Thedy
278 Posts
Thedy
Report
Block User
Crypto lover and Blockchain passionate
#BinanceTurns7
Open Trade
Frequent Trader
5.5 Years
8 Following
41 Followers
63 Liked
1 Badges
Posts
Portfolio
All
Quotes
PINNED
·
--
Article
Top Low Market Cap Cryptocurrencies with High PotentialThe cryptocurrency market continues to offer a plethora of investment opportunities, especially among low market cap tokens. These projects often carry higher risk, but their unique use cases and innovative approaches could potentially lead to significant rewards. Here’s a look at some promising low market cap cryptocurrencies worth considering:
1. Retik (RETIK)
Retik is carving a niche in the real estate sector by introducing blockchain transparency to property transactions. This token aims to streamline and secure real estate deals, making the process more efficient and trustworthy. As the real estate market gradually adopts blockchain solutions, RETIK could see substantial growth.
2. Gala (GALA)
Gala has been making waves in the gaming and entertainment industry. With a strong use case and an active community, GALA is focused on creating decentralized gaming experiences. The project’s dedication to empowering game developers and providing players with true ownership of their in-game assets sets it apart in the crowded crypto space.
3. Sei (SEI)
Known for its applications in decentralized finance (DeFi), Sei offers a robust platform for developing and managing decentralized applications (dApps). The project's emphasis on providing secure, scalable, and user-friendly DeFi solutions positions it as a strong contender in the DeFi sector.
4. Xenon (XNA)
Xenon is dedicated to enhancing security and privacy features in the cryptocurrency world. As concerns about digital privacy grow, Xenon’s focus on providing robust security solutions makes it a noteworthy project. Its potential applications in secure transactions and privacy-focused applications could drive significant interest.
5. Hello (HELLO)
Hello aims to revolutionize social media by integrating blockchain technology to ensure user privacy and data security. With increasing awareness of data privacy issues, Hello's approach to creating a decentralized social media platform could attract users looking for more control over their personal information.
6. Zephyr (ZEPH)
Zephyr is focused on providing fast and secure cross-border transactions. Its practical applications in international finance, coupled with the increasing demand for efficient global payment solutions, make ZEPH a promising project. The token’s ability to facilitate quick and low-cost transactions could drive its adoption.
7. Digital Media Labs (DML)
Digital Media Labs seeks to decentralize content creation and distribution, empowering creators through blockchain technology. By eliminating intermediaries, DML aims to give content creators more control and a fairer share of revenue. This approach could significantly impact the media and entertainment industries.
8.Velas (VLX)
Description: Velas is an EVM blockchain known for its high transaction speed and low costs, supporting decentralized applications.
9. IOTA (IOTA)
Though not as low-cap as some others, IOTA’s innovative Tangle technology offers a unique approach to the Internet of Things (IoT) sector. Its feeless and scalable nature makes it suitable for a wide range of IoT applications. IOTA's potential to disrupt the IoT industry makes it a cryptocurrency to watch.
10. Gemini (GEM)
Gemini is gaining popularity due to its unique features and potential to support various decentralized applications. The token’s versatility and strong community support could contribute to its growth. GEM's ability to facilitate different dApps makes it a valuable addition to the crypto ecosystem.
Conclusion
These cryptocurrencies are noteworthy for their potential driven by unique use cases, technological innovations, and active communities. While investing in low market cap cryptocurrencies can be highly rewarding, it is crucial to conduct thorough research and exercise caution. Always consider the risks and perform due diligence before making investment decisions.
#altcoins #DYOR
Top Low Market Cap Cryptocurrencies with High Potential
The cryptocurrency market continues to offer a plethora of investment opportunities, especially among low market cap tokens. These projects often carry higher risk, but their unique use cases and innovative approaches could potentially lead to significant rewards. Here’s a look at some promising low market cap cryptocurrencies worth considering:
1. Retik (RETIK)
Retik is carving a niche in the real estate sector by introducing blockchain transparency to property transactions. This token aims to streamline and secure real estate deals, making the process more efficient and trustworthy. As the real estate market gradually adopts blockchain solutions, RETIK could see substantial growth.
2. Gala (GALA)
Gala has been making waves in the gaming and entertainment industry. With a strong use case and an active community, GALA is focused on creating decentralized gaming experiences. The project’s dedication to empowering game developers and providing players with true ownership of their in-game assets sets it apart in the crowded crypto space.
3. Sei (SEI)
Known for its applications in decentralized finance (DeFi), Sei offers a robust platform for developing and managing decentralized applications (dApps). The project's emphasis on providing secure, scalable, and user-friendly DeFi solutions positions it as a strong contender in the DeFi sector.
4. Xenon (XNA)
Xenon is dedicated to enhancing security and privacy features in the cryptocurrency world. As concerns about digital privacy grow, Xenon’s focus on providing robust security solutions makes it a noteworthy project. Its potential applications in secure transactions and privacy-focused applications could drive significant interest.
5. Hello (HELLO)
Hello aims to revolutionize social media by integrating blockchain technology to ensure user privacy and data security. With increasing awareness of data privacy issues, Hello's approach to creating a decentralized social media platform could attract users looking for more control over their personal information.
6. Zephyr (ZEPH)
Zephyr is focused on providing fast and secure cross-border transactions. Its practical applications in international finance, coupled with the increasing demand for efficient global payment solutions, make ZEPH a promising project. The token’s ability to facilitate quick and low-cost transactions could drive its adoption.
7. Digital Media Labs (DML)
Digital Media Labs seeks to decentralize content creation and distribution, empowering creators through blockchain technology. By eliminating intermediaries, DML aims to give content creators more control and a fairer share of revenue. This approach could significantly impact the media and entertainment industries.
8.Velas (VLX)
Description: Velas is an EVM blockchain known for its high transaction speed and low costs, supporting decentralized applications.
9. IOTA (IOTA)
Though not as low-cap as some others, IOTA’s innovative Tangle technology offers a unique approach to the Internet of Things (IoT) sector. Its feeless and scalable nature makes it suitable for a wide range of IoT applications. IOTA's potential to disrupt the IoT industry makes it a cryptocurrency to watch.
10. Gemini (GEM)
Gemini is gaining popularity due to its unique features and potential to support various decentralized applications. The token’s versatility and strong community support could contribute to its growth. GEM's ability to facilitate different dApps makes it a valuable addition to the crypto ecosystem.
Conclusion
These cryptocurrencies are noteworthy for their potential driven by unique use cases, technological innovations, and active communities. While investing in low market cap cryptocurrencies can be highly rewarding, it is crucial to conduct thorough research and exercise caution. Always consider the risks and perform due diligence before making investment decisions.
#altcoins #DYOR
1. Retik (RETIK)
Retik is carving a niche in the real estate sector by introducing blockchain transparency to property transactions. This token aims to streamline and secure real estate deals, making the process more efficient and trustworthy. As the real estate market gradually adopts blockchain solutions, RETIK could see substantial growth.
2. Gala (GALA)
Gala has been making waves in the gaming and entertainment industry. With a strong use case and an active community, GALA is focused on creating decentralized gaming experiences. The project’s dedication to empowering game developers and providing players with true ownership of their in-game assets sets it apart in the crowded crypto space.
3. Sei (SEI)
Known for its applications in decentralized finance (DeFi), Sei offers a robust platform for developing and managing decentralized applications (dApps). The project's emphasis on providing secure, scalable, and user-friendly DeFi solutions positions it as a strong contender in the DeFi sector.
4. Xenon (XNA)
Xenon is dedicated to enhancing security and privacy features in the cryptocurrency world. As concerns about digital privacy grow, Xenon’s focus on providing robust security solutions makes it a noteworthy project. Its potential applications in secure transactions and privacy-focused applications could drive significant interest.
5. Hello (HELLO)
Hello aims to revolutionize social media by integrating blockchain technology to ensure user privacy and data security. With increasing awareness of data privacy issues, Hello's approach to creating a decentralized social media platform could attract users looking for more control over their personal information.
6. Zephyr (ZEPH)
Zephyr is focused on providing fast and secure cross-border transactions. Its practical applications in international finance, coupled with the increasing demand for efficient global payment solutions, make ZEPH a promising project. The token’s ability to facilitate quick and low-cost transactions could drive its adoption.
7. Digital Media Labs (DML)
Digital Media Labs seeks to decentralize content creation and distribution, empowering creators through blockchain technology. By eliminating intermediaries, DML aims to give content creators more control and a fairer share of revenue. This approach could significantly impact the media and entertainment industries.
8.Velas (VLX)
Description: Velas is an EVM blockchain known for its high transaction speed and low costs, supporting decentralized applications.
9. IOTA (IOTA)
Though not as low-cap as some others, IOTA’s innovative Tangle technology offers a unique approach to the Internet of Things (IoT) sector. Its feeless and scalable nature makes it suitable for a wide range of IoT applications. IOTA's potential to disrupt the IoT industry makes it a cryptocurrency to watch.
10. Gemini (GEM)
Gemini is gaining popularity due to its unique features and potential to support various decentralized applications. The token’s versatility and strong community support could contribute to its growth. GEM's ability to facilitate different dApps makes it a valuable addition to the crypto ecosystem.
Conclusion
These cryptocurrencies are noteworthy for their potential driven by unique use cases, technological innovations, and active communities. While investing in low market cap cryptocurrencies can be highly rewarding, it is crucial to conduct thorough research and exercise caution. Always consider the risks and perform due diligence before making investment decisions.
#altcoins #DYOR
11
2.9k
·
--
Bitcoin closed the week at $80,048 on Kraken (Sunday 25/10, 00:00 UTC), its lowest weekly close since 13/09. And Fed week is already kicking off below $80,000: a low of $79,265 around 03:00 UTC this Monday.
So, the real question this week: can the Fed on 28/10 break this streak?
First, the numbers. This is the 3rd consecutive down weekly close for $BTC : $86,510 (04/10), $83,676 (11/10), $82,002 (18/10), then $80,048. Around 07:50 UTC, the price is hovering around $80,000. CoinDesk describes it as “de-risking” ahead of the Fed, with $ETH at around $2,318 and Asia still weighing on the AI trade.
As for leverage, nothing extreme. OKX funding is +0.0098% over 8 hours, BTC-USDT perp open interest is around $2.48 billion, and there have been about $109 million in liquidations over 24 hours, according to CoinGlass, mostly shorts.
For the Fed, the consensus (FXStreet) expects rates to remain unchanged at 3.75%–4.00% on Wednesday, with the announcement at 18:00 UTC. What matters is Kevin Warsh’s tone on a possible rate hike in December.
My take: the decision itself shouldn’t change much. The message, yes. When a market falls ahead of an event with neutral funding, it often means risk has already been taken off the table, not that there’s panic.
Two concrete scenarios:
If Warsh downplays the risk of a December hike and BTC reclaims $82,500 (the floor it lost on 22/10, according to CoinDesk), the weekly losing streak has a real chance of ending.
If the tone is clearly hawkish and a daily close falls below $79,121 (the 24/10 low), the 13/09 close at $76,800 becomes the key reference again.
Your take: are you waiting until Wednesday at 18:00 UTC to act, or is $79,121 enough to make a decision before the Fed?
#Bitcoin #Fed
Bitcoin closed the week at $80,048 on Kraken (Sunday 25/10, 00:00 UTC), its lowest weekly close since 13/09. And Fed week is already kicking off below $80,000: a low of $79,265 around 03:00 UTC this Monday.
So, the real question this week: can the Fed on 28/10 break this streak?
First, the numbers. This is the 3rd consecutive down weekly close for $BTC : $86,510 (04/10), $83,676 (11/10), $82,002 (18/10), then $80,048. Around 07:50 UTC, the price is hovering around $80,000. CoinDesk describes it as “de-risking” ahead of the Fed, with $ETH at around $2,318 and Asia still weighing on the AI trade.
As for leverage, nothing extreme. OKX funding is +0.0098% over 8 hours, BTC-USDT perp open interest is around $2.48 billion, and there have been about $109 million in liquidations over 24 hours, according to CoinGlass, mostly shorts.
For the Fed, the consensus (FXStreet) expects rates to remain unchanged at 3.75%–4.00% on Wednesday, with the announcement at 18:00 UTC. What matters is Kevin Warsh’s tone on a possible rate hike in December.
My take: the decision itself shouldn’t change much. The message, yes. When a market falls ahead of an event with neutral funding, it often means risk has already been taken off the table, not that there’s panic.
Two concrete scenarios:
If Warsh downplays the risk of a December hike and BTC reclaims $82,500 (the floor it lost on 22/10, according to CoinDesk), the weekly losing streak has a real chance of ending.
If the tone is clearly hawkish and a daily close falls below $79,121 (the 24/10 low), the 13/09 close at $76,800 becomes the key reference again.
Your take: are you waiting until Wednesday at 18:00 UTC to act, or is $79,121 enough to make a decision before the Fed?
#Bitcoin #Fed
So, the real question this week: can the Fed on 28/10 break this streak?
First, the numbers. This is the 3rd consecutive down weekly close for $BTC : $86,510 (04/10), $83,676 (11/10), $82,002 (18/10), then $80,048. Around 07:50 UTC, the price is hovering around $80,000. CoinDesk describes it as “de-risking” ahead of the Fed, with $ETH at around $2,318 and Asia still weighing on the AI trade.
As for leverage, nothing extreme. OKX funding is +0.0098% over 8 hours, BTC-USDT perp open interest is around $2.48 billion, and there have been about $109 million in liquidations over 24 hours, according to CoinGlass, mostly shorts.
For the Fed, the consensus (FXStreet) expects rates to remain unchanged at 3.75%–4.00% on Wednesday, with the announcement at 18:00 UTC. What matters is Kevin Warsh’s tone on a possible rate hike in December.
My take: the decision itself shouldn’t change much. The message, yes. When a market falls ahead of an event with neutral funding, it often means risk has already been taken off the table, not that there’s panic.
Two concrete scenarios:
If Warsh downplays the risk of a December hike and BTC reclaims $82,500 (the floor it lost on 22/10, according to CoinDesk), the weekly losing streak has a real chance of ending.
If the tone is clearly hawkish and a daily close falls below $79,121 (the 24/10 low), the 13/09 close at $76,800 becomes the key reference again.
Your take: are you waiting until Wednesday at 18:00 UTC to act, or is $79,121 enough to make a decision before the Fed?
#Bitcoin #Fed
58
·
--
Bitcoin is heading toward a third consecutive weekly decline, even as U.S. spot ETFs ended the week in positive territory (+$301.2M). At around 18:50 UTC this Sunday, 25/10, $BTC is trading at around $80,580 on Kraken, about 5 hours before the 00:00 UTC close.
On the price front, the pattern is clear: Sunday closes of $86,510 (04/10), $83,676 (11/10), and $82,002 (18/10). The week opened at $82,002, reached $84,840 on 21/10, then hit a low of $79,121 on 24/10. Preliminary result: down about 1.7%.
On the ETF front, according to Decrypt’s tracker: +$526.7M on Monday, +$23.2M on Tuesday, +$524.8M on Wednesday, followed by -$635.6M on Thursday and -$137.9M on Friday. The week is still positive, but October remains in the red, at around -$314M. ETH ETFs, meanwhile, are down about $1.18B for the month.
My take: ETF money came in early in the week, as the price climbed toward $84,800, and flowed back out as soon as the price broke down. This isn’t a buyer absorbing the decline; it’s a flow that follows the price. OKX funding remains neutral (+0.0056%), so there’s no visible excess leverage to flush out.
What tonight’s close could tell us:
- Above $82,002, the streak of lower closes ends—a level that seems unlikely given the distance.
- Below $81,164, it would be the lowest weekly close since 13/09 ($76,800).
- The week’s low, $79,121, remains the level to watch ahead of the Fed on 28/10.
Question: In your view, do Monday-to-Wednesday ETF inflows matter more than Thursday-to-Friday outflows, or is it the closing price that decides?
#Bitcoin #ETF
Bitcoin is heading toward a third consecutive weekly decline, even as U.S. spot ETFs ended the week in positive territory (+$301.2M). At around 18:50 UTC this Sunday, 25/10, $BTC is trading at around $80,580 on Kraken, about 5 hours before the 00:00 UTC close.
On the price front, the pattern is clear: Sunday closes of $86,510 (04/10), $83,676 (11/10), and $82,002 (18/10). The week opened at $82,002, reached $84,840 on 21/10, then hit a low of $79,121 on 24/10. Preliminary result: down about 1.7%.
On the ETF front, according to Decrypt’s tracker: +$526.7M on Monday, +$23.2M on Tuesday, +$524.8M on Wednesday, followed by -$635.6M on Thursday and -$137.9M on Friday. The week is still positive, but October remains in the red, at around -$314M. ETH ETFs, meanwhile, are down about $1.18B for the month.
My take: ETF money came in early in the week, as the price climbed toward $84,800, and flowed back out as soon as the price broke down. This isn’t a buyer absorbing the decline; it’s a flow that follows the price. OKX funding remains neutral (+0.0056%), so there’s no visible excess leverage to flush out.
What tonight’s close could tell us:
- Above $82,002, the streak of lower closes ends—a level that seems unlikely given the distance.
- Below $81,164, it would be the lowest weekly close since 13/09 ($76,800).
- The week’s low, $79,121, remains the level to watch ahead of the Fed on 28/10.
Question: In your view, do Monday-to-Wednesday ETF inflows matter more than Thursday-to-Friday outflows, or is it the closing price that decides?
#Bitcoin #ETF
On the price front, the pattern is clear: Sunday closes of $86,510 (04/10), $83,676 (11/10), and $82,002 (18/10). The week opened at $82,002, reached $84,840 on 21/10, then hit a low of $79,121 on 24/10. Preliminary result: down about 1.7%.
On the ETF front, according to Decrypt’s tracker: +$526.7M on Monday, +$23.2M on Tuesday, +$524.8M on Wednesday, followed by -$635.6M on Thursday and -$137.9M on Friday. The week is still positive, but October remains in the red, at around -$314M. ETH ETFs, meanwhile, are down about $1.18B for the month.
My take: ETF money came in early in the week, as the price climbed toward $84,800, and flowed back out as soon as the price broke down. This isn’t a buyer absorbing the decline; it’s a flow that follows the price. OKX funding remains neutral (+0.0056%), so there’s no visible excess leverage to flush out.
What tonight’s close could tell us:
- Above $82,002, the streak of lower closes ends—a level that seems unlikely given the distance.
- Below $81,164, it would be the lowest weekly close since 13/09 ($76,800).
- The week’s low, $79,121, remains the level to watch ahead of the Fed on 28/10.
Question: In your view, do Monday-to-Wednesday ETF inflows matter more than Thursday-to-Friday outflows, or is it the closing price that decides?
#Bitcoin #ETF
16
·
--
Binance Futures opened a pre-market perpetual contract on PREDICT, Predict.fun’s token, this Sunday, 25/10, at 08:15 UTC. First look: it opened at $1.620, peaked at $1.765 in the first 15 minutes, and was around $1.45 at about 16:50 UTC.
Why does this matter to Binance users? Predict.fun is the prediction market on BNB Chain that has powered the Prediction tab in Binance Wallet since 09/04/2026 (Binance announcement). The project is backed by YZi Labs, according to TokenPost.
Binance Futures API figures at 16:50 UTC: 8.16M USDT traded across 170,867 trades, 46% of them in the first hour. Open interest: 543,578 PREDICT, or about $0.78M. Based on the total supply of 1 billion stated by Binance, the current price implies an FDV of about $1.44B (my calculation, not a spot valuation).
What the pre-market rules say: maximum leverage of 5x, funding capped at +0.005% every 4 hours, and, above all, no spot index. The mark price is the average of trades over the last 10 seconds, capped at ±1% per second. Once a stable spot market exists, the contract will gradually transition to a standard perpetual, with funding capped at ±2%.
My take: the spike in the first 15 minutes followed by a drop of about 10.5% from the open is the classic pattern of a market where early buyers pay the price-discovery premium. A pre-market price is not a listing price.
Two possible scenarios. If $1.40 holds and OI rises, the market is validating an FDV above $1B before spot trading begins. Below $1.35 (the day's low), the discount to the opening peak widens.
$BNB at $741 (+2.6% over 24 hours, Binance).
Question: would you open a pre-market position, or wait for the spot listing to get a proper index?
#PredictionMarkets #BNBChain
Binance Futures opened a pre-market perpetual contract on PREDICT, Predict.fun’s token, this Sunday, 25/10, at 08:15 UTC. First look: it opened at $1.620, peaked at $1.765 in the first 15 minutes, and was around $1.45 at about 16:50 UTC.
Why does this matter to Binance users? Predict.fun is the prediction market on BNB Chain that has powered the Prediction tab in Binance Wallet since 09/04/2026 (Binance announcement). The project is backed by YZi Labs, according to TokenPost.
Binance Futures API figures at 16:50 UTC: 8.16M USDT traded across 170,867 trades, 46% of them in the first hour. Open interest: 543,578 PREDICT, or about $0.78M. Based on the total supply of 1 billion stated by Binance, the current price implies an FDV of about $1.44B (my calculation, not a spot valuation).
What the pre-market rules say: maximum leverage of 5x, funding capped at +0.005% every 4 hours, and, above all, no spot index. The mark price is the average of trades over the last 10 seconds, capped at ±1% per second. Once a stable spot market exists, the contract will gradually transition to a standard perpetual, with funding capped at ±2%.
My take: the spike in the first 15 minutes followed by a drop of about 10.5% from the open is the classic pattern of a market where early buyers pay the price-discovery premium. A pre-market price is not a listing price.
Two possible scenarios. If $1.40 holds and OI rises, the market is validating an FDV above $1B before spot trading begins. Below $1.35 (the day's low), the discount to the opening peak widens.
$BNB at $741 (+2.6% over 24 hours, Binance).
Question: would you open a pre-market position, or wait for the spot listing to get a proper index?
#PredictionMarkets #BNBChain
Why does this matter to Binance users? Predict.fun is the prediction market on BNB Chain that has powered the Prediction tab in Binance Wallet since 09/04/2026 (Binance announcement). The project is backed by YZi Labs, according to TokenPost.
Binance Futures API figures at 16:50 UTC: 8.16M USDT traded across 170,867 trades, 46% of them in the first hour. Open interest: 543,578 PREDICT, or about $0.78M. Based on the total supply of 1 billion stated by Binance, the current price implies an FDV of about $1.44B (my calculation, not a spot valuation).
What the pre-market rules say: maximum leverage of 5x, funding capped at +0.005% every 4 hours, and, above all, no spot index. The mark price is the average of trades over the last 10 seconds, capped at ±1% per second. Once a stable spot market exists, the contract will gradually transition to a standard perpetual, with funding capped at ±2%.
My take: the spike in the first 15 minutes followed by a drop of about 10.5% from the open is the classic pattern of a market where early buyers pay the price-discovery premium. A pre-market price is not a listing price.
Two possible scenarios. If $1.40 holds and OI rises, the market is validating an FDV above $1B before spot trading begins. Below $1.35 (the day's low), the discount to the opening peak widens.
$BNB at $741 (+2.6% over 24 hours, Binance).
Question: would you open a pre-market position, or wait for the spot listing to get a proper index?
#PredictionMarkets #BNBChain
195
·
--
CoinDCX, a major Indian crypto exchange, confirmed this Sunday, 25/10, a loss of 15.99M USDT, which the company has absorbed. Tether froze 2.21M, or about 14%. The rest is gone.
The timeline, according to the CoinDCX blog and TRON data:
- 19/07/2025: A hack involving around $44M. The old wallet infrastructure was compromised and then abandoned.
- 21/10/2026: Around 15.99M USDT left a deprecated address (starting with TQKJQ) and was then split up in less than 12 hours.
- 22/10: CoinDCX initially referred to unused addresses, then acknowledged an outage in its “sweeping” service. Customers were still depositing to those old addresses, and funds were accumulating there.
- 22/10, 22:45 UTC: Tether blacklisted 9 TRON addresses, freezing 2,212,850 USDT. The first receiving address had already been emptied at 03:22 UTC.
- 25/10: CoinDCX disclosed the amount. Customer balances were credited, and trading was not interrupted.
The point of contention: ZachXBT disputes the claim that the addresses were “abandoned.” According to TRON records reviewed by CryptoWatchDesk, one of them was still transferring funds in May 2026.
My take: Tether's freeze came more than 19 hours after the first address had been emptied. The real lesson is for users. A deposit address saved in your address book can become a trap when an exchange changes its infrastructure.
Two possible outcomes: a technical report and smooth withdrawals, and the incident remains a company loss. If other old addresses start moving, platform security will become an issue again.
As for the market, no visible impact: $BTC at $80,380 on Kraken at 14:50 UTC.
Question: do you check the deposit address in the app every time, or reuse the one you saved?
#CryptoSecurity #CryptoNews
CoinDCX, a major Indian crypto exchange, confirmed this Sunday, 25/10, a loss of 15.99M USDT, which the company has absorbed. Tether froze 2.21M, or about 14%. The rest is gone.
The timeline, according to the CoinDCX blog and TRON data:
- 19/07/2025: A hack involving around $44M. The old wallet infrastructure was compromised and then abandoned.
- 21/10/2026: Around 15.99M USDT left a deprecated address (starting with TQKJQ) and was then split up in less than 12 hours.
- 22/10: CoinDCX initially referred to unused addresses, then acknowledged an outage in its “sweeping” service. Customers were still depositing to those old addresses, and funds were accumulating there.
- 22/10, 22:45 UTC: Tether blacklisted 9 TRON addresses, freezing 2,212,850 USDT. The first receiving address had already been emptied at 03:22 UTC.
- 25/10: CoinDCX disclosed the amount. Customer balances were credited, and trading was not interrupted.
The point of contention: ZachXBT disputes the claim that the addresses were “abandoned.” According to TRON records reviewed by CryptoWatchDesk, one of them was still transferring funds in May 2026.
My take: Tether's freeze came more than 19 hours after the first address had been emptied. The real lesson is for users. A deposit address saved in your address book can become a trap when an exchange changes its infrastructure.
Two possible outcomes: a technical report and smooth withdrawals, and the incident remains a company loss. If other old addresses start moving, platform security will become an issue again.
As for the market, no visible impact: $BTC at $80,380 on Kraken at 14:50 UTC.
Question: do you check the deposit address in the app every time, or reuse the one you saved?
#CryptoSecurity #CryptoNews
The timeline, according to the CoinDCX blog and TRON data:
- 19/07/2025: A hack involving around $44M. The old wallet infrastructure was compromised and then abandoned.
- 21/10/2026: Around 15.99M USDT left a deprecated address (starting with TQKJQ) and was then split up in less than 12 hours.
- 22/10: CoinDCX initially referred to unused addresses, then acknowledged an outage in its “sweeping” service. Customers were still depositing to those old addresses, and funds were accumulating there.
- 22/10, 22:45 UTC: Tether blacklisted 9 TRON addresses, freezing 2,212,850 USDT. The first receiving address had already been emptied at 03:22 UTC.
- 25/10: CoinDCX disclosed the amount. Customer balances were credited, and trading was not interrupted.
The point of contention: ZachXBT disputes the claim that the addresses were “abandoned.” According to TRON records reviewed by CryptoWatchDesk, one of them was still transferring funds in May 2026.
My take: Tether's freeze came more than 19 hours after the first address had been emptied. The real lesson is for users. A deposit address saved in your address book can become a trap when an exchange changes its infrastructure.
Two possible outcomes: a technical report and smooth withdrawals, and the incident remains a company loss. If other old addresses start moving, platform security will become an issue again.
As for the market, no visible impact: $BTC at $80,380 on Kraken at 14:50 UTC.
Question: do you check the deposit address in the app every time, or reuse the one you saved?
#CryptoSecurity #CryptoNews
62
·
--
Benyamin Netanyahu mentioned crypto as a way to circumvent potential sanctions against Israel. The Bank of Israel responded on 24/10: cryptocurrencies “cannot serve as a route” to circumvent sanctions.
The misconception: a blockchain bypasses banks, and therefore sanctions. The data tell a different story.
The context. In a TV interview on 23/10, the prime minister said he was preparing an economy that could circumvent sanctions in the event of banking restrictions, including through crypto and blockchain (Reuters, Globes). On 25/10, more than 100 economists, including former governor Jacob Frenkel, signed a letter warning of the risks. Election day is Tuesday, 27/10.
The numbers. $USDT is issued by a company that can freeze an address. In March 2025, Tether froze around $27 million on Garantex, a Russian exchange under EU and OFAC sanctions, and the platform suspended withdrawals that same day. At the time, Tether said it had frozen more than $2.5 billion in USDT linked to illicit activity and was aligned with the OFAC SDN list. And to convert back into shekels or dollars, you need a bank or a regulated exchange—the very actors targeted by sanctions.
What remains true: $BTC n has no freeze button. But its liquidity flows through monitored on- and off-ramps, and a state cannot pay for its imports from a self-custody wallet.
My take: more of a campaign statement than an operational plan. According to Ynet, the economic ministries know of no dedicated team. If a bill appears after 27/10, it becomes serious. Otherwise, it will fade with the campaign. No visible market impact: BTC at $80,312 on Kraken at 12:45 UTC.
Question: Can a public blockchain protect an entire national economy, or only individual transactions?
#Stablecoins #CryptoNews
Benyamin Netanyahu mentioned crypto as a way to circumvent potential sanctions against Israel. The Bank of Israel responded on 24/10: cryptocurrencies “cannot serve as a route” to circumvent sanctions.
The misconception: a blockchain bypasses banks, and therefore sanctions. The data tell a different story.
The context. In a TV interview on 23/10, the prime minister said he was preparing an economy that could circumvent sanctions in the event of banking restrictions, including through crypto and blockchain (Reuters, Globes). On 25/10, more than 100 economists, including former governor Jacob Frenkel, signed a letter warning of the risks. Election day is Tuesday, 27/10.
The numbers. $USDT is issued by a company that can freeze an address. In March 2025, Tether froze around $27 million on Garantex, a Russian exchange under EU and OFAC sanctions, and the platform suspended withdrawals that same day. At the time, Tether said it had frozen more than $2.5 billion in USDT linked to illicit activity and was aligned with the OFAC SDN list. And to convert back into shekels or dollars, you need a bank or a regulated exchange—the very actors targeted by sanctions.
What remains true: $BTC n has no freeze button. But its liquidity flows through monitored on- and off-ramps, and a state cannot pay for its imports from a self-custody wallet.
My take: more of a campaign statement than an operational plan. According to Ynet, the economic ministries know of no dedicated team. If a bill appears after 27/10, it becomes serious. Otherwise, it will fade with the campaign. No visible market impact: BTC at $80,312 on Kraken at 12:45 UTC.
Question: Can a public blockchain protect an entire national economy, or only individual transactions?
#Stablecoins #CryptoNews
The misconception: a blockchain bypasses banks, and therefore sanctions. The data tell a different story.
The context. In a TV interview on 23/10, the prime minister said he was preparing an economy that could circumvent sanctions in the event of banking restrictions, including through crypto and blockchain (Reuters, Globes). On 25/10, more than 100 economists, including former governor Jacob Frenkel, signed a letter warning of the risks. Election day is Tuesday, 27/10.
The numbers. $USDT is issued by a company that can freeze an address. In March 2025, Tether froze around $27 million on Garantex, a Russian exchange under EU and OFAC sanctions, and the platform suspended withdrawals that same day. At the time, Tether said it had frozen more than $2.5 billion in USDT linked to illicit activity and was aligned with the OFAC SDN list. And to convert back into shekels or dollars, you need a bank or a regulated exchange—the very actors targeted by sanctions.
What remains true: $BTC n has no freeze button. But its liquidity flows through monitored on- and off-ramps, and a state cannot pay for its imports from a self-custody wallet.
My take: more of a campaign statement than an operational plan. According to Ynet, the economic ministries know of no dedicated team. If a bill appears after 27/10, it becomes serious. Otherwise, it will fade with the campaign. No visible market impact: BTC at $80,312 on Kraken at 12:45 UTC.
Question: Can a public blockchain protect an entire national economy, or only individual transactions?
#Stablecoins #CryptoNews
1
1
113
·
--
South Korea is postponing its 22% crypto tax yet again. An official from the presidential office confirmed on 25/10 (Seoul Economic Daily, News1) that the planned start date of January 1, 2027, will be pushed back, with 2029 as the new target.
Why again? Here are the facts.
The law dates to December 2020: a 22% tax (including local tax) on annual gains above 2.5 million won, about $1,800. It was initially set to begin in 2022, then postponed to 2023, 2025, and 2027. This would be the fourth postponement. The argument this time: the US will not join the OECD's CARF data-exchange framework until 2029. Without data from US platforms, the tax would fall mainly on customers of Korean exchanges. The official also cited young people's savings.
A bill by lawmaker Park Min-gyu (Democratic Party) sets a floating date: January 1 of the second year after the first CARF exchange, which would mean 2029 if that exchange takes place in 2027. The opposition PPP also wants a delay. The tax review is scheduled for Parliament in November, and until the amendment passes, 2027 remains the legal start date.
As for the market, nothing exciting. On Upbit at 09:52 UTC, BTC is trading at 107.68 million won, or about $80,240 at the local USDT rate, almost in line with Kraken ($80,193). No kimchi premium. Over 24 hours, $XRP had more volume than $BTC on Upbit (96.3 billion versus 72.2 billion won).
My take: this removes a risk for Korean traders; it's not a bullish catalyst. If Parliament votes for 2029 in November, the issue will drop off the radar until 2028. If the bill stalls (some in the opposition are calling for outright repeal), the 2027 deadline remains in place and uncertainty will return before year-end.
Question: a crypto tax postponed four times in six years—is that prudence, or proof it will never be implemented?
#SouthKorea #CryptoTax
South Korea is postponing its 22% crypto tax yet again. An official from the presidential office confirmed on 25/10 (Seoul Economic Daily, News1) that the planned start date of January 1, 2027, will be pushed back, with 2029 as the new target.
Why again? Here are the facts.
The law dates to December 2020: a 22% tax (including local tax) on annual gains above 2.5 million won, about $1,800. It was initially set to begin in 2022, then postponed to 2023, 2025, and 2027. This would be the fourth postponement. The argument this time: the US will not join the OECD's CARF data-exchange framework until 2029. Without data from US platforms, the tax would fall mainly on customers of Korean exchanges. The official also cited young people's savings.
A bill by lawmaker Park Min-gyu (Democratic Party) sets a floating date: January 1 of the second year after the first CARF exchange, which would mean 2029 if that exchange takes place in 2027. The opposition PPP also wants a delay. The tax review is scheduled for Parliament in November, and until the amendment passes, 2027 remains the legal start date.
As for the market, nothing exciting. On Upbit at 09:52 UTC, BTC is trading at 107.68 million won, or about $80,240 at the local USDT rate, almost in line with Kraken ($80,193). No kimchi premium. Over 24 hours, $XRP had more volume than $BTC on Upbit (96.3 billion versus 72.2 billion won).
My take: this removes a risk for Korean traders; it's not a bullish catalyst. If Parliament votes for 2029 in November, the issue will drop off the radar until 2028. If the bill stalls (some in the opposition are calling for outright repeal), the 2027 deadline remains in place and uncertainty will return before year-end.
Question: a crypto tax postponed four times in six years—is that prudence, or proof it will never be implemented?
#SouthKorea #CryptoTax
Why again? Here are the facts.
The law dates to December 2020: a 22% tax (including local tax) on annual gains above 2.5 million won, about $1,800. It was initially set to begin in 2022, then postponed to 2023, 2025, and 2027. This would be the fourth postponement. The argument this time: the US will not join the OECD's CARF data-exchange framework until 2029. Without data from US platforms, the tax would fall mainly on customers of Korean exchanges. The official also cited young people's savings.
A bill by lawmaker Park Min-gyu (Democratic Party) sets a floating date: January 1 of the second year after the first CARF exchange, which would mean 2029 if that exchange takes place in 2027. The opposition PPP also wants a delay. The tax review is scheduled for Parliament in November, and until the amendment passes, 2027 remains the legal start date.
As for the market, nothing exciting. On Upbit at 09:52 UTC, BTC is trading at 107.68 million won, or about $80,240 at the local USDT rate, almost in line with Kraken ($80,193). No kimchi premium. Over 24 hours, $XRP had more volume than $BTC on Upbit (96.3 billion versus 72.2 billion won).
My take: this removes a risk for Korean traders; it's not a bullish catalyst. If Parliament votes for 2029 in November, the issue will drop off the radar until 2028. If the bill stalls (some in the opposition are calling for outright repeal), the 2027 deadline remains in place and uncertainty will return before year-end.
Question: a crypto tax postponed four times in six years—is that prudence, or proof it will never be implemented?
#SouthKorea #CryptoTax
57
·
--
Keystone, a hardware wallet manufacturer, confirmed on 24/10 (X, 17:59 UTC) that a third party obtained its customers’ names, contact details, shipping addresses and order details through its official website. Seeds, private keys and banking data were not affected, according to the company.
A common misconception: “My funds are in cold storage, so this doesn’t concern me.” The timeline tells a different story. Keystone detected unauthorized access on 20/10 and confirmed the breach on 23/10 after reviewing API activity with Shopify. On that same day, 23/10 at 23:18 UTC, a customer had already reported a fake police call on X (with a spoofed number). The official announcement came about 19 hours later.
What’s still missing: the number of affected customers and the period covered. Keystone says it deletes addresses 180 days after an order, but customers who bought in 2024 are asking whether they’re affected. A detailed report was promised “in the coming days.”
My take: the target isn’t the device, it’s its owner. A name, an address and the fact that someone “bought a hardware wallet” make for a list of self-custody holders. Keystone warns that it will never offer refunds, replacement devices or “address corrections” by phone call, text, email or letter. Never enter your seed on a device you didn’t order, and type keyst.one manually.
If the report limits the breach to the past 180 days, this remains a targeted phishing risk. If it goes back further, the debate will turn to companies that keep addresses for too long.
As for the market, $BTC is holding at $80,592 (Kraken, 25/10 07:50 UTC) after more than $810M in liquidations over 24 hours on Saturday, according to CoinGlass (via Investing.com).
Question: did you have your hardware wallet delivered to your home or to another address?
#CryptoSecurity #SelfCustody
Keystone, a hardware wallet manufacturer, confirmed on 24/10 (X, 17:59 UTC) that a third party obtained its customers’ names, contact details, shipping addresses and order details through its official website. Seeds, private keys and banking data were not affected, according to the company.
A common misconception: “My funds are in cold storage, so this doesn’t concern me.” The timeline tells a different story. Keystone detected unauthorized access on 20/10 and confirmed the breach on 23/10 after reviewing API activity with Shopify. On that same day, 23/10 at 23:18 UTC, a customer had already reported a fake police call on X (with a spoofed number). The official announcement came about 19 hours later.
What’s still missing: the number of affected customers and the period covered. Keystone says it deletes addresses 180 days after an order, but customers who bought in 2024 are asking whether they’re affected. A detailed report was promised “in the coming days.”
My take: the target isn’t the device, it’s its owner. A name, an address and the fact that someone “bought a hardware wallet” make for a list of self-custody holders. Keystone warns that it will never offer refunds, replacement devices or “address corrections” by phone call, text, email or letter. Never enter your seed on a device you didn’t order, and type keyst.one manually.
If the report limits the breach to the past 180 days, this remains a targeted phishing risk. If it goes back further, the debate will turn to companies that keep addresses for too long.
As for the market, $BTC is holding at $80,592 (Kraken, 25/10 07:50 UTC) after more than $810M in liquidations over 24 hours on Saturday, according to CoinGlass (via Investing.com).
Question: did you have your hardware wallet delivered to your home or to another address?
#CryptoSecurity #SelfCustody
A common misconception: “My funds are in cold storage, so this doesn’t concern me.” The timeline tells a different story. Keystone detected unauthorized access on 20/10 and confirmed the breach on 23/10 after reviewing API activity with Shopify. On that same day, 23/10 at 23:18 UTC, a customer had already reported a fake police call on X (with a spoofed number). The official announcement came about 19 hours later.
What’s still missing: the number of affected customers and the period covered. Keystone says it deletes addresses 180 days after an order, but customers who bought in 2024 are asking whether they’re affected. A detailed report was promised “in the coming days.”
My take: the target isn’t the device, it’s its owner. A name, an address and the fact that someone “bought a hardware wallet” make for a list of self-custody holders. Keystone warns that it will never offer refunds, replacement devices or “address corrections” by phone call, text, email or letter. Never enter your seed on a device you didn’t order, and type keyst.one manually.
If the report limits the breach to the past 180 days, this remains a targeted phishing risk. If it goes back further, the debate will turn to companies that keep addresses for too long.
As for the market, $BTC is holding at $80,592 (Kraken, 25/10 07:50 UTC) after more than $810M in liquidations over 24 hours on Saturday, according to CoinGlass (via Investing.com).
Question: did you have your hardware wallet delivered to your home or to another address?
#CryptoSecurity #SelfCustody
110
·
--
$ETH is falling faster than $BTC : the ETH/BTC ratio dropped to 0.02881 this Saturday, 24/10, on Kraken, its lowest since 24/07. During the same hour (15:00 UTC), Ether fell below $2,300 ($2,279.80) for the first time since 20/08.
Side by side, the gap is clear. Since the close on 06/10, ETH is down 13.6% ($2,697 to $2,332), while BTC is down 6.2% ($85,542 to $80,276). Over the same period, US spot Ether ETFs saw net outflows of $597M between 09/10 and 23/10, with outflows in 8 of 11 sessions, according to Farside. Bitcoin ETFs are also under pressure, but the price decline is half as large.
The detail that interests me is in derivatives. On OKX, ETH open interest (all contracts) rose from around $1.72B (23/10, 23:00 UTC) to $1.82B (24/10, 18:00 UTC) while the price fell, and current funding is slightly negative. My take, which remains an interpretation: short positions are being added to ETH rather than longs exiting. Add to that the postponement of Glamsterdam on the Hoodi testnet, announced on 22/10 by the Ethereum Foundation, and Ether lacks a catalyst of its own in the short term.
Two possible paths for the week:
- If ETH/BTC reclaims 0.0295 and ETH closes above $2,400, the breakdown will look like a weekend flush, with short sellers forced to buy back.
- A daily close below 0.0287 (the 24/07 low) would leave the ratio without nearby support before the 0.0280 zone, and the Fed meeting on 28/10 would then weigh on an already fragile Ether.
Question: are you taking advantage of this ratio to increase your ETH holdings versus BTC, or are you waiting for a first session of inflows into Ether ETFs before making a move?
#Ethereum #ETHBTC
$ETH is falling faster than $BTC : the ETH/BTC ratio dropped to 0.02881 this Saturday, 24/10, on Kraken, its lowest since 24/07. During the same hour (15:00 UTC), Ether fell below $2,300 ($2,279.80) for the first time since 20/08.
Side by side, the gap is clear. Since the close on 06/10, ETH is down 13.6% ($2,697 to $2,332), while BTC is down 6.2% ($85,542 to $80,276). Over the same period, US spot Ether ETFs saw net outflows of $597M between 09/10 and 23/10, with outflows in 8 of 11 sessions, according to Farside. Bitcoin ETFs are also under pressure, but the price decline is half as large.
The detail that interests me is in derivatives. On OKX, ETH open interest (all contracts) rose from around $1.72B (23/10, 23:00 UTC) to $1.82B (24/10, 18:00 UTC) while the price fell, and current funding is slightly negative. My take, which remains an interpretation: short positions are being added to ETH rather than longs exiting. Add to that the postponement of Glamsterdam on the Hoodi testnet, announced on 22/10 by the Ethereum Foundation, and Ether lacks a catalyst of its own in the short term.
Two possible paths for the week:
- If ETH/BTC reclaims 0.0295 and ETH closes above $2,400, the breakdown will look like a weekend flush, with short sellers forced to buy back.
- A daily close below 0.0287 (the 24/07 low) would leave the ratio without nearby support before the 0.0280 zone, and the Fed meeting on 28/10 would then weigh on an already fragile Ether.
Question: are you taking advantage of this ratio to increase your ETH holdings versus BTC, or are you waiting for a first session of inflows into Ether ETFs before making a move?
#Ethereum #ETHBTC
Side by side, the gap is clear. Since the close on 06/10, ETH is down 13.6% ($2,697 to $2,332), while BTC is down 6.2% ($85,542 to $80,276). Over the same period, US spot Ether ETFs saw net outflows of $597M between 09/10 and 23/10, with outflows in 8 of 11 sessions, according to Farside. Bitcoin ETFs are also under pressure, but the price decline is half as large.
The detail that interests me is in derivatives. On OKX, ETH open interest (all contracts) rose from around $1.72B (23/10, 23:00 UTC) to $1.82B (24/10, 18:00 UTC) while the price fell, and current funding is slightly negative. My take, which remains an interpretation: short positions are being added to ETH rather than longs exiting. Add to that the postponement of Glamsterdam on the Hoodi testnet, announced on 22/10 by the Ethereum Foundation, and Ether lacks a catalyst of its own in the short term.
Two possible paths for the week:
- If ETH/BTC reclaims 0.0295 and ETH closes above $2,400, the breakdown will look like a weekend flush, with short sellers forced to buy back.
- A daily close below 0.0287 (the 24/07 low) would leave the ratio without nearby support before the 0.0280 zone, and the Fed meeting on 28/10 would then weigh on an already fragile Ether.
Question: are you taking advantage of this ratio to increase your ETH holdings versus BTC, or are you waiting for a first session of inflows into Ether ETFs before making a move?
#Ethereum #ETHBTC
33
·
--
$BTC broke October's floor this Saturday, 24/10: $79,121 on Kraken during the 15:00 UTC hour, below the 15/10 low ($79,709). This is the lowest price since 18/09.
1/ The trigger cited by CoinDesk: according to the WSJ, the United States is evacuating personnel from embassies and bases in the Middle East amid an Iranian threat. ETH, XRP, and SOL were down 3% to 4% at the same time.
2/ The market was already fragile. Spot bitcoin ETFs saw outflows of $635.6M on 22/10, followed by $137.9M on 23/10 (Farside), for a total of $773.5M over two sessions. Since the 21/10 high of $84,840, the decline has reached 6.7%.
3/ In derivatives, there is no visible panic on OKX: BTC perpetual open interest fell from about $2.51B (23/10, 23:00 UTC) to $2.43B (24/10, 16:00 UTC), while funding remains flat (+0.0025%). My take: a moderate leverage washout, not capitulation. That's an interpretation, not a certainty.
4/ The difference from 15/10: that day, BTC touched $79,709 and then closed at $82,134. This time, the bounce remains modest, around $80,079 at 16:53 UTC.
What I'm watching:
A daily close above $80,300 (the 08/10 low) would make this dip below the floor a mere liquidity wick.
A weekly close below $79,700 on Sunday would open up the 18/09 zone, around $76,231.
Between the two, the Fed on 28/10 could determine the direction.
Question for you: is this break below the 15/10 low a weekend bear trap, or the start of a real move back toward $76,000?
#Bitcoin #BTC
$BTC broke October's floor this Saturday, 24/10: $79,121 on Kraken during the 15:00 UTC hour, below the 15/10 low ($79,709). This is the lowest price since 18/09.
1/ The trigger cited by CoinDesk: according to the WSJ, the United States is evacuating personnel from embassies and bases in the Middle East amid an Iranian threat. ETH, XRP, and SOL were down 3% to 4% at the same time.
2/ The market was already fragile. Spot bitcoin ETFs saw outflows of $635.6M on 22/10, followed by $137.9M on 23/10 (Farside), for a total of $773.5M over two sessions. Since the 21/10 high of $84,840, the decline has reached 6.7%.
3/ In derivatives, there is no visible panic on OKX: BTC perpetual open interest fell from about $2.51B (23/10, 23:00 UTC) to $2.43B (24/10, 16:00 UTC), while funding remains flat (+0.0025%). My take: a moderate leverage washout, not capitulation. That's an interpretation, not a certainty.
4/ The difference from 15/10: that day, BTC touched $79,709 and then closed at $82,134. This time, the bounce remains modest, around $80,079 at 16:53 UTC.
What I'm watching:
A daily close above $80,300 (the 08/10 low) would make this dip below the floor a mere liquidity wick.
A weekly close below $79,700 on Sunday would open up the 18/09 zone, around $76,231.
Between the two, the Fed on 28/10 could determine the direction.
Question for you: is this break below the 15/10 low a weekend bear trap, or the start of a real move back toward $76,000?
#Bitcoin #BTC
1/ The trigger cited by CoinDesk: according to the WSJ, the United States is evacuating personnel from embassies and bases in the Middle East amid an Iranian threat. ETH, XRP, and SOL were down 3% to 4% at the same time.
2/ The market was already fragile. Spot bitcoin ETFs saw outflows of $635.6M on 22/10, followed by $137.9M on 23/10 (Farside), for a total of $773.5M over two sessions. Since the 21/10 high of $84,840, the decline has reached 6.7%.
3/ In derivatives, there is no visible panic on OKX: BTC perpetual open interest fell from about $2.51B (23/10, 23:00 UTC) to $2.43B (24/10, 16:00 UTC), while funding remains flat (+0.0025%). My take: a moderate leverage washout, not capitulation. That's an interpretation, not a certainty.
4/ The difference from 15/10: that day, BTC touched $79,709 and then closed at $82,134. This time, the bounce remains modest, around $80,079 at 16:53 UTC.
What I'm watching:
A daily close above $80,300 (the 08/10 low) would make this dip below the floor a mere liquidity wick.
A weekly close below $79,700 on Sunday would open up the 18/09 zone, around $76,231.
Between the two, the Fed on 28/10 could determine the direction.
Question for you: is this break below the 15/10 low a weekend bear trap, or the start of a real move back toward $76,000?
#Bitcoin #BTC
87
·
--
$SOL fell below $100 this Saturday, 24/10: hitting a low of $99.56 on Kraken at around 14:00 UTC, the first time since 17/09.
The chart mainly tells a story of a downward slope. Since the 06/10 close at $120.69, Solana has lost 16.8%, while $BTC is down just 6.2% over the same period (Kraken). So it's not just the market falling: SOL is leading the correction. Even BTC dipped to $79,750 at the same time, just $41 above its 15/10 low.
Two figures from the derivatives market, on OKX. SOL perpetual open interest rose from around $345M (23/10, 23:00 UTC) to $365M (24/10, 14:00 UTC) while the price slid: new positions entered as prices fell. Funding, meanwhile, remains almost flat (+0.003%). My read: sellers are more likely adding positions, with no excess on either side for now. This is an interpretation; OKX does not publish the direction of positions.
What matters now is the daily close, not the wick. The last close below $100 was on 16/09 ($98.54). On 18/09, SOL bounced from $101 to $114 in a single session.
The scenarios I'm watching:
If SOL closes back above $100–101, the breakdown looks like a liquidity wick, with $105–107 in sight (22/10 high at $107.41).
If it closes below $100, the next zone is $95.7 (15/09 low), and rising OI could accelerate the decline.
A move by BTC below $79,700 would weigh on the entire market, including SOL.
Price at the time of writing: $100.45 (Kraken, 14:50 UTC).
For you, is $100 on SOL a level to buy, or a psychological floor that will eventually give way?
#Solana #SOL
$SOL fell below $100 this Saturday, 24/10: hitting a low of $99.56 on Kraken at around 14:00 UTC, the first time since 17/09.
The chart mainly tells a story of a downward slope. Since the 06/10 close at $120.69, Solana has lost 16.8%, while $BTC is down just 6.2% over the same period (Kraken). So it's not just the market falling: SOL is leading the correction. Even BTC dipped to $79,750 at the same time, just $41 above its 15/10 low.
Two figures from the derivatives market, on OKX. SOL perpetual open interest rose from around $345M (23/10, 23:00 UTC) to $365M (24/10, 14:00 UTC) while the price slid: new positions entered as prices fell. Funding, meanwhile, remains almost flat (+0.003%). My read: sellers are more likely adding positions, with no excess on either side for now. This is an interpretation; OKX does not publish the direction of positions.
What matters now is the daily close, not the wick. The last close below $100 was on 16/09 ($98.54). On 18/09, SOL bounced from $101 to $114 in a single session.
The scenarios I'm watching:
If SOL closes back above $100–101, the breakdown looks like a liquidity wick, with $105–107 in sight (22/10 high at $107.41).
If it closes below $100, the next zone is $95.7 (15/09 low), and rising OI could accelerate the decline.
A move by BTC below $79,700 would weigh on the entire market, including SOL.
Price at the time of writing: $100.45 (Kraken, 14:50 UTC).
For you, is $100 on SOL a level to buy, or a psychological floor that will eventually give way?
#Solana #SOL
The chart mainly tells a story of a downward slope. Since the 06/10 close at $120.69, Solana has lost 16.8%, while $BTC is down just 6.2% over the same period (Kraken). So it's not just the market falling: SOL is leading the correction. Even BTC dipped to $79,750 at the same time, just $41 above its 15/10 low.
Two figures from the derivatives market, on OKX. SOL perpetual open interest rose from around $345M (23/10, 23:00 UTC) to $365M (24/10, 14:00 UTC) while the price slid: new positions entered as prices fell. Funding, meanwhile, remains almost flat (+0.003%). My read: sellers are more likely adding positions, with no excess on either side for now. This is an interpretation; OKX does not publish the direction of positions.
What matters now is the daily close, not the wick. The last close below $100 was on 16/09 ($98.54). On 18/09, SOL bounced from $101 to $114 in a single session.
The scenarios I'm watching:
If SOL closes back above $100–101, the breakdown looks like a liquidity wick, with $105–107 in sight (22/10 high at $107.41).
If it closes below $100, the next zone is $95.7 (15/09 low), and rising OI could accelerate the decline.
A move by BTC below $79,700 would weigh on the entire market, including SOL.
Price at the time of writing: $100.45 (Kraken, 14:50 UTC).
For you, is $100 on SOL a level to buy, or a psychological floor that will eventually give way?
#Solana #SOL
84
·
--
Electrum, one of the oldest $BTC wallets, has released version 4.8.3 and is asking all its users to update: it fixes a vulnerability described as “critical,” whose details have not yet been made public.
What’s confirmed:
- GitHub release notes (spesmilo/electrum): version 4.8.3 dated 23/10, labeled “security update.”
- @ElectrumWallet, 24/10 at 10:06 UTC: critical vulnerability, with a description promised “later today.” As of 12:55 UTC, there was no advisory in the repository’s Security tab.
- Windows Defender may flag ZXing.dll: the team says this is a false positive.
Who needs to act: all Electrum users on desktop or Android, including Lightning users, and anyone connecting a hardware wallet through Electrum.
What I would do:
1. Download only from electrum.org, never through a link in a DM or a pop-up. Electrum has already been targeted in 2018–2019 by fake update messages sent by malicious servers.
2. Verify the GPG signature before installing.
3. Never enter your seed: an update won’t ask for it.
My take: the changelog covers input signing, parsing of descriptors and Lightning invoices, plugin verification, and disabling “rich text” rendering by default. The team hasn’t said which issue is critical. There are two possibilities: a vulnerability requiring a compromised server or user action, addressed by the update; or a risk involving transaction signing, which would justify moving your funds to a new address.
As for the market, nothing noticeable: BTC at $80,705 on Kraken (12:52 UTC), still hovering around $80,000.
Do you still keep $BTC in a desktop wallet like Electrum, or have you moved everything to a hardware wallet or exchange?
#Bitcoin #Electrum
Electrum, one of the oldest $BTC wallets, has released version 4.8.3 and is asking all its users to update: it fixes a vulnerability described as “critical,” whose details have not yet been made public.
What’s confirmed:
- GitHub release notes (spesmilo/electrum): version 4.8.3 dated 23/10, labeled “security update.”
- @ElectrumWallet, 24/10 at 10:06 UTC: critical vulnerability, with a description promised “later today.” As of 12:55 UTC, there was no advisory in the repository’s Security tab.
- Windows Defender may flag ZXing.dll: the team says this is a false positive.
Who needs to act: all Electrum users on desktop or Android, including Lightning users, and anyone connecting a hardware wallet through Electrum.
What I would do:
1. Download only from electrum.org, never through a link in a DM or a pop-up. Electrum has already been targeted in 2018–2019 by fake update messages sent by malicious servers.
2. Verify the GPG signature before installing.
3. Never enter your seed: an update won’t ask for it.
My take: the changelog covers input signing, parsing of descriptors and Lightning invoices, plugin verification, and disabling “rich text” rendering by default. The team hasn’t said which issue is critical. There are two possibilities: a vulnerability requiring a compromised server or user action, addressed by the update; or a risk involving transaction signing, which would justify moving your funds to a new address.
As for the market, nothing noticeable: BTC at $80,705 on Kraken (12:52 UTC), still hovering around $80,000.
Do you still keep $BTC in a desktop wallet like Electrum, or have you moved everything to a hardware wallet or exchange?
#Bitcoin #Electrum
What’s confirmed:
- GitHub release notes (spesmilo/electrum): version 4.8.3 dated 23/10, labeled “security update.”
- @ElectrumWallet, 24/10 at 10:06 UTC: critical vulnerability, with a description promised “later today.” As of 12:55 UTC, there was no advisory in the repository’s Security tab.
- Windows Defender may flag ZXing.dll: the team says this is a false positive.
Who needs to act: all Electrum users on desktop or Android, including Lightning users, and anyone connecting a hardware wallet through Electrum.
What I would do:
1. Download only from electrum.org, never through a link in a DM or a pop-up. Electrum has already been targeted in 2018–2019 by fake update messages sent by malicious servers.
2. Verify the GPG signature before installing.
3. Never enter your seed: an update won’t ask for it.
My take: the changelog covers input signing, parsing of descriptors and Lightning invoices, plugin verification, and disabling “rich text” rendering by default. The team hasn’t said which issue is critical. There are two possibilities: a vulnerability requiring a compromised server or user action, addressed by the update; or a risk involving transaction signing, which would justify moving your funds to a new address.
As for the market, nothing noticeable: BTC at $80,705 on Kraken (12:52 UTC), still hovering around $80,000.
Do you still keep $BTC in a desktop wallet like Electrum, or have you moved everything to a hardware wallet or exchange?
#Bitcoin #Electrum
87
·
--
$NEAR a has lost 11.7% since the founder of DFINITY accused it of using patented technology. Yet the legal case appears more fragile than the price drop.
The timeline (OKX prices):
- 21/10, 16:00 UTC: NEAR hits $5.45, its weekly high.
- 22/10, 13:31 UTC: Dominic Williams (DFINITY, $ICP) claims on X that NEAR Intents relies on DFINITY’s patented ECDSA threshold signature. NEAR is trading at $5.04 at the time.
- 22/10, 14:07 UTC: He acknowledges that the signing cluster has 16 nodes, not 8, operated by Bitwise, Nansen, Everstake and others. He maintains his patent claim.
- 24/10, 05:18 UTC: Haseeb Qureshi (Dragonfly) replies that the patent was only granted in late July and that, according to Williams’s own timeline, NEAR changed its algorithm in September. That would mean one month of possible infringement, involving an algorithm derived from an academic paper under CC-BY.
- 24/10, 09:47 UTC: NEAR at $4.45, down 9.6% over 24 hours versus BTC’s 1.3% decline.
In derivatives, NEAR open interest on OKX fell from $75.2M (21/10) to $56.6M, a 25% drop. Leverage is exiting. And $ICP isn’t benefiting: down 4.1% since the accusation.
My take: no lawsuit or court ruling has been reported at this stage. The market is selling on uncertainty against an already difficult backdrop (BTC ETFs saw $635.6M in outflows on 22/10). The fundamental cited by Bitwise remains unchanged: $10.41B in Intents volume in Q3, up 66.8% quarter over quarter.
Worth watching: the 08/10 wick at $4.30. A close below that level would open up the $4 zone. Conversely, a clear technical response at NEAR’s Backers Summit on 28/10, the day of the Fed meeting, could bring the price back toward $4.90–5.00.
Would you treat a patent accusation with no legal proceedings underway as a real risk for NEAR, or as noise between two rival L1s?
#NEAR #ICP
$NEAR a has lost 11.7% since the founder of DFINITY accused it of using patented technology. Yet the legal case appears more fragile than the price drop.
The timeline (OKX prices):
- 21/10, 16:00 UTC: NEAR hits $5.45, its weekly high.
- 22/10, 13:31 UTC: Dominic Williams (DFINITY, $ICP ) claims on X that NEAR Intents relies on DFINITY’s patented ECDSA threshold signature. NEAR is trading at $5.04 at the time.
- 22/10, 14:07 UTC: He acknowledges that the signing cluster has 16 nodes, not 8, operated by Bitwise, Nansen, Everstake and others. He maintains his patent claim.
- 24/10, 05:18 UTC: Haseeb Qureshi (Dragonfly) replies that the patent was only granted in late July and that, according to Williams’s own timeline, NEAR changed its algorithm in September. That would mean one month of possible infringement, involving an algorithm derived from an academic paper under CC-BY.
- 24/10, 09:47 UTC: NEAR at $4.45, down 9.6% over 24 hours versus BTC’s 1.3% decline.
In derivatives, NEAR open interest on OKX fell from $75.2M (21/10) to $56.6M, a 25% drop. Leverage is exiting. And $ICP isn’t benefiting: down 4.1% since the accusation.
My take: no lawsuit or court ruling has been reported at this stage. The market is selling on uncertainty against an already difficult backdrop (BTC ETFs saw $635.6M in outflows on 22/10). The fundamental cited by Bitwise remains unchanged: $10.41B in Intents volume in Q3, up 66.8% quarter over quarter.
Worth watching: the 08/10 wick at $4.30. A close below that level would open up the $4 zone. Conversely, a clear technical response at NEAR’s Backers Summit on 28/10, the day of the Fed meeting, could bring the price back toward $4.90–5.00.
Would you treat a patent accusation with no legal proceedings underway as a real risk for NEAR, or as noise between two rival L1s?
#NEAR #ICP
The timeline (OKX prices):
- 21/10, 16:00 UTC: NEAR hits $5.45, its weekly high.
- 22/10, 13:31 UTC: Dominic Williams (DFINITY, $ICP ) claims on X that NEAR Intents relies on DFINITY’s patented ECDSA threshold signature. NEAR is trading at $5.04 at the time.
- 22/10, 14:07 UTC: He acknowledges that the signing cluster has 16 nodes, not 8, operated by Bitwise, Nansen, Everstake and others. He maintains his patent claim.
- 24/10, 05:18 UTC: Haseeb Qureshi (Dragonfly) replies that the patent was only granted in late July and that, according to Williams’s own timeline, NEAR changed its algorithm in September. That would mean one month of possible infringement, involving an algorithm derived from an academic paper under CC-BY.
- 24/10, 09:47 UTC: NEAR at $4.45, down 9.6% over 24 hours versus BTC’s 1.3% decline.
In derivatives, NEAR open interest on OKX fell from $75.2M (21/10) to $56.6M, a 25% drop. Leverage is exiting. And $ICP isn’t benefiting: down 4.1% since the accusation.
My take: no lawsuit or court ruling has been reported at this stage. The market is selling on uncertainty against an already difficult backdrop (BTC ETFs saw $635.6M in outflows on 22/10). The fundamental cited by Bitwise remains unchanged: $10.41B in Intents volume in Q3, up 66.8% quarter over quarter.
Worth watching: the 08/10 wick at $4.30. A close below that level would open up the $4 zone. Conversely, a clear technical response at NEAR’s Backers Summit on 28/10, the day of the Fed meeting, could bring the price back toward $4.90–5.00.
Would you treat a patent accusation with no legal proceedings underway as a real risk for NEAR, or as noise between two rival L1s?
#NEAR #ICP
288
·
--
$BTC hasn't broken its October range yet. It did worse on the close and better on the wick, and that nuance matters this weekend.
The story going around this Saturday: Bitcoin fell below $81,000 on Friday night, so support has given way. The Kraken candles tell a different story.
The overnight low, $80,418 around 23:00 UTC, remains above the October 15 low ($79,709) and the October 8 low ($80,329). The range floor hasn't given way. However, the October 23 daily close, at $81,086, was the lowest since September 18. It's the second consecutive close (after $81,316 on October 22) below every close from October 8 to 21.
Why $81,000 carries so much weight: Glassnode estimates that the cost basis of BTC held by US spot ETFs is around $81,500. It's also the level from which the +6.7% move on September 21 began. And flows aren't helping: -$635.6M in ETF outflows on October 22 (Farside), the largest outflow since June according to SoSoValue.
What's still neutral: BTC perpetual funding on OKX is +0.0046% this morning, with no excess leverage in either direction. Weekend volumes are thin, making wicks less reliable. $BTC is trading at $80,741 on Kraken at 07:54 UTC.
My take: as long as $79,700 holds on a closing basis, this is a range wearing down, not a breakdown. Ahead of the Fed on October 28, a close back above $81,500 would put ETFs back above their average cost basis and reopen the path to $84,250. A close below $80,000, on the other hand, would activate Glassnode's next reference level around $77,600.
For those trading the range: are you waiting for a close below $79,700 to call it a breakdown, or are two closes at five-week lows already enough?
#Bitcoin #FOMC
$BTC hasn't broken its October range yet. It did worse on the close and better on the wick, and that nuance matters this weekend.
The story going around this Saturday: Bitcoin fell below $81,000 on Friday night, so support has given way. The Kraken candles tell a different story.
The overnight low, $80,418 around 23:00 UTC, remains above the October 15 low ($79,709) and the October 8 low ($80,329). The range floor hasn't given way. However, the October 23 daily close, at $81,086, was the lowest since September 18. It's the second consecutive close (after $81,316 on October 22) below every close from October 8 to 21.
Why $81,000 carries so much weight: Glassnode estimates that the cost basis of BTC held by US spot ETFs is around $81,500. It's also the level from which the +6.7% move on September 21 began. And flows aren't helping: -$635.6M in ETF outflows on October 22 (Farside), the largest outflow since June according to SoSoValue.
What's still neutral: BTC perpetual funding on OKX is +0.0046% this morning, with no excess leverage in either direction. Weekend volumes are thin, making wicks less reliable. $BTC is trading at $80,741 on Kraken at 07:54 UTC.
My take: as long as $79,700 holds on a closing basis, this is a range wearing down, not a breakdown. Ahead of the Fed on October 28, a close back above $81,500 would put ETFs back above their average cost basis and reopen the path to $84,250. A close below $80,000, on the other hand, would activate Glassnode's next reference level around $77,600.
For those trading the range: are you waiting for a close below $79,700 to call it a breakdown, or are two closes at five-week lows already enough?
#Bitcoin #FOMC
The story going around this Saturday: Bitcoin fell below $81,000 on Friday night, so support has given way. The Kraken candles tell a different story.
The overnight low, $80,418 around 23:00 UTC, remains above the October 15 low ($79,709) and the October 8 low ($80,329). The range floor hasn't given way. However, the October 23 daily close, at $81,086, was the lowest since September 18. It's the second consecutive close (after $81,316 on October 22) below every close from October 8 to 21.
Why $81,000 carries so much weight: Glassnode estimates that the cost basis of BTC held by US spot ETFs is around $81,500. It's also the level from which the +6.7% move on September 21 began. And flows aren't helping: -$635.6M in ETF outflows on October 22 (Farside), the largest outflow since June according to SoSoValue.
What's still neutral: BTC perpetual funding on OKX is +0.0046% this morning, with no excess leverage in either direction. Weekend volumes are thin, making wicks less reliable. $BTC is trading at $80,741 on Kraken at 07:54 UTC.
My take: as long as $79,700 holds on a closing basis, this is a range wearing down, not a breakdown. Ahead of the Fed on October 28, a close back above $81,500 would put ETFs back above their average cost basis and reopen the path to $84,250. A close below $80,000, on the other hand, would activate Glassnode's next reference level around $77,600.
For those trading the range: are you waiting for a close below $79,700 to call it a breakdown, or are two closes at five-week lows already enough?
#Bitcoin #FOMC
120
·
--
The XRP Ledger was supposed to activate its fixCleanup3_4_0 patch this Friday, 23/10, at 09:34 UTC. It didn’t: two hours of missing votes pushed activation back to November 4.
The timeline, according to XRPLWin and CoinDesk:
• 17/09: The patch arrives with xrpld 3.4.0 (vaults, AMM, NFT, MPT, escrow, permission delegation).
• 09/10: Majority reached, with 29 of 35 trusted validators (more than 80%). The 14-day countdown begins.
• 21/10, 12:54 UTC: A check counts only 26 votes. The counter resets to zero, less than 2 days before activation.
• 21/10, 14:46 UTC: Back to 29, and the countdown restarts.
• 04/11, 14:46 UTC: The earliest new date, provided support holds at every check (about every 15 minutes).
The important detail: a validator that’s offline or restarting at the wrong moment counts as a no. No tracker says who dropped out. The first attempt had no margin; the second is running on 32 of 35 votes tonight, according to XRPLWin.
As for the content, according to CoinDesk, the patch closes a token-creation vulnerability and adjusts vault and lending calculations. The lending protocol itself still doesn’t have enough votes to start its own countdown. $XRP holders don’t need to do anything.
The market hasn’t moved: $XRP is trading at $1.309 on Kraken at 18:53 UTC, virtually unchanged over 24 hours, after being rejected at $1.398 on 21/10.
My take: the 14-day rule did its job, but it shows just how slim the margin was. If the vote holds through 04/11 and a daily close gets back above $1.36, the $1.40 zone becomes the target again. If there’s a second reset or $1.29 (the 22/10 low) gives way, the next reference point is $1.255 (the 18/10 low).
Two hours of missing votes, twelve days lost: a useful safeguard or a rule that’s too rigid for a network looking to attract finance?
#XRPL
The XRP Ledger was supposed to activate its fixCleanup3_4_0 patch this Friday, 23/10, at 09:34 UTC. It didn’t: two hours of missing votes pushed activation back to November 4.
The timeline, according to XRPLWin and CoinDesk:
• 17/09: The patch arrives with xrpld 3.4.0 (vaults, AMM, NFT, MPT, escrow, permission delegation).
• 09/10: Majority reached, with 29 of 35 trusted validators (more than 80%). The 14-day countdown begins.
• 21/10, 12:54 UTC: A check counts only 26 votes. The counter resets to zero, less than 2 days before activation.
• 21/10, 14:46 UTC: Back to 29, and the countdown restarts.
• 04/11, 14:46 UTC: The earliest new date, provided support holds at every check (about every 15 minutes).
The important detail: a validator that’s offline or restarting at the wrong moment counts as a no. No tracker says who dropped out. The first attempt had no margin; the second is running on 32 of 35 votes tonight, according to XRPLWin.
As for the content, according to CoinDesk, the patch closes a token-creation vulnerability and adjusts vault and lending calculations. The lending protocol itself still doesn’t have enough votes to start its own countdown. $XRP holders don’t need to do anything.
The market hasn’t moved: $XRP is trading at $1.309 on Kraken at 18:53 UTC, virtually unchanged over 24 hours, after being rejected at $1.398 on 21/10.
My take: the 14-day rule did its job, but it shows just how slim the margin was. If the vote holds through 04/11 and a daily close gets back above $1.36, the $1.40 zone becomes the target again. If there’s a second reset or $1.29 (the 22/10 low) gives way, the next reference point is $1.255 (the 18/10 low).
Two hours of missing votes, twelve days lost: a useful safeguard or a rule that’s too rigid for a network looking to attract finance?
#XRPL
The timeline, according to XRPLWin and CoinDesk:
• 17/09: The patch arrives with xrpld 3.4.0 (vaults, AMM, NFT, MPT, escrow, permission delegation).
• 09/10: Majority reached, with 29 of 35 trusted validators (more than 80%). The 14-day countdown begins.
• 21/10, 12:54 UTC: A check counts only 26 votes. The counter resets to zero, less than 2 days before activation.
• 21/10, 14:46 UTC: Back to 29, and the countdown restarts.
• 04/11, 14:46 UTC: The earliest new date, provided support holds at every check (about every 15 minutes).
The important detail: a validator that’s offline or restarting at the wrong moment counts as a no. No tracker says who dropped out. The first attempt had no margin; the second is running on 32 of 35 votes tonight, according to XRPLWin.
As for the content, according to CoinDesk, the patch closes a token-creation vulnerability and adjusts vault and lending calculations. The lending protocol itself still doesn’t have enough votes to start its own countdown. $XRP holders don’t need to do anything.
The market hasn’t moved: $XRP is trading at $1.309 on Kraken at 18:53 UTC, virtually unchanged over 24 hours, after being rejected at $1.398 on 21/10.
My take: the 14-day rule did its job, but it shows just how slim the margin was. If the vote holds through 04/11 and a daily close gets back above $1.36, the $1.40 zone becomes the target again. If there’s a second reset or $1.29 (the 22/10 low) gives way, the next reference point is $1.255 (the 18/10 low).
Two hours of missing votes, twelve days lost: a useful safeguard or a rule that’s too rigid for a network looking to attract finance?
#XRPL
83
·
--
BNB Chain is activating the Jenner hard fork on the BSC testnet on 28/10, according to its official blog on 22/10. The most tangible change: 5% of each block reserved for payments.
With BEP-703 (Payment Lane), 5% of each block’s gas goes by default to eligible payments, adjustable by governance up to 10%. Eligible transactions are BNB transfers to addresses without code and calls to payment contracts listed by governance. This list starts out empty: stablecoins won’t benefit without a vote. Regular transactions cannot use the unused payment allocation, and the reservation does not guarantee that any particular payment will be included.
BEP-702 lays the foundation for CAS20, a standard for stablecoins and tokenized real-world assets: allowlists and blocklists, pausing, and separate mint, burn, and seizure roles. It is BEP-20 compatible and activated separately by an admin appointed by governance. BEP-706 adds a timestamp in milliseconds (precompile 0x70), without speeding up blocks.
Who needs to act: validators and node operators before 28/10, and MEV builders for the reserved gas. Holders don’t need to do anything. No mainnet date yet.
My take: BNB Chain is targeting payments and regulated issuers, with freeze and seizure tools that purists will criticize. $BNB is trading at $748 (Binance, 16:47 UTC), up 2.3% over 24 hours versus +0.5% for $BTC, and is running into resistance at $750–755, a zone it hasn’t closed above on a daily basis since 11/10.
If the testnet rollout goes smoothly and a mainnet date is announced, a close above $755 would reopen the $786–810 zone from early October. If it hits a snag, or if the Fed on 27–28/10 cools the market, a move back toward $725 is possible, followed by $706 (the 18/10 low).
Would you use a stablecoin with an on-chain seizure function to make payments, or is that a red line for you?
#BNBChain #Jenner
BNB Chain is activating the Jenner hard fork on the BSC testnet on 28/10, according to its official blog on 22/10. The most tangible change: 5% of each block reserved for payments.
With BEP-703 (Payment Lane), 5% of each block’s gas goes by default to eligible payments, adjustable by governance up to 10%. Eligible transactions are BNB transfers to addresses without code and calls to payment contracts listed by governance. This list starts out empty: stablecoins won’t benefit without a vote. Regular transactions cannot use the unused payment allocation, and the reservation does not guarantee that any particular payment will be included.
BEP-702 lays the foundation for CAS20, a standard for stablecoins and tokenized real-world assets: allowlists and blocklists, pausing, and separate mint, burn, and seizure roles. It is BEP-20 compatible and activated separately by an admin appointed by governance. BEP-706 adds a timestamp in milliseconds (precompile 0x70), without speeding up blocks.
Who needs to act: validators and node operators before 28/10, and MEV builders for the reserved gas. Holders don’t need to do anything. No mainnet date yet.
My take: BNB Chain is targeting payments and regulated issuers, with freeze and seizure tools that purists will criticize. $BNB is trading at $748 (Binance, 16:47 UTC), up 2.3% over 24 hours versus +0.5% for $BTC , and is running into resistance at $750–755, a zone it hasn’t closed above on a daily basis since 11/10.
If the testnet rollout goes smoothly and a mainnet date is announced, a close above $755 would reopen the $786–810 zone from early October. If it hits a snag, or if the Fed on 27–28/10 cools the market, a move back toward $725 is possible, followed by $706 (the 18/10 low).
Would you use a stablecoin with an on-chain seizure function to make payments, or is that a red line for you?
#BNBChain #Jenner
With BEP-703 (Payment Lane), 5% of each block’s gas goes by default to eligible payments, adjustable by governance up to 10%. Eligible transactions are BNB transfers to addresses without code and calls to payment contracts listed by governance. This list starts out empty: stablecoins won’t benefit without a vote. Regular transactions cannot use the unused payment allocation, and the reservation does not guarantee that any particular payment will be included.
BEP-702 lays the foundation for CAS20, a standard for stablecoins and tokenized real-world assets: allowlists and blocklists, pausing, and separate mint, burn, and seizure roles. It is BEP-20 compatible and activated separately by an admin appointed by governance. BEP-706 adds a timestamp in milliseconds (precompile 0x70), without speeding up blocks.
Who needs to act: validators and node operators before 28/10, and MEV builders for the reserved gas. Holders don’t need to do anything. No mainnet date yet.
My take: BNB Chain is targeting payments and regulated issuers, with freeze and seizure tools that purists will criticize. $BNB is trading at $748 (Binance, 16:47 UTC), up 2.3% over 24 hours versus +0.5% for $BTC , and is running into resistance at $750–755, a zone it hasn’t closed above on a daily basis since 11/10.
If the testnet rollout goes smoothly and a mainnet date is announced, a close above $755 would reopen the $786–810 zone from early October. If it hits a snag, or if the Fed on 27–28/10 cools the market, a move back toward $725 is possible, followed by $706 (the 18/10 low).
Would you use a stablecoin with an on-chain seizure function to make payments, or is that a red line for you?
#BNBChain #Jenner
54
·
--
The hashrate of $BTC has climbed back above 1 zettahash per second on a 7-day average, the first time since March 3, according to BlocksBridge Consulting (10/23). Meanwhile, publicly listed miners are shifting to AI.
The idea going around: if publicly listed miners move to AI data centers, Bitcoin’s security will erode. The numbers tell a different story.
BlocksBridge measured a 23% drop in hashrate produced by publicly listed miners, alongside a 52% increase in AI revenue over one quarter and around $1.5 billion worth of machines relocated. These machines aren’t disappearing: some are being bought by smaller miners with cheaper electricity. As a result, the 7-day average on mempool.space reached around 1,053 EH/s on 10/22.
Difficulty is following suit: +5.92% on 10/16 (140.6 T), with the estimate for the next adjustment around 10/29 hovering near +5.1% (BlocksBridge projects +5.16%). That would bring it to 147.7 T, the highest since early January, but still below October 2025’s record of 156 T.
On the market side: with BTC at $81,669 (Kraken, 14:49 UTC), my calculation comes to around $36.5 per PH/s per day before fees, and about $34.8 after the next adjustment if the price holds steady. More competition means a stronger network, but also thinner margins for the least efficient miners.
By the end of October, there are two possible paths:
- BTC holds above 81K and hashrate keeps rising: the network absorbs the exit of publicly listed miners without stress;
- BTC falls below 80K while difficulty rises another 5%: smaller miners with tight margins become sellers, putting pressure on the price.
For you, is the shift of publicly listed miners to AI a risk to Bitcoin, or decentralization happening on its own?
#Bitcoin #Mining
The hashrate of $BTC has climbed back above 1 zettahash per second on a 7-day average, the first time since March 3, according to BlocksBridge Consulting (10/23). Meanwhile, publicly listed miners are shifting to AI.
The idea going around: if publicly listed miners move to AI data centers, Bitcoin’s security will erode. The numbers tell a different story.
BlocksBridge measured a 23% drop in hashrate produced by publicly listed miners, alongside a 52% increase in AI revenue over one quarter and around $1.5 billion worth of machines relocated. These machines aren’t disappearing: some are being bought by smaller miners with cheaper electricity. As a result, the 7-day average on mempool.space reached around 1,053 EH/s on 10/22.
Difficulty is following suit: +5.92% on 10/16 (140.6 T), with the estimate for the next adjustment around 10/29 hovering near +5.1% (BlocksBridge projects +5.16%). That would bring it to 147.7 T, the highest since early January, but still below October 2025’s record of 156 T.
On the market side: with BTC at $81,669 (Kraken, 14:49 UTC), my calculation comes to around $36.5 per PH/s per day before fees, and about $34.8 after the next adjustment if the price holds steady. More competition means a stronger network, but also thinner margins for the least efficient miners.
By the end of October, there are two possible paths:
- BTC holds above 81K and hashrate keeps rising: the network absorbs the exit of publicly listed miners without stress;
- BTC falls below 80K while difficulty rises another 5%: smaller miners with tight margins become sellers, putting pressure on the price.
For you, is the shift of publicly listed miners to AI a risk to Bitcoin, or decentralization happening on its own?
#Bitcoin #Mining
The idea going around: if publicly listed miners move to AI data centers, Bitcoin’s security will erode. The numbers tell a different story.
BlocksBridge measured a 23% drop in hashrate produced by publicly listed miners, alongside a 52% increase in AI revenue over one quarter and around $1.5 billion worth of machines relocated. These machines aren’t disappearing: some are being bought by smaller miners with cheaper electricity. As a result, the 7-day average on mempool.space reached around 1,053 EH/s on 10/22.
Difficulty is following suit: +5.92% on 10/16 (140.6 T), with the estimate for the next adjustment around 10/29 hovering near +5.1% (BlocksBridge projects +5.16%). That would bring it to 147.7 T, the highest since early January, but still below October 2025’s record of 156 T.
On the market side: with BTC at $81,669 (Kraken, 14:49 UTC), my calculation comes to around $36.5 per PH/s per day before fees, and about $34.8 after the next adjustment if the price holds steady. More competition means a stronger network, but also thinner margins for the least efficient miners.
By the end of October, there are two possible paths:
- BTC holds above 81K and hashrate keeps rising: the network absorbs the exit of publicly listed miners without stress;
- BTC falls below 80K while difficulty rises another 5%: smaller miners with tight margins become sellers, putting pressure on the price.
For you, is the shift of publicly listed miners to AI a risk to Bitcoin, or decentralization happening on its own?
#Bitcoin #Mining
53
·
--
$PEPE is up +15% on 23/10 on Binance (PEPE/USDT, from $0.00000440 to $0.00000506 around 12:00 UTC), its highest since 22/09. And nobody has found a catalyst specific to the token.
The day's figures:
PEPE leads the CoinDesk 100, its biggest gain in a month, while $BTC remains stuck at $81,700.
+26% since the open on 19/10, versus -0.6% over 7 days for BTC (Benzinga).
Open interest in PEPE perpetuals on OKX: $32.8M at 00:00 UTC, $41.5M at 12:00 UTC.
Liquidations over 24 hours: $2.9M, including $2.3M in shorts, or 80% (SwoleCharts, 11:10 UTC).
The rest of the sector is following sluggishly: BONK +6%, FLOKI +4%, DOGE +1% on Binance.
My read: this is a short squeeze in a quiet market, rather than a massive return of spot buyers. Funding was still negative this morning (-0.0078%, according to CoinGlass, cited by FXStreet), and the new OI coming in during the rally is fresh leverage, not necessarily conviction.
The chart recalls a previous move: on 22/09, PEPE touched $0.00000536 on $124M in Binance volume, then gave back 13% the very next day.
Two paths from here to the Fed meeting on 27-28/10:
- a daily close above $0.00000476 (the trendline cited by FXStreet), followed by a test of $0.00000536, while CMC's Altcoin Season Index (58/100) keeps rising;
- rejection below $0.00000536, as in September, and a move back toward $0.0000044 as soon as the liquidated shorts are no longer there to push prices higher.
Do you see a memecoin gaining +15% without any news while BTC sleeps as a sign of rotation into alts, or just leverage being flushed out?
#PEPE #Memecoin
$PEPE is up +15% on 23/10 on Binance (PEPE/USDT, from $0.00000440 to $0.00000506 around 12:00 UTC), its highest since 22/09. And nobody has found a catalyst specific to the token.
The day's figures:
PEPE leads the CoinDesk 100, its biggest gain in a month, while $BTC remains stuck at $81,700.
+26% since the open on 19/10, versus -0.6% over 7 days for BTC (Benzinga).
Open interest in PEPE perpetuals on OKX: $32.8M at 00:00 UTC, $41.5M at 12:00 UTC.
Liquidations over 24 hours: $2.9M, including $2.3M in shorts, or 80% (SwoleCharts, 11:10 UTC).
The rest of the sector is following sluggishly: BONK +6%, FLOKI +4%, DOGE +1% on Binance.
My read: this is a short squeeze in a quiet market, rather than a massive return of spot buyers. Funding was still negative this morning (-0.0078%, according to CoinGlass, cited by FXStreet), and the new OI coming in during the rally is fresh leverage, not necessarily conviction.
The chart recalls a previous move: on 22/09, PEPE touched $0.00000536 on $124M in Binance volume, then gave back 13% the very next day.
Two paths from here to the Fed meeting on 27-28/10:
- a daily close above $0.00000476 (the trendline cited by FXStreet), followed by a test of $0.00000536, while CMC's Altcoin Season Index (58/100) keeps rising;
- rejection below $0.00000536, as in September, and a move back toward $0.0000044 as soon as the liquidated shorts are no longer there to push prices higher.
Do you see a memecoin gaining +15% without any news while BTC sleeps as a sign of rotation into alts, or just leverage being flushed out?
#PEPE #Memecoin
The day's figures:
PEPE leads the CoinDesk 100, its biggest gain in a month, while $BTC remains stuck at $81,700.
+26% since the open on 19/10, versus -0.6% over 7 days for BTC (Benzinga).
Open interest in PEPE perpetuals on OKX: $32.8M at 00:00 UTC, $41.5M at 12:00 UTC.
Liquidations over 24 hours: $2.9M, including $2.3M in shorts, or 80% (SwoleCharts, 11:10 UTC).
The rest of the sector is following sluggishly: BONK +6%, FLOKI +4%, DOGE +1% on Binance.
My read: this is a short squeeze in a quiet market, rather than a massive return of spot buyers. Funding was still negative this morning (-0.0078%, according to CoinGlass, cited by FXStreet), and the new OI coming in during the rally is fresh leverage, not necessarily conviction.
The chart recalls a previous move: on 22/09, PEPE touched $0.00000536 on $124M in Binance volume, then gave back 13% the very next day.
Two paths from here to the Fed meeting on 27-28/10:
- a daily close above $0.00000476 (the trendline cited by FXStreet), followed by a test of $0.00000536, while CMC's Altcoin Season Index (58/100) keeps rising;
- rejection below $0.00000536, as in September, and a move back toward $0.0000044 as soon as the liquidated shorts are no longer there to push prices higher.
Do you see a memecoin gaining +15% without any news while BTC sleeps as a sign of rotation into alts, or just leverage being flushed out?
#PEPE #Memecoin
120
·
--
US spot Bitcoin ETFs lost $635.6M on 22/10, according to Farside. In a single session, they wiped out 59% of the $1.07B that flowed in over the previous three.
The chart tells the story better than words. From 19/10 to 21/10, three golden bars: +$526.7M, +$23.2M, +$524.8M. Then the biggest red bar in the past 14 sessions, surpassing the -$484.9M on 07/10.
The outflows were widespread, not concentrated in a single issuer: IBIT (BlackRock) -$254.1M, FBTC (Fidelity) -$217.5M, ARKB -$109.4M, GBTC -$29.5M, BITB -$27.4M. Only MSBT (Morgan Stanley) saw inflows, at +$2.3M. On the same day, $ETH : -$111M in Ether ETFs, according to SoSoValue.
As for price, Kraken's daily candle on 22/10 moved from $84,300 to $80,814 before closing at $81,316. This morning, $BTC is trading at $81,488 (Kraken, 23/10 09:45 UTC). Glassnode, cited by Coin Edition, puts the average cost basis of ETF holders at around $81,000 and estimates that a decisive close below that level could open the way to $70,000.
My take: ETF flows remain more of a trend follower than a floor. Those who bought at 84K sold as soon as the price cracked, making the 81K zone a real test of conviction.
What I'm watching:
- a return to net inflows in the 23/10 session, with BTC holding 81K, and the flush looks like a shakeout;
- a second red session and a close below $80,800, and the Glassnode scenario becomes the base case ahead of the FOMC on 28/10.
For you, is the ETFs' $81K cost basis solid support, or just a level that large holders will defend until they stop doing so?
#Bitcoin #ETF
US spot Bitcoin ETFs lost $635.6M on 22/10, according to Farside. In a single session, they wiped out 59% of the $1.07B that flowed in over the previous three.
The chart tells the story better than words. From 19/10 to 21/10, three golden bars: +$526.7M, +$23.2M, +$524.8M. Then the biggest red bar in the past 14 sessions, surpassing the -$484.9M on 07/10.
The outflows were widespread, not concentrated in a single issuer: IBIT (BlackRock) -$254.1M, FBTC (Fidelity) -$217.5M, ARKB -$109.4M, GBTC -$29.5M, BITB -$27.4M. Only MSBT (Morgan Stanley) saw inflows, at +$2.3M. On the same day, $ETH : -$111M in Ether ETFs, according to SoSoValue.
As for price, Kraken's daily candle on 22/10 moved from $84,300 to $80,814 before closing at $81,316. This morning, $BTC is trading at $81,488 (Kraken, 23/10 09:45 UTC). Glassnode, cited by Coin Edition, puts the average cost basis of ETF holders at around $81,000 and estimates that a decisive close below that level could open the way to $70,000.
My take: ETF flows remain more of a trend follower than a floor. Those who bought at 84K sold as soon as the price cracked, making the 81K zone a real test of conviction.
What I'm watching:
- a return to net inflows in the 23/10 session, with BTC holding 81K, and the flush looks like a shakeout;
- a second red session and a close below $80,800, and the Glassnode scenario becomes the base case ahead of the FOMC on 28/10.
For you, is the ETFs' $81K cost basis solid support, or just a level that large holders will defend until they stop doing so?
#Bitcoin #ETF
The chart tells the story better than words. From 19/10 to 21/10, three golden bars: +$526.7M, +$23.2M, +$524.8M. Then the biggest red bar in the past 14 sessions, surpassing the -$484.9M on 07/10.
The outflows were widespread, not concentrated in a single issuer: IBIT (BlackRock) -$254.1M, FBTC (Fidelity) -$217.5M, ARKB -$109.4M, GBTC -$29.5M, BITB -$27.4M. Only MSBT (Morgan Stanley) saw inflows, at +$2.3M. On the same day, $ETH : -$111M in Ether ETFs, according to SoSoValue.
As for price, Kraken's daily candle on 22/10 moved from $84,300 to $80,814 before closing at $81,316. This morning, $BTC is trading at $81,488 (Kraken, 23/10 09:45 UTC). Glassnode, cited by Coin Edition, puts the average cost basis of ETF holders at around $81,000 and estimates that a decisive close below that level could open the way to $70,000.
My take: ETF flows remain more of a trend follower than a floor. Those who bought at 84K sold as soon as the price cracked, making the 81K zone a real test of conviction.
What I'm watching:
- a return to net inflows in the 23/10 session, with BTC holding 81K, and the flush looks like a shakeout;
- a second red session and a close below $80,800, and the Glassnode scenario becomes the base case ahead of the FOMC on 28/10.
For you, is the ETFs' $81K cost basis solid support, or just a level that large holders will defend until they stop doing so?
#Bitcoin #ETF
51
·
--
Ethereum has just postponed Glamsterdam on the Hoodi testnet: the upgrade scheduled for 26/10 at 17:42:48 UTC will not go ahead, and no new date has been set.
Why cancel a test just 3 days ahead? According to the Ethereum Foundation’s announcement on 22/10, the core devs decided during the ACDE call #248 to study how EIP-8037 interacts with contracts already deployed on mainnet. The planned 200M gas limit milestone on Hoodi is also off.
The trigger was an analysis by ChainSecurity published on 13/10. With EIP-8037 (a “state gas” reservoir) and EIP-8038 (new pricing for state access), writing a new storage slot can cost 110,020 gas once the reservoir is depleted, compared with 22,100 today—about 5 times more (figures reported by CoinDesk). Conversely, gas refunded after a revert can let a contract complete a failed operation that previously would have reverted the entire transaction. ChainSecurity says it found 13 real-world cases, disclosed responsibly. No major protocol has been publicly shown to be exploitable.
My take: this is the process working, not a failure. Better to break a testnet schedule than production contracts. But the early December mainnet target now looks shaky.
Two likely paths:
- a quick fix to EIP-8037, a new Hoodi date announced within a few weeks, and only a slight mainnet delay;
- a more extensive redesign or removal of the EIP from scope, pushing Glamsterdam into 2027.
As for the market, $ETH is holding at $2,403 (-1.1% over 24 hours, Binance, 23/10 07:50 UTC). The EF says holders do not need to take any action.
Would you prefer a reduced Glamsterdam delivered in December, or the full upgrade even if it means waiting until 2027?
#Ethereum #Glamsterdam
Ethereum has just postponed Glamsterdam on the Hoodi testnet: the upgrade scheduled for 26/10 at 17:42:48 UTC will not go ahead, and no new date has been set.
Why cancel a test just 3 days ahead? According to the Ethereum Foundation’s announcement on 22/10, the core devs decided during the ACDE call #248 to study how EIP-8037 interacts with contracts already deployed on mainnet. The planned 200M gas limit milestone on Hoodi is also off.
The trigger was an analysis by ChainSecurity published on 13/10. With EIP-8037 (a “state gas” reservoir) and EIP-8038 (new pricing for state access), writing a new storage slot can cost 110,020 gas once the reservoir is depleted, compared with 22,100 today—about 5 times more (figures reported by CoinDesk). Conversely, gas refunded after a revert can let a contract complete a failed operation that previously would have reverted the entire transaction. ChainSecurity says it found 13 real-world cases, disclosed responsibly. No major protocol has been publicly shown to be exploitable.
My take: this is the process working, not a failure. Better to break a testnet schedule than production contracts. But the early December mainnet target now looks shaky.
Two likely paths:
- a quick fix to EIP-8037, a new Hoodi date announced within a few weeks, and only a slight mainnet delay;
- a more extensive redesign or removal of the EIP from scope, pushing Glamsterdam into 2027.
As for the market, $ETH is holding at $2,403 (-1.1% over 24 hours, Binance, 23/10 07:50 UTC). The EF says holders do not need to take any action.
Would you prefer a reduced Glamsterdam delivered in December, or the full upgrade even if it means waiting until 2027?
#Ethereum #Glamsterdam
Why cancel a test just 3 days ahead? According to the Ethereum Foundation’s announcement on 22/10, the core devs decided during the ACDE call #248 to study how EIP-8037 interacts with contracts already deployed on mainnet. The planned 200M gas limit milestone on Hoodi is also off.
The trigger was an analysis by ChainSecurity published on 13/10. With EIP-8037 (a “state gas” reservoir) and EIP-8038 (new pricing for state access), writing a new storage slot can cost 110,020 gas once the reservoir is depleted, compared with 22,100 today—about 5 times more (figures reported by CoinDesk). Conversely, gas refunded after a revert can let a contract complete a failed operation that previously would have reverted the entire transaction. ChainSecurity says it found 13 real-world cases, disclosed responsibly. No major protocol has been publicly shown to be exploitable.
My take: this is the process working, not a failure. Better to break a testnet schedule than production contracts. But the early December mainnet target now looks shaky.
Two likely paths:
- a quick fix to EIP-8037, a new Hoodi date announced within a few weeks, and only a slight mainnet delay;
- a more extensive redesign or removal of the EIP from scope, pushing Glamsterdam into 2027.
As for the market, $ETH is holding at $2,403 (-1.1% over 24 hours, Binance, 23/10 07:50 UTC). The EF says holders do not need to take any action.
Would you prefer a reduced Glamsterdam delivered in December, or the full upgrade even if it means waiting until 2027?
#Ethereum #Glamsterdam
121
Log in to explore more content
Join global crypto users on Binance Square
⚡️ Get latest and useful information about crypto.
💬 Trusted by the world’s largest crypto exchange.
👍 Discover real insights from verified creators.
Email / Phone number
Trending Topics
BinancePick
2.6M views
141,293 Discussing
Join #EarningsSeason: Predict Earnings on Binance Pick, Share Your Take on Binance Square!
Binance Square Official
·401 Likes
·338.4k views
EarningsSeason
5M views
24,328 Discussing
FranklinTempletonFilesForTwoDividendToBitcoinETFs
1,200 views
80 Discussing