The Cryptonomist

Fintech companies will be able to move between dollars and stablecoins through the same banking platform under Ripple’s agreement with Cross River Bank. The RLUSD integration, announced on October 15, 2026, will connect the token to the bank’s existing payment services, giving customers access to blockchain transfers without building separate infrastructure.
Key takeaways
Cross River plans one API for RLUSD, ACH, wires and real-time payments.
The bank’s services are available only in limited U.S. states.
RLUSD’s market capitalization has surpassed $2.5 billion.
Related agreements cover brokerage settlement, institutional custody and developer wallets.
According to crypto.news, Cross River will add RLUSD to its proprietary Core Operating System, with blockchain transactions handled on the XRP Ledger. The agreement gives fintech clients access to stablecoin transfers alongside conventional dollar payment methods.
Ripple and Cross River’s RLUSD integration connects existing payment services
Cross River’s fintech customers will use a single application programming interface to access RLUSD transfers, ACH, wires and real-time payments. The bank said customers would be able to convert between U.S. dollars and RLUSD within its existing infrastructure.
The connection builds on stablecoin capabilities already under development at the bank, according to Adam Goller, its head of fintech banking. “Businesses shouldn’t have to rely on several different providers to move money across the globe,” he said.
Geographic limits still apply here, as Cross River noted that its offerings are presently accessible solely within limited U.S. states.
According to Ripple, Standard Custody & Trust Company serves as the issuer behind RLUSD, operating under a limited-purpose trust charter regulated by the New York State Department of Financial Services.
Settlement in seconds and a market value above $2.5 billion
RLUSD transactions on the XRP Ledger typically settle in three to five seconds, cost fractions of a cent and run around the clock, according to the partnership announcement. The release also placed the ledger’s cumulative settlement value above $1.3 trillion.
The companies reported that RLUSD’s market capitalization had exceeded $2.5 billion, with more than $1 billion issued on the XRP Ledger.
Earlier figures show the token’s expansion. Ripple reported that RLUSD passed $2 billion in market value in late August. By September 26, CoinMarketCap data put circulation near 2.49 billion tokens.
At the September snapshot, DefiLlama figures placed total stablecoin supply on the XRP Ledger near $1.19 billion. RLUSD represented about $1.10 billion, or more than 92% of that tracked total; its remaining supply circulated on other networks.
Ripple’s transparency disclosures state that reserves undergo monthly independent attestations. As of a September 24 snapshot, roughly $2.409 billion worth of tokens were in circulation, backed by $2.5315 billion in reserve funds.
Brokerage, custody and wallet agreements extend RLUSD’s use
Separate agreements bring RLUSD into brokerage funding, institutional custody and application development. Beginning October 14, DriveWealth’s collaboration with Ripple extends to settlement and payment processing throughout a brokerage network that connects over 100 partners worldwide.
The companies plan to begin settlement integration in Europe before extending it to the United States. The arrangement includes XRP Ledger-based RLUSD, tools to create and redeem tokens, and European digital asset custody.
In addition, DriveWealth intends to use Ripple Payments to receive funding from international partners, with both firms pointing out that while U.S. equity trades settle within one business day, cross-border dollar transfers may require additional time. CEO Naureen Hassan linked the funding initiative to customers using DriveWealth’s 24/5 trading service.
Through its branch in the Dubai International Financial Centre, Standard Chartered rolled out institutional-grade RLUSD custody on the XRP Ledger starting October 12. Eligible institutional clients can hold the token through that operation, which the Dubai Financial Services Authority regulates.
Stripe-owned Privy followed on October 13 with XRP Ledger wallet tools developed through a Ripple partnership. Developers can create and manage wallets and sign transactions involving XRP, RLUSD and other ledger-issued assets. Embedded wallets support stablecoin payments without requiring customers to manage cryptographic keys.
Cross River targets settlement delays and after-hours transfers
Cross River expects its RLUSD integration with Ripple to shorten settlement delays and support international payments and treasury transfers outside regular banking hours. Within its payment network, the bank said the stablecoin would give issuers and acquirers another way to settle funds during the day.
Markus Infanger, senior vice president of RippleX, described the approach as making stablecoins part of “the banking infrastructure businesses already use.” The agreement places RLUSD alongside Cross River’s existing bank payment services.
Article produced with the assistance of artificial intelligence and reviewed by the editorial team.

Bitcoin’s price swings have eased enough to put it below most individual S&P 500 stocks on one measure. A Grayscale Research report examining Bitcoin volatility trends puts its one-year realized volatility at 43% and finds that 57% of companies in the index are more volatile, challenging the asset’s reputation for unusually large price moves.
Key takeaways
Grayscale puts Bitcoin’s volatility below that of 57% of S&P 500 companies.
The 43% reading compares with 81% five years earlier.
The research links calmer trading to liquidity, institutional participation and regulated access.
According to Crypto Briefing, Grayscale released “Putting Bitcoin’s Volatility in Context” on October 14, 2026. The research makes a specific comparison: Bitcoin against individual stocks, not against the diversified S&P 500 index as a whole.
Bitcoin volatility trends show a five-year decline
Grayscale’s figures show Bitcoin’s realized volatility falling from 81% to 43% over five years—a decline of 38 percentage points. The latest reading also sits below its 10-year average of 64%, placing it beneath both the earlier snapshot and its longer-term norm.
Realized volatility describes how much an asset’s price moved during a past period. It measures actual price fluctuations rather than expectations about future trading.
The equity comparison gives those numbers a familiar reference point. Grayscale finds that 57% of individual S&P 500 companies have higher volatility than Bitcoin, putting the cryptocurrency in a range comparable to many established blue-chip stocks.
That does not establish that Bitcoin is less volatile than the index itself. The research compares it with single-company shares; the S&P 500 combines hundreds of companies and benefits from diversification.
Liquidity, institutions and spot ETFs underpin the shift
Grayscale attributes the reduction to deeper liquidity, greater institutional participation and the development of regulated trading venues. It presents these changes as signs of Bitcoin’s maturation as an asset class.
Deeper liquidity reduces the price impact of large purchases or sales, helping dampen abrupt swings. According to the firm, trading has also become more stable thanks to a wider pool of large, professional investors.
Grayscale identifies spot ETFs as an example of regulated access. These products let investors gain exposure through a familiar investment structure rather than dealing directly with cryptocurrency exchanges. Together, these are the factors the firm cites to explain the changing Bitcoin volatility trends.
A growth-equity approach to portfolio decisions
Grayscale argues that investors should assess Bitcoin within a portfolio in a similar way to growth equities, emphasizing position sizing and portfolio context. Its message is that historical volatility alone should not be a reason to dismiss the asset.
The comparison reframes Bitcoin’s price fluctuations alongside movements equity investors already manage. The firm suggests that strategies used to handle stock volatility can also inform how investors size a Bitcoin allocation.
The historical measure has limits, however. A lower realized-volatility reading does not guarantee future price stability or remove other forms of risk. Bitcoin remains exposed to sharp drawdowns and regulatory shocks that a backward-looking volatility figure does not capture in advance.
Article produced with the assistance of artificial intelligence and reviewed by the editorial team.

The correlation between Bitcoin and US Treasury real yields has reached a record positive level, challenging assumptions about how the cryptocurrency behaves in investment portfolios. Research from Fidelity Digital Assets, published on October 15, 2026, puts the relationship between Bitcoin’s market capitalization and inflation-adjusted 10-year Treasury yields at above 0.6.
Key takeaways
Fidelity’s record reading reverses a historically weak or negative relationship.
The research links the shift to pressure on US public finances.
Bitcoin and 10-year Treasury rates both rose over the report’s preceding two months.
According to Crypto Briefing, the findings connect the shift to growing fiscal concerns, with US federal debt exceeding $40 trillion. The research suggests investors may be responding to those pressures by turning to Bitcoin, whose supply and issuance rules differ from government debt.
Bitcoin’s US Treasury correlation breaks with its past
Bitcoin’s relationship with Treasury yields was previously negative or near zero. Fidelity’s reading places it firmly in positive territory, marking a departure from that historical pattern.
The distinction between Treasury yields and real yields is important here. Real yields account for inflation, showing what lenders earn after adjusting for changes in purchasing power. Fidelity measured Bitcoin’s market capitalization against this inflation-adjusted rate on 10-year US Treasury bonds—not against bond prices.
Fiscal pressures underpin Fidelity’s explanation
Fidelity attributes the changing relationship to macroeconomic pressures, particularly mounting US debt and deficits. Interest on federal debt has become the second-largest federal budget expense, moving ahead of Medicare.
The research suggests those concerns may encourage investors to turn to Bitcoin. Its supply cannot exceed 21 million coins, while its issuance schedule is transparent and set in code.
Chris Kuiper, Vice President of Research at Fidelity Digital Assets, addressed the connection in commentary on October 1, 2026. He linked rising Treasury yields and Bitcoin’s price gains to investor sentiment about fiscal deficits and growing debt levels.
That interpretation places the two market moves within the same fiscal debate, rather than treating them as unrelated developments.
A different relationship for portfolio models
The positive correlation challenges portfolio assumptions built around Bitcoin moving against real yields or showing little relationship with them. Hedges based on older patterns could behave differently if the positive link persists.
Its durability is not established. Fiscal policy changes, budget negotiations and Treasury auctions are among the developments that will test the relationship.
Fidelity’s reading of the data is that Bitcoin is increasingly part of the market’s discussion about US public finances.
Two months of gains support the reported pattern
Bitcoin and 10-year Treasury rates both increased during the two months before the research was released. Those parallel gains provide the performance context for the record Bitcoin–US Treasury correlation.
Over that period, Bitcoin rose nearly 30%, while 10-year Treasury rates increased by more than 10%.
Article produced with the assistance of artificial intelligence and reviewed by the editorial team.

Goldman Sachs’ data on AI stocks points to a sharp retreat rather than a complete exit. In July 2026, hedge funds’ US technology exposure had fallen roughly 10% in market value since early June 2026. Yet by October 2026, their allocation to select mega-cap stocks had rebounded even as broader tech positioning eased.
Key takeaways
AI-linked stock sales reached the second-fastest pace in a year.
AI leverage declined but stayed above historical averages.
Magnificent Seven holdings recovered to about 22% of US equity exposure by October 2026.
According to Crypto Briefing, which reported the bank’s prime brokerage figures, Goldman Sachs characterized the selling as a tactical portfolio adjustment, not a wholesale withdrawal from technology. Its strategists also said many investors retained strong conviction in core AI positions.
Goldman Sachs tracks rapid selling of AI stocks
Hedge funds sold AI-linked shares at the second-fastest pace in a year. The retreat extended across hardware, storage and peripherals, IT services, semiconductors and software, rather than concentrating in a single part of the technology sector.
During six of the eight weeks leading up to mid-July 2026, funds were net sellers overall. According to the bank, this pullback marked the largest cut to their combined US tech exposure seen in more than ten years.
Lower exposure, but leverage remained elevated
Both net leverage and AI exposure declined from their peaks in the second quarter of 2026, but remained above historical averages. That left funds with reduced positions without erasing their above-average exposure to the trade.
Goldman Sachs’ AI stock analysis also identified significant reductions in long positions and early signs of capitulation in some holdings. By October 2026, the bank observed historically low net leverage across various strategies.
A difficult July, followed by selective positioning
July 2026 brought hedge funds their worst monthly underperformance against the S&P 500 in more than 20 years, a setback linked to their AI positions. Funds trimmed broad technology and chip exposure while retaining select mega-cap names.
The distinction became more pronounced by October 2026. Even as their broader tech allocations fell, hedge funds’ stakes in the Magnificent Seven climbed back to about 22% of their US equity exposure.
A shift toward perceived quality
The report interpreted the combination of broad selling and renewed mega-cap concentration as a flight toward perceived quality. It suggested that funds saw greater risk in the middle tier of the AI trade than among its largest names.
It also identified three indicators for assessing the adjustment: the pace of selling, the direction of net leverage relative to historical averages, and any move to trim the Magnificent Seven alongside chipmakers and software firms.
The October 2026 positioning showed that the pullback remained selective: broader technology exposure eased while the mega-cap allocation rebounded.
Article produced with the assistance of artificial intelligence and reviewed by the editorial team.

The 2026 crypto market rebound lifted total market capitalization 39.6% in the third quarter, ending September at roughly $3.0 trillion—but trading activity did not keep pace. Average daily volume fell 8.6%, while perpetual futures open interest rose sharply, marking a recovery that favored prices and leveraged positions over spot trading.
Key takeaways
Crypto added $840.1 billion in market value during the third quarter.
Ethereum beat Bitcoin as spot ETH ETFs attracted $3.1 billion.
Binance gained spot market share despite shrinking exchange volumes.
Futures positions recovered unevenly across major exchanges.
According to CoinGecko’s third-quarter industry report, the market ended three consecutive quarterly declines and delivered its strongest quarterly gain since the fourth quarter of 2024. Even after that recovery, total capitalization remained 4.0% below its level at the start of 2026.
August drove the 2026 crypto market rebound
August accounted for more than half of the quarter’s gains, adding $489.8 billion as market capitalization rose 21.8%. The report linked that acceleration to the US Treasury’s plan to at least double its planned purchases of long-dated government bonds, alongside sustained net inflows into spot Bitcoin ETFs.
Even though the CLARITY Act was defeated in a critical Senate procedural vote on September 15, 2026, the rally kept going. After peaking at a quarterly high of $3.0 trillion on September 21, market capitalization ended September at $2.96 trillion, a figure rounded to $3.0 trillion in the report’s headline numbers.
Participation was weaker than prices suggested. Average daily trading volume dropped to $73.3 billion, its third consecutive quarterly decline. Activity nevertheless strengthened within the quarter: September averaged $94.8 billion a day, compared with $57.7 billion in July.
Ethereum outperformed, but its trading volume fell
Ethereum gained 71.0% to $2,684 during the quarter, outperforming Bitcoin and the other major assets tracked in the report. US spot ETH ETFs recorded $3.1 billion in net inflows, reversing all outflows from the first half of 2026.
That price recovery did not translate into heavier ETH trading. Ethereum’s average daily volume fell 23.2% to $11.5 billion from $15.0 billion in the second quarter.
The anticipated Glamsterdam upgrade also missed a third-quarter mainnet launch after an earlier delay in the second quarter. According to the report, its rollout was still progressing through testnets, with Sepolia activation scheduled for October 6, 2026.
Binance gained share as futures recovered unevenly
The top 10 centralized spot exchanges handled $1.65 trillion in quarterly trading volume, down 14.2% from $1.93 trillion. Binance increased its share to 42.7% from 38.7%, becoming the only exchange in that group with a double-digit share.
After falling to a monthly low of $443.6 billion in July, spot volumes bounced back to $712.3 billion in August. All top-10 exchanges recorded double-digit growth in September, although Upbit’s 83.9% monthly increase did not prevent a 33.7% quarterly decline.
Leverage recovered faster. Open interest across the top 10 centralized perpetual futures exchanges increased 40.6%, finishing a quarter above $100 billion for the first time since the third quarter of 2025.
Binance added $12.7 billion in open interest. Binance, Bybit, MEXC, Gate, Bitget and Kraken each recorded growth above 40%, while KuCoin and Deribit posted declines of 41.2% and 18.9%, respectively—another uneven feature of the 2026 crypto market rebound.
Hyperliquid and Robinhood Chain stood out
Hyperliquid’s HYPE reached a record $98 on September 23, 2026, following an earlier rally tied to positive US regulatory news. On August 19, US President Donald Trump said CFTC Chairman Michael Selig was working to bring Hyperliquid to the US market.
HYPE then gained 40.5% over four days to $82, a record at the time, before reaching its September peak. Its average daily volume rose 35.2% quarter-on-quarter to $0.85 billion.
Robinhood Chain generated more than $88.9 billion in trading volume after launching on July 1, 2026. Averaging 9.5 million daily transactions, it became the third-most-active chain as memecoin trading overtook its original focus on tokenized stocks and real-world assets.
Native decentralized exchange volume climbed from $1.3 million on launch day to a peak of $3.5 billion on September 4, supported by the Cashcat memecoin and launchpads such as Pons.
Article produced with the assistance of artificial intelligence and reviewed by the editorial team.

Ledger’s Atom device looks like an Android phone, but its role is to sign crypto transactions alongside the handset users already carry. Unveiled on October 15, 2026, it arrives as Ledger confronts a supply-chain breach in Southeast Asia involving devices altered before they reached customers.
Key takeaways
Atom combines a smartphone-like design with crypto transaction signing.
Tampered Ledger devices contained implants that transmitted recovery phrases over LTE.
Ledger plans tamper-detection features and website-only initial sales for Atom.
Crypto Briefing reported that Atom is designed to complement, rather than replace, a user’s phone. The announcement also follows Ledger’s decision to describe its products as “signers” instead of “hardware wallets.”
Ledger’s Atom device brings Android to transaction signing
Atom uses Android and resembles an ordinary smartphone, while providing a dedicated function for approving crypto transactions. It pairs with the phone a user already owns.
CoinDesk reported additional functionality: users will be able to install applications including WhatsApp, Instagram and TikTok, then switch between everyday smartphone functions and a protected mode for managing digital assets. Its report also describes integration with the AI assistant OpenClaw.
Ledger’s Atom device combines familiar Android applications with a separate asset-management mode, rather than following the minimalist approach associated with traditional hardware wallets.
CoinDesk also reported that production will take place at Ledger’s location in Vietnam, where the company manufactures its more complex devices.
Hardware implants prompted sales suspensions across Asia
The Southeast Asia breach involved Ledger devices modified before delivery to buyers through resellers, including CryptoBilis. The compromised units contained unauthorized hardware implants capable of capturing recovery phrases during setup and transmitting them over LTE.
CoinDesk described hidden chips that intercepted 24-word recovery phrases by reading signals from device screens. These phrases serve as the owner’s ultimate safeguard for access to digital assets.
The outlet also reported that Tether froze $10 million in USDT connected to the theft. The incident largely affected Southeast Asian users; Ledger cited research on October 14, 2026, showing no reported loss of funds in Europe.
Ledger’s sales and shipments across Indonesia, Singapore, Thailand, the Philippines, Vietnam, Malaysia and Hong Kong had been suspended by mid-October 2026.
Atom’s protections target tampering before delivery
Ledger says Atom will include physical safeguards aimed at the kind of tampering involved in the CryptoBilis breach. A spokesperson told CoinDesk that the design includes an enclosure around sensitive components, sensors to detect removal of the screen or back cover, and packaging that reveals signs of opening.
The tamper-detection system has its own battery, allowing it to operate while the device is switched off.
“The Core protection enclosure will explicitly block the screen reader implants from this weekend’s incident,” the spokesperson told CoinDesk.
Ledger also plans to sell Atom initially through its own website, rather than third-party sellers, to limit exposure to the distribution channels implicated in the breach. CoinDesk reported that the company will not offer trade-ins to customers affected by the incident.
According to CoinDesk, Ledger’s Atom device is scheduled for release in mid-2027, while the primary report says Ledger has not yet disclosed Atom’s availability.
Article produced with the assistance of artificial intelligence and reviewed by the editorial team.

Mastercard and BVNK have launched the Mastercard Global Money Platform, bringing fiat currencies and stablecoins into one system through a single API. Banks, fintechs and enterprises can use it to build branded accounts and payment products without connecting separate providers for every stage of moving money.
Key takeaways
The platform combines fiat and stablecoin accounts, conversion, cards and bank payouts.
Nuvei, Marqeta, Ontop, Beem and Almond FinTech are early integrators.
Mastercard Move connects the service to more than 17 billion endpoints.
The platform is available through BVNK.
Mastercard said in a press release that the launch represents the first major combination of the two companies’ capabilities since its acquisition of BVNK in August 2026. The offering joins the payments network’s infrastructure with BVNK’s stablecoin technology.
How Mastercard Global Money Platform brings the services together
The Mastercard Global Money Platform lets businesses embed accounts and payments into their products under their own brand. They can also use the infrastructure directly for treasury, payments and settlement.
The modular approach allows customers to select the capabilities they need and add others as they become available. The company says this reduces the need to connect individual providers for different parts of the payment process.
The platform is available now through BVNK, with services spanning holding money, converting it, sending and receiving payments, spending and earning.
Multi-currency accounts, cards and local bank payouts
The platform’s central account can hold fiat currencies and stablecoins side by side, with conversion handled through the same API. Its payment capabilities include real-time conversion, stablecoin-linked cards and local bank payouts.
Accounts businesses can offer under their own brand
Fintechs and technology platforms can embed multi-currency accounts so their customers have one place to hold earnings, convert balances and pay out funds. The accounts also support configurable rewards and other account features.
This sits alongside the option for banks, fintechs and enterprises to manage their own financial operations using the same infrastructure, rather than only offering services to customers.
Stablecoin balances connected to conventional payments
Integration with Mastercard Move lets users fund payments from stablecoin balances while recipients receive local currency directly in their bank accounts. The service connects the platform to the network’s broader money-movement capabilities.
Customers will also be able to spend stablecoin balances through the global card acceptance network, which includes hundreds of millions of merchant locations. Card issuing is available in more than 130 countries.
Early integrators and the network’s expansion plans
Nuvei and Marqeta are among the first companies set to integrate the platform, alongside Ontop, Beem and Almond FinTech. The release describes the service as giving customers more options for accepting, managing and transferring money between markets.
Phil Fayer, Nuvei’s chair and CEO, said the work with the two companies would help bring stablecoin capabilities to more businesses and expand their choices for managing and moving funds.
According to the release, Mastercard Move reaches more than 17 billion endpoints. Its coverage is expected to expand to more than 40 currencies across more than 200 countries and territories in 2027.
A strategy built around multiple forms of money
The platform forms part of a strategy to connect traditional and digital money rather than manage them through separate systems. Raj Dhamodharan, executive vice president, Blockchain and Digital Assets, described interoperability as central to that approach.
“We believe the future of commerce will be built on interoperability across multiple forms of money,” he said in the release.
Dhamodharan also linked the launch to the company’s multi-money strategy and the next generation of programmable commerce. The platform’s toolkit covers sending, receiving, converting, storing, spending and earning.
Article produced with the assistance of artificial intelligence and reviewed by the editorial team.

bStocks tokenized equities have surpassed $1 billion in assets under management as of October 15, 2026, roughly four months after their June 11 launch. The milestone comes alongside more than $6 billion in conversions between tokens and underlying stocks, while most trading takes place outside regular U.S. market hours.
Key takeaways
bStocks now covers nearly 100 tickers, versus five at launch.
Round-the-clock trading accounted for substantial activity beyond U.S. sessions.
On-chain borrowing and transfers grew alongside assets under management.
Binance said in a blog post that the product represents roughly a quarter of the tokenized equity sector’s market capitalization in October. A separate company press release, citing Dune Research data as of October 15, described bStocks as the fastest tokenized equity product to reach $1 billion in AUM.
bStocks tokenized equities expand from five tickers to nearly 100
The bStocks lineup has grown from five tickers in June to nearly 100 four months later. Coverage includes AI infrastructure, semiconductors and sector exchange-traded funds.
The tokens provide 1:1 exposure to selected U.S.-listed stocks and ETFs, with each token fully backed by its underlying security, according to the press release. They settle on-chain and move between exchange accounts and self-custody wallets.
Cumulative trading volume has exceeded $40 billion since June 11, averaging more than $300 million daily across that period, the release said. That trading figure is separate from both AUM and conversions into direct stock holdings.
Fee-free conversion, overnight trading and collateral use
Holders can exchange bStocks for corresponding stock holdings at 1:1 parity without conversion fees. Redemption delivers the underlying security rather than only its cash value, and both formats sit within a single exchange account.
Users had converted more than $6 billion between the two formats by October. The press release says those conversions require neither a broker transfer nor a wait for regular market hours.
The product trades 24/7, including weekends. Binance Research found that only 42% of August trading volume occurred during regular U.S. sessions, versus 89.2% for conventional U.S. equities. The remaining 58% spanned pre-market, post-market, overnight and weekend trading. A separate July reading put the regular-session share at 38%.
Beyond trading, bStocks tokenized equities reached 11.2% utilization in decentralized finance in early October, measured by deployment of total value locked. The research placed that rate about 3.8 percentage points above comparable tokenized equities.
The share of deposited bStocks collateral used for borrowing surged, rising from just 5.5% at the close of June to 46.2% by September 10, 2026. Approximately $3.1 million had been borrowed against $6.8 million in collateral.
In September, the exchange extended collateral support to all eligible users. Supported tokens can serve as margin and futures collateral, including borrowing quote assets for exposure with up to 5x leverage or using the same token as both collateral and a futures hedge.
Transfer volumes rise within an ADGM offering framework
On-chain tokenized-stock transfers, including trading volume, exceeded $100 billion in the third quarter of 2026, according to Binance Research. That was more than 16 times the $6 billion recorded in the first quarter.
bStocks drove much of that increase, reaching more than 90% of weekly transfer volume at an early-August peak. The research also identified tokenized equities as 2026’s fastest-growing real-world asset category, with market capitalization up 390.4% year-to-date and exceeding $3 billion by late September.
The securities are offered through an Approved Prospectus in ADGM, exclusively on a secondary-market basis for eligible users in permitted jurisdictions. No public offer takes place outside ADGM, and the product is unavailable in the United States or to U.S. persons.
Article produced with the assistance of artificial intelligence and reviewed by the editorial team.

Another high-ranking figure has departed White House crypto leadership, as Patrick Witt stepped down from his post as executive director of the White House Crypto Council once his temporary assignment came to an end on October 14, 2026. His exit leaves the council without a publicly identified leader while the CLARITY Act, which he helped negotiate, remains stalled in the Senate.
Key takeaways
Witt’s temporary White House assignment ended on October 14, 2026.
The CLARITY Act fell short in a 49–50 Senate procedural vote.
David Sacks and Harry Jung also left their cryptocurrency posts in 2026.
White House officials confirmed Witt’s departure but identified neither a replacement nor a succession plan, according to crypto.news. According to journalist Eleanor Terrett, Witt’s position was actually a temporary assignment stemming from his primary role at the Department of Defense.
White House crypto leadership has no announced successor
The administration has not publicly named anyone to take over the council’s day-to-day work or announced a timetable for its leadership arrangements. Witt had coordinated its cryptocurrency legislative work after earlier senior departures.
His departure followed the expiration of his assignment rather than an announced change in cryptocurrency policy. A White House official separately confirmed to The Block that Witt’s “detail has expired.”
Witt originally planned to leave in July for mandatory Georgia Army National Guard training. With the training pushed back, his time at the White House stretched several months longer than originally planned, and he is expected to return to his National Guard duties once the assignment concludes.
CLARITY Act remains blocked after Senate vote
The CLARITY Act remains stalled after the Senate failed to advance it on September 15, 2026. The procedural vote finished 49–50, below the 60 votes needed.
The House passed its version in July 2025, and Witt helped negotiate the Senate legislation. The bill would establish federal rules for digital assets and clarify responsibilities between the SEC and CFTC. Its proposed requirements cover digital commodity exchanges, brokers and dealers, intermediary registration, and customer protections.
Disputes over stablecoin rewards, DeFi, financial-crime prevention and ethics restrictions for officials with cryptocurrency interests blocked progress. Negotiations also exposed disagreements between banks and cryptocurrency businesses over stablecoin rewards.
Democrats argued that the legislation inadequately addressed conflicts involving President Donald Trump and his family’s cryptocurrency holdings. Republicans argued that it would deliver clearer rules and investor protections.
Enforcement became another sticking point. The Block reported that Democrats questioned the enforceability of ethics language because the Justice Department, rather than states, would decide on enforcement action against the president. Negotiators had revised provisions involving state attorneys general.
Although reconsideration of the motion was still an option, no further vote had taken place as of October 14, 2026.
Two senior exits preceded Witt’s departure
With his exit, Witt becomes the third high-level official to depart White House crypto leadership during 2026. David Sacks, who served as the administration’s adviser on artificial intelligence and cryptocurrency, stepped away from government in March once he had reached the maximum duration allowed under his special government employee status.
According to Sacks, his permitted 130-day window had run out. Terrett’s reporting indicates that council deputy director Harry Jung then left at the end of July, making Witt the sole known remaining staff member at that point.
Outside the council, federal oversight of the sector has not stopped. The SEC and CFTC continue to carry out their established duties over digital assets, even as lawmakers debate legislation and regulators pursue initiatives covering crypto exchanges, how tokens are classified, and safeguards for investors.
Industry groups praise Witt as congressional debate continues
The Blockchain Association and Solana Policy Institute praised Witt’s negotiating work despite the legislative impasse. Neither response identified a successor or announced an agreement on the CLARITY Act.
Lindsay Fraser, chief policy officer at the Blockchain Association, credited him with bringing participants together during difficult discussions. “He never lost sight of what American leadership in this technology demanded, and when the issues got hardest, he was the one who brought every side to the table and kept them there,” Fraser said in a statement reported by The Block.
Kristin Smith, president of the Solana Policy Institute, said: “Building consensus on crypto market structure was no small task, and his tireless efforts helped advance the debate.”
According to the Congressional Record from September 16, 2026, disputes persisted even after the vote failed, with Senator John Cornyn speaking in favor of moving the bill forward on the grounds that it would establish clearer regulatory standards and safeguards for those investing in cryptocurrency.
Article produced with the assistance of artificial intelligence and reviewed by the editorial team.

The Direxion Daily Semiconductor Bear 3X Shares ETF closed Wednesday at $42.52, gaining 13.63%. SOXS holds above its daily pivot but faces resistance near the daily upper Bollinger band at $42.90, leaving the daily bias constructive yet unconfirmed.
SOXS — daily chart with candlesticks, EMA20/EMA50 and volume.
Key takeaways
SOXS closed Wednesday at $42.52, a 13.63% gain from the previous close of $37.42, on volume of 88,735,800 shares.
Daily RSI14 is 56.28, above the neutral 50 threshold and below overbought territory.
The daily MACD histogram is positive at 1.83, with the MACD line at -2.65 above its signal at -4.48.
Hourly RSI14 is 74.45, in overbought territory on the shorter timeframe.
The ETF stands above the daily pivot of $41.63 and below daily first resistance at $43.84.
SOXS Daily Balance: Mixed Averages, Constructive Momentum
According to Twelve Data, the fund opened at $40.03 on Wednesday, October 14, 2026, traded between $39.43 and $42.95, and closed at $42.52. The previous close was $37.42 on October 13, 2026. A search of recent coverage found no company-specific news about the fund.
The daily 20-session EMA at $36.61 sits beneath the closing price. Meanwhile, the 50-session EMA at $97.22 is overhead. That separation leaves the daily trend picture mixed. Price draws support from its position above the shorter average, without a bullish ordering of the averages.
Daily RSI14 stands at 56.28, above the neutral 50 threshold and below overbought territory. The MACD line is -2.65, above its signal at -4.48, with a positive histogram of 1.83. The signal-line relationship supports the constructive case, although the MACD line remains below zero.
The daily upper Bollinger band at $42.90 sits just above the close. The mid-band is $34.57 and the lower band is $26.24, placing price in the upper half of the envelope. Daily ATR14 increased to $3.71 from $3.57, indicating a larger absolute volatility measure than on the preceding daily candle.
SOXS Hourly Chart: Confirmation with Overbought RSI
However, the hourly chart adds a qualification rather than an unreserved confirmation. The $42.52 close sits above the 20-hour EMA at $39.38 and the 200-hour EMA at $38.35. It also holds above the 50-hour EMA at $36.53. Price is above all three, but the 50-hour average sits below the 200-hour average.
Hourly RSI14 is 74.45, in overbought territory. The hourly MACD line is 2.06, above its signal at 1.86, while the histogram is 0.2. These readings support positive hourly momentum, but the RSI makes an unconditional bullish reading less persuasive. The close also sits below the hourly upper Bollinger band at $43.34.
SOXS Short-Term Signals and Next-Session Pivot Levels
In contrast, the 15-minute chart contains a more immediate momentum conflict. The close is above the 20-quarter-hour EMA at $41.74 and the 50-quarter-hour EMA at $40.30. The 200-quarter-hour EMA sits lower at $36.06. That is a bullish alignment. Yet the MACD line at 0.7 is below its signal at 0.79, with a negative histogram of -0.09. RSI14 at 63.97 remains above 50 but below 70. These are execution signals, not a replacement for the daily bias.
When trading resumes, the daily pivot for the next session sits at $41.63. First resistance is at $43.84 and first support is at $40.32. The hourly pivot is $42.27, with first resistance at $42.77 and first support at $41.99. The 15-minute pivot is $42.35, with first resistance at $42.69 and first support at $42.15. The close stands above each timeframe’s pivot and below each first resistance.
SOXS Bullish and Bearish Scenarios
For the bullish scenario, holding the daily pivot at $41.63 would preserve an important reference beneath price. Clearing the daily upper Bollinger band at $42.90 and the session high at $42.95 would strengthen that case. The next daily resistance reference is $43.84. A positive 15-minute MACD histogram would also remove the current short-term signal-line conflict.
Conversely, a break below the daily pivot at $41.63 would weaken the constructive case. A subsequent break below daily first support at $40.32 would invalidate that support-based bullish scenario. The daily 20-session EMA at $36.61 would then remain a lower reference, rather than evidence of an assured floor.
Overall, the Direxion Daily Semiconductor Bear 3X Shares ETF stands above its daily pivot but beneath nearby band resistance. Daily ATR14 of $3.71 frames the volatility context, while overbought hourly RSI and a negative 15-minute MACD histogram leave confirmation incomplete.
FAQ
What is the daily trend structure for SOXS?
The daily trend is mixed. SOXS closed at $42.52, above the 20-session EMA at $36.61 but below the 50-session EMA at $97.22. Daily RSI14 is 56.28, above the neutral 50, while the MACD histogram is positive at 1.83.
What are the key resistance levels for the Direxion Daily Semiconductor Bear 3X Shares ETF?
The daily upper Bollinger band at $42.90 and the session high at $42.95 form immediate resistance. Above that, daily first resistance sits at $43.84. The close at $42.52 remains below all three resistance references.
What does the overbought hourly RSI mean for SOXS?
The hourly RSI14 at 74.45 signals overbought conditions on the shorter timeframe. This tempers the positive hourly MACD reading and suggests the bullish case is not yet fully confirmed.
What pivot levels matter for the next SOXS session?
The daily pivot for the next session is $41.63. First resistance is at $43.84 and first support is at $40.32. SOXS closed above the daily, hourly, and 15-minute pivots and below each corresponding first resistance.
Disclaimer: This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute financial advice, an investment recommendation, or a solicitation to buy or sell any financial instrument. The analysis provided is not indicative of future results. Investing in financial markets carries a high risk of capital loss. Always do your own research (DYOR) and consult a qualified financial advisor before making any decision.
Cryptonomist and the author hold no positions in the financial instruments mentioned and receive no compensation from the companies covered.
Article produced with the assistance of artificial intelligence and reviewed by the editorial team.

The Direxion Daily Semiconductor Bull 3X Shares ETF closed at $110.54 on Wednesday, with price below all three exponential averages confirming a bearish daily setup. The hourly chart reinforces that bias. However, a positive 15-minute MACD histogram offers only a limited counterpoint.
SOXL — daily chart with candlesticks, EMA20/EMA50 and volume.
Key takeaways
SOXL closed at $110.54 on October 14, 2026, losing 13.35% from the previous close of $127.57.
The daily close sits below the 200-session EMA at $122.27, the 20-session EMA at $138, and the 50-session EMA at $138.31.
Daily RSI14 is 35.71, the daily MACD histogram is -4.53, and price sits below the daily lower Bollinger band at $113.04.
Hourly RSI14 is 26.04 in oversold territory; the 15-minute MACD histogram is positive at 0.32 within a bearish broader structure.
Daily ATR14 rose to $12.71 from $12.26; next-session first support sits at $106.06 and first resistance at $117.96.
On Wednesday, October 14, 2026, SOXL opened at $119.02 and traded between a low of $109 and a high of $120.90. The ETF closed at $110.54, down 13.35% from the previous close of $127.57 on October 13. Session volume was 102,288,200 shares. SOXL opened at $119.02, traded between a low of $109.00 and a high of $120.90, and closed at $110.54, against a previous close of $127.57.
A search of recent coverage found no company-specific news about the instrument. The technical assessment below uses prices and indicators from Twelve Data.
SOXL daily bearish structure
EMA positioning and momentum
The close sits below the 200-session EMA at $122.27. It also sits below the 20-session EMA at $138 and the 50-session EMA at $138.31. These averages form overhead reference levels, although their order is not a fully bearish stack. Price position nevertheless leaves the daily outlook bearish.
Meanwhile, daily RSI14 stands at 35.71, below the neutral 50 threshold but above oversold territory. The daily MACD line is 0.3, below its signal at 4.83, with a negative histogram of -4.53. That combination supports the bearish case without an oversold daily RSI reading.
Bollinger bands and volatility context
The close also sits below the daily lower Bollinger band at $113.04. The mid-band is $143.36 and the upper band is $173.68, placing price outside the lower boundary. Daily ATR14 rose to $12.71 from $12.26 in the preceding session, reflecting a larger volatility measure.
Hourly confirmation and short-term conflict
Hourly trend and momentum
On the hourly chart, the closing price sits below the 20-hour EMA at $121.55. It also sits below the 50-hour EMA at $133.27 and the 200-hour EMA at $134.97. Price and these averages are bearishly aligned. Hourly RSI14 is 26.04, in oversold territory. The MACD line at -7.79 is below its signal at -7.37. The histogram is negative at -0.42, confirming the daily directional bias.
However, hourly price positioning is less extreme against its Bollinger bands than on the daily chart. The session close sits above the hourly lower band at $107.59 but below the mid-band at $121.43. Hourly ATR14 is $4.19, providing a separate measure of intraday volatility.
15-minute counter-signal
In contrast, the 15-minute MACD line at -2.38 stands above its signal at -2.7. This produces a positive histogram of 0.32, a short-term bullish signal within a bearish broader structure. The closing price is below the 20-quarter-hour EMA at $113.06. It is also below the 50-quarter-hour EMA at $118.08 and the 200-quarter-hour EMA at $135.18. The 15-minute RSI14 is 36.09, below 50, so execution signals are mixed rather than uniformly bullish.
Next-session scenarios for SOXL
For the next session, the daily pivot sits at $113.48. First resistance is at $117.96 and first support is at $106.06. These levels are calculated from the completed daily candle and apply when trading resumes.
Bullish path
A bullish scenario requires price to clear the daily lower Bollinger band at $113.04. It then needs to clear the daily pivot at $113.48. Holding above that pivot would support a challenge of daily first resistance at $117.96, which sits above the current price. A broader bullish case would also require price above the hourly 20-hour EMA at $121.55. It would also need to clear the daily 200-session EMA at $122.27.
Bearish path
Conversely, a break below the session low at $109 would undermine that bullish scenario. The hourly lower Bollinger band at $107.59 comes next, followed by daily first support at $106.06. The negative daily and hourly MACD histograms support keeping this downside scenario central.
Overall, the Direxion Daily Semiconductor Bull 3X Shares ETF stands at $110.54, below the daily lower band and next-session pivot. Daily ATR14 at $12.71 keeps volatility central to the assessment. The unresolved question is whether the positive 15-minute MACD signal can gain confirmation against the bearish daily and hourly structure.
FAQ
What is the daily technical outlook for the Direxion Daily Semiconductor Bull 3X ETF?
The daily outlook is bearish. The ETF closed at $110.54, below the 200-session EMA at $122.27, the 20-session EMA at $138, and the 50-session EMA at $138.31. Daily RSI14 is 35.71, and the daily MACD histogram is -4.53. Price also sits below the daily lower Bollinger band at $113.04.
What are the key support levels for SOXL?
The next-session daily first support sits at $106.06. The hourly lower Bollinger band is at $107.59, and the session low is $109. A break below $109 would put the $106.06 support in focus.
Is the 15-minute MACD signal a reason to turn bullish on the ETF?
Not on its own. The 15-minute MACD histogram is positive at 0.32, but the 15-minute RSI14 is 36.09, below 50. Price is below all three 15-minute EMAs. The broader daily and hourly structures remain bearish.
Disclaimer: This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute financial advice, an investment recommendation, or a solicitation to buy or sell any financial instrument. The analysis provided is not indicative of future results. Investing in financial markets carries a high risk of capital loss. Always do your own research (DYOR) and consult a qualified financial advisor before making any decision.
Cryptonomist and the author hold no positions in the financial instruments mentioned and receive no compensation from the companies covered.
Article produced with the assistance of artificial intelligence and reviewed by the editorial team.

Two borrowers can pledge the same amount of Bitcoin and end up paying very different interest rates. The gap usually comes down to a few mechanics: how the rate is set, how much of the collateral’s value is borrowed, and how the platform charges interest.
Loans and credit lines let holders get cash without selling, and many centralized exchanges and decentralized platforms offer them. So how does crypto lending work, and what does it cost? That varies by lender and product, and the answer starts with how crypto lending rates are set.
Pros and Cons of Fixed Rates
A fixed rate stays the same for the life of the loan. It is most common in centralized finance (CeFi), and it makes every payment easy to calculate in advance. The main advantages are:
Predictable costs, since the total is known upfront.
No exposure to sudden market swings, which cannot push the rate up.
A structured timeline that makes budgeting simpler.
The downsides are real too. Borrowers are locked in, so they are protected from market stress but cannot benefit from falling rates. Flexibility is limited, with strict repayment windows instead of the open-ended borrowing that credit lines offer. Fixed rates can also start higher, because lenders may build a rate lock or risk buffer into them, which makes them pricier at first than floating rates in a calm market.
Floating Rates
Floating (variable) rates are typical in DeFi and in open-ended CeFi credit lines. In calm markets, or when demand for a DeFi pool is low, they often start lower. Interest can also fall automatically when a borrower’s LTV drops (CeFi) or pool utilization eases (DeFi). Credit lines and some liquidity pools also allow positions to be opened and closed without a fixed maturity date.
The same flexibility cuts the other way. In market stress, or when pool utilization spikes, the APR can climb, which makes future costs harder to predict.
Floating Rates in DeFi
In DeFi crypto lending, rates are algorithmic and in constant motion. They respond to supply and demand, expressed as the utilization rate of a liquidity pool: the more users borrow relative to what is supplied, the higher rates rise, and the reverse. Sometimes the APR shifts block by block.
The upside is the freedom to enter or exit at any time. The downside is that rates can spike when markets turn volatile. There is also no universal cap on floating rates. How high they can go depends on each protocol’s rate model.
Floating Rates in CeFi
Centralized platforms lean toward fixed APR for term loans, while credit lines often carry floating interest. No universal regulatory ceiling exists, so each provider sets its own limits based on risk models, loyalty tiers or collateral types. Clapp, for example, runs floating rates that range from 0% to just under 22%, with 0% available in the lowest LTV band (up to 20%).
Why LTV Drives Crypto Lending Rates
Loan-to-value (LTV) shows how much is borrowed relative to the current value of the collateral. Nearly all crypto loans are over-collateralized, meaning the crypto collateral is always worth more than the amount borrowed at the outset. That leaves a buffer against volatility. When prices fall, that buffer shrinks, the loan becomes riskier for the lender, and the LTV climbs toward the liquidation threshold, which typically sits around 80-90%. Liquidation is the risk shared by every over-collateralized loan, fixed or floating.
A riskier crypto loan costs more. Traditional finance works the same way: borrowers with lower credit scores pay higher interest or get turned down. Crypto lending follows the same unwritten rule, so many platforms tie APR directly to LTV and divide it into tiers that match the level of risk. The closer a borrower gets to the threshold, the more expensive the loan or credit line becomes.
Careful borrowers are rewarded for keeping a larger buffer. Staying in the lowest LTV band can mean 0% interest. Rates are dynamic, though, and LTV can leave that band quickly during a sharp decline.
Is Interest Charged on the Full Amount?
It depends on the product. With a fixed-term loan, interest applies to the entire amount, which arrives as a lump sum. If the money sits unused in a wallet, the borrower still owes interest on 100% of it.
A credit line works differently. Interest accrues only on the funds actually used. If the limit is $10,000 and the borrower has drawn 100 USDT, interest applies to that 100 USDT alone. This makes a credit line a source of emergency liquidity that stays on hand and costs little in interest until it is used. Drawing small amounts over time also costs less than taking the full sum at once.
How Borrowers Keep APR Low
Several habits help keep LTV in the safe zone, or in the lowest interest band, for longer:
Borrowing less. A lower starting LTV means a lower initial rate and better protection in a crash.
Tracking LTV and the market. Daily monitoring makes it easier to react when declines accelerate.
Topping up collateral early. A reserve of stablecoins or the collateral currency allows a quick top-up.
Choosing platforms with margin call alerts. Centralized platforms typically warn borrowers when a loan nears liquidation. In DeFi, where users deal directly with smart contracts, there are no alerts or support.
Using multi-collateral products, where the collateral can be reshuffled at any time.
How Multi-Collateral Credit Lines Work
Multi-collateral products pool several assets into one crypto collateral basket instead of tying the loan to a single coin. On Clapp, a credit line can hold up to 25 assets in the same pool, and borrowers can reshuffle them while the line is active. In practice, this makes it possible to adjust LTV without repaying anything.
Swapping a volatile asset for a stablecoin, for example, can steady the pool’s value and move the borrower back toward a cheaper interest band. Spreading the pledge across several assets also means a drop in one token weighs less on the overall ratio.
Summary
Crypto lending rates come down to two questions: how risky the loan looks to the lender, and what the interest is calculated on. The first is mostly about LTV. The more of the collateral’s value a borrower uses, the higher the rate tends to be, and on many platforms that rate moves with the market. Fixed rates remove that uncertainty, at the price of flexibility.
The second question is easy to overlook. A fixed-term loan charges interest on the full amount from day one, even if the money sits idle. A credit line charges only on what has been drawn, so an unused limit costs nothing. Which one is cheaper depends on how much cash is needed, and for how long.

SoFi Technologies stock has a bearish daily setup, despite conflicting signals on the shortest timeframe. The $14.22 close sits below every major daily exponential average and the lower Bollinger band. Oversold readings complicate the outlook, but they do not establish a bullish case.
SOFI — daily chart with candlesticks, EMA20/EMA50 and volume.
Key takeaways
SoFi Technologies stock closed at $14.22 on Wednesday, with daily RSI14 at 25.67 in oversold territory.
The daily MACD line is -0.63, below its signal at -0.53, with the histogram at -0.1.
Price sits below the daily 20-session EMA at $15.94, 50-session EMA at $16.71, and 200-session EMA at $18.28.
The daily lower Bollinger band is at $14.61, above the close, with daily ATR14 at $0.6.
Hourly RSI14 is 24.94 and the 15-minute MACD histogram is 0.06, providing mixed short-term signals against a bearish daily structure.
On Wednesday, October 14, 2026, SOFI opened at $14.92, traded between a low of $13.92 and a high of $15.04, and closed at $14.22, against a previous close of $15.24. The stock fell 6.69% versus the previous close, with session volume of 91,546,900 shares.
SoFi Technologies stock: daily structure favors the bearish case
The daily averages are bearishly aligned: price is below the 20-session EMA at $15.94, followed by the 50-session EMA at $16.71 and the 200-session EMA at $18.28. That complete ordering supports the bearish bias rather than merely showing price below one average.
Meanwhile, daily RSI14 stands at 25.67, in oversold territory. The MACD line is -0.63, below its signal at -0.53, with a negative histogram of -0.1. Momentum therefore supports the bearish structure, even though RSI marks an oversold condition.
The daily Bollinger lower band is $14.61, above the close, while the mid band stands at $16.02 and the upper band at $17.42. Price is outside the lower boundary, not within the band range. Daily ATR14 rose to $0.6 from $0.54, indicating greater absolute volatility than in the preceding daily candle.
Inflation coverage contrasts with favorable valuation views
A Yahoo Finance report published during Wednesday’s session linked the decline, including SoFi, to inflation concerns. It reported September consumer price inflation at 3.7% and core inflation above estimates, renewing concerns about Federal Reserve interest-rate hikes.
However, a separate Yahoo Finance report published after Wednesday’s close described competing pressures on SoFi Technologies stock. It cited inflation pressure alongside a crypto-linked card partnership with Orbi and Mastercard in Mexico. The publication timing does not establish when the partnership occurred.
In contrast, CNBC reported on Tuesday, October 13, that StoneX Financial initiated coverage with a buy rating. CNBC attributed the view that SoFi was undervalued and had potential for considerable gains to StoneX. That favorable assessment contrasts with the bearish daily chart; it does not resolve it.
Hourly confirmation, with a different execution picture
The hourly chart confirms the daily bias. The $14.22 session close sits below the hourly 20-period EMA at $14.74. It is also below the 50-period EMA at $15.21 and the 200-period EMA at $16.39. These averages are also bearishly aligned.
Nevertheless, hourly RSI14 rose to 24.94 from 21.32, although it remains oversold. The hourly MACD histogram increased to -0.08 from -0.1. Its negative reading still places the MACD line at -0.37 below the signal at -0.29, limiting bullish confirmation.
15-minute mixed signals
At the same time, the 15-minute chart offers mixed execution signals rather than a competing daily thesis. The session close sits above its 20-period EMA at $14.21 but below its 50-period EMA at $14.55. RSI14 is 45.12, below 50. The MACD line at -0.14 is above its signal at -0.2, producing a positive histogram of 0.06.
For short-term positioning, the close lies between the 15-minute Bollinger mid band at $14.1 and upper band at $14.24. The 15-minute pivot for the next session is $14.21, with first resistance at $14.28 and first support at $14.16. Those nearby levels provide timing context, not evidence that the daily bearish structure is invalid.
Bullish and bearish conditions for the next session
A bullish case requires SoFi Technologies stock to reclaim the daily pivot for the next session at $14.39. It would then need to clear the daily lower Bollinger band at $14.61. Clearing the next-session daily first resistance at $14.87 would strengthen that case. Even then, the daily 20-session EMA at $15.94 remains above price.
Conversely, failure to hold the next-session 15-minute first support at $14.16 would undermine the initial bullish case. Below that, the session low at $13.92 precedes the daily first support for the next session at $13.75. A break below those levels would reinforce the bearish daily reading.
Overall, SOFI stands below the next-session daily pivot and the daily lower Bollinger band, with daily ATR14 at $0.6. The unresolved question is whether the positive 15-minute MACD signal can gain confirmation beyond execution-level resistance. The daily and hourly structures remain bearish. Prices and indicators are from Twelve Data.
FAQ
What is the daily trend structure for SoFi Technologies stock?
The daily structure is bearish. Price closed at $14.22, below the 20-session EMA at $15.94, the 50-session EMA at $16.71, and the 200-session EMA at $18.28. The daily lower Bollinger band sits at $14.61, above the close.
What are the key levels to watch for the next session?
The daily pivot for the next session is $14.39, with first resistance at $14.87 and first support at $13.75. On the 15-minute chart, the pivot is $14.21, with first resistance at $14.28 and first support at $14.16.
What did CNBC report about SoFi Technologies stock?
CNBC reported on Tuesday, October 13, that StoneX Financial initiated coverage with a buy rating. CNBC attributed the view that SoFi was undervalued and had potential for considerable gains to StoneX.
What do the short-term indicators show?
Hourly RSI14 is 24.94, oversold but above the prior reading of 21.32. The 15-minute MACD histogram is 0.06, a positive reading, with the MACD line at -0.14 above its signal at -0.2.
Disclaimer: This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute financial advice, an investment recommendation, or a solicitation to buy or sell any financial instrument. The analysis provided is not indicative of future results. Investing in financial markets carries a high risk of capital loss. Always do your own research (DYOR) and consult a qualified financial advisor before making any decision.
Cryptonomist and the author hold no positions in the financial instruments mentioned and receive no compensation from the companies covered.
Article produced with the assistance of artificial intelligence and reviewed by the editorial team.

The Invesco QQQ Trust ETF has a neutral daily bias with a bearish tilt. Its $728.95 close sits just above the 50-session EMA at $728.71, while hourly signals favor caution. That leaves daily support—not a confirmed bullish trend—as the central issue. The session opened at $737.98, traded between a low of $726.39 and a high of $740.53, and closed at $728.95, against a previous close of $743.57.
QQQ — daily chart with candlesticks, EMA20/EMA50 and volume.
Key takeaways
QQQ closed at $728.95 on Wednesday, just above the daily 50-session EMA at $728.71 and below the 20-session EMA at $740.09.
Daily RSI14 is 44.65, below neutral 50; the daily MACD histogram is -2.07.
Hourly RSI14 is 23.09 in oversold territory; the daily close sits below the 20-hour, 50-hour, and 200-hour EMAs.
The next-session daily pivot is $731.96, with first resistance at $737.52 and first support at $723.38.
Daily ATR14 increased to $9.43 from $8.84 on the preceding daily candle.
Invesco QQQ Trust ETF: Daily support defines the main scenario
The daily chart places the Invesco QQQ Trust ETF between support at the 50-session EMA and resistance at the 20-session EMA, with momentum indicators tilting bearish.
Daily moving averages place price between support and resistance
Daily averages frame a mixed structure. Price is below the 20-session EMA at $740.09 but above the 50-session EMA at $728.71 and the 200-session EMA at $681.28. The longer averages provide support beneath price, but the position below the shorter average limits the bullish case.
Momentum and volatility readings favor caution
Meanwhile, daily RSI14 stands at 44.65, below neutral 50 but outside oversold territory. The daily MACD line is 6.01, below its signal at 8.08, with a negative histogram of -2.07. These readings favor caution despite the close above the 50-session average.
Notably, the daily Bollinger lower band is $721.29, the midline is $742.55, and the upper band is $763.80. The close occupies the lower half of that envelope. Daily ATR14 increased to $9.43 from $8.84 on the preceding daily candle, indicating greater measured volatility.
For the next session, the daily pivot sits at $731.96, with first resistance at $737.52 and first support at $723.38. These levels are calculated from the completed daily candle. The close is below the pivot, making it an initial upside threshold when trading resumes.
Hourly weakness complicates the daily balance
Hourly indicators are bearish: the daily close sits below all three hourly EMAs, and hourly RSI14 is oversold at 23.09.
Hourly EMAs and oversold RSI
However, the daily close sits below the hourly 200-hour EMA at $735.73, the 20-hour EMA at $737.98, and the 50-hour EMA at $743.51. Price is beneath all three, although their ordering is not fully bearish.
At the same time, hourly RSI14 is 23.09, in oversold territory. The hourly MACD line is -5.39, below its signal at -4.21. Its histogram increased to -1.18 from -1.33 on the preceding hourly candle, but remains negative. That improvement does not remove the conflict with daily support.
For the next session, the hourly pivot is $728.99, with first resistance at $729.98 and first support at $727.85. The daily close sits below this hourly pivot, adding a nearby threshold for short-term execution.
QQQ short-term timing and the two scenarios
The 15-minute chart offers mixed signals, with a positive MACD histogram countering bearish moving average alignment. Two scenarios hinge on the daily 50-session EMA at $728.71.
15-minute chart offers mixed signals
In contrast, the 15-minute MACD offers a limited positive counterweight. Its line of -2.56 is above its signal of -2.92, producing a positive histogram of 0.36. Yet RSI14 is 33.58, below 50 and above oversold territory. These signals are mixed rather than broadly bullish.
The 15-minute averages remain bearishly aligned. Price is below the 20-quarter-hour EMA at $730.64. The 50-quarter-hour EMA sits at $735.52 and the 200-quarter-hour EMA at $743.88. For the next session, the 15-minute pivot is $728.75, with first resistance at $729.49 and first support at $728.09. The close is above that pivot but below first resistance.
Bullish and bearish scenarios from current levels
A bullish scenario requires support at the daily 50-session EMA of $728.71 and a move above the daily pivot at $731.96. Clearing daily first resistance at $737.52 would strengthen that case before the 20-session EMA at $740.09. The daily Bollinger midline at $742.55 would be the next reference above it.
Conversely, a break below $728.71 would undermine that support-based bullish case. Below the session low at $726.39, the next daily references are first support at $723.38 and the lower Bollinger band at $721.29. The oversold hourly RSI alone does not invalidate this bearish scenario.
QQQ news context and outlook
A Motley Fool report published after Wednesday’s close highlighted that QQQ holds no banks and discussed its index exclusions.
Overall, the Invesco QQQ Trust ETF stands between the daily 50-session EMA at $728.71 and the next-session daily pivot at $731.96. Daily ATR14 at $9.43 frames the volatility backdrop. Whether support holds remains unresolved: hourly readings are bearish, while the positive 15-minute MACD histogram offers only a short-term counterpoint.
FAQ
Where did QQQ close on Wednesday, October 14, 2026?
QQQ closed at $728.95, down 1.97% from the previous close, after trading between a low of $726.39 and a high of $740.53. The session opened at $737.98.
What is the key support level for the Invesco QQQ Trust ETF?
The daily 50-session EMA at $728.71 is the key support. Below that, the session low at $726.39 and daily first support at $723.38 are the next references. The lower Bollinger band at $721.29 provides additional support.
What do the hourly indicators show for QQQ?
The hourly chart shows bearish signals. The daily close sits below the 20-hour EMA at $737.98, the 50-hour EMA at $743.51, and the 200-hour EMA at $735.73. Hourly RSI14 is 23.09 in oversold territory, and the hourly MACD histogram is negative at -1.18.
What are the next-session pivot levels for the Invesco QQQ Trust ETF?
The daily pivot is $731.96, with first resistance at $737.52 and first support at $723.38. The close at $728.95 sits below the pivot, making it an initial upside threshold for the next session.
Disclaimer: This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute financial advice, an investment recommendation, or a solicitation to buy or sell any financial instrument. The analysis provided is not indicative of future results. Investing in financial markets carries a high risk of capital loss. Always do your own research (DYOR) and consult a qualified financial advisor before making any decision.
Cryptonomist and the author hold no positions in the financial instruments mentioned and receive no compensation from the companies covered.
Article produced with the assistance of artificial intelligence and reviewed by the editorial team.

As of October 15, 2026, ZK trades at $0.01680 on Binance, putting the ZKsync price above daily R1 at $0.01660 while short-term momentum weakens. The daily scenario is neutral with a constructive bias, an upside extension under pressure rather than an established bullish trend.
ZK/USDT — daily chart with candlesticks, EMA20/EMA50 and volume.
Key takeaways
ZK trades at $0.01680 on Binance as of October 15, 2026, above the daily R1 level of $0.01660.
Daily RSI is 63.5 and hourly RSI is 66.4, while the 15-minute RSI has dropped to 46.8.
The daily MACD histogram is positive and widening, but the 15-minute histogram is negative and widening in magnitude.
Price sits above all three daily EMAs, yet the EMA50 at $0.01193 remains below the EMA200 at $0.01321.
The Fear & Greed Index is 53 (Neutral), with Bitcoin dominance at 60.02%.
ZKsync price scenarios hinge on $0.01660 and $0.01720
The nearest daily support is daily R1 at $0.01660. Despite its R1 label, it sits below the live price and therefore acts as support in this snapshot. Below it, the daily Bollinger upper band at $0.01621 and daily pivot at $0.01572 mark the next tests. Daily S1 at $0.01483 is the deeper downside reference. Holding above the daily pivot would preserve a more constructive structure than a return beneath it.
Overhead, hourly S1 at $0.01720 is the nearest resistance, followed by the hourly pivot at $0.01780, hourly Bollinger upper band at $0.01811 and hourly R1 at $0.01839. The last completed hourly candle closed at $0.01780, already above hourly S1 and the unrounded hourly pivot. The live hourly price is now $0.01679, so that completed-candle strength has not held through the current candle.
Bullish scenario: a daily close above hourly S1 at $0.01720 would confirm acceptance beyond the nearest overhead barrier. That would open a test of the hourly pivot at $0.01780 and then the hourly Bollinger upper band at $0.01811. This scenario would be invalidated by a subsequent daily close below daily R1 at $0.01660. The daily confirmation remains pending; the last completed daily candle closed at $0.01571.
Bearish scenario: an hourly close below daily R1 at $0.01660 would confirm a loss of the nearest daily support. That would bring the hourly EMA20 at $0.01638 and daily Bollinger upper band at $0.01621 into focus. An hourly close back above hourly S1 at $0.01720 would invalidate that downside setup.
The likeliest false signal is a brief reclaim of hourly S1 that fails to survive a completed candle. The reverse risk is a temporary dip below daily R1 without sustained acceptance underneath it. The current disagreement between timeframes makes intrabar breaches less persuasive than closes.
RSI holds up on larger charts while short-term MACD turns negative
Daily RSI is 63.5 and hourly RSI is 66.4, both supportive of upside momentum without being overbought. Their recent direction does not provide a clean acceleration signal: daily RSI is mixed and hourly RSI is flat. On the 15-minute chart, RSI has fallen to 46.8. That lower reading weakens execution-level momentum without, by itself, overturning the daily bias.
The daily MACD histogram is positive, with its supplied trend classified as rising and widening. That supports the constructive side of the daily setup. The hourly histogram is also positive, but it is narrowing and losing momentum. By contrast, the 15-minute histogram is negative and widening in magnitude, reinforcing the immediate pullback signal.
The distinction is important here: larger-timeframe momentum still supports the advance, while the shortest chart argues against treating every bounce as renewed trend strength.
Price exceeds the daily upper band, but the EMA structure is unfinished
Daily price is above the EMA20 at $0.01354, EMA50 at $0.01193 and EMA200 at $0.01321. The averages are not aligned because the EMA50 remains below the EMA200. Price strength is therefore clearer than trend maturity; describing this as a textbook bullish daily structure would overstate the evidence.
Meanwhile, the hourly averages are bullishly aligned, with price above the EMA20 at $0.01638, EMA50 at $0.01594 and EMA200 at $0.01479. The 15-minute averages are also bullishly aligned, but price is below the EMA20 at $0.01732 while remaining above the EMA50 at $0.01671 and EMA200 at $0.01600. This combination fits a short-term pullback within a stronger hourly structure rather than an across-the-board bearish reversal.
The daily Bollinger Bands have a midpoint at $0.01340, an upper band at $0.01621 and a lower band at $0.01058. Price above the upper band shows an extension away from the daily mean. That can coexist with trend strength, but it is not standalone confirmation that the extension will hold.
Binance-based daily ATR is $0.001614, compared with $0.0007560 hourly and $0.0006122 on the 15-minute chart. These readings frame the size of price movement rather than its direction. In this setup, they reinforce the uncertainty around closely spaced levels: a brief breach need not amount to a structural change.
Neutral sentiment offers no decisive risk-appetite confirmation
Alternative.me reports a Fear & Greed Index of 53, classified as Neutral. CoinGecko puts total cryptocurrency market capitalization at $2,714,747,786,681.83 and Bitcoin dominance at 60.02%. These backdrop readings do not establish a specific catalyst for ZK or confirm broad enthusiasm behind its technical extension. The asset’s own completed candles remain the more direct evidence for the scenarios above.
FAQ
Is the quoted ZK price a completed daily close?
No. $0.01680 is the live price of the open daily candle. The last completed daily close was $0.01571.
Do the momentum readings agree?
No. Daily and hourly MACD histograms are positive, while the 15-minute histogram is negative. The hourly histogram is narrowing, and the negative 15-minute histogram is widening in magnitude.
What invalidates the bullish scenario?
A subsequent daily close below daily R1 at $0.01660.
What invalidates the bearish scenario?
An hourly close back above hourly S1 at $0.01720.
Disclaimer: This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute financial advice, an investment recommendation, or a solicitation to buy or sell any financial instrument or cryptocurrency. The analysis provided is not indicative of future results. Investing in crypto assets and financial markets carries a high risk of capital loss. Always do your own research (DYOR) and consult a qualified financial advisor before making any decision.
Article produced with the assistance of artificial intelligence and reviewed by the editorial team.

Bending Spoons stock has a bullish daily setup, but the shorter-term signals are mixed. Price stands above all three daily exponential averages and the upper Bollinger band. However, overbought daily and hourly RSI readings contrast with a negative 15-minute MACD histogram, leaving immediate continuation unconfirmed.
On Wednesday, October 14, 2026, BSP opened at $50.29. The session ranged from a low of $49.21 to a high of $58.56 and closed at $53.46. The gain was 41.2% versus the previous close of $37.86, with volume of 19,631,500 shares.
BSP — daily chart with candlesticks, EMA20/EMA50 and volume.
Key takeaways
BSP closed Wednesday at $53.46, up 41.2% from the previous close of $37.86, with volume of 19,631,500 shares.
Daily RSI14 is 74.29, in overbought territory; the daily MACD histogram is 1.58.
Price stands above all three daily EMAs (20-session at $38.06, 50-session at $36.13, 200-session at $19.94) and above the daily upper Bollinger band at $45.89.
Hourly RSI14 is 77.96; the 15-minute MACD histogram is -0.66.
The daily pivot for the next session is $53.74, with first resistance at $58.28 and first support at $48.93. Price closed below all three next-session pivots.
Bending Spoons Stock: The Daily Chart Sets the Bullish Bias
The daily chart supports a bullish bias, with price above all three exponential moving averages and the upper Bollinger band. Price exceeds the 20-session EMA at $38.06, followed by the 50-session EMA at $36.13 and the 200-session EMA at $19.94. That ordering underpins the bullish bias, although price is well above the nearest of those averages.
Meanwhile, daily RSI14 stands at 74.29, in overbought territory. The MACD line is 1.13, above its signal at -0.46, with a positive histogram of 1.58. These readings support positive daily momentum, but the RSI adds an overbought qualification rather than an unconditional continuation signal.
Notably, the daily upper Bollinger band is $45.89, below the session’s closing price, placing BSP outside the upper volatility envelope. Daily ATR14 rose to $4.13 from $2.85, indicating a larger absolute volatility measure than in the preceding daily candle.
Hourly Confirmation, but a Timing Conflict
The hourly chart confirms the bullish average structure. The session’s closing price sits above the 20-hour EMA at $45.55, the 50-hour EMA at $40.59, and the 200-hour EMA at $38.12. It remains below the hourly upper Bollinger band at $58.47.
However, hourly RSI14 is overbought at 77.96, while the MACD histogram declined to 1.45 from 1.68. The MACD line remains positive at 4.65 and above its signal at 3.19. Thus, hourly momentum still supports the daily bias, but the histogram comparison qualifies that support. Hourly ATR14 reads $2.43.
15-Minute Chart Presents Execution-Level Conflict
The 15-minute chart presents an execution-level conflict rather than a different daily thesis. Price sits above the 20-quarter-hour EMA at $52.5, the 50-quarter-hour EMA at $47.9, and the 200-quarter-hour EMA at $39.82. Yet it is below the Bollinger mid-band at $53.81.
At the same time, the 15-minute RSI14 is 60.8, above neutral but below overbought territory. Its MACD line at 1.97 is below the signal at 2.64, with a negative histogram of -0.66. That combination does not confirm immediate bullish continuation. The lower Bollinger band is $51.29, while ATR14 reads $1.51.
News Context and the Levels for the Next Session
Post-session news included a reported $330 million private placement with Berkshire Hathaway, according to Yahoo Finance, while next-session pivots sit above the closing price.
A Yahoo Finance report published after Wednesday’s close said Bending Spoons agreed to a $330 million private placement with Berkshire Hathaway.
Meanwhile, a Seeking Alpha report published on October 9, 2026 described growth as primarily acquisition-driven. The report said deals for Airtable and Miro were expected to boost earnings.
When trading resumes, the daily pivot sits at $53.74, with first resistance at $58.28 and first support at $48.93. The hourly pivot for the next session is $53.72, while the 15-minute pivot is $53.66. The session’s closing price is below all three, making them immediate reference points above price.
For the bullish scenario, clearing the 15-minute pivot, hourly pivot, and daily pivot—in that order—would support continuation. A move above the 15-minute Bollinger mid-band at $53.81 would add execution-level confirmation. The next reference would be hourly first resistance at $54.42. Beyond that sit daily first resistance at $58.28 and the session high at $58.56.
Conversely, a break below next-session 15-minute first support at $53.01 would expose hourly first support at $52.95. Below those levels sit the 15-minute 20-quarter-hour EMA at $52.5 and lower Bollinger band at $51.29. A break beneath the session low at $49.21 and daily first support at $48.93 would invalidate the immediate bullish continuation case.
Overall, Bending Spoons stock retains a bullish daily structure, but its closing price is below the next-session pivots. Daily ATR has increased, while short-term momentum signals disagree. Whether price can clear those pivots without breaking the nearby intraday supports remains unresolved.
FAQ
What is the daily trend structure for Bending Spoons stock?
Price stands above the 20-session EMA at $38.06, the 50-session EMA at $36.13, and the 200-session EMA at $19.94, supporting a bullish daily bias. The closing price at $53.46 also sits above the daily upper Bollinger band at $45.89.
What are the key resistance levels for the next session?
The daily pivot is $53.74, with daily first resistance at $58.28. Hourly first resistance sits at $54.42. The session high from Wednesday is $58.56.
What short-term signals conflict with the bullish bias?
The 15-minute MACD histogram is -0.66, with the MACD line at 1.97 below its signal at 2.64, not confirming immediate bullish continuation. Hourly RSI14 is overbought at 77.96, and daily RSI14 is also overbought at 74.29.
What news was reported around the session?
A Yahoo Finance report published after Wednesday’s close said Bending Spoons agreed to a $330 million private placement with Berkshire Hathaway. Seeking Alpha, in a report published on October 9, 2026, described growth as primarily acquisition-driven and said deals for Airtable and Miro were expected to boost earnings.
Disclaimer: This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute financial advice, an investment recommendation, or a solicitation to buy or sell any financial instrument. The analysis provided is not indicative of future results. Investing in financial markets carries a high risk of capital loss. Always do your own research (DYOR) and consult a qualified financial advisor before making any decision.
Cryptonomist and the author hold no positions in the financial instruments mentioned and receive no compensation from the companies covered.
Article produced with the assistance of artificial intelligence and reviewed by the editorial team.

The Small Business Capital Formation Advisory Committee will take up IPO modernization and potential changes to Regulation Crowdfunding on October 27, 2026, at 10 a.m., with discussions focused on encouraging companies to go public and expanding access to early-stage capital.
The Securities and Exchange Commission said in an October 14, 2026, press release that the meeting will be open to the public, with a live stream on SEC.gov. It will take place at the agency’s headquarters at 100 F Street, N.E., Washington D.C.
IPO modernization and crowdfunding on the agenda
The morning session will examine ways to encourage more companies to go public through IPO modernization. Drawing on concepts raised in prior committee sessions, members will examine possible reforms touching on the offering process, IPO communication rules, and analyst coverage and support.
The afternoon discussion will turn to Regulation Crowdfunding (Reg CF). Members will review the existing framework, its successes so far and the challenges associated with it. They will also explore potential policy changes aimed at improving the exemption and broadening access to early-stage capital raising.
Several experienced crowdfunding professionals will provide insights during that session to help inform the committee’s discussion.
The committee’s role is to advise the agency and make recommendations on rules, regulations and policy affecting small businesses. The October meeting brings both the public-offering process and the crowdfunding framework into that advisory work.
The full meeting agenda is available on the agency’s website.
Article produced with the assistance of artificial intelligence and reviewed by the editorial team.

A supermarket refrigeration hack hit an estimated 700 stores across France this week, spoiling food and triggering electrical fires in some locations after attackers pushed refrigerators to temperatures as high as 50°C (122°F). Security researchers said basic protections would have prevented access to the systems.
Key takeaways
Refrigeration systems in six European countries were reportedly affected.
Attackers exploited remotely accessible controllers with known security weaknesses.
Researchers identified patching, VPNs and restricted access as preventive measures.
According to Ars Technica, French authorities said attackers compromised internet-connected controllers used by technicians to manage entire fleets of supermarket refrigerators and freezers. The attackers activated defrosters and left them running long enough to spoil perishables and, in some cases, set electrical systems on fire.
Supermarket refrigeration hack spread beyond France
The disruption extended to Spain, Portugal, Poland, Germany and Belgium, as well as France. Reuters reported that geographic spread based on analysis by Sekoia Threat Detection and Research, according to Facilities Dive reporting republished by Yahoo.
The same reporting said hackers locked refrigeration equipment into defrost mode for several hours, forcing hundreds of European supermarkets to discard groceries on October 12, 2026.
An estimated 150 refrigeration units operated by Intermarché were affected. Reports also identified equipment in stores belonging to Carrefour, Coopérative U and E Leclerc.
In a statement posted on X on October 12, Coopérative U CEO Dominique Schelcher described the targeting of equipment essential to preserving fresh food as unprecedented and extremely serious.
Danfoss, Dixell and Copeland controllers targeted
The controller models reportedly compromised were sold by Denmark’s Danfoss, Dixell and its US parent Copeland. Security advisories and public research described critical vulnerabilities that allowed remote users to gain administrator-level access.
Danfoss confirmed that its AK-SM800 and AK-SC355 refrigeration regulator systems were involved, according to Agence France-Presse, as cited by Facilities Dive. The manufacturer described most affected equipment as legacy products that no longer receive software or security updates.
Copeland acknowledged by email a vulnerability “identified in a discontinued, end-of-life generation of controllers” and said it was working with customers to prevent similar incidents. Critical fixes issued in the preceding months for Copeland/Dixell controllers addressed weaknesses that also enabled remote access.
The Danfoss models use Modbus, according to manufacturer documentation cited in the reporting. Facilities Dive noted that cybersecurity specialists have raised concerns about connected building systems that rely on protocols designed decades ago without security in mind.
Predictable passwords and missing protections enabled access
Known authentication weaknesses and outdated firmware left controllers exposed. The affected stores also likely lacked VPN protection and IP allowlisting, which restrict remote access to approved network addresses.
Some Danfoss controllers used a daily password generated from the date by publicly available firmware. Someone examining that code could reproduce the credential for an unpatched device. The same daily password worked across models deployed in hundreds or thousands of stores.
Claroty’s Team82 researchers described a hidden “code-of-the-day” mechanism that bypassed normal authentication. Claroty said it notified Danfoss, which responded that a firmware release addressed the problems.
Researchers at Pen Test Partners said on October 14 that cyber hygiene would have prevented access in the supermarket refrigeration hack. Their recommendations included removing controllers from the public internet, placing remote access behind a VPN and an IP allowlist, changing known or default credentials, and installing current firmware.
They also called for third-party equipment to enter store networks through controlled, documented arrangements rather than a contractor’s separate connection. The US Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency had issued a related warning in February.
Legacy equipment puts security spending under pressure
The report estimated that losses likely ran into tens or hundreds of millions of euros. It framed the incident as a conflict between replacing aging equipment for security reasons and retaining it when an upgrade offers no immediately tangible savings.
Claroty chief technology officer Amir Preminger told Facilities Dive that the attack should alarm companies handling temperature-sensitive products. He said industrial controllers are often assumed to operate on isolated networks, even though many are directly exposed to the public internet.
Danfoss told AFP it had long advised supermarkets to update firmware on the affected models and move legacy installations to current-generation systems.
Article produced with the assistance of artificial intelligence and reviewed by the editorial team.

SAP Taulia appointed Kirsten Loegering as Chief Product Officer, effective September 28, and promoted Andrew Schafer to Chief Technology Officer, in a leadership change tied to its focus on AI and automation in working capital management.
In a press release published by Finextra, Chief Executive Officer Cedric Bru linked the appointments to SAP’s vision for Autonomous Finance. He described the pairing as a combination of product vision and technical strength intended to support customers as the company develops its solutions.
SAP Taulia’s leadership change brings together product and technology
Loegering returns to the SAP family to lead product strategy, while Schafer moves into the CTO role after working on the company’s technology foundation. Bru credited Schafer with helping transform that foundation over the past year.
Loegering brings experience building and scaling enterprise product organizations. She described the appointment as an opportunity to lead at a pivotal point for the business, placing the company at the intersection of finance, supply chain and AI-driven innovation.
She also said working capital management had become an increasingly important focus for many businesses. Her stated priorities include working with the wider team to accelerate innovation and deliver more value to customers.
AI and automation guide the technology agenda
Schafer’s stated priority is to scale the technology infrastructure so SAP Taulia can embed its intelligence and execution capabilities directly into the environments customers use. He framed AI as reshaping what is possible in working capital management.
“I’m looking forward to partnering closely with Kirsten and the broader leadership team as we build the next generation of SAP Taulia’s solutions,” Schafer said.
Bru similarly identified AI and automation as forces changing how enterprises manage working capital, linking that shift to the need for product and technology leadership.
Leadership priorities align with SAP’s Autonomous Finance vision
Bru connected SAP Taulia’s leadership change to SAP’s vision for Autonomous Finance: bringing enterprise data and processes together so working capital becomes a real-time strategic driver. He cited Loegering’s SAP background and experience scaling enterprise solutions as reasons she fits that direction.
The responsibilities described in the release pair Loegering’s product strategy remit with Schafer’s infrastructure-scaling agenda. Bru credited her record in enterprise solutions alongside his work transforming the technology foundation over the past year.
Article produced with the assistance of artificial intelligence and reviewed by the editorial team.

Kalshi CEO Tarek Mansour says the fight over regulation of U.S. prediction markets is about more than which agency takes charge: he argues that state-led oversight would push the industry offshore. His comments on October 14, 2026, come as Kalshi and federal regulators contest states’ claims that its sports-event contracts amount to illegal gambling.
Key takeaways
States and the CFTC dispute authority over Kalshi’s sports contracts.
Federal appeals courts have reached conflicting decisions.
Kalshi rejects claims that its crypto futures volume is inflated.
Speaking at DC Fintech Week in Arlington, Virginia, near Washington, Mansour defended federal supervision and Kalshi’s legal position, according to CoinDesk. “It’s not a choice of state versus federal market. It’s a choice of whether prediction markets exist in the U.S. or whether they go offshore.”
Courts split over U.S. prediction markets regulation
States accuse Kalshi and other prediction-market firms of offering illegal sports wagering subject to state gambling laws. Kalshi and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC), which regulates its exchange, argue in court that federal oversight displaces those laws and that the agency has sole regulatory authority.
The litigation has produced conflicting outcomes. Bloomberg Opinion reported on October 12, 2026, that two federal appellate courts had sided with states, while another had sided with Kalshi.
New Jersey, which lost the latter case, has asked the Supreme Court to review it. The same report said 39 states filed a brief supporting that request the previous week, as did the National Football League.
Ars Technica reported on October 8, 2026, that lawsuits in about 20 states were testing whether Congress intended federal authority to override state restrictions on prediction-market bets.
Mansour’s case for federal oversight
Mansour argues that event contracts fit the Commodity Exchange Act and that federal oversight is necessary to keep prediction markets operating domestically. Sports betting is a rapidly growing part of the event-contract business, and he rejected arguments that it lacks the economic significance needed to justify treatment as federally regulated financial contracts.
Describing Kalshi’s regulatory footing, he said “it really elegantly fit under definitions of commodity.” He pointed to the act’s accommodation of products ranging from agricultural futures and oil and metals to swaps.
The dispute over regulation of U.S. prediction markets also involves the scope of authority Congress granted the CFTC. Ars Technica reported that Title VII of the Dodd–Frank Act gave the agency authority over swaps and discretion to prohibit sports-event contracts, rather than Congress banning those contracts directly.
CFTC moves to define event contracts as swaps
The CFTC issued one rule and proposed another last week aimed at explicitly placing event contracts within its swap definitions. Those actions support the agency’s position that it, rather than state gambling regulators, oversees the contracts.
The rulemaking is another part of the struggle over U.S. prediction markets regulation, alongside the competing arguments being tested in court.
Kalshi disputes crypto trading-volume allegations
Kalshi denied allegations that trading volume in its bitcoin and ether perpetual-futures markets was inflated. Mansour addressed the accusations at the same Washington-area event.
The questions concerned recurring trade sizes that accounted for a significant share of the platform’s volume. Mansour attributed those patterns to fixed-size orders submitted by market makers.
Article produced with the assistance of artificial intelligence and reviewed by the editorial team.