German firms' reduced US investments highlight a strategic pivot towards Asia, reflecting broader shifts in global economic alliances.

The post German companies cut US investment to three-year low as tariff uncertainty bites appeared first on Crypto Briefing.

The UAE's exclusion from the Mecca pact may heighten regional instability, impacting Gulf security dynamics and Strait of Hormuz operations.

The post UAE uneasy over Mecca defense pact amid 2026 Iran war tensions appeared first on Crypto Briefing.

Strategy's $STRC gains highlight the potential of engineered financial products to offer stability and income amid cryptocurrency market volatility.

The post Bitcoin drops 47% in a year, Strategy’s $STRC gains 9% amid market volatility appeared first on Crypto Briefing.

The high Russian casualties may weaken its military objectives, potentially shifting the conflict dynamics and impacting regional stability.

The post Ukraine reports July as one of deadliest months for Russian forces with 42,860 casualties appeared first on Crypto Briefing.

Malaysia's rise as an AI hub could shift regional tech dynamics, attracting global investments and reshaping Southeast Asia's digital landscape.

The post Malaysia emerges as key AI hub amid data centre boom appeared first on Crypto Briefing.

Bitcoin Magazine

Edelman Financial, Tudor Investment Reveal Significant Bitcoin Holdings 

Edelman Financial Engines has disclosed a $34 million position in spot Bitcoin ETFs — a stake that now exceeds some of the firm’s other holdings in major tech companies. 

While the position is still tiny in the investment advisor’s portfolio, it is still larger than its $25 million position in Amazon. 

The position — held in BlackRock’s iShares Bitcoin Trust and Grayscale’s flagship product — tracks closely with the public views of its founder, Ric Edelman. 

Edelman has been advocating for Bitcoin ETFs since 2019, years before the SEC approved spot products in January 2024. He also founded the Digital Assets Council of Financial Professionals, an organization built to educate financial advisors on crypto and blockchain technology. 

And Edelman Financial isn’t the only one: In a filing submitted this afternoon, Tudor Investment Corporation, the firm run by legendary macro trader Paul Tudor Jones, reported owning 688,529 shares of IBIT as of June 30, valued at $22.9 million. 

That’s up from the 579,083 shares Tudor reported the previous quarter. 

It’s worth remembering that few investors have built a career reading inflation cycles and their historical patterns as successfully as Jones, making the size of the add notable in its own right.

This post Edelman Financial, Tudor Investment Reveal Significant Bitcoin Holdings  first appeared on Bitcoin Magazine and is written by Mathew Di Salvo.

Bitcoin Magazine

Abu Dhabi Sovereign Wealth Funds Keep Big Bitcoin Positions 

Bitcoin is the most important asset in two of Abu Dhabi sovereign wealth funds, according to regulatory filings. 

Abu Dhabi’s Mubadala Investment Company disclosed Friday that it held a $490 million stake in BlackRock’s iShares Bitcoin Trust — the second-largest single holding across its entire 13F portfolio. 

And a Thursday filing from the Abu Dhabi Investment Council, another state-run fund, revealed a $273.6 million position in the popular Bitcoin exchange-traded fund. The stake is the biggest position in its portfolio. 

Both wealth funds’ position in Bitcoin is unchanged since last quarter. 

Earlier this year, blockchain analytics firm Arkham Intelligence attributed approximately 6,782 Bitcoins — worth roughly $453.6 million at the time of its analysis — to wallets connected to Bitcoin mining activity linked to the UAE’s Royal Group.

The findings highlight a distinction between how the UAE has built its bitcoin position compared with other governments known to hold large amounts of the asset. Countries such as the United States hold substantial Bitcoin reserves that largely originated from law enforcement seizures. 

The UAE’s holdings, by contrast, stem primarily from domestic mining activity rather than confiscated assets.

Since the SEC approved a slew of Bitcoin funds in January 2024, major firms have been able to buy exposure to the asset via shares of the regulated vehicles that trade on stock exchanges. 

BlackRock’s IBIT is the most successful crypto ETF: The fund has received more cash than any other crypto ETF and currently has $47.3 billion in assets under management. 

Pension funds and U.S. states have all bought exposure to Bitcoin via the ETFs, along with more traditional investments like tech stocks and other U.S. equities.

This post Abu Dhabi Sovereign Wealth Funds Keep Big Bitcoin Positions  first appeared on Bitcoin Magazine and is written by Mathew Di Salvo.

Bitcoin Magazine

Bitcoiners Warned After French Tax Authority Confirms Data Breach Affecting Hundreds of Thousands

Bitcoiners have been warned after France’s tax administration confirmed that hackers breached its information system, exposing sensitive financial and personal data belonging to hundreds of thousands of taxpayers and businesses.

Writing on X on Friday, Bitcoin developer Jameson Lopp said the leak was “more bad news for Bitcoiners living in the leading country for wrench attacks.”

Lopp has created a tracker counting wrench attacks — when physical violence is used to steal crypto — across the world. A large amount happens in France, where data has been leaked before. 

The news comes one day after hardware wallet manufacturer Trezor announced a data breach exposing customer data. 

Cybersecurity researchers at FrenchBreaches, who reviewed samples of the leaked data, reported that the affected records break down to roughly 392,867 individuals and 285,570 businesses. 

Among the individuals, an estimated 26,805 have a reported annual taxable income of €100,000 or more, 386 exceed €1 million, and eight exceed €10 million. The hacker is said to be offering the full dataset for sale for several thousand euros.

The breach first surfaced publicly on August 12, when a hacker using the alias “ZeroBytes” posted on a cybercrime forum claiming to have infiltrated internal DGFiP servers and obtained VPN credentials that unlocked an internal lookup tool covering millions of taxpayers. 

According to the hacker’s own account, the extraction was interrupted before it could be completed, leaving what they described as only a partial dataset of 678,438 records.

The exposed sample reportedly includes highly sensitive information: full legal names, dates and places of birth, home and mailing addresses, marital status, number of dependents, internal tax identification numbers, reference taxable income, individual withholding tax rates, phone numbers, email addresses, and records of past correspondence with tax officials.

Security analysts warn that this combination of identity, contact and financial data could fuel highly convincing phishing campaigns impersonating tax authorities, as well as identity theft and fraud schemes tailored to victims’ income levels or family circumstances.

2025 was the worst on record for wrench attacks (crypto targeted kidnappings), with around 55 reported globally last year, according to TRM Labs. Lopp’s tool counted over 70 throughout last year. And this year is already looking bad, according to the tracker: 54 attacks have been documented so far. 

Wrench attacks made headlines last year when crooks kidnapped David Balland, co-founder of crypto hardware wallet brand Ledger, and his wife in France.

Criminals held the pair for around 24 hours before they were rescued by the French authorities.

This post Bitcoiners Warned After French Tax Authority Confirms Data Breach Affecting Hundreds of Thousands first appeared on Bitcoin Magazine and is written by Mathew Di Salvo.

Bitcoin Magazine

Citi CEO Wants ‘Good’ Crypto Clarity Act To Get Passed

Citigroup CEO Jane Fraser has said that while some improvements need to be made to the crypto Clarity Act, the bank wants a “good bill to go through.”

The banking executive said that the bank was a “leader in digital assets” so wanted “safe adoption” of the technology. 

Lawmakers were trying to get a vote on the Clarity Act through before splitting for recess last week but ran out of time. A vote will now take place in September. 

“We want to have good regulation that supports innovation and also encourages the safe adoption of the capabilities of digital assets,” Fraser said. 

“I think it would be excellent for the system.”

A sticking point for the bill has been from the banking lobby, who raised concerns over crypto companies paying customers yield for holding stablecoins. U.S. banks have said they could lose customers if crypto exchanges offer more attractive products for their deposit base.

Fraser reiterated the point on Friday, saying that small banks play an important role in the U.S. and a reward system on deposits could have a “detrimental effect.” But she added: “We have not given up on pushing to get some improvements made to the bill, but we would like to see a good bill go through.”

America’s biggest crypto exchange, Coinbase, pulled support for the bill in January after clashing with banking chiefs who said that earning yield on stablecoins should be banned. 

The Clarity Act was passed last year by the House of Representatives but has been deadlocked since 2026. 

Still, the bill has been worked on by both Republicans and Democrats — despite crypto legislation being something pushed by pro-crypto President Donald Trump. 

Major institutions, including Fidelity and Goldman Sachs, as well as crypto lobby groups and politicians, have said the revised bill works in its current form. 

This post Citi CEO Wants ‘Good’ Crypto Clarity Act To Get Passed first appeared on Bitcoin Magazine and is written by Mathew Di Salvo.

Bitcoin Magazine

Bitcoin Treasury Strategy Bites Back After MSCI Announces Possible Index Removal

Bitcoin treasury Strategy has said it “doesn’t need” Morgan Stanley Capital International after the index provider said it could remove the Bitcoin company from its Global Investable Market Indexes.

MSCI said in a consultation that it was consulting on a plan to define “Non-Operating Companies” and make them ineligible for its Global Investable Market Indexes (GIMI).

The removal of such companies would exclude companies like Strategy from indexes visible to a large pool of institutional investors. MSCI said it was weighing up the decision as Strategy is primarily known for holding a large amount of Bitcoin rather than running a traditional operating business.

Writing on X Friday, Strategy wrote: “Digital assets are assets. Index providers should measure markets, not decide which assets companies are allowed to own. MSCI’s proposal puts it out of step with regulators, markets, and its own customers.”

It added: “Bitcoin doesn’t need MSCI. Neither does Strategy.”

The consultation also included Japanese Bitcoin treasury Metaplanet, which trades on the Tokyo Stock Exchange, and uranium investment company Yellow Cake. 

Based on financial filings as of May 2026, Strategy and Metaplanet already meet the criteria for removal under MSCI’s proposed rule. 

If MSCI adopts the proposal as currently written and their financial profiles remain unchanged, both companies would be deleted from the MSCI ACWI IMI Index as part of the November 2026 Index Review, triggering forced selling by index-tracking funds and loss of future passive inflows.

MSCI is still gathering feedback on the proposal through September 30, and has explicitly said the consultation “may or may not result in changes to MSCI indexes” — meaning the rule could be modified, delayed, or dropped entirely based on responses from affected companies and market participants. Even if adopted, any changes to a company’s underlying financials before the review could also shift the result.

Nasdaq-listed Strategy — formerly MicroStrategy — started buying Bitcoin in August 2020 as a way to generate better returns for its shareholders during the COVID-19 pandemic.

It has since spent around $63.3 billion on Bitcoin and is the largest corporate holder of the asset. Investors can buy its shares to gain exposure to the leading cryptocurrency without having to buy and hold digital coins themselves. 

Strategy spawned a long-list of copycat firms which have bought not only Bitcoin, but other cryptocurrencies to boost their stock prices. 

Strategy’s stock (MSTR) was trading nearly 3% lower Friday at nearly $95 per share. MSTR year-to-date has dropped by nearly 40%. 

This post Bitcoin Treasury Strategy Bites Back After MSCI Announces Possible Index Removal first appeared on Bitcoin Magazine and is written by Mathew Di Salvo.

President Donald Trump and the heads of the SEC and CFTC are expected to meet crypto and prediction-market executives at the White House next week as the industry’s biggest legislative priority faces dwindling odds of becoming law this year.

According to reports, the Aug. 19 gathering is expected to include executives from Coinbase, Andreessen Horowitz, Ripple, Chainlink, Kalshi and Paradigm, along with representatives from the Digital Chamber. Executives from Kraken, Gemini, the New York Stock Exchange and Nasdaq have also been invited.

Trump and Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) Chair Michael Selig are among those expected to participate, while Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) Chair Paul Atkins is also set to attend. The final attendance list remains subject to change.

The meeting comes less than a month before the Senate is scheduled to take its next procedural step on the Digital Asset Market Clarity Act, legislation designed to establish federal rules for crypto markets and divide oversight between the SEC and CFTC.

It also arrives as both agencies increasingly use their existing authority to shape crypto policy while Congress struggles to finish the broader framework.

Polymarket traders on Saturday assigned the CLARITY Act a roughly 19% probability of being signed into law in 2026, down from a peak of 82% on Feb. 19. Even that diminished market-implied probability is nearly twice Galaxy Digital’s 10% estimate for passage this year.

CLARITY Act's bipartisan coalition faces a September wall

CLARITY entered the summer with something few major crypto bills have managed to secure: substantial bipartisan support in both chambers of Congress.

That coalition has since fractured under disputes that have less to do with the architecture of crypto regulation than with the politics surrounding it.

The Senate Banking Committee advanced the legislation 15-9 on May 14, with Democratic Sens. Ruben Gallego and Angela Alsobrooks joining all 13 Republicans. The House had already approved H.R. 3633 by a 294-134 vote in July 2025, with 78 Democrats backing the measure.

But negotiations deteriorated over restrictions on crypto activities by senior government officials, limits on stablecoin rewards and protections against illicit finance. Banks have also pressed lawmakers to restrict rewards offered by stablecoin platforms, warning that yield-bearing products could pull deposits away from the traditional banking system.

The biggest obstacle now is the ethics dispute surrounding Trump's crypto ventures.

Galaxy Digital said the legislation has effectively shifted from a policy negotiation into a political one. A bipartisan group of senators sent the White House a proposed ethics framework on July 30, but the administration has not publicly agreed to it.

Without a compromise, Galaxy said supporters may have no viable path to the 60 Senate votes needed to advance the bill.

That stalemate pushed CLARITY past the Senate's August recess without a floor vote.

Nevertheless, Senate Majority Leader John Thune filed cloture on the motion to proceed before lawmakers left Washington, setting up an early test when the Senate returns Sept. 14.

However, the calendar leaves little margin for another breakdown. The Senate is expected to spend only about three weeks in session before lawmakers leave Washington around Oct. 2 for midterm election campaigning.

Galaxy estimates that CLARITY would need to begin moving almost immediately and consume a substantial portion of that period to have a realistic chance of clearing the chamber this year.

That makes Wednesday's White House gathering more consequential. Executives from some of the companies that have spent years lobbying for federal crypto legislation will meet administration officials just weeks before the Senate determines whether CLARITY still has enough political support to move forward.

SEC and CFTC push ahead on crypto regulations

As CLARITY Act runs into political and scheduling constraints in the Senate, the SEC and CFTC are already testing how much of Washington’s crypto agenda can be advanced under existing law.

Related Reading

SEC and CFTC plans to write crypto rules without Congress – but they can’t make them permanent

The SEC and CFTC are advancing crypto rules without Congress, leaving future administrations room to unwind them.

Aug 12, 2026 · Gino Matos

The SEC has been developing two major initiatives under Chair Atkins, including Reg Crypto, a tailored framework for certain crypto offerings, and an Innovation Exemption that would allow limited experimentation with tokenized securities and onchain trading.

However, progress has been uneven. The commission had scheduled an Aug. 14 vote on the crypto-offering proposal before canceling the meeting a day earlier without setting a new date. The separate Innovation Exemption has also faced delays amid resistance from parts of the traditional securities industry.

Both initiatives address questions that CLARITY is intended to settle more permanently, including how digital assets can be issued and traded and which federal rules should apply. But their stop-start rollout reflects the limits regulators face in trying to move ahead while Congress remains divided.

The CFTC, meanwhile, is moving more aggressively.

Chair Selig said the agency needs to hear directly from the companies building new financial products if regulators are to keep pace with innovation.

The CFTC will convene its inaugural Innovation Advisory Committee meeting on Aug. 20, bringing together executives, entrepreneurs and market participants to discuss the future of financial regulation.

The meeting builds on the agency's increasingly assertive approach to prediction markets.

On Aug. 11, the CFTC invoked emergency authority after Kalshi warned that a lawsuit brought by New York could disrupt its federally regulated event-contract market nationwide.

Selig ordered the exchange to continue operating under federal derivatives rules and has argued that states cannot override the national framework governing CFTC-regulated markets.

Related Reading

A $36 billion lawsuit just turned Kalshi’s $40 billion valuation race into a federal market emergency

The emergency intervention comes as New York targets Kalshi through gambling law and broader consumer-protection scrutiny.

Aug 12, 2026 · Oluwapelumi Adejumo

That dispute is part of a broader fight between the commission and several states over whether prediction contracts should primarily be governed by federal derivatives law or state gambling rules.

The SEC and CFTC cannot replicate the full scope or permanence of CLARITY through exemptions, rulemaking and interpretations of existing law. But both agencies are already attempting to establish parts of the regulatory framework Congress has yet to enact.

That tension will carry into the White House gathering, where Atkins and Selig are expected to meet executives whose businesses sit directly at the center of both the stalled legislation and the regulators' efforts to move without it.

The post Trump to meet Coinbase, Ripple and crypto leaders as CLARITY Act odds collapse to 10% appeared first on CryptoSlate.

Solana Research Institute, a Solana-aligned research group, used an Aug. 14 post to revive a July open letter by Angus Scott to the UK Financial Conduct Authority and other regulators. SRI reported roughly $18 billion in liquidations over 14 hours during the Oct. 10, 2025 crypto crash, including $3.21 billion in a single minute, and argued that opaque centralized venues failed while transparent on-chain finance kept functioning.

The crash records point to a more specific conclusion. Public data made it possible to reconstruct a large auto-deleveraging event on Hyperliquid, as well as deficits and oracle delays at Aave. ESMA later said Binance's internal collateral pricing amplified forced selling. Transparency exposed the mechanics of stress across market structures; it did not turn one venue category into a proxy for safety.

Auto-deleveraging, or ADL, is a last-resort derivatives mechanism that reduces profitable traders' positions when liquidations and risk buffers cannot keep a venue solvent. It differs from ordinary liquidation, which closes a losing position after its collateral falls below a required threshold. Regulators need comparable records to separate either mechanism from an outage, an oracle delay or a venue-local pricing failure.

Solana Research Institute: What the $18B liquidation total hides

Solana Research Institute's post paired the $18 billion total with a $3.21 billion peak in one minute. Amberdata's six-exchange analysis also put the peak at $3.21 billion at 21:15 UTC and said 93.5% of that minute's liquidations came from forced selling. For its full 14-hour window, however, Amberdata reported $9.89 billion, including $6.93 billion in the 40 minutes from 20:50 to 21:30 UTC.

Solana Research Institute announced the $18 billion figure, but its July 23 letter provides no common venue universe or aggregation method that reconciles it with Amberdata's $9.89 billion. The available records establish a measurement gap rather than a calculation error. An ESMA review separately cited market estimates of about $19 billion in automated derivatives liquidations for the day.

Those numbers describe different scopes. A day-wide market estimate, a six-exchange 14-hour sample, a one-minute peak and a venue-specific loss mechanism answer different questions. Collapsing them into one total obscures the market plumbing that the policy debate is supposed to expose.

Related Reading

Weekend ‘Crypto Black Friday' liquidation cascade: What actually happened?

A data-first post-mortem on liquidations, funding, and ETF dip-buyers.

Oct 14, 2025 · Gino Matos

Binance's postmortem illustrates the problem. The exchange said its spot and futures matching engines and API trading remained operational, while some modules glitched after 21:18 UTC, internal transfers and Earn redemptions lagged, and local prices for collateral assets including USDe, BNSOL and WBETH dislocated after 21:36 UTC. Binance said two compensation batches for users liquidated because of those depegs totaled about $283 million.

ESMA said Binance's use of internal collateral prices enabled local depegs to erase collateral value, triggering forced liquidations and cascading selling. The regulator reported no observable spillover into traditional markets, but its account identifies venue design as an amplifier that a market-wide liquidation total cannot isolate.

The cited Binance account gives no event-specific ADL total. Centralized-exchange ADL therefore cannot be ranked as the crash's dominant systemic failure from the available evidence. The record instead separates module delays, transfer constraints, collateral-pricing dislocations and ordinary forced liquidations.

Public records exposed on-chain stress too

Hyperliquid and Aave disclose different risk engines, denominators and loss outcomes. Their records make comparison possible only after those distinctions remain visible.

The Hyperliquid figures come from a non-peer-reviewed study using public venue data. They establish that large-scale ADL also occurred on an on-chain derivatives venue, while leaving the design and outcomes distinct from Binance.

Related Reading

October Trump tariff trader loses $100M erasing all 10/10 gains after price dip

With massive on chain perp scale, visible leverage can turn big positions into crowd magnets and liquidation targets.

Jan 30, 2026 · Gino Matos

A Chaos Labs report on Aave said some markets experienced five-block price-update delays. Chaos Labs estimated that liquidation fees and SVR revenue left the protocol about $1.5 million net positive after the reported deficits.

Public records made parts of Hyperliquid's loss allocation and Aave's lending stress measurable. The same records documented ADL, oracle latency and bad debt. Observability gave outsiders a better audit trail, while the mechanisms themselves still imposed losses and operational risks.

Faster trade data still leaves the loss chain fragmented. Solana Research Institute says its 33-page letter followed discussions between the FCA and Solana Foundation, although the available material contains no independent FCA confirmation. The letter covers seven domains, including identity, resilience, custody, market abuse, systemic risk and prudential capital. The Oct. 10 crash is one case study inside that broader argument.

The FCA has already addressed part of the transparency problem. Its June 2026 final cryptoasset framework requires UK qualifying cryptoasset trading platforms and principal dealers to publish post-trade information as close to real time as possible and no later than one minute. Larger UK platform operators also face pre-trade transparency requirements.

Related Reading

FCA finalizes UK crypto rules as firms face 2027 access deadline

The FCA's new regime will force exchanges, custodians and stablecoin firms to decide whether UK access is worth a full FSMA authorisation process, even if they already hold AML registration.

Jun 30, 2026 · Liam 'Akiba' Wright

The framework applies to DeFi where a clear controlling person carries out regulated cryptoasset activity. Genuinely decentralized activity can fall outside the perimeter, with a separate consultation on DeFi guidance still expected.

The cited final framework does not expressly require standardized cross-venue reporting of liquidation volumes, ADL use or backstop losses. Faster trade data improves the view of execution, but the Oct. 10 records show how operational delays, pricing failures and loss-allocation mechanisms can remain hard to compare after a common shock.

Solana Research Institute's policy case is strongest when it focuses on that observability gap. The crash showed public records can make venue failures measurable, including failures on transparent platforms. Comparable event disclosures could help regulators distinguish routine solvency controls from venue-specific operational or pricing breakdowns without treating transparency itself as proof of safety.

The post Crypto crash liquidations face massive data gap as public records contradict $18B Solana claim appeared first on CryptoSlate.

The 21Shares Ethereum ETF, which trades as TETH, reported $48.4 million in TETH redemptions during the first half of 2026 and ended June with 86.42% of its ETH holdings staked, according to an Aug. 14 quarterly filing. The redemption total covers completed activity; the June 30 staking ratio exposes future settlement to the timing of Ethereum's unstaking process.

For the six months ended June 30, TETH redemptions generated $48.426 million in distributions for redeemed shares against $42.174 million of contributions for new shares. Using the filing's unrounded figures, redemptions exceeded contributions by $6.251 million. The trust sold 21,125.2745 ETH for $48.426 million of cash redemptions during the period. The filing records completion of that activity without identifying a failed, delayed or suspended order.

Related Reading

A hidden “yield war” has begun in Ethereum ETFs, forcing issuers to finally pay you for holding

Grayscale turned Ethereum’s staking yield into something ETF investors instantly recognize: a cash payout.

Jan 11, 2026 · Andjela Radmilac

Following the TETH redemptions, the fund's net assets fell from $31.298 million at the end of December to $12.917 million at June 30. Several reported changes contributed to that result: shares outstanding declined from 2.11 million to 1.64 million, ETH's reference price fell 46.89%, and the trust recorded a $12.769 million realized loss on ETH sold for redemptions. Net asset value per share dropped from $14.83 to $7.88.

At quarter-end, the trust held 8,185.4684 ETH. Applying the disclosed 86.42% staking share gives approximate balances of 7,074 ETH staked and 1,112 ETH unstaked. Those quantities are derived from a rounded percentage. The filing's latest balance sheet stops at June 30.

The quarter-end figure was also far above TETH's average staking exposure during the reporting periods. The fund reported a 31.64% daily staking average for the second quarter and 27.32% for the six-month period.

Staking makes the composition of TETH's holdings a timing issue for future TETH redemptions. The trust says staked ETH cannot be moved or traded during a variable unbonding period and warns that temporary lockups or transfer restrictions could limit its ability to meet redemptions. Only authorized participants can place orders directly with the trust, in baskets of 10,000 shares or multiples. Ordinary investors generally trade individual TETH shares on the exchange.

Related Reading

BlackRock will skim 18% of staked Ethereum ETF rewards from investors — and ETHB exits could take weeks

If redemptions surge, BlackRock's ETHB buffer can drain and force cash in lieu or slower in kind settlement.

Feb 18, 2026 · Oluwapelumi Adejumo

Broader spot Ethereum ETF flows have supplied a volatile backdrop. CryptoSlate reported in June that the products had recorded four straight withdrawal weeks totaling more than $870 million. One $19.3 million inflow day interrupted a 17-day outflow stretch.

Related Reading

Bitcoin and Ethereum ETF outflows expose rotation into HYPE, XRP and Solana

Bitcoin and Ethereum ETF outflows hit nearly $2.7 billion over two weeks, but inflows into HYPE, XRP and Solana funds suggest institutional demand is rotating rather than disappearing.

May 25, 2026 · Oluwapelumi Adejumo

A new wave of TETH redemptions would test the size and timing of authorized-participant orders against the ETH available outside staking at that moment, plus the speed at which additional ETH could be released. TETH's 86.42% quarter-end ratio shows concentrated exposure to that timing trade-off. The filing documents a prospective constraint while recording completed first-half redemption activity.

The post A staked Ethereum ETF processed $48M in redemptions while keeping 86% of ETH locked, 21Shares filing shows appeared first on CryptoSlate.

SRX Global reported a 4.3% EMJX gain that the company labels hypothetical, but its first post-acquisition disclosures still leave the central investor question unanswered: whether the strategy performs with company capital.

SRX completed the acquisition on June 16, two weeks before its fiscal third quarter ended. In its Aug. 13 results release, the company described the EMJX result for June 16 through June 30 as “hypothetical” and “system-generated.” It explicitly said the figure did not represent actual trading results or returns earned on capital invested by SRX.

That distinction matters because SRX had said in June, when it announced the completed acquisition, that it deployed capital into multiple high-conviction positions. The newer disclosures do not connect those positions, or any attributable returns, to the EMJX model.

Related Reading

Crypto AI project OpenServ says it can beat OpenAI, but the real test starts now

OpenServ’s AI claims could lift its token story, but stronger proof will decide whether the narrative holds.

Apr 6, 2026 · Liam 'Akiba' Wright

What the filing actually shows

SRX's Form 10-Q shows that its company-wide digital-asset balance began the quarter at $8.333 million. It recorded no purchases, $4.803 million in proceeds from sales, a $1.410 million fair-value loss and a $2.120 million balance at quarter-end.

Related Reading

One Bitcoin treasury’s paper loss just made Strategy’s stress everyone’s problem

Strategy remains the center of STRC pressure, but Strive's disclosed holding turns preferred-stock discounts into a broader credit test for Bitcoin treasuries.

Jul 8, 2026 · Liam 'Akiba' Wright

Those figures do not establish that EMJX controlled the holdings or transactions. The filing separately reported no reportable EMJX segment revenue, operating expenses or other segment results for the June 16 to June 30 ownership period.

The company also recorded a $4.140 million net loss from continuing operations for the quarter. That consisted of a $3.201 million operating loss and $939,000 of net other expense, which included the digital-asset fair-value change. It is a consolidated company result, not an EMJX trading return.

The two headline figures therefore measure different things: 4.3% is a hypothetical model result over 14 days, while $1.410 million is the full quarter's company-wide change in digital-asset fair value. The disclosure provides no basis for calculating an actual return earned by EMJX on company capital.

Management said deployment would be phased and that it would provide additional performance information after developing a meaningful history of actual capital deployment. It did not specify how much capital must be deployed or when investors should expect that track record.

For investors, the next meaningful evidence will be a defined pool of EMJX-managed capital, its deployment period and the returns attributable to it. That record would let investors compare the model's claims with deployed-capital outcomes. Until SRX supplies those measures, the 4.3% figure describes a model output rather than a demonstrated return on invested company money.

The post How a public crypto firm’s 4.3% AI gain hides millions in balance sheet losses appeared first on CryptoSlate.

The $16.3 billion in Bitcoin ETF positions that CryptoSlate recently tracked ahead of the Q2 filing deadline resolved into four disclosed position patterns.

Two Abu Dhabi filers held their ordinary ETF share counts steady, JPMorgan increased ordinary spot-ETF units, UBS shifted its disclosed long-options mix, and Morgan Stanley reduced external ETF units as a new branded wrapper appeared in its filing.

The result answers CryptoSlate’s pre-deadline Bitcoin ETF stress test within strict limits. The five filings arrived from Aug. 12 through Aug. 14, but each freezes reportable positions at June 30. Form 13F captures long securities and some held options while omitting short positions and written options, leaving each manager’s complete hedge book outside the frame.

The wider Bitcoin ETF complex recorded about $4.89 billion of net outflows during Q2, based on CryptoSlate’s calculation from Farside Investors’ daily table. About $2.06 billion of those net outflows came in the final five trading sessions of June. The quarter-end filings show how unevenly that pressure appeared across reported holders and instruments.

Bitcoin ETF holdings: the four-way map

Adding these rows to a single exposure total would mix owned fund units with option underlying equivalents and a separately branded wrapper. Kept in their proper categories, the filings show four distinct responses to the same drawdown.

Sources: Morgan Stanley Q1 and Q2; JPMorgan’s amended Q1 restatement and Q2 filing; UBS Q1 and Q2; Mubadala Q1 and Q2; and Abu Dhabi Investment Council Q1 and Q2.

The sovereign row is the clearest case of investors absorbing a lower mark. Mubadala held 14,721,917 shares of BlackRock’s iShares Bitcoin Trust at both March 31 and June 30, while ADIC held 8,218,712 shares at both snapshots. Their reported market values fell anyway: Mubadala’s position declined from $565.6 million to $490.1 million, and ADIC’s moved from $315.8 million to $273.6 million.

Each position lost about 13.35% of its reported value with no net share-count reduction between quarter ends. The identical unit counts identify price revaluation as the source of the lower marks. Two snapshots still leave room for intra-quarter sales and repurchases, and they say nothing about any direct Bitcoin positions. By June 30, however, the disclosed sovereign IBIT holdings matched their March 31 share counts.

Related Reading

Bitcoin erased $118 million from Abu Dhabi’s ETF holdings, but its sovereign funds kept every share

Abu Dhabi’s sovereign funds declined to trim their BlackRock Bitcoin ETF holdings during the broader crypto market downturn.

Aug 15, 2026 · Oluwapelumi Adejumo

Bank books split across shares, options and wrappers

JPMorgan’s filing supplied the clearest ordinary-share increase. Its spot Bitcoin ETF holdings rose from 8,462,883 shares in the amended Q1 restatement to 10,623,591 in Q2. IBIT drove most of the move, increasing from 8,302,691 to 10,407,635 shares.

The options rows moved on a separate track. JPMorgan’s IBIT call underlying amount rose from 3,775,000 to 3,945,000 shares, while its put underlying amount fell from 4,756,400 to 3,495,800. Form 13F instructions express reported options in underlying-security terms, so those figures represent neither contract counts nor ordinary ETF ownership.

Morgan Stanley’s external spot-ETF holdings moved the other way, falling by 775,301 units to 18,636,055. IBIT alone declined by 783,343 shares. The Q2 filing also reported 2,570,627 shares of Morgan Stanley Bitcoin Trust, a row absent from Q1.

Counting the branded trust alongside the external ETFs yields 21,206,682 spot-wrapper units, 9.25% above the Q1 external-fund total. That cross-wrapper comparison shows the scale of the newly reported product, while the two snapshots leave its origin unresolved. They do not connect the reduction in outside funds to the appearance of the branded trust or prove that the same accounts moved between products.

Related Reading

Morgan Stanley’s Bitcoin ETF drew $371 million of share contributions while Bitcoin erased $66.8 million

Nearly all of Morgan Stanley's Bitcoin ETF operating-period decline was unrealized as gross share contributions reached $371.1 million.

Aug 14, 2026 · Liam 'Akiba' Wright

UBS produced the largest reported unit change in held long options. Its ordinary spot-ETF holdings rose 13.20% to 414,191 shares, while IBIT call underlying equivalents climbed from 80,000 to 1,950,000 and put equivalents fell 52.75% to 143,300. The option amounts signal a sharp change in the disclosed long-options mix, with no basis for describing the calls as 1.95 million purchased IBIT shares.

Related Reading

Bitcoin ETF calls surge 24-fold as puts fall 52.75%, reaching 1.95M IBIT underlying shares

Its Aug. 13 filing covered 1.95 million call underlying-share equivalents at June 30, while account purpose remained unresolved.

Aug 14, 2026 · Liam 'Akiba' Wright

Account ownership adds another boundary. The SEC’s Form 13F guidance allows managers to report securities held for their own accounts alongside assets managed with investment discretion for private clients, mutual funds, pensions, trust departments and controlled entities. Morgan Stanley, JPMorgan and UBS may therefore combine several kinds of managed capital. Their filings establish the manager-level rows, not whether a particular position belonged to clients or the banks themselves.

The same guidance excludes short positions and written options. Without that missing side, the JPMorgan and UBS rows cannot establish either firm’s net Bitcoin direction. The visible call and put changes are pieces of an options book, not a complete directional bet.

Forced-sale evidence sits at the wrapper level

No named filer disclosed a margin call, client withdrawal, mandate breach or forced liquidation. The observable pressure sits in the aggregate ETF data: the fund complex recorded about $4.89 billion of Q2 net outflows, including about $2.06 billion during June’s final five trading sessions. Farside’s totals identify the wrapper-level flow, while offering no link to the five managers in this filing set.

Each cohort could still transmit selling through a different mechanism. Model portfolios can trim allocations after rallies to return to target bands, and collateral stress can force leveraged holders to liquidate during drawdowns. As CryptoSlate previously reported, new contributions, wider bands, options or tax-aware placement can reduce the need for those sales.

Client withdrawals and portfolio constraints are possible channels inside discretionary bank-managed accounts, but the filings show no such event. Expiry, exercise and dealer hedging can also generate flows around options positions, although the omitted strikes, expirations, premiums, shorts and written options prevent this data from sizing their direction.

The completed Bitcoin ETF stress test therefore moves forced-sale risk away from a single “institutional exit” story. Sovereign snapshots showed no net share reduction. Bank-managed rows remain subject to client and portfolio rules hidden from public view. ETF net outflows registered at the wrapper level, while options can transmit flows on a different schedule from ordinary fund shares.

One drawdown met several structures with different owners, constraints and clocks. The useful signal is the separation among them.

The post Bitcoin’s $16.3 billion Wall Street stress test splits into four positional patterns appeared first on CryptoSlate.

Shiba Inu trades at roughly 0.00000446 US dollars on 12 August 2026. That leaves the price 68.8 per cent below its twelve-month high of 0.00001429 US dollars, and only 8.5 per cent above its twelve-month low of 0.00000411 US dollars. Anyone buying today is buying the largest meme coin behind Dogecoin close to its weakest level in a year. Is that an entry price or a trap?

cryptoticker.io compiled these price data itself on 12 August 2026. The source is market data from CoinMarketCap, and the calculations use daily closing prices from the past 365 days. The moving averages, the RSI and the distances to the high and the low come from standard formulas applied to that data set, so every figure in this article can be checked against the same source.

Shiba Inu price analysis: where the SHIB price stands today

The Shiba Inu price stands at 0.00000446 US dollars, down 8.7 per cent over seven days and 1.0 per cent over 24 hours. At that level the token carries a market capitalisation of about 2.63 billion US dollars and ranks 30th among all crypto assets.

Three marks frame the current picture. The twelve-month low of 0.00000411 US dollars, set on 17 July 2026, sits 8.5 per cent below the market. The 50-day average of 0.00000464 US dollars runs slightly above the price and has capped every attempt to move higher since late July. Further above lies the 200-day average of 0.00000592 US dollars, which the price would have to gain 32.7 per cent to reach.

The zone between the July low and the 50-day line has contained trading for several weeks, which makes that low the reference point for anyone judging whether the market is building a base or merely pausing on the way down.

Is the Shiba Inu downtrend broken or only interrupted?

Over twelve months the Shiba Inu price has fallen 65.5 per cent, from 0.00001295 US dollars in August 2025 to today's level. Over 90 days the loss is 30.5 per cent. Only the 30-day window shows a gain, at 3.6 per cent. The short-term recovery therefore sits inside a decline that remains intact on every longer horizon.

The relationship between the two averages says the same thing more precisely. The 50-day line at 0.00000464 US dollars trades 21.6 per cent below the 200-day line at 0.00000592 US dollars, and the price sits below both. That is an unbroken downtrend. A trend change would require the price to reclaim the 50-day average and hold it, then close the gap to the 200-day mark.

What has changed is the pace. The steep phase of the decline ran between May and July 2026; since then the market has moved sideways in a narrowing range. Such phases can precede a base as easily as a continuation, and the data available today do not settle which.

What RSI and moving averages mean for a Shiba Inu entry

The 14-day RSI stands at 43.9, below the neutral midpoint of 50 and well above the oversold threshold of 30. For a buyer this is the least helpful reading the indicator can produce, because it signals neither an exhausted sell-off nor renewed momentum.

The distance to the averages is more informative. At 3.9 per cent below the 50-day line the price is close enough that a modest move would reclaim it, which keeps a short-term recovery technically cheap. The 24.6 per cent gap to the 200-day line is a different matter, since averages of that length tend to act as resistance for months after a decline of this size.

For an entry decision the two figures pull in opposite directions. The short average offers a near, testable level against which a position can be measured, while the long average marks how far the market would have to travel before the twelve-month trend could be called repaired. Position sizing should reflect the second number.

What trading volume reveals about demand for Shiba Inu

Shiba Inu turned over about 61.2 million US dollars in the past 24 hours. Measured against a market capitalisation of 2.63 billion US dollars, that is a turnover ratio of 2.3 per cent, which is unremarkable for a token of this size and indicates neither panic selling nor a rush of new buyers.

The trend behind that figure carries more weight. Average daily volume was around 106 million US dollars over 30 days, around 92 million over 90 days, and around 143 million across the full twelve months. Current activity therefore runs well below the annual average.

Thin volume has a practical consequence. Order books are shallower, spreads widen faster in stress, and a position that looks modest on screen can move the market when it is sold. The 30-day uptick in price arrived on falling volume, which is a weak confirmation of demand.

Structural factors that speak for Shiba Inu: supply, usage, regulation

The supply mechanics are the clearest structural argument. Of a maximum supply of about 589.55 trillion tokens, roughly 589.24 trillion are already in circulation. Nearly the entire supply is therefore on the market, and Shiba Inu carries almost no unlock overhang of the kind that weighs on tokens whose team and investor allocations vest over years.

Against that stands the scale of the float. A supply measured in hundreds of trillions keeps the price per token in the millionths, and any narrative built on the token reaching a round number such as one cent implies a market capitalisation far beyond anything the asset class has produced. The project's burn mechanism removes tokens from circulation, but the rate observed to date is small relative to the total.

On usage, Shiba Inu is an ERC-20 token settling on Ethereum, which ties its transaction costs and throughput to Ethereum's development path as set out in the Ethereum roadmap. The project also operates its own layer-2 network, Shibarium, intended to move activity off the main chain. How much sustained economic activity that network carries is the open question for any long-term thesis.

Regulation cuts both ways. Within the European Union, trading venues fall under the MiCA framework supervised alongside national authorities by the European Securities and Markets Authority, which has raised disclosure and custody standards for platforms serving retail clients. That improves the conditions under which a token is traded, and says nothing about the merits of the token itself.

What speaks for buying Shiba Inu at current prices

Three arguments carry weight at 0.00000446 US dollars.

The price sits near a tested level. At 8.5 per cent above the twelve-month low of 0.00000411 US dollars, a buyer has a defined and nearby reference point against which the position can be judged, and a clearer answer to the question of when the assumption has failed.

The supply picture is unusually clean. With almost the entire maximum supply already circulating, future dilution from scheduled unlocks is close to irrelevant. Price moves are driven by demand rather than by new tokens arriving on the market, which removes one variable that burdens many comparable assets.

Liquidity remains adequate. A rank of 30 and daily turnover above 60 million US dollars mean the token can be bought and sold on regulated venues without the execution problems typical of smaller meme coins. That matters most at the point of exit.

What speaks against buying Shiba Inu at current prices

Three arguments point the other way, and they are the stronger set.

The trend is intact and pointing down. The price trades 24.6 per cent below the 200-day average of 0.00000592 US dollars, the 50-day average sits 21.6 per cent below the 200-day line, and the twelve-month loss is 65.5 per cent. Buying here means buying against a trend that has not shown a technical repair on any measure examined in this article.

Demand is thinning rather than building. Daily volume below both the 90-day and the twelve-month average, combined with a 30-day price gain on declining turnover, describes a market with fewer participants rather than one attracting them. Recoveries built on falling volume have a poor record of holding.

The valuation rests on attention. Shiba Inu has no cash flow, no fee claim accruing to holders, and no supply schedule that forces scarcity. What remains is demand driven by sentiment, and the CoinMarketCap Fear and Greed reading of 37 places the wider market in the fear range. Assets of this type tend to fall hardest when sentiment deteriorates further.

How to buy Shiba Inu at current prices

Shiba Inu is listed on most large exchanges, so the practical questions are cost, custody and the standing of the venue. Fees differ more than headline rates suggest, because the spread applied at execution often exceeds the stated commission. Our exchange comparison sets the cost components side by side.

For buyers inside the European Union, the supervisory status of the venue is worth checking before the fee schedule. Platforms authorised under the current framework face disclosure and asset-segregation requirements that unregulated venues do not, and our overview of regulated exchanges shows which providers hold the relevant permissions. For a single provider, our Bitpanda review covers costs, deposit methods and account requirements.

Custody is the decision that follows the purchase. Tokens left on an exchange remain subject to that platform's solvency and security, which is acceptable for a short holding period and less so for a multi-year one. Anyone holding Shiba Inu for longer should compare the options in our hardware wallet comparison and account for the one-off cost of the device, which for a position sized in the low hundreds of euros can exceed any plausible saving on trading fees.

So is Shiba Inu a good buy at current prices?

Over the short term the evidence does not support a purchase. The price trades below both moving averages, the RSI at 43.9 gives no entry signal, and volume is falling. The one constructive element is proximity to the July low at 0.00000411 US dollars, which offers a defined level but not a reason on its own. A short-term case would require the price to reclaim the 50-day average of 0.00000464 US dollars and hold it on rising turnover, and neither condition is met today.

Over the long term the question turns on something the chart cannot answer. The supply structure is clean and liquidity is sufficient, which removes two common objections. What remains open is whether Shibarium develops sustained economic activity, since without it the token's value rests on the durability of attention. Our Shiba Inu price prediction tracks that picture.

Two scenarios frame the outcome. In the constructive one, the July low holds, volume returns above its 90-day average, and the price reclaims the 50-day line, which would put the 200-day average at 0.00000592 US dollars back in view. In the adverse one, the market closes below 0.00000411 US dollars on rising volume, at which point the sideways phase since July resolves downward and the assumption of a base is refuted. That second condition is the clearest test available, and it belongs in writing before a position is opened.

Buying Shiba Inu: what to take away

1. The trend has not turned. At 0.00000446 US dollars the price sits 24.6 per cent below the 200-day average and 3.9 per cent below the 50-day average, with a twelve-month loss of 65.5 per cent. Anyone buying is buying against that, and our Shiba Inu price prediction follows the levels that would have to change first.
2. The July low is the reference point. The twelve-month low of 0.00000411 US dollars lies 8.5 per cent below the market and defines when the current pattern has failed. Execution costs matter at these levels, and our exchange comparison shows where the spread does the damage.
3. Custody belongs in the plan from the start. A position held beyond a few weeks does not belong on an exchange indefinitely, and the options are set out in our hardware wallet comparison.

Disclosure: Some of the providers mentioned in this article work with us through partner programmes. This has no influence on the price analysis or on the assessment of the chart situation; the price data come from a public market data source and can be verified there.

(As of 12 August 2026. This article is not investment advice. Prices, fees and terms change; check them with the provider before every purchase. Crypto assets are subject to high price volatility, and a total loss is possible.)

A crypto credit card promises something very simple. You hold the card against the terminal, part of your crypto balance is liquidated in the background, and the merchant receives euros. In everyday use it feels like any other card payment. For tax purposes in Germany it is a disposal of your crypto assets.

Almost everything that later creates work with the card follows from that classification. Use it for a year on fuel, weekly groceries and restaurant bills and you do not produce a handful of events. You quickly produce several hundred separate disposals. Each one carries its own date, its own price and its own holding period, and you have to be able to evidence each one if asked.

This article sets out how the card is treated for tax: which designs exist, when a payment becomes taxable, and which records you need before your next tax return. Which providers are available for the German market, and how they differ on fees and custody, is covered in our comparison of crypto credit cards and crypto debit cards.

How a crypto credit card works: wallet, settlement partner and card network

No merchant terminal in Europe accepts Bitcoin. At the till the payment runs over the same rails as any ordinary debit card transaction, and settlement happens in euros. The crypto side of the process takes place solely at the card issuer.

That issuer is usually a licensed e-money institution or a bank, often working alongside the crypto provider itself. The institution holds the authorisation for the card business, while the wallet function sits with the crypto service. For you these are two contractual relationships behind a single interface.

At the moment of payment, the provider liquidates as much of your balance as the euro amount requires. On some cards this happens to the second, alongside the transaction. On others the card draws down a euro balance that was topped up in advance. The difference is small technically and large fiscally, because it determines which price and which day are decisive for your gain.

The tax core: paying is a disposal under Section 23 of the German Income Tax Act

Crypto assets held as private assets count in Germany as other economic goods within the meaning of Section 23(1) sentence 1 no. 2 of the Income Tax Act, and they therefore fall under private disposal transactions. The gain is taxable where no more than one year lies between acquisition and disposal.

What matters is the broad meaning of disposal. It covers a sale for euros, a swap into another cryptocurrency, and equally the use of crypto as a means of payment. Whether you sell your coins on an exchange or the card issuer liquidates them while you pay at the hardware store makes no difference for tax.

The tax authority last set out its position in the BMF circular of March 6, 2025, which replaced the earlier version of May 10, 2022. In practice that means even the four-euro coffee is a disposal. There is no de minimis carve-out for small amounts.

Debit model, stablecoin balance and credit line: three designs with three tax outcomes

Under the pure debit model, Bitcoin, Ether or another crypto asset sits in your account with the provider, and every card payment triggers a proportional sale. This is the most laborious case. Each payment needs a date, a price and an acquisition history, and over a year that adds up to a four-digit number of individual entries.

Things run considerably more calmly if you fund the card from a stablecoin balance. A stablecoin pegged to the euro barely moves in price, so a payment produces a gain or a loss only in the cent range. The event remains a disposal subject to documentation, but the amounts are minimal.

The credit line variant sells nothing. You pledge crypto assets as collateral and pay out of a loan. Taking on a loan is not a disposal, so the transaction triggers no income tax at the outset. In exchange you acquire a different problem.

The one-year holding period decides whether your card payment stays tax free

If more than a year lies between the purchase of your coins and the card payment, the gain is exempt from income tax, regardless of its size. The period runs to the day from the moment of acquisition.

In the circular cited above, the Federal Ministry of Finance clarified that this period does not extend to ten years where you have used your crypto assets for staking or lending in the meantime. That matters for anyone who earns yield on a balance between payments.

Whether the period survives at all is an open question. We reported on the push to abolish it on August 9, 2026 in our article on the debate over the German crypto holding period. Until something changes, the one-year rule is the most effective lever you have when using the card.

The 1,000 euro threshold is not an allowance

The statute says that gains remain tax free where the total gain from private disposal transactions in the calendar year came to less than 1,000 euros. That clause is often misread, because it sets an exemption threshold rather than an allowance. Reach 1,000 euros and the entire gain is taxable, from the first euro onwards. At 999 euros you pay nothing; at 1,000 euros you tax the full amount.

The threshold also applies beyond crypto. It captures all private disposal transactions in a calendar year, including a sale of gold. For card users that is an uncomfortable combination. Hundreds of small gains ranging from a few cents to a few euros do not stand out individually, but they add up over the year. Without clean records you only find out where you stand when you file.

FIFO in practice: which coins the card spends first

If you have bought Bitcoin in several tranches over months, it is not obvious which tranche a card payment spends. For fungible economic goods, the assumption is that the units acquired first are also disposed of first. This first-in-first-out rule works against you in a rising market, because it consumes the oldest and usually cheapest holdings first and so raises the gain you report. At the same time it helps you, because those old holdings often sit outside the one-year period.

We set out how the holding period, the allocation of units and the exemption threshold interact on regular purchases on August 11, 2026, in our article on Bitcoin savings plans and tax. The same logic applies to the card, only with far more individual events on the disposal side. You therefore cannot decide after the fact which purchase belongs to which card payment.

Cashback and rewards in crypto: separate inflow, separate valuation

Many cards pay a rebate in crypto assets, frequently in the provider's own token. This is a second matter, independent of the payment itself. The allocated units enter your assets with their own acquisition date and their own value, and from that day a fresh one-year period runs for them.

Whether the inflow is itself taxable, or only the later sale, depends on how the programme is structured. A discount on your own purchase is treated differently from a reward for holding a token. This is the point at which a visit to a tax adviser pays off most readily. In any case, record the euro value of the credit on the day it arrives, otherwise a later gain is close to impossible to calculate.

Fees, exchange rate spread and foreign currency charges erode the arithmetic

When assessing a card it is worth looking at several cost blocks that rarely appear in one place: the annual or monthly fee, the mark-up between the market price and the price at which the provider liquidates your balance, the charge for payments outside the euro area, and the cost of cash withdrawals.

For tax purposes these costs are not lost. Expenses directly connected with the disposal reduce the taxable gain, and incidental acquisition costs increase the acquisition cost. In practice this often fails because the statement hides the mark-up inside the execution price. A card that gives two percent back and takes one and a half percent of spread on the conversion is a different product from its marketing.

Record-keeping duties: what the tax authority wants to see since the BMF circular

The part of the March 2025 circular with the greatest practical consequences concerns the duties to cooperate and to keep records. The authority expects complete documentation of the transactions; a mere reference to blockchain addresses is expressly not enough; transaction summaries or tax reports are to serve as the basis of assessment.

For the card that means you must be able to evidence, for each payment, the date, the type and quantity of crypto assets given up, the euro price at the time of payment, and the origin of the holdings. On top of that comes the acquisition side: when the units entered your portfolio, and at what price.

Cards with a credit line: borrowing instead of selling, and the risk of liquidation

The credit line card looks at first glance like the elegant answer to the tax problem, and that is exactly how it is marketed. You keep your coins, you pay out of a collateralised loan, and you trigger no disposal. The catch lies in the collateral mechanism. If the price of the pledged crypto assets falls, the provider demands more collateral or liquidates part of the holding. That forced liquidation is in turn a disposal with all the tax consequences attached, only at a moment you did not choose. Anyone opting for this structure should keep the loan-to-value ratio low and know the liquidation threshold; it sits in the contract terms and not in the marketing material.

When the card provider shuts the programme down or leaves the market

Card programmes in the crypto sector have a short half life. In recent years several providers have discontinued their cards for European customers because a licensing partner walked away or the regulatory environment shifted. Two points matter here.

First, a residual balance on an expiring card is often converted automatically into euros or a stablecoin. That forced conversion is also a disposal, falling in a tax year you did not choose. Second, access to the transaction history frequently ends together with the programme, so back up the data while you still have it.

When a crypto card pays off and when the paperwork eats the advantage

The card makes sense for two groups: users who want to spend old holdings that sit well outside the one-year period without the detour via an exchange and a bank account, and users who work from a euro-pegged stablecoin balance whose gains per transaction are in the cent range.

It makes little sense if you spend freshly bought, volatile holdings in everyday life. You then produce taxable events in large numbers, and documenting them costs more time than the cashback brings in. The honest question is whether you want to keep a record for every card payment. If the answer is no, one planned sale per quarter and an ordinary bank card will give you a quieter life.

What to take away

1. Establish the design of your card first. Read the terms to see whether a payment sells crypto, draws down a euro balance or takes out a loan. That determines whether a taxable event arises at all. Our comparison of crypto credit cards and their settlement models helps with the shortlist.
2. Set up your record-keeping before you use the card. Connect the card account from the outset to software that captures date, quantity, price and origin for every transaction. Our overview of crypto tax tools and portfolio trackers shows which programmes manage this for the German market.
3. Separate your spending account from your holdings. Load only the amount you intend to spend in the near term onto the card, and keep the rest away from the card provider. For the long-term portion, self-custody is the next step; the devices worth considering are covered in our hardware wallet comparison.

(As of August 11, 2026. This article is not investment advice. Prices and fee structures change; check the terms with the provider before you buy.)

Four providers have closed or sharply cut back their European business within seven weeks. The question worth asking is a practical one: what happens to the coins still sitting in your account when a crypto exchange shuts down?

It is almost always asked too late. A withdrawal from the market runs in stages, and the deadline that takes away the most room to act is usually the first one to expire.

This guide sets out the sequence all four cases share, and answers the point most people only notice afterwards: what a forced sale means for tax. If you are already thinking about where your holdings should sit in future, it is worth looking first at regulated crypto exchanges with EU authorisation.

Four crypto exchange exits in seven weeks: what the cases have in common

In order: at the end of June 2026, cryptoticker reported that Binance was restructuring its EU business as of July 1. The end of July brought BitMart's announcement that it would cease operations. In early August, Luno said it would close accounts in several EU regions, and Revolut announced it would remove the stablecoin USDT from its European offering by the end of August.

Four different providers, four different reasons. All of them follow the same pattern, and that pattern will apply again next time:

1. An announcement by email and in the help centre, often several weeks ahead.
2. A first block that switches off one specific function while everything else keeps running.
3. A cut-off date up to which you can sell and move money out.
4. An automatic measure for anything still in the account after that.
5. A cost mechanism that eats into the remaining balance.

Once you know the sequence, you read those emails differently. The decisive information is rarely in the headline; it sits further down, in the list of dates.

MiCA as the driver: why the authorisation requirement is thinning the crypto market

The common background is MiCA, the Markets in Crypto-Assets Regulation. Since the transitional arrangements ran out, every provider offering crypto services in the EU needs an authorisation as a Crypto-Asset Service Provider, or CASP. Obtaining one means going through a formal procedure and then staying under continuous supervision.

For you as a customer, three obligations matter most. An authorised provider has to hold client funds and client crypto-assets separately from its own, capital requirements apply, and there are disclosure duties covering risks, fees and complaints procedures. Those requirements are exactly what explains the exits. A provider essentially has two options: go through the procedure and carry the running cost, or give up the EU business. How thin the field really is shows in the analysis of the MiCA register from August 6, 2026: of the 329 authorisations counted there at the time, only 21 went to trading platforms. Further exits are therefore more likely than a return to the old line-up.

The ESMA register as the first check before any crypto trading venue

Whether a provider is authorised can be looked up publicly. The European Securities and Markets Authority, ESMA, keeps a register of authorised CASPs. It shows which company was authorised in which member state, and which services the authorisation covers. The check takes two minutes and is worth doing before any larger deposit: search ESMA's CASP register for the company name. For providers with a German authorisation, BaFin also maintains its own company database.

What to look for in the register

An entry is not a seal of approval for service quality; it only says that a provider is supervised. Check the company name carefully, because the brand and the legal entity often differ. No match does not automatically mean a dubious provider, but it does mean the MiCA safeguards do not apply there.

The three deadlines when a crypto exchange withdraws: crypto withdrawal, sale, euro payout

When a provider pulls out, it almost always sets three separate dates, in this order:

1. End of crypto withdrawals. From this point you can no longer send your coins to your own wallet or to another provider.
2. End of trading. From here the position can no longer be sold.
3. End of euro payouts. After that, even the cash no longer reaches your bank account.

The documented case here is Luno. According to the provider, transfers to external wallets ended at the end of June 2026, while selling and euro payouts remained possible until August 31, 2026.

Between the first and the last date there were a good two months. Anyone who missed the first deadline could still get to their money, but only in euros. That distinction is the most important point in this article.

Why the crypto withdrawal is blocked first

That the transfer to your own wallet is the first thing to go seems illogical, but it makes sense from the provider's side. External transfers are the most demanding part of the operation, because they require blockchain connections, anti-money-laundering monitoring and a department for misaddressed transfers.

For you this has a consequence that goes beyond any single provider. Once external withdrawals are blocked, you no longer have a choice between holding and selling. A custody problem turns into a taxable event, at a moment you do not control. So when an email arrives carrying the words discontinuation, withdrawal or closure, look first at the date from which no coins may leave the building.

Forced conversion and forced sale: when the crypto exchange decides without you

What happens to holdings still there after the cut-off date? Providers solve this differently, but always without asking. In Revolut's USDT delisting, the announced mechanism is an automatic conversion: anyone who has neither sold nor withdrawn the stablecoin by the end of August 2026 will have the remaining balance converted into the account's main currency at the rate applying on the day. According to the available reports, the trigger was that the issuer of USDT did not seek a MiCA authorisation for the stablecoin.

Two variants need to be kept apart:

• Conversion into fiat. The crypto-asset becomes euros. That is a sale, with everything that follows for tax.
• Conversion into another crypto-asset. USDT becomes an authorised stablecoin, for example. That counts as a swap too, even if the euro amount barely moves.

The second case surprises many people. Swapping one stablecoin for another feels like nothing at all, and still amounts to a disposal of the old holding for tax purposes.

Tax consequences in Germany: a forced crypto sale is a disposal

For private individuals with unlimited tax liability in Germany, gains from selling crypto-assets fall under private disposal transactions in Section 23 of the Income Tax Act. That applies whether you sell voluntarily or an exchange triggers the sale by withdrawing; the law offers no discount for involuntary disposals.

Three points from this are worth knowing. The holding period is one year, and once it has passed a disposal gain is no longer taxable. An exemption threshold applies to the total gains of a calendar year, and it falls away entirely once exceeded. And you have to be able to identify which units were acquired when, which is usually handled with the FIFO method per wallet or account.

The practical twist lies in how this meets the exit. If your position is eleven months old and the forced sale hits in the twelfth month, you lose the tax exemption that would have arrived four weeks later. With staggered purchases through a savings plan, that is the normal case. If you still have the option of moving the coins to your own wallet, the holding period continues untouched, because a transfer between your own addresses does not count as a disposal.

What to secure before the account disappears

The step most often overlooked has nothing to do with money. Once an account is closed, you can no longer reach the transaction history, and that is exactly what you need for your tax return. So before the cut-off date, pull:

• the full transaction export as a CSV file, covering the entire life of the account if possible,
• the trade confirmations and fee statements,
• the records of euro deposits and withdrawals,
• and the provider's closure notice, because it documents the reason for the sale.

Custody fees after the deadline: how a residual crypto balance melts away

One detail sits far down in the announcements: after the cut-off date the account often stays open and starts costing money. In Luno's case, monthly fees were announced for remaining balances, rising over time. That mainly hits accounts nobody thinks about any more, such as old secondary accounts and amounts below the level at which a payout feels worth the effort.

The emergency plan if you have missed the deadline

Suppose it has already happened: the cut-off date is behind you, and the app no longer offers a sell button. The money is usually not lost, but the route to it becomes awkward. At Luno, access after the cut-off date runs through customer service, which asks for a bank statement no older than three months. Self-service turns into an identification procedure.

Get in touch in writing, using the official address from the provider's help centre rather than a link from an email. Record the date and content of every message, and explicitly request the transaction history. Also check which supervisory authority is responsible, because with an authorised company there is a complaints route beyond customer service.

A warning belongs here. Around every announced closure, messages appear claiming to help rescue the balance and leading to fake login pages. No reputable provider asks you by email to enter your credentials or your seed phrase.

Early warning signs: spotting a crypto exchange exit before the email arrives

Exits announce themselves. None of the following signals proves anything on its own, but when several come together it is worth a second look at your choice of provider:

• Trading pairs disappear, particularly for stablecoins and smaller tokens.
• New deposits are capped or switched off for certain routes.
• An unusual wave of identity verification requests goes out.
• The fee structure changes at short notice to the disadvantage of small accounts.
• The company does not appear in the relevant registers, or only for a few categories of service. This point is the most reliable one, because it can be checked objectively.

Self-custody as the consequence: what hardware and software wallets do

As long as your coins sit with a provider, your access depends on that provider's business decisions and on its authorisation. Holdings in your own custody remove that risk, and in exchange you carry sole responsibility for the backup.

That responsibility should not be played down. Lose the seed phrase and there is no hotline; store it digitally without protection and you have swapped a provider risk for a theft risk. For larger amounts, a device with separate key storage is the usual route, while for everyday use many people find a software wallet on their phone enough.

What to take away when a crypto exchange closes

1. Look for the date, not the headline. With every closure email, note first the date from which crypto withdrawals stop. After that you can decide calmly whether to move your holdings to your own address, or sell and settle the proceeds with a provider offering reliable euro payouts.
2. Get long-term holdings out of third-party custody. What sits at your own address cannot be forced out by any exit. Which device is suitable for that is shown in the hardware wallet comparison.
3. Secure the records before the account closes. Transaction export, fee statement and closure notice belong in your archive. A crypto tax tool or portfolio tracker keeps acquisition dates and holding periods even when the exchange is gone.

(As of August 11, 2026. This article is not investment advice. Prices and fee structures change; check the terms with the provider before you buy.)

Transparency note: This article was produced with the assistance of artificial intelligence and reviewed by our editorial team before publication. All figures and claims were checked against the primary sources linked in the text.

The crypto market is holding a narrow range with almost no conviction in either direction. Bitcoin trades at $62,903.32, barely changed on the day but down more than 3% on the week. Beneath the surface, the picture is more divided than the headline number suggests, with Chainlink posting a double-digit weekly gain while Cardano sheds another 10%.

What Are the Crypto Prices Today Across the Top Coins?

$Bitcoin trades at $62,903.32, $Ethereum at $1,876.76 and XRP at $1.00, with most large caps moving less than 1% over the past 24 hours.

Here are the crypto prices today across the largest non-stablecoin assets:

• Bitcoin ($BTC): $62,903.32, up 0.23% on the day, down 3.18% on the week, down 28.12% year to date. Market cap $1.26 trillion
• Ethereum ($ETH): $1,876.76, up 0.10% on the day, down 2.22% on the week, down 36.75% year to date. Market cap $226.49 billion
• $BNB: $610.82, up 1.01% on the day, up 2.54% on the week, down 29.24% year to date
• $XRP: $1.00, up 0.11% on the day, down 3.70% on the week, down 45.58% year to date
• Solana ($SOL): $75.17, down 0.31% on the day, down 0.28% on the week, down 39.61% year to date
• TRON ($TRX): $0.3307, down 0.66% on the day, up 0.61% on the week, up 16.35% year to date
• Hyperliquid ($HYPE): $55.99, down 0.25% on the day, up 2.71% on the week, up 120.17% year to date
• Dogecoin ($DOGE): $0.06992, up 0.78% on the day, down 0.64% on the week, down 40.38% year to date

The daily column is almost flat across the board. That compression is itself the signal: neither buyers nor sellers are willing to commit size at these levels.

Where Is the Crypto Market Cap Right Now?

The total crypto market cap sits near $2.24 trillion, down roughly 0.9% over 24 hours, with Bitcoin dominance at 56.1%.

• The crypto market cap has fallen from a peak of about $4.27 trillion in October 2025, a decline of nearly half. Bitcoin itself peaked at $126,198 in October 2025 and now trades roughly 50% below that record.
• bitcoin dominance at 56.1% matters more than the absolute figure. When total market cap falls while dominance holds steady or rises, capital is leaving the asset class rather than rotating from Bitcoin into altcoins. That is what the current combination shows. There is no altcoin season forming underneath this weakness.

Stablecoins account for roughly $301 billion of the total, which is worth remembering when reading dominance figures. Tether sits at $182.97 billion and USDC at $71.87 billion, and neither represents risk appetite.

Which Altcoin Prices Are Moving Against the Market?

Chainlink is the clear outperformer, up 6.36% on the day and 13.21% over seven days, while Monero has gained 6.62% on the week.

Not all altcoin prices are following Bitcoin lower. Three names have decoupled:

• Chainlink (LINK): $9.42, up 6.36% on the day and 13.21% on the week. Still down 22.70% year to date, but the strongest weekly performer among the majors
• Monero (XMR): $403.12, up 0.59% on the day and 6.62% on the week, down just 3.92% year to date
• Zcash (ZEC): $489.79, up 1.00% on the day, down 4.43% year to date

The chainlink price move is the standout, and the fact that two privacy coins sit alongside it in the weekly leaderboard points to selective, narrative-driven buying rather than broad risk appetite.

On the other side, Cardano (ADA) is the weakest major at $0.1782, down 10.63% on the week and 46.44% year to date. UNUS SED LEO has fallen 3.78% on the day and 8.36% on the week.

Across the full year, only two large caps remain positive: Hyperliquid at plus 120.17% and TRON at plus 16.35%.

What Does the Crypto Fear and Greed Index Show?

The Crypto Fear and Greed Index reads 29, placing sentiment firmly in fear territory without reaching the extreme readings associated with cycle bottoms.

A reading of 29 on the crypto fear and greed index indicates risk appetite is switched off, but it is not capitulation. For reference, the deepest reading of this cycle was 10 on 5 February 2026, with Bitcoin at $63,548.50 at the time. Sentiment has spent most of 2026 in fear-based territory.

The gap between sentiment and flows is worth watching. Spot Bitcoin ETFs recorded $389.71 million in net outflows for the week ending 14 August, according to SoSoValue data, though individual sessions have shown inflow streaks. Institutional demand has not disappeared, but it is no longer directional.

Why Is the Bitcoin Price Under Pressure This Week?

Two US regulatory events removed the catalysts the market had been positioned for, leaving Bitcoin without a reason to break higher.

The bitcoin price weakness this week traces to policy rather than technicals. The SEC cancelled its 14 August open meeting one day before it was due to vote on Regulation Crypto, the agency's first formal crypto rulemaking, citing an unforeseen scheduling issue and setting no replacement date. Separately, the CLARITY Act remains stalled in the Senate, with cloture set to ripen on 15 September.

At the same time, index provider MSCI opened a consultation that could remove Bitcoin treasury companies including Strategy and Metaplanet from its global equity indexes in November, with estimates of forced passive selling ranging from $1.8 billion to $2.8 billion.

Regulatory clarity was the catalyst most of the market was waiting for. Both routes to it stalled in the same week.

What Do the Technicals Say About the Bitcoin Price?

Bitcoin trades below its 20-day, 50-day and 200-day exponential moving averages, with daily RSI near 42 and support around $62,532.

The structure is a downtrend rather than a shallow pullback. Price at roughly $62,900 sits below the EMA20 at $63,961, the EMA50 at $64,462.68 and the EMA200 at $71,907.36. Each of those levels now acts as overhead resistance.

Daily RSI14 around 42 is soft without being oversold. The one-hour RSI has dipped closer to 32, which suggests short-term seller exhaustion rather than a trend change.

Support near $62,532 aligns with the lower Bollinger Band. A reclaim of the EMA20 near $63,961 would be the first technical sign the downtrend is losing momentum.

What Should Crypto Investors Watch Next?

Three dated events over the next month carry more weight for prices than any current technical level.

• 20 August 2026: The CFTC holds its first Innovation Advisory Committee session
• 15 September 2026: Senate cloture on the CLARITY Act ripens
• 30 September 2026: MSCI consultation on index eligibility closes, with results on 16 October

Until one of these produces a definitive outcome, the range-bound pattern is likely to persist. The market is not selling off aggressively, but nothing in the current setup argues for a sustained move higher either.

Index provider MSCI opened a public consultation on 14 August 2026 that would make so-called non-operating companies ineligible for its Global Investable Market Indexes. Applied to May 2026 data, the proposed screen deletes Strategy (MSTR), Metaplanet (3350) and uranium holder Yellow Cake (YCA) from the MSCI ACWI IMI. Feedback closes on 30 September, results arrive on 16 October, and any change takes effect at the November 2026 index review.

Why Does MSCI Want to Remove Strategy From Its Indexes?

MSCI argues that companies holding assets without running a substantive operating business should not qualify for equity indexes designed to track investable markets.

The msci strategy index removal proposal is the provider's second attempt in ten months. An earlier consultation opened on 10 October 2025 targeted digital asset treasury companies directly, defining them as firms holding 50% or more of total assets in Bitcoin or other digital assets. That proposal named 39 companies and triggered significant volatility in mstr stock.

Strategy objected formally in December 2025, arguing the 50% threshold was arbitrary and would cause repeated index entries and exits as the bitcoin price moved. MSCI confirmed on 6 January 2026 that it would not implement the exclusion at the February 2026 index review.

The January decision was not a full reprieve. MSCI froze digital asset treasury companies in place, blocking increases to Number of Shares, Foreign Inclusion Factor and Domestic Inclusion Factor, and deferring additions and size-segment migrations. The August 2026 replacement is asset-agnostic and contains no reference to digital assets.

What Are the MSCI Non-Operating Companies Rules?

The proposed screen applies a two-stage test: an operating asset threshold, followed by five financial ratios, with companies failing four of the five deemed ineligible.

Stage one assesses whether operating assets exceed 50% of total assets. Companies that clear this threshold remain index-eligible with no further review.

Companies that fail stage one proceed to the five-ratio test. At the softer thresholds applied to existing index constituents, the msci non-operating companies criteria are:

1. Operating asset intensity below 10% of total assets
2. Operating expenses below 5% of total assets
3. Operating cash flow below zero
4. Non-operating fair value changes above 5% of total assets
5. Financing cash flow above 30% of total assets, combined with filings showing capital raised for asset accumulation

Failing four of the five results in ineligibility. Deletion follows only after two consecutive annual filings fail the test.

The fifth ratio carries particular weight for bitcoin treasury companies. Issuing equity through at-the-market programmes to fund Bitcoin purchases is the defining mechanism of the treasury model, and it is the behaviour the ratio identifies. Share buybacks, USD reserve building and convertible note retirement do not alter any of the five measures.

Which Bitcoin Treasury Companies Fail the MSCI Screen?

MSCI's simulation using May 2026 data produced three outright deletions from the ACWI IMI: Strategy, Metaplanet and Yellow Cake.

Strategy is the largest affected constituent at approximately $23.93 billion, followed by Yellow Cake at $1.81 billion and Metaplanet at $654 million. Metaplanet currently holds 43,000 BTC.

Three further companies were placed on a watchlist, including Ethereum treasury firm SharpLink Gaming (SBET). A second consecutive weak annual filing would move them into the deletion category.

The inclusion of Yellow Cake, a London-listed uranium holding vehicle with no crypto exposure, is central to MSCI's position on metaplanet msci eligibility and the wider proposal. Under the framework, a uranium storage vehicle and a Bitcoin treasury share the same structural profile: an entity holding an appreciating asset without substantive operations. Three companies out of roughly 9,000 index constituents fail the screen.

How Much Forced Selling Would MSTR Index Removal Trigger?

JPMorgan estimated that MSCI exclusion alone could force approximately $2.8 billion in passive outflows from Strategy, rising to about $8.8 billion if other index providers adopt comparable screens.

The November 2025 estimate, produced by analysts led by Nikolaos Panigirtzoglou, remains the largest published figure for strategy passive outflows. The gap between the two numbers defines the risk: MSCI acting alone represents an absorbable event, while adoption by FTSE Russell, S&P Dow Jones and comparable providers represents a materially different scale.

Independent estimates cluster lower on the MSCI-specific component. TD Cowen attributed $2.5 billion of Strategy's market value to MSCI inclusion and $5.5 billion to other index memberships. Adjusted for the share price prevailing in August 2026, current framing places the MSCI-only figure closer to $1.8 billion to $2.0 billion.

One constraint limits the impact of any mstr index removal. Deletion compels selling only by passive index-tracking funds. Active managers are under no obligation to mirror benchmark changes, which places a ceiling on the mechanical outflow.

How Did Strategy Respond to the MSCI Proposal?

Strategy rejected the premise of the proposal, stating that index providers should measure markets rather than determine which assets companies are permitted to hold.

In a statement published on X on 14 August, the company said digital assets are assets, and argued that the proposal places MSCI out of step with regulators, markets and its own customers. The statement concluded that neither Bitcoin nor Strategy requires MSCI.

The response follows the company's formal objection of December 2025, which preceded MSCI's decision not to implement the earlier crypto-specific rule. The circumstances differ in one respect. The December objection rested substantially on the argument that the rule discriminated against a single asset class. That argument applies less directly to a screen that also captures a uranium holding vehicle.

MSTR shares declined approximately 4% on the session following the announcement, closing near $93.

Why Is Metaplanet Under Pressure Beyond the MSCI Index Risk?

Metaplanet's mNAV has fallen below 1.0, closing off common share issuance as a funding channel and forcing a shift toward debt financing.

mNAV measures a company's market value against the net asset value of its holdings. A reading above 1.0 indicates investors are paying a premium to the underlying Bitcoin. A reading below 1.0 indicates the market values the company at less than the Bitcoin on its balance sheet.

The distinction determines whether the treasury model functions. At a premium, issuing shares to purchase Bitcoin increases Bitcoin held per share for existing holders. At a discount, the same transaction is dilutive. Sub-1.0 mNAV effectively suspended common-share issuance for Metaplanet in the second quarter.

The company announced BitBonds on 13 August, a continuous programme of senior unsecured ordinary bonds. The inaugural issuance comprised four privately placed series totalling approximately 200 million yen, or about $1.3 million. Metaplanet describes the programme as converting treasury value into fixed-rate funding, and retains a target of 100,000 BTC by the end of 2026. The company has used 83% of a $500 million credit line reaching its current position.

Separately, a transfer of 5,014 BTC between wallets on 12 August prompted speculation of a sale. CEO Simon Gerovich confirmed the movement was a routine custody operation between Metaplanet-controlled addresses, with holdings unchanged at 43,000 BTC and total network fees of approximately $8.

Combined, bitcoin treasury companies face constrained equity issuance from below and index eligibility risk from above.

When Will MSCI Decide on the Strategy Index Removal?

MSCI will announce consultation results on 16 October 2026, with implementation at the November 2026 index review if the proposal is adopted.

• 30 September 2026: Consultation feedback closes
• 16 October 2026: MSCI publishes results and final methodology
• 11 November 2026: Implementation at the November index review, subject to adoption

MSCI has stated that any resulting changes would take effect no earlier than the November 2026 review, and that the proposal may not be adopted. The provider declined to implement its previous consultation following industry feedback.

How Is the Bitcoin Price Trading During the MSCI Consultation?

Bitcoin is trading at $63,058.36, down 2.94% on the week and 27.94% year to date.

$Bitcoin holds a market capitalisation of $1.26 trillion and is up 0.20% on the day. $Ethereum trades at $1,881.02, up 0.50% on the day and down 36.60% year to date, with a market capitalisation of $227 billion.

Across the remaining large caps:

• $BNB: $611.23, up 0.53% on the day and 2.84% on the week
• $XRP: $1.00, down 0.17% on the day and 45.38% year to date
• Solana ($SOL): $75.38, down 0.19% on the day, up 0.94% on the week
• TRON ($TRX): $0.3323, up 16.91% year to date
• Hyperliquid ($HYPE): $56.24, up 121.18% year to date
• Dogecoin ($DOGE): $0.07012, up 0.67% on the day, down 40.22% year to date

Below the top ten, Chainlink ($LINK) leads weekly performance at $9.41, up 14.07% over seven days, followed by Monero ($XMR) at $407.32, up 7.29%. Cardano ($ADA) is the weakest major at $0.1797, down 10.07% on the week and 46.00% year to date.

A declining bitcoin price reduces the premium investors assign to treasury company equity, which compounds the funding constraint these firms face independently of index eligibility.

What Does the MSCI Proposal Mean for Bitcoin Treasury Companies?

The consultation raises a structural question about whether asset-holding vehicles belong in equity indexes, with implications extending beyond the three companies currently flagged.

If MSCI adopts the screen, affected companies have limited remedies. The five ratios assess operational activity rather than asset composition, and standard capital management measures do not change the outcome.

If MSCI declines to adopt it, the provider retains the constraints imposed in January 2026, which continue to limit index weighting increases for bitcoin treasury companies.

Apple is pairing its in-house model with Alibaba’s Qwen as it prepares to bring Apple Intelligence to Chinese iPhones.

The filing would turn raw footage into labeled clips of who did what, without anyone opting in.

The proposed World Liberty Trust Company would take over issuance of the USD1 stablecoin from BitGo.

A hacker is reportedly selling personal and financial records tied to more than 678,000 taxpayers and businesses in France.

The Chinese lab says the release beats comparably sized open models on code benchmarks. The blog's own numbers show it trails the closed frontier and at least one open rival.

Veteran trader Peter Brandt has once again taken aim at XRP, dismissing the cryptocurrency and saying he would immediately convert even a 500,000-XRP position into Bitcoin.

Binance's CZ discusses Bitcoin's growing scarcity, suggesting that the number of tokens left in the Bitcoin available supply may be lower than expected.

XRP community watches closely with Ripple CEO Brad Garlinghouse set to discuss financial infrastructure at key event.

Bitwise's CEO has revealed rising institutional interest in the company's Chainlink ETF as inflows begin to rise beyond previous levels.

Ripple CTO emeritus, David Schwartz explains the reasoning behind proof-of-work (PoW) forks.

Key Highlights

• The chip giant unveiled an initiative to channel up to $500 billion toward AI infrastructure through partnerships with Apollo, BlackRock, Goldman Sachs, and three other major institutions.
• Morgan Stanley maintained its Overweight rating with a $288 price target, identifying Nvidia as its preferred semiconductor investment.
• Morgan Stanley projects that a 35% revenue-sharing arrangement beyond breakeven levels could boost Nvidia’s fiscal 2029 earnings per share by over 10%.
• The company delivered first-quarter revenue of $81.61 billion, representing an 85.2% year-over-year surge and surpassing the $78.42 billion consensus forecast.
• Wall Street maintains a “Buy” consensus with an average price target of $305.94; shares opened Friday trading at $225.16.

The semiconductor leader has unveiled an ambitious strategy to facilitate as much as $500 billion in AI infrastructure financing. Through collaboration with six major financial institutions, the company aims to establish independent platforms dedicated to funding AI computing facilities.

NVDA opened at $225.16 on Friday, with a 52-week range of $164.07 to $236.54. The company carries a market cap of $5.45 trillion.

NVIDIA Corporation, NVDA

The partnership roster features Apollo, BlackRock, Brookfield, and Goldman Sachs. Each participating institution will evaluate financing opportunities independently. Nvidia has indicated it may contribute residual backing of up to 25% for specific projects.

Analysts at Morgan Stanley characterized the third-party framework as strategically advantageous. It alleviates worries about demand generation through self-financing while creating fresh revenue-sharing possibilities for the semiconductor manufacturer.

According to Morgan Stanley’s calculations, securing a 35% revenue split on profits exceeding breakeven thresholds could potentially lift Nvidia’s earnings per share for fiscal 2029 by more than 10%. This projection hinges on GPU pricing dynamics and deployment velocity.

Morgan Stanley kept its Overweight rating and $288 price target. It named Nvidia its top semiconductor pick.

Widespread Analyst Optimism

Major financial institutions have rallied behind the stock. JPMorgan elevated its price target from $265 to $280 while maintaining an Overweight stance. Bank of America lifted its forecast from $320 to $350 with a Buy rating. Benchmark established a $335 target, increased from $250. Truist adjusted its projection upward to $307 from $287.

The Street consensus stands at “Buy” with an average price target of $305.94. Among analysts monitored by MarketBeat, 48 maintain Buy ratings, three hold Strong Buy designations, and two recommend Hold.

UBS has expressed optimism ahead of the upcoming earnings release, projecting that Nvidia could exceed its fiscal second-quarter revenue guidance of $91 billion by multiple billion dollars as GB300 demand accelerates.

The company’s most recent quarterly results revealed first-quarter revenue reaching $81.61 billion, climbing 85.2% compared to the prior year. Earnings per share registered at $1.87, topping the $1.76 Street estimate. Management also greenlit an $80 billion stock buyback authorization and increased the quarterly dividend to $0.25 from $0.01.

Potential Headwinds Remain

Skepticism persists in certain quarters. Detractors including Michael Burry have highlighted concerns about circular financing dynamics if purchasers depend substantially on debt to acquire Nvidia’s hardware.

Morgan Stanley also acknowledged inherent risks, noting increased credit exposure and potentially elevated leverage throughout the AI infrastructure landscape. The $500 billion figure represents potential capital deployment rather than guaranteed commitments.

Additional concerns include supply chain limitations, electrical power infrastructure constraints, and the possibility that Chinese AI developers pivot toward Huawei technology instead of American-manufactured GPUs.

Institutional investors control 65.27% of NVDA shares. CoreCap Advisors expanded its stake by 1.6% during the second quarter, elevating its position to 243,104 shares with an approximate value of $48.6 million.

Wall Street forecasts indicate Nvidia will generate full-year earnings per share of $8.79 for the current fiscal period.

The post Nvidia (NVDA) Stock Surges as $500B AI Infrastructure Initiative Wins Analyst Support appeared first on Blockonomi.

TLDR:

• Anthropies targets Claude’s keyed text watermark by changing wording through an unmarked rewriting model.
• The project also removes C2PA credentials, Git attribution trailers and other Claude-related metadata.
• Anthropies says watermark detection indicates Claude contact but cannot independently establish who authored text.
• Hoskinson’s repository links AI watermarking with wider questions about ownership, attribution and digital provenance.

Charles Hoskinson has launched Anthropies, a tool targeting watermarking and attribution markers attached to Claude outputs. The project aims to remove Claude’s keyed text watermark through rewriting with models that do not carry the same mark.

Anthropies also targets C2PA image credentials and Claude-related Git attribution trailers. The launch frames AI provenance as a growing issue around ownership, authorship and digital content.

Anthropies Targets Claude AI Watermarks and Metadata

According to the Anthropies repository, Claude can apply three separate markers across text, images and software projects. The text watermark changes token selection without adding visible characters to generated content.

The repository says a secret key determines how Claude selects between similarly suitable words during generation. Anthropies describes this watermark as difficult to remove without changing the underlying wording.

The project also addresses C2PA credentials attached to supported image files. Those credentials contain signed metadata indicating that Claude processed an asset. The repository says re-encoding or stripping metadata can remove that credential from the file.

A third marker appears through Claude Code’s Git commit trailers. 

The repository says Claude Code can add a “Co-Authored-By” entry identifying Claude in commit history. GitHub can then parse that trailer and display Claude as a contributor.

How Anthropies Removes Claude Attribution

Anthropies provides a command-line interface alongside an agent skill called /purge-anthropies. Its cleaning function removes attribution banners, Git trailers and invisible Unicode characters. Its humanization function instead changes prose structure through a separate rewriting model.

The repository specifically advises users against rewriting Claude output with Claude itself. It says doing so could preserve or reapply the same watermarking mechanism. 

Instead, Anthropies recommends an unmarked model for the structure-changing rewrite process.

The project also presents detection limits for Claude’s text watermark. Its documentation reports stronger detection rates on longer passages, while shorter text remains harder to identify. It also stresses that detection indicates system contact rather than proving authorship.

Hoskinson’s repository connects the technical system to broader questions about AI ownership and attribution. However, those legal sections represent the project’s argument rather than an established court ruling on Anthropies. The repository itself states that its legal discussion constitutes argument rather than legal advice.

The post Cardano’s Charles Hoskinson Takes Aim at Claude Watermarks With New Anthropies Tool appeared first on Blockonomi.

TLDR

• Kalshi faces potential fines of $120,000 daily from Nevada gaming authorities over disputed geofencing implementation
• State investigators completed nine transactions on Kalshi’s platform the day following a court-mandated geofencing implementation deadline
• The platform claims it engaged a state-sanctioned verification provider and alleges investigators falsified location data to circumvent security measures
• Kalshi confronts concurrent legal challenges from New York authorities, Baltimore, and the CFTC
• The central legal question revolves around whether prediction markets constitute federally overseen financial instruments or state-regulated wagering activities

The prediction market operator Kalshi has mounted a vigorous defense against Nevada gaming authorities following the state’s pursuit of $120,000 in daily penalties related to allegations that the platform inadequately restricted Nevada residents from accessing specific trading contracts.

According to Kalshi, the company fulfilled all compliance obligations. The platform contracted with GeoComply, a geographic verification service provider that has received approval from Nevada’s gaming oversight body, and maintained regular communication with state officials during implementation.

However, Nevada’s investigative team reported successfully executing nine transactions through Kalshi’s mobile application while connected to Nevada cellular networks. These trades occurred just one day following the court-imposed deadline for complete geofencing implementation.

Kalshi’s legal team has launched an aggressive counterargument. They contend that state investigators provided false residential information to circumvent the platform’s restriction mechanisms, and that at minimum one investigator discovered an alternative method to evade the system entirely. The company asserts these investigative tactics violated federal statutes.

Kalshi’s Version of Events

Rick Heaslip, Kalshi’s Chief Regulatory Officer, shared on X that the organization exceeded standard requirements in addressing the geofencing mandate. He stated the technical issue was resolved in a matter of hours, yet Nevada authorities proceeded with court action regardless.

Heaslip characterized the regulatory body as operating under “the bidding of casinos” instead of safeguarding consumer interests, describing the proposed sanctions as a “vindictive waste of taxpayer dollars.”

The geofencing mandate originated from a Nevada judge’s April decision. That judicial order established a preliminary injunction preventing Kalshi from providing particular contracts within state boundaries without first securing gaming authorization.

No court has determined that Kalshi violated any statutes. The proposed penalties and underlying allegations remain under active litigation.

Multiple State Jurisdictions Join Legal Battle

Nevada represents only one jurisdiction pursuing action against Kalshi. Baltimore initiated litigation targeting both Kalshi and Polymarket concerning sports-oriented prediction contracts. Municipal attorneys contend these contracts function identically to wagers placed via digital sportsbooks and must comply with state gaming regulations.

New York initiated proceedings against Kalshi on July 31. Governor Kathy Hochul alongside Attorney General Letitia James filed legal action alleging Kalshi operates an unauthorized gambling enterprise. The state demands Kalshi cease New York operations and seeks financial restitution plus additional remedies.

The New York City Council has additionally initiated an independent examination of prediction market platform marketing practices. This probe encompasses Kalshi, Polymarket, Coinbase, and Gemini Titan.

On August 11, the federal Commodity Futures Trading Commission intervened, exercising emergency powers to direct Kalshi to maintain operations consistent with the Commodity Exchange Act’s fundamental requirements.

Kalshi currently defends itself across numerous legal battlegrounds, with state governments categorizing its operations as gambling activities while federal authorities treat it as a regulated financial marketplace.

The post Kalshi Claims Nevada Officials Violated Federal Law While Imposing $120K Daily Penalties appeared first on Blockonomi.

Key Highlights

• Shares of AMD surged 6.19% on Friday, finishing the session at $512.93
• The company successfully completed a $4.75 billion debt offering, marking its largest investment-grade bond issuance to date
• BofA Securities increased its server CPU market projection for 2030 to more than $210 billion, designating AMD as its preferred stock pick
• Company leadership forecasts server revenue expansion exceeding 80% during the latter half of 2026
• Analyst community maintains a Strong Buy rating with a consensus price objective of $647.04

Advanced Micro Devices experienced a notable rally on Friday, with shares advancing 6.19% to settle at $512.93, fueled by a pair of significant developments that emerged nearly simultaneously.

The semiconductor manufacturer successfully executed a $4.75 billion bond offering, representing its most substantial investment-grade debt transaction in company history. Structured across four separate maturity tranches, the offering attracted robust institutional demand, enabling AMD to price its longest-maturity securities below initial market expectations. This pricing dynamic reflects solid investor sentiment regarding the company’s strategic trajectory.

The capital raised from this offering is earmarked to support AMD’s artificial intelligence hardware expansion initiatives and substantial capital expenditure requirements.

BofA Securities Elevates Server CPU Outlook

Vivek Arya, an analyst at Bank of America Securities, revised the firm’s server CPU total addressable market estimate for 2030 upward from approximately $170 billion to beyond $210 billion. AMD received designation as the bank’s premier investment choice within the semiconductor space.

Arya’s investment rationale focuses on the emergence of “agentic AI,” which he believes is transforming data center infrastructure toward a more equitable CPU-to-GPU configuration. This represents a departure from the GPU-centric deployments that characterized recent infrastructure builds, positioning AMD favorably due to its superior processing speeds and elevated core configurations.

The analyst highlighted both cloud infrastructure providers and enterprise server markets as key expansion opportunities for AMD moving forward.

Artificial Intelligence Partnerships and Product Pipeline

AMD’s Technology Leadership Forum further bolstered investor optimism. Company executives provided guidance indicating server revenue expansion surpassing 80% in the second half of 2026 and no less than 70% throughout 2027. The company’s comprehensive AI data center segment is anticipated to expand by more than 100% in the upcoming year.

Regarding product developments, AMD is scheduled to commence deliveries of its Helios AI rack systems in September. Major technology companies including Meta, OpenAI, and Anthropic have all executed multi-gigawatt computing agreements. Anthropic independently committed to as much as 2 GW of MI450-series computing capacity.

The company further revealed Day 0 compatibility for the Qwen3.8 27B artificial intelligence model across its Ryzen AI Max+ platform and Radeon AI PRO product line, a strategic initiative designed to strengthen its positioning among AI development communities.

Financial results released on August 4th demonstrated AMD delivered earnings per share of $1.66, surpassing the consensus projection of $1.62. Total revenue reached $11.54 billion, representing 50.1% year-over-year growth and exceeding analyst expectations of $11.31 billion.

Institutional investors currently control 71.34% of AMD’s outstanding shares. Baird maintains a $1,250 price objective on the stock, while Goldman Sachs recently elevated its target to $640.

The consensus Wall Street price target currently stands at $647.04, suggesting approximately 31% appreciation potential from Friday’s closing price. Regarding potential concerns, company insiders have divested $74.7 million in shares during the previous 90-day period, and AMD’s valuation metrics remain stretched with a price-to-earnings ratio of 132.23.

The post AMD (AMD) Stock Surges 6% Following Massive Bond Offering and BofA’s Bullish Outlook appeared first on Blockonomi.

Key Highlights

• PATH shares have climbed 25.5% from July 31, finishing Friday’s session at $16.01
• First quarter fiscal 2027 revenue increased 17% from the prior year to $418 million
• UiPath delivered GAAP operating income of $28 million, achieving profitability for the first time
• The stock currently trades 20.8% higher than the $13.25 analyst consensus target
• Second quarter outlook indicates a 4.9% sequential revenue decrease to $397.5 million at the midpoint

Shares of UiPath (PATH) finished Friday’s trading at $16.01, representing a 6.4% weekly gain and a remarkable 25.5% advance since the end of July. The stock’s current level now exceeds price targets set by major firms including UBS, BMO Capital, DA Davidson, and Bank of America.

UiPath Inc., PATH

This significant upward movement followed UiPath’s first quarter fiscal 2027 earnings release, which demonstrated tangible financial improvement. The automation software company’s revenue expanded 17% on a year-over-year basis to reach $418 million. Annual recurring revenue grew 12% to $1.901 billion. Most notably, the company achieved GAAP operating income of $28 million, representing its inaugural profitable quarter under generally accepted accounting principles.

The company added $49 million in net new ARR during the quarter, a meaningful improvement from the $27 million recorded in the comparable period of the previous year.

Chief Executive Officer Daniel Dines indicated that the company’s “agentic products are moving from pilot to production,” highlighting the strategic emphasis on AI-powered automation as a central element of future expansion.

Analyst Community Maintains Conservative Stance

Notwithstanding the strong share price performance, Wall Street analysts have maintained their reserved outlook on the stock. The consensus rating from 16 analysts remains at Neutral, with an average price target of $13.25. This suggests a potential downside of approximately 17% from Friday’s closing price.

UBS maintains a Hold recommendation with a $12 price objective. BMO Capital and DA Davidson similarly rate the shares as Hold with targets ranging from $12 to $13. Bank of America has assigned a Sell rating alongside a $13 target.

PATH is currently trading 34.5% above its 50-day moving average and 25.7% above its 200-day moving average. The 52-week high stands at $19.84, meaning shares remain approximately 19% below that level.

Thursday marked the stock’s largest single-session gain, rising 9.3% to reach $16.68 before experiencing a modest retreat on Friday. Friday’s trading volume totaled approximately 52.1 million shares, below the three-month daily average of 64.4 million.

Second Quarter Forecast Shows Sequential Decline

UiPath provided second quarter fiscal 2027 revenue guidance in the range of $395 million to $400 million. The $397.5 million midpoint represents a 4.9% sequential decline from the first quarter, though it marks a 9.8% increase compared to the second quarter of last year.

The company expects non-GAAP operating income of $75 million for the second quarter, a decrease from the $92 million achieved in the first quarter.

Management projects ARR will climb to $1.932 billion by the conclusion of the second quarter, representing a 1.6% sequential gain.

UiPath’s strong gross margin profile provides flexibility to continue investing in AI innovation and go-to-market activities while maintaining a debt-free balance sheet.

Customer attrition among smaller accounts represents a potential headwind. The majority of customer departures are concentrated in this segment, creating uncertainty around the pace of future net new ARR expansion.

Chief Accounting Officer Hitesh Ramani divested 50,000 PATH shares during Thursday and Friday’s sessions for approximately $831,250 in total proceeds. These transactions occurred under a Rule 10b5-1 trading plan established in March, indicating they were predetermined rather than opportunistic sales. Ramani continues to hold 235,052 shares in direct ownership.

The company is scheduled to announce its next quarterly results on September 3 following the market close.

The post UiPath (PATH) Surges 25% This Month Following Debut Profitable Quarter appeared first on Blockonomi.

As it happened during the past few weekends, bitcoin’s price volatility has essentially disappeared once Saturday and Sunday come, with the asset remaining stuck at $63,000 for roughly 36 hours now.

Most altcoins have performed similarly, which is why we will focus on their weekly moves. Some of the major gainers here are XMR, LINK, WLD, and WLFI.

BTC Stuck at $63K

As mentioned above, the previous weekend was also dull in terms of price action. However, it was more positive as the primary cryptocurrency had shrugged off the weekly losses and stood at around $65,000. The tides turned on Monday morning when it tried to break out, but it was halted at $65,400.

The subsequent leg down was painful as it pushed it to $63,800. After a couple of recovery attempts to $64,400, the bears resumed control once again. This time, they were even more persistent, pushing it to under $63,000 on Thursday. The same scenario repeated with lower highs, and BTC slumped once again on Friday to a 10-day low of $62,500.

As such, the asset had lost roughly $3,000 since the start of the week. The bulls finally intervened after this steep decline, given the current sluggish market environment, and helped it recover to $63,000, where it has remained for the past day and a half.

Its market capitalization remains at $1.265 trillion on CG, while its dominance over the alts is still below 57%.

Weekly Gainers and Losers

The weekly scale is quite contrasting, but red tends to dominate. Ripple’s XRP dipped below $1.00 on a couple of occasions in the past week and it has managed to remain at precisely that level as of now after a 3.5% dip since last Sunday. ETH is below $1,900 following a 1.6% decline.

Even more losses come from ADA (-10.6%), UNI (-18%), DOT (-7%), BCH (-5.5%), HBAR (-6.6%), and ZEC (-5%). In contrast, WLFI and WLD are the two top gainers from the larger caps, both surging by over 13% since last Sunday. LINK has jumped by 13% to $9.4. XMR (7.7%) and HYPE (4%) follow suit.

The total crypto market cap has remained sideways at around $2.230 trillion on CG.

The post Biggest Weekly Alt Gainers and Losers Revealed as BTC Stalls at $63K: Weekend Watch appeared first on CryptoPotato.

After several months of flirting with the psychological support level at $1.00, Ripple’s XRP finally dipped below it on a couple of occasions in the past week, which aligned with many analysts’ expectations for such a move before a major rebound.

However, some of the same analysts have been publishing controversial opinions on where the token’s bottom lies. Consequently, we decided to ask ChatGPT about its take on the matter and whether it believes XRP has finally reached a macro bottom.

In or Not In?

Zooming out, the decline to a 21-month low of just under $1.00 points to a rapidly deteriorating market structure, meaning that XRP has plunged by 70% since its all-time high, which was marked 13 months ago. The positive side is that the token managed to rebound and continues to fight for this psychological support, and has yet to give it up entirely.

ChatGPT’s answer was not as straightforward and hopeful as the bulls might have liked. It noted that there’s a big possibility the bottom could be in or just inches away due to several factors. The first is simply the magnitude and duration of the correction.

The cross-border token has been freefalling for almost a year, producing a succession of lower highs and lower lows. All of its recovery attempts have been halted in its track, and it continues to close in the red monthly, with almost no exceptions.

There are some encouraging signs as well. As reported recently, the number of wallets holding at least a million XRP has increased by 32 over the past three months. Network usage, such as the number of active XRP addresses, jumped from under 24,000 to more than 43,500 within a month or so.

Still Premature

Despite all of the above, ChatGPT remains cautious about concluding that the bottom is in, as it sees another plausible leg down. For instance, XRP’s Taker Buy/Sell Ratio on Binance recently hit a multi-month low of 0.86, showing that there are more aggressive sellers than buyers on the world’s largest exchange.

Rising futures positioning also increases the danger of another move south that can trigger a liquidation cascade. Lastly, the popular AI model outlined other analysts’ observations that the next important area for XRP lies at $0.94-$0.95. A break below that could lead to more profound losses and a dump to $0.80-$0.85.

As such, ChatGPT’s conclusion is that the bottom is ‘possibly’ in. However, there’s no confirmation yet, even though there is a ‘reasonable’ case that the sub-$1.00 dip marked, or came very close to, a local capitulation bottom.

The post We Asked ChatGPT: Is XRP’s Bottom Finally In After the Crash Below $1? appeared first on CryptoPotato.

The meme coin mania is long gone and perhaps forgotten, as evidenced by the substantial decline in the price of its leader. DOGE recently slumped below $0.07 for the first time in almost three years, a level that it’s still unable to reclaim.

Although it remains 90% away from its 2021 all-time high, several popular analysts believe precisely these depressed conditions could be setting it up for the next major expansion wave.

Is DOGE About to Go Parabolic?

Starting with Ali Martinez, who told his over 165,000 followers on X that several indicators have aligned to support a bullish thesis for DOGE. First, he argued that the OG meme coin has approached a parabolic phase after the asset returned toward the bottom of the large price channel that has contained its movements for years.

As recently reported, Martinez also claimed that Dogecoin’s weekly TD Sequential indicator has produced multiple consecutive buy signals. This is a rather unusual occurrence that the analyst described as a potentially important warning of an upcoming rally.

The network activity has improved significantly as well, with active DOGE addresses jumping by double digits from 38,000 in July to 44,000 earlier this month.

The analyst’s broader argument is based heavily on the meme coin’s historical behavior. It has repeatedly spent extended periods consolidating near the bottom of long-term structures before eventually producing explosive rallies. Of course, investors should be aware that historical performance is no indicator of future price moves. Nevertheless, DOGE being at $0.07 again means that the risk/reward equation has changed substantially from the euphoric stages of previous runs.

Further Support

Martinez is not the only analyst bullish on DOGE. Crypto Patel also highlighted the asset’s current position within its long-term accumulation structure. He repeatedly identified the $0.07-$0.10 region as DOGE’s major accumulation zone and believes another successful hold could eventually pave the way toward much more ambitious targets.

Some of his long-term projections sound quite far-fetched at the moment, as the highest is at $4. To get there, though, the meme coin would have to tap $0.28, which is the most realistic one, before it targets new all-time high territory at $1 and $2.

Popular trader Lucky told his almost two million followers to “keep an eye” on the largest and first meme coin, suggesting it could produce a considerable run over the coming weeks and months.

The post Is Dogecoin About to Go Parabolic? These DOGE Signals Suggest So appeared first on CryptoPotato.

Exchange-traded funds (ETFs) took 25.0% of Gen Z equity trading volume on Binance in the first days of August, up from 14.6% in June.

According to a Binance Research report published on August 12, millennials directed 9.5% of their early-August equity volume to the same instruments. Unleveraged ETFs drew 18.5% of Gen Z net equity inflow in June and 21.9% in July, while the single-stock share fell from 77.0% to 74.2%.

Report author Lim Kim Thye cautioned that “two months is not enough to establish a trend.”

The Money That Stayed

Binance opened direct stock trading in June 2026, and its tokenized US equities reached $100 million in assets under management within two weeks of launch, with 47% of trading activity outside regular US market hours.

Gen Z’s total net equity deployment fell 17.4% in July. Net inflow to unleveraged ETFs slipped 2.0% over the same period, against 20.4% for single stocks and 28.5% for leveraged products.

Interestingly, Gen Z was the only cohort whose ETF holder base grew, rising 2.9%, while Millennials fell 4.5% and Gen X fell 5.9%. Its ETF buyers traded the least in July at 7.9 times against 10.3 for Millennials. Across the sample, ETF buyers held 1.4 to 1.6 fund symbols each, and in the June cohort, positions averaged 10 to 14 days, with 36% to 45% still open at the snapshot.

Ticket sizes ran in the same direction. The largest average buys in direct equities went to the dividend ETF SCHD at $16,567 per trade and Broadcom (AVGO) at $12,370, while the smallest went to the best-known names, Tesla (TSLA) at $633 and Nvidia (NVDA) at $514 in stocks.

Almost No Leverage

Leveraged and inverse ETFs made up 9.25% of Gen Z direct-equity turnover in July but 3.93% of net monthly inflow, a share that has fallen from 4.55% in June to 2.65% in the opening days of August. “Gen Z does not appear to be committing capital to leveraged exposure,” the report stated.

But 88.2% of Gen Z accounts recorded no leveraged or inverse activity in TradFi-Perps, against 84.5% of Millennials and 85.9% of Gen X. In direct equities, the figure is 96.5%, though Baby Boomers lead every product and reach 98.9% there.

Gen Z averages 13 trades a month on perpetuals against 17 for Millennials, and 22% of its direct-equity accounts have never placed a sell order, behind Millennials at 30%.

The post Binance Research: Gen Z Lifted ETFs to 25% of Its Equity Volume in August appeared first on CryptoPotato.

Bank Leumi will offer Bitcoin (BTC), Ethereum (ETH), and Solana (SOL) trading to roughly 2.5 million retail customers from early 2027 through a partnership with Galaxy Digital (GLXY), the two companies said on August 14, in what they describe as the first digital asset trading service offered by a bank in Israel.

Customers of Leumi and PEPPER (its mobile digital banking arm) will trade inside a dedicated, secured section of Leumi Trade, the bank’s capital markets application.

GalaxyOne Institutional supplies the trading platform, and custody runs on Galaxy’s custody infrastructure platform, formerly known as GK8.

“This initiative represents a significant pillar of the bank’s innovation strategy and enables us to provide customers with simple, secure, and regulated access to trading digital assets,” said Maya Ravia, Head of Strategy at Bank Leumi.

Regulator Blocked the 2022 Attempt

The plan is subject to approval by the Bank of Israel. Leumi and PEPPER announced a partnership with Paxos to offer BTC and ETH trading back in 2022, and that service never reached customers after the Bank of Israel declined to approve it.

Israeli rules have shifted since. The Bank of Israel’s Banking Supervision Department removed the automatic delay on deposits originating from crypto transactions above NIS 100,000 in mid-July.

Moreover, according to Chainalysis, Israel received roughly $22 billion in on-chain value in the 12 months to June 2025.

The Capital Market Authority has separately circulated a draft that would let licensed companies offer trading in the 50 leading digital assets, subject to a $500 million minimum market capitalization, limits on holder concentration, and registration in recognized jurisdictions, including the European Union and New York State.

Custody Traces Back to Celsius

Galaxy’s custody technology reached it through a bankruptcy. Celsius paid $115 million for GK8, a Tel Aviv custody firm, and Galaxy won the platform in the insolvency proceedings, adding about 40 staff and a Tel Aviv office. GK8 co-founder Lior Lamesh now runs Galaxy Israel.

“The future of finance will run on open, programmable rails, and we believe the banks that move first will define the era that follows,” stated Lior Lamesh, Chief Executive Officer of Galaxy Israel.

The post Bank Leumi Taps Galaxy to Launch Israel’s First Bank Crypto Trading in Early 2027 appeared first on CryptoPotato.