The Cryptonomist

MediaTek has secured a second customer for its custom AI chips, expanding its AI ASIC production pipeline with volume manufacturing targeted for 2028. The chip designer confirmed the deal during its October 30, 2026 earnings call, alongside a higher 2027 ASIC revenue target of approximately $16 billion.
Key takeaways
MediaTek says its second custom AI chip customer is not Chinese.
Initial accelerator shipments started in September 2026 at small volumes.
The company forecasts $2.5 billion in fourth-quarter 2026 data center revenue.
More complex second-generation chips are scheduled for mass production by the first quarter of 2028.
MediaTek’s AI ASIC production expands to a second customer
MediaTek is already co-designing chips with its second customer, with volume production planned for 2028. The company confirmed that the buyer is not a Chinese firm, countering earlier speculation that ByteDance was behind the deal.
The first customer’s chip has already reached the shipment stage. MediaTek started delivering its first AI accelerator ASIC in limited quantities in September 2026, and CEO Rick Tsai described demand for the product as strong.
The two customer programs are therefore at different stages: initial deliveries have begun for the first, while co-design work continues for the second.
Second-generation chips target better power efficiency
MediaTek’s second-generation ASICs use advanced multi-die packaging, and several dies have completed tape-out. That means their designs have been finalized and sent for manufacturing.
Mass production of the more complex versions is set to begin by the first quarter of 2028, with MediaTek projecting that its second-generation chips will offer performance-per-watt gains several times greater than the first generation, while also reducing total cost of ownership for customers.
A $16 billion revenue target and a 20% market estimate
MediaTek raised its ASIC revenue target for 2027 to approximately $16 billion. The company estimates that revenue level could represent around 20% of the AI accelerator market.
Its nearer-term forecast calls for $2.5 billion in data center revenue during the fourth quarter of 2026. That projection precedes the planned 2028 production start for the second customer’s chips.
These projections came after the company posted double-digit increases in both revenue and profit during the third quarter of 2026. MediaTek reported consolidated revenue of NT$168.06 billion, an increase of 10.4% from the preceding quarter and 18.3% from a year earlier. Gross margin remained steady at 46.3%.
Customer diversification and the gap between targets and shipments
A second customer broadens MediaTek’s custom-chip customer base and reduces revenue concentration. But the $16 billion figure remains a target for 2027, not revenue already booked.
The production schedule also separates the company’s financial ambitions from the delivery milestones. MediaTek’s AI ASIC production for the first customer has begun at small volumes; the second customer’s volume manufacturing is targeted for 2028.
The nearer-term financial checkpoint is the fourth quarter of 2026, for which MediaTek projects data center revenue of $2.5 billion.
Article produced with the assistance of artificial intelligence and reviewed by the editorial team.

Key takeaways
Vera targets agentic AI workloads in data centers.
Memory bandwidth reaches up to 1.2 TB/s, with up to 1.8 TB/s between sockets.
SPEC CPU 2026 scores are estimates, not submitted results.
AMD and Intel retain advantages in several server workloads.
A data-center CPU built for agentic AI
Nvidia positions Vera specifically for agentic AI data-center workloads. Its strongest benchmark areas—Python execution and memory throughput—align with software orchestration, data preparation and large-scale data handling in those workflows.
Python underpins agentic frameworks including LangGraph, CrewAI and AutoGen. Vera led the PyBench tests, ahead of the EPYC 9755, which in turn outperformed Intel’s Xeons and AMD’s larger EPYC 9965.
The comparisons used two-socket platforms with 1.5 TB of memory each: an Nvidia MGX Vera reference system with Samsung LPDDR5-9600 ECC SOCAMM2, a Supermicro Xeon 6980P system with Micron DDR5-8800 ECC MRDIMM, and an AMD Volcano platform with SK hynix DDR5-6000 ECC RDIMM.
Nvidia’s Vera CPU performance: bandwidth and SPEC results
Vera’s memory interface supports up to 1.2 TB/s through LPDDR5X, alongside up to 1.8 TB/s between sockets. STREAM and MBW testing showed strong throughput, although CacheBench placed Vera behind competitors in its combined read/modify/write test.
In SPEC CPU 2026 integer throughput testing, Vera finished 1.5% ahead of the EPYC 9755 system, compared with the 3% advantage in Nvidia’s white paper. The comparison paired Vera’s 352 threads against 512 threads on the AMD system, with Vera showing a particularly strong per-core advantage.
Intel’s Xeon 6980P gained 10% when retested with oneAPI-optimized binaries. Vera, using generic GCC, still finished 8.6% ahead in that comparison.
These SPEC results are estimates, not reported to SPEC. The tests followed standard procedures and used matching compilers and flags for the initial comparisons. Vera led many floating-point tests too, but not every workload.
HPC and databases shine; Java and crypto vary
Vera led discrete Fourier transform, Octave and CloverLeaf benchmarks, while database testing also showed strengths. It placed mid-pack in m-queens and behind processors with larger core arrays in Primesieve.
In SQLite, Vera led the 64-thread and 128-thread tests; only a single-socket Xeon 6980P beat it at maximum threads. ClickHouse throughput approached that of a dual EPYC 9755 system on later runs, while Vera’s first cold-cache pass was nearly 40% faster. It also remained competitive in simdjson parsing.
Java SciMark showed solid results in FFTs, sparse matrix multiplication and Monte Carlo simulations, but weaker dense LU decomposition and Jacobi SOR performance. DaCapo and Renaissance results were competitive, with AMD and Intel retaining advantages in particular workloads.
Vera trailed in some OpenSSL tests and John the Ripper password cracking. A dual Xeon 6980P system also beat it in both 7-Zip compression and decompression.
Compilation produced a sharp split: Vera completed a GCC build about 12% faster than dual EPYC 9755 processors, but finished last in LLVM compilation using both Makefiles and Ninja. These tests measured building the compilers themselves.
Rendering gains do not extend to every workload
Encoding and rendering results were mixed, reinforcing Vera’s position as a credible data-center competitor rather than an across-the-board replacement for x86 processors. Its Python, bandwidth and HPC results provide the strongest evidence of that challenge.
The EPYC 9755 led AV1 encoding, while Vera remained competitive. Vera also performed well in x265 without consistently beating the 9755. In rendering, it topped OSPRay real-time path tracing but trailed the leading competitors in some scientific visualization tests.
Article produced with the assistance of artificial intelligence and reviewed by the editorial team.

A Zcash governance proposal would redirect about $124 million in ZEC toward future mining rewards, but prominent critics argue that shifting funds does not resolve questions about who controls the money. Zcash Community Grants (ZCG) is offering to reduce its treasury and future allocations while extending a smaller funding stream through 2032.
A proposal from ZCG would shift 36,200 ZEC out of its treasury, which currently holds roughly 91,500 ZEC, and into the Network Sustainability Mechanism (NSM), a fund set aside for upcoming mining rewards. Should this pass, around 55,200 ZEC would remain with the committee, worth about $70 million as of this writing.
The group would also surrender about 62,000 ZEC, valued at $78.5 million, in future allocations. Together, the changes would redirect approximately 98,000 ZEC. Its remaining funding would taper through the 2032 halving, extending reduced support four years beyond the current automatic allocation’s scheduled end in 2028.
Zcash governance proposal faces accountability objections
Beyond the sums involved, critics have also questioned how accountable the committee truly is. Mert Mumtaz, co-founder and CEO of Helius, described the proposal as “nowhere near good enough,” contending that the treasury had already grown too large and that ZEC holders should have a say in funding decisions.
Gemini co-founder Tyler Winklevoss questioned the committee’s suitability after Mumtaz said a member had unfollowed him on X. Winklevoss argued that such behavior made someone unqualified to oversee $110 million. He and Cameron Winklevoss have called for ZCG to be dissolved and for coinholders to have greater control over spending.
Community developer Vini Barbosa defended grants as a legitimate way to finance projects benefiting the network, comparing development support with mining rewards. Tyler rejected that comparison, arguing that miners compete while risking their own capital.
Under a different plan put forward by Zcash co-founder Sean Bowe, ZCG’s guaranteed 8% cut of freshly minted ZEC would be eliminated and sent instead to the NSM. One report states that the existing treasury would be left intact, while crypto.news reports that existing grant obligations would be honored first, with the remaining treasury funds then transferred to the reserve.
ZCG described its own Zcash governance proposal as preliminary and said a full version would follow for community consideration.
Article produced with the assistance of artificial intelligence and reviewed by the editorial team.

Binance said on October 30, 2026, that it had reserved more than USD 6.3 billion to cover losses from the Binance crypto hack a day earlier. TRM Labs traced approximately USD 6.36 billion stolen across ten blockchains, most within about 20 minutes—the largest cryptocurrency theft it has recorded.
Key takeaways
Binance pledged company funds to cover every loss.
TRM attributes the theft to North Korea’s TraderTraitor with high confidence.
A malicious Ethereum delegation enabled repeated wallet sweeps.
Binance’s latest frozen-assets estimate reached around USD 3 billion.
Binance crypto hack drained wallets across ten chains
The theft began on October 29, 2026, at 20:05 UTC, with most outflows concentrated in roughly 20 minutes, TRM said. Its USD 6.36 billion valuation uses asset prices at the moment of each transfer and is about four times the USD 1.5 billion Bybit theft of February 2025.
Ethereum accounted for USD 3.79 billion, including 200,630 ETH and 185 other tokens. Among those tokens were 1.875 billion USDT, 823 million USDC and 88.5 million RLUSD, while Bitcoin outflows totaled 18,270 BTC, equivalent to roughly USD 1.47 billion.
TRM traced approximately USD 628 million from Tron, USD 296 million from the XRP Ledger and USD 96 million from Solana. Arbitrum, Optimism and Base together lost about USD 39 million; Avalanche lost about USD 28 million and Polygon about USD 10 million. Another wave reached Avalanche and Polygon around 23:05 UTC.
Binance confirmed a security incident, suspended withdrawals on several networks and said user funds were safe. On October 30, it said USD 5 billion of its replacement reserves already matched the affected tokens, with purchases of the remainder underway. These reserves exclude frozen assets subject to recovery and verification.
How Ethereum authorizations enabled repeated thefts
The attacker used EIP-7702 delegations to make a Binance Ethereum hot wallet execute attacker-controlled code, according to TRM. This Ethereum feature lets an ordinary wallet authorize a smart contract to govern its behavior.
At 20:20 UTC, the operator submitted 50 pre-signed authorizations covering consecutive transaction counts. One matched the wallet’s current count, activating a sweeper contract that accepted only the operator’s instructions.
After an interval of three minutes and 24 seconds, one sweep moved 167,464 ETH along with 63 tokens, among them 1.615 billion USDT, and the delegation remained active, enabling six additional sweeps as further deposits came in. The compromised wallet also controlled a separate smart account containing 823 million USDC, which Circle subsequently froze.
Other chains used ordinary signed transfers. TRM’s assessment is that the attacker likely gained access to Binance’s hot wallet signing infrastructure across chains. Binance said its initial investigation suggested a compromised laptop, while further investigation identified additional breach points.
TRM links the attack to TraderTraitor
TRM attributes the Binance crypto hack to TraderTraitor, a North Korean state-sponsored hacking unit, with high confidence based on on-chain and off-chain intelligence. Chainalysis CEO Jonathan Levin separately assessed that TraderTraitor likely carried it out.
TRM traced preparations back at least 36 hours, including small Tornado Cash withdrawals, deployed attack code and rehearsals. It identified similarities with earlier North Korea-linked thefts. The FBI previously attributed the February 2025 Bybit attack to the same group.
Freezes blocked billions, but recovery is separate
TRM counted roughly USD 2.7 billion frozen by October 30 at 00:30 UTC; Binance later put the total at around USD 3 billion. TRM’s tally included USD 2.67 billion in stablecoins and about USD 30 million secured on Arbitrum.
Tether froze about 1.77 billion USDT, Circle about 825 million USDC, Ripple 40.5 million RLUSD and World Liberty Financial 27.8 million USD1. Arbitrum’s Security Council removed 8,426 ETH and 74.6 million ARB from the attacker’s control.
The attacker sold about 325 million USDT through market makers and intent-based contracts for roughly 122,300 ETH. It also deposited 60 million USDT into Aave and borrowed about 19,760 ETH; Aave then froze affected markets.
TRM tracked more than 420,000 ETH and 18,270 BTC—approximately USD 2.4 billion beyond issuer freezing powers. Bitcoin was split through “peel chains” to complicate tracing.
TRM’s Ari Redbord explained that frozen funds require legal recovery proceedings. Chainalysis research head Eric Jardine said returns can take months or years.
Exchanges urged to check deposits and signing controls
TRM recommends screening deposits and counterparties against identified attacker addresses and monitoring treasury wallets for unexpected EIP-7702 delegations. It also advises rejecting unanticipated authorizations and separating signing infrastructure by chain and wallet tier.
Binance said on October 30 that it had begun recovering affected assets and was working with law enforcement and partners to trace, freeze and recover additional funds.
Article produced with the assistance of artificial intelligence and reviewed by the editorial team.

Coinbase’s prediction markets topped $200 million in annualized revenue in the third quarter of 2026, while the exchange reported sharply contrasting financial results: revenue fell 35% year over year, but net income climbed 66%, largely on unrealized crypto gains.
Revenue totaled $1.22 billion, broadly unchanged from the previous quarter, according to Coinbase’s earnings report released on October 29. Net income reached $719 million, up from $433 million a year earlier, ending three consecutive quarters of losses. Earnings per share came to $2.51.
Among the results was a $715 million gain tied to crypto assets held for investment purposes, up from $424 million recorded in the same quarter a year earlier. Adjusted net income was $78 million.
Coinbase’s prediction markets grow as spot trading slows
Coinbase’s prediction markets recorded 82% quarterly compound growth since launch. Annualized revenue doubled from roughly $100 million in the previous quarter, the company reported.
According to Bernstein analysts, growth in prediction markets and derivatives trading helped compensate for softer activity in spot markets. Coinbase’s spot trading volume fell 8% from the previous quarter to $135 billion, while its crypto trading market share reached 10.7%.
Chief Financial Officer Alesia Haas said subscription and services revenue increased quarter over quarter and represented nearly half of net revenue. She described prediction markets as an additional revenue stream less correlated with crypto volatility.
Stablecoin revenue rose 3% quarter over quarter to $328 million, including $21 million attributable to USDC in corporate balances. Average USDC holdings reached a record $22 billion.
Article produced with the assistance of artificial intelligence and reviewed by the editorial team.

From Financial Assets to Real Economic Activity
Real-world asset (RWA) tokenization is gradually expanding beyond traditional financial instruments, opening new possibilities for connecting physical infrastructure and economic activity with blockchain-based financial systems. While tokenized government bonds, funds and commodities have attracted considerable attention, a broader question is emerging: can blockchain infrastructure also represent the economic output of businesses operating in the real world?
Bitcoin mining offers an interesting case study.
Unlike conventional financial assets, Bitcoin mining is a real-world industrial activity that relies on computing infrastructure, energy and hardware to generate Bitcoin. By connecting physical infrastructure and operational resources with the digital asset ecosystem, Bitcoin mining offers a natural example of how real economic activity can be linked to blockchain-based financial structures.
BitFuFu Inc. (NASDAQ: FUFU), a global Bitcoin mining and mining services company, has recently introduced its BTC-Denominated Hashrate Token, known as HASH, in collaboration with Finloop. The initiative explores how the economic output associated with Bitcoin mining can be represented through an on-chain investment structure.
The development highlights a broader evolution in the RWA sector: moving beyond the tokenization of existing financial claims toward the digital representation of economic activities that generate measurable output.
The RWA market is moving beyond traditional financial assets
Real-world asset tokenization is evolving from an experiment in digital recordkeeping into an emerging part of financial market infrastructure. By representing assets or contractual rights on a blockchain, tokenization can support digital ownership records, programmable transfers and the integration of traditional financial products into on-chain applications.
The market, however, remains at an early stage relative to the size of traditional asset markets. On October 26, 2026, RWA.xyz reported approximately $39 billion in distributed tokenized real-world assets and $389 billion in represented asset value. These figures measure different types of activity: distributed value covers assets available for transfers beyond the issuing platform, while represented value includes assets recorded on-chain that may remain restricted to an issuer’s platform. Stablecoins, worth approximately $289 billion in the same snapshot, are tracked separately.
The distinction matters. Growth in tokenized assets does not necessarily translate into equally deep secondary markets or unrestricted liquidity.
Adoption is also concentrated in familiar financial products. Tokenized government debt, money market funds, private credit and commodities have established much of the market’s current foundation. These assets offer investors recognisable economic exposures while providing issuers with opportunities to modernise issuance, recordkeeping and settlement.
The Bank for International Settlements (BIS) reported in July 2025 that cumulative tokenized bond issuance remained relatively small, at approximately $8 billion. Its analysis nevertheless found lower bid-ask spreads for tokenized bonds than for conventional equivalents, alongside comparable issuance costs. The results suggest potential efficiency gains, but they do not establish that tokenization automatically produces greater liquidity or lower costs across every asset class.
The next stage of the market may therefore depend less on putting additional assets on-chain and more on identifying which economic activities benefit from being represented and financed through blockchain-based infrastructure.
Computing Power Emerges as an RWA Use Case
As the market evolves, attention is increasingly turning toward other forms of economic value.
Computing power is one emerging category. The operation of computing infrastructure can generate measurable data, including equipment utilization, service activity and operating performance. These characteristics create opportunities to connect real-world computing resources with digital financial structures.
Different models are beginning to emerge. Some initiatives focus on AI servers and the service revenues generated by their use, while others focus on Bitcoin mining infrastructure and the economic output associated with mining operations. Although these models share a common focus on computing infrastructure, they differ in how value is generated and how investors gain exposure to the underlying activity.
BitFuFu’s HASH product is one example of the latter approach. Rather than focusing exclusively on the physical equipment used in mining, the product is designed around the economic output associated with mining activity, denominated in Bitcoin. This illustrates one way tokenization can be used to represent economic interests associated with infrastructure operations, extending beyond the tokenization of physical assets themselves.
How HASH Connects Bitcoin Mining With On-Chain Finance
According to the announcement filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, HASH is an on-chain note product designed to provide eligible investors with BTC-denominated returns generated from Bitcoin mining activities.
The underlying hashrate is supplied as a service and contributes to mining operations; the resulting economic output forms the basis of the product’s returns. Finloop provides token issuance infrastructure through its FinRWA platform, including support for token lifecycle and investor management.
The structure is relevant to the wider RWA market because it applies tokenization to the economics of operating infrastructure rather than simply digitising ownership records for a conventional security.
It also illustrates the distinction between access to an asset’s economic output and ownership of the asset itself. Based on the public launch announcement, HASH is described as a note linked to mining output, not as a token that directly conveys ownership of specific mining machines. The precise legal and economic rights of holders must be assessed against the product’s governing documentation.
The BitFuFu case
BitFuFu’s HASH initiative is designed to provide eligible investors with exposure to Bitcoin mining-related economic returns through a BTC-denominated tokenized note, with the underlying hashrate provided through mining-related services.
The model packages an activity that ordinarily requires access to mining equipment, infrastructure, energy and operational expertise into a standardized financial structure. Investors therefore do not need to directly own or operate mining equipment to obtain the economic exposure defined by the product.
An important feature is the use of Bitcoin as the denomination and settlement currency. For participants who already hold BTC, a Bitcoin-denominated structure can reduce the need to convert between Bitcoin and fiat currencies when subscribing to or redeeming the product, subject to its applicable terms and procedures.
The product is also deployed on Ethereum and Solana. Blockchain infrastructure can support the recording and verification of relevant information, helping establish a digital connection between the product and its associated economic activity.
However, on-chain records should not be confused with independent verification of every underlying operational event. The quality of reporting, the reliability of off-chain information and the legal rights associated with the product remain important considerations.
Why a BTC-Denominated Structure Matters
Bitcoin-related investment products can be broadly distinguished by their underlying economic basis. Some are built around Bitcoin as a financial asset, such as lending arrangements that generate interest from BTC-denominated loans. Others are linked to the economic activity of Bitcoin mining, where computing infrastructure and operational resources are used to generate BTC.
HASH takes the second approach in which it links the economics of an industrial activity with blockchain-based financial infrastructure.
More broadly, such structures could provide another way to connect operational activities with digital asset capital markets. For the broader RWA ecosystem, also highlight the potential to represent economic interests arising from productive activities, rather than focusing solely on financial assets held or traded as investments.
The potential significance extends beyond Bitcoin mining. If operating data, contractual rights and economic output can be reliably defined and monitored, other forms of computing infrastructure may also become candidates for similar structures.
Nevertheless, tokenization does not automatically make an underlying activity more profitable, less risky or more liquid. Its contribution depends on whether the digital representation improves the accessibility, transparency and administration of the relevant economic rights.
Tokenization Does Not Eliminate Underlying Risks
Despite the potential advantages of on-chain infrastructure, the economic and operational risks of Bitcoin mining remain relevant.
Mining performance is influenced by factors including Bitcoin prices, network difficulty, electricity costs, equipment efficiency and availability, and the operational management of mining facilities. Changes in these variables can affect the economic output on which a mining-related product depends.
Additional considerations arise from the financial and technological structure itself. These include issuer and counterparty risk, custody arrangements, the enforceability of contractual rights, smart-contract vulnerabilities and changes in the regulatory environment.
Liquidity also requires careful consideration. A token may exist on a public blockchain while remaining subject to legal restrictions, contractual conditions and limited opportunities for exit.
HASH is intended for eligible professional investors and is not offered for sale to investors in the United States or mainland China. Its structure should therefore be understood within the applicable regulatory and distribution framework, rather than as a product available to the general public.
These considerations underline a central principle of RWA development: blockchain infrastructure can change how economic rights are represented and recorded, but it does not remove the risks associated with the underlying activity or the legal structure through which those rights are provided.
The Luxor Hashprice Index documentation explains how these variables affect the expected revenue associated with a unit of hashrate.
The Next Stage of RWA: Bringing Economic Activity On-Chain
The next phase of RWA development may involve more than converting traditional financial assets into digital tokens. It may also involve identifying economic activities that generate measurable output, establishing reliable methods of reporting that activity and connecting the resulting economic rights to standardized digital infrastructure.
Computing power provides a useful example of this direction. It combines physical resources, operational processes and measurable economic output, while offering a range of possible models for representing the value generated by those resources.
For Bitcoin mining, HASH illustrates one approach to connecting the economics of professional mining infrastructure with an on-chain, BTC-denominated investment structure. Its significance lies in the model it explores: linking mining-related economic exposure with blockchain-based financial infrastructure without requiring investors to operate mining equipment directly.
For BitFuFu, the initiative also represents an extension of its mining and mining-services activities into the broader digital asset infrastructure ecosystem.
Whether such models achieve wider adoption will depend on factors beyond tokenization itself, including the reliability of underlying operations, the clarity of investor rights, regulatory developments and the quality of disclosure.
As the RWA market matures, the more consequential question may not be simply which assets can be tokenized, but which forms of real economic activity can be represented transparently, structured reliably and integrated responsibly into digital financial systems. Bitcoin mining offers one emerging example of how that transition could unfold.

A $20 million Shiba Inu liquidation wave hit traders within 24 hours, with bullish positions taking the larger loss even as bets on gains continued to outnumber bearish wagers. The Shiba Inu team urged caution, pointing to borrowed money as a driver of short-term price swings.
Key takeaways
SHIB longs lost $12.9 million; shorts lost roughly $7 million.
Bullish positions outnumbered bearish bets by 2.71 to 1.
Exchange deposits exceeded withdrawals by about 92.07 billion SHIB.
Shiba Inu liquidation wave hits both sides
Long traders absorbed $12.9 million in liquidations, while shorts lost approximately $7 million. Both sides suffered, but bullish positions accounted for about two-thirds of the damage.
The losses did not eliminate the market’s bullish tilt: bets on rising SHIB prices still exceeded bearish positions by 2.71 to 1. The team’s post paired its caution with a call for more bulls and token burns.
Exchange inflows add a separate selling signal
Exchanges received about 92.07 billion SHIB in net deposits over 24 hours. The team put incoming transfers at 324.28 billion tokens, against withdrawals of 232.21 billion.
CryptoQuant data corroborated those flows, recording net deposits of 92.0678 billion SHIB, up 0.77%. Inflows rose 1%, while outflows increased 1.13% over the same period.
Tokens held on exchanges are immediately available for sale, making net inflows an indicator of selling readiness, the team explained. Tokens held in self-custody require a transfer before they can reach an exchange order book.
Compared to the single-day whale transfer of 1.04 trillion SHIB to exchanges seen in June, this inflow was smaller in scale. CryptoQuant data showed exchange reserves at 86.2525 trillion SHIB, a 0.11% increase, even as their dollar value dropped 2.9% to roughly $418.32 million.
Futures dominate as SHIB’s longer-term weakness persists
Futures desks, rather than spot buyers, are setting the tone for SHIB trading. The token has lost roughly half its value over the past year.
On-chain data also show Shibarium usage collapsing over that period, alongside thin organic demand.
Team points to borrowing-driven price swings
The team’s warning around the Shiba Inu liquidation wave centered on leverage: borrowed funds, rather than outright token purchases, are driving short-term moves. It explained that even small price changes can produce outsized liquidations.
The same post combined that warning with an appeal to the community: “Please take care of your trades. Bulls and more burns we need!”
Article produced with the assistance of artificial intelligence and reviewed by the editorial team.

A Polymarket security breach prompted a trading halt on October 29, 2026, after a compromised third-party provider left users on its international platform with drained accounts. DeFi Llama estimated losses at about $2.7 million, marking the second third-party breach to cost Polymarket users funds in recent months.
Users reported unauthorized withdrawals on X before Polymarket disclosed the incident on Thursday. The losses affected accounts holding balances on its international venue.
Polymarket said it had resolved the issue and referred the incident to law enforcement. “We have identified and fixed the issue impacting our international platform,” it said in a statement on its status page.
The statement identified a compromised outside provider as the source of the breach. Despite the trading suspension, Polymarket promised to make affected users whole.
Polymarket security breach follows June user losses
The latest security breach at Polymarket follows a separate third-party vendor compromise in June that resulted in approximately $3 million being stolen from users. Polymarket reported that the earlier incident affected its front end.
Both incidents involved outside providers and losses of user funds. DeFi Llama’s estimate for Thursday’s breach puts the financial damage below the approximately $3 million taken in June.
For the October incident, Polymarket’s response included a trading suspension, a fix for the issue, a law-enforcement referral and a commitment to compensate users for their losses.
Article produced with the assistance of artificial intelligence and reviewed by the editorial team.

After receiving a report on October 28, 2026 of a suspected hardware implant in a Trezor device, the company is now advising anyone who purchased wallets from CryptoBilis since March 2026 to transfer their funds elsewhere. The report concerns a Safe 5 purchased through Tokopedia in August 2026. Trezor considers the disclosure credible, but has not yet examined the device; no CryptoBilis buyer has reported losing funds to the company.
Key takeaways
The suspected implant reportedly captures wallet backups and transmits them over mobile networks.
Trezor’s precaution covers every model supplied by CryptoBilis since March 2026.
Eligible customers can receive replacement hardware or a voucher.
The reported device is awaiting laboratory examination.
Contents of the alleged Trezor hardware implant
According to the customer’s report, an extra circuit board was fitted between the Safe 5’s main board and screen, equipped with a cellular module and antenna; it allegedly captures information shown on the screen—including the wallet backup—and sends it over a mobile network each time the device is plugged in.
The report came from a customer in Indonesia who submitted it via Trezor‘s responsible disclosure program, and the security team examined photographs and spoke with the customer over video call prior to issuing the alert.
Before discovering the added hardware, the customer had already withdrawn his funds from the device; Trezor states there is no evidence linking customer fund losses to the alleged implant, though it notes that its self-custodial wallets prevent it from viewing customers’ balances.
CryptoBilis removed after Ledger tampering reports
CryptoBilis was an authorized reseller for both Trezor and Ledger in Southeast Asia until October 2026. Ledger began investigating customer fund losses on October 9, 2026, and subsequently confirmed physical tampering in some devices sold by the reseller as part of a supply chain attack.
Trezor removed CryptoBilis from its authorized reseller network on October 9 and began examining customer devices. It also restricted its authorized seller network as a precaution.
As of October 19, four wallets supplied by CryptoBilis—two Safe 5 units, one Safe 7, and one Safe 3—had been examined by Trezor, and None showed physical tampering. The Safe 5 flagged on October 28 was not part of that examined batch.
The Trezor warning covers devices supplied by CryptoBilis, including its Tokopedia store and other shops carrying its inventory. Trezor reports no cases involving other resellers or regions. Customers can check the seller on their receipt or contact Support to establish where their device came from.
Customers told to use new wallets and new recovery phrases
Anyone storing funds on a Trezor bought from CryptoBilis from March 2026 onward should transfer them as soon as possible to a newly created wallet with a new recovery phrase, Trezor says. Restoring the existing backup on another device does not resolve exposure of that backup.
Customers without another secure hardware wallet can temporarily use a familiar software wallet or exchange. Trezor advises checking the full receiving address before transferring funds.
Buyers who have not configured their devices should leave them unused and never enter an existing wallet backup on them.
Eligible customers can receive a replacement shipped directly by Trezor or a voucher covering a new device. They should retain their CryptoBilis hardware and contact Support to arrange the replacement.
Trezor also warns that scammers could exploit the incident through fake emails, physical letters and phone calls. Customers should never share their recovery phrase; Trezor Support will never request it.
Laboratory examination is the next step
Trezor’s security team is arranging to receive the device for laboratory analysis of the suspected hardware implant. The company says the customer’s description, photographs and video interview were credible enough to justify warning buyers before physical verification.
Trezor advises against opening or weighing devices to check for tampering. Although the reporting customer noticed a weight difference, the company says a scale cannot reliably confirm or rule out modification.
Ledger and other parties are coordinating with Trezor as part of the investigation, and SEAL 911, the Security Alliance’s emergency response service for crypto security incidents, is also collaborating with Trezor to advise on supporting affected customers. Trezor says its security team will examine the reported device as soon as it arrives.
Article produced with the assistance of artificial intelligence and reviewed by the editorial team.

Meta researchers have developed a method for detecting distilled AI models that identified 79% of tested copies at a false-positive rate of 0.1%, without inspecting the suspect models’ internals. The technique, called WM-Basin, targets models trained on outputs from watermarked “teacher” models and appears in a paper published on October 27, 2026.
Key takeaways
WM-Basin examines API-generated text rather than model weights or logits.
Meta evaluated the technique across 1,200 student models.
Detection survived several model modifications but weakened with clean-data fine-tuning and paraphrasing.
How WM-Basin detects distilled AI models
WM-Basin uses a separate, clean probe model to analyze text generated by a suspected distilled model. Researchers from Meta FAIR and Meta Superintelligence Labs describe the approach in “Watermark Basins: Black-Box Detection of Distilled LLMs,” published under arXiv:2610.37266.
The paper examines a specific copying scenario: someone gathers responses from a watermarked teacher through its API, then uses those responses to train a student model. WM-Basin looks for evidence of that training relationship using only the student’s generated text.
The detector passes that text into a fixed probe model and converts it into gradient representations—a way to examine how training on the text would move the probe’s parameters. It then distinguishes ordinary fine-tuning directions from alignment with a key-specific “watermark basin” in parameter space.
This makes the technique a form of black-box analysis: access to the suspect model’s weights or logits is unnecessary. Text responses obtained through an API are enough for the detection process.
A 79% detection rate across 1,200 student models
According to the researchers, WM-Basin reached a 79% true-positive rate while keeping the false-positive rate at 0.1% when n-gram=1 was used, whereas the strongest prior black-box token-level detector managed only a 29% true-positive rate under the same conditions.
The authors further note that as detection thresholds become stricter and n-gram windows grow larger, WM-Basin’s lead over competitors widens.
The evaluation included 1,200 student models, ranging in size from 135 million to 8.2 billion parameters. The researchers trained these models on mathematical reasoning traces drawn from OpenR1-Math, spanning six families of student architectures, multiple teacher models, and various watermarking approaches.
These findings underpin the paper’s claimed gains in detecting distilled AI models within its mathematical-reasoning assessment.
Which modifications preserve or weaken detection?
The researchers found that WM-Basin’s detection signal survived quantization, pruning and reinforcement learning after distillation. Quantization compresses a model to reduce running costs, while pruning removes parameters.
The method also remained more reliable when token-level signals weakened, including during low-temperature sampling.
Other changes reduced its effectiveness. Extensive fine-tuning on clean, unwatermarked data degraded detection, while paraphrasing the teacher’s reasoning traces provided another potential route for evasion. The authors specifically identify continued supervised fine-tuning on unwatermarked material among these approaches.
Watermark evidence for AI developers
The combination of higher detection and a low false-alarm rate potentially strengthens watermark-based evidence in legal or contractual claims about model copying. For that use, the false-positive rate is especially relevant because it measures erroneous flags rather than successful identifications.
WM-Basin’s reported comparison pairs the same 0.1% false-positive rate with a 79% true-positive rate, versus 29% for the earlier token-level method. The underlying tests used student models trained on mathematical reasoning traces from OpenR1-Math.
Article produced with the assistance of artificial intelligence and reviewed by the editorial team.

The Anthropic security breach exposed salaries, internal messages and business information through outside software used by the AI developer—not through access to its model weights, according to the company. Researchers from Cathedral reached parts of Anthropic’s commercial, human resources and IT systems, setting off a dispute over the testing and its national security implications.
Key takeaways
Cathedral accessed internal business systems through third-party applications.
Anthropic says customer prompts and model components were not accessed.
Affected applications stayed disabled until vendors confirmed fixes.
The companies disagree over reporting and the incident’s significance.
What the Anthropic security breach exposed
The accessed systems contained personnel records and internal communications, along with commercial information. Cathedral said AI agents used during its research found routes to meeting transcripts, salary information, job offers and Slack messages.
The affected systems also held commercial contacts for some customers and partners, as well as basic account information. Anthropic said the researchers did not reach customer prompts, model responses, source code or AI model weights.
The route ran through vulnerabilities in external administrative and business applications used by Anthropic. The vendors involved were not named. The access therefore concerned software supporting the business, rather than the model components that Anthropic said remained outside the researchers’ reach.
Cathedral carried out the testing under Anthropic’s External Researchers Program, which provides a channel for reporting vulnerabilities. Founded by former DOGE members, the startup develops AI cybersecurity tools for government and enterprise customers.
How Anthropic detected and contained the access
Anthropic said its monitoring identified some activity before Cathedral notified it, and access was cut off that same day. The response to the Anthropic security breach also included disabling the affected applications.
Those applications were restored only after their vendors confirmed that they had patched the vulnerabilities. Cutting off the researchers’ access and fixing the software were separate parts of the response.
Anthropic said it had no evidence of exploitation by anyone other than Cathedral.
Reporting dispute extends beyond the exposed data
Anthropic and Cathedral differ over the completeness of the research reporting and the incident’s national security significance. Anthropic accused Cathedral of failing to report all the activity it conducted on the company’s systems.
The Anthropic security breach illustrates a distinction between protecting AI models and securing the infrastructure around them: personnel documents, meeting records and internal messages remained exposed even though Anthropic said model components were not accessed.
Anthropic’s head of red teaming also advocated continuous security testing and redesigning software systems to reduce their exposure.
Article produced with the assistance of artificial intelligence and reviewed by the editorial team.

Binance is investigating a suspected $6.3 billion security incident after freezing roughly $3 billion in affected assets with industry partners. The potential Binance cryptocurrency breach, disclosed on October 29, has prompted service suspensions and a pledge to cover customer losses, while blockchain investigator TRM Labs suspects a North Korea-linked hacking group.
Key takeaways
Binance estimates $6.3 billion was affected, with about $3 billion frozen.
An engineer’s laptop is the suspected entry point; investigators found no evidence of exposed wallet keys.
TRM Labs suspects TraderTraitor, the group linked to the February 2025 Bybit theft.
Binance pledged to cover losses through its user protection fund and company resources.
How the suspected Binance cryptocurrency breach unfolded
Binance’s initial investigation points to a potentially compromised DevOps engineer’s laptop. The exchange said an attacker may have used that device to enter a service container and submit unauthorized withdrawal transactions.
Investigators found no evidence of a wallet private-key leak, Binance said. Its security teams were examining the incident and would release verified findings through official channels.
Binance has 335 million registered users worldwide and held about $162.8 billion in assets under custody, according to its 2025 annual report.
The exchange described the event as a security incident under investigation. Former CEO and major shareholder Changpeng Zhao offered a more direct assessment: “It does look like a hack on Binance,” he said.
Service restrictions and a multibillion-dollar asset freeze
Binance temporarily halted deposits, withdrawals and some trading products while securing its systems and tracing affected assets. It said approximately $3 billion had been frozen on-chain, with control partially recovered through work with partners.
The deposit and withdrawal suspension began at approximately 00:30 GMT on October 30. Binance also suspended Alpha trading, revoked the affected address authorization and enlisted law enforcement agencies and blockchain intelligence firms.
In a subsequent update, co-founder Yi He said deposits were operating normally and the exchange was improving withdrawal services and related address controls. Binance expected to begin restoring withdrawals within 48 hours.
Stablecoin issuers helped restrict the movement of affected funds. Tether CEO Paolo Ardoino said his company froze approximately $1.6 billion in USDT connected to the suspected attack. Circle CEO Jeremy Allaire said Circle froze more than $800 million in USDC.
Yi He said Ripple helped stop the movement of $200 million linked to the incident. World Liberty Financial also worked with custodian BitGo to freeze funds; Yi put those amounts at $27 million in stablecoins and about $2 million in World Liberty tokens.
Separately, blockchain data provider Arkham Intelligence linked nearly $6 billion in digital assets to 55 wallet addresses associated with the potential exploit. Those holdings included bitcoin, ether, solana and stablecoins.
TRM Labs points to a North Korean-linked group
TRM Labs suspects TraderTraitor was responsible, citing strong intelligence drawn from on-chain and off-chain sources. The investigation firm said it had a high degree of confidence in that assessment and identified similarities with earlier North Korea-linked operations.
TraderTraitor, believed to be part of the Lazarus Group, was also linked to the theft of $1.5 billion from Bybit in February 2025. If confirmed at Binance’s estimated scale, this incident would exceed that previous cryptocurrency theft record by more than four times.
The attribution remains TRM Labs’ assessment. Analytics firm Chainalysis also said the incident, if confirmed, could rank as the largest cryptocurrency heist.
Markets fall as Binance promises customer coverage
Reports of the suspected Binance cryptocurrency breach sent major digital assets lower, while Binance pledged to absorb customer losses. The exchange said it would use its Secure Asset Fund for Users and company funds to cover them.
Bitcoin fell 3.2% on October 29 and dropped more than 4% on October 30. Ethereum recovered from an almost 6% decline to trade 0.8% lower at around 04:00 GMT, while BNB was 2.7% higher after an earlier fall of nearly 10%. Circle shares fell about 5% in after-hours trading on October 29.
“Binance will cover all hacking losses,” Yi He said. Zhao added: “As a shareholder, I expect all user funds will be fully covered.” He stepped down as CEO in 2023 after pleading guilty to failing to prevent money laundering; Donald Trump pardoned him in 2025.
Binance said it would publish a detailed technical report after completing its investigation and an updated Proof of Reserves following remediation.
Article produced with the assistance of artificial intelligence and reviewed by the editorial team.

Binance says withdrawals are expected to begin resuming gradually within 48 hours, while co-founder Yi He says customer funds are safe and the exchange will cover all hacking losses. The Binance hacking update comes as the platform conducts security checks, freezes affected assets and works with law enforcement.
The exchange initially said it had temporarily suspended deposits and withdrawals during those checks. In a separate operational statement, Yi He said deposits remain operational and unaffected, while the team strengthens withdrawal services and the controls associated with withdrawal addresses.
Binance’s hacking update outlines fund protection and withdrawal checks
Binance has committed to covering all hacking losses and is working with law enforcement and industry partners to trace and freeze affected assets. The exchange said about $3 billion in assets had been frozen as part of its response.
Stablecoin issuers are also participating. Tether said it had frozen nearly $1.57 billion linked to the incident, while Circle froze more than $800 million. These freezes form part of the effort to secure affected funds during the investigation.
For users, the Binance hacking update distinguishes between deposit availability and the planned withdrawal restart: Yi He described deposits as operating normally, but withdrawals remain subject to security enhancements and a gradual resumption.
Binance urged users to obtain information only through its official channels. The exchange said it would publish a full post-mortem report once the investigation is complete.
Article produced with the assistance of artificial intelligence and reviewed by the editorial team.

Polymarket users reported stolen funds on October 29, with some claiming losses of hundreds of thousands of dollars, prompting the prediction market platform to restrict trading. The company said a compromised third-party provider affected its international exchange and pledged to reimburse affected users.
Users first flagged unauthorized withdrawals on social media that afternoon. Polymarket entered cancel-only mode, paused relayer actions and temporarily halted international trading as a precaution during its investigation. Its U.S. platform was not compromised.
An analysis of public data by Betting Intelligence and Polysights found that one Polymarket account withdrew at least $2.7 million across 710 other wallets on October 29.
Polymarket investigates stolen funds linked to vendor compromise
Polymarket said it identified and fixed an issue involving a compromised third-party service provider on its international platform. The company referred the incident to law enforcement and promised full reimbursement for affected traders.
A person familiar with the matter told CNBC that the compromise involved DebugBear, a website performance monitoring platform, and that Polymarket referred the case to U.K. authorities because DebugBear is based there. DebugBear separately confirmed in a post on X that it experienced a security incident on October 29.
The reports of stolen funds at Polymarket follow a previous third-party vendor breach in June. That incident led to approximately $3 million in stolen user funds. Polymarket said it fixed that earlier vulnerability and would fully reimburse affected users.
The international exchange operates on the Polygon blockchain as a decentralized finance platform and is not regulated in the U.S. The disruption occurred ahead of the U.S. midterm elections on November 3, when both exchanges are expected to see heightened volumes.
Polymarket said international trading resumed at 3 p.m. ET on October 29 after it fixed the issue on its end.
Article produced with the assistance of artificial intelligence and reviewed by the editorial team.

Russia’s crypto regulations leave a route open for overseas payments even as domestic transfers face tighter controls. On October 29, the Bank of Russia confirmed that non-custodial wallets remain permitted for international settlements, while investors cannot send crypto directly from regulated Russian accounts to personal wallets.
Key takeaways
Self-custody wallets remain available for international settlements.
Ordinary retail purchases are capped at 300,000 rubles annually per intermediary.
Direct peer-to-peer transactions have a transition deadline of July 1, 2027.
Registered crypto firms face a 90-day self-regulatory membership requirement.
Cross-border crypto transfers retain a self-custody route
The international settlement exemption permits the use of wallets whose owners control their private keys without an exchange or custodian. First Deputy Governor Vladimir Chistyukhin confirmed the position at a corporate governance forum organized by Moscow Exchange.
“Use of non-custodial wallets is permitted for international settlements,” Chistyukhin told reporters on October 29.
He also described an indirect route from domestic regulated accounts to self-custody: investors can transfer assets to a regulated foreign custodial platform and then withdraw them to a personal wallet. Direct transfers from Russian regulated digital accounts to those wallets remain restricted.
Russia’s crypto regulations tighten domestic access
Federal Law No. 282-FZ, which took effect on September 1, introduced controls on licensed domestic cryptocurrency trading and custody services. The framework limits ordinary retail investors to purchases worth 300,000 rubles annually per intermediary.
Before gaining access to approved assets, retail investors are also required to clear eligibility checks, whereas qualified investors follow a distinct set of requirements.
The domestic transfer restrictions do not prohibit investors from owning cryptocurrency already held in personal wallets.
A deadline looms for peer-to-peer trading
According to the Bank of Russia, individuals may keep conducting direct peer-to-peer crypto transactions until July 1, 2027. Once that date passes, residents will be required to route covered transactions through authorized intermediaries.
This transitional arrangement allows direct dealings to continue for the specified time frame, while establishing a cutoff for shifting covered activity to authorized services.
Market infrastructure grows as NAUFOR assumes oversight duties
On October 29, the Bank of Russia named the National Association of Securities Market Participants (NAUFOR) as the self-regulatory body overseeing crypto exchanges and digital depositories. According to the central bank‘s records, there are 23 exchange operators and eight depositories listed.
Within 90 days of registration, firms are obligated to join a self-regulatory organization, and NAUFOR will be responsible for setting standards, overseeing compliance, and guiding firms toward fulfilling their obligations.
Moscow Exchange has announced plans to launch regulated cryptocurrency trading, while Sberbank, which is already registered as a digital depository, intends to roll out crypto services in December.
Article produced with the assistance of artificial intelligence and reviewed by the editorial team.

As of October 29, 2026, the Dash price trades at $50.10 on Binance, caught between a neutral daily structure and bearish intraday pressure. Price holds above its long-term average while shorter averages sit overhead, so the stronger reading is a pullback, not a confirmed reversal.
DASH/USDT — daily chart with candlesticks, EMA20/EMA50 and volume.
Key takeaways
DASH trades at $50.10 on Binance, below its daily EMA20 at $52.74 and daily EMA50 at $52.50.
Hourly RSI is oversold at 29.6, while the negative hourly MACD histogram is narrowing.
An hourly close above the hourly pivot at $50.56 would open a test of hourly R1 at $50.83.
An hourly close below the hourly Bollinger lower band at $49.67 would extend downside risk.
Total crypto market capitalization stands at $2.70 trillion, down 3.92% over 24 hours.
The immediate tension is between weak price structure and signs that hourly selling momentum is easing. That leaves room for a rebound, but a rebound alone would not repair the damage. Reclaiming nearby resistance matters more than an oversold reading.
A weaker broader market adds a defensive backdrop
CoinGecko data put total crypto market capitalization at $2.70 trillion, down 3.92% over 24 hours, with Bitcoin dominance at 59.38%. That backdrop is consistent with defensive conditions, although it does not establish what caused DASH’s decline. Alternative.me’s Fear & Greed Index stands at 51, classified as Neutral: sentiment is not providing an extreme-fear counterweight to the weak price structure.
Dash price holds above the long-term daily average, but intraday structure is weak
Binance’s completed-candle indicators show a bullish daily EMA ordering, yet the live price is below the daily EMA20 at $52.74 and daily EMA50 at $52.50. It remains above the daily EMA200 at $45.25. The averages retain a bullish alignment, but price is not confirming it. This is why the main daily scenario remains neutral, with downside pressure rather than a clean bullish continuation.
The hourly chart weakens that daily balance. Price is below the hourly EMA20 at $51.91, hourly EMA50 at $52.82 and hourly EMA200 at $52.31. Those averages are not aligned, so this is not a textbook bearish hourly stack. Nevertheless, all three sit above price and leave any recovery facing overhead resistance.
For execution context, the 15-minute chart is more decisively bearish. Price is below its EMA20, EMA50 and EMA200, and their ordering is bearish. The shortest timeframe therefore supports caution about treating an intraday bounce as a change in the daily trend.
Oversold hourly momentum offers rebound potential, not confirmation
Hourly RSI is oversold at 29.6, while the negative hourly MACD histogram is narrowing. Selling momentum is easing on that measure, but remains negative. The distinction matters: reduced downside momentum can support mean reversion without establishing an uptrend.
Daily RSI is 51.9 and the daily MACD histogram is positive, although the MACD line remains below zero. These signals fit the neutral daily reading: there is some positive momentum beneath the surface, but not enough agreement to override the weak price location.
The 15-minute RSI is rising to 39.0, while its MACD histogram is slightly positive. That offers a tentative recovery signal for execution timing, but it conflicts with the bearish 15-minute EMA structure. Momentum is showing more resilience than price structure.
The daily Bollinger envelope spans $47.58 at the daily Bollinger lower band to $54.75 at the daily Bollinger upper band. Daily ATR is $3.72, versus $0.68 on the hourly chart. The broader range remains substantial, so a small intraday recovery would not by itself settle the daily direction. These volatility readings also make brief moves through nearby levels less persuasive than completed-candle confirmation.
Recovery needs the hourly pivot; a lower-band break would extend downside risk
The nearest overhead barrier is hourly S1 at $50.26, which now acts as resistance despite its support-style label. The last completed hourly candle closed at $50.52, already above that level, while the live price is below it. That distinction makes a fleeting reclaim the likeliest false recovery signal in this setup.
Bullish scenario: an hourly close above the hourly pivot at $50.56 would confirm a local recovery attempt, opening a test of hourly R1 at $50.83. An hourly close back below hourly S1 at $50.26 would invalidate that recovery scenario. Even if the trigger holds, DASH would still face the daily Bollinger midline at $51.17 before the daily structure materially improves.
Beyond that initial recovery, daily S1 at $52.43 is also overhead resistance. The daily pivot at $53.98 and daily R1 at $55.26 remain more distant reference points, not immediate breakout triggers. Reaching the hourly upside levels would therefore represent repair, not proof of a broader bullish trend.
Bearish scenario: an hourly close below the hourly Bollinger lower band at $49.67 would confirm a downside extension, bringing the daily Bollinger lower band into focus. An hourly close above hourly S1 at $50.26 would invalidate that immediate breakdown scenario. The main uncertainty is the oversold hourly RSI and narrowing negative histogram: a lower-band breach could fail if downward momentum does not follow through.
FAQ
Is the daily DASH outlook bearish?
The daily outlook is neutral with downside pressure. Price is below the shorter daily averages but remains above the daily EMA200, leaving the broader structure unresolved.
Does oversold hourly RSI confirm a reversal?
No. It supports rebound potential, but the hourly MACD histogram remains negative and price remains below all three hourly EMAs.
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.

Canton Strategic Holdings plans to bring its common shares to TSV LLC for tokenized stock trading as early as November 2, 2026, potentially putting the Canton Network venue ahead of the OKX–ICE joint venture. The Nasdaq-listed company said on October 29 that it had agreed to make its stock available through an issuer-sponsored model, avoiding the objection process that applies to unaffiliated third-party tokenization.
Key takeaways
Canton Strategic Holdings is sponsoring the tokenization of its own shares.
Fairmint’s registered transfer-agent subsidiary will handle issuance and ownership records.
TSV’s venue-notice waiting period has already elapsed.
Tokenized CNTN shares would retain the rights attached to Nasdaq-held stock.
An issuer-sponsored route to tokenized stock trading
Canton Strategic Holdings’ participation allows TSV to bypass the 30-day issuer notice-and-objection process required when unaffiliated parties tokenize a company’s stock. Rather than proposing trading without the issuer’s involvement, TSV is starting with a company that has agreed to put its shares onchain.
The arrangement requires cooperation from both the issuer and its transfer agent. Canton Strategic Holdings has engaged Fairmint, whose SEC-registered subsidiary, Fairmint TA LLC, will issue the tokenized shares, keep the official onchain ownership register and oversee compliance with each transfer, the company’s press release says.
That structure distinguishes TSV’s planned debut from the third-party model used for OKX–ICE’s proposed listings, which have attracted objections from 33 companies.
TSV’s earlier notice puts it ahead in the timetable
TSV published its initial venue notice on September 23, 2026, ahead of the OKX–ICE notice on October 4, 2026. TSV’s public notice waiting period has already lapsed, putting it ahead of the joint venture formed by crypto exchange OKX and ICE, the parent company of NYSE, in the race to begin trading.
Each of the two platforms plans to operate under the SEC’s five-year Innovation Exemption. The framework permits qualifying platforms to trade tokenized U.S. stocks using permissioned automated market maker pools; the issuer-objection requirement applies specifically to third-party tokenization.
In its press release, Canton Strategic Holdings described the planned launch as intended to be the first of its kind under the framework. Trading remains expected as early as November 2, rather than a completed launch.
Continuous access, atomic settlement and shareholder rights
TSV plans to use the Tradecraft protocol on Canton Network to provide round-the-clock access for approved institutional and retail participants. Its tokenized stock trading venue will allow those participants to supply liquidity and trade through automated market maker pools.
The platform is designed for 24/7 availability, subject to required trading stoppages, maintenance, risk controls and trading-volume limits. Participants and their wallets must receive approval before trading, including identity checks and sanctions screening. Smart contracts enforce those requirements on token transfers.
Trades will use atomic settlement: the stock and payment transfer simultaneously, or neither transfers. This delivery-versus-payment structure settles both sides together on Canton Network.
Under the issuer-sponsored arrangement, holders of tokenized CNTN shares would have the same shareholder rights and privileges as investors owning the company’s stock through Nasdaq, Canton Strategic Holdings said.
Article produced with the assistance of artificial intelligence and reviewed by the editorial team.

SuperMe is raising $20 million to expand its AI expert network, where users get answers from digital profiles built on real people’s knowledge. The startup said on October 29, 2026, that Kirsten Green at Forerunner is leading the funding, with Greylock Partners participating, as it seeks to attract more users and experts.
Key takeaways
Forerunner and Greylock Partners are backing SuperMe’s expansion.
The platform assembles AI expert profiles into question-specific group chats.
Access is free now, with paid usage planned after a question limit.
SuperMe’s AI expert network draws consumer-tech veterans
Casey Winters and Ludo Antonov founded SuperMe in 2024. Both brought experience from consumer technology companies to the startup, which now has about 13 employees.
Winters held executive positions at Grubhub, Pinterest and Eventbrite, and advised Airbnb and Canva part time. Antonov led engineering at companies including Pinterest, Lyft and Whatnot.
The funding is intended to expand both sides of the network: people seeking answers and experts whose knowledge supplies them. Kirsten Green at Forerunner said SuperMe is well positioned to build a platform for collaboration between AI and humans.
How the AI profiles answer questions
SuperMe matches a user’s question with relevant experts, then creates a group chat with their AI profiles. Users interact with AI representations of those people, rather than bringing the experts themselves into a live conversation.
For example, someone seeking feedback on a pitch deck can receive responses from AI profiles of venture capitalists Mercedes Bent, Sarah Tavel and Josh Elman. Users can also ask an individual profile directly or return to a group they have created or joined to pose follow-up questions.
SuperMe’s AI expert network gathers knowledge from public material on LinkedIn, YouTube, Substack and blogs. It also draws from connected applications, including Google Drive, Notion and Gmail, as well as meeting-notetaking tools such as Granola.
SuperMe said those connected sources can contain personal information and trade secrets, but that it keeps such sensitive information out of answers.
Questions can be submitted through the website’s chatbot or through Claude and ChatGPT. Those connections use Model Context Protocol, or MCP, a standard that allows AI chatbots to access outside tools and data.
Paid questions, expert incentives and hiring
SuperMe is currently free, but it plans to cap free questions and require payment for further use. It is also considering incentives that would encourage experts to contribute more knowledge.
Green’s view of the platform centers on that sharing component: a network where participants have reasons to contribute what they know and to benefit from others’ knowledge.
The startup is hiring technical staff to improve its conversational AI and expert matching. It is also recruiting on the network side to find experts in subject areas it does not yet cover.
Article produced with the assistance of artificial intelligence and reviewed by the editorial team.

The Bitwise Hyperliquid ETF generated more than $40 million in trading volume during its opening three hours on October 29, 2026. That figure measures shares changing hands, not net new investment in the fund, which holds HYPE directly and stakes most of its tokens.
Key takeaways
BHYP trades on NYSE Arca and owns Hyperliquid’s native HYPE token.
About 70% of holdings are staked, with monthly liquidity checks.
Fee waivers reduce the fund’s net expense ratio to 0%.
Bitwise Hyperliquid ETF passes $40 million in early trading
The fund trades under the ticker BHYP on NYSE Arca. Its first three hours produced more than $40 million in share turnover, rather than an equivalent amount of fresh capital entering the portfolio.
Trading volume counts shares whenever they change hands, including transactions involving market makers supplying liquidity and traders buying and selling within the same session. It is therefore distinct from net inflows.
HYPE holdings and the staking structure
BHYP directly owns HYPE, the native token of Hyperliquid, a blockchain built for derivatives trading. The network recorded approximately $2.9 trillion in onchain derivatives volume in 2025.
The Bitwise Hyperliquid ETF stakes approximately 70% of its holdings, with that allocation subject to monthly liquidity reviews. Staking locks tokens to help secure a blockchain in exchange for rewards paid in tokens.
In-house staking and fees after waivers
Bitwise Onchain Solutions, Bitwise’s own unit, manages BHYP’s staking internally. BHYP is the first US-based spot ETF to incorporate this in-house staking arrangement.
The fund lists a 0.34% sponsor fee. After waivers, its net expense ratio is 0%, which distinguishes the listed sponsor charge from the expense ratio that applies after those waivers.
Liquidity for redemptions
Roughly 30% of the portfolio remains unstaked to support ETF redemptions. Staked tokens are not always available for immediate withdrawal, giving the unstaked portion a separate operational purpose.
The Bitwise Hyperliquid ETF’s staking allocation is reviewed monthly for liquidity. Its structure pairs the approximately 70% staked position with the roughly 30% liquid portion used to handle redemptions.
Article produced with the assistance of artificial intelligence and reviewed by the editorial team.

Stanley Druckenmiller disclosed his investment in Trade xyz in his first post on X on October 29, 2026, backing its push with Intercontinental Exchange (ICE) to bring round-the-clock perpetual futures trading to the United States. HYPE rose 17.64% in 24 hours following the news, while Elon Musk amplified the announcement.
Druckenmiller expressed strong support for the partnership and said he plans to use the platform’s products to improve his own investment decisions. Musk reposted his message with a one-word comment: “Interesting.”
Druckenmiller’s Trade xyz investment backs a 24/7 trading plan
Trade xyz and ICE, the owner of the New York Stock Exchange, plan to develop a dedicated U.S. perpetual futures market on Hyperliquid. The proposed launch requires approval from the Commodity Futures Trading Commission.
According to Trade xyz’s announcement, the venue would offer continuous trading in contracts tied to equities, indices, commodities, foreign exchange and cryptocurrencies. Eligible U.S. customers would gain access through participating brokers and trading platforms, supported by dedicated exchange and clearing infrastructure.
Perpetual futures have no fixed expiration date, unlike conventional futures contracts. The proposed market would bring that trading structure to a regulated U.S. venue.
Alongside Druckenmiller’s investment in Trade xyz, ICE is making a strategic investment in the business. Trade xyz said its existing Hyperliquid markets have handled more than $650 billion in volume in just over a year and would continue operating alongside the planned U.S. venue.
Following the announcement, HYPE reached $94.64, putting it 4.3% below its all-time high.
Article produced with the assistance of artificial intelligence and reviewed by the editorial team.