Trump's unconfirmed claim adds uncertainty to the Russia-Ukraine conflict, impacting ceasefire market sentiment and diplomatic dynamics.

The post Trump claims deal to halt Russia-Ukraine energy attacks appeared first on Crypto Briefing.

The attack highlights the ongoing threat to Ukrainian civilian safety and infrastructure, complicating military strategies and regional stability.

The post Russian drone attack on Ukrainian bus kills five civilians appeared first on Crypto Briefing.

The ongoing conflict exacerbates mental health issues and complicates prospects for peace, impacting regional stability and economic forecasts.

The post Lebanese residents near Israel’s Yellow Line face stress amid ongoing conflict appeared first on Crypto Briefing.

The persistent U.S.-Iran tensions, without direct negotiations, risk prolonging regional instability and impacting global geopolitical dynamics.

The post US-Iran tensions persist with $66M at stake over potential invasion by 2027 appeared first on Crypto Briefing.

The EU's increased fossil fuel costs highlight the vulnerability of energy security to geopolitical tensions, urging a shift to renewables.

The post Iran conflict adds €90B to EU fossil fuel import costs, says von der Leyen appeared first on Crypto Briefing.

Bitcoin Magazine

Bitcoin, BTC-Related Stocks Tumble After Senate Blocks Clarity Act 

Bitcoin’s price tumbled — along with crypto-related stocks — following the blockage of the long-awaited Clarity Act. 

The price of the leading cryptocurrency recently stood at $75,939, down 4% over the past day, after dropping as low as $75,038 at one point on Tuesday. 

Lawmakers blocked the landmark digital asset market structure bill in a procedural vote Tuesday. Major companies in the digital asset space have long called for clear rules to be put in place to regulate the industry. 

Bitcoin wasn’t the only asset that dropped: BTC-related stocks such as Coinbase (NASDAQ: COIN) and Strategy (MSTR) were also down. 

America’s biggest crypto exchange’s stock dropped by more than 10%; Strategy, the largest corporate holder of bitcoin slid by over 5%. 

Major publicly traded bitcoin miners also dropped in price, with MARA, CleanSpark, and Core Scientific all slipping by 5% or more over the past day. 

Senators mostly voted against advancing the legislation — 49 for and 50 against — that the digital asset industry has long called for. 

The bill aims to formally divide oversight between regulators, distinguishing which digital assets are securities, commodities or stablecoins. 

President Donald Trump last month urged lawmakers to pass it, helping spur a bitcoin rally. But Republicans warned for months that Democrats were deliberately holding it back. 

And hold it back they did: anti-crypto senator Elizabeth Warren warned congress against voting for the bill on Tuesday, slamming the bill as “a massive risk to families.”

While Senator Bernie Sanders wrote on X that the bill was “corrupt.” 

Lawmakers had a problem with the bill because they said it unfairly allowed Trump to make money from the crypto industry. The president’s family has cashed in with numerous crypto ventures since Trump took office but the White House has always denied any wrongdoing. 

“Crypto billionaires have spent nearly $300M on the midterm elections,” added Sanders. 

“Meanwhile, Trump and his family have pocketed more than $1.4B from crypto deals.”

Pro-crypto senator Cynthia Lummis slammed Democrats for blocking the bill. 

Writing on X, the Republican said: “The once-proud Democratic party is anti-consumer and pro-illicit finance, anti-ethics, anti-free enterprise, anti-worker, anti-livable wage jobs, and pro-socialism. The Democrats are now anti-American.” 

This post Bitcoin, BTC-Related Stocks Tumble After Senate Blocks Clarity Act  first appeared on Bitcoin Magazine and is written by Mathew Di Salvo.

Bitcoin Magazine

Strive’s Matt Cole: Bitcoin is Primed for 30% Growth into 2030

What happens when the Fed and Treasury finally step in to suppress long-end rates? Matt Cole says the dollar becomes the release valve and scarce assets rip. In this interview with Grace Remington and Sean Hagan, the Strive CEO lays out his three-part macro thesis on the dollar, long-end treasury rates, and Bitcoin reclaiming its role as the fastest horse against gold. He also shares his base case of roughly 50% annual Bitcoin returns into 2030.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in this show are those of the participants and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of BTC Inc., Bitcoin Magazine, or any affiliated entities. This content is provided for informational and educational purposes only and should not be construed as investment, legal, tax, or accounting advice. Nothing contained in this show constitutes a solicitation, recommendation, endorsement, or offer to buy or sell any securities or financial instruments. Viewers should consult their own advisors before making financial or business decisions.

This post Strive’s Matt Cole: Bitcoin is Primed for 30% Growth into 2030 first appeared on Bitcoin Magazine and is written by Patrick Green.

Bitcoin Magazine

Lightning Lands on BitBox — And It Doesn’t Ask for a New Seed Phrase

Bitcoin wallet manufacturer BitBox is putting Lightning in users’ pockets. 

Owners of any BitBox hardware wallet can create a Lightning hot wallet inside the mobile BitBoxApp, fund it directly from their on-chain balance and pay invoices without bouncing between apps, wallets or third-party services, the company announced Tuesday. 

And users don’t need a new recovery phrase. The Lightning wallet is derived from the BitBox backup they already have, so there are no extra words to write down — the two wallets stay distinct. 

The Lightning side runs as a hot wallet built for small amounts and everyday spending — coffee, invoices, a quick transfer — while long-term savings stay locked behind the hardware device. 

Inside the BitBoxApp, users can scan and pay Lightning invoices, send and receive bitcoin, claim their own Lightning address, top up from their on-chain wallet, and sweep funds back again.

Under the hood, the feature runs on the Breez SDK, which now counts BitBox among more than 100 integration partners. Spark handles the plumbing that has long kept casual users off Lightning — no node to run, no channels to open, no liquidity to babysit. Custody stays with the user throughout.

Breez in August debuted Glow, an app that allows developers to see what’s working under the hood with the Lightning wallet so they can build their own products.

This post Lightning Lands on BitBox — And It Doesn’t Ask for a New Seed Phrase first appeared on Bitcoin Magazine and is written by Mathew Di Salvo.

Bitcoin Magazine

Senate Blocks Clarity Act, Likely Killing It for 2026

Lawmakers blocked the Clarity Act on Tuesday a procedural vote, with the long-awaited legislation missing the 60 votes needed to advance it.

Senators mostly voted against advancing the legislation — 49 for and 50 against — that the digital asset industry has long called for. 

The bill aims to formally divide oversight between regulators, distinguishing which digital assets are securities, commodities or stablecoins. President Donald Trump last month urged lawmakers to pass it but Republicans said that Democrats were deliberately holding it back. 

Bitcoin’s price dropped sharply on the news and was recently trading for $75,997, a 4% 24-hour drop. 

Both Republicans and Democrats blocked the bill but Democrats had mostly been accused of trying to deliberately stall it by pro-crypto lawmakers for months. 

Democratic Senator Elizabeth Warren, of the crypto industry’s loudest critics, told congress ahead of the vote that the bill “posed a massive risk to families.” 

“This bill would put us all at risk of a crypto-fuelled economic crash,” she said, adding that the U.S. still needed proper crypto legislation. 

Warren’s biggest gripe — along with other lawmakers — is that Trump has unfairly benefited from deals in the crypto industry. 

President Donald Trump campaigned on a ticket to help the crypto space but some Washington lawmakers have criticized the way the Trump family has profited from digital asset ventures, such as the President’s memecoin, $TRUMP, and World Liberty Financial project. 

Trump and the White House have always denied any conflicts of interest. 

“Trump won big time on crypto,” Warren added. 

A revised draft circulated in July added an ethics title aimed at officials profiting from crypto. It would bar the president, vice president, members of Congress, federal judges and their spouses from issuing or sponsoring a digital asset for compensation. 

Late Sunday, a further draft gave state attorneys general power to sue to enforce those rules — alongside the Justice Department, which Democrats had argued could not be relied on to act against Trump.

Despite the bill being blocked on Tuesday, regulators are still pushing ahead with rules for the industry. 

The Clarity Act was passed by the House of Representatives last year but has mostly stalled in 2026, with the banking lobby frequently clashing with crypto companies over paying customers stablecoin yield. 

This post Senate Blocks Clarity Act, Likely Killing It for 2026 first appeared on Bitcoin Magazine and is written by Mathew Di Salvo.

Bitcoin Magazine

Why the Clarity Act Could Decide America’s Financial Future w/ John Deaton

The Senate is voting today, but not on what most people think. John Deaton joins Grace Remington and Sean Hagan to break down why the Clarity Act cloture vote is really a vote on whether to even debate the bill, and why 53 Republican senators aren’t enough to get there. He explains the math behind needing eight to ten Democrats, where Josh Hawley and Rand Paul stand, and what happens to American digital asset companies if Congress stalls again. Deaton also makes the case that the U.S. is still regulating blockchain with 1930s statutes.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in this show are those of the participants and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of BTC Inc., Bitcoin Magazine, or any affiliated entities. This content is provided for informational and educational purposes only and should not be construed as investment, legal, tax, or accounting advice. Nothing contained in this show constitutes a solicitation, recommendation, endorsement, or offer to buy or sell any securities or financial instruments. Viewers should consult their own advisors before making financial or business decisions.

This post Why the Clarity Act Could Decide America’s Financial Future w/ John Deaton first appeared on Bitcoin Magazine and is written by Patrick Green.

The US Senate failed on Sept. 15 to advance the Digital Asset Market Clarity Act, stalling efforts to create a federal framework for crypto markets as Bitcoin fell sharply below $76,000.

The cloture vote on the motion to proceed failed 49-50, and the measure needed 60 votes to move to debate, so the result was a procedural defeat.

The bill was designed to replace the industry’s fragmented regulatory environment with uniform federal rules for issuing, trading and selling digital assets. Its failure to advance leaves that wider market-structure push unresolved and denies supporters an immediate path to floor debate.

The Senate’s official schedule had set the vote for approximately 2:15 p.m. ET. The outcome fell well short of the required supermajority, turning a closely watched policy test into a new source of uncertainty for crypto businesses and investors.

Bitcoin’s decline started before the tally

Bitcoin hit an intraday low of $74,967.97 on Sept. 15, after already falling below $76,000 before the vote. The altcoin market cap tumbled 3.6% in the same period, but managed to stay above $1.15 trillion.

Traders were also preparing for a Federal Reserve decision, adding another source of pressure across risk assets.

The chronology shows that political disappointment arrived in a market already moving lower. It supports describing the vote as one factor in the afternoon weakness, but not as the origin of the full-day decline.

Leverage was also being unwound before senators voted. CoinGlass registered over $300 million in liquidations 20 minutes after the vote, with the 24-hour reading surpassing $665 million at the same mark.

For the crypto industry, the immediate consequence is legislative delay: the CLARITY Act did not secure the votes needed to begin debate. For Bitcoin, the next signal is whether selling steadies once traders absorb both the policy setback and the separate monetary-policy risk already weighing on the market.

The post Bitcoin drops below $76,000 as Senate rejects CLARITY Act motion appeared first on CryptoSlate.

A crypto ETF can arrive with substantial assets before public trading reveals much about outside investor demand. That makes a rising launch benchmark important for ETF sponsors and easy to misread as a market verdict.

Bloomberg ETF analyst Eric Balchunas said on Sept. 15 that average day-one ETF assets had roughly doubled over five years. He also said he was hearing from white-label issuers that $100 million had become the new bar, an observation he attributed to Athanasios Psarofagis.

The cited post shows the benchmark is circulating among ETF professionals, but it doesn't include the underlying comparison.

A fund's opening assets can include sponsor or affiliate seed arranged before listing, and authorized participants can later create or redeem blocks of shares in the primary market. Investors can trade existing shares in the secondary market without changing the fund's share count, and the value of the crypto portfolio can move AUM even when capital activity is flat.

The Investment Company Institute's description of ETF mechanics draws those boundaries directly. They turn “day-one size” into a mixture of sponsor preparation, primary-market activity and asset prices, depending on the fund and the chosen cutoff.

The crypto ETF launch number contains different kinds of capital

Four recent crypto products illustrate the accounting differences. The entries use different dates and filing measures, and TKNZ's operational seed was prospective when disclosed.

T. Rowe Price's TKNZ prospectus provides the cleanest example of launch preparation. The sponsor and an affiliated administrator had purchased $20,000 of initial seed. They were expected to add $14.98 million of operational seed for an expected $15 million total, with the proceeds intended to acquire eligible assets at or before listing.

That capital could make the fund appear larger at launch without demonstrating outside demand. The filing also described seed-investor activity separately from the authorized-participant function.

Fidelity's filings then show the signal that can emerge after seed. Sponsor affiliate FMR Capital bought FSOL's seed basket on Sept. 24, 2025, paying $25 each for 200,000 shares. By Dec. 31, the fund reported 7.775 million shares outstanding, $120.038 million of paid-in capital, and $113.949 million of net assets in its annual filing.

The first quarter of 2026 separated capital activity from portfolio value even more sharply. FSOL issued $48.548 million of shares, redeemed $13.416 million and made $685,000 of shareholder distributions.

Those entries resulted in a $34.447 million net capital increase, and net assets still fell to $97.449 million as SOL declined.

Franklin Templeton's Solana product took a different path. An affiliate completed a cash seed transaction whose proceeds funded the purchase of 17,000 SOL worth $2,323,133.80 before the fund began trading.

Through March 31, 2026, SOEZ recorded $9,776,591 of share contributions and ended with $9,365,055 of net assets, according to the Franklin filing. Investment performance brought the ending asset figure below the capital contributed over the period.

BWOW supplies the weakest post-launch capital record in this group. A Bitwise affiliate funded a $2.5 million initial basket before trading began in November 2025. By June 30, 2026, BWOW's quarterly report showed $473,547 of net assets and 40,000 shares outstanding. The fund recorded no creations during the first half of 2026, while an aggregate of 20,000 shares were redeemed.

Dogecoin depreciation also reduced the portfolio's value, so the AUM decline reflects both investor activity and market performance. The absence of creations provides clearer evidence of weak follow-through.

Bitwise Investment Advisers decided on Sept. 10 to close, delist, and liquidate BWOW. Trading is scheduled to stop before the market opens on Oct. 15.

Measure demand after the opening capital

ICI identifies net issuance, meaning shares created less shares redeemed, as one way to track ETF demand.

Conversions and reinvestment can affect issuance, while secondary trading can prompt authorized participants to create or redeem shares. Fees, distribution reach, product overlap, and the underlying asset's performance shape what happens after listing.

A useful comparison would set the same observation windows for every launch. It would identify sponsor and affiliate seed at listing, exclude converted legacy assets where the question is new demand, measure creations and redemptions after trading begins, and separate capital activity from changes in the underlying portfolio's value.

Persistence could then mean the shares and outside capital remaining after a disclosed interval, such as 30, 90, or 180 days.

That framework would also prevent trading volume from standing in for flows. Heavy secondary-market turnover can show liquidity and attention even as the same shares change hands. Primary-market share creation changes the fund's capital base.

The four products here make the ambiguity visible without resolving the broad industry benchmark.

TKNZ disclosed a planned launch balance largely built from affiliated seed, FSOL's later share count and paid-in capital showed substantial post-seed issuance, SOEZ recorded additional contributions at a smaller scale, and BWOW showed no new creations in the first half of 2026 before its sponsor chose to close it.

The products differ by asset, sponsor, distribution, and age, and their filings cover different windows.

For crypto sponsors, a $100 million launch bar may function as a balance-sheet and distribution hurdle: enough committed capital to support liquidity, visibility and operating runway. For investors, launch AUM remains an opening condition.

The stronger verdict arrives over time, through creations, redemptions, and capital that persists after the seed has entered the market.

The post A $100 million launch balance doesn’t mean a crypto ETF has real investors appeared first on CryptoSlate.

OranjeBTC’s DIGY11 product page on Sept. 15 marked the exchange-traded fund as “now on B3” and displayed a value of R$10.04 per unit. Its updated status signaled that Brazilian investors could access a fund tied to Bitcoin-treasury companies without buying Bitcoin itself.

DIGY11 is not a spot Bitcoin ETF and does not seek to match Bitcoin’s price. It follows a Brazilian real-hedged MarketVector index of preferred shares issued by companies whose balance sheets include substantial Bitcoin holdings.

B3, Brazil’s stock exchange, said that secondary-market trading would not begin as planned on Sept. 11, at the fund manager’s request. DIGY11’s product page later reported R$27.5 million in net assets and a R$10.00 net asset value per unit for Sept. 11, separate from the R$10.04 value displayed on Sept. 15.

What investors are buying

The fund’s disclosed Sept. 11 portfolio was concentrated in Strategy, the largest of the two US Bitcoin-treasury companies represented. STRC, Strategy’s preferred stock, accounted for 74.29% of assets. Strive’s SATA preferred shares made up 4.88%, while 20.83% was cash in reais and margin allocated to the currency hedge.

STRC and SATA are perpetual, variable-rate preferred securities. Their value depends on the issuers’ dividend policies, capital structures, and market conditions, including the effect of Bitcoin prices on the companies’ balance sheets.

Strategy and Strive do not pledge the Bitcoin they hold as segregated collateral for these preferred shares.

Strategy’s August filing disclosed a 12% annualized STRC rate and declared semi-monthly payments. Strive’s SATA pays on business days after monthly board declarations, according to the company’s disclosure.

Both rates can change, and neither is a guaranteed return for DIGY11 investors.

DIGY11 aims to make monthly distributions in reais when applicable, and its currency hedge is designed to reduce changes in the dollar-real exchange rate.

OranjeBTC presents a potential annual return of CDI, Brazil’s interbank benchmark rate, plus 3% to 5%. It labels that range an illustrative estimate, and says the calculation excludes changes in DIGY11’s unit value.

Fund costs further separate the preferred-share payouts from an investor’s return. DIGY11 charges a 0.90% annual management fee and at least 0.055% annually for administration and custody, before other possible expenses.

The result is a local preferred-income product whose distributions and unit value can change with the issuers, the securities, and the hedge. The product page also states that returns and distributions are not guaranteed and that the fund has no FGC protection.

The post Brazil’s B3 gets DIGY11, a new ETF tracking Bitcoin treasury preferred stock appeared first on CryptoSlate.

The Solana network kept producing blocks on Aug. 12 when an infrastructure failure stopped validators representing nearly 29% of network stake from voting, according to a Solana Foundation account published Sept. 14.

Independent monitoring found that the chain remained live, yet its performance deteriorated: more leader slots were skipped, transaction throughput fell sharply, and settlement finality was delayed.

The disruption began at Teraswitch, which the Foundation described as Solana’s largest infrastructure provider. A Teraswitch postmortem traced the outage to a stale default route left on a Miami edge router, with Teraswitch's provider traffic fully recovering 33 minutes after the first alarm.

Routine transit-provider maintenance activated that route, while transposed values in a routing policy applied a “no-export” instruction toward Europe and Asia-Pacific.

In practical terms, the bad route spread across Teraswitch’s network and prevented affected data centers from reaching the Internet through healthy local routers. Twelve sites across Europe and Asia-Pacific lost Internet and inter-site connectivity, including infrastructure hosting Solana validator and RPC nodes.

Independent blockchain-risk monitoring firm Metrika broadly corroborated both the scale of the disruption and continuous block production. Its data showed skipped slots rising above 32% and non-vote transaction throughput dropping below 300 per second from a typical range of roughly 1,100 to 1,300.

Metrika’s observer also recorded about half an hour in which newly produced blocks had not yet reached finality, the point at which their transactions become irreversible. The backlog finalized as connectivity returned.

Solana avoided a chain-wide production halt, but users and systems depending on rapid settlement faced materially weaker performance.

Solana needs more than 66% of stake voting to maintain consensus finality. The roughly 29% offline share stayed about 4% to 5% below the corresponding 33% finality-halt threshold, according to Metrika.

The Foundation said Teraswitch had hosted 38% of network stake in 2025 and that its team reduced the provider’s share below 30% before the outage. That hosting share and the incident’s delinquent stake estimate measure different things, even though both highlight concentration risk.

Many separately operated validators lost connectivity together because they shared one provider failure domain.

Teraswitch later deployed provider-side hardening that day so an invalid route can no longer stop sites from using healthy local edge routers. Its September postmortem said additional route monitoring remained in progress, leaving infrastructure diversity and observability as continuing resilience tests.

The post Solana nearly froze as a single routing error took 29% of the network stake offline appeared first on CryptoSlate.

Ripple is extending XRP’s push into US college sports, adding Louisville to a campaign that has rapidly expanded since July.

The crypto company said Monday it struck a partnership with Louisville Athletics that will give XRP prominent exposure around the university’s basketball program, including branding on Denny Crum Court, extending a strategy that has already put the token on Kansas jerseys and the University of Florida’s football field.

Louisville marks Ripple’s third major college-sports agreement in roughly 10 weeks. The sequence reflects a broader effort to move XRP beyond financial and crypto audiences and into consumer-facing spaces where the company has spent years building relationships through research and education.

Ripple takes an old university strategy into stadiums

The college campaign builds on an academic network Ripple started years before universities began putting XRP logos in front of sports fans.

Ripple launched its University Blockchain Research Initiative (UBRI) in 2018 to finance blockchain research, curriculum development, and technical projects. The program now spans more than 60 universities in 27 countries and has supported more than 800 new or expanded fintech courses and roughly 1,500 academic blockchain research projects, according to the company.

Kansas provides the clearest bridge between those two strategies.

The university joined UBRI in 2019 after Ripple provided a $2 million commitment, paid over five years, to support blockchain, cryptocurrency and digital-payments research. Work at Kansas has included an XRP Ledger validator as well as blockchain projects spanning cybersecurity, biodiversity and the arts.

Seven years later, the relationship moved onto the playing field.

Ripple and Kansas Athletics announced a multiyear sponsorship in July that places XRP patches on uniforms across the university’s athletic programs. Kansas described it as the first integration of a cryptocurrency onto the jerseys of a major college athletics program.

Sports Business Journal reported the agreement runs for five years and ranks among the more lucrative jersey-patch deals in college sports, though it did not disclose financial terms.

Ripple then expanded the strategy to Florida on Sept. 4. The multiyear agreement places XRP branding directly on the field at Ben Hill Griffin Stadium as well as across digital properties and event signage. Florida also said the partnership would support financial and technology education for student-athletes and the broader university community.

The deal is reportedly worth about $5 million annually, though neither Ripple nor Florida disclosed financial terms publicly.

Louisville now extends the campaign into another major college-basketball market, giving Ripple three different forms of exposure: uniforms at Kansas, football-field placement at Florida, and basketball-court branding at Louisville.

XRP rally adds visibility, but utility remains the test

The sponsorship push has coincided with an unusually volatile period for XRP.

After closing at $1.09 on July 8, the token slipped below $1 in mid-August before staging a sharp recovery. It jumped almost 15% on both Aug. 20 and Aug. 21 and reached an intraday high of $1.695 the following day. XRP was back near $1.41 on Monday, still almost 30% above its level when the Kansas deal was announced.

That narrower comparison also masks longer-term weakness. XRP remains well below its 52-week high of about $3.14, underscoring the difference between a rebound over the past two months and a sustained recovery from last year’s levels.

Ripple’s sports agreements so far are primarily distribution and branding deals. The Florida announcement, for example, did not require the university to hold XRP, accept the token for tickets or merchandise, or settle athletic-department payments over the XRP Ledger.

That leaves a commercial question hanging over the expansion.

UBRI gave Ripple a way to seed research, technical expertise, and blockchain familiarity inside universities. Its sports strategy can expose XRP to far larger audiences, including television viewers and alumni who may never interact with those academic programs.

The next test is whether Ripple can turn that familiarity into measurable use. Future university agreements that incorporate payments, ticketing, donations, or other on-chain activity would move the strategy beyond brand recognition.

For now, Ripple is spending to ensure that considerably more Americans recognize the XRP name when that opportunity arrives.

The post Ripple’s university strategy is evolving from blockchain labs to XRP logos in packed stadiums appeared first on CryptoSlate.

On September 15, 2026 an Ethereum wallet lost around 2,882 rsETH without a single owner signature being required. The wallet was a Safe multisig, the very design that counts as particularly secure because several keys have to sign together. The balance drained anyway, through a module the owners had enabled themselves. If you use a smart contract wallet, the task after this case is small and concrete: look at which modules are enabled in your wallet, and remove anything you no longer need or can no longer explain.

This article explains what a module is technically allowed to do, how the September 15 attack unfolded, and how to run the check yourself in a few minutes. Going through the interface costs you no fee. Only removing a module is a transaction, and that needs the regular number of signatures.

Safe module explained: what a module may do in a smart contract wallet

A Safe module is a smart contract of its own that the wallet permanently allows to execute transactions on its behalf, without the usual number of owner signatures coming together. That is not a flaw in the design, it is the point of the design. Anyone who wants to run automatic payroll, a recurring rebalancing routine or a liquidity strategy cannot have three people sign off on every step. So the wallet delegates that part to a contract.

Technically this runs through the function execTransactionFromModule, or its variant with a return value. An enabled module calls it, and the wallet executes whatever the module instructs. The signature threshold is not circumvented in the process; it is simply not provided for on this path. The Safe documentation spells out the consequence with unusual clarity: modules can execute arbitrary transactions, only audited and trusted modules should be added, and a malicious module can take over a wallet entirely. It is set out in the official Safe documentation on smart account modules.

Two properties make modules attractive to attackers. First, they are permanent: once activated, a module stays active until somebody explicitly switches it off. Second, they are invisible day to day. You do not see them when sending, not when receiving and not in the balance. They show up only where you go looking for them.

The September 15 attack: how DELEGATECALL released 2,882 rsETH

The outflow landed in block 25980525 at 04:38:47 UTC. It hit a single Safe wallet holding a leveraged position in rsETH, the liquid restaking token from Kelp DAO. The security firms Blockaid and PeckShield reported the incident first; their damage figures differ slightly and sit between 7.73 and 7.81 million dollars. The quantity is more precise than the dollar figure: 2,882.37 rsETH.

The fault sat in a bespoke module that the wallet used for a liquidity strategy on Uniswap v4. This module offered an entry point that passed caller-supplied data through unchecked, straight to the wallet function execTransactionFromModuleReturnData with operation flag 1. Flag 1 stands for DELEGATECALL, and that is the decisive point.

DELEGATECALL in one sentence

DELEGATECALL executes foreign program code in the storage and under the identity of your own contract, as though the wallet had written that code itself. Whoever can trigger this call is not acting towards the wallet but as the wallet.

Because the module's entry point had no access control for external callers, any address at all could reach it. And because the module was already enabled in the wallet, the wallet checked nothing further. The owner list and the signature threshold no longer played any part in this sequence.

Uniswap v4 hook and keeper multicall: the attacker's route step by step

The chain ran through several stages and used functions designed as convenience features throughout. The attacker first called a publicly accessible keeper multicall function. Keepers are services that keep a strategy running, for instance by adjusting positions; their calls are often deliberately open so that anyone can trigger them and the strategy never stalls.

Through that call, the attacker steered the wallet's liquidity module towards a Uniswap v4 pool he controlled himself. Uniswap v4 allows what are known as hooks, custom code that runs automatically alongside certain events in a pool. The hook in this pool belonged to the attacker.

The last step was the unwrapping. The wallet did not hold bare rsETH but aEthrsETH, that is rsETH inside the interest-bearing wrapper of the lending market Aave. In that form it cannot simply be carried off. The hook unwrapped the holding into freely transferable rsETH, and with that the balance was mobile.

An MEV bot instead of the attacker: why "yoink" got the money

The attacker sent his transaction into the public mempool, the waiting area of unconfirmed transactions that anyone can inspect. An MEV bot called "yoink" was reading along there, rebuilt the same sequence and got in first within the same block. The 2,882.37 rsETH landed on an address belonging to the bot, worth around 7.80 million dollars at its valuation at the moment of execution.

For the wallet that was robbed, that changes nothing. For you it changes two things. First, the case shows that an open weakness in a module does not concern only the attacker who finds it: as soon as the sequence is publicly visible, anyone fast enough can rebuild it. Second, it explains why the prospects of recovery differ here from a classic theft. Kelp DAO paused the receiving address at 06:03 UTC for 24 hours and stated at the same time that its own contracts were untouched and that rsETH remained fully backed. The fault sat in a bespoke module of a single wallet, not in the token and not in the protocol.

Not the first case: the SquidRouterModule exploit of May 25, 2026

Anyone treating the September incident as a one-off underestimates the pattern. On May 25, 2026 an attack hit a module running under the name SquidRouterModule. According to the outlets that reported it, at least 86 Safe wallets on Ethereum and Base were affected; depending on the analysis, the damage is put at 3.2 million dollars, or in another count at just under 4 million dollars across a good 300 transactions. The sequence lasted around two hours.

The route of attack was a different one and the result was the same. Instead of a DELEGATECALL entry, the attackers used the function executeSameChainActions() and passed themselves off as authorised delegates. Because the module already held far-reaching rights in the affected wallets, the wallet contracts treated the forged instructions as genuine. The provider Squid stated publicly that the exploited contract merely shared a name with its own product architecture and had no connection to it, and that its own users and integrators had not been affected.

The same lesson can be drawn from both cases. The weakest point of a multisig today is rarely the signature threshold. It lies in the contracts that the wallet at some point allowed to work around that threshold. When choosing your custody solution, that is a criterion which appears in barely any product description; our hardware wallet comparison ranks the devices by how much control over signing really stays with you.

Checking Safe modules: how to see what is enabled in five minutes

The check itself is unspectacular, and that is exactly why it so often goes undone. There are two routes, and they answer the same question.

Through the interface: settings and the module list

Open your wallet in the Safe interface and go to the Modules entry in the settings. It lists which contract addresses are enabled for this wallet. For the vast majority of private wallets there is nothing there, and that is the good case. If something is listed, go through each address one at a time and answer three questions: do you still remember what you enabled this module for? Do you still use the associated application today? And can you find a traceable provider for the address, complete with an audit report?

If any one of those questions stays open, the module belongs on the list for removal. The burden of proof here sits on the side of keeping. A module whose purpose you can no longer name carries on working regardless.

Through the contract: getModules and isModuleEnabled

Anyone who wants to know independently of an interface asks the wallet contract directly. The read function getModules returns the addresses of all enabled modules, and isModuleEnabled answers yes or no for a single address as to whether it is enabled. Both calls are pure read calls: they cost no fee, need no signature and can be run through any block explorer or an SDK.

The contract route has a practical advantage. It shows you the state of the chain and not the rendering of an application. If an interface fails to display a module for whatever reason, it is still listed here.

Removing a module: why disableModule needs your signature threshold

Switching off runs through the wallet function disableModule. Unlike looking, this is a real transaction. It costs network fees and needs the regular number of signatures from your owners. In the Safe interface you start the process in the same module list you have just been reading; the owners then confirm as they would for any other transaction.

One quirk is worth knowing: the modules are stored in the contract as a linked list, and switching off therefore also needs the address of the preceding entry. Interfaces and SDKs insert this value themselves. Anyone building the transaction by hand has to determine it, or the call fails.

Schedule the removal for a moment when network fees are low, and work through several modules in one session. That does not apply to plain inspection: it costs nothing and can happen right away.

Token approvals and modules: two permissions, two separate checks

This is where a confusion regularly arises that can turn expensive. A token approval, approve in contract jargon, allows an outside contract to debit a certain amount of a certain token from your address. A module, by contrast, allows an outside contract to act inside your wallet, and to do so across all your holdings.

The difference in reach is considerable, which is why neither check replaces the other. Someone who has cleanly revoked their approvals can still have a module with full access enabled. How to clear out the approvals and what a revocation costs at the current gas price is described in our guide to token approvals on Ethereum. For modules, the check from the previous section applies on top.

Both checks, incidentally, only concern wallets you manage yourself. If your balance sits with an exchange, its custody decides the matter, and the checklist there looks entirely different.

Restaking wrappers like aEthrsETH: why wrapped tokens enlarge the damage

One side aspect of the case deserves attention of its own. The affected wallet held its Ethereum in multiply wrapped form: first as the liquid restaking token rsETH, then once more as interest-bearing aEthrsETH in the lending market. Every wrapper is a further contract that brings rights, rules and, in case of doubt, weaknesses of its own.

For you that means one thing above all: the deeper the wrapping, the longer the chain of contracts you would have to check in order to really understand your position. Anyone building yield through restaking and lending should at least be able to name the layers involved. Our overview of staking platforms sets out for each provider how many contract layers sit between you and your ether.

For completeness: on September 15 Kelp DAO explicitly stated that its own contracts were not affected and that rsETH remains backed. The wrapping did not cause the damage. It made the damage mobile, once the attacker had access to the wallet.

Reporting duty since September 11: what the Cyber Resilience Act changes for wallet providers

For you as a user in Germany there is a regulatory change on top, and it alters how such gaps are handled. Since September 11, 2026 the first reporting duties of the EU Cyber Resilience Act have applied. Manufacturers of products with digital elements have to report an actively exploited vulnerability within 24 hours of becoming aware of it as an early warning to the EU agency ENISA and to the relevant national computer emergency response team; the detailed vulnerability notification follows within 72 hours at the latest. The duty also covers products already on the market.

Wallet software falls under it, and we have set out the consequences for providers in more detail in our piece on the reporting duty for wallet makers. In practice this means: with a provider based in or selling into the EU, you should in future hear about an actively exploited gap promptly.

This protection has a limit, though, and the September 15 case shows it clearly. The faulty module was not a manufacturer's product but a bespoke contract for a single wallet. For self-built or individually commissioned contracts there is nobody who notifies you. There, the check stays your own job.

Checking Safe modules: what to take away

1. Look at your module list today. Open the settings of your smart contract wallet and read the enabled contract addresses. It costs no fee and no signature. If you are thinking about your custody anyway, compare in parallel which solution suits your holdings: the devices sit side by side in our hardware wallet comparison.
2. Remove what you can no longer explain. Every module whose purpose you cannot name, or whose application you no longer use, belongs switched off via disableModule. Schedule the transaction for a moment with low fees. If you would rather keep your day-to-day holdings in a lean wallet without module logic, the candidates are in our software wallet comparison.
3. Count the layers of your yield position. For every wrapped position, note which contracts sit between you and your ether, and decide whether the extra yield is worth that chain to you. The providers and their contract layers are in our overview of staking platforms.

The September 15 case is no argument against smart contract wallets. It is an argument for reading the one list nobody reads. The details of the sequence were reconstructed by The Crypto Times on September 15.

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

Your wallet has stopped showing a coin, and the app has put a date on the screen. The good news first: your balance is not gone. It sits on the blockchain, and the blockchain keeps running. What you lose is the convenient way in through that one app, and that can be replaced as long as you still have your recovery phrase.

The next case falls on September 24, 2026: Phantom is ending support for the Sui network. It is the fifth shutdown of this kind in four weeks. This article explains what actually happens at a technical level, which two routes you have before any such deadline, where the move most often goes wrong in practice, and what German tax law has to say about it.

What happens to your coins when a wallet drops a network?

Technically, nothing at all happens to your balance. A self-custody wallet stores no coins. What it holds are the private keys you use to sign transactions on a blockchain, and its interface shows you what the chain assigns to your address. When a provider drops a network, it switches off the display and the signing function for that network. The chain itself, your address and your holdings stay exactly as they were.

Phantom puts it plainly on its own help page for the Sui case: "Your assets are not lost. They remain on the Sui blockchain and can be accessed using a compatible wallet with the same credentials."

In practice, plenty still changes for you. After the deadline you can no longer send, swap or work with applications on that chain from inside the old app. Anyone who does nothing until then is not facing a loss but a chore: setting up access again, with a phrase they may not have touched in months.

Three things decide how unpleasant that will be: whether your recovery phrase is complete and legible, whether you know what kind of assets you hold on the affected chain, and whether you act before the deadline or after it.

Self-custody explained: your wallet is a keyring, not a vault

Self-custody means the private keys to your crypto assets sit with you alone and no provider holds them on your behalf. The recovery phrase, usually twelve or twenty-four words, is the human-readable form of the seed from which all your private keys are calculated. The address is the public half of that key pair, the identifier under which your holdings are recorded on the chain.

From that structure follows the sentence this whole article rests on: the app is replaceable, the phrase is not. Any wallet software that supports the same chain and the same derivation scheme will compute the same keys from your phrase, and therefore the same address. That is why the provider cannot take your access away as long as you hold the words.

The distinction from an exchange matters. There it works the other way round: with a custodial account the provider holds the keys, your balance is a claim against that provider, and if it delists an asset, no phrase will help you. All that counts then is the withdrawal window the provider sets. Confuse the two cases and you either panic without cause or underestimate a real deadline. For an overview of which applications support which chains at all, see our comparison of crypto software wallets.

Phantom and Sui: what happens to your balance on September 24, 2026

By its own announcement, Phantom will end support for the Sui network on September 24, 2026. From that day, SUI and other assets on that chain can no longer be viewed, sent, swapped or used in applications inside the app. We covered the move in detail when it was announced in August, back when the now expired Monad deadline was still in play: Phantom Wallet drops Sui and Monad.

One detail is missing from the announcement and belongs in your planning: Phantom names no time of day. The help page gives the date and nothing else. Anyone banking on the last day is relying on a window the provider commits to nowhere. Plan the move with several days to spare, not hours.

As the destination wallet Phantom names Slush, the application recommended by the Sui Foundation. The wording of the announcement is on Phantom's help page. The details on the swap routes in the next section come from there as well.

Route 1: swap inside the old wallet before the deadline falls

The first route leaves the chain altogether. You swap your assets while still inside the old app into something it will keep supporting. At Phantom that includes SOL, ETH and USDC at the usual fees, according to the provider. For the move from native SUI into a version wrapped on Solana, Phantom has waived its own fee until the deadline; network and trading fees still apply.

This route is convenient and comes with two catches worth knowing. First, a wrapped version leaves you with a claim rather than a native balance, and that claim depends on the bridge behind it and on its backing. Second, a swap counts as a disposal for tax purposes, even when it feels like nothing more than rearranging. What that triggers in concrete terms is in the tax section below.

Route 1 makes sense above all when your holdings are small, when you have nothing further planned on the affected chain and when the hassle of a second wallet puts you off. For larger holdings, for staked positions and for collectibles, there is barely a way past route 2.

Route 2: import the recovery phrase into a compatible wallet

The second route keeps your assets where they are and swaps out the tool alone. You install a wallet that supports the affected chain and restore the same recovery phrase there. Address and balance appear on their own afterwards, because both are calculated from the phrase.

In practice this order has proved itself:

1. First check that your phrase is complete, in the right order and legible. Do that before you install anything.
2. Download the new wallet only through the provider's official route, never through an ad link or a search result.
3. Restore the phrase in the new app. Enter it only in the app itself, never on a website and never in a form somebody sends you.
4. Check that balance and address match what the old wallet was showing.
5. Send a small test amount before you move larger sums, and keep some of the coin that pays the fee on that chain ready for it.

Keeping the phrase in two applications at once, incidentally, adds no risk on the chain itself; it simply puts a second copy into circulation. Depending on what you hold, that is an argument for combining the move directly with a switch to a hardware wallet, where the key never leaves the device.

The derivation path decides: why one phrase produces two different addresses

This is the source of most of the scares during a wallet switch. Your phrase is first turned into a seed, and from that seed wallets derive their keys along a fixed pattern. The derivation path is the set of directions that determines which key comes out of that seed for which chain and which sub-account.

One component of that path is a number per chain, recorded in the public SLIP-0044 registry. There Bitcoin carries 0, Dogecoin 3, Ether 60, Solana 501, Aptos 637 and Sui 784. The same phrase therefore necessarily produces a different address for Sui than for Solana, and that is not a fault but the normal case.

From this follows the most important rule for the moment it matters: if your new wallet shows an empty balance after the import, the coins are almost never gone; the path or the sub-account is wrong. Before you panic, check in order whether the app has actually opened the right chain, whether it offers several accounts from the same phrase, and whether it lets you set the derivation path by hand. Many applications show only the first account by default, even though your balance sits on the second or third.

You can verify this independently of any app: your address and its balance are in the block explorer of the chain in question. If the amount you expect is there under your old address, the case is settled, and all that is missing is the right path in the new software.

Staked SUI: why the position keeps running and when you can reach your capital

Phantom's help page does not answer this question. It speaks of "Sui assets" throughout, and staked holdings appear nowhere separately. The answer is in Sui's own documentation instead, and it is reassuring.

Staking on Sui means your tokens are locked into an object of their own on the chain, assigned to a validator. The Sui documentation calls this a self-custodial stake object: it sits on the blockchain and continues to belong to your address, entirely regardless of which app displays it. When you unstake, that object is dissolved and returns your principal and accrued rewards to you as SUI.

One limitation belongs in your timing. According to the same documentation, rewards accrue only for epochs in which your stake was active for the full epoch. Exit in the middle of an epoch and you give up that epoch's yield. This is no reason to rush, but it is a reason to place the exit deliberately rather than on the final evening.

For the Phantom case that means: staked SUI does not vanish on September 24, it merely stops being visible in Phantom. Once the phrase is imported into a Sui-capable wallet, the position reappears and you unstake from there. Anyone planning the swap under route 1 before the deadline, though, has to exit first: staked holdings cannot be swapped while they are locked.

NFTs and edge cases: what the help pages leave open

Collectibles follow the same mechanics as tokens, because they too are objects on the chain and hang off your address. Once the phrase is imported into a suitable wallet, they reappear. What does not apply to them is route 1: a collectible cannot simply be swapped into USDC, and a sale needs a buyer on a marketplace of that chain.

Two further cases sit close to this. With very small or thinly traded tokens the swap can fail on missing trading volume, leaving only the move. And with balances committed inside an application, as collateral, in a liquidity pool or in a contract with a lock-up, you first have to unwind that position, through an interface that will no longer be reachable from the old wallet after the deadline.

Where a provider writes nothing about your particular case, that is a sign of open questions, not a quiet assurance. When in doubt, ask support before the deadline and keep a record of the answer.

Five shutdowns in four weeks: the pattern behind the wallet drops

The Phantom case is not an isolated one, and that is exactly what makes it predictable for you. Between August 24 and September 17, 2026 alone we have followed five events of the same kind: Phantom is ending Sui, Trust Wallet is removing 25 networks on September 15, Cosmostation shut down its wallet operation in early September, Cypher required withdrawals by September 6, and MyDoge is switching off Doginals and DRC-20 on September 17. All five dates come from our own reporting in that period.

The reasons are alike. Every additional chain a provider supports costs it effort on a permanent basis: its own node connection, its own signing procedures, its own failure modes in support. When usage of that chain does not carry the effort, it eventually drops out. For you as a user, a sober expectation follows: the fact that an app displays a chain today is no commitment for next year.

Anyone using several chains should therefore build two habits. First, actually read the announcements from your own provider instead of swiping them away as marketing. Second, have tried at least once how your own phrase is restored in a second application, with a small amount, in calm conditions, long before the first real deadline.

When the wallet app itself disappears: the harder case

A dropped chain is the mild version. It gets harder when the provider shuts down operations entirely, as Cypher and Cosmostation did. Route 1 then falls away, because there is no interface left in which you could still swap, and the notice period is often shorter.

Two points are regularly underestimated here. For one, convenience services that ran quietly in the background often disappear with the app: the connection to a node, the display of prices, sometimes the recovery function through a provider account. For another, there are applications that keep keys exclusively on the device and issue no phrase in the classic sense. There you have to export actively before the shutdown, or your access hangs on a device that will break at some point.

The check that spares you all this takes ten minutes: for every app you use, do you know where your phrase is and whether it belongs to an open standard? If the answer for one application is no, that is your next task, regardless of any deadline.

Wallet drop or blockchain shutdown: the difference decides what happens to your coins

The two cases sound the same in everyday use and are fundamentally different. In a wallet drop the chain carries on as normal, only one app stops displaying it. Your phrase solves the problem completely.

In a blockchain shutdown the network itself ceases operation. Once the validators stop producing blocks, the best key is no use to you, because there is no chain left on which you could sign. All that counts then is whether you used the designated swap or the bridge to another chain before the date. Harmony and Lisk were the most recent cases of exactly that.

So the first question to ask is always: does the announcement concern my app or my network? If a provider's name is in the notice, it is the mild case. If the name of the chain is there, you have a real deadline.

Tax in Germany: why the move is tax-free and the swap is not

For investors in Germany the two routes diverge completely for tax purposes, and that should feed into your decision.

The move under route 2 transfers nothing. Your coins stay on the same address, there is no acquirer and no proceeds, so there is no private disposal transaction within the meaning of section 23 of the German Income Tax Act (EStG). All you change is the software you use to reach the same holdings.

The swap under route 1, by contrast, is a disposal. Section 23(1) sentence 1 no. 2 EStG covers transactions "in other assets where the period between acquisition and disposal is no more than one year". If your purchase is therefore less than a year old, any gain arising from it is taxable in principle. An exemption threshold applies: under section 23(3) sentence 5 EStG gains remain tax-free "if the total gain realised from private disposal transactions in the calendar year was less than 1,000 euros". Because this is a threshold and not an allowance, the entire gain becomes taxable at 1,000 euros or more, not merely the part above it.

Two further points belong on your radar. First, a swap into a wrapped version of the same coin also has to be treated as a disposal of the original asset. Second, staking rewards are handled separately and not like a plain price gain. Because both can only be calculated cleanly with complete acquisition records, there is barely a way around proper bookkeeping; suitable applications are in our comparison of crypto tax tools. For a binding assessment of your own case, a tax adviser is the right address.

The most common mistakes when switching wallets

• Entering the phrase on a website. No reputable wallet asks for the words outside its own app. Any page that does is after your holdings.
• Forgetting the fee coin. On the new chain you need a small balance of the coin that pays for transactions there. Without it you can see your balance but cannot move it.
• Reading an empty screen as a loss. In the vast majority of cases only the right sub-account or the right derivation path is missing.
• Overlooking staked or committed positions. Such positions often do not appear in the balance display like ordinary holdings and need a step of their own.
• Waiting until the last day. Where the provider names no time of day, the last day is not a figure you can plan around.
• Throwing away the old phrase after the move. As long as the same phrase stays in use, it remains the access to everything.

Wallet drops a network: what to take away

1. Check today, not on the deadline, that your recovery phrase is complete and legible. The phrase is the one part of your setup that cannot be replaced. If your holdings justify secure storage, the move is a good occasion to switch to a device from our hardware wallet comparison.
2. Decide deliberately between swapping and moving. The swap closes your position and can trigger tax, the move keeps it and costs only some setup time. Which application supports your chains is shown by our software wallet comparison.
3. Record your acquisition data before you move anything. Purchase date, quantity and price decide later on holding period and exemption threshold. Tools for that are in the comparison of crypto tax tools.

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

The short answer first: LUNC burns are cutting Terra Classic's supply measurably, but slowly. Over the twelve months to September 15, 2026, roughly 39.78 billion LUNC were destroyed. Measured against the total supply of 6.449 trillion tokens that the chain itself reports on that day, that is 0.62 percent in a year. If that pace holds, the supply needs around 112 years to halve. This article walks through exactly that calculation step by step, with figures you can pull yourself.

The trigger is recent. On August 2, 2026, the Terra Classic community tripled its burn tax from 0.5 to 1.5 percent through governance proposal 12223, the biggest change to the token economics in more than a year. Six weeks on, it is possible for the first time to work out what that tripling actually delivered. The result is more sober than the announcement suggested.

How much LUNC is really in circulation today

Before talking about burns, you need the denominator. Terra Classic has two of them, and they get confused regularly.

The total supply is the number of all existing tokens. The chain publishes it directly through its public access node: 6,449,044,459,046 LUNC, retrieved on September 15, 2026. The circulating supply, or float, is the smaller figure. Market data providers deduct whatever counts as permanently locked. CoinGecko reports 5,518,614,884,728 LUNC for the same day, or 5.519 trillion.

The gap between the two comes to 930.43 billion LUNC, or 14.43 percent of total supply. Broken down, the largest item sits in staking: 906.57 billion LUNC are bonded to validators, which is 14.06 percent of all tokens. The chain's community pool, which pays for development and marketing, holds a comparatively modest 8.97 billion LUNC.

Staking here means that tokens are deposited with a validator, secure the chain and cannot be traded for an unbonding period of 21 days. Bonded therefore does not mean destroyed. That supply can come back at any time, which is why the float is the more honest denominator for the question of how much supply is weighing on the market. If you want to trade LUNC at all, the venue decides first: which exchanges list the pair, what fees they charge and which of them are regulated in Germany is covered in the comparison of the best crypto exchanges.

One value stands out immediately in the query: the inflation rate of the mint module sits at exactly zero. Terra Classic no longer creates new LUNC. That is the precondition for burns to have any effect at all. On a chain that is issuing new tokens at the same time, every burn calculation would be moot.

What the 1.5 percent burn tax actually removes on-chain

The burn tax is a levy charged on every LUNC transfer on the chain, and the burned share disappears irreversibly from supply. An exchange does not set this levy; the rate sits in the chain as a protocol parameter and can therefore be read directly. The node answers the query for that parameter with the value 0.015, that is 1.5 percent, retrieved on September 15, 2026.

The difference between collected and burned matters. Of the 1.5 percent, 1.2 percentage points are actually destroyed under the current resolution, and the remainder flows into other pools of the chain. In practice that means: anyone sending LUNC worth 1,000 euros from one address to the next pays 15 euros in levy, and 12 euros of that is permanently taken out of supply.

What the tax does not capture matters just as much. It falls due on movements on the chain. Trading inside a centralized exchange runs in its internal books and never touches the chain. This is where the weak point of the construction sits: the largest part of LUNC volume happens on trading venues, and that volume pays no burn tax.

Why tripling the burn tax did not triple the burn

Anyone who triples the tax rate expects roughly three times as much supply burned. That expectation has been testable since the beginning of August. The monthly figures come from the supply history that netsupply.org keeps for Terra Classic, retrieved on September 15, 2026.

In July 2026, the last full month under the old rate of 0.5 percent, 1.62 billion LUNC were burned. In August 2026, the first full month at 1.5 percent, the figure was 2.62 billion. That is an increase of 62 percent, not of 200. Arithmetically, the tripled rate should have produced around 4.86 billion. It reached 54 percent of that.

The comparison becomes more sobering still when the weakest single month is dropped as the yardstick. Across the eleven months from September 2025 to July 2026, before the increase, the average stood at 3.28 billion LUNC per month. Measured against that average, August 2026 comes in 20 percent below it, despite the tripled tax rate.

September puts the picture into perspective again. By the 15th of the month, 1.94 billion LUNC had been burned. Extrapolated to the full month that gives around 3.88 billion, 18 percent above the eleven-month average. This projection is explicitly a projection from half a month and not a monthly result.

Both readings lead to the same corridor. Whether August or the September projection is taken as the basis, the annual rate stays between 0.49 and 0.72 percent of total supply. The obvious explanation: a higher levy per transfer makes moving tokens more expensive, and more expensive moves happen less often. The tax base shrinks while the rate rises.

The Binance burn: 334.87 million LUNC and what they change in circulation

Alongside the burn tax there is a second, far more visible source: since late 2022 Binance has burned the trading fees accruing in LUNC spot and margin trading every month. On September 1, 2026, the exchange reported its 48th monthly burn of 334.87 million LUNC, calculated from the August fees. Cumulatively the exchange now stands at more than 87.76 billion LUNC; individual trackers arrive at figures of up to 89.5 billion, depending on which addresses they count.

334.87 million sounds like a lot. Set in proportion, it shrinks: measured against the float of 5.519 trillion LUNC it amounts to 0.00607 percent in a month. Extrapolated to a year, the Binance burn alone accounts for 0.073 percent of the float.

The dollar value makes it clearer. At a LUNC price of $0.0000493 on September 15, 2026, one million LUNC costs around $49. The entire monthly burn of the world's largest crypto exchange therefore carries a value of about $16,500. That is the amount destroyed by an event reported worldwide every month.

Binance accounts for around 10 percent of the total burn of the past twelve months. The remaining 90 percent comes from the chain's burn tax and from voluntary burns by projects and holders. Anyone who mistakes the attention paid to the monthly Binance report for its effect is looking at the smaller of the two levers. How heavily individual governance decisions in this series were charged up beforehand is shown by the look back at the vote that was meant to change the LUNC price.

Run the numbers: how long a halving of the circulating supply takes at today's pace

Now the calculation the reader's question is really about. Given are 39.78 billion LUNC burned in twelve months and a total supply of 6.449 trillion. That yields an annual rate of 0.617 percent.

At a constant rate the supply shrinks exponentially rather than linearly, because every burn acts on a smaller remainder. The halving period that follows from it comes to around 112 years. Taking the weaker August as the basis turns that into 142 years; taking the September projection, 96. The corridor therefore sits at roughly a century.

For context, a second calculation: for the float to fall to one trillion LUNC, which is what would bring the frequently quoted mark of one cent per token within arithmetic reach in the first place, more than 1,100 years would have to pass at the Binance pace. Across all burn sources together, the order of magnitude stays in the hundreds of years.

These figures are no price forecast and say nothing about where the price is heading, because that hangs on demand and not on supply alone. What they show is the order of magnitude of the supply effect, and that is the question that can be calculated at all. Whatever price expectations analysts derive from it is their assessment and belongs to them, not to the burn mechanism.

What has actually been burned since May 2022

The overall balance since the collapse in May 2022 comes out differently depending on the source. The range runs from around 452 to 457.5 billion LUNC, depending on which addresses are counted as burn addresses. The difference of a good five billion tokens looks large but changes nothing in the final result.

The cross-check works out: adding the burned 452 to 457.5 billion back onto today's total supply of 6.449 trillion gives an original supply of 6.901 to 6.907 trillion LUNC. The supply after the hyperinflation of May 2022 lay in exactly that order of magnitude. The two independently collected figures confirm each other.

From that follows the share: in four years and four months, 6.55 to 6.62 percent of the original supply has been destroyed. On average that is a good 104 billion LUNC per year, far more than the 39.78 billion of the past twelve months. The pace has slowed to roughly a third rather than picking up. The reason is plain: the big burns fell in the years with high trading volume and high attention.

Why deflationary and scarce are two different things

Deflationary for a token simply means that supply falls over time. Terra Classic meets that condition demonstrably: the chain creates nothing new, and burning goes on continuously. For the twelve months to mid-September 2026, the supply history shows a decline of 0.6 percent in total supply and 0.2 percent in the float.

Scarce is something else. Scarcity arises when the available supply is small relative to what buyers want of it. With 5.5 trillion tokens in circulation and a market capitalization of around $272 million, Terra Classic is the opposite of scarce, even after another decade of burning.

Both hold at the same time: supply is falling, and it is falling on a scale that does not carry the price. Anyone holding LUNC or looking to buy should therefore avoid pinning the decision on the burn mechanism. The mechanism works as described. It merely operates on a timescale that matches no investment horizon.

How to check the burn figures yourself in five minutes

Every figure in this article is openly available, and you need no account for it. That is the real advantage of a public chain over corporate accounts.

The total supply comes from Terra Classic's public access node through the supply query for the denomination uluna. The answer arrives in micro-LUNC, so you have to divide by one million to get whole tokens. The same node returns the tax rate through the burn tax parameter, currently as the value 0.015.

For the monthly figures, the supply history at netsupply.org works well, setting the burns per month against the change in supply. The circulating figure in turn comes from market data providers such as CoinGecko, and it is the only one of the quantities named that rests on a methodological decision instead of a chain value.

Three mistakes are common here. First, confusing total supply with circulating supply, which distorts the share of a burn by a good 14 percent. Second, equating the levy collected with the amount burned, although only 1.2 of the 1.5 percentage points are destroyed. Third, extrapolating a single strong month across a whole year, which produces the tenfold figures circulating in forecast pieces.

What a LUNC holding means for your taxes in Germany

For the tax office, a burn is initially a non-event. Your own tokens stay in your wallet, nothing is sold and nothing is allocated. A process that reduces the supply of other holders triggers no taxable event for you.

German tax law becomes relevant only on a sale or a swap. Under the tax authorities' view, crypto assets count as other economic goods; gains therefore fall under private disposal transactions per section 23 of the Income Tax Act. Anyone holding for longer than a year pays no income tax on the gain. Within the one-year period, a gain stays untaxed only if the sum of all private disposal transactions of the year stays below the exemption threshold of 1,000 euros. Exemption threshold means: one euro above it, and the entire amount is taxable.

The practically tricky part with Terra Classic is allocation. Anyone who has bought in tranches over the years has to evidence the sequence per wallet; the tax administration accepts the FIFO method for that, under which the tokens bought first count as sold first. The 1.5 percent burn tax on a transfer is a transaction cost and no loss you could claim separately. Which tools keep this history cleanly and produce a report that a tax adviser will accept is covered in the comparison of crypto tax tools and portfolio trackers. That replaces no tax advice, but it saves the reconstruction by hand.

LUNC burns: what you take away from this

1. Always measure the burn against supply, never in absolute numbers. 334.87 million LUNC a month is 0.006 percent of the float and around $16,500 in value. Check the denominator first on every burn report. Which venue lists which pair at which fees often decides your costs more than any burn: comparison of the best crypto exchanges.
2. Keep your purchase history for as long as you hold LUNC. The one-year period and the exemption threshold of 1,000 euros decide your tax burden, and both can be evidenced only with complete acquisition data. A tax tool with a portfolio tracker handles the FIFO allocation.
3. Separate custody from the trading decision. Anyone holding tokens over years to reach the holding period should avoid leaving them on an exchange permanently. Which wallet supports Cosmos-based chains such as Terra Classic is shown by the comparison of software wallets.

(As of September 15, 2026. This article is not investment advice. Prices and fee structures change; check the terms with the provider before you buy.)

AI crypto crime has moved out of its niche and onto the agenda of analysts and regulators. On August 21, 2026, The Block reported on the new “AI-in-Crime Adoption Index” from TRM Labs, which assesses the role of artificial intelligence in crypto-related crime in a systematic way. One caveat matters here: The Block summarises the TRM Labs analysis, but it supplies no independent global statistics on crypto fraud. According to TRM Labs, AI is increasingly used to run existing attacks faster, in more convincing language and with sharper targeting. More AI in cybercrime does not automatically mean that every crypto loss has grown to the same degree. This article sets out which forms of attack gain plausibility, where the data gaps sit and which protective measures still count.

What Is Behind the AI Crypto Crime Trend

AI crypto crime describes the use of artificial intelligence to prepare, personalise or automate criminal activity in the crypto space. In practice, AI generates or improves text, translations, images, voices, chat replies and variations of a lure. It does not necessarily replace known fraud models; more often it amplifies classic social engineering, in which attackers exploit trust, helpfulness, fear, time pressure or apparent authority so that victims hand over data, connect a wallet or sign a transaction themselves. According to TRM Labs, fraud is the most advanced category for the use of AI in criminal contexts within its own index.

Three AI Crypto Scams That Are Getting More Convincing

Fake Support

Contact usually starts with a comment, a direct message, a search ad or a fake profile. The supposed support agent then claims there is a security problem or that a “wallet verification” is required. AI can produce multilingual, professional-sounding dialogue and fast replies, which means a badly worded message no longer works as a reliable warning sign. The most important rule is unchanged: legitimate support never asks for a seed phrase, private key or password. As MetaMask sets out in its official support guidance, genuine support makes no unsolicited calls and never asks for the Secret Recovery Phrase. Anyone who hands over that data normally gives attackers full control of the wallet.

Voices, Videos and Apparent Authorities

Deepfakes are AI-generated or manipulated audio, image or video content that can imitate real people convincingly. In a crypto context that shows up as a faked video appeal from a founder, the cloned voice of an acquaintance reporting an alleged emergency, or a manipulated livestream with a giveaway and a wallet link. Not every odd-looking video is a deepfake; what matters is the source, an unusual call to action and the time pressure being built up.

Lures in Search and Social Media

Phishing tries to capture credentials and approvals through fake websites, login masks or wallet connections. AI can create many varied ads, posts and landing pages and tailor the language to a target group, which makes phishing more scalable without automatically making it more successful. Typical examples are paid search ads with fake download or support pages, lookalike domains, hijacked social media accounts and fake airdrops.

Why the Data on AI Crypto Crime Needs Careful Reading

TRM Labs is a blockchain analytics firm whose assessment is a valuable industry signal, though not a final measurement of global crypto crime as a whole. “AI-assisted fraud” describes the method behind an attack or the support it received, whereas a “confirmed rise in losses” requires comparable, traceable data on cases, damages and time periods. The data gaps are real: many victims never report an incident, the use of AI often cannot be established in an individual case, and losses are sometimes discovered late or categorised inconsistently. That methodological caution matches an assessment of generative AI by the German federal cyber security agency BSI, which finds that generative models enable convincing, automated phishing messages and fake profiles. That confirms the methodological risk, not a global loss rate.

Wallet Security Routines That Slow Attacks Down

A handful of fixed habits reduce the risk regardless of how convincing an attack looks:

• Never enter, upload or send a seed phrase, private key, password or recovery code to anyone claiming to be support.
• Open exchange and wallet sites from saved bookmarks or the official app, never through search ads, direct messages or comments.
• Before every wallet connection, check which website is being connected, and leave signatures you do not understand unconfirmed.
• With hardware wallets, check the recipient address, amount, network and permissions on the device display itself.
• Switch on two-factor authentication, where the BSI recommendation favours a security key or an authenticator app over SMS.
• With unusual calls, videos or urgent security warnings, open a second, known contact channel yourself instead of replying to the message.
• Treat time pressure as a warning sign: phrases such as “act now” or “your account will be locked” are typical fraud patterns.

For teams and companies one more rule applies: larger transactions should be secured with role-based permissions and a four-eyes principle.

AI Crypto Crime: Methods Change Faster Than Measurements

AI crypto crime is a real trend, and one that deserves a careful reading. TRM Labs supplies a relevant external assessment, according to which AI affects fraud, social engineering, deepfakes and automated campaigns in particular; on its own it is no evidence that all crypto losses have risen proportionally. For users, robust wallet security is what counts: safe contact routes, scepticism when time pressure appears and a careful check of every approval protect you even when an attack looks technically convincing.

The Senate is voting on the CLARITY Act today, and the crypto industry is holding its breath. It should not be.

Even in the worst case, US crypto is in a far better position than it was two years ago. Here is why a bad afternoon in Washington is not a bad decade for the industry.

What Is Actually Being Voted On in the CLARITY Act Vote?

Today's vote is a cloture vote on the motion to proceed, scheduled for 2:15 p.m. ET. It needs 60 votes. It is not a vote on whether the bill becomes law.

If it clears, the Senate moves to debate and amendments. If it fails, the 2026 path gets very narrow, with the midterms and a packed calendar eating the remaining floor time. Senator Cynthia Lummis has warned the next realistic window could be years away.

That is the bad news. Now the rest.

Do the SEC and CFTC Need the CLARITY Act to Write Crypto Rules?

No, and both agencies have already said so out loud.

SEC Chair Paul Atkins introduced a ruleset earlier this year that would apply the agency's existing authority to digital assets without new legislation. CFTC Chair Michael Selig has been even blunter, saying the commission is ready to set the rules of the road and defend its authority in court if Congress stays deadlocked.

The two agencies have also been actively harmonising their approach to crypto oversight. A failed vote slows the statute. It does not freeze US crypto regulation.

Does Trump Still Back the Crypto Market Structure Bill?

Yes. The President has publicly pushed the Senate to pass the bill and signed off on an ethics package covering officials' digital asset holdings, which a White House official called the most wide-ranging ethics provision in history. Democrats have argued it does not go far enough, and that fight is exactly what is holding the bill up.

The bigger point stands. The administration wants the US to be the global hub for digital assets, and that posture does not expire with one procedural vote.

Are Stablecoins Already Covered Without the CLARITY Act?

Yes. Stablecoins got their federal framework with the GENIUS Act in July 2025. That piece of the puzzle is already law and does not depend on what happens today.

Why Is US Crypto Regulation Still in a Good Spot?

Look at who is doing the lobbying. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent publicly urged senators to advance the bill, warning that walking away would signal America is unwilling to lead on digital assets. Atkins and Selig have both put their weight behind clearer crypto rules.

The biggest financial regulators in the country are campaigning for crypto legislation. A few years ago, those same offices were running regulation by enforcement and pushing builders offshore.

That era is over. Today's vote matters, and a win would matter more. But the floor under US crypto is already much higher than it used to be, and that is the real story.

The Hong Kong-founded exchange blamed a prolonged crypto winter and rising compliance costs, closing the books on a run that began in December 2017.

Nearly every major bank now expects the Fed to raise rates for the first time in three years. Markets have mostly priced it in, but the political fallout could run deeper than one hike.

The Coinbase-backed Stand With Crypto will add senators’ votes to its scorecards as it rallies crypto voters ahead of November’s elections.

Greg Brockman says OpenAI delayed launches and reworked its processes after a pre-release model broke out of a sandbox and hacked into Hugging Face.

The Senate fell short of the 60 votes needed to advance the crypto industry's marquee bill Tuesday. Bitcoin dropped as the no tally mounted, but the move stopped well short of panic.

XRP suffered a sharp 12.2% correction after the Clarity Act failed to advance in the U.S. Senate.

Bitcoin critic Peter Schiff seized on the CLARITY Act’s Senate defeat to renew his attacks on the cryptocurrency.

Ripple CLO Stuart Alderoty has reassured XRP holders that the token remains on firm legal ground despite the Clarity Act's crushing Senate defeat.

SHIB, HYPE, DOGE and XMR are consolidating around crucial technical levels, with their next major moves likely to depend on whether current support zones survive.

itcoin, XRP and Shiba Inu are plunging after the U.S. Senate failed to advance the CLARITY Act in a 49-50 procedural vote.

Key Takeaways

• Ethereum fell to $2,400 following the Senate’s rejection of the Clarity Act
• More than 140,000 ETH (valued at $350M) exited exchanges within a 96-hour period, decreasing selling pressure
• Spot Ethereum ETFs in the United States attracted $121M in capital this week, extending a five-week streak of positive flows
• Large holders increased their ETH positions by approximately 200K tokens over the past seven days
• Critical support awaits at $2,270 (50-day EMA) should ETH lose the $2,431 level

Ethereum’s price tumbled to approximately $2,400 on Tuesday following the Senate’s failure to pass the CLARITY Act, which fell short of the required 60-vote threshold for advancement. Senate Republicans rejected amendments proposed by Democrats, sparking a 5% decline in ETH’s value. However, blockchain metrics reveal a more nuanced picture beneath the surface.

Data tracking exchange movements indicates that more than 140,000 ETH — approximately $350 million in value — was withdrawn from centralized exchanges during a 96-hour timeframe. Crypto analyst Ali Martinez highlighted this trend on X, stating: “With less $ETH available on exchanges, potential sell-side pressure is declining, strengthening the case for a bullish breakout.” Exchange inventory has contracted significantly from 22.9 million ETH in June 2020 to merely 6.06 million today, according to Santiment analytics. This reduction stems from staking activities, ETF accumulation, and corporate treasuries such as Bitmine, which currently controls 4.9% of Ethereum’s entire circulating supply.

Major holders — addresses containing between 10K and 100K ETH — accumulated approximately 200K ETH throughout the previous week. Meanwhile, smaller retail wallets distributed roughly 192K ETH during this same window, maintaining a selling pattern that has persisted since early this year.

Institutional Capital Flows Through ETFs Remain Robust

United States spot Ethereum ETFs captured $121 million in new capital on Monday alone, representing the second straight day of net positive accumulation. The previous Friday witnessed $216.4 million flowing into ETH ETFs, notably occurring on a day when Bitcoin ETFs experienced net outflows. Ethereum ETFs have now posted positive weekly flows for five consecutive weeks since the period ending August 21.

Deribit’s open interest expanded to $11.77 billion in anticipation of the Federal Reserve announcement, gaining $700 million since September 12. Binance’s long/short ratio reached 3.10 — the most elevated level observed since June 2026 — indicating that traders are predominantly positioned for upward price movement ahead of the Fed’s interest rate decision.

Cryptocurrency market analyst IncomeSharks shared on X that ETH appears to be repeating a recognizable pattern: “Fakeout above, fakeout below, run it back. Same playbook as last time,” referencing previous price consolidation phases. In a separate observation, analyst Ted pointed out on X that a major holder liquidated $64 million worth of Bitcoin and converted the entire proceeds into ETH.

Critical Technical Levels Under Watch

ETH currently trades beneath its 20-day EMA positioned at $2,435 and the $2,431 support threshold. The RSI indicator hovers around 51, while the Stochastic oscillator has entered oversold conditions.

Should ETH prove unable to recover above $2,431, the subsequent support zone lies at the 50-day EMA around $2,270, with the 200-day EMA at $2,266 providing additional backing. A daily close beneath $2,380 could potentially trigger a retest of the $2,200 level.

The Binance long/short ratio standing at 3.10 combined with five straight weeks of ETF inflows represent the strongest bullish indicators currently available in the dataset.

The post Ethereum (ETH) Sees $350M in Exchange Withdrawals Despite Fed Uncertainty and CLARITY Act Defeat appeared first on Blockonomi.

Key Points

• X introduced the U.S. Cashtag Partner Program featuring five brokerage collaborators: Coinbase, Gemini, Kraken, Interactive Brokers, and Moomoo.
• A new “Trade” button appears on cashtag pages, directing users to their selected brokerage partner.
• X serves as a gateway only—actual trade execution occurs on the partner platform.
• This functionality expands upon smart cashtags introduced earlier this year featuring live data and charts.
• The initiative aligns with X’s goal of transforming into a comprehensive “Everything App” offering financial capabilities.

X has integrated trading functionality into its cashtag infrastructure, establishing direct pathways between U.S. users and brokerage services without leaving the social platform.

Five financial institutions joined the inaugural Cashtag Partner Program: Coinbase, Gemini, Kraken, Interactive Brokers, and Moomoo. These partners collectively address various market segments, spanning dedicated cryptocurrency exchanges to comprehensive multi-asset trading platforms.

Mechanics of the Trading Integration

Upon selecting a compatible cashtag, users view real-time financial information for that particular asset. A newly introduced “Trade” button provides the option to select a preferred brokerage and immediately navigate to that service to execute transactions.

X functions purely as an intermediary—the platform does not facilitate any trading activity. Users are channeled to their chosen partner firm, where all account creation, verification procedures, and transaction terms are managed by the respective brokerage.

The cashtag format employs a dollar symbol preceding asset identifiers, such as $BTC representing Bitcoin. This convention has been widely adopted by traders to categorize financial discussions and monitor dialogue surrounding particular securities.

Cryptocurrency trading is covered by Coinbase, Gemini, and Kraken. Interactive Brokers provides access to equities, options contracts, futures, and foreign exchange markets. Moomoo delivers both stock and cryptocurrency services through its licensed divisions.

A comprehensive roster of compatible tickers has not been disclosed by X. Asset availability depends on individual brokerage offerings and account eligibility parameters.

Evolution from Smart Cashtags

This trading program represents an advancement of smart cashtags that X deployed earlier in 2026 for iOS users across the United States and Canada. That initial phase incorporated real-time pricing charts and asset-focused content streams on cashtag destinations.

Canadian users gained trading access via Wealthsimple during that previous launch. American trading connections were absent from the initial deployment. This new program addresses that omission while incorporating multiple brokerage options rather than a single provider.

Kraken has pursued product diversification, introducing 7,000 equities for European Economic Area clients last August and launching U.S. stock trading capabilities in 2025. Similarly, Coinbase has incorporated U.S. equities and exchange-traded funds into its service portfolio.

According to Mridul Singhai, X’s product engineering director, this functionality eliminates friction between observing a ticker symbol in a feed and executing trades on the underlying asset.

Monique Pintarelli, SpaceXAI’s global advertising director, noted the program enables users to transition from asset discovery to transaction execution seamlessly within the same context.

Financial services development represents a core component of X’s Everything App vision. X Money, deployed earlier this year, provides person-to-person transfers, direct deposit functionality, debit card access, and interest-bearing balance features.

X maintains money-transmitter authorization in over 40 U.S. states and has established a Visa partnership facilitating transfers between traditional banking accounts and X Money digital wallets.

The Cashtag Partner Program is presently operational throughout the United States. X has not announced timelines for international expansion or additional brokerage partnerships.

The post X Introduces Direct Trading Integration with Coinbase, Kraken, and Major Brokerages appeared first on Blockonomi.

Key Highlights

• The cryptocurrency declined 3.8% to reach $75,748 following the Senate’s rejection of the Clarity Act by a 49-50 margin
• The legislation required 60 affirmative votes to advance but failed to attract sufficient bipartisan backing
• Spot Bitcoin exchange-traded funds experienced $450.4 million in withdrawals — marking the steepest decline since late June
• Fidelity’s FBTC recorded the highest outflows at $214.8M, with BlackRock’s offering close behind at $161.7M
• Strategy stated that Bitcoin’s regulatory standing in America doesn’t hinge on the Clarity Act’s passage

The world’s leading cryptocurrency experienced a significant decline on Tuesday following the U.S. Senate’s rejection of a major digital asset regulation bill, compounded by upward pressure from Treasury yields and crude oil prices.

The proposed Clarity Act, designed to establish a comprehensive regulatory structure for cryptocurrencies and digital assets, was defeated in a narrow 49-50 Senate vote. While the legislation had successfully navigated through the Senate Banking Committee in May, it ultimately fell short of the 60-vote threshold required for advancement.

The Republican caucus largely supported the measure, with only four members opposing: Senators Susan Collins, Josh Hawley, Jerry Moran, and Thom Tillis. One Senate member was absent from the vote.

Senator Cynthia Lummis from Wyoming, who spearheaded efforts to secure Democratic backing, emphasized that the bill’s ultimate draft incorporated ethics requirements that addressed Democratic concerns. Following the unsuccessful vote, she expressed her disappointment on social media platforms: “Senate Democrats proved they were never truly serious about protecting consumers and preserving American leadership.”

Cryptocurrency analyst Daan Crypto Trades observed on X that the legislation’s failure validated the breach of August support levels. He indicated that algorithmic selling was likely to follow and highlighted the approaching FOMC meeting as grounds for continued market vigilance, noting that “market reaction is more telling than the actual news itself.”

ETFs Experience Largest Single-Day Exodus Since Summer

Spot Bitcoin ETFs registered $450.4 million in net withdrawals on Tuesday, representing the most substantial one-day outflow since June 24, when investment vehicles experienced $469 million in redemptions during a broader technology sector downturn.

Fidelity’s FBTC product topped the withdrawal list with $214.8 million exiting the fund. BlackRock’s iShares Bitcoin Trust came in second with $161.7 million in outflows. The remaining withdrawals came from Grayscale’s GBTC, ARK 21Shares, and Bitwise investment products.

The significant outflows marked a sharp reversal from the previous day’s $159.9 million in net inflows.

Crypto Industry Leaders Maintain Optimistic Outlook

Central points of contention surrounding the Clarity Act included the classification of yield distributions on stablecoins and the division of regulatory authority between the Securities and Exchange Commission and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission.

Strategy, which maintains the largest corporate Bitcoin treasury, responded on social media that “Bitcoin has had legal and regulatory clarity in the U.S. for years,” challenging the narrative that the legislation’s defeat represented a meaningful obstacle for the cryptocurrency.

Blockchain company tZERO maintained that the vote’s outcome wouldn’t derail progress toward properly regulated digital asset marketplaces, pointing to ongoing rulemaking initiatives and increasing collaboration between the SEC and CFTC as viable alternative routes.

At the time of publication, Bitcoin was changing hands at $75,700, representing a 2.5% decline over the previous 24 hours, based on data from CoinMarketCap.

The post Bitcoin (BTC) Tumbles Nearly 4% Following Senate’s Rejection of Clarity Act appeared first on Blockonomi.

TLDR:

• U.S. Bank tested USBDC, its dollar-backed stablecoin, for a North America to Europe payment.
• The pilot ran on the Stellar blockchain under a 2025 partnership between U.S. Bank and PwC.
• U.S. Bank joins Open USD, a stablecoin consortium spanning more than 140 banks and fintech firms.
• Cornerstone’s DeSanctis expects bank consortiums, not solo coins, to define stablecoin’s future.

U.S. Bank has completed a test payment using USBDC, its dollar-backed stablecoin. The transaction connected North America and Europe through the Stellar blockchain network.

It marks an early step toward broader stablecoin adoption among traditional banks. The Minneapolis-based lender built USBDC through a 2025 partnership with Stellar and PwC.

U.S. Bank also participates in Open USD, a growing global stablecoin consortium spanning more than 140 banks, fintechs and crypto companies.

U.S. Bank Broadens Its Stablecoin Push

The pilot moved digital assets across borders while staying inside U.S. Bank’s compliance framework. U.S. Bank first partnered with Stellar and PwC in late 2025 to build USBDC.

The stablecoin was minted, paid and redeemed entirely within the bank’s internal systems. The test signaled growing institutional interest in stablecoin use.

Jamie Walker, U.S. Bank’s digital assets lead, called the pilot “another step forward.” He said U.S. Bank’s focus is on solutions that “solve real client challenges” while maintaining safety and reliability.

Walker said USBDC works alongside the Open Standard and Zelle consortiums to address “distinct client needs and use cases.” He added that U.S. Bank keeps “a long-term focus on interoperability” across digital asset networks.

USBDC forms one piece of a broader U.S. Bank stablecoin strategy. The bank provides custody for Anchorage Digital Bank’s stablecoin platform.

It also offers bitcoin custody and a cryptocurrency ETF. U.S. Bank plans to keep working with GENIUS Act-compliant stablecoin issuers.

U.S. Bank is part of the Open USD consortium alongside more than 140 firms. Members include BNY, Huntington, Citizens, American Express, Visa and Mastercard.

Stripe, Adyen, Affirm, Klarna and Coinbase are also involved in the group. Stellar, citing American Banker, called the stablecoin “a faster and cheaper means” for cross-border payments.

Why Stablecoins Still Trail Bank Adoption

Stablecoins from crypto firms such as Circle and Tether still lead the market. Banks have largely waited for clearer regulation before issuing their own stablecoin products.

Stablecoin payments remain limited despite rising interest from financial institutions. Remittances, B2B payments and capital markets settlement are the most cited use cases.

McKinsey data shows stablecoins account for less than one percent of remittance volume. B2B and capital markets payments use stablecoins even less, below 0.01 percent.

Banks instead favor tokenized deposits, viewed as a less risky alternative. Research shows 24 of the top 50 banks now track tokenized deposits.

Tony DeSanctis of Cornerstone Advisors expects stablecoins to grow through scale and cooperation. He said stablecoins “will become a product of scale and interoperability.”

DeSanctis likened the outcome to Zelle’s rise as a shared network. He added that “a consortium of banks or payment processors” will likely be the end state.

Smaller stablecoin projects may struggle against larger, more interoperable consortium solutions. DeSanctis said “smaller consortiums or individual banks offering coins” are likely to lose ground.

He said larger solutions that “support multiple institutions” are positioned to prevail. U.S. Bank’s pilot shows how traditional lenders are testing these waters.

The post U.S. Bank Pilots USBDC Stablecoin for Cross-Border Payments on Stellar appeared first on Blockonomi.

PEPE once blasted to an all-time high of $0.00002803, but today it trades near $0.000003419, while Fartcoin sits around $0.1427 after tumbling from its own peak. Those numbers tell a familiar meme coin story: the biggest runs can happen fast, and arriving late can leave traders watching the party from outside the door. That is exactly why APEING’s live Stage 4 is pulling fresh attention in the best crypto presale 2026 conversation.

Now the spotlight is shifting toward a project trying to bring more than hype to the meme coin arena. APEING combines a live memecoin presale with staking, referral rewards, community competitions, and an Ethereum-based ecosystem built around participation. For anyone who watched previous moonshots fly past and thought, “not again,” APEING offers another early-stage setup before public exchange trading begins. With Stage 4 already live, the hunt for the best crypto presale 2026 is starting to feel less like a waiting game and more like a first-come race.

APEING: Stage 4 Brings a First-Come Opportunity to the Best Crypto Presale 2026 Race

Here is where the comparison gets spicy. PEPE and Fartcoin have already had their first big moments in the market, but APEING is still standing at the presale starting line. Its live Stage 4, called Banana Hoarders, puts the current $APEING price at just $0.0005, giving buyers access before the project’s stated $0.01 listing price. For anyone searching for the best crypto presale 2026, that difference is exactly the kind of early-stage setup that can make people stop scrolling and start paying attention.

Stage 4 carries a fixed 300 million-token allocation, while campaign figures show more than $93,000 raised and 445 million tokens sold overall. The important part is the structure. Apeing’s presale moves through scheduled stages, and earlier pricing does not hang around forever. Stage 4 is therefore less like an endless buffet and more like a banana basket with a fixed number of spots. Once this stage closes, the presale moves forward.

Michael Wrubel Spotlights APEING as the Next Big Crypto Contender, and the Stage 4 Math Is Hard to Ignore

APEING is not only trying to make noise through memes. Michael Wrubel, a well-known crypto creator with a strong focus on emerging investment opportunities, has discussed APEING as a project gaining attention in the search for the next big crypto. That kind of spotlight adds another layer to a presale already chasing momentum through its staged pricing, Ethereum foundation, staking system, referrals, and community competitions. The supplied campaign brief specifically highlights Wrubel’s attention as part of APEING’s growing narrative.

Then comes the number that can make even seasoned meme coin watchers raise an eyebrow: $0.0005 today versus a stated $0.01 listing price.

At Stage 4, $5,000 buys 10 million $APEING tokens. That makes the hypothetical post-launch scenarios especially eye-catching.

If APEING reached $0.50 after launch:

A $5,000 purchase during Stage 4, when APEING is priced at $0.0005, would secure 10 million $APEING tokens.

If the token were to reach $0.50 after launch, those 10 million tokens would have a hypothetical value of $5 million. That would represent a 1,000x increase from the Stage 4 price.

The gap between $0.0005 and $0.50 is substantial, so this should be viewed as a highly speculative scenario rather than an expectation. Still, it illustrates why early-stage pricing tends to attract so much attention when traders are evaluating a memecoin presale with significant upside potential.

If APEING reached $1 after launch:

The numbers become even more dramatic at a hypothetical price of $1.

A Stage 4 investment of $5,000 would still equal 10 million $APEING tokens, but at $1 per token, that position would theoretically be worth $10 million. Compared with the Stage 4 entry price, that works out to a 2,000x increase.

Reaching $1 would be an extremely ambitious outcome and would depend on factors such as market demand, token supply, exchange access, community growth, and broader crypto conditions. For people searching for the best crypto presale 2026, however, the appeal is often less about buying an established token and more about finding a project while it is still at an early stage.

How to Join APEING Stage 4 Before the Banana Hoarders Allocation Moves On

Getting into Stage 4 is designed to be straightforward, so buyers do not need to wrestle a crypto hippo just to participate. The official Apeing process follows a few simple steps:

• Visit the official APEING presale site
• Connect a compatible wallet
• Choose a payment method
• Enter your purchase amount
• Review and confirm the transaction

Stage 4 is first come, first served, with $APEING currently priced at $0.0005 against a stated $0.01 listing price. Once the Banana Hoarders allocation closes, the presale moves forward.

Want an early seat instead of another “wish I got in sooner” moment? Check Stage 4 and secure $APEING while Banana Hoarders is still live.

PEPE Price Stays 87% Below Its Peak as Trading Activity Keeps the Frog in Meme Coin News

PEPE is still one of the heavyweight names in meme coin news, but the chart has cooled hard from its glory days. CoinGecko puts PEPE near $0.000003419, about 87.8% below its $0.00002803 all-time high. Even so, its market cap remains around $1.44 billion, proof that the frog still commands a crowd when the meme market starts jumping.

The interesting part is the tug-of-war. PEPE has slipped about 5.1% over seven days, yet its scale and exchange reach keep it firmly on traders’ radar. That makes the PEPE price story less about discovering an unknown coin and more about asking whether an established meme asset can spark another major run. Bulls may still charge, but the easy peanuts are long gone. For readers scanning crypto presale opportunities right now, that mature profile creates a sharp contrast with a fresh memecoin presale where pricing is still moving through planned stages. Timing matters.

Fartcoin Price Slides 94% From Its High as Meme Coin News Watches for a Rebound

Fartcoin remains the kind of project that proves crypto can be weird, loud, and wildly memorable. The Fartcoin price is about $0.1427, while CoinGecko records an all-time high of $2.48. That leaves the token roughly 94.2% below its peak, with a market cap near $142.8 million. Its seven-day move is also deep in the red at roughly 21.6%.

Still, Fartcoin has not vanished into the meme graveyard. It continues to trade across major venues, and that visibility keeps it in meme coin news whenever speculative appetite returns. The setup, though, is very different from an early memecoin presale. Fartcoin holders are watching for a comeback from an established market price, not entering a staged sale before listing. Think of it as a penguin trying to climb an icy hill after a fast slide. The crowd may cheer a bounce, but the chart has already lived through its first hippo-sized cycle.

Conclusion

Based on the latest research and market trends, PEPE remains a giant but trades far below its historic peak, while Fartcoin is also wrestling with a steep drawdown from its high. Both can still make noise when meme coin news heats up, yet their stories now revolve around recovery and renewed momentum. APEING offers a different setup through a live, staged sale before listing. That contrast is pushing APEING deeper into the best crypto presale 2026 discussion as traders compare mature meme charts with earlier entry structures.

APEING is leaning into urgency with Stage 4, Banana Hoarders, priced at $0.0005 and tied to a fixed allocation that can close when its supply is taken. Its Ethereum foundation, staking, referral mechanics, Ape Wars, and memecoin presale give the project more to talk about than a meme alone. For readers who missed past runs and want the best crypto presale 2026 narrative with live-stage energy, this is the window APEING is selling. Visit the official presale, review Stage 4, and claim an allocation before Banana Hoarders moves on.

For More Information:

Website: Visit the Official Apeing Website

Telegram: Join the Apeing Telegram Channel

Twitter: Follow Apeing ON X (Formerly Twitter)

Frequently Asked Questions About the best crypto presale 2026

Is the APEING presale live in 2026?

Yes. Apeing’s official website identifies its crypto presale as live, while the latest campaign figures supplied for this article place the project in Stage 4, Banana Hoarders.

What is the APEING Stage 4 price?

The supplied Stage 4 price is $0.0005 per $APEING. Banana Hoarders has a stated allocation of 300 million tokens, while the planned listing price is $0.01.

How can buyers join the APEING presale?

The process involves visiting Apeing’s official presale site, connecting a compatible wallet, selecting a supported payment method, entering the desired amount, reviewing the transaction, and confirming the purchase.

What makes APEING different from PEPE and Fartcoin?

PEPE and Fartcoin are already publicly traded meme coins with established market histories. APEING is progressing through a staged presale and combines its meme identity with staking, referrals, competitions, and community-focused participation mechanics.

What would $5,000 of APEING Stage 4 equal at the stated listing price?

At $0.0005, $5,000 corresponds to 10 million tokens. If those tokens were valued at APEING’s stated $0.01 listing price, the resulting token value would be $100,000.

The post Leading Crypto KOL Spots APEING as the Best Crypto Presale 2026: Stage 4 Is Live With 1,900% ROI – Grab It Before It’s Gone! appeared first on Blockonomi.

[PRESS RELEASE – London, United Kingdom, September 16th, 2026]

New developments extend BASIS across real-world asset and AI-native infrastructure while introducing automated reward restaking for BTC, ETH, SOL, and PAXG participants

BASIS, the institutional-grade crypto yield and staking platform built on market-neutral execution infrastructure, is continuing to expand its institutional footprint with three new developments: an ecosystem partnership with XDC Network, a collaboration with Zypher DAO, and em-dash (Auto Earn an automated) reward restaking feature now live for BTC, ETH, SOL, and PAXG participants.

Yield Infrastructure Meets Real-World Financial Infrastructure

BASIS and XDC Network have announced a new partnership exploring opportunities at the intersection of crypto yield, real-world assets (RWAs), and the broader on-chain economy. XDC Network is an EVM-compatible Layer-1 blockchain powering payments, trade finance, and real-world asset solutions.

By combining BASIS’s market-neutral yield and staking infrastructure with XDC Network’s high-throughput, enterprise-oriented blockchain, the two teams are exploring how disciplined yield execution can connect with real-world financial infrastructure from tokenized assets to trade-finance ecosystems.

Verifiable AI Meets Market-Neutral Yield

BASIS has also entered into a collaboration with Zypher DAO (Zypher Network), an AI and Zero-Knowledge (ZK) powered Web4 ecosystem building AI-native blockchain infrastructure and intelligent digital economies.

The collaboration brings together Zypher’s verifiable AI and ZK capabilities with BASIS’s market-neutral yield infrastructure, with both teams exploring new possibilities across intelligent finance, verifiable execution, and on-chain asset management.

Auto Earn Automates Reward Restaking

Separately, BASIS has launched Auto Earn, an automated process that restakes eligible unclaimed staking rewards into a user’s existing position every Monday at 00:00 UTC.

Auto Earn touches accrued-but-unclaimed rewards only. It does not create a new position, add a new lock-up, reset the lock-up timer, or change the original maturity date or booster schedule. The feature is enabled by default, and users can turn it off or back on at any time in account settings. Full documentation is available at docs.basis.pro/economics-and-rewards/auto-earn.

About BASIS

BASIS is an institutional-grade crypto yield and staking platform for BTC, ETH, SOL, and PAXG, where participants can earn rewards by staking their assets on basis.pro with rates following the platform’s live Dynamic Reward Rate (DRR), which varies with market conditions and is not fixed or guaranteed. The platform executes market-neutral strategies designed to reduce directional exposure, with capital-preservation controls including risk constraints and circuit breakers embedded across its execution and operating framework. BASIS is operated by BASIS DIGITAL INFRASTRUCTURE LTD, a Seychelles-registered IBC (LEI: 254900IX2F2KCWNSSS64), under ISO/IEC 27001:2022 and ISO/IEC 20000-1:2018 certified management systems, with execution research, systems modeling, and risk design contributed by Base58 Labs, a London-based independent research and engineering institution.

About XDC Network

XDC Network is an EVM-compatible Layer-1 blockchain powering payments, trade finance, and real-world asset solutions.

About Zypher Network (ZDAO)

Zypher Network (ZDAO) is an AI and Zero-Knowledge (ZK) powered Web4 ecosystem building the next generation of AI-native blockchain infrastructure and intelligent digital economies.

The post BASIS.pro Expands On-Chain Infrastructure with XDC Network Partnership and Zypher DAO as Auto Earn Goes Live appeared first on CryptoPotato.

The US Senate failed to advance the Digital Asset Market CLARITY Act on Tuesday, falling short of the 60 votes needed to send the bill toward a final vote.

Ripple CEO Brad Garlinghouse says the setback stings, but it won’t change what his company is doing.

Garlinghouse Calls the Vote a Missed Opportunity

Writing on X shortly after the vote, Garlinghouse said his team and most of the industry gave everything they had trying to get the CLARITY Act across the finish line, calling the fight an opportunity that went beyond Ripple alone.

He argued that consumers and American competitiveness in digital finance were the ones who lost out, and said a review of what went wrong is coming. In his view, Democratic politics got prioritized over good policy.

Still, he did not frame the failed vote as the end of US crypto policy efforts. Garlinghouse expects the SEC and CFTC to continue rulemaking to fill the gap left by Congress. Ripple, he added, will remain involved in that process.

“Ripple’s business has never been stronger,” he wrote, pointing to demand across traditional finance and digital assets. A missed vote in Washington, he argued, does not change the company’s “momentum, our global footprint, or our customers.”

The firm’s Chief Legal Officer, Stuart Alderoty, followed with his own post. “Ripple and XRP stand on settled ground,” he said, pointing to the 2023 federal court ruling that found XRP is not a security, along with a joint interpretation the SEC and CFTC issued in March naming XRP a digital commodity. He also said he expects both agencies to keep setting clearer rules going forward.

Reaction across the industry was split. CryptoLaw called it a shift, not an end, agreeing with the view that the fight for crypto rules will now move to the SEC and CFTC. However, analyst ChartNerd was more cautious, noting that agency rulemaking beats uncertainty but isn’t a substitute for actual legislation, since rules can be reversed.

What the CLARITY Act Would Have Done

Tuesday’s vote wasn’t meant to pass the CLARITY Act outright. It was a procedural step meant to move the bill closer to a final vote, and its failure means debate on the legislation will continue rather than end.

The bill sets out to divide oversight of digital assets between the CFTC and SEC and introduces the idea of “ancillary assets,” network tokens whose value may depend on the efforts of a company while still being treated as commodities and carrying their own disclosure rules.

It also targets decentralized finance platforms that look decentralized on paper but are still run by identifiable people, requiring CFTC registration for their spot trading activity.

Exchanges, brokers, and dealers, the companies most Americans actually use to buy and sell crypto, would face a new federal registration and oversight regime too.

The post Ripple CEO Breaks Silence After CLARITY Act Vote Fails: XRP’s Legal Footing Unchanged appeared first on CryptoPotato.

Shiba Inu has largely stayed out of the spotlight in recent weeks, keeping a low profile and making no major announcements. However, the team has broken its silence with a fresh update concerning its layer-2 scaling solution, Shibarium.

Despite the news, SHIB remains in red territory on both daily and weekly timeframes, and certain factors suggest a deeper decline might be on the way.

What’s New for Shibarium?

Shiba Inu revealed on its official X account that it has implemented “a small but useful” update for Shibarium. Specifically, it refreshed its RPC listing in the Ethereum-lists/chains registry, and Chainlist now has updated connection details.

Several X users applauded the move, saying it has made access to the protocol more convenient. Many others described the update as insignificant and even called the layer-2 scaling solution a scam.

Their frustration may stem from Shibarium’s declining activity. Following an exploit last year, daily transactions processed on the network have fallen to the low thousands and occasionally even the hundreds, highlighting weak user engagement and potentially eroding investor confidence. Recall that prior to the attack, the figure stood in the millions.

SHIB Price Outlook

While Shiba Inu remains the second-largest meme coin, its valuation has slipped by 6% over the last week and now trades at around $0.000005196 (according to CoinGecko). Its market capitalization stands at just north of $3 billion, making it the 33rd-largest cryptocurrency.

Meanwhile, SHIB’s burning program suggests that the bears may remain in control. Data shows that the burn rate has declined by nearly 90% over the past month, meaning a negligible amount of tokens has been sent to a null address.

The mechanism’s ultimate goal is to reduce the meme coin’s overall supply and potentially boost its value through scarcity. However, little to no activity on that front poses a serious obstacle to that effort.

Shiba Inu’s seasonal performance is also worth monitoring. September has been a predominantly poor month for the token, with its price ending the period in red three out of five times. We have approximately two weeks left to see whether the green and red September will balance out or bears will strengthen their advantage.

The post Shiba Inu Unveils an ‘Useful’ Shibarium Update: Details appeared first on CryptoPotato.

Privacy coins have climbed 213% since Bitcoin’s October 2025 peak even as BTC itself remains well below that high, according to a breakdown posted today by analyst Wise Crypto.

It is a narrow corner of the market, but one token in particular, Zcash (ZEC), has pulled the entire privacy sector into positive territory while most of crypto is still digging out of a year-long drawdown.

One Sector, but Mostly One Coin

Wise Crypto’s numbers show the privacy sector’s combined market cap growing from $7.1 billion a year ago to $33.6 billion now. Zcash accounts for roughly 62% of that total on its own, up 25x over the past year, with its market-cap ranking climbing from #82 to #7 at one point, though CoinGecko data currently places it at #9.

Glassnode data published last week also found something similar: that privacy was the only sector trading above its October peak, with every other category still underwater by double digits.

Grayscale’s Zcash ETF, ticker $ZCSH, crossed $500 million in assets within two weeks of launch, while Monero (XMR), the second-largest asset in the privacy category, has approximately doubled over the same stretch despite facing delistings from several exchanges.

Among the 25 biggest crypto assets, Wise Crypto noted that only four are still trading above their October levels: ZEC, HYPE, XMR, and WBT.

Investor Dan Tapiero told The Wolf of All Streets on September 11 that the moves in ZEC and HYPE this cycle show crypto isn’t just a Bitcoin, Ethereum, and Solana story anymore. “Zcash has been an enormous winner this year,” he said, pointing to broader activity building outside the three largest chains.

A day later, Egor Sidelska of Infinex argued that privacy is one of the only parts of crypto that hasn’t already been built out and cloned across other chains, calling ZEC “the last 100x in crypto that isn’t a random meme coin.”

Whether the Rally Is Justified Is Still Being Debated

There has been less bullish reading elsewhere, with analyst filbfilb recently pushing back on how far the Zcash rally can be trusted. He shared valuation models that compared ZEC’s transaction activity against Bitcoin’s at a similar stage of issuance, which landed on implied prices around $944, some way below where the coin is currently trading, although their convergence scenarios put fair value much higher if Zcash keeps closing the gap.

At the time of writing, the asset was changing hands at around $1,140, flat on the day but up 32% in the last two weeks and more than 2,100% over the past year, although it is still well off its 2016 all-time high near $3,190.

On the other hand, BTC was quite near $77,000, having lost just over 1% in 24 hours and about 34% in one year, putting it some 39% below its own ATH from October 2025.

The post This Crypto Sector Is Up 213% Since Bitcoin’s 2025 Peak – One Coin Is Driving It appeared first on CryptoPotato.

The XRP Ledger’s Batch V1.1 amendment is one validator vote short of reaching the 80% threshold needed to begin its 14-day activation countdown, after a security rebuild that followed a critical flaw in the original version.

The revised code has gone through senior engineering review, adversarial testing, two external security reviews, and AI-assisted analysis before its current validator vote.

Batch V1.1 Reaches Final Vote Before Activation Countdown

RippleX developer Mayukha Vadari said the amendment shipped with xrpld 3.3.0 and is now up for voting. The update replaces Batch V1.0, whose signature-validation bug was found in February while the amendment was still pre-mainnet, meaning no funds were at risk.

The original flaw involved an early return in the checkBatchSign function. If a signer account did not yet exist on the ledger, validation could return success without checking the remaining signers. That could have allowed transactions to be executed on behalf of other accounts without their private keys.

Batch V1.1 removed that flaw and also addressed several other issues found during the rebuild. The process included review by four senior engineers, a Sherlock Batch Attackathon, a Halborn reassessment, a Common Prefix audit, Cantina AI scanning, and Devnet and testnet regression testing.

Vadari also said the team fixed additional bugs found through its newer AI red-teaming work. The changes include fixes for MPT validation bypasses, node crashes, path size validation, signature verification, signer ordering, and transaction hashing.

Validator sentiment is close to the required threshold, with one account, FrancisBovineSwift, describing the Batch voting as “nearly there,” with the most recent snapshot showing 27 trusted validators have voted for the amendment and eight against it, putting support at roughly 77% against the 80% threshold required to sign off on changes, with just one more vote needed to hit that mark.

Why the Batch Amendment Matters to XRPL Developers

Batch, also known as XLS-56, allows multiple transactions from different accounts to execute atomically in a single ledger close. If one transaction in an all-or-nothing batch fails, the entire operation reverts. The design does not require smart contracts.

The feature is intended for atomic swaps, coordinated settlements, and other transactions where multiple parties need to act together. It could also reduce the number of steps needed for NFT minting and transfers.

The security rebuild follows other recent XRPL scrutiny, after the network pulled its Permission Delegation amendment when a high-severity bug was found before mainnet deployment, with V1.1 undergoing additional review.

Furthermore, an XRPL testing dashboard launched this month has also made amendment testing more visible by tracking which transaction types, fields, and result codes have been exercised on Devnet.

The post XRP Ledger Batch V1.1 Nears Activation After Security Rebuild appeared first on CryptoPotato.