BITZ0

Florida Athletics announced a multiyear partnership with Ripple on September 4 that will place XRP branding at Ben Hill Griffin Stadium during the 2026 football season. The agreement gives Ripple’s XRP token a prominent on-field presence at one of college football’s most visible venues, extending the company’s recent move into U.S. college-sports sponsorships.
The arrangement will also put XRP branding across Florida Athletics’ digital properties, event signage and other inventory. Financial terms were not released by Florida or Ripple, although the Associated Press reported the deal will generate roughly $5 million a year.
XRP branding at Ben Hill Griffin Stadium
Florida Athletics said the XRP logo will appear on the field at Ben Hill Griffin Stadium, home of the Florida Gators.
The branding is scheduled to debut during the 2026 season as part of a new multiyear partnership with Ripple. The agreement also includes Florida Athletics’ digital properties, event signage and other branding inventory.
The featured mark is XRP rather than Ripple’s corporate logo, giving the digital asset visibility in a college-football setting.
Reported annual value
Florida Athletics and Ripple have not publicly disclosed the financial terms of their multiyear agreement, including its duration or total value. The Associated Press, in reporting published by The Washington Post, estimated the annual value at approximately $5 million; that is a reported estimate, not a confirmed contractual term.
The arrangement extends beyond a single logo placement, with XRP branding across the field and Florida Athletics’ broader promotional inventory, including digital properties and event signage.
Education component
Ripple will support financial and technology education for Florida student-athletes and the broader campus community, including topics related to traditional finance and digital assets, according to The Block.
The education effort gives the Florida arrangement a campus-facing component alongside its commercial sports branding. It extends the partnership beyond football spectators and Florida Athletics’ digital audience to the wider campus community.
The available reporting does not specify the program’s format, timetable or curriculum. It identifies Florida student-athletes and the broader campus community as the intended audiences.
Following the Kansas deal
Florida is the second identified college-sports sponsorship in Ripple’s recent push. In July 2026, Ripple sponsored Kansas Athletics, where XRP branding was placed on team jerseys, The Block reported.
The two deals use different forms of sports inventory. Kansas put the XRP mark on uniforms, while Florida will put it on the football field at Ben Hill Griffin Stadium and across athletics digital and event assets. Together, they show Ripple using college athletics to establish recurring public exposure for XRP through more than one sponsorship format.
Florida’s 2026 season will be the next visible test of that approach, with the XRP field logo set to appear alongside the Gators’ football program.
Disclaimer: This article is provided for informational purposes only. It is not offered or intended to be used as legal, tax, investment, financial, or other advice.

Fair Isaac shares fell 16.7% in morning trading on Sept. 4 after Federal Housing Finance Agency Director Bill Pulte directed Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to approve all lenders for VantageScore use, ending a prior 50-lender pilot limit, according to Barron's. The move broadened access to an alternative credit score for lenders selling loans to the government-sponsored enterprises.
Pulte removes VantageScore limit
The directive turns what had been a restricted rollout into availability for all approved lenders. Fannie Mae had said in April that VantageScore 4.0 was available through a limited rollout, while lenders outside that group would continue using Classic FICO pending broader availability.
That broader access is now central to the market reaction in Fair Isaac, whose FICO scores have long been used in the enterprises' mortgage processes. Fannie Mae's announcement described the earlier arrangement as a limited rollout rather than an across-the-board lender option.
Lenders can choose between two scores
Under FHFA policy, approved lenders can choose either Classic FICO or VantageScore 4.0 for loans sold to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. The policy retains the tri-merge reporting requirement, meaning lenders must continue to obtain credit reports from all three nationwide consumer reporting agencies.
The choice changes the operating framework from one in which access to VantageScore was limited to a defined lender group. It does not eliminate Classic FICO from the enterprises' credit-score options. The FHFA's credit-score policy sets out both the score options and the continuing tri-merge requirement.
FICO had identified enterprise adoption risk
Fair Isaac had previously warned investors that a loss or reduction in Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac use of its scores could materially affect its revenue, operating results and stock price. The broader VantageScore approval gives lenders a choice that bears directly on that disclosed risk, though the available information does not establish how many lenders will use either score.
In its investor disclosure, FICO specifically identified reduced enterprise usage as a potential material risk to its business and shares.
Disclaimer: This article is provided for informational purposes only. It is not offered or intended to be used as legal, tax, investment, financial, or other advice.

Diameter Pay has raised $10 million in a Series A financing round co-led by CMT Digital and Lightspeed Faction, as the company reported processing more than $10 billion in payment volume year-to-date in 2026. The funding was announced on September 3 and is intended to support the company’s expansion of infrastructure for cross-border access to U.S. dollars.
The reported volume is a company disclosure rather than an independently verified figure. It nevertheless provides the clearest scale marker offered alongside the financing for Diameter Pay, which serves financial institutions and digital-asset businesses moving money across domestic and international channels.
Diameter Pay’s $10 million Series A and investor group
Diameter Pay said CMT Digital and Lightspeed Faction co-led the round. SixThirty Ventures, Stellar Development Foundation, Tech Council Ventures, Onigiri Capital and BitRock Capital also participated.
The company did not provide a valuation or disclose the ownership terms of the Series A in its announcement. Its stated payment-volume figure covers the year through the September 3 announcement, rather than a full-year total.
The raise arrives as companies building payment infrastructure seek to combine conventional banking connections with stablecoin settlement and foreign-exchange functionality. Diameter’s stated focus is narrower than a consumer payments offering: it is selling the underlying account, payment and compliance capabilities to institutional customers and platforms.
The API stack connecting dollar accounts, payment rails and stablecoin ramps
Diameter Pay provides banks, fintechs and digital-asset exchanges with U.S. dollar virtual accounts, domestic and international payment rails, stablecoin on- and off-ramps, and embedded compliance controls through a single API, according to The Block.
Virtual accounts can give an institution or its customers account-level payment functionality without requiring every user to build a separate banking integration. In Diameter’s description of the product set, those accounts sit alongside rails for payments within the U.S. and across borders, as well as mechanisms to move between stablecoins and traditional money.
The single-API model is central to the company’s pitch. Rather than separately connecting to account services, payment routes, stablecoin conversion tools and compliance processes, a customer can access those elements through one technical interface. That approach is designed for businesses that need dollar movement and digital-asset access as part of a broader financial product.
Embedded compliance controls are also part of the offering. Diameter has not, in the information released with the funding, specified the individual controls or jurisdictions covered, but their inclusion signals that compliance tooling is being positioned as a core component of cross-border payment infrastructure rather than an add-on.
Funding targets banking, FX and compliance expansion
Diameter said it will use the Series A proceeds to expand its banking and payment capabilities, deepen its stablecoin and foreign-exchange infrastructure, and invest in technology and compliance tools for cross-border dollar movement.
Those priorities map directly to the separate components of the company’s platform. Banking and payment capabilities concern access to dollar accounts and payment rails; stablecoin and FX infrastructure address conversion and cross-border movement; and technology and compliance investments support the operational framework around those services.
The announcement framed the work around expanding global access to the U.S. dollar. It did not set out a timetable for the product expansion, identify additional markets, or provide targets for payment volume or customer growth following the financing.
From foreign-bank payments to users across Switzerland and Singapore
Founder and Chief Executive David Lighton told The Block that Diameter Pay was founded in 2023 and began processing payments for foreign banks in 2024. At the time of the announcement, Lighton said the company had more than 10,000 live end users.
That operating history places the company’s reported volume growth against a relatively short timeline. The available disclosures do not break down the 10,000-plus end users by customer type, country or payment activity, and they do not specify how much of the reported payment volume is connected to stablecoin transactions.
SixThirty Ventures separately confirmed its investment in the Series A on September 4. The investor said the platform’s users span clients from Switzerland to Singapore, offering independent confirmation of the company’s geographic reach across those two markets.
For Diameter, the financing now puts the emphasis on building out the banking, payment, stablecoin, FX and compliance layers it says are needed to support cross-border dollar access.
Disclaimer: This article is provided for informational purposes only. It is not offered or intended to be used as legal, tax, investment, financial, or other advice.

Global money market funds attracted a net $46.1 billion in the week through September 2, 2026, their biggest weekly inflow since August 5. The reading coincided with a second consecutive week of withdrawals from U.S. equity funds, where investors pulled a net $11.12 billion, even as equity funds globally returned to net inflows.
Data Snapshot
MetricCurrentPreviousChangePeriodAs ofSourceGlobal money market fund net inflows$46.1 billion——week through September 2, 20262026-09-04Reuters via MarketScreenerU.S. equity fund net flows-$11.12 billion-$22.72 billion—week through September 2, 20262026-09-04Reuters via MarketScreenerEuropean equity fund net inflows$13.09 billion——week through September 2, 20262026-09-04Reuters via MarketScreenerAsian equity fund net inflows$4.22 billion——week through September 2, 20262026-09-04Reuters via MarketScreenerEmerging-market equity fund net inflows$1.99 billion——week through September 2, 20262026-09-04Reuters via MarketScreener
Global money market inflows reach their highest level since August 5
The $46.1 billion net inflow into global money market funds was the largest weekly intake in nearly a month, according to LSEG Lipper data reported by Reuters via MarketScreener. It marked a substantial allocation to cash-like funds during the week through September 2, 2026.
Money market flows sit alongside, rather than within, the equity and bond figures. They show where fund investors directed net subscriptions and redemptions during the same reporting period, not changes in underlying asset prices.
U.S. equity outflows persist as global equity funds return to inflows
U.S. equity funds saw $11.12 billion in net outflows in the week through September 2, 2026, after $22.72 billion in net outflows the previous week, marking a second consecutive weekly outflow, according to Reuters via MarketScreener. Global equity funds, meanwhile, attracted $6.65 billion in net inflows, more than reversing the previous week's $6.13 billion in outflows, according to Reuters via MarketScreener. In the same week, European equity funds drew $13.09 billion, Asian equity funds attracted $4.22 billion, and emerging-market equity funds took in $1.99 billion, extending an eight-week buying streak, based on LSEG Lipper figures reported by Reuters via MarketScreener.
Bond flows favor short-term funds as overall inflows cool
Global bond fund inflows slowed to a five-week low of $10.01 billion, while short-term bond funds attracted $7.43 billion. The figures, reported by Reuters via MarketScreener, show that much of the bond-fund intake was directed to short-term funds.
Money market funds attracted $46.1 billion in the same week, and global equity funds recorded $6.65 billion in net inflows.
Disclaimer: This article is provided for informational purposes only. It is not offered or intended to be used as legal, tax, investment, financial, or other advice.

The two ETF inflow streaks ended together on September 2, 2026, after collectively attracting $1.79 billion.
U.S.-listed spot Ether ETFs posted $48.2 million in net outflows that day, ending 12 consecutive trading days of inflows. Spot XRP ETFs recorded $7.2 million in net outflows after an 11-session streak.
Ether supplied nearly all of the reported demand: its streak drew $1.62 billion, compared with about $170 million for XRP.
Data Snapshot
MetricCurrentPreviousChangePeriodAs ofSourceEther ETF net flow(48.2)——02 Sep 20262026-09-02Farside InvestorsEther ETF inflow streak$1.62 billion——12 trading days ending 02 Sep 20262026-09-02CointelegraphXRP ETF net flow$7.2 million in net outflows——02 Sep 20262026-09-02CointelegraphXRP ETF inflow streakabout $170 million——11-session inflow streak ending 02 Sep 20262026-09-02CointelegraphCombined Ether and XRP ETF inflows during the winning streaks$1.79 billion——Before 02 Sep 2026 reversal2026-09-02Cointelegraph
Ether ETFs reverse after 12 trading days
According to Cointelegraph, U.S.-listed spot Ether ETFs recorded $48 million in net outflows on September 2, 2026, ending 12 consecutive trading days of inflows.
Farside Investors reported $48.2 million in outflows in its US$m Total column for September 2. Ether ETF inflows totaled $1.62 billion over the 12-trading-day streak ending September 2, according to Cointelegraph. The total reflects reported flows during that streak rather than cumulative lifetime inflows for the products, and the supplied data does not identify the individual funds behind the aggregate outflow or a reason for the change in flows.
XRP ETFs end an 11-session run
Spot XRP ETFs posted $7.2 million in net outflows on September 2, 2026, ending an 11-session inflow streak, Cointelegraph reported. The preceding streak brought in about $170 million.
That $170 million lifted cumulative XRP ETF inflows to about $1.68 billion. The streak total and the cumulative figure measure different periods: the former covers the 11-session run, while the latter is the reported aggregate inflow total.
The labels differ—Ether’s streak is described in trading days and XRP’s in sessions—so their durations should not be treated as identical. The sequences nevertheless both ended on September 2, after combined inflows reached $1.79 billion before the reversal.
XRP’s September 2 outflow was smaller than the Ether total reported for the same date, but it halted the run after about $170 million had entered XRP ETFs. The next daily flow reading will determine whether the reversals were isolated sessions or the start of a broader change in demand.
Disclaimer: This article is provided for informational purposes only. It is not offered or intended to be used as legal, tax, investment, financial, or other advice.

Crypto gambling legality gets asked as one question, and it has separate answers. Is the operator permitted to serve your market? And are you permitted to gamble under the law where you live?
An operator can be properly licensed somewhere and still be prohibited from serving you. You can be perfectly free to gamble and still be using a platform that has no business accepting you. Sorting the two apart is most of the work.
This is general information, not legal advice, and nothing here substitutes for a qualified opinion in your own jurisdiction.
Four Positions a Country Can Take
Almost every market falls into one of these, and the differences matter more than the labels suggest.
Licensed Markets
The state runs a licensing regime, domestic operators hold local licences, and players are protected by rules those operators must follow: segregated funds, dispute bodies, mandatory responsible gambling tools.
A consequence people miss is that a strong domestic regime usually comes with a prohibition on offshore access.
The United Kingdom licenses operators through the Gambling Commission and expects players to use licensed sites; the same broad pattern applies across several European markets and in individual American states that have legalised online gambling.
So a well-regulated market is frequently a closed one, and that is by design and not oversight.
Prohibited Markets
Gambling itself is unlawful, and the platform is irrelevant. Crypto changes nothing here, because the prohibition attaches to the activity and not to the payment method.
This category is often assumed to be small and is not. Several large markets prohibit most or all forms of gambling, and using a decentralised platform does not convert a prohibited activity into a permitted one.
Unregulated Markets
No framework addresses online gambling specifically. Nothing licenses it, nothing forbids it, and the activity sits in an unresolved space.
Worth stating plainly, because it is routinely misread: the absence of a law is not permission. It means the question has not been settled, which is a different condition from being answered favourably.
Positions in these markets can and do change, sometimes with retrospective effect on tax treatment.
The Crypto Overlay
A fourth complication sits above the other three. A jurisdiction may treat the gambling and the crypto asset under entirely separate regimes.
That produces genuinely odd combinations. A player can be lawfully gambling while holding an asset their tax authority treats as property with disposal consequences.
Or the gambling can be unremarkable while the acquisition route for the coin runs into local financial rules. Being compliant on one axis says nothing about the other.
What an Offshore Licence Actually Does
This is where most confusion concentrates, so it is worth being direct.
An offshore gambling licence authorises the operator. It permits that company to offer services in the markets its licence covers, subject to conditions. It confers nothing whatsoever on you as a player, and it does not make gambling lawful under your local law.
Dexsport holds an Anjouan licence, which is a real credential and a light one, sitting below reformed Curacao and well below Malta in what it demands. You can verify it yourself, since the Anjouan register allows a domain search and returns the holder's registered name, licence number and current status.
The authority also states that verification confirms a licence exists and does not endorse the holder's practices, which is the correct way to read any register result.
None of that answers the question of whether you may legally play. It answers the operator's half only, and licensing regimes differ substantially in what they require of the businesses they license.
The Operator's Half, Made Explicit
The good news is that the operator's answer is usually published and takes a minute to find.
Dexsport lists its restricted territories openly, covering the United States, the United Kingdom and Australia among others.
That list is the operator saying, in advance, which markets it will not serve. If your country appears, the platform is not available to you, and the terms you would accept at registration already say so.
An operator that publishes no such list, or buries it, is telling you something about how the rest of its terms are handled. The warning signs tend to cluster, and an unclear territory position is among the earliest visible ones.
Dexsport's terms, like any operator's, are the document that actually governs the relationship. Reading the territory clause before depositing is the single most useful legal step available to a player, precisely because it is the half of the question you can answer definitively.
On Enforcement, Honestly
One observation, offered as description and not reassurance.
Enforcement action in this area has historically concentrated on operators and payment infrastructure instead of individual players.
That is a pattern in how authorities have allocated resources. It is not a safety assurance, not a prediction, and not advice. Patterns change, and account closure and forfeited balances remain a live consequence entirely independent of anything a regulator does.
The person who can tell you where you actually stand is a lawyer in your jurisdiction. That is not a deflection; it is the only accurate answer, because the combination of gambling law, crypto treatment, and tax position in your specific country is not something an article can resolve.
Confirm what is legal where you live, keep stakes within a set budget, and play only if you are of legal age, since KYC or AML checks may apply.
Responsible gambling support also follows the regulatory picture: strong regimes mandate tools and fund treatment services, while lighter ones leave both to operator discretion.


Disclaimer: The information here is provided for general purposes only and is not legal, tax, investment, or financial advice. Gambling and cryptoasset laws vary enormously by jurisdiction, change frequently, and depend on individual circumstances. Consult a qualified legal professional in your own jurisdiction before acting on anything described here. Betting carries risk, and rules vary by country, so check the law where you live. Please gamble responsibly, within your means, and only if you are of legal age.

Lululemon shares fell 17.38% on September 4 after investors reacted to the athleticwear company’s second cut to its full-year forecast and concerns that a turnaround could take longer under incoming Chief Executive Heidi O’Neill, Reuters reported. The selloff followed Lululemon’s September 3 reduction in its fiscal 2026 revenue and profit guidance.
Second fiscal 2026 outlook cut
Lululemon now expects fiscal 2026 revenue of $10.35 billion to $10.50 billion and diluted earnings per share of $9.48 to $9.73. Its previous forecast called for revenue of $11.00 billion to $11.15 billion and diluted EPS of $10.95 to $11.15, according to the company’s earnings release.
The revised ranges lower both the top-line and profit expectations set in the prior outlook. The company issued the update alongside quarterly results on September 3.
Americas comparable sales decline
In its September 3 release, Lululemon reported revenue of approximately $2.4 billion for the quarter ended August 2, down 4% from a year earlier. Comparable sales declined 9% overall, including a 12% decline in the Americas. The reported sales declines provide context for the company’s weaker full-year guidance.
Brokerages cite cost and margin pressure
At least 12 brokerages cut their Lululemon price targets on September 4, Reuters reported. The firms pointed to declining sales, margin pressure and a cost structure built for growth even as demand weakens.
The combination has sharpened investor attention on the scale and likely duration of the overhaul facing O’Neill. With the company’s outlook now calling for lower revenue and diluted EPS than previously projected, the market reaction reflected concern that restoring growth may require changes beyond a single weak quarter.
Disclaimer: This article is provided for informational purposes only. It is not offered or intended to be used as legal, tax, investment, financial, or other advice.

The most widely used stablecoin in crypto gambling can no longer be bought on a regulated European exchange. It can still be held, sent, received and deposited at a casino, and that combination confuses almost everyone who runs into it.
MiCA did not ban USDT. It changed where Europeans can obtain it, which turns out to be a very different thing.
A Timeline of How We Got Here
The rules arrived in stages, and the venues moved ahead of the deadlines.
Date
What happened
30 December 2024
MiCA Title V applies; stablecoin issuers need EU authorisation
3 December 2024
Coinbase Europe announces USDT delisting for EEA users
31 January 2025
Crypto.com removes ten tokens including USDT from its EU platform
31 March 2025
Binance delists USDT spot pairs for EEA users; Coinbase removal effective
Late March 2025
Kraken moves USDT to sell-only; OKX and Bitstamp restrict similarly
December 2025
ESMA presses service providers on non-compliant stablecoins
1 July 2026
Transitional period ends; no MiCA-licensed EEA venue offers USDT pairs
One decision drives the entire column. MiCA treats a fiat-pegged stablecoin as an e-money token, and an EMT issuer must hold authorisation from an EU regulator. Tether never applied, objecting publicly to reserve requirements that would place a substantial share of its backing in EU bank deposits.
A MiCA-licensed exchange listing an unauthorised EMT would breach its own licence. So the pairs went.
Venue, Not Coin: Where the Restriction Bites
This is the distinction that matters and the one headlines flattened.
No EU law prohibits an individual from holding USDT, receiving it, sending it or swapping it on-chain. Self-custody is untouched, decentralised exchanges are untouched, and DeFi activity sits outside the perimeter entirely.
What EU users cannot do is buy, sell or hold USDT through a MiCA-authorised centralised service provider. The rule binds the licensed venue, not the asset in your wallet.
For a casino player the consequence is oddly narrow. Your crypto casino cashier still accepts USDT. Your balance still works.
What changed is the step before all of that: acquiring it through a regulated European exchange is no longer an option, so the practical route is buying a compliant asset and swapping, or sourcing it outside the CASP perimeter.
USDC Filled the Space
Circle secured an Electronic Money Institution licence in France in July 2024, which made USDC and the euro-pegged EURC the compliant alternatives. Every major venue that dropped USDT kept USDC.
The market moved accordingly. Kaiko data showed USDT volume on EU venues falling more than 70% between the fourth quarter of 2024 and the second quarter of 2025, while USDC volume on the same venues nearly doubled.
So a European player funding a casino balance in a stablecoin now has a straightforward answer for the regulated route and a slightly awkward one for USDT specifically. Which coin costs least to move is a separate question from which one you can conveniently buy.
Privacy Coins Went the Same Way
The stablecoin story followed a pattern already established.
MiCA has effectively removed privacy coins from EU exchange listings since December 2024, and 2025 recorded 73 cumulative Monero delistings, the highest single-year total on record. Bitpanda and Bitvavo both dropped them.
The same clarification applies: delisting is not illegal, and holding these assets remains lawful in most jurisdictions, including the EU. Acquisition simply moved outside regulated venues.
Casinos, meanwhile, moved the other way. Dexsport added Monero support in August 2026, at a point when exchanges had spent two years removing it. That divergence is the shape of the whole subject: the venues that must comply with MiCA narrowed, and the venues outside its perimeter did not.
The Casino Is Not the Constraint
Worth being precise about where the boundary actually sits.
MiCA regulates crypto-asset service providers operating in the EU. An offshore casino licensed elsewhere is not one, so its coin list is shaped by its own operational choices instead of by European stablecoin rules.
Dexsport is licensed in Anjouan and runs a multi-coin cashier accepting USDT across several networks, and MiCA has no bearing on that cashier.
Where MiCA reaches a European player is upstream, at the exchange. And because Dexsport is non-custodial, a settled balance sits in a wallet the player controls, which is precisely the category of activity MiCA leaves untouched.
None of which changes the checks that do apply. Territory restrictions, verification requirements and local law all operate independently of which coin arrives, and how a platform handles deposits and withdrawals matters more day to day than any of this.
Three Points for a European Player
Three practical points.
USDC is now the frictionless option inside the regulated European perimeter, and it is accepted at essentially every crypto casino
USDT remains fully usable once you hold it, with a less convenient acquisition path
Regulatory status is now a property of the asset, not of the exchange listing it, which was not true two years ago
Check your cashier for what it accepts, and check your exchange for what it will still sell you. Those two lists no longer match, and the difference is the whole of what MiCA changed.
Confirm what is legal where you live, keep stakes within a set budget, and play only if you are of legal age, since KYC or AML checks may apply. Responsible gambling is unaffected by which stablecoin funds a balance, and the limits worth setting are the same either way.


Disclaimer: The information here is provided for general purposes only and is not legal, tax, investment, or financial advice. Regulatory positions, exchange listings and platform coin support change frequently and vary by jurisdiction, so confirm current details before transferring. Betting carries risk, and rules vary by country, so check the law where you live. Please gamble responsibly, within your means, and only if you are of legal age.

Zcash surged about 20% over 24 hours and briefly topped $1,000 on September 4, 2026, a landmark price level reached amid a sharp unwind in leveraged bearish positions. ZEC hit an intraday high of roughly $1,023, according to CoinGecko data reported by CoinDesk, while $34.5 million in ZEC shorts were liquidated over the past 24 hours.
The price move and liquidation data measure different parts of the market: the first tracks ZEC's spot performance, while liquidations represent leveraged positions closed during the same 24-hour window. Still, the concentration of losses on short sellers put the derivatives market at the center of the advance.
Data Snapshot
MetricCurrentPreviousChangePeriodAs ofSourceZEC intraday highroughly $1,023——September 4, 20262026-09-04CoinDeskZEC short liquidations$34.5 million——past 24 hours2026-09-04CoinDeskTotal leveraged ZEC liquidations$36.6 million——past 24 hours2026-09-04CoinDeskZEC 24-hour trading volumeabout $1.2 billion——24 hours2026-09-04CoinDeskZEC futures open interestabout 2.3 million ZEC, worth roughly $2.3 billion——at time of report2026-09-04CoinDeskZEC 30-day performanceabout 94%——past 30 days2026-09-04CoinDesk
Short liquidations dominated ZEC's $36.6 million wipeout
Short positions accounted for $34.5 million of $36.6 million in total leveraged ZEC liquidations over the past 24 hours. That leaves long liquidations as a comparatively small portion of the total during a session in which the token moved decisively higher.
When traders betting against an asset are forced to close their positions, they may need to buy it, amplifying a rally. The reported figures show that these forced closures coincided with ZEC's 20% rise, but do not by themselves establish what initiated the move.
ZEC's 24-hour trading volume was about $1.2 billion. Futures open interest stood at about 2.3 million ZEC, worth roughly $2.3 billion, at the time of the report, underscoring the size of outstanding derivatives exposure as the token crossed the four-figure threshold.
The $1,000 break extended a 94% 30-day rally
The September 4 advance was part of a broader run rather than an isolated 24-hour event. ZEC was up about 94% over the past 30 days, according to the same CoinDesk report.
Its intraday high of roughly $1,023 put the token above $1,000 briefly on September 4. CoinDesk characterized the day as a roughly 20% 24-hour surge, marking a notable acceleration within the 30-day gain.
Because it covers a longer price interval, the 30-day performance figure should not be read as a measure of the day's trading activity. The volume, liquidations and stated price surge instead refer to the latest 24-hour period.
Grayscale's ZCSH spot ETF began trading on August 25
A new U.S. market-access vehicle had begun trading days before the move. Grayscale's spot Zcash ETF started trading on NYSE Arca under the ticker ZCSH on August 25, 2026, Decrypt reported.
The timing documents an additional route for investors to obtain Zcash exposure ahead of the September 4 rally; the available information does not establish that the ETF launch caused the advance or the derivatives liquidations.
Zcash, launched in 2016, is a privacy-focused cryptocurrency that uses zero-knowledge cryptography to conceal transaction details while proving their validity. The ZCSH listing brought a spot-ETF product tied to that asset onto NYSE Arca as ZEC's market activity intensified.
Disclaimer: This article is provided for informational purposes only. It is not offered or intended to be used as legal, tax, investment, financial, or other advice.

Most players who trust provably fair systems have never verified a single round, and a good number of them could not have done so even if they tried. The results they wanted to check were still locked behind a seed the casino had not yet revealed.
Seed rotation is the step that unlocks them. Here is what it does and why the timing matters.
The Cycle, Start to Finish
Six stages, and the fourth is the one people skip.
The casino commits to a server seed. Before you play anything, it generates a random server seed and publishes a cryptographic hash of it. That hash commitment proves the seed existed at that moment without revealing what it is.
You supply a client seed. Your wallet or the interface provides a second value that you can change. This is the part that matters most: because you contribute an input the operator did not choose, it cannot have pre-computed favourable outcomes against a seed it controls entirely.
A nonce increments with every bet. Round one uses nonce zero, round two uses nonce one, and so on. Server seed plus client seed plus nonce produces a unique result for each round, deterministically.
Nothing is verifiable yet. The server seed is still in use, so it stays hidden. You can see the hash, and you can see your results, and you cannot check one against the other. This is normal, and it is where most players stop.
Rotation reveals the old seed. When you rotate, the casino retires the current server seed, publishes it in full, and issues a fresh hash for the next one. You can now hash the revealed seed yourself and confirm it matches the commitment made before you played.
Every round under that seed becomes checkable. With the revealed server seed, your client seed, and each nonce, you can reproduce every result from that period and compare it against what the interface showed you.
The system is retrospective by design. It does not stop a casino cheating in real time; it makes cheating detectable afterwards, which is what deters it.
Rotation Is What Makes Verification Possible
Worth stating plainly, because the consequence is counterintuitive.
A player who has never rotated has verified nothing. Not one round. The hash proves a seed existed, and until the seed itself is published there is nothing to check the hash against.
Rotating also resets the nonce to zero, which is why the practical routine is to rotate before a session and again at the end. Rotate first so the seed covering your play is fresh and yours, play, then rotate again to reveal it and verify whatever you want to check.
Change the client seed while you are at it. Accepting the default is fine mechanically and it forfeits the strongest part of the guarantee, because a client seed you chose is the reason the operator could not have worked backwards from a known pair.
A Verification Routine Worth Running Once
Five minutes, once, and you will know where everything lives.
Rotate the seed before you play, so the period you care about starts cleanly
Set your own client seed instead of accepting the generated default
Note the nonce if you want to check one specific round later
Rotate again afterwards to reveal the server seed covering that session
Run the verification tool, either the studio's own or an independent one, and confirm the revealed seed hashes to the commitment you were shown
Do it once on a small session. The point is not to audit every round forever, it is to establish that the mechanism works and that you know how to use it if a result ever looks wrong.
What Verification Does Not Cover
Three limits, and all three matter.
Verification proves an outcome was not altered after your bet. It says nothing about the house edge, which sits in the paytable and applies whether or not you check anything. A verified game with a 4% edge takes more from you than an unverified one at 1%.
It also does not extend to every game in a lobby. Live dealer tables sit outside the model entirely, since a human shuffling physical cards produces no seed to commit to.
Dexsport draws its live content from Evolution, Playtech and Ezugi, and those tables rely on certified equipment and laboratory testing instead of cryptography.
And on most crypto casinos the mechanism belongs to the studio, not the operator.
Dexsport licenses its entire arcade from outside developers, so the seed system, the rotation interface and the verification tool for Aviator, Plinko or Mines all come from Spribe, the relevant provider or whoever built the title. The casino hosts the game; the studio owns the proof.
Two Records That Are Often Confused
One more distinction worth drawing, because both get called transparency.
Seed verification tells you a game result was honest
Settlement recording tells you a payout happened
Dexsport writes settlement to a public on-chain desk, producing a timestamped entry independent of the account screen. That entry says nothing about how the outcome was generated, which is the other record's job.
You want both, and they answer different questions. Understanding how verification works covers the first, while on-chain recording covers the second.
Demo mode is the low-cost way to find both interfaces before committing anything, and Dexsport offers it across much of its library. Open a game, locate the fairness panel, rotate a seed, and see what the tool actually shows you.
Confirm what is legal where you live, keep stakes within a set budget, and play only if you are of legal age, since KYC or AML checks may apply. Responsible gambling sits outside all of this, since a verifiably honest game with a published edge still returns less than it takes across enough rounds.


Disclaimer: The information here is provided for general purposes only and is not legal, tax, investment, or financial advice. Provably fair implementations vary by studio and platform, so consult the specific game's documentation before relying on any verification process. Betting carries risk, and rules vary by country, so check the law where you live. Please gamble responsibly, within your means, and only if you are of legal age.

U.S. nonfarm payroll employment increased by 162,000 in August, far exceeding economists’ forecast for a 56,000 gain. The unemployment rate held unchanged at 4.1%, according to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics.
Following the jobs report, expectations for a September Federal Reserve rate hike rose. CME FedWatch put the probability at 60.4% on Friday, up from 49.4% Thursday and 57% a week earlier, according to the Associated Press.
Data Snapshot
MetricCurrentPreviousChangePeriodAs ofSourceTotal nonfarm payroll employment162,00021,000 in July 2026—August 2026September 4, 2026U.S. Bureau of Labor StatisticsEconomists’ payroll forecast56,000——August 2026 forecastSeptember 4, 2026ReutersUnemployment rate4.1%4.1% in July 2026unchangedAugust 2026September 4, 2026U.S. Bureau of Labor StatisticsSeptember Fed rate-hike probability60.4%49.4% Thursday; 57% a week ago—September 2026 meetingSeptember 4, 2026Associated PressJune and July payroll revisions combined55,000 higher than previously reported——June–July 2026September 4, 2026U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics
August payroll gain follows a 21,000 increase in July
The Bureau of Labor Statistics reported a 162,000 increase in total nonfarm payroll employment in August, following a 21,000 gain in July.
Economists polled by Reuters had forecast an August increase of 56,000. Reuters reported that expectation before the release.
The BLS revised June and July payroll employment totals up by a combined 55,000 from previously reported levels. The figures thus included both the August increase and a higher combined base for the prior two months; the release did not specify a single cause for the overall gain.
Food services and local government education drove disclosed gains
The Bureau of Labor Statistics reported a 59,000-job increase in food services and drinking places in August.
Local government education also added 42,000 jobs, according to the BLS. Together, the disclosed gains included service-sector establishments and local public education.
CME FedWatch prices a 60.4% chance of a September rate hike
Markets responded to the payroll surprise by increasing the implied likelihood of a September rate hike. CME FedWatch’s 60.4% reading on Friday represented an 11 percentage-point increase from Thursday’s 49.4% and was also above the 57% level recorded a week earlier, according to the Associated Press.
The 4.1% unemployment rate was unchanged from July, the BLS said. Alongside the stronger payroll reading, that steady rate formed the core labor-market context available to traders assessing the September meeting.
FedWatch probabilities reflect market pricing and can change before the meeting; they are not a statement of the Federal Reserve’s decision. For now, the concrete shift following the jobs report was from 49.4% Thursday to 60.4% Friday.
Disclaimer: This article is provided for informational purposes only. It is not offered or intended to be used as legal, tax, investment, financial, or other advice.

SoFi and Payward, the parent company of Kraken, announced a partnership on September 3 that links SoFi’s bank settlement network with Kraken’s institutional digital-asset infrastructure. Payward will join the SoFi Exchange Network, or SEN, giving eligible Kraken institutional clients access to real-time U.S.-dollar clearing and settlement around the clock.
The arrangement also runs in the other direction. SoFi will use Kraken Prime as an additional source of liquidity for digital-asset trades placed through the SoFi app, while Kraken plans to list SoFiUSD, SoFi’s bank-issued stablecoin redeemable one-to-one for U.S. dollars. The deal connects a dollar-settlement rail, a stablecoin listing and crypto trade execution under one partnership.
Payward joins SEN for round-the-clock dollar settlement
Payward, Kraken’s parent company, will join SoFi’s Exchange Network (SEN), giving eligible Kraken institutional clients access to real-time U.S.-dollar clearing and settlement 24 hours a day and seven days a week, according to Kraken. The access extends beyond traditional banking hours but is not described as available to every Kraken customer.
In the other part of the arrangement, SoFi said it will use Kraken Prime for digital-asset trade execution. The partnership therefore combines Kraken’s institutional dollar settlement through SEN with SoFi’s planned use of Kraken Prime.
Kraken will list SoFiUSD as SoFi expands its settlement rail
Kraken will list SoFiUSD, according to SoFi’s announcement. SoFi described the token as a bank-issued stablecoin that can be redeemed one-to-one for U.S. dollars. Its planned listing brings SoFi’s dollar-linked digital asset onto Kraken as the companies connect their banking and digital-asset services.
For eligible Kraken institutions, SEN is intended to provide real-time U.S.-dollar clearing and settlement. SoFiUSD serves a different role as the dollar-redeemable asset Kraken has agreed to list, and the announcements position the stablecoin alongside—not in place of—the SEN connection without specifying a timetable for the listing.
SoFi has been building its enterprise offering around regulated banking, fiat movement and digital-asset capabilities. Its 2026 Big Business Banking and settlement strategy combined those areas for enterprise customers, according to SoFi Tech Solutions. The Payward agreement extends that direction by bringing a major crypto platform’s parent company into SEN and tying the relationship to a stablecoin listing.
The sequence matters for SoFi’s strategy. Rather than treating banking services and digital assets as separate offerings, the partnership places dollar movement, a dollar-redeemable stablecoin and crypto-market access in connected roles. The immediate announced service for Kraken institutions is dollar settlement; the planned SoFiUSD listing adds a separate digital-dollar distribution channel through Kraken.
SoFi gains Kraken Prime crypto liquidity
SoFi will use Kraken Prime as an additional liquidity source for crypto trades executed in its app. Payward will participate in the SoFi Exchange Network (SEN), providing eligible Kraken institutional clients with continuous U.S.-dollar clearing and settlement.
Kraken Prime’s role is digital-asset execution, while SEN handles dollar clearing and settlement for eligible Kraken institutional clients. Kraken also intends to list SoFiUSD as part of the partnership.
Unchained reported that qualified custody services may be added as the relationship expands, rather than as a currently announced service.
Disclaimer: This article is provided for informational purposes only. It is not offered or intended to be used as legal, tax, investment, financial, or other advice.

One bitcoin bought a little over 18 ounces of gold on September 4, 2026, pushing the bitcoin-to-gold ratio to 18.17—the highest reading since January. The level is notable because it shows bitcoin gaining purchasing power against gold even as both assets have rallied amid concerns about currency devaluation.
Data Snapshot
MetricCurrentPreviousChangePeriodAs ofSourceBitcoin-to-gold ratio18.17——September 4, 2026September 4, 2026CoinDesk citing TradingView dataGold purchased by one bitcoina little over 18 ounces of gold——September 4, 2026September 4, 2026CoinDeskBitcoin pricearound $81,000 across major exchanges——September 4, 2026September 4, 2026CoinDeskBitcoin price shown in CoinDesk related-asset data$79,679.08——September 4, 2026September 5, 2026CoinDesk
Bitcoin-to-gold ratio reaches 18.17
The bitcoin-to-gold ratio stood at 18.17, with one bitcoin worth a little over 18 ounces of gold, according to CoinDesk, citing TradingView data.
The ratio compares bitcoin’s dollar price per coin with gold’s dollar price per ounce. It is a relative-value measure, not a standalone price for either asset. A rising ratio indicates bitcoin is outperforming gold in dollar terms, but does not show whether bitcoin or gold has risen or fallen against the dollar.
BTC-gold ratio chart. — Source: CoinDesk / TradingView
Both assets rallied on devaluation concerns
Bitcoin and gold have both rallied amid concerns that heavily indebted governments could devalue their currencies to reduce debt burdens, CoinDesk reported. Gold’s role as a monetary hedge places it within that same backdrop.
The 18.17 reading nevertheless indicates that bitcoin advanced more than gold within the shared rally. That distinction matters: a higher bitcoin-to-gold ratio can occur while gold is rising, provided bitcoin’s dollar price gains faster.
Bitcoin’s fixed-supply case
Bitcoin advocates argue that its fixed supply and independence from government policy make it an alternative to traditional currencies. That argument has helped frame bitcoin alongside gold for investors focused on risks to currency purchasing power, though the assets remain distinct instruments and the ratio tracks only their relative dollar valuations.
Bitcoin was trading around $81,000 across major exchanges on September 4, 2026, according to CoinDesk.
Disclaimer: This article is provided for informational purposes only. It is not offered or intended to be used as legal, tax, investment, financial, or other advice.

Baccarat has two of the lowest-cost bets in any casino sitting next to some of the most expensive, on the same felt, a few centimetres apart. The main game costs about 1%. One side bet on the same table costs nearly 30%.
The usual advice on baccarat side bets is to skip them entirely. That advice is nearly right, and the exception is worth knowing.
The Three Bets That Matter
Start with the main game, because everything else is measured against it.
Banker, at 1.06%. The least costly bet on the table even after the 5% commission on wins, which exists precisely because the bet would otherwise favour the player. Over a thousand units staked it costs about ten.
Player, at 1.24%. Marginally more expensive and commission-free, which is why some players prefer it despite the arithmetic. The difference across a session is small but it is consistently in the same direction.
Tie, at 14.36%. Priced like a side bet despite sitting in the main betting area. The 8:1 payout looks generous against roughly one round in eleven ending tied, and the distance between those two numbers is the entire house edge.
Banker and Player sit among the lowest-priced wagers available anywhere in a casino. That is the baseline the rest of the table has to justify itself against.
Where the Side Bets Land
Most of them fail that test comfortably.
Player Pair and Banker Pair pay 11:1 and carry a 10.36% edge on eight decks. Perfect Pair pays 25:1 at around 13.03%. Panda 8 pays 25:1 at 10.19%, Dragon 7 pays 40:1 at 7.61%, and Super 6 at a 12:1 payout reaches 29.98%.
Set that last figure beside the Banker bet and the scale becomes clear: roughly thirty times the cost, on the same hand, decided by the same cards.
A worked example makes it concrete. A 25 unit Perfect Pair on every hand costs roughly 3.25 units per hand in expectation, above whatever the main game is costing you. Across an evening that is not a rounding error.
One Exception the Blanket Advice Misses
Here is where "avoid side bets" stops being quite true.
The Player Dragon Bonus carries a house edge of approximately 2.65%, paying up to 30:1 on a nine-point winning margin. That is cheaper than European roulette at 2.70%, and it is a perfectly defensible bet for anyone who wants a longer-odds option without leaving sensible pricing behind.
Two caveats keep it honest. The Banker Dragon Bonus is a completely different wager at 9.37%, despite the shared name and the adjacent position on the felt. And Big at 4.35% and Small at 5.27% sit in reasonable territory too, well below the pair bets.
So the accurate version of the advice is narrower and more useful: avoid the pair bets and Super 6, treat Dragon 7 and Panda 8 as expensive entertainment, and know that the Player Dragon Bonus is priced like a mainstream casino game.
Deck Count Moves Side Bets, Not Main Bets
One property of this table that almost nothing else in a casino shares.
The Banker and Player edges barely move with deck count. Side bet edges swing enormously. The pair bet runs at 10.36% on eight decks, 11.25% on six, and 29.41% on a single deck.
That is nearly a threefold change in cost from a table detail most players read as cosmetic, and it means a side bet figure quoted anywhere, including here, only applies to the deck count it was calculated for. The paytable at your table is the authority.
Five Platforms With Baccarat Tables
Ranked on live studio range, since that determines which baccarat variants and rule sets you can reach.
1. Dexsport
Dexsport draws live content from Evolution, Playtech and Ezugi, which puts three separate baccarat catalogues in one lobby instead of a single provider's standard set.
That matters here specifically because side bet availability and deck count vary by studio, so three suppliers means three different sets of paytables to choose between.
The platform is non-custodial, so a settled balance sits in a wallet you hold, and it operates under an Anjouan licence, lighter than Curacao or Malta.
2. Stake
Multiple live studios feeding a large table section, with branded variants produced alongside providers.
Balances are custodial and held between sessions, and the variant range is among the widest available.
3. BC.Game
A substantial live catalogue built over a long Curacao trading record, with wide coin support at the cashier.
Its scale means paytables and rules are easy to locate before sitting down, which is not universal at this end of the market.
4. Cloudbet
Trading since 2013 with its company named on the licence and higher table limits than most competitors.
Fewer novelty variants, which for baccarat is arguably a feature, since the novelties are where the expensive side bets live.
5. Vave
Standard baccarat coverage across a multi-coin platform.
Adequate for the main game, with a narrower variant range than the platforms above and thinner documentation.
Two Numbers to Read Before Your First Hand
Two numbers, and they are both on screen.
The commission on winning Banker bets. Five percent is standard, and a table charging more changes the calculation on the least costly wager available to you.
The deck count. It barely affects your main bet and transforms every side bet on the layout, as the pair figures above demonstrate.
After that the game is genuinely simple, which is most of its appeal, and understanding how outcomes are generated is a separate question from what a bet costs. Running both casino and sportsbook from a single balance makes moving between them straightforward once you have picked a table.
Confirm what is legal where you live, keep stakes within a set budget, and play only if you are of legal age, since KYC or AML checks may apply. Responsible gambling matters at a quick table, and baccarat deals quickly enough that a 1.06% edge applied to a high hand count still moves a balance steadily.


Disclaimer: The information here is provided for general purposes only and is not legal, tax, investment, or financial advice. House edge figures are published values that vary with deck count, paytable and table rules, so consult the specific table before playing. Betting carries risk, and rules vary by country, so check the law where you live. Please gamble responsibly, within your means, and only if you are of legal age.

A privacy coin changes what a public ledger reveals about a transfer. It changes nothing about your relationship with the casino receiving it.
That sentence is the whole article, and it gets lost constantly. The chain and the operator are two separate layers, and privacy on one says nothing about the other.
Three Coins, Three Different Models
The category is treated as one thing and is not.
Monero applies privacy by default. Ring signatures mix the real transaction signature among decoy keys, stealth addresses generate a one-time destination for every payment, and RingCT conceals the amount. All three run on every transaction, with no option to disable them.
Zcash makes privacy optional. It supports shielded transactions alongside transparent ones, and the transparent path behaves much like Bitcoin. Because shielding is a choice and not a default, a large share of Zcash activity is not private at all, which surprises people who assume the label covers everything.
Litecoin added privacy as an extension. MWEB, activated in May 2022, introduced optional confidential transactions that hide amounts while keeping fees under a cent. The trade is confirmations: an MWEB send may need six or more, where a standard Litecoin transfer needs two or three.
So one coin is private always, one is private sometimes, and one is a mainstream chain with a privacy layer alongside. Treating them interchangeably leads to wrong expectations in both directions.
Acquiring Them Got Harder
The market has moved sharply, and it affects you before you ever reach a casino.
OKX removed its XMR, ZEC, and DASH pairs in January 2024. Binance delisted Monero globally in February 2024. Kraken withdrew it in Ireland and Belgium that June and across the entire European Economic Area on 31 October 2024.
MiCA has effectively removed privacy coins from EU exchange listings since December 2024, and 2025 alone recorded 73 cumulative Monero delistings, the highest single-year total on record.
One clarification matters and is routinely muddled: delisting is not illegal. Holding and trading these assets remains lawful in most jurisdictions, including the United States and the European Union. Exchanges removed them to simplify their own compliance position, not because the assets are prohibited.
The practical effect is friction. Fewer venues means wider spreads, and many people now acquire a mainstream asset first and swap, which adds a step and a cost.
The Layer They Do Not Touch
This is the section that matters most, and it needs stating instead of implying.
A casino accepting a privacy coin still knows who holds the account. Whatever verification the licence demands still runs, risk-based checks still fire, and documentation can still be requested before a withdrawal clears. On-chain privacy is a property of the ledger, not of your account.
Nor does it alter your legal position. Territory restrictions apply identically, tax obligations apply identically, and a platform that does not serve your country does not begin serving it because you funded in a different asset.
Anyone treating a privacy coin as a route around any of that has misread the technology. It obscures transaction detail on a public chain. It creates no exemption from anything downstream of the deposit.
Four Platforms and Where They Stand
Support varies more here than for mainstream assets, precisely because of the exchange picture described above.
Dexsport added Monero support in August 2026, which runs counter to the exchange trend and makes it one of the more recent additions in this category. Its multi-coin cashier spans a wide range of assets and networks, and as with any coin at any platform, the cashier screen is the authority on what is live today. The platform is non-custodial, so a settled balance sits in a wallet you hold, and it operates under an Anjouan licence, lighter than Curacao or Malta, with restricted territories covering the United States, the United Kingdom and Australia.
Stake and BC.Game both run large multi-coin cashiers where coin support shifts over time, and both hold balances custodially. Litecoin is standard at each, so MWEB-capable funding is available even where a dedicated privacy coin is not.
Cloudbet has traded since 2013 with its company named on a Curacao licence, and its orientation toward larger positions makes acquisition friction proportionally less significant for its typical player.
Across all four, the pattern holds: coin lists move, and a published summary ages faster than a cashier screen does. Costs and support differ considerably between coins, and privacy assets move the most of all.
Reading the Trade Honestly
Privacy coins offer strong on-chain confidentiality and, in Monero's case, fees under a cent. What they cost you is convenience:
Harder acquisition, with the major exchanges out and a swap step often needed
Thinner markets, meaning wider spreads on larger amounts
Longer confirmations on some sends, particularly MWEB transfers
Fewer venues accepting them, at exchanges and at casinos alike
Whether that trade makes sense depends on why you want on-chain privacy. If the answer involves avoiding checks a licensed operator is required to run, the trade does not work, because those checks happen at the account level where no chain reaches.
Licensing determines what an operator must do regardless of which asset arrives in the cashier.
Confirm what is legal where you live, keep stakes within a set budget, and play only if you are of legal age, since KYC or AML checks may apply.
Responsible gambling is unaffected by which coin funds a balance, and the tools worth using are the same ones: deposit limits, loss limits and a budget set before the session starts.


Disclaimer: The information here is provided for general purposes only and is not legal, tax, investment, or financial advice. Nothing here is guidance on avoiding verification, reporting or tax obligations, all of which apply regardless of the asset used. Exchange listings, coin support and regulations change frequently, so confirm current details before transferring. Betting carries risk, and rules vary by country, so check the law where you live. Please gamble responsibly, within your means, and only if you are of legal age.

Toronto, Canada, September 4th, 2026, Chainwire
CoinRabbit has been named Best Crypto Lending Platform 2026 by International Business Magazine, highlighting a lending product that has issued more than $1.45 billion in loans since 2020.
About the International Business Magazine Award
The International Business Magazine Awards recognize companies and executives making a significant impact across global industries. The selection process combines public nominations with jury review, with nominees assessed on their work, progress, and contribution to their respective industries.
For CoinRabbit, the award comes at an important stage in the company’s development. It is moving beyond borrowing against crypto and building a broader ecosystem for managing digital-asset capital.
Why CoinRabbit Was Named the Best Crypto Lending Platform
The Best Crypto Lending Platform 2026 award recognizes the work CoinRabbit has put into its ecosystem. The platform provides borrowers with fast access to liquidity and confidence that their funds remain secure. CoinRabbit maintains a clear no-rehypothecation policy, giving clients greater certainty that their collateral is not being reused or lent out elsewhere.
That focus on a predictable borrowing experience has remained central as CoinRabbit has expanded the product. There is no traditional credit check because crypto collateral does the underwriting, and the lending process takes about 10 minutes whether a client is borrowing a few hundred dollars or managing a six-figure position.
The award jury also highlighted CoinRabbit’s Private Program as a high-touch approach for clients with significant balances. Designed for portfolios of $500,000 and above, it offers a more personalized way to manage assets around each client’s financial goals, liquidity needs, and timing. As part of CoinRabbit’s broader digital-asset ecosystem, the program gives clients a more private banking-style experience.
Capital Preservation at the Core
CoinRabbit is expanding into capital management, but lending remains at the core of the business. By giving clients access to liquidity without a need to sell their crypto, it helps preserve capital and keep assets invested for the long term.
Walter Barrett, Chief Strategy & Growth Officer at CoinRabbit, commented:
"We’ve spent years building and refining the product, and it’s rewarding to see that work recognized. At the same time, CoinRabbit is becoming more than just a lending platform. With the Private Program, we’re bringing a private credit approach to managing crypto. Clients can work directly with a success manager to find the right strategy for their needs, with a more tailored way to build crypto capital. We also continue to improve the core lending product, keeping it simple. For us, the goal is to make both sides of the business stronger as we grow."
As CoinRabbit evolves, capital preservation remains a central idea behind the company’s products and services.
About CoinRabbit
CoinRabbit is a crypto asset management platform built for long-term capital preservation. It provides flexible liquidity management across multiple environments. Instant payments and lending, yield and trading products, and also the Private Program are available from a single platform. Since 2020, CoinRabbit has maintained a 100% capital reserve model, ensuring that client assets are fully reserved and never rehypothecated.
ContactCoinRabbitmarketing@coinrabbit.io
Disclaimer: This is a sponsored press release and is for informational purposes only. It does not reflect the views of Bitzo, nor is it intended to be used as legal, tax, investment, or financial advice.

Chicago, United States, September 4th, 2026, Chainwire
Liquid Mercury today announced that ACQUA1, LLC completed the initial closing of its MERC exchange offering on September 1, 2026.
ACQUA1 is a Liquid Mercury subsidiary that operates Liquid Mercury’s Lab Company program, licensing Liquid Mercury technology to companies primarily tokenizing real-world assets and receiving fees plus a minority equity stake in return. Liquid Mercury is the majority holder and Manager.
“Over the past 18 months, dozens of companies have approached Liquid Mercury seeking to tokenize their assets," said Tony Saliba, CEO and founder of Liquid Mercury. "Many assumed they would need to raise capital and build this infrastructure from scratch. Licensing Mercury RWA lets them launch on systems that were already live and proven, at a fraction of the time and cost. ACQUA1 token holders now own a slice of the business that earns equity, plus fees from the companies in the Lab Company program.”
Verified accredited investors subscribed by exchanging MERC for non-voting Class B units of ACQUA1 at the initial conversion rate of 10 MERC per unit. Under its operating agreement, ACQUA1 must burn 100% of the MERC it receives at each closing within five business days and may not transfer, trade, lend, stake, pledge, or otherwise deploy it.
On September 2, all 563,230,000 MERC received at the initial closing were burned via a transfer to the dead address, as the offering documents require.
Initial Closing Highlights
Initial closing: September 1, 2026
MERC burned: 563,230,000
Transferred to the dead address September 2, 2026
Units issued: 56,323,000
Non-voting Class B units of ACQUA1, LLC under Rule 506(c) of Regulation D
10 MERC per unit
Evidenced on-chain by ACQUA1-C tokens
ACQUA1-C tokens convert one-for-one into ACQUA1 tokens upon issuance
Remaining closings: On or about October 30 and December 31, 2026
ACQUA1 may skip or terminate at its discretion
The conversion rate at subsequent closings may differ
Verification Links
Burn transaction
ACQUA1-C contract
Verified accredited investors can request full terms at acqua1.liquidmercury.com/contact.
About Liquid Mercury
Liquid Mercury powers professional crypto trading and digital asset marketplaces. The company delivers institutional-grade infrastructure, access to deep liquidity, and best-in-class trading tools and workflow automation across its Pro, OTC, and RWA platforms. Through Mercury RWA, Liquid Mercury is extending that infrastructure into tokenized real-world assets, with $MERC serving as the access and platform layer token. For more information, visit www.liquidmercury.com.
Investor Notice
This press release does not constitute an offer to sell or the solicitation of an offer to buy any securities. Class B units of ACQUA1, LLC and the ACQUA1 tokens representing them are offered and sold in reliance on the exemption from registration provided by Rule 506(c) of Regulation D under the Securities Act of 1933, solely to verified accredited investors as defined in Rule 501(a) of Regulation D, and solely pursuant to ACQUA1’s confidential private placement memorandum, as supplemented, and definitive subscription documents, which contain important information, including risk factors. ACQUA1 tokens are restricted securities, are subject to transfer restrictions under ACQUA1’s operating agreement and may remain illiquid indefinitely; investors should not assume that Rule 144 will be available. Statements regarding future revenues, valuations, portfolio performance, and subsequent closings are forward-looking and subject to risks and uncertainties; actual results may differ materially. The MERC contract has no burn function; tokens are removed from circulation by transferring to the dead address. Supply outstanding excluding the dead address is 5,436,770,000 MERC, as of the date of publication.
ContactsDirectorKent EganLiquid Mercuryke@liquidmercury.comDirectorRyan HansenLiquid Mercuryhansenr@liquidmercury.com
Disclaimer: This is a sponsored press release and is for informational purposes only. It does not reflect the views of Bitzo, nor is it intended to be used as legal, tax, investment, or financial advice.

Hewlett Packard Enterprise’s record $12.2 billion fiscal third-quarter revenue is a forceful signal that AI and networking demand is reaching the company’s income statement. Revenue rose 34% from a year earlier, while GAAP operating profit increased 464% and non-GAAP operating profit rose 155%, according to HPE’s results release.
The less straightforward question is how much of that demand HPE can physically deliver. Management says memory is the principal supply bottleneck, and earnings-call commentary indicated that constrained component availability limited unit growth. Higher average selling prices therefore accounted for part of the revenue increase, rather than all growth coming from a larger number of systems shipped.
That distinction matters for the upgraded outlook. HPE has evidence of real commercial momentum, but the route from AI orders to sustained revenue, cash generation and longer-term growth runs through a supply chain that remains constrained.
Record Q3 and a higher framework
Following the third-quarter performance, HPE raised its fiscal 2026 outlook and lifted its fiscal 2027 framework. The company now targets consolidated revenue growth of 13% to 17% in fiscal 2027, Cloud & AI revenue growth of 14% to 18%, earnings per share of $4.40 to $4.60, and at least $5 billion in free cash flow, according to its Q3 FY26 earnings presentation.
Those are not merely incremental revisions to a near-term sales estimate. The framework places growth in the Cloud & AI business above the consolidated range, making that segment central to management’s case for expansion through fiscal 2027. The free-cash-flow target also sets a more demanding standard than revenue growth alone: HPE must convert its opportunity while managing the capital tied up in securing components.
The Q3 figures give management a substantial starting point. A 34% year-over-year revenue increase is large enough to support the view that demand is broad and consequential for HPE, while the increase in operating profit points to an earnings improvement that goes beyond a marginal sales gain. Still, an annual framework is a promise about repeatability. The company’s ability to access constrained parts will help determine whether the reported quarter becomes a durable run rate or a period in which prices temporarily did more of the work.
Cloud & AI momentum from Q2
HPE’s preceding quarter suggests the latest upgrade did not emerge from a weak base. In fiscal Q2, Cloud & AI revenue reached $7.7 billion, up 22.9% year over year, and segment operating margin rose to 12.4% from 6.6%, according to the company’s Q2 results release.
The margin change is especially relevant to the current debate. It shows a material improvement in profitability in the business management identifies as a faster-growing part of the 2027 plan. Q3’s consolidated operating-profit gains then reinforce the picture of an operating acceleration rather than a solitary demand spike.
There is, however, a difference between a business benefiting from high-value AI demand and one that can meet all of that demand in volume. HPE’s 14% to 18% Cloud & AI growth range implies management expects the business to remain a growth engine. The supply backdrop means that the composition of that growth—shipments, system mix and pricing—remains as important as the headline percentage.
For investors and customers, that is the practical tension in the numbers. A stronger revenue framework indicates confidence in demand and execution; it does not remove the component availability constraints that can delay or cap the systems HPE is able to ship.
Memory shortages and unit growth
Management has identified memory as the primary bottleneck, followed by NAND, CPUs and drives, Reuters reported. These are not peripheral inputs for the systems HPE is seeking to deliver into AI and related infrastructure demand. Limits on availability can therefore constrain output even when end-customer appetite is intact.
The company’s response has been to pursue longer-term supply agreements intended to improve component access, as Reuters reported via Euronext. That is a rational operational response to scarcity, but it makes supply procurement part of the commercial strategy rather than a background purchasing function.
Q3 call commentary provides the key qualification to an uncomplicated bullish reading of the 34% revenue growth. Component constraints limited unit growth, while higher average selling prices contributed to revenue growth, according to an earnings-call transcript published by Benzinga. Pricing can support reported revenue and profitability when supply is tight, but it is not identical to a proportional expansion in physical deliveries.
That does not undermine the demand case. On the contrary, customers paying higher prices amid constrained availability can demonstrate the value placed on the equipment. But it changes the test embedded in HPE’s guidance: future performance depends not only on continued demand, but on whether component availability improves enough for unit growth to contribute more fully alongside pricing.
The distinction may become more consequential as comparisons get harder. Revenue gains driven partly by average selling prices can be powerful in a constrained period, yet a growth framework extending into fiscal 2027 ultimately invites scrutiny of how much capacity HPE can translate into actual systems shipped.
Inventory, commitments and cash flow
HPE had already begun positioning for this challenge earlier in the fiscal year. In fiscal Q1, it reported approximately $6.9 billion of inventory, saying it was building inventory for supply assurance amid industry-wide constraints, particularly in memory. It also increased purchase commitments sequentially, according to the Q1 FY26 earnings transcript.
Inventory building and longer-term agreements can help HPE protect deliveries when key parts are scarce. They may give the company a better chance of serving demand that competitors cannot meet promptly. In that sense, supply access can be an advantage, not simply a risk.
It is also an execution and cash-management commitment. Carrying more inventory and expanding purchase commitments requires HPE to align component purchases, customer deliveries and product demand closely enough that supply assurance supports growth without unduly burdening working capital. That makes the company’s target of at least $5 billion in fiscal 2027 free cash flow an important companion to the revenue target.
HPE’s higher guidance rests on a credible set of current operating facts: record Q3 revenue, sharply higher operating profit and an improving Cloud & AI business. The constraint is equally concrete. Memory remains the leading bottleneck, and HPE’s own preparations—more inventory and longer-term supply arrangements—show that fulfilling AI demand may depend as much on disciplined access to components as on winning the next order.
Disclaimer: This article is provided for informational purposes only. It is not offered or intended to be used as legal, tax, investment, financial, or other advice.

Bitcoin’s recovery above $77,500 has arrived alongside a far less accommodating shift in U.S. rate expectations. The cryptocurrency was trading near $77,800 after the rebound, with roughly $77,200 identified as an immediate downside reference ahead of Friday’s employment report.
That leaves the move exposed to a macroeconomic test. The August Employment Situation is due at 8:30 a.m. Eastern Time on September 4, the last major labor-market release before the Federal Reserve’s September 15–16 meeting. For Bitcoin, the report is not simply a read on whether hiring remains healthy. It is a test of whether labor-market cooling has become persuasive enough to dislodge a market now leaning toward another rate increase.
Bitcoin rebound and hike repricing
CME FedWatch showed a roughly 66.4% probability of a 25-basis-point increase at the September meeting as of September 3, compared with 33.6% odds of a hold. A week earlier, the balance had been almost the reverse: 39.6% for a hike and 60.4% for no change.
The speed of that repricing matters more than the level alone. Bitcoin has regained a nearby round-number threshold while the expected policy backdrop has become more restrictive, rather than more supportive. That makes it difficult to read the recovery as a clean risk-on endorsement. The market is instead approaching a single economic release with both a recovered price level and a sharply altered rates consensus in view.
The $77,200 reference cited by TradingNews gives the immediate setup some definition, but it does not establish a durable directional threshold. Friday’s data are the nearer catalyst because they arrive before policymakers meet and could change the probabilities traders are using to value short-term risk.
A jobs report that reinforces inflation-sensitive rate expectations would leave Bitcoin’s bounce having occurred despite, not because of, the policy repricing. Conversely, a sufficiently weak report could challenge the premise behind the 66.4% hike probability. The important question is the composition of the labor evidence, not merely whether the payroll headline is positive or negative.
July’s uneven labor signal
The July report supplied grounds for both concern about labor demand and caution about assuming an easier monetary-policy response. Nonfarm payrolls declined by 23,000, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Yet the unemployment rate was 4.1%, while average hourly earnings increased 3.2% from a year earlier.
Those figures help explain why weak hiring has not produced an unambiguously dovish market narrative. A payroll decline is plainly a cooling signal, but 4.1% unemployment and continuing wage growth do not by themselves describe an economy where inflation pressure has evidently disappeared.
Fed Chair Kevin Warsh made the policy conflict explicit at Jackson Hole on August 28. He said labor markets were generally consistent with full employment, citing the 4.1% unemployment rate, while noting that 12-month PCE inflation stood at 3.7% and six-month PCE inflation at 4.1%, according to the Federal Reserve Board.
The juxtaposition is central to Friday’s market reaction. If employment softens but unemployment remains contained and wage measures retain momentum, the report may offer the Fed evidence of cooling without supplying a clear reason to set inflation risk aside. That outcome would not necessarily settle the September decision, but it would fit more comfortably with the hike-heavy probabilities already priced in.
For Bitcoin, the distinction matters because the asset is trading into a policy debate that cannot be reduced to growth anxiety. A softer labor market can increase concern over the expansion, but the transmission to rate expectations depends on whether it also changes the judgment that inflation remains too high.
Revisions and openings raise the stakes
The July payroll report’s revisions recast the recent hiring run as weaker than initially reported. The BLS revised May and June employment lower by a combined 103,000 jobs: May to a gain of 63,000 from 129,000, and June to an increase of 20,000 from 57,000.
That makes the August Employment Situation important for more than its August payroll figure. Its revisions and unemployment rate will help show whether labor-market cooling remains orderly or becomes more consequential.
July’s JOLTS release offered additional context: 7.3 million job openings, a 4.4% openings rate, 5.1 million hires and 3.1 million quits. June openings were revised down by 177,000 to 7.2 million. Together with the payroll revisions, those figures suggest labor demand is cooling across more than one release.
The data do not eliminate the countervailing considerations cited by Kevin Warsh. Unemployment remains at 4.1%, and recent PCE inflation readings are above the Federal Reserve’s target.
As a result, the August report has unusual leverage over the near-term narrative. Softer hiring, adverse revisions and a higher unemployment rate would make July’s decline harder to dismiss as noise; less evidence of deterioration could preserve the view that the economy remains near full employment.
A policy conflict before price validation
Bitcoin’s move above $77,500 has not yet resolved this policy conflict; it has placed the conflict closer to a tradable price reference. With the market near $77,800 and $77,200 serving as the immediate downside area, the employment release may determine whether the rebound can coexist with a rate path that has shifted abruptly toward tightening.
The strongest challenge to the current hike consensus would not be weak payrolls in a vacuum. It would be a report that adds convincing evidence that labor-market deterioration is persistent, particularly through the unemployment rate and revisions, at a time when prior data already show reduced openings and a lower recent employment baseline.
Even then, policymakers would still face the inflation and wage backdrop. July average hourly earnings were up 3.2% year over year, while Warsh cited 3.7% 12-month PCE inflation and 4.1% six-month PCE inflation. The report must therefore do more than signal slower growth if it is to materially weaken the rationale markets have attached to a September increase.
That is the constraint on interpreting the Bitcoin bounce. Friday’s release, scheduled less than two weeks before the September 15–16 FOMC meeting, will test whether cooling labor data are becoming strong enough to change the policy path now reflected in the 66.4% implied odds of a quarter-point hike.
Disclaimer: This article is provided for informational purposes only. It is not offered or intended to be used as legal, tax, investment, financial, or other advice.

U.S. private-sector employment increased by 38,000 jobs in August, according to the ADP National Employment Report. The result was below July's revised 46,000 gain, which was revised from 44,000, and marked private employers' slowest pace of job creation since January.
The report is produced by ADP Research in collaboration with the Stanford Digital Economy Lab. Its August reading points to a modest net increase in private hiring, with the overall gain reflecting sharply different results between goods-producing businesses and service providers.
Data Snapshot
MetricCurrentPreviousChangePeriodAs ofSourceChange in U.S. Private Employment38,000——August 2026September 2, 2026ADPChange in U.S. Private Employment38,00046,000The July total number of jobs added was revised from 44,000 to 46,000.August 2026 compared with July 2026September 2, 2026ADPGoods-producing-10,000——August 2026September 2, 2026ADPService-providing48,000——August 2026September 2, 2026ADPMedian Change in Base Pay — All workers3.2%——Year over year, August 2026September 2, 2026ADPMedian Change in Gross Pay — All workers4.7%——Year over year, August 2026September 2, 2026ADP
Goods-producing employment split
Goods-producing employers lost 10,000 jobs in August and service-providing employers added 48,000, ADP reported, leaving private employment up 38,000 overall.
Within the industry breakdown, ADP recorded losses in manufacturing, professional services and information, alongside solid hiring in education and health care, construction, and leisure and hospitality. The result was a positive private-employment total without broad gains across every major part of the private sector: service-providing employment rose as goods-producing employment moved lower.
ADP Pay Insights graphic accompanying the August 2026 employment report. — Source: ADP
Pay-growth measures
For all workers, ADP reported a 3.2% year-over-year median change in base pay and a 4.7% year-over-year median change in gross pay in August 2026.
ADP included the measures with its private-employment estimate. The reported data provided no prior-period comparison for either one.
Neither figure is a count of jobs added or lost; the measures describe compensation and should not be treated as a direct measure of the August hiring total.
Next labor-market release
The U.S. Department of Labor's Employment Situation for August 2026 is scheduled for Friday, September 4, 2026, at 8:30 a.m., according to its release schedule. It will be the next concrete observation point for the August labor market.
Because the release is separate from ADP's private-sector employment estimate, its figures and ADP's should not be treated as interchangeable.
Disclaimer: This article is provided for informational purposes only. It is not offered or intended to be used as legal, tax, investment, financial, or other advice.