,000, according to Santiment data.

Their combined holdings rose from 5,247,316 BTC to 5,263,326 BTC. That marks a 0.305% increase during a period of declining prices.

Bitcoin traded at $83,341.34 as of this writing, up 0.56% in 24 hours. However, the price is still down 3.19% over the past week. Analysts are now watching whether the buying can support a rebound toward higher resistance levels.

Bitcoin Whales Buy as Prices Decline

Ali Charts shared the findings in a five part thread on X. The opening post stated that whales bought the dip. It also said the next leg higher starts now. The thread contains five posts and combines on-chain data with technical chart analysis.

The thread cited Santiment data to support the claim. Bitcoin whales kept adding coins while the market moved lower. Their holdings grew even as the price fell. Santiment provided the holdings figures that Ali Charts used in the second post of the thread.

Market data provides further context for the move. Daily trading volume stands at $22,486,836,062. Trading volume reflects the amount of Bitcoin exchanged across markets over the previous 24 hours.

The 0.56% daily gain follows a 3.19% decline over seven days. These figures reflect the latest price data available at the time of writing.

Ali Charts closed the thread by saying the price now needs to confirm the buying by Bitcoin whales. The analyst listed three levels to monitor.

These levels connect to supply data and a rising channel. They range from a breakout point to two upside targets.

Resistance Near $84,569 Draws Attention

Glassnode data shows nearly 800,000 BTC were previously traded around $84,569. Ali Charts described this area as a supply zone.

Bitcoin must clear it before a move higher gains strength. Glassnode supplied the on-chain data in the third post, which focused on supply near that price.

A break above this level would strengthen the case for a rally, according to the thread. Until then, the zone remains a hurdle for buyers. Bitcoin currently trades just below it. The analyst presented this break as the first condition for the upside move.

Bitcoin is also testing the lower boundary of a rising channel. Support at this boundary needs to hold. A hold at that boundary would keep the rising channel structure intact.

Ali Charts tied the setup to the potential rebound. The fourth post of the thread presents this channel as part of the technical outlook.

If support holds and Bitcoin clears $84,569, the analyst is watching for a rally toward $89,000. That level sits near the channel’s mid-range.

The upper boundary around $94,000 serves as the next target. Ali Charts repeated these three levels in the final post as the key targets for the move.

The post Bitcoin Whales Accumulate 16,010 BTC During Pullback From $87,000 appeared first on Blockonomi.

TLDR:

• Hyperliquid matches orders block by block and prioritizes cancellations within each block, says Xu.
• Xu links Hyperliquid’s order book depth to its market maker friendly design versus many exchanges.
• Xu says the design offers another approach for long-tail assets that have limited liquidity.
• Xu blames the October 10 liquidations partly on USDe being treated like a stablecoin as collateral. 

Star Xu says the Hyperliquid matching engine is more market maker friendly than the systems used by centralized exchanges. The OKX founder shared the view on the New Era Finance Podcast with host Michael.

He said Hyperliquid matches orders block by block and gives cancellations priority within each block. Market makers can therefore cancel orders ahead of takers. Xu also covered MiCA, customer protection, and the October 10 market turmoil during the discussion.

How the Hyperliquid Matching Engine Works

Xu said the Hyperliquid matching engine differs fundamentally from centralized order book exchanges in its technical design. Centralized exchanges process orders individually. Hyperliquid, by contrast, matches orders in blocks.

Within each block, the system prioritizes cancellations. Under the Hyperliquid matching engine, market makers can therefore cancel orders ahead of takers. Xu called this design market maker friendly.

Xu believes this design explains why Hyperliquid’s order book depth appears better than that of many centralized exchanges. He added that the Hyperliquid matching engine offers another approach for long-tail assets with limited liquidity.

Xu made the comments while discussing crypto’s evolution. He said repeated crises, from early Bitcoin attacks and Mt. Gox to FTX, tested the sector.

Each episode also prompted improvements, in his view. He sees blockchain as a base for more efficient finance through self-custody, stablecoins, and tokenized assets.

Trust, Risk Controls, and the October 10 Turmoil

Xu described MiCA as an important step toward consistent crypto regulation across Europe. He noted the compliance challenges OKX faced while entering the market.

He said international growth depends on earning customer and regulator trust through transparent operations and stronger governance.

He pointed to board oversight, compliance and risk functions, monthly proof-of-reserves reports, and external auditing. OKX also plans to pursue a public listing. Xu said these steps increase accountability.

Xu said safeguarding customer funds matters more than aggressive growth. Exchanges, he added, should follow financial rules and earn money from technology and services.

He recommends self-custody for users who can manage keys securely, though wallets can be vulnerable. He also warns against unusually high yields and demands to “just trust” an exchange.

Xu attributed the cascading October 10 liquidations partly to USDe being treated like a stablecoin and accepted as derivatives collateral. He described USDe as a higher-risk, hedge-fund-like product.

Leveraged borrowing against it could magnify returns but also amplify losses when prices moved. Xu argued that tighter risk controls and regulated derivatives venues could help prevent such episodes.

Looking ahead, Xu expects crypto to expand beyond trading into everyday financial services. These include wallets for holding money, blockchain payments, and tokenized equities.

He also expects on-chain asset-management tools that let users keep control of their funds. He is optimistic these technologies could become widely used financial infrastructure.

The post OKX founder Star Xu Says Hyperliquid’s Matching Engine Favors Market Makers appeared first on Blockonomi.

TLDR:

• Payward received Full Market Approval from VARA, the final stage of Dubai’s licensing process.
• Kraken will offer AED-denominated spot and margin trading, with direct dirham deposits and withdrawals.
• Institutional clients will receive OTC spot trading and Kraken Prime access when the service goes live. 
• Crypto derivatives and new yield products are expected later in 2026 and into 2027, subject to approval. 

Kraken UAE launch plans are moving ahead after Payward received Full Market Approval from Dubai’s VARA. Payward is the parent company of Kraken.

The approval permits it to operate as a regulated Virtual Asset Service Provider. It can serve retail, professional, and institutional investors.

Kraken expects to go live for UAE clients within the coming weeks. Payward announced the news through a Business Wire release from Cheyenne, Wyoming. The company said it will begin regulated activity in Dubai.

Kraken UAE Launch Products for Clients

The Kraken UAE launch will include spot and margin markets with AED-denominated pairs. Additionally, clients can fund accounts and withdraw directly in dirhams. The company has not given an exact launch date in the announcement.

Beyond trading, the platform will offer on-chain staking and tokenized stocks through xStocks. Krak will also be available for crypto transfers. Together, these products sit alongside spot and margin trading in the launch lineup.

Institutional clients will receive additional services at launch. These include OTC spot trading and access to Kraken Prime. Therefore, the launch covers retail, professional, and institutional investors.

Arjun Sethi, Co-CEO of Payward and Kraken, commented on the offering in a statement. Sethi said clients get “the same order book and multi-asset coverage we run in every other market.”

He added that this operates “under one of the clearest regulatory frameworks in the world.” “Payward’s regulatory infrastructure now connects them directly to Kraken’s market-leading liquidity,” Sethi continued. The statement also referenced “a growing range of opportunities across digital assets.”

VARA Approval and Expansion Plans

VARA regulates virtual asset activity in Dubai. Full Market Approval is the final stage of VARA’s licensing process. It authorizes Payward to commence regulated activity in Dubai. The decision follows preliminary approval granted in May 2026.

That earlier approval allowed the entity to complete operational set-up ahead of client onboarding. Therefore, the Kraken UAE launch now has its final regulatory approval in place.

Further products will follow the Kraken UAE launch later in 2026 and into 2027. These include crypto derivatives and an expanded range of new yield opportunities.

Each of these remains subject to regulatory approval. In addition, Payward will make its infrastructure available to regional partners through embedded trading as a service.

Embedded trading lets partners offer trading inside their own platforms. The company did not provide product-specific dates in its announcement.

Payward describes itself as a unified financial infrastructure platform. The launch forms part of Payward’s effort to build regulated, on-the-ground operations across key financial centers.

Kraken connects new markets to its core trading network for premium execution and deep liquidity. Clients also receive a consistent standard of service.

Payward currently holds more than 100 licences and registrations worldwide. These span Europe, the Americas, Asia-Pacific, and the Middle East.

The post Kraken UAE Launch Nears as Payward Secures Full VARA Approval appeared first on Blockonomi.

The power of combining interactive community engagement with a utility-driven rewards layer has been unleashed during the initial stage of a partnership between Predictfully, a free-to-play sports fan engagement platform built on the Avalanche blockchain, and the nGRND Gold Protocol, an ecosystem designed to bridge the legacy gold industry with the emerging digital economy.

Launched on September 17, 2026, the joint Participation Stream Partnership integrated Predictfully’s white-label capable fan engagement platform with the nGRND Gold Protocol Staking & Rewards Ecosystem using a custom Predictfully Dynamic Soulbound Token (DSBT). By October 6, 2026, just nine days into the rollout, the initiative sparked explosive growth across all primary user metrics. New account growth skyrocketed by 472%, active players increased by 465%, and market predictions grew by 299%, driving a 56% increase in total accounts overall.

The integration proved highly effective at converting passive sports fans into verified web3 participants without the friction of stakes, odds, or a traditional house. The custom Predictfully nGRND DSBT program rapidly scaled to 35,589 total users, maintaining exceptionally high data and identity verification standards across the board. Digital wallet verification reached a flawless 100%, while email and Telegram verification levels hit 92% and 95% respectively.

Rather than creating “empty” accounts, the campaign prioritized deep, protocol-level engagement, encouraging fans to climb the leaderboards to win rewards funded by clubs and sponsors, ranging from merchandise to matchday experiences. Within the first twenty days, 32,834 users successfully completed the Predictfully DSBT process to activate their profiles, earn their first virtual NGRND, and enter the broader staking ecosystem.

Acting as a digital passport, the DSBT provides exclusive access to participation streams and dynamically tracks on-chain activity and credentials. To date, these activated participants have completed 294,502 micro-tasks to earn Reward Points, validating the partnership’s focus on sticky, repeatable user behavior over short-term speculation.

The early performance of this joint case study underscores a larger shift in decentralized growth strategies, blending sports engagement with participation-driven opportunities backed by Preserved Gold and network engagement.

By offering a plug-and-play rewards infrastructure, the nGRND Gold Protocol allows ecosystem partners to boost user acquisition and retention without exhausting internal development resources. For Predictfully, which licenses its platform to professional clubs and rights holders, the collaboration provides a continuous loop of player activation, while the nGRND Gold Protocol successfully expands its footprint of verified, high-intent network participants. Users can find out more or get started by visiting predictfully.app and nGRND.io.

The post Predictfully and nGRND Gold Protocol Secure Massive Engagement Surge in 20-Day Campaign appeared first on Blockonomi.

The second-largest cryptocurrency has retraced 6% over the past week, yet an important development suggests the bullish setup remains intact.

Many market observers believe ETH could soon reach a new all-time high, while one mysterious trader spent millions to open an extremely risky long position in the asset.

The Bullish Perspective

Popular X user Ash Crypto revealed that ETH closed its fourth consecutive week above the 50-week moving average (MA) after bouncing off multi-month support at $2,405. This is considered a major long-term trend indicator and suggests momentum remains on the bulls’ side (despite recent volatility).

“Four consecutive weekly closes above the 50-week MA is an encouraging signal for ETH. Holding this level could strengthen the bullish outlook, but confirmation on the next few candles will be key,” one X user commented on the post.

Many analysts think the asset could be on the verge of an imminent surge. Ali Martinez recently noted that ETH has formed an “Adam and Eve” bottoming pattern, outlining the neckline at $2,520 as the key zone.

“A sustained close above this level could confirm a bullish breakout and open the door for ETH to rally toward $2,640.”

For his part, Ted said ETH is currently facing resistance around the $2,560-$2,570 range. He believes that reclaiming this zone could set the stage for a pump to $2,700. X user BLADE noted the recent price correction but reminded that the asset has historically rallied after such dips.

“It’s a simple dynamic that keeps repeating. Same base as the 2025 bottom, so naturally I’d expect the same run over the months ahead. My target: $5K,” they said.

Meanwhile, investors have become increasingly aggressive on ETH. X user Gerla disclosed that Ethereum longs on Bitfinex have spiked by 266% in just a few weeks, reaching their highest level since 2022. Ash Crypto revealed that an anonymous whale opened a $50 million long position on ETH with 25x leverage and is currently less than $50 away from liquidation.

The Bearish Signals

Despite analysts’ predominant optimism, two key developments suggest the asset could underperform in the near future. The first is the recent performance of the spot ETH ETFs.

As CryptoPotato reported, the investment vehicles recorded total outflows of more than $540 million last week, signaling that pension funds, hedge funds, and other conservative investors have reduced their exposure to the cryptocurrency. More concerning, spot ETH ETFs have posted nine consecutive red days, with September 28 as the last day inflows exceeded outflows.

Next is the rising amount of coins stored on crypto exchanges. According to CryptoQuant, the figure has risen to a one-month high of about 14.9 million units, which doesn’t guarantee a price collapse but increases immediate selling pressure.

The post Ethereum (ETH) Flashes a Major Bullish Signal: The Beginning of a Massive Rally? appeared first on CryptoPotato.

Standard Chartered has launched institutional custody support for Ripple’s native stablecoin and is working with the company and LMAX Group on a broader collateral integration aimed at bringing the asset deeper into institutional trading.

The service is now live through the bank’s DIFC Branch in Dubai, which is regulated by the Dubai Financial Services Authority, and allows eligible clients access to Standard Chartered’s digital asset custody infrastructure.

The banking behemoth wants to make RLUSD eligible collateral for selected LMAX products and services, and the current planned structure indicates that Standard Chartered would extend its mirroring model to the latter.

If successful, this would allow the value of the stablecoin held in custody to be reflected at the trading venue without requiring the underlying assets themselves to be transferred there.

The parties involved in the new collaboration argued that this setup could reduce transfer-related operational risk, improve counterparty exposure management, and make institutional capital more efficient.

“RLUSD was built for exactly this kind of institutional use case. Our customers want the efficiency of a regulated stablecoin without giving up the custody standards they already trust. Bringing together RLUSD on the XRP Ledger, Standard Chartered’s custody capabilities and LMAX Group’s institutional trading infrastructure creates a practical path for institutions to put stablecoins to work across global markets,” said Jack McDonald, SVP, Stablecoins, Ripple.

Importantly, the planned collateral integration is not live yet, but Standard Chartered said it remains subject to final documentation, testing, regulatory requirements, internal approvals, and jurisdictional readiness.

Nevertheless, this is another major adoption win for Ripple and its native assets. The stablecoin alone recently reached a market cap of over $2.5 billion, less than two years after its debut.

The post Big Ripple (XRP) Development as Standard Chartered Goes Live With RLUSD Custody appeared first on CryptoPotato.

After hinting on X yesterday that the company he co-founded decades ago has completed another BTC purchase, Michael Saylor announced the development minutes ago, indicating that Strategy has indeed upped its bitcoin reserve.

Although the latest buy was relatively modest compared with some of the previous ones, Strategy’s BTC holdings still reached a new all-time high of 848,250 units.

Aside from spending $21.5 million to acquire 250 BTC at an average price of $86,194, Strategy repurchased another $192 million in preferred stock (STRC). Its USD stash has slipped to $5.5 billion after the latest accumulations, down from over $6 billion just a few weeks ago.

Strategy has acquired 250 $BTC and repurchased $192M of $STRC. As of 10/11/26, we hold 848,250 BTC and $5.5B of USD Assets. $MSTR https://t.co/hhxR6N95mq

— Michael Saylor (@saylor) October 12, 2026

Strategy resumed its BTC accumulation spree in the middle of September after the summer hiatus, during which it even sold on several occasions. The current streak now extends to four weeks in a row with consecutive purchases.

Meanwhile, STRC’s price continues to recover from the summer lows. Recall that the asset tumbled far below its par level of $100 to under $75 during its darkest hour. However, Strategy’s decision to halt its BTC accumulation in order to rebuild investors’ trust in STRC, as well as its USD stash, turned out to be quite beneficial for the preferred stock, which closed on Friday at $99.66.

The post Strategy Buys Another $21M in Bitcoin as Accumulation Streak Rolls On appeared first on CryptoPotato.

The real-world assets (RWA) niche has become a key pillar of the cryptocurrency sector, with a market capitalization exceeding $53 billion.

According to popular analyst Ali Martinz, three such tokens may see substantial price gains in the coming days. Check out which ones are in question and the potential catalysts.

ONDO and ALGO

The analyst pointed to Ondo (ONDO) first, which appears to have broken out of a cup-and-handle pattern that has been forming since January. The token currently trades around $0.50 (per CoinGecko), and Martinez noted a retest of the neckline near $0.46, saying that level held as support.

“If it continues to hold, the pattern points toward $0.90, nearly double the neckline price,” he added.

Other market observers who have recently made optimistic predictions on ONDO include FOUR | Crypto Spaces and MikybullCrypto. The former hinted at a potential uptrend if the asset holds support, builds a base, and reclaims $1.15. The latter was much more bullish, forecasting:

“ONDO is giving you the last chance before the train leaves. $8 bull target incoming.”

The second RWA token Martinez paid attention to is Algorand (ALGO). He maintained that the coin still needs to clear resistance, suggesting it has consolidated inside a channel capped near $0.14. In his view, a daily close above that mark could confirm a breakout toward $0.19.

It is worth noting that ALGO is among the top-performing cryptocurrencies today (October 12), up 12% and trading just south of $0.13. Its Relative Strength Index (RSI), though, has surged past 70, suggesting the valuation has risen too quickly and could be due for a correction.

How About INJ?

Martinez concluded his analysis with Injective (INJ), claiming that it has broken out of a cup-and-handle pattern, followed by a retest of the neckline near $7.

“If buyers defend that level, the pattern projects a move toward $17, roughly 140% above the neckline,” he added.

Sjuul | AltCryptoGems also seems in favor of INJ, calling it a “gem” people shouldn’t sleep on. For their part, WIZZ recently noted that the asset’s latest price trajectory has mimicked the move from 2024, which was later followed by a huge rally.

The post 3 Altcoins That Could Pump This Week (Analyst Explains Why) appeared first on CryptoPotato.

Bitcoin traders face another potentially volatile trading week as September CPI takes center stage on Wednesday, while other key events, such as producer inflation, retail sales, and fresh Fed commentary, are likely to influence the markets as well.

The cryptocurrency enters the week after a major crash last Thursday, and it’s yet to recover most of the losses.

Main Event CPI

The Bureau of Labor Statistics is scheduled to publish the September Consumer Price Index (CPI) report on Wednesday, October 14, at 8:30 a.m. ET, and, as usual, markets will be watching both headline and core inflation closely. A hotter-than-expected reading could strengthen expectations that the US central bank will maintain a more restrictive stance, potentially pushing Treasury yields lower and the greenback higher. This, though, could put renewed pressure on BTC.

A softer number, on the other hand, would likely be more supportive for risk assets, especially if it strengthens the argument that inflation is indeed cooling despite the energy crisis.

CPI, though, is not the only major inflation catalyst this week, as the Producer Price Index (PPI) is due on Thursday. It will provide another indication of inflationary pressure in the country and is likely to be used by the Federal Reserve before its next FOMC meeting at the end of the month.

These reports come at a sensitive time for bitcoin following another volatile period, meaning that even a modest surprise could produce major fluctuations.

Retail Sales and the Fed

September retail sales will be announced on the same day as PPI and could offer fresh insight into the strength of US consumer demand. A combination of sticky inflation and resilient spending would likely complicate the monetary policy outlook even further.

The central bank will also remain in focus throughout the week. Recall that US Fed Governor Christopher Waller’s comments from last week added to the overall pressure on the asset and became one of the many reasons behind BTC’s nosedive. Policymakers are scheduled to make public appearances this week, and markets are likely to scrutinize any new comments on inflation and the upcoming rate decision.

Separately, the Fed’s Beige Book is due Wednesday afternoon, providing a broader snapshot of economic conditions across the central bank’s districts.

The post Bitcoin Traders Brace for CPI and 4 Other Key Events This Week appeared first on CryptoPotato.