The Cryptonomist

Stablecoin deposits in decentralized finance (DeFi) have reached $24 billion, a 560.8% increase over three years, according to Token Terminal data released on October 25, 2026. But the long-term expansion contrasts with a shorter-term retreat: separate lending-pool data show net withdrawals over the past month.
Key takeaways
USDC accounts for 38.2% of DeFi stablecoin deposits.
DeFi holds about 8% of the overall stablecoin market.
Monthly net withdrawals totaled approximately $99.8 million after interest.
Stablecoin deposits in DeFi grow as holders seek yield
The three-year rise reflects growing use of DeFi protocols to earn returns on stablecoin holdings. Rather than keeping these assets solely as a place to hold funds between trades, users are increasingly supplying them to yield-generating protocols.
That activity remains concentrated in a few assets. Although Token Terminal’s dataset covers 193 digital assets, USDC, USDT and USDe together represent roughly two-thirds of stablecoin deposits in DeFi.
USDC leads with about $9.2 billion in deposits
USDC holds the largest share at 38.2%, equivalent to approximately $9.2 billion. Its deposited value is nearly twice that of second-place USDT.
USDT accounts for 20.3%, or about $4.9 billion. USDe ranks third, with a 9.0% share worth around $2.2 billion, according to Token Terminal’s figures.
The distribution shows a clear lead for USDC among assets deployed into these protocols, even within a dataset spanning many more digital assets.
A small share of the market, with monthly outflows
Stablecoin deposits in DeFi represent about 8% of the approximately $298.4 billion stablecoin market. Roughly 92% of that market therefore sits outside DeFi deposits.
A separate measure from DeFiStar.io puts stablecoin lending pools’ total value locked (TVL) at approximately $25.68 billion in a recent 24-hour snapshot. That figure measures lending-pool TVL, rather than Token Terminal’s reported deposit total.
DeFiStar.io’s monthly flow figures show a different direction from the three-year growth trend. After accounting for interest, lending pools recorded approximately $99.8 million in net withdrawals over the past month.
Lending platforms connect deposits with collateralized borrowing
Major protocols holding these deposits include Aave V3, Morpho, Sky Protocol and Spark. Their lending model connects stablecoin suppliers with borrowers taking loans against collateral.
Depositors face risks from flaws in smart contracts, failures at the protocol level and stablecoins losing their peg. The returns come from lending activity: borrowers pay interest, which flows back to those supplying the capital.
Article produced with the assistance of artificial intelligence and reviewed by the editorial team.

AI agents can sign in on your behalf without learning your password through 1Password for Agents, launched on October 22, 2026. 1Password’s AI login platform keeps credentials out of the assistant’s view while requiring users to approve access on a trusted device.
Key takeaways
Agents authenticate with a digital key, not a shared password.
The free upgrade covers eligible 1Password.com Individual and Family plans.
Grok Bot and Meta Muse are among the first integrations.
1Password says the platform responds to growing use of autonomous assistants for tasks such as shopping online and booking travel. Previously, users had to take over and sign in manually when an agent reached a login page, interrupting the task.
How 1Password’s AI login works
An agent presents a unique digital key to 1Password to verify its identity. The user receives a login alert and must approve the request on a trusted device; 1Password then fills in the credentials on the agent’s behalf.
The platform acts as a security layer between the assistant and the account. Neither plaintext credentials nor one-time codes are passed to the AI agent.
In its announcement, 1Password said handing credentials directly to an agent can leave sensitive information stored in places users no longer control, including copies saved for later use.
“An agent should be able to do the job it’s been asked to do without getting permanent access to everything behind the account,” said Chief Product Officer Aashish Tripathi.
Which plans receive the free upgrade?
Eligible Individual and Family plans hosted on 1Password.com receive the upgrade at no additional charge. Plans hosted on 1Password.eu and 1Password.ca do not qualify for that free upgrade.
Grok Bot and Meta Muse lead the integrations
Grok Bot and Meta Muse are among the first agents receiving the feature. ChatGPT Work, Dots and Claude Duet are listed as coming soon.
1Password is working with OpenAI, Anthropic and Meta on closer integrations. Its announcement also identifies agents from Town, an AI assistant startup, among the options for the platform.
The service supports connecting one or multiple personal agents, according to 1Password. A waitlist is open for users to sign up for 1Password for Agents.
Article produced with the assistance of artificial intelligence and reviewed by the editorial team.

Kraken’s token delisting has ended trading and deposits for 13 assets, but holders still have time to withdraw them. The exchange stopped those services on October 23, 2026, at 14:00 UTC; withdrawals remain available until January 29, 2027, at 15:00 UTC, before remaining balances enter liquidation.
Key takeaways
Kraken’s trading halt and withdrawal deadline are separate.
Withdrawals need a destination supporting the correct token and network.
Liquidation is scheduled for February 1–12, 2027, without assured recovery.
Which assets does Kraken’s token delisting cover?
According to Kraken’s official notice, last updated on October 8, 2026, the tokens affected include BMB, ELX, APU, BDXN, DUCK, BOS, U, OBOL, IDEX, FIS, UXLINK, ALTHEA and NOBODY.
The October 23 cutoff applied to both trading and deposits. A balance remaining visible in an account does not establish that the asset can still be traded on Kraken.
The withdrawal deadline comes before liquidation
Holders have until January 29, 2027, at 15:00 UTC to remove the affected tokens. Kraken has scheduled the liquidation period for February 1–12, 2027.
The Kraken token delisting therefore has three distinct stages: the trading and deposit cutoff, the withdrawal window, and liquidation. Kraken warns that balances left after the withdrawal deadline face liquidation with possible losses and no assured recovery value.
Withdrawals require more than a matching ticker
A withdrawal requires a receiving wallet or service that supports the actual token and network. The end of trading does not immediately remove withdrawal access, but the destination must also be able to accept the asset.
A matching ticker on another service is not enough to confirm compatibility. Tickers can be reused, and tokens can exist in different technical forms. The receiving service’s deposit status matters alongside Kraken’s withdrawal availability.
Moving assets into personal custody also transfers control and responsibility to the holder. Possession, recovery arrangements and access to trading remain separate questions.
Liquidation proceeds depend on available demand
Kraken warns that thin or inactive markets can leave liquidation proceeds far below recent quoted prices. With limited demand, the amount recovered can be negligible or zero.
Even when only a handful of buyers can absorb a bigger balance, a tiny final trade can still set a noticeable price. How much a full position nets upon liquidation hinges on the level of demand present at that moment.
Kraken’s notice provides neither a minimum sale price nor a guaranteed recovery percentage for balances entering liquidation.
Article produced with the assistance of artificial intelligence and reviewed by the editorial team.

As of October 25, 2026, Bitcoin value remains in a neutral daily structure with a defensive tilt. Bitcoin trades at $80,263.05 on Binance, below its daily short- and medium-term averages but above its long-term trend reference. The dominant force is bearish short-term momentum—not yet a fully bearish daily trend.
BTC/USDT — daily chart with candlesticks, EMA20/EMA50 and volume.
Key takeaways
Bitcoin trades at $80,263.05 on Binance as of October 25, 2026.
The daily trend remains neutral: moving averages keep bullish alignment, while price sits below the daily EMA20 and EMA50.
Daily RSI is falling at 44.3, and hourly RSI is at 40.4.
A bullish trigger is an hourly close above hourly R1 at $80,489.65.
A bearish trigger is an hourly close below hourly S1 at $80,127.34.
The distinction matters: the daily moving averages retain bullish alignment, while the hourly structure is bearish. A recovery therefore needs more than a brief intraday bounce; it needs evidence that price can hold reclaimed levels.
Geopolitical concerns frame a defensive market backdrop
Bitcoin fell below $80,000.00 on October 24, 2026, amid renewed Middle East concerns. That news provides context for the defensive technical picture, but it does not establish the cause of every subsequent price move.
CoinGecko puts Bitcoin dominance at 60.12%. Separately, Alternative.me’s Fear & Greed Index reads 54, classified as Neutral. Sentiment is therefore less defensive than the short-term chart: the technical weakness is not accompanied by an outright fear reading in that sentiment measure.
Bitcoin value faces bearish intraday structure within a neutral daily trend
The intraday structure is bearish, while the daily trend remains neutral. Binance-based daily indicators place price below the daily EMA20 at $82,338.18 and the daily EMA50 at $80,854.08, but above the daily EMA200 at $75,639.24. The averages remain bullishly aligned. In practice, the longer-term structure still offers a counterweight to the current weakness, although price has lost its nearer trend references.
The hourly picture is more decisive: price is below the hourly EMA20 at $80,640.81, hourly EMA50 at $80,947.18, and hourly EMA200 at $81,723.76, with bearish alignment. That makes an initial rebound a recovery attempt within a bearish hourly trend, rather than evidence of a broader reversal.
The 15-minute chart also places price below all three of its moving averages, which are bearishly aligned. For execution context, that offers no structural confirmation of a turn. It reinforces the hourly weakness without overriding the neutral daily classification.
Daily momentum weakens while the smallest timeframe offers limited relief
Daily RSI is falling at 44.3, while the daily MACD histogram is negative and widening. Together, these readings give the neutral daily structure a bearish lean: momentum is deteriorating even though the moving-average alignment has not become bearish.
Hourly RSI is also falling, at 40.4, and the hourly MACD histogram has crossed from positive to negative across the last three completed readings. The hourly evidence therefore confirms the downside pressure rather than providing a countertrend signal.
The conflict appears on the 15-minute chart. Its negative MACD histogram is narrowing, but RSI is still falling at 40.5. Selling momentum is easing by one measure, while the other has yet to confirm improvement. That is a possible opening for a brief rebound, not a persuasive reversal signal.
The daily Bollinger lower band at $79,982.08 sits below current price, while the daily Bollinger mid at $82,625.67 and daily Bollinger upper at $85,269.25 remain overhead. Price is trading toward the lower edge of that envelope, leaving room for mean reversion without establishing that it has begun.
Daily ATR is $2,132.13, compared with hourly ATR of $293.20. These measures put the nearby pivot gaps in perspective. A move through a nearby level can occur within ordinary candle movement, so a brief crossing is weaker evidence than a completed-candle break.
Pivot reclaims and support breaks define the competing scenarios
Two competing scenarios hinge on nearby pivot levels. For Bitcoin, the nearest overhead reference is the hourly pivot at $80,288.68, followed by the daily pivot at $80,440.85 and hourly R1 at $80,489.65. These are separate levels, not a single shared pivot. Below price, hourly S1 at $80,127.34 is the first support, ahead of the daily Bollinger lower at $79,982.08 and hourly Bollinger lower at $79,967.10.
Bullish scenario: an hourly close above hourly R1 at $80,489.65 would establish a more credible recovery attempt. That would bring the hourly Bollinger mid at $80,548.48 and hourly EMA20 at $80,640.81 into focus. An hourly close back below the daily pivot at $80,440.85 would invalidate that recovery setup. Even if the trigger occurs, the bearish hourly moving-average structure would keep the initial interpretation countertrend.
Bearish scenario: an hourly close below hourly S1 at $80,127.34 would confirm a local support break, exposing the lower Bollinger references beneath it. The daily S1 at $79,668.05 is the next daily downside reference. An hourly close back above the hourly pivot at $80,288.68 would invalidate that breakdown setup.
The likeliest false signal is a shallow pivot reclaim. The last completed hourly candle closed at $80,328.32, already above the hourly pivot, yet live price is back below it. That reclaim has already occurred; it is not a pending bullish trigger. The ATR readings and conflicting 15-minute momentum make another brief crossing insufficient evidence of a durable turn.
FAQ
Is Bitcoin’s daily trend bearish?
The daily classification is neutral. Its moving averages retain bullish alignment, but price sits below the daily EMA20 and EMA50, with weakening momentum.
Is Bitcoin oversold on these readings?
No. Daily RSI is 44.3, hourly RSI is 40.4, and 15-minute RSI is 40.5; none is below 30.
Disclaimer: This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute financial advice, an investment recommendation, or a solicitation to buy or sell any financial instrument or cryptocurrency. The analysis provided is not indicative of future results. Investing in crypto assets and financial markets carries a high risk of capital loss. Always do your own research (DYOR) and consult a qualified financial advisor before making any decision.
Article produced with the assistance of artificial intelligence and reviewed by the editorial team.

Pump.fun has overtaken Hyperliquid in daily protocol revenue, collecting $1.98 million against $1.96 million over a 24-hour period. The memecoin launchpad took the lead on the daily measure, but Hyperliquid remained ahead over seven days.
Key takeaways
Pump.fun led the 24-hour revenue comparison.
Hyperliquid retained its seven-day revenue advantage.
The YES probability of a Hyperliquid year-end prediction market fell to 27.5%.
Pump.fun and Hyperliquid’s revenue comparison
Pump.fun’s daily revenue lead puts a Solana-based memecoin launchpad ahead of a platform focused primarily on decentralized perpetual futures. Pump.fun’s activities include token creation and fee-generating terminals, while Hyperliquid operates primarily as a decentralized perpetual-futures exchange.
The comparison therefore spans two different platform models. Pump.fun’s revenue performance suggests strong engagement with memecoin activity.
Seven-day revenue and year-end market pricing
Hyperliquid retained the lead in the seven-day revenue comparison, despite trailing in the 24-hour figures. Pump.fun’s daily revenue advantage over Hyperliquid did not extend to that broader measurement period.
Separately, market pricing showed reduced confidence in Hyperliquid reaching a $100 target by the end of 2026. The December 31 prediction market’s YES probability dropped from 36% to 27.5% over 24 hours.
Memecoin engagement behind the daily result
Pump.fun’s revenue performance points to strong user interest and engagement in the memecoin sector. Its daily lead contrasts with Hyperliquid’s higher revenue total across the longer comparison window.
The figures capture different signals: protocol revenue measures platform activity, while the prediction-market probability reflects pricing around a specific year-end outcome. In that market, the YES probability stood at 27.5% for Hyperliquid’s $100 target by December 31, 2026.
Article produced with the assistance of artificial intelligence and reviewed by the editorial team.

Attackers took control of protocol voting before draining approximately $4.7 million in stablecoins in the X100 stablecoin exploit, Chainalysis reported. By capturing Senate seats, they secured a majority that allowed them to manipulate treasury assets and direct them into a pool they controlled.
Key takeaways
The X100 attack used governance control to reach treasury assets.
Stolen funds were converted into ETH and divided among four wallets.
Attackers still held roughly 560,000 unsold X tokens.
How the X100 stablecoin exploit reached the treasury
Contracts used in the attack captured protocol Senate seats, giving the attackers a voting majority, according to Chainalysis. That control enabled the manipulation of treasury assets.
The Freezer treasury was forced to sell assets into an attacker-controlled pool. The reported sequence connects the governance takeover directly to the movement of funds: control over voting gave the attackers the means to redirect treasury assets.
After extraction, the stolen funds were exchanged for ETH. Chainalysis traced their distribution to four wallets, each holding 400 ETH.
Governance weaknesses extend beyond the stolen funds
The X100 stablecoin exploit exposed severe weaknesses in decentralized governance, with the attackers using majority control to manipulate the treasury. The security failure involved both the protocol’s voting structure and the assets that structure governed.
The incident raises concerns about decentralized finance security and the integrity of systems that place treasury decisions under protocol governance. In this case, capturing Senate seats provided the control needed to force asset sales into an attacker-controlled pool.
Mixed market signals and stronger protocol security
The broader market showed mixed signals around the incident, with some assets holding up while others faced downward pressure. The reported market picture does not establish a uniform response to the attack.
The governance manipulation highlights the need for stronger security measures across blockchain protocols. The attack’s path—from Senate-seat capture to treasury manipulation—puts governance protection alongside fund protection at the center of the security concerns.
Chainalysis also identified a remaining token balance: approximately 560,000 X tokens were still unsold at attacker-controlled addresses.
Article produced with the assistance of artificial intelligence and reviewed by the editorial team.

Morgan Stanley forecasts $2.9 trillion in global data center spending driven by AI from 2025 to 2028—but projects that the biggest technology companies will cover only about half through their own cash flows. That leaves an estimated $1.5 trillion financing gap, with private credit expected to supply much of the external funding.
Key takeaways
Morgan Stanley expects hardware to absorb $1.6 trillion of the projected spending.
Private credit could supply roughly $800 billion through asset-specific loans.
The US data center power deficit is forecast to reach 32 to 33 gigawatts by 2028.
AI-driven data center spending splits between hardware and construction
Morgan Stanley allocates about $1.6 trillion to IT hardware, including chips and servers, and $1.3 trillion to physical infrastructure and construction. The forecast covers both the computing equipment needed for artificial intelligence and the facilities that house it.
Amazon, Microsoft, Alphabet, Meta and Oracle are projected to contribute about $1.4 trillion from their own cash flows. Those hyperscalers would therefore self-fund roughly half of the anticipated investment, leaving the rest to external financing.
Private credit takes a larger role in financing the buildout
Morgan Stanley’s research suggests private credit markets could supply approximately $800 billion of the $1.5 trillion shortfall. That funding would use asset-specific structures: loans secured against particular facilities or equipment rather than a borrower’s overall balance sheet.
Such arrangements already feature in financing for independent computing providers, with lenders taking graphics processing units and customer software contracts as collateral. Banks also finance physical construction, arranging and syndicating project loans.
The research points to potentially higher yields from asset-specific private credit financing than from conventional corporate debt. In addition to this borrowing, commitments from hyperscalers under lease agreements total more than $1.2 trillion in undiscounted future payments.
Those lease payments support much of the construction lending behind the buildout. The spending forecast thus sits alongside substantial contractual commitments to the developers providing the facilities.
Nvidia has also participated in discussions about backstop guarantees of up to $250 billion to support data center debt financing. The discussions put supplier guarantees alongside private loans and leases in the funding picture for AI-driven data center spending.
US power supply presents a separate constraint
The US data center power shortfall is forecast to increase to 32 to 33 gigawatts by 2028. That projected deficit represents a physical constraint on the buildout beyond the financing gap.
Morgan Stanley’s investment forecast runs from 2025 through 2028, the same endpoint as the revised US power-shortfall projection.
Article produced with the assistance of artificial intelligence and reviewed by the editorial team.

New York Attorney General Letitia James is seeking roughly $1.3 billion in damages and disgorgement from NovaTech founders Cynthia Petion and Eddy Petion—not announcing money recovered for investors. The October 22, 2026, announcement also detailed nearly $6 million in separate settlements with four promoters of NovaTech and AWS Mining.
Key takeaways
The founders’ financial liability remains before the court.
Four promoters face permanent financial-industry bans.
Investigators traced only a small portion of NovaTech deposits to its trading platform.
Cynthia Petion and NovaTech face a separate financial proceeding
A court entered a default judgment on August 4, 2025, against the Petions and related companies after the couple left the United States and failed to respond to the lawsuit. It permanently restricted their cryptocurrency and securities business activities but left the financial award for a separate proceeding.
The October 22 filing calculates $1.134 billion in NovaTech disgorgement plus approximately $232.5 million in prejudgment interest, bringing that request to $1.367 billion. Prosecutors separately requested approximately $6.15 million, including interest, for AWS Mining.
James filed the lawsuit on June 6, 2024. The state pursued claims under New York securities laws, including the Martin Act, alleging illegal pyramid and Ponzi schemes.
Permanent industry bans accompany four promoter settlements
Separate from the allegations against Cynthia Petion and her co-founder at NovaTech, promoter settlements totaling nearly $6 million were reached. According to the attorney general’s office, the breakdown included $2.9 million tied to Martin Zizi, $2.05 million tied to Frantz Ciceron, $750,000 tied to James Corbett, and $275,861 tied to Ricardo Roy Sr.
Each of the four individuals has been permanently barred from working in the securities, commodities and cryptocurrency industries. Prosecutors alleged that they deceived investors, acted as unlicensed brokers, and pushed others to recruit new participants in exchange for commissions.
According to the office, victims are set to benefit from these payments. While Zizi’s consent agreement was actually filed in November 2025, the October announcement simply compiled the various figures rather than indicating that all settlements were finalized simultaneously.
From mining promises to NovaTech trading packages
AWS Mining promised high returns and recruitment commissions before collapsing in 2019. The Petions subsequently established NovaTech, marketing cryptocurrency and foreign exchange trading packages with purported weekly profits of 2% to 4%.
Investigators traced approximately $1.16 billion in investor cryptocurrency through NovaTech’s CoinPayments account between August 2019 and May 2023. B2Broker records showed that $25.99 million reached the trading platform, where approximately $18.19 million was lost.
Prosecutors allege that advertised returns were fabricated and that existing investors received money deposited by newer participants. Worldwide, more than 200,000 investors fell victim to the schemes, among them over 11,000 residents of New York, as recruiters specifically targeted Haitian and other immigrant populations via religious events and social platforms.
Investor recovery remains a separate step
The requested award is not confirmed investor recovery, and the settlement announcement does not establish that payments have reached victims. A displayed NovaTech account balance likewise does not prove that assets existed, trades occurred or withdrawals were available.
NovaTech collapsed in May 2023, leaving thousands locked out of their funds. Going forward, affected investors are awaiting the court’s ruling on financial compensation, which will determine how any recovery process unfolds.
Article produced with the assistance of artificial intelligence and reviewed by the editorial team.

Electrum released version 4.8.3 on October 24, 2026, to fix an Electrum wallet security flaw that lets malicious servers trick users into signing payments to attackers when increasing transaction fees. Developers received two user reports, including one involving lost money, and urged everyone to upgrade.
Key takeaways
Electrum versions earlier than 4.8.3 are vulnerable.
A manual fee increase can authorize an attacker’s substituted payment.
The patch validates signatures before accepting affected unconfirmed transactions.
How the Electrum wallet security flaw works
A malicious server can hide a user’s original payment and replace it in the wallet’s history with a conflicting transaction pointing to an attacker-controlled address. Electrum’s security advisory says some servers are already conducting the attack.
The wallet uses servers to retrieve transaction history and broadcast payments. Its documentation describes the main server as trusted for information about unconfirmed transactions—the trust this attack exploits.
The substituted transaction contains invalid signatures. Older clients displayed it as unconfirmed without checking those signatures first. If a user then manually increases the fee through replace-by-fee, or RBF, the wallet signs the altered payment and sends funds to the attacker.
Developers said one of the two reporting users lost money after raising a transaction’s fee. In both reports, the attacker’s destination matched the last four characters of the address the user originally intended to pay, according to the advisory.
What version 4.8.3 changes
The fix for the Electrum wallet security flaw checks signatures on transaction inputs that spend coins belonging to the wallet before accepting an unconfirmed transaction into its local history. Previously, those signatures went unchecked before the transaction appeared.
“This release fixes a critical security issue, so we urge all users to upgrade,” Electrum wrote in its release announcement. The advisory identifies all versions before 4.8.3 as affected, while saying clients connected to trusted servers, including their own servers, are not affected by this attack.
For users who have not upgraded, Electrum recommends checking destination addresses and amounts manually before signing any transaction, including a fee increase. On its download page, users are instructed to get the software exclusively from electrum.org and to check its GPG signatures.
Bull Bitcoin plans matching client-side checks
Bull Bitcoin CEO Francis Pouliot said BULL wallet users were unaffected unless they had manually chosen a compromised server. By default, BULL connects only to two Bull Bitcoin-operated servers and one operated by Blockstream.
Connecting elsewhere requires users to add a server address manually, Pouliot said. He also committed to adding validation within the wallet: “Nevertheless, we are immediately adding a client-side validation using the same approach as Electrum wallet,” he wrote.
Article produced with the assistance of artificial intelligence and reviewed by the editorial team.

A net Binance USDT outflow of 49.9571 million in a single hour set the exchange’s largest hourly total for October. The Tether movement exceeded the previous monthly high by more than 3 million USDT, surpassing two earlier outflows recorded in October.
Binance’s USDT outflow tops earlier October totals
The previous hourly high stood at 46.7223 million USDT on October 16. The latest figure also exceeded the 32.7362 million USDT outflow recorded on October 18, placing it above both earlier readings.
The record Binance USDT outflow was reported alongside a broadly negative cryptocurrency market snapshot. Among 50 priced assets tracked on Pluang, only three posted gains, while 46 registered declines as of October 24, 2026, at 23:21 WIB.
EOS stood out among the gainers, advancing 8.13% to Rp12.649. VET and DOT moved in the opposite direction, with both tokens losing around 8% in the snapshot.
VET fell 8.02% to Rp122. Its order data showed a pronounced sell-side imbalance: sell orders accounted for 88% of the total.
DOT declined 8.00% to Rp18.678, but its order split differed from VET’s. Buy and sell orders were nearly evenly divided despite a price decline of similar size.
Article produced with the assistance of artificial intelligence and reviewed by the editorial team.

US Bank has chosen Stellar for its USBDC stablecoin, with asset freezing, clawback functionality and compliance requirements among the reasons behind the decision. Information shared by Tokenicer points to a network choice driven by the operational needs of regulated banking.
The bank’s head of digital assets explained the selection in the discussion referenced by Tokenicer. Moving past the proposal stage, US Bank has already put USBDC through a live cross-border pilot that involved its entities in both the US and the EU.
US Bank’s Stellar stablecoin choice puts compliance first
Asset freezing and clawback functionality featured among the reasons US Bank selected Stellar for its stablecoin. The decision brings the network into the bank’s distributed ledger technology plans.
For regulated banks, blockchain selection involves requirements that differ from those of many retail crypto projects. Compliance obligations, along with processes for handling disputed transactions and certain security incidents, influence which network capabilities matter.
Tokenicer’s commentary highlights that divide. Many crypto users view freezing and clawbacks as centralized controls; banks can instead assess those features against their operational duties. In this case, the bank’s digital assets head identified those controls alongside compliance as reasons for choosing Stellar.
US Bank is among the largest banks in the United States, according to Tokenicer’s post. Its selection gives Stellar a specific institutional use case within a major bank’s technology plans.
USBDC crosses borders in a live pilot
The USBDC cross-border pilot involved US Bank’s US and EU entities. That live test establishes practical use beyond the conceptual stage, but does not by itself establish a wider commercial rollout.
The distinction also matters when assessing the relationship between US Bank’s stablecoin on Stellar and the network’s native token. USBDC and XLM are separate assets: activity in the stablecoin does not automatically create additional demand for XLM.
The concrete development is the bank’s combination of network selection and cross-border testing: Stellar is part of its distributed ledger plans, and USBDC has been used in a live pilot between its US and EU entities.
Article produced with the assistance of artificial intelligence and reviewed by the editorial team.

One AI computing deal dominated crypto venture capital funding from October 17–23, 2026: Tenstorrent’s $1.5 billion Series E accounted for approximately 85.1% of the $1.7626 billion announced across eight disclosed financings. Whop’s $200 million round followed, while smaller investments backed banking, stablecoin payments and AI-agent infrastructure.
Key takeaways
Tenstorrent reached a $6.2 billion post-money valuation.
Sequoia and Shopify Ventures led Whop’s Series D.
Tether backed Tenstorrent and led investments in Mural and Peso.
Crypto venture capital funding reaches $1.7626 billion
The weekly total covers financing announcements, including transactions completed before the reporting period. It excludes valuations, cumulative fundraising figures and previously announced offerings.
The deal inventory drew on Crypto Fundraising, DeFiLlama and DropsTab, with checks against company announcements, investor disclosures and reporting. Tenstorrent’s financing led the crypto-linked funding tally, followed by commerce platform Whop.
Tenstorrent’s Series E funds servers and chip designs
Tenstorrent completed its equity financing on October 19, with Trace Capital and Innovation X leading the round. The investment established a $6.2 billion post-money valuation.
Tether Investments participated alongside ARK Invest, Morgan Stanley, Sandisk, T. Rowe Price and Fidelity Management & Research Company. Tether confirmed its participation on October 20.
Tenstorrent said it would direct the proceeds toward deploying Galaxy servers at scale and developing AI and CPU designs licensed to chipmakers. The company has operations in Santa Clara and Austin.
Whop raises $200 million for expansion and product development
Whop’s October 21 Series D brought in $200 million, with Sequoia and Shopify Ventures leading. Whop placed its valuation at $5.1 billion and said the money would fund international expansion and research and development in payments and advertising.
The platform supports sales of digital products, subscriptions, software access and online services, with stablecoin payment capabilities connecting its commerce operations to crypto infrastructure.
Tether’s February strategic investment was a separate $200 million transaction that valued Whop at $1.6 billion. Only the October Series D counts toward this reporting period.
Banking, payments and smaller infrastructure deals
Mural secured $15 million for infrastructure connecting banking and blockchain payments.
Erebor and Mural
Robinhood Ventures Fund I disclosed its preferred-stock purchase on October 21; the transaction closed on September 17. Erebor serves US businesses in technology, defense, robotics, AI and digital assets.
Robinhood said Erebor received its full national charter from the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency and FDIC insurance in February. Its deposits exceeded $7 billion, a figure excluded from the funding total. Retail investors gain exposure through RVI, a New York Stock Exchange-listed closed-end fund; the preferred shares are securities, not insured deposits.
Tether led Mural’s $15 million Series A, joined by North Island Ventures and existing investors. Mural’s October 20 announcement placed cumulative funding at $28 million.
The New York company connects accounts, payments, identity verification and compliance tools. Mural said it processed $2.1 billion across 128 countries after its API launched in 2025; customers include Deel and Opera. Proceeds support hiring, licensing, compliance and market expansion. Its AI-agent payment controls include spending limits, approved counterparties and audit records.
AI data, Bitcoin income and automated payments
Dataline raised $10.6 million in seed funding, co-led by Lattice and Dispersion Capital. Participants included Coinbase Ventures, Symbolic Capital, Anagram and Vlad Tenev. The AI-agent data provider also plans a separate public token sale, excluded from the tally.
HoneyB’s developer, Nectar Group, raised $5 million in a seed round that included Portal Ventures, Peer Ventures and Anchorage Digital Ventures as investors. Through coordinated custody, credit and asset management, HoneyB intends to pair Bitcoin collateral with institutional-grade income strategies.
Solana Ventures led Hylo’s $1 million strategic round, with Colosseum participating. The protocol is building leveraged tokens, stablecoin systems and yield infrastructure, separate from its prior $1.5 million seed round.
X Pay, headquartered in the Netherlands, secured $1 million from a group of nine investors, among them DCI, Credit Scend, Skyland Ventures and Zerra Ventures. It uses x402 for automated USDC payments. The capital will be used to expand blockchain support, conduct a security audit, build an API marketplace and prepare for EU compliance.
Tether also led Bolivian fintech Peso’s pre-seed investment, announced October 21, to expand Latin American USDT payment infrastructure. Lighthouse secured additional strategic funding for persistent AI-agent memory and decentralized storage. Sonic Labs entered an OTC agreement involving approximately 13 million S tokens.
Article produced with the assistance of artificial intelligence and reviewed by the editorial team.

Fund movements linked to the Bitget hacker reached $19.48 million across 52 transfers between October 21 and October 24, 2026, according to Arkham. Almost all of that value moved in Bitcoin, while the blockchain intelligence firm valued the attacker’s remaining labeled holdings at $242.54 million.
Key takeaways
Bitcoin accounted for $19.33 million of the latest outflows.
Arkham tracked $78.01 million sent to new addresses from October 15 through October 23.
Bitget’s revised loss estimate stands at approximately $387.5 million.
Bitget completed its phased withdrawal reopening on October 2.
Bitget hacker’s fund movements reach $78.01 million since October 15
Arkham recorded the latest transfers between 10:02 UTC on October 21 and 02:48 UTC on October 24. Bitcoin contributed $19.33 million, with ETH accounting for the remainder, and almost all the funds went to new addresses.
The precise timestamps span 64 hours and 46 minutes. They provide a more specific reporting window than a later post’s description of the transfers as occurring over “the past 48 hours.”
For October 15 through October 23, Arkham put transfers to new addresses at $78.01 million. Its daily figures included $23.31 million on October 15, $8.68 million on October 16, $1.15 million on October 17 and $10.51 million on October 18.
Arkham recorded no movement on October 19, followed by $15.13 million on October 20, $11.74 million on October 21, $184,160 on October 22 and $7.3 million on October 23.
Remaining holdings and breach estimates use different baselines
According to Arkham’s snapshot, the remaining labeled assets carried a total valuation of $242.54 million, with 2,960.01 BTC worth $241.99 million accounting for part of that figure. Smaller balances appeared on Ethereum, Hypercore, Solana and Tron.
The firm described those holdings as 69% of its $350 million theft estimate. Bitget uses a different baseline: approximately $387.5 million, revised from its initial $351.6 million calculation.
In its September 25 recovery notice, Bitget attributed the revision to the inclusion of Zcash and TRON assets omitted from the first calculation. The exchange said the adjustment reflected a fuller classification of the original transfers, rather than additional theft.
Against Bitget’s revised estimate, Arkham’s holdings snapshot represents approximately 62.6%. These comparisons measure remaining labeled assets against estimates of the original loss; they are not recovery totals.
September tracing followed CoinJoin and cross-chain routes
Earlier investigations traced stolen assets through CoinJoin and several cross-chain services. In September, AMLBot followed roughly four BTC into CoinJoin through Wasabi, describing the activity as an apparent attempt to obscure the funds.
AMLBot traced a route from TRON into USDT, then to Ethereum through USDT0, followed by ETH swaps and THORChain transfers into Bitcoin. Approximately 4.59 BTC emerged from that route before being divided into smaller amounts.
Bitquery separately documented September conversions through THORChain and Chainflip. By 14:38 UTC on September 25, its investigation had matched 66 swaps to 126.71 BTC in payments, with two swaps still pending at that snapshot.
Bitget restores withdrawals and pursues asset recovery
Bitget completed its phased withdrawal restoration on October 2, after reopening BTC, ETH and USDT services during September. Its incident explainer, updated October 20, says customer account balances remain unaffected and that it identified no further unauthorized transfers after containment.
The exchange identified a flaw within a third-party security product as the root cause of the breach. It said the attacker obtained high-level internal credentials and issued fraudulent withdrawal commands that bypassed risk controls. Bitget said it isolated the affected systems and fixed the vulnerability.
CEO Gracy Chen said the Protection Fund exceeded $300 million again on September 30. Bitget said the fund would absorb the breach’s financial loss.
The September 25 recovery notice named Mandiant and SlowMist as investigation partners and said coordination with industry partners had already frozen some assets. It also published receiving addresses across Ethereum-compatible networks, XRP Ledger, Zcash and TRON.
For qualifying voluntary actions that successfully freeze or recover the impacted assets, Bitget provides a distinct 5% reward. Actions under court orders, law-enforcement requests or other legal processes are excluded, and the exchange retains discretion over eligibility and payment.
Article produced with the assistance of artificial intelligence and reviewed by the editorial team.

Franklin Templeton’s proposed Bitcoin dividend reinvestment ETFs would turn stock dividends into Bitcoin exposure while keeping most of their portfolios in US equities. The asset manager filed exchange registrations for two funds on October 22, 2026, taking a step toward Nasdaq trading. Neither fund is trading yet.
Key takeaways
Franklin’s proposed Nasdaq tickers are FBEQ and FIBT.
The underlying indexes begin with a 95% stock allocation and 5% Bitcoin exposure.
Dividend reinvestment builds Bitcoin exposure; scheduled and threshold-triggered resets reduce it.
Shareholders would receive fund shares, not Bitcoin coins.
Franklin’s Bitcoin dividend reinvestment ETFs move toward Nasdaq
Filed on October 22, the Form 8-A lists shares for Nasdaq under both the Franklin US Equity Bitcoin DRIP Index ETF and the Franklin US Innovation Bitcoin DRIP Index ETF. This is an exchange-registration step, not confirmation that trading has started.
The prospectus proposes FBEQ for the equity fund and FIBT for the innovation fund, with a proposed effective date of October 27, 2026. Franklin first proposed the products in June and subsequently amended its registration documents.
Stock portfolios supply the dividends for Bitcoin exposure
The Bitcoin dividend reinvestment ETFs would track separate VettaFi indexes that begin with 95% US equities and 5% Bitcoin-related investments. Both use the same dividend mechanism but draw their stock holdings from different universes.
The equity fund would follow the VettaFi US Large-Cap 500 Bitcoin DRIP Index, which selects from 500 major publicly traded US companies. The innovation fund would focus on 100 large US companies drawn from an innovation-oriented Nasdaq stock universe.
Under the index rules, regular and special stock dividends go toward Bitcoin exposure at the market open on the business day following the relevant ex-dividend date. The reinvestment decision is therefore built into the strategy rather than left to shareholders each time a dividend arrives.
Two rules reduce the Bitcoin allocation
Quarterly rebalancing reduces a Bitcoin weighting above 5% to 4.5%, with the remaining portfolio allocation going to equities. A separate threshold triggers an adjustment between those scheduled reviews.
Should Bitcoin exposure climb above 20%, the rules mandate that it be brought back down to 4.5% by the close of the second business day following the breach. The quarterly test and the between-review trigger are distinct parts of the allocation policy.
Bitcoin’s value within these indexes is determined by the Kaiko Bitcoin New York Reference Rate, calculated at 4 p.m. Eastern Time.
Fund shares rather than Bitcoin in a wallet
Investors in the proposed Bitcoin dividend reinvestment ETFs would own exchange-traded fund shares rather than receive Bitcoin directly. The funds can reproduce their index exposure through Bitcoin-linked investment products and derivatives.
The equity version lists an annual management fee of 0.09%. Share values would reflect the performance of the underlying stocks and Bitcoin-related instruments, with most of the initial allocation tied to equities.
That structure differs from Franklin’s existing Bitcoin ETF, EZBC. Franklin describes EZBC as holding Bitcoin and cash, providing more concentrated Bitcoin exposure than the proposed stock-heavy DRIP funds.
Article produced with the assistance of artificial intelligence and reviewed by the editorial team.

Uber Technologies stock carries a bearish daily bias, confirmed by the hourly chart. The one complication is an oversold 15-minute RSI, which matters for short-term timing but does not outweigh the daily structure.
UBER — daily chart with candlesticks, EMA20/EMA50 and volume.
Key takeaways
Uber Technologies closed Friday’s session at $66.70, down 3.43% from the previous close of $69.07.
Daily RSI14 is 38.58, below the neutral 50 threshold; the daily MACD histogram is -0.13, having crossed below zero.
Price sits near the daily lower Bollinger band at $66.66, with the 20-session EMA at $69.61 overhead.
Hourly RSI14 is 30.40, approaching oversold territory; 15-minute RSI14 is 27.11, in oversold territory.
The daily pivot for the next session is $67.34, with first resistance at $68.26 and first support at $65.79.
On Friday, October 23, 2026, Uber opened at $68.47, traded between a low of $66.43 and a high of $68.90, and closed at $66.70. The session’s move was -3.43% versus the previous close of $69.07 on October 22, 2026.
Uber Technologies stock: daily structure favors the bearish case
The daily chart structure on Uber Technologies stock is bearish, with price below all three exponential moving averages and the MACD histogram having turned negative. The daily exponential averages are bearishly stacked. Price sits below the 20-session EMA at $69.61, followed by the 50-session EMA at $71.02 and the 200-session EMA at $74.64. That ordering leaves the daily trend structure unfavorable to the bullish case.
Meanwhile, daily RSI14 fell to 38.58 from 45.47 in the preceding session. It remains below the neutral 50 threshold but outside oversold territory. The daily MACD histogram crossed below zero to -0.13 from 0.02. The MACD line at -0.84 sits below its signal at -0.71, reinforcing the bearish reading.
The close sits just above the daily lower Bollinger band at $66.66. The middle band at $69.34 and upper band at $72.02 are overhead reference levels. At the same time, this places price near the lower boundary of the daily band structure, rather than near its center.
Notably, daily ATR14 increased to $1.87 from $1.81 in the preceding session. The measure indicates greater absolute volatility than in that comparison, adding uncertainty around nearby support levels.
Uber Technologies stock: hourly confirmation with a timing complication
The hourly chart confirms the bearish daily bias on Uber Technologies stock, though the 15-minute RSI14 at 27.11 introduces a short-term timing complication.
Hourly trend and momentum
The session close sits below the hourly 20-period EMA at $67.96, the 50-period EMA at $68.76, and the 200-period EMA at $70.50. These hourly averages are also bearishly stacked. Price is below the hourly lower Bollinger band at $66.84, with the middle band overhead at $67.92.
Furthermore, hourly RSI14 stands at 30.40, approaching oversold territory. The hourly MACD line is -0.55, below its signal at -0.46, while the histogram reads -0.08. These readings offer no bullish confirmation against the daily view.
15-minute oversold RSI and pivot levels
In contrast, the 15-minute RSI14 is oversold at 27.11. That creates a timing complication, not a separate bullish trend signal. The close remains below the 15-minute 20-period EMA at $67.36 and just above the lower Bollinger band at $66.66.
For execution context when trading resumes, the 15-minute pivot for the next session sits at $66.68. Its first resistance is $66.92, and its first support is $66.42. The close is above that pivot but below first resistance, leaving these nearby levels relevant only to short-term positioning.
Uber Technologies stock: news separate from the chart verdict
A post-close options report does not alter the bearish technical structure on Uber Technologies stock. The report, published after Friday’s close, highlighted unusual options activity ahead of Uber’s November earnings call. It described interest in rebound setups and longer-dated recovery bets.
Uber Technologies stock: bullish and bearish scenarios
The next session’s key levels for Uber Technologies stock are the daily pivot at $67.34 and the daily lower Bollinger band at $66.66. For the next session, the daily pivot sits at $67.34, with first resistance at $68.26 and first support at $65.79. These levels are calculated from the completed daily candle and apply when trading resumes.
Bullish case
A bullish case for Uber Technologies stock would require price to clear the daily pivot at $67.34, followed by daily first resistance at $68.26. Above those levels, the daily Bollinger middle band at $69.34 and 20-session EMA at $69.61 would be further hurdles. Holding above those references would challenge the current bearish structure.
Bearish case
However, a break below the daily lower Bollinger band at $66.66 and the session low at $66.43 would undermine that bullish case. Daily first support at $65.79 would then become the next downside reference. The oversold 15-minute RSI alone does not invalidate this scenario.
Overall, Uber stands near its daily lower Bollinger band and below the next-session daily pivot. Daily ATR is higher, while the daily and hourly trend structures agree. The unresolved question is whether short-term oversold conditions can produce a sustained move through resistance rather than merely complicate execution.
FAQ
What is the current trend structure for Uber Technologies stock?
The daily chart shows a bearish structure, with price below the 20-session EMA at $69.61, the 50-session EMA at $71.02, and the 200-session EMA at $74.64. The daily MACD histogram is -0.13, below zero, and the MACD line at -0.84 sits below its signal at -0.71.
Is Uber Technologies stock oversold?
It depends on the timeframe. The daily RSI14 at 38.58 is below the neutral 50 level but not in oversold territory. The hourly RSI14 at 30.40 is approaching oversold territory. The 15-minute RSI14 at 27.11 is in oversold territory, creating a short-term timing complication rather than a trend signal.
What are the key levels to watch for the next session?
The daily pivot for the next session is $67.34, with first resistance at $68.26 and first support at $65.79. The daily lower Bollinger band at $66.66 and the session low at $66.43 are also important downside references. On the upside, the daily Bollinger middle band at $69.34 and the 20-session EMA at $69.61 are overhead hurdles.
Does the after-hours options report change the technical outlook?
No. The report published after Friday’s close highlighted unusual options activity ahead of Uber’s November earnings call and described interest in rebound setups and longer-dated recovery bets.
Disclaimer: This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute financial advice, an investment recommendation, or a solicitation to buy or sell any financial instrument. The analysis provided is not indicative of future results. Investing in financial markets carries a high risk of capital loss. Always do your own research (DYOR) and consult a qualified financial advisor before making any decision.
Cryptonomist and the author hold no positions in the financial instruments mentioned and receive no compensation from the companies covered.
Article produced with the assistance of artificial intelligence and reviewed by the editorial team.

The Initia exploit affected a third-party product using Agora’s AUSD stablecoin on Ethereum, not new AUSD issuance on Initia, Agora said on October 23, 2026. Ethereum records show 1.4 million existing AUSD moved to an attacker’s address, while the issuer disputed claims that its tokens had been minted on Initia.
Key takeaways
Agora says its AUSD contract does not exist on Initia.
The attacker exchanged 1.4 million AUSD for approximately 581.56 ETH.
Initia stopped its base blockchain and rollups during the investigation.
Agora disputes AUSD stablecoin minting in the Initia exploit
Agora said the affected product was not operated by Agora. Its response challenged D2 Finance’s description of an Initia-side transaction as minting “2,000,000 AUSD out of nothing” before an Ethereum adapter payout.
“The AUSD smart contract is not deployed on Initia and no AUSD was minted on Initia,” Agora wrote on X.
Security researcher Spreek separately estimated that an attacker had cashed out approximately $2.6 million, with additional funds still moving at the time of the post.
Ethereum records show existing tokens leaving an adapter
At 11:01 a.m. ET, an Ethereum transaction showed 1.4 million AUSD transferred from adapter address 0x38b8…C844 to 0xDD92…edFA, a movement that D2 Finance flagged in its breakdown of the attack.
The transaction included an OFTReceived bridge event and moved tokens already in existence; it was not a mint of new AUSD on Ethereum. Approximately 576,141 AUSD remained in the adapter when checked.
The recipient exchanged the stolen AUSD for about 581.56 ETH. According to Ethereum records, a subsequent transfer of 1,135.5 ETH was also tied to the event.
How AUSD reaches Initia through LayerZero
As Initia previously explained, its native iUSD wraps AUSD0, which represents AUSD that has been bridged over from Ethereum via LayerZero—a setup that sets Agora’s stablecoin apart from its other representations on Initia.
According to LayerZero’s documentation, standard OFT adapters simply custody existing tokens and forward them to recipients, leaving the original token contract unchanged. On Etherscan, the sending adapter’s implementation is listed as AUSDOFTAdapterUpgradeable.
Initia halts operations as Agora pledges freezes
Initia halted its Layer 1 and rollups at 3:41:30 p.m. UTC on October 23, equivalent to 11:41:30 a.m. ET. It said security teams, validators and exchanges were helping investigate the incident’s scope.
Agora pledged to freeze AUSD at hacker-related addresses on chains where its contracts operate. The recipient had already completed the AUSD-to-ETH swap before that pledge.
Article produced with the assistance of artificial intelligence and reviewed by the editorial team.

Energy Transfer stock has a neutral daily setup with a modest bullish tilt. However, resistance at the $20.47 daily 50-session exponential moving average leaves the bullish case unconfirmed. The hourly chart supports buyers, while the 15-minute signals are mixed.
ET — daily chart with candlesticks, EMA20/EMA50 and volume.
Key takeaways
Energy Transfer stock closed Friday at $20.45, gaining 2.05%.
The daily 50-session EMA sits at $20.47, just above the close.
Daily RSI14 is 51.02, above the neutral 50 threshold.
The daily MACD histogram is 0.01, with the MACD line at -0.17 above its signal at -0.18.
Hourly RSI14 is 61.8, with the MACD histogram at 0.04.
On Friday, October 23, 2026, ET opened at $20.20, traded between a low of $20.03 and a high of $20.54, and closed at $20.45, against a previous close of $20.04. The session’s gain was 2.05% vs the previous close.
Energy Transfer stock: Daily support without full trend alignment
The close sits above the daily 20-session EMA at $20.31 and the 200-session EMA at $19.65. Yet it remains below the 50-session EMA at $20.47. That arrangement gives buyers nearby support, but it is not a fully bullish alignment.
Meanwhile, daily RSI14 stands at 51.02, just above the neutral 50 threshold. At -0.17, the daily MACD line exceeds its signal at -0.18, with a positive histogram of 0.01. This crossover relationship favors buyers, although both lines remain below zero.
The daily Bollinger mid-band is $20.24, below the close. Its upper band at $20.87 and lower band at $19.62 frame the broader technical boundaries. Daily ATR14 reads $0.44, providing a volatility reference rather than a directional signal.
Hourly confirmation meets a longer-average barrier
On the hourly chart, the session close sits above the 20-hour EMA at $20.24 and the 50-hour EMA at $20.21. However, the 200-hour EMA at $20.53 is overhead. Shorter hourly averages support the bullish argument, but the longer average prevents full alignment here too.
Notably, hourly RSI14 is 61.8, above 50 but below overbought territory. The MACD line at 0.08 exceeds its signal at 0.04, with a positive histogram of 0.04. These readings support the daily chart’s bullish tilt without establishing a decisive daily trend.
The close also sits above the hourly Bollinger mid-band at $20.18 and below the upper band at $20.55. Hourly ATR14 is $0.14. Together, the hourly 200-period EMA and upper band identify overhead barriers at $20.53 and $20.55.
Short-term timing and the next session’s levels
In contrast, the 15-minute chart offers mixed execution signals. The close is above its bullishly ordered 20-, 50- and 200-period EMAs at $20.38, $20.28 and $20.23, respectively. RSI14 is 60.88, above 50. However, the MACD line at 0.05 is below its signal at 0.06, leaving a negative histogram of -0.01.
The close sits above the 15-minute Bollinger mid-band at $20.43. It remains below the upper band at $20.52. The lower band is $20.34. With 15-minute ATR14 at $0.06, these levels provide timing context rather than a basis for changing the daily bias.
When trading resumes, the daily pivot for the next session sits at $20.34, with first resistance at $20.65 and first support at $20.14. The hourly pivot is $20.43, with first resistance at $20.48 and first support at $20.38. The 15-minute pivot is $20.42, with first resistance at $20.47 and first support at $20.4.
Bullish and bearish conditions
The bullish scenario requires Energy Transfer stock to clear the daily 50-session EMA at $20.47. A move back above the hourly first resistance at $20.48 would add short-term support to that case. Beyond that sit the hourly 200-period EMA at $20.53 and upper Bollinger band at $20.55. Clearing those barriers would strengthen the case for the daily first resistance at $20.65, followed by the daily upper band at $20.87.
Conversely, a break below the daily pivot at $20.34 and the 20-session EMA at $20.31 would undermine the bullish case. The daily Bollinger mid-band at $20.24 would then become a support reference before daily first support at $20.14. A break below that support would invalidate the near-term bullish scenario within the neutral daily framework.
News context and the broader balance
A Seeking Alpha report published on Tuesday, October 20, cited record second-quarter volumes, $5.1B EBITDA, a fee-based growth outlook and valuation risks.
Overall, the $20.45 close leaves ET above daily support references but beneath the $20.47 daily moving-average hurdle. Daily ATR14 of $0.44 keeps volatility relevant to those nearby levels. Whether hourly bullish signals can translate into a clearer daily trend remains unresolved.
FAQ
What is the key resistance level for Energy Transfer stock?
The daily 50-session EMA at $20.47 is the primary resistance. Friday’s close at $20.45 sits just below it, keeping the bullish case unconfirmed.
What do the hourly indicators show?
Hourly RSI14 is 61.8 and the MACD histogram is 0.04, both supporting the bullish tilt. However, the 200-hour EMA at $20.53 remains overhead.
What are the pivot levels for the next session?
The daily pivot sits at $20.34, with first resistance at $20.65 and first support at $20.14.
Disclaimer: This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute financial advice, an investment recommendation, or a solicitation to buy or sell any financial instrument. The analysis provided is not indicative of future results. Investing in financial markets carries a high risk of capital loss. Always do your own research (DYOR) and consult a qualified financial advisor before making any decision.
Cryptonomist and the author hold no positions in the financial instruments mentioned and receive no compensation from the companies covered.
Article produced with the assistance of artificial intelligence and reviewed by the editorial team.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has requested a plan to use blockchain to prepare for potential banking sanctions, describing it as one option for keeping Israel’s economy operating under financial restrictions. His remarks appeared in an interview published on October 23, 2026, and concerned preparations—not the launch of a payment system.
Key takeaways
Netanyahu identified blockchain as one possible response to economic sanctions.
Britain’s settlement measures target construction, imports and supporting services.
UK sanctions enforcement applies equally to cryptoassets and traditional currencies.
Netanyahu seeks blockchain plan for banking sanctions
Netanyahu said Israel needed to prepare an economy capable of operating around possible restrictions on its banking system. In the interview with Roy Katz, he referred to currencies that would allow it to do so.
“You need to understand that there could be banking sanctions,” Netanyahu said in Hebrew.
Asked if blockchain offered an alternative to economic sanctions on Israel, he answered: “One of them. Certainly. And I have already asked for the plan for that to be prepared.”
The request to explore blockchain for potential banking sanctions contained no implementation details. Netanyahu identified neither the responsible office nor a timetable, and specified no stablecoin, settlement network or reserve asset.
Britain targets support for West Bank settlements
On October 19, 2026, British Foreign Secretary Ed Miliband cautioned companies against pursuing contracts for construction tied to the E1 settlement project in the West Bank, noting that Britain had put in place the authority to sanction individuals and firms taking part in illegal settlement building.
Miliband also reaffirmed Britain’s commitment to legislation barring imports from illegal settlements, alongside action against services that fund or facilitate them.
The scope of those measures differs from that of Netanyahu’s remarks: Britain’s actions concern settlement activity, while his request addressed preparation for possible banking sanctions more broadly.
UK crypto rules retain sanctions obligations
The UK Office of Financial Sanctions Implementation treats sanctions evasion involving cryptoassets the same way it treats evasion involving traditional money. Blockchain use does not provide an exemption from British sanctions rules.
In January 2026, the agency said “the use of cryptoassets to evade sanctions is treated no differently to the exploitation of traditional currencies.”
The agency said it was working alongside law enforcement bodies, regulators and blockchain analytics providers on investigations into suspected sanctions violations involving cryptoassets.
Article produced with the assistance of artificial intelligence and reviewed by the editorial team.

The Vanguard S&P 500 ETF closed Friday with a bearish near-term daily bias, as price sits below its 20-session and 50-session exponential averages. The hourly chart confirms that structure. However, price remains above the daily 200-session average, keeping the longer-term outlook from turning fully bearish.
VOO — daily chart with candlesticks, EMA20/EMA50 and volume.
Key takeaways
VOO closed Friday at $698.58. For the next session, the daily pivot sits at $699.24, with daily first support at $696.72.
Daily RSI14 is 42.06, below the neutral 50 threshold but outside oversold territory.
The daily MACD histogram is -1.39, with the MACD line at -0.42 below its signal line at 0.97.
Price holds above the daily lower Bollinger band at $696.83, the immediate reference beneath price.
Hourly RSI14 is 37.35, with price below all three hourly EMAs, reinforcing the bearish near-term structure.
Vanguard S&P 500 ETF: Daily Structure Favors Caution
On Friday, October 23, 2026, VOO opened at $698.47, traded between a low of $697.38 and a high of $701.77, and closed at $698.58, against a previous close of $702.30.
The daily 20-session EMA stands at $706.82, above the 50-session EMA at $704.14. Both sit above price, creating overhead barriers. Meanwhile, the 200-session EMA at $672.13 remains below price. This mixed arrangement supports a bearish near-term assessment rather than a fully aligned bearish trend.
The daily MACD line is -0.42, below its signal at 0.97, with a negative histogram of -1.39. Together, these readings support the cautious daily bias without an oversold signal.
Notably, price sits above the daily lower Bollinger band at $696.83 and below the midpoint at $707.92. The lower band is the immediate daily reference beneath price. Daily ATR14 reads $6.66, providing a volatility benchmark in dollar terms rather than a directional signal.
Hourly Confirmation, With a Small Timing Conflict
The hourly chart reinforces the daily view. Price is below the 20-hour EMA at $702.21, the 50-hour EMA at $705.07, and the 200-hour EMA at $706.77. Their ordering is fully bearish, placing successive averages above the session’s closing price.
Meanwhile, hourly RSI14 stands at 37.35, below 50 but above oversold territory. The hourly MACD line at -2.23 is below its signal at -1.81; its histogram is -0.41. Price also sits below the hourly Bollinger midpoint at $703.63, consistent with that bearish structure.
In contrast, the 15-minute MACD line at -0.67 is marginally above its signal at -0.68, producing a positive histogram of 0.01. That is a limited execution-timeframe counterpoint, not confirmation of a bullish daily setup. The 15-minute RSI14 is 39.47, while price remains below the 20-quarter-hour EMA at $699.57 and Bollinger midpoint at $699.74.
Next-Session Levels and Conditional Scenarios
For the next session, the daily pivot sits at $699.24, with first resistance at $701.11 and first support at $696.72. These levels are calculated from the completed daily candle and apply when trading resumes. Price stands below the pivot and above first support.
A bullish scenario requires price to reclaim the daily pivot at $699.24 and then clear daily first resistance at $701.11. Beyond those levels, the daily 50-session EMA at $704.14 and 20-session EMA at $706.82 are further barriers. An hourly RSI14 reading above 50 and a MACD line above its signal would support that case.
Conversely, a break below the daily lower Bollinger band at $696.83, followed by daily first support at $696.72, would undermine the bullish scenario. The daily 200-session EMA at $672.13 remains a more distant structural reference, not an immediate target.
Overall, the Vanguard S&P 500 ETF stands below its daily pivot and shorter daily averages, but above nearby lower-band support. Daily ATR14 of $6.66 frames the volatility. The unresolved question is whether price can reclaim overhead levels while hourly momentum remains bearish.
FAQ
What is the near-term technical outlook for the Vanguard S&P 500 ETF?
The near-term daily bias is bearish. VOO closed Friday at $698.58, below both the 20-session EMA at $706.82 and the 50-session EMA at $704.14. However, price remains above the 200-session EMA at $672.13, so the longer-term structure is not fully bearish.
What are the key support levels for VOO?
The immediate references beneath price are the daily lower Bollinger band at $696.83 and daily first support at $696.72. Further below, the daily 200-session EMA at $672.13 is a more distant structural level.
What would signal a shift toward a bullish bias?
A bullish scenario would require price to reclaim the daily pivot at $699.24 and clear first resistance at $701.11. Beyond those, the 50-session EMA at $704.14 and 20-session EMA at $706.82 are the next overhead barriers. Confirmation from an hourly RSI14 above 50 and a MACD line above its signal would strengthen that case.
What does the hourly chart indicate?
The hourly chart reinforces the bearish near-term structure. Price is below the 20-hour EMA at $702.21, the 50-hour EMA at $705.07, and the 200-hour EMA at $706.77. Hourly RSI14 is 37.35, below the neutral 50 threshold but above oversold levels.
Disclaimer: This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute financial advice, an investment recommendation, or a solicitation to buy or sell any financial instrument. The analysis provided is not indicative of future results. Investing in financial markets carries a high risk of capital loss. Always do your own research (DYOR) and consult a qualified financial advisor before making any decision.
Cryptonomist and the author hold no positions in the financial instruments mentioned and receive no compensation from the companies covered.
Article produced with the assistance of artificial intelligence and reviewed by the editorial team.

Moonshot AI’s Kim K3.1 Pro is challenging Claude Opus 5.5 and GPT-6 Astra in financial analysis, while trailing both on a 3D modeling benchmark. Launched on October 23, 2026, the upgraded large language model has 3 trillion parameters and a one million token context window, with model weights planned for public release by November 4.
Key takeaways
Moonshot reports a financial-analysis benchmark win over both rivals.
Terminal-Bench 4.0 puts the model between Astra and Opus 5.5.
Paid cloud access is live ahead of the planned weights release.
Moonshot AI’s Kim K3.1 Pro builds on selective activation
Kim K3.1 Pro upgrades Kimi K3, the model Moonshot released in July, through additional training for complex reasoning and tasks involving multiple steps and tools. Its predecessor comprises 896 neural networks but activates only 16 at a time to minimize inference costs.
Kimi K3 also uses Kimi Delta Attention, a custom implementation of Gated DeltaNet that reduces the RAM its attention mechanism needs to interpret prompts.
Moonshot says the upgraded model’s post-training consumed substantially more processing power than its earlier projects. The training system gained automated quality checks and infrastructure efficiency improvements. According to the company, there’s also a distinct Highspeed variant built to generate responses at two to three times the speed of the standard model.
Benchmark results split across coding, 3D work and finance
Moonshot’s reported results place Kim K3.1 Pro ahead of GPT-6 Astra in terminal-based programming and ahead of both rivals in financial analysis, but behind both in 3D model coding.
On Terminal-Bench 4.0, which tests agents on programming tasks, the model scored 65.7%, compared with Astra’s 58.2% and Opus 5.5’s 66.4%. Moonshot’s internal Kimi Code Bench 3.0 Long horizon score rose from its predecessor’s 55.95% to 61.2%.
The model scored 92.7% on BenchCAD, a 3D model coding benchmark, against Opus 5.5’s 96.2% and Astra’s 95.9%. It creates geometry through code and can animate the resulting models. Moonshot also reported improvements across Unity, Unreal Engine and Godot for generating interactive environments, websites and 3D assets.
In one demonstration, a walking simulator incorporated 296 skeletal components and 402 muscle components, with the model iterating through 167 development tasks and 420 reviews before achieving a character that walked continuously for 11.2 seconds. Another internal evaluation produced multiple 3D video games.
For financial work, Moonshot reported 64.4 on OfficeQA Pro v2, surpassing both rivals on an evaluation of financial document analysis, retrieval and numerical reasoning. Internal financial-modeling and financial-research results improved by 7.2 and 11.6 points, respectively, over Kimi K3.
Moonshot also noted that, based on its internal Kimi Hallu Bench Hard evaluation, hallucination rates dropped from 23.4% to 8.3%. Opus 5.5 recorded 15% with tools in the company’s comparison. Moonshot cautioned that this difficult-scenario test does not represent everyday hallucination rates.
Cybersecurity training changes and paid access
Moonshot deliberately excluded certain cybersecurity data and tasks from post-training to limit offensive capabilities while preserving general coding performance. The resulting model scored 81% on an internal vulnerability-research evaluation, versus 90.5% for a version trained without those restrictions.
Its cybersecurity benchmark performance trails Astra and Opus 5.5. Moonshot plans more advanced vulnerability-analysis features for future models.
Moonshot AI‘s Kim K3.1 Pro can be accessed via paid cloud offerings, with both the standard and Highspeed editions reachable through Kimi.ai, Kimi Work, Kimi Code, and the firm’s API. Moonshot plans to open-source the full model weights by November 4, allowing developers to run the model on their own infrastructure.
Article produced with the assistance of artificial intelligence and reviewed by the editorial team.