Thedy
253 Posts
Thedy
Report
Block User
Crypto lover and Blockchain passionate
#BinanceTurns7
Open Trade
Frequent Trader
5.5 Years
8 Following
41 Followers
62 Liked
1 Badges
Posts
Portfolio
All
Quotes
PINNED
·
--
Article
Top Low Market Cap Cryptocurrencies with High PotentialThe cryptocurrency market continues to offer a plethora of investment opportunities, especially among low market cap tokens. These projects often carry higher risk, but their unique use cases and innovative approaches could potentially lead to significant rewards. Here’s a look at some promising low market cap cryptocurrencies worth considering:
1. Retik (RETIK)
Retik is carving a niche in the real estate sector by introducing blockchain transparency to property transactions. This token aims to streamline and secure real estate deals, making the process more efficient and trustworthy. As the real estate market gradually adopts blockchain solutions, RETIK could see substantial growth.
2. Gala (GALA)
Gala has been making waves in the gaming and entertainment industry. With a strong use case and an active community, GALA is focused on creating decentralized gaming experiences. The project’s dedication to empowering game developers and providing players with true ownership of their in-game assets sets it apart in the crowded crypto space.
3. Sei (SEI)
Known for its applications in decentralized finance (DeFi), Sei offers a robust platform for developing and managing decentralized applications (dApps). The project's emphasis on providing secure, scalable, and user-friendly DeFi solutions positions it as a strong contender in the DeFi sector.
4. Xenon (XNA)
Xenon is dedicated to enhancing security and privacy features in the cryptocurrency world. As concerns about digital privacy grow, Xenon’s focus on providing robust security solutions makes it a noteworthy project. Its potential applications in secure transactions and privacy-focused applications could drive significant interest.
5. Hello (HELLO)
Hello aims to revolutionize social media by integrating blockchain technology to ensure user privacy and data security. With increasing awareness of data privacy issues, Hello's approach to creating a decentralized social media platform could attract users looking for more control over their personal information.
6. Zephyr (ZEPH)
Zephyr is focused on providing fast and secure cross-border transactions. Its practical applications in international finance, coupled with the increasing demand for efficient global payment solutions, make ZEPH a promising project. The token’s ability to facilitate quick and low-cost transactions could drive its adoption.
7. Digital Media Labs (DML)
Digital Media Labs seeks to decentralize content creation and distribution, empowering creators through blockchain technology. By eliminating intermediaries, DML aims to give content creators more control and a fairer share of revenue. This approach could significantly impact the media and entertainment industries.
8.Velas (VLX)
Description: Velas is an EVM blockchain known for its high transaction speed and low costs, supporting decentralized applications.
9. IOTA (IOTA)
Though not as low-cap as some others, IOTA’s innovative Tangle technology offers a unique approach to the Internet of Things (IoT) sector. Its feeless and scalable nature makes it suitable for a wide range of IoT applications. IOTA's potential to disrupt the IoT industry makes it a cryptocurrency to watch.
10. Gemini (GEM)
Gemini is gaining popularity due to its unique features and potential to support various decentralized applications. The token’s versatility and strong community support could contribute to its growth. GEM's ability to facilitate different dApps makes it a valuable addition to the crypto ecosystem.
Conclusion
These cryptocurrencies are noteworthy for their potential driven by unique use cases, technological innovations, and active communities. While investing in low market cap cryptocurrencies can be highly rewarding, it is crucial to conduct thorough research and exercise caution. Always consider the risks and perform due diligence before making investment decisions.
#altcoins #DYOR
Top Low Market Cap Cryptocurrencies with High Potential
The cryptocurrency market continues to offer a plethora of investment opportunities, especially among low market cap tokens. These projects often carry higher risk, but their unique use cases and innovative approaches could potentially lead to significant rewards. Here’s a look at some promising low market cap cryptocurrencies worth considering:
1. Retik (RETIK)
Retik is carving a niche in the real estate sector by introducing blockchain transparency to property transactions. This token aims to streamline and secure real estate deals, making the process more efficient and trustworthy. As the real estate market gradually adopts blockchain solutions, RETIK could see substantial growth.
2. Gala (GALA)
Gala has been making waves in the gaming and entertainment industry. With a strong use case and an active community, GALA is focused on creating decentralized gaming experiences. The project’s dedication to empowering game developers and providing players with true ownership of their in-game assets sets it apart in the crowded crypto space.
3. Sei (SEI)
Known for its applications in decentralized finance (DeFi), Sei offers a robust platform for developing and managing decentralized applications (dApps). The project's emphasis on providing secure, scalable, and user-friendly DeFi solutions positions it as a strong contender in the DeFi sector.
4. Xenon (XNA)
Xenon is dedicated to enhancing security and privacy features in the cryptocurrency world. As concerns about digital privacy grow, Xenon’s focus on providing robust security solutions makes it a noteworthy project. Its potential applications in secure transactions and privacy-focused applications could drive significant interest.
5. Hello (HELLO)
Hello aims to revolutionize social media by integrating blockchain technology to ensure user privacy and data security. With increasing awareness of data privacy issues, Hello's approach to creating a decentralized social media platform could attract users looking for more control over their personal information.
6. Zephyr (ZEPH)
Zephyr is focused on providing fast and secure cross-border transactions. Its practical applications in international finance, coupled with the increasing demand for efficient global payment solutions, make ZEPH a promising project. The token’s ability to facilitate quick and low-cost transactions could drive its adoption.
7. Digital Media Labs (DML)
Digital Media Labs seeks to decentralize content creation and distribution, empowering creators through blockchain technology. By eliminating intermediaries, DML aims to give content creators more control and a fairer share of revenue. This approach could significantly impact the media and entertainment industries.
8.Velas (VLX)
Description: Velas is an EVM blockchain known for its high transaction speed and low costs, supporting decentralized applications.
9. IOTA (IOTA)
Though not as low-cap as some others, IOTA’s innovative Tangle technology offers a unique approach to the Internet of Things (IoT) sector. Its feeless and scalable nature makes it suitable for a wide range of IoT applications. IOTA's potential to disrupt the IoT industry makes it a cryptocurrency to watch.
10. Gemini (GEM)
Gemini is gaining popularity due to its unique features and potential to support various decentralized applications. The token’s versatility and strong community support could contribute to its growth. GEM's ability to facilitate different dApps makes it a valuable addition to the crypto ecosystem.
Conclusion
These cryptocurrencies are noteworthy for their potential driven by unique use cases, technological innovations, and active communities. While investing in low market cap cryptocurrencies can be highly rewarding, it is crucial to conduct thorough research and exercise caution. Always consider the risks and perform due diligence before making investment decisions.
#altcoins #DYOR
1. Retik (RETIK)
Retik is carving a niche in the real estate sector by introducing blockchain transparency to property transactions. This token aims to streamline and secure real estate deals, making the process more efficient and trustworthy. As the real estate market gradually adopts blockchain solutions, RETIK could see substantial growth.
2. Gala (GALA)
Gala has been making waves in the gaming and entertainment industry. With a strong use case and an active community, GALA is focused on creating decentralized gaming experiences. The project’s dedication to empowering game developers and providing players with true ownership of their in-game assets sets it apart in the crowded crypto space.
3. Sei (SEI)
Known for its applications in decentralized finance (DeFi), Sei offers a robust platform for developing and managing decentralized applications (dApps). The project's emphasis on providing secure, scalable, and user-friendly DeFi solutions positions it as a strong contender in the DeFi sector.
4. Xenon (XNA)
Xenon is dedicated to enhancing security and privacy features in the cryptocurrency world. As concerns about digital privacy grow, Xenon’s focus on providing robust security solutions makes it a noteworthy project. Its potential applications in secure transactions and privacy-focused applications could drive significant interest.
5. Hello (HELLO)
Hello aims to revolutionize social media by integrating blockchain technology to ensure user privacy and data security. With increasing awareness of data privacy issues, Hello's approach to creating a decentralized social media platform could attract users looking for more control over their personal information.
6. Zephyr (ZEPH)
Zephyr is focused on providing fast and secure cross-border transactions. Its practical applications in international finance, coupled with the increasing demand for efficient global payment solutions, make ZEPH a promising project. The token’s ability to facilitate quick and low-cost transactions could drive its adoption.
7. Digital Media Labs (DML)
Digital Media Labs seeks to decentralize content creation and distribution, empowering creators through blockchain technology. By eliminating intermediaries, DML aims to give content creators more control and a fairer share of revenue. This approach could significantly impact the media and entertainment industries.
8.Velas (VLX)
Description: Velas is an EVM blockchain known for its high transaction speed and low costs, supporting decentralized applications.
9. IOTA (IOTA)
Though not as low-cap as some others, IOTA’s innovative Tangle technology offers a unique approach to the Internet of Things (IoT) sector. Its feeless and scalable nature makes it suitable for a wide range of IoT applications. IOTA's potential to disrupt the IoT industry makes it a cryptocurrency to watch.
10. Gemini (GEM)
Gemini is gaining popularity due to its unique features and potential to support various decentralized applications. The token’s versatility and strong community support could contribute to its growth. GEM's ability to facilitate different dApps makes it a valuable addition to the crypto ecosystem.
Conclusion
These cryptocurrencies are noteworthy for their potential driven by unique use cases, technological innovations, and active communities. While investing in low market cap cryptocurrencies can be highly rewarding, it is crucial to conduct thorough research and exercise caution. Always consider the risks and perform due diligence before making investment decisions.
#altcoins #DYOR
11
2.9k
·
--
No, the GENIUS Act does not automatically kill USDC rewards on exchanges. The OCC, the regulator of US national banks, published the first final rule implementing the GENIUS Act on 10/21, effective 01/18/2027.
The assumption that has circulated for months: “stablecoin yield = prohibited.” The final text is more nuanced. An issuer still cannot pay interest or yield directly to holders. But the OCC removed the presumption from its March proposal that would have treated third-party reward arrangements as suspicious by default.
Instead: a case-by-case review, based on the facts. The key word is “solely”: what’s prohibited is anything paid solely for holding or using the stablecoin. A reward tied in part to something else, or to transactions, may be allowed (CoinDesk, American Banker). The hard part: existing programs have no protected status; everything will be reviewed.
As for the market, there’s been no rush this year. According to DefiLlama, stablecoins total $303.5B as of 10/21, compared with $303.7B on January 1, after growing 17.8% between the signing on 07/18/2025 and the end of 2025. Banks, meanwhile, are floating an estimate of $6.6T in deposits at risk.
My take: a win for platforms, for now, but not a blank check. Rewards for simply holding remain the most exposed.
Two possible paths by January. Either the other agencies align their rules and the offering picks up again, benefiting stablecoin use on $ETH and $SOL . Or banks secure a tougher approach through the CLARITY Act, currently stalled in the Senate, and rewards are scaled back.
If your USDC rewards switched to being “per transaction” rather than based on holding, would you keep your stablecoins on the exchange?
#GENIUSAct #Stablecoins
No, the GENIUS Act does not automatically kill USDC rewards on exchanges. The OCC, the regulator of US national banks, published the first final rule implementing the GENIUS Act on 10/21, effective 01/18/2027.
The assumption that has circulated for months: “stablecoin yield = prohibited.” The final text is more nuanced. An issuer still cannot pay interest or yield directly to holders. But the OCC removed the presumption from its March proposal that would have treated third-party reward arrangements as suspicious by default.
Instead: a case-by-case review, based on the facts. The key word is “solely”: what’s prohibited is anything paid solely for holding or using the stablecoin. A reward tied in part to something else, or to transactions, may be allowed (CoinDesk, American Banker). The hard part: existing programs have no protected status; everything will be reviewed.
As for the market, there’s been no rush this year. According to DefiLlama, stablecoins total $303.5B as of 10/21, compared with $303.7B on January 1, after growing 17.8% between the signing on 07/18/2025 and the end of 2025. Banks, meanwhile, are floating an estimate of $6.6T in deposits at risk.
My take: a win for platforms, for now, but not a blank check. Rewards for simply holding remain the most exposed.
Two possible paths by January. Either the other agencies align their rules and the offering picks up again, benefiting stablecoin use on $ETH and $SOL . Or banks secure a tougher approach through the CLARITY Act, currently stalled in the Senate, and rewards are scaled back.
If your USDC rewards switched to being “per transaction” rather than based on holding, would you keep your stablecoins on the exchange?
#GENIUSAct #Stablecoins
The assumption that has circulated for months: “stablecoin yield = prohibited.” The final text is more nuanced. An issuer still cannot pay interest or yield directly to holders. But the OCC removed the presumption from its March proposal that would have treated third-party reward arrangements as suspicious by default.
Instead: a case-by-case review, based on the facts. The key word is “solely”: what’s prohibited is anything paid solely for holding or using the stablecoin. A reward tied in part to something else, or to transactions, may be allowed (CoinDesk, American Banker). The hard part: existing programs have no protected status; everything will be reviewed.
As for the market, there’s been no rush this year. According to DefiLlama, stablecoins total $303.5B as of 10/21, compared with $303.7B on January 1, after growing 17.8% between the signing on 07/18/2025 and the end of 2025. Banks, meanwhile, are floating an estimate of $6.6T in deposits at risk.
My take: a win for platforms, for now, but not a blank check. Rewards for simply holding remain the most exposed.
Two possible paths by January. Either the other agencies align their rules and the offering picks up again, benefiting stablecoin use on $ETH and $SOL . Or banks secure a tougher approach through the CLARITY Act, currently stalled in the Senate, and rewards are scaled back.
If your USDC rewards switched to being “per transaction” rather than based on holding, would you keep your stablecoins on the exchange?
#GENIUSAct #Stablecoins
30
·
--
France wants to hold crypto platforms responsible for certain DeFi incidents when they have given their clients access to the protocols involved. The Treasury, AMF, Banque de France and ACPR said so on 21/10 in their joint response to the European Commission’s consultation on the review of MiCA.
Who should take action? CASPs—MiCA-authorised service providers that offer access to DeFi through their apps. Before opening access, they would check the code, audits, past incidents, oracles, bridges and links to illicit funds, then display a warning: unregulated protocol.
Liability would apply mainly if these checks were inadequate, a known vulnerability was ignored, or access remained open despite clear warning signs (Unchained, Cointelegraph). The authorities also propose certification for major protocols, valid for 3 years and recorded on-chain.
The figures: according to DefiLlama’s hacks database, DeFi protocols lost around $1.18bn in 2026 (219 incidents as of 19/10)—already more than in 2023, 2024 or 2025. The biggest incidents were Drift on Solana ($295m) and Kelp on Ethereum/Arbitrum ($293m), in April.
My take: this is the right lever. The average user goes through a regulated interface, not directly through a smart contract. The downside: a platform that is held responsible will shorten its list of protocols, meaning fewer options for earning on-chain yields through a European app.
This is only a proposal; the Commission’s report to lawmakers is expected by 30/06/2027. Either the EU adopts the principle and DeFi access to the $ETH and $SOL ecosystems goes through a strict filter, or other countries push for a lighter framework and the issue drags on.
Would you accept fewer protocols in your app in exchange for genuine recourse in the event of a hack?
#MiCA #DeFi
France wants to hold crypto platforms responsible for certain DeFi incidents when they have given their clients access to the protocols involved. The Treasury, AMF, Banque de France and ACPR said so on 21/10 in their joint response to the European Commission’s consultation on the review of MiCA.
Who should take action? CASPs—MiCA-authorised service providers that offer access to DeFi through their apps. Before opening access, they would check the code, audits, past incidents, oracles, bridges and links to illicit funds, then display a warning: unregulated protocol.
Liability would apply mainly if these checks were inadequate, a known vulnerability was ignored, or access remained open despite clear warning signs (Unchained, Cointelegraph). The authorities also propose certification for major protocols, valid for 3 years and recorded on-chain.
The figures: according to DefiLlama’s hacks database, DeFi protocols lost around $1.18bn in 2026 (219 incidents as of 19/10)—already more than in 2023, 2024 or 2025. The biggest incidents were Drift on Solana ($295m) and Kelp on Ethereum/Arbitrum ($293m), in April.
My take: this is the right lever. The average user goes through a regulated interface, not directly through a smart contract. The downside: a platform that is held responsible will shorten its list of protocols, meaning fewer options for earning on-chain yields through a European app.
This is only a proposal; the Commission’s report to lawmakers is expected by 30/06/2027. Either the EU adopts the principle and DeFi access to the $ETH and $SOL ecosystems goes through a strict filter, or other countries push for a lighter framework and the issue drags on.
Would you accept fewer protocols in your app in exchange for genuine recourse in the event of a hack?
#MiCA #DeFi
Who should take action? CASPs—MiCA-authorised service providers that offer access to DeFi through their apps. Before opening access, they would check the code, audits, past incidents, oracles, bridges and links to illicit funds, then display a warning: unregulated protocol.
Liability would apply mainly if these checks were inadequate, a known vulnerability was ignored, or access remained open despite clear warning signs (Unchained, Cointelegraph). The authorities also propose certification for major protocols, valid for 3 years and recorded on-chain.
The figures: according to DefiLlama’s hacks database, DeFi protocols lost around $1.18bn in 2026 (219 incidents as of 19/10)—already more than in 2023, 2024 or 2025. The biggest incidents were Drift on Solana ($295m) and Kelp on Ethereum/Arbitrum ($293m), in April.
My take: this is the right lever. The average user goes through a regulated interface, not directly through a smart contract. The downside: a platform that is held responsible will shorten its list of protocols, meaning fewer options for earning on-chain yields through a European app.
This is only a proposal; the Commission’s report to lawmakers is expected by 30/06/2027. Either the EU adopts the principle and DeFi access to the $ETH and $SOL ecosystems goes through a strict filter, or other countries push for a lighter framework and the issue drags on.
Would you accept fewer protocols in your app in exchange for genuine recourse in the event of a hack?
#MiCA #DeFi
54
·
--
SpaceX and Tesla are exploring a merger, and their combined holdings would amount to 30 221 $BTC. Elon Musk confirmed it on 20/10 during SpaceX’s Q3 earnings call: each board has formed a special committee of independent directors.
What can be verified:
• SpaceX reports 18 712 BTC, Tesla 11 509 BTC (quarterly filings, reported by CoinDesk on 21/10)
• Total: 30 221 BTC, or about $2.54 billion at Kraken’s price of about $84,100 (21/10, UTC)
• That’s about 3.6% of Strategy’s 848 517 BTC (19/10 filing)
• Neither company changed its BTC holdings in its 2026 reports. SpaceX values its digital assets at $1.573 billion as of 30/09
• According to Musk, the committees have not agreed on any terms. On Tesla’s side, approval from 50% of all shares would be required—not just those voted (CNBC)
My take: Bitcoin isn’t the reason for the deal; it’s a balance-sheet line item, representing about 0.07% of the two companies’ combined value. But putting 30K BTC in a single treasury managed by one board changes the question: hold, sell, or add?
Two things to watch in the short term:
Tesla reports Q3 earnings tonight after the US market close. If its holdings remain at 11 509 BTC, the base case is still dormant BTC, merger or not.
If the committees make progress on terms, the new group’s treasury policy becomes a real issue—especially since SpaceX spent $19.6 billion on capex in Q3, mostly on AI.
Meanwhile, $BTC is trading back above $84,000, a level to watch ahead of the 28/10 FOMC. A daily close above it would matter more than the wick.
What do you think: if the merger goes through, will the group hold its 30 221 BTC, sell some to fund AI, or buy more?
#SpaceX #Tesla #Bitcoin
SpaceX and Tesla are exploring a merger, and their combined holdings would amount to 30 221 $BTC . Elon Musk confirmed it on 20/10 during SpaceX’s Q3 earnings call: each board has formed a special committee of independent directors.
What can be verified:
• SpaceX reports 18 712 BTC, Tesla 11 509 BTC (quarterly filings, reported by CoinDesk on 21/10)
• Total: 30 221 BTC, or about $2.54 billion at Kraken’s price of about $84,100 (21/10, UTC)
• That’s about 3.6% of Strategy’s 848 517 BTC (19/10 filing)
• Neither company changed its BTC holdings in its 2026 reports. SpaceX values its digital assets at $1.573 billion as of 30/09
• According to Musk, the committees have not agreed on any terms. On Tesla’s side, approval from 50% of all shares would be required—not just those voted (CNBC)
My take: Bitcoin isn’t the reason for the deal; it’s a balance-sheet line item, representing about 0.07% of the two companies’ combined value. But putting 30K BTC in a single treasury managed by one board changes the question: hold, sell, or add?
Two things to watch in the short term:
Tesla reports Q3 earnings tonight after the US market close. If its holdings remain at 11 509 BTC, the base case is still dormant BTC, merger or not.
If the committees make progress on terms, the new group’s treasury policy becomes a real issue—especially since SpaceX spent $19.6 billion on capex in Q3, mostly on AI.
Meanwhile, $BTC is trading back above $84,000, a level to watch ahead of the 28/10 FOMC. A daily close above it would matter more than the wick.
What do you think: if the merger goes through, will the group hold its 30 221 BTC, sell some to fund AI, or buy more?
#SpaceX #Tesla #Bitcoin
What can be verified:
• SpaceX reports 18 712 BTC, Tesla 11 509 BTC (quarterly filings, reported by CoinDesk on 21/10)
• Total: 30 221 BTC, or about $2.54 billion at Kraken’s price of about $84,100 (21/10, UTC)
• That’s about 3.6% of Strategy’s 848 517 BTC (19/10 filing)
• Neither company changed its BTC holdings in its 2026 reports. SpaceX values its digital assets at $1.573 billion as of 30/09
• According to Musk, the committees have not agreed on any terms. On Tesla’s side, approval from 50% of all shares would be required—not just those voted (CNBC)
My take: Bitcoin isn’t the reason for the deal; it’s a balance-sheet line item, representing about 0.07% of the two companies’ combined value. But putting 30K BTC in a single treasury managed by one board changes the question: hold, sell, or add?
Two things to watch in the short term:
Tesla reports Q3 earnings tonight after the US market close. If its holdings remain at 11 509 BTC, the base case is still dormant BTC, merger or not.
If the committees make progress on terms, the new group’s treasury policy becomes a real issue—especially since SpaceX spent $19.6 billion on capex in Q3, mostly on AI.
Meanwhile, $BTC is trading back above $84,000, a level to watch ahead of the 28/10 FOMC. A daily close above it would matter more than the wick.
What do you think: if the merger goes through, will the group hold its 30 221 BTC, sell some to fund AI, or buy more?
#SpaceX #Tesla #Bitcoin
76
·
--
Solana activates Alpenglow today (21/10): its biggest consensus overhaul since 2020 $SOL switches over at slot 459 653 000, expected around 14:00 UTC, according to Anza.
The chart shows what will change in the stats. Across 265 minutes of public Solana RPC samples (21/10, 08:21 to 12:45 UTC), 65.6% of counted transactions were validator votes: around 4,700 tx/s in total, of which only ~1,600 tx/s came from users. With Alpenglow, these votes move off-chain and are grouped into certificates.
Three figures to remember, from official sources and CoinDesk:
Finality goes from around 6 seconds to a target of ~150 ms.
The cost of validator voting (~2 SOL per day) is replaced by a 0.8 SOL admission ticket per epoch, about 60% cheaper.
The network has lost nearly a third of its validators in a year (659 at the end of September, according to Bitwise), precisely because of these costs.
My take: the “TPS crash” that will make the rounds on X this week won’t be a collapse in activity, just the end of a count inflated by votes. The real test is how smoothly the transition goes. The on-chain proof will be simple: the getAgGenesisCert RPC method should return a certificate instead of null.
If the migration goes smoothly and ~150 ms finality holds on mainnet, $SOL gains a concrete argument against CEXs for trading and payments. If the transition drags on (around 20% of the stake has been reported as not ready by Solana Compass) or causes slowdowns, the market is more likely to focus on execution risk. As for price, SOL remains steady around $106.9 on Kraken.
What will you use to judge Alpenglow over the next 7 days: measured finality, the number of active validators, or DEX volume?
#Solana #Alpenglow
Solana activates Alpenglow today (21/10): its biggest consensus overhaul since 2020 $SOL switches over at slot 459 653 000, expected around 14:00 UTC, according to Anza.
The chart shows what will change in the stats. Across 265 minutes of public Solana RPC samples (21/10, 08:21 to 12:45 UTC), 65.6% of counted transactions were validator votes: around 4,700 tx/s in total, of which only ~1,600 tx/s came from users. With Alpenglow, these votes move off-chain and are grouped into certificates.
Three figures to remember, from official sources and CoinDesk:
Finality goes from around 6 seconds to a target of ~150 ms.
The cost of validator voting (~2 SOL per day) is replaced by a 0.8 SOL admission ticket per epoch, about 60% cheaper.
The network has lost nearly a third of its validators in a year (659 at the end of September, according to Bitwise), precisely because of these costs.
My take: the “TPS crash” that will make the rounds on X this week won’t be a collapse in activity, just the end of a count inflated by votes. The real test is how smoothly the transition goes. The on-chain proof will be simple: the getAgGenesisCert RPC method should return a certificate instead of null.
If the migration goes smoothly and ~150 ms finality holds on mainnet, $SOL gains a concrete argument against CEXs for trading and payments. If the transition drags on (around 20% of the stake has been reported as not ready by Solana Compass) or causes slowdowns, the market is more likely to focus on execution risk. As for price, SOL remains steady around $106.9 on Kraken.
What will you use to judge Alpenglow over the next 7 days: measured finality, the number of active validators, or DEX volume?
#Solana #Alpenglow
The chart shows what will change in the stats. Across 265 minutes of public Solana RPC samples (21/10, 08:21 to 12:45 UTC), 65.6% of counted transactions were validator votes: around 4,700 tx/s in total, of which only ~1,600 tx/s came from users. With Alpenglow, these votes move off-chain and are grouped into certificates.
Three figures to remember, from official sources and CoinDesk:
Finality goes from around 6 seconds to a target of ~150 ms.
The cost of validator voting (~2 SOL per day) is replaced by a 0.8 SOL admission ticket per epoch, about 60% cheaper.
The network has lost nearly a third of its validators in a year (659 at the end of September, according to Bitwise), precisely because of these costs.
My take: the “TPS crash” that will make the rounds on X this week won’t be a collapse in activity, just the end of a count inflated by votes. The real test is how smoothly the transition goes. The on-chain proof will be simple: the getAgGenesisCert RPC method should return a certificate instead of null.
If the migration goes smoothly and ~150 ms finality holds on mainnet, $SOL gains a concrete argument against CEXs for trading and payments. If the transition drags on (around 20% of the stake has been reported as not ready by Solana Compass) or causes slowdowns, the market is more likely to focus on execution risk. As for price, SOL remains steady around $106.9 on Kraken.
What will you use to judge Alpenglow over the next 7 days: measured finality, the number of active validators, or DEX volume?
#Solana #Alpenglow
101
·
--
Zcash finally has a date: developers have set activation of the NU7 upgrade at block 3,543,405, expected around November 5 (CoinDesk, 21/10). $ZEC rose by about 11% in its wake.
In practical terms: one block every 25 seconds instead of 75 (ZIP 218). For a platform that waits for 3 confirmations before crediting a deposit, that cuts the wait from nearly 4 minutes to about 1 minute 15 seconds. NU7 also takes 60% of the fees from each block out of circulation, to be redirected to miners starting around 2031, without changing the supply cap (ZIP 259).
Who needs to act before activation:
- Anyone who still has funds in Sprout, Zcash's very first privacy pool. After NU7, v4 transactions will become invalid and these funds will be unusable. They need to be migrated beforehand.
- Platforms and wallets, which need to switch to a node that supports this block height.
The detail few people have read: as of 21/10 at 08:00 UTC, Sean Bowe's proposal had two approvals but had not yet been merged into the deployment spec, which still listed the block height as to be determined. About 18,000 blocks remain (height 3,525,400 at 09:43 UTC, Blockchair).
ZEC is trading at $1,268 on Kraken this morning, up 12% since the close on 18/10, but still about 25% below the 26/09 high of $1,695. My take: the market is pricing in the date, not the execution yet. If the spec is merged and the nodes are delivered without a hitch, the move could extend through activation. A delay or last-minute bug would quickly send ZEC back toward the $1,050–$1,100 range, which it tested several times in October. And $BTC stuck below $84,000 is dampening overall risk appetite.
Will confirmations that are 3 times faster really push platforms to shorten ZEC deposit waiting times, or is this mainly a short-term price catalyst?
#Zcash #NU7
Zcash finally has a date: developers have set activation of the NU7 upgrade at block 3,543,405, expected around November 5 (CoinDesk, 21/10). $ZEC rose by about 11% in its wake.
In practical terms: one block every 25 seconds instead of 75 (ZIP 218). For a platform that waits for 3 confirmations before crediting a deposit, that cuts the wait from nearly 4 minutes to about 1 minute 15 seconds. NU7 also takes 60% of the fees from each block out of circulation, to be redirected to miners starting around 2031, without changing the supply cap (ZIP 259).
Who needs to act before activation:
- Anyone who still has funds in Sprout, Zcash's very first privacy pool. After NU7, v4 transactions will become invalid and these funds will be unusable. They need to be migrated beforehand.
- Platforms and wallets, which need to switch to a node that supports this block height.
The detail few people have read: as of 21/10 at 08:00 UTC, Sean Bowe's proposal had two approvals but had not yet been merged into the deployment spec, which still listed the block height as to be determined. About 18,000 blocks remain (height 3,525,400 at 09:43 UTC, Blockchair).
ZEC is trading at $1,268 on Kraken this morning, up 12% since the close on 18/10, but still about 25% below the 26/09 high of $1,695. My take: the market is pricing in the date, not the execution yet. If the spec is merged and the nodes are delivered without a hitch, the move could extend through activation. A delay or last-minute bug would quickly send ZEC back toward the $1,050–$1,100 range, which it tested several times in October. And $BTC stuck below $84,000 is dampening overall risk appetite.
Will confirmations that are 3 times faster really push platforms to shorten ZEC deposit waiting times, or is this mainly a short-term price catalyst?
#Zcash #NU7
In practical terms: one block every 25 seconds instead of 75 (ZIP 218). For a platform that waits for 3 confirmations before crediting a deposit, that cuts the wait from nearly 4 minutes to about 1 minute 15 seconds. NU7 also takes 60% of the fees from each block out of circulation, to be redirected to miners starting around 2031, without changing the supply cap (ZIP 259).
Who needs to act before activation:
- Anyone who still has funds in Sprout, Zcash's very first privacy pool. After NU7, v4 transactions will become invalid and these funds will be unusable. They need to be migrated beforehand.
- Platforms and wallets, which need to switch to a node that supports this block height.
The detail few people have read: as of 21/10 at 08:00 UTC, Sean Bowe's proposal had two approvals but had not yet been merged into the deployment spec, which still listed the block height as to be determined. About 18,000 blocks remain (height 3,525,400 at 09:43 UTC, Blockchair).
ZEC is trading at $1,268 on Kraken this morning, up 12% since the close on 18/10, but still about 25% below the 26/09 high of $1,695. My take: the market is pricing in the date, not the execution yet. If the spec is merged and the nodes are delivered without a hitch, the move could extend through activation. A delay or last-minute bug would quickly send ZEC back toward the $1,050–$1,100 range, which it tested several times in October. And $BTC stuck below $84,000 is dampening overall risk appetite.
Will confirmations that are 3 times faster really push platforms to shorten ZEC deposit waiting times, or is this mainly a short-term price catalyst?
#Zcash #NU7
127
·
--
Bitcoin has been hovering around $82,500 for more than three weeks, and Wintermute (report dated 20/10) sees the Fed meeting on 28/10 as the moment this range breaks. $BTC is at $83,100 on Kraken this morning (07:54 UTC).
1/ The range in numbers. Since 08/10, every daily Kraken close has stayed between $81,382 and $83,676. A gap of less than 3%. Wintermute notes low implied volatility (Deribit DVOL around 37).
2/ Wintermute’s levels. Above $87,000, a bullish reversal signal. A decisive loss of $82,500 would turn this support into resistance and put the low $70,000s back in play. The asymmetry is clear: about +5% to confirm the move, versus -15% to reach the downside target.
3/ The trigger. Rates staying unchanged on 28/10 remains the base case, but the market is pricing in roughly a 15–17% chance of a hike (Wintermute, via Bloomingbit). Context: CPI at 3.7% year over year (Wintermute), Brent above $110 (CoinDesk, 21/10).
4/ The patient camp. According to Hashdex (CoinDesk, 21/10), the bearish phase had lasted 359 days as of 30/09, compared with 361, 377, and 411 days for the previous three. Short-term holders now account for just 16% of supply, the lowest level since January 2023. But Hashdex wants to see $84,000 reclaimed before the Fed meeting.
5/ My take. Low volatility plus a dated event: a move is likely, but its direction isn’t. Bullish case: a cautious Fed, strong tech earnings, $84,000 reclaimed, then $87,000 tested. Bearish case: a hawkish tone, a December hike getting priced in, rising rates, and $82,500 giving way. Wintermute also prefers $BTC and $ETH over altcoins on a risk/reward basis.
By 28/10, which level do you think will go first: $84,000 reclaimed or $82,500 broken on a daily close?
#Bitcoin #FOMC
Bitcoin has been hovering around $82,500 for more than three weeks, and Wintermute (report dated 20/10) sees the Fed meeting on 28/10 as the moment this range breaks. $BTC is at $83,100 on Kraken this morning (07:54 UTC).
1/ The range in numbers. Since 08/10, every daily Kraken close has stayed between $81,382 and $83,676. A gap of less than 3%. Wintermute notes low implied volatility (Deribit DVOL around 37).
2/ Wintermute’s levels. Above $87,000, a bullish reversal signal. A decisive loss of $82,500 would turn this support into resistance and put the low $70,000s back in play. The asymmetry is clear: about +5% to confirm the move, versus -15% to reach the downside target.
3/ The trigger. Rates staying unchanged on 28/10 remains the base case, but the market is pricing in roughly a 15–17% chance of a hike (Wintermute, via Bloomingbit). Context: CPI at 3.7% year over year (Wintermute), Brent above $110 (CoinDesk, 21/10).
4/ The patient camp. According to Hashdex (CoinDesk, 21/10), the bearish phase had lasted 359 days as of 30/09, compared with 361, 377, and 411 days for the previous three. Short-term holders now account for just 16% of supply, the lowest level since January 2023. But Hashdex wants to see $84,000 reclaimed before the Fed meeting.
5/ My take. Low volatility plus a dated event: a move is likely, but its direction isn’t. Bullish case: a cautious Fed, strong tech earnings, $84,000 reclaimed, then $87,000 tested. Bearish case: a hawkish tone, a December hike getting priced in, rising rates, and $82,500 giving way. Wintermute also prefers $BTC and $ETH over altcoins on a risk/reward basis.
By 28/10, which level do you think will go first: $84,000 reclaimed or $82,500 broken on a daily close?
#Bitcoin #FOMC
1/ The range in numbers. Since 08/10, every daily Kraken close has stayed between $81,382 and $83,676. A gap of less than 3%. Wintermute notes low implied volatility (Deribit DVOL around 37).
2/ Wintermute’s levels. Above $87,000, a bullish reversal signal. A decisive loss of $82,500 would turn this support into resistance and put the low $70,000s back in play. The asymmetry is clear: about +5% to confirm the move, versus -15% to reach the downside target.
3/ The trigger. Rates staying unchanged on 28/10 remains the base case, but the market is pricing in roughly a 15–17% chance of a hike (Wintermute, via Bloomingbit). Context: CPI at 3.7% year over year (Wintermute), Brent above $110 (CoinDesk, 21/10).
4/ The patient camp. According to Hashdex (CoinDesk, 21/10), the bearish phase had lasted 359 days as of 30/09, compared with 361, 377, and 411 days for the previous three. Short-term holders now account for just 16% of supply, the lowest level since January 2023. But Hashdex wants to see $84,000 reclaimed before the Fed meeting.
5/ My take. Low volatility plus a dated event: a move is likely, but its direction isn’t. Bullish case: a cautious Fed, strong tech earnings, $84,000 reclaimed, then $87,000 tested. Bearish case: a hawkish tone, a December hike getting priced in, rising rates, and $82,500 giving way. Wintermute also prefers $BTC and $ETH over altcoins on a risk/reward basis.
By 28/10, which level do you think will go first: $84,000 reclaimed or $82,500 broken on a daily close?
#Bitcoin #FOMC
·
--
France: On 16/10, the National Assembly adopted amendment I-3898 to the 2027 budget. It abolishes tax deferral on crypto-to-stablecoin exchanges (electronic money tokens under MiCA): capital gains taxed at 31.4% from 1 January 2027. Vote no. 8836: 38 in favour, 37 against, 25 abstentions.
A one-vote margin, and Olivia Grégoire, recorded as voting “in favour”, said she had meant to vote against.
This Tuesday, 20/10, the final vote on the revenue section did not take place for lack of time: 2,828 of 3,396 amendments were still pending (Journal du Coin). So headlines saying “France approves” are premature.
Who is affected, according to the Assembly's text:
- French tax residents who exchange $BTC or $ETH for $USDC or EURC: capital gains are taxable, even if there isn't a single euro in their bank account.
- Crypto-to-crypto exchanges other than stablecoins (BTC for ETH): tax deferral remains in place.
- Calculation: the global portfolio method is scrapped in favour of the weighted average price per asset. Holdings acquired before 2027: the actual purchase price, if documented, or a pro rata share of the value as of 31/12/2026 (irrevocable choice).
- Minister David Amiel called for the amendment to be withdrawn: “stablecoins need to be defined first” (CoinDesk).
Timeline: the revenue section would not return until around 27/10, after the Social Security budget (Cryptoast). First reading of the full budget on 17/11, then the Senate.
My take: two possible paths. If the revenue section is rejected, the Senate starts again from the government's text, without this amendment. If it passes with the amendment, every profit-taking move into a stablecoin becomes a taxable event, and Chainalysis fears funds could flee to DeFi and offshore.
If the measure passes, will you keep securing your gains in stablecoins, or stay in crypto until you cash out into euros?
#France #Stablecoins #MiCA
France: On 16/10, the National Assembly adopted amendment I-3898 to the 2027 budget. It abolishes tax deferral on crypto-to-stablecoin exchanges (electronic money tokens under MiCA): capital gains taxed at 31.4% from 1 January 2027. Vote no. 8836: 38 in favour, 37 against, 25 abstentions.
A one-vote margin, and Olivia Grégoire, recorded as voting “in favour”, said she had meant to vote against.
This Tuesday, 20/10, the final vote on the revenue section did not take place for lack of time: 2,828 of 3,396 amendments were still pending (Journal du Coin). So headlines saying “France approves” are premature.
Who is affected, according to the Assembly's text:
- French tax residents who exchange $BTC or $ETH for $USDC or EURC: capital gains are taxable, even if there isn't a single euro in their bank account.
- Crypto-to-crypto exchanges other than stablecoins (BTC for ETH): tax deferral remains in place.
- Calculation: the global portfolio method is scrapped in favour of the weighted average price per asset. Holdings acquired before 2027: the actual purchase price, if documented, or a pro rata share of the value as of 31/12/2026 (irrevocable choice).
- Minister David Amiel called for the amendment to be withdrawn: “stablecoins need to be defined first” (CoinDesk).
Timeline: the revenue section would not return until around 27/10, after the Social Security budget (Cryptoast). First reading of the full budget on 17/11, then the Senate.
My take: two possible paths. If the revenue section is rejected, the Senate starts again from the government's text, without this amendment. If it passes with the amendment, every profit-taking move into a stablecoin becomes a taxable event, and Chainalysis fears funds could flee to DeFi and offshore.
If the measure passes, will you keep securing your gains in stablecoins, or stay in crypto until you cash out into euros?
#France #Stablecoins #MiCA
A one-vote margin, and Olivia Grégoire, recorded as voting “in favour”, said she had meant to vote against.
This Tuesday, 20/10, the final vote on the revenue section did not take place for lack of time: 2,828 of 3,396 amendments were still pending (Journal du Coin). So headlines saying “France approves” are premature.
Who is affected, according to the Assembly's text:
- French tax residents who exchange $BTC or $ETH for $USDC or EURC: capital gains are taxable, even if there isn't a single euro in their bank account.
- Crypto-to-crypto exchanges other than stablecoins (BTC for ETH): tax deferral remains in place.
- Calculation: the global portfolio method is scrapped in favour of the weighted average price per asset. Holdings acquired before 2027: the actual purchase price, if documented, or a pro rata share of the value as of 31/12/2026 (irrevocable choice).
- Minister David Amiel called for the amendment to be withdrawn: “stablecoins need to be defined first” (CoinDesk).
Timeline: the revenue section would not return until around 27/10, after the Social Security budget (Cryptoast). First reading of the full budget on 17/11, then the Senate.
My take: two possible paths. If the revenue section is rejected, the Senate starts again from the government's text, without this amendment. If it passes with the amendment, every profit-taking move into a stablecoin becomes a taxable event, and Chainalysis fears funds could flee to DeFi and offshore.
If the measure passes, will you keep securing your gains in stablecoins, or stay in crypto until you cash out into euros?
#France #Stablecoins #MiCA
1
·
--
J.P. Morgan Asset Management has put a number on bitcoin for the first time in its Long-Term Capital Market Assumptions 2027: 10% a year over 10 to 15 years. More than US equities (7.5%) and gold (5.5%).
The 31st edition of the document was released on 19/10, using data as of 30/09. Here’s the nuance that headlines miss: the press release publishes no $BTC figure. It says a return range has been introduced, but bitcoin is not included as an allocation. The 10.0% compound return, 20.9% arithmetic return, and 55% volatility come from media coverage (Bitcoin.com News, Forkast, Coindoo).
In the table, bitcoin ranks ahead of everything else, but only just ahead of private equity (9.8%). Compared with US equities, the gap is 2.5 percentage points, with three times the volatility (55% versus ~18%, and 17.2% for gold).
For a holder, the most useful thing is the gap between 20.9% and 10.0%. That’s the cost of big swings: +50% followed by -50% averages out to zero, but $100 becomes $75. Based on these figures, nearly 11 percentage points are lost to this drag.
My take: this isn’t a buy signal from the largest US bank; it’s a door left ajar. Pension funds and private banks build their allocations around these assumptions. As long as BTC remains outside the main covariance matrices, it remains a separate line item.
Two possibilities. If a future edition includes it in the matrices, bitcoin could make its way into model portfolios. If volatility doesn’t fall, it will remain a satellite holding, like gold.
As for price, $BTC is at $82,951 on Kraken (14:51 UTC), with closing prices ranging from $81,382 to $86,510 since 22/09.
10% a year with 55% volatility: would you take that deal, or would you prefer 7.5% in equities with three times fewer bumps along the way?
#Bitcoin #JPMorgan #Crypto
J.P. Morgan Asset Management has put a number on bitcoin for the first time in its Long-Term Capital Market Assumptions 2027: 10% a year over 10 to 15 years. More than US equities (7.5%) and gold (5.5%).
The 31st edition of the document was released on 19/10, using data as of 30/09. Here’s the nuance that headlines miss: the press release publishes no $BTC figure. It says a return range has been introduced, but bitcoin is not included as an allocation. The 10.0% compound return, 20.9% arithmetic return, and 55% volatility come from media coverage (Bitcoin.com News, Forkast, Coindoo).
In the table, bitcoin ranks ahead of everything else, but only just ahead of private equity (9.8%). Compared with US equities, the gap is 2.5 percentage points, with three times the volatility (55% versus ~18%, and 17.2% for gold).
For a holder, the most useful thing is the gap between 20.9% and 10.0%. That’s the cost of big swings: +50% followed by -50% averages out to zero, but $100 becomes $75. Based on these figures, nearly 11 percentage points are lost to this drag.
My take: this isn’t a buy signal from the largest US bank; it’s a door left ajar. Pension funds and private banks build their allocations around these assumptions. As long as BTC remains outside the main covariance matrices, it remains a separate line item.
Two possibilities. If a future edition includes it in the matrices, bitcoin could make its way into model portfolios. If volatility doesn’t fall, it will remain a satellite holding, like gold.
As for price, $BTC is at $82,951 on Kraken (14:51 UTC), with closing prices ranging from $81,382 to $86,510 since 22/09.
10% a year with 55% volatility: would you take that deal, or would you prefer 7.5% in equities with three times fewer bumps along the way?
#Bitcoin #JPMorgan #Crypto
The 31st edition of the document was released on 19/10, using data as of 30/09. Here’s the nuance that headlines miss: the press release publishes no $BTC figure. It says a return range has been introduced, but bitcoin is not included as an allocation. The 10.0% compound return, 20.9% arithmetic return, and 55% volatility come from media coverage (Bitcoin.com News, Forkast, Coindoo).
In the table, bitcoin ranks ahead of everything else, but only just ahead of private equity (9.8%). Compared with US equities, the gap is 2.5 percentage points, with three times the volatility (55% versus ~18%, and 17.2% for gold).
For a holder, the most useful thing is the gap between 20.9% and 10.0%. That’s the cost of big swings: +50% followed by -50% averages out to zero, but $100 becomes $75. Based on these figures, nearly 11 percentage points are lost to this drag.
My take: this isn’t a buy signal from the largest US bank; it’s a door left ajar. Pension funds and private banks build their allocations around these assumptions. As long as BTC remains outside the main covariance matrices, it remains a separate line item.
Two possibilities. If a future edition includes it in the matrices, bitcoin could make its way into model portfolios. If volatility doesn’t fall, it will remain a satellite holding, like gold.
As for price, $BTC is at $82,951 on Kraken (14:51 UTC), with closing prices ranging from $81,382 to $86,510 since 22/09.
10% a year with 55% volatility: would you take that deal, or would you prefer 7.5% in equities with three times fewer bumps along the way?
#Bitcoin #JPMorgan #Crypto
82
·
--
FINMA has just approved Switzerland’s first spot Bitcoin ETF open to retail investors, on 20/10. Crypto-friendly Switzerland didn’t have one before.
The misconception: “You’ve been able to buy Bitcoin listed in Zurich for years.” True, but through ETPs—listed structured products, not funds. Legally, an ETP remains a claim against its issuer, even when backed by actual $BTC.
What FINMA’s announcement says:
- a fund under Swiss law, in the “other funds for alternative investments” category, with particular risks, investing directly in Bitcoin;
- an exemption from the risk-spreading rules, given BTC’s track record and trading volumes;
- custody governed by its communication of 12/01/2026, plus FinSA suitability tests at the point of sale;
- other managers have filed or announced applications.
What’s missing: issuer, ticker, fees, listing date. finews mentions BIT Asset Management, without official confirmation.
For context: in 2021, FINMA had only authorized a crypto basket fund reserved for qualified investors. In the US, spot ETFs have been trading since 11/01/2024.
My take: the direct price impact will be small; the significance is the channel. A regulated fund can more easily be included in private banks’ mandates than an ETP. Along with Germany’s Sparkassen the day before, German-speaking Europe is opening two doors in two days.
Price-wise, $BTC is at $81,479 on Kraken (12:50 UTC), with closes between $81,382 and $86,510 since 22/09.
Two possibilities: if the issuer offers aggressive fees and others follow quickly, an American-style fee war could begin. If the listing takes a while, it’ll remain a symbol with no inflows.
ETP or ETF: does this fund status make a difference to you, or are fees all that matter?
#Bitcoin #FINMA #BitcoinETF
FINMA has just approved Switzerland’s first spot Bitcoin ETF open to retail investors, on 20/10. Crypto-friendly Switzerland didn’t have one before.
The misconception: “You’ve been able to buy Bitcoin listed in Zurich for years.” True, but through ETPs—listed structured products, not funds. Legally, an ETP remains a claim against its issuer, even when backed by actual $BTC .
What FINMA’s announcement says:
- a fund under Swiss law, in the “other funds for alternative investments” category, with particular risks, investing directly in Bitcoin;
- an exemption from the risk-spreading rules, given BTC’s track record and trading volumes;
- custody governed by its communication of 12/01/2026, plus FinSA suitability tests at the point of sale;
- other managers have filed or announced applications.
What’s missing: issuer, ticker, fees, listing date. finews mentions BIT Asset Management, without official confirmation.
For context: in 2021, FINMA had only authorized a crypto basket fund reserved for qualified investors. In the US, spot ETFs have been trading since 11/01/2024.
My take: the direct price impact will be small; the significance is the channel. A regulated fund can more easily be included in private banks’ mandates than an ETP. Along with Germany’s Sparkassen the day before, German-speaking Europe is opening two doors in two days.
Price-wise, $BTC is at $81,479 on Kraken (12:50 UTC), with closes between $81,382 and $86,510 since 22/09.
Two possibilities: if the issuer offers aggressive fees and others follow quickly, an American-style fee war could begin. If the listing takes a while, it’ll remain a symbol with no inflows.
ETP or ETF: does this fund status make a difference to you, or are fees all that matter?
#Bitcoin #FINMA #BitcoinETF
The misconception: “You’ve been able to buy Bitcoin listed in Zurich for years.” True, but through ETPs—listed structured products, not funds. Legally, an ETP remains a claim against its issuer, even when backed by actual $BTC .
What FINMA’s announcement says:
- a fund under Swiss law, in the “other funds for alternative investments” category, with particular risks, investing directly in Bitcoin;
- an exemption from the risk-spreading rules, given BTC’s track record and trading volumes;
- custody governed by its communication of 12/01/2026, plus FinSA suitability tests at the point of sale;
- other managers have filed or announced applications.
What’s missing: issuer, ticker, fees, listing date. finews mentions BIT Asset Management, without official confirmation.
For context: in 2021, FINMA had only authorized a crypto basket fund reserved for qualified investors. In the US, spot ETFs have been trading since 11/01/2024.
My take: the direct price impact will be small; the significance is the channel. A regulated fund can more easily be included in private banks’ mandates than an ETP. Along with Germany’s Sparkassen the day before, German-speaking Europe is opening two doors in two days.
Price-wise, $BTC is at $81,479 on Kraken (12:50 UTC), with closes between $81,382 and $86,510 since 22/09.
Two possibilities: if the issuer offers aggressive fees and others follow quickly, an American-style fee war could begin. If the listing takes a while, it’ll remain a symbol with no inflows.
ETP or ETF: does this fund status make a difference to you, or are fees all that matter?
#Bitcoin #FINMA #BitcoinETF
78
·
--
SkyAI (formerly Sharps Technology, Nasdaq: SKYA) no longer holds a single $SOL, despite reporting more than 2 million on 14/09. By 16/10, everything had been sold, according to its 19/10 SEC filing.
The timeline:
14/09: Reaffirmed its SOL treasury strategy.
11/10: Announced a share buyback; around 1 million SOL had already been sold.
13/10: An 8-K showed only about 600,000 SOL remaining. Bastion Trading, which owns nearly 10% of the company, demanded the dates, prices, and volumes of the sales.
16/10: Zero SOL, $223.8 million in cash. Offer of $3 per share or warrant, for up to 95% of each class, or a maximum of $201.3 million. The condition tied to the price of SOL was dropped, since there was no SOL left.
29/10: Offer closes, unless extended.
For context: at the end of 2025, SkyAI held about 2.08 million SOL worth $403.1 million, or about $194 per token (Cointelegraph, annual accounts). This Tuesday at 09:47 UTC, $SOL is worth $103.7 on Kraken, and there has been no daily close below $100 since 16/09, despite these sales.
My take: this is the mNAV logic in reverse. When a stock is worth less than its assets, buying back shares serves the remaining shareholders better than holding the token. The $3 offer is worth 0.95x net cash, and SKYA closed at $2.79 on Monday (Cointelegraph). The issue goes beyond SkyAI: Forward Industries, the largest holder with 8.5 million SOL as of 30/09, itself reported a diluted mNAV of 0.946x, while Upexi shows 0.6x on its website.
By 29/10, there are two possible interpretations. If the offer is fully subscribed and another SOL treasury trading below 1x announces sales, selling pressure from publicly traded companies becomes a real theme. If others keep accumulating (DeFi Development added 22,070 SOL from 5 to 9/10), SkyAI will remain an isolated case linked to its governance.
Should a crypto treasury trading below the value of its tokens sell to buy back its shares, or hold on at all costs?
#Solana #SkyAI #CryptoTreasury
SkyAI (formerly Sharps Technology, Nasdaq: SKYA) no longer holds a single $SOL , despite reporting more than 2 million on 14/09. By 16/10, everything had been sold, according to its 19/10 SEC filing.
The timeline:
14/09: Reaffirmed its SOL treasury strategy.
11/10: Announced a share buyback; around 1 million SOL had already been sold.
13/10: An 8-K showed only about 600,000 SOL remaining. Bastion Trading, which owns nearly 10% of the company, demanded the dates, prices, and volumes of the sales.
16/10: Zero SOL, $223.8 million in cash. Offer of $3 per share or warrant, for up to 95% of each class, or a maximum of $201.3 million. The condition tied to the price of SOL was dropped, since there was no SOL left.
29/10: Offer closes, unless extended.
For context: at the end of 2025, SkyAI held about 2.08 million SOL worth $403.1 million, or about $194 per token (Cointelegraph, annual accounts). This Tuesday at 09:47 UTC, $SOL is worth $103.7 on Kraken, and there has been no daily close below $100 since 16/09, despite these sales.
My take: this is the mNAV logic in reverse. When a stock is worth less than its assets, buying back shares serves the remaining shareholders better than holding the token. The $3 offer is worth 0.95x net cash, and SKYA closed at $2.79 on Monday (Cointelegraph). The issue goes beyond SkyAI: Forward Industries, the largest holder with 8.5 million SOL as of 30/09, itself reported a diluted mNAV of 0.946x, while Upexi shows 0.6x on its website.
By 29/10, there are two possible interpretations. If the offer is fully subscribed and another SOL treasury trading below 1x announces sales, selling pressure from publicly traded companies becomes a real theme. If others keep accumulating (DeFi Development added 22,070 SOL from 5 to 9/10), SkyAI will remain an isolated case linked to its governance.
Should a crypto treasury trading below the value of its tokens sell to buy back its shares, or hold on at all costs?
#Solana #SkyAI #CryptoTreasury
The timeline:
14/09: Reaffirmed its SOL treasury strategy.
11/10: Announced a share buyback; around 1 million SOL had already been sold.
13/10: An 8-K showed only about 600,000 SOL remaining. Bastion Trading, which owns nearly 10% of the company, demanded the dates, prices, and volumes of the sales.
16/10: Zero SOL, $223.8 million in cash. Offer of $3 per share or warrant, for up to 95% of each class, or a maximum of $201.3 million. The condition tied to the price of SOL was dropped, since there was no SOL left.
29/10: Offer closes, unless extended.
For context: at the end of 2025, SkyAI held about 2.08 million SOL worth $403.1 million, or about $194 per token (Cointelegraph, annual accounts). This Tuesday at 09:47 UTC, $SOL is worth $103.7 on Kraken, and there has been no daily close below $100 since 16/09, despite these sales.
My take: this is the mNAV logic in reverse. When a stock is worth less than its assets, buying back shares serves the remaining shareholders better than holding the token. The $3 offer is worth 0.95x net cash, and SKYA closed at $2.79 on Monday (Cointelegraph). The issue goes beyond SkyAI: Forward Industries, the largest holder with 8.5 million SOL as of 30/09, itself reported a diluted mNAV of 0.946x, while Upexi shows 0.6x on its website.
By 29/10, there are two possible interpretations. If the offer is fully subscribed and another SOL treasury trading below 1x announces sales, selling pressure from publicly traded companies becomes a real theme. If others keep accumulating (DeFi Development added 22,070 SOL from 5 to 9/10), SkyAI will remain an isolated case linked to its governance.
Should a crypto treasury trading below the value of its tokens sell to buy back its shares, or hold on at all costs?
#Solana #SkyAI #CryptoTreasury
112
·
--
Busy Monday at BlackRock: its IBIT bitcoin ETF took in +$665.2M on 19/10, its biggest single-day inflow of 2026, according to Farside. The same day, the firm filed a new fund, PBIT, with the SEC, which limits losses by capping gains.
1/ The flows. US spot BTC ETFs saw net inflows of +$526.7M on 19/10 (Farside), despite FBTC at -$83.6M and GBTC at -$54.9M. For IBIT, you have to go back to 07/10/2025 (+$899.4M) to find a larger inflow. For October, the group remains at -$88M net, while IBIT alone is at +$854.7M.
2/ The product. iShares Bitcoin Managed Protection ETF (PBIT), filed as a 485APOS on 19/10. It does not hold bitcoin: it uses call spreads on IBIT across three tranches, plus short-term bonds. Each tranche aims to limit the maximum loss to around 10% at purchase, before fees, in exchange for a cap on gains. Fees, cap and exchange are left blank. It could take effect no earlier than 75 days after filing, around 02/01/2027, but that does not mean it has been approved.
3/ The price. $BTC a touched $83,100 on Kraken on Monday, then closed at $81,844. Tuesday 07:50 UTC: $81,440. As for $ETH, ETFs saw another $103.3M in outflows (ETHA -$95.4M), their 4th straight down session.
My take: an inflow concentrated in a single issuer looks more like an institutional allocation than a return of retail investors. PBIT points in the same direction: BlackRock is preparing a “cautious” version for advisers put off by volatility.
Two scenarios to watch this week:
- IBIT has another big session and BTC recovers $83,100: the 19/10 inflow becomes a trend.
- Outflows return and BTC closes below $80,560 (the 18/10 low on Kraken): it was a one-off.
A bitcoin ETF that limits losses to ~10% but caps gains: a good entry point for cautious investors, or bitcoin without what makes it worthwhile?
#BlackRock #BitcoinETF #IBIT
Busy Monday at BlackRock: its IBIT bitcoin ETF took in +$665.2M on 19/10, its biggest single-day inflow of 2026, according to Farside. The same day, the firm filed a new fund, PBIT, with the SEC, which limits losses by capping gains.
1/ The flows. US spot BTC ETFs saw net inflows of +$526.7M on 19/10 (Farside), despite FBTC at -$83.6M and GBTC at -$54.9M. For IBIT, you have to go back to 07/10/2025 (+$899.4M) to find a larger inflow. For October, the group remains at -$88M net, while IBIT alone is at +$854.7M.
2/ The product. iShares Bitcoin Managed Protection ETF (PBIT), filed as a 485APOS on 19/10. It does not hold bitcoin: it uses call spreads on IBIT across three tranches, plus short-term bonds. Each tranche aims to limit the maximum loss to around 10% at purchase, before fees, in exchange for a cap on gains. Fees, cap and exchange are left blank. It could take effect no earlier than 75 days after filing, around 02/01/2027, but that does not mean it has been approved.
3/ The price. $BTC a touched $83,100 on Kraken on Monday, then closed at $81,844. Tuesday 07:50 UTC: $81,440. As for $ETH , ETFs saw another $103.3M in outflows (ETHA -$95.4M), their 4th straight down session.
My take: an inflow concentrated in a single issuer looks more like an institutional allocation than a return of retail investors. PBIT points in the same direction: BlackRock is preparing a “cautious” version for advisers put off by volatility.
Two scenarios to watch this week:
- IBIT has another big session and BTC recovers $83,100: the 19/10 inflow becomes a trend.
- Outflows return and BTC closes below $80,560 (the 18/10 low on Kraken): it was a one-off.
A bitcoin ETF that limits losses to ~10% but caps gains: a good entry point for cautious investors, or bitcoin without what makes it worthwhile?
#BlackRock #BitcoinETF #IBIT
1/ The flows. US spot BTC ETFs saw net inflows of +$526.7M on 19/10 (Farside), despite FBTC at -$83.6M and GBTC at -$54.9M. For IBIT, you have to go back to 07/10/2025 (+$899.4M) to find a larger inflow. For October, the group remains at -$88M net, while IBIT alone is at +$854.7M.
2/ The product. iShares Bitcoin Managed Protection ETF (PBIT), filed as a 485APOS on 19/10. It does not hold bitcoin: it uses call spreads on IBIT across three tranches, plus short-term bonds. Each tranche aims to limit the maximum loss to around 10% at purchase, before fees, in exchange for a cap on gains. Fees, cap and exchange are left blank. It could take effect no earlier than 75 days after filing, around 02/01/2027, but that does not mean it has been approved.
3/ The price. $BTC a touched $83,100 on Kraken on Monday, then closed at $81,844. Tuesday 07:50 UTC: $81,440. As for $ETH , ETFs saw another $103.3M in outflows (ETHA -$95.4M), their 4th straight down session.
My take: an inflow concentrated in a single issuer looks more like an institutional allocation than a return of retail investors. PBIT points in the same direction: BlackRock is preparing a “cautious” version for advisers put off by volatility.
Two scenarios to watch this week:
- IBIT has another big session and BTC recovers $83,100: the 19/10 inflow becomes a trend.
- Outflows return and BTC closes below $80,560 (the 18/10 low on Kraken): it was a one-off.
A bitcoin ETF that limits losses to ~10% but caps gains: a good entry point for cautious investors, or bitcoin without what makes it worthwhile?
#BlackRock #BitcoinETF #IBIT
102
·
--
JPMorgan launched JPM Coin (JPMD), its dollar deposit token, on Ethereum mainnet on 10/19. Yet at 22:56 UTC, the official contract showed 0 JPMD in circulation.
On-chain reading of the contract listed by J.P. Morgan (0xb290...73A3, block 26 229 744). On Base, where JPM Coin has lived since November 2025, the supply at the same time was 1,001,000 JPMD. Kinexys, the bank’s blockchain unit, says it has processed more than $4 trillion since its launch and about $7 billion per day (J.P. Morgan press release, 10/19).
On one side, JPMD. It is not a stablecoin: each token represents a dollar deposit in a JPMorgan account, reserved for approved institutional clients and redeemable in USD at any time, according to the bank. It cannot be bought on an exchange, and carries the risks of commercial bank money.
On the other, USDT and USDC: open to everyone, with reserves managed by a private issuer. According to DefiLlama (10/19), Ethereum holds $143.4 billion of the $301.1 billion in stablecoins overall (47.6%), including $72.9 billion in USDT and $44.5 billion in USDC. That is the depth J.P. Morgan is highlighting.
My take: the signal matters more than today’s figure. A systemically important bank choosing a public L1 is a vote for $ETH infrastructure, not an immediate inflow. ETH is still at $2,405 (CoinGecko, +0.4% over 24 hours), with no visible reaction so far.
Two things to watch:
- JPMD’s first mints arrive on Ethereum and quickly surpass Base’s supply: institutional usage becomes measurable;
- supply stays at zero for weeks: it remains an open option, not yet a catalyst.
A bank dollar on Ethereum, reserved for institutions: does this strengthen the ETH thesis, or does it mainly compete with USDC?
#JPMCoin #Ethereum #Stablecoins
JPMorgan launched JPM Coin (JPMD), its dollar deposit token, on Ethereum mainnet on 10/19. Yet at 22:56 UTC, the official contract showed 0 JPMD in circulation.
On-chain reading of the contract listed by J.P. Morgan (0xb290...73A3, block 26 229 744). On Base, where JPM Coin has lived since November 2025, the supply at the same time was 1,001,000 JPMD. Kinexys, the bank’s blockchain unit, says it has processed more than $4 trillion since its launch and about $7 billion per day (J.P. Morgan press release, 10/19).
On one side, JPMD. It is not a stablecoin: each token represents a dollar deposit in a JPMorgan account, reserved for approved institutional clients and redeemable in USD at any time, according to the bank. It cannot be bought on an exchange, and carries the risks of commercial bank money.
On the other, USDT and USDC: open to everyone, with reserves managed by a private issuer. According to DefiLlama (10/19), Ethereum holds $143.4 billion of the $301.1 billion in stablecoins overall (47.6%), including $72.9 billion in USDT and $44.5 billion in USDC. That is the depth J.P. Morgan is highlighting.
My take: the signal matters more than today’s figure. A systemically important bank choosing a public L1 is a vote for $ETH infrastructure, not an immediate inflow. ETH is still at $2,405 (CoinGecko, +0.4% over 24 hours), with no visible reaction so far.
Two things to watch:
- JPMD’s first mints arrive on Ethereum and quickly surpass Base’s supply: institutional usage becomes measurable;
- supply stays at zero for weeks: it remains an open option, not yet a catalyst.
A bank dollar on Ethereum, reserved for institutions: does this strengthen the ETH thesis, or does it mainly compete with USDC?
#JPMCoin #Ethereum #Stablecoins
On-chain reading of the contract listed by J.P. Morgan (0xb290...73A3, block 26 229 744). On Base, where JPM Coin has lived since November 2025, the supply at the same time was 1,001,000 JPMD. Kinexys, the bank’s blockchain unit, says it has processed more than $4 trillion since its launch and about $7 billion per day (J.P. Morgan press release, 10/19).
On one side, JPMD. It is not a stablecoin: each token represents a dollar deposit in a JPMorgan account, reserved for approved institutional clients and redeemable in USD at any time, according to the bank. It cannot be bought on an exchange, and carries the risks of commercial bank money.
On the other, USDT and USDC: open to everyone, with reserves managed by a private issuer. According to DefiLlama (10/19), Ethereum holds $143.4 billion of the $301.1 billion in stablecoins overall (47.6%), including $72.9 billion in USDT and $44.5 billion in USDC. That is the depth J.P. Morgan is highlighting.
My take: the signal matters more than today’s figure. A systemically important bank choosing a public L1 is a vote for $ETH infrastructure, not an immediate inflow. ETH is still at $2,405 (CoinGecko, +0.4% over 24 hours), with no visible reaction so far.
Two things to watch:
- JPMD’s first mints arrive on Ethereum and quickly surpass Base’s supply: institutional usage becomes measurable;
- supply stays at zero for weeks: it remains an open option, not yet a catalyst.
A bank dollar on Ethereum, reserved for institutions: does this strengthen the ETH thesis, or does it mainly compete with USDC?
#JPMCoin #Ethereum #Stablecoins
34
·
--
Binance AI Pro has been rolled out to everyone as of Monday, 19/10: describe a strategy in everyday language, the agent writes the code, you test it with paper trading, then approve the move to live trading yourself (Binance announcement, PR Newswire, 19/10 12:19 UTC).
The question everyone is asking: can AI access my funds?
According to Binance, not directly. Each live strategy runs in an “AI Strategy Account,” a sub-account isolated from the main account. Only the user can fund it, via manual transfer. The agent cannot move the money on its own, the sub-account cannot withdraw to an external address, and every change requires fresh approval (TokenPost).
The limits in numbers: Spot and USDS-M Futures only, a maximum of 10 strategies per user, a free plan with 250,000 credits per month, and Premium at 19.99 USDC for 10 million credits and more advanced models. No backtesting in v1, only code testing and paper trading. Availability varies by region.
My take: the safeguard protects against the agent, not against a bad idea. A poorly calibrated Futures strategy can lose money just as quickly with or without AI, and a few days of paper trading tell you nothing about a -10% wick.
Two possible paths. If usage focuses on simple rules (weekly DCA on $BTC, alerts, daily reports), it becomes a tool for discipline. If it mainly serves to automate leverage on Futures, the risk is more mechanical liquidations during major market moves.
Market: $BTC ~$81,950, $BNB ~$728 (CoinGecko, 19/10 20:59 UTC).
Would you let an AI agent execute a strategy with real funds? If so, what maximum amount would you initially put in the sub-account?
Sources: Binance (PR Newswire), TokenPost.
#BinanceAIPro #AI
Binance AI Pro has been rolled out to everyone as of Monday, 19/10: describe a strategy in everyday language, the agent writes the code, you test it with paper trading, then approve the move to live trading yourself (Binance announcement, PR Newswire, 19/10 12:19 UTC).
The question everyone is asking: can AI access my funds?
According to Binance, not directly. Each live strategy runs in an “AI Strategy Account,” a sub-account isolated from the main account. Only the user can fund it, via manual transfer. The agent cannot move the money on its own, the sub-account cannot withdraw to an external address, and every change requires fresh approval (TokenPost).
The limits in numbers: Spot and USDS-M Futures only, a maximum of 10 strategies per user, a free plan with 250,000 credits per month, and Premium at 19.99 USDC for 10 million credits and more advanced models. No backtesting in v1, only code testing and paper trading. Availability varies by region.
My take: the safeguard protects against the agent, not against a bad idea. A poorly calibrated Futures strategy can lose money just as quickly with or without AI, and a few days of paper trading tell you nothing about a -10% wick.
Two possible paths. If usage focuses on simple rules (weekly DCA on $BTC , alerts, daily reports), it becomes a tool for discipline. If it mainly serves to automate leverage on Futures, the risk is more mechanical liquidations during major market moves.
Market: $BTC ~$81,950, $BNB ~$728 (CoinGecko, 19/10 20:59 UTC).
Would you let an AI agent execute a strategy with real funds? If so, what maximum amount would you initially put in the sub-account?
Sources: Binance (PR Newswire), TokenPost.
#BinanceAIPro #AI
The question everyone is asking: can AI access my funds?
According to Binance, not directly. Each live strategy runs in an “AI Strategy Account,” a sub-account isolated from the main account. Only the user can fund it, via manual transfer. The agent cannot move the money on its own, the sub-account cannot withdraw to an external address, and every change requires fresh approval (TokenPost).
The limits in numbers: Spot and USDS-M Futures only, a maximum of 10 strategies per user, a free plan with 250,000 credits per month, and Premium at 19.99 USDC for 10 million credits and more advanced models. No backtesting in v1, only code testing and paper trading. Availability varies by region.
My take: the safeguard protects against the agent, not against a bad idea. A poorly calibrated Futures strategy can lose money just as quickly with or without AI, and a few days of paper trading tell you nothing about a -10% wick.
Two possible paths. If usage focuses on simple rules (weekly DCA on $BTC , alerts, daily reports), it becomes a tool for discipline. If it mainly serves to automate leverage on Futures, the risk is more mechanical liquidations during major market moves.
Market: $BTC ~$81,950, $BNB ~$728 (CoinGecko, 19/10 20:59 UTC).
Would you let an AI agent execute a strategy with real funds? If so, what maximum amount would you initially put in the sub-account?
Sources: Binance (PR Newswire), TokenPost.
#BinanceAIPro #AI
102
·
--
The Sparkassen, Germany’s savings banks, have been opening up crypto buying and selling in the Sparkasse app since this Monday, 19/10. The “Krypto, powered by Deka” offering is operated by DekaBank, with custody provided by Börse Stuttgart (DSGV, via dpa).
What customers should know before they click:
- Just 5 assets: $BTC, $ETH, $XRP, SOL and POL. No advice; for self-directed customers only.
- €0.99 per order, plus a spread on the guaranteed price that DekaBank does not quantify. On €50, the fixed fee alone already amounts to nearly 2%.
- No self-custody: withdrawals only to licensed providers (CASPs), not to a Ledger or Trezor, according to DekaBank’s official page.
- The bank specifies that these assets are not covered by deposit protection.
Gradual rollout: 5 savings banks to start (Frankfurter Sparkasse, Karlsruhe, Taunus...), then 30 to 40 more per month, according to the DSGV. According to PLATOW, more than 200 of the 337 Sparkassen are considering it.
The timing is telling. In euros over one year (CoinGecko, 19/10 18:57 UTC): BTC -24.7%, ETH -39.8%, XRP -45.9%, SOL -45.5%, POL -52.7%. The banks aren’t arriving at the top. The DSGV points instead to customer demand and the MiCA framework.
My take: the immediate price impact will be small; onboarding is slow and there’s no advertising. The bigger issue is structural: crypto access alongside a current account for millions of Germans.
If the pace of 30 to 40 savings banks per month holds, this becomes a regular buying channel in Europe. If the spread is hefty or customers run into the ban on withdrawing to their own wallet, the offering will remain a shop window.
Buying BTC in your banking app without being able to move it to your wallet: a real step toward adoption, or a watered-down version that misses the point?
Sources: dpa/DSGV, DekaBank, PLATOW, CoinGecko.
#Sparkasse #Bitcoin
The Sparkassen, Germany’s savings banks, have been opening up crypto buying and selling in the Sparkasse app since this Monday, 19/10. The “Krypto, powered by Deka” offering is operated by DekaBank, with custody provided by Börse Stuttgart (DSGV, via dpa).
What customers should know before they click:
- Just 5 assets: $BTC , $ETH , $XRP , SOL and POL. No advice; for self-directed customers only.
- €0.99 per order, plus a spread on the guaranteed price that DekaBank does not quantify. On €50, the fixed fee alone already amounts to nearly 2%.
- No self-custody: withdrawals only to licensed providers (CASPs), not to a Ledger or Trezor, according to DekaBank’s official page.
- The bank specifies that these assets are not covered by deposit protection.
Gradual rollout: 5 savings banks to start (Frankfurter Sparkasse, Karlsruhe, Taunus...), then 30 to 40 more per month, according to the DSGV. According to PLATOW, more than 200 of the 337 Sparkassen are considering it.
The timing is telling. In euros over one year (CoinGecko, 19/10 18:57 UTC): BTC -24.7%, ETH -39.8%, XRP -45.9%, SOL -45.5%, POL -52.7%. The banks aren’t arriving at the top. The DSGV points instead to customer demand and the MiCA framework.
My take: the immediate price impact will be small; onboarding is slow and there’s no advertising. The bigger issue is structural: crypto access alongside a current account for millions of Germans.
If the pace of 30 to 40 savings banks per month holds, this becomes a regular buying channel in Europe. If the spread is hefty or customers run into the ban on withdrawing to their own wallet, the offering will remain a shop window.
Buying BTC in your banking app without being able to move it to your wallet: a real step toward adoption, or a watered-down version that misses the point?
Sources: dpa/DSGV, DekaBank, PLATOW, CoinGecko.
#Sparkasse #Bitcoin
What customers should know before they click:
- Just 5 assets: $BTC , $ETH , $XRP , SOL and POL. No advice; for self-directed customers only.
- €0.99 per order, plus a spread on the guaranteed price that DekaBank does not quantify. On €50, the fixed fee alone already amounts to nearly 2%.
- No self-custody: withdrawals only to licensed providers (CASPs), not to a Ledger or Trezor, according to DekaBank’s official page.
- The bank specifies that these assets are not covered by deposit protection.
Gradual rollout: 5 savings banks to start (Frankfurter Sparkasse, Karlsruhe, Taunus...), then 30 to 40 more per month, according to the DSGV. According to PLATOW, more than 200 of the 337 Sparkassen are considering it.
The timing is telling. In euros over one year (CoinGecko, 19/10 18:57 UTC): BTC -24.7%, ETH -39.8%, XRP -45.9%, SOL -45.5%, POL -52.7%. The banks aren’t arriving at the top. The DSGV points instead to customer demand and the MiCA framework.
My take: the immediate price impact will be small; onboarding is slow and there’s no advertising. The bigger issue is structural: crypto access alongside a current account for millions of Germans.
If the pace of 30 to 40 savings banks per month holds, this becomes a regular buying channel in Europe. If the spread is hefty or customers run into the ban on withdrawing to their own wallet, the offering will remain a shop window.
Buying BTC in your banking app without being able to move it to your wallet: a real step toward adoption, or a watered-down version that misses the point?
Sources: dpa/DSGV, DekaBank, PLATOW, CoinGecko.
#Sparkasse #Bitcoin
92
·
--
BNB Chain has just burned 1,646,196 $BNB (~$1.197B) in its 37th quarterly Auto-Burn, the largest in terms of BNB since the 29th burn. The total supply has fallen to 131,512,085 BNB.
The chart shows the sequence: 1.372M BNB burned in January, then 1.569M in April, 1.616M in July, and 1.646M on October 19. Three consecutive increases. The transaction is visible on BSC (tx 0x179dbf...93cd to address 0x...dEaD, block 128,512,048, 07:11 UTC); the BNB Foundation's official announcement followed around 10:05 UTC.
Since the 33rd burn (announced on 10/27/2025), supply has fallen from 137.74M to 131.51M BNB, or about -4.5% across four burns. Over the same period, BNB went from around $1,139 (Binance close on 10/27/2025) to ~$727, a decline of 36%. And today, the price stayed within a range of about 1% ($723 to $731) after the transaction, up 2.2% over 24 hours, in line with $BTC (+1.2%) and the major coins.
My take: the burn follows a known formula (the price of BNB and the number of BSC blocks during the quarter), so it is largely anticipated. It reduces supply; it does not create demand. At the pace of the last four burns (~6.2M BNB per year), it would take about five years to reach the 100M target—a projection, not a promise.
What I'm watching: as long as BNB holds the $705–$710 zone (October low of $705.86 on 10/18), a rebound toward $747 and then October's high of $809.99 remains the recovery scenario. A daily close below $705, on the other hand, would suggest that even a $1.2B burn can't outweigh macro risk.
For you, is a $1.2B burn that doesn't move the price already priced in, or is it an underestimated source of support for $BNB over 6 to 12 months?
Sources: BNB Chain blog (37th burn, 10/19), BscScan / BSC RPC, Binance spot.
#BNB #BNBChain
BNB Chain has just burned 1,646,196 $BNB (~$1.197B) in its 37th quarterly Auto-Burn, the largest in terms of BNB since the 29th burn. The total supply has fallen to 131,512,085 BNB.
The chart shows the sequence: 1.372M BNB burned in January, then 1.569M in April, 1.616M in July, and 1.646M on October 19. Three consecutive increases. The transaction is visible on BSC (tx 0x179dbf...93cd to address 0x...dEaD, block 128,512,048, 07:11 UTC); the BNB Foundation's official announcement followed around 10:05 UTC.
Since the 33rd burn (announced on 10/27/2025), supply has fallen from 137.74M to 131.51M BNB, or about -4.5% across four burns. Over the same period, BNB went from around $1,139 (Binance close on 10/27/2025) to ~$727, a decline of 36%. And today, the price stayed within a range of about 1% ($723 to $731) after the transaction, up 2.2% over 24 hours, in line with $BTC (+1.2%) and the major coins.
My take: the burn follows a known formula (the price of BNB and the number of BSC blocks during the quarter), so it is largely anticipated. It reduces supply; it does not create demand. At the pace of the last four burns (~6.2M BNB per year), it would take about five years to reach the 100M target—a projection, not a promise.
What I'm watching: as long as BNB holds the $705–$710 zone (October low of $705.86 on 10/18), a rebound toward $747 and then October's high of $809.99 remains the recovery scenario. A daily close below $705, on the other hand, would suggest that even a $1.2B burn can't outweigh macro risk.
For you, is a $1.2B burn that doesn't move the price already priced in, or is it an underestimated source of support for $BNB over 6 to 12 months?
Sources: BNB Chain blog (37th burn, 10/19), BscScan / BSC RPC, Binance spot.
#BNB #BNBChain
The chart shows the sequence: 1.372M BNB burned in January, then 1.569M in April, 1.616M in July, and 1.646M on October 19. Three consecutive increases. The transaction is visible on BSC (tx 0x179dbf...93cd to address 0x...dEaD, block 128,512,048, 07:11 UTC); the BNB Foundation's official announcement followed around 10:05 UTC.
Since the 33rd burn (announced on 10/27/2025), supply has fallen from 137.74M to 131.51M BNB, or about -4.5% across four burns. Over the same period, BNB went from around $1,139 (Binance close on 10/27/2025) to ~$727, a decline of 36%. And today, the price stayed within a range of about 1% ($723 to $731) after the transaction, up 2.2% over 24 hours, in line with $BTC (+1.2%) and the major coins.
My take: the burn follows a known formula (the price of BNB and the number of BSC blocks during the quarter), so it is largely anticipated. It reduces supply; it does not create demand. At the pace of the last four burns (~6.2M BNB per year), it would take about five years to reach the 100M target—a projection, not a promise.
What I'm watching: as long as BNB holds the $705–$710 zone (October low of $705.86 on 10/18), a rebound toward $747 and then October's high of $809.99 remains the recovery scenario. A daily close below $705, on the other hand, would suggest that even a $1.2B burn can't outweigh macro risk.
For you, is a $1.2B burn that doesn't move the price already priced in, or is it an underestimated source of support for $BNB over 6 to 12 months?
Sources: BNB Chain blog (37th burn, 10/19), BscScan / BSC RPC, Binance spot.
#BNB #BNBChain
106
·
--
The narrative had held since mid-July: spot $XRP US ETFs remained the last green pocket among the majors. The week ending 16/10 put an end to 13 consecutive weeks of net inflows.
According to SoSoValue (CryptoSlate / TokenPost), weekly net flows turned to around -$1.84M. Short timeline: flat Monday-Tuesday, +~$0.74M Wednesday, slightly negative Thursday, then Canary Capital XRPC saw ~ $2.47M in outflows on Friday, tipping the week into the red. Cumulative flows remain near $1.80B; net AUM fell from around $1.57B to ~ $1.47B.
The broader context didn't help that week: ETFs $BTC ~- $229M, $ETH ~- $320M (around 56% of the four categories), SOL ~-$25.5M, for a combined ~$576M in outflows.
Spot: XRP ~ $1.304 (Kraken), BTC ~ $82.2k, ETH ~ $2,411.
Takeaway: one red week after thirteen green ones doesn't invalidate the institutional XRP narrative, but it removes the last positive cushion. Without Friday's XRPC print, the week would probably have ended near breakeven or slightly in the green.
Two near-term paths: weekly inflows resume as soon as this week, with AUM stabilizing above $1.47B; or a second red week finally brings XRP ETF demand in line with the BTC/ETH bleed.
Is this break in the streak at -$1.84M just Canary noise, or the true beginning of a more fragile XRP flow regime?
Sources: SoSoValue, CryptoSlate, TokenPost, Kraken.
#XRP #ETF
The narrative had held since mid-July: spot $XRP US ETFs remained the last green pocket among the majors. The week ending 16/10 put an end to 13 consecutive weeks of net inflows.
According to SoSoValue (CryptoSlate / TokenPost), weekly net flows turned to around -$1.84M. Short timeline: flat Monday-Tuesday, +~$0.74M Wednesday, slightly negative Thursday, then Canary Capital XRPC saw ~ $2.47M in outflows on Friday, tipping the week into the red. Cumulative flows remain near $1.80B; net AUM fell from around $1.57B to ~ $1.47B.
The broader context didn't help that week: ETFs $BTC ~- $229M, $ETH ~- $320M (around 56% of the four categories), SOL ~-$25.5M, for a combined ~$576M in outflows.
Spot: XRP ~ $1.304 (Kraken), BTC ~ $82.2k, ETH ~ $2,411.
Takeaway: one red week after thirteen green ones doesn't invalidate the institutional XRP narrative, but it removes the last positive cushion. Without Friday's XRPC print, the week would probably have ended near breakeven or slightly in the green.
Two near-term paths: weekly inflows resume as soon as this week, with AUM stabilizing above $1.47B; or a second red week finally brings XRP ETF demand in line with the BTC/ETH bleed.
Is this break in the streak at -$1.84M just Canary noise, or the true beginning of a more fragile XRP flow regime?
Sources: SoSoValue, CryptoSlate, TokenPost, Kraken.
#XRP #ETF
According to SoSoValue (CryptoSlate / TokenPost), weekly net flows turned to around -$1.84M. Short timeline: flat Monday-Tuesday, +~$0.74M Wednesday, slightly negative Thursday, then Canary Capital XRPC saw ~ $2.47M in outflows on Friday, tipping the week into the red. Cumulative flows remain near $1.80B; net AUM fell from around $1.57B to ~ $1.47B.
The broader context didn't help that week: ETFs $BTC ~- $229M, $ETH ~- $320M (around 56% of the four categories), SOL ~-$25.5M, for a combined ~$576M in outflows.
Spot: XRP ~ $1.304 (Kraken), BTC ~ $82.2k, ETH ~ $2,411.
Takeaway: one red week after thirteen green ones doesn't invalidate the institutional XRP narrative, but it removes the last positive cushion. Without Friday's XRPC print, the week would probably have ended near breakeven or slightly in the green.
Two near-term paths: weekly inflows resume as soon as this week, with AUM stabilizing above $1.47B; or a second red week finally brings XRP ETF demand in line with the BTC/ETH bleed.
Is this break in the streak at -$1.84M just Canary noise, or the true beginning of a more fragile XRP flow regime?
Sources: SoSoValue, CryptoSlate, TokenPost, Kraken.
#XRP #ETF
135
·
--
Bitfinex margin longs $ETH have just reached 367,484 ETH as of 17/10 at 18:00 UTC, their highest level since August 5, 2022, according to Bitfinex’s public API. That’s about $889M at the current price.
The chart is moving against the trend. On October 1, these positions stood at 94,117 ETH. They have nearly quadrupled (+290%) while ETH has lost 10.6% since the start of the month, falling from $2,706 to $2,418 on Binance.
The buying came in two waves. On 7 and 8/10, +198,000 ETH in 33 hours, while ETH slipped from $2,697 to $2,570. Then from 13 to 16/10, another +69,000 ETH around the month’s low ($2,318 on 15/10). On the other side, there were only 8,973 ETH in shorts, or about 41 longs for every short. For context, the series record is still far away: 681,000 ETH in June 2021.
Meanwhile, US spot ETH ETFs saw another $69.7M in outflows on 16/10, according to Farside. Buyers using leverage on Bitfinex are taking the exact opposite position.
My take, with one caveat: some of these longs may be hedged with shorts on perpetuals elsewhere (a funding trade), so this isn’t necessarily a pure directional bet. But accumulating this much in the middle of a decline looks more like buying the dip than panic.
Two scenarios to watch:
- October’s low at $2,318 holds and ETH regains $2,530 (the 14/10 high): these buyers will have been early and right, and there are very few shorts left to squeeze.
- A close below $2,318: keep an eye on the Bitfinex tally. On 8/10, it had already fallen from 304,000 to 284,000 ETH during the drop below $2,450. If it falls again, these longs become selling pressure.
Whales accumulating at the right time, or fuel for a liquidation if $2,318 breaks: how do you read these 367,000 ETH bought on margin?
#ETH #Bitfinex
Bitfinex margin longs $ETH have just reached 367,484 ETH as of 17/10 at 18:00 UTC, their highest level since August 5, 2022, according to Bitfinex’s public API. That’s about $889M at the current price.
The chart is moving against the trend. On October 1, these positions stood at 94,117 ETH. They have nearly quadrupled (+290%) while ETH has lost 10.6% since the start of the month, falling from $2,706 to $2,418 on Binance.
The buying came in two waves. On 7 and 8/10, +198,000 ETH in 33 hours, while ETH slipped from $2,697 to $2,570. Then from 13 to 16/10, another +69,000 ETH around the month’s low ($2,318 on 15/10). On the other side, there were only 8,973 ETH in shorts, or about 41 longs for every short. For context, the series record is still far away: 681,000 ETH in June 2021.
Meanwhile, US spot ETH ETFs saw another $69.7M in outflows on 16/10, according to Farside. Buyers using leverage on Bitfinex are taking the exact opposite position.
My take, with one caveat: some of these longs may be hedged with shorts on perpetuals elsewhere (a funding trade), so this isn’t necessarily a pure directional bet. But accumulating this much in the middle of a decline looks more like buying the dip than panic.
Two scenarios to watch:
- October’s low at $2,318 holds and ETH regains $2,530 (the 14/10 high): these buyers will have been early and right, and there are very few shorts left to squeeze.
- A close below $2,318: keep an eye on the Bitfinex tally. On 8/10, it had already fallen from 304,000 to 284,000 ETH during the drop below $2,450. If it falls again, these longs become selling pressure.
Whales accumulating at the right time, or fuel for a liquidation if $2,318 breaks: how do you read these 367,000 ETH bought on margin?
#ETH #Bitfinex
The chart is moving against the trend. On October 1, these positions stood at 94,117 ETH. They have nearly quadrupled (+290%) while ETH has lost 10.6% since the start of the month, falling from $2,706 to $2,418 on Binance.
The buying came in two waves. On 7 and 8/10, +198,000 ETH in 33 hours, while ETH slipped from $2,697 to $2,570. Then from 13 to 16/10, another +69,000 ETH around the month’s low ($2,318 on 15/10). On the other side, there were only 8,973 ETH in shorts, or about 41 longs for every short. For context, the series record is still far away: 681,000 ETH in June 2021.
Meanwhile, US spot ETH ETFs saw another $69.7M in outflows on 16/10, according to Farside. Buyers using leverage on Bitfinex are taking the exact opposite position.
My take, with one caveat: some of these longs may be hedged with shorts on perpetuals elsewhere (a funding trade), so this isn’t necessarily a pure directional bet. But accumulating this much in the middle of a decline looks more like buying the dip than panic.
Two scenarios to watch:
- October’s low at $2,318 holds and ETH regains $2,530 (the 14/10 high): these buyers will have been early and right, and there are very few shorts left to squeeze.
- A close below $2,318: keep an eye on the Bitfinex tally. On 8/10, it had already fallen from 304,000 to 284,000 ETH during the drop below $2,450. If it falls again, these longs become selling pressure.
Whales accumulating at the right time, or fuel for a liquidation if $2,318 breaks: how do you read these 367,000 ETH bought on margin?
#ETH #Bitfinex
26
·
--
$XRP defends its 200-day moving average for the 3rd session in a row: $1.2897 on Binance on 17/10 at around 16:55 UTC, with the 200-day MA at $1.2805 (based on closes through 16/10).
XRP opened October at $1.49. It’s down 13.4% since then, versus 2.9% for $BTC over the same period. That’s more than four times Bitcoin’s decline.
1/ The level. Lows of $1.284 on 15/10, $1.2891 on 16/10, and $1.288 this Saturday. The last daily close below the 200-day MA was on 20/08. The 100-day MA ($1.273) is just below, while the 50-day MA ($1.419) is far above.
2/ The XRP/BTC ratio is at its lowest closing level since 18/08. So this isn’t just “the market going down”: XRP is underperforming.
3/ Derivatives are sending a mixed signal. On OKX, XRP open interest fell from $137.5M (2/10) to $104.4M (17/10), down 24%. Meanwhile, the long/short account ratio rose from 2.96 (8/10) to 3.64. Funding is near zero.
4/ US spot XRP ETFs: -$2.47M on 16/10 (Canary’s XRPC only), marking the second consecutive session of outflows, according to SoSoValue. The amounts are modest compared with $1.47B in net assets.
My take: less capital is committed, but most accounts are buying the dip. If $1.28 gives way, those longs will fuel the move. That doesn’t mean it will break, only that a lot of hope rests on this support.
Two paths to watch:
- Support holds and XRP closes back above $1.353 (the 16/10 high): the path toward the 50-day MA at $1.42 opens up again.
- Daily close below $1.273 (the 100-day MA): a likely return toward $1.2468, the 16/09 low, with longs getting liquidated along the way.
Are you buying XRP at the 200-day MA, or waiting for $1.25 before making a move?
#XRP #Ripple
$XRP defends its 200-day moving average for the 3rd session in a row: $1.2897 on Binance on 17/10 at around 16:55 UTC, with the 200-day MA at $1.2805 (based on closes through 16/10).
XRP opened October at $1.49. It’s down 13.4% since then, versus 2.9% for $BTC over the same period. That’s more than four times Bitcoin’s decline.
1/ The level. Lows of $1.284 on 15/10, $1.2891 on 16/10, and $1.288 this Saturday. The last daily close below the 200-day MA was on 20/08. The 100-day MA ($1.273) is just below, while the 50-day MA ($1.419) is far above.
2/ The XRP/BTC ratio is at its lowest closing level since 18/08. So this isn’t just “the market going down”: XRP is underperforming.
3/ Derivatives are sending a mixed signal. On OKX, XRP open interest fell from $137.5M (2/10) to $104.4M (17/10), down 24%. Meanwhile, the long/short account ratio rose from 2.96 (8/10) to 3.64. Funding is near zero.
4/ US spot XRP ETFs: -$2.47M on 16/10 (Canary’s XRPC only), marking the second consecutive session of outflows, according to SoSoValue. The amounts are modest compared with $1.47B in net assets.
My take: less capital is committed, but most accounts are buying the dip. If $1.28 gives way, those longs will fuel the move. That doesn’t mean it will break, only that a lot of hope rests on this support.
Two paths to watch:
- Support holds and XRP closes back above $1.353 (the 16/10 high): the path toward the 50-day MA at $1.42 opens up again.
- Daily close below $1.273 (the 100-day MA): a likely return toward $1.2468, the 16/09 low, with longs getting liquidated along the way.
Are you buying XRP at the 200-day MA, or waiting for $1.25 before making a move?
#XRP #Ripple
XRP opened October at $1.49. It’s down 13.4% since then, versus 2.9% for $BTC over the same period. That’s more than four times Bitcoin’s decline.
1/ The level. Lows of $1.284 on 15/10, $1.2891 on 16/10, and $1.288 this Saturday. The last daily close below the 200-day MA was on 20/08. The 100-day MA ($1.273) is just below, while the 50-day MA ($1.419) is far above.
2/ The XRP/BTC ratio is at its lowest closing level since 18/08. So this isn’t just “the market going down”: XRP is underperforming.
3/ Derivatives are sending a mixed signal. On OKX, XRP open interest fell from $137.5M (2/10) to $104.4M (17/10), down 24%. Meanwhile, the long/short account ratio rose from 2.96 (8/10) to 3.64. Funding is near zero.
4/ US spot XRP ETFs: -$2.47M on 16/10 (Canary’s XRPC only), marking the second consecutive session of outflows, according to SoSoValue. The amounts are modest compared with $1.47B in net assets.
My take: less capital is committed, but most accounts are buying the dip. If $1.28 gives way, those longs will fuel the move. That doesn’t mean it will break, only that a lot of hope rests on this support.
Two paths to watch:
- Support holds and XRP closes back above $1.353 (the 16/10 high): the path toward the 50-day MA at $1.42 opens up again.
- Daily close below $1.273 (the 100-day MA): a likely return toward $1.2468, the 16/09 low, with longs getting liquidated along the way.
Are you buying XRP at the 200-day MA, or waiting for $1.25 before making a move?
#XRP #Ripple
78
·
--
“Uptober” hasn’t happened so far: as of 17/10, $BTC is down 2.45% from the October 1 open on Binance ($83,624 to $81,572).
The widely held view is that October is almost always a green month for Bitcoin. Looking at Binance BTCUSDT monthly candles from 2017 to 2025, that’s true 7 times out of 9, with a median gain of 11%. The two exceptions, however, were 2018 (-3.8%) and last October (2025, -3.9%). If the month closes in the red, it would be the first time in this series that two red Octobers have come back to back.
Here’s the detail that matters: the rest of the market is taking a much bigger hit. Since October 1, BNB is down 6.1%, $ETH is down 9.6%, $SOL is down 11.7%, and XRP is down 12.6%. Bitcoin is holding up better, but it isn’t leading any rally.
What about the mid-month history? BTC was in the red as of October 17 only 2 times in 9 years. In 2019 (down 2.7% at that point), it finished up 10.3%. In 2025 (down 6.7%), it finished down 3.9%. So a red mid-month doesn’t doom the month, but it does take away the seasonal argument for those buying just because it’s October.
My take: 9 data points are too few to make this a signal. What will determine the month is macro data (September CPI at 3.7%, FOMC on 28/10) and whether the monthly low of $79,800, reached on 15/10, holds.
Two possible paths from here to 31/10:
- BTC recovers $83,624 (+2.5%) and closes green: the Uptober narrative returns, likely driven by a less hawkish-than-expected Fed.
- A break below $79,800: a second red October in a row, with alts already down between 6% and 13% at risk of falling further.
For you, is October seasonality still a real reason to buy, or is it a myth that ended in 2025?
#Bitcoin #Uptober
“Uptober” hasn’t happened so far: as of 17/10, $BTC is down 2.45% from the October 1 open on Binance ($83,624 to $81,572).
The widely held view is that October is almost always a green month for Bitcoin. Looking at Binance BTCUSDT monthly candles from 2017 to 2025, that’s true 7 times out of 9, with a median gain of 11%. The two exceptions, however, were 2018 (-3.8%) and last October (2025, -3.9%). If the month closes in the red, it would be the first time in this series that two red Octobers have come back to back.
Here’s the detail that matters: the rest of the market is taking a much bigger hit. Since October 1, BNB is down 6.1%, $ETH is down 9.6%, $SOL is down 11.7%, and XRP is down 12.6%. Bitcoin is holding up better, but it isn’t leading any rally.
What about the mid-month history? BTC was in the red as of October 17 only 2 times in 9 years. In 2019 (down 2.7% at that point), it finished up 10.3%. In 2025 (down 6.7%), it finished down 3.9%. So a red mid-month doesn’t doom the month, but it does take away the seasonal argument for those buying just because it’s October.
My take: 9 data points are too few to make this a signal. What will determine the month is macro data (September CPI at 3.7%, FOMC on 28/10) and whether the monthly low of $79,800, reached on 15/10, holds.
Two possible paths from here to 31/10:
- BTC recovers $83,624 (+2.5%) and closes green: the Uptober narrative returns, likely driven by a less hawkish-than-expected Fed.
- A break below $79,800: a second red October in a row, with alts already down between 6% and 13% at risk of falling further.
For you, is October seasonality still a real reason to buy, or is it a myth that ended in 2025?
#Bitcoin #Uptober
The widely held view is that October is almost always a green month for Bitcoin. Looking at Binance BTCUSDT monthly candles from 2017 to 2025, that’s true 7 times out of 9, with a median gain of 11%. The two exceptions, however, were 2018 (-3.8%) and last October (2025, -3.9%). If the month closes in the red, it would be the first time in this series that two red Octobers have come back to back.
Here’s the detail that matters: the rest of the market is taking a much bigger hit. Since October 1, BNB is down 6.1%, $ETH is down 9.6%, $SOL is down 11.7%, and XRP is down 12.6%. Bitcoin is holding up better, but it isn’t leading any rally.
What about the mid-month history? BTC was in the red as of October 17 only 2 times in 9 years. In 2019 (down 2.7% at that point), it finished up 10.3%. In 2025 (down 6.7%), it finished down 3.9%. So a red mid-month doesn’t doom the month, but it does take away the seasonal argument for those buying just because it’s October.
My take: 9 data points are too few to make this a signal. What will determine the month is macro data (September CPI at 3.7%, FOMC on 28/10) and whether the monthly low of $79,800, reached on 15/10, holds.
Two possible paths from here to 31/10:
- BTC recovers $83,624 (+2.5%) and closes green: the Uptober narrative returns, likely driven by a less hawkish-than-expected Fed.
- A break below $79,800: a second red October in a row, with alts already down between 6% and 13% at risk of falling further.
For you, is October seasonality still a real reason to buy, or is it a myth that ended in 2025?
#Bitcoin #Uptober
78
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