Thedy
266 Posts
Thedy
Report
Block User
Crypto lover and Blockchain passionate
#BinanceTurns7
Open Trade
Frequent Trader
5.5 Years
8 Following
41 Followers
62 Liked
1 Badges
Posts
Portfolio
All
Quotes
PINNED
·
--
Article
Top Low Market Cap Cryptocurrencies with High PotentialThe cryptocurrency market continues to offer a plethora of investment opportunities, especially among low market cap tokens. These projects often carry higher risk, but their unique use cases and innovative approaches could potentially lead to significant rewards. Here’s a look at some promising low market cap cryptocurrencies worth considering:
1. Retik (RETIK)
Retik is carving a niche in the real estate sector by introducing blockchain transparency to property transactions. This token aims to streamline and secure real estate deals, making the process more efficient and trustworthy. As the real estate market gradually adopts blockchain solutions, RETIK could see substantial growth.
2. Gala (GALA)
Gala has been making waves in the gaming and entertainment industry. With a strong use case and an active community, GALA is focused on creating decentralized gaming experiences. The project’s dedication to empowering game developers and providing players with true ownership of their in-game assets sets it apart in the crowded crypto space.
3. Sei (SEI)
Known for its applications in decentralized finance (DeFi), Sei offers a robust platform for developing and managing decentralized applications (dApps). The project's emphasis on providing secure, scalable, and user-friendly DeFi solutions positions it as a strong contender in the DeFi sector.
4. Xenon (XNA)
Xenon is dedicated to enhancing security and privacy features in the cryptocurrency world. As concerns about digital privacy grow, Xenon’s focus on providing robust security solutions makes it a noteworthy project. Its potential applications in secure transactions and privacy-focused applications could drive significant interest.
5. Hello (HELLO)
Hello aims to revolutionize social media by integrating blockchain technology to ensure user privacy and data security. With increasing awareness of data privacy issues, Hello's approach to creating a decentralized social media platform could attract users looking for more control over their personal information.
6. Zephyr (ZEPH)
Zephyr is focused on providing fast and secure cross-border transactions. Its practical applications in international finance, coupled with the increasing demand for efficient global payment solutions, make ZEPH a promising project. The token’s ability to facilitate quick and low-cost transactions could drive its adoption.
7. Digital Media Labs (DML)
Digital Media Labs seeks to decentralize content creation and distribution, empowering creators through blockchain technology. By eliminating intermediaries, DML aims to give content creators more control and a fairer share of revenue. This approach could significantly impact the media and entertainment industries.
8.Velas (VLX)
Description: Velas is an EVM blockchain known for its high transaction speed and low costs, supporting decentralized applications.
9. IOTA (IOTA)
Though not as low-cap as some others, IOTA’s innovative Tangle technology offers a unique approach to the Internet of Things (IoT) sector. Its feeless and scalable nature makes it suitable for a wide range of IoT applications. IOTA's potential to disrupt the IoT industry makes it a cryptocurrency to watch.
10. Gemini (GEM)
Gemini is gaining popularity due to its unique features and potential to support various decentralized applications. The token’s versatility and strong community support could contribute to its growth. GEM's ability to facilitate different dApps makes it a valuable addition to the crypto ecosystem.
Conclusion
These cryptocurrencies are noteworthy for their potential driven by unique use cases, technological innovations, and active communities. While investing in low market cap cryptocurrencies can be highly rewarding, it is crucial to conduct thorough research and exercise caution. Always consider the risks and perform due diligence before making investment decisions.
#altcoins #DYOR
Top Low Market Cap Cryptocurrencies with High Potential
The cryptocurrency market continues to offer a plethora of investment opportunities, especially among low market cap tokens. These projects often carry higher risk, but their unique use cases and innovative approaches could potentially lead to significant rewards. Here’s a look at some promising low market cap cryptocurrencies worth considering:
1. Retik (RETIK)
Retik is carving a niche in the real estate sector by introducing blockchain transparency to property transactions. This token aims to streamline and secure real estate deals, making the process more efficient and trustworthy. As the real estate market gradually adopts blockchain solutions, RETIK could see substantial growth.
2. Gala (GALA)
Gala has been making waves in the gaming and entertainment industry. With a strong use case and an active community, GALA is focused on creating decentralized gaming experiences. The project’s dedication to empowering game developers and providing players with true ownership of their in-game assets sets it apart in the crowded crypto space.
3. Sei (SEI)
Known for its applications in decentralized finance (DeFi), Sei offers a robust platform for developing and managing decentralized applications (dApps). The project's emphasis on providing secure, scalable, and user-friendly DeFi solutions positions it as a strong contender in the DeFi sector.
4. Xenon (XNA)
Xenon is dedicated to enhancing security and privacy features in the cryptocurrency world. As concerns about digital privacy grow, Xenon’s focus on providing robust security solutions makes it a noteworthy project. Its potential applications in secure transactions and privacy-focused applications could drive significant interest.
5. Hello (HELLO)
Hello aims to revolutionize social media by integrating blockchain technology to ensure user privacy and data security. With increasing awareness of data privacy issues, Hello's approach to creating a decentralized social media platform could attract users looking for more control over their personal information.
6. Zephyr (ZEPH)
Zephyr is focused on providing fast and secure cross-border transactions. Its practical applications in international finance, coupled with the increasing demand for efficient global payment solutions, make ZEPH a promising project. The token’s ability to facilitate quick and low-cost transactions could drive its adoption.
7. Digital Media Labs (DML)
Digital Media Labs seeks to decentralize content creation and distribution, empowering creators through blockchain technology. By eliminating intermediaries, DML aims to give content creators more control and a fairer share of revenue. This approach could significantly impact the media and entertainment industries.
8.Velas (VLX)
Description: Velas is an EVM blockchain known for its high transaction speed and low costs, supporting decentralized applications.
9. IOTA (IOTA)
Though not as low-cap as some others, IOTA’s innovative Tangle technology offers a unique approach to the Internet of Things (IoT) sector. Its feeless and scalable nature makes it suitable for a wide range of IoT applications. IOTA's potential to disrupt the IoT industry makes it a cryptocurrency to watch.
10. Gemini (GEM)
Gemini is gaining popularity due to its unique features and potential to support various decentralized applications. The token’s versatility and strong community support could contribute to its growth. GEM's ability to facilitate different dApps makes it a valuable addition to the crypto ecosystem.
Conclusion
These cryptocurrencies are noteworthy for their potential driven by unique use cases, technological innovations, and active communities. While investing in low market cap cryptocurrencies can be highly rewarding, it is crucial to conduct thorough research and exercise caution. Always consider the risks and perform due diligence before making investment decisions.
#altcoins #DYOR
1. Retik (RETIK)
Retik is carving a niche in the real estate sector by introducing blockchain transparency to property transactions. This token aims to streamline and secure real estate deals, making the process more efficient and trustworthy. As the real estate market gradually adopts blockchain solutions, RETIK could see substantial growth.
2. Gala (GALA)
Gala has been making waves in the gaming and entertainment industry. With a strong use case and an active community, GALA is focused on creating decentralized gaming experiences. The project’s dedication to empowering game developers and providing players with true ownership of their in-game assets sets it apart in the crowded crypto space.
3. Sei (SEI)
Known for its applications in decentralized finance (DeFi), Sei offers a robust platform for developing and managing decentralized applications (dApps). The project's emphasis on providing secure, scalable, and user-friendly DeFi solutions positions it as a strong contender in the DeFi sector.
4. Xenon (XNA)
Xenon is dedicated to enhancing security and privacy features in the cryptocurrency world. As concerns about digital privacy grow, Xenon’s focus on providing robust security solutions makes it a noteworthy project. Its potential applications in secure transactions and privacy-focused applications could drive significant interest.
5. Hello (HELLO)
Hello aims to revolutionize social media by integrating blockchain technology to ensure user privacy and data security. With increasing awareness of data privacy issues, Hello's approach to creating a decentralized social media platform could attract users looking for more control over their personal information.
6. Zephyr (ZEPH)
Zephyr is focused on providing fast and secure cross-border transactions. Its practical applications in international finance, coupled with the increasing demand for efficient global payment solutions, make ZEPH a promising project. The token’s ability to facilitate quick and low-cost transactions could drive its adoption.
7. Digital Media Labs (DML)
Digital Media Labs seeks to decentralize content creation and distribution, empowering creators through blockchain technology. By eliminating intermediaries, DML aims to give content creators more control and a fairer share of revenue. This approach could significantly impact the media and entertainment industries.
8.Velas (VLX)
Description: Velas is an EVM blockchain known for its high transaction speed and low costs, supporting decentralized applications.
9. IOTA (IOTA)
Though not as low-cap as some others, IOTA’s innovative Tangle technology offers a unique approach to the Internet of Things (IoT) sector. Its feeless and scalable nature makes it suitable for a wide range of IoT applications. IOTA's potential to disrupt the IoT industry makes it a cryptocurrency to watch.
10. Gemini (GEM)
Gemini is gaining popularity due to its unique features and potential to support various decentralized applications. The token’s versatility and strong community support could contribute to its growth. GEM's ability to facilitate different dApps makes it a valuable addition to the crypto ecosystem.
Conclusion
These cryptocurrencies are noteworthy for their potential driven by unique use cases, technological innovations, and active communities. While investing in low market cap cryptocurrencies can be highly rewarding, it is crucial to conduct thorough research and exercise caution. Always consider the risks and perform due diligence before making investment decisions.
#altcoins #DYOR
11
2.9k
·
--
$BTC hasn't broken its October range yet. It did worse on the close and better on the wick, and that nuance matters this weekend.
The story going around this Saturday: Bitcoin fell below $81,000 on Friday night, so support has given way. The Kraken candles tell a different story.
The overnight low, $80,418 around 23:00 UTC, remains above the October 15 low ($79,709) and the October 8 low ($80,329). The range floor hasn't given way. However, the October 23 daily close, at $81,086, was the lowest since September 18. It's the second consecutive close (after $81,316 on October 22) below every close from October 8 to 21.
Why $81,000 carries so much weight: Glassnode estimates that the cost basis of BTC held by US spot ETFs is around $81,500. It's also the level from which the +6.7% move on September 21 began. And flows aren't helping: -$635.6M in ETF outflows on October 22 (Farside), the largest outflow since June according to SoSoValue.
What's still neutral: BTC perpetual funding on OKX is +0.0046% this morning, with no excess leverage in either direction. Weekend volumes are thin, making wicks less reliable. $BTC is trading at $80,741 on Kraken at 07:54 UTC.
My take: as long as $79,700 holds on a closing basis, this is a range wearing down, not a breakdown. Ahead of the Fed on October 28, a close back above $81,500 would put ETFs back above their average cost basis and reopen the path to $84,250. A close below $80,000, on the other hand, would activate Glassnode's next reference level around $77,600.
For those trading the range: are you waiting for a close below $79,700 to call it a breakdown, or are two closes at five-week lows already enough?
#Bitcoin #FOMC
$BTC hasn't broken its October range yet. It did worse on the close and better on the wick, and that nuance matters this weekend.
The story going around this Saturday: Bitcoin fell below $81,000 on Friday night, so support has given way. The Kraken candles tell a different story.
The overnight low, $80,418 around 23:00 UTC, remains above the October 15 low ($79,709) and the October 8 low ($80,329). The range floor hasn't given way. However, the October 23 daily close, at $81,086, was the lowest since September 18. It's the second consecutive close (after $81,316 on October 22) below every close from October 8 to 21.
Why $81,000 carries so much weight: Glassnode estimates that the cost basis of BTC held by US spot ETFs is around $81,500. It's also the level from which the +6.7% move on September 21 began. And flows aren't helping: -$635.6M in ETF outflows on October 22 (Farside), the largest outflow since June according to SoSoValue.
What's still neutral: BTC perpetual funding on OKX is +0.0046% this morning, with no excess leverage in either direction. Weekend volumes are thin, making wicks less reliable. $BTC is trading at $80,741 on Kraken at 07:54 UTC.
My take: as long as $79,700 holds on a closing basis, this is a range wearing down, not a breakdown. Ahead of the Fed on October 28, a close back above $81,500 would put ETFs back above their average cost basis and reopen the path to $84,250. A close below $80,000, on the other hand, would activate Glassnode's next reference level around $77,600.
For those trading the range: are you waiting for a close below $79,700 to call it a breakdown, or are two closes at five-week lows already enough?
#Bitcoin #FOMC
The story going around this Saturday: Bitcoin fell below $81,000 on Friday night, so support has given way. The Kraken candles tell a different story.
The overnight low, $80,418 around 23:00 UTC, remains above the October 15 low ($79,709) and the October 8 low ($80,329). The range floor hasn't given way. However, the October 23 daily close, at $81,086, was the lowest since September 18. It's the second consecutive close (after $81,316 on October 22) below every close from October 8 to 21.
Why $81,000 carries so much weight: Glassnode estimates that the cost basis of BTC held by US spot ETFs is around $81,500. It's also the level from which the +6.7% move on September 21 began. And flows aren't helping: -$635.6M in ETF outflows on October 22 (Farside), the largest outflow since June according to SoSoValue.
What's still neutral: BTC perpetual funding on OKX is +0.0046% this morning, with no excess leverage in either direction. Weekend volumes are thin, making wicks less reliable. $BTC is trading at $80,741 on Kraken at 07:54 UTC.
My take: as long as $79,700 holds on a closing basis, this is a range wearing down, not a breakdown. Ahead of the Fed on October 28, a close back above $81,500 would put ETFs back above their average cost basis and reopen the path to $84,250. A close below $80,000, on the other hand, would activate Glassnode's next reference level around $77,600.
For those trading the range: are you waiting for a close below $79,700 to call it a breakdown, or are two closes at five-week lows already enough?
#Bitcoin #FOMC
31
·
--
The XRP Ledger was supposed to activate its fixCleanup3_4_0 patch this Friday, 23/10, at 09:34 UTC. It didn’t: two hours of missing votes pushed activation back to November 4.
The timeline, according to XRPLWin and CoinDesk:
• 17/09: The patch arrives with xrpld 3.4.0 (vaults, AMM, NFT, MPT, escrow, permission delegation).
• 09/10: Majority reached, with 29 of 35 trusted validators (more than 80%). The 14-day countdown begins.
• 21/10, 12:54 UTC: A check counts only 26 votes. The counter resets to zero, less than 2 days before activation.
• 21/10, 14:46 UTC: Back to 29, and the countdown restarts.
• 04/11, 14:46 UTC: The earliest new date, provided support holds at every check (about every 15 minutes).
The important detail: a validator that’s offline or restarting at the wrong moment counts as a no. No tracker says who dropped out. The first attempt had no margin; the second is running on 32 of 35 votes tonight, according to XRPLWin.
As for the content, according to CoinDesk, the patch closes a token-creation vulnerability and adjusts vault and lending calculations. The lending protocol itself still doesn’t have enough votes to start its own countdown. $XRP holders don’t need to do anything.
The market hasn’t moved: $XRP is trading at $1.309 on Kraken at 18:53 UTC, virtually unchanged over 24 hours, after being rejected at $1.398 on 21/10.
My take: the 14-day rule did its job, but it shows just how slim the margin was. If the vote holds through 04/11 and a daily close gets back above $1.36, the $1.40 zone becomes the target again. If there’s a second reset or $1.29 (the 22/10 low) gives way, the next reference point is $1.255 (the 18/10 low).
Two hours of missing votes, twelve days lost: a useful safeguard or a rule that’s too rigid for a network looking to attract finance?
#XRPL
The XRP Ledger was supposed to activate its fixCleanup3_4_0 patch this Friday, 23/10, at 09:34 UTC. It didn’t: two hours of missing votes pushed activation back to November 4.
The timeline, according to XRPLWin and CoinDesk:
• 17/09: The patch arrives with xrpld 3.4.0 (vaults, AMM, NFT, MPT, escrow, permission delegation).
• 09/10: Majority reached, with 29 of 35 trusted validators (more than 80%). The 14-day countdown begins.
• 21/10, 12:54 UTC: A check counts only 26 votes. The counter resets to zero, less than 2 days before activation.
• 21/10, 14:46 UTC: Back to 29, and the countdown restarts.
• 04/11, 14:46 UTC: The earliest new date, provided support holds at every check (about every 15 minutes).
The important detail: a validator that’s offline or restarting at the wrong moment counts as a no. No tracker says who dropped out. The first attempt had no margin; the second is running on 32 of 35 votes tonight, according to XRPLWin.
As for the content, according to CoinDesk, the patch closes a token-creation vulnerability and adjusts vault and lending calculations. The lending protocol itself still doesn’t have enough votes to start its own countdown. $XRP holders don’t need to do anything.
The market hasn’t moved: $XRP is trading at $1.309 on Kraken at 18:53 UTC, virtually unchanged over 24 hours, after being rejected at $1.398 on 21/10.
My take: the 14-day rule did its job, but it shows just how slim the margin was. If the vote holds through 04/11 and a daily close gets back above $1.36, the $1.40 zone becomes the target again. If there’s a second reset or $1.29 (the 22/10 low) gives way, the next reference point is $1.255 (the 18/10 low).
Two hours of missing votes, twelve days lost: a useful safeguard or a rule that’s too rigid for a network looking to attract finance?
#XRPL
The timeline, according to XRPLWin and CoinDesk:
• 17/09: The patch arrives with xrpld 3.4.0 (vaults, AMM, NFT, MPT, escrow, permission delegation).
• 09/10: Majority reached, with 29 of 35 trusted validators (more than 80%). The 14-day countdown begins.
• 21/10, 12:54 UTC: A check counts only 26 votes. The counter resets to zero, less than 2 days before activation.
• 21/10, 14:46 UTC: Back to 29, and the countdown restarts.
• 04/11, 14:46 UTC: The earliest new date, provided support holds at every check (about every 15 minutes).
The important detail: a validator that’s offline or restarting at the wrong moment counts as a no. No tracker says who dropped out. The first attempt had no margin; the second is running on 32 of 35 votes tonight, according to XRPLWin.
As for the content, according to CoinDesk, the patch closes a token-creation vulnerability and adjusts vault and lending calculations. The lending protocol itself still doesn’t have enough votes to start its own countdown. $XRP holders don’t need to do anything.
The market hasn’t moved: $XRP is trading at $1.309 on Kraken at 18:53 UTC, virtually unchanged over 24 hours, after being rejected at $1.398 on 21/10.
My take: the 14-day rule did its job, but it shows just how slim the margin was. If the vote holds through 04/11 and a daily close gets back above $1.36, the $1.40 zone becomes the target again. If there’s a second reset or $1.29 (the 22/10 low) gives way, the next reference point is $1.255 (the 18/10 low).
Two hours of missing votes, twelve days lost: a useful safeguard or a rule that’s too rigid for a network looking to attract finance?
#XRPL
53
·
--
BNB Chain is activating the Jenner hard fork on the BSC testnet on 28/10, according to its official blog on 22/10. The most tangible change: 5% of each block reserved for payments.
With BEP-703 (Payment Lane), 5% of each block’s gas goes by default to eligible payments, adjustable by governance up to 10%. Eligible transactions are BNB transfers to addresses without code and calls to payment contracts listed by governance. This list starts out empty: stablecoins won’t benefit without a vote. Regular transactions cannot use the unused payment allocation, and the reservation does not guarantee that any particular payment will be included.
BEP-702 lays the foundation for CAS20, a standard for stablecoins and tokenized real-world assets: allowlists and blocklists, pausing, and separate mint, burn, and seizure roles. It is BEP-20 compatible and activated separately by an admin appointed by governance. BEP-706 adds a timestamp in milliseconds (precompile 0x70), without speeding up blocks.
Who needs to act: validators and node operators before 28/10, and MEV builders for the reserved gas. Holders don’t need to do anything. No mainnet date yet.
My take: BNB Chain is targeting payments and regulated issuers, with freeze and seizure tools that purists will criticize. $BNB is trading at $748 (Binance, 16:47 UTC), up 2.3% over 24 hours versus +0.5% for $BTC, and is running into resistance at $750–755, a zone it hasn’t closed above on a daily basis since 11/10.
If the testnet rollout goes smoothly and a mainnet date is announced, a close above $755 would reopen the $786–810 zone from early October. If it hits a snag, or if the Fed on 27–28/10 cools the market, a move back toward $725 is possible, followed by $706 (the 18/10 low).
Would you use a stablecoin with an on-chain seizure function to make payments, or is that a red line for you?
#BNBChain #Jenner
BNB Chain is activating the Jenner hard fork on the BSC testnet on 28/10, according to its official blog on 22/10. The most tangible change: 5% of each block reserved for payments.
With BEP-703 (Payment Lane), 5% of each block’s gas goes by default to eligible payments, adjustable by governance up to 10%. Eligible transactions are BNB transfers to addresses without code and calls to payment contracts listed by governance. This list starts out empty: stablecoins won’t benefit without a vote. Regular transactions cannot use the unused payment allocation, and the reservation does not guarantee that any particular payment will be included.
BEP-702 lays the foundation for CAS20, a standard for stablecoins and tokenized real-world assets: allowlists and blocklists, pausing, and separate mint, burn, and seizure roles. It is BEP-20 compatible and activated separately by an admin appointed by governance. BEP-706 adds a timestamp in milliseconds (precompile 0x70), without speeding up blocks.
Who needs to act: validators and node operators before 28/10, and MEV builders for the reserved gas. Holders don’t need to do anything. No mainnet date yet.
My take: BNB Chain is targeting payments and regulated issuers, with freeze and seizure tools that purists will criticize. $BNB is trading at $748 (Binance, 16:47 UTC), up 2.3% over 24 hours versus +0.5% for $BTC , and is running into resistance at $750–755, a zone it hasn’t closed above on a daily basis since 11/10.
If the testnet rollout goes smoothly and a mainnet date is announced, a close above $755 would reopen the $786–810 zone from early October. If it hits a snag, or if the Fed on 27–28/10 cools the market, a move back toward $725 is possible, followed by $706 (the 18/10 low).
Would you use a stablecoin with an on-chain seizure function to make payments, or is that a red line for you?
#BNBChain #Jenner
With BEP-703 (Payment Lane), 5% of each block’s gas goes by default to eligible payments, adjustable by governance up to 10%. Eligible transactions are BNB transfers to addresses without code and calls to payment contracts listed by governance. This list starts out empty: stablecoins won’t benefit without a vote. Regular transactions cannot use the unused payment allocation, and the reservation does not guarantee that any particular payment will be included.
BEP-702 lays the foundation for CAS20, a standard for stablecoins and tokenized real-world assets: allowlists and blocklists, pausing, and separate mint, burn, and seizure roles. It is BEP-20 compatible and activated separately by an admin appointed by governance. BEP-706 adds a timestamp in milliseconds (precompile 0x70), without speeding up blocks.
Who needs to act: validators and node operators before 28/10, and MEV builders for the reserved gas. Holders don’t need to do anything. No mainnet date yet.
My take: BNB Chain is targeting payments and regulated issuers, with freeze and seizure tools that purists will criticize. $BNB is trading at $748 (Binance, 16:47 UTC), up 2.3% over 24 hours versus +0.5% for $BTC , and is running into resistance at $750–755, a zone it hasn’t closed above on a daily basis since 11/10.
If the testnet rollout goes smoothly and a mainnet date is announced, a close above $755 would reopen the $786–810 zone from early October. If it hits a snag, or if the Fed on 27–28/10 cools the market, a move back toward $725 is possible, followed by $706 (the 18/10 low).
Would you use a stablecoin with an on-chain seizure function to make payments, or is that a red line for you?
#BNBChain #Jenner
53
·
--
The hashrate of $BTC has climbed back above 1 zettahash per second on a 7-day average, the first time since March 3, according to BlocksBridge Consulting (10/23). Meanwhile, publicly listed miners are shifting to AI.
The idea going around: if publicly listed miners move to AI data centers, Bitcoin’s security will erode. The numbers tell a different story.
BlocksBridge measured a 23% drop in hashrate produced by publicly listed miners, alongside a 52% increase in AI revenue over one quarter and around $1.5 billion worth of machines relocated. These machines aren’t disappearing: some are being bought by smaller miners with cheaper electricity. As a result, the 7-day average on mempool.space reached around 1,053 EH/s on 10/22.
Difficulty is following suit: +5.92% on 10/16 (140.6 T), with the estimate for the next adjustment around 10/29 hovering near +5.1% (BlocksBridge projects +5.16%). That would bring it to 147.7 T, the highest since early January, but still below October 2025’s record of 156 T.
On the market side: with BTC at $81,669 (Kraken, 14:49 UTC), my calculation comes to around $36.5 per PH/s per day before fees, and about $34.8 after the next adjustment if the price holds steady. More competition means a stronger network, but also thinner margins for the least efficient miners.
By the end of October, there are two possible paths:
- BTC holds above 81K and hashrate keeps rising: the network absorbs the exit of publicly listed miners without stress;
- BTC falls below 80K while difficulty rises another 5%: smaller miners with tight margins become sellers, putting pressure on the price.
For you, is the shift of publicly listed miners to AI a risk to Bitcoin, or decentralization happening on its own?
#Bitcoin #Mining
The hashrate of $BTC has climbed back above 1 zettahash per second on a 7-day average, the first time since March 3, according to BlocksBridge Consulting (10/23). Meanwhile, publicly listed miners are shifting to AI.
The idea going around: if publicly listed miners move to AI data centers, Bitcoin’s security will erode. The numbers tell a different story.
BlocksBridge measured a 23% drop in hashrate produced by publicly listed miners, alongside a 52% increase in AI revenue over one quarter and around $1.5 billion worth of machines relocated. These machines aren’t disappearing: some are being bought by smaller miners with cheaper electricity. As a result, the 7-day average on mempool.space reached around 1,053 EH/s on 10/22.
Difficulty is following suit: +5.92% on 10/16 (140.6 T), with the estimate for the next adjustment around 10/29 hovering near +5.1% (BlocksBridge projects +5.16%). That would bring it to 147.7 T, the highest since early January, but still below October 2025’s record of 156 T.
On the market side: with BTC at $81,669 (Kraken, 14:49 UTC), my calculation comes to around $36.5 per PH/s per day before fees, and about $34.8 after the next adjustment if the price holds steady. More competition means a stronger network, but also thinner margins for the least efficient miners.
By the end of October, there are two possible paths:
- BTC holds above 81K and hashrate keeps rising: the network absorbs the exit of publicly listed miners without stress;
- BTC falls below 80K while difficulty rises another 5%: smaller miners with tight margins become sellers, putting pressure on the price.
For you, is the shift of publicly listed miners to AI a risk to Bitcoin, or decentralization happening on its own?
#Bitcoin #Mining
The idea going around: if publicly listed miners move to AI data centers, Bitcoin’s security will erode. The numbers tell a different story.
BlocksBridge measured a 23% drop in hashrate produced by publicly listed miners, alongside a 52% increase in AI revenue over one quarter and around $1.5 billion worth of machines relocated. These machines aren’t disappearing: some are being bought by smaller miners with cheaper electricity. As a result, the 7-day average on mempool.space reached around 1,053 EH/s on 10/22.
Difficulty is following suit: +5.92% on 10/16 (140.6 T), with the estimate for the next adjustment around 10/29 hovering near +5.1% (BlocksBridge projects +5.16%). That would bring it to 147.7 T, the highest since early January, but still below October 2025’s record of 156 T.
On the market side: with BTC at $81,669 (Kraken, 14:49 UTC), my calculation comes to around $36.5 per PH/s per day before fees, and about $34.8 after the next adjustment if the price holds steady. More competition means a stronger network, but also thinner margins for the least efficient miners.
By the end of October, there are two possible paths:
- BTC holds above 81K and hashrate keeps rising: the network absorbs the exit of publicly listed miners without stress;
- BTC falls below 80K while difficulty rises another 5%: smaller miners with tight margins become sellers, putting pressure on the price.
For you, is the shift of publicly listed miners to AI a risk to Bitcoin, or decentralization happening on its own?
#Bitcoin #Mining
46
·
--
$PEPE is up +15% on 23/10 on Binance (PEPE/USDT, from $0.00000440 to $0.00000506 around 12:00 UTC), its highest since 22/09. And nobody has found a catalyst specific to the token.
The day's figures:
PEPE leads the CoinDesk 100, its biggest gain in a month, while $BTC remains stuck at $81,700.
+26% since the open on 19/10, versus -0.6% over 7 days for BTC (Benzinga).
Open interest in PEPE perpetuals on OKX: $32.8M at 00:00 UTC, $41.5M at 12:00 UTC.
Liquidations over 24 hours: $2.9M, including $2.3M in shorts, or 80% (SwoleCharts, 11:10 UTC).
The rest of the sector is following sluggishly: BONK +6%, FLOKI +4%, DOGE +1% on Binance.
My read: this is a short squeeze in a quiet market, rather than a massive return of spot buyers. Funding was still negative this morning (-0.0078%, according to CoinGlass, cited by FXStreet), and the new OI coming in during the rally is fresh leverage, not necessarily conviction.
The chart recalls a previous move: on 22/09, PEPE touched $0.00000536 on $124M in Binance volume, then gave back 13% the very next day.
Two paths from here to the Fed meeting on 27-28/10:
- a daily close above $0.00000476 (the trendline cited by FXStreet), followed by a test of $0.00000536, while CMC's Altcoin Season Index (58/100) keeps rising;
- rejection below $0.00000536, as in September, and a move back toward $0.0000044 as soon as the liquidated shorts are no longer there to push prices higher.
Do you see a memecoin gaining +15% without any news while BTC sleeps as a sign of rotation into alts, or just leverage being flushed out?
#PEPE #Memecoin
$PEPE is up +15% on 23/10 on Binance (PEPE/USDT, from $0.00000440 to $0.00000506 around 12:00 UTC), its highest since 22/09. And nobody has found a catalyst specific to the token.
The day's figures:
PEPE leads the CoinDesk 100, its biggest gain in a month, while $BTC remains stuck at $81,700.
+26% since the open on 19/10, versus -0.6% over 7 days for BTC (Benzinga).
Open interest in PEPE perpetuals on OKX: $32.8M at 00:00 UTC, $41.5M at 12:00 UTC.
Liquidations over 24 hours: $2.9M, including $2.3M in shorts, or 80% (SwoleCharts, 11:10 UTC).
The rest of the sector is following sluggishly: BONK +6%, FLOKI +4%, DOGE +1% on Binance.
My read: this is a short squeeze in a quiet market, rather than a massive return of spot buyers. Funding was still negative this morning (-0.0078%, according to CoinGlass, cited by FXStreet), and the new OI coming in during the rally is fresh leverage, not necessarily conviction.
The chart recalls a previous move: on 22/09, PEPE touched $0.00000536 on $124M in Binance volume, then gave back 13% the very next day.
Two paths from here to the Fed meeting on 27-28/10:
- a daily close above $0.00000476 (the trendline cited by FXStreet), followed by a test of $0.00000536, while CMC's Altcoin Season Index (58/100) keeps rising;
- rejection below $0.00000536, as in September, and a move back toward $0.0000044 as soon as the liquidated shorts are no longer there to push prices higher.
Do you see a memecoin gaining +15% without any news while BTC sleeps as a sign of rotation into alts, or just leverage being flushed out?
#PEPE #Memecoin
The day's figures:
PEPE leads the CoinDesk 100, its biggest gain in a month, while $BTC remains stuck at $81,700.
+26% since the open on 19/10, versus -0.6% over 7 days for BTC (Benzinga).
Open interest in PEPE perpetuals on OKX: $32.8M at 00:00 UTC, $41.5M at 12:00 UTC.
Liquidations over 24 hours: $2.9M, including $2.3M in shorts, or 80% (SwoleCharts, 11:10 UTC).
The rest of the sector is following sluggishly: BONK +6%, FLOKI +4%, DOGE +1% on Binance.
My read: this is a short squeeze in a quiet market, rather than a massive return of spot buyers. Funding was still negative this morning (-0.0078%, according to CoinGlass, cited by FXStreet), and the new OI coming in during the rally is fresh leverage, not necessarily conviction.
The chart recalls a previous move: on 22/09, PEPE touched $0.00000536 on $124M in Binance volume, then gave back 13% the very next day.
Two paths from here to the Fed meeting on 27-28/10:
- a daily close above $0.00000476 (the trendline cited by FXStreet), followed by a test of $0.00000536, while CMC's Altcoin Season Index (58/100) keeps rising;
- rejection below $0.00000536, as in September, and a move back toward $0.0000044 as soon as the liquidated shorts are no longer there to push prices higher.
Do you see a memecoin gaining +15% without any news while BTC sleeps as a sign of rotation into alts, or just leverage being flushed out?
#PEPE #Memecoin
111
·
--
US spot Bitcoin ETFs lost $635.6M on 22/10, according to Farside. In a single session, they wiped out 59% of the $1.07B that flowed in over the previous three.
The chart tells the story better than words. From 19/10 to 21/10, three golden bars: +$526.7M, +$23.2M, +$524.8M. Then the biggest red bar in the past 14 sessions, surpassing the -$484.9M on 07/10.
The outflows were widespread, not concentrated in a single issuer: IBIT (BlackRock) -$254.1M, FBTC (Fidelity) -$217.5M, ARKB -$109.4M, GBTC -$29.5M, BITB -$27.4M. Only MSBT (Morgan Stanley) saw inflows, at +$2.3M. On the same day, $ETH : -$111M in Ether ETFs, according to SoSoValue.
As for price, Kraken's daily candle on 22/10 moved from $84,300 to $80,814 before closing at $81,316. This morning, $BTC is trading at $81,488 (Kraken, 23/10 09:45 UTC). Glassnode, cited by Coin Edition, puts the average cost basis of ETF holders at around $81,000 and estimates that a decisive close below that level could open the way to $70,000.
My take: ETF flows remain more of a trend follower than a floor. Those who bought at 84K sold as soon as the price cracked, making the 81K zone a real test of conviction.
What I'm watching:
- a return to net inflows in the 23/10 session, with BTC holding 81K, and the flush looks like a shakeout;
- a second red session and a close below $80,800, and the Glassnode scenario becomes the base case ahead of the FOMC on 28/10.
For you, is the ETFs' $81K cost basis solid support, or just a level that large holders will defend until they stop doing so?
#Bitcoin #ETF
US spot Bitcoin ETFs lost $635.6M on 22/10, according to Farside. In a single session, they wiped out 59% of the $1.07B that flowed in over the previous three.
The chart tells the story better than words. From 19/10 to 21/10, three golden bars: +$526.7M, +$23.2M, +$524.8M. Then the biggest red bar in the past 14 sessions, surpassing the -$484.9M on 07/10.
The outflows were widespread, not concentrated in a single issuer: IBIT (BlackRock) -$254.1M, FBTC (Fidelity) -$217.5M, ARKB -$109.4M, GBTC -$29.5M, BITB -$27.4M. Only MSBT (Morgan Stanley) saw inflows, at +$2.3M. On the same day, $ETH : -$111M in Ether ETFs, according to SoSoValue.
As for price, Kraken's daily candle on 22/10 moved from $84,300 to $80,814 before closing at $81,316. This morning, $BTC is trading at $81,488 (Kraken, 23/10 09:45 UTC). Glassnode, cited by Coin Edition, puts the average cost basis of ETF holders at around $81,000 and estimates that a decisive close below that level could open the way to $70,000.
My take: ETF flows remain more of a trend follower than a floor. Those who bought at 84K sold as soon as the price cracked, making the 81K zone a real test of conviction.
What I'm watching:
- a return to net inflows in the 23/10 session, with BTC holding 81K, and the flush looks like a shakeout;
- a second red session and a close below $80,800, and the Glassnode scenario becomes the base case ahead of the FOMC on 28/10.
For you, is the ETFs' $81K cost basis solid support, or just a level that large holders will defend until they stop doing so?
#Bitcoin #ETF
The chart tells the story better than words. From 19/10 to 21/10, three golden bars: +$526.7M, +$23.2M, +$524.8M. Then the biggest red bar in the past 14 sessions, surpassing the -$484.9M on 07/10.
The outflows were widespread, not concentrated in a single issuer: IBIT (BlackRock) -$254.1M, FBTC (Fidelity) -$217.5M, ARKB -$109.4M, GBTC -$29.5M, BITB -$27.4M. Only MSBT (Morgan Stanley) saw inflows, at +$2.3M. On the same day, $ETH : -$111M in Ether ETFs, according to SoSoValue.
As for price, Kraken's daily candle on 22/10 moved from $84,300 to $80,814 before closing at $81,316. This morning, $BTC is trading at $81,488 (Kraken, 23/10 09:45 UTC). Glassnode, cited by Coin Edition, puts the average cost basis of ETF holders at around $81,000 and estimates that a decisive close below that level could open the way to $70,000.
My take: ETF flows remain more of a trend follower than a floor. Those who bought at 84K sold as soon as the price cracked, making the 81K zone a real test of conviction.
What I'm watching:
- a return to net inflows in the 23/10 session, with BTC holding 81K, and the flush looks like a shakeout;
- a second red session and a close below $80,800, and the Glassnode scenario becomes the base case ahead of the FOMC on 28/10.
For you, is the ETFs' $81K cost basis solid support, or just a level that large holders will defend until they stop doing so?
#Bitcoin #ETF
51
·
--
Ethereum has just postponed Glamsterdam on the Hoodi testnet: the upgrade scheduled for 26/10 at 17:42:48 UTC will not go ahead, and no new date has been set.
Why cancel a test just 3 days ahead? According to the Ethereum Foundation’s announcement on 22/10, the core devs decided during the ACDE call #248 to study how EIP-8037 interacts with contracts already deployed on mainnet. The planned 200M gas limit milestone on Hoodi is also off.
The trigger was an analysis by ChainSecurity published on 13/10. With EIP-8037 (a “state gas” reservoir) and EIP-8038 (new pricing for state access), writing a new storage slot can cost 110,020 gas once the reservoir is depleted, compared with 22,100 today—about 5 times more (figures reported by CoinDesk). Conversely, gas refunded after a revert can let a contract complete a failed operation that previously would have reverted the entire transaction. ChainSecurity says it found 13 real-world cases, disclosed responsibly. No major protocol has been publicly shown to be exploitable.
My take: this is the process working, not a failure. Better to break a testnet schedule than production contracts. But the early December mainnet target now looks shaky.
Two likely paths:
- a quick fix to EIP-8037, a new Hoodi date announced within a few weeks, and only a slight mainnet delay;
- a more extensive redesign or removal of the EIP from scope, pushing Glamsterdam into 2027.
As for the market, $ETH is holding at $2,403 (-1.1% over 24 hours, Binance, 23/10 07:50 UTC). The EF says holders do not need to take any action.
Would you prefer a reduced Glamsterdam delivered in December, or the full upgrade even if it means waiting until 2027?
#Ethereum #Glamsterdam
Ethereum has just postponed Glamsterdam on the Hoodi testnet: the upgrade scheduled for 26/10 at 17:42:48 UTC will not go ahead, and no new date has been set.
Why cancel a test just 3 days ahead? According to the Ethereum Foundation’s announcement on 22/10, the core devs decided during the ACDE call #248 to study how EIP-8037 interacts with contracts already deployed on mainnet. The planned 200M gas limit milestone on Hoodi is also off.
The trigger was an analysis by ChainSecurity published on 13/10. With EIP-8037 (a “state gas” reservoir) and EIP-8038 (new pricing for state access), writing a new storage slot can cost 110,020 gas once the reservoir is depleted, compared with 22,100 today—about 5 times more (figures reported by CoinDesk). Conversely, gas refunded after a revert can let a contract complete a failed operation that previously would have reverted the entire transaction. ChainSecurity says it found 13 real-world cases, disclosed responsibly. No major protocol has been publicly shown to be exploitable.
My take: this is the process working, not a failure. Better to break a testnet schedule than production contracts. But the early December mainnet target now looks shaky.
Two likely paths:
- a quick fix to EIP-8037, a new Hoodi date announced within a few weeks, and only a slight mainnet delay;
- a more extensive redesign or removal of the EIP from scope, pushing Glamsterdam into 2027.
As for the market, $ETH is holding at $2,403 (-1.1% over 24 hours, Binance, 23/10 07:50 UTC). The EF says holders do not need to take any action.
Would you prefer a reduced Glamsterdam delivered in December, or the full upgrade even if it means waiting until 2027?
#Ethereum #Glamsterdam
Why cancel a test just 3 days ahead? According to the Ethereum Foundation’s announcement on 22/10, the core devs decided during the ACDE call #248 to study how EIP-8037 interacts with contracts already deployed on mainnet. The planned 200M gas limit milestone on Hoodi is also off.
The trigger was an analysis by ChainSecurity published on 13/10. With EIP-8037 (a “state gas” reservoir) and EIP-8038 (new pricing for state access), writing a new storage slot can cost 110,020 gas once the reservoir is depleted, compared with 22,100 today—about 5 times more (figures reported by CoinDesk). Conversely, gas refunded after a revert can let a contract complete a failed operation that previously would have reverted the entire transaction. ChainSecurity says it found 13 real-world cases, disclosed responsibly. No major protocol has been publicly shown to be exploitable.
My take: this is the process working, not a failure. Better to break a testnet schedule than production contracts. But the early December mainnet target now looks shaky.
Two likely paths:
- a quick fix to EIP-8037, a new Hoodi date announced within a few weeks, and only a slight mainnet delay;
- a more extensive redesign or removal of the EIP from scope, pushing Glamsterdam into 2027.
As for the market, $ETH is holding at $2,403 (-1.1% over 24 hours, Binance, 23/10 07:50 UTC). The EF says holders do not need to take any action.
Would you prefer a reduced Glamsterdam delivered in December, or the full upgrade even if it means waiting until 2027?
#Ethereum #Glamsterdam
120
·
--
Aerodrome and Velodrome no longer exist separately: as of 00:00 UTC on 22/10, the two DEXs have merged into Aero, a single exchange across 7 networks (Ethereum, Base, OP Mainnet, Arbitrum, Robinhood Chain, Ink, Arc). And if you hold $AERO or VELO, there’s something you need to do.
1/ The conversion. According to the official hub at aero.xyz, 1 old AERO = 1 new AERO, and 1 VELO = 0.044 AERO. veAERO and veVELO become sAERO, with new NFT IDs: you need to withdraw your positions and claim your rewards before migrating.
2/ The split. 94.5% of the new supply goes to the Aerodrome community and 5.5% to Velodrome, based on each one’s share of revenue over the past 52 weeks. No VCs, no token sale.
3/ The dilution. Max supply is ~2.127B, up from 2.01B (+5.8%); circulating supply goes from ~1.01B to a maximum of ~1.07B. Expected annual inflation is ~12%, with a cap of 20%. 100% of pool revenue goes to sAERO stakers.
4/ The actual scale. According to The Block, Aerodrome accounted for 58% of DEX volume on Base in Q3, and Velodrome for 60% on OP Mainnet. The team says the 7 networks have a combined monthly DEX volume of ~$120B.
5/ The market isn’t paying attention for now. $AERO is trading at $0.799 on Binance at around 18:50 UTC, down 7.4% over 24 hours, but CoinDesk’s DeFi index was down 5.6% this Thursday and $ETH is down ~3.7%. It’s hard to attribute the drop to the merger alone.
My take: the bet is that unified liquidity across 7 chains will attract more activity than it costs in emissions.
- If volumes outside Base take off in the coming weeks, ~12% inflation becomes sustainable.
- If volume remains concentrated on Base, it’s mostly just more tokens for the same business.
Are you migrating your positions right away, or waiting to see the first volumes on Ethereum and Arbitrum?
#DeFi #Aero
Aerodrome and Velodrome no longer exist separately: as of 00:00 UTC on 22/10, the two DEXs have merged into Aero, a single exchange across 7 networks (Ethereum, Base, OP Mainnet, Arbitrum, Robinhood Chain, Ink, Arc). And if you hold $AERO or VELO, there’s something you need to do.
1/ The conversion. According to the official hub at aero.xyz, 1 old AERO = 1 new AERO, and 1 VELO = 0.044 AERO. veAERO and veVELO become sAERO, with new NFT IDs: you need to withdraw your positions and claim your rewards before migrating.
2/ The split. 94.5% of the new supply goes to the Aerodrome community and 5.5% to Velodrome, based on each one’s share of revenue over the past 52 weeks. No VCs, no token sale.
3/ The dilution. Max supply is ~2.127B, up from 2.01B (+5.8%); circulating supply goes from ~1.01B to a maximum of ~1.07B. Expected annual inflation is ~12%, with a cap of 20%. 100% of pool revenue goes to sAERO stakers.
4/ The actual scale. According to The Block, Aerodrome accounted for 58% of DEX volume on Base in Q3, and Velodrome for 60% on OP Mainnet. The team says the 7 networks have a combined monthly DEX volume of ~$120B.
5/ The market isn’t paying attention for now. $AERO is trading at $0.799 on Binance at around 18:50 UTC, down 7.4% over 24 hours, but CoinDesk’s DeFi index was down 5.6% this Thursday and $ETH is down ~3.7%. It’s hard to attribute the drop to the merger alone.
My take: the bet is that unified liquidity across 7 chains will attract more activity than it costs in emissions.
- If volumes outside Base take off in the coming weeks, ~12% inflation becomes sustainable.
- If volume remains concentrated on Base, it’s mostly just more tokens for the same business.
Are you migrating your positions right away, or waiting to see the first volumes on Ethereum and Arbitrum?
#DeFi #Aero
1/ The conversion. According to the official hub at aero.xyz, 1 old AERO = 1 new AERO, and 1 VELO = 0.044 AERO. veAERO and veVELO become sAERO, with new NFT IDs: you need to withdraw your positions and claim your rewards before migrating.
2/ The split. 94.5% of the new supply goes to the Aerodrome community and 5.5% to Velodrome, based on each one’s share of revenue over the past 52 weeks. No VCs, no token sale.
3/ The dilution. Max supply is ~2.127B, up from 2.01B (+5.8%); circulating supply goes from ~1.01B to a maximum of ~1.07B. Expected annual inflation is ~12%, with a cap of 20%. 100% of pool revenue goes to sAERO stakers.
4/ The actual scale. According to The Block, Aerodrome accounted for 58% of DEX volume on Base in Q3, and Velodrome for 60% on OP Mainnet. The team says the 7 networks have a combined monthly DEX volume of ~$120B.
5/ The market isn’t paying attention for now. $AERO is trading at $0.799 on Binance at around 18:50 UTC, down 7.4% over 24 hours, but CoinDesk’s DeFi index was down 5.6% this Thursday and $ETH is down ~3.7%. It’s hard to attribute the drop to the merger alone.
My take: the bet is that unified liquidity across 7 chains will attract more activity than it costs in emissions.
- If volumes outside Base take off in the coming weeks, ~12% inflation becomes sustainable.
- If volume remains concentrated on Base, it’s mostly just more tokens for the same business.
Are you migrating your positions right away, or waiting to see the first volumes on Ethereum and Arbitrum?
#DeFi #Aero
2
·
--
$BTC moved from the top of its two-week range to the bottom in less than 24 hours. On Kraken, it peaked at $84,840 on 10/21 around 16:00 UTC and hit a low of $81,247 today, 10/22, around 15:00 UTC—a drop of 4.2%. At 16:45 UTC, it was at $81,337.
The painful detail: this is happening while US spot bitcoin ETFs are taking in money. About $1.08 billion in net inflows over three sessions (SoSoValue), including $528 million on Wednesday, with no funds seeing outflows that day.
Why isn’t that enough? CoinDesk did the math: the three big rallies since 2024 averaged more than $200 million in inflows per day ($294 million, $202 million, and $248 million). Since July 1, it’s been about $86 million per day, with not a single day reaching $1 billion. Three good sessions don’t change that pace.
The macro picture isn’t helping either. US jobless claims fell to 194,000 (week ending 10/17, Department of Labor), their lowest level since July. A strong labor market gives the Fed less reason to ease quickly ahead of the FOMC meetings on 10/27 and 10/28. Add the sell-off in AI stocks and rising oil prices.
My read: nothing’s broken for now; we’re testing the floor. Since 10/08, every daily Kraken close has stayed between $81,382 and $84,022.
Two paths for the next few days:
- Close above $81,400: the range holds, and another positive ETF session could push the price back toward $83–84K.
- Close below $80,000: according to Glassnode (as reported by Cryptonews), $77,600 becomes the next zone. The “ETFs are buying the dip” narrative would then face a real test.
$ETH is following: $2,381 versus $2,472 at the UTC open.
If ETFs keep buying and the price still falls, who do you think is selling on the other side: miners, long-term holders, or leveraged traders?
#Bitcoin #BitcoinETF
$BTC moved from the top of its two-week range to the bottom in less than 24 hours. On Kraken, it peaked at $84,840 on 10/21 around 16:00 UTC and hit a low of $81,247 today, 10/22, around 15:00 UTC—a drop of 4.2%. At 16:45 UTC, it was at $81,337.
The painful detail: this is happening while US spot bitcoin ETFs are taking in money. About $1.08 billion in net inflows over three sessions (SoSoValue), including $528 million on Wednesday, with no funds seeing outflows that day.
Why isn’t that enough? CoinDesk did the math: the three big rallies since 2024 averaged more than $200 million in inflows per day ($294 million, $202 million, and $248 million). Since July 1, it’s been about $86 million per day, with not a single day reaching $1 billion. Three good sessions don’t change that pace.
The macro picture isn’t helping either. US jobless claims fell to 194,000 (week ending 10/17, Department of Labor), their lowest level since July. A strong labor market gives the Fed less reason to ease quickly ahead of the FOMC meetings on 10/27 and 10/28. Add the sell-off in AI stocks and rising oil prices.
My read: nothing’s broken for now; we’re testing the floor. Since 10/08, every daily Kraken close has stayed between $81,382 and $84,022.
Two paths for the next few days:
- Close above $81,400: the range holds, and another positive ETF session could push the price back toward $83–84K.
- Close below $80,000: according to Glassnode (as reported by Cryptonews), $77,600 becomes the next zone. The “ETFs are buying the dip” narrative would then face a real test.
$ETH is following: $2,381 versus $2,472 at the UTC open.
If ETFs keep buying and the price still falls, who do you think is selling on the other side: miners, long-term holders, or leveraged traders?
#Bitcoin #BitcoinETF
The painful detail: this is happening while US spot bitcoin ETFs are taking in money. About $1.08 billion in net inflows over three sessions (SoSoValue), including $528 million on Wednesday, with no funds seeing outflows that day.
Why isn’t that enough? CoinDesk did the math: the three big rallies since 2024 averaged more than $200 million in inflows per day ($294 million, $202 million, and $248 million). Since July 1, it’s been about $86 million per day, with not a single day reaching $1 billion. Three good sessions don’t change that pace.
The macro picture isn’t helping either. US jobless claims fell to 194,000 (week ending 10/17, Department of Labor), their lowest level since July. A strong labor market gives the Fed less reason to ease quickly ahead of the FOMC meetings on 10/27 and 10/28. Add the sell-off in AI stocks and rising oil prices.
My read: nothing’s broken for now; we’re testing the floor. Since 10/08, every daily Kraken close has stayed between $81,382 and $84,022.
Two paths for the next few days:
- Close above $81,400: the range holds, and another positive ETF session could push the price back toward $83–84K.
- Close below $80,000: according to Glassnode (as reported by Cryptonews), $77,600 becomes the next zone. The “ETFs are buying the dip” narrative would then face a real test.
$ETH is following: $2,381 versus $2,472 at the UTC open.
If ETFs keep buying and the price still falls, who do you think is selling on the other side: miners, long-term holders, or leveraged traders?
#Bitcoin #BitcoinETF
60
·
--
Two critical PHP vulnerabilities (CVE-2026-109618 and CVE-2026-109619, rated 9.2/10) allow code to be executed on a web server without logging in. And according to SlowMist’s MistEye scan, 793 of the 1,488 crypto domains analyzed use PHP.
The patch was released on 10/21 at 13:30 UTC (PHP 8.5.12, 8.4.27, 8.3.36, 8.2.35). CISA is urging everyone to patch immediately and shut down servers running PHP 8.1 or older. CERT-EU notes that proof-of-concept exploits are already circulating.
The common assumption right now: “My exchange doesn’t use PHP, so I’m safe.” That’s true of several major players. BNB Chain and PancakeSwap say they don’t use PHP in their stack, Coinbase says it found no exposed instances, and BitGo says it’s unaffected.
But the risk doesn’t come only from the platform holding your funds. It also comes from the blogs, token pages, dashboards, and aggregators you visit along the way. A compromised server could display a fake “connect wallet” button or a drainer on a page you recognize. CZ has urged people to be “extra careful” online over the next few days.
My take: the riskiest window is now, before smaller sites have patched. Two possible outcomes. Either patches are applied quickly and the alert dies down within a week, or we see compromised front ends and a wave of phishing.
For this week: use bookmarks instead of links, read every signature carefully, whitelist withdrawal addresses, and keep long-term funds out of hot wallets. The market, meanwhile, hasn’t flinched: $BNB around $733 and $ETH around $2,410 on Kraken as of 10/22 at 14:45 UTC.
Have you already checked the crypto sites you visit every day, or are you waiting for the first incident?
#CryptoSecurity #PHP2Shell
Two critical PHP vulnerabilities (CVE-2026-109618 and CVE-2026-109619, rated 9.2/10) allow code to be executed on a web server without logging in. And according to SlowMist’s MistEye scan, 793 of the 1,488 crypto domains analyzed use PHP.
The patch was released on 10/21 at 13:30 UTC (PHP 8.5.12, 8.4.27, 8.3.36, 8.2.35). CISA is urging everyone to patch immediately and shut down servers running PHP 8.1 or older. CERT-EU notes that proof-of-concept exploits are already circulating.
The common assumption right now: “My exchange doesn’t use PHP, so I’m safe.” That’s true of several major players. BNB Chain and PancakeSwap say they don’t use PHP in their stack, Coinbase says it found no exposed instances, and BitGo says it’s unaffected.
But the risk doesn’t come only from the platform holding your funds. It also comes from the blogs, token pages, dashboards, and aggregators you visit along the way. A compromised server could display a fake “connect wallet” button or a drainer on a page you recognize. CZ has urged people to be “extra careful” online over the next few days.
My take: the riskiest window is now, before smaller sites have patched. Two possible outcomes. Either patches are applied quickly and the alert dies down within a week, or we see compromised front ends and a wave of phishing.
For this week: use bookmarks instead of links, read every signature carefully, whitelist withdrawal addresses, and keep long-term funds out of hot wallets. The market, meanwhile, hasn’t flinched: $BNB around $733 and $ETH around $2,410 on Kraken as of 10/22 at 14:45 UTC.
Have you already checked the crypto sites you visit every day, or are you waiting for the first incident?
#CryptoSecurity #PHP2Shell
The patch was released on 10/21 at 13:30 UTC (PHP 8.5.12, 8.4.27, 8.3.36, 8.2.35). CISA is urging everyone to patch immediately and shut down servers running PHP 8.1 or older. CERT-EU notes that proof-of-concept exploits are already circulating.
The common assumption right now: “My exchange doesn’t use PHP, so I’m safe.” That’s true of several major players. BNB Chain and PancakeSwap say they don’t use PHP in their stack, Coinbase says it found no exposed instances, and BitGo says it’s unaffected.
But the risk doesn’t come only from the platform holding your funds. It also comes from the blogs, token pages, dashboards, and aggregators you visit along the way. A compromised server could display a fake “connect wallet” button or a drainer on a page you recognize. CZ has urged people to be “extra careful” online over the next few days.
My take: the riskiest window is now, before smaller sites have patched. Two possible outcomes. Either patches are applied quickly and the alert dies down within a week, or we see compromised front ends and a wave of phishing.
For this week: use bookmarks instead of links, read every signature carefully, whitelist withdrawal addresses, and keep long-term funds out of hot wallets. The market, meanwhile, hasn’t flinched: $BNB around $733 and $ETH around $2,410 on Kraken as of 10/22 at 14:45 UTC.
Have you already checked the crypto sites you visit every day, or are you waiting for the first incident?
#CryptoSecurity #PHP2Shell
96
·
--
China is opening its own case to recover the 61 896 $BTC seized in the UK in the Qian Zhimin case. At a Kraken price of $81,689 this Thursday at 09:45 UTC, this stash is worth about $5.06 billion.
In Tianjin, the No. 2 Intermediate People's Court accepted the prosecutor's confiscation application on 28/09 (notice published on 13/10, reported on 22/10 by CoinDesk and Unchained). It also concerns about 72,700 BCH, 3.6 million $XRP, BSV, BTG, and the proceeds from 70 million DOGE already sold by the British authorities. A six-month window has opened for joining the proceedings.
In London, the High Court ruled on 12/10 that Chinese law, not English law, must determine whether the victims have a property right in these coins. Ownership has not been decided, further hearings are planned, and the law firm Fieldfisher is seeking to appeal. The coins remain frozen in the UK.
The figure that changes how we see this: according to the Tianjin court, about 102,000 investors lost nearly 20 billion yuan, or roughly $3 billion at the ECB exchange rate on 21/10. The seized bitcoin is already worth about 1.7 times those losses.
My take: the real battle is over the gains. If repayments are limited to the losses, more than $2 billion would remain at the current price, excluding other assets. For the market, a supply risk would arise only if there were a decision to transfer or sell the coins—not before.
Two possible outcomes. If London and Tianjin ultimately align, a transfer to China becomes possible, and supply will need to be watched. If victims' property rights are recognized or the appeal succeeds, the case could drag on for years, with the coins frozen.
Who do you think should keep the gains on these 61,896 BTC: the victims, the Chinese state, or the British Treasury?
#Bitcoin #Crypto
China is opening its own case to recover the 61 896 $BTC seized in the UK in the Qian Zhimin case. At a Kraken price of $81,689 this Thursday at 09:45 UTC, this stash is worth about $5.06 billion.
In Tianjin, the No. 2 Intermediate People's Court accepted the prosecutor's confiscation application on 28/09 (notice published on 13/10, reported on 22/10 by CoinDesk and Unchained). It also concerns about 72,700 BCH, 3.6 million $XRP , BSV, BTG, and the proceeds from 70 million DOGE already sold by the British authorities. A six-month window has opened for joining the proceedings.
In London, the High Court ruled on 12/10 that Chinese law, not English law, must determine whether the victims have a property right in these coins. Ownership has not been decided, further hearings are planned, and the law firm Fieldfisher is seeking to appeal. The coins remain frozen in the UK.
The figure that changes how we see this: according to the Tianjin court, about 102,000 investors lost nearly 20 billion yuan, or roughly $3 billion at the ECB exchange rate on 21/10. The seized bitcoin is already worth about 1.7 times those losses.
My take: the real battle is over the gains. If repayments are limited to the losses, more than $2 billion would remain at the current price, excluding other assets. For the market, a supply risk would arise only if there were a decision to transfer or sell the coins—not before.
Two possible outcomes. If London and Tianjin ultimately align, a transfer to China becomes possible, and supply will need to be watched. If victims' property rights are recognized or the appeal succeeds, the case could drag on for years, with the coins frozen.
Who do you think should keep the gains on these 61,896 BTC: the victims, the Chinese state, or the British Treasury?
#Bitcoin #Crypto
In Tianjin, the No. 2 Intermediate People's Court accepted the prosecutor's confiscation application on 28/09 (notice published on 13/10, reported on 22/10 by CoinDesk and Unchained). It also concerns about 72,700 BCH, 3.6 million $XRP , BSV, BTG, and the proceeds from 70 million DOGE already sold by the British authorities. A six-month window has opened for joining the proceedings.
In London, the High Court ruled on 12/10 that Chinese law, not English law, must determine whether the victims have a property right in these coins. Ownership has not been decided, further hearings are planned, and the law firm Fieldfisher is seeking to appeal. The coins remain frozen in the UK.
The figure that changes how we see this: according to the Tianjin court, about 102,000 investors lost nearly 20 billion yuan, or roughly $3 billion at the ECB exchange rate on 21/10. The seized bitcoin is already worth about 1.7 times those losses.
My take: the real battle is over the gains. If repayments are limited to the losses, more than $2 billion would remain at the current price, excluding other assets. For the market, a supply risk would arise only if there were a decision to transfer or sell the coins—not before.
Two possible outcomes. If London and Tianjin ultimately align, a transfer to China becomes possible, and supply will need to be watched. If victims' property rights are recognized or the appeal succeeds, the case could drag on for years, with the coins frozen.
Who do you think should keep the gains on these 61,896 BTC: the victims, the Chinese state, or the British Treasury?
#Bitcoin #Crypto
181
·
--
Bitcoin erased its 21/10 breakout in seven hours. On Kraken, $BTC had closed the UTC day on 21/10 at $84,022, its first close above $84,000 since 06/10. This Thursday around 07:45 UTC, it is trading at $82,218, below the previous day's low ($82,543).
The sequence (UTC times, Kraken):
- 21/10, 14:00: The $84,000 ceiling, which had capped the price on 13 and 14/10, gives way. It peaks at $84,840 around 16:00.
- 21/10, US session: US spot bitcoin ETFs take in net inflows of $524.8M, according to Farside, including $235M for IBIT. About $1.07B over three sessions this week.
- 22/10, 01:00 to 03:00: Hong Kong opens, the Kospi loses more than 2% amid doubts about AI spending, and Brent rises above $110. BTC slides from $84,150 to $82,600.
- 22/10, 07:00: A new low at $82,148. BTC open interest on OKX falls from about $3.55B (21/10, 18:00) to $3.27B, down 8% in dollar terms.
My take: ETF money has returned, but it buys during the US session while Asia sells overnight. A breakout that does not hold for even one session looks more like a flush of late-arriving longs than a change in regime.
Two paths ahead of the Fed's decision on 28/10. If BTC closes again above $84,000, this false start becomes just a retest, and the $85,000 target expected by Orbit Markets (Bloomberg) comes back into view. If today's close is well below $82,500, the $81,100 zone comes back into play, followed by the $70,000 scenario that Wintermute associates with a break of that support. $ETH is moving in the same direction, at $2,429 (down 1.8% since the UTC open).
To assess this false start, are you watching tonight's US-session ETF flows or the UTC midnight close?
#Bitcoin #BTC
Bitcoin erased its 21/10 breakout in seven hours. On Kraken, $BTC had closed the UTC day on 21/10 at $84,022, its first close above $84,000 since 06/10. This Thursday around 07:45 UTC, it is trading at $82,218, below the previous day's low ($82,543).
The sequence (UTC times, Kraken):
- 21/10, 14:00: The $84,000 ceiling, which had capped the price on 13 and 14/10, gives way. It peaks at $84,840 around 16:00.
- 21/10, US session: US spot bitcoin ETFs take in net inflows of $524.8M, according to Farside, including $235M for IBIT. About $1.07B over three sessions this week.
- 22/10, 01:00 to 03:00: Hong Kong opens, the Kospi loses more than 2% amid doubts about AI spending, and Brent rises above $110. BTC slides from $84,150 to $82,600.
- 22/10, 07:00: A new low at $82,148. BTC open interest on OKX falls from about $3.55B (21/10, 18:00) to $3.27B, down 8% in dollar terms.
My take: ETF money has returned, but it buys during the US session while Asia sells overnight. A breakout that does not hold for even one session looks more like a flush of late-arriving longs than a change in regime.
Two paths ahead of the Fed's decision on 28/10. If BTC closes again above $84,000, this false start becomes just a retest, and the $85,000 target expected by Orbit Markets (Bloomberg) comes back into view. If today's close is well below $82,500, the $81,100 zone comes back into play, followed by the $70,000 scenario that Wintermute associates with a break of that support. $ETH is moving in the same direction, at $2,429 (down 1.8% since the UTC open).
To assess this false start, are you watching tonight's US-session ETF flows or the UTC midnight close?
#Bitcoin #BTC
The sequence (UTC times, Kraken):
- 21/10, 14:00: The $84,000 ceiling, which had capped the price on 13 and 14/10, gives way. It peaks at $84,840 around 16:00.
- 21/10, US session: US spot bitcoin ETFs take in net inflows of $524.8M, according to Farside, including $235M for IBIT. About $1.07B over three sessions this week.
- 22/10, 01:00 to 03:00: Hong Kong opens, the Kospi loses more than 2% amid doubts about AI spending, and Brent rises above $110. BTC slides from $84,150 to $82,600.
- 22/10, 07:00: A new low at $82,148. BTC open interest on OKX falls from about $3.55B (21/10, 18:00) to $3.27B, down 8% in dollar terms.
My take: ETF money has returned, but it buys during the US session while Asia sells overnight. A breakout that does not hold for even one session looks more like a flush of late-arriving longs than a change in regime.
Two paths ahead of the Fed's decision on 28/10. If BTC closes again above $84,000, this false start becomes just a retest, and the $85,000 target expected by Orbit Markets (Bloomberg) comes back into view. If today's close is well below $82,500, the $81,100 zone comes back into play, followed by the $70,000 scenario that Wintermute associates with a break of that support. $ETH is moving in the same direction, at $2,429 (down 1.8% since the UTC open).
To assess this false start, are you watching tonight's US-session ETF flows or the UTC midnight close?
#Bitcoin #BTC
88
·
--
No, the GENIUS Act does not automatically kill USDC rewards on exchanges. The OCC, the regulator of US national banks, published the first final rule implementing the GENIUS Act on 10/21, effective 01/18/2027.
The assumption that has circulated for months: “stablecoin yield = prohibited.” The final text is more nuanced. An issuer still cannot pay interest or yield directly to holders. But the OCC removed the presumption from its March proposal that would have treated third-party reward arrangements as suspicious by default.
Instead: a case-by-case review, based on the facts. The key word is “solely”: what’s prohibited is anything paid solely for holding or using the stablecoin. A reward tied in part to something else, or to transactions, may be allowed (CoinDesk, American Banker). The hard part: existing programs have no protected status; everything will be reviewed.
As for the market, there’s been no rush this year. According to DefiLlama, stablecoins total $303.5B as of 10/21, compared with $303.7B on January 1, after growing 17.8% between the signing on 07/18/2025 and the end of 2025. Banks, meanwhile, are floating an estimate of $6.6T in deposits at risk.
My take: a win for platforms, for now, but not a blank check. Rewards for simply holding remain the most exposed.
Two possible paths by January. Either the other agencies align their rules and the offering picks up again, benefiting stablecoin use on $ETH and $SOL . Or banks secure a tougher approach through the CLARITY Act, currently stalled in the Senate, and rewards are scaled back.
If your USDC rewards switched to being “per transaction” rather than based on holding, would you keep your stablecoins on the exchange?
#GENIUSAct #Stablecoins
No, the GENIUS Act does not automatically kill USDC rewards on exchanges. The OCC, the regulator of US national banks, published the first final rule implementing the GENIUS Act on 10/21, effective 01/18/2027.
The assumption that has circulated for months: “stablecoin yield = prohibited.” The final text is more nuanced. An issuer still cannot pay interest or yield directly to holders. But the OCC removed the presumption from its March proposal that would have treated third-party reward arrangements as suspicious by default.
Instead: a case-by-case review, based on the facts. The key word is “solely”: what’s prohibited is anything paid solely for holding or using the stablecoin. A reward tied in part to something else, or to transactions, may be allowed (CoinDesk, American Banker). The hard part: existing programs have no protected status; everything will be reviewed.
As for the market, there’s been no rush this year. According to DefiLlama, stablecoins total $303.5B as of 10/21, compared with $303.7B on January 1, after growing 17.8% between the signing on 07/18/2025 and the end of 2025. Banks, meanwhile, are floating an estimate of $6.6T in deposits at risk.
My take: a win for platforms, for now, but not a blank check. Rewards for simply holding remain the most exposed.
Two possible paths by January. Either the other agencies align their rules and the offering picks up again, benefiting stablecoin use on $ETH and $SOL . Or banks secure a tougher approach through the CLARITY Act, currently stalled in the Senate, and rewards are scaled back.
If your USDC rewards switched to being “per transaction” rather than based on holding, would you keep your stablecoins on the exchange?
#GENIUSAct #Stablecoins
The assumption that has circulated for months: “stablecoin yield = prohibited.” The final text is more nuanced. An issuer still cannot pay interest or yield directly to holders. But the OCC removed the presumption from its March proposal that would have treated third-party reward arrangements as suspicious by default.
Instead: a case-by-case review, based on the facts. The key word is “solely”: what’s prohibited is anything paid solely for holding or using the stablecoin. A reward tied in part to something else, or to transactions, may be allowed (CoinDesk, American Banker). The hard part: existing programs have no protected status; everything will be reviewed.
As for the market, there’s been no rush this year. According to DefiLlama, stablecoins total $303.5B as of 10/21, compared with $303.7B on January 1, after growing 17.8% between the signing on 07/18/2025 and the end of 2025. Banks, meanwhile, are floating an estimate of $6.6T in deposits at risk.
My take: a win for platforms, for now, but not a blank check. Rewards for simply holding remain the most exposed.
Two possible paths by January. Either the other agencies align their rules and the offering picks up again, benefiting stablecoin use on $ETH and $SOL . Or banks secure a tougher approach through the CLARITY Act, currently stalled in the Senate, and rewards are scaled back.
If your USDC rewards switched to being “per transaction” rather than based on holding, would you keep your stablecoins on the exchange?
#GENIUSAct #Stablecoins
31
·
--
France wants to hold crypto platforms responsible for certain DeFi incidents when they have given their clients access to the protocols involved. The Treasury, AMF, Banque de France and ACPR said so on 21/10 in their joint response to the European Commission’s consultation on the review of MiCA.
Who should take action? CASPs—MiCA-authorised service providers that offer access to DeFi through their apps. Before opening access, they would check the code, audits, past incidents, oracles, bridges and links to illicit funds, then display a warning: unregulated protocol.
Liability would apply mainly if these checks were inadequate, a known vulnerability was ignored, or access remained open despite clear warning signs (Unchained, Cointelegraph). The authorities also propose certification for major protocols, valid for 3 years and recorded on-chain.
The figures: according to DefiLlama’s hacks database, DeFi protocols lost around $1.18bn in 2026 (219 incidents as of 19/10)—already more than in 2023, 2024 or 2025. The biggest incidents were Drift on Solana ($295m) and Kelp on Ethereum/Arbitrum ($293m), in April.
My take: this is the right lever. The average user goes through a regulated interface, not directly through a smart contract. The downside: a platform that is held responsible will shorten its list of protocols, meaning fewer options for earning on-chain yields through a European app.
This is only a proposal; the Commission’s report to lawmakers is expected by 30/06/2027. Either the EU adopts the principle and DeFi access to the $ETH and $SOL ecosystems goes through a strict filter, or other countries push for a lighter framework and the issue drags on.
Would you accept fewer protocols in your app in exchange for genuine recourse in the event of a hack?
#MiCA #DeFi
France wants to hold crypto platforms responsible for certain DeFi incidents when they have given their clients access to the protocols involved. The Treasury, AMF, Banque de France and ACPR said so on 21/10 in their joint response to the European Commission’s consultation on the review of MiCA.
Who should take action? CASPs—MiCA-authorised service providers that offer access to DeFi through their apps. Before opening access, they would check the code, audits, past incidents, oracles, bridges and links to illicit funds, then display a warning: unregulated protocol.
Liability would apply mainly if these checks were inadequate, a known vulnerability was ignored, or access remained open despite clear warning signs (Unchained, Cointelegraph). The authorities also propose certification for major protocols, valid for 3 years and recorded on-chain.
The figures: according to DefiLlama’s hacks database, DeFi protocols lost around $1.18bn in 2026 (219 incidents as of 19/10)—already more than in 2023, 2024 or 2025. The biggest incidents were Drift on Solana ($295m) and Kelp on Ethereum/Arbitrum ($293m), in April.
My take: this is the right lever. The average user goes through a regulated interface, not directly through a smart contract. The downside: a platform that is held responsible will shorten its list of protocols, meaning fewer options for earning on-chain yields through a European app.
This is only a proposal; the Commission’s report to lawmakers is expected by 30/06/2027. Either the EU adopts the principle and DeFi access to the $ETH and $SOL ecosystems goes through a strict filter, or other countries push for a lighter framework and the issue drags on.
Would you accept fewer protocols in your app in exchange for genuine recourse in the event of a hack?
#MiCA #DeFi
Who should take action? CASPs—MiCA-authorised service providers that offer access to DeFi through their apps. Before opening access, they would check the code, audits, past incidents, oracles, bridges and links to illicit funds, then display a warning: unregulated protocol.
Liability would apply mainly if these checks were inadequate, a known vulnerability was ignored, or access remained open despite clear warning signs (Unchained, Cointelegraph). The authorities also propose certification for major protocols, valid for 3 years and recorded on-chain.
The figures: according to DefiLlama’s hacks database, DeFi protocols lost around $1.18bn in 2026 (219 incidents as of 19/10)—already more than in 2023, 2024 or 2025. The biggest incidents were Drift on Solana ($295m) and Kelp on Ethereum/Arbitrum ($293m), in April.
My take: this is the right lever. The average user goes through a regulated interface, not directly through a smart contract. The downside: a platform that is held responsible will shorten its list of protocols, meaning fewer options for earning on-chain yields through a European app.
This is only a proposal; the Commission’s report to lawmakers is expected by 30/06/2027. Either the EU adopts the principle and DeFi access to the $ETH and $SOL ecosystems goes through a strict filter, or other countries push for a lighter framework and the issue drags on.
Would you accept fewer protocols in your app in exchange for genuine recourse in the event of a hack?
#MiCA #DeFi
58
·
--
SpaceX and Tesla are exploring a merger, and their combined holdings would amount to 30 221 $BTC. Elon Musk confirmed it on 20/10 during SpaceX’s Q3 earnings call: each board has formed a special committee of independent directors.
What can be verified:
• SpaceX reports 18 712 BTC, Tesla 11 509 BTC (quarterly filings, reported by CoinDesk on 21/10)
• Total: 30 221 BTC, or about $2.54 billion at Kraken’s price of about $84,100 (21/10, UTC)
• That’s about 3.6% of Strategy’s 848 517 BTC (19/10 filing)
• Neither company changed its BTC holdings in its 2026 reports. SpaceX values its digital assets at $1.573 billion as of 30/09
• According to Musk, the committees have not agreed on any terms. On Tesla’s side, approval from 50% of all shares would be required—not just those voted (CNBC)
My take: Bitcoin isn’t the reason for the deal; it’s a balance-sheet line item, representing about 0.07% of the two companies’ combined value. But putting 30K BTC in a single treasury managed by one board changes the question: hold, sell, or add?
Two things to watch in the short term:
Tesla reports Q3 earnings tonight after the US market close. If its holdings remain at 11 509 BTC, the base case is still dormant BTC, merger or not.
If the committees make progress on terms, the new group’s treasury policy becomes a real issue—especially since SpaceX spent $19.6 billion on capex in Q3, mostly on AI.
Meanwhile, $BTC is trading back above $84,000, a level to watch ahead of the 28/10 FOMC. A daily close above it would matter more than the wick.
What do you think: if the merger goes through, will the group hold its 30 221 BTC, sell some to fund AI, or buy more?
#SpaceX #Tesla #Bitcoin
SpaceX and Tesla are exploring a merger, and their combined holdings would amount to 30 221 $BTC . Elon Musk confirmed it on 20/10 during SpaceX’s Q3 earnings call: each board has formed a special committee of independent directors.
What can be verified:
• SpaceX reports 18 712 BTC, Tesla 11 509 BTC (quarterly filings, reported by CoinDesk on 21/10)
• Total: 30 221 BTC, or about $2.54 billion at Kraken’s price of about $84,100 (21/10, UTC)
• That’s about 3.6% of Strategy’s 848 517 BTC (19/10 filing)
• Neither company changed its BTC holdings in its 2026 reports. SpaceX values its digital assets at $1.573 billion as of 30/09
• According to Musk, the committees have not agreed on any terms. On Tesla’s side, approval from 50% of all shares would be required—not just those voted (CNBC)
My take: Bitcoin isn’t the reason for the deal; it’s a balance-sheet line item, representing about 0.07% of the two companies’ combined value. But putting 30K BTC in a single treasury managed by one board changes the question: hold, sell, or add?
Two things to watch in the short term:
Tesla reports Q3 earnings tonight after the US market close. If its holdings remain at 11 509 BTC, the base case is still dormant BTC, merger or not.
If the committees make progress on terms, the new group’s treasury policy becomes a real issue—especially since SpaceX spent $19.6 billion on capex in Q3, mostly on AI.
Meanwhile, $BTC is trading back above $84,000, a level to watch ahead of the 28/10 FOMC. A daily close above it would matter more than the wick.
What do you think: if the merger goes through, will the group hold its 30 221 BTC, sell some to fund AI, or buy more?
#SpaceX #Tesla #Bitcoin
What can be verified:
• SpaceX reports 18 712 BTC, Tesla 11 509 BTC (quarterly filings, reported by CoinDesk on 21/10)
• Total: 30 221 BTC, or about $2.54 billion at Kraken’s price of about $84,100 (21/10, UTC)
• That’s about 3.6% of Strategy’s 848 517 BTC (19/10 filing)
• Neither company changed its BTC holdings in its 2026 reports. SpaceX values its digital assets at $1.573 billion as of 30/09
• According to Musk, the committees have not agreed on any terms. On Tesla’s side, approval from 50% of all shares would be required—not just those voted (CNBC)
My take: Bitcoin isn’t the reason for the deal; it’s a balance-sheet line item, representing about 0.07% of the two companies’ combined value. But putting 30K BTC in a single treasury managed by one board changes the question: hold, sell, or add?
Two things to watch in the short term:
Tesla reports Q3 earnings tonight after the US market close. If its holdings remain at 11 509 BTC, the base case is still dormant BTC, merger or not.
If the committees make progress on terms, the new group’s treasury policy becomes a real issue—especially since SpaceX spent $19.6 billion on capex in Q3, mostly on AI.
Meanwhile, $BTC is trading back above $84,000, a level to watch ahead of the 28/10 FOMC. A daily close above it would matter more than the wick.
What do you think: if the merger goes through, will the group hold its 30 221 BTC, sell some to fund AI, or buy more?
#SpaceX #Tesla #Bitcoin
76
·
--
Solana activates Alpenglow today (21/10): its biggest consensus overhaul since 2020 $SOL switches over at slot 459 653 000, expected around 14:00 UTC, according to Anza.
The chart shows what will change in the stats. Across 265 minutes of public Solana RPC samples (21/10, 08:21 to 12:45 UTC), 65.6% of counted transactions were validator votes: around 4,700 tx/s in total, of which only ~1,600 tx/s came from users. With Alpenglow, these votes move off-chain and are grouped into certificates.
Three figures to remember, from official sources and CoinDesk:
Finality goes from around 6 seconds to a target of ~150 ms.
The cost of validator voting (~2 SOL per day) is replaced by a 0.8 SOL admission ticket per epoch, about 60% cheaper.
The network has lost nearly a third of its validators in a year (659 at the end of September, according to Bitwise), precisely because of these costs.
My take: the “TPS crash” that will make the rounds on X this week won’t be a collapse in activity, just the end of a count inflated by votes. The real test is how smoothly the transition goes. The on-chain proof will be simple: the getAgGenesisCert RPC method should return a certificate instead of null.
If the migration goes smoothly and ~150 ms finality holds on mainnet, $SOL gains a concrete argument against CEXs for trading and payments. If the transition drags on (around 20% of the stake has been reported as not ready by Solana Compass) or causes slowdowns, the market is more likely to focus on execution risk. As for price, SOL remains steady around $106.9 on Kraken.
What will you use to judge Alpenglow over the next 7 days: measured finality, the number of active validators, or DEX volume?
#Solana #Alpenglow
Solana activates Alpenglow today (21/10): its biggest consensus overhaul since 2020 $SOL switches over at slot 459 653 000, expected around 14:00 UTC, according to Anza.
The chart shows what will change in the stats. Across 265 minutes of public Solana RPC samples (21/10, 08:21 to 12:45 UTC), 65.6% of counted transactions were validator votes: around 4,700 tx/s in total, of which only ~1,600 tx/s came from users. With Alpenglow, these votes move off-chain and are grouped into certificates.
Three figures to remember, from official sources and CoinDesk:
Finality goes from around 6 seconds to a target of ~150 ms.
The cost of validator voting (~2 SOL per day) is replaced by a 0.8 SOL admission ticket per epoch, about 60% cheaper.
The network has lost nearly a third of its validators in a year (659 at the end of September, according to Bitwise), precisely because of these costs.
My take: the “TPS crash” that will make the rounds on X this week won’t be a collapse in activity, just the end of a count inflated by votes. The real test is how smoothly the transition goes. The on-chain proof will be simple: the getAgGenesisCert RPC method should return a certificate instead of null.
If the migration goes smoothly and ~150 ms finality holds on mainnet, $SOL gains a concrete argument against CEXs for trading and payments. If the transition drags on (around 20% of the stake has been reported as not ready by Solana Compass) or causes slowdowns, the market is more likely to focus on execution risk. As for price, SOL remains steady around $106.9 on Kraken.
What will you use to judge Alpenglow over the next 7 days: measured finality, the number of active validators, or DEX volume?
#Solana #Alpenglow
The chart shows what will change in the stats. Across 265 minutes of public Solana RPC samples (21/10, 08:21 to 12:45 UTC), 65.6% of counted transactions were validator votes: around 4,700 tx/s in total, of which only ~1,600 tx/s came from users. With Alpenglow, these votes move off-chain and are grouped into certificates.
Three figures to remember, from official sources and CoinDesk:
Finality goes from around 6 seconds to a target of ~150 ms.
The cost of validator voting (~2 SOL per day) is replaced by a 0.8 SOL admission ticket per epoch, about 60% cheaper.
The network has lost nearly a third of its validators in a year (659 at the end of September, according to Bitwise), precisely because of these costs.
My take: the “TPS crash” that will make the rounds on X this week won’t be a collapse in activity, just the end of a count inflated by votes. The real test is how smoothly the transition goes. The on-chain proof will be simple: the getAgGenesisCert RPC method should return a certificate instead of null.
If the migration goes smoothly and ~150 ms finality holds on mainnet, $SOL gains a concrete argument against CEXs for trading and payments. If the transition drags on (around 20% of the stake has been reported as not ready by Solana Compass) or causes slowdowns, the market is more likely to focus on execution risk. As for price, SOL remains steady around $106.9 on Kraken.
What will you use to judge Alpenglow over the next 7 days: measured finality, the number of active validators, or DEX volume?
#Solana #Alpenglow
105
·
--
Zcash finally has a date: developers have set activation of the NU7 upgrade at block 3,543,405, expected around November 5 (CoinDesk, 21/10). $ZEC rose by about 11% in its wake.
In practical terms: one block every 25 seconds instead of 75 (ZIP 218). For a platform that waits for 3 confirmations before crediting a deposit, that cuts the wait from nearly 4 minutes to about 1 minute 15 seconds. NU7 also takes 60% of the fees from each block out of circulation, to be redirected to miners starting around 2031, without changing the supply cap (ZIP 259).
Who needs to act before activation:
- Anyone who still has funds in Sprout, Zcash's very first privacy pool. After NU7, v4 transactions will become invalid and these funds will be unusable. They need to be migrated beforehand.
- Platforms and wallets, which need to switch to a node that supports this block height.
The detail few people have read: as of 21/10 at 08:00 UTC, Sean Bowe's proposal had two approvals but had not yet been merged into the deployment spec, which still listed the block height as to be determined. About 18,000 blocks remain (height 3,525,400 at 09:43 UTC, Blockchair).
ZEC is trading at $1,268 on Kraken this morning, up 12% since the close on 18/10, but still about 25% below the 26/09 high of $1,695. My take: the market is pricing in the date, not the execution yet. If the spec is merged and the nodes are delivered without a hitch, the move could extend through activation. A delay or last-minute bug would quickly send ZEC back toward the $1,050–$1,100 range, which it tested several times in October. And $BTC stuck below $84,000 is dampening overall risk appetite.
Will confirmations that are 3 times faster really push platforms to shorten ZEC deposit waiting times, or is this mainly a short-term price catalyst?
#Zcash #NU7
Zcash finally has a date: developers have set activation of the NU7 upgrade at block 3,543,405, expected around November 5 (CoinDesk, 21/10). $ZEC rose by about 11% in its wake.
In practical terms: one block every 25 seconds instead of 75 (ZIP 218). For a platform that waits for 3 confirmations before crediting a deposit, that cuts the wait from nearly 4 minutes to about 1 minute 15 seconds. NU7 also takes 60% of the fees from each block out of circulation, to be redirected to miners starting around 2031, without changing the supply cap (ZIP 259).
Who needs to act before activation:
- Anyone who still has funds in Sprout, Zcash's very first privacy pool. After NU7, v4 transactions will become invalid and these funds will be unusable. They need to be migrated beforehand.
- Platforms and wallets, which need to switch to a node that supports this block height.
The detail few people have read: as of 21/10 at 08:00 UTC, Sean Bowe's proposal had two approvals but had not yet been merged into the deployment spec, which still listed the block height as to be determined. About 18,000 blocks remain (height 3,525,400 at 09:43 UTC, Blockchair).
ZEC is trading at $1,268 on Kraken this morning, up 12% since the close on 18/10, but still about 25% below the 26/09 high of $1,695. My take: the market is pricing in the date, not the execution yet. If the spec is merged and the nodes are delivered without a hitch, the move could extend through activation. A delay or last-minute bug would quickly send ZEC back toward the $1,050–$1,100 range, which it tested several times in October. And $BTC stuck below $84,000 is dampening overall risk appetite.
Will confirmations that are 3 times faster really push platforms to shorten ZEC deposit waiting times, or is this mainly a short-term price catalyst?
#Zcash #NU7
In practical terms: one block every 25 seconds instead of 75 (ZIP 218). For a platform that waits for 3 confirmations before crediting a deposit, that cuts the wait from nearly 4 minutes to about 1 minute 15 seconds. NU7 also takes 60% of the fees from each block out of circulation, to be redirected to miners starting around 2031, without changing the supply cap (ZIP 259).
Who needs to act before activation:
- Anyone who still has funds in Sprout, Zcash's very first privacy pool. After NU7, v4 transactions will become invalid and these funds will be unusable. They need to be migrated beforehand.
- Platforms and wallets, which need to switch to a node that supports this block height.
The detail few people have read: as of 21/10 at 08:00 UTC, Sean Bowe's proposal had two approvals but had not yet been merged into the deployment spec, which still listed the block height as to be determined. About 18,000 blocks remain (height 3,525,400 at 09:43 UTC, Blockchair).
ZEC is trading at $1,268 on Kraken this morning, up 12% since the close on 18/10, but still about 25% below the 26/09 high of $1,695. My take: the market is pricing in the date, not the execution yet. If the spec is merged and the nodes are delivered without a hitch, the move could extend through activation. A delay or last-minute bug would quickly send ZEC back toward the $1,050–$1,100 range, which it tested several times in October. And $BTC stuck below $84,000 is dampening overall risk appetite.
Will confirmations that are 3 times faster really push platforms to shorten ZEC deposit waiting times, or is this mainly a short-term price catalyst?
#Zcash #NU7
127
·
--
Bitcoin has been hovering around $82,500 for more than three weeks, and Wintermute (report dated 20/10) sees the Fed meeting on 28/10 as the moment this range breaks. $BTC is at $83,100 on Kraken this morning (07:54 UTC).
1/ The range in numbers. Since 08/10, every daily Kraken close has stayed between $81,382 and $83,676. A gap of less than 3%. Wintermute notes low implied volatility (Deribit DVOL around 37).
2/ Wintermute’s levels. Above $87,000, a bullish reversal signal. A decisive loss of $82,500 would turn this support into resistance and put the low $70,000s back in play. The asymmetry is clear: about +5% to confirm the move, versus -15% to reach the downside target.
3/ The trigger. Rates staying unchanged on 28/10 remains the base case, but the market is pricing in roughly a 15–17% chance of a hike (Wintermute, via Bloomingbit). Context: CPI at 3.7% year over year (Wintermute), Brent above $110 (CoinDesk, 21/10).
4/ The patient camp. According to Hashdex (CoinDesk, 21/10), the bearish phase had lasted 359 days as of 30/09, compared with 361, 377, and 411 days for the previous three. Short-term holders now account for just 16% of supply, the lowest level since January 2023. But Hashdex wants to see $84,000 reclaimed before the Fed meeting.
5/ My take. Low volatility plus a dated event: a move is likely, but its direction isn’t. Bullish case: a cautious Fed, strong tech earnings, $84,000 reclaimed, then $87,000 tested. Bearish case: a hawkish tone, a December hike getting priced in, rising rates, and $82,500 giving way. Wintermute also prefers $BTC and $ETH over altcoins on a risk/reward basis.
By 28/10, which level do you think will go first: $84,000 reclaimed or $82,500 broken on a daily close?
#Bitcoin #FOMC
Bitcoin has been hovering around $82,500 for more than three weeks, and Wintermute (report dated 20/10) sees the Fed meeting on 28/10 as the moment this range breaks. $BTC is at $83,100 on Kraken this morning (07:54 UTC).
1/ The range in numbers. Since 08/10, every daily Kraken close has stayed between $81,382 and $83,676. A gap of less than 3%. Wintermute notes low implied volatility (Deribit DVOL around 37).
2/ Wintermute’s levels. Above $87,000, a bullish reversal signal. A decisive loss of $82,500 would turn this support into resistance and put the low $70,000s back in play. The asymmetry is clear: about +5% to confirm the move, versus -15% to reach the downside target.
3/ The trigger. Rates staying unchanged on 28/10 remains the base case, but the market is pricing in roughly a 15–17% chance of a hike (Wintermute, via Bloomingbit). Context: CPI at 3.7% year over year (Wintermute), Brent above $110 (CoinDesk, 21/10).
4/ The patient camp. According to Hashdex (CoinDesk, 21/10), the bearish phase had lasted 359 days as of 30/09, compared with 361, 377, and 411 days for the previous three. Short-term holders now account for just 16% of supply, the lowest level since January 2023. But Hashdex wants to see $84,000 reclaimed before the Fed meeting.
5/ My take. Low volatility plus a dated event: a move is likely, but its direction isn’t. Bullish case: a cautious Fed, strong tech earnings, $84,000 reclaimed, then $87,000 tested. Bearish case: a hawkish tone, a December hike getting priced in, rising rates, and $82,500 giving way. Wintermute also prefers $BTC and $ETH over altcoins on a risk/reward basis.
By 28/10, which level do you think will go first: $84,000 reclaimed or $82,500 broken on a daily close?
#Bitcoin #FOMC
1/ The range in numbers. Since 08/10, every daily Kraken close has stayed between $81,382 and $83,676. A gap of less than 3%. Wintermute notes low implied volatility (Deribit DVOL around 37).
2/ Wintermute’s levels. Above $87,000, a bullish reversal signal. A decisive loss of $82,500 would turn this support into resistance and put the low $70,000s back in play. The asymmetry is clear: about +5% to confirm the move, versus -15% to reach the downside target.
3/ The trigger. Rates staying unchanged on 28/10 remains the base case, but the market is pricing in roughly a 15–17% chance of a hike (Wintermute, via Bloomingbit). Context: CPI at 3.7% year over year (Wintermute), Brent above $110 (CoinDesk, 21/10).
4/ The patient camp. According to Hashdex (CoinDesk, 21/10), the bearish phase had lasted 359 days as of 30/09, compared with 361, 377, and 411 days for the previous three. Short-term holders now account for just 16% of supply, the lowest level since January 2023. But Hashdex wants to see $84,000 reclaimed before the Fed meeting.
5/ My take. Low volatility plus a dated event: a move is likely, but its direction isn’t. Bullish case: a cautious Fed, strong tech earnings, $84,000 reclaimed, then $87,000 tested. Bearish case: a hawkish tone, a December hike getting priced in, rising rates, and $82,500 giving way. Wintermute also prefers $BTC and $ETH over altcoins on a risk/reward basis.
By 28/10, which level do you think will go first: $84,000 reclaimed or $82,500 broken on a daily close?
#Bitcoin #FOMC
·
--
France: On 16/10, the National Assembly adopted amendment I-3898 to the 2027 budget. It abolishes tax deferral on crypto-to-stablecoin exchanges (electronic money tokens under MiCA): capital gains taxed at 31.4% from 1 January 2027. Vote no. 8836: 38 in favour, 37 against, 25 abstentions.
A one-vote margin, and Olivia Grégoire, recorded as voting “in favour”, said she had meant to vote against.
This Tuesday, 20/10, the final vote on the revenue section did not take place for lack of time: 2,828 of 3,396 amendments were still pending (Journal du Coin). So headlines saying “France approves” are premature.
Who is affected, according to the Assembly's text:
- French tax residents who exchange $BTC or $ETH for $USDC or EURC: capital gains are taxable, even if there isn't a single euro in their bank account.
- Crypto-to-crypto exchanges other than stablecoins (BTC for ETH): tax deferral remains in place.
- Calculation: the global portfolio method is scrapped in favour of the weighted average price per asset. Holdings acquired before 2027: the actual purchase price, if documented, or a pro rata share of the value as of 31/12/2026 (irrevocable choice).
- Minister David Amiel called for the amendment to be withdrawn: “stablecoins need to be defined first” (CoinDesk).
Timeline: the revenue section would not return until around 27/10, after the Social Security budget (Cryptoast). First reading of the full budget on 17/11, then the Senate.
My take: two possible paths. If the revenue section is rejected, the Senate starts again from the government's text, without this amendment. If it passes with the amendment, every profit-taking move into a stablecoin becomes a taxable event, and Chainalysis fears funds could flee to DeFi and offshore.
If the measure passes, will you keep securing your gains in stablecoins, or stay in crypto until you cash out into euros?
#France #Stablecoins #MiCA
France: On 16/10, the National Assembly adopted amendment I-3898 to the 2027 budget. It abolishes tax deferral on crypto-to-stablecoin exchanges (electronic money tokens under MiCA): capital gains taxed at 31.4% from 1 January 2027. Vote no. 8836: 38 in favour, 37 against, 25 abstentions.
A one-vote margin, and Olivia Grégoire, recorded as voting “in favour”, said she had meant to vote against.
This Tuesday, 20/10, the final vote on the revenue section did not take place for lack of time: 2,828 of 3,396 amendments were still pending (Journal du Coin). So headlines saying “France approves” are premature.
Who is affected, according to the Assembly's text:
- French tax residents who exchange $BTC or $ETH for $USDC or EURC: capital gains are taxable, even if there isn't a single euro in their bank account.
- Crypto-to-crypto exchanges other than stablecoins (BTC for ETH): tax deferral remains in place.
- Calculation: the global portfolio method is scrapped in favour of the weighted average price per asset. Holdings acquired before 2027: the actual purchase price, if documented, or a pro rata share of the value as of 31/12/2026 (irrevocable choice).
- Minister David Amiel called for the amendment to be withdrawn: “stablecoins need to be defined first” (CoinDesk).
Timeline: the revenue section would not return until around 27/10, after the Social Security budget (Cryptoast). First reading of the full budget on 17/11, then the Senate.
My take: two possible paths. If the revenue section is rejected, the Senate starts again from the government's text, without this amendment. If it passes with the amendment, every profit-taking move into a stablecoin becomes a taxable event, and Chainalysis fears funds could flee to DeFi and offshore.
If the measure passes, will you keep securing your gains in stablecoins, or stay in crypto until you cash out into euros?
#France #Stablecoins #MiCA
A one-vote margin, and Olivia Grégoire, recorded as voting “in favour”, said she had meant to vote against.
This Tuesday, 20/10, the final vote on the revenue section did not take place for lack of time: 2,828 of 3,396 amendments were still pending (Journal du Coin). So headlines saying “France approves” are premature.
Who is affected, according to the Assembly's text:
- French tax residents who exchange $BTC or $ETH for $USDC or EURC: capital gains are taxable, even if there isn't a single euro in their bank account.
- Crypto-to-crypto exchanges other than stablecoins (BTC for ETH): tax deferral remains in place.
- Calculation: the global portfolio method is scrapped in favour of the weighted average price per asset. Holdings acquired before 2027: the actual purchase price, if documented, or a pro rata share of the value as of 31/12/2026 (irrevocable choice).
- Minister David Amiel called for the amendment to be withdrawn: “stablecoins need to be defined first” (CoinDesk).
Timeline: the revenue section would not return until around 27/10, after the Social Security budget (Cryptoast). First reading of the full budget on 17/11, then the Senate.
My take: two possible paths. If the revenue section is rejected, the Senate starts again from the government's text, without this amendment. If it passes with the amendment, every profit-taking move into a stablecoin becomes a taxable event, and Chainalysis fears funds could flee to DeFi and offshore.
If the measure passes, will you keep securing your gains in stablecoins, or stay in crypto until you cash out into euros?
#France #Stablecoins #MiCA
1
Log in to explore more content
Join global crypto users on Binance Square
⚡️ Get latest and useful information about crypto.
💬 Trusted by the world’s largest crypto exchange.
👍 Discover real insights from verified creators.
Email / Phone number
Trending Topics
BinancePick
1.1M views
87,021 Discussing
Join #EarningsSeason: Predict Earnings on Binance Pick, Share Your Take on Binance Square!
Binance Square Official
·259 Likes
·199.3k views
EarningsSeason
3.8M views
17,991 Discussing
FranklinTempletonAdds$150MFundSharesToXRPLedger
472 views
34 Discussing