Moonshot AI's approach highlights the balance between innovation and security, influencing future AI development and ethical considerations.

The post Moonshot AI curbs hacking ability in Kimi K3.1 Pro model appeared first on Crypto Briefing.

The slow progress in AI self-improvement highlights the ongoing need for human intervention, impacting future AI autonomy and innovation timelines.

The post Google’s Pichai says AI self-improvement still in early stages appeared first on Crypto Briefing.

The extradition highlights the global crackdown on crypto scams, emphasizing the need for international cooperation to combat financial fraud.

The post Chinese national extradited to US over alleged Cambodian crypto scam network appeared first on Crypto Briefing.

The surge in crypto prediction market volume highlights a shift towards short-term speculative trading, impacting traditional trading dynamics.

The post Kalshi and Polymarket hit record $2.7 billion in weekly crypto volume appeared first on Crypto Briefing.

Anthropic's revenue surge and potential IPO highlight its growth potential, but high losses and spending may challenge valuation expectations.

The post Anthropic revenue hits $16B in H1 2026 amid IPO valuation talks appeared first on Crypto Briefing.

Bitcoin Magazine

NY Seeks $1.37 Billion Judgment Against Operators of NovaTech Crypto Ponzi Scheme

New York Attorney General Letitia James is trying to secure a $1.37 billion judgment against the operators of NovaTech and its predecessor AWS Mining, two successive cryptocurrency investment schemes that allegedly defrauded hundreds of thousands of investors worldwide out of more than $1 billion.

Alleged founders Cynthia and Eddy Petion never appeared in court and, according to the AG’s office, fled the country.

“NovaTech and AWS Mining scammed thousands of vulnerable New Yorkers by telling them they were making a safe investment when in reality, they were victims of a pyramid scheme,” James said in a statement. “These scammers targeted immigrant and religious communities with the promise of a better life but instead robbed them of their life savings.”

The schemes, AWS Mining and later NovaTech, relied on promoters who recruited heavily in Haitian and other immigrant communities — through prayer groups, WhatsApp chats, and ads in Haitian Creole.

AWS Mining sold crypto mining contracts promising 15 to 20 percent monthly returns and 200 percent within 15 months. It collapsed in 2019. The Petions then launched NovaTech, marketed as a registered hedge fund broker, promising weekly trading returns of two to four percent — more than 140 percent a year.

Those returns were fabricated, according to prosecutors. Records from B2Broker, which supplied NovaTech’s white-label trading platform, show that of the more than $1 billion investors deposited between 2019 and 2023, only about $26 million was ever actually traded — and NovaTech’s traders lost $18.2 million of that. Returns to earlier investors came from newer deposits, not trading. When NovaTech collapsed in mid-2023, tens of thousands of investors could not withdraw their funds.

The AG is also seeking $134.5 million the Petions allegedly withdrew to their own wallets from the investor account Cynthia Petion solely controlled, plus $4.7 million tied to the earlier AWS Mining scheme. A default judgment entered in August 2025 already bars the couple and their companies from the securities, commodities, and cryptocurrency industries.

Separately, four of the scheme’s top promoters have agreed to pay nearly $6 million in disgorgement to victims and accepted the same industry bans.

This post NY Seeks $1.37 Billion Judgment Against Operators of NovaTech Crypto Ponzi Scheme first appeared on Bitcoin Magazine and is written by Mathew Di Salvo.

Bitcoin Magazine

Blockstream Launches Institutional Consulting Services, Opens Lugano Office

Blockstream has launched a consulting business for financial institutions and opened an office in Lugano, Switzerland, the company shared today. The expansion gives banks, asset managers and other institutions direct access to the firm’s engineering teams and Bitcoin infrastructure, Blockstream said. 

Blockstream Consulting Services will support institutions through the evaluation, design and implementation of Bitcoin-based financial infrastructure. The company said the business will develop solutions for tokenized asset issuance, confidential settlement and related infrastructure, with services spanning technical strategy, system architecture, integration and implementation.

From Lugano, Blockstream plans to serve clients across Switzerland, including Zurich, Geneva and Zug. The company said the office will serve as a hub for its European operations, supporting client relationships, strategic partnerships and collaboration with the region’s financial and technology communities.

“Switzerland is an important market for Blockstream given its longstanding banking tradition and supportive regulatory framework for digital assets,” said Peter Bain, chief marketing officer of the company. “We look to provide regional expertise in markets where we see demand for Bitcoin infrastructure. Our consulting business, combined with our new office in Lugano, will bring tailored Bitcoin solutions to financial institutions across Europe.”

Founded in 2014, Blockstream develops technology and services across Bitcoin custody, settlement, payments, asset issuance and self-custody. Its products include the Liquid Network sidechain, Elements, Simplicity, Core Lightning, the Jade hardware wallet and the Blockstream App. This year, the company launched Simplicity smart contracts on Liquid and added Lightning support to Jade.

Bitcoin adoption by financial institutions

The company said the consulting business draws on that experience, with capabilities in cryptography, protocol engineering, security and financial technology. Multidisciplinary teams will give institutions access to the firm’s technical staff from initial evaluation through deployment.

“The next phase of Bitcoin adoption is its integration into existing financial systems,” said Adam Back, Blockstream’s co-founder and CEO. “Our extensive experience in Bitcoin cryptography, protocol development and engineering gives Blockstream the technical expertise to address the complexities of integrating Bitcoin into traditional financial infrastructure.”

The company framed the move as part of a long-term commitment to Switzerland and a broader strategy of building a presence in key markets to support institutional Bitcoin adoption. 

The country has become a center for digital asset firms, with Zug’s “Crypto Valley” and a regulatory framework that permits banks to hold and trade bitcoin on behalf of clients.

There was no pricing disclosed, headcount for the Lugano office or named clients for the consulting business. The company said the Lugano office is open and that consulting engagements are available to institutions across Europe.

This post Blockstream Launches Institutional Consulting Services, Opens Lugano Office first appeared on Bitcoin Magazine and is written by Micah Zimmerman.

Bitcoin Magazine

Bitcoin Core Ends Long Embargoes for Bugs AI Can Rediscover

Bitcoin Core has changed its security disclosure policy to speed up fixes for vulnerabilities that large language models can find with little effort, ending the months-long embargoes those bugs once received.

Maintainers merged the change to the project’s security policy on Thursday. Chaincode Labs developer Antoine Poinsot, who wrote the proposal, announced it in a message to the Bitcoin Development Mailing List the same day.

“We recently experienced an increase in the number of reports for security vulnerabilities that can be easily (re-)discovered,” Poinsot wrote. “This is largely due to LLMs drastically reducing the bar to find certain classes of issues or identify covert fixes.”

How the policy worked before

Bitcoin Core, the software that runs on most nodes in the Bitcoin network, has graded each reported vulnerability by severity and timed its disclosure to match. Low-severity flaws were made public two weeks after the next major version shipped. 

Medium- and high-severity issues stayed under embargo until two weeks after the last affected release reached end of life, a span that could stretch to a year.

The extended timelines gave node operators, many of whom upgrade at a slow pace, time to move to patched software before details became public. In practice, the approach meant fixes went unreleased for older maintained versions and arrived with the next major release.

Poinsot argued that this tradeoff fails for bugs that are easy to rediscover. “The embargo period achieves little but it delays the availability of a fixed release,” the policy reads.

What changes

During triage, Bitcoin Core can flag a vulnerability as “easily discoverable,” a category the policy defines as issues that can be found “with minimal effort, such as through a simple LLM prompt.” The label is open to flaws found by other means as well.

For those issues, the project will backport a fix to every maintained major version, cut point releases as soon as possible and publish a security advisory with some details at the same time as the fixed software. 

Poinsot acknowledged that such fixes will have less testing time before they reach users.

Vulnerabilities outside that category keep the existing severity-based schedule. Critical bugs, those that could enable coin theft at the protocol level, inflate the supply or cause a permanent chain split, remain outside the standard policy and will be handled case by case.

Developer Antoine Riard pushed for an option to ship a fix without an advisory and withhold details on a case-by-case basis. Poinsot declined, writing that alerting users without details “could create more risk unnecessarily” by prompting a rushed migration among users who would otherwise be unaffected.

A summer of AI-driven reports

The change follows months of heightened pressure on Bitcoin’s open-source projects. In late July, a volunteer group of 16 developers known as the Bitcoin Red Team ran AI models across 390 bitcoin repositories in about a day and logged 4,962 findings, including 85 rated critical.

Within days, a BTCPay Server flaw the group had reported in private was exploited on live merchant servers, draining Lightning nodes.

In August, Core Lightning developers told operators to upgrade or disconnect after AI-generated reports to the project proved accurate.

The Red Team effort followed a Coldcard hardware wallet exploit in which attackers drained 594 BTC in 25 minutes on July 30. Losses across four sweeps approached $114 million.

This post Bitcoin Core Ends Long Embargoes for Bugs AI Can Rediscover first appeared on Bitcoin Magazine and is written by Micah Zimmerman.

Bitcoin Magazine

Bitcoin ETFs Lose Over $635M In One Day Following Oil Price Spike 

U.S. investors quickly reversed course on Thursday, cashing out over half a billion dollars from spot bitcoin exchange-traded funds as risk-off sentiment surfaced again. 

A total of $635.6 million left the funds on Thursday, data from Farside Investors shows. The redemptions put downward pressure on the price of bitcoin, which dropped under $81,000 at one point. 

The coin has since rebounded and was recently trading for nearly $81,669, down just 1% over a 24-hour period. 

BlackRock’s iShares Bitcoin Trust saw the biggest outflows, with investors cashing out over $254 million. Fidelity’s Wise Origin Bitcoin Fund followed, losing close to $218 million. 

Over $109 million left the ARK 21Shares Bitcoin ETF; Morgan Stanley’s fund and Bitwise’s ETF lost nearly $30 million and over $27 million, respectively. 

But the investment vehicles this week have this week received net positive investment of over $439 million. 

Investors went into “risk-off” mode after flare ups in the Middle East sent the price of oil higher. Brent crude hit its highest price in five months after Yemeni rebel group the Houthis on Thursday attacked Saudi Arabia, sparking concerns over more disruption to energy supplies. 

Bitcoin’s price has been rattled this year since the U.S. and Israel attacked Iran, halting oil supplies as ships have struggled to pass through the strategic Strait of Hormuz, where a fifth of the world’s oil passes through. 

A higher oil price can hurt the price of bitcoin and other “risk-on” assets because it increases the chances of the U.S. central bank raising interest rates. 

Bitcoin has typically done well in a low interest rate environment because it means the asset has more liquidity to rally. 

Investors on Thursday also sold off tech stocks, which had rallied earlier in the week off the back of SpaceX’s impressive earnings. 

Analysts are saying bitcoin is entering a bull market again. Data last month showed that  the leading cryptocurrency crossed above its 365-day moving average — a typical sign it is out of a bear market — following a strong run in August. 

Bitcoin notched a record of $126,080 in October 2025 but then began to sink later that month after the biggest liquidation event in crypto history saw over $19 billion in bets closed. 

The coin spent the first half of 2026 trading well below that level but picked up again in August and September, having its best quarter in years. 

This post Bitcoin ETFs Lose Over $635M In One Day Following Oil Price Spike  first appeared on Bitcoin Magazine and is written by Mathew Di Salvo.

Bitcoin Magazine

Franklin Templeton Clears Final Hurdle For ETFs That Turn Stock Dividends Into Bitcoin

Franklin Templeton has taken the last regulatory step before launching two exchange-traded funds that convert stock dividends into bitcoin. 

On October 22, Franklin Templeton filed a Form 8-A with the Securities and Exchange Commission to register shares of the Franklin US Equity Bitcoin DRIP Index ETF and the Franklin US Innovation Bitcoin DRIP Index ETF for trading on the Nasdaq. A prospectus filed the same day lists an effective date of October 27.

The filings for both funds arrived in June without tickers or fees. Four months later, the details are in.

How the funds work

The Equity fund, ticker FBEQ, tracks the VettaFi US Large-Cap 500 Bitcoin DRIP Index. The index holds the 500 largest U.S. companies by market capitalization, weighted by float-adjusted market cap. 

As of September 30, it held 499 stocks ranging from $10.2 billion to $5.5 trillion in size, with a concentration in information technology.

At inception, the index allocates 95% to those stocks and 5% to bitcoin. Each dividend the companies pay, regular or special, is reinvested into bitcoin at the market open on the day after the ex-date. The bitcoin share of the portfolio grows with each payment.

A traditional dividend reinvestment plan, or DRIP, buys more shares of the company that paid the dividend. Franklin’s version routes that cash into bitcoin. 

For a holder, the dividend stream from the largest companies in America becomes a recurring bitcoin purchase, with no exchange account, no wallet and no custody decisions.

The bitcoin position has limits. At each quarterly rebalance, an allocation above 5% is trimmed to 4.5%. If bitcoin exceeds 20% of the index between rebalances, it is cut back to 4.5% within two business days, and the proceeds return to stocks. The result is a stock fund with a bitcoin sleeve, not a bitcoin fund.

The ETF does not hold bitcoin on-chain. It gains exposure through bitcoin exchange-traded products, including Franklin’s own spot fund, through bitcoin futures and options, or through depositary receipts, in some cases via a Cayman Islands subsidiary.

FBEQ carries a 0.09% expense ratio with no 12b-1 fee. Franklin Advisory Services manages the fund, with Franklin Templeton Institutional as sub-advisor. Dina Ting, Hailey Harris, Joe Diederich and Basit Amin serve as portfolio managers.

The Innovation fund follows the same mechanic on the VettaFi US Innovation 100 Bitcoin DRIP Index, which draws from the 100 largest non-financial companies listed on the Nasdaq.

A deeper bet on bitcoin

Franklin Templeton filed for a spot bitcoin ETF in September 2023 and launched it as EZBC in January 2024. In April, the firm acquired 250 Digital and formed Franklin Crypto, an institutional digital asset division. Franklin Templeton CEO Jenny Johnson has argued that blockchains threaten Wall Street’s fee structure more than its technology.

The DRIP funds extend that strategy to investors who may never buy bitcoin on their own. A retiree holding an S&P 500-style fund in a brokerage account can, through FBEQ, let dividends from the companies she already owns build a bitcoin position over years.

The prospectus warns that investors can lose money, and that bitcoin’s price swings may affect the fund’s net asset value. Whether that trade-off appeals to the audience Franklin Templeton is targeting will become clear after October 27.

This post Franklin Templeton Clears Final Hurdle For ETFs That Turn Stock Dividends Into Bitcoin first appeared on Bitcoin Magazine and is written by Micah Zimmerman.

Put €10,000 into Ethereum staking at a 2.2% annual return and, if ETH's price stays unchanged, you'll earn about €220 over a year. That's just €7 more than the same amount would earn at the average rate on new euro household deposits with maturities up to one year, but with Ethereum's price volatility attached to…

Read the full story on CryptoSlate

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

Summary: The upgraded JST Buyback and Burn program features the following highlights: $50M Treasury Reserve Cushion: Establishes a safety buffer for sustainable ecosystem operations. Expanded Funding Sources: Integrates GasFree revenue alongside JustLend and USDD to cover 100% of JUST core products. ~$20.34M Capital Injection: Unlocks legacy surplus funds to be released in phases for future…

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 22 motion follows a 2025 liability ruling, while separate promoter obligations include Ciceron’s installments through 2029.

Read the full story on CryptoSlate

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

Eligible users can activate RedCoin wallets for payments as access expands over coming days, while investment subscriptions remain planned for later in 2026.

Read the full story on CryptoSlate

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

For covered issuers, the ordinary two-business-day limit ends at payment initiation or requested issuer credit, with external bank availability assessed separately.

Read the full story on CryptoSlate

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

In early November the next tranche comes out of lock-up at Sui. How large it is depends on which unlock tracker you ask: the figures range from 2.07 million to 22.6 million SUI, and on the date alone three services name three different days. If you hold the token, that is less dramatic than the numbers sound. Even the largest tranche cited amounts to about half a percent of the circulating supply. Three other things therefore matter more than the date: how your Sui is held, whether your one-year holding period is running, and whether you are positioned with leverage.

The price stood at $0.96 on Saturday morning. Over the week Sui has lost almost five percent, market capitalisation stands at $3.96 billion, rank 29 (according to CoinGecko, as of Saturday, October 24, 4am). This article places the date in context, separates the documented figures from the contradictory ones and says what applies legally in Germany.

Sui token unlock: what comes out of lock-up in early November

A token unlock is the scheduled end of a lock-up period: tokens that went to the team, early investors, the foundation or the reserve at issuance become transferable at a set point in time. They are not newly created in the process. Sui’s total supply is fixed at 10 billion SUI, of which 4.12 billion are in circulation, or 41.2 percent (CoinGecko, as of Saturday morning). An unlock moves tokens from the locked half into the tradable one.

The service Tokenomist names 13,147,499 SUI for November 1, going to the group of “Early Contributors”. On its calculation that is around 0.32 percent of the supply already released. CoinGlass lists a total allocation of 6.134 percent for the same group, of which 3.88 percent is unlocked and 2.25 percent still locked, and likewise names November 1. The service Tokenomics.com dates the next release to November 3 and names 22,617,401 SUI, or 0.2 percent of total supply. DeFiLlama lists a markedly smaller tranche of around 2.07 million SUI from the Mysten Labs treasury for October 31; the site blocks automated requests, but the figure could be confirmed through its search.

We are not smoothing out that range. What can be evidenced: in the days around November 1 a lock-up expires, and the services do not agree on the size or the exact day. Selling a single number as settled means not having read the other trackers.

Early Contributors: 12-month cliff, 72 months of linear vesting

The group in question is called “Early Contributors” at Sui. Its vesting schedule is described consistently across the trackers: twelve months of cliff, then 72 months linear. A cliff is the period in which nothing at all is released; when it expires, a block falls due in one go. Linear vesting, by contrast, spreads the amount evenly over many months.

That difference explains why this tranche is small for a network of this size. Sui is long past its cliff and is in the long linear phase. Dropstab describes the overall schedule as non-linear with a final milestone in May 2030. What falls in early November is therefore a monthly instalment and not a dam breaking. A cliff and a monthly instalment act on a market in completely different ways.

Why three unlock trackers name three different dates

The discrepancies have comprehensible reasons, and they are no sign that one side is miscalculating. First, the services count different recipient groups: Tokenomist assigns the tranche to the “Early Contributors”, DeFiLlama to the Mysten Labs treasury. Second, they work with different reference bases, in one case the share of released supply, in the other the share of total supply. Third, releases often sit on a block or an epoch rather than on a calendar day, which produces a day of difference depending on the time zone.

In practice that means treating the window from October 31 to November 3 as the period in which something can move, rather than a single day as a cut-off. The primary source for such questions is the project’s own tokenomics schedule; the trackers are presentations of it.

0.32 percent of circulating supply: the scale of the unlock

Figures without a benchmark are worthless. Set the tranches cited against the circulating supply of 4.12 billion SUI and this follows: Tokenomist’s 13.15 million SUI are 0.32 percent, Tokenomics.com’s 22.6 million are 0.55 percent, DeFiLlama’s 2.07 million are 0.05 percent. All three values are below one percent.

For comparison from our own coverage: at the Kite unlock in early November, 1.11 billion KITE become tradable according to our report of October 18, and at Cronos 1.17 billion CRO from the strategic reserve. Tranches of that kind move a circulating supply noticeably. A monthly instalment of a third of a percent generally does not.

Sui price at $0.96: weekly high $1.05, weekly low $0.94

Over the past seven days Sui has moved in a narrow range. The weekly high was $1.05 on October 21, the weekly low $0.94 on October 18 (CoinGecko price series, as of Saturday, October 24, 4am). The token currently trades at $0.96 and is therefore closer to the low than to the high. Over 24 hours it is down around three percent, over seven days almost five percent.

The wider context: Sui is 82 percent away from its all-time high of $5.35 set on January 4, 2025. Market capitalisation is $3.96 billion, the fully diluted valuation $9.62 billion. The gap between those two figures is precisely the part of the supply still sitting in lock-ups, and the reason unlock dates get any attention at Sui at all.

Trading volume of $324 million against a tranche worth $12.6 million

Whether a released amount moves the price depends on how it compares with daily trading. Sui’s trading volume over the last 24 hours was $324 million (CoinGecko, as of Saturday morning). The tranche of 13.15 million SUI corresponds to about $12.6 million at the current price, around four percent of one day’s turnover. The larger figure of 22.6 million SUI would come to roughly $21.7 million, just under seven percent.

Both are amounts a liquid market absorbs on a normal day, not least because recipients rarely sell everything at once. One point price forecasts tend to pass over is decisive here: released means transferable, not sold. Whether and when the tokens move to an exchange is in no vesting schedule.

Hashi, Samsung Wallet and 40 million TPS: the October before the date

The unlock falls in a month with several documented developments in the Sui ecosystem. On October 7 the Sui Foundation reported a verified throughput record of 40 million transactions per second on its own blog, measured at its Sui Basecamp conference; the previous figure was 6 million. On October 8 the same source announced the mainnet launch of Hashi, a network for bitcoin collateralisation, with more than $500 million in committed capital and Anchorage Digital as a partner. We placed both in context on October 12 in our report on the Hashi launch.

Also on October 8, the Sui Foundation reported a collaboration with Samsung intended to bring USDC on Sui into Samsung Wallet on 82 million US Galaxy devices. On October 12 came the connection of the DATA Network to Sui and Walrus, and on October 20 and 21 two technical posts from Basecamp followed. One point matters for context: the committed capital at Hashi is a commitment, not liquidity already provided. The Sui Foundation draws that distinction itself, and price reports frequently blur it.

Buying Sui in Germany: MiCA authorisation and custody

If you want to buy or reallocate Sui in Germany, the provider’s authorisation is the first point. Since the transitional periods expired, a crypto service provider needs an authorisation under the MiCA regulation to do business with customers in the EU; in Germany BaFin grants and supervises it. That can be checked in the supervisor’s register, not in the advertising on an exchange’s home page. Which houses are authorised for German customers and what they cost is set out in our comparison of the best crypto exchanges.

The second point is custody. If your SUI sit on an exchange, you hold a claim against the provider, not tokens. For holdings you intend to keep for longer, your own wallet is the route, and the differences between the devices decide how they are operated and how they are backed up. Sui is a proof-of-stake network, so you can delegate SUI to validators and receive a reward for it. If you do that through a provider, it pays to know the fee, the payout rhythm and the notice period, because lock-in durations differ widely.

The one-year holding period: why the unlock date is secondary for tax

In Germany the one-year holding period under section 23 of the Income Tax Act applies to crypto assets held privately. Sell SUI within a year of buying and the gain is taxable as a private disposal and charged at your personal tax rate; after a year has passed it is tax-free. There is also the exemption threshold for gains from private disposals, above which the entire gain becomes taxable.

That produces a sober order of priority: a project’s release date changes nothing about your personal deadline. Selling shortly before the anniversary because of an unlock date may mean paying tax on a gain that would have been tax-free eight weeks later. Note as well that staking rewards are treated differently from pure price gains for tax purposes; they count as other income at the time they accrue. With larger holdings that is a case for tax advice, not for a rule of thumb from an article.

Leverage and liquidation: why dates take out tightly set stop orders

For leveraged positions the arithmetic is different. Sui moved in a range of around eleven percent last week, between $0.94 and $1.05. With tenfold leverage, a ten percent move against the position wipes out the stake. Around known dates volatility often increases, because many market participants have the same dates in their calendar.

If you are positioned with leverage, the liquidation price, the level of collateral and the funding rate are the variables that decide the outcome. The funding rate is the periodic payment between the buy and sell sides in perpetual futures; with one-sided positioning it can make a position expensive even when the price stands still. A stop that sits inside the normal daily range will probably be triggered on a date with heightened volatility.

Levels above and below: $1.05 against $0.94

As points of observation, not as price targets, the weekly range yields two values. On the upside the weekly high of $1.05 from October 21 is the next hurdle, with the round $1.10 mark behind it. On the downside lies the weekly low of $0.94 from October 18, with the round $0.90 mark below that.

Whether those values hold cannot be predicted, and nobody should claim otherwise. What they are good for: they give you a frame in which to anchor your own decisions instead of reacting to daily headlines. Our running assessment of the price action is on our Sui price page.

Sui unlock: the size stays disputed until November 3

The date is set, the size is not. Three steps put the situation in order:

1. Settle your custody. Check whether your SUI sit on an exchange authorised in the EU or in your own wallet. For self-custody, our hardware wallet comparison is the starting point.
2. Look up your purchase date. Note when you bought your holdings and work out the one-year holding period. That date weighs more heavily on your result than November 1 or 3; the tools for it are in the comparison of tax tools.
3. Read up on your staking terms. If you have delegated SUI, check your provider’s fee and notice period, so that you know how long you are committed if the need arises. The terms are in the staking comparison.

The documented key figures to take away: 4.12 billion SUI in circulation out of 10 billion, a tranche of between 2.07 and 22.6 million SUI in the window from October 31 to November 3, a price of $0.96, a weekly range of $0.94 to $1.05. The primary sources for this are the Sui Foundation blog and the vesting schedule at Tokenomist.

(As of October 24, 2026. This article is not investment advice. Prices and fee structures change; check the terms with the provider before you buy.)

The bitcoin price stood at $80,806 on Saturday morning, a second consecutive day below its 50-day moving average. That average sits at $81,807 on our own calculation, a gap of $1,001 or 1.23 percent. Two things are therefore documented: the price has fallen through a moving average it had held for 66 days, and it remains 10.84 percent above its 200-day average. Our assessment follows further down: the break is a level that trading programmes orient themselves by, not a verdict on the trend.

For Bitcoin this is the first extended spell below that line since late summer. On October 23 the price closed at $81,328, which was $459 below the 50-day average of $81,787 at the time. By Saturday morning the gap had more than doubled, to $1,001. Within 24 hours the price moved between $80,455 and $81,939, a decline of 0.97 percent. Over the week the loss stands at 0.64 percent. The price data come from CoinGecko.

The 50-day average at $81,807 and the first break in 66 days

A 50-day moving average is the mean of the last 50 daily closing prices. The average smooths out the swings of individual days and shows where the medium-term centre of a market lies. With the price above it, a buyer over the last seven weeks or so has on average paid less than today. Below it, the reverse holds.

Our analysis of the daily closing prices shows this: from August 18 to October 22 the bitcoin price closed above that line on 66 consecutive days. The last close below it dates from August 17, 2026, then at $62,844 against a 50-day average of $63,572. On October 23 the streak broke. That is the real event of this weekend, not the price level itself.

The gap wore away over weeks rather than collapsing in a single day. On October 5 the price was still $7,465 above the line; by October 17 it was $270, and on October 18 only $83. In between, the line itself rose from $79,025 to $81,807, because weak summer days dropped out of the 50-day window and were replaced by strong October days. The price did not slump, then; the yardstick came up to meet it.

How we calculated: 366 daily closes instead of a third-party chart

The four moving averages in this article come from our own calculation and not from a chart provider. The basis is 366 daily closing prices from CoinGecko for the period October 25, 2025 to October 24, 2026. From those we form the simple moving average over 20, 50, 100 and 200 days.

Two limitations belong with that, because the figures would otherwise look more precise than they are. Our calculation works with daily values in dollars; anyone looking at hourly candles or at euro prices will arrive at slightly different lines. And the crypto market has no official closing price in the way an exchange with fixed trading hours does, so the daily value is a convention. For the question of whether a 66-day streak has broken, none of that matters: the latest gap of $1,001 is larger than any of these deviations.

The 20-day, 100-day and 200-day lines: where the other three levels stand

A single line says little. Only the distance to the longer averages shows how far the market has moved from its own mean. On our calculation as of Saturday morning:

• 20-day average: $82,560. The price is 2.13 percent below it. This line has been falling since October 10, when it stood at $84,288.
• 50-day average: $81,807. The price is 1.23 percent below it, and the line continues to rise.
• 100-day average: $75,291. The price is 7.32 percent above it.
• 200-day average: $72,900. The price is 10.84 percent above it.

That produces a range which can be put in numbers. On the upside, the zone between $81,807 and $82,560 stands in the way, a good $1,000 to $1,750 above the current level. On the downside, the next widely watched line only comes at $75,291, around $5,500 lower. Between those two zones the moving-average view offers nothing. Anyone looking for levels there takes the daily low of $80,455 and the yearly low of $58,566 from July 1, 2026.

Trend-following funds, stop levels and the break of a moving average

Why a calculated line has any effect at all is explained by its mechanism. Systematic trading programmes, trend followers in the jargon, buy and sell by fixed rules rather than by opinion. One of the oldest of those rules runs: hold the position as long as the price is above a set moving average, reduce it when the price falls below. The 50-day average is among the most common settings, because it covers roughly a quarter.

The effect is therefore self-fulfilling in good part. It is not the line that moves the price, but the number of programmes watching the same line. For private investors one sober consequence follows: the break says something about the supply situation of the next few days, nothing about the value of bitcoin. Selling for that reason alone is a bet on being faster than programmes that trade in milliseconds.

The other side of the same streak provides the counter-check. The 66 days above the line coincided with a recovery from $62,844 in mid-August to a peak of $86,490 on October 5, a gain of 37.6 percent. The market made up a lot of ground in that phase, and is now giving part of it back.

Nasdaq pullback and ETF outflows: the pressure came from outside

The break did not fall into a quiet market. Our newsroom reported on Friday morning on a bitcoin price of $81,568 after $431 million in long liquidations, triggered by a pullback on the American technology exchanges. Since then the price has given up a further $762 without a second wave of liquidations being needed. That points to selling in ordinary trading rather than to forced closures.

Added to that were the outflows from the American spot ETFs. We reported separately on Saturday morning on the more than $635 million that left the bitcoin ETFs in a single day; the figure comes from the data provider SoSoValue. For the moving-average view, one point about it matters: an ETF outflow hits the spot market directly, because the issuer has to sell the bitcoin it holds in order to redeem shares. Exactly that selling pressure consumed the gap to the 50-day average over the course of this week.

Mining difficulty rises by an estimated 5.55 percent on October 29

On the network side a countervailing development is visible, and it has a date. Mining difficulty, the computational effort required for a block, is reset every 2,016 blocks. The next adjustment is due at block height 973,728. On Saturday morning the network stood at block 972,877, so 851 blocks were missing. Mempool.space estimates the date as October 29 and the adjustment as plus 5.55 percent.

That estimate is an extrapolation from the block times of the current period so far and not a fixed value; it shifts with every block. The previous adjustment on October 16 came out similarly, at plus 5.92 percent. Current difficulty stands at around 140.6 trillion and the network’s estimated computing power at some 1,066 exahashes per second on a three-day average; both series can be viewed in the public history of hashrate and difficulty. That mean fluctuates heavily: the daily values of the past three days ranged between 867 and 1,228 exahashes per second.

Two adjustments totalling a good eleven percent to the upside mean rising costs per bitcoin produced for miners, while the price runs sideways to slightly lower. That is the second angle on the same week: on the chart a line is crumbling, while on the network more computing power is being added at the same time. Anyone looking only at the chart misses that half.

A network fee of one satoshi: what a transfer costs this weekend

One practical side effect of the quiet conditions concerns anyone who wants to move bitcoin. The network fee stood at one satoshi per virtual byte on Saturday morning, the technical minimum rate for relaying. In the next estimated block the median bid is even 0.14 satoshi per virtual byte. An ordinary transfer of around 140 virtual bytes therefore costs about 140 satoshi, roughly 11 cents at the current price.

The network’s queue held 49,019 transactions with 24.8 million virtual bytes. That sounds like congestion, but it is not: the bids sit almost entirely below one satoshi, which is why a new order at the minimum rate still makes it into one of the next blocks. The figures come from the public mempool explorer, retrieved on Saturday morning.

Network fee and exchange withdrawal fee are two different amounts

Here is where two things many investors take for one part company. The network fee goes to the miners and depends on utilisation. The withdrawal fee goes to the exchange and is, at many providers, a fixed amount per withdrawal, often between 0.0001 and 0.0005 bitcoin. At $80,806 that is $8 to $40 for an operation that currently costs the network 11 cents.

The difference is therefore a hundredfold. A look at your own provider’s fee page pays off, on three points: whether the withdrawal fee is a fixed amount or the actual network fee, whether there is a minimum withdrawal amount, and whether withdrawals over the Lightning network are offered, which are billed differently. Providers with variable billing pass a phase like this one straight through, providers with a flat amount do not; which exchange bills in which way is set out in the crypto exchange comparison.

Holding period and self-custody: a transfer is not a sale

In tax terms, moving coins to your own wallet has no consequences in Germany as long as they stay in your own possession: a transfer between two of your own addresses is not a disposal and triggers no tax. The one-year holding period under section 23 of the Income Tax Act keeps running; it does not start afresh. What counts is being able to prove the acquisition date of every position moved, so anyone holding several tranches documents them before the transfer.

How the holding period develops is politically undecided, however. We track the current state of the reform debate continuously on our page on the crypto holding period and its possible reform. Until something is decided there, the existing rule applies unchanged.

Our assessment: a level that moves programmes, not a change of trend

From the newsroom’s point of view, the break of the 50-day average is an event for short-term trading and not yet one for the medium-term picture. Three documented points support that: the price remains 7.32 percent above the 100-day average and 10.84 percent above the 200-day average, the decline over the current week amounts to just 0.64 percent, and the 50-day average itself continues to rise rather than turning down.

Against it stands the origin of the selling pressure. The $635 million of outflows from the spot ETFs and the pullback on the technology exchanges both originated outside the crypto market. As long as institutional money is being withdrawn there, the market lacks the demand that carried it above the line in September and early October. That will be decided by the ETF figures of the coming trading days, which are only published again on Monday evening, and not by the line.

What the newsroom does not derive from either is a buy or sell recommendation. A moving average describes 50 days of the past and says nothing about what happens on Monday.

The three levels for the coming trading days

For the week ahead, three verifiable levels can be drawn from the data in this article, each with a reason rather than a gut feeling:

• $81,807. The 50-day average, now resistance from below. A daily close above it ends the break after two days.
• $82,560. The 20-day average, the second hurdle above it. Only beyond that is the price back above both short lines.
• $80,455. The daily low of the past 24 hours. Below it begins the stretch without a moving average, down to $75,291.

These levels hold until the next daily closes shift them. The 50-day average is currently rising by around $20 to $80 a day, because weaker August days are dropping out of the window. The line therefore keeps coming towards the price, even when the price itself does not move.

The 50-day average at $81,807: below it, the $75,291 level counts

Three steps that can be dealt with over the weekend without any hurry:

1. Review your custody. With a network fee of around 11 cents, moving coins to your own wallet currently costs as little as it rarely does. Which devices are suitable and what they cost is set out in the hardware wallet comparison.
2. Sort out your acquisition data. Before any transfer, record the purchase dates of the individual tranches so that the holding period remains provable later. Which programmes take that over is shown by the comparison of tax and portfolio tools.
3. Know your selling route. Anyone planning to use one of the levels named as an exit settles the limit order, the payout route and the minimum amount beforehand. The routes and their costs are set out in the comparison on selling bitcoin.

(As of October 24, 2026. This article is not investment advice. Prices and fee structures change; check the terms with the provider before you buy. Trading in crypto assets carries the risk of total loss.)

Spot bitcoin ETFs in the United States shed a net $635 million on October 22, 2026. That is the largest single-day outflow since June 25, and it reverses most of the inflows recorded in the sessions before it. A second number matters more than that total: the average price at which these funds accumulated their holdings sits at roughly $81,500 to $82,000. Bitcoin trades below that, at about $80,900 on October 24. Positions held through these funds are under water as a result, and that level decides whether the selling pressure persists.

For investors in Germany, one layer is missing from the American reports. The funds losing money here are, as a rule, not available to buy. What sits in a German brokerage account is almost always a crypto ETN, and that product carries its own rules on tax, custody and deadlines. One of those deadlines expires in seven weeks.

$635 million in a single day: the largest outflow since June 25

The figure comes from the flow data that SoSoValue tracks for the twelve American spot bitcoin ETFs. Depending on the rounding, the firms that analyse the data cite $635 million to $636 million; the most precise reading is $635.49 million. The last larger daily outflow dates back four months: on June 25, 2026, the same funds gave up $696 million in a day.

The speed of the reversal is what stands out. In the sessions before it, the funds had been taking in money by the billion. According to the analysis by Crypto Briefing, the October 22 outflow undoes roughly 60 percent of the inflows of the three preceding trading days. A single day does not overturn a yearly balance. It does end the streak, and it falls in a week when worries about American technology stocks and the situation in the Middle East were already weighing on prices.

What a net outflow measures, and what it does not

A net outflow is the difference between newly created and redeemed fund shares, counted in dollars. It says how much money a fund had to release on a given day. It does not say how many investors sold, because purchases and sales inside exchange trading cancel each other out. Only when an authorised participant returns shares to the fund does that fund actually have to sell bitcoin. The outflow is therefore a gauge of pressure on the price rather than a reading of retail sentiment.

IBIT and FBTC account for 74 percent of the daily outflow

The largest single item falls to BlackRock’s iShares Bitcoin Trust, at roughly $254 million. Next comes Fidelity’s Wise Origin Bitcoin Fund with $217.46 million. Together that makes about $471.5 million, a good 74 percent of the entire daily outflow.

Five of the twelve funds registered an outflow at all. Exactly one took in money, the bitcoin fund run by Morgan Stanley, with $2.33 million. This is not a retreat across the board; it is the work of two large addresses. At BlackRock the change of direction is especially sharp, because the same fund had absorbed some $235 million in the session before.

Cost basis of $81,500 to $82,000: the ETF holdings sit at a loss

The firms analysing the data cite different values for the average entry level of the fund holdings. Crypto Briefing puts it at about $82,000, other analyses at around $81,500. The range stands because both values are estimates drawn from the same flow data and differ in the period and the set of funds they cover.

The direction is what counts, and it is the same in both variants. Bitcoin trades at roughly $80,900 and therefore below either mark. Anyone invested through these funds is sitting on an average loss, and that is the situation in which institutional mandates have to think about risk limits.

Bitcoin is thus almost 36 percent away from the all-time high of $126,080 set on October 6, 2025. Over the week, by contrast, the price has barely moved: the loss stands at 1.1 percent. The outflow is not hitting a falling market, then, but one that has been drifting sideways for days. The routes into a German portfolio are set out in the overview of crypto ETFs in Germany.

Cost basis explained: the average purchase price of all fund shares

The cost basis of an ETF is the volume-weighted average price at which the fund has acquired its holdings over its entire life. It is the threshold above which the sum of all fund shares is nominally in profit.

This level is not a chart resistance; it appears in no price history. It works indirectly, through reporting duties and loss limits: asset managers and pension mandates have to justify positions that are under water, and some house rules prescribe a reduction beyond a certain loss. The longer the price stays below the cost basis, the more such rules take effect.

October turns negative: a net $174.5 million outflow for the month

October 22 tipped the monthly balance. Before that day, the American spot bitcoin ETFs were still positive for October; afterwards the month shows a net outflow of about $174.5 million. Some firms round that to $175 million.

Over the week, the balance was still positive at that point, with roughly $443 million of inflows. The two numbers do not contradict each other: the week contains the strong inflow days, while the month also contains the weak days from the first half of October. Which of the two you read therefore decides almost on its own whether the month looks good or bad.

Why monthly ETF figures can mislead

Fund flows are markedly skewed. A few large days carry most of the total, and a single reversal such as that of October 22 is enough to flip the sign of an entire month. A monthly balance close to zero says less about demand than the question of how many days in the month brought inflows at all.

$57.32 billion cumulative: the holdings remain large despite the outflow

Since the funds launched, net inflows add up to about $57.32 billion, and net assets under management stand at roughly $104.71 billion. The daily outflow of $635 million amounts to some 0.6 percent of those assets.

One figure catches the eye: the iShares fund alone reports cumulative net inflows of $66.244 billion, more than the fund group as a whole. That is not an arithmetic error. Other products, above all the oldest fund, converted from a trust, have booked heavy outflows since approval and drag the group figure down. The shift between providers is therefore larger than the movement of the group overall.

US spot ETF or crypto ETN: what actually sits in a German account

The funds this report is about are, as a rule, closed to German retail investors. The reason lies in European fund law: a fund under the UCITS directive has to spread its assets and may not invest in a single asset. A pure bitcoin fund does not meet that test. On top, the American products usually lack the key information document required for distribution to retail investors in the EU.

What sits in German accounts instead is almost always a crypto ETN, also called a crypto ETP. An ETN is an exchange-traded debt security issued by a provider, whose value tracks the price of the underlying. Many of these notes are physically backed with bitcoin; legally they remain a claim against the issuer rather than ring-fenced fund assets.

That means a distinction that becomes practical in outflows like this one. The price of your ETN follows the bitcoin price and therefore reacts to the selling pressure the American funds set off. The inflow and outflow figures themselves do not touch your note: your ETN has its own issuer, its own collateral and its own trading volume. A closer look pays off at the collateral ratio, the name of the issuer and the question of whether delivery of the underlying coins is provided for. Holding positions across several routes makes it easy to lose track of which part falls under which rule; tax tools and portfolio trackers help there, pulling account and wallet into a single statement.

The one-year holding period: it does not apply to a crypto ETN

Here lies the difference that costs the most money in Germany. Directly held bitcoin falls under private disposals pursuant to section 23 of the Income Tax Act. Sell it after more than a year of holding and the gain is tax-free, whatever its size.

A crypto ETN is a security for tax purposes. Gains from it count as investment income and are subject to the flat-rate withholding tax of 25 percent plus the solidarity surcharge and, where applicable, church tax. There is no holding period after which the tax falls away; it was abolished for securities when the withholding tax was introduced.

This asymmetry cuts both ways. In profit, directly held bitcoin has the advantage after a year. In loss, the ETN does, because a loss on a security can be offset against investment income, while a loss on directly held bitcoin stands only against gains from other private disposals. Anyone sitting below the cost basis right now should know which of the two regimes their position falls into.

Where the holding-period reform stands

Whether the one-year period for crypto assets survives is the subject of an ongoing political debate. Until a new rule appears in the Federal Law Gazette, the existing legal position continues to apply unchanged. Plan with the deadline that is in the law today, not with one that has been announced.

Loss certificate: the application must reach the bank by December 15

If your crypto ETN is in the red and you have realised the loss, your bank carries it in its own loss-offset pot. There it can only be set against investment income from the same institution. If you have gains at another bank, you need a loss certificate to claim the loss across institutions in your tax return.

The application for it is tied to a deadline and must reach the institution holding the account by December 15 of the current year. The deadline cannot be extended, and this year it falls on a Monday. Miss it and the loss is not gone, but it stays in the pot of that one bank and waits for future gains there.

A second point belongs in the same review: the exemption order. The saver’s allowance is 1,000 euros per person and only works when it is spread across the accounts where the investment income actually arises. An order at the wrong bank does not help.

Custody with an ETN: you hold a debt security, not coins

With a crypto ETN the issuer risk sits with you. If the issuer becomes insolvent you are a creditor, even when the note is physically backed; how well you fare then depends on the trust structure of the particular product. Ring-fenced assets, as in a fund under the UCITS directive, do not arise.

With directly held bitcoin, custody carries the risk instead. If the coins sit at an exchange, your access depends on its solvency and its licence. If they sit in your own wallet, everything depends on the key. Both routes have their price, and both call for a decision better taken before the next outflow than after it.

What is on the calendar in the coming weeks

Two dates structure the rest of the year. December 15 is the last day for the loss certificate. December 31 decides which tax year a realised gain or loss lands in. With directly held bitcoin your personal purchase date comes in as a third date, because the one-year period hangs on it.

Bitcoin ETF outflow: three steps before December 15

1. Establish which regime you are in. Look at your brokerage statement and at your wallet and separate the two: a crypto ETN in the account falls under the withholding tax, directly held bitcoin under the one-year period. Where you buy plays into that, and the differences show up in the comparison of the best crypto exchanges.
2. Check the issuer and the licence of your product. For an ETN, note the issuer and the collateral; for an exchange, the authorisation under the European crypto regulation. Which providers hold such an authorisation is set out in the overview of regulated crypto exchanges.
3. Decide on the loss certificate and on custody by December 15. If you have gains at another bank, file the application in good time. And settle whether your directly held coins stay on an exchange or move into your own custody; the devices for that are listed in the hardware wallet comparison.

Bitcoin ETFs and your portfolio: what to take away

The American spot bitcoin ETFs released a net $635 million on October 22, 2026, the largest daily amount since June 25, and BlackRock and Fidelity account for about 74 percent of it. The bitcoin price stands at roughly $80,900 and therefore below the funds’ estimated cost basis of $81,500 to $82,000.

For your portfolio in Germany, what counts above all is the legal form of your position. With a crypto ETN the withholding tax applies without a holding period, and December 15 is the last day on which you can apply for a loss certificate. With directly held bitcoin the one-year period applies, and the gain is tax-free after that.

(As of October 24, 2026. This article is not investment advice. Prices and fee structures change; check the terms with the provider before you buy.)

The test fork that Ethereum developers had been working towards since early October is not happening. On October 22, the core developers cancelled the activation of the Glamsterdam upgrade on the Hoodi testnet planned for Monday, October 26. The reason is not a bug in the software but a security finding from the audit firm ChainSecurity concerning two improvement proposals that form part of the upgrade. No replacement date has been set, either for Hoodi or for the mainnet.

If you hold Ether, nothing changes in day-to-day terms for now. Anyone running a node, operating a validator or testing applications on Hoodi, by contrast, has to adjust the calendar and check their software versions. This article sets out what exactly was cancelled, why the auditors raised the alarm and which date is realistically on the table now.

Hoodi fork cancelled: October 26 is off

Glamsterdam was due to take effect on Hoodi on October 26 at 17:42:48 UTC, at Hoodi epoch 132,352. That activation has been removed from the revised configuration. Cancelled along with it are the activation of the Amsterdam execution layer and that of the Gloas consensus layer. The planned increase of the Hoodi gas limit to 200 million units has also been withdrawn.

The cancellation affects future configurations only. Whatever has already been recorded in blocks on Hoodi stays as it is; nothing is being rolled back. Equally untouched is the Glamsterdam fork on the Sepolia testnet, which took place on October 6 and has been running since.

What a testnet fork actually achieves

A testnet is a full copy of the Ethereum blockchain that works with worthless tokens. Hoodi has served since spring 2026 as the last stage before the mainnet: this is where client teams and staking providers check under realistic conditions whether their software survives a fork. If such a test falls through, everything that follows necessarily shifts. The mainnet date hangs on the testnet date, not the other way round.

EIP-8037 changes how new storage is charged for gas

Gas is the unit of account with which Ethereum measures and prices the effort of a transaction. EIP-8037 is titled «State Creation Gas Cost Increase» and makes creating new data on the blockchain more expensive. To that end it introduces a price per byte, which it puts at 1,530 gas, and accounts for the cost of creating storage separately from the rest of execution. Transaction and block limits therefore apply per dimension rather than to a shared pool.

According to the official EIP page, the proposal is at «Last Call» status with a deadline of November 1, 2026. It depends on EIP-8038, which redefines the cost values for accesses to existing storage. Those values are not yet final according to the same page. The two proposals together were to take effect with Glamsterdam.

Gas prices as the basis of security checks

Gas prices in Ethereum are not purely a question of fees. Many contracts read during execution how much gas is left and derive a decision from it. If an upgrade shifts those values, it shifts the basis of such decisions with them. That is exactly where the finding comes in.

Insufficient gas griefing: the attack route ChainSecurity describes

ChainSecurity published its analysis on October 13. Insufficient gas griefing refers to an attack in which someone deliberately sends too little gas so that an otherwise legitimate operation fails. Contracts traditionally defend themselves against this by checking the remaining gas: if there is still enough, the failure was genuine; if hardly any is left, too little was probably supplied, and the operation may be repeated.

Under the new rules, more gas can flow back to the calling contract after a failed external call than before. The contract then carries on where it would previously have stopped, and its check reaches the wrong conclusion. According to Cointelegraph, the auditors warned that the changes could disrupt existing security checks that rely on the remaining gas.

The audit firm describes the practical consequences as permanent: an application could book a failed operation as definitively failed, delete a user's claim or block a retry. Affected above all are bundled transactions and payouts, that is, sequences in which several steps hang together and the behaviour in the error case decides the outcome.

13 affected contracts and the confidential disclosure

ChainSecurity states it has found 13 examples of this pattern in contracts already live. Which applications those are is not public. The firm says it is working with the affected teams under a confidential disclosure, the usual procedure in which developers get time to fix things before details become known.

That approach explains why the developers stopped the test run instead of pushing it through. A fork on Hoodi would have armed the new gas rules in an environment where teams mirror their production logic. As long as it is unclear how many contracts in the mainnet carry the same pattern, every further step would be a bet on a number nobody knows.

Gloas, Amsterdam and the 200 million gas limit are on hold

Glamsterdam bundles several changes. On the consensus layer there is Gloas, on the execution layer Amsterdam. Its content includes the separation of block proposal and block building, fixed in the protocol itself, as well as block-level access lists. Both building blocks aim to make block building more predictable and to decouple validators' work from specialised builders.

Raising the gas limit to 200 million was the most visible part of the Hoodi test. On Sepolia, Glamsterdam has been running with an increased limit since October 6. A higher gas limit means more computation per block and therefore more throughput, but it also raises the demands on node operators' hardware. That is precisely why it is trialled in stages and on testnets before it goes to the mainnet.

On the mainnet, operations continue unchanged

The mainnet runs on unchanged. On the account of the reports cited, the Ethereum Foundation has not stated that this upgrade would have damaged the mainnet, and there is no indication of a problem in live operation. Anyone holding Ether in a wallet of their own, keeping it with an exchange or staking through a provider does not have to change anything because of this decision.

Ether trades at around 2,370 dollars on October 24, in the range of recent days. No price reaction to the cancellation can be read out of the data; the market moved in step with Bitcoin and the US equity indices during this period. If you have followed the roadmap to this point, the state of play before the cancellation is in our October 22 article on the planned Hoodi fork and the 200 million gas limit. October 26 still stood as the date there; that is the point which has now lapsed.

Staking through a provider: the role of the service

Staking Ether through an exchange or a specialist service means not carrying the client risk yourself. The provider updates its software and is contractually liable for operations. What stays relevant is how transparently it communicates such dates and how quickly it reacts to a postponed fork. An overview of the terms and conditions of the common providers is in our staking platform comparison, including the lock-up periods that decide, when it matters, how mobile your holdings are.

Solo stakers and node operators: the client versions by October 26

The case is different for everyone running software themselves. If a client or a configuration of your own keeps the old activation time, it heads on Hoodi towards a fork the rest of the network is not taking part in. The result would be a split from the current state, with all the consequences for syncing and validator operation.

For that reason the update by October 26 still applies even though the fork is off: the new versions carry the cleaned-up configuration. According to the revised overview, that means Lodestar in version 1.50.1 on the consensus layer and Besu 26.10.1 as well as Nethermind 2.2.1 on the execution layer; Ethrex is available as pre-release 30.0.1-rc.2. Instructions for the remaining clients were still outstanding at the time of reporting. Affected alongside the execution and consensus client are the validator client and external block-building infrastructure.

Application developers and the test calendar

Teams that wanted to test their contracts against Glamsterdam have lost their basis. The developers have expressly asked that tests no longer be planned around the cancelled date. Anyone running contracts that read the remaining gas to decide on a retry should review that logic regardless of the fork date. ChainSecurity's findings describe a pattern, not a one-off.

The December date for the mainnet is open

Before the cancellation, according to consistent reports, the developers had discussed December 1, 8 and 9 as possible mainnet dates. None of them was confirmed. The agenda of the October 22 meeting provided for choosing a date the following week, provided the Hoodi test succeeded. That condition has not been met.

A single report names a revised Hoodi date after Devcon in early November and still considers a mainnet launch in December possible. The other sources do not confirm that statement, so it should be read with caution. All that is solid so far is that no new date has been set.

Realistically, the timetable hangs on two questions: how quickly the affected projects adjust their contracts, and whether the developers refine the gas rules so that the old checks still hold. Neither can be pinned to a date. With Fusaka last December, several weeks lay between the final testnet fork and the mainnet launch; a similar span would be no surprise here either.

Enshrined PBS and block-level access lists: what Glamsterdam contains

Behind the two technical terms lie two strategic choices. Enshrined proposer-builder separation anchors in the protocol itself what today runs through voluntary software: the separation between the validator proposing a block and the service assembling it. Block-level access lists announce in advance which data a block will touch, so that clients can do parts of the work in parallel.

Both aim at robustness rather than at visible new features for end users. For investors, Glamsterdam is therefore less an event with price impact than a building block in the network's long-term development. A delay of a few weeks changes little about that reading, but it does show that the developers put security findings ahead of the timetable.

Glamsterdam cancellation: without a replacement date the December fork stays open

1. Check your software version if you run things yourself. Update the execution, consensus and validator client to the versions named and make sure no configuration of your own carries October 26 as the activation time. If you leave staking to a service, the providers' terms are in the staking comparison.
2. Separate custody and trading. The cancellation does not touch your holdings, but it is still a good occasion to take stock. Which devices are suitable for self-custody is shown in the hardware wallet comparison.
3. Watch the calendar, not the price. The next solid step is a new Hoodi date. If you want to buy more or rearrange in this phase, compare the fees and deposit routes of the crypto exchanges first, rather than betting on a fork rally nobody has scheduled.

(As of October 24, 2026. This article is not investment advice. Prices and fee structures change; check the terms with the provider before you buy.)

Sophon is shutting down its Ethereum layer-2 blockchain, and anyone still holding a balance there has to get it out by November 25, according to the project. After that, infrastructure and websites begin shutting down, and on November 30 the mainnet is to close for good. The awkward part is not the date itself but a contradiction. Open Sophon's official documentation and it still tells you there is no fixed date yet. Two channels of the same company are saying two different things, and only one of them names a deadline.

Around 5.28 million dollars currently sits on the Sophon blockchain. That figure has fallen by only about two and a half percent over the past week, so nothing is draining out right now. And unlike most of the wind-downs we have covered this year, there is no emergency exit via Ethereum here: L2Beat lists Sophon as Stage 0, with the entry «No mechanism» for sequencer failure. This article explains what the two deadlines mean, how to get your balance out, and how to tell whether you are affected at all.

Sophon shuts down its blockchain: November 25 as the withdrawal deadline

The wind-down did not start yesterday. Since June 25, 2026, according to the project's documentation, new deposits over the canonical bridge from Ethereum to Sophon have been switched off, and Sophon was removed from the LayerZero network. Withdrawals in the other direction stayed open. The project is moving its work from a blockchain of its own to applications running on Base.

What is new is the timetable. In an announcement on X the project names November 30, 2026 as the day of the final shutdown and writes, in its own words: «November 25 is the deadline to withdraw your assets.» It goes on to say that key infrastructure and associated websites will begin shutting down after November 25, ahead of the final closure on November 30. And the sentence that matters for token holders: assets left on the Sophon blockchain after the deadline could become permanently inaccessible.

Briefly explained: what is a mainnet? The mainnet is a project's production blockchain, where real value moves, as opposed to the testnet, where only play money circulates. When a mainnet is switched off, the machines stop producing blocks, and the balance inside it can no longer be reached by ordinary means.

Two official channels, two answers: the documentation still names no date

This is where it gets uncomfortable. Sophon's technical migration documentation covers the wind-down independently of the announcement on X, with its own content and its own instructions. On the date, though, it says the opposite. It states that the blockchain is «expected to remain available through the end of 2026», that there is no firm shutdown date yet, and that the final date will be announced beforehand. In the question section of the same page it reads more plainly still: asked when the Sophon blockchain will cease operating, the answer is that no exact date has been announced.

The project website takes the same line: there is no hard cut-off yet, and the final date will be announced with plenty of notice before anything changes. As of October 24, almost a week after the announcement on X, neither of those two sources carries a hard date.

Two things follow from that. First, the dates November 25 and 30 come so far from a single publication. The German-language and international reports that cite them all quote the same post, which in journalistic terms counts as a single source. Second, and this is the practical consequence: if you take the documentation as your basis, you will feel safe, and that feeling is the risk. The cautious reading is the more expensive one to ignore. Treat November 25 as binding, even though it appears in only one place so far.

What sits on the blockchain: 5.28 million dollars in ETH, stablecoins and other tokens

The scale can be put in numbers. According to L2Beat data, around 5.28 million dollars sits on the Sophon blockchain, split into roughly 198,000 dollars in Ether, around 244,000 dollars in stablecoins, just under 7,000 dollars in Bitcoin and a good 4.83 million dollars in the remaining tokens. On top of that come just under 574,000 dollars in SOPH itself.

The more telling figure is the change: in the seven days to October 24, that balance has fallen by only about 2.6 percent. After an announcement setting a deadline five weeks out, you would expect a wave of outflows. There is no sign of one. That suggests a substantial share of holders has not yet heard about the announcement, or believes the documentation.

Stage 0 with no exit window: «permanently inaccessible» is literal here

In many wind-downs, the warning that funds could be lost for good is more drama than description. Not at Sophon. L2Beat classifies the project as a validium on the ZK Stack, with Ethereum as its host blockchain, and places it in the lowest maturity tier, Stage 0. Two entries in the risk list coincide here.

Sequencer failure: «No mechanism». The sequencer is the machine that collects transactions and sorts them into blocks. If it fails or censors, L2Beat says there is no mechanism to have transactions included anyway. The operator uses a filterer contract that requires addresses wanting to force transactions from Ethereum to be whitelisted in advance. In plain terms: the route that remains in an optimistic rollup wind-down, addressing the bridge contracts on Ethereum directly, is not open to you here.

Exit window: «None». An exit window is the period in which users can still leave a blockchain when the contracts are about to be changed. At Sophon, according to L2Beat, that period does not exist, because the contracts can be upgraded immediately. Add to that the state derivation depending entirely on data published on Avail, and withdrawals freezing if the proposer fails.

That difference is why this case cannot be compared with the Blast wind-down we wrote about in early October. There, latecomers still had a route through the contracts on Ethereum. Here there is none. Anyone still holding a balance on the Sophon blockchain after the stop has no lever left, and no court that can order a sequencer to keep running.

Withdrawing your Sophon balance: how to get your money onto Ethereum

The process is manageable, and it depends on what you hold. The project runs the entire transition through a portal at claim.sophon.com, which handles both the rewards and the withdrawals.

1. Collect outstanding rewards. Check the portal for unlocked staking or guardian rewards waiting for you. They do not come along automatically.
2. Withdraw liquid assets. SOPH, Ether, USN and every other token you hold on Sophon need to go to another blockchain. The announcement explicitly names liquid SOPH, ETH and USDC, the documentation adds USN. The portal shows the routes currently available; they are provided through a routing service, so depending on the token and liquidity you are offered either a direct route or one via Ethereum.
3. Leave managed positions alone. Guardian NFTs, vSOPH and staked SOPH are migrated to Ethereum automatically for their holders, according to the project. Moving these by hand makes matters more complicated, not safer.

One point causes confusion: there is no token swap. SOPH is natively based on Ethereum according to the documentation; what sits on Sophon is a bridged representation of the same token. You bring it back canonically to Ethereum and can bridge it onward from there to another supported blockchain via LayerZero. There is no new token you would have to switch to.

Also expect a withdrawal over a layer-2 blockchain to take time. Between the moment a transaction counts as complete and the moment the money actually arrives on the target blockchain there are hours to days, depending on the route — we have broken down exactly how long here. Starting on November 24 leaves you without that margin. Nor does using a hardware wallet whose access details you still have to dig out. Plan the exercise for early November, not the final week. Our hardware wallet comparison is worth a look mainly for the question of where the balance should go afterwards.

From an Ethereum layer-2 network to applications on Base: what Sophon is giving up

A look at what is ending here helps in judging the situation. Sophon launched as an Ethereum layer-2 network on the ZK Stack and was avowedly aimed at gaming, social applications and AI, which is to say at things that need many cheap transactions. Technically, on L2Beat's classification, it is a validium: the correctness of states is secured by validity proofs, but the transaction data itself sits with Avail, an external data availability service, and therefore outside Ethereum. That makes transactions cheap and the blockchain dependent on that service at the same time.

Briefly explained: what is a layer-2 network? A layer-2 network is a blockchain of its own that draws its security from a larger blockchain, here from Ethereum. Transactions run more cheaply because they are bundled; the price is that you need a bridge for the way back to Ethereum. That bridge is exactly the point that becomes the bottleneck in a shutdown.

The project is moving its work to applications running on Base, so it is not giving up this network of its own with nothing in its place. For holders, that means the token stays and the ecosystem around it changes location. The market has already registered the shift: among the roughly 1,300 larger cryptocurrencies, SOPH sits far down the list by price and market capitalisation, and the trading volume shows positions being rearranged. What remains of the Sophon chain is therefore above all a task for its users: getting the balance out in time.

Guardian NFTs, vSOPH and staked SOPH migrate to Ethereum automatically

The three managed positions follow their own logic, and it takes work off your hands. Guardian NFTs are to be reissued by the project in the same number in the same wallet on Ethereum; no manual move is envisaged. The same applies to vSOPH and to staked SOPH. What you do have to do yourself is collect outstanding rewards through the portal.

In the guardian programme, distribution continues unchanged according to the documentation: holders receive a pro rata share of 20 percent of the original total supply of 10 billion SOPH over three years. Until September 29, 2026 that ran on Sophon, and on Ethereum thereafter. The project has shut down the light node software; uptime and availability of a machine of your own are no longer a condition for guardian holders. Staking itself ends when the blockchain is switched off.

Sophon (SOPH) trades at 0.0016 dollars and marked an all-time low on October 22

The price side of this story is quickly told and still matters for context. SOPH stands at around 0.0016 dollars according to CoinGecko data, roughly 0.0014 euros. Market capitalisation is about 8.0 million dollars, putting the rank beyond 1,300. The price is 98.55 percent below the all-time high of 0.1108 dollars set in May 2025.

The all-time low is notable: it dates from October 22, 2026, two days ago, and therefore falls right in the phase when the withdrawal deadline became known. On SOPH's tokenomics, just under 4.99 billion of the 10 billion tokens in total are in circulation, about half the total supply. Trading volume of a good 20 million dollars within a day clearly exceeds market capitalisation, a sign that holdings are being moved here rather than held.

SOPH trades on around two dozen exchanges according to the same data, among them Binance, OKX, Bitget, KuCoin, Gate, HTX, Upbit and MEXC, plus Uniswap on the decentralised side. European investors can reach it readily, then, and some of them hold the bridged representation on the Sophon blockchain rather than the token on Ethereum. If you are unsure where your tokens sit, our exchange comparison lists the providers where holdings are in the exchange's custody anyway and are unaffected by the shutdown.

An important distinction: if your SOPH sits on an exchange, you need to do nothing about the shutdown. Those affected hold tokens in a wallet of their own on the Sophon blockchain. So check first which network your wallet is showing, before you do anything else.

No time, no time zone: November 25 remains a blurred deadline

One more fuzzy edge that gets lost in the reports. The announcement names a day, but no time and no time zone. So you do not know whether November 25 runs until midnight Central European time, until midnight universal time, or whether a switch is flipped at some point during that day. On the shutdown day, moreover, the wording is that the final shutdown is «planned», which is not a commitment either.

In practice the same rule follows as above: assume the earliest point, not the latest. Withdraw your balance in the first half of November and you never have to answer that question. Wait for the last day and you are betting on a figure that does not appear in the same project's documentation at all.

For tax purposes the transfer is not a sale, a route via another blockchain can be

For investors in Europe the route you pick in the portal is worth a second look, because it helps decide the tax treatment. In Germany the governing text is the Federal Ministry of Finance circular on the taxation of crypto assets of March 6, 2025, which replaced the 2022 version. Crypto assets count as economic goods there, and the one-year holding period for private disposals under section 23 of the Income Tax Act remains in place: hold for more than a year and then sell, and the gain stays tax-free.

The decisive distinction is therefore between two operations. Bringing the same token canonically from the Sophon blockchain to Ethereum moves your own economic good between your own addresses, which is not a sale. Pick a route in the portal where your token is swapped into another one along the way, into a stablecoin or into Ether, and that is an exchange, and an exchange is a disposal under the general rules. If the purchase is less than a year old and you are in profit, tax can arise from it, though with a token sitting 98 percent below its high a loss is the more realistic outcome, and it can be offset against other gains from crypto transactions.

The treatment of any individual case is therefore not conclusively settled, and it hangs on the route the portal offers you. So make a record of which route you chose and what may have been swapped in the process; that cannot be reconstructed later. A tax tool or portfolio tracker takes that record-keeping off your hands, but where the treatment is unclear it does not replace tax advice.

Phishing around shutdowns: only the official addresses lead to the portal

Every announced shutdown attracts fraud attempts, and Sophon's documentation itself warns against trusting an unsolicited claim or migration link. The pattern is always the same: a message reaches you by direct message, email or in a comment under the genuine announcement, points to a deadline and asks you to connect your wallet to a page modelled on the original. The approval you grant there then clears out the balance you were trying to rescue.

Three habits help against this. Type the portal address yourself instead of following a link. Check what rights you are granting before every approval, and distrust any unlimited approval. And stick to the project's own channels when you want to verify a statement, which in this case means the documentation and the verified account, precisely the two sources that contradict each other on the date. What generally happens to your coins when a blockchain is switched off we have set out in this overview.

Sophon deadline: without a withdrawal by November 25 there is no emergency exit

The case is unusual because the information about the wind-down does more damage here than the wind-down itself. Three steps put you on the safe side:

1. Check the network. Open your wallet and see whether there is any balance on the Sophon blockchain at all. If your SOPH sits with an exchange, you are not affected; which providers list the token is shown in the exchange comparison.
2. Withdraw rewards and balances in the first half of November. Collect the outstanding staking and guardian rewards first, then bring the liquid holdings canonically to Ethereum. Where they go next is covered by the hardware wallet comparison.
3. Document the route. Note which route the portal offered and whether anything was swapped along the way; that decides the tax treatment, and a tax tool records it for you.

And anyone wanting to keep an eye on this has a simple cross-check: once Sophon's migration documentation carries a hard date, the two channels have agreed. Until then, the earlier of the two statements applies.

(As of October 24, 2026. This article is not investment advice. Prices and fee structures change; check the terms with the provider before you buy.)

Days before Israel’s election, Netanyahu said he has asked for a blockchain plan in case banks are hit with sanctions, and told Israelis to prepare for a rainy day after Trump.

Sen. Richard Blumenthal demanded Tether’s records on payments to Nxum, a firm co-owned by former White House crypto adviser Bo Hines.

SpaceX’s latest 10-Q filing quietly confirms any Tesla combination requires sign-off from its “controlling shareholder.”

The regulator's Division of Examinations named "super intelligence and other advanced technologies" as a focus area alongside tokenization risks.

Vibe coding your TV is impressive. Doing it without knowing exactly what you're touching is how you lose a rooted LG set and get a very sincere apology from an AI.

XRP bulls face a mandatory two-year wait as steady escrow supply caps potential breakout momentum.

SHIB bounces back above $0.000005, but heavy exchange inflows cast doubt on the recovery.

Crypto majors remain under pressure as resistance caps recovery attempts and trading volume fades, though BNB shows relative strength.

Ripple CTO emeritus David Schwartz has argued that the XRP Ledger's growing success in financial applications is unlikely to leave XRP behind.

Ripple CEO Brad Garlinghouse has announced the death of his father, prominent Kansas businessman and philanthropist B. Kent Garlinghouse Sr., sharing an emotional tribute that prompted condolences from major figures in the cryptocurrency industry.

TLDR

• LLY stock drops 2.54% to $1,273.46 despite upbeat ovarian cancer trial data.
• Sofe-M combination delivers a 79.3% response rate in Phase 1 ovarian cancer study.
• All evaluable patients achieved disease control in Lilly’s early-stage trial.
• Severe neutropenia affected 42% as dose reductions reached 42% in the study.
• Lilly advances Sofe-M into three Phase 3 trials across ovarian cancer groups.

Eli Lilly reported a 79.3% response rate for its experimental ovarian cancer treatment, but its stock declined despite the positive findings. Eli Lilly (LLY) stock fell 2.54% to $1,273.46, losing $33.23 as selling pressure erased early gains. However, shares recovered 0.44% to $1,279.00 in after-hours trading, while the company advanced its ovarian cancer research.

Eli Lilly and Company, LLY

Eli Lilly Reports 79.3% Response Rate in Ovarian Cancer Trial

Eli Lilly announced new Phase 1 results for sofetabart mipitecan, also known as Sofe-M, combined with bevacizumab. The treatment achieved a confirmed objective response rate of 79.3% among patients with measurable platinum-sensitive ovarian cancer. Additionally, the combination achieved a 100% disease control rate, supporting further clinical development.

The study enrolled 33 women with platinum-sensitive ovarian cancer who had undergone several previous treatments. Among 29 patients with measurable disease, six achieved complete responses, while 17 experienced partial responses. Furthermore, researchers observed similar response rates across different FRα expression levels and previous PARP inhibitor exposure.

Patients had received a median of three previous treatment regimens before joining the study. Meanwhile, 67% had previously received PARP inhibitors, and 70% had undergone bevacizumab treatment. Researchers had not reached median response duration or progression-free survival at the July 6, 2026, data cutoff.

Sofe-M Targets Cancer Cells as Safety Results Support Development

Sofe-M uses an antibody-drug conjugate to target folate receptor alpha, a protein commonly found on ovarian cancer cells. The treatment delivers exatecan, a chemotherapy agent, directly to targeted cells through a specialized linker. Consequently, the drug aims to disrupt cancer cell DNA replication and limit tumor growth.

The combination produced adverse events consistent with the established safety profiles of both medicines. Nosebleeds and nausea each affected 73% of patients, while anemia occurred in 58% and neutropenia affected 55%. Additionally, 42% experienced severe neutropenia, while 24% developed severe anemia.

Researchers reported neuropathy in 9% of patients, with no severe cases during the study. However, adverse events required dose reductions in 42% of participants, and 6% discontinued treatment. The study identified no new safety signals, although the findings came from a small early-stage patient group.

Eli Lilly Advances Phase 3 Trials Following Positive Results

Eli Lilly continues developing Sofe-M through its global Phase 3 FRAmework-01 clinical program. The program includes three trials covering platinum-resistant and platinum-sensitive ovarian cancer across different treatment histories. These studies will further evaluate treatment effectiveness and safety in larger patient populations.

Part A examines Sofe-M alone in patients with platinum-resistant ovarian cancer. Meanwhile, Part B evaluates Sofe-M with bevacizumab in patients whose disease progressed during or shortly after PARP inhibitor treatment. Part C studies the same combination in platinum-sensitive patients without previous PARP inhibitor exposure.

The company works with international oncology research groups to conduct the Phase 3 program. Its partners include ENGOT, the GOG Foundation, and the Asia-Pacific Gynecologic Oncology Trials Group. Although LLY shares declined during regular trading, the latest findings expanded the clinical evidence supporting Sofe-M’s development.

The post Eli Lilly (LLY) Stock: Slips 2.54% Despite Promising Phase 1 Ovarian Cancer Results appeared first on Blockonomi.

TLDR

• SGML stock jumps 4.68% to $7.83 after Sigma Lithium extends $100M debt maturity.
• Sigma Lithium pushes its $100M loan deadline to June 2027, easing repayment pressure.
• Sigma Lithium produces 7,090 tonnes of concentrate after restarting October 5.
• Sigma Lithium targets 330,000 tonnes in annualized production by late 2027.
• Sigma Lithium cuts total debt 40% to $125M after repaying over $90M since 2024.

Sigma Lithium Corporation (SGML) stock surged 4.68% to $7.83, gaining $0.35 as strong afternoon buying lifted shares toward intraday highs. The gain followed the company’s agreement to extend its $100 million debt maturity by six months. The extension gives Sigma Lithium more time to increase lithium production and strengthen cash flow.

Sigma Lithium Corporation, SGML

Sigma Lithium Extends $100M Debt Maturity to June 2027

Sigma Lithium secured a six-month extension on its $100 million senior secured debt facility with Synergy Capital. The agreement moves the repayment deadline from December 2026 to June 2027 without changing the existing interest rate. Moreover, the facility retains its annual interest rate of SOFR plus 6.95%, alongside existing covenants and default provisions.

The revised schedule extends the maturity of approximately 93% of the company’s debt to June 2027. Sigma Lithium gains additional time to generate operating cash flow before meeting its repayment obligations. The agreement also supports the company’s production recovery following its recent operational restart in Brazil.

Sigma Lithium has reduced its debt obligations significantly over the past two years through operating cash generation. Since the second quarter of 2024, the company has repaid more than $90 million in outstanding debt. As a result, total debt declined approximately 40% to $125 million as of October 21, 2026.

Sigma Lithium Restarts Production and Targets 330,000 Tonnes

Sigma Lithium resumed operations on October 5 after a Brazilian federal court reinstated its environmental licenses. Since restarting production, the company produced 7,090 tonnes of lithium oxide concentrate through October 22. This output marks progress in restoring operations after the earlier interruption.

Sigma Lithium maintains its annualized production target of 330,000 tonnes by the end of 2027. The company plans to use its existing Cleantech Industrial Plant and recycling circuits to support higher production volumes. Additionally, management expects stronger production and current lithium prices to support operating cash flow.

Sigma Lithium will release its third-quarter 2026 operating and financial figures by November 13. The upcoming report will cover production volumes, sales, realized lithium prices, operating costs, and cash balances. These figures will provide further details about the company’s financial position and production performance before its next repayment deadline.

Sigma Lithium Expands Economic Contribution in Brazil

Beyond production, Sigma Lithium maintains a significant economic presence in Brazil’s Jequitinhonha Valley. The company reports supporting approximately 19,000 jobs and 80,000 family members across its regional operations. Furthermore, its activities span 12 municipalities and contribute to local employment and business development.

Regional economic figures show substantial growth in municipalities surrounding Sigma Lithium’s operations. Araçuaí recorded 123% growth in GDP per capita, while Itinga registered a 110% increase. Additionally, the region recorded 9,410 new business registrations between January 2023 and March 2026.

Sigma Lithium also funds community programs covering water access, education, farming, and women’s entrepreneurship. Its microcredit initiative has supported more than 2,000 women, while drought programs have assisted thousands of rural residents. Meanwhile, the company’s education projects support approximately 776 children through improved schools, facilities, and extracurricular programs.

The post Sigma Lithium (SGML) Stock: Surges 4.68% as $100M Debt Extension Boosts Financial Flexibility appeared first on Blockonomi.

TLDR

• Oracle shares gain 0.49% as its $1 billion AI and cloud partner push takes shape.
• Oracle commits $1 billion over four years to strengthen its global partner network.
• Expanded incentives target cloud migrations, AI applications, and partner training.
• Oracle Marketplace gives partners more ways to sell specialized cloud solutions.
• Oracle boosts partner tools to expand cloud adoption and long-term customer support.

Oracle Corporation announced a $1 billion investment in its partner network to expand cloud services and support growing artificial intelligence demand. The four-year commitment will strengthen partner capabilities across cloud infrastructure, business applications, and enterprise technology services. Meanwhile, Oracle (ORCL) stock rose 0.49% to $126.16, gaining $0.62, before slipping 0.03% to $126.12 after hours.

Oracle Corporation, ORCL

Oracle Commits $1 Billion to Expand AI and Cloud Partnerships

Oracle plans to direct its investment toward partner training, technical support, cloud migration, and business development programs. The company aims to help partners develop specialized solutions and expand their presence across enterprise markets. Additionally, Oracle will provide development environments and technical resources to support new applications and cloud services.

The investment covers Oracle PartnerNetwork, which connects software developers, systems integrators, cloud providers, resellers, and consulting firms. These businesses help customers deploy Oracle technology, modernize databases, and manage enterprise applications. Moreover, the expanded program will support Oracle Cloud Infrastructure, Fusion Applications, and related artificial intelligence services.

Oracle will also increase funding for certifications, product demonstrations, and joint sales activities across its partner ecosystem. Partners can use these resources to develop industry-specific applications, integrations, and automated business tools. Consequently, the company expects broader partner participation to strengthen cloud delivery capacity and customer reach.

Oracle Expands Cloud Services Through Partner Incentives

Oracle will direct part of its investment toward helping partners develop products and services using its technology. The company will offer testing environments, integration guidance, and technical assistance for specialized enterprise solutions. Furthermore, partners can combine their industry knowledge with Oracle platforms to address specific business requirements.

The expanded program also includes sales incentives, marketing support, and funding for eligible cloud migration projects. Oracle Marketplace will provide another channel for partners to commercialize software and reach enterprise customers. Meanwhile, additional training resources will help service providers manage database upgrades, application deployments, and cloud infrastructure projects.

Oracle also plans to strengthen customer support after initial technology deployments through its partner network. Its AI Success Navigator platform will help partners guide adoption, improve operations, and introduce additional capabilities. As a result, Oracle aims to support longer customer relationships and increase the use of its enterprise products.

Oracle Advances as AI Investment Supports Cloud Growth

Oracle’s latest announcement strengthens its broader strategy to expand enterprise cloud adoption and artificial intelligence services. The company continues to build its technology ecosystem through partnerships with software developers and consulting firms. Furthermore, these relationships help Oracle reach businesses seeking cloud migration, automation, and database modernization services.

Oracle’s existing partnerships include Accenture and PwC, which support business modernization and enterprise technology projects. The company has also highlighted customer deployments involving Combe, Beca, and the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health. These projects demonstrate how Oracle combines enterprise applications with partner expertise across different industries.

The four-year commitment provides additional resources for partners to develop services and pursue enterprise cloud contracts. However, Oracle has not specified the investment’s expected revenue contribution or detailed annual spending schedule. The initiative expands Oracle’s partner development efforts while supporting its broader cloud infrastructure and enterprise software strategy.

The post Oracle (ORCL) Stock: Rises as $1 Billion AI Push Targets Cloud Expansion appeared first on Blockonomi.

TLDR

• PURR stock climbs 1.15% to $8.78 after Hyperliquid expands its buyback to $100M.
• Hyperliquid triples its repurchase capacity, lifting its buyback cap to $100M.
• About $72M remains available for PURR share repurchases under the new plan.
• Hyperliquid extends its PURR stock repurchase deadline to October 31, 2027.
• PURR shares add 0.23% after hours, reaching $8.80 following Friday’s gains.

Hyperliquid Strategies expanded its stock buyback authorization to $100 million, lifting the previous $30 million cap. PURR stock gained 1.15% to $8.78, adding $0.10 after recovering from intraday lows near $8.60. Shares advanced another 0.23% to $8.80 after hours as the company updated its capital plans.

Hyperliquid Strategies Inc Common Stock, PURR

PURR Stock Gains Following Board Decision

The stock reversed an early decline during Friday’s session as buying strengthened later in the day. That recovery helped offset earlier selling and supported a positive close despite uneven trading. After-hours activity produced a smaller additional increase, continuing the upward move.

The board’s decision raises the maximum authorization by $70 million against its previous limit. The new amount more than triples the program’s original capacity for share purchases. Still, the authorization gives management permission to repurchase shares without requiring immediate purchases.

Hyperliquid Strategies focuses on digital asset treasury operations within the Hyperliquid ecosystem. The company uses capital management decisions to support its financial structure and broader treasury strategy. Accordingly, the buyback expansion adds flexibility to its existing approach to share management.

Hyperliquid Strategies Extends Buyback Deadline to 2027

The board extended the program’s end date from December 5, 2026, to October 31, 2027. The longer period gives management additional opportunities to consider purchases under changing market conditions. Meanwhile, approximately $72 million remains available under the expanded authorization.

The company may buy PURR shares on public markets at prevailing prices. Management may also arrange private transactions or use other methods allowed under federal securities law. The selected approach will depend on market circumstances, transaction terms and applicable requirements.

The company linked the decision to its long-term capital strategy and broader treasury framework. The increased limit allows management to evaluate purchases alongside other company capital needs. However, the company did not establish a fixed share count or transaction calendar.

What the $100 Million PURR Repurchase Plan Allows

Share repurchases allow businesses to acquire their own stock, potentially changing the number of outstanding shares. The effect depends on whether and how companies complete those transactions over time. An authorization alone creates no immediate change to outstanding shares.

Management will consider PURR’s trading price, general economic conditions and relevant legal restrictions. Those factors will shape the timing, size and total value of any future repurchases. The remaining allocation does not indicate an immediate cash commitment.

The company retains authority to extend, pause or end the program without advance notice. Accordingly, the final amount spent may differ from the authorized maximum at expiration. The expanded buyback capacity and extended deadline now form part of Hyperliquid Strategies’ capital management plans.

The post Hyperliquid Strategies Inc. (PURR) Stock: Shares Climb as Company Boosts Buyback Plan to $100M appeared first on Blockonomi.

TLDR

• IONS stock slides 2.23% to $42.93 despite Roche’s Phase 3 kidney trial success.
• Roche’s sefaxersen cuts proteinuria 43.1% in a key Phase 3 kidney disease trial.
• Ionis shares rebound 2.33% after hours to $43.93 following regular-session losses.
• Phase 3 data show stronger hematuria resolution with sefaxersen versus placebo.
• Roche targets regulators as its kidney trial continues toward week 105 results.

Ionis Pharmaceuticals (IONS) stock fell 2.23% to $42.93, losing $0.98 during regular trading before rebounding 2.33% to $43.93 after hours. The decline came despite positive Phase 3 kidney disease trial results from its partner, Roche. The study showed that experimental treatment sefaxersen significantly reduced proteinuria in patients with primary IgA nephropathy.

\Ionis Pharmaceuticals, Inc., IONS

Roche Reports 43.1% Proteinuria Reduction in Phase 3 Kidney Trial

Roche reported positive results from the ongoing Phase 3 IMAgINATION study involving adults with primary IgA nephropathy. The trial evaluated sefaxersen alongside optimized standard care and compared its effectiveness against a placebo. At week 37, the treatment achieved a statistically significant 43.1% reduction in proteinuria relative to placebo.

The study recorded a 95% confidence interval between 32.5% and 52.0%, with a P-value below 0.0001. Researchers measured treatment effectiveness through the 24-hour urine protein-to-creatinine ratio, a key marker of kidney damage. Moreover, lower proteinuria levels generally correlate with better long-term kidney function.

Roche presented the findings during the American Society of Nephrology Kidney Week 2026 conference. Additionally, more patients receiving sefaxersen experienced resolution of blood in their urine compared with placebo recipients. The treatment also demonstrated consistent effectiveness across predefined patient subgroups without introducing new safety concerns.

Ionis Pharmaceuticals Advances Kidney Treatment Through Roche Partnership

Ionis developed sefaxersen as an RNA-targeted treatment that reduces factor B production in the liver. Factor B contributes to alternative complement pathway activity, which plays a role in IgA nephropathy. By reducing this protein, sefaxersen targets a biological process associated with kidney inflammation and damage.

The experimental medicine uses monthly injections beneath the skin and supports potential self-administration by patients. Meanwhile, Roche continues the blinded IMAgINATION study to measure changes in kidney function over two years. Researchers will assess estimated glomerular filtration rate at week 105 to evaluate longer-term treatment outcomes.

Roche licensed sefaxersen from Ionis under an agreement covering complement-mediated diseases. Ionis previously received upfront payments, licensing fees, and development milestone payments through the partnership. Furthermore, the agreement provides potential regulatory milestones, sales milestones, and tiered royalties on future net sales.

IONS Stock Declines as Roche Prepares Regulatory Discussions

Despite the clinical progress, Ionis shares finished regular trading lower before recovering part of their losses after hours. The contrasting price movements followed Roche’s announcement of the latest Phase 3 findings. However, the available trading information does not establish a specific cause for the regular-session decline.

IgA nephropathy causes progressive kidney damage and commonly affects adults before age 40. The disease affects at least 25 adults per million worldwide annually and can eventually cause kidney failure. Within 20 years of diagnosis, up to half of affected patients may develop end-stage kidney disease.

Roche plans to share the latest trial findings with health authorities to support further development discussions. Meanwhile, the ongoing study will provide additional evidence about sefaxersen’s effects on kidney function. Regulatory decisions and future commercial milestones will determine the treatment’s potential contribution to Ionis Pharmaceuticals’ business.

The post Ionis Pharmaceuticals (IONS) Stock: Falls 2.23% Despite Roche’s Breakthrough Phase 3 Kidney Trial Results appeared first on Blockonomi.

Tesla hasn’t sold any of its remaining Bitcoin. And a possible merger with SpaceX could put both companies’ Bitcoin under one corporate roof.

SpaceX disclosed 18,712 BTC in its June IPO filing. Tesla reported this week that it still holds 11,509 BTC. That brings their combined stash to 30,221 BTC, worth around $2.5 billion at current prices. If the two companies merge, their combined stash would rank sixth among public companies, ahead of Coinbase and Bullish but behind MARA Holdings.

Musk’s Potential SpaceX-Tesla Merger

Elon Musk discussed the proposed merger during SpaceX’s earnings call on Tuesday. He said both companies had formed special committees of independent directors to study the idea. Musk thinks a merger would make sense, but there’s no deal yet. The committees haven’t agreed on terms, and shareholders would still need to approve it. Tesla needs backing from holders of 50% of all shares, which Musk called a high hurdle.

Tesla hasn’t always held on to its Bitcoin. It first disclosed a $1.5 billion purchase in February 2021, saying the move would diversify its cash reserves. Two months later, it sold 10% of its holdings for $272 million. Musk said the sale was meant to demonstrate Bitcoin’s liquidity as an alternative to cash.

Then came the bigger sale in July 2022. Tesla converted 75% of its remaining Bitcoin into fiat currency, which brought in $936 million. Musk said the company wanted to preserve cash while uncertainty over China’s COVID-19 lockdowns weighed on its outlook.

No New Bitcoin Demand

For now, prominent trader Scott Melker believes that Tesla’s remaining position shows that holding can be “uneventful even when the accounting isn’t.” In a recent blog post, Melker explained that the move would create “no new demand” for the crypto asset since it already exists on those balance sheets.

“A merger would consolidate their ownership, not take more supply off the market. Neither company has signaled that it plans to buy or sell. If this moves forward, I’ll be interested in what management wants to do with the combined holdings, but adding the balances together is not itself a bullish flow.”

The post Tesla and SpaceX Could Unite $2.5B in Bitcoin Without Buying a Single BTC appeared first on CryptoPotato.

Bitcoin’s adverse price movements that began with the rejection at $85,000 on Wednesday continue, with the asset sliding to $80,400 earlier this morning, perhaps due to the latest Trump comments on the war against Iran.

Most altcoins have followed suit, with ETH dropping further below $2,400, and XRP seemingly losing the crucial $1.30 support. NEAR, BTW, PUMP, WLD, and DOT have slumped even more.

Will $80K Hold?

After the intense volatility experienced in the previous business week following the release of the CPI and PPI data, and BTC’s subsequent retreat to under $80,000, the cryptocurrency tried to rebound almost immediately and stood above $82,000 over the weekend. Then came a flash crash that brought it south by a grand on Saturday evening, before the bulls tried to take down the $83,000 resistance on Monday.

They failed at first, and bitcoin slipped to $81,000. A sudden uptick on Tuesday drove it to just over that line before the bulls took it a step further on Wednesday, driving BTC to a two-week peak of almost $85,000.

However, this was a short-lived rally, and the rejection was quite rapid and painful. At first, BTC tanked to under $83,000, but the bears took complete control of the market on Friday and Saturday morning, at least for now, driving bitcoin to $80,400 for the first time in about ten days.

Although BTC remains above $80,000 as of now, it’s still 1% down for the day again. Its market cap has pulled back to $1.620 trillion, but its dominance over the alts stands tall at 60% on CMC.

Alts in the Red Again

ETH is down by a similar percentage to BTC and sits well below $2,400. Ripple’s native token has dived by over 2%, and it’s now below $1.30. Recall that the asset neared $1.40 on Wednesday before the market-wide pullback. SOL is close to breaking below $100, while ZEC has tanked below $1,200.

Further losses are evident from XMR, XLM, LINK, RAIN, LTC, and NEAR. WLD is the only double-digit loser, while M has defied the broader market’s move with a 10% surge.

The total crypto market cap is down by over 1% daily to $2.7 trillion on CMC.

The post Bitcoin (BTC) Tanks Toward $80K, Ripple (XRP) Loses Key Support: Weekend Watch appeared first on CryptoPotato.

Bank Negara Malaysia (BNM) and the Bank of Thailand (BOT) joined BLOOM, Singapore’s cross-border settlement initiative for stablecoins and tokenized deposits, on Friday.

The Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS) announced the move. It launched BLOOM in October 2025 as a public-private group of banks, payment networks and tech firms. The two central banks now sit beside MAS as policymaker members. Together, they will work with industry on how different forms of digital money are accepted, exchanged and settled across borders.

Home Banks Already on the Roster

MAS also added nine participants, including Mastercard, Visa, and Ripple. In March, Ripple said it would test RLUSD for trade finance payments with Unloq inside BLOOM. Mastercard, for its part, already settles merchant transactions in stablecoins such as RLUSD and USDC. Outside payments, the new names include the World Bank Group, which MAS said will bring the needs of developing economies to the table.

Each new central bank has a home lender on the list. For Malaysia, that lender is Maybank, which joined on Friday. Maybank already leads one of three ringgit pilots that BNM onboarded in February. Those pilots test ringgit stablecoins and tokenized deposits for wholesale payments, both domestic and cross-border. BNM has said it will give clearer guidance on both instruments by the end of 2026.

Thailand’s Kasikornbank was a BLOOM member before its central bank signed on. The roster now counts 24 industry members, from Circle and Coinbase to DBS, J.P. Morgan and Standard Chartered.

Settlement Rules Before Scale

Participants will work on three areas. The first covers how institutions accept and settle digital money across jurisdictions. The second covers interoperability between networks and systems. The third covers programmable controls such as identity verification, sanctions screening and transaction limits.

MAS argued that shared frameworks would spare banks from building separate arrangements with each counterparty or market. That, it said, should lower costs and speed up launches.

BNM Deputy Governor Aznan bin Abdul Aziz struck an upbeat tone.

“A future where frictionless cross-border payments can be made using multiple digital monies is now closer to a tangible reality than a far-fetched fantasy,” he said.

BOT sounded more cautious. Its deputy governor, Dr Daranee Saeju, said the bank would use BLOOM to inform regulatory approaches for tokenized money, particularly in wholesale settlement.

“The initiative also allows us to carefully explore emerging innovations, while ensuring our oversight remains prudent, proportionate, and responsive to evolving risks,” she said.

The post Malaysia and Thailand Central Banks Join Singapore’s BLOOM as Roster Hits 24 Firms appeared first on CryptoPotato.

J. Benjamin Greenberg, a shareholder in Circle Internet Group, filed a federal lawsuit Thursday against US President Donald Trump and World Liberty Financial, alleging that two transactions linked to the United Arab Emirates violated the Constitution’s Foreign Emoluments Clause.

The case raises questions about whether Trump’s crypto business interests created an unfair advantage over competitors, including Circle, whose USDC stablecoin competes with World Liberty’s USD1.

Lawsuit Targets World Liberty’s UAE-Linked Transactions

Greenberg’s complaint concerns the $500 million sale of a 49% stake in World Liberty to an investment vehicle backed by a member of the ruling family of the UAE. It also centers on the use of USD1 by Abu Dhabi-based MGX to fund a $2 billion investment in Binance.

The Foreign Emoluments Clause restricts presidents from accepting payments from foreign governments without congressional approval. Greenberg alleges the transactions breached that provision and financially harmed Circle shareholders through unfair competition.

“This action is about the President of the United States corruptly profiting from more than $2 billion in payments from a foreign government in direct violation of the constitution,” Greenberg wrote in the complaint.

The filing also claims that “no president in American history has profited from his office so brazenly.”

The lawsuit seeks an order preventing Trump from violating the clause, the return of allegedly illegal profits and unspecified damages. Greenberg brought the case as an individual shareholder seeking recovery on Circle’s behalf, rather than as a lawsuit initiated by the company itself.

According to a report by Bloomberg, World Liberty rejected the allegations. Its spokesperson, David Wachsman, described the claims as “without merit” and stated that the company complies with US laws and regulations. A White House spokesperson likewise denied that Trump had conflicts of interest, calling the lawsuit frivolous. Meanwhile, Circle confirmed it did not initiate, direct, authorize, or participate in the filing.

Crypto Ventures Were Already Under Scrutiny

Last year, the president disclosed more than $1 billion in earnings tied to his crypto ventures, including World Liberty. Democrats in Congress pushed back, and the backlash has been blamed in part for the failure of the CLARITY Act, which was meant to set market-structure rules for the industry.

As CryptoPotato reported earlier, consumer advocacy group Public Citizen estimated in August that ventures tied to the president and his family have left investors at least $4.7 billion underwater since 2022, most of it unrealized. The TRUMP meme coin accounts for $3.2 billion of that and WLFI for $1 billion, while the group estimated no loss for USD1.

The new case, Greenberg v. Trump, was filed in the US District Court for the District of Columbia, and the allegations have yet to be adjudicated.

The post Circle Shareholder Sues Trump Over UAE Deals Tied to World Liberty: Report appeared first on CryptoPotato.

The frog-themed meme coin has defied the latest market correction, pumping double digits today (October 23) and reaching a monthly high.

Some analysts believe the price could rise further in the short term, but key factors suggest the move hasn’t been healthy and might be followed by a pullback.

The Bullish Perspective

PEPE is one of the top-performing cryptocurrencies today and currently trades near $0.000005076. Its market capitalization has surged past $2.13 billion, making it the 50th-largest cryptocurrency and, once again, the fourth-biggest meme coin. Recall that yesterday (October 22), MemeCore (M) briefly took that position after posting a significant price increase.

According to Token Talk, PEPE’s bulls have “one job right now”: push the token’s market cap above $2.21 billion. “The daily structure has improved massively from the summer lows, but resistance is resistance until proven otherwise,” the analyst added.

X user Sjuul | AltCryptoGems also issued a bullish thesis, saying he still likes the PEPE chart, which is showing signs of “relative strength.” He believes buyers must now hold that flipped support/resistance level to trigger an additional potential pump.

For his part, Crypto With Gopal claimed that PEPE has flashed an inverted head-and-shoulders reversal, with price pushing toward the $0.0000050-$0.0000053 neckline zone. He said a confirmed breakout could trigger a powerful recovery move and argued that bullish momentum has been building.

Remain Cautious

Despite the impressive uptick, PEPE remains a meme coin, making it especially vulnerable to speculation and volatility, so a short-term correction wouldn’t be a surprise.

The token’s Relative Strength Index (RSI) supports that scenario. The technical analysis tool runs from 0 to 100, where anything above 70 means that PEPE has entered overbought territory and could be headed for a pullback. Conversely, readings below 30 are typically seen as buying opportunities. Recently, the ratio exploded to 94.

PEPE’s exchange netflow is also worth monitoring. Inflows have dominated outflows lately, suggesting investors have shifted from self-custody to centralized platforms, increasing immediate selling pressure.

The post Pepe (PEPE) Rises 11% Daily: Further Pump or Correction on the Way? appeared first on CryptoPotato.