Track market-moving stories before they get noisy

Another steady purchase through FBTC adds to a pattern of mid-sized buys from Fidelity's spot Bitcoin fund

Fidelity’s spot Bitcoin ETF clients just bought another $24.54 million worth of Bitcoin.

The purchase ran through the Fidelity Wise Origin Bitcoin Fund, better known by its ticker FBTC. It’s the asset manager’s spot Bitcoin ETF, which buys and holds actual Bitcoin on behalf of shareholders.

A familiar ticket size
The $24.54 million buy sits neatly inside a range FBTC has hit several times this year. Client-driven transactions have repeatedly landed between $23 million and $25 million.

On October 22, 2026, the fund recorded a purchase of $23.08 million, which worked out to 282.63 BTC. Back in mid-August, FBTC picked up around $23.92 million in Bitcoin.

Not every day is that tidy. On October 13, FBTC pulled in $103.06 million in net inflows.

For context, the entire US spot Bitcoin ETF sector took in $109.8 million that day. That means Fidelity’s fund accounted for nearly all of the category’s net new money in a single session.

Every other issuer combined brought in a little over $6.7 million.

How Fidelity got here
Fidelity has offered Bitcoin-related services since 2014. It launched Fidelity Digital Assets in 2019, giving institutions custody and trading services. FBTC followed in 2024, when US regulators opened the door to spot Bitcoin ETFs.

As of late October 2026, FBTC ranks among the largest US spot Bitcoin ETFs by total assets under management. The fund holds hundreds of thousands of BTC and carries an expense ratio of 0.25%.

That fee means a shareholder pays $25 a year for every $10,000 invested.

Fidelity’s research arm has also been tracking a separate source of Bitcoin demand. A report from Fidelity Digital Assets found that perpetual preferred stock issued by Bitcoin treasury companies funded the purchase of 135,979 BTC through early October.

According to that report, the haul represents about 0.5% of Bitcoin’s total supply. Perpetual preferred stock is a type of equity that pays a fixed dividend and never matures, so companies can raise cash without taking on traditional debt or diluting common shareholders as directly.

What this means for ETF watchers
Spot Bitcoin ETF flows in 2026 have not been a one-way street, with the sector seeing periods of net outflows this year.

The October 13 numbers also hint at a concentration dynamic worth watching. When one issuer captures nearly all of a sector’s daily inflows, it raises a question about whether money is flowing into Bitcoin ETFs broadly or simply consolidating around the biggest brand names.

Fidelity’s advantage is partly distribution. It already sits inside millions of retirement and brokerage accounts. Its 0.25% fee keeps it competitive, and its decade-plus history with Bitcoin gives cautious investors a familiar name.

The treasury company data adds a second layer. If corporate buyers funded by preferred stock and ETF investors are both accumulating, Bitcoin demand is coming from two structurally different pipes. ETF flows depend on investor sentiment and adviser allocations, while treasury purchases depend on whether markets keep absorbing new preferred stock issuance.

Disclosure: This article was edited by Vivian Nguyen. For more information on how we create and review content, see our Editorial Policy.

Smaller SegWit payments, not a wave of new users, are packing more transactions into each Bitcoin block

Bitcoin blocks are carrying roughly twice as many transactions as they used to. The jump comes from smaller payments built on Segregated Witness, or SegWit, that take up less room. That lets more of them squeeze into each block. The network didn’t get busier so much as it got better at packing.

The distinction matters. Transaction count is one of the most quoted signs of Bitcoin’s health. When it doubles, people tend to read it as adoption. This time, the number is mostly measuring efficiency.

What’s actually filling the blocks
In October 2026, daily confirmed Bitcoin transactions averaged between 700,000 and 800,000. Back in January 2025, the average was about 372,000.

Blocks ran at around 98% capacity during this period. Their average size reached approximately 1.5 MB.

The average fee per transaction in late October 2026 fell to around 32 cents. Blocks were packed, and the cost of getting a spot in one was about the price of a gas station coffee refill.

Microtransactions, meaning payments under 0.01 BTC, now make up about 80% of total Bitcoin network activity. These small, lightweight payments fit into blocks with plenty of room to spare, so the count goes up without much fee competition.

A quick SegWit refresher
SegWit went live on Bitcoin in August 2017. It changed how block space is measured, moving from a simple size cap to a limit of 4 million weight units.

The key move was a discount on “witness” data, the signature information that proves a transaction is authorized. Under SegWit rules, that data counts for less toward the block limit than other parts of a transaction.

The upgrade boosted effective throughput for transactions that take advantage of the witness discount. Crucially, it did this without raising the network’s core capacity.

Why the doubling doesn’t signal a demand boom
If demand had truly doubled, you would expect a fight for block space. Full blocks with heavy competition push fees higher, as users pay up to jump the line.

Instead, blocks sat near 98% full while fees dropped to around 32 cents. That combination points to more efficient use of space rather than a crowd of new users clamoring to get in.

The heavy share of microtransactions reinforces the point. When about 80% of activity consists of payments under 0.01 BTC, the raw transaction count gets inflated by small-ticket items.

What this means for miners and the network
Miners earn the block subsidy plus fees from every transaction they include. The research behind these figures points to falling miner fee revenue despite the high transaction volume. The network is processing more transactions while paying its security providers less per transaction.

The block subsidy shrinks over time, so fees are expected to carry more of the load for securing the network. The research flags that constrained miner revenue may create long-term challenges for network security.

For users, cheap fees on nearly full blocks mean small payments are practical on the base layer, at least under current conditions.

The things to watch from here are fairly concrete. Does the microtransaction share keep climbing from about 80%? Do fees stay near 32 cents with blocks around 98% full? And does miner revenue find support elsewhere, or keep sliding as the network gets more efficient?

Disclosure: This article was edited by Estefano Gomez. For more information on how we create and review content, see our Editorial Policy.

Polymarket has officially launched 5-minute crypto price prediction contracts on the Polymarket US App. Shortlisted cryptocurrencies include Bitcoin (BTC), Ethereum (ETH), Solana (SOL), and XRP.

The app operates as a binary options market (up and down forecasts), with correct predictions paying out at $1 per contract.

To promote fairness, settlement is based on Chainlink’s 60-second Time-Weighted Average Price (TWAP). By averaging the digital asset’s price in the last 60 seconds, the platform prevents last-second price manipulators and/or cheaters.

Additionally, any ties (price predicted is the same as the initial price) automatically resolve in the “up” position.

Polymarket’s re-entry into the US market Initially, Polymarket launched in the US in 2020 but was forced to shut down in the country after it was fined $1.4 million for offering unregistered derivatives.

However, in July 2025, the platform acquired QCX LLC in a $112 million deal focused on re-entering the US market. The derivatives exchange came with an existing license from the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC), allowing it to replace the unregulated connection of Web3 digital wallets to Polymarket.

Earlier this month, Polymarket US introduced 15-minute, hourly, and daily contracts, with the latest ultra-short contract being today’s 5-minute debut.

Growth and competition While Polymarket dominates the global events market space, Kalshi remains the lead in terms of US consumer volume. This is mainly because Kalshi launched legally in 2020, granting it a 5-year head start ahead of Polymarket. Kalshi has also focused on capturing deep institutional liquidity, building partnerships with the likes of Robinhood, Coinbase, and Webull. Even more, its contracts capture a wide variety of events, including sports, economic indicators, and weather. 

By comparison, Polymarket’s contracts mostly cover crypto and pop-culture events. Its operations are also currently stand-alone, with users accessing the beta app on an invite-only basis.

And while both are federally regulated under the CFTC, states such as Nevada and Minnesota have completely blocked all prediction market platforms. Washington and Michigan have banned sports-related contract trading, while New York, Texas, and California are actively contesting prediction market operations.

Story Ends Here

Trust with CoinPedia:CoinPedia has been delivering accurate and timely cryptocurrency and blockchain updates since 2017. All content is created by our expert panel of analysts and journalists, following strict Editorial Guidelines based on E-E-A-T (Experience, Expertise, Authoritativeness, Trustworthiness). Every article is fact-checked against reputable sources to ensure accuracy, transparency, and reliability. Our review policy guarantees unbiased evaluations when recommending exchanges, platforms, or tools. We strive to provide timely updates about everything crypto & blockchain, right from startups to industry majors.

Investment Disclaimer:All opinions and insights shared represent the author's own views on current market conditions. Please do your own research before making investment decisions. Neither the writer nor the publication assumes responsibility for your financial choices.

Sponsored and Advertisements:Sponsored content and affiliate links may appear on our site. Advertisements are marked clearly, and our editorial content remains entirely independent from our ad partners.

Read the Next News

The Nasdaq-listed firm told investors that a year of financial statements can no longer be relied upon, and a withdrawal request has been pending for four months

Datavault AI just learned an expensive lesson. Holding Bitcoin on paper and holding Bitcoin you can actually move are two very different things.

The Nasdaq-listed company (DVLT) told regulators that its request to pull Bitcoin off Biconomy has been pending for four months. It also said several quarters of its financial statements can no longer be relied upon. Shares fell by approximately 37-48% on the news, trading around $0.07.

What Datavault disclosed
The disclosure came in an SEC Form 8-K filed on October 26, 2026. Companies use the 8-K to report major events that shareholders need to know about between regular filings.

This one was about as major as it gets. Datavault said four sets of financials should no longer be trusted: Q3 2025, full-year 2025, Q1 2026, and Q2 2026.

The problem traces back to a September 2025 equity purchase agreement with Scilex Holding Co. (NASDAQ: SCLX). Under the $150 million deal, 1,309.04 BTC was credited to Datavault’s account that month.

Datavault then sold 491.431 BTC back to Scilex for about $40.5 million in cash. The remaining Bitcoin is the part sitting on Biconomy, with a withdrawal request that has gone unanswered for four months as of the filing date.

Datavault later concluded the Bitcoin did not qualify as a digital asset on its books. Instead, the company will classify it as a subscription receivable. A subscription receivable is money an investor still owes for shares it agreed to buy. It sits on the books as a claim, not as something the company fully controls.

The size of the restatement
Reclassifying the Bitcoin is expected to shrink Datavault’s total assets across every affected period. The company’s estimated reductions look like this:

September 30, 2025: $8.1 million lower.

December 31, 2025: $92.2 million lower.

March 31, 2026: $57.1 million lower.

June 30, 2026: $49.0 million lower.

The market reacted on October 27, 2026, the trading day after the filing. Reported declines ranged from 37% to 48%, with the stock hitting a low of approximately $0.07.

Background: an AI company with a Bitcoin problem
Datavault AI positions itself around data and tokenization technology. It also owns the WiSA wireless audio portfolio.

In the same period as the restatement news, the company announced 13 US patent milestones for that WiSA wireless audio portfolio.

The accounting question at the center of the restatement is control. If a company cannot move an asset, it gets harder to argue that asset belongs on the balance sheet the way a liquid holding would.

What this means
For DVLT shareholders, the immediate concern is the restatement itself. Until revised financials are filed, investors are working without reliable numbers for about a year of the company’s history.

The unresolved withdrawal adds another layer of uncertainty. Datavault has not disclosed when or whether the remaining Bitcoin will become accessible.

Because the Bitcoin came through an equity purchase agreement with another listed company, the reclassification could draw attention to how both firms accounted for the deal.

Disclosure: This article was edited by John Chen. For more information on how we create and review content, see our Editorial Policy.

Lightning Labs wants Bitcoin to move more than just Bitcoin. Its newest toolkit, Wavelength, is now being wired to carry Taproot Assets alongside sats.

The company has detailed how Wavelength’s virtual transaction outputs, or VTXOs, can hold Taproot Assets. The approach relies on compact proofs and client-side validation to tie an asset’s history back to a commitment recorded on-chain.

That matters because Lightning Labs has said stablecoin support is on the roadmap. Before you can send a digital dollar through a batched off-chain system, you need a way to prove it is real.

What Wavelength actually does Wavelength is a toolkit and SDK built to drop self-custodial Bitcoin payments into apps and AI agents. It went live on Bitcoin mainnet on October 23, 2026, following an alpha phase that started in July 2026.

Under the hood, it uses Ark-style batching. Think of it like a carpool for transactions: many transfers ride together in one coordinated trip, rather than each taking its own expensive car on-chain.

The building blocks of that carpool are VTXOs. These are virtual outputs that let users make instant off-chain transfers while keeping a path back to the base chain.

Users can leave cooperatively, working with the coordinator. They can also exit unilaterally, with that path enforced by CSV timelocks.

How Taproot Assets fit into VTXOs On October 27, 2026, Lightning Labs engineer Dario Nakamoto walked through how Taproot Assets plug into Wavelength VTXOs. The core idea centers on two techniques: compact proofs and client-side validation.

Client-side validation means the people holding an asset check its legitimacy themselves. The blockchain does not store the full record of every transfer.

Instead, users keep the asset’s history and verify it locally. The chain only needs to hold a small fingerprint that anchors that history.

Here, that anchor is an on-chain commitment governed by the Ark policy tree. The compact proofs are what connect an asset’s off-chain journey to that single commitment.

The early-phase guardrails Lightning Labs is not throwing the doors wide open on day one. During the early phase, Wavelength caps each account at 300,000 sats and each VTXO at 50,000 sats.

Lightning payments routed through the service carry a 0.25% fee.

The road that led here Wavelength did not appear from nowhere. It rests on the Taproot Assets protocol, which Lightning Labs has been steadily hardening throughout 2026.

Taproot Assets reached version 0.8 in June 2026. That release shipped with an SDK aimed at making asset issuance and management easier.

Later updates brought changes to the proof format along with security fixes. Those patches addressed certification issues, a reminder that verifying ownership is only as good as the code doing the checking.

Users also faced a firm deadline. Clients needed to be upgraded before block 971,750, which was expected around mid-October 2026.

That timing put the required upgrades just ahead of Wavelength’s October 23 mainnet debut.

What this means for developers and the Bitcoin ecosystem The clearest audience for this news is builders. Wavelength packages self-custodial payments into an SDK, which lowers the effort needed to add Bitcoin to an application.

Bringing Taproot Assets into VTXOs extends that pitch beyond sats. If stablecoin support arrives as planned, apps could move dollar-denominated value over Bitcoin rails without users giving up custody.

The near-term signals point to a developmental phase rather than a trading event. The research behind this report found no significant market reaction, trading volume shift, or expert commentary tied to the launch.

The risks are the usual ones for young infrastructure. Client-side validation shifts security onto software that must stay updated, and the recent certification patches show that bugs in proof checking are a real concern.

The things worth watching are concrete. Look for whether the 300,000-sat and 50,000-sat caps get raised, whether stablecoin support actually ships, and how many apps and agents adopt the SDK.

Disclosure: This article was edited by Estefano Gomez. For more information on how we create and review content, see our Editorial Policy.

Nic Carter, a prominent figure in the cryptocurrency sector and co-founder of Castle Island Ventures, made noteworthy statements about the future of Bitcoin (BTC), the threat posed by quantum computers, and the fate of Satoshi Nakamoto’s Bitcoins in an interview with Natalie Brunell on the Coin Stories program.

Carter stated that he believes quantum computers will reach a point where they could threaten the cryptographic systems used by Bitcoin within the next 10 years, and argued that this risk should be addressed now.

Carter expressed his expectations regarding the development of quantum technology with the following words:

“I think quantum mechanics will reach that point within 10 years. It will definitely happen within the next 10 years. I’m bringing forward my timeline prediction for quantum mechanics.”

However, Carter’s statement doesn’t necessarily mean Bitcoin will be hacked within 10 years. The renowned investor believes the Bitcoin network could implement necessary security updates before quantum computers reach sufficient capacity.

“Bitcoin Needs to Be Updated Against the Quantum Threat”
According to Carter, Bitcoin needs to switch to a new digital signature system to be protected against quantum computers.

Carter stated that this change could be implemented via a soft fork, and that Bitcoin holders would need to move their assets to the new addresses following the update.

However, he pointed out that the transition could take years and emphasized that preparations should begin now.

Carter also argued that Bitcoin’s past Taproot update laid an important foundation for integrating post-quantum cryptographic signatures into the network.

On the other hand, Carter noted that artificial intelligence also poses an uncertain risk for cryptographic systems, stating that it is not yet known whether AI can make mathematical discoveries that could break existing encryption methods independently of quantum computers.

Carter stated that if the wallets of a major cryptocurrency exchange were to be compromised in such a development, it could severely undermine confidence in Bitcoin, warning that it could create a crisis affecting the entire market.

So Did Nic Carter Sell His Bitcoins?
One of the most striking parts of the interview was Carter’s response to the question of whether he had reduced his Bitcoin investments due to quantum risks.

Carter stated that he takes the quantum threat seriously and has received intense criticism from the Bitcoin community for warning the public about it.

Despite this, he stated that he did not sell any Bitcoin due to quantum concerns.

Carter said that instead of moving away from Bitcoin entirely, he wanted the network’s security issues to be resolved.

The renowned investor also touched upon the risks associated with individual custody methods. Carter considered multi-signature systems, which utilize hardware from multiple manufacturers, as a secure option, while arguing that using Bitcoin ETFs or professional custody services is also a reasonable alternative.

Controversial Proposal for Satoshi Nakamoto’s Bitcoins
Carter also made a suggestion that could spark debate regarding the status of long-inactive Bitcoins belonging to Bitcoin creator Satoshi Nakamoto and early miners in the face of the quantum threat.

Carter argued that if these Bitcoins cannot be transferred to new security systems by their owners, they could become targets for attackers, and therefore the US government should allow a legal recovery operation.

According to Carter’s proposal, an authorized quantum research laboratory could recover these at-risk Bitcoins and transfer them to a fund under court supervision.

Then, if Satoshi Nakamoto or the early miners can prove that those Bitcoins belong to them, they can reclaim their assets.

Carter stated that he would prefer this method to a random attacker seizing Bitcoins and selling them on the market, and added that he would prefer such an operation to be carried out by the US rather than by China.

However, Carter stated that he did not expect the Bitcoin community to accept a change that would directly freeze those assets.

“If These Two Problems Are Solved, Bitcoin’s Future Is Very Bright”
Carter stated that he is quite optimistic about the future of Bitcoin if a security update against quantum threats is implemented and a solution is found for the status of older Bitcoins, considering these as the two most important problems facing the network.

Carter stated that despite the artificial intelligence sector attracting large amounts of capital, Bitcoin has managed to remain strong, and argued that global debt problems and a loss of confidence in traditional financial assets are also developments that favor Bitcoin in the long term.

*This is not investment advice.

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

Blockchain security firm SlowMist reported that JavaScript connected to Udesk, a customer service chat widget embedded by many websites, was used to collect visitor login credentials and redirect crypto deposits on at least three trading platforms.

Security flaw targets crypto exchangesSlowMist stated on Tuesday that its analysts discovered the malicious code during their routine threat monitoring procedures. According to the firm, their MistEye monitoring system detected and alerted their clients to the issue, raising concerns about the scope of the compromise.

Udesk is a third-party customer service software provider frequently integrated by exchanges and online businesses to facilitate client communication. By intercepting this widely used widget, attackers were able to reach users across several platforms.

The tampered file, named udeskApi.2026-10-16.cached.js, contained a hidden short loader script appended after the legitimate widget code. The loader’s intended target was obfuscated in hexadecimal format, making it difficult to detect using standard searches for readable domains.

Once decoded, the loader extracted a second malicious script from a domain called udeskqlobal[.]com—a misspelling used specifically to evade simple domain checks. SlowMist recommended maintaining the exact spelling, with a “q”, when reviewing web logs for evidence of compromise.

Mini dictionary: Udesk, a cloud-based customer service platform, offers businesses online support solutions through live chat, tickets, and integration capabilities, making it a popular widget on e-commerce and trading sites.

Scope and method of attackSlowMist clarified that the malicious code was not confined to the three crypto exchanges originally named. The report stated that even if a website’s address did not match those targets, the script would still begin data collection and install monitoring hooks. Furthermore, using an iframe to embed the customer service widget did not shield the host website, as scripts loaded via the iframe could still interact with user sessions and collect sensitive data.

For MGBX, Biking Exchange, and BitxEX, a second module was triggered specifically on their deposit pages. The injected code reviewed these pages every 200 milliseconds, dynamically replacing displayed wallet addresses with one of six attacker-controlled addresses compatible with Bitcoin, EVM chains, Tron, Solana, Litecoin, and Dogecoin. To further conceal its presence, the attack also altered any copied deposit address text through multiple technical routes, making it difficult for users to detect the swap even if they compared pasted text to the original page.

Exchange TargetedAttack MechanismAssets AffectedMGBXDeposit address swap every 200ms, hooks user actionsBTC, EVM Chains, Tron, Solana, Litecoin, DogecoinBiking ExchangeDeposit address swap, tracks copy-paste activityBTC, EVM Chains, Tron, Solana, Litecoin, DogecoinBitxEXDeposit address swap, clipboard rewriteBTC, EVM Chains, Tron, Solana, Litecoin, DogecoinUnclear impact and recommended actionsSlowMist did not specify how the malicious code was introduced into the Udesk script or how many companies incorporated the compromised file. The firm also did not confirm if any cryptocurrency funds were actually lost due to this incident.

In its advisory, SlowMist urged organizations still employing the compromised scripts to remove them immediately, secure any leaked credentials, and verify that deposit addresses match those listed in their trusted records and backend systems. The firm warned that simply deleting the malicious script tag is insufficient, as previously activated hooks and timers will continue to operate. Instead, SlowMist recommended closing affected pages and resetting all passwords and access tokens from a secure system.

SlowMist’s report emphasized that removing the embedded script does not deactivate malicious hooks or timers already in the system, urging businesses to conduct thorough clean-up and security reviews after exposure.

Previous incidents highlight persistent threatIncidents involving compromised third-party code continue to affect the crypto sector. In December 2023, a tampered version of Ledger’s widely used Connect Kit integration library was responsible for draining around $500,000 from users’ wallets on popular decentralized application interfaces such as SushiSwap and Zapper.

These events underscore the necessity for constant vigilance regarding the external tools and code that exchanges and crypto service providers deploy to their user base.

Third-party code risks are an ongoing challenge for the digital asset industry, with recent attacks illustrating that even widely trusted libraries and services can become a threat vector when targeted by sophisticated adversaries.

Cathie Wood-led Ark Invest bought 65,615 Circle shares, worth $5.2 million, for its Next Generation Internet exchange-traded fund (ARKW) on Monday and offloaded $15.9 million worth of its own spot Bitcoin exchange-traded fund ARK 21Shares Bitcoin ETF (ARKB) from two of its investment funds as the foremost cryptocurrency continued its slump from its early October highs.

Ark's investment strategy involves letting no individual holding take up more than 10% of a fund's portfolio. This is to maintain diversification within its funds — meaning Ark is likely to continue rebalancing its weightings if the value of certain shares rise or fall significantly relative to the firm's other fund holdings.

As of Oct. 27, Circle Internet Group, Inc. (CRCL) is currently the fifth-largest holding within its ARKW fund, with a weighting of 4.3%, worth around $67.8 million, according to Arl's latest disclosures. Tesla, Meta, Shopify, and Amazon make up the remainder of ARKW's top five holdings, respectively.

Circle shares fell 7.1% on Monday, closing at $79.84 and trading down 1.2% year-to-date, according to The Block's CRCL page. The stock is currently down 1.1% in pre-market trading on Tuesday, per TradingView.

CRCL/USD price chart. Image: The Block. ARKB remains top 10 allocation as bitcoin slumps The Ark Invest/21Shares ARKB Bitcoin ETF remains a top 10 allocation within Ark Invest's Next Generation Internet fund and ARK Blockchain and Fintech Innovation ETF (ARKF), with a weighting of 3.7% and 3.8% and valued at approximately $58.2 million and $29.1 million, respectively.

Ark's spot Bitcoin ETF has generated around $1.1 billion in net inflows since launching in January 2024, with $2.5 billion in assets under management, according to The Block's ETF Tracker page.

Spot Bitcoin ETF AUM. Image: The Block. Bitcoin Bitcoin (BTC) was trading around $79,625 on Tuesday morning, remaining below the $80,000 mark amid renewed selling pressure ahead of Wednesday's Federal Reserve interest rate decision. The largest cryptocurrency has now pulled back 8.7% since its October high of around $87,200.

Joel Kruger, market strategist at LMAX Group, highlighted growing tensions in the Middle East, higher oil prices, and uneven institutional demand as reasons for the crypto market's recent weakness. Thin weekend trading and leveraged liquidations added to the selling pressure, Kruger told The Block, though he argued that the market decline was being driven more by macroeconomic factors than a fundamental change in the outlook for digital assets.

Meanwhile, Nick Forster, founder and CEO of crypto options platform Derive, told The Block that traders were increasingly positioning for further downside, with $80,000 becoming the most actively traded bitcoin options strike on the exchange. Put options accounted for 91% of the roughly $32 million traded at that level over the past week, reflecting growing demand for protection against further price declines.

BTC price chart. Image: The Block.

The Bitcoin treasury firm Strive (ASST) just acquired $511 million worth of BTC.

The Dallas-based company bought 6,182 Bitcoin between October 16th and 23rd, stretching its total holdings to 43,000 BTC, per documents filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on Monday.

Strive is the fourth-largest Bitcoin treasury firm in the world, and the company’s recent purchase brought it significantly closer to the second- and third-largest treasuries, Metaplanet and Twenty One Capital, which own 44,000 BTC and 43,514 BTC, respectively. Michael Saylor’s Strategy easily tops the list with 848,517 BTC, according to Bitcointreasuries.net.

Matt Cole, Strive’s chairman and chief executive, hinted in an interview on the One Chair Podcast last month that his firm could end the year with some big BTC accumulations.

[28:20] “The potential for an electric finish to Strive’s Bitcoin holdings in 2026 is there, right? I think it’s not out of the realm of possibility for Strive to end the year as the number two largest Bitcoin holder.

Some things are going to have to go right for that to happen. I wouldn’t say that’s my base case, but I would say that it’s in the possible set of cards, right?” 

Strive executed its recent BTC purchase at an average price of $82,732 per Bitcoin. The top-ranked crypto asset by market cap is trading at $79,958 at time of writing.

Generated Image: Midjourney

Vanguard’s small-cap international ETF has disclosed its first position in Metaplanet. The stake comes from index tracking and does not represent a direct Vanguard bet on Bitcoin. Metaplanet’s enterprise value sits below the market value of its Bitcoin treasury. The company is financing share buybacks with a new zero-coupon convertible bond. Vanguard’s FTSE All-World ex-US Small-Cap ETF (VSS) has disclosed its first position in Metaplanet, holding about 4.5 million shares worth roughly $7.5 million, according to the fund’s holdings data. The stake arrives while the Tokyo-listed company, Asia’s largest corporate Bitcoin holder with 44,000 BTC, trades below the market value of its own treasury and is spending heavily to buy back its stock. Investors barely reacted to the filing, and Metaplanet (TSE: 3350) closed Monday at ¥263 (about $1.71), down roughly 0.75%.

VSS Bought Because Its Benchmark Did VSS tracks a benchmark of small companies in developed and emerging markets outside the United States, and it buys whatever that benchmark contains in proportion to each company’s size. With about $11.34 billion in assets, the $7.5 million Metaplanet position works out to roughly 0.07% of the fund, a weighting that tells investors more about index rules than about any view Vanguard’s managers hold on Bitcoin. The disclosure also leaves open when the shares were acquired, so a newly reported holding should not be read as a purchase made on October 26.

Vanguard funds held Metaplanet well before this filing, with the Total International Stock Index Fund (VGTSX) building a position of 15.64 million shares and the FTSE Japan ETF (VJPN) reporting its first 704,500 shares in October 2025.

Vanguard fund Shares Value Total International Stock Index VGTSX 15.64M $53.5M FTSE All-World ex-US Small-Cap VSS NEW 4.5M $7.5M FTSE Japan ETF VJPN 704,500 $2.1M Combined 20.84M $63.1M Figures come from different disclosure periods.

Ramji Opened the Door Only to Rivals’ ETFs In January 2024, Vanguard blocked newly approved spot Bitcoin ETFs from its brokerage platform, and the arrival of Salim Ramji, a former BlackRock executive, as chief executive in July 2024 did not immediately change that stance. The firm reversed course in December 2025 when it opened its brokerage platform to third-party crypto ETFs tied to Bitcoin, Ether, XRP and Solana, citing the products’ operational resilience and liquidity. It also said it had no plans to issue crypto funds of its own and continued to favor assets that generate cash flows such as interest and dividends.

Owning Metaplanet through equity index funds fits within that policy, since Vanguard clients gain indirect Bitcoin exposure through a listed company while the asset manager never has to hold a single coin.

44,000 BTC Priced at 0.85x According to Metaplanet’s Bitcoin strategy tracker, the company carries an enterprise value of $3.15 billion against a Bitcoin treasury valued at $3.71 billion, a ratio of 0.85x. Enterprise value adds the company’s $699.57 million in debt and $149.26 million in preferred capital to its $2.37 billion equity market capitalization, so the figure reflects what the whole business costs to own, and a reading below 1.0x means the market prices Metaplanet at about 15% less than its Bitcoin on that basis.

Metaplanet’s Bitcoin vs. its valuation

Bitcoin treasury value

$3.71B

Enterprise value

$3.15B · 0.85x

Equity market cap $2.37B Debt $699.57M Preferred capital $149.26M Average BTC cost $103,764 The coins also sit below their purchase price, with Metaplanet paying an average of $103,764 per BTC while the tracker’s valuation implies a reference price near $84,300, a gap of roughly $783 million between acquisition cost and value. That gap has widened since Bitcoin slipped below $80,000 this week, a level at which the 44,000 BTC would be worth about $3.5 billion, roughly $1 billion less than Metaplanet paid for them. Shareholders have absorbed a one-year share-price decline of about 41.4%, and accumulation has slowed sharply, from 5,075 BTC added in the first quarter of 2026 to a net 1,000 BTC in the third.

74 Million Shares Retired in One Trade Under its capital allocation policy, Metaplanet generally avoids selling new common shares while the ratio stays below 1.0x, because issuing stock at a discount would shrink each existing shareholder’s slice of the Bitcoin pile. Buying shares back works in the opposite direction, since every share retired below asset value raises the amount of BTC attributable to the shares that remain, without the company buying any additional Bitcoin. Other treasury companies are making the same trade-off, with Bitmine recently spending more on buybacks than on new ETH while Strategy skipped Bitcoin purchases.

On October 14, Metaplanet repurchased 73,981,400 shares at ¥261 (about $1.69) each through the Tokyo Stock Exchange’s ToSTNeT-3 off-auction system, spending roughly ¥19.31 billion (about $125 million). A new authorization allows up to 200 million shares, about 14.7% of the stock, capped at ¥60 billion (about $390 million) through October 13, 2027.

The money comes partly from a ¥52 billion (about $338 million) zero-coupon euroyen convertible bond due in October 2031. Metaplanet plans to put ¥23.6 billion (about $153 million) toward repaying Bitcoin-backed loans in November and up to ¥28.3 billion (about $184 million) toward buybacks through December. Capital Research and Management, meanwhile, lifted its voting-rights stake to 11.11% as of October 16 with 143.3 million shares, a percentage boosted in part by the shrinking pool of voting shares.

Metaplanet’s capital moves, autumn 2026

Oct 13

¥52B bond and ¥60B buyback announced

Oct 14

73.98M shares bought back at ¥261

Oct 16

Capital Research reaches 11.11% of votes

Oct 26

Vanguard VSS position disclosed

Oct 29

Convertible bond issued

Nov 2026

Bitcoin-backed loan repayment due 

November Loan Payoff Frees Bitcoin Collateral The bond swaps loans secured by Bitcoin for unsecured debt that does not mature until 2031, which reduces the risk that a further drop in BTC forces the company to post more collateral or sell coins. It does not cut total borrowing by much, and any conversion into common stock would add shares back, offsetting part of the buybacks, so investors will want to track BTC per fully diluted share rather than the headline BTC total.

Index mechanics can also turn against the company, because a smaller share count and lower market value can shift Metaplanet’s weight at the next benchmark rebalance, and passive funds such as VSS may then trim as easily as they added.

Bondholders can begin converting on November 12, and the same quarter should settle Metaplanet’s planned contribution of 2,100 BTC and $2.5 million to U.S.-listed Super League, a deal designed to create a U.S. Bitcoin treasury vehicle called Superplanet. Super League shareholders have approved the relevant resolutions, but closing still depends on outstanding conditions, and the final ownership structure will determine whether those coins stay on Metaplanet’s consolidated books.

Alex is a financial markets journalist and co-founder of Millennial Media Group, and he's spent close to ten years trying to answer one stubborn question: what's really driving this? It started in 2016, when Bitcoin refused to make sense to him - and rather than shrug, he stayed with it until it did. That patience became his method. He's less interested in what an asset is doing today than in the plumbing behind it: how liquidity flows, where risk hides, what a chart is quietly telling you that the headline isn't. That lens eventually stretched well past crypto into traditional markets, because the same forces - fear, leverage, incentives, timing - show up everywhere once you know how to look. Most coverage, in his view, insults the reader by stopping at the surface. Price up, price down, moving on. He'd rather leave someone genuinely understanding a move than merely informed that it happened. His path into markets ran through a Tourism degree at New Bulgarian University - proof, maybe, that curiosity beats credentials. With more than 200 deep analyses and over 10,000 articles behind him, he still walks away from most trading days having learned something he didn't know that morning.

Full Profile

Metaplanet’s US subsidiary has reportedly bought 4 more Bitcoin, bringing its total holdings to 7 BTC. The purchase lands before the company’s much larger deal for Super League Enterprise has closed.

A small buy with a big deal looming The buyer is Metaplanet Holdings, Inc., the Florida-based arm of Japan’s Metaplanet Inc. The 4 BTC purchase means the subsidiary held three coins before this latest addition.

The purchase claim has not been independently corroborated by major financial or crypto outlets. No public records reviewed in the research confirmed a discrete 4 BTC buy by the US entity.

On August 18, 2026, Metaplanet announced that its US subsidiary would contribute 2,100 BTC along with $2.5 million in cash. In exchange, it expects to acquire approximately 95.7% of Super League Enterprise, a company listed on Nasdaq.

Once the deal closes, Super League is set to rebrand as Superplanet Inc., trading under the ticker SUPA. The company plans to keep running its existing gaming and media advertising businesses.

Where the transaction stands Super League shareholders approved the share issuance tied to the deal on October 16, 2026. That vote was one of the major hurdles standing between the announcement and the finish line.

Closing is targeted for the fourth quarter of 2026. It still depends on regulatory and Nasdaq approvals, so the timeline is a goal rather than a guarantee.

The structure gives Metaplanet more than just a stake. The arrangement includes control through preferred stock, plus rights to invest up to $210M.

At the time of the August announcement, Metaplanet held roughly 43,000 to 44,000 BTC in total. The 2,100 BTC earmarked for the deal works out to about 4.9% of that stash.

Background: Metaplanet’s push into US markets Metaplanet has become one of the more prominent corporate Bitcoin holders based in Japan. Its holdings in the tens of thousands of BTC put it in the conversation with the largest public treasury companies.

The Super League deal marks a clear attempt to plant a flag in US capital markets. Rather than building a listed American entity from scratch, Metaplanet chose to buy one that already trades on Nasdaq.

What this means The deal could bring enhanced liquidity and access to preferred securities. Those tools could potentially help fund future Bitcoin acquisitions or other investments, though nothing about that outcome is locked in.

The preferred stock structure also deserves attention. Control through preferred shares can concentrate decision-making power, which matters for minority holders who will own the remaining slice of the company.

As for the 7 BTC, it is best read as a footnote rather than a headline figure. Until it is confirmed through company filings or disclosures, the 4 BTC buy remains a report rather than an established fact.

The things worth watching are concrete. Look for the regulatory and Nasdaq approvals, the actual transfer of the 2,100 BTC, and the first trading day for SUPA.

Disclosure: This article was edited by John Chen. For more information on how we create and review content, see our Editorial Policy.

17h45 ▪
5
min read ▪ by
Lydie M.

Summarize this article with:

Strategy bought no Bitcoin between October 19 and 25. A first pause after several weeks of accumulation. Michael Saylor’s company preferred to dedicate 204.9 million dollars to repurchasing its preferred STRC shares, according to its SEC filing on October 26. Its reserve remains unchanged at 848,517 BTC, while its available cash has dropped to 242.4 million dollars, compared to 447.3 million a week earlier.

In brief

Strategy halts Bitcoin purchases after several weeks of acquisitions.
The company buys back 2.07 million STRC shares for $204.9 million.
Available cash declines by nearly 46% in one week.

Strategy takes a pause in its Bitcoin purchases
Strategy’s latest weekly report contrasts with previous ones. Between October 19 and 25, the company bought no Bitcoin. It did not sell any either and made no share issuances under its At-The-Market (ATM) sales program.

A week earlier, Strategy had still purchased 267 bitcoins for $22.1 million. The company had also acquired 250 BTC the previous week, then 334 BTC at the beginning of October. This streak has now ended. The total reserve remains at 848,517 BTC, acquired for approximately $64.02 billion. The average purchase price is $75,446 per Bitcoin, fees included.

This represents a little over 4% of the 21 million bitcoins that will ever exist. But the real surprise is in the spending. While Strategy invested no dollars in new BTC during the week, it used $204.9 million to repurchase 2,068,459 STRC shares.

The amount exceeds that of previous weekly operations. Strategy has not officially abandoned its Bitcoin accumulation program. Its regulatory document only describes the operations conducted during this period.

STRC buybacks far exceed BTC purchases
STRC shares now play an important role in Strategy’s financial management. These variable-rate preferred securities, also called Stretch, pay regular dividends. Strategy notably aims to support their listing around their nominal value of $100.

The group had already doubled its buyback program in September after dedicating $176 million to STRC. The movement accelerated in October.

Over the last three weeks, amounts dedicated to STRC buybacks are:

$192.4 million from October 5 to 11.
$193.1 million from October 12 to 18.
$204.9 million from October 19 to 25.

Total: $590.4 million. During these three weeks, Strategy spent only $43.6 million to buy an additional 517 BTC. STRC buybacks thus represent 13.5 times the expenditures allocated to Bitcoin over this period.

The gap is significant. Strategy still retains $956.8 million of available authorization in its preferred shares buyback program, recently raised to $3 billion. Another $1 billion program exists for common MSTR shares. No shares in this category were repurchased during the last week.

Strategy loses nearly half of its available cash
Spending on STRC directly reduced the company’s liquidity. On October 18, Strategy had $447.3 million in USD cash. Seven days later, this amount had fallen to $242.4 million. The decline represents $204.9 million, or about 45.8%. This cash is notably used for Bitcoin purchases, securities buybacks, and other financial operations of the group.

However, Strategy has a second separate reserve. Its USD Reserve, intended for payment of preferred dividends and debt interest, remains unchanged at $4.83 billion. Combining these two compartments, the company holds approximately $5.07 billion in dollar assets.

The situation also occurs at a delicate time for its stock. On October 15, MSCI approved new rules likely to exclude some companies whose balance sheets resemble those of an investment vehicle rather than an operating company.

Strategy is among the companies potentially affected. An exclusion could force index funds to sell MSTR shares. However, it would not force Strategy to sell its bitcoins. The timeline is known: MSCI must announce its final decision on November 11, ahead of possible implementation after the close on November 30. No direct link has been established between this threat and the weekly suspension of Bitcoin purchases. For now, Michael Saylor retains his 848,517 BTC. The company mainly continues to mobilize its dollars to support its own financial instruments.

Maximize your Cointribune experience with our "Read to Earn" program! For every article you read, earn points and access exclusive rewards. Sign up now and start earning benefits.

Join the program

A

A

Lien copié

Lydie M.

Enseignante et ingénieure IT, Lydie découvre le Bitcoin en 2022 et plonge dans l’univers des cryptomonnaies. Elle vulgarise des sujets complexes, décrypte les enjeux du Web3 et défend une vision d’un futur numérique ouvert, inclusif et décentralisé.

DISCLAIMER

The views, thoughts, and opinions expressed in this article belong solely to the author, and should not be taken as investment advice. Do your own research before taking any investment decisions.

2 hours ago

Asset management giant Franklin Templeton has filed a Form 8-A with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) to complete the Nasdaq listing registration for two new exchange-traded funds (ETFs). The prospectus indicates the funds will take effect on October 27, and the market widely expects them to start trading soon. The two products are the Franklin US Equity Bitcoin DRIP Index ETF (ticker: FBEQ) and the Franklin US Innovation Bitcoin DRIP Index ETF (ticker: FIBT). The former tracks the VettaFi US Large-Cap 500 Bitcoin DRIP Index, covering about 500 of the largest U.S. companies by market cap; the latter tracks the VettaFi US Innovation 100 Bitcoin DRIP Index, focusing on the 100 largest non-financial Nasdaq-listed companies. Both funds adopt a passive index strategy, with an initial asset allocation of approximately 95% U.S. equities and 5% Bitcoin exposure. The core mechanism of the products is "Bitcoin Dividend Reinvestment Plan (Bitcoin DRIP)". Unlike traditional dividend reinvestment plans, these two ETFs do not reinvest ordinary and special dividends from stocks back into the equities themselves. Instead, on the opening of the day after the ex-dividend date, the dividend cash is automatically used to increase Bitcoin-related exposure. Bitcoin exposure is primarily achieved through Bitcoin exchange-traded products (including Franklin’s own spot Bitcoin ETF EZBC), futures, options, or other related instruments; the funds do not directly hold on-chain Bitcoin. To control risks, the indices have clear rebalancing rules: if the Bitcoin weight exceeds 5% during quarterly rebalancing, it will be reduced to 4.5%; if the Bitcoin weight exceeds 20% during the rebalancing interval, it must be cut back to 4.5% within two trading days. The documents show FBEQ has a management fee of 0.09%, while FIBT’s is 0.19%, with neither charging 12b-1 fees.

Scan the QR code

Download APP

Bitcoin has a deadline problem, and Muneeb Ali wants everyone to start counting.

Speaking at Token2049 Singapore on October 8, 2026, the Stacks co-founder said Bitcoin has roughly two years to upgrade, then about two more years to move coins before quantum computing risks intensify.

The four-year clock
Ali’s keynote split the problem into two phases.

Phase one is the upgrade itself: getting quantum-resistant signatures into Bitcoin. He put that window at approximately two years.

Phase two is migration. Once the tools exist, holders still have to move their coins into addresses protected by the new signature schemes. Ali allotted about two additional years for that step.

The timeline lines up with guidance from NIST, the US standards body. That guidance calls for phasing out vulnerable signature schemes such as ECDSA after 2030, with full retirement by 2035. ECDSA is the cryptography that currently proves Bitcoin owners control their coins.

The capacity catch
Swapping in quantum-safe signatures carries a cost.

Ali warned that adopting them could cut Bitcoin’s effective transaction capacity to roughly 10% of its current levels. The research behind the keynote describes this as pushing activity off-chain. Bitcoin’s base layer would remain the settlement anchor, while everyday transactions migrate to systems built on top.

Ali positioned Stacks as a post-quantum layer that sits on top of Bitcoin’s base settlement.

Stacks’ roadmap and the CEO return
The keynote doubled as a preview of what Stacks Labs plans to build next.

The company’s roadmap rests on three pillars: Bitcoin capital markets, institutional privacy, and post-quantum security. Stacks Labs is pursuing a two-year plan centered on privacy and post-quantum technology, with a stated goal of a 100x increase in network capacity.

Ali is set to formally return as CEO of Stacks Labs on October 15, 2026, a week after the Singapore keynote.

In September 2026, Stacks launched Genesis Bond, a self-custodial Bitcoin staking product. Self-custodial means users keep control of their own keys rather than handing coins to a third party.

Separately, Stacks deployed 500 BTC in a program called Bitcoin Bond 2, which locked 45 million STX, the network’s native token, for Bitcoin staking.

Token2049 Singapore drew approximately 25,000 attendees.

What this means
For Bitcoin holders, the most practical takeaway is the migration phase. If Ali’s timeline holds, users would eventually need to move coins into quantum-resistant addresses. Coins that never move could stay exposed under older signature schemes.

For the broader network, the 10% capacity figure is the number to watch. A sharp drop in base-layer throughput would reshape fee dynamics and push more activity onto secondary systems.

Ali takes the CEO role on October 15, 2026, and the roadmap runs two years. That is roughly the same window he says Bitcoin itself has to upgrade, so Stacks will be building its post-quantum layer while the base chain decides whether, and how, to change underneath it.

Disclosure: This article was edited by Estefano Gomez. For more information on how we create and review content, see our Editorial Policy.

Table of contents

Bitcoin Core is ending the year-long wait for security patches that a language model can find again in a single prompt. A change to the project’s security disclosure policy, merged on October 22, creates an “easily discoverable” class of vulnerability and instructs maintainers to ship a point release and a public advisory “as soon as possible” — bypassing the standard embargo that keeps a medium- or high-severity bug secret for roughly a year.

The trigger is blunt. Maintainers are fielding more reports for bugs that keep getting rediscovered, because language models have lowered the effort needed to find them. Antoine Poinsot, a Bitcoin Core contributor at Chaincode Labs, announced the change on the Bitcoin Development Mailing List the same day the pull request was merged.

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

Why a Year-Long Embargo Stopped Buying Anything
Bitcoin Core’s previous policy tied disclosure timing to severity. Low-severity bugs went public two weeks after the next major release shipped. Medium- and high-severity bugs stayed private until two weeks after the last affected release reached end of life — a window the policy itself describes as “approximately a year after a major version containing the fix was first released.”

That timetable existed for a reason. Bitcoin Core is the reference implementation running the majority of Bitcoin’s nodes, and node operators upgrade slowly. A long embargo was meant to give the network time to patch before details went public. The tradeoff was that fixes generally were not backported, so an operator on an older release waited for the next major version, which the project aims to ship roughly every six months.

The caution is structural rather than accidental. Consensus changes such as Bitcoin’s Taproot upgrade move through a slow, conservative path precisely so operators can adopt them on their own schedule.

“Because of the nature of our project, coupled with a slow upgrade culture, our security policy favours a longer embargo period,” Poinsot wrote. “This generally means security fixes can’t be backported, and only become available with users along with the next major release.”

AI breaks that tradeoff. If a bug can be rediscovered with a trivial LLM scan, hiding it buys nothing, because the flaw is already within reach of anyone holding a chatbot. “For these issues that are easy to find, this is the wrong tradeoff. The embargo period achieves little but it delays the availability of a fixed release,” Poinsot wrote.

What the New “Easily Discoverable” Class Actually Changes
Under the revised policy, the disclosure clock now has a third setting. A vulnerability can be flagged “easily discoverable” during triage — defined as one that “can be discovered with minimal effort, such as through a simple LLM prompt.” The label is not limited to AI-found bugs: it turns on how little effort rediscovery takes, not on which tool did the finding.

For those bugs, the response changes on every axis. Instead of a single fix landing in the next major release, maintainers will backport a fix to every currently maintained major version — three branches under Bitcoin Core’s rule of supporting its latest three releases — and cut point releases as fast as they can. A security advisory publishes alongside the patched software.

The severity ladder still governs everything else. Low-severity bugs stay on the two-week schedule. Medium and high stay on the roughly one-year clock. Critical bugs — the ones that could steal coins at the protocol level, inflate the supply, or permanently split the chain — remain outside the standard policy and are handled case by case, as they always were.

That carve-out exists for good reason. In Bitcoin Core’s history, the inflation bug disclosed as CVE-2018-17144 in September 2018 was the kind of flaw that justified special handling: it could have allowed coins to be created outside the issuance schedule. The new “easily discoverable” route does not touch that tier — a critical bug will still get an ad hoc response shaped around the risk to the whole network.

Two Weeks, a Year, or “As Soon as Possible”
The change is easiest to read as a collapse in the disclosure window. A medium-severity bug fixed today would normally stay private for about 52 weeks, disclosed only two weeks after the last affected release reached end of life. The same bug, once flagged easily discoverable, ships as a point release “as soon as possible” with its advisory. That is the difference between a year and, in the maintainers’ own framing, however long it takes to write, review, and test a targeted patch.

The backport commitment is the other half. Before the change, a fix generally did not reach users on an older maintained branch; it arrived with the next major release. Now an operator on an older supported version can take a targeted point release without adopting every feature and behavior change in the newest major version. For a network where upgrades are slow and deliberate, that is a material change to how quickly a patch can actually land.

The Risk the Maintainers Themselves Flagged
The faster route has a cost, and Poinsot said it plainly in the pull request. “This is particularly important as under this policy, mitigations won’t have as much ‘bake time’ in development branches before being released to users,” he wrote. A fix that ships in days spends less time in review and testing than one that sat for months.

The discussion also split on whether disclosure should move even faster. Some contributors argued that opening a fix’s pull request can itself tip off attackers, because it is cheap to watch the repository automatically, so disclosure may need to come no later than the patch, or ahead of it with mitigation guidance. A different contributor proposed shipping fixes with a discretionary or delayed advisory. Poinsot rejected that, writing that alerting users without details could trigger a rushed migration among operators who were never affected.

The exchange matters because it shows the new policy is a deliberate middle path, not an obvious one. The merged text keeps the advisory simultaneous with the fix and keeps full details, rather than a vague warning.

When the First “Easily Discoverable” Bug Lands
No vulnerability has been placed in the new class yet, so this is a change of process, not the disclosure of a live bug. The first real test arrives when maintainers flag something “easily discoverable” during triage and ship point releases across the maintained branches with a simultaneous advisory.

The wider signal is that AI-assisted bug hunting has already forced the Bitcoin ecosystem to move. Core Lightning told node operators earlier this year to upgrade or disconnect after AI-generated vulnerability reports proved correct. Bitcoin Core’s policy change is the reference implementation making the same calculation at the protocol’s base layer: when rediscovery is cheap, secrecy buys little, and the only thing a long embargo delays is the fixed release.

For node operators, nothing changes today. The upgrade cadence stays the same. The difference arrives the next time a bug qualifies as easily discoverable, when a patch and its advisory land together with less notice than the network has ever had.

Disclosure: This article does not represent investment advice. The content and materials featured on this page are for educational purposes only.

Table of contents

Bitcoin cotiza este sábado 25 de octubre en 80.040 dólares, un 0,60% por debajo de hace 24 horas, según los datos de CoinGecko de las 09:20 UTC. La pregunta del día es directa: ¿cuál es la mejor criptomoneda para comprar hoy? La respuesta no cabe en una sola moneda, sino en dos perfiles de riesgo. Bitcoin sigue siendo el activo que el capital institucional compra en cada recorte, y Sui es la mediana capitalización con el catalizador más concreto de la semana: el despliegue por fases de Hashi, su infraestructura de finanzas de Bitcoin, que arranca con más de 500 millones de dólares en capital comprometido y con Anchorage Digital como socio de lanzamiento.

El matiz importa. El compromiso no es lo mismo que el despliegue: Sui no ha revelado cuánto de ese capital está ya depositado en los contratos de Hashi. Lo que sí está confirmado es la dirección del flujo: las instituciones con bitcoin en balance empiezan a tener un camino regulado para ponerlo a trabajar sin venderlo. Eso es lo que cambia la conversación para Sui, no el precio de una jornada.

El tablero de las grandes capitalizaciones El mercado mayor cotiza en rojo este sábado, salvo dos excepciones. Ethereum cede un 1,82% hasta 2.318 dólares; Solana baja un 1,05% hasta 100,36 dólares; BNB avanza un 0,38% hasta 735,05 dólares; y XRP suma un 0,95% hasta 1,29 dólares, según CoinGecko a las 09:20 UTC. La capitalización de bitcoin, 1,61 billones de dólares, sigue siendo el ancla de todo el tablero: equivale a más de cinco veces la de Ethereum y a más de 27 veces la de Solana.

El dato que conviene aislar es el rango de las últimas 24 horas. Bitcoin tocó un mínimo de 79.263 dólares y un máximo de 80.949, una franja estrecha que confirma que el activo se ha estabilizado en torno a los 80.000 dólares. No es un mercado que se desplome: es un mercado que espera, con el precio consolidando después de haber perforado la cota de los 80.000 dólares en las últimas jornadas.

La aritmética de un re-rating Antes de elegir una moneda conviene traducir los precios a capitalización de mercado, porque es el número que mide cuánto dinero nuevo haría falta para mover cada activo. Bitcoin vale 1,61 billones; Ethereum, 283.190 millones; BNB, 96.670 millones; XRP, 81.680 millones; y Solana, 59.190 millones.

El cálculo que la fuente no hace es el que más le importa al inversor. Sui cotiza con una capitalización de 3.725 millones de dólares y una valoración totalmente diluida de 9.045 millones, una brecha de 2,4 veces que mide el peso del suministro aún no emitido. Y el «10x» es una pregunta aritmética, no una promesa: si SUI multiplicara su capitalización por diez, alcanzaría 37.250 millones de dólares, aún por debajo de Solana. Dicho de otro modo, si Sui llegara a la capitalización actual de Solana, su precio pasaría de 0,90 a unos 14,40 dólares, una revalorización de 15,9 veces.

La referencia del billón de dólares añade otra escala. El blog de Sui estima que más de un billón de dólares en bitcoin permanece ocioso en balances institucionales. Si Hashi capturara apenas el 1% de esa cifra —10.000 millones de dólares en garantías— estaría atrayendo un volumen equivalente a 2,7 veces la capitalización actual de Sui. No es una previsión: es la magnitud del capital que la tesis exige para sostenerse.

Hashi: el bitcoin institucional deja de estar ocioso Aquí es donde la historia se vuelve concreta. Según el anuncio de la Fundación Sui del 8 de octubre, Hashi arranca su despliegue por fases este mes con más de 500 millones de dólares comprometidos por una coalición de más de 20 socios, entre ellos BitGo, Bullish, Cumberland, FalconX y Ledger. El mecanismo es el punto clave: el bitcoin depositado no abandona su red; se acuña hBTC en Sui contra ese depósito, y al salir se quema el hBTC y se libera el bitcoin original.

«Bitcoin ya se ha convertido en un activo de reserva global, y hoy la infraestructura financiera que lo rodea está alcanzándolo», declaró Adeniyi Abiodun, cofundador y director de producto de Mysten Labs. «Hashi se lanza con capital serio y una coalición de líderes de la industria porque las instituciones quieren poner a trabajar su bitcoin sin renunciar a las protecciones que exigen.»

Anchorage Digital, el primer banco cripto con carta federal de Estados Unidos, es el socio de lanzamiento más relevante. Abre dos rutas: Atlas, para instituciones que exigen custodia cualificada y liquidación tripartita, y Porto, para fondos cripto-nativos que prefieren la autocustodia. «Las empresas públicas y las instituciones tienen cantidades enormes de bitcoin, pero su capacidad de usar ese capital ha estado limitada por la tecnología disponible y las limitaciones del espacio DeFi», afirmó Nathan McCauley, consejero delegado de Anchorage Digital. «Conectar a nuestros clientes institucionales con Hashi representa una maduración de las finanzas de bitcoin.»

La capa de seguridad respalda la ambición. El colateral se asegura con una estructura multifirma 2-de-2 que exige la firma de los validadores de Hashi y de una capa guardiana, con una verificación formal de Certora y una revisión criptográfica de CommonPrefix. Y en el plano fiscal, el despacho Fenwick argumenta que el depósito y el rescate de bitcoin a través de Hashi no deberían constituir hechos imponibles en Estados Unidos, porque el tenedor no cede la propiedad del bitcoin subyacente. Es el mismo razonamiento que subyace a la visión de Michael Saylor sobre un sistema de 100 billones respaldado por bitcoin: el activo deja de ser un saldo estático y se convierte en garantía productiva.

No es un movimiento aislado. JPMorgan ya llevó sus fondos tokenizados de mercado monetario a Solana, otra señal de que los bancos empiezan a tratar a las capas 1 alternativas como infraestructura de liquidación, no solo como apuestas especulativas.

Lo que el precio de Sui aún no descuenta El contrapunto es tan importante como la tesis. SUI cae un 4,01% en 24 horas, la peor cifra entre las grandes capitalizaciones, y cotiza un 83% por debajo de su máximo histórico de 5,35 dólares de enero de 2025. Solo el 41% de los 10.000 millones de tokens está en circulación, de modo que la brecha entre capitalización y valoración diluida es un suministro que llegará al mercado con el tiempo.

Y el compromiso de 500 millones no es dinero ya desplegado. No existe un registro onchain público que muestre esa cifra dentro de los contratos de Hashi; es capital comprometido por los socios de lanzamiento, pendiente de integrarse a medida que cada custodio complete su puesta a punto. La promesa institucional es real, pero el flujo efectivo aún está por demostrarse. Mientras tanto, el bitcoin que Hashi quiere movilizar sigue atascado en torno a los 80.000 dólares, sin que los cierres diarios del último mes hayan perforado esa cota de forma sostenida. La institución ya tiene el camino; el mercado aún no ha decidido si lo recorre.

Preguntas frecuentes ¿Cuál es la mejor criptomoneda para comprar hoy? Depende del perfil de riesgo. Bitcoin (80.040 dólares) sigue siendo el activo más líquido y el ancla institucional; Sui es la apuesta de mediana capitalización con un catalizador concreto, el arranque de Hashi, su infraestructura de finanzas de Bitcoin.

¿Qué es Hashi y qué hace con el bitcoin? Hashi es la infraestructura de finanzas de Bitcoin de Sui. El bitcoin depositado permanece en la red de Bitcoin; se acuña hBTC en Sui para usarlo como garantía en préstamos, crédito y productos estructurados, y al salir se quema el hBTC y se libera el bitcoin.

¿Los 500 millones de dólares de Hashi ya están desplegados? No. Son compromisos de capital de más de 20 socios de lanzamiento, no un saldo ya depositado. Sui no ha publicado cuánto está activo en los contratos y el acceso se abrirá de forma progresiva conforme los socios completen sus integraciones.

¿Cuánto tendría que subir Sui para igualar a Solana? Sui capitaliza 3.725 millones de dólares y Solana 59.190 millones. Alcanzar esa capitalización implicaría multiplicar el precio de SUI por 15,9, de 0,90 a unos 14,40 dólares. Es una referencia de magnitud, no una proyección.

¿Por qué cae Sui hoy si Hashi es positivo? El mercado cripto mayor cotiza en rojo este sábado y Sui retrocede un 4,01%, la mayor caída entre las grandes capitalizaciones. El catalizador de Hashi es estructural y se despliega por fases; no compensa la toma de beneficios a corto plazo de un token que aún tiene el 59% de su suministro sin emitir.

Aviso: este artículo no constituye asesoramiento de inversión. El contenido y los materiales de esta página tienen fines exclusivamente educativos.

Electrum has released version 4.8.3 to fix a high-severity Bitcoin wallet vulnerability that malicious servers have exploited to redirect user payments, with developers confirming at least one case of stolen funds.

Summary

Electrum released version 4.8.3 after confirming that malicious servers were exploiting a high-severity vulnerability.
Attackers replaced pending Bitcoin payments with fraudulent transactions that users could mistakenly authorize through fee bumps.
Two users reported incidents, including one who lost Bitcoin after increasing a transaction fee.
The vulnerability affected every Electrum version before 4.8.3; developers have not disclosed total losses.
The security patch verifies signatures on unconfirmed transactions spending coins controlled by the wallet.

According to the wallet’s October 24 security advisory, attackers exploited how Electrum handled unconfirmed Bitcoin transactions, replacing legitimate outgoing payments with fraudulent ones that users could accidentally authorize while increasing transaction fees.

Electrum is a lightweight Bitcoin wallet that connects to external servers for transaction histories, broadcasting and other network information. Unlike a full Bitcoin node, the software does not independently process every aspect of blockchain activity.

New release: Electrum 4.8.3. This release fixes a critical security issue, so we urge all users to upgrade. A description of the vulnerability will be published later today. (note: Windows Defender may show a warning about ZXing.dll, ignore that, it is a false positive)

— Electrum (@ElectrumWallet) October 24, 2026

Its documentation explains that Electrum verifies confirmed transactions through Simple Payment Verification but has historically trusted its main server when displaying pending transactions.

Attackers exploited this distinction by intercepting transactions submitted through malicious servers before they reached the Bitcoin network.

After preventing a legitimate transaction from being broadcast, an attacker could send the wallet a replacement transaction that changed the receiving address to one under the attacker’s control.

Although the replacement carried invalid signatures, vulnerable Electrum versions did not check them before displaying the transaction in the wallet’s history.

The deception became dangerous when users tried to increase the transaction fee through Replace-by-Fee, or RBF, a Bitcoin feature that allows an unconfirmed payment to be replaced with another paying a higher fee.

By approving the fee adjustment, users could unknowingly sign a valid transaction paying the attacker.

Electrum confirms real-world exploitation and Bitcoin losses
Developers disclosed two privately reported incidents, establishing that the vulnerability had moved beyond a theoretical attack.

On October 11, a user identified as dannydeezy reported that a transaction displayed in Electrum’s history did not match the payment originally submitted.

A second user, Raju-K12, contacted developers on October 18 after losing funds while attempting to increase a transaction fee.

According to the advisory, both incidents involved attacker-controlled receiving addresses designed to match the final four characters of the intended recipient’s Bitcoin address.

In the second case, the fraudulent transaction carried a zero fee, which developers suspected was intended to encourage the victim to initiate a fee increase.

The first report involved a two-of-three multisignature wallet using two Trezor devices. Its legitimate transaction contained 31 inputs and one output.

Investigators found that all 62 signatures were valid for the original payment but invalid for the substituted transaction. The fake redirected nearly all the Bitcoin to a lookalike address and returned a small amount to the wallet.

The original transaction remained valid but had never reached the public Bitcoin network.

Electrum acknowledged that some servers were performing the attack in the wild. However, developers have not disclosed how many servers participated, the amount stolen or whether additional victims have been identified.

Electrum 4.8.3 blocks malicious fee-bump transactions
The fix was incorporated into version 4.8.3 on October 23, with downloadable binaries released on October 24.

Through commit 90fe308, developers introduced signature verification for unconfirmed transactions spending inputs owned by the user’s wallet.

Electrum now checks those signatures before accepting the transactions into its local history, preventing the fraudulent outgoing payments described in the advisory from appearing as legitimate transactions.

The update does not make Electrum a full Bitcoin node. Developers clarified that incoming unconfirmed transactions remain outside the new signature checks, while confirmed payments continue to undergo existing verification procedures.

Users running versions before 4.8.3 have been urged to download the update from the official Electrum website.

For anyone unable to upgrade immediately, developers recommend checking complete receiving addresses and amounts before signing transactions, including fee replacements.

According to the advisory, users connecting exclusively to trusted servers, including their own, are not exposed to this particular malicious-server attack.

Electrum’s previous attacks reveal recurring server risks
The incident follows previous attempts to exploit Electrum’s reliance on outside servers.

In December 2018, crypto.news reported that malicious servers had displayed fraudulent software-update instructions to users. Contemporary reports estimated losses approaching $1 million.

Another malicious-server campaign in 2019 used fake wallet updates and denial-of-service activity to redirect users toward compromised software.

Those attacks relied on deceptive downloads, while the newly patched vulnerability manipulated pending transaction information inside an otherwise legitimate wallet.

An interview about Electrum servers published in 2020 examined the trade-offs of lightweight wallets, including their reliance on external infrastructure for transaction histories.

Electrum’s own documentation says its client typically connects to approximately 10 servers, but selects one main server to retrieve wallet history and broadcast transactions. The documentation states that this main server is trusted regarding unconfirmed transactions.

President Donald Trump said the US could strike Iran as soon as Sunday, or reach a deal instead. This comes as Bitcoin (BTC) trades at $80,546 after briefly dipping below $80,000 on Saturday.

So what happens to Bitcoin if a strike does come, or if a deal lands instead? Past instances may offer a clue.

What Past Iran Headlines ShowOn October 8, Trump pledged to hold off on strikes until the November 3 midterms. Bitcoin dipped to $80,393 that day but closed at $81,754, according to TradingView data for Binance.

On October 22, a report on post-midterm US and Israeli strike plans emerged. Bitcoin fell from an October 21 high of $84,898 to $80,939, closing the day at $81,416.

US spot Bitcoin exchange-traded funds (ETFs) lost $635.49 million that day, a day after drawing $528.40 million.

As talk of a weekend strike built, Bitcoin fell to $79,220 on Saturday. It recovered to close the day at $80,888. Escalation headlines cut Bitcoin by 2% to 5% intraday, while the pledge brought no lasting rally.

Bitcoin price chart marking October 2026 US-Iran headlines and the $80,000 level. Source: BeInCryptoLeveraged Longs Took the Hit Near $80,000CoinGlass data shows $543.68 million in liquidations over 24 hours, with long positions accounting for $461.19 million.

Crypto Liquidations on October 25. Source: CoinglassThe $80,000 level also matters for institutional holders. Glassnode places the cost basis of ETF and treasury-company investors between $80,000 and $81,500.

According to the firm, a daily close below $80,000 would leave the average holder at a loss. It would also bring the True Market Mean near $77,600 into view.

A weekend strike could test that line quickly. 

Follow us on X to get the latest news as it happens

What a Strike Could Mean When Markets ReopenBecause Bitcoin trades through the weekend, it would likely absorb the first reaction to any strike. 

Past strikes offer a mixed guide. When the war began on February 28, Bitcoin fell to $63,030 but closed the day at $66,973. After the early September strikes, it dipped to $76,264, then jumped 5.08% on September 3.

Gold could also feel pressure when traditional markets reopen. Glassnode data shows Bitcoin’s correlation with gold set an eight-year record in September and remains near it. 

Its dollar correlation is among its most negative, so a rush into the dollar could weigh on both. 

Oil adds inflation risk, with Brent at $117.30 on Friday. A strike could push it higher before the Fed decides on October 28. 

A deal could cool those worries, though the October 8 pledge showed relief can be modest. Thus, Bitcoin’s response to these headlines is the signal to watch this weekend.

Subscribe to our YouTube channel to watch leaders and journalists provide expert insights

Coinbase is cautiously optimistic about Bitcoin’s [BTC] near-term, flagging that the macro headwind could drag the crypto asset below $80K. 

In its weekly market review, Coinbase Senior Quantitative Strategist Colin Basco flagged sticky inflation and an 80% chance of a December Fed rate hike.

Basco said Bitcoin could still defend the $80K-$82K zone as support since it is a confluence of the 50-day Moving Average and ETF cost basis. At the same time, he warned, 

However, if this area fails, then we view $73-75K as the next area of support.

But Bitcoin’s challenges go beyond just inflation and macro fears.

Mid-term Bitcoin challenges  According to Coinbase, Bitcoin treasury demand has faded in H2 2026, leaving U.S. spot ETFs to do the heavy lifting. 

Source: Coinbase But even the ETFs have seen significant fluctuations. On the 23rd of October, the complex saw $635 million in net outflows, marking one of the largest single-day outflows in H2 2026. The risk-off move rhymed with ongoing speculation that the U.S.-Iran escalations may be renewed at any time. 

Similarly, crypto market liquidity, as tracked by stablecoin supply change, is down by nearly $13 billion from its May peak. The Coinbase premium has also stayed negative in October, Coinbase’s Basco warned. 

In other words, crypto-native liquidity is not there, and U.S. retail investors, outside ETF buyers, are yet to come back in large numbers. Simply put, there is little buying pressure for BTC, and this was illustrated by the negative apparent demand. 

Source: CryptoQuant  Add the macro (next week’s Fed rate decision) and geopolitical pressure (US-Iran tensions) to the fragile setup, and the $80K level increasingly seems at risk. 

Bitcoin market positioning in Q4 Besides, Coinbase noted that there was a heavy supply cluster of over 2.1M BTC sitting between $87.5K and $91.7K. This meant the zone could act as a roadblock to any reversal attempts. 

In the Options market, institutions were actively hedging against downside risk scenarios. This was illustrated by the 25-Delta Skew surging from 5% to 15% for the 1-day and 1-week tenors. It meant increased demand for downside protection or put buying, with $75K and $73K as the key levels of interest. 

Furthermore, there was short-term fear ahead of the Fed rate decision and renewed U.S.-Iran tensions, which dragged the BTC price near $80K as of writing.

Source: Laevitas It’s worth pointing out that in the past three months,  the 25-Delta Skew only made a slight uptick from 6% to 10%. It implied a long-term calm, suggesting that institutional players viewed the macro and geopolitical fears as short-term rather than a prolonged negative impact. 

Final Summary Crypto liquidity has declined by nearly $13 billion since May, and treasury firms’ demand has faded. Coinbase warned that macro headwinds and the fragile demand setup could drag BTC below $80K. 

TLDR:

Ali Martinez identified Bitcoin drawdowns of 72%, 65%, 52%, and 27% across four midterm cycles since 2010.
Bitcoin’s past election-cycle losses coincided with Mt. Gox’s fall, a Bitcoin Cash split, and FTX’s collapse.
Bitcoin recovered about 40% from its July low near $57,850 to roughly $81,455 by October 22 this year.
U.S. spot Bitcoin ETFs recorded $635.6 million in October 22 outflows ahead of the Fed’s October 28 decision.

Bitcoin’s midterm election ‘curse’ has resurfaced ahead of November 3, after analyst Ali Martinez documented four declines surrounding U.S. votes. The comparison renewed crash concerns, although it provides no evidence that elections caused the losses.

In an October 24 post, Martinez reported drawdowns of 72% in 2010, 65% in 2014, 52% in 2018, and 27% in 2022. His figures describe declines around election cycles rather than annual returns, a distinction essential to the pattern.

BITCOIN MIDTERM ELECTION CURSE

Look at what happened to $BTC around the previous four US midterm election cycles:

• 2010: Bitcoin fell 72%.
• 2014: Bitcoin fell 65%.
• 2018: Bitcoin fell 52%.
• 2022: Bitcoin fell 27%.

Four consecutive cycles of significant downside. https://t.co/arfhewEg74 pic.twitter.com/WOIBBYz18C

— Ali Charts (@alicharts) October 24, 2026

Meanwhile, BTC entered the countdown above its July low but near support. The price analysis involves both historical returns and institutional positioning, not simply the election calendar.

Four Midterm Election Drawdowns Fuel Bitcoin Crash Fears
The BTC drawdowns span different market conditions. Binance Research calculated annual losses of 56% in 2014, 73% in 2018, and 64% in 2022. It excluded 2010 because trading liquidity was negligible.

Quarterly figures illustrate the mismatch. Bitcoin surged 391% in the final quarter of 2010, then declined 16.70% in 2014, 42.16% in 2018, and 14.75% in 2022. Consequently, BTC price analysis cannot treat drawdowns and calendar-period returns as evidence of an election effect.

Other events shaped the downturns. The 2014 bear market coincided with Mt. Gox’s collapse, while a contentious Bitcoin Cash split intensified losses in 2018. In 2022, higher interest rates weakened speculative assets, and FTX filed for bankruptcy on November 11, three days after voting.

Market bottoms also varied. BTC reached lows approximately 71 days after the 2014 election, 38 days after 2018’s vote, and 13 days after 2022’s. That variation limits any price analysis claiming a fixed election-driven timetable.

Bitcoin’s $80,000 Demand Zone Faces ETF Outflows and Fed Risk
This cycle differed. Bitcoin rose roughly 40% from its July 1 low near $57,850 to around $81,455 on October 22. Glassnode identified demand between $80,000 and $81,500, close to acquisition costs for U.S. spot exchange-traded funds and corporate treasuries. Its broader valuation reference stood near $77,600.

For BTC, price analysis places resistance between $85,000 and $87,500. Martinez separately identified $73,000 as a downside reference tied to short-term holders’ cost basis. Another price analysis reference, Glassnode’s short-term holder realized price, stood around $75,800.

Neither figure establishes a confirmed crash target. Institutional flows added pressure. U.S. spot Bitcoin ETFs recorded approximately $635.6 million in net outflows on October 22. BTC also faces the Federal Reserve’s October 28 decision before election day.

For now, BTC price analysis centers on whether buyers defend nearby demand. The Bitcoin election pattern remains a historical comparison, while BTC price analysis cannot isolate voting as the cause of previous losses.

4 hours ago

Fidelity data shows that as of October 5, 2025, bitcoin treasury firms including Strategy and Strive have used related preferred stock financing to purchase 135,979 BTC, accounting for over 0.5% of bitcoin’s total maximum supply. The market size of this type of preferred stock is approximately $120 billion. Analysts note these firms face a balancing act between using perpetual preferred stock financing to buy bitcoin and sustaining dividend payments. Perpetual preferred stock has no fixed maturity date, easing refinancing pressure and attracting income-focused investors reluctant to hold bitcoin directly. However, as issuance scales up, dividend expenses will rise. Analysts add that sustained financing for bitcoin purchases depends on preferred stock trading at or near par value; if it trades below par, new issuances will become less attractive, and firms may lean toward buybacks. CoinShares Head of Research James Butterfill points out that Strategy’s latest weekly report shows the firm spent $193 million to repurchase STRC, bought only 267 BTC in the same period, and raised its preferred stock repurchase authorization cap to $30 billion. He says buybacks can reduce future dividend costs, but also compete with current bitcoin purchases for capital. Bitwise Head of Research Ryan Rasmussen forecasts that ETFs will remain a larger source of bitcoin demand in the long run, while perpetual preferred stock caters to a distinct group of income-focused investors, providing a second stream of demand support. Butterfill believes preferred stock could amplify market cycles: it supports bitcoin purchases when financing conditions are favorable, but that support weakens when market sentiment deteriorates.

Scan the QR code

Download APP

Tether’s MDK Gains Broad Industry Backing to Accelerate the Next Generation of Bitcoin Mining Automation

15 mining companies, ASIC manufacturers, and pools are adopting a shared open layer designed to make mining infrastructure interoperable and ready for the next generation of automation and AI
24 October 2026 – Tether, the largest company in the digital asset industry, announced today that leading Bitcoin mining companies* have committed to working together to build and maintain integrations with its Mining Development Kit (MDK). They include mining operators, ASIC manufacturers, and mining pools. MDK is an open-source framework that makes mining infrastructure interoperable and supports the next generation of AI-driven automation. The initiative brings 15 industry participants around a common infrastructure layer, enabling developers to build applications and autonomous systems that work across different mining environments without requiring separate integrations for every manufacturer or platform. 

The commitments move one of the world’s largest distributed computing industries toward a common infrastructure layer at a moment when AI and automation are beginning to change how data centers are operated. Instead of every new application having to be rebuilt for different machines and providers, MDK is designed to give developers a consistent way to interact with infrastructure across the industry.

A large mining site can have thousands of machines from different manufacturers, connected to different pools and managed through different software. Most of those systems were not built to work together, so operators end up managing them separately and developers keep rebuilding the same integrations for each one. That gets harder as a site grows, and adding new hardware or software can mean another custom integration. Tools built for one vendor often cannot be used across the rest of the fleet. It also limits how much operators can automate, especially as they start looking at AI to help manage more of the day-to-day operation.

An AI agent can monitor machines, identify problems, optimize performance, and eventually take action autonomously. But it cannot effectively manage thousands of machines if every piece of infrastructure communicates differently. Before autonomous systems can operate physical infrastructure at scale, the infrastructure itself needs a common way to be understood and controlled. MDK provides that foundation.

Each participating company will build and maintain an MDK Worker: a translation layer that connects its own hardware, mining pool, or system to MDK. The Worker translates that company’s existing interface into a common language that applications built on MDK can understand. Companies do not have to replace their technology or surrender control of their systems. They simply expose the functions they choose through the same open interface.

That distinction is central to the model. MDK is not an attempt to make every manufacturer or mining pool operate the same way. It is designed to make different systems interoperable.

Once that layer exists, developers can build an application, monitoring system, or AI agent against MDK rather than separately engineering it for every manufacturer and pool. As more companies maintain their own Workers, the same application can operate across a growing portion of the mining industry. The result is infrastructure that becomes easier to automate, easier to build on, and less dependent on any single vendor. 

“We are entering a period where software will increasingly operate physical infrastructure, not simply report on it,” said Paolo Ardoino, CEO of Tether. “That does not work at scale if every machine speaks a different language. Mining is one of the clearest examples of this problem today. MDK gives companies a way to keep control of their own technology while creating the common foundation developers and autonomous systems need to work across it.”

Tether’s QVAC mining agent is already operating directly on MDK, providing an early demonstration of the model: an AI application interacting with mining infrastructure through a common layer rather than requiring a new integration for every system it encounters. The initial 15 commitments are an early step toward a broader ecosystem. MDK remains open to any manufacturer, mining pool, operator, or developer, with additional Workers, applications, and tools expected as more of the industry builds on the shared foundation.

Across Bitcoin, AI, communications, energy and financial infrastructure, Tether is focused on reducing the fragmentation that prevents technology from operating at global scale. MDK brings that approach to mining, creating an open layer on which companies can build the tools and autonomous systems that will operate the industry next.

MDK will reach version 0.11 at the Plan ₿ Forum in Lugano on October 23–24, with its first stable 1.0 release targeted by the end of 2026. Developers do not need to wait for 1.0. MDK is open source today, allowing manufacturers, mining pools, operators, and developers to begin testing integrations, building Workers, and developing applications through the repository and documentation.

*Note: The complete alphabetical list of participating mining companies, ASIC manufacturers, and pools follows below:

ACME Swisstech
Bitdeer
BITMAIN
Canaan Inc.
Elektron Energy
EMCD
F2Pool
Foundry Digital
Heatbit Inc.
Luxor Technology
MicroBT
OCEAN (Bitcoin Ocean, LLC)
Proto (Block, Inc.)
SpiderPool
Stratum V2

The Bitget hacker has moved $19.48 million in 52 transfers, almost entirely in Bitcoin, as Arkham tracks fresh outflows from wallets linked to the exchange’s September breach.

Summary

Arkham tracked $19.48 million across 52 transfers, with Bitcoin accounting for $19.33 million. Hacker-linked wallets sent $78.01 million to new addresses between Oct. 15 and Oct. 23. Arkham valued remaining labeled holdings at $242.54 million, mostly held in Bitcoin. The latest transfers’ destinations remain unidentified, leaving potential laundering unconfirmed. Arkham put the transfers between 10:02 UTC on Oct. 21 and 02:48 UTC on Oct. 24, with Bitcoin accounting for $19.33 million and ETH making up the rest. Its thread said almost all the funds went to new addresses.

The blockchain intelligence firm framed its update as a question.

“Is the Bitget Hacker laundering the stolen funds?”

Arkham’s posts do not name an exchange, mixer, or over-the-counter desk receiving the latest transfers. The update documents money leaving labeled wallets, without establishing whether those assets were sold, cashed out, or recovered.

Bitget hacker movements total $78 million since Oct. 15 Across a longer reporting window, Arkham said the attacker had sent $78.01 million to new addresses since Oct. 15. Its daily breakdown showed $23.31 million moving on Oct. 15, followed by $8.68 million on Oct. 16 and $1.15 million on Oct. 17.

Another $10.51 million moved on Oct. 18. After no recorded movement on Oct. 19, the firm listed $15.13 million on Oct. 20, $11.74 million on Oct. 21, $184,160 on Oct. 22, and $7.3 million on Oct. 23.

The dates in Arkham’s opening post cover 64 hours and 46 minutes. A later post in the same thread described the $19.48 million as moving over “the past 48 hours,” leaving a mismatch between its shorthand description and the precise timestamps.

Using the firm’s rounded asset figures, Bitcoin represented approximately 99.2% of that $19.48 million. The implied ETH component was $150,000, although Arkham did not provide an exact token quantity in the opening post.

Arkham’s remaining balance uses a $350 million baseline In its thread, Arkham valued the hacker’s remaining labeled holdings at $242.54 million, including 2,960.01 BTC worth $241.99 million. It listed smaller balances on Ethereum, Hypercore, Solana and Tron.

The firm described that balance as 69% of a $350 million theft. Bitget’s own accounting puts the incident at approximately $387.5 million, after revising its initial $351.6 million estimate.

In its Sep. 25 recovery notice, the exchange said the revision included Zcash and TRON assets omitted from the first calculation. Bitget attributed the change to a more complete classification of the original transfers and said it did not represent further theft.

Against Bitget’s $387.5 million estimate, Arkham’s $242.54 million snapshot equals approximately 62.6%. Neither percentage establishes how much has been recovered, because the figures compare remaining labeled holdings with dollar estimates from the original incident.

Arkham data shows $239.34 million, including approximately 2,958 BTC valued at $238.79 million.

Source: Arkham Earlier tracing identified CoinJoin and cross-chain routes Fund movements linked to the attack began before October. As crypto.news previously reported, AMLBot traced roughly four BTC into CoinJoin in September, describing the activity as an apparent effort to obscure stolen funds.

AMLBot’s account followed assets from TRON into USDT, across to Ethereum through USDT0, and through ETH swaps and THORChain before they reached Bitcoin. The firm said approximately 4.59 BTC emerged from that route before the Bitcoin was split into smaller amounts.

Independent tracing by Bitquery documented other September conversions through THORChain and Chainflip. Its investigation matched 66 swaps to 126.71 BTC in payments by 14:38 UTC on Sep. 25, while identifying two swaps still waiting at that snapshot.

Those historical routes do not establish the destinations of Arkham’s latest transfers. The October screenshots contain transaction graphs but no readable transaction-level evidence connecting the new outflows to the same services.

Bitget says withdrawals have resumed while recovery continues Bitget’s incident explainer, updated Oct. 20, says its phased withdrawal restoration finished on Oct. 2 after BTC, ETH and USDT services reopened in September. The company says customer account balances remain unaffected and that it has identified no further unauthorized transfers following containment.

In the same explainer, Bitget attributed the breach to a vulnerability in a third-party security product. The company said the attacker obtained high-level internal credentials and submitted fraudulent withdrawal commands that bypassed existing risk controls. Bitget said the affected systems were isolated and the vulnerability was fixed.

Earlier coverage of the withdrawal reopening and reserves recorded CEO Gracy Chen’s statement that the Protection Fund had returned above $300 million on Sep. 30. Bitget has said the fund would absorb the financial loss from the breach.

The Sep. 25 notice names Mandiant and SlowMist as investigation partners and publishes receiving addresses across Ethereum-compatible networks, XRP Ledger, Zcash and TRON. Its recovery section says some assets had already been frozen through coordination with industry partners, but does not give an aggregate frozen amount in that notice.

The exchange’s recovery program offers separate 5% rewards for eligible voluntary actions that directly freeze or recover affected assets. Bitget excludes actions carried out under court orders, law-enforcement requests, or other legal processes, and retains discretion over eligibility and payment.

Large speculators in CME Bitcoin futures held a net long position of 2,418 contracts for the week of October 20, 2026, according to the Commodity Futures Trading Commission’s latest Commitments of Traders report.

That is a slight pullback from the prior week’s 2,534 contracts.

The report, released October 23, also showed speculators paring bets against most US Treasury futures. Meanwhile, the euro sat deep in net short territory.

What the Bitcoin numbers show
The CFTC publishes its Commitments of Traders, or COT, data every Friday at 3:30 p.m. ET. Each release reflects positions as of the preceding Tuesday.

The 2,418-contract figure covers non-commercial speculators in CME Bitcoin futures. It blends standard and micro contracts under the legacy reporting format.

A standard CME Bitcoin contract represents 5 BTC, while a micro contract represents just 0.1 BTC.

For context, the week ending October 13 showed large speculators net long 2,534 contracts, with total open interest of 20,752 contracts. Open interest measures the total number of outstanding contracts that have not been closed out.

The more granular Traders in Financial Futures breakdown told a split story for that October 13 week. Leveraged funds, a category that typically includes hedge funds, were net short roughly 5,844 standard contracts.

Asset managers and institutions, by contrast, were net long 3,642 contracts.

Treasuries, equities and the euro
The broader report showed a fairly consistent theme in the bond market: speculators trimming short positions.

Speculators cut their net short in CBOT US 2-year Treasury futures by 54,796 contracts to 856,783.
Net shorts in 5-year Treasury futures fell by 6,095 contracts to 1,074,109.
Net shorts in 10-year Treasury futures dropped by 23,809 contracts to 964,293.
Net shorts in CBOT US Treasury bond futures shrank by 58,019 contracts to 68,419.

The lone exception was the long end. Speculators increased their net short in UltraBond Treasury futures by 53,564 contracts to 375,161.

Equity fund speculators trimmed their S&P 500 CME net short by 42,221 contracts to 348,674.

Equity fund managers cut their S&P 500 CME net long by 18,079 contracts to 894,464.

In currencies, the euro held a net short position of 134,524 contracts.

Why the positioning matters
The COT report has an important limitation. It tells you what traders hold, not why they hold it, and it makes no attempt to forecast prices.

A net long can reflect outright bullish conviction. It can also be one leg of a hedged trade, such as a basis trade where a fund buys spot exposure and sells futures to capture the price gap between them.

That caveat is especially relevant to the Bitcoin data. The October 13 split, with leveraged funds net short and asset managers net long, is consistent with a market where some participants are hedging rather than simply calling direction.

The next COT report is anticipated on October 30, 2026. Traders watching Bitcoin will want to see whether open interest holds near the 20,752-contract level recorded for October 13, and whether speculators keep inching back from their net long or start adding again.

Disclosure: This article was edited by Vivian Nguyen. For more information on how we create and review content, see our Editorial Policy.

Bitcoin is navigating a challenging economic environment as Brent crude oil maintains levels above $100 per barrel, raising concerns about persistent inflation and the availability of fresh liquidity in global markets. CryptoQuant analyst Darkfost highlighted that strong oil prices historically coincide with slower Bitcoin price momentum, though he emphasized that this pattern does not represent a confirmed causation.

Brent crude’s influence on Bitcoin and market liquidityAccording to Darkfost, ongoing geopolitical tensions in the Gulf region and intensified Ukrainian operations targeting Russian refineries have pushed energy prices higher. Elevated fuel costs can impact a broad range of industries, including manufacturing, transportation and services, contributing to rising prices across the economy.

“Over the long term, periods when Brent oil trends strongly above its annual average have typically seen Bitcoin’s upward momentum slow, though distinct causal links remain unproven,” stated Darkfost of CryptoQuant.

Brent crude recently hovered near $104, compared to an average range of $60 to $70 earlier in 2026. The commodity’s 365-day moving average is now rising following an extended downtrend.

Available data since 2014 shows that when Brent trades significantly above its yearly average, Bitcoin often underperforms. Several such episodes—such as in 2018, parts of 2021 and 2022, and periods throughout 2026—demonstrate this market relationship. However, not every increase in oil prices led to a drop in Bitcoin, underscoring the complex interplay between the two markets.

Darkfost argued that broader economic conditions, rather than oil prices alone, ultimately drive investor behavior. In an inflationary environment, access to capital and appetite for higher-risk assets like cryptocurrencies can diminish. Persistently high energy prices further complicate decisions for the Federal Reserve, as officials navigate balancing inflation risks with the goal of supporting economic growth.

If inflation does not subside, the Federal Reserve may be less inclined to loosen monetary policy, creating a less favorable backdrop for new investment in digital assets. Sustained high borrowing costs and elevated yields could make allocating capital to Bitcoin less attractive for some investors.

Nevertheless, the analyst noted that Bitcoin responded positively during brief intervals of reduced macroeconomic strain, as seen in July. Oil prices subsequently rebounded, but Darkfost did not rule out the potential for further gains, cautioning instead that persistent high energy costs may limit the flow of new liquidity into cryptocurrencies.

Mini dictionary: CryptoQuant is an on-chain analytics platform specializing in blockchain data and market intelligence for digital assets.

Whale activity: over $770 million in BTC withdrawnWhile macroeconomic pressure persists, large Bitcoin holders are increasingly moving considerable sums of cryptocurrency. Blockchain analytics provider Lookonchain reported that since October 1, forty newly-created wallets have withdrawn a combined 9,458 BTC—valued at approximately $771.5 million—through Wintermute, a leading digital asset trading firm known for providing market liquidity and institutional solutions.

Mini dictionary: Wintermute is a prominent global algorithmic trading firm providing liquidity and facilitating large-scale transactions in the digital asset markets.

These large-scale withdrawals suggest some whales are accumulating Bitcoin even amid sluggish overall momentum. However, transfers from exchanges or trading firms to private wallets do not confirm whether these represent new purchases, nor do they reveal the identities of the wallet holders. It also remains unclear if the recipients are distinct institutional investors or addresses controlled by a single entity.

Lookonchain’s observation highlights ongoing interest in Bitcoin by large market participants, but the data cannot confirm broader buying activity across the market. Moving coins between wallets is not equivalent to net buying pressure, and cannot guarantee immediate impact on price direction.

MetricValueBTC Withdrawn9,458 BTCUSD Value$771.5 millionNumber of wallets40PeriodSince October 1Main partyWintermuteEven as large withdrawals signal ongoing accumulation by whales, these movements alone do not demonstrate a market-wide trend toward new investments or establish a firm timeline for Bitcoin’s potential recovery.

Both the oil market analysis and whale activity measure distinct aspects of the current environment: energy prices frame the macroeconomic backdrop and potential liquidity constraints, while wallet movements illustrate how major Bitcoin holders position themselves under these conditions.

For now, no clear correlation guarantees either immediate price gains or losses for Bitcoin. Darkfost pointed to Brent’s performance above its annual average as the metric to monitor—should oil recede below $100 and fall under its yearly benchmark, pressure on Bitcoin could ease and create room for new market momentum.