Track market-moving stories before they get noisy

Altcoins

18 October 2026
|
10:39

Bitcoin Cash and Uniswap join CME’s futures lineup on Monday, October 19, becoming the exchange’s tenth and eleventh single-coin crypto futures.

CME announced the contracts on September 22, pending regulatory review, and Bitcoin Cash rose more than 25% that day, according to Decrypt.

Bitcoin Cash split from Bitcoin in 2017 over block size, and its backers pitch it for cheaper payments. UNI is the governance token of Uniswap, the largest decentralized exchange. Holders use it to vote on changes to the protocol.

BCA

Bitcoin Cash

250 BCH

≈ $84,500

MCH

Micro Bitcoin Cash

25 BCH

≈ $8,450

UNI

Uniswap

10,000 UNI

≈ $92,800

MUN

Micro Uniswap

1,000 UNI

≈ $9,280

Dollar values at September 22 prices (BCH $338, UNI $9.28) and move with the market. Contract details: CME product page.

What one contract is actually worth
Each Micro covers a tenth of the larger contract, and even the smallest is a five-figure position. A 5% move in UNI changes the value of a Micro Uniswap contract by about $460. A $10 move in BCH changes a Micro Bitcoin Cash contract by $250.

Nobody receives coins. According to CME’s clearing advisory, the contracts settle in cash against a reference price at expiry, so traders need a futures account rather than a crypto wallet. Each contract also has a fixed expiry date. Anyone holding a position for longer has to close it and reopen it in a later month, paying trading costs each time.

Who these are built for
CME says the launch answers client demand for regulated ways to manage altcoin price risk. The firms quoted in its announcement show who that means: Volatility Shares, an ETF issuer, and Ripple Prime, Ripple’s prime brokerage business, which finances institutional trading.

For Bitcoin Cash, the obvious users are miners and businesses paid in BCH that want to lock in a price for coins they already hold. For Uniswap, it’s funds and project treasuries that hold UNI and want protection against a fall without selling the tokens they vote with.

For individuals, the maths is harder. A Micro contract worth around $9,000 can swing by several hundred dollars on an ordinary day, and that money moves in or out of the account the same day. Offshore exchanges have offered BCH and UNI derivatives in much smaller sizes for years. What CME adds is a US-regulated venue, not a cheaper way in.

A Bitcoin Cash miner hedges 275 coins

Holds 275 BCH (≈ $93,000 at $338). Sells one BCA and one MCH contract, a 275-coin short.

If BCH falls 10% to $304.20

Coins ……….. −$9,295

Futures ……… +$9,295

Net …………. ≈ $0

If BCH rises 10% to $371.80

Coins ……….. +$9,295 (on paper)

Futures ……… −$9,295 (paid in cash as prices move)

Net …………. ≈ $0, but cash has left the account

Before fees, assuming futures and spot prices move together. In practice they drift apart a little.

The second scenario is the one that catches people out. CME’s margin rules settle gains and losses on futures as prices move, so the miner pays out on the hedge before it has sold a single coin. The initial margin is a deposit, not a limit on what it can lose.

Will futures push BCH and UNI higher?
BCH’s jump came on the announcement, before a single contract traded. Nothing about the futures requires anyone to buy coins. A trader betting on a rise can buy BCH futures without touching BCH, and a holder hedging with futures keeps the coins they already have.

Futures pull in spot buying mainly in one case. When futures trade far enough above the coin’s price, trading desks buy the coin and sell the futures, collecting the gap as the two prices meet at expiry. That only pays if the premium covers borrowing, fees and custody. Market makers quoting the new contracts may also buy or sell coins to balance their books, but that can push the price either way.

Don’t expect a flood of volume
CME’s earlier altcoin launches give a realistic yardstick. Futures on Cardano, Chainlink and Stellar, launched in February, and on Avalanche and Sui, launched in May, have produced just over $1 billion in combined notional value so far this year, according to CME. Its crypto futures and options as a whole averaged $8.3 billion a day in the first half of the year. Five altcoin markets, in other words, have traded less in ten months than the complex does in a typical three hours.

Contract counts will mislead too. Ten Micro UNI contracts equal one large one, so a headline figure for contracts traded says little without the dollar value behind it.

How to tell if these futures catch on

Open interest

Weak: drops back after launch week

Strong: keeps building for a month

Quotes

Weak: wide gap between buy and sell prices

Strong: tight prices with real size behind them

Dollar volume

Weak: behind the Cardano-to-Sui pace

Strong: level with it or ahead

Expiry months

Weak: everything in the nearest month

Strong: positions in later months too

Jargon decoder

Basis: the gap between the futures price and the coin’s price.

Open interest: contracts still open at the end of the day. Each has a buyer and a seller, so a rise on its own isn’t a bullish signal.

Margin: collateral held by the broker, topped up or paid out as prices move.

Cash settlement: at expiry, profits and losses are paid in dollars. No coins change hands.

Getting access: you need a futures broker that lists the new contracts and has cleared you to trade them. No crypto wallet is required, as CME’s crypto futures FAQ explains. Trading switches on Sunday evening, October 18, for the Monday trade date, according to CME’s operational notice, and runs on the exchange’s round-the-clock crypto schedule with short maintenance breaks.

This article is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute financial or investment advice. Futures use leverage, and losses can exceed the initial margin.

Author

Kosta has reported on cryptocurrency markets and blockchain infrastructure since 2020, bringing over six years of hands-on experience in the crypto industry built through daily tracking of markets, trends, and emerging blockchain developments. Specializing in Bitcoin on-chain analysis, institutional ETF flows, and digital asset price action, his work at Coindoo has been cited by other news agencies and consistently covers market developments with a focus on data-driven reporting across Bitcoin, Ethereum, Solana, and XRP.
Over the years, Kosta has contributed to multiple crypto media outlets in different regions, authoring over 6,000 articles across the sector. His reporting spans cryptocurrency markets and the broader fintech industry, tracking not only price action but also the technological and regulatory forces shaping the ecosystem.
To support his analysis, Kosta actively leverages on-chain data and metrics from leading platforms such as Santiment, Glassnode, and CryptoQuant, enabling deeper, evidence-based market insights. He believes in the power of transparency and the data that underpins the blockchain ecosystem.
His academic background in Marketing Management from Denmark further complements his analytical approach, adding a strong understanding of communication strategy and content positioning to his work.

Chicago Mercantile Exchange Group (CME Group), the world’s largest derivatives exchange, announced today that it will launch Bitcoin Cash and Uniswap futures on October 19, following regulatory review.

This latest expansion of CME Group’s cryptocurrency product portfolio comes in response to strong customer demand for institutional-level risk management tools in highly liquidity altcoin markets.

According to the official announcement, market participants will have the option to trade both large-scale and micro-scale contracts.

Bitcoin Cash futures (250 BCH) and Micro Bitcoin Cash futures (25 BCH)

Uniswap futures (10,000 UNI) and Mikro Uniswap futures (1,000 UNI)”

Giovanni Vicioso, Global Head of Cryptocurrency Products at CME Group, stated: “As cryptocurrency markets continue to mature, participants need broader, regulated tools to manage evolving digital asset price risk. Designed for greater versatility and capital efficiency, these new BCH and UNI contracts enable clients to manage price risk and gain access to key crypto networks in our 24/7 open, regulated marketplace.”

At this point, CME is further expanding its comprehensive portfolio of single-asset cryptocurrency products, which includes Bitcoin, Ethereum, XRP, Solana, Cardano, Chainlink, Stellar, Avalanche, and Sui futures, along with BCH and UNI contracts.

Following the news, BCH and UNI prices increased.

*This is not investment advice.

Follow our Telegram and Twitter account now for exclusive news, analytics and on-chain data!

A Singapore court has frozen about S$75 million ($58 million) in Bitcoin and USD Coin after a major crypto trading platform alleged that an internal ledger error caused it to mistakenly credit thousands of BTC and Bitcoin Cash to a long-standing customer.

Summary

Singapore’s SICC froze about S$75 million in Bitcoin and USDC linked to a dispute between a major crypto platform and a long-time customer. The platform said an internal ledger error led it to mistakenly transfer 2,500 BTC and 2,500 BCH to the customer’s wallets in July 2024. The customer later moved 780 BTC off the platform and converted another 20 BTC into about 816,773 USDC. The court also ordered the customer to disclose the location of the disputed assets and their proceeds. The platform recovered the remaining 1,700 BTC and 2,500 BCH after discovering the alleged error in January 2025. The Singapore International Commercial Court said the interim proprietary injunction prevents the customer from disposing of, dealing with or reducing the value of about 780 BTC and 816,773 USDC, along with assets, profits or interest derived from them. The order was granted on March 26 after a hearing before Singapore High Court Justice Aidan Xu and SICC International Judges Anthony Meagher and David Goddard.

The dispute involves an anonymised group of companies that operates what the court described as one of the world’s largest digital asset trading platforms and a customer who had used the platform since around 2013. Court documents identified the parties only as DVA, DVB and DVC while an application for confidentiality orders remains pending.

Along with freezing the crypto, the court ordered the defendant to disclose where the disputed assets and their proceeds were being held. The judges declined, however, to give the platform group advance permission to use that disclosure to seek similar injunctions in other jurisdictions, leaving it free to apply for permission later if required.

Singapore court dispute traces back to unsupported wallets At the centre of the case are two specialised wallets that once contained 2,500 BTC and 2,500 Bitcoin Cash. According to the judgment, the wallets were designed as a self-custody product that required security credentials, including a user key held solely by the customer.

Support for the wallet product ended in April 2018, although customers could continue accessing the wallets for a period through an unsupported open-source tool. In March 2020, the entire 2,500 BTC and 2,500 BCH balance was transferred away from the specialised wallets, leaving them effectively empty.

The platform group alleged that a technical problem prevented those withdrawals from being recorded correctly on its internal ledgers. Because the ledger continued to show the assets as remaining in the specialised wallets, the companies operated for several years on the assumption that the customer was still entitled to the balances.

A relationship manager later tried to help the customer recover what the platform believed were assets trapped in the discontinued wallet product. Acting on its ledger records, the platform transferred another 2,500 BTC and 2,500 BCH into other accounts belonging to the customer in July 2024.

The claimants say those digital assets came from their own holdings inside the platform group’s omnibus wallets and were transferred solely because of the mistaken balance shown on the internal system. The customer disputes that account and has maintained that the assets transferred to him were rightfully his.

Mistaken crypto transfers have previously resulted in lengthy recovery disputes. In 2022, crypto.news reported on a Crypto.com transfer error in which the exchange mistakenly sent an Australian customer about $10.5 million instead of a $100 refund and discovered the error months later during an audit.

Customer moved 780 BTC and converted another 20 BTC to USDC After receiving the July 2024 transfers, the defendant began moving part of the crypto away from the platform.

Court records show that on July 13, 2024, the customer converted 20 BTC into about 816,773 USDC and transferred the stablecoins to an unhosted wallet. Five withdrawals between July 17 and Nov. 10 moved another 380 BTC to a separate unhosted address.

A further 200 BTC was transferred on Nov. 24, followed by another 200 BTC on Jan. 7, 2025, bringing the amount sent to a third external wallet to 400 BTC. Some 150 BTC from that wallet was later transferred elsewhere in February 2026, according to evidence submitted by the claimants.

The companies also told the court that subsequent transactions involving the 380 BTC and 816,773 USDC made their current locations difficult to determine. The defendant did not dispute making the transactions but maintained that he had been dealing with crypto that belonged to him.

By the time the platform acted, 1,700 BTC and the full 2,500 BCH transferred in July 2024 remained in the customer’s accounts. The companies froze those wallets on Jan. 29, 2025, and re-credited the remaining assets to themselves in an attempt to reverse part of the earlier transfer.

The platform group subsequently sought the return of the 780 BTC and 816,773 USDC that had already left its system, but the customer refused. The companies valued the assets at roughly S$75 million at the time of the injunction hearing.

Platform alleges unjust enrichment and constructive trust Proceedings were initially filed in the General Division of Singapore’s High Court in November 2025 before being transferred by consent to the SICC.

The claimants’ 62-page statement of claim contains four causes of action, including unjust enrichment, a proprietary claim, deceit or negligent misrepresentation, and an alleged breach of the contractual provisions governing the platform’s services. They are also seeking a declaration that the defendant holds the disputed assets on constructive trust for one of the claimant companies and must return them.

According to the claimants, the July 2024 transfers resulted from their incorrect understanding of the old wallet balances, while the customer allegedly knew about the mistake and took advantage of it.

The defendant has rejected that version of events. He told the court that he did not remember making the March 2020 transfers, although he accepted that blockchain records show the transfers occurred, and argued that the platform’s own admission of faulty internal ledger records weakened its claim that the assets transferred in 2024 belonged to the companies.

He also argued that the transferred crypto could have represented his own assets held elsewhere on the platform or assets belonging to other customers. Having maintained extensive crypto holdings and activity, the defendant said he relied on the platform to keep track of what he held and believed that the July 2024 assets belonged to him.

The customer has counterclaimed for the assets that remain frozen on the platform or compensation of equivalent value, while denying that he knew the companies had made any mistake.

Singapore courts have dealt with several high-value crypto disputes involving exchange operators over the past year. Earlier in August, Binance and RedotPay gave conflicting accounts over the status of a separate Singapore proceeding tied to claims worth nearly $473 million.

Singapore’s courts have also played a role in handling distressed crypto businesses, including proceedings involving WazirX’s Singapore-based parent Zettai, whose restructuring proposal returned to court after receiving 95.7% creditor support in August 2025.

Judges find serious ownership question to be tried For the interim stage of the case, the three-judge panel found enough evidence to establish a serious question over whether the platform companies retained a proprietary interest in some or all of the disputed assets.

The court said it was arguable that the specialised wallet balances were effectively zero before the July 2024 credits and that the platform transferred 2,500 BTC and 2,500 BCH because its internal records incorrectly showed the earlier holdings as still present.

Judges also found an arguable case that the customer knew about the platform’s mistake either when the transfers were made or, at the latest, after the platform discovered the issue and contacted him in 2025. Under that scenario, the court said an argument could be made that identifiable assets and traceable proceeds were held on constructive trust for the claimants.

On whether an injunction was necessary, the court considered the risk that the companies could win at trial but still be unable to recover the crypto if the assets were moved or dissipated.

The judges noted evidence that the defendant had used part of the disputed assets as security for a loan to cover legal costs and had not provided updated evidence about his financial position or current asset holdings. The court found sufficient doubt over his ability to satisfy a substantial judgment if the companies eventually succeeded.

At the same time, the platform group gave the court an undertaking to compensate the customer for losses caused by the injunction if it later turns out that the order should not have been granted.

The disclosure order requires the defendant to identify the whereabouts of assets covered by the injunction, including relevant crypto controlled through third parties acting under his direct or indirect instructions. The SICC left both sides free to return to court, including if the claimants later seek permission to use the disclosed information in civil proceedings outside Singapore.