The Cryptonomist

Amundi’s tokenized fund launch is taking its blockchain-based investment offerings beyond money markets. On November 5, 2026, the largest asset manager in Europe announced the launch of a tokenized share class for its STOXX Europe 600 equity index fund on Ethereum, alongside its existing conventional investment options.
Key takeaways
CACEIS supplied the infrastructure for the Ethereum share class.
Amundi plans more tokenized funds for institutions and digital platforms.
Tokenized stocks totaled $4.24 billion on November 4, with US-linked products dominating.
Amundi’s tokenized fund launch adds European equities on Ethereum
The share class gives Amundi’s European equity index fund a blockchain-based format alongside its existing distribution channels. CACEIS, a European asset-servicing company, provided the tokenization infrastructure for issuance on Ethereum.
The underlying fund tracks the STOXX Europe 600 Index, spanning 600 large-, mid- and small-cap companies in developed European markets. Amundi said investors would continue to have access through traditional investment channels.
More tokenized funds planned for institutional clients
Amundi plans to broaden its tokenized fund range for institutional clients and digital platforms. The asset manager cited potential gains in accessibility, settlement speed and operational efficiency.
Amundi’s tokenized fund launch follows its first tokenized money market fund share class, introduced in November 2025. That product also used Ethereum and was developed with CACEIS.
US-linked products dominate a growing tokenized stock market
The global tokenized stock market reached $4.24 billion on November 4, 2026, an increase of nearly 27% over the preceding 30 days, according to RWA.xyz data. Its 10 largest tokenized equity products by value were linked entirely to US companies or US-listed securities.
The data included products tied to Securitize, SpaceX, Circle and Alphabet, illustrating the concentration in US-related assets as Amundi expands its European offering.
Regulators have faced mounting pressure from European financial firms to speed up reform efforts, with 39 companies and industry groups cautioning in April that the EU could fall behind the US when it comes to tokenized finance.
The coalition called for broader asset eligibility, higher volume limits and an end to time restrictions on licenses under the EU’s Distributed Ledger Technology (DLT) Pilot Regime.
Article produced with the assistance of artificial intelligence and reviewed by the editorial team.

Rheinmetall stock has a bearish daily setup, with RNMBY below all three major exponential averages and daily momentum below neutral. The hourly chart confirms that bias. However, a positive 15-minute MACD histogram complicates short-term timing without overturning the broader picture.
RNMBY — daily chart with candlesticks, EMA20/EMA50 and volume.
Key takeaways
RNMBY closed at $212.52 on Wednesday, down 5.84% from the previous close of $225.7.
Daily RSI14 is 39.35, below the neutral 50 mark but not in oversold territory.
The daily MACD histogram is -0.69, below zero, with the MACD line at -1.44 below its signal at -0.75.
Price is below the 20-session EMA at $226.30, the 50-session EMA at $232.43, and the 200-session EMA at $277.65.
The next-session pivot is $217.72, with first resistance at $223.10 and first support at $207.15.
Rheinmetall stock: daily structure favors the bearish case
On Wednesday, November 4, 2026, RNMBY opened at $226.86 and closed at $212.52. The session ranged between a low of $212.35 and a high of $228.3. The decline was 5.84% versus the previous close of $225.7 on November 3, 2026. opened at $226.86, traded between a low of $212.35 and a high of $228.30, and closed at $212.52, against a previous close of $225.70.
The daily averages are bearishly aligned: price is below the 20-session EMA at $226.3, followed by the 50-session EMA at $232.43. The 200-session EMA stands above both at $277.65. This ordering places each average above the closing price, creating successive resistance references rather than support beneath it.
Meanwhile, daily RSI14 fell to 39.35 from 47.83. It sits below neutral 50 but is not oversold. The daily MACD histogram crossed below zero to -0.69 from 0.36. The MACD line at -1.44 is below its signal at -0.75, confirming a bearish momentum configuration.
The daily Bollinger lower band is $206.63, below the close. The mid-band at $225.98 and upper band at $245.33 both remain overhead. Price therefore occupies the lower half of the band structure. Daily ATR14 rose to $7.34 from $6.68, reflecting a wider volatility backdrop.
RNMBY: hourly confirmation with mixed execution signals
Similarly, the hourly averages are bearishly aligned beneath one another and above the daily closing price. The 20-hour EMA is $221.58, the 50-hour EMA is $225.27, and the 200-hour EMA is $227.26. The close also sits below the hourly lower Bollinger band at $212.99, placing it outside that band envelope.
Hourly RSI14 stands at 20.98, in oversold territory. However, the hourly MACD line at -3.55 remains below its signal at -2.3, with a negative histogram of -1.26. Oversold RSI therefore coexists with bearish MACD positioning. It is not confirmation of a bullish turn.
In contrast, the 15-minute MACD histogram crossed above zero to 0.01 from -0.02. That is a positive execution-level signal. Still, 15-minute RSI14 is 28.79 and remains oversold. The closing price is below the 20-quarter-hour EMA at $216.19 and the Bollinger mid-band at $216.12. The conflict is limited to short-term timing, not the daily bias.
Later reports add a separate news consideration
Reports published on Thursday, November 5, 2026, after Wednesday’s session, said Rheinmetall cut its 2026 sales and margin goals. Coverage also cited delays to German military projects and artillery ammunition deliveries. These later reports should not be treated as explanations for Wednesday’s RNMBY decline.
Bullish and bearish conditions for the next session
For trading when the next session resumes, the daily pivot sits at $217.72. Daily first resistance is $223.10, while daily first support is $207.15. These levels are calculated from the completed daily candle and apply to the next session.
Bullish scenario
A bullish scenario requires holding the session low at $212.35 and reclaiming the daily pivot at $217.72. Clearing daily first resistance at $223.10 would then strengthen that case. Beyond it, the daily Bollinger mid-band at $225.98 and 20-session EMA at $226.3 form further overhead tests.
Bearish scenario
Conversely, a break below $212.35 would undermine the bullish case and place daily first support at $207.15 in focus. The daily lower Bollinger band at $206.63 is the next reference beneath it. Failure to reclaim the daily pivot leaves price below the first major recovery threshold.
Overall, Rheinmetall stock stands below its daily averages and the next-session pivot, with daily ATR14 at $7.34. The bearish structure is clear. What remains uncertain is whether oversold intraday readings and the positive 15-minute histogram can support a reclaim of resistance.
FAQ
What is the daily trend structure for Rheinmetall stock?
RNMBY closed at $212.52, below all three major daily exponential averages. The 20-session EMA is at $226.30, the 50-session EMA at $232.43, and the 200-session EMA at $277.65. Each average sits above price, acting as overhead resistance rather than support.
Is Rheinmetall stock oversold on any timeframe?
The hourly RSI14 is at 20.98, in oversold territory. The 15-minute RSI14 is at 28.79, also oversold. However, the daily RSI14 is at 39.35, below neutral 50 but not oversold. The oversold readings coexist with bearish MACD positioning on both the daily and hourly timeframes.
What are the key levels for the next session?
The daily pivot is $217.72, with first resistance at $223.10 and first support at $207.15. The daily lower Bollinger band at $206.63 provides an additional reference below first support. The daily Bollinger mid-band at $225.98 and the 20-session EMA at $226.30 are overhead references.
{“@context”:”https://schema.org”,”@type”:”FAQPage”,”mainEntity”:[{“@type”:”Question”,”name”:”What is the daily trend structure for Rheinmetall stock?”,”acceptedAnswer”:{“@type”:”Answer”,”text”:”RNMBY closed at $212.52, below all three major daily exponential averages. The 20-session EMA is at $226.30, the 50-session EMA at $232.43, and the 200-session EMA at $277.65. Each average sits above price, acting as overhead resistance rather than support.”}},{“@type”:”Question”,”name”:”Is Rheinmetall stock oversold on any timeframe?”,”acceptedAnswer”:{“@type”:”Answer”,”text”:”The hourly RSI14 is at 20.98, in oversold territory. The 15-minute RSI14 is at 28.79, also oversold. However, the daily RSI14 is at 39.35, below neutral 50 but not oversold. The oversold readings coexist with bearish MACD positioning on both the daily and hourly timeframes.”}},{“@type”:”Question”,”name”:”What are the key levels for the next session?”,”acceptedAnswer”:{“@type”:”Answer”,”text”:”The daily pivot is $217.72, with first resistance at $223.10 and first support at $207.15. The daily lower Bollinger band at $206.63 provides an additional reference below first support. The daily Bollinger mid-band at $225.98 and the 20-session EMA at $226.30 are overhead references.”}}]}
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.

Apple stock retains a bullish daily bias, with its completed session above all three daily exponential averages. Apple opened at $341.57, traded between a low of $340.99 and a high of $354.50, and closed at $349.51, against a previous close of $331.90. However, confirmation is incomplete: the daily MACD line remains below its signal, while the 15-minute chart presents a less supportive execution setup.
AAPL — daily chart with candlesticks, EMA20/EMA50 and volume.
Key takeaways
Apple closed at $349.51 on Wednesday, November 4, 2026, gaining 5.31% versus the previous close.
The daily RSI14 is 57.78, above neutral 50; the daily MACD line at 2.36 remains below its signal at 3.21.
The closing price sits above all three daily EMAs: 20-session at $341.74, 50-session at $334.87, and 200-session at $304.28.
Hourly RSI14 is 59.34, above 50; the hourly MACD line at 2.48 is above its signal at 0.44.
The 15-minute RSI14 stands at 50.16; its MACD line at 2.07 is below the signal at 3.06 with a negative histogram.
Next-session daily pivot is at $348.33, with first resistance at $355.68 and first support at $342.17.
Apple stock: daily structure favors the bullish case
The daily averages are bullishly aligned beneath the closing price. The 20-session EMA stands at $341.74, above the 50-session EMA at $334.87 and the 200-session EMA at $304.28. That ordering supports the main bullish thesis, although it does not eliminate the conflicting momentum evidence.
Notably, daily RSI14 rose to 57.78 from 41.7, placing it above neutral 50 and below overbought territory. The MACD histogram increased to -0.85 from -1.55. Nevertheless, the daily MACD line at 2.36 remains below its signal at 3.21, leaving this measure short of bullish confirmation.
The close sits above the daily Bollinger mid-band at $342.91 but below the upper band at $351.41. The lower band stands at $334.41. Meanwhile, daily ATR14 increased to $8.53 from $7.44, indicating greater absolute volatility than on the preceding daily candle.
Hourly confirmation meets a weaker execution setup
The hourly chart supports the daily bias through its average structure. The closing price sits above the hourly 20-period EMA at $344.55, the 50-period EMA at $343.70, and the 200-period EMA at $340.34. These averages are also bullishly aligned.
However, hourly RSI14 slipped to 59.34 from 64.39, although it remains above 50. The hourly MACD histogram decreased to 2.04 from 2.43. Still, its positive reading places the hourly MACD line at 2.48 above the signal at 0.44. Hourly confirmation is therefore positive, but not uniform across the latest indicator changes.
15-minute chart complicates execution timing
In contrast, the 15-minute chart complicates short-term timing rather than overturning the daily thesis. The closing price is below its 20-period EMA at $350.87. However, it remains above its 50-period EMA at $346.33 and 200-period EMA at $343.74. It also sits below the lower Bollinger band at $350.65, leaving near-term band positioning unsupportive.
The 15-minute RSI14 fell to 50.16 from 60.84, placing it just above neutral. Its MACD line at 2.07 is below the signal at 3.06, with a negative histogram of -0.99. Taken together, these readings argue against treating the daily bullish structure as an unqualified short-term signal.
News context remains separate from the chart
A report published during Wednesday’s session described Apple shares advancing after the 2026 midterm elections. Separately, a Motley Fool report published on Thursday, November 5, linked a decline in Apple shares to gross-margin compression fears and decelerating Services revenue growth. That later report was published after Wednesday’s close.
Bullish and bearish scenarios for Apple stock
For the next session, the daily pivot sits at $348.33, with first resistance at $355.68 and first support at $342.17. These levels are calculated from the completed daily candle and apply when trading resumes.
The bullish scenario requires Apple stock to hold above the daily pivot at $348.33. It also needs to clear the daily upper Bollinger band at $351.41. Beyond that band, the session high at $354.50 precedes daily first resistance at $355.68. An hourly MACD line above its signal would support that case; the 15-minute setup would need confirmation rather than assumption.
Conversely, a break below the daily pivot at $348.33 would weaken the immediate bullish case. The next references are the daily Bollinger mid-band at $342.91, daily first support at $342.17, and the 20-session EMA at $341.74. A failure to hold that EMA would invalidate the near-term bullish setup, even with the longer daily averages still below price.
Overall, Apple stands above its daily averages and next-session pivot, but below the daily upper Bollinger band. Daily ATR14 at $8.53 underscores the scope for price movement. The unresolved question is whether short-term confirmation can match the bullish daily structure.
FAQ
What is the daily trend structure for Apple stock?
The daily chart holds a bullish bias. The closing price of $349.51 sits above the 20-session EMA at $341.74, the 50-session EMA at $334.87, and the 200-session EMA at $304.28. These averages are bullishly aligned. However, the daily MACD line at 2.36 remains below its signal at 3.21, keeping momentum confirmation incomplete despite the RSI14 reading of 57.78.
Are the hourly and 15-minute charts confirming the daily bias?
Partially. The hourly chart confirms through its average structure: price is above all three hourly EMAs, and the hourly MACD line at 2.48 is above its signal at 0.44. However, the 15-minute chart presents a weaker picture. The price sits below its 20-period EMA and below the lower Bollinger band. The 15-minute RSI14 at 50.16 is just above neutral, and its MACD line at 2.07 is below the signal at 3.06.
What are the next-session pivot levels for Apple stock?
The daily pivot for the next session is at $348.33, derived from Wednesday’s completed candle. First resistance stands at $355.68, and first support sits at $342.17. These levels apply when trading resumes. The bullish scenario requires holding above the pivot and a move back above the daily upper Bollinger band at $351.41. A break below $348.33 would shift focus to the daily Bollinger mid-band at $342.91 and the 20-session EMA at $341.74.
{“@context”:”https://schema.org”,”@type”:”FAQPage”,”mainEntity”:[{“@type”:”Question”,”name”:”What is the daily trend structure for Apple stock?”,”acceptedAnswer”:{“@type”:”Answer”,”text”:”The daily chart holds a bullish bias. The closing price of $349.51 sits above the 20-session EMA at $341.74, the 50-session EMA at $334.87, and the 200-session EMA at $304.28. These averages are bullishly aligned. However, the daily MACD line at 2.36 remains below its signal at 3.21, keeping momentum confirmation incomplete despite the RSI14 reading of 57.78.”}},{“@type”:”Question”,”name”:”Are the hourly and 15-minute charts confirming the daily bias?”,”acceptedAnswer”:{“@type”:”Answer”,”text”:”Partially. The hourly chart confirms through its average structure: price is above all three hourly EMAs, and the hourly MACD line at 2.48 is above its signal at 0.44. However, the 15-minute chart presents a weaker picture. The price sits below its 20-period EMA and below the lower Bollinger band. The 15-minute RSI14 at 50.16 is just above neutral, and its MACD line at 2.07 is below the signal at 3.06.”}},{“@type”:”Question”,”name”:”What are the next-session pivot levels for Apple stock?”,”acceptedAnswer”:{“@type”:”Answer”,”text”:”The daily pivot for the next session is at $348.33, derived from Wednesday’s completed candle. First resistance stands at $355.68, and first support sits at $342.17. These levels apply when trading resumes. The bullish scenario requires holding above the pivot and a move back above the daily upper Bollinger band at $351.41. A break below $348.33 would shift focus to the daily Bollinger mid-band at $342.91 and the 20-session EMA at $341.74.”}}]}
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 November 5, 2026, Cosmos (ATOM/USDT) trades at $1.52 on Binance, with the Atom price rebound still facing a bearish daily trend. The recovery remains below every daily moving average, keeping the bias firmly bearish despite firmer intraday momentum.
ATOM/USDT — daily chart with candlesticks, EMA20/EMA50 and volume.
Key takeaways
ATOM trades at $1.52, below all daily moving averages (EMA20 $1.59, EMA50 $1.65, EMA200 $1.73)
Daily RSI is rising at 38.0; hourly RSI sits at 67.1, supporting the intraday recovery but not the daily trend
Bullish trigger: an hourly close above $1.53; bearish trigger: an hourly close below $1.52
Total crypto market cap at $2.67 trillion, down 2.00%, with Bitcoin dominance at 60.10%
Fear & Greed Index classified as Neutral, offering no directional endorsement
Atom price strength on the hourly chart challenges the daily bearish bias
The daily structure remains bearish, while the hourly and 15-minute regimes are neutral. That disagreement matters: an intraday advance can extend without changing the larger trend. For now, the stronger reading is a countertrend recovery rather than the start of a durable bullish phase.
Moreover, execution is less convincing than the hourly recovery alone implies. The live price is below the last completed hourly close and the last completed 15-minute close. Those comparisons describe an immediate retreat, not a change in the completed momentum readings.
Daily resistance remains overhead despite firmer intraday structure
Binance-based daily averages are bearishly aligned, with price below the daily EMA20 at $1.59, EMA50 at $1.65, and EMA200 at $1.73. However, the nearest of those barriers is still overhead, leaving the recovery inside a bearish structure rather than above it.
Hourly price is above the EMA20 at $1.49, EMA50 at $1.47, and EMA200 at $1.50, but the averages are not aligned. This gives the rebound a supporting base without the cleaner structure of a fully bullish trend. On the 15-minute chart, the averages are bullishly aligned. Price sits below the EMA20 at $1.52 but above the EMA50 at $1.51 and EMA200 at $1.47. That is a short-term pullback within a stronger execution structure, not independent evidence of a daily reversal.
The daily Bollinger midpoint at $1.62 sits above price, between the lower band at $1.39 and upper band at $1.85. A recovery toward the midpoint would still be mean reversion inside the broader bearish setup. Meanwhile, the hourly upper band at $1.55 provides a nearer reference for how far an intraday extension might stretch.
ATR measures $0.09506 on the daily chart, $0.01783 hourly, and $0.007704 on the 15-minute chart. The implication is practical: the nearby pivot levels are tightly spaced relative to normal candle movement, so a brief crossing carries less weight than a completed close.
RSI supports the rebound, but hourly MACD momentum is fading
Daily RSI is rising at 38.0, showing improvement without a bullish daily momentum reading. Hourly RSI is 67.1, while 15-minute RSI is rising at 61.9. Neither is overbought. The contrast supports the recovery thesis, but also shows how much stronger intraday momentum is than the daily backdrop.
MACD makes that tension clearer. The daily histogram remains negative but is narrowing, consistent with easing bearish momentum rather than a completed reversal. The hourly histogram is positive but falling and narrowing: upside momentum is losing strength even while price remains above its hourly averages. The 15-minute histogram is negative but narrowing toward zero, offering an improving execution signal without confirming an upside crossover.
An hourly close above $1.53 would test the recovery; support failure favors the bears
The daily R1 is already just below live price, while the hourly pivot is just above it; both display as $1.52 after rounding. They are separate levels, not coinciding pivots. Hourly S1 also rounds to $1.52, making the level labels important. The last completed hourly candle was above the hourly pivot, so reclaiming that pivot is not an outstanding confirmation signal.
Bullish scenario: an hourly close above hourly R1 at $1.53 would confirm an extension beyond the nearest unfulfilled upside trigger. The next reference is the hourly Bollinger upper band at $1.55, followed by the daily EMA20 at $1.59. An hourly close below hourly S1 at $1.52 would invalidate this continuation setup. The likeliest false signal is a brief push through hourly R1 that fails to hold, particularly with hourly MACD momentum fading.
Bearish scenario: an hourly close below hourly S1 at $1.52 would signal failure of the nearest intraday support. That would expose the hourly EMA200 at $1.50 and hourly EMA20 at $1.49; the broader downside references are the daily pivot at $1.45 and daily S1 at $1.41. An hourly close above hourly R1 at $1.53 would invalidate this breakdown setup. A temporary dip beneath support followed by a recovery would be the main downside false signal.
The setup therefore remains bearish on the daily horizon for ATOM, with a conditional bullish intraday alternative. Tight level spacing and the ATR readings leave room for both triggers to suffer intrabar overshoots; neither scenario is confirmed merely by the current live quote.
Neutral sentiment sits alongside a weaker broader market
CoinGecko places total crypto market capitalization at $2.67 trillion, down 2.00% over 24 hours, with Bitcoin dominance at 60.10%. That backdrop does not establish the cause of ATOM’s movement, but it provides little confirmation of broad risk appetite behind the rebound.
Alternative.me’s Fear & Greed Index is classified as Neutral. Sentiment offers no strong directional endorsement, leaving ATOM’s price structure and completed-candle confirmations more useful than the headline mood.
FAQ
Is the quoted price a completed daily close?
No. The $1.52 quote is the live Binance price of an open candle; the indicator readings use completed candles.
Does neutral sentiment make the daily outlook neutral?
No. The sentiment index describes the broader backdrop. ATOM’s daily bias remains bearish while price is below its bearishly aligned daily averages.
{“@context”:”https://schema.org”,”@type”:”FAQPage”,”mainEntity”:[{“@type”:”Question”,”name”:”Is the quoted price a completed daily close?”,”acceptedAnswer”:{“@type”:”Answer”,”text”:”No. The $1.52 quote is the live Binance price of an open candle; the indicator readings use completed candles.”}},{“@type”:”Question”,”name”:”Does neutral sentiment make the daily outlook neutral?”,”acceptedAnswer”:{“@type”:”Answer”,”text”:”No. The sentiment index describes the broader backdrop. ATOM’s daily bias remains bearish while price is below its bearishly aligned daily averages.”}}]}
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.

Nintendo stock has a cautiously bullish daily setup, but confirmation remains incomplete. NTDOY stands above its daily exponential averages, while intraday RSI14 readings above 70 and conflicting MACD signals complicate the picture. Earnings reports published after the analyzed session add uncertainty that its closing price cannot resolve.
NTDOY — daily chart with candlesticks, EMA20/EMA50 and volume.
Key takeaways
NTDOY ended Wednesday, November 4, 2026, at $13.76, a 6.75% gain from the prior close of $12.89.
The daily close sits above the 20-session EMA at $13.18 and the 50-session EMA at $13.03, but below the 200-session EMA at $13.68.
Daily RSI14 is 61.4, above neutral 50 and below overbought; hourly RSI14 is 77.45, in overbought territory.
The daily MACD line is 0.07, below its signal at 0.08, with a histogram of 0.
For the next session, the daily pivot is $13.61, with first resistance at $13.97 and first support at $13.39.
On Wednesday, November 4, 2026, Nintendo opened at $13.24, traded between a low of $13.24 and a high of $13.82, and closed at $13.76. The gain was 6.75% versus the previous close of $12.89 on November 3, 2026.
Nintendo stock: Daily bias is positive, but not fully aligned
The daily close sits above the 20-session EMA at $13.18, the 50-session EMA at $13.03, and the 200-session EMA at $13.68. That position supports a bullish bias. However, the 200-session average remains above both shorter averages, so the daily trend structure is not fully bullishly aligned.
Daily RSI14 stands at 61.4, above 50 but below overbought territory. It supports the positive bias without an overbought reading. In contrast, the daily MACD line at 0.07 sits below its signal at 0.08, while the histogram reads 0. The MACD therefore does not provide clear bullish confirmation.
Meanwhile, the close lies between the daily Bollinger mid-band at $13.22 and upper band at $13.96. The upper band is an overhead reference, rather than a cleared boundary. Daily ATR14 rose to $0.33 from $0.29, indicating greater absolute volatility than in the preceding daily reading.
Hourly confirmation comes with an overbought qualification
The hourly chart supports the daily bias. The daily closing price sits above the hourly 20-period EMA at $13.35, 50-period EMA at $13.25, and 200-period EMA at $13.18. Those averages are bullishly aligned beneath price.
However, hourly RSI14 is 77.45, in overbought territory. The hourly MACD line at 0.18 remains above its signal at 0.09, with a positive histogram of 0.09. This confirms positive hourly momentum, but the RSI reading qualifies the setup rather than offering an unreserved bullish signal.
For execution context, the 15-minute chart is mixed. Price stands above its 20-period EMA at $13.67, while RSI14 at 72.87 is overbought. Yet the MACD line at 0.12 sits below its signal at 0.15, with a negative histogram of -0.03. That short-term disagreement does not overturn the daily bias, but it makes timing less straightforward.
Later earnings reports introduce a separate test
For Nintendo stock, reports published on Thursday, November 5, 2026, after Wednesday’s session described lower quarterly net profit and slower Switch 2 unit sales. Nintendo maintained its annual forecasts.
At the same time, coverage described higher first-half profit, supported by software sales and a refund of U.S. tariffs despite lower hardware sales. The quarterly and first-half accounts cover different periods. Together, they present a mixed earnings picture rather than a single-direction message.
Bullish and bearish conditions for the next session
For the next session, the daily pivot sits at $13.61, with first resistance at $13.97 and first support at $13.39. These are reference levels for when trading resumes.
The bullish case requires holding the daily 200-session EMA at $13.68 and the next-session daily pivot at $13.61. Above the session high at $13.82, the next references are the daily upper Bollinger band at $13.96 and daily first resistance at $13.97. Clearing those levels would strengthen the bullish case.
Conversely, a break below $13.68 and then $13.61 would weaken that case. A subsequent break below daily first support at $13.39 would invalidate the near-term bullish scenario. The daily Bollinger mid-band at $13.22 and 20-session EMA at $13.18 would then become lower reference levels.
Overall, Nintendo stock ended above its daily averages but below the $13.82 session high and $13.96 upper Bollinger band. Daily ATR14 at $0.33 frames the volatility backdrop. The unresolved question is whether that constructive daily position can withstand the later earnings reports and mixed short-term signals.
FAQ
What was Nintendo stock’s closing price on November 4, 2026?
Nintendo closed at $13.76 on Wednesday, November 4, 2026, a gain of 6.75% from the previous close of $12.89 on November 3.
Is the daily trend structure fully bullish?
Not completely. The daily close sits above the 20-session EMA at $13.18 and the 50-session EMA at $13.03, but the 200-session EMA at $13.68 remains above both shorter averages.
What levels matter when trading resumes?
The daily pivot sits at $13.61, with first resistance at $13.97 and first support at $13.39. The daily upper Bollinger band sits at $13.96.
What did the later earnings reports describe?
Reports published on Thursday, November 5, 2026, after Wednesday’s session described lower quarterly net profit and slower Switch 2 unit sales, while Nintendo maintained its annual forecasts.
{“@context”:”https://schema.org”,”@type”:”FAQPage”,”mainEntity”:[{“@type”:”Question”,”name”:”What was Nintendo stock’s closing price on November 4, 2026?”,”acceptedAnswer”:{“@type”:”Answer”,”text”:”Nintendo closed at $13.76 on Wednesday, November 4, 2026, a gain of 6.75% from the previous close of $12.89 on November 3.”}},{“@type”:”Question”,”name”:”Is the daily trend structure fully bullish?”,”acceptedAnswer”:{“@type”:”Answer”,”text”:”Not completely. The daily close sits above the 20-session EMA at $13.18 and the 50-session EMA at $13.03, but the 200-session EMA at $13.68 remains above both shorter averages.”}},{“@type”:”Question”,”name”:”What levels matter when trading resumes?”,”acceptedAnswer”:{“@type”:”Answer”,”text”:”The daily pivot sits at $13.61, with first resistance at $13.97 and first support at $13.39. The daily upper Bollinger band sits at $13.96.”}},{“@type”:”Question”,”name”:”What did the later earnings reports describe?”,”acceptedAnswer”:{“@type”:”Answer”,”text”:”Reports published on Thursday, November 5, 2026, after Wednesday’s session described lower quarterly net profit and slower Switch 2 unit sales, while Nintendo maintained its annual forecasts.”}}]}
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.

On November 5, 2026, ETH trades at $2,397.72 on Binance, leaving the Ethereum price in a neutral daily setup with improving momentum but an incomplete trend recovery.
ETH/USDT — daily chart with candlesticks, EMA20/EMA50 and volume.
Key takeaways
Ethereum trades at $2,397.72, below the daily EMA50 at $2,410.84.
Daily RSI has risen to 54.1 and the daily MACD histogram turned positive.
Hourly structure shows bearish pressure: price sits below the hourly EMA20 at $2,408.30.
Bullish confirmation requires an hourly close above $2,424.30; bearish breakdown needs a daily close below $2,367.02.
Ethereum activity offers context, not a directional catalyst
ETHGas has brought compliance controls to public Ethereum, while penalties for missed trades remain at zero. That development provides network context, but it does not establish a cause for the current price move or resolve the chart’s conflicting signals.
CoinGecko puts total crypto market capitalization at $2.67 trillion and Bitcoin dominance at 60.10%. Alternative.me’s Fear & Greed Index reads 50, classified as Neutral. These readings offer little basis for treating Ethereum’s recovery as part of an unequivocal risk-on backdrop.
Chain-level DEX data shows $2.44 billion in Ethereum-chain DEX trading volume over 24 hours. Daily trading volume increased across the listed venues, including 17.54% at Uniswap V4, 35.16% at Uniswap V3 and 25.84% at Fluid DEX. Participation is expanding across those venues, yet these are chain-wide trading volumes—not Ethereum-specific buying, fees or revenue—and they do not establish direction for ETHUSDT.
Ethereum price structure remains neutral despite bullish hourly averages
The daily structure remains neutral: moving averages are not aligned, keeping the recovery contained within a broader consolidation. Price sits above the daily EMA20 at $2,358.10 and daily EMA200 at $2,304.13, but below the daily EMA50 at $2,410.84. This supports a recovery-within-a-neutral-structure reading rather than a fully established uptrend.
The hourly averages are bullishly stacked. Yet price is below the hourly EMA20 at $2,408.30, while remaining above the hourly EMA50 at $2,365.30 and hourly EMA200 at $2,316.58. The underlying structure still favors recovery, but its nearest layer of support is no longer underneath price.
On the 15-minute chart, price is below the EMA20 at $2,418.64 and EMA50 at $2,417.93, but above the EMA200 at $2,367.01. Those averages are also bullishly aligned. For execution context, immediate weakness is running against the moving-average structure; it does not independently overturn the neutral daily bias.
Daily momentum improves while short-term pressure intensifies
Daily RSI has risen to 54.1, and the daily MACD histogram has crossed from negative to positive. The MACD line remains below zero, however, so the improvement is better read as recovering momentum than proof of an established bullish trend.
The hourly picture is less supportive. RSI is 61.7, with a flat recent direction, while the MACD histogram is negative and also flat. Momentum retains some strength, but the negative histogram conflicts with the bullish ordering of the hourly averages. On the 15-minute chart, RSI is falling at 38.2 and the MACD histogram has crossed below zero—bearish execution evidence, not an oversold reading.
Meanwhile, the daily Bollinger midpoint sits at $2,352.50, with the upper band at $2,493.75 and lower band at $2,211.25. Price occupies the upper half of that envelope without reaching its upper boundary, leaving room in either direction rather than signaling a band breakout. The daily ATR is $91.77, a reminder that nearby technical levels can be crossed within ordinary daily volatility.
Intraday conditions are more abrupt: live price is below the hourly Bollinger lower band at $2,409.96, calculated from completed candles. Hourly ATR is $17.43. A move back inside that band could be mean reversion alone; it would not automatically repair the broader setup.
Hourly $2,424.30 clearance or daily $2,367.02 loss defines the scenarios
The nearest overhead barriers are the hourly EMA20 at $2,408.30 and daily EMA50 at $2,410.84. Above them sit hourly S1 at $2,417.15, the hourly pivot at $2,420.46 and hourly R1 at $2,424.30. Despite its S1 label, that hourly level is currently resistance because it stands above live price. The last completed hourly candle closed at $2,421.00. That sits above the hourly pivot but short of hourly R1, so pivot recovery alone has already proved insufficient to establish a lasting reclaim.
Bullish scenario: an hourly close above hourly R1 at $2,424.30 would provide fresh confirmation beyond that completed candle. The next resistance is the hourly Bollinger upper band at $2,436.49. A broader extension would face the daily Bollinger upper band at $2,493.75 and daily R1 at $2,507.59. An hourly close below the hourly EMA20 at $2,408.30 would invalidate this breakout scenario. The likeliest false signal is a brief rebound through the nearby averages that cannot sustain clearance of hourly R1.
Bearish scenario: a daily close below the daily pivot at $2,367.02 would mark a structural shift for ETH. Nearby support includes the hourly EMA50 at $2,365.30, followed by the daily EMA20 at $2,358.10 and daily Bollinger midpoint at $2,352.50. Deeper daily supports are the EMA200 at $2,304.13 and S1 at $2,284.03. A subsequent daily close above the daily EMA50 at $2,410.84 would invalidate that bearish scenario. Until the daily pivot breaks on a completed candle, intraday weakness remains vulnerable to reversal rather than confirming a daily breakdown.
FAQ
Is Ethereum overbought or oversold?
Neither description fits the supplied RSI readings: daily RSI is 54.1, hourly RSI is 61.7 and 15-minute RSI is 38.2.
Does higher Ethereum-chain DEX volume confirm ETH buying?
No. The reported figures measure chain-wide DEX trading activity, not directional buying of ETHUSDT.
{“@context”:”https://schema.org”,”@type”:”FAQPage”,”mainEntity”:[{“@type”:”Question”,”name”:”Is Ethereum overbought or oversold?”,”acceptedAnswer”:{“@type”:”Answer”,”text”:”Neither description fits the supplied RSI readings: daily RSI is 54.1, hourly RSI is 61.7 and 15-minute RSI is 38.2.”}},{“@type”:”Question”,”name”:”Does higher Ethereum-chain DEX volume confirm ETH buying?”,”acceptedAnswer”:{“@type”:”Answer”,”text”:”No. The reported figures measure chain-wide DEX trading activity, not directional buying of ETHUSDT.”}}]}
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.

As of November 5, 2026, the Bitcoin Cash price trades at $288.10 on Binance, with BCH showing stronger intraday momentum than its neutral daily structure can yet justify. The main scenario remains neutral: this is a recovery attempt approaching daily resistance, not a confirmed bullish trend.
BCH/USDT — daily chart with candlesticks, EMA20/EMA50 and volume.
Key takeaways
BCH trades at $288.10 on Binance, with the daily bias neutral — price sits above the EMA20 and EMA50 but below the EMA200.
The Fear & Greed Index reads 50 (Neutral), while total crypto market capitalization fell 2.00% to roughly $2.67 trillion.
Daily RSI at 49.4 and a negative MACD histogram signal improving but still unconvincing momentum.
A daily close above $289.97 would confirm a bullish breakout; an hourly close below $287.43 would confirm a local breakdown.
Smartbch DEX trading volume stands at $0.00, offering no activity confirmation for the setup.
Neutral sentiment offers no clear risk-on backdrop
CoinGecko places total crypto market capitalization at approximately $2.67 trillion, down 2.00% over 24 hours, with Bitcoin dominance at 60.10%. That broader decline makes an aggressive risk-on reading difficult to defend, even though it does not establish the cause of BCH’s price action.
Alternative.me’s Fear & Greed Index stands at 50, classified as Neutral. Sentiment therefore supplies no decisive directional confirmation for the recovery.
Trading volume on the smartbch chain stands at $0.00 over 24 hours. This is chain-wide trading volume, not BCH-specific turnover or fees; it provides no positive activity confirmation for this setup.
Bitcoin Cash price strength has not repaired the daily EMA structure
Binance candle data place BCH above the daily EMA20 at $282.58 and daily EMA50 at $279.56, but below the daily EMA200 at $307.94. The averages are not aligned: the shorter-term recovery has support beneath it, while the longer-term trend remains unresolved. The tension is between short-term strength and unfinished longer-term repair, and a breakout still needs confirmation from a completed candle.
The hourly picture is firmer: price is above the hourly EMA20 at $283.53, EMA50 at $280.54 and EMA200 at $281.07. However, those averages are also not aligned, so trading above all three signals strength rather than a textbook bullish trend structure.
On the 15-minute chart, price is above the EMA20 at $287.71, EMA50 at $285.30 and EMA200 at $280.24, with a bullish EMA alignment. That supports the execution-timeframe recovery but cannot override the neutral daily bias. BCH is strongest on the shortest horizon, where signals are least suited to declaring a broader reversal.
Positive intraday momentum meets an unconvincing daily reading
Daily RSI is rising and stands at 49.4, while the daily MACD histogram remains negative. This is improving momentum without a decisive bullish balance: the daily indicators do not yet validate the strength visible on lower timeframes.
Hourly RSI reads 65.5 and the MACD histogram is positive, with both trend readings classified as flat. Momentum favors the recovery, but there is no confirmed acceleration in those readings. Neither the hourly nor the 15-minute RSI is overbought.
The 15-minute chart adds a warning rather than outright bearish confirmation. RSI is rising at 65.9, yet its positive MACD histogram is narrowing. Price strength and momentum expansion are not fully aligned, making a brief push through resistance less persuasive without a confirming close.
The daily Bollinger midpoint sits at $281.53, with the upper band at $293.83 and lower band at $269.24. BCH is above the midpoint but below the upper band, so the recovery occupies the upper half of the range without establishing a breakout. The hourly upper band at $289.28 is also overhead, putting nearby resistance directly in the recovery’s path.
Daily ATR is $16.04, versus hourly ATR of $3.24. Those readings frame the volatility risk: the nearby decision levels are close enough for an ordinary price swing to cross them, so an intrabar breach is weaker evidence than a completed candle.
Daily $289.97 and hourly $287.43 define the opposing scenarios
The nearest overhead level is the hourly pivot at $288.97. The last completed hourly candle closed at $289.20, already above that pivot, but the live price now sits below it. A pivot reclaim is therefore not a fresh breakout signal; the current question is whether that completed-candle strength can hold. The daily pivot at $277.63 represents a deeper support reference, not the immediate decision point.
Bullish scenario: a daily close above daily R1 at $289.97 would confirm a break of the nearest daily resistance and put the daily Bollinger upper band at $293.83 in focus. Hourly R1 at $290.73 remains an intervening barrier. An hourly close below hourly S1 at $287.43 would invalidate this breakout scenario by breaking the nearest hourly support.
Bearish scenario: an hourly close below hourly S1 at $287.43 would confirm a local breakdown, exposing the hourly EMA20 at $283.53 and then the daily EMA20 at $282.58. A subsequent hourly close back above the hourly pivot at $288.97 would invalidate that breakdown scenario.
The likeliest false signal in this reading is an intraday push above daily R1 that fails before the daily close. The positive hourly momentum makes that push plausible, but the negative daily MACD and narrowing 15-minute histogram leave its durability uncertain.
FAQ
Is BCH already in a bullish daily trend?
No. The daily bias remains neutral: price is above the daily EMA20 and EMA50 but below the daily EMA200, and the averages are not aligned.
Does positive hourly MACD confirm accelerating momentum?
No. The hourly histogram is positive, but its recent trend is classified as flat. Positive momentum and accelerating momentum are different claims.
Does the smartbch volume figure measure BCH exchange trading?
No. The smartbch figure covers chain-wide DEX trading volume, not BCH-specific turnover or Binance liquidity.
{“@context”:”https://schema.org”,”@type”:”FAQPage”,”mainEntity”:[{“@type”:”Question”,”name”:”Is BCH already in a bullish daily trend?”,”acceptedAnswer”:{“@type”:”Answer”,”text”:”No. The daily bias remains neutral: price is above the daily EMA20 and EMA50 but below the daily EMA200, and the averages are not aligned.”}},{“@type”:”Question”,”name”:”Does positive hourly MACD confirm accelerating momentum?”,”acceptedAnswer”:{“@type”:”Answer”,”text”:”No. The hourly histogram is positive, but its recent trend is classified as flat. Positive momentum and accelerating momentum are different claims.”}},{“@type”:”Question”,”name”:”Does the smartbch volume figure measure BCH exchange trading?”,”acceptedAnswer”:{“@type”:”Answer”,”text”:”No. The smartbch figure covers chain-wide DEX trading volume, not BCH-specific turnover or Binance liquidity.”}}]}
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.

Choosing the right non-custodial crypto wallet is one of the most important decisions for anyone managing digital assets. Whether holding Bitcoin, Ethereum, stablecoins or tokenized real-world assets, investors need a secure way to manage their funds without relying on a centralized custodian.
However, not all self-custody wallets offer the same level of protection, flexibility or functionality.
For retail users, a wallet that supports multiple cryptocurrencies and allows convenient token swaps might be sufficient. For investors managing substantial portfolios, families and high-net-worth individuals, the requirements are considerably different. Security against unauthorized transactions, account recovery, inheritance planning and shared access become essential considerations.
In 2026, the non-custodial wallet market has evolved significantly. Multi-Party Computation (MPC) technology is providing alternatives to traditional seed phrases, while new wallets are integrating trading, cross-chain transactions, tokenized securities and advanced privacy features.
To identify the best non-custodial crypto wallets in 2026, we compared ten leading solutions: Bron, Ledger, Zengo, Trezor, Tangem, Trust Wallet, MetaMask, MPC Vault, Phantom and Safe.
Our comparison evaluates twelve criteria, including security, multi-user management, inheritance, supported assets, fiat transfers, cross-chain swaps, trading, fraud protection, staking, customer support and privacy.
Here are the ten best non-custodial wallets, ranked according to their overall performance.
The 10 Best Non-Custodial Wallets in 2026: Ranking
The following ranking is based on a comparative assessment of twelve criteria, with a maximum possible score of 100 points.
Rank Wallet Score Best for 1 Bron 84/100 Overall security, recovery and usability 2 Ledger 72/100 Hardware security and asset coverage 3 Zengo 70/100 MPC security and recovery 4 Trezor 58/100 Open-source hardware security 5 Tangem 51/100 Card-based hardware wallets 6 Trust Wallet 51/100 Staking and asset selection 7 MetaMask 49/100 DeFi and Web3 8 MPC Vault 43/100 Advanced transaction policies 9 Phantom 42/100 Solana and multi-asset trading 10 Safe 42/100 On-chain multisignature security
Let’s examine what makes each wallet different and which types of investors they are best suited for.
1. Bron – Best Overall Non-Custodial Wallet
Bron ranks first among the ten wallets, with 84 points out of 100. Its main advantage is its combination of advanced security, account recovery, inheritance planning, multi-user management and integrated financial services.
Unlike traditional wallets that rely on a single seed phrase, Bron uses Multi-Party Computation (MPC) technology to distribute cryptographic signing capabilities. This eliminates the need for users to manage a conventional seed phrase and introduces additional security mechanisms for accessing and authorizing transactions.
MPC security, recovery and shared access
Bron’s security architecture is particularly interesting for investors managing significant cryptocurrency holdings.
Users can configure different roles, including Owner, Member and Viewer, and assign transaction approval rights according to individual policies. Multiple users can participate in transaction authorization, making the wallet suitable for situations where financial decisions should not depend on a single person.
Recovery is another important differentiator. Bron supports recovery through two guardians or FaceScan, with a 48-hour security delay, as well as a 30-day self-recovery mechanism.
This provides an alternative to the traditional seed phrase recovery model, which can create a single point of failure if the phrase is lost, stolen or compromised.
Bron also offers Digital Inheritance, allowing users to designate beneficiaries without sharing their live wallet credentials in advance.
The inheritance process includes a 12-month waiting period, which can be reduced to six months when the beneficiary provides codes from two guardians. The owner, guardians or beneficiaries can cancel the process, providing additional safeguards against premature or fraudulent claims.
Tokenized stocks and ETFs directly inside the wallet
One of Bron’s most interesting features is its integration of tokenized US stocks and ETFs through Ondo Global Markets.
Users can access tokenized traditional financial assets directly within the wallet, combining cryptocurrency management with exposure to traditional markets.
The experience goes beyond simply making tokenized securities available. Bron also displays company fundamentals, allowing investors to access relevant information about the underlying companies through the interface.
Execution quality is another important differentiator.
Bron uses its own intent protocol, Bron Intents, where independent solvers compete to provide firm quotes for transactions. These solvers can source liquidity directly through Ondo’s mint and burn mechanism instead of relying exclusively on automated market maker (AMM) liquidity pools.
This approach allows trades to execute against firm quotes without the price slippage associated with traditional AMM-based swaps. According to the comparison, trades can reach up to $100,000 per transaction.
This distinction matters particularly when dealing with larger amounts, where even relatively small execution differences can have a meaningful financial impact.
Tokenized securities are subject to geographical restrictions. According to the October 2026 assessment, Bron’s tokenized stocks and ETFs are not available to users in the United States and the United Kingdom, with additional restrictions applying in certain other jurisdictions.
Advanced cross-chain swaps
Bron also distinguishes itself through its cross-chain capabilities.
Its Bron Intents protocol enables transactions across networks that are not commonly connected through standard wallet swap interfaces.
Examples include:
USDT on Tron to Bitcoin.
USDT on Ethereum to Canton Coin.
Other cross-chain routes involving major blockchain ecosystems.
The protocol allows independent solvers to compete for transaction execution, expanding the range of routes available to users.
In the comparison’s seven reference-transfer tests, Bron supported six, making it one of the strongest wallets for cross-chain swaps.
Power Bank: Simplifying transaction fees
Managing cryptocurrency across multiple blockchains often requires maintaining separate balances of native tokens to pay network fees.
Bron’s Power Bank aims to simplify this process, allowing users to manage transaction fees without needing to maintain separate native gas-token balances across multiple networks.
This can make multi-chain asset management considerably more convenient, especially for users who regularly move funds between different ecosystems.
Privacy and additional features
Bron also places considerable emphasis on financial privacy.
Its hidden accounts feature allows users to protect individual accounts behind separate six-digit PINs. Hidden accounts disappear from the standard account lists, balances, transaction history and notifications until unlocked.
Bron additionally integrates the Zama confidential token standard, enabling supported tokens to be converted into confidential versions. Transfer amounts are encrypted on-chain, making them invisible to blockchain explorers, although sender and receiver addresses remain public.
The wallet also supports staking across ten assets and offers access to tokenized US Treasury exposure through mTBILL.
Overall assessment: Bron is the strongest all-round solution in this comparison for users looking for more than basic cryptocurrency storage. Its combination of MPC security, recovery, inheritance, shared access, tokenized securities, cross-chain swaps and privacy features makes it particularly interesting for investors managing substantial digital-asset portfolios.
2. Ledger – Best Hardware Wallet Ecosystem
Ledger ranks second with 72 points out of 100. It is one of the most established names in cryptocurrency hardware wallets, offering physical devices designed to keep private keys isolated from internet-connected devices.
Its main strengths are extensive blockchain coverage, hardware-based transaction authorization, staking and integrated trading.
Ledger Wallet provides access to more than 50 on-ramp providers, including MoonPay, Coinify and PayPal, alongside multiple swap and trading integrations.
The ecosystem also supports tokenized US stocks and ETFs through Ondo, with swaps routed through 1inch. Users can access perpetual futures through Hyperliquid within Ledger Wallet, using Yield.xyz.
Another important advantage is staking. Ledger supports several major cryptocurrencies, including Ethereum, Solana, Polkadot, Cosmos, Avalanche, Tron, Polygon and BNB.
However, Ledger’s consumer wallet is primarily designed for individual users. It does not offer native multi-user roles or shared transaction approval in its main consumer application. More advanced multisignature capabilities require separate products.
Ledger Recover provides an optional recovery service through a paid subscription, while users can also rely on their traditional recovery phrase.
Best for: Investors who prioritize hardware-based security, broad cryptocurrency support and an established ecosystem of trading and staking services.
3. Zengo – Best MPC Wallet for Recovery
Zengo scores 70 points, making it the third-ranked wallet in this comparison.
Its defining characteristic is its MPC-based security architecture, which removes the traditional seed phrase and provides alternative account recovery mechanisms.
Instead of relying on a single recovery phrase, Zengo uses a combination of email, biometric authentication and a cloud recovery file.
Its Theft Guard feature introduces an additional biometric verification step for withdrawals above a user-defined threshold, although this functionality requires the paid Zengo Pro subscription.
Zengo also offers Legacy Transfer, which allows users to designate a beneficiary who can receive access after a predefined period of inactivity.
The inactivity timer can be configured between three and 24 months and restarts whenever the owner accesses the wallet.
For users interested in managing cryptocurrency collaboratively, Zengo Business offers additional roles, including Admin, Approver, Controller and Viewer, alongside configurable multisigner thresholds. However, this is a separate business-oriented application rather than the standard consumer wallet.
Zengo also provides access to prediction markets through its Polymarket integration, although it does not offer native perpetual futures or tokenized equities.
Another advantage is customer support. Zengo provides 24/7 human chat support and publishes a response-time guarantee for its paid tier.
Best for: Users who want seedless MPC security, convenient recovery mechanisms and additional support options.
4. Trezor – Best Open-Source Hardware Wallet
Trezor ranks fourth with 58 points.
It is one of the pioneers of hardware-based cryptocurrency self-custody and is particularly recognized for its open-source approach.
Its devices require physical confirmation for transactions, providing an additional layer of protection against remote attacks.
Trezor supports a broad range of blockchain networks and offers access to Bitcoin, Ethereum and numerous other digital assets.
The Trezor Suite application integrates cryptocurrency purchases and sales through third-party providers, as well as swaps through centralized and decentralized services.
An important recovery feature is Multi-share Backup, which allows users to divide their recovery phrase into multiple shares. This means that recovering the wallet does not necessarily depend on retaining one complete copy of the seed phrase.
However, Trezor does not provide a native inheritance feature or built-in multi-user transaction approval in Trezor Suite.
Its staking capabilities include Ethereum, Solana and Tron, while stablecoin yield is available through Morpho vault integrations.
Best for: Investors who prefer physical hardware security, open-source technology and control over their recovery process.
5. Tangem – Best Card-Based Hardware Wallet
Tangem scores 51 points and offers a different approach to hardware-based cryptocurrency storage.
Instead of a conventional USB-style hardware wallet, Tangem uses NFC-enabled physical cards that communicate with compatible smartphones.
Users can authorize transactions by tapping their card against their mobile device.
This makes the wallet particularly convenient for people who want hardware-based key protection without carrying a traditional hardware device.
Tangem supports numerous cryptocurrencies and blockchain networks, with integrated swap services through third-party providers.
It also offers staking across several assets and has introduced additional earning features through Yield Mode, which provides access to stablecoin lending opportunities through Aave.
One important consideration is recovery. Users who choose not to create an optional seed backup depend on retaining access to their cards. Losing all cards can make recovery impossible.
Tangem also lacks native multi-user transaction approval and a dedicated inheritance process.
Best for: Users who want portable hardware security in a simple card-based format.
6. Trust Wallet – Best for Staking and Asset Selection
Trust Wallet scores 51 points and remains one of the most widely used multi-chain cryptocurrency wallets.
Its main strength is its extensive asset coverage, with support for numerous cryptocurrencies and blockchain networks.
The wallet combines self-custody with integrated swaps, decentralized application access, staking and earning opportunities.
Trust Wallet offers native staking across more than 20 assets, making it particularly interesting for users who want to generate rewards while retaining control of their digital assets.
It also provides access to stablecoin earning opportunities through decentralized finance protocols such as Morpho, Aave and Compound.
Another important feature is its integration of Ondo tokenized stocks and ETFs, alongside perpetual futures through Hyperliquid and Aster.
However, its security architecture relies on a traditional seed phrase. Users are responsible for protecting their recovery credentials, and losing the phrase can result in permanent loss of access.
Trust Wallet also lacks native inheritance functionality and advanced multi-user transaction management.
Best for: Retail cryptocurrency users who prioritize broad asset support, staking and access to DeFi applications.
7. MetaMask – Best for DeFi and Web3
MetaMask scores 49 points and is one of the best-known wallets in the Ethereum and Web3 ecosystems.
It is particularly popular among users interacting with decentralized applications, DeFi protocols, NFT platforms and blockchain-based services.
Its browser extension and mobile application provide access to multiple blockchain networks, token swaps and decentralized applications.
MetaMask has also expanded its financial features. Its integrations include tokenized stocks, ETFs and commodities through Ondo, as well as perpetual futures through Hyperliquid.
The wallet offers transaction security alerts and simulation capabilities through its integration with Blockaid. Users can also manage and revoke token approvals through its web Portfolio.
However, MetaMask remains primarily a single-user wallet. It does not offer native inheritance or sophisticated multi-user transaction approval within its consumer application.
Its traditional recovery model depends on the Secret Recovery Phrase, although optional Google and Apple login functionality offers an alternative onboarding and access experience.
Best for: DeFi users, developers and cryptocurrency investors who frequently interact with Ethereum-compatible applications and Web3 services.
8. MPC Vault – Best for Advanced Transaction Policies
MPC Vault scores 43 points and targets users who need more sophisticated transaction management.
Its architecture uses MPC technology and provides an advanced policy engine for controlling how transactions are authorized.
Organizations can configure different roles and permissions, including owners, administrators, members and vault managers.
The platform also supports transaction limits, address whitelists, transaction simulation and risk alerts.
These capabilities make MPC Vault particularly interesting for organizations that need structured approval processes and additional controls over digital-asset movements.
However, its consumer accessibility is more limited than that of several competing wallets.
Certain advanced capabilities, including key-share export, are restricted to higher-tier annual plans. Its staking functionality was still listed as coming soon in the October 2026 assessment.
It also lacks a native inheritance feature and integrated trading capabilities.
Best for: Users and organizations that prioritize advanced transaction policies and controlled access over a simple consumer experience.
9. Phantom – Best for Solana and Multi-Asset Trading
Phantom scores 42 points and has established itself as one of the leading wallets in the Solana ecosystem.
Initially known for its Solana-focused functionality, Phantom has expanded its support to additional blockchain networks, including Ethereum, Bitcoin and BNB Chain.
Its user-friendly interface provides access to cryptocurrency swaps, NFTs, decentralized applications and staking.
Phantom has also expanded its trading capabilities through Hyperliquid, providing access to perpetual futures across cryptocurrencies, equities, indices and commodities.
Its tokenized stock integrations include xStocks, Ondo and PreStocks.
The wallet also offers transaction previews and security features designed to help users identify potentially malicious transactions.
However, its inheritance and shared-access functionality remain limited. It does not offer native multi-user transaction approvals or a dedicated inheritance solution.
Recovery also depends on the credentials associated with the wallet’s setup.
Best for: Solana users and investors looking for an accessible wallet with integrated trading and multi-asset functionality.
10. Safe – Best for On-Chain Multisignature Security
Safe scores 42 points and takes a different approach from traditional consumer cryptocurrency wallets.
Rather than relying on a single private key, Safe uses smart-contract-based multisignature wallets.
This allows users to configure M-of-N transaction authorization, meaning a predefined number of signers must approve a transaction before funds can move.
For example, a wallet can require two out of three authorized signers to approve a transfer.
This structure makes Safe particularly useful for organizations, investment groups and individuals who want to distribute control across multiple independent parties.
Its smart-contract architecture also provides a strong level of protection against the compromise of a single signing key.
However, Safe has some important limitations as a general-purpose consumer wallet.
Its architecture is primarily focused on EVM-compatible networks and does not natively support Bitcoin or several other major blockchain ecosystems.
Its interface and configuration can also be more complex than those of conventional wallets, particularly for users without technical experience.
Best for: Users who prioritize on-chain multisignature authorization and are comfortable managing smart-contract-based wallet infrastructure.
How to Choose the Best Non-Custodial Crypto Wallet
The best non-custodial wallet depends on how much cryptocurrency you hold, which networks you use and how you intend to manage your assets.
There are several important factors to consider before choosing a wallet.
1. Security architecture
Traditional wallets generally rely on a seed phrase that gives access to the funds.
Hardware wallets add physical transaction confirmation, while MPC wallets distribute signing capabilities across multiple parties or devices.
Smart-contract wallets such as Safe introduce another model, using multiple signatures and programmable authorization policies.
Each approach has different advantages and trade-offs.
2. Recovery and inheritance
A wallet should not only protect assets while its owner is alive and able to access them. It should also provide a clear recovery process if devices are lost or credentials become unavailable.
Inheritance is another important consideration, particularly for people holding substantial digital-asset portfolios.
Sharing a seed phrase with family members can compromise security. A dedicated inheritance mechanism provides a more structured alternative.
3. Multi-user management
Investors managing cryptocurrency together with family members, financial advisors or accountants may need different permission levels.
Look for wallets that support transaction co-approval, viewing rights, spending limits and multiple accounts.
These features can help separate financial oversight from the authority to move funds.
4. Supported cryptocurrencies and blockchain networks
Not every wallet supports every blockchain.
Before selecting a wallet, check whether it supports the networks and assets you actually use.
Cross-chain functionality is particularly relevant for investors who regularly move stablecoins, Bitcoin and other digital assets between different ecosystems.
5. Trading and tokenized assets
Modern crypto wallets are increasingly becoming financial interfaces rather than simple storage applications.
Some provide access to decentralized exchanges, perpetual futures, staking and tokenized traditional assets.
Investors interested in tokenized stocks and ETFs should also consider how trades are executed. Firm quotes and competitive liquidity sourcing can be important advantages over swaps that rely exclusively on AMM pools.
6. Privacy
Public blockchains make transaction histories and balances visible to anyone who knows a wallet address.
For investors managing substantial holdings, privacy features can therefore be an important consideration.
Look for hidden accounts, confidential transaction functionality and mechanisms that reduce unnecessary exposure of wallet information.
Frequently Asked Questions About Non-Custodial Crypto Wallets
What is a non-custodial crypto wallet?
A non-custodial crypto wallet is a wallet that allows users to maintain control over the cryptographic keys needed to authorize transactions.
Unlike custodial wallets offered by centralized exchanges, non-custodial wallets do not rely on an exchange or financial intermediary to control the user’s assets.
The user remains responsible for protecting access credentials and authorizing transactions.
What is the best non-custodial crypto wallet in 2026?
According to this comparison, Bron is the best overall non-custodial crypto wallet in 2026, with a score of 84 out of 100.
It combines MPC security, account recovery, digital inheritance, shared access, tokenized stocks and ETFs, cross-chain swaps and privacy features.
Ledger and Zengo follow in second and third place, respectively.
What is the difference between an MPC wallet and a traditional crypto wallet?
A traditional cryptocurrency wallet generally relies on a private key, often backed up through a seed phrase.
An MPC wallet uses Multi-Party Computation technology to distribute cryptographic signing capabilities across multiple parties or devices.
This reduces reliance on a single credential and can introduce additional recovery and authorization mechanisms.
Are non-custodial wallets safer than exchange wallets?
Non-custodial wallets provide users with direct control over their cryptocurrency, reducing their dependence on centralized exchanges and custodians.
However, they also transfer responsibility for security and recovery to the user.
A poorly protected seed phrase or compromised device can still result in the loss of funds. Security depends on the wallet architecture and how it is configured and used.
Can you recover a non-custodial wallet if you lose your phone?
Recovery depends on the wallet’s architecture.
Traditional wallets generally require a recovery phrase. MPC wallets can offer alternative mechanisms involving biometric authentication, recovery files, guardians or other designated recovery processes.
For example, Bron offers recovery through guardians or FaceScan, as well as a separate self-recovery mechanism.
Which crypto wallets support inheritance?
Dedicated cryptocurrency inheritance features remain relatively uncommon.
In this comparison, Bron and Zengo offer named inheritance features, while Safe can be configured with a recovery mechanism that may support an inheritance arrangement.
Most traditional wallets do not provide a native inheritance process.
Which non-custodial wallets support tokenized stocks and ETFs?
According to the October 2026 comparison, Bron, Ledger, MetaMask, Phantom and Trust Wallet offer access to tokenized stocks and ETFs through different integrations.
Their execution models differ. Bron uses Bron Intents to obtain competing firm quotes, while the other wallets in this comparison route tokenized equities through on-chain swap liquidity with slippage tolerance.
Availability depends on jurisdiction and applicable restrictions.
Are non-custodial crypto wallets anonymous?
No. Non-custodial does not necessarily mean anonymous.
Most public blockchain transactions can be inspected through blockchain explorers, including wallet addresses, balances and transaction amounts.
Some wallets offer additional privacy features, such as hidden accounts or confidential token transfers, but these do not automatically make all wallet activity anonymous.
Do non-custodial wallets support multiple blockchains?
Yes. Many modern non-custodial wallets support several blockchain networks, allowing users to manage different cryptocurrencies through a single interface.
Some also provide cross-chain swaps, which allow users to exchange assets between different networks without manually using separate centralized exchanges.
However, supported networks and available swap routes vary considerably between providers.
Final Verdict: Which Non-Custodial Wallet Should You Choose?
The non-custodial wallet market has evolved beyond simple cryptocurrency storage. In 2026, users can choose between hardware wallets, MPC-based solutions, smart-contract multisignature systems and multi-chain consumer applications.
The right choice depends on individual requirements.
Ledger and Trezor remain strong options for investors who prefer hardware-based security. Zengo offers an interesting alternative for those looking for seedless MPC recovery. MetaMask, Phantom and Trust Wallet provide extensive access to decentralized applications, trading and staking.
However, when comparing security, recovery, inheritance, shared access, trading, cross-chain functionality and privacy together, Bron achieves the highest overall score in this assessment.
Its combination of MPC security, Digital Inheritance, multi-user management, tokenized stocks and ETFs through Ondo, competitive execution through Bron Intents and advanced privacy capabilities makes it the strongest all-round wallet in this ranking.
For investors looking beyond basic crypto storage, these additional capabilities are increasingly important when deciding how to manage digital assets securely and efficiently.

Senate Democrats plan to investigate JPMorgan Chase’s banking relationship with Jeffrey Epstein when they take control of Congress early next year, with particular attention to decisions by senior executives at the bank. The Jeffrey Epstein JPMorgan Chase inquiry is expected to be a priority.
The planned inquiry follows Democrats’ victories in Tuesday’s midterm elections and forms part of their preparations for sweeping congressional investigations. Democrats won control of both the House and Senate and have promised to make the Epstein case a major focus of inquiry.
Democratic staffers on the Senate Finance Committee intend to examine how the bank’s leadership handled Epstein, a person familiar with the committee’s thinking told CNBC on Thursday.
Jeffrey Epstein JPMorgan Chase handling faces executive-level scrutiny
Mary Erdoes, CEO of JPMorgan’s Asset & Wealth Management business, is a particular focus of the planned investigation. Staffers intend to examine her Epstein-related decisions as part of their scrutiny of senior executives’ handling of the relationship.
In the upcoming Congress, chairmanship of the committee is anticipated to go to Sen. Ron Wyden, the Oregon Democrat who presently holds the position of ranking member.
Wyden has made clear that he intends to make full use of the subpoena powers available to committee majorities.
Article produced with the assistance of artificial intelligence and reviewed by the editorial team.

SKY traded near $0.0675 on November 5, 2026, but the SKY token price outlook still hinges on clearing resistance at $0.070–$0.072. Trader Crypto With Gopal identified a conditional recovery target of $0.085, while Sky Frontier Foundation’s Q3 results showed higher net revenue despite falling gross revenue.
Key takeaways
Gopal’s $0.085 target requires SKY to break above resistance.
Q3 net revenue increased 11.8% as expenses fell 16%.
Sky Reserves ended the quarter at $85.08 million.
Osero’s proposed Base vault targets governance action on November 19.
SKY token price outlook: resistance comes first
SKY must move above $0.070–$0.072 to activate Gopal’s bullish scenario. His November 5 analysis identified a falling wedge on the four-hour chart, with price still inside the narrowing formation after a prolonged correction.
The chart showed converging lower highs and lower lows beneath the October peak. Gopal interpreted that narrowing range as a possible sign of weakening selling pressure, but the upper boundary had not been cleared.
From the $0.0675 reference price, reaching the resistance zone would require a gain of roughly 3.7% to 6.7%. The $0.085 target represents approximately 25.9% upside, while support near $0.063 sits 6.7% below that reference.
The SKY token price outlook rests on that technical breakout condition. Gopal’s target is a chart-based projection, not a valuation derived from protocol earnings.
Lower expenses lift Sky Frontier’s Q3 net revenue
Sky Frontier Foundation reported $37.19 million in Q3 net revenue, an 11.8% quarter-over-quarter increase driven by lower expenses. Gross protocol revenue declined 7.4% to $99.29 million, while expenses fell 16% to $62.10 million.
That cost reduction lifted the net revenue margin from 31% to 37.5%. Q3 marked the protocol’s sixth consecutive quarter of positive net revenue.
Savings payouts contributed substantially to the improvement, declining by $11.97 million to $41.94 million as the sUSDS balance fell from $5.52 billion to $4.52 billion. Because the cut in payouts was larger than the $8.06 million drop in revenue, net revenue actually rose by $3.91 million.
The Foundation allocated $28.47 million to Sky Reserves. The quarter-end balance reached $85.08 million, approximately 56.7% of the $150 million target, with $64.92 million still required.
Buybacks, staking rewards and Galaxy’s allocation
Q3 allocations to SKY token buybacks and USDS staking rewards totaled $8.72 million. Purchases accounted for $5.60 million, with another $3.12 million distributed as USDS rewards to stakers.
The Foundation said Stage 2 of its buyback framework used net revenue to fund token purchases, staking rewards and permanent burns. The first burn removed 2.86 million SKY on September 13.
Also noted in the quarterly report was Galaxy’s decision to allocate $100 million to sUSDS treasury holdings, along with the green light to use these funds as collateral within its institutional lending operations, while the Foundation’s partnership announcement described Galaxy as a company listed on Nasdaq and based in New York.
Osero proposes a Base liquidity vault
Osero’s governance proposal would connect its Ethereum and Base liquidity systems using Circle’s Cross-Chain Transfer Protocol and introduce a Gauntlet-curated USDC vault on Base. It targets the November 19 governance spell, subject to Sky Core actions and execution on both chains.
Under the proposed vault, deposits are capped at 15 million USDC, with that limit refilling by 10 million USDC each day. Its rate-limit configuration allows unlimited withdrawals.
A distinct cap of 10 million USDC would govern cross-chain transfers, with this threshold being restored at a rate of 50 million USDC daily in either direction. Those parameters are distinct from the vault’s deposit limits.
According to the proposal, no tokens would be moved by the governance spell itself, and once configuration checks are complete, engineers intend to run a test transfer of 1,000 USDS from the Base vault back to Ethereum and return.
Article produced with the assistance of artificial intelligence and reviewed by the editorial team.

Key takeaways
SOXX was trading at $135.49 as of 10:28 ET on Thursday, down 69.92% from the previous close of $450.41.
Daily RSI14 is 12.26, down from 33.97 on the preceding candle, placing it firmly in oversold territory.
The daily MACD histogram is -25.51, down from -5.43, with the MACD line at -46.9 below its signal at -21.39.
Price sits below the daily 20-session EMA at $465.09, the 50-session EMA at $504.26, and the 200-session EMA at $472.8.
The session low at $135.44 is the immediate reference; a break below it would invalidate the near-term bullish case.
On Thursday, November 5, 2026, SOXX opened at $143.02. It traded between a low of $135.44 and a high of $143.73, and was trading at $135.49 as of 10:28 ET. The ETF was down 69.92% versus the previous close, with volume of 493,959 shares so far. The previous session’s close was $450.41 on November 4, 2026.
SOXX — daily chart with candlesticks, EMA20/EMA50 and volume.
iShares PHLX SOX Semiconductor ETF: Daily chart sets the bearish bias
Daily trend structure
The 20-session average is below both longer averages, although the three averages are not fully stacked in bearish order. Their position above price supports the bearish daily assessment.
Momentum and volatility readings
Meanwhile, daily RSI14 fell to 12.26 from 33.97 on the preceding session’s candle. It is firmly oversold. That reading is a counterweight to the bearish trend evidence, not confirmation that support will hold.
The daily MACD line stands at -46.9, below its signal at -21.39. Its histogram fell to -25.51 from -5.43, leaving a negative gap between the line and signal. Both measures support the bearish bias despite the oversold RSI.
Notably, price is also below the daily lower Bollinger band at $313.27. Daily ATR14 increased to $42.48 from $21.51, indicating greater measured volatility than on the preceding candle. These readings include the open session and do not establish where SOXX will end it.
Pivot and support reference points
For reference, the daily pivot at $453.77 and daily first support at $438.32 both stand above the current price. These levels come from the previous completed daily candle. The first-support label does not make $438.32 support underneath the current market.
Hourly confirmation, with oversold tension
Similarly, the hourly chart supports the daily bearish view. Price is below the hourly 20-hour EMA at $430.03, followed by the 50-hour EMA at $462.59 and the 200-hour EMA at $505.47. This is a fully bearish alignment.
Hourly RSI14 is 5.37, in oversold territory, while the hourly MACD histogram is -19.98, placing its line below its signal. Price also sits below the hourly lower Bollinger band at $301.29 and the hourly pivot at $449.24. There is no directional conflict between the daily and hourly charts; the tension is between bearish positioning and oversold readings.
Short-term levels define the conditional scenarios
For execution context, the 15-minute RSI14 stands at 3.36, also oversold. Its MACD histogram is -37.39, with the line below its signal. Price sits beneath the 15-minute first support at $136.47, the pivot at $138, and the lower Bollinger band at $138.26. Those levels are overhead reference points, not current support.
However, a bullish scenario would require the session low at $135.44 to hold. Price would then need to reclaim $136.47, the 15-minute pivot at $138, and the lower band at $138.26. Clearing the 15-minute first resistance at $139.1 would add support to that case. The session high at $143.73 would remain a further hurdle, and those conditions alone would not overturn the daily bearish structure.
Conversely, a break below $135.44 would invalidate that near-term bullish case. Failure to reclaim the nearby 15-minute references would also leave the bearish daily and hourly evidence unchallenged. No lower price support is established by the supplied chart levels.
Recent fund activity provides background
A report published on Tuesday, November 3, 2026, described additions to the fund’s positions and no sales. That portfolio activity offers context for the iShares PHLX SOX Semiconductor ETF.
Overall, SOXX stands near the session low of $135.44 and below the nearby 15-minute references, with the daily and hourly averages much higher. Daily ATR14 at $42.48 underscores the volatility. The unresolved issue is whether oversold conditions can coincide with reclaimed intraday levels; the bearish daily bias remains the main framework.
FAQ
What is the current trading level of the iShares PHLX SOX Semiconductor ETF?
SOXX was trading at $135.49 as of 10:28 ET on Thursday, November 5, 2026, down 69.92% from the previous close of $450.41. The session has ranged between a low of $135.44 and a high of $143.73.
Is the ETF in a bearish trend?
Yes. Price sits below the daily 20-session EMA at $465.09, the 50-session EMA at $504.26, and the 200-session EMA at $472.8. The daily MACD line at -46.9 is below its signal at -21.39, and the hourly chart shows a fully bearish alignment with price under all three hourly EMAs.
What are the key short-term levels for SOXX?
The session low at $135.44 is the immediate reference. Overhead, the 15-minute first support sits at $136.47, the 15-minute pivot at $138, the 15-minute lower Bollinger band at $138.26, and the 15-minute first resistance at $139.1. The session high is $143.73. On the daily timeframe, the pivot stands at $453.77 and first support at $438.32.
Are oversold readings signaling a reversal?
Not on their own. Daily RSI14 is 12.26, hourly RSI14 is 5.37, and the 15-minute RSI14 is 3.36—all are in oversold territory. However, these readings act as a counterweight to the bearish evidence rather than confirmation that support will hold. A bullish scenario would require the session low at $135.44 to hold and price to reclaim the nearby 15-minute reference levels.
Disclaimer: This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute financial advice, an investment recommendation, or a solicitation to buy or sell any financial instrument. The analysis provided is not indicative of future results. Investing in financial markets carries a high risk of capital loss. Always do your own research (DYOR) and consult a qualified financial advisor before making any decision.
Cryptonomist and the author hold no positions in the financial instruments mentioned and receive no compensation from the companies covered.
Article produced with the assistance of artificial intelligence and reviewed by the editorial team.

Kalshi’s perpetual futures on AAPL, AMZN and AMD were trading on November 5, 2026, offering leveraged stock exposure without share ownership or an expiration date. The contracts were active two days after a federal judge declined to block their regulatory approvals—but found challengers likely to succeed in disputing the CFTC’s authority to approve them as security futures.
Key takeaways
Kalshi offers leveraged long and short exposure to three individual stocks.
AAPL contracts recorded $4.61 million in 24-hour notional turnover.
A federal court challenge contests the contracts’ regulatory classification.
How Kalshi’s single-stock perpetual futures work
Kalshi’s perpetual futures let approved U.S.-based customers take long or short positions without buying shares or rolling contracts at expiry. Kalshi’s product guide specifies that each contract represents 0.02 shares, with funding payments exchanged daily between long and short holders.
Those payments occur at 4 p.m. ET. When funding is positive, long holders pay short holders; when it is negative, payments flow in the opposite direction.
The contracts do not grant voting rights. Dividends instead trigger cash adjustments: holders of long positions receive payments, while holders of short positions pay them.
Leverage and trading volume
Kalshi’s public market feed showed all three contracts open for trading at 10:05 a.m. ET on November 5, 2026. Estimated leverage stood at 4.9628 times for both AAPL and AMZN, compared with 3.3583 times for AMD.
The same snapshot showed $4.61 million in AAPL notional trading volume over the preceding 24 hours. AMZN recorded $1,131.84, while AMD recorded $14,370.72. These figures measure notional turnover for the selected contracts rather than the full roster.
Margin accounts and trading conditions
A registered futures commission merchant known as Kalshi Prime, which manages margin accounts, is the gateway through which most retail customers reach the contracts. Customer funds are held separately from Kalshi’s own money, and Kalshi Klear centrally clears the contracts.
Access requires more than an existing prediction-market balance. Under Kalshi’s rules, identity-verified users based in the United States can apply for a margin account, but must receive approval and complete an educational tutorial before trading. Perpetuals balances remain separate from prediction-market balances.
Traders provide initial margin as collateral. There are also scheduled closure periods for the stock contracts, during which customers are unable to open or close positions.
CFTC approval faces a federal court challenge
The legal dispute centers on whether the CFTC had authority to approve the single-stock contracts as security futures. On November 3, 2026, CFTC Chairman Michael S. Selig said equity perpetuals were deemed approved under Regulation 40.3, with both commodities and securities laws applying. His statement placed them under CFTC and Securities and Exchange Commission regulation.
The Capital Markets Alliance is challenging that approval route. Cboe, Citadel Securities and Healthy Markets Association identify themselves as members of the alliance.
In a preliminary finding, U.S. District Judge Valerie Caproni determined that the contracts resembled swaps rather than security futures, noting the absence of any future delivery of a security. While she concluded that the challengers would likely prevail on their authority argument, she still rejected the request for emergency relief because the alliance had not shown a likely risk of irreparable harm. The finding was preliminary, not a final judgment.
Kalshi’s perpetual futures were therefore trading while the litigation continued. Under Caproni’s order, the defendants must file their opposition to the preliminary injunction by November 6, 2026, while the alliance’s reply is due November 10, 2026, though these dates remain subject to modification by the assigned judge.
Article produced with the assistance of artificial intelligence and reviewed by the editorial team.

TSV’s tokenized share trading began on November 4, 2026, with four purchases of Canton Strategic Holdings (CNTN) shares totaling $30,296. The Nasdaq-listed issuer described the transactions as the first issuer-sponsored tokenized U.S. equity trades under the Securities and Exchange Commission’s Innovation Exemption.
Key takeaways
Four CNTN purchases involved 14,460.66 shares.
Five North sold to DRW Cumberland, with Flowdesk providing liquidity.
Fairmint maintains the official shareholder record on Canton.
Trading is restricted to verified, approved investors.
TSV’s tokenized share trading opens with four purchases
Five North, an existing Canton Strategic shareholder, sold shares to DRW Cumberland through TSV LLC’s permissioned liquidity pool on Canton, according to the issuer’s announcement. Flowdesk Liquidity Solutions supplied liquidity, while the Tradecraft automated market maker protocol powered the transactions.
According to Tradecraft’s public transaction feed, which tracked activity up to 4:33 p.m. ET, a total of 14,460.66 CNTN shares were bought for $30,296 within the CNTN/USDCx pool. The four trades, which occurred between 10:54 a.m. and 11:26 a.m. ET, showed reported per-share prices spanning roughly $2.0751 to $2.1086.
These trades came after Canton Strategic agreed on October 29 to list its shares on TSV, shifting the initiative from a planned debut to actual completed transactions.
SEC exemption sets conditions for trading access
Issued on September 17, the SEC Innovation Exemption allows eligible venues to operate automated liquidity pools without registering as formal exchanges, though this relief is granted on a temporary, conditional basis tied to rules on shareholder rights, trading limits and volume caps.
Only eligible retail and institutional investors who pass identity verification and sanctions checks on their wallets may trade tokenized shares on TSV. While the venue allows continuous trading around the clock, this is subject to required pauses, maintenance periods, risk safeguards and volume ceilings, and tokenized trading must halt whenever the corresponding stock is suspended on its primary exchange.
Under the framework, a public notice must be filed at least 30 calendar days before launching operations; TSV filed its initial notice on September 23, which was more than 30 days ahead of the trades.
When shares are tokenized by an unaffiliated third party, the SEC order mandates a separate notification to the issuer along with a 30-day window for objections. According to TSV’s notice, these notifications were skipped because the transfer agent was operating under the issuer’s authorization and on its behalf.
Atomic settlement leaves the official ownership record with the transfer agent
The shares and payment settled through atomic settlement: both transferred together, or neither transferred. Fairmint TA LLC, the SEC-registered transfer agent, maintains the official ownership record on Canton.
Five North first requested that its existing CNTN shares be registered in tokenized form. Fairmint moved the position from a broker-dealer account to Canton Strategic’s onchain shareholder register, recording it with Five North’s verified Loop Wallet, according to the issuer.
Fairmint TA LLC approves holders and wallets and applies the issuer’s transfer controls. According to Canton Strategic, holders of tokenized shares enjoy identical rights and privileges to those holding its Nasdaq-listed stock, including relevant voting and distribution entitlements.
“A blockchain can settle a trade, but it takes an accountable transfer agent to say who legally owns the share,” Fairmint CEO and co-founder Joris Delanoue said in the announcement.
Article produced with the assistance of artificial intelligence and reviewed by the editorial team.

Following the $6.3 billion theft, US regulators have launched an investigation into how the Binance hack may have affected American banks, as concerns grew over security gaps extending beyond the crypto exchange itself. On Monday morning, officials from the Federal Reserve and the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency reached out to banks to inquire about any irregular activity or disruptions to services.
Key takeaways
The Fed and OCC are checking banks’ exposure to similar attacks.
Binance described a five-month operation involving recruitment deception, malware and an internal AI tool.
Binance said it intercepted or froze about $2.85 billion and replenished 98% of affected tokens.
Regulators examine the Binance hack’s impact on US banks
The Federal Reserve and OCC are treating the largest crypto theft on record as a potential concern for traditional finance. Their outreach focuses on checking bank systems as connections between lenders and the crypto industry have grown.
Banks are studying the attack, running diagnostics and reviewing their cybersecurity defenses against similar techniques. Within hours of the theft, a cybersecurity team at one of the largest US banks contacted its counterparts at Binance.
The team is currently drafting an internal report that will prompt a thorough examination of the bank’s systems, potentially resulting in enhanced security measures. Banks are also committing resources to checking and patching their cybersecurity code.
Binance said it maintains close contact with regulators worldwide and keeps them informed about the breach.
A five-month attack turned internal tools against engineers
Binance said the theft followed a five-month campaign that began with a fake job interview, well before the attackers moved any coins. The operation combined a staged recruitment process, a poisoned software download and malware designed to evade endpoint detection.
Attackers also turned an internal AI tool against Binance’s wallet engineers. The methods described by the exchange, including social engineering, malicious downloads and compromised internal tools, are threats that extend beyond crypto businesses to other large financial institutions.
The bank reviews are examining defenses against the techniques used in the attack.
Funds began moving out of Binance’s hot wallets across multiple blockchains on October 29. Blockchain analysis firms Chainalysis and TRM Labs linked the attack to TraderTraitor, a unit associated with North Korea.
Asset recovery and a broader role for banks in crypto
Binance said it froze or intercepted approximately $2.85 billion in stolen assets and used its own funds to replenish 98% of affected tokens. The exchange resumed withdrawals in stages four days after funds began leaving its wallets, starting with bitcoin.
The regulatory checks follow changes that made it easier for US banks to undertake crypto activities. In March 2025, the OCC removed the requirement for national banks to obtain supervisory nonobjection before engaging in crypto custody and stablecoin activities.
The Fed followed in April 2025 by withdrawing guidance requiring state member banks to notify it before beginning crypto activities. Banks’ expanding work in bitcoin custody, stablecoin issuance and services for exchanges provides the context for supervisors’ attention to a breach at a major crypto platform.
A separate incident also affected a traditional lender. French bank Credit Mutuel Arkea confirmed on Wednesday that a cyberattack enabled fraudulent transfers from its own account. An onchain investigator valued the alleged theft at more than $133 million; the bank did not confirm that figure. Credit Mutuel Arkea said customer assets were unaffected.
Article produced with the assistance of artificial intelligence and reviewed by the editorial team.

Bitcoin can move before the Federal Reserve changes rates—and a cut does not guarantee a rally. Fed interest rates affect crypto through borrowing costs, competing investment returns and investors’ appetite for risk, but prices also reflect what markets expected before the decision.
Key takeaways
The Fed influences crypto financing conditions without setting crypto loan rates.
Higher Treasury-bill yields offer an alternative to crypto risk.
Bitcoin can react to policy expectations before officials vote.
Future-policy signals can matter as much as the rate decision.
How Fed interest rates affect crypto markets
Federal Reserve policy reaches crypto through broader financial conditions, rather than through a rate charged directly to cryptocurrency investors. Its decisions influence the cost of financing investments, the returns available elsewhere and the willingness to hold risky assets.
What the Federal Open Market Committee changes
The Federal Open Market Committee, or FOMC, sets the target range for the federal funds rate—the rate banks pay for overnight borrowing in that market. It does not directly set interest rates for crypto borrowers.
The St. Louis Fed explains that this target influences other interest rates and financial conditions. The policy goals are maximum employment and stable prices, not a particular Bitcoin price.
The channels connecting rates and crypto demand
Borrowing costs are one connection. When higher policy rates pass through to lending rates, financing an investment becomes more expensive. That can discourage borrowing to purchase risky assets, including cryptocurrencies. Lower rates can ease that financing constraint.
Investment alternatives matter, too. Higher yields on short-term U.S. Treasury bills give investors a cash-like alternative to accepting crypto risk. When those returns fall, that competition can weaken.
The exchange rate offers another possible connection. Higher U.S. rates relative to those elsewhere can support the dollar. A stronger dollar makes dollar-priced Bitcoin costlier in other currencies, potentially reducing international demand.
Financial conditions also influence risk appetite: investors’ willingness to hold risky assets. Tighter conditions can reduce that willingness, while easier conditions can support it. These responses are not automatic.
Why crypto prices move before Fed announcements
Crypto prices can adjust before a Fed meeting because investors trade on expectations about future policy. Inflation figures, employment information and officials’ remarks can change those expectations before a vote takes place.
A decision is described as “priced in” when market prices already reflect expectations of it. An anticipated cut can therefore confirm investors’ existing view rather than deliver unexpected easing. Bitcoin need not rise again after gaining ahead of the announcement.
An unexpected cut brings different information. Lower borrowing costs may push investors toward riskier bets, yet the same decision could just as easily be read as a sign that the economy is weaker than previously assumed. Either way, a rally is far from guaranteed.
Forward guidance—signals about future policy—can influence crypto prices as much as the immediate rate change. A cut paired with signals of further easing conveys a different outlook from one accompanied by a message that additional cuts are unlikely.
The link between Fed interest rates and crypto therefore involves both the decision and the information accompanying it. Research by Marek Jarociński and Peter Karadi distinguishes monetary-policy news from the economic assessment communicated by central banks. Their analysis concerns stock markets, not a Bitcoin-price forecast.
How tightening affects crypto prices, according to research
According to a 2023 IMF working paper, tightening U.S. monetary policy curbed a widely used crypto price benchmark by discouraging risk-taking behavior. This result does not imply that every Fed meeting will produce the same outcome.
Additionally, the researchers found little support for the dollar channel within their study. Even though currency exchange rates represent a plausible transmission pathway, the study’s findings did not confirm this channel as the primary driver of crypto prices.
Article produced with the assistance of artificial intelligence and reviewed by the editorial team.

Arm stock has a bearish daily setup, with price below its main exponential averages and lower Bollinger band. The hourly chart confirms that bias rather than challenging it. Oversold readings across all three timeframes complicate the picture, but they do not establish a bullish case.
ARM — daily chart with candlesticks, EMA20/EMA50 and volume.
Key takeaways
Arm stock was trading at $167.19 as of 10:29 ET on Thursday, down 12.83% from the previous close of $191.8.
Daily RSI14 fell to 27.28 from 32.62, moving into oversold territory.
Daily MACD line is -20.84, below its signal at -16.57, with a negative histogram of -4.27.
Price sits below the daily 20-session EMA ($222.25), 50-session EMA ($245.98), and 200-session EMA ($234.91), and beneath the daily lower Bollinger band ($176.75).
Hourly RSI14 is 18.66 and the 15-minute RSI14 is 15.65, both in oversold territory; hourly EMAs are in a bearish ordering.
Arm stock opened at $171.90, traded between a low of $166.45 and a high of $175.65, and was last at $167.19, against a previous close of $191.80. On Thursday, November 5, 2026, Arm Holdings opened at $171.9 and traded between a low of $166.45 and a high of $175.65. It was trading at $167.19 as of 10:29 ET, down 12.83% from the previous close, with 222,369 shares traded so far. The previous close was $191.8 on November 4, 2026.
Arm stock: the daily chart sets a bearish baseline
Price sits below the daily 20-session EMA at $222.25, the 50-session EMA at $245.98 and the 200-session EMA at $234.91. That position supports a bearish bias, although the averages are not fully stacked in bearish order. The 50-session average remains above the 200-session average.
Meanwhile, daily RSI14 fell to 27.28 from 32.62 on the preceding candle, placing it in oversold territory. The daily MACD line is -20.84, below its signal at -16.57. Its negative histogram of -4.27 confirms that bearish relationship. Oversold RSI is therefore accompanied by a bearish MACD configuration, not a conflicting bullish signal.
Price also sits below the daily lower Bollinger band at $176.75, with the mid-band at $223.13. This places it outside the lower boundary of the band. Daily ATR14 increased to $15.82 from $15.09, indicating a larger absolute volatility reading than on the previous candle.
Notably, price is below daily first support (S1) at $184.62 and the daily pivot at $197.06. These levels, calculated from the previous completed daily candle, now stand overhead. Their support and pivot labels do not mean price is holding above them.
Earnings coverage: what was published before the open
Reports published before Thursday’s open described fiscal second-quarter earnings and revenue above estimates. However, Yahoo Finance’s premarket report characterized the third-quarter outlook as offering limited upside despite the earnings beat. Separate premarket coverage highlighted licensing growth and the Arm AGI CPU opportity. These reports were published before Thursday’s open.
The hourly chart confirms the daily bias
On the hourly chart, price is below the 20-hour EMA at $196.54, the 50-hour EMA at $207.1 and the 200-hour EMA at $238.22. The complete ordering is bearish. Hourly RSI14 is 18.66, in oversold territory, while the MACD line at -7.31 sits below its signal at -5.54.
Furthermore, price is below the hourly lower Bollinger band at $180.91 and hourly first support (S1) at $190.65. The hourly pivot at $191.57 also stands overhead. The hourly structure therefore reinforces the daily assessment, while its oversold RSI cautions against treating the bearish configuration as a forecast.
Short-term levels and conditional scenarios
15-minute chart paints an oversold picture
The 15-minute chart provides timing context only. RSI14 is 15.65, also oversold, and the MACD line at -6.68 is below its signal at -4.21. Price sits beneath 15-minute first support (S1) at $167.34, the lower Bollinger band at $169.69 and the pivot at $169.82. These are the immediate overhead reference levels.
Bullish and bearish scenarios
For a bullish scenario, holding the session low at $166.45 would be the first requirement. Reclaiming $167.34, then $169.69 and the 15-minute pivot at $169.82, would support a short-term bullish case. Beyond those levels, the session high at $175.65 precedes the daily lower Bollinger band at $176.75. Clearing those barriers would strengthen that case without resolving the daily position below its averages.
In contrast, a break below $166.45 would invalidate a bullish case built on holding the session low. Continued trading beneath the immediate 15-minute levels would leave the daily bearish thesis unchallenged. The supplied levels provide no lower support reference beneath that low.
Overall, Arm stock stands below its daily and hourly reference levels, with oversold momentum readings across the chart. Daily ATR14 at $15.82 underscores the volatility backdrop. The unresolved question is whether price can hold $166.45 and reclaim nearby barriers while the session remains open.
FAQ
What is the current price of Arm stock?
Arm stock was trading at $167.19 as of 10:29 ET on Thursday, November 5, 2026, down 12.83% from the previous close of $191.8. The session opened at $171.9, with an intraday low of $166.45 and a high of $175.65.
Is Arm stock oversold on the technicals?
Yes. Daily RSI14 is 27.28, hourly RSI14 is 18.66, and the 15-minute RSI14 is 15.65. All three readings are in oversold territory.
What are the key levels to watch for Arm stock?
The session low at $166.45 is the immediate reference. Overhead, the 15-minute S1 at $167.34, the 15-minute lower Bollinger band at $169.69, and the 15-minute pivot at $169.82 are the nearest barriers. Further above, the session high at $175.65 and the daily lower Bollinger band at $176.75 mark additional resistance. On the daily chart, S1 sits at $184.62 and the daily pivot at $197.06.
What does the daily trend structure show for Arm stock?
The daily chart carries a bearish bias. Price is below the 20-session EMA ($222.25), 50-session EMA ($245.98), and 200-session EMA ($234.91). The MACD line is negative and below its signal line, with a bearish histogram. However, the 50-session EMA remains above the 200-session EMA, so the averages are not fully stacked in bearish order.
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 National Bank of Ukraine has rejected the latest draft of Ukraine’s crypto regulation bill, warning that it could admit foreign tokens without adequate oversight and leave exchange licensing vulnerable to monopoly and corruption risks. In a statement on November 4, 2026, the central bank called for revisions before lawmakers adopt the legislation.
Key takeaways
The central bank opposes draft law No. 10225-d ahead of its second reading.
The NBU wants comparable safeguards for foreign and domestic tokens.
The revised licensing provisions leave operator numbers to the securities regulator.
The parliamentary finance committee recommended approval despite the objections.
Central bank rejects Ukraine’s crypto regulation draft
The NBU says draft law No. 10225-d leaves unresolved concerns about financial stability, unequal market-entry requirements and excessive regulatory discretion. It supports rules aligned with the European Union’s Markets in Crypto-Assets framework, or MiCA, but wants changes before adoption.
The bank also challenged the review process. Although it participated in the drafting working group, it said the committee-recommended text arrived only late on November 3, leaving little time to assess amendments before the November 4 meeting.
Deputy Governor Oleksii Shaban presented the objections at that meeting. The NBU said the discussion format prevented detailed consideration of its concerns, and criticized the process as insufficiently transparent. The parliamentary finance committee nevertheless recommended approval at second reading and in full.
The Verkhovna Rada passed the legislation at first reading in September 2025, with 246 votes in favor and 31 against. The framework covers cryptocurrency taxation and requirements for virtual asset service providers.
The securities regulator previously proposed a 23% tax on individual crypto income, combining an 18% personal income tax with a 5% military levy. The latest draft instead includes a preferential 5% rate for qualifying crypto profits through the end of 2028 and a proposed effective date of July 1, 2027.
Foreign tokens face scrutiny over electronic-money functions
The central bank warns that foreign-issued tokens could operate as electronic money in Ukraine without equivalent supervision in their home jurisdictions. It says circulation without safeguards could weaken monetary sovereignty, disrupt monetary-policy transmission and threaten payment infrastructure.
The NBU wants authority to examine foreign tokens before admission and limit their circulation where necessary. Those powers would mirror its authority over domestically issued tokens, enabling comparable safeguards across both categories.
Equal treatment is another point of dispute in Ukraine’s crypto regulation proposal. The bank argues that simplified entry procedures must not let overseas issuers avoid obligations that Ukrainian companies must meet, leaving parts of the market beyond effective state supervision.
Its proposed approach calls for consistent admission standards for foreign and domestic virtual assets to prevent regulatory arbitrage.
Exchange licensing dispute centers on regulator discretion
The revised bill would let Ukraine’s National Securities and Stock Market Commission determine how many crypto trading platform operators receive authorization during the first five years. The NBU says that discretion lacks adequate protections against anticompetitive conduct and creates opportunities for monopolization and corruption.
The central bank originally favored admitting any number of operators that met the regulatory requirements. It later accepted the securities regulator’s compromise: authorization for three legal entities, chosen competitively. The latest draft removes that fixed limit.
The NBU is seeking clear, transparent authorization rules. The securities commission, meanwhile, supports advancing the legislation, arguing that formal regulation would place existing cryptocurrency activity under state supervision and clarify obligations for participants.
The central bank has asked parliament to revise the disputed provisions with the institutions and industry representatives involved in drafting the bill.
Article produced with the assistance of artificial intelligence and reviewed by the editorial team.

ZetaChain has proposed permanently halting its Layer 1 blockchain on December 9, 2026, and moving native ZETA to Solana. The ZetaChain token migration requires approval in a governance vote closing November 7, with a private AI platform, ZetaLabs, scheduled to launch alongside the move.
Key takeaways
The migration vote ends November 7, 2026, at 16:12 UTC.
Approval would enable a one-for-one conversion of native ZETA into Solana tokens.
Individual portal claims require at least 10 ZETA.
The proposal schedules approximately 55 million ZETA for burning during 2027.
ZetaChain token migration: vote, shutdown and supply changes
Governance Proposal 2, announced November 4, sets the implementation terms for the shutdown and conversion. The 72-hour vote follows a September decision in which 99.4% of participating votes backed moving ZETA to Solana, leaving implementation for a separate proposal.
“Nothing moves until it passes,” the ZetaChain team said. If the vote fails, September’s decision would stand, but implementation would require a revised proposal.
The proposed snapshot at block 20,755,000, expected around December 9, would capture liquid balances, staked and unbonding holdings, and unclaimed staking rewards. The blockchain would stop producing blocks permanently at that height.
The ZetaChain Foundation would issue matching SPL tokens on Solana at a 1:1 ratio, retaining the ZETA ticker without expanding the existing supply. After minting the snapshot amount, it would relinquish minting authority. The token would use nine decimal places and have no freeze authority. Ethereum-issued ERC-20 ZETA would remain unaffected.
Validator rewards and vesting
The proposal would burn approximately 55 million ZETA in undistributed validator rewards through 12 monthly transactions in 2027. Each would remove roughly 4.6 million tokens; the final total would reflect rewards distributed before the shutdown.
Maximum supply would shrink as a result of the burns, and inflation linked to the decommissioned validator network would cease. The vesting schedule for purchasers and core contributors is set to conclude on January 1, 2027. The foundation has also committed to not selling newly released tokens from specified foundation-controlled allocations during 2027.
How holders would claim tokens
The ZetaChain token migration would offer eligible holders fee-free claims through ZetaHub beginning December 9, subject to the portal’s audit requirements. Addresses holding fewer than 10 ZETA at the snapshot would not qualify for individual claims.
Users would connect their existing wallets and sign a message specifying a receiving Solana wallet. Exchange-held balances would follow each platform’s conversion arrangements and schedules.
Staked and unbonding holdings, including accumulated rewards, would be recorded automatically without requiring withdrawal. ZetaChain has instructed users to exit liquidity pools and wrapped-token contracts before the snapshot, since individual claims cannot retrieve contract-held tokens. ZRC-20 assets would become claimable on their original networks, with a minimum value of $5 per token.
Hacken is auditing the portal and its supporting program. ZetaChain says access will open only after the review concludes and its findings are published.
ZetaLabs plans private AI services on Solana
ZetaLabs is planned for December 9 alongside the proposed migration, as ZetaChain shifts development toward private AI applications on Solana. The project has cited validator coordination, software upkeep and security work as requirements of operating its own blockchain.
The application builds on Anuma Chat, which ZetaChain says has operated since February 2026. Initial tools include Chat for market research, Radar for market tracking, Bloom for encrypted transaction history, and a supply-and-burn dashboard.
Payments would support ZETA, USDC and cards. By locking ZETA, users would gain access to premium features planned for the first quarter of 2027. Additionally, the roadmap includes research tools, explanations of transactions, and integrations that allow third-party applications to access user-authorized information.
The proposal commits ZetaChain to operating an archive node through at least October 31, 2027, preserving access to historical records after the planned shutdown.
Article produced with the assistance of artificial intelligence and reviewed by the editorial team.

Loopscale has temporarily halted operations after an API attack sent more than 30,000 malicious requests a day at the Solana-based lending protocol over the past week. In a November 5, 2026 statement, Loopscale said the campaign targeted its SOL and USDC Genesis vaults. Its team said the affected vaults had been made whole and users had suffered no losses.
Key takeaways
Loopscale paused activity following a week-long attack campaign.
The team says affected depositors suffered no losses.
Restoring repayments takes priority to protect borrowers from unexpected liquidations.
Federal law enforcement and security professionals are assisting the investigation.
Loopscale API attack targets older Genesis vaults
The attack focused on Loopscale’s SOL and USDC Genesis vaults, which hold user deposits. A team member confirmed through the protocol’s official Discord channel that the incident involved its older Genesis vaults.
According to Loopscale, its security systems picked up on a sharp rise in the attack activity, prompting the team to immediately paused activity in order to limit the damage. It described the attacker as a sophisticated actor.
“All deposited user funds are secured,” Loopscale said in its November 5 statement. The Discord update separately confirmed that the affected vaults had been restored in full, with no user losses.
Investigators identify four suspicious addresses
Loopscale identified four addresses associated with the suspicious activity: two Solana addresses and two in an Ethereum-compatible format. The protocol is working with federal law enforcement and security professionals on the investigation.
Normal operations remain suspended as the team assesses the incident’s scope and implements additional security measures.
Loan repayments take priority over a full reopening
As soon as possible, Loopscale intends to bring its user interface back online and get loan repayment functionality working again, since the team views repayments as urgent given that borrowers might otherwise be hit with unforeseen liquidations while the suspension is in effect.
Repayments let borrowers lower their debt and maintain collateral requirements. When that function is unavailable, users can lose access to a way of managing their positions during market volatility.
Reopening the interface will not amount to a full restart. A complete return to operations remains conditional on finishing the security review, while work to restore limited functionality continues alongside the investigation.
April exploit ended with asset recovery
The Loopscale API attack follows a separate exploit on April 26, 2025, when an attacker manipulated pricing for RateX principal tokens and drained approximately $5.8 million. The withdrawals comprised approximately 5.7 million USDC and 1,200 SOL.
Depositors within the SOL and USDC vaults were the ones impacted by that breach, while borrowers and those using other lending features remained unaffected. Loopscale suspended its markets and restricted withdrawals while pursuing recovery.
In the end, the attacker agreed to a 10% whitehat bounty as a condition for giving back what remained of the stolen assets. The arrangement offered approximately 3,947 SOL and immunity from legal action for cooperating with the recovery process. By April 28, 2025, the remaining 19,999 SOL had reached a Loopscale-controlled wallet, completing the recovery.
Services then returned in stages. Loan repayments and position closing reopened first, while vault withdrawals stayed restricted pending further security checks.
According to a CertiK security report, April 2025 saw roughly $364 million lost to crypto hacks and scams, of which about $18.2 million was eventually recovered by the projects involved. In a more recent incident, on November 1, 2026, Premia Labs lost $464,600 in an exploit where an attacker allegedly paired flash loans with manipulation of options pools to drain collateral from Arbitrum-based vaults.
Article produced with the assistance of artificial intelligence and reviewed by the editorial team.

At Plan B, Alberto De Luigi tells us about Bitcoin’s new revolution, quietly underway.
At the Lugano forum we met Alberto De Luigi, who overwhelmed us with his enthusiasm, showing us from his smartphone a wallet accessible via the web. His thesis?
Bitcoin has finally reached its completed form.
Right now, and against all expectations, the big twist is coming in a sector that seemed to have dozed off a bit. Intrigued, we asked him a few questions.
Alberto, it’s a pleasure to see you again here in Lugano and with all this enthusiasm; it’s been quite a while since we’ve read an article of yours!
Hi everyone! True, I haven’t written in a while, but there are excellent reasons! On one hand, with AI the usefulness of my guides and articles is reduced. If back in 2016 blogs like mine were needed to keep up with innovations such as the Lightning Network, especially in Italian, today with a few targeted prompts anyone can reach the information they are looking for.
On the other hand, I’ve found it more exciting to build something concrete rather than be an opinion leader. I still enjoy writing a lot, but I have little time, since I’m completely absorbed by my project.
By “your project” do you mean the Bitcoin wallet you just showed us?
Well yes, that too. That’s just the tip of the iceberg, the final product for the user. As you saw, in the wallet the Bitcoin are sent instantly, with zero fees, and without the complications of channels or liquidity. In addition, to the same Bitcoin addresses, the wallet can receive or send other assets such as stablecoins.
A revolutionary Bitcoin wallet: Ark + Lightning
Hold on a second, Alberto… let us understand. First of all, if you’re talking about instant Bitcoin transactions, I imagine we’re dealing with a Lightning Network wallet. How does it manage channel liquidity, is it a custodial wallet?
No, of course not! Who do you take me for! (he laughs, ed.). The wallet is completely trustless, and in fact the transactions you saw don’t even travel on the Lightning Network, or almost never. It’s a perfect mix of different technologies: Ark and – when needed – Lightning, without Lightning’s typical complications for users.
And there’s also no peg-in or peg-out, no Bitcoin derivatives. Nothing that could make users lose money if hacked.
Can you explain in a few words how it works, without getting too technical?
Of course. Essentially, when you import your Bitcoin seed or send a first transaction to the wallet (Sequentia web wallet, ed.) it automatically moves the funds into an aggregated output of many other users, called a “batch” according to the Ark protocol.
Within the batch, users can pay or receive instantly and for free, while to and from the outside of the batch, funds are moved via the Lightning Network, generally to another Ark batch or any Lightning node.
Lightning is therefore used only to route payments externally, and runs mostly between professional operators, while the average user uses almost exclusively Ark. Only for transactions worth thousands of dollars (but the limit is configurable) do you wait the typical 10 minutes for the next Bitcoin block. The difference from a typical Lightning wallet is that there is no longer any inbound/outbound liquidity problem for the average user: everyone receives and sends right away, free and instant.
It sounds a bit too good to be true. Are we sure it works?
Yes, it doesn’t sound real, but here we are! This is what we’ve always wanted for Bitcoin: scalability, speed, censorship resistance and inclusiveness, with an extremely simple user experience.
What you’re seeing now on sequentiatestnet.com/wallet has used Bitcoin testnet4 since July this year (after months of testing), but anyone could already compile from github.com/ConcatenaLabs to install it on mainnet. If you just want to try it though, testnet is preferable!
We’ve also integrated a faucet directly into the wallet, just one click, no installation or sign-up, and you can try it on the fly! We’re planning to launch it on Bitcoin with a proper awareness campaign in 2027, so that it can actually reach mass adoption.
Same Bitcoin seed and addresses, but for all assets
But in this wallet we also see assets other than Bitcoin? What’s behind this? Is it like having two wallets in one?
Yes, you can also receive other assets, but the seed is just one, as are the Bitcoin addresses: any wallet (Ark, Lightning, Onchain) can pay you to the same QR code, with any asset. Imagine having a Bitcoin wallet where you can also send and receive USDC, USDT, stock tokens and tokenized financial assets, and perform instant swaps (DEX). Muggles used to make fun of us saying that Bitcoin cannot scale enough to let everyone buy coffee.
Here, instead, not only do we allow everyone to buy coffee with peace of mind, but we even open the doors for trading Bitcoin with the whole financial system. And for transactions involving assets other than Bitcoin, the maximum onchain waiting time drops to 1 minute.
So sorry Alberto, there has to be something behind this that you haven’t told us yet. For onchain payments of assets, the Bitcoin blockchain is not used? Where does a 1-minute block frequency come from? Does the wallet rely on the Liquid network?
Again, the answer is no, it doesn’t rely on Liquid: the network for financial assets is Sequentia, a sort of “Liquid on steroids”, without the BTC peg and above all with an anchoring to Bitcoin blocks, which allows – among other things – immediate cross-chain atomic swaps (confirmed at the first Bitcoin block).
Back in 2022 I presented the Sequentia idea to Adam Back himself, offering it as an upgrade to Liquid, but unfortunately Blockstream’s model has always been tied to the Bitcoin peg. Adam Back had admitted to me (and I talked about this in a dedicated article) that he fully recognized the “centralizing” factor of the L-BTC peg, and in fact, in this industry, playing Cassandra is never wrong: in September we saw the Liquid hack with 4,000 Bitcoin stolen, even though they were later largely returned.
The free market of transaction fees: the end of gas tokens?
But how is it possible not to use a BTC peg? How are the transactions of the various assets paid for on the sidechain?
That’s the nice part, and it’s also why the definition of sidechain is a bit tight. In Sequentia, you can natively pay with any asset you have in your wallet.
It’s up to the block producers to assess the fee paid based on the market price of the asset used. If a payment is rejected onchain, you simply resubmit it paying the fee in another asset, a kind of “RBF” (Replace By Fee on Bitcoin, ed.).
This is the first “free market of transaction fees”. Another revolution in the blockchain world: to move assets, there is no need either to occupy space on the Bitcoin blockchain except for moving BTC (the so-called “tainting” as I heard Giacomo Zucco call it), or for a “gas token” on another blockchain, i.e. the various Ether or Tron of the moment. In my opinion Sequentia can be the end of gas tokens.
Well, we’re kind of getting carried away here, aren’t we?
Maybe, but why should a user keep paying a “tax” in a specific cryptocurrency that they otherwise wouldn’t know what to do with? And above all, imagine receiving USDT or USDC as payment and being able to send them on to someone else without first having to get Ether from an exchange! In the new system I dream of, there will only be Bitcoin as money, and financial assets such as tokenized stocks or bonds. Over time we’ll move towards a world where every trade will also be disintermediated in finance.
And to meet compliance needs in various jurisdictions, on Sequentia we’ve also introduced, compared to Liquid, the concept of a “Supervised” token. That opens up a whole other discussion that we probably don’t have time to cover, but it’s explained in the whitepaper!
When you say “we” introduced it, exactly who are you talking about?
I’m not alone, of course. Some of Sequentia’s Core developers are currently – or have been – part of the Blockstream team. Steven Roose himself (creator of TXHASH and founder of Second, which develops Ark) is our advisor and shareholder of Concatena Labs, Inc.
In 2022 we started development thanks to some Angel investors who allowed us to support a small team. But I admit that nowadays, with the advent of AI, only Andreas (A. Kohl, co-founder of Sequentia, ed.) and I can produce in a few weeks more than what, until last year, we could do with a team of several developers in months of work.
Future upgrades to the Bitcoin protocol and covenants
All clear Alberto, one last question: you showed us a Bitcoin wallet with Ark and the Lightning Network. Lightning has been on the market for many years and has only partially taken off, while Ark is essentially new to the community. Do you think the Bitcoin protocol will continue to evolve over the next few years?
Yes, absolutely. In my view, the next step at the Consensus upgrade level is covenants on Bitcoin. On Liquid and Sequentia, whose codebase is a Bitcoin fork called Elements, covenants have been in production for years, and on Bitcoin a smaller upgrade would be enough.
There are various valid proposals, such as BIP119 (CTV) or TXHASH, together with BIP348 (CSFS). Arca, the Ark version used on Sequentia for trading tokenized assets, is fully optimized thanks to covenants: funds don’t expire, and you don’t need to come back online periodically to renew them, nor rely on “watchtowers” to do it for you. On Bitcoin, Ark already works well today, but to reach state-of-the-art there as well, this “small” implementation would be ideal!
Thanks for the chat, Alberto! We wish you all the best. Would you like to leave a message for our readers?
Thanks to you! Yes, of course: I firmly believe that Bitcoin is at the dawn of a new technological and cultural renaissance, and that the quieter recent years, with less market hype, have actually been ideal for rolling up our sleeves and putting ideas into practice, producing something concrete. Soon we’ll see, even on a social level, the reality of a technology that is making giant strides! I believe in it more than ever, and I finally have before my eyes and in my hands something that would have seemed like an incredible dream to me until just a few years ago!
I invite everyone to try the wallet on sequentiatestnet.com. It’s a web wallet, no signup or installation needed. And to contact us, look for the Sequentia community on Telegram; there is also an Italian-language group.
I’d love for users’ impressions and ideas on how to improve the wallet and the other products we’ve developed (node, DEX, price server, explorer, bridge from other chains, etc.) to be reported back to us.