The intensified opposition from billionaires could significantly influence public opinion and legislative outcomes, impacting future wealth tax initiatives.

The post California billionaires raise $300M to fight Proposition 40 wealth tax appeared first on Crypto Briefing.

Rising AI agent costs challenge ROI predictability, urging strategic model use and vigilant cost management for sustainable AI investments.

The post Gartner forecasts fivefold rise in AI agent costs by 2028 appeared first on Crypto Briefing.

Auction-based AI inference could democratize access, drive innovation, and optimize resource allocation, impacting AI's economic landscape.

The post Brett Harrison’s Architect bets auctions can make AI inference cheaper appeared first on Crypto Briefing.

Replit's strategy to diversify AI model providers highlights the growing need for flexibility and resilience in the competitive AI coding market.

The post Replit CEO Amjad Masad says company no longer working with Anthropic appeared first on Crypto Briefing.

ChatGPT advertisers report mixed results, with some beating search CPA and others seeing zero conversions as ad targeting issues persist.

The post ChatGPT advertisers report mixed results as targeting problems persist appeared first on Crypto Briefing.

Bitcoin Magazine

BFFS26 Denver: Joseph Kelly on Bitcoin Custody and Credit; Alan Lane on Banking Lessons

The Bitcoin for Financial Services Summit (BFFS26) returns to Denver October 20–22, 2026, bringing together CPAs, wealth advisors, attorneys, lenders, and finance leaders who are building Bitcoin into their practices. Now in its second year, the summit has grown to more than 30 sessions across two full program days, with a speaker lineup drawn from the firms defining Bitcoin custody, credit, and advisory.

Headlining the program are Joseph Kelly, CEO and co-founder of Unchained, who opens the summit with a keynote on custody, credit, and trust at scale; Alan Lane, former CEO of Silvergate Bank, on lessons for Bitcoin and banking; Patrick Lowry, CEO of Samara Asset Group, on holding Bitcoin as a public-company treasury reserve; and Colin Crossman, Wyoming’s Deputy Secretary of State, on the regulatory outlook for banks, exchanges, and advisors. Additional speakers include Kate Goldman of Anchorage Digital, Sam Baker of River, Eric Yakes of Epoch Ventures, Daniel Hillery of UTXO Management, Moish Peltz of Falcon Rappaport & Berkman, and CJ Konstantinos of Peoples Reserve.

Sessions focus on practical application: bringing Bitcoin into wealth planning and family offices, Bitcoin-backed lending and mortgages, treasury accounting and valuation, retirement and income planning, charitable giving strategies, mining as an asset class, and fiduciary duty when clients hold Bitcoin. Dedicated workshops will offer continuing education credit for financial advisors and CPAs.

“Last year proved that financial professionals want more than a Bitcoin primer. They want to know how to serve clients who already own it,” said Jordan Guess, CPA, co-host of the summit in a press release shared with Bitcoin Magazine. “This year’s program is built around the questions advisors and accountants are actually getting from clients, answered by the people building the infrastructure.”

The summit opens Tuesday, October 20, with the Better Money Invitational golf tournament at City Park Golf Course, hosted with Bitcoin Sports Network, followed by a welcome party at The Space sponsored by Falcon Rappaport & Berkman. Evening programming includes wine and whiskey tastings, and Thursday begins with an optional sunrise hike in the Rocky Mountains.

BFFS26 is co-hosted by Jordan Guess and Wyatt O’Rourke of BFFS Media, producers of the Bitcoin for Financial Services podcast. Sponsors include Unchained, Anchorage Digital, UTXO Management, River, SOUND HSA, SustainHash, and Stormrake.

Registration is open now at https://www.bffs.media/summit.

Media contact: Wyatt O’Rourke, wyatt@bffs.media

This post BFFS26 Denver: Joseph Kelly on Bitcoin Custody and Credit; Alan Lane on Banking Lessons first appeared on Bitcoin Magazine and is written by Juan Galt.

Bitcoin Magazine

Sazmining Now Sells Jack Dorsey’s Proto Immersion Hashboards 

Bitcoin mining just got a lower barrier to entry. 

Sazmining announced Thursday that it is now selling Proto’s immersion hashboards directly to individual and institutional buyers through its mining-as-a-service platform. Previously, the hardware was mostly in the hands of large-scale operators.

Each hashboard delivers roughly 200 TH at around 15 J/TH, and buyers own them outright while Sazmining handles deployment, monitoring and maintenance at a US facility. Mining rewards go straight to the owner’s wallet.

The move follows a multi-megawatt supply deal between Sazmining and Proto — the bitcoin mining arm of Jack Dorsey’s Block (NYSE: XYZ) — which both companies expect to expand as demand grows.

“Because of our aligned-incentive model, Sazmining only earns when we produce bitcoin for our clients,” said Kent Halliburton, CEO and co-founder of Sazmining. 

He also pitched mining as a form of bitcoin acquisition diversification: rather than paying the market price on the day of purchase, a miner’s costs are spread across the machine’s working life.

Wyoming-based Sazmining, founded in 2018, operates renewable-powered facilities across the US, Paraguay, and Norway. It says its fleet runs more than 20 percentage points ahead of the Bitcoin network’s carbon-free share.

Proto is Jack Dorsey’s Block’s bitcoin mining play. The Twitter founder has spent years arguing bitcoin is the foundation of “a more open financial system,” funding everything from Cash App’s buy-and-send rails to the Bitkey self-custody wallet, and he framed mining as the obvious missing piece back in 2021: “Bitcoin mining should be as easy as plugging a rig into a power source.” 

Block formally announced it was building an open bitcoin mining system in January 2022, with the stated aim of making mining “more distributed and efficient.”

This post Sazmining Now Sells Jack Dorsey’s Proto Immersion Hashboards  first appeared on Bitcoin Magazine and is written by Mathew Di Salvo.

Bitcoin Magazine

Hot Inflation Data Puts Bitcoin Under Pressure, but ‘Difficult’ Isn’t ‘Bearish’: CoinShares

Bitcoin’s price has dropped this week as new inflation data has come in hot. 

But while the largest cryptocurrency’s near-term setup is difficult, it’s not “fundamentally bearish,” according to European asset manager CoinShares’ Head of Research, James Butterfill. 

In a report Friday, the analyst said that bitcoin’s near-term challenge stems from a macro environment that’s caught in an awkward middle ground: inflation is too elevated for the Fed to ease up, while the economy is too resilient to force a policy pivot. 

“Bitcoin and the broader digital asset market have moved lower on the resulting hawkish repricing, a reminder of how sensitive Bitcoin remains to monetary policy over short horizons,” he wrote. 

Bitcoin’s price recently stood at $81,473, down 2% over a seven-day period. 

The price of the leading cryptocurrency dropped Wednesday after data showed that U.S. consumer prices shot up more than expected in September. 

Then, on Thursday, the Labor Department’s Bureau of Labor Statistics said that U.S. producer prices rose in September at the fastest pace in more than four years. 

This has weighed on bitcoin’s price because higher inflation means the Federal Reserve may hike interest rates. Higher borrowing costs can restrict the liquidity the digital coin needs to rally. 

The Federal Reserve hiked rates in September and will meet at the end of this month. 

But Butterfill added that investors should be patient and advised investors to instead think in the long-term and not react to any single weekly data point. 

“For investors, that argues for reading the coming weeks as a data-driven range rather than a trend, and for sizing digital asset exposure against a strategic allocation rather than against this week’s print,” he wrote. 

Bitcoin spent the first half of 2026 in a bear market but had its best quarter in years after surging in August and September. Analysts have now said the leading cryptocurrency is now back in a bull market after trading above its 365-day moving average. 

This post Hot Inflation Data Puts Bitcoin Under Pressure, but ‘Difficult’ Isn’t ‘Bearish’: CoinShares first appeared on Bitcoin Magazine and is written by Mathew Di Salvo.

Bitcoin Magazine

Deutsche Bank To Debut Bitcoin Custody Within Weeks: Report

German multinational Deutsche Bank is just weeks away from its crypto custody service, according to reports. 

The lender — which is Germany’s biggest — also plans to ​expand the custody platform into Asia next year​, according to a Friday Reuters report, which quoted its corporate banking chief. 

Top banks worldwide are debuting or planning to debut crypto custody services, with BNY Mellon, State Street, Standard Chartered, U.S. Bank, and Citigroup all committing to direct crypto custody over the past 18 months.

Deutsche Bank first officially announced plans to debut a bitcoin custody service for European corporate and institutional clients in September, with the German multinational at the time saying service was subject to the completion of the applicable regulatory timeline.

Friday’s report added that the service will support custody of ​major ⁠cryptocurrencies such as bitcoin before moving to services that help clients move money into and out of ⁠stablecoins.

Gerald Podobnik, co-head of the corporate ⁠bank, was quoted by Reuters saying that the financial system will need to “offer tokenized or blockchain solutions.” 

A number of top banks have started using the technology that powers bitcoin, the blockchain, for their own products in recent years. 

Stablecoins and tokenization in particular have become a hot topic as traditional financial firms aim to accelerate certain services. 

Crypto custody is often a starting point for banks moving into the digital asset space. BNY Mellon in 2022 became the first major U.S. bank to offer digital asset custody services.  

Banks like Citi and Standard Chartered have this year debuted or announced plans for bitcoin custody around the world. 

This post Deutsche Bank To Debut Bitcoin Custody Within Weeks: Report first appeared on Bitcoin Magazine and is written by Mathew Di Salvo.

Bitcoin Magazine

MSCI To Move Forward With Proposal That Could Exclude Strategy From Index

Morgan Stanley Capital International is moving ahead with a proposal that could remove bitcoin juggernaut Strategy from its global equity benchmarks. 

The index maker said Thursday that it “will implement the proposal to define and classify non-operating companies as ineligible for inclusion in the MSCI Global Investable Market Indexes.” 

Bitcoin treasury Strategy previously blasted the idea, calling it “misguided” and “flawed.” 

“MSCI will implement the proposal to define and classify non-operating companies as ineligible for inclusion in the MSCI Global Investable Market Indexes, as set out in the consultation announced on August 3, 2026, with minor modifications,” the statement read. 

“The changes will be implemented as part of the November 2026 Index Review, which will take effect as of the close of November 30, 2026.”

MSCI’s decision won’t immediately remove Strategy from its Global Investable Market Indexes but future tests could end up excluding the company from the index. 

If Strategy does get removed from the index, it would mean that fewer institutional investors can or will hold the stock. 

Strategy did not immediately comment on the MSCI’s decision. The company said of the proposal in August: “Bitcoin doesn’t need MSCI. Neither does Strategy.”

MSCI in 2025 proposed excluding from its indices all companies whose digital-asset holdings represent 50% or more of total assets. 

Strategy — formerly MicroStrategy — is an enterprise software company that pivoted to buying and holding bitcoin in 2020. 

It first bought the cryptocurrency to protect shareholders but has since aggressively bought the asset and is now the largest corporate holder of the cryptocurrency, with 848,250 bitcoins worth $69.2 billion at today’s prices. 

Investors can buy Strategy’s Nasdaq-listed stock (MSTR) to get heightened exposure to bitcoin’s performance. 

Nasdaq-listed Strategy’s shares were trading over 6% lower on Friday. 

This post MSCI To Move Forward With Proposal That Could Exclude Strategy From Index first appeared on Bitcoin Magazine and is written by Mathew Di Salvo.

Thirty enacted withdrawals have used 457.4 million ADA of the 500 million allowance, which incoming funds and refunds do not replenish.

Read the full story on CryptoSlate

Understand the crypto stories that matter and what to watch next. Get The Catalyst in your inbox

Stablecoin issuer Circle spent 93% of its first-half revenue on distribution, operations, and investment as USDC processed more than $36 trillion in transactions. The stablecoin issuer generated about $1.4 billion in revenue in the first six months of 2026, but $819 million went to distribution partners and transaction costs, while another $473 million covered operating…

Read the full story on CryptoSlate

Understand the crypto stories that matter and what to watch next. Get The Catalyst in your inbox

The October 15 report update describes an internal GPT-5.6 Sol model checking 362 addresses and omitting the account spending from its completion report.

Read the full story on CryptoSlate

Understand the crypto stories that matter and what to watch next. Get The Catalyst in your inbox

Bitquery’s updated v3 sample shows small positions losing their edge after gas, while v4’s activity data offers no matched return comparison.

Read the full story on CryptoSlate

Understand the crypto stories that matter and what to watch next. Get The Catalyst in your inbox

MSCI approved rules threatening Strategy's index membership as its shares trade nearly 69% below their peak. On Oct. 15, the global index provider announced that it would adopt a new methodology excluding companies classified as non-operating businesses from its Global Investable Market Indexes. The changes take effect after the Nov. 30 market close, with the…

Read the full story on CryptoSlate

Understand the crypto stories that matter and what to watch next. Get The Catalyst in your inbox

Anyone who provided liquidity to the pools of the Solana trading platform Meteora between July 1, 2025 and June 30, 2026 has to claim by October 21, 2026. After that the share is gone, and gone for good: according to the project's announcement, whatever is left behind passes to the remaining eligible participants. The window has been open since July 21, and five days are left.

An airdrop claim is not a button press that always works. It hangs on two thresholds, on a list of eligible pools and on a wallet approval that costs the entire balance at the wrong address. This piece works through the points in order, with Meteora as the running example, and ends on the question that is almost always forgotten in Germany: how much of this lands in the tax return?

What happens to the Meteora airdrop on October 21

Meteora is a trading platform on the Solana blockchain where users deposit liquidity into pools and earn from the trading fees. For the second round of this programme, known internally as LP Stimulus Season 2, the project set aside 20 million MET from its ecosystem reserve. That is around two percent of the entire token supply and, at the price of October 16, a good $7.2 million.

Distribution follows a simple principle: your share is your points total divided by the sum of all points, multiplied by those two percent of supply. Points were awarded for one thing only, namely the fees your position actually generated. How much capital you had deposited no longer mattered in this round; in Season 1, locked value still counted.

The news itself, including where it sits in the running airdrop calendar, is in our report on the Meteora claim deadline of October 13. This article is about the mechanics behind it, which look the same at every larger claim.

The two thresholds: 100,000 points and 10 MET

A wallet is eligible only if it clears both hurdles: at least 100,000 points, and the distribution has to produce at least 10 MET. Fall below either and the share is lost entirely; it is distributed to the remaining participants.

The first threshold can be translated into real money, and that makes it tangible. A standard pool paid 1,000 points per one dollar of generated fees. 100,000 points there therefore mean exactly $100 in fee income over twelve months. In a launch pool, which yielded only 200 points per dollar, $500 would have been needed. In the DAMM v2 beta window, which counted double at 2,000 points per dollar, $50 would have been enough.

The second threshold has a quirk that is easily missed. It is stated in tokens, not in euros. On October 16, 10 MET are worth around $3.61, or 3.21 euros. A wallet can therefore clear the points hurdle comfortably and still fail on an amount smaller than a packet of cigarettes. Read the other way: holders who ignored the notification because they expected small change may well be right, though looking costs nothing.

Which pools earned points and which came away empty

This is where most claims fail, not on the deadline. Only fees from DLMM pools and from DAMM v2 counted. Limit orders and DAMM v1 pools earned zero points, no matter how much turnover ran through them. Capital parked in DAMM v1 for a year comes away with nothing.

A second condition applies as well, and it is tighter still: a pool only counted if its quote token was one of five. JupUSD, USDC, USDT, SOL and USD1 were eligible. With any other token on the other side of the pair, the fees generated zero points. The project also applied three exclusion lists one after another: tokens first, then pools, then wallets. Pools with M3M3, LIBRA and MELANIA were thrown out entirely, as were pools that failed the internal quality checks and wallets that security researchers had flagged as fraud addresses.

The pattern repeats at almost every airdrop of this size. A project defines after the fact which activity counted as worth rewarding, and the boundary always falls tighter than participants expected. Reading the terms before being annoyed by a zero is therefore worth the time.

How to check your own claim

At Meteora the route is the same as at most claims on Solana, and it deliberately does not start in a search engine. Open the project's official page via the link in the governance announcement for Season 2, connect the wallet you provided liquidity with at the time, and read off the amount shown. The right address matters: holders spread across several wallets have to connect each one separately, because the count was per address.

One particularity concerns users of management services such as HawkFi: the project assigned their positions to the actual owners, so the claim should land with your own wallet and not with the service provider. If the page shows zero although you were certainly active, the cause is very probably one of the exclusion grounds from the previous section rather than an error.

One more point on the time of day, because it decides money: the project announcement names only the date, no time. A trade publication wrote of 10:00 UTC over the summer, but that figure stands on the publication alone, not on the project. Claiming on the morning of October 21 means relying on a number nobody has confirmed. Get it done before then.

Fake claim pages and the signature as the way in

Every announced claim deadline attracts replicas. The ploy targets not your password but the transaction you approve in the wallet: instead of collecting the airdrop, you sign a permission that gives an outside address access to your tokens. How close that can come to genuine pages became clear in mid-October, when a fake Shiba Inu airdrop carrying a wallet drainer went around.

Three habits lower the risk considerably. Never open the claim page via an advertisement, a direct message or a link in social networks, but via the project page or the official announcement. Read what the wallet says before approving: a claim transaction collects tokens, it does not grant an unlimited spending allowance. And keep larger holdings separate from the address you claim with. A hardware wallet for the holding and a separate address for interaction cost effort once and spare you everything else when it matters.

A genuine airdrop never demands an advance payment, a seed phrase or a fee in stablecoins before you receive anything. Where that is asked for, the matter is settled.

What a lapsed claim is worth today

Is the effort worth it at all? The answer depends on your position, but it can be bounded. MET stands at $0.36 on October 16 and, with a good $201 million in market capitalisation, ranks 186th among the larger crypto assets. The entire pot of 20 million tokens therefore amounts to about $7.2 million, spread across all eligible participants.

Clearing the points threshold only just puts holders in the low double-digit dollars or below. Standing for months in well-running DLMM pools with high fees can put them considerably above that. The sum cannot be worked out across the board, because the denominator, the total of all points, is not public. What is certain: the price has almost halved since the all-time high of $0.69, so the share is worth less than it was when the claim window opened in July.

By way of comparison with other offers in this field: holders who do not intend to sell their tokens anyway should check whether MET can subsequently be held in custody or put to work, a question that often fails on the fees with small amounts rather than on the availability. Which other deadlines are still open is collected in our airdrop overview.

Airdrops and tax: when the tax office takes a cut

In Germany the treatment follows the Federal Ministry of Finance circular of March 6, 2025 on individual questions of the income-tax treatment of crypto assets. The distinction that matters is the one about consideration given in return. Where someone receives tokens entirely without acting, that administrative view generally finds no other service within the meaning of section 22 number 3 of the Income Tax Act. Where they had to do something, by contrast, such as supply data, publish content or render a service, the tokens are recognised at their market value at the moment of receipt.

There is no blanket answer for classifying a liquidity airdrop, and anyone promising one is overstating the position. The allocation here attaches to an activity that itself generated income, namely the fees from the pools. Whether the tax office sees consideration in that is a question of the individual case and belongs with a tax adviser, not in a rule of thumb.

Two figures are worth knowing all the same. For other income under section 22 number 3 of the Income Tax Act, an exemption limit of 256 euros per calendar year applies; once it is exceeded, the entire amount is taxable, not only the portion above it. And on a later sale, the one-year deadline for private disposals applies, counted from receipt. Failing to note the day of receipt and the price on that day means reconstructing both laboriously later; a tax tool with a wallet connection takes that work off your hands.

What the claim costs in fees on Solana

The network fee for a Solana transaction is a fraction of a cent, even with SOL at around $104. The claim therefore does not fail on the price of the transaction. Two other items can arise: for every token a wallet holds for the first time, Solana creates its own token account, and a small amount of SOL is tied up as a deposit for it. That amount is not lost, it comes back when the account is closed, but it has to sit on the address at the time of the claim.

That makes the preparation simple: keep a small SOL balance on the wallet before claiming. An address with zero SOL cannot send the transaction, even where the claim exists. Holders who still have to obtain SOL should reckon with a trading fee plus a withdrawal fee at a crypto exchange, and should not start that on October 20.

Our assessment: the redistribution makes the deadline harder

From the newsroom's point of view, this claim differs from many others in one respect, and to the disadvantage of latecomers. The usual arrangement is that unclaimed tokens fall back to the project treasury. At Meteora they pass to the remaining eligible participants. For those who stayed that is a bonus; for everyone else a final loss with no room for goodwill, because an amount already credited to others cannot be recovered after the fact.

The evidence sits directly in the terms: wallets below 10 MET lose their allocation, and it is distributed to the remaining participants. Against that, the amounts are small for many participants and the effort is out of proportion; against a grace period, a fixed deadline is what makes the distribution possible to close at all. No recommendation to buy or sell MET follows from this: the token has lost considerable ground since its high, and total loss is possible at any time with a project of this size.

What this case shows for the coming months: claim windows are getting shorter and the terms more granular. Regular liquidity providers should keep an eye on pool types and quote tokens before a round begins, not once the distribution is settled.

Airdrop claim: after October 21 only Pharos is left

1. Go through the addresses today. Connect every wallet you provided liquidity with at Meteora and read off the amount. Keep a small SOL balance ready for it; where to get it most cheaply is shown by our comparison of crypto exchanges.
2. Document the receipt straight away. Note the date, the amount and the price on the day it arrives. You need both for the tax return, and a portfolio tracker with a tax function handles it automatically.
3. Put the next date in the diary. After Meteora comes the Pharos claim deadline on October 25, according to our report of October 8. Anyone eligible there is best off keeping the wallet address in a software wallet used for claims only.

(As of October 16, 2026. This article is not investment advice. Prices and fee structures change; check the terms with the provider before you buy.)

Ethereum costs $2,402.96 on Friday evening, 1.7 percent less than 24 hours earlier (CoinGecko, as of October 16). The more important figure of the day is not on the price board, though, but in the options book: the DVOL volatility index of the options exchange Deribit put the expected annual swing in ETH at 51.18 points at midday. For Bitcoin the same index stood at 37.38.

From those two figures, a square-root calculation yields the range the derivatives market credits Ethereum with for the coming weeks: $2,050 to $2,756 over 30 days, $2,233 to $2,573 over one week. Where the price can point on a horizon of months is set out in our Ethereum forecast. This article shows how the range arises, what it says, and what it explicitly does not say.

Deribit DVOL at 51.18 points: what the options market is pricing

DVOL is an index Deribit calculates from the prices of its own options. It states how strongly the market expects a price to swing within one year, expressed as a percentage. A reading of 51.18 therefore means that option buyers and option sellers together are paying prices consistent with an expected annual swing of a good 51 percent.

This value is not a model from a research house and not an opinion. It falls out as a by-product of prices actually paid. Buying an option costs money; selling one brings money in. Both sides make a statement about how far they see the price travelling before expiry. DVOL sums those statements up.

Set against the past 30 days, today's reading is unremarkable: ETH DVOL has moved between 47.52 and 53.10 points since September 16. The 51.18 from Friday midday sits in the upper middle of that range. There is no shock in the options book, then, but a calm, slightly elevated expectation.

Implied volatility: the metric in one sentence

Implied volatility is the range of movement an option price assumes when the pricing formula is run backwards. The metric describes the future, unlike realised volatility, which only measures how strongly a price swung in the past.

The difference matters for anyone reading a forecast. Realised volatility says: that is how it was. Implied volatility says: this is what movement currently costs. When it rises, options become more expensive, calls and puts alike. The index therefore makes no statement about direction. It speaks only to width.

From 51.18 points to the range: the calculation step by step

Converting the annual figure to a shorter period runs through the square root of time. For 30 days it reads: 51.18 percent times the square root of 30 divided by 365. The root gives 0.2866, multiplied by 51.18 that comes to 14.67 percent.

Applied to the price of $2,402.96 that means plus or minus $352, so a range of $2,050 to $2,756. For one week, meaning seven days, the same calculation gives 7.09 percent and therefore $2,233 to $2,573.

One caveat belongs with it, and it is important: this range is the simple standard deviation. Statistically speaking, the price sits inside those bounds in roughly two out of three cases. In roughly one in three it sits above or below them. Reading the range as a guarantee is reading it wrong.

$2,050 to $2,756: the range of the next 30 days

Over the course of October 16, Ethereum moved between $2,392.90 and $2,488.84. The daily low therefore sits $343 above the lower bound of the monthly range, the daily high $267 below the upper one. Both bounds of the calculation are far enough away to play no part in day-to-day trading, and close enough that a single strong session can cover half the distance.

The weekly range is the sharper tool. The lower bound of $2,233 sits only $170 below the current price, the upper bound of $2,573 $170 above it. If the price breaks either bound before October 23, today's expectation from the options market was too narrow, and implied volatility will almost certainly rise.

Bitcoin comes to 37.38 points, Ethereum to 51.18

The same calculation for Bitcoin produces a markedly narrower picture: 37.38 points mean 10.72 percent over 30 days and therefore a range of $72,326 to $89,690 around Friday's price of $81,008. The ratio of the two indices stands at 1.37.

That ratio swung between 1.284 on October 8 and 1.526 on September 17 over the past 30 days. Today's reading therefore sits in the lower middle. For investors it means the market still expects more movement from Ethereum than from Bitcoin, but the gap has lately narrowed rather than widened.

The practical use of this figure lies in portfolio weighting. On this calculation, 1,000 euros held in ETH has to be expected to swing by around 147 euros over a month; in Bitcoin it would be around 107 euros. Bringing both positions to the same swing means holding around a quarter less Ethereum.

Open interest for October 30: the largest strikes sit at 2,600 and 2,300

The options book says more than just the width of the swing. Around 295,954 contracts are open at Deribit for the October 30 expiry. The largest single position is the call at $2,600 with 38,043 contracts; the largest put sits at $2,300 with 22,826 contracts.

Those two levels frame the price more tightly than the calculated monthly range, and they are no coincidence. Traders who have sold such options hedge their position continuously through the spot market. As the price approaches a heavily occupied strike, that hedging amplifies the move in one direction and brakes it in the other. The technical term for it is gamma hedging: the continuous adjustment of a hedge to a moving price.

The furthest view sits in the annual expiry on December 25, with 609,577 open contracts. The largest position there is the call at $3,200 with 69,667 contracts. Measured against Friday's price, that strike sits 33 percent higher. No forecast is behind it, but a bet somebody has placed, and it cost correspondingly little.

ETH/BTC at 0.0297: just under ten percent below the September high

The ratio of Ethereum to Bitcoin stands at 0.029663 on Friday evening. Its highest reading of the past 30 days came on September 21 at 0.03296, the lowest on October 15 at 0.02916. The current level therefore sits around ten percent below the monthly high and a good one and a half percent above the monthly low.

For the range above this is a side calculation; for context it is not. A forecast in dollars mixes two movements: that of the crypto market as a whole and that of Ethereum against Bitcoin. To see whether ETH is rising under its own power, look at this ratio. As long as it stays below 0.0300, a rise in dollars is carried mainly by the broad market rather than by Ethereum's own strength.

Since October 12: the $2,495.93 level has given way

In our Ethereum forecast of October 12, the level of $2,495.93 was the focus, the point at which the price had turned upward at the time. ETH traded at $2,534.63 that day.

Four days later that level has broken. The price stands at $2,402.96, 5.2 percent lower than on October 12. The level that was support then now sits $93 above the price and acts as resistance. In the options market's arithmetic it falls right into the weekly range of $2,233 to $2,573, and that is exactly where the coming days will decide whether the recovery of October 16 was more than a counter-move.

In between came October 15, with a low around $2,380. That this point held and the price came back as far as $2,488.84 at times the following day is the only technical argument the bulls currently have on their side.

Our assessment: the range is not a statement about direction

From the newsroom's point of view, implied volatility is regularly overstretched in forecast articles. A high reading gets read as the harbinger of a breakout to the upside, a low one as the calm before the storm. Neither is contained in the figure. The proof is the calculation itself: the formula delivers two bounds that sit symmetrically around the current price, $352 up and $352 down.

What argues against taking that symmetry at face value sits in the options book: the largest call is at $2,600, the largest put at $2,300, and the distance to the current price is greater to the upside at $197 than to the downside at $103. Positioning is therefore shifted slightly upward, while the pure arithmetic stays neutral.

Our conclusion: the range of $2,050 to $2,756 works as a frame for risk planning, not as a price target. Reading it as a price target builds a directional bet on a figure that is deliberately direction-free. No buy or sell recommendation is attached to this; crypto assets can fall to total loss.

Leverage, holding period and custody at a 15 percent monthly swing

An expected monthly swing of 14.67 percent has three concrete consequences for a European portfolio, and all three can be worked out today.

First, leverage. Holders of a leveraged ETH position will find the distance to liquidation in this figure. At five times leverage the liquidation threshold sits roughly at a 20 percent adverse move, so just above one standard deviation of a month. At ten times leverage it is around 10 percent and therefore less than the expected swing. On this calculation, a position at ten times leverage is closed over the course of a month with a probability well above 50 percent. Where such positions run and at what funding costs is shown in our overview of perp DEXs.

Second, the holding period. In Germany, gains from selling crypto assets are tax-free after a holding period of one year; within the year they fall under private disposals pursuant to section 23 of the Income Tax Act. On the state of the planned reform we have compiled the current status of the holding-period reform. A monthly swing of 15 percent is precisely the order of magnitude that tempts holders into selling early and destroys the deadline in the process.

Third, custody. Holding ETH for more than a year to reach the deadline means storing it somewhere for a year. A hardware wallet takes the counterparty risk of an exchange off the portfolio; regulated custody under MiCA takes the effort off it. Both are defensible, but it is a decision and not a state that arrives by itself.

What this calculation does not do

Three limits belong out in the open. DVOL comes from a single exchange. Deribit is by far the largest venue for crypto options, but it is not the whole market. Second, the square-root formula assumes that price changes are normally distributed, which is demonstrably untrue for crypto assets: outliers occur more often than the formula assumes. The range therefore comes out too narrow rather than too wide.

Third, the input figure changes constantly. The 51.18 points are the reading from October 16, 12:00 Coordinated Universal Time. If the index jumps to 60 tomorrow, the monthly range becomes $1,990 to $2,816. The calculation stays the same, the result does not.

Ethereum range: below $2,233 the weekly calculation is void

Three concrete things can be worked through with the figures in this article.

1. Note the weekly bounds. $2,233 below, $2,573 above, valid until October 23. If the price falls below or rises above them, today's expectation from the options market is out of date, and every position size needs recalculating. Venues licensed in the EU are listed in our comparison of crypto exchanges.
2. Measure the distance to liquidation. Anyone running leverage sets their own liquidation threshold against the 14.67 percent monthly swing. If it sits below that, the position is closer to chance than to plan on this calculation.
3. Record the purchase date. For the one-year deadline, what counts is the day of acquisition for each tranche. Several purchases call for a FIFO schedule; the tools for that are in our comparison of tax software and portfolio trackers.

The next waypoint is the October 30 expiry with 295,954 open contracts. Until then the $2,300 and $2,600 strikes pull on the price, and only afterwards does the options book clear the way again. The live prices and the data behind this article are at CoinGecko.

(As of October 16, 2026. This article is not investment advice. Prices and fee structures change; check the terms with the provider before you buy.)

Solana trades at $104.27 on Friday evening, 1.0 percent below the previous day. The figure alone explains little. What happens beneath the price is more interesting: the capital locked on the Solana blockchain has fallen by $670 million to $5.94 billion since the monthly high of October 5, while trading volume gave up only 4 percent. Network fees fell 15.2 percent over the same period, almost four times as fast as trading. Where the price can point on a horizon of months is set out in our Solana forecast.

This divergence is the real finding of the week, because it says something about who is still active on Solana and who has already pulled their money out. For investors in Europe, three concrete decisions hang on it: whether buying more fits this situation, whether staked SOL is sitting in the right place, and which levels justify entering at all.

Locked capital: $670 million less since October 5

Locked capital, known in the industry as total value locked or TVL, is the sum of all funds users have deposited into a blockchain's applications: into lending protocols, into trading platforms, into liquidity pools. The metric measures confidence with real money, because every dollar deposited carries a risk.

According to our query on DefiLlama dated October 16, 2026, that figure for Solana stood at $6.61 billion on October 5. By October 16 it was $5.94 billion. That is $670 million less, or 10.1 percent. Since Monday, October 12 alone, $284 million flowed out.

The outflow was not even. Up to October 7 the figure held above $6.57 billion. On October 8 and 9 it slumped to $6.18 billion, recovered slightly to $6.22 billion by October 12 and then slid again. Two downward steps, in other words, not a steady move.

Network fees: $85.68 million in seven days

The second figure comes from the same source. In the seven days to October 16, users paid $85.68 million in network fees, 15.2 percent less than in the previous week. Over 30 days the total comes to $462.25 million, down 8.26 percent against the previous month.

Trading volume on the blockchain's decentralised exchanges gave up only 4 percent over the same weekly window, to $13.68 billion. Over 30 days it was $71.84 billion, down 6.07 percent. Trading is therefore continuing on a large scale. It simply earns the network considerably less.

Why fees and volume can diverge

The mechanism behind it is well documented on Solana. The base fee per transaction is 5,000 lamports, a fraction of a cent, and it does not change. Most of the revenue comes from what are called priority fees: anyone who wants certainty that their transaction makes the next block voluntarily adds a little on top. Those surcharges rise when many participants compete for the same slot at once.

When fees fall faster than volume, it means trading is still happening but the urgency has gone. Competition for block space has eased. That pattern is typical when automated trading programs and arbitrage strategies scale back their activity while ordinary swaps carry on. A single day does not contradict the trend: on October 15, daily fees rose to $12.78 million, up 19.7 percent against October 14. At the start of the month, though, they were still above $19 million a day.

What has changed since October 12

In our Solana analysis of October 12, the 20-day line at $117 was the next target. That line stands at $113.99 today, so it has come down more than three dollars towards the price. It was still not reached: the price stood at $111.25 on October 12 and is now at $104.27, down 6.3 percent in four days.

The finding back then was a fee decline of 35 percent within seven days. That decline has not continued; it has settled at the lower level. What is new is the capital outflow, which was not this pronounced on October 12. The situation has shifted, then, rather than simply deteriorated.

The levels that count now

All the averages below are calculated from the daily closing prices of the past 90 days, data source CoinGecko, as of October 16, 2026.

To the downside

The next demonstrable level is the daily low at $103.65, 0.6 percent below the current price. Below that comes the 30-day low at $101.57. That level was last tested on October 9 and held, which makes it the more honest benchmark than the round $100.

If selling pressure reaches lower, the 90-day line sits at $96.20. The price is currently 7.7 percent above it. As long as it stays above that line, the advance since mid-July is intact in arithmetic terms, even though the short-term lines turned down some time ago.

To the upside

The first resistance is the 7-day line at $106.80, 2.4 percent above the price. Directly above it sits the daily high of $107.18. The two values are so close together that they read as a single zone.

The next real hurdle is the 50-day line at $109.36, then the 20-day line at $113.99. The 30-day high of $122.08 is 17.1 percent away and is not a realistic target this week.

The order of the lines says more than any single one of them: the 20-day line sits above the 50-day line, and both sit above the price. That stacking arises when a market comes out of a higher range and has not yet run its course.

Our assessment

From the newsroom's point of view, the capital outflow weighs more than the fee decline. Fees swing with the mood of the day, as the jump on October 15 shows. Locked capital moves more slowly, because a deliberate decision sits behind every withdrawal. $670 million in eleven days is therefore the more reliable signal.

Against that stands the order of magnitude: $5.94 billion is still more than most blockchains have ever locked, and trading volume is holding up remarkably well at minus 4 percent. The stablecoin base on Solana also stands at $15.72 billion according to the same DefiLlama query. That is purchasing power staying on the blockchain even when capital is pulled out of the applications. For comparison: on Ethereum it is $143.94 billion, on Tron $94.49 billion.

Our conclusion: the situation warrants caution on leveraged positions but no panic in an existing holding. Investors looking to build a position have a testable level in the 30-day low at $101.57 to anchor the decision to. This is explicitly not a buy or sell recommendation.

What European investors can take from it

Holding period and tax

In Germany, gains from selling crypto assets remain tax-free after a holding period of one year, governed by section 23 of the Income Tax Act. Below one year an exemption limit of 1,000 euros per calendar year applies. Exemption limit means: once it is exceeded, the entire gain is taxable, not only the portion above it.

Important for everyone who has put SOL to work in a protocol: lending crypto assets for a fee or committing them to liquidity calls for clean documentation of your own inflows. The tax authorities treat such income as other income. The current withdrawal of capital is a good occasion to put your own positions in order, entry dates included.

Staking

Staking SOL earns a share of precisely the fees that are currently falling, plus new issuance. If the fee side falls over a period of weeks, the actual yield drops even when the advertised figure stays the same. A look at the yield actually paid out over recent epochs is therefore worth more right now than usual. Providers' terms are set out in our comparison of staking platforms.

Then there is the unstaking delay: staked SOL is only freed at the end of the current epoch, which runs around two to three days. Anyone who might sell at short notice should factor in that wait before a level has been broken anyway.

Buying route and custody

Buying in the European Union has been governed by the MiCA regulation since the end of 2024. Providers need a licence, granted and supervised in Germany by BaFin. Which venues hold that licence and what they charge is set out in our comparison of crypto exchanges.

Larger holdings are best split between a trading balance and a long-term holding. The part that stays put belongs in separate custody whose access words are not stored digitally.

Leverage

Leveraged positions are especially vulnerable in a phase of falling liquidity, because less locked capital favours larger price jumps. Traders who still work with leverage calculate their liquidation price in advance and check the funding costs. Our comparison of perp DEXs gives an overview of the venues.

The next dates

On October 21, 2026, the Alpenglow network upgrade goes live in Epoch 1064. It markedly shortens the time to a transaction's final confirmation. For stakers the date matters because some validators have to update their software. Holders whose SOL sits with a provider can ask in advance whether its validators are prepared.

Regardless of that, the data remains the best leading indicator: if locked capital turns back up while fees follow, that is a sturdier sign than any single price candle.

Solana capital outflow: $101.57 decides, not the round $100

Three steps for the coming days:

1. Set the level. The 30-day low at $101.57 is the testable point to the downside, the zone from $106.80 to $107.18 the first resistance to the upside. Buyers and sellers tie the decision to one of those levels instead of to a gut feeling. The terms offered by licensed venues are set out in our comparison of crypto exchanges.
2. Recalculate the staking return. Compare the yield actually paid out in recent weeks with the advertised figure and check the unstaking delay before October 21. The providers at a glance: staking platforms compared.
3. Document the holding period. Note the entry date for every position and keep the one-year deadline in view. Useful tools for that are in our comparison of tax software.

(As of October 16, 2026. This article is not investment advice. Prices and fee structures change; check the terms with the provider before you buy.)

Anyone holding Old QUICK from 2021 or 2022 in a wallet has until early November to get the full conversion ratio. From the fourth month of the agreed roadmap, one Old QUICK buys 750 New QUICK instead of 1,000, and the ratio keeps falling month by month after that. The QuickSwap DAO resolved to end the conversion on August 4, 2026, and letting the deadline pass means losing the difference for good. Around 84,105 Old QUICK are affected, still unconverted to this day.

The DAO vote of August 4, 2026: 95.9 percent for ending the conversion

Voting ran from July 28 to August 4, 2026, each at 11:00 UTC, on the governance platform Snapshot under the title “The Future Of The Old QUICK To New QUICK Conversion Process”. Two options were on the ballot: leave the conversion open indefinitely, or move it into a final six-month roadmap.

The result was decisive. “Close Conversion Process” drew 10,121,449.62 voting weights, “Keep Conversion Process” 430,475.86. Of 10,551,925.48 voting weights cast in total, that puts 95.9 percent behind ending the conversion. The proposal text and the full result are public.

The proposal frames the step as housekeeping. More than 91 percent of the original supply has already been converted, the ecosystem now runs almost entirely on New QUICK, and the old token version retains only “extremely limited utility”. As long as the conversion stays open, the DAO has to keep a matching amount of New QUICK permanently reserved, which blurs the calculation of maximum supply.

A second decision is still pending. Once the roadmap expires, a further vote is to settle what happens to the New QUICK reserved at that point. The proposal lists a burn, a transfer into the treasury or another community proposal as possible routes, but deliberately does not commit.

Old QUICK and New QUICK: two contract addresses, one name

The risk of mixing up the two is the real heart of this story. Both tokens are called QUICK, both belong to QuickSwap, and both trade on Polygon. They are nevertheless two different contracts, and only one of them is subject to the deadline.

Old QUICK carries the address 0x831753DD7087CaC61aB5644b308642cc1c33Dc13 on Polygon and 0x6c28AeF8977c9B773996d0e8376d2EE379446F2f on Ethereum. New QUICK carries 0xB5C064F955D8e7F38fE0460C556a72987494eE17 on Polygon and 0xd2ba23de8a19316a638dc1e7a9adda1d74233368 on Ethereum. QuickSwap lists these addresses on its own conversion page, which also carries a sentence that matters for holders on Ethereum: “For now, conversion is available only on Polygon.” The conversion therefore runs through Polygon, not through Ethereum.

The split goes back to a decision taken in 2022. The community then resolved to split QUICK at a ratio of 1:1,000 and to raise the maximum supply from one million to one billion tokens. A conversion contract went live shortly afterwards, letting holders swap their old tokens at the fixed ratio. That contract was deliberately left open with no end date, so exchanges, liquidity providers and private holders could follow at their own pace. It is precisely that open-ended status the DAO has now ended.

The roadmap in four steps: 1,000, then 750, then 500, then 250

The agreed roadmap runs for six months and is set out in the proposal without ambiguity. For the first three months the full ratio of 1:1,000 applies. It then falls in three steps, each worth 25 percentage points of the original rate: to 1:750 in the fourth month, 1:500 in the fifth, 1:250 in the sixth. After the sixth month the automatic conversion ends and the contract accepts no further old tokens.

The loss at each step cannot be recovered. Converting in the fourth month yields a quarter fewer New QUICK than converting in the third, for an identical holding. In the sixth month a quarter of the original amount is left. The resolution provides for no grace period.

Where the November 4 date comes from, and where it does not

Precision pays off here, because the sources split in two. The DAO proposal counts purely in months from the start of the roadmap and names not a single calendar date for the steps. The mechanics are there, the dates are not.

The calendar dates come from press coverage. Crypto Briefing converted the roadmap into dates on August 13, 2026 and gives November 4, 2026 as the end of the full ratio, December 5, 2026 for the 1:500 step, January 5, 2027 for 1:250 and February 5, 2027 as the close of the contract. The same dates follow arithmetically from the August 4 end of voting plus three, four, five and six months.

What we did not find is an announcement from QuickSwap itself carrying those dates. The project’s official conversion page still names no deadline and describes the process as though it remained open indefinitely. For holders, that means November 4 is a well-founded date but not an officially set one. Aiming for the last day adds a risk that acting earlier removes entirely.

What 84,105 Old QUICK are worth today

The proposal puts the unconverted remainder at around 84,105 Old QUICK, or roughly 8.4 percent of the original maximum supply of one million. That implies around 915,895 tokens have been converted. At the full ratio, the remaining holdings correspond to about 84.1 million New QUICK.

The money involved can be read off the prices in the deepest trading pairs on Polygon. At midday on Friday, New QUICK traded at around $0.0067. At the full ratio an Old QUICK is therefore worth about $6.75, and about $5.06 once the first reduction takes effect. The difference of roughly $1.69 per token is precisely the quarter the roadmap cuts away.

Extrapolated across all unconverted holdings, around $568,000 stands against around $426,000 after the first step. For the tokens in private wallets, which are what matter here, the figures are around $409,000 against around $307,000. A good $100,000 therefore hangs on whether the affected holders act in time.

The order of magnitude deserves to be named openly: this is not a seven-figure sum and not a market event. For the individual holder the calculation still looks different, because the loss is not a share of some total but a clean quarter of their own holding.

Who is affected: wallets, liquidity positions and the old Dragon’s Lair

The proposal breaks down where the remaining Old QUICK sit, and that split explains why some holders will probably never hear about the deadline.

• Around 60,577 Old QUICK sit in user wallets. That is by far the largest block, and the one nobody but the owner can move.
• Around 12,263 Old QUICK are tied up in liquidity positions. Investors there have to unwind the position before they can convert.
• Around 11,266 Old QUICK sit in the original Dragon’s Lair, QuickSwap’s old staking contract. That balance has to be withdrawn first as well.

For the latter two groups the route costs extra time and extra transactions. Unwinding a liquidity position takes Polygon gas and therefore a POL balance; our Polygon analysis covers how that token is developing. Starting the withdrawal in early November leaves only a few days for two or three consecutive steps.

The proposal itself concedes that part of the holdings belong to “inactive wallets, lost wallets or holders” unaware that the conversion contract is still available. That is exactly why the question of which token version a holding comes in matters more than any price consideration.

The Binance delisting and the DAO deadline hit two different token versions

A second process is running in the same weeks, and it is easily confused with the first. Binance announced on October 14, 2026 that it would remove QUICK from trading; the dates run from October 20 for futures and margin trading through October 28 for spot trading to December 28, 2026, until which withdrawals remain possible. Our report of October 14 on the Binance delisting of EPIC and QUICK sets out the individual deadlines.

What decides the matter is which token version trades there. Binance lists New QUICK. A balance on a Binance account therefore falls under the delisting, and the DAO deadline does not touch it. The reverse holds too: a 2021 holding in a self-custodied wallet falls under the conversion deadline and has nothing to do with the delisting.

Confusing the two leads to the wrong decision. A holder who withdraws a Binance position because of the delisting, believing that also settles the conversion deadline, leaves the old tokens sitting where they are. A holder who tries to send old tokens to an exchange will find no market for Old QUICK there.

We described how the trading pair on QuickSwap itself works back in 2021, in a guide to buying tokens on QuickSwap. That text predates the split and refers to the old token version; the interface has changed several times since.

How to convert Old QUICK into New QUICK

QuickSwap describes the route on its own conversion page. The wallet is connected to the interface, the amount is entered via the “Convert” button, and the transaction is confirmed in the wallet. New QUICK does not then appear automatically in the overview: the token has to be added by hand via its contract address, in most wallets through “Import tokens” or an equivalent button.

Three points decide whether the process runs smoothly. First, the holding has to sit on Polygon, because that is where the contract accepts old tokens, and so far only there. Second, the wallet needs a POL balance for the network fee, otherwise the transaction fails. Third, the holding has to be freely available; tokens in a liquidity position or in the old Dragon’s Lair are withdrawn first.

Which wallet software suits the job, and what to look for in custody and recovery, is covered in our comparison of software wallets. One ground rule applies whatever the provider: open the conversion interface via the project’s official address, never via a link from a message or a search ad slot.

The market price of Old QUICK sits above its conversion value

One observation belongs here, and it is explicitly not a recommendation. Old QUICK traded at around $11.82 in the deepest Polygon pair at midday on Friday, roughly 75 percent above the conversion value of about $6.75 that the same token yields through the contract.

That gap should be read with care. Liquidity in the Old QUICK market added up to around $280,000 across all pairs at the same moment, and to around $103,000 in the deepest single pair. In a market that thin a price is a blurry figure: even a mid-sized order moves it noticeably, and a sale at the quoted price works only for small amounts. Neither a price statement nor a trading idea can be derived from that gap.

Only the sober part stands: alongside the conversion contract there is still a market for Old QUICK, and that market currently values the old token higher than the contract does. Both routes can change, the contract along the known roadmap, the market at any time.

Tax in Germany: a conversion is not a neutral event

The tax authorities treat the exchange of one crypto asset for another as a disposal of the one and an acquisition of the other. If the event falls inside the one-year holding period under section 23 of the German Income Tax Act, a taxable gain or loss arises, and a new period starts for the token received. We set out the basics in our article on the taxation of token swaps.

Whether a reissue like this one even counts as an exchange in that sense cannot be answered across the board. It is the same token of the same project in a new denomination, and whether the tax authorities see a disposal in that or the continuation of the same asset is, for this specific case, settled neither by a Federal Ministry of Finance circular nor by any case law available to us. For holdings from 2021 the one-year period will long since have expired anyway, which defuses the question for many holders.

Documentation is what counts most in practice. Record the date, amount and ratio of the conversion, together with the transaction hash on Polygon. For holders who have their transactions recorded on an ongoing basis, the providers are in our comparison of crypto tax tools. For larger holdings or an unclear paper trail, a tax adviser is a shorter route than a reading of your own.

We described a comparable case in September: when MKR was converted into SKY, the conversion value also fell in steps once a deadline passed, there via a penalty fee on the conversion. The pattern repeats: projects wind down old token versions, and the latecomer pays.

Our assessment: the deadline weighs more than the sum

From the newsroom’s point of view this is not a market story, but for those affected it is a clear-cut case. The proposal’s own numbers make the argument: the loss is exactly 25 percent per step, it now touches only around 60,577 tokens in private wallets, and a single transaction removes it entirely. A risk taken on for the length of one click bears no relation to the return on waiting, which is zero.

Against that stands an uncertainty we will not hide: the calendar date comes from press coverage and from arithmetic, not from an announcement by the project. Should QuickSwap start the roadmap later than the day voting closed, the first step would shift back. That uncertainty argues for acting early rather than late, though, because converting too early costs nothing and converting too late costs a quarter.

We make no statement on whether holding New QUICK is worthwhile. The conversion is an administrative act on an existing holding, not an investment decision. Like any crypto asset, New QUICK can lose substantial value, up to total loss.

Old QUICK: the conversion contract closes after February 5, 2027

1. Identify the token version. Check in your wallet or in a block explorer which contract address your QUICK carries. Only 0x831753DD… on Polygon and 0x6c28AeF8… on Ethereum are Old QUICK. Tools that show holdings across several networks are in our comparison of analytics platforms.
2. Free up the holding and convert. Unwind liquidity positions, withdraw balances from the old Dragon’s Lair, keep POL ready for the network fee, then convert through the official interface. Our comparison of software wallets shows which wallet is up to the job.
3. Treat Binance holdings separately. A QUICK balance on Binance is New QUICK and falls under the delisting, not under the conversion deadline. Our comparison of crypto exchanges shows where New QUICK can be traded after the delisting.

(As of October 16, 2026. This article is not investment advice. Prices and fee structures change; check the terms with the provider before you buy.)

The Chainlink Reserve bought again on October 15: 89,200 LINK went into the holding, taking it to around 6.29 million LINK worth about $78.3 million. The Chainlink price stood at $12.57 at midday on Friday, up 5.1 percent on the previous day. Over seven days, though, LINK is down 2.6 percent. Anyone waiting for the steady buying to lift the price gets the counter-check this week: the reserve buys, the price falls.

That is no contradiction but a question of scale. The reserve takes in over a month a fraction of what passes through the exchanges in a single day. This piece sets the two figures against each other and says what follows from it if you hold LINK in Germany.

Chainlink Reserve: 89,200 LINK on October 15, holding at 6.29 million

The October 15 purchase was reported by the on-chain service Onchain Lens; TokenPost picked up the data on October 16 and puts the 89,200 LINK at a value of around $1.11 million. Over the past 30 days the purchases add up to roughly 431,900 LINK on that basis, a good $5.41 million in money. For the entire holding of 6.29 million LINK, the same analysis shows acquisition costs of around $70.76 million against a market value today of about $78.3 million.

Chainlink reports the holding publicly. The reserve dashboard at metrics.chain.link shows the current level, so the figure does not have to be taken second hand. That the 6 million LINK mark had been passed was covered in a separate piece by cryptoticker.io on September 29. Just under 300,000 LINK have been added since then, and the pace is remarkably even.

What separates a reserve from a corporate holding

The Chainlink Reserve is a holding that takes tokens out of the market and keeps them there instead of passing them on. According to the project, no withdrawals are planned for several years. That sets it apart from a corporate treasury, which holds tokens in order to sell them when needed. It is still not a buyback: nobody commits to buying at a particular price, and nobody guarantees a floor.

Payment Abstraction: the network's revenue flows into LINK

The money for the purchases comes from day-to-day operations. Under the term Payment Abstraction, Chainlink bundles a mechanism that converts revenue from enterprise customers and from the network's on-chain services into LINK and channels it into the reserve. Payment Abstraction means a customer may pay in any currency and LINK still stands at the end of the processing chain.

For holders, that is the more interesting half of the news. What counts is where the money comes from, less so any single purchase amount. If the business keeps running, the buying keeps running. If it collapses, the buying dries up without anyone having to take a decision. The reserve is therefore more a thermometer for demand for Chainlink services than an instrument of price support.

LINK price $12.57: up 5.1 percent on the day, down 2.6 percent on the week

According to CoinGecko, LINK stood at $12.57 at midday on Friday, the equivalent of 11.18 euros. The daily gain of 5.1 percent is one of the stronger moves among the 25 largest crypto assets. Over seven days a loss of 2.6 percent remains, over 30 days a gain of 15.7 percent. Market capitalisation is around $9.64 billion.

LINK is a long way from its high. The $52.70 of May 9, 2021 sits 76.1 percent above today's price. For context that matters more than any daily move: a purchase of 0.8 percent of the supply shifts nothing fundamental from this starting point.

Weekly high $13.34, daily low $11.83: the week's range

CoinGecko's daily figures show the weekly high on October 12 at $13.34 and the lowest daily value on October 15 at $12.43. Within the past 24 hours the range ran from $11.83 to $12.76, so the low point sat well below every daily close of the week. Downward outliers like this arise in thin order books and are the real risk for holders using leverage.

As an observation, not a price target: above, the weekly high of $13.34 marks the next hurdle, below it lies the round $13 level that the price last held on October 11. On the downside, the daily low of $11.83 and the round $12 level are the points at which it shows whether the daily gain carries.

Holding of 6.29 million LINK: 0.82 percent of supply

Around 766.8 million LINK are in circulation according to CoinGecko, with total supply capped at one billion. The reserve's 6.29 million LINK therefore equal 0.82 percent of the circulating amount. The purchases of the past 30 days, 431,900 LINK, make up 0.056 percent.

That figure puts the news in its place. A reserve holding less than one percent of supply is not a market participant that sets prices. This holding only becomes a factor once it grows over years while less LINK is freely tradable at the same time. Both are a matter of quarters, not of days.

Daily turnover $330 million: the monthly purchase comes to $5.41 million

The decisive comparison sits in two figures from the same source. CoinGecko puts LINK's trading turnover at around $330.3 million in 24 hours. The reserve bought for roughly $5.41 million in 30 days. A single day's turnover is therefore a good 61 times the purchase sum of an entire month.

That answers the question of why a reliable buyer does not lift the price. It disappears into the noise. Reading the buying as a price argument confuses a structural development with a trading signal. The reverse also holds, though: a holding that grows steadily and never sells takes supply off the market permanently, and that works over long periods.

Staking and the reserve: two different sources of LINK income

There are two mechanisms around LINK for holders that are easily confused. Chainlink staking locks up your own LINK to secure data feeds and pays a yield for it. Staking here means you pledge LINK as security for the correct operation of a data feed and receive a reward, while carrying the risk of a reduction in case of misbehaviour. The reserve, by contrast, belongs to the network, not to you, and distributes nothing.

If you are after a yield on your LINK, the route runs through a provider. Which platforms offer staking on Chainlink, at what fees and with what payout period, is in the overview of the best staking providers further down. Two points count first there: whether the provider is authorised in the EU, and whether you can withdraw your LINK at any time or a lock-up period applies.

Buying route in Germany: MiCA authorisation and the difference from an ETN

There are two ways to buy LINK in Germany. Either directly as a token through a crypto exchange, in which case you own the token afterwards. Or as an exchange-traded security, an ETN, that tracks the price and sits in your securities account. An ETN is a debt instrument of the issuer: you hold a claim, not the token. That is a different matter in tax and in law.

On a direct purchase, watch the authorisation. Since the EU's MiCA regulation, crypto service providers need a licence as a crypto-asset service provider, granted and supervised in Germany by BaFin. Which providers hold the licence and what trading, deposits and withdrawals cost in each case is shown by the overview of the best crypto exchanges. Fees are no side issue on a LINK position: at a price around $12, a spread of one percent decides more than your first week of staking yield.

Custody: LINK is an ERC-20 token, and the exchange is not the wallet

LINK is a token on the Ethereum blockchain following the ERC-20 standard. That has two consequences. First, a withdrawal needs Ether for the network fee, not LINK. Second, any wallet supporting ERC-20 comes into question, from a software wallet to a hardware device.

As long as the LINK sit on the exchange, you hold a claim against the exchange, not the token. For a position meant to sit for months, self-custody is the sounder option; which devices support ERC-20 and what they cost is in the overview of hardware wallets below. Anyone staking has to weigh this deliberately, because staking through a provider requires the tokens to sit there.

Leverage and liquidation: the difference between a spot purchase and a perp

The daily low of $11.83 sat 6 percent below the daily high. For a spot purchase that is a swing you can sit out. For a leveraged position it is the point at which the exchange closes the position by force. A liquidation is the automatic closure of a leveraged position as soon as the margin falls below the required minimum. At five times leverage, around 20 percent of counter-movement is enough; at ten times, half of that.

Then there is the holding period. Under the German rules in force for private disposals, the gain from selling a token stays tax-free if more than a year lies between purchase and sale. That period applies to the spot purchase. A derivative on LINK does not fall under it, and staking rewards are treated differently from the price gain. Anyone wanting to use the period needs a complete record of purchase date and purchase price; the tax return cannot be drawn up cleanly without that data.

Dates to the end of October: Link:NYC on October 29

One dated event still falls this month. cryptoticker.io reported on October 12 on the Link:NYC event on October 29 and what it means for staking. Project events are not price events, but they are the occasion at which Chainlink has presented new developments in the past.

For the reserve itself there is no announced cutoff. The purchases have run at short intervals over recent weeks; the project names no fixed calendar for them. To follow the pace, read it off the dashboard rather than waiting for an announcement.

Chainlink Reserve: above $13.34 the buying becomes visible in the price

The reserve is a development over years, the price a matter of hours. Bringing the two together means reading the holding as an indication of the business and measuring the price against the week's levels. Three steps make sense now:

1. Check the holding yourself. The reserve dashboard at metrics.chain.link linked above gives the current amount. If it sits clearly above 6.29 million LINK, the buying continues; if it stagnates, that is the news.
2. Settle the buying route and the fees before building a position. Authorisation, spread and withdrawal costs per provider are in the overview of the best crypto exchanges; at a double-digit price the spread bites harder than the trading fee.
3. Decide custody and yield separately. For a long holding period the LINK belong in your own hardware wallet; if the position is to carry a yield, compare the fee and lock-up period of the staking providers first.

The bottom line: the purchase of October 15 is a good sign for the network's revenue and a weak one for the day's price. If you hold LINK, the figure to take from this week is 61 times more turnover in a day than purchases in a month. As long as that ratio holds, trading decides the price, not the reserve.

(As of October 16, 2026. This article is not investment advice. Prices and fee structures change; check the terms with the provider before you buy.)

Tesla's new Roadster flips through the air, jumps a row of Teslas and lands on SpaceX thrusters. The Rocket version is invite only, not approved for public roads, and not due until 2028.

Calif showed an untethered jailbreak on an iPhone 18 Pro running iOS 27.0.1 at Hexacon in Paris. It survived a reboot, but no tool or bug details are public yet.

Circle CEO Jeremy Allaire told Reuters the USDC issuer plans to enter about 40 emerging and developing markets, citing rising demand in Southeast Asia, Latin America, Africa and the Middle East.

The index provider will classify “non-operating companies” as ineligible starting Nov. 30, targeting firms whose balance sheets are dominated by a single asset.

India's CERT-In says AI agents exceeded their assigned tasks in tests and read confidential records on live Indian systems.

Binance founder Changpeng Zhao (CZ) has reaffirmed his support for XRP, ZEC, SOL and other major cryptocurrencies amid controversy surrounding Solana's expansion efforts in China.

Google's latest quantum computing breakthrough has reignited concerns about cryptocurrency security, bringing quantum computers one step closer to potentially breaking the cryptography protecting Bitcoin and other major cryptocurrencies.

Bitcoin faces an 80% collapse to $10,000 if the US stock market drops 20%, according to a new Bloomberg Intelligence outlook.

XRP takes dominance on a major South Korean crypto exchange as its spot volume hits over $145 million, outperforming Bitcoin and Ethereum.

Deutsche Bank, Germany's largest bank, is preparing to launch Bitcoin and Ethereum custody services within weeks.

TLDR

• NVIDIA (NVDA) shares slip 0.06% to $217.09 amid new AI model announcements
• Nemotron 3.5 expansion targets better AI model efficiency and inference speed
• NVIDIA teams with Mindbeam to optimize open models for its AI chip platform
• Taiwan backs a $4 billion Texas industrial park tied to NVIDIA supply chains
• CoreWeave debt pressure raises concerns about funding for AI cloud expansion

NVIDIA (NVDA) shares slipped Friday amid its Nemotron 3.5 expansion and other AI developments. The stock traded at $217.09 on October 16, down $0.14, or 0.06%, intraday. Its latest updates also covered domestic supply projects and cloud financing pressures.

NVIDIA Corporation, NVDA

NVIDIA Stock Moves Lower During Volatile Trading

NVIDIA shares moved between roughly $215.30 and $218.50 during volatile Friday morning trading. The price recovered from its earlier morning low, but faded before the afternoon. Shares then returned near $217, slightly below the previous reference price.

NVIDIA trades on the Nasdaq under the ticker NVDA and supplies chips for AI computing systems. Its business also includes software, networking equipment, and technology for large data centers serving business and research customers. Its operations extend into the infrastructure companies use to develop and operate AI workloads.

The latest share movement followed several company and industry developments across the industry. NVIDIA advanced its model portfolio, while other announcements concerned manufacturing capacity and cloud financing. The reported developments do not establish why shares declined.

Nemotron 3.5 Expansion Adds Open Model Options

NVIDIA expanded the Nemotron 3.5 lineup with several additional open models for greater efficiency and performance. The additions complement hardware that trains and runs AI systems. The models also connect to its software and computing platforms.

The company also partnered with Mindbeam to tune Nemotron 3.5 models for open-source applications. Their work focuses on improving inference, the process through which trained models generate responses or predictions. The partnership links model optimization to NVIDIA hardware.

NVIDIA uses its CUDA software platform to help developers run computing tasks on compatible processors. Open models give developers access to model components for adaptation and deployment within different computing systems. Together, Nemotron development and the Mindbeam agreement add software activity to NVIDIA’s established chip business.

Texas Supply Project and CoreWeave Financing Pressure

Taiwan backed a $4 billion industrial park project in Texas connected with NVIDIA’s American AI supply network. The project adds a manufacturing and supply-chain development alongside its software announcements. The park also expands planned industrial activity in the United States.

NVIDIA relies on a broad network of suppliers and customers across the AI infrastructure market. Large computing deployments combine processors, networking equipment, software, power infrastructure, and facilities. Supply projects consequently support data center construction and expansion across the United States.

Separately, CoreWeave, an important NVIDIA cloud customer, faces pressure linked to its debt obligations. CoreWeave provides cloud computing capacity for AI workloads and purchases infrastructure for its services. Its debt concerns represent a separate financial issue within NVIDIA’s wider AI customer network.

The post NVIDIA (NVDA) Stock: Slips as Company Expands Nemotron 3.5 AI Models appeared first on Blockonomi.

TLDR

• ImmunityBio stock tumbles 7.25% to $9.27 despite promising ANKTIVA trial data.
• ANKTIVA delivers a 71% complete response rate in a 100-patient bladder cancer trial.
• Bladder cancer responses last a median 26.6 months, with some beyond 53 months.
• Three-year data show 84% cystectomy-free survival among responding patients.
• FDA expands ANKTIVA use as trial reports no Grade 4 or 5 treatment-related events.

ImmunityBio, Inc. (NASDAQ: IBRX) stock dropped 7.25% to $9.27 on Friday, despite reporting significant progress in bladder cancer treatment. Shares lost $0.73 as a sharp mid-morning selloff pushed prices lower during volatile trading. Meanwhile, the company released long-term clinical results showing durable treatment responses among patients with difficult-to-treat bladder cancer.

ImmunityBio, Inc., IBRX

ImmunityBio Stock Falls Despite Positive Clinical Results

ImmunityBio shares faced selling pressure on October 16, despite the company’s announcement of encouraging clinical findings. The stock declined throughout the session after a sharp mid-morning drop accelerated its losses. However, the company reported new evidence supporting its ANKTIVA treatment for non-muscle invasive bladder cancer.

The company announced the publication of long-term findings from its Phase 2/3 QUILT-3.032 clinical trial. The Journal of Urology published the results, which covered 100 patients with BCG-unresponsive bladder cancer. Researchers evaluated ANKTIVA alongside Bacillus Calmette-Guérin therapy in patients with carcinoma in situ and certain papillary tumors.

The study recorded a 71% complete response rate among patients receiving the combination treatment. Additionally, researchers reported a median complete response duration of 26.6 months, with some responses exceeding 53 months. These findings provide further evidence of sustained treatment benefits in patients with limited available options.

ANKTIVA Trial Shows Strong Long-Term Cancer Response

The clinical results showed that 63.8% of responding patients maintained complete responses for at least 12 months. Furthermore, 52.3% maintained their responses for 24 months, while 44.2% reached the 36-month milestone. More than half of responders in the FDA-reviewed population maintained complete responses beyond 45 months.

The trial also recorded 84% cystectomy-free survival among responders at 36 months. Meanwhile, disease-specific survival reached 98.2% after three years, while progression-free survival stood at 80.9%. Among patients whose cancer never responded to previous BCG treatment, researchers observed a 66% complete response rate.

Safety findings also supported the treatment’s clinical profile throughout the extended follow-up period. Researchers reported Grade 3 treatment-related adverse events in 4% of patients, without any Grade 4 or Grade 5 events. Most adverse reactions involved mild or moderate bladder symptoms associated with treatment delivery.

FDA Approvals Support ImmunityBio’s Bladder Cancer Treatment Expansion

ImmunityBio secured its initial FDA approval for ANKTIVA in 2024, establishing an additional treatment option for certain bladder cancer patients. The approval covered adults with BCG-unresponsive non-muscle invasive bladder cancer involving carcinoma in situ. Subsequently, the FDA expanded the treatment’s approved indication in October 2026 to include patients with papillary-only disease.

ANKTIVA activates natural killer cells and T cells, which help the immune system recognize and attack cancer cells. The therapy uses an interleukin-15 receptor agonist to strengthen immune activity and support lasting treatment responses. ImmunityBio administers the medicine directly into the bladder alongside BCG rather than through intravenous or subcutaneous injection.

Treatment delays can create serious risks when patients require surgical removal of the bladder. The prescribing information advises doctors to reconsider cystectomy when patients fail to respond after a second induction course. Despite the latest clinical progress, ImmunityBio stock remained under pressure Friday, highlighting the contrast between treatment developments and market performance.

The post ImmunityBio, Inc. (IBRX) Stock: Slides 7.25% Despite Major Breakthrough in Bladder Cancer Treatment appeared first on Blockonomi.

TLDR

• Copart (CPRT) stock ticks up 0.02% to $27.75 following the ACV Auctions takeover.
• Copart completes its $10.50-per-share deal to acquire ACV Auctions outright.
• ACV shareholders tender 116.8 million shares, representing 68.43% of its stock.
• ACV Auctions exits the NYSE and continues operating as a Copart subsidiary.
• Copart adds wholesale dealer auctions to its global vehicle remarketing network.

Copart (CPRT) stock edged up 0.02% to $27.75 on Friday, October 16, following the completion of its ACV Auctions acquisition. The company acquired ACV Auctions for $10.50 per share in cash, expanding its vehicle remarketing operations. Meanwhile, CPRT shares briefly climbed above $28.25 before retreating amid volatile trading.

Copart, Inc., CPRT

Copart Completes ACV Auctions Acquisition to Expand Vehicle Remarketing Business

Copart announced the completion of its acquisition of ACV Auctions on October 16, 2026. The transaction combines Copart’s online vehicle auction operations with ACV’s established wholesale automotive marketplace. The combined business now covers dealer trade-ins, wholesale vehicle sales, salvage auctions, and international remarketing services.

The acquisition supports Copart’s strategy to expand its presence across the used vehicle market. Moreover, ACV brings additional technology, dealership relationships, and wholesale auction capabilities to the company’s existing operations. These assets strengthen Copart’s ability to serve commercial sellers, dealerships, and vehicle buyers across different markets.

Copart Chief Executive Officer Jay Adair identified the transaction as an important step in the company’s growth strategy. The company expects the combination to improve operational efficiency and broaden its vehicle remarketing services. Copart plans to use its physical infrastructure and international network to support ACV’s existing business.

Copart Finalizes $10.50-Per-Share Tender Offer for ACV Auctions

Copart completed the acquisition through Apple Merger Sub, its wholly owned subsidiary, following a cash tender offer. The company offered ACV shareholders $10.50 per share, without interest and subject to applicable withholding taxes. The tender offer expired at 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on October 15, 2026.

Shareholders tendered 116,818,409 ACV common shares before the deadline, representing approximately 68.43% of outstanding shares. Copart accepted the tendered shares and arranged payment under the transaction’s agreed terms. Subsequently, the company completed a merger to acquire the remaining ACV shares at the same cash price.

Following the merger, ACV shares stopped trading on the New York Stock Exchange. ACV will continue operating as an independent Copart subsidiary under its existing leadership team. Meanwhile, ACV Chief Executive Officer George Chamoun will lead the business as it expands its operations.

Copart Strengthens Market Reach Through ACV’s Dealer Network

The acquisition expands Copart’s services beyond its established salvage vehicle auction business. ACV contributes wholesale remarketing technology and dealership connections that complement Copart’s national facilities and global marketplace. Together, these operations provide additional channels for vehicle sales across different stages of the automotive market.

Copart also retained Evercore as financial advisor and Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati as legal counsel. Meanwhile, J.P. Morgan Securities advised ACV and provided a fairness opinion during the transaction. Davis Polk & Wardwell represented ACV on legal matters, while both companies retained separate strategic communications advisors.

The completed transaction gives Copart a broader platform for handling used vehicles and dealer inventory. Furthermore, ACV’s continued independent operations preserve its existing management structure and commercial relationships. Copart now enters its next growth phase with expanded wholesale capabilities and a larger vehicle remarketing network.

The post Copart (CPRT) Stock: Gains as Company Completes $10.50-Per-Share ACV Auctions Acquisition appeared first on Blockonomi.

Decentralized exchanges, or DEXs, let people trade crypto straight from their own wallets. No company holds the funds and no account is needed. Smart contracts handle each trade.

This article gathers the latest DEX statistics from DefiLlama, CoinGecko and other sources. It covers spot volume, perpetual futures volume, market share, blockchains, fees, liquidity and hacks. Each figure carries its time window, because DEX volume changes from week to week.

A quick note on terms. Spot trading means swapping one token for another. Perpetual futures, or perps, let traders take leveraged positions on a price without owning the asset.

Key DEX Statistics at a Glance

• Spot DEXs processed $273.795 billion over 30 days, while perp DEXs processed $614.25 billion.
• DEX share of spot trading volume rose from 6.9% in January 2024 to 13.6% in January 2026.
• Uniswap took a 41.2% share of top 10 spot DEX volume in the second quarter of 2026.
• Robinhood Chain posted $51.971 billion in 30-day DEX volume, ahead of Ethereum at $42.148 billion.
• Hyperliquid led perp DEXs with $203.285 billion in 30-day volume.
• DEXs hold $14.772 billion in total value locked, which turns over about 18.5 times a month.

DEX Trading Volume: Spot and Perps

Spot DEXs processed $273.795 billion over the last 30 days, according to DefiLlama. The latest 24 hours added $5.72 billion. DefiLlama’s volume coverage spans 810 DEX protocols and 31 centralized exchange venues.

Perp DEXs moved more. They recorded $614.25 billion over 30 days, about 2.2 times the spot figure. In the latest 24 hours, perp volume was $8.821 billion.

The two numbers measure different things. Spot volume counts token swaps, while perp volume counts leveraged exposure. For that reason the totals should not be added together.

Metric	Value
Spot DEX volume, 24 hours	$5.72 billion
Spot DEX volume, 30 days	$273.795 billion
Perp DEX volume, 24 hours	$8.821 billion
Perp DEX volume, 30 days	$614.25 billion
Perp open interest	$14.205 billion
DEX total value locked	$14.772 billion
DEX protocols covered for volume	810

Source: DefiLlama, October 2026

Largest DEXs by Trading Volume

Uniswap led 30-day spot volume at $90.95 billion. That is about 33% of the DEX total. PancakeSwap came second with $29.29 billion.

Aerodrome posted $14.207 billion, and Pump posted $12.973 billion. BisonFi recorded $9.559 billion, Raydium $9.443 billion and Meteora $6.49 billion. Tessera V posted $5.921 billion across 4 chains.

Uniswap also led the latest day with $1.905 billion. It runs across 49 chains, while PancakeSwap runs across 12. Uniswap Labs says its protocol has handled more than $4.7 trillion in lifetime volume.

Totals differ between sources because of timing. In June 2026, Changelly put Uniswap at about $73 billion in 30-day volume and PancakeSwap at about $54 billion. Numbers should only be compared when they cover the same date range.

DEX Volume in 2026 by Month and Quarter

The top 10 spot DEXs traded $408.9 billion in the second quarter of 2026, according to CoinGecko. That was a 26.5% decline from $556.4 billion in the first quarter.

Monthly volume peaked at $215 billion in January 2026. It fell to $129 billion in May. June recovered slightly to $138 billion.

Aggregate DEX volume by chain fell 29.0% quarter over quarter to $463.2 billion. That drop was wider than the one seen among the top 10 spot DEXs.

Period	Top 10 spot DEX volume	Change
2026 Q1	$556.4 billion	Not stated
2026 Q2	$408.9 billion	Down 26.5%
January 2026	$215 billion	Monthly peak
May 2026	$129 billion	Monthly low reported
June 2026	$138 billion	Slight recovery

Source: CoinGecko 2026 Q2 Crypto Industry Report

DEX vs CEX Market Share

DEXs took a growing share of spot trading over two years. Their share rose from 6.9% in January 2024 to 13.6% in January 2026. Over the same period, spot volume on DEXs more than doubled from $95.86 billion to $231.29 billion.

At its peak in June 2025, DEXs accounted for 24.5% of spot volume. CoinGecko links that peak to Binance Alpha 2.0, which routed trades through PancakeSwap. DEX share has stayed above 10% since January 2025.

CoinGecko says the rise was largely driven by the memecoin boom that began in May 2024. It also reads the steady share above 10% as a sign of a maturing market.

Centralized exchanges, or CEXs, still lead. They kept more than $1 trillion in monthly spot volume, and processed nearly $80 trillion across spot and perps in 2025. The top 10 spot DEX to CEX ratio stood at 23.5% in the second quarter of 2026, up 2.1 percentage points.

Between August 2025 and January 2026, PancakeSwap and Uniswap entered the top 10 spot exchanges, with $0.55 trillion and $0.54 trillion in cumulative volume. That put them ahead of Bitget, OKX, Coinbase and Upbit. Binance led with $3.54 trillion in spot volume and $13.61 trillion in perps volume.

DEX Market Share by Protocol

Uniswap held a 41.2% share of top 10 spot DEX volume in the second quarter of 2026. Its volume fell 21.4% to $168.5 billion. PancakeSwap stayed second with $80.7 billion, down 34.4%.

Aerodrome grew 33.2% from the first quarter to $44.7 billion, a 10.9% share. Solana prop DEXs such as Humidifi fell 83.0%, and BisonFi fell 47.7%. Hyperliquid entered the top 10 with a 3.7% share.

Uniswap’s share rose in a quarter when total volume fell. CoinLaw reads this as volume gathering at the largest venue when activity cools.

DEX Volume by Blockchain

Solana led 30-day DEX volume at $77.377 billion. Robinhood Chain ranked second at $51.971 billion, ahead of Ethereum at $42.148 billion. BSC and Base followed with $35.027 billion and $29.147 billion.

DefiLlama tracks DEX volume on 294 chains. This means Ethereum-only rankings leave out a large share of swap activity.

The quarterly picture is different. Ethereum reclaimed first place in the second quarter of 2026 with a 27.2% share. Solana fell 43.9% to $103.9 billion and slipped to third at 22.4%.

Base dropped 6.4% to $70.6 billion, a 15.2% share. Hyperliquid was the only chain in the top 10 to grow, up 2.2% from the first quarter.

Perpetual DEX Statistics

Hyperliquid led 30-day perp volume at $203.285 billion, about 33% of the perp DEX total. Aster and Variational followed with $63.396 billion and $63.061 billion. Lighter posted $55.099 billion, edgeX $35.326 billion, and GMX $25.643 billion across 5 chains.

Volume among the top 12 perp DEXs fell 16.7%, from $2.0 trillion in the first quarter of 2026 to $1.7 trillion in the second. The biggest monthly drop came between March and April, from $605.7 billion to $505.1 billion. Volume returned above $600 billion in June.

Hyperliquid’s volume share climbed above 40% in June, the first time since September 2025. Aster was the only other top 12 perp DEX with more than a 10% share in the second quarter.

Over two years, perp DEX volume grew 8-fold, from $81.74 billion to $739.48 billion. Their share of all perps volume went from 2.0% to 10.2%. CoinGecko points to the Hyperliquid airdrop in November 2024, and then the launch of Lighter and Aster, as drivers of the recovery.

Other sources use different methods. Quantumrun reports perp DEX volume of $6.7 trillion in 2025, up 346% from $1.5 trillion in 2024, with Hyperliquid at $2.9 trillion. It also puts the DEX to CEX perp ratio at 18.7%, up from 6.3%, which differs from CoinGecko’s 10.2% share.

Perp DEX Open Interest

Open interest is the value of positions still open. Hyperliquid carried $8.267 billion, about 58% of the $14.205 billion tracked. Aster held $1.395 billion and Variational $1.076 billion.

Open interest on the top 12 perp DEXs grew 13.2%, from $12.4 billion on April 1, 2026 to $14.0 billion on July 1. Hyperliquid’s rose from $7.3 billion to $9.3 billion. Traditional finance assets made up 3.8% of its open interest on January 1 and 21.0% by July 1, led by equities at 12.4%.

DEX Aggregator Statistics

Aggregators route a trade across many pools to find a better price. Jupiter routed $14.79 billion over 30 days. DFlow routed $9.553 billion and 0x Protocol $9.469 billion.

OKX DEX routed $7.748 billion and KyberSwap $7.74 billion. 1inch routed $2.924 billion across 19 chains. 0x Protocol operates across 27 chains, and OKX DEX across 35.

Aggregators routed $2.305 billion in the latest 24 hours. Their volume overlaps with DEX volume, because an aggregator sends orders into the same pools. The two should never be summed.

DEX Liquidity and TVL

DEXs hold $14.772 billion in total value locked, or TVL, across 2,130 protocols. DEX TVL rose 14.09% over the past month. Against 30-day spot volume, that liquidity turned over about 18.5 times.

DEXs generated $1.44 million in combined 24-hour revenue. That figure measures something different from the fee totals in the next section.

Other DeFi categories hold far more. Liquid staking leads at $61.305 billion, followed by bridges at $60.875 billion and lending at $55.004 billion.

For wider context, Quantumrun reports that cross-chain DeFi TVL peaked at $171.9 billion in early October 2025. It says Ethereum held 68% of that total. It also says real world asset protocols passed $17 billion in TVL in December 2025, overtaking DEXs as the fifth-largest DeFi category.

DEX Fees and Revenue

Uniswap collected $182.94 million in 30-day fees, about 0.2% of its 30-day volume. Pump recorded $172.67 million, about 1.3% of its volume. Meteora took in $33.23 million.

Pump’s fee line also counts bonding-curve and terminal fees, so its rate is not a like-for-like swap fee. All protocols on DefiLlama’s fees dashboard generated $65.87 million in 24 hours and $2.456 billion over 30 days.

DEXs earn through swap fees. Uniswap pools charge from 0.01% to 1%, and V1 and V2 users pay 0.3%. According to CryptoSlate, Uniswap Labs removed its interface fee in December 2025.

PumpSwap splits each trade into LP fees of 0.20%, protocol fees of 0.05% and coin creator fees of 0.05%. A standard Pump bonding-curve trade costs 1.25%. On September 23, 2026, PancakeSwap began paying liquidity providers 90% of trading fees in its Infinity pools on Robinhood Chain and keeping 10%.

DEX Security and Hack Statistics

DefiLlama records $21.065 billion in total value hacked across crypto. Of that, $9.275 billion came from DeFi and $3.69 billion from bridges.

CoinGecko looked at exchange losses over a little more than a year. CEXs lost well over $2.0 billion to hacks and exploits, and 71% of that came from the Bybit hack in February 2025. Total exchange losses came to over $2.4 billion.

The five largest DEX heists made up just 20.9% of the top CEX hacks. The largest single DEX attack cost $223 million. Compromised private keys were the most common point of failure, while smart contract flaws were the most dangerous vector for DEXs.

Losses still happen on both sides. Bitget lost $387 million in a hot wallet key compromise on September 24, 2026. In July 2023, Curve pools lost about $70 million because of a bug in a software compiler, and most of the money was later returned.

Quantumrun reports that DeFi protocols lost $1.3 billion to exploits in 2024. Smart contract errors accounted for 74% of 85 documented incidents. Uniswap Labs says its protocol has handled more than $4.7 trillion in volume with zero hacks.

DEX Market Size, Outlook and Recent Developments

The Business Research Company puts the decentralized exchange market at $44.22 billion in 2025 and $53.97 billion in 2026, a growth rate of 22%. It forecasts $120.65 billion by 2030, a rate of 22.3%. This is a revenue-based estimate, so it is a different measure from trading volume.

The firm lists regulatory clarity, institutional DeFi use and cross-chain trading as growth drivers. It also cites demand for self-custody. The National Cryptocurrency Association says 55 million US adults use crypto, and 76% of them say it has had a positive effect on their lives.

Centralized platforms are also moving into DEX trading. In August 2025, Coinbase gave US users access to DEX liquidity inside its app. SushiSwap bought Vortex Protocol in February 2023 to add on-chain perps.

The SEC request matters for US users. Its outcome will shape how they reach DEXs and the apps that connect to them.

Conclusion

DEXs moved $273.795 billion in spot volume over 30 days, and perp DEXs moved $614.25 billion. On-chain trading now leans toward leveraged perps, while Uniswap holds the largest share of spot volume.

DEX share of spot trading has doubled in two years, yet CEXs still handle most of the volume. Because DEX figures move quickly, readers should compare numbers from the same window and check the source date.

This article is for information only and is not financial advice.

Sources

• CoinLaw: DEX Statistics 2026, Volume, Market Share and Perp DEX Data
• CoinGecko: CEX and DEX Trading Activity Report 2026
• DefiLlama: DEX Volume Rankings
• DefiLlama: Perp Volume Rankings
• DefiLlama: DEX Aggregator Volume Rankings
• DefiLlama: Fees Rankings
• DefiLlama: Hacks Overview
• Research and Markets: Decentralized Exchange Market Report 2026
• CryptoSlate: Decentralized Crypto Exchanges in 2026
• Changelly: The Best Decentralized Exchanges (DEXs) in 2026
• Quantumrun: Decentralized Finance Market Statistics 2026

The post DEX Statistics 2026: Volume, Market Share and Perp Data appeared first on Blockonomi.

Crypto does not work like a bank account. If you lose access to your coins, there is usually no help desk that can bring them back. That makes storage one of the first choices every owner has to make.

This article looks at the numbers behind crypto storage. It covers losses, wallet types, costs, user priorities, and the habits that lower risk. The data comes from five published guides listed at the bottom.

Most sources agree on one point. A hardware wallet that you control yourself is the safest common option. The sections below explain why, and where other choices still make sense.

How Much Crypto Is Lost or Stolen

BitPay estimates that $2.2 billion in crypto was stolen in 2024. That figure does not include coins lost through user error in earlier years. It also leaves out the exchange failures of 2022.

Theft is only one way to lose crypto. BitPay lists four common causes: hacks, scams, user error, and exchange failures. Investopedia adds computer failure and lost access keys to that list.

Loss may be a bigger problem than many owners expect. Unchained, as cited by Motley Fool, estimates that 3 million to 3.8 million Bitcoin have been lost forever. These are coins that nobody can reach anymore.

Those coins carry a large price tag. At $80,701 per Bitcoin, the price shown on the Motley Fool page, 3 million coins equal about $242 billion. At 3.8 million coins the total is about $307 billion.

Prices change every day, so these totals are only a guide to scale. They suggest that lost coins may be worth far more than the amount stolen in one year. The two numbers measure different things, so they should not be added together.

The blockchain itself is not the weak point. Investopedia says there are no known cases of crypto stolen by changing blockchain records. Breaking the encryption by brute force would take centuries, if not millennia, with current technology.

The weak link sits between the blockchain and the user. Wallets hold the private key, and most wallets are software on a device that can be hacked. That is why storage choices matter.

Use is also growing in lower and middle-income countries. Investopedia says people there use crypto to invest, send money home, keep savings, and replace financial services that are missing or hard to reach. Hacks and thefts have grown alongside that use.

Owners often lose coins through simple mistakes. Investopedia lists thieves, computer failure, and lost access keys as the main routes. Ownership is recorded on the blockchain, but access depends on a key that one person must keep safe.

Understanding the Types of Crypto Wallets

Crypto wallets are sorted in two ways. The first is custody, which asks who holds the private keys. The second is connection, which asks whether the wallet is online or offline.

In a custodial wallet, a third party such as an exchange holds the keys for you. In a self-custody wallet, also called non-custodial, you hold them yourself. BitPay notes that self-custody means full ownership of the keys.

Hot wallets keep funds online, where they are easy to reach. Cold wallets keep funds offline, away from hackers. A cold wallet can be brought online for a short time to make a transaction.

Every wallet has a public key and a private key. The public key works as your wallet address. The private key gives access to your coins, so it is the item you must protect.

Exchange wallets are the default for many buyers. When you buy crypto on an exchange, the funds go to a wallet the exchange controls. BitPay calls this a custodial hot wallet.

Motley Fool points out that some brokers and apps allow buying and selling only. In that case you cannot move the coins out to your own wallet. The custodial wallet is the only choice.

Hardware wallets are small devices that keep keys offline. Transactions are signed on the device, which is separate from your computer. Motley Fool says some models hold more than 1,000 coins, while others hold only Bitcoin and a few more.

Mobile and desktop wallets are apps. They are usually self-custody and hot. Paper wallets are printouts of keys, and BitPay says they were the only cold option before hardware wallets existed.

Investopedia lists four wallet types: desktop, mobile, hardware, and web-based. Other guides add exchange wallets, paper wallets, and multisignature wallets. The labels differ, but the custody and connection questions stay the same.

Web-based wallets are a special case. Investopedia says they are not secure because a web service stores your keys for you. Anything that stores or enters your keys for you can be hacked, according to the same source.

What Crypto Storage Costs

Most storage options are free. Motley Fool lists custodial, hot, and paper wallets at no cost. Investopedia notes that exchanges may charge small fees for buying, selling, or sending crypto.

Hardware wallets are the main paid option. Motley Fool puts the average cost at $50 to $250. It also says several highly reviewed models sell for $50 to $500.

Other sources give a single average. BitPay says hardware wallets cost about $100 on average. Changelly says Ledger and Trezor devices typically cost around $100.

Investopedia says you may be able to buy one for a few hundred dollars. It argues that this can be worth it when the coins being protected are worth far more. The device price is small next to the value at risk.

Here is one way to see the gap. A $100 device equals about 0.12% of the $80,701 price of one Bitcoin. The math uses the price shown on the Motley Fool page.

Cost is not only about money. Motley Fool lists the price and inconvenience of a device as the main drawbacks of cold wallets. Paper wallets are free, but the cost shows up as risk of loss and user error.

Hot wallets are almost always free and fast to use. The price you pay is online exposure. Motley Fool says the odds of a hack are low, yet it is not a risk worth taking with large amounts.

Insurance is another factor with custodial wallets. Investopedia says some custodians insure holdings up to a certain amount. Exchanges have also moved user keys into enterprise-level secure storage to harden their services.

What Users Look for in a Wallet

Changelly ran a survey in 2025 on wallet choices. It found that over 52% of users put strong asset protection and full control first. The source does not give the number of people surveyed.

Convenience and ease of use still matter, according to the same report. Changelly says users pick a method based on how much security they need, how often they transact, and how much control they want.

BitPay frames the choice as three questions. How much have you invested? How often will you spend or send crypto? How technical are you?

The answers change the best setup. A larger balance calls for tighter security. Frequent spending pushes people toward easier access for part of their funds.

Skill level also counts. BitPay says less technical users may pick less secure options, because the risk of user error with advanced tools could be higher. A simple tool used well can beat a strong tool used badly.

Investopedia offers its own list of factors. These are security, fees, supported coins, custody, and customer service. A user who trades many coins needs an exchange that supports more than Bitcoin and Ethereum.

Custody matters most to beginners who worry about passwords. Investopedia says custodial services can keep your crypto and help you recover a forgotten password. That help comes with less control.

Exchange choice also depends on rules. Investopedia says many platforms ask for identity checks, known as KYC. These may include a name, date of birth, email, phone number, home address, and a government ID.

Comparing Security and Convenience

Every storage method trades security for convenience. No method is completely safe, according to Investopedia. The right pick depends on what you can accept.

Cold hardware wallets sit at the secure end. Motley Fool says offline storage is widely seen as the best option for security. Many platforms use it to protect most of their own crypto.

The price of that security is speed. Because you need to connect the device to move coins, the process is slower. Changelly adds that setup may confuse beginners.

Cold wallets can also be lost. Investopedia warns that devices can be misplaced or stolen. Water or fire damage can end access if no seed phrase backup exists.

Investopedia also says a cold wallet cannot be hacked while it is not connected to a device. Once you connect it, it becomes open to risk. The weak points are the software and the device it connects to.

Hot wallets sit at the easy end. They are free and quick, and you control your own keys if they are self-custody. Malware or unauthorized access on the device can lead to lost funds.

Exchange wallets are the simplest. They give access to many assets and suit trading. The cost is limited control over private keys and exposure to exchange hacks and technical problems.

Paper wallets are free and offline. They are also easy to damage, lose, or steal. Investopedia notes that anyone who gets the paper can reach the keys, and copies carry the same risk.

Sources disagree on USB drives. Investopedia says an encrypted USB drive can work as cold storage if handled with care. Changelly calls it risky, because plugging it into a computer exposes the keys to spyware.

Wireless options add one more choice. Investopedia says Bluetooth models are relatively safe if you turn off the connection after use. Some devices also advertise support for DeFi apps, and Investopedia notes that DeFi protocols have been behind many hacking incidents.

Security Habits That Lower Risk

Good habits matter as much as the wallet itself. Several sources list the same core steps. Most of them cost nothing.

Back up early and often. Investopedia says regular backups may be the only way to recover coins after a computer failure. Store copies in more than one secure place and protect them with a strong password and encryption.

Keep software up to date. Wallets running old software can be easy targets. Updates add fixes that raise safety.

Guard your seed phrase. It is a list of random words that works like a master password. Investopedia shows a 24-word example, and says words are easier to store than a 64-digit hexadecimal key.

Write the phrase down and keep it somewhere only you can reach. Steel stamping kits exist to protect it from fire and water. Motley Fool says never share it, and never save it on your computer.

Check every address before sending. Changelly warns that a transfer to a wrong address cannot be reversed. It also advises two-factor authentication and strong passwords.

Keep only trading amounts on exchanges. Changelly says exchanges are open to hacks, so the rest should sit in a personal wallet. Use wallet software only from trusted sources to avoid malware and phishing.

Multisignature, or multisig, wallets add another layer. A transaction needs approval from several keys before it goes through. In a 2-of-3 setup, any two of three keys can approve a transfer.

BitPay says keys can be placed in different locations. That makes it much harder for an attacker to reach the funds. Investopedia says groups of three to five approvers are common, and urges users to trust the other members.

Check the provider before you open an account. Investopedia says to confirm that a platform is open in your area and to find out who runs it. It also suggests looking for a history of security incidents or regulatory actions.

Visibility is another risk. A hot wallet’s address and balance can be seen by anyone on a blockchain explorer. Investopedia says large balances attract thieves, and an empty wallet has nothing to steal.

Choosing a Setup That Fits Your Use

No single setup fits everyone. The sources agree on the broad pattern. Match the wallet to the size of your holdings and how often you spend.

Small holdings can sit in an exchange wallet, says BitPay, though it is less secure. BitPay adds that any self-custody wallet can be just as easy to use and safer. Keys stay with the user, not a third party.

Large holdings call for cold storage. BitPay and Motley Fool both suggest keeping most funds in a hardware wallet. A small balance can stay in a hot wallet for fast use.

Experienced users often run several wallets. BitPay gives one example. A hardware wallet for long-term storage, a mobile self-custody wallet for spending, and an exchange wallet for niche coins.

Take care when you spend from cold storage. Investopedia advises moving only the amount you plan to use into a hot wallet. Move what is left back to cold storage when you finish.

Changelly puts it in short terms. It names a hardware wallet such as Ledger or Trezor as the safest overall choice. That holds as long as you do not lose the device that stores your keys.

Investopedia says a cold wallet can be worth the price for many owners. The device may cost a few hundred dollars, while the coins it protects may be worth far more. Still, cold wallets can be lost, so keep yours in the same safe place each time.

The Bottom Line

The numbers point one way. Theft reached an estimated $2.2 billion in 2024, and millions of coins are lost for good. Self-custody cold storage is the most trusted defense, at a typical cost of $50 to $250.

It is not perfect, since devices can be lost and must connect to be used. A split setup balances safety and ease for most people. This article is for information only and is not financial advice.

Sources

1. Bitcoin Storage: Top Safe Methods to Protect Your Cryptocurrency (Investopedia)
2. How to Safely Store Cryptocurrency (The Motley Fool)
3. The Best, Safest Ways to Store Your Cryptocurrency: What You Need to Know (BitPay)
4. The Safest Way to Store Cryptocurrency in 2025 (Changelly)
5. Secure Ways To Store Cryptocurrency: Hot, Cold, and Paper Wallets Explained (Investopedia)

The post What Is the Safest Way to Store Cryptocurrency? appeared first on Blockonomi.

Starknet’s STRK token has had a massive run over the past few weeks, but the latest data from Santiment indicates the rally may be losing steam.

The token surged 122% between October 8 and October 11, closing at $0.1232. It is currently up by 210% in four weeks. However, the excitement around the rally appears to be cooling, with network activity dropping alongside the price.

Pullback Ahead?

Santiment recorded nine spikes in STRK’s social dominance. The biggest occurred on October 8. Interestingly, sentiment was still slightly negative that day, at -0.51. That quickly changed as the rally picked up pace. By October 11, sentiment had jumped to +12.44, its highest reading during the move. The week’s sentiment score also climbed to 38.46, more than double any full week in the previous six months.

Network activity peaked on the same day as the price. Active addresses reached 2,823, while 1,166 new wallets joined the network. That was around 13x the recent average for new wallets. But the numbers fell sharply over the next two days. By October 13, active addresses were down 63%, and new wallets had dropped 81%. STRK’s price had also fallen almost 30%.

Santiment also found that the 10 largest STRK addresses hold around 7.09 billion tokens, which is their highest combined balance since April. That could offer some support if selling pressure continues. Meanwhile, traders now have another event to watch. Around 127 million STRK tokens, equal to nearly 1.7% of the circulating supply, unlocked on October 15. With social sentiment cooling and network activity falling, STRK could face further downside. The continued accumulation by large holders could still help limit the damage.

L1 Pivot Amid Quantum Concerns

The rally may have been driven by a major shift in Starknet’s long-term plans. On October 8, the project said it was actively considering becoming a Layer 1 blockchain instead of remaining an Ethereum Layer 2 network. The proposal also included plans to make it fully quantum-resistant by 2027.

Interest grew further after StarkWare chief Eli Ben-Sasson warned that quantum risks may emerge sooner than expected.

“Starknet is based on ZK-STARKs, it has crypto agility, and an active migration roadmap to PQS. But as an L2, Starknet relies on the security of its L1, Ethereum. We’ll need Ethereum to become quantum-safe and AI-safe, and we’ll need it to happen fast. Real fast. What happens if it doesn’t? We’re considering multiple options, including becoming an L1.”

Starknet, however, is yet to confirm whether it will move away from its current setup.

The post Starknet’s STRK Climbs 210% in Four Weeks, but Can the Rally Last? appeared first on CryptoPotato.

Michael Saylor-led Strategy could face removal from major global stock indexes after MSCI approved new rules for companies it considers non-operating. The index provider announced this week that it would exclude these companies from its Global Investable Market Indexes.

The new rules will take effect at the close of November 30, 2026, as part of MSCI’s November index review.

Non-Operating Firms Targeted

The move comes after MSCI previously considered excluding companies whose digital asset holdings made up at least 50% of their total assets. Strategy had opposed that proposal as well.

In its response to MSCI’s consultation, the BTC treasury company argued that the new rules target digital asset treasury firms under a different name. It also questioned MSCI’s definition of a non-operating company, while adding that the terminology has no basis in US GAAP, IFRS, or any recognized legal framework. Strategy maintained that its Bitcoin business qualifies as an operating segment under US accounting rules, consistent with discussions with SEC staff.

The company also asserted that MSCI’s proposal introduces policy judgments into index construction and could undermine the neutrality investors expect from the provider. Strategy asked MSCI to withdraw the proposal.

The new rules target companies that resemble investment funds and other passive investment vehicles, which are already excluded from its indexes. The process starts with a check for substantial operating assets. Companies that fail face a second test based on five financial ratios. These cover expenses, cash flow, changes in asset values, as well as reliance on outside financing. A company flagged on at least four ratios becomes ineligible.

Exclusion Impact “Overstated”?

MSCI will also use safeguards to limit frequent index changes. Existing members must fail the test in two consecutive annual filing periods to face removal. A May 2026 test flagged Strategy, Metaplanet, and Yellow Cake for possible removal.

JPMorgan analysts have estimated that index exclusion could trigger outflows of about $2.8 billion from MSTR stock. But market commentator Adrian Morris believes that this claim is “overstated.” While he doesn’t predict zero price impact, Morris added,

“Any forced selling will be into trading flow, around rebalances, etc. This will not be a market dump event. MSTR has the liquidity and turnover to absorb this selling with little issue IMO. This is a near term ripple to deal with, not an existential threat to MSTR.”

The post Michael Saylor’s Strategy in Trouble? MSCI’s New Rules Put Index Status at Risk appeared first on CryptoPotato.

Dacity Coin, a Solana (SOL) meme coin named after a token in Grand Theft Auto VI (GTA VI), jumped from about $0.0001 to $0.0029 within an hour on Thursday, an increase of around 2,800%.

The increase began after Rockstar Games posted the game’s 90-second launch trailer on X at 13:00 UTC. At around the 56-second mark, a pink biplane flies past a beach with DacityCoin painted on its side.

$Dacity has surged to a $2M market cap after “DacityCoin” appeared in the GTA VI trailer! https://t.co/rrpzJJTeEY

— Pump.fun Ecosystem (@PumpfunEco) October 15, 2026

Tokenized Take-Two Stock

Dacity Coin’s main pool had opened four days earlier, on October 11. Gameplay footage attributed to CyberLeek, the leaker (as many GTA fans are aware) behind the CYBERLEEK meme coin whose market cap briefly passed $20 million, was circulating by then. That footage showed protagonist Lucia on a parachuting side quest tied to Dacity Coin.

On its launch day, the coin traded as high as $0.0013. It fell below $0.0002 by midnight UTC.

Interestingly, Dacity’s main pool trades the coin against TTWO, a tokenized version of Take-Two Interactive (the parent company of Rockstar Games) stock issued by Backpack Securities. Pump.fun added TTWO as a pairing asset through Custom Pairs, a feature it launched on September 9.

Dacity’s TTWO pool runs on PumpSwap, the exchange Pump.fun built for tokens that graduate from its launchpad, according to DEX Screener. Trading fees on the pair are paid in TTWO, Pump.fun’s documentation states. More coins paired with TTWO launched on Solana within an hour of the trailer, data from GeckoTerminal shows.

The Usual Copycats

As expected, several copycats followed. Tokens carrying the Dacity Coin name launched on Robinhood Chain and Arc, according to DEX Screener. One Robinhood Chain pair opened within four minutes of Rockstar’s post. Another Robinhood Chain copy has traded $2.15 million in volume since it launched on Thursday.

The original Solana token traded at about $0.00138 on Friday, a market value of about $1.36 million, per DEX Screener. That price was down about 38% over 24 hours. Its main pool handled about $5.2 million in volume over the same period.

Rockstar says the game arrives on November 19. Moreover, those prices come from GeckoTerminal data on the coin’s main pool, while Pump.fun’s docs say dollar prices for coins launched through its Custom Pairs feature are derived through two or more pools and are indicative only.

The post Dacity Coin Spikes on GTA VI Trailer, Trading Against Tokenized Take-Two Stock appeared first on CryptoPotato.

The popular altcoin has surpassed $285 after posting a double-digit daily increase, sparking optimism that its rally could continue in the near term.

Some forecasts are highly bullish and even implausible (at least for now).

Just the Beginning?

TAO has performed quite well today (October 16), largely because of the market’s overall resurgence, with Bitcoin (BTC) reclaiming $82,000 and Ethereum (ETH) rebounding to around $2,450.

On top of that, another catalyst tied directly to the asset’s ecosystem could be in play. Bittensor’s team revealed the release of Null Consensus, a major protocol update that expands subnet capacity from 256 to 2,500 participants.

“It introduces a new way to determine miner rewards, giving subnet owners an alternative to Yuma Consensus,” the announcement reads.

The update also introduces optional proof-of-work registration, letting miners join subnets without spending TAO upfront. Instead of paying a fee, they can now solve a computational challenge using their hardware.

“This opens the door for more miners, including autonomous AI agents, to join Bittensor using compute alone,” the team added.

The asset has drawn numerous bullish predictions lately, and the latest price increase prompted further commentary. X user Michael van de Poppe said he’s started to like TAO’s chart even more because he sees “a clear bullish structure.”

Lucky and Sjuul | AltCryptoGems also weighed in. The former recently envisioned a potential increase toward $350-$400 by the end of the year, while the latter claimed the price has been consolidating within a massive range since the summer of 2024 and that could ultimately give way to an “epic expansion,” assuming macro support levels continue to hold.

For their part, Crypto Candy maintained that this is the last chance to buy the asset below $300, expecting a 10x explosion in the midterm.

The Crazy Bet

X user Rob Greer recently made a much more bullish price prediction than the ones above. He projected that TAO’s market cap could skyrocket above $1 trillion by 2030, suggesting the asset’s valuation “is moving at the speed of BTC, but the innovation is moving at the speed of AI.”

For now, that scenario seems highly unlikely. The token’s market capitalization is currently below $3.3 billion, meaning it would need to gain over $30,000 to reach that level. On the other hand, the crypto market is known for defying expectations, so who knows what the future might bring.

The post Top Bittensor Price Predictions as TAO Rises 10% Daily appeared first on CryptoPotato.

The cryptocurrency market returned to the green track today (October 16), with numerous leading digital assets posting substantial rebounds.

However, the day’s top performer isn’t Bitcoin (BTC) or Ethereum (ETH), but the altcoin Injective (INJ), which pumped by 27%. Here’s what triggered the rally and what may come next.

Catalysts and Predictions

Just hours ago, INJ jumped to almost $9.20 (per CoinGecko), the highest level since October 2025. The asset’s market capitalization soared above $920 million, making it the 85th-largest cryptocurrency after overtaking Pi Network (PI).

The main reason for the surge appears to be a meeting in Washington between Injective’s CEO, Eric Chen, and officials from the White House, the SEC, and the CFTC.

“He was joined by our General Counsel, Head of Policy, and Head of Research. Injective has quietly built the foundation for tokenization to thrive in America, inside the regulatory framework and in direct collaboration with the U.S. government and major regulatory bodies,” Injective revealed on its X account.

CoinGecko disclosed additional potential catalysts, including stakers’ vote on IIP-709 (a proposal for fixed gas fees), while Injective reportedly said its revenue-to-FDV ratio has topped that of other major chains.

Ali Martinez was among the well-known analysts commenting on the token’s performance, claiming its rally has just begun. He noted that the price has pumped 30% after breaking out of a cup-and-handle pattern, adding that the technical formation suggests room for further growth.

“The pattern projects a target near $14, meaning Injective could continue pushing higher before this move is complete,” he predicted.

MikybullCrypto also chipped in, advising traders and investors to pay attention to INJ “before the train leaves.” Earlier, the analyst forecasted a potential explosion to $80, pointing to a chart pattern that has preceded similar rallies in the past.

Beware the Risks

INJ’s Relative Strength Index (RSI) has risen to nearly 80, which may signal a short-term correction. Ratios above 70 typically suggest the asset is overbought, supporting a bearish scenario, while anything below 30 is seen as a buying opportunity.

X user Crypto GVR highlighted the impressive price performance of the token, but alerted:

“After such a strong move, some volatility wouldn’t be surprising. Let’s see how INJ performs around the $9 level in the coming days.”

The post Injective (INJ) Explodes to a 1-Year High: Has Its Bull Run Begun? appeared first on CryptoPotato.