Track market-moving stories before they get noisy

U.S. spot Ethereum ETFs have recorded roughly $320.1 million in net withdrawals for the week ending October 16, exceeding Bitcoin ETFs’ $228.4 million in outflows as investors reduced exposure to both cryptocurrencies.

Summary

Ethereum ETFs recorded approximately $320 million in weekly withdrawals, exceeding Bitcoin funds by $92 million overall.
BlackRock’s ETHA accounted for nearly $299 million of Ethereum ETF outflows during the five trading sessions.
Bitcoin ETFs attracted fresh investments on two trading days, while Ethereum funds gained money only Tuesday.
CoinGecko showed Bitcoin near $81,238 and Ethereum around $2,386 on October 18 as prices remained weak.
Ethereum funds suffered three consecutive weeks of withdrawals, while BlackRock’s ETHA led the latest weekly losses.

According to Farside Investors’ daily fund-flow records, Ethereum products ended four of the five trading sessions in negative territory, while Bitcoin funds managed two days of net inflows. BlackRock’s iShares Ethereum Trust (ETHA) accounted for nearly $299 million in weekly withdrawals, making it the largest contributor to Ethereum’s negative total.

The withdrawals coincided with another difficult week for cryptocurrency prices. Bitcoin briefly fell below $80,000 before recovering, while Ethereum traded near $2,300 during the selloff.

CoinGecko showed Bitcoin at approximately $81,238 and Ethereum at $2,386 on October 18, after the U.S. ETF trading week had ended.

Ethereum ETF outflows exceed Bitcoin by $92 million
Ethereum ETFs finished the October 12–16 trading week with approximately $320.1 million in net withdrawals, compared with $228.4 million from Bitcoin ETFs.

The difference amounts to roughly $91.7 million using Farside’s rounded daily figures.

Monday brought $85.4 million in Ethereum ETF withdrawals, followed by $24.8 million in net purchases on Tuesday.

Investors resumed pulling money on Wednesday, removing $129.5 million, the category’s largest single-day withdrawal of the week.

Thursday recorded another $60.3 million in outflows, while Friday ended with a $69.7 million reduction.

Across the five sessions, Ethereum funds recorded just one positive day. Bitcoin ETF activity followed a different pattern. Monday began with $65.4 million in withdrawals before buyers added $175.7 million on Tuesday.

Wednesday reversed that recovery, with $261.4 million leaving Bitcoin products. A smaller inflow of $5.1 million followed on Thursday, while Friday ended with $82.4 million in withdrawals. The Wednesday loss was Bitcoin ETFs’ worst single session of the week, exceeding the category’s entire five-day net withdrawal total.

Bitcoin products therefore experienced larger individual daily movements, even though Ethereum funds recorded the heavier cumulative outflows. For a direct comparison, the combined net withdrawals from both categories reached approximately $548.5 million over the five trading days.

BlackRock’s ETHA leads Ethereum ETF withdrawals
The majority of Ethereum’s weekly outflows came from one investment product.

Farside’s fund-by-fund data show that BlackRock’s ETHA recorded roughly $299 million in net withdrawals between October 12 and October 16.

That represented approximately 93.4% of the Ethereum ETF category’s net weekly outflow.

The percentage compares ETHA’s withdrawals with the category’s net total after inflows and outflows from other funds offset one another. It does not mean ETHA accounted for 93.4% of every dollar redeemed across all Ethereum products.

On Wednesday alone, ETHA lost $109.8 million, followed by $44.4 million on Thursday and $69.7 million on Friday.

Fidelity’s FETH moved in the opposite direction during parts of the week, attracting $8.1 million on Tuesday and $2.4 million on Thursday. Grayscale’s Ethereum Mini Trust received $16.7 million on Tuesday but recorded withdrawals on other sessions, leaving it negative for the week.

Other products, including Grayscale’s ETHE and Franklin Templeton’s EZET, contributed to the total withdrawals. For Bitcoin, BlackRock’s iShares Bitcoin Trust (IBIT) lost approximately $165.4 million over the same five sessions.

Fidelity’s FBTC recorded another $60.2 million in net outflows, while Morgan Stanley’s MSBT gained approximately $6.7 million.

The fund-level breakdown shows how withdrawals from a small number of large products shaped the results.

Previous crypto.news coverage of ETF withdrawals documented a $484.9 million Bitcoin ETF outflow on October 7, when ETHA recorded another substantial withdrawal.

The October 12–16 figures came after that earlier period of heavy selling.

Bitcoin and Ethereum prices fall during ETF withdrawals
The fund outflows occurred while both underlying cryptocurrencies traded below levels recorded earlier in October.

According to CoinGecko’s October 18 market data, Bitcoin stood near $81,238, with a 24-hour range of approximately $80,823 to $82,178 at the time of the check.

The asset had briefly fallen below $80,000 during the previous week, reaching a low near $79,800 before rebounding.

An October 14 Bitcoin market update recorded BTC trading below $82,000 after U.S. inflation data came in higher than expected.

The September consumer price index showed annual inflation of 3.7%, compared with forecasts of 3.6%.

The data arrived on Wednesday, the same trading day Bitcoin ETFs recorded their largest withdrawal of the week.

The timing establishes that the events occurred together. It does not establish that the ETF redemptions alone caused Bitcoin’s price decline.

Ethereum faced similar pressure. CoinGecko placed ETH near $2,386 on October 18, with the token trading between approximately $2,364 and $2,427 over the preceding 24 hours.

The market had approached $2,300 during the week’s decline.

In an October 15 report on Ethereum liquidations, analyst Darkfost identified $106 million in ETH long-position liquidations within one hour following the inflation release.

Those liquidations concern leveraged cryptocurrency derivatives positions, which are separate from spot ETF subscriptions and redemptions.

ETF net flows measure money entering or leaving investment funds through share creation and redemption activity. Changes in the market value of existing ETF assets can occur without equivalent investor withdrawals.

Ethereum funds extend three-week losing streak
The October 12–16 results marked a third consecutive week of net withdrawals from U.S. spot Ethereum ETFs.

During the previous week, October 5–9, the products lost roughly $542 million, according to Farside’s daily records.

The latest withdrawals were smaller but continued the negative weekly pattern.

Across the three weeks ending October 16, Ethereum ETF outflows totaled approximately $1 billion based on the reported weekly figures.

Bitcoin ETFs followed a different recent pattern. They recorded approximately $679 million in withdrawals during October 5–9, making the subsequent $228 million weekly loss comparatively smaller.

Earlier in September, Bitcoin funds had attracted close to $2.4 billion during the week ending September 25, demonstrating how quickly weekly fund flows can change direction.

A separate weekly ETF market report published October 17 recorded $610.7 million in net withdrawals across five tracked cryptocurrency ETF categories.

That total included Bitcoin, Ethereum, Solana, Zcash and Hyperliquid products. The Bitcoin and Ethereum portions accounted for approximately $548.5 million of the combined figure.

Farside’s October 16 cumulative tables placed net inflows since launch at approximately $56.95 billion for Bitcoin ETFs and $12.97 billion for Ethereum ETFs.

Those cumulative amounts remain positive despite the latest withdrawals. They represent net investor flows over the products’ operating histories, not the total market value of the fund portfolios.

The records show that Friday’s Ethereum ETF withdrawals came entirely from BlackRock’s ETHA, which lost approximately $69.7 million, while the remaining tracked Ethereum products reported zero net flows that session.

The much-anticipated ‘Uptober’ and Q4 rally remains elusive as institutions intensify crypto sell-offs. In the second week of October (12-18th), U.S. spot crypto ETFs posted another round of outflows. 

U.S. Spot Ethereum [ETH] ETFs bled $320M, more than Bitcoin ($228M), Solana ($25.5M), and Hyperliquid ($17.5M) combined. 

Source: DeFiLlama/Farside
Globally, digital asset investment products saw $434M outflows, with CoinShares’ head of research James Butterfill calling it “clear deterioration in sentiment.”

Higher expected rates lift real yields and the opportunity cost of holding a non-yielding asset, while tighter financial conditions shrink the liquidity available to risk assets generally. $434M outflows have followed, a clear deterioration in sentiment since the CPI release.

Amid inflation fears and institutional risk-off, Bitcoin price dropped to $80K, ETH was barely holding above $2.4K, while SOL appeared ready to crack below $100. 

On the other hand, HYPE was down nearly 20% from its record peak of $97.9 and could slip to its September low of $75. 

But the macro pressure is far from over. So, will the short-term supports be defended by Bitcoin, ETH, SOL, HYPE, and others? 

Will the crypto ETF outflows extend?
The macro pressure has clearly reset the market sentiment, as CoinShares noted. As of writing, the “extreme greed” at the end of Q3 has flipped to ‘neutral.’

Although the third week of October is not packed with major macro events, the last week heading into the Fed rate decision (Oct. 28th) could trigger another round of volatility. 

Source: CoinGlass
According to CoinShares, any strong recovery for Bitcoin and the broader market could only be confirmed if the macro pressure is lifted. 

For Bitcoin, the near-term setup is therefore difficult rather than fundamentally bearish. The market needs either clearer evidence that inflation is cooling or enough weakness in activity to remove the threat of further tightening.

The market expects the Fed to keep interest rates unchanged at the upcoming FOMC meeting.

Still, there is a 97.5% chance of a 0.25% hike in early December. As such, the “threat of further tightening” is still there, just pushed towards the end of the year. 

Source: CME FedWatch
Market positioning
On the Options market front, most of the volume skewed towards puts (red bars denoting hedging or downside protection). Key levels of interest for a potential downside move were $80K, $78K, and $75K. 

That said, calls (bullish bets, green bars) were thinly spread between $83K-$90K. As such, if macro pressure intensifies towards the end of October, a dip below $80K may not be ruled out. 

Source: Laevitas

Final Summary

Crypto ETFs saw $494M in weekly outflows led by Ethereum 
CoinShares cautioned that the sentiment could worsen if the macro landscape does not improve 

Anthropic, the company behind Claude, has received a junk credit rating, raising questions about the risks behind the AI investment boom. Bitcoin advocates see a much bigger problem emerging in traditional finance.

Kroll Bond Rating Agency (KBRA) assigned Anthropic a BB+ rating in June, although the assessment only became public in October.

BB+ sits one level below investment grade. In simple terms, it means lending to the company carries greater credit risk than lending to higher-rated borrowers. 

Investors therefore demand higher returns to compensate.

The rating also covered $4.4 billion in junior debt within Anthropic’s $35 billion AI chip financing deal. That debt offered roughly 8.5% in annual yield, compared with 5.75% on senior debt backed by Broadcom.

But why should Bitcoin investors care about an AI company’s credit rating?

Why Anthropic’s Rating Has Sparked a Bitcoin DebateThe issue extends beyond Anthropic. US government borrowing costs are also climbing, challenging how investors think about safe assets.

The 10-year Treasury yield crossed 5.3% in early October, reaching a 24-year high.

Higher yields mean existing bonds lose market value. Investors selling before maturity can suffer losses, even on government debt.

ParaFi investor Jeff Park highlighted these developments, questioning the traditional 60/40 portfolio, which allocates 60% to stocks and 40% to bonds for stability.

Blockstream CEO Adam Back went further.

His argument is that every investment should be judged against the potential return from holding Bitcoin.

However, Bitcoin’s volatility complicates that comparison. Government bonds still carry much lower default risk, while Bitcoin offers no guaranteed returns.

Bitcoin analyst Willy Woo has also warned that a Bitcoin-based economy could face slower growth as debt becomes harder to repay.

Meanwhile, bond ETFs have attracted record inflows, suggesting investors still value fixed-income assets.

Anthropic’s rating has given Bitcoin supporters fresh ammunition. Whether that argument persuades traditional investors remains an open question.

Not financial or tax advice. PANews content is strictly educational and informational and is not investment advice, financial advice, tax advice, legal advice, or a solicitation to buy or sell any digital asset, security, or financial product. Do your own research and consult qualified advisers.

Disclosure. PANews may publish sponsored content, partner content, advertisements, affiliate links, event promotions, and market commentary involving Web3 projects, service providers, or financial products. PANews personnel, contributors, or affiliates may hold digital assets or other interests related to covered topics. See our Terms of Service.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA.

BTC, ETH, AI Stock Perpetuals Suddenly Dump as ‘Black Monday’ Fears Surge

Thieves are draining nearly $5 million in Bitcoin (BTC) from a crypto scammer who profited from deceiving victims through a task scam.

Chainalysis says one of the biggest victims in the Ledger thefts was the scammer themselves.

“One of the biggest victims of the Ledger theft was a scammer themselves. They lost more than 60BTC, about $4.8M. The funds were from a task scam.”

The firm details how the scam operated by paying people to fake sales and reviews of real items before creating a negative balance that tricked victims into adding their own money.

“In this task scam, people were paid to fake sales and reviews of real items. Then a ‘negative balance’ appeared, and they were told to add their own money in order to get paid.”

On September 22nd, the scammer moved the proceeds into three separate Ledger addresses that thieves emptied on October 9th with one transfer each into the same wallet reported as containing stolen funds.

Criminals stole approximately $90 million in digital assets from cryptocurrency wallets last week by tampering with hardware wallets, small USB-like devices designed to securely store the keys used to access crypto holdings, reports the Financial Times.

Ledger said Thursday that organized criminals spent several months buying genuine Ledger devices, opening them and installing concealed components designed to capture users’ recovery phrases during setup. The tampered devices were then returned to circulation through resellers in Southeast Asia.

The attackers also built their own technical and logistical infrastructure, including servers to collect recovery phrases and systems to drain and launder stolen funds.

“They were patient, they spent millions and they struck in one coordinated operation, draining wallets.”

All affected devices were sold by CryptoBilis, a Malaysia-based reseller.

Generated Image: DALLE3

Crypto investor Susan Anderson made a decisive move on October 15, liquidating her entire Bitcoin holdings and reallocating all funds into XRP. Anderson, known for her active presence in the cryptocurrency community, acknowledged that her decision was immediately met with skepticism.

Community reactions to Anderson’s all-in XRP betAnderson shared her rationale with her followers, stating that she viewed Bitcoin as having already completed its major growth phase. She argued that XRP had not yet started an upward trend and entered the market at a price of $1.34, expressing optimism for future gains.

In a candid social media post, Anderson questioned whether she was making a visionary move or acting prematurely. She wrote, “I sold my Bitcoin today, yeah… all of it! Moved everything into $XRP… But I can’t shake the feeling BTC already had its run and XRP hasn’t even started yet. After all, who could say no to XRP at $1.34?”

I sold my Bitcoin today, yeah… all of it! Moved everything into XRP… But I can’t shake the feeling BTC already had its run and XRP hasn’t even started yet. After all, who could say no to XRP at $1.34?

Reactions from the crypto community were swift and varied. One respondent pointed out that Anderson had exposed herself to additional tax implications by making the switch. Another commented on her apparent willingness to embrace higher risk, suggesting that XRP carried greater volatility than Bitcoin.

Supporters also emerged. A long-time Bitcoin holder noted that he had made a similar move the previous year and expressed no regrets. Others predicted that those currently doubting her decision would come to view it as prescient in the future, with some suggesting she could be celebrated for her conviction years from now.

Another participant advised Anderson to remain patient, arguing that institutional investors are quietly accumulating XRP through non-public channels, which may eventually impact the asset’s price.

To demonstrate his conviction, one community member even revealed an XRP tattoo, while others offered encouragement and projected celebration by 2028.

XRP’s perceived advantages over BitcoinXRP is the native cryptocurrency of Ripple, a US-based payments technology company that specializes in cross-border remittances. The asset is valued for its rapid settlement times—transactions are finalized in seconds—and extremely low fees compared to Bitcoin. These attributes have positioned XRP as a potential solution for efficient, high-volume money transfers.

Unlike Bitcoin, which relies on energy-intensive proof-of-work mining, XRP operates on a consensus mechanism that validates transactions without requiring mining. This allows for much lower energy consumption and transaction costs.

Mini dictionary: Ripple – A fintech company focused on enabling real-time, cross-border payments for banks and financial institutions using blockchain technology and its digital asset, XRP.

Ripple has established partnerships with financial institutions and payment service providers across the globe. Supporters believe this strategy could propel XRP to handle significant volumes for international transactions, providing a value proposition distinct from that of Bitcoin.

AssetSettlement TimeTransaction FeePrimary Use CaseBitcoin (BTC)10–60 minutesHigherStore of value, peer-to-peer paymentsXRP3–5 secondsVery lowCross-border paymentsThose bullish on XRP contend that institutional adoption and its unique technical features position it for significant long-term growth, despite the uncertainty that surrounds the broader crypto market. Anderson’s move signals growing conviction among some investors that XRP’s trajectory could differ meaningfully from the largest digital assets.

In brief
Nine blockchain organizations launched the Quantum Alliance, an open standards body to define what “quantum-ready” means and create a common way to test and verify quantum-resistance claims across networks, wallets and infrastructure.
The group warns that elliptic-curve signatures leave roughly 6.04 million BTC (~30% of supply) quantum-exposed, citing forecasts pointing toward the late 2020s.
Modeled on the IETF, it will work in four groups—migration, zero-knowledge systems, wallet security and cross-chain compatibility.
A group of crypto companies is trying to settle one of the industry’s murkiest questions: what it actually means for a blockchain network to be safe from quantum computers.

Executives from nine organizations launched the Quantum Alliance on Thursday, an open standards body that will set criteria for judging quantum-resistance claims and create compatibility rules for networks as they migrate to new cryptography.

Myriad: How high will Bitcoin go? Click to make your prediction.The founding contributors span base-layer protocols, privacy networks, rollups, hardware wallets and security auditing, including Quantus, Postquant Labs, Midnight Foundation, Keystone, Abelian and security firm Hacken.

Modeled on the Internet Engineering Task Force, the Alliance said proposals will advance on public evidence and working implementations rather than corporate size or token holdings, and everything it produces will be published openly.

Its work will run in four groups: blockchain migration, post-quantum zero-knowledge systems, wallet security and cross-chain compatibility. “In the future, ‘post-quantum cryptography’ will just be called ‘cryptography’ and everything else will be in a museum,” said Quantus founder and CEO Christopher Smith.

The problem it’s tackling is that there’s no agreed definition of “quantum-ready,” and no standard way to test one. A network can call itself quantum-resistant today with no shared understanding of what the claim covers or what evidence should back it, a gap the Alliance was formed to close.

The stakes are familiar to anyone following the beat. Nearly every major blockchain secures accounts with elliptic-curve signatures, and once an account’s public key is exposed on the ledger, a sufficiently powerful quantum computer running Shor’s algorithm could theoretically reverse-engineer the private key and seize the funds.

The same cryptography guards stablecoin minting keys, bridges, oracles, and governance contracts, meaning one cracked privileged key could cascade across platforms. By the Alliance’s count, roughly 6.04 million BTC, about 30% of supply, sit quantum-exposed at rest.

The timelines keep tightening. The Quantum Alliance cites a cluster of recent forecasts pointing toward the late 2020s, including a model co-built by two Alliance contributors that flags March 2028 as an early window, and a Google Quantum AI study that slashed the estimated qubits needed to break Bitcoin’s cryptography to under 500,000.

No machine can do it yet. Google has also chipped away at key quantum bottlenecks, while figures like famed investor Kevin O’Leary have flagged the quantum threat as a catch hanging over Bitcoin’s long-term case.

The newly formed Quantum Alliance joins a widening industry scramble to address the risk. Coinbase recently urged Bitcoin developers to start the quantum migration now, suggesting preparations could take years. Meanwhile, a consortium backed by BlackRock, Strategy, and Coinbase has committed $15 million to the problem.

Daily Debrief NewsletterStart every day with the top news stories right now, plus original features, a podcast, videos and more.

Join 72,000+ readers

Create an account to save your articles.

Add on Google

Add Decrypt as your preferred source to see more of our stories on Google.

Bitcoin is hovering near $81.5K as repeated tests of nearby demand keep buyers under pressure. The broader ascending structure remains intact, but fading rebounds suggest that a stronger response is needed to prevent a deeper correction.

Bitcoin Price Analysis: The Daily Chart On the daily timeframe, BTC has continued to retreat following its rejection from the $85.5K–$90.5K supply zone. Recent candles show lower highs and repeated probes toward $80K, indicating that buyers have struggled to regain momentum after the initial selloff.

The price is now approaching the ascending channel’s midpoint around $79K–$80K. This trendline represents nearby structural support, while the highlighted $75K–$78K demand zone remains the main daily defense below. Holding these areas would preserve the broader recovery structure, although it would not immediately reverse the recent bearish sequence.

To improve the outlook, Bitcoin needs to reclaim the recent rebound highs around $83K–$84K before challenging the $85.5K–$90.5K resistance zone again. Conversely, sustained weakness beneath $80K would increase the likelihood of a move toward $78K and potentially the lower boundary of demand near $75K.

BTC/USDT 4-Hour Chart The 4-hour chart places Bitcoin just above the marked buyers’ decision point at $80K–$81.3K. This demand zone overlaps with the rising channel’s lower boundary and has attracted several buying responses. However, successive rebounds have failed to recover the previous highs, leaving the short-term structure vulnerable.

A sustained recovery above $82.5K–$83K would provide an initial sign of improving demand, followed by the recent resistance area around $84K. Beyond that, the sellers’ decision point at $85.5K–$86.7K remains the main barrier. Reclaiming this zone would weaken the corrective scenario and bring the highs near $87K back into focus.

Conversely, a decisive break below the $80K demand boundary and ascending trendline would undermine this support confluence. Such a development could extend the decline toward the next highlighted demand zone around $74.8K–$76.3K. The current area therefore remains pivotal, with buyers needing stronger follow-through to turn repeated defenses into a meaningful recovery.

Sentiment Analysis The Realized Price UTXO Age Bands chart tracks the average on-chain cost basis of coins grouped by age. Bitcoin, currently near $81.7K, remains above the realized prices of the 1-to-3-month and 3-to-6-month cohorts, positioned around $70.5K and $69.5K, respectively. These younger cohorts remain in aggregate unrealized profit despite the correction.

However, the price remains below the 6-to-12-month cohort’s realized price near $87K and the 18-month-to-2-year cohort’s level around $91K. These cost bases form overhead reference points, with the former overlapping the technical supply zone. Holders approaching breakeven during a rebound could introduce selling pressure, although the metric alone does not confirm that they will sell.

The chart also shows the 1-to-3-month realized price rising while the 3-to-6-month measure declines, bringing both toward the $70K region. This identifies a concentration of younger-holder cost bases well below the current price, rather than immediate support for the present consolidation.

For now, the $87K–$91K cost-basis region remains an important hurdle for a broader recovery. Sustained acceptance above it would return these older cohorts to aggregate unrealized profit, while continued rejection would leave the overhead resistance intact.

Disclaimer: Information found on CryptoPotato is those of writers quoted. It does not represent the opinions of CryptoPotato on whether to buy, sell, or hold any investments. You are advised to conduct your own research before making any investment decisions. Use provided information at your own risk. See Disclaimer for more information.

Tags:

Bitcoin

17 October 2026
|
20:41

AI agents can now order a Bitcoin mix. Flash Mixer, launched this year, has added an MCP server, the plug-in standard that AI apps such as Claude Desktop use to call outside tools.

In an October 15 report, blockchain analytics firm Elliptic said it is the first mixer it has found doing so.

Read Flash Mixer’s own setup guide, though, and the agent turns out to need a human at both ends. The access key is issued only after its owner places a manual order on the website and pays for it. Even with the key, the guide’s sample workflow hands the decisive step back to a person: “user sends BTC.”

AT A GLANCE

What it is: A Bitcoin mixing service launched in 2026, reachable by website, Telegram bot, Tor, and now MCP.

What’s new: Five tools that let an AI agent check fees, create mixing orders and track payouts.

What still needs a person: Getting the access key, and sending the bitcoin.

What nobody knows yet: How much, if anything, agents have mixed through it.

What can an agent actually do with it?
Flash Mixer’s integration guide on GitHub lists five tools. One returns the current pool limits, fee ranges and payout delays. A second works out how much bitcoin to send to receive a given amount. A third creates the order: the agent chooses the standard or premium pool, a fee percentage, and one or two payout addresses, each with its own delay of up to 72 hours. The last two check whether the deposit has arrived and how the payouts are progressing.

The guide includes ready-made configuration for Claude Desktop and PyCharm’s AI Assistant. Every order comes back with its own deposit address and an order ID. There are no customer accounts, so that ID is the only handle anyone has on the order.

1Check limits and fees. The agent reads the current pool settings and BTC/USD rate.
2Calculate the amount to send. Fees are added on top of what the payout addresses should receive.
3Create the order. Flash Mixer returns a fresh deposit address and an order ID.
4Someone sends the bitcoin. None of the five tools can do this. The guide leaves it to the user.
5Track the payouts. The agent polls the order until both payouts complete.

Source: Flash Mixer’s MCP integration guide, “Typical agent flow.”

Why can’t the agent just pay?
Nothing in the toolset can sign a Bitcoin transaction. The server never touches a wallet. It hands back an address and waits for coins to arrive.

Getting connected in the first place also takes a human. According to the guide, the MCP key appears once on the status page of a paid manual order, after the deposit reaches three confirmations, and isn’t shown again. So the first mix through Flash Mixer is done by a person, not a model. The documentation is rough in places: its closing notes describe ordering and status checks as “no-key capabilities,” contradicting the authentication section a few screens earlier.

The footprint is small so far. When we checked the GitHub repository on October 17, it had 18 stars and four forks. There is no public data on how many orders have come through the MCP route.

So where is the gap?
In the agent’s wallet. Flash Mixer doesn’t need a payment integration of its own. An agent that has the Flash Mixer tools and a wallet that will pay any address already has everything it needs: step three produces an address, and the wallet pays it.

That deposit address is new for every order. A wallet that blocks known mixer addresses won’t recognise it, because nobody has seen it before. The rule that does stop the payment works the other way round: the agent may only pay addresses on an approved list, and anything new goes to a person.

Spending caps alone don’t close the gap. MoonPay’s PayBox for ChatGPT and Claude lets users approve each payment or let an agent spend on its own within set limits, according to its launch announcement. A limit decides how much an agent can spend. A small payment to a brand-new mixer address fits under almost any cap.

If you’ve given an agent a wallet

Let it pay only addresses you’ve approved. A new address should need your sign-off every time.
Treat MCP servers like browser extensions. Install only ones you’ve read, and note which can create orders or move money.
Log which tool call produced each payment address, so you can trace where a destination came from.
Keep the wallet balance to what the agent needs for its current task, not everything you hold.

Is there a legitimate reason for an agent to mix coins?
Yes, and Elliptic makes the case itself. An agent pays for what it needs as it works, far more often than a person would, and on a public blockchain every one of those payments is visible. Picture an agent buying specialist datasets for a research team. Once its wallet is tied to the company, anyone watching can see the suppliers, the budget and what the team is working on.

Elliptic’s answer is privacy that can be proven on request. Privacy Pools, run by 0xbow, screens deposits before admitting them and lets users later prove their withdrawal came from an approved set without revealing which deposit was theirs. The Ethereum Foundation’s Kohaku wallet includes privacy pool functionality. Flash Mixer’s guide offers nothing of the kind.

Treating every mixer as the same risk gets it wrong in both directions. Tornado Cash came off the US sanctions list in 2025, yet Elliptic’s research found that over the past six months, a third of deposits into its 100 ETH pool drew more than half their funds from illicit sources.

Why does Elliptic think agents change laundering?
Scripted laundering repeats itself: the same hops in the same order, a pattern monitoring rules learn to spot. An agent given a goal picks its own route, choosing which services to use, how to split the funds and when to move them, and does it differently each run. Elliptic says that makes agents harder to monitor than conventional automation, and warns they could break funds into many small, fast “micromixes.”

Volume is the other concern. Elliptic said in September that agentic crypto payments had risen 500% in three months, and argues that human review alone can’t keep up. That view comes from a company that sells blockchain analytics and uses the report to promote its own agent-based compliance tools. The report cites no instance of an agent laundering money through Flash Mixer.

Quick answers
Can an AI agent mix bitcoin on its own?

Not with Flash Mixer’s documented tools alone. They can price and create an order, but sending the bitcoin needs a wallet the agent has separately been allowed to use, and the access key itself requires a paid manual order first.

What is an MCP server?

A connection point that lets AI apps such as Claude Desktop find and call outside tools. The MCP specification recommends that apps show tool activity and let users refuse calls, but leaves the details to each app.

This article is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal, financial or investment advice.

Author

Alexander Zdravkov is a market analyst and crypto journalist with interests in economics, broader financial markets and digital assets.
His journey into crypto began more than four years ago, driven by a fascination with the rapid evolution of blockchain technology and the transformative potential of decentralized finance. He began analyzing market cycles and identifying emerging trends before they reach the mainstream.
He holds a degree in International Relations - a background that helped shape his broader perspective on global economics, geopolitics, and the interconnected nature of modern financial markets.
Whether covering the latest developments in the crypto sector or exploring broader macroeconomic themes, Alexander focuses on giving readers context rather than simply repeating headlines.
During his career, he has authored more than 5,000 articles covering cryptocurrencies, traditional finance, and global market developments. His work spans everything from Bitcoin and altcoins to macroeconomic trends influencing risk assets worldwide.

Coinbase (NASDAQ: COIN) has released a detailed set of technical priorities aimed at guiding Bitcoin’s shift toward quantum-resistant security.

In a blog post dated October 13, 2026, the digital assets focused firm emphasized the need for proactive steps on signature scheme upgrades and the gradual relocation of funds, noting that both consensus changes and ecosystem-wide migrations can require multiple years of coordinated effort.

As a custodian holding roughly 5 percent of the total bitcoin supply, Coinbase stated that it is already adapting its own infrastructure while engaging with Bitcoin developers and researchers.

It also contributes engineering resources and participates in the Bitcoin Security Consortium to support related open-source work.

The post is framed as input for community discussion rather than a finalized company position or an announced upgrade path.

The exchange has also stressed that defending the network against future cryptographically relevant quantum computers (CRQCs) extends well beyond simply selecting a new digital signature algorithm.

A workable plan, it argued, must safeguard both funds whose public keys are already visible on-chain and newly created outputs, operate within Bitcoin’s constrained block space, allow full nodes to validate transactions independently, remain compatible with institutional custody systems and ordinary wallets, and offer a realistic route for coins whose owners cannot or will not move them.

Central to Coinbase’s recommendations is the idea of decoupling the output “container” that holds funds from the specific signature scheme used to authorize spending.

Such separation would let post-quantum algorithms be added, swapped, or combined later without redesigning the underlying structure.

The company pointed to constructions such as P2MR (associated with BIP-360) and P2TRv2 as designs that appear to provide this flexibility by keeping public keys hidden until they are needed and leaving room for future signature options.

For the transition period itself, Coinbase favors staged protection.

Active wallets could begin using post-quantum-capable or hybrid formats before any final rules governing older signature types are settled.

One example discussed is a 1-of-2 arrangement in which the same funds support two alternative spending paths—one authorized by a classical ECDSA or Schnorr key and another by a post-quantum key—allowing users to retain familiar methods in the near term while gaining quantum resistance when required.

On the choice of signature algorithms, the post called for a reproducible evaluation process tailored specifically to Bitcoin’s constraints.

General-purpose cryptographic comparisons developed for internet protocols do not map directly, because Bitcoin signatures are stored permanently and verified by every full node.

Suggested candidates include finalized standards such as ML-DSA and SLH-DSA, FN-DSA once standardized, and more compact alternatives such as SHRINCS.

Coinbase also warned that stateful schemes, while potentially smaller or faster, carry the risk that improper state management could enable forgery; therefore any support for them should include reliable stateless fallbacks, along with clear security requirements for wallets and custody providers.

Additional practical considerations include consensus-level limits on signature and script sizes to keep transaction costs manageable, low-friction formats that ordinary users and hardware wallets can adopt, and compatibility with multi-party computation techniques used in institutional custody.

Questions surrounding abandoned or inaccessible coins—those whose private keys are lost or whose owners do not migrate—were described as important but separate.

Coinbase suggested these governance and engineering issues can be debated in parallel so they do not delay the core technical work of adding post-quantum signature support.

Overall, the priorities underscore that preparation must begin well before any announcement of a functional CRQC, because the combination of protocol upgrades, wallet software changes, and user migration across a decentralized network cannot be completed on short notice.

By focusing on flexible designs, staged adoption, rigorous Bitcoin-specific testing, and separation of the abandoned-coin debate, Coinbase aims to contribute to an orderly, multi-year transition that protects both existing and future funds while preserving the network’s ability to operate and validate independently.

Bitcoin faced renewed pressure as US spot Bitcoin exchange-traded funds (ETFs) recorded $82.39 million in net outflows on October 16. Market analysts have pointed to these outflows, along with rising stock market volatility, as signs of possible downside for the leading digital asset. However, some observers argue that fears of Bitcoin dropping to $10,000 may be overstated when considering historical drawdowns.

ETF outflows reflect shifting sentimentAccording to the digital asset data provider SoSoValue, the total assets held by US spot Bitcoin ETFs reached $104.29 billion following the latest session, representing about 6.35% of Bitcoin’s overall market capitalization. Despite the net outflow, cumulative inflows remain strong, totaling $56.88 billion.

The recent withdrawals took place during a period of heightened uncertainty in traditional financial markets. ETF trading volumes reached $2.66 billion, showing continued investor activity despite the outflows. Analysts say the net outflow signals some reduced risk exposure among institutional investors but does not necessarily mean a large-scale exit from the asset class.

Significant ETF outflows have sometimes coincided with broader risk-off sentiment. Still, the continued inflow over the lifetime of these products suggests that many investors maintain a longer-term outlook for Bitcoin in their portfolios.

Mini dictionary: SoSoValue, a digital asset analytics platform providing data and insights on crypto ETF flows, trading volumes, and market trends.

Historical context challenges Bitcoin crash fearsOn-chain analyst Darkfost addressed the possibility of a sharp decline in Bitcoin’s price in the event of a significant stock market correction. He calculated that Bitcoin dropping to $10,000 from its April 2025 range would represent an 87% fall, aligning with or exceeding some of the steepest historical downturns the asset has suffered.

Darkfost reviewed previous bear markets, noting that a move down to $10,000 would equate to an 87% drawdown, comparable to prior cycles that saw Bitcoin tumble by 92.9% in 2011, 82.5% in 2015, and 82.6% in 2019.

The 2022 bear market saw a 74.4% decline, while Darkfost cited a more moderate 54.2% drop in 2026. As Bitcoin’s market capitalization expanded from $117 million in 2011 to $2.45 trillion in 2025, the frequency and depth of major corrections have varied. April 2025 also brought a 22% price drop in Bitcoin, while the S&P 500 experienced a nearly 19% correction.

YearBitcoin DrawdownPrevious Market Cap201192.9%$117 million201582.5%N/A201982.6%N/A202274.4%N/A202522% (April)$2.45 trillionKey levels for Bitcoin as market volatility risesMarket analyst Adam commented that Bitcoin had demonstrated relative stability compared to the wider stock market. He observed that buyers were stepping in at local lows and noted a rise in demand for short-term put options, suggesting some traders are hedging against potential downside.

Adam noted that as long as Bitcoin remains above $80,000, the current bullish structure remains intact. Should prices fall below this level, further downward momentum could emerge, with $86,000 and $84,000 identified as the next resistance and control levels.

Analysts are watching $80,000 as a pivotal point for Bitcoin’s short-term price action. Strong absorption at recent lows provides some reassurance, but if broader equity weakness persists and Bitcoin ETFs experience further withdrawals, sentiment could deteriorate further.

Even as volatility returns to traditional markets, the depth of historical Bitcoin crashes offers some context for gauging risk, with previous cycles showing major drops required extreme external pressures.

Aksel Kibar, known for his technical analysis in the cryptocurrency markets, evaluated the recent movements in Bitcoin (BTC) price and explained the critical levels that investors should pay attention to. The analyst stated that two important bullish signals have recently emerged in Bitcoin, but the price has sharply retested one of these breakouts.

According to Kibar’s analysis, the first significant bullish signal in Bitcoin emerged with the vượt qua of the $67,200 level. This move indicated the completion of an inverse head and shoulders (IHS) pattern, known in technical analysis as a bullish reversal formation.

The second important signal came when Bitcoin broke above the upper boundary of the rectangular formation it had been trading within for a long time. Kibar argued that this breakout indicated the completion of a bottom reversal pattern, but Bitcoin is currently retesting this breakout sharply.

The analyst also drew attention to risk management regarding the technical signal at the $82,800 level. According to Kibar, the last low point formed within the wide rectangular pattern can be considered a broader stop-loss level for this signal.

Kibar also touched upon the technical structure of the inverse head and shoulders formation, stating that the lowest point of the right shoulder is particularly important. According to the analyst, this level can be used to determine whether the formation remains valid after an upward breakout from the neckline.

Kibar stated that if the price falls below the aforementioned low, the bullish formation could become invalid, and this could also generate a sell signal.

Technical analyst chart shared by Aksel Kibar. *This is not investment advice.

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

Table of contents

The Quantum Alliance is a new open standards body, launched by nine blockchain organizations on October 16, that will define what “post-quantum readiness” means for crypto networks, wallets, and infrastructure, and publish a common way to test whether a quantum-resistance claim is real. The group said its definitions, benchmarks, and migration guidance will all be released openly, according to its launch announcement.

The problem it targets is specific. Nearly every major blockchain secures accounts with elliptic-curve signatures, and once an account signs a transaction its public key sits permanently on a public ledger. A sufficiently capable quantum computer running Shor’s algorithm could work backward from that public key to the private key and take control of the funds. The same signatures protect stablecoin minting keys, governance contracts, bridges, and oracle feeds, so a single compromised key could spread across many platforms at once.

By the Alliance’s count, 6.04 million BTC — 30.2% of total supply — is quantum-exposed at rest, and almost all of the roughly $2.9 trillion crypto market still relies on classical signatures. At Bitcoin’s October 17 price near $81,500, that exposed supply is worth about $492 billion. No existing quantum computer can perform the attack today, but the group argues the industry still has no agreed definition of “quantum-ready” to prepare against it.

What the Alliance Will Define and Publish The Alliance’s first deliverable is a public definition of quantum readiness covering transaction signatures, key management, consensus, zero-knowledge proof systems, and peer-to-peer connections. It will also publish open test criteria and benchmarks that any team can run against its own implementation, plus reference designs for migration that address exposed keys, dormant accounts, and the larger transactions post-quantum signatures produce.

The work is split across four groups: blockchain migration, post-quantum zero-knowledge systems, wallet security, and cross-chain compatibility. Modeled on the Internet Engineering Task Force, the Alliance will let proposals advance on public evidence, rough consensus, and working implementations, with no voting weight for corporate size or token holdings. Anyone can join a working group or submit a proposal.

Why the Timeline Keeps Tightening The Alliance points to a string of recent forecasts that have moved the threat window forward. In March, Google Quantum AI, working with researchers from the Ethereum Foundation and Stanford, found that cracking the elliptic-curve cryptography behind Bitcoin, Ether, and most major coins could take fewer than 500,000 physical qubits — roughly a twentieth of earlier estimates. A model called the Quantum Doom Clock, built by two Alliance contributors, has pointed to March 2028 as an early window since early 2025, and in September IonQ estimated that a fault-tolerant trapped-ion computer with about 20,000 physical qubits could solve Bitcoin’s secp256k1 problem in roughly 26 days per attempt.

The U.S. National Institute of Standards and Technology finalized its first post-quantum cryptography standards in August 2024, but no single party can order a live blockchain to adopt them. A network can call itself “quantum-resistant” today with no shared understanding of which parts of its system the claim covers. How a quantum attack on Bitcoin would actually work is a question most networks have answered with marketing rather than a testable standard.

The Nine Founding Contributors The Alliance spans every layer a migration has to pass through. The founding contributors are Christopher Smith, founder and CEO of Quantus, a proof-of-work blockchain that uses NIST’s ML-DSA signature standard from its first block; Michal “Mehow” Pospieszalski, CEO of American Fortress, which builds the Send-to-Name payment address system; Leona Hioki of Intmax, a stateless zero-knowledge rollup on Ethereum; Aaron Chen, CTO of the hardware wallet maker Keystone; Sebastien Guillemot, CTO of Midnight Foundation, which supports the Cardano-linked Midnight privacy chain; Colton Dillion and Dr. Richard T. Carback III of Postquant Labs, the developers of Quip Network; Richard Lee, chief business officer of the privacy-focused, lattice-based Abelian blockchain; Bryn Bennett, chief revenue officer at The Vault; and Katina Messinis, head of business development at security firm Hacken.

“In the future, ‘post-quantum cryptography’ will just be called ‘cryptography’ and everything else will be in a museum,” said Smith in the announcement. Guillemot added that zero-knowledge systems “carry some of the most sensitive data on any chain,” and that agreeing now on how to evaluate post-quantum proofs “saves every team from solving it alone later.”

What the Standards Cannot Do The Alliance is a standards body, not a regulator or an upgrade authority. It cannot order a live network to migrate, and its criteria cannot protect addresses whose public keys are already exposed, including coins whose owners have lost access. A single working demonstration, such as StarkWare’s quantum-safe Bitcoin transaction mined in August, protects only coins moved into a special output and does not make Bitcoin quantum-safe on its own.

What happens next is the first public definition of readiness and the open benchmarks that follow it. Until a cryptographically relevant quantum computer actually exists, the test of the Alliance will be whether exchanges, custodians, and developers adopt one shared yardstick instead of each grading its own migration.

Frequently Asked Questions Is Bitcoin safe from quantum computers? No machine capable of breaking Bitcoin’s cryptography exists today. The Quantum Alliance estimates 6.04 million BTC has public keys already exposed on-chain, which is why the group wants a shared readiness standard before a practical attack, currently forecast around 2028–2029.

What is post-quantum cryptography? Post-quantum cryptography refers to signature and encryption schemes designed to resist attack by quantum computers. NIST finalized its first standards, including ML-DSA and ML-KEM, in August 2024, but live blockchains still need a defined migration path to adopt them.

When could a quantum computer break crypto? Forecasts differ. Google Quantum AI cut its estimate to under 500,000 physical qubits in March 2026, and other projections point to a practical window around 2028–2029. No existing machine has reached that scale, so the timing remains an estimate, not a confirmed date.

AUTHOR

A freelance writer with a passion for crypto, delivering insightful and accurate content on blockchain and fintech. With a knack for translating complex concepts into accessible content, Eric produces well-researched articles, blog posts, and thought leadership pieces that cover the latest trends and developments in the digital finance space. His writing is aimed at educating and engaging both newcomers and industry experts, offering fresh insights into the world of cryptocurrencies, decentralized finance (DeFi), and blockchain innovations. Eric’s dedication to quality and accuracy makes him a trusted voice in the fintech and crypto communities

Vitalik Buterin Reveals Why AI Could Push Bitcoin Miners Out

Celestia (TIA) Price Rallies Toward $0.75 as Eden Launch Draws Attention

From both short- and long-term perspectives, these two headlines could not have come at a better time.

First, Germany’s largest bank, Deutsche Bank, is preparing to launch crypto custody services. According to Reuters, the bank is just a few weeks away from launching the service in Germany. It will initially support Bitcoin and Ethereum, before moving on to stablecoins and eventually Asian markets in 2027.

That’s not all though as $13 trillion financial giant Charles Schwab has also officially launched Bitcoin and Ethereum trading for eligible clients. In this particular case, about 40 million accounts will be able to access BTC and ETH on the same platform where they trade stocks and bonds.

Source: X Collectively, these developments further reinforce the ongoing convergence of TradFi and DeFi, which is ultimately a signal that crypto is on the verge of becoming a mainstream investment category.

On a technical level, however, the institutional adoption comes at a time when Bitcoin is having difficulty holding above the psychologically important $80K-level. Meanwhile, Spot Bitcoin ETFs turned negative on the day as BlackRock alone reported four days of net outflows in the span of just one week, adding pressure to an already uncertain market setup.

Against this background, these developments could help Bitcoin hold key psychological levels in the short term. However, the bigger question is what Deutsche Bank and Charles Schwab have planned next for their crypto push.

According to AMBCrypto, their long-term digital asset strategies could define Bitcoin’s [BTC] institutional momentum in Q4.

Bitcoin vs. TradFi – Is institutional adoption reshaping the market cycle? Two major TradFi players expanding their crypto services at the same time is hard to overlook.

According to AMBCrypto, the timing is particularly interesting. Despite the recent risk-off sentiment, Bitcoin closed out Q3 strongly on the back of institutional demand. Spot BTC ETFs saw over $6 billion in net inflows, marking the best quarterly performance of the year thus far. In this context, Charles Schwab opening BTC trading to 40 million accounts could further boost institutional and retail access to crypto.

The chart below highlighted another key trend. Despite macro FUD and rate hikes by the Federal Reserve, Bitcoin climbed by over 40% in Q3, compared to only 0.8% of the Nasdaq. This meant that BTC delivered a much better performance than the stock market, making it even more attractive to institutional investors.

Source: TradingView In essence, heavyweights are looking to benefit from BTC’s growing outperformance over TradFi markets.

This trend will become more relevant as macroeconomic uncertainty rises in the near term. With U.S mid-term elections approaching, AI boom, and inflation pressures, the performance of BTC against the traditional market indexes can widen even more.

With this in mind, Deutsche Bank and Charles Schwab’s crypto expansion will boost institutional access to BTC. This could contribute to Bitcoin’s Q4 outlook as its outperformance to TradFi continues to gain attention.

Final Summary Deutsche Bank and Charles Schwab are expanding their crypto services, bringing Bitcoin to more investors. Bitcoin’s reported 40%+ Q3 rally versus the Nasdaq’s 0.8% gains highlights its relative strength, making it a key Q4 trend.

Bitcoin price faced renewed pressure on October 17 as inflation concerns, regional tensions, and fund withdrawals weakened market sentiment. BTC price is still recovering to the all-time lows last month, and is steadily moving toward the psychological mark of $80,000.

The crypto markte fell by 0.93% over the past 24 hours to $2.74 trillion. Fear and Greed Index went down to 49 compared to 57 last week and this is neutral.

US-Iran War Raises Concerns Over Hormuz Shipping Security The IRGC just targeted a US ship with a massive attack in the Strait of Hormuz. The Strait of Hormuz will be closed and any ship trying to cross will be set on fire.

Iran’s IRGC just launched a massive attack on a US ship in the Strait of Hormuz.

The Strait of Hormuz is closed and ships attempting to cross will be burned.

You have been warned. https://t.co/lkrFTex9NB

— Mojtaba Khamenei Commentary (@MojtabaKhamen) October 17, 2026

U.S. Central Command commander Admiral Brad Cooper said American forces and regional partners maintained control of the strategic waterway. He said approximately 400 commercial vessels crossed during the previous week, contradicting claims that Hormuz had completely closed.

Cooper also said U.S. operations had prevented at least $25 billion in Iranian crude exports. Further disruption could lift energy prices, potentially sustaining inflation and reducing investors’ appetite for cryptocurrencies.

U.S. annual consumer inflation reached 3.7% in September, adding pressure to an already fragile market.

Bitcoin And Ethereum ETFs Record Fresh Investor Withdrawals The total net outflows of all U.S. spot Bitcoin ETFs reached $82.39 million on October 16, per SoSoValue data. Most of the withdrawals during the session were in the form of BlackRock’s IBIT valued at $71.78 million.

Every dollar of Ethereum outflow was from BlackRock’s ETHA, whose funds lost $69.68 million, continuing a streak of three sessions of outflows.

Spot Bitcoin ETFs Recorded $82.39 Million in Net Outflows, While Spot Ethereum ETFs Saw $69.68 Million in Net Outflows on October 16 (ET)

On October 16 (ET), spot Bitcoin ETFs recorded total net outflows of $82.39 million, led by BlackRock’s IBIT with $71.78 million in net outflows. Spot Ethereum ETFs recorded total net outflows of $69.68 million, marking their third consecutive day of net outflows, with all of the day’s net outflows coming from BlackRock’s ETHA.

— Wu Blockchain (@WuBlockchain) October 17, 2026

Earlier selling coincided with $974 million in liquidations and nearly $1 billion in ETF withdrawals during October.

Will Bitcoin Price Break Below $80k Soon? BTC price traded at $81,568 on a four-hour chart dated October 17, 2026, as Bitcoin struggled below resistance. The Bitcoin price has been moving in a trading range between the $80,000 support and $82,000 resistance level since the price pull from the higher levels around $87,000.

The relative strength index was 44, a bit below the 50 level, indicating less buying pressure.

The MACD also had a bearish trend, with the main line reading at -332.25. It had a signal line of minus 331.59 and a histogram of minus 0.65 with very little difference between the two. 

A four-hour closing Bitcoin price above $82,000 would constitute an initial recovery, and support would have to hold during a subsequent test. If that occurs, the Bitcoin long-range prediction will be a move for $83,500–$84,000, where recent rebounds had to deal with selling pressure.

BTC/USDT 4-Hour chart: TradingView On the downside, rejection near $82,000 would leave Bitcoin price vulnerable to another test of the chart’s $80,000 support. A decisive four-hour close below that boundary could shift attention toward $78,000, where earlier trading activity formed a price cluster. 

The largest long position holder of STRK has an unrealized loss of $1.01 million.

Hyperliquid’s STRK contract is currently trading at $0.0665, down approximately 13% from the prior day’s reference price. Two whale addresses holding STRK long positions have incurred large unrealized and liquidation losses respectively. The largest STRK long address, 0xd978…2fd9, holds around 64.2 million STRK in long positions, with a position value of roughly $4.25 million, using 5x cross leverage, and currently has an unrealized loss of about $1.019 million, resulting in a position return of approximately -96%. Separately, the STRK long positions of address 0x3392…d367 were liquidated tonight: around 21.36 million tokens were forcibly closed, valued at ~$1.466 million, with a realized loss of ~$207,000. The address subsequently opened ~4.79 million new STRK long positions, with a latest position value of ~$319,000, using 5x isolated leverage, and a liquidation price of ~$0.059.

19 minutes ago

UNCX discloses cross-chain attack on Smart Token Vesting V2, resulting in approximately $807,600 in losses.

According to an official incident report from UNCX Network, on October 14, attackers exploited a set of public vesting operations of Smart Token Vesting V2 to create a mismatch between the pool’s token balance and recorded shares, enabling controlled positions to withdraw excess tokens. The attack impacted four blockchains: Ethereum, BNB Chain, Base, and Robinhood, involving 10 tokens, with 11 confirmed withdrawal transactions. The verified economic value totals approximately $807,600, of which BNB Chain accounts for about $567,500. All involved contract calls did not utilize administrator privileges. Post-incident, white hats have returned 82,143,500 X tokens and 23.8682 ETH, with no major tokens remaining to be disposed of at this time.

19 minutes ago

The team behind Trump reaped $779 million to $1.16 billion in profits from crypto buyers, while the buyers have suffered 97% losses.

CryptoQuant founder Ki Young Ju published a post noting that the team behind the TRUMP crypto token generated a profit of $779 million to $1.16 billion from token holders, while buyers of the token incurred a 97% loss.

19 minutes ago

Shanghai Solana Enterprise Management Co., Ltd. has been registered, with Du Yanjing, co-head of Solana China, serving as its legal representative.

According to Qichacha, Shanghai Solana Enterprise Management Co., Ltd. was registered in June this year with a registered capital of 5 million yuan. Claire Du (Du Yanjing), co-head of Solana China, serves as its legal representative. Separately, Shanghai Yaokun Qiusuo Digital Technology Co., Ltd. was established in August this year with a registered capital of 10 million yuan, with Shanghai Solana Enterprise Management holding a 45% stake in the latter. Even Jiang (Jiang Yiwen), co-head of Solana Foundation’s China region, is chairman of Yaokun Qiusuo, while Du Yanjing acts as a director. Public information indicates Yaokun Qiusuo’s core business includes technical services, development, consulting, exchange, transfer and promotion; computer system services; information system integration services; information technology consulting; data processing services; internet data services; IoT technology services; wholesale of computer software, hardware and auxiliary equipment; information consulting services (excluding licensed services); enterprise management consulting; financial consulting; and conference and exhibition services (overseas exhibitions require approval from relevant authorities). It should be noted that "Solana" is a name adopted by a sole proprietorship, and there is currently no equity evidence linking the two companies to the Solana Foundation. This week, Solana team members shared photos announcing the opening of an office in Shanghai, China.

19 minutes ago

Thai police arrested a Chinese fugitive wanted by China on suspicion of money laundering and crypto transactions in Bangkok.

According to Thai media outlet Khaosod English, Thai immigration police recently arrested a 37-year-old Chinese national in Bangkok. The man is wanted by Chinese police on suspicion of involvement in a transnational criminal network and money laundering. Police said the criminal network in question involved transactions exceeding 500 million yuan (approximately 2.485 billion Thai baht). The suspect is alleged to have processed cryptocurrency and foreign exchange transactions for the criminal group via more than 133 accounts, and assisted members of the transnational criminal network in obtaining visas. Police added that the suspect evaded manhunts by falsifying residence registration documents, changing license plates, and altering vehicle appearances, before finally being apprehended at a luxury residence in Bangkok. Thai authorities will handle his overstay issues in accordance with the law and coordinate his deportation back to China for investigation.

19 minutes ago

The case of Holograph’s illegal additional issuance of 1 billion tokens has opened in Paris, involving approximately $14 million.

Holograph (HLG)’s 2024 illegal issuance of 1 billion tokens went to trial on October 16 in Paris, with the case involving approximately $14 million at the time. Among the three defendants, the main suspect is a Ukrainian former Holograph employee residing in France, accused of modifying token creation conditions to illegally mint 1 billion HLG, transferring them to a personal wallet, and moving the funds via multiple exchange accounts with accomplices. A lawyer for the Holograph Foundation told the court that the incident caused the project to lose client trust, has now come to a complete halt, and the foundation is preparing for liquidation.

19 minutes ago

Arthur Hayes, CIO of crypto-focused Maelstrom Fund, believes the AI bubble will eventually burst, and it will be uber bullish for Bitcoin. 

In a recent interview with Luke Martin, Hayes said, 

AI is a waste of money. The bigger the AI bubble grows, the bigger the bailout will be, and the higher Bitcoin goes.

According to him, Anthropic, OpenAI, and SpaceX are all backed by the U.S government, but none of them makes money. Hayes foresees a “perfect time for crypto” if the AI bubble bursts. 

Put simply, the bailout will mean more government money printing, higher inflation, and investors fleeing to stores of value (SoV) such as gold and Bitcoin. This is popularly known as the debasement trade. 

Interestingly, BTC showed resilience this week and defended $80K despite a 2x-5x broader sell-off across AI/chipmakers and tech stocks. 

Source: Google Finance (as of market close on October 16th)
AI bubble: Bitcoin upside meets quantum risk
Delphi Research and Fidelity echoed a similar bullish outlook. For his part, Ceteris Paribus, the pseudonymous Head of Research at Delphi, noted, 

Getting quite bullish internet monies. Debasement from current debt situation + AI Ponzi bailout equal BTC flows.

An AI bailout will likely add to U.S fiscal debt and growing investors’ concerns. For perspective, U.S fiscal debt currently stands at $40.3T and is growing regardless of which party is in office. 

This has since triggered rising bond yields. According to Fidelity, this could worsen the U.S debt situation and further make the case for BTC.

The asset manager also said that the correlation between BTC and 10-year bond yields hit a record high of 0.6 in 2026. The yields rose by 10% in the past two months, and BTC surged by +30% over the same period. 

In other words, rising bond yields will likely send BTC higher if the correlation extends. 

If current debt and rate trends persist, it may not be long before the interest expense becomes the largest line item in the federal budget, further elevating focus on alternative stores of value

Source: Fidelity 
Still, Bitcoin’s quantum threat is intensifying with AI advancement and Google’s breakthroughs in quantum computers. For Ceteris, this could cap the expected BTC upside from the debasement trade. 

I think BTC will do quite well, but it won’t be the only SoV in the arena like it was a few years ago. Debasement bullish, but quantum will keep a cap on upside.

In the meantime, U.S Spot BTC ETFs bled another $228M this week, marking the second week of outflows in October. Still, this week’s capitulation showed cooling profits that may mark another bottom at $80K, as per Glassnode. 

Source: Glassnode

Final Summary

AI bubble burst, and a likely bailout could trigger a debasement trade-driven BTC rally. 
Delphi Research cautioned that BTC’s upside could be capped by quantum risk.

Bitcoin enters the final weeks of October near $82,000 after a brief fall below $80,000. The October 28 Federal Reserve decision, uneven demand for U.S. spot funds and November inflation data will help determine whether the recovery survives. A forecast requires conditions for both gains and losses, not a single number detached from the evidence.

Summary

Bitcoin traded near $81,500 on October 17 after briefly dipping below $80,000 this week. September U.S. inflation reached 3.7% annually, up from 3.4% in August. U.S. spot Bitcoin funds lost a net $614.7 million across October’s first 12 trading sessions, based on Farside’s daily totals. The Fed meets October 27 and 28, before U.S. jobs data on November 6 and inflation data on November 10. A move from $82,000 to $90,000 requires a 9.8% gain; a drop to $75,000 would be an 8.5% loss. Bitcoin has traded around $81,500 on October 17, having recovered from a move below $80,000 during the week. CoinGlass market data put the 24 hour change near negative 0.7% when checked for this article. A live price can move before publication, so the scenarios below use $82,000 as a rounded reference point, not a claim about the exact execution price available to a reader.

The Federal Reserve’s calendar places its next policy decision on October 28. Inflation has complicated the choice: the Bureau of Labor Statistics’ September CPI release put annual headline inflation at 3.7%. November will bring new employment and consumer price readings, giving investors evidence on whether the October decision was the start of another tightening phase or a single step. The price outlook therefore has two clocks: what markets expect before the meeting, and what the incoming data say afterward.

JUST IN: Bitcoin posts its strongest quarter since 2017 with a 43% Q3 gain

The rally now faces tougher conditions as Treasury yields climb above 5%, although weaker US jobs data has cut the odds of another Fed rate hike in October. pic.twitter.com/St18atn53Y

— crypto.news (@cryptodotnews) October 6, 2026 Bitcoin’s October recovery has a weak demand backdrop The starting point is less reassuring than the bounce suggests. Bitcoin slipped below $80,000 and subsequently recovered above $82,000 on October 16. A separate October 16 price assessment at crypto.news placed the market near $81,400 and noted the sequence of lower local highs. Clearing a level intraday is different from sustaining buying through several sessions, especially when the same area has served as both support and resistance.

October’s price movement followed several conflicting signals. U.S. spot Bitcoin funds began the month with two positive sessions, then recorded substantial withdrawals on October 7 and 8. The October 7 fund outflow reached $484.9 million, the largest daily exit since June at the time. October 13 brought $175.7 million back, but October 14 saw $261.4 million leave. Farside Investors’ daily fund table now records an $82.4 million withdrawal for October 16. Daily totals can be revised, and a net flow is not a direct measure of exchange spot purchases on that date.

Price and flow do not have to move together. Bitcoin trades continuously, while the U.S. ETF table reflects the close of an equity trading day. A buyer using an offshore exchange or a derivatives position can move the price while the fund complex loses assets. Authorized participants can acquire or deliver Bitcoin through creation and redemption processes that need not match a single hour of trading. Treating each positive close as proof that ETFs bought the rebound would assign a cause that the available figures cannot establish.

The October 14 CPI report added a macroeconomic complication. Headline consumer prices rose 0.6% during September, while the measure excluding food and energy rose 0.3%. Gasoline accounted for more than half of the monthly increase in the headline index, according to the BLS. Annual core inflation reached 2.6%, below the 3.7% headline reading but above August’s 2.4%. A reader looking only at the headline could miss that the sources of inflation are different; a reader looking only at core could miss the pressure that energy prices put on household spending and market rates.

Bitcoin’s drop after the CPI release left the market near $81,900 on October 14. The report recorded an increase in market-implied odds of an October rate increase after the inflation data, but those odds are a changing price of futures contracts, not a vote by the Fed. They should be checked again near the decision. Positioning against a policy announcement can make an otherwise ordinary price move violent when leveraged traders have crowded into one outcome.

JUST IN: Bitcoin jumps above $85,000 after softer U.S. inflation data

August core PCE rose 3% year-over-year versus 3.3% expected, while markets cut October Fed rate-hike odds, giving $BTC and other risk assets an immediate boost. pic.twitter.com/z1n9vm6GQJ

— crypto.news (@cryptodotnews) September 30, 2026 The Fed decision is only the first date on November’s calendar On September 16, the Federal Open Market Committee raised its target by a quarter percentage point to 3.75% to 4%. The vote was unanimous. Its next scheduled meeting ends October 28 at 2 p.m. Eastern time, followed by a press conference at 2:30 p.m. The October meeting is not marked as one of the scheduled quarterly projection meetings on the Fed’s calendar, so investors should not assume it will include a new dot plot.

The September meeting minutes, released October 7, say most participants considered another increase likely to be appropriate by year end, while stressing that later decisions depended on incoming information. Year end leaves two meetings, October and December. The minutes do not commit the committee to October, and individual September projections are conditional judgments, not instructions to a future meeting. The September median projected policy rate at the end of 2026 was 4.1%, according to the Fed’s projection tables.

Bitcoin rallied after the September rate increase despite fund withdrawals during the decision window. An examination of buyers after the September hike found subsequent ETF demand and derivatives adjustment, showing why the rate announcement alone cannot explain the entire move. Traders had been preparing for the decision beforehand; the same announcement can lift or lower an asset depending on what was already priced in and what the chair says about future policy.

On October 28, the rate decision, statement, and press conference, should be read separately. A quarter point increase with language suggesting a pause would not carry the same implication as an increase followed by concern about more persistent inflation. A hold could still weigh on Bitcoin if officials signal another hike in December. Market prices respond to changes in expected policy paths, not simply to the label attached to one decision.

November’s scheduled releases will then test the Fed’s reading of the economy. The BLS calendar for November lists the October employment report for November 6, October CPI for November 10, and October producer prices for November 13. October CPI will arrive after the Fed meeting, meaning the committee cannot use that report to decide on October 28. It can still change expectations for the December 8 and 9 meeting. Figures and release dates should be rechecked at publication because government calendars can change.

The sequence allows a conditional outlook. An October decision followed by softer inflation and moderate employment growth could ease pressure on bond yields. A decision followed by stubborn inflation or a much stronger labor market could support expectations of more tightening. A weak jobs report is not automatically favorable for Bitcoin if it points to a broad economic shock that sends investors toward cash. None of the official releases predicts a Bitcoin price; they influence the rates and risk appetite against which Bitcoin trades.

Twelve ETF sessions show how much buying the recovery needs The distinguishing figure comes from adding the fund flows rather than citing a single large withdrawal. Farside’s U.S. spot Bitcoin ETF table lists daily totals, in millions of dollars, for the first 12 trading sessions of October: plus 102.7, plus 189.9, minus 89.8, plus 118.8, minus 484.9, minus 244.1, plus 21.1, minus 65.4, plus 175.7, minus 261.4, plus 5.1 and minus 82.4. Adding those published entries gives minus $614.7 million through October 16. The calculation uses the displayed one decimal place and may differ slightly if a provider later revises individual funds.

Across the same 12 sessions, positive days total $613.3 million and negative days total $1.228 billion after rounding the entries. Net outflows are therefore the result of several heavy selling days overwhelming the purchases, not the absence of any positive session. October 7 alone accounts for approximately 79% of the net withdrawal figure, a ratio obtained by dividing $484.9 million by $614.7 million. That ratio describes the arithmetic concentration of the monthly total, not an estimate that one day’s redemptions caused 79% of Bitcoin’s price change.

Four of the first 12 sessions show net gains above $100 million, while four show losses above $80 million. A small positive day does not erase a large negative day. For example, the $175.7 million gained on October 13 was smaller than the $261.4 million lost the next day; together they represent an $85.7 million withdrawal. October 15’s $5.1 million intake did little to counter the $82.4 million that left on October 16. These comparisons explain why a chart of alternating green and red bars can look balanced even when the month is firmly negative.

The calculation answers a narrower question than some headlines imply. It does not tell us how much Bitcoin was sold on exchanges, which participants bought any supply offered, or whether a fund’s holdings changed by the same dollar amount as its flow. Net flow is an accounting estimate for money entering or leaving the listed products. Assets under management fluctuate with Bitcoin’s price. Trading volume can surge even when net flow is zero, because shares can change hands between investors without new fund shares being created.

The starting imbalance creates an observable condition for November. A durable recovery supported by fund demand would require multiple positive sessions large enough to offset withdrawals, not merely a return to zero on one day. At the October 16 balance, a single $100 million intake would leave the October running total around $515 million negative if no other dates changed. Restoring the first 12 sessions to flat would require approximately $615 million of net additions in later sessions. The figure is an arithmetic hurdle for the month, not a threshold Bitcoin must clear to rise.

Fund flows could remain negative while direct spot buyers take the other side. Conversely, positive ETF totals could coexist with selling by long held wallets, corporate treasuries or miners. An October assessment of institutional demand quoted Bitget Wallet research lead Lacie Zhang saying institutional buying must absorb profit taking and miner sales for gains to hold. Her argument concerns the balance of buyers and sellers across venues, not an ETF flow target that guarantees a certain price.

BREAKING: Fed raises its benchmark interest rates for the first time since 2023

The Fed has raised its benchmark rate by 25 basis points to 3.75%–4%, while 30-year mortgage rates have climbed to around 7.28%; persistent inflation, higher oil prices and geopolitical tensions are… pic.twitter.com/CXNUmqJqEf

— crypto.news (@cryptodotnews) September 16, 2026 The price cases start from one reference point A November scenario needs an explicit starting value. This article uses $82,000, close to the market around the October 16 rebound, as a common reference. At that price, $85,000 is 3.7% higher; $87,500 is 6.7% higher; $90,000 is 9.8% higher; $95,000 is 15.9% higher. On the downside, $80,000 is 2.4% lower; $78,000 is 4.9% lower; and $75,000 is 8.5% lower. Each percentage is the difference from $82,000 divided by $82,000, rounded to one decimal place. They are arithmetic distances, not modeled probabilities or promised targets.

Recovery case: $87,500 to $95,000. Bitcoin would first need to regain the $84,200 area that traders identified as resistance in the October 16 chart analysis, then build on the move through the upper $80,000s. A sustained run of ETF inflows, stronger spot participation and less aggressive rate expectations after October 28 would support that case. The upper end requires a 15.9% rise from the reference, a material move in a month. The case weakens if ETF flows stay negative through a price rally or if the October 28 message and November 10 CPI push yields higher.

Range case: $78,000 to $87,500. Bitcoin could remain between the October downside area and the late September resistance zone if fund buying returns intermittently but cannot sustain itself. A Fed decision that changes little about December expectations, followed by mixed labor and inflation releases, would fit the setting. The breadth of the range is deliberate: from $82,000 it spans a 4.9% decline to a 6.7% gain. Calling this a base case does not mean assigning it a numerical probability. It describes the path when neither the buying evidence nor the policy evidence resolves decisively.

Downside case: $75,000 to $78,000. A break below $80,000 that persists through several daily closes, together with further ETF redemptions and renewed leverage liquidations, would bring lower price areas into view. A Fed message pointing to continued tightening, followed by another strong inflation print, would make the downside scenario more plausible. The range is an analytical boundary, not a claim that a particular exchange has a buy order at $75,000. A fall through the lower end would invalidate this bounded case and require a fresh analysis rather than a wider target invented after the event.

The ranges overlap at $78,000 and $87,500 because price can trade at a boundary without giving a reliable signal about the next month. Daily closes, participation and changes in flow would be more informative than a brief intraday touch. The upper case is invalidated by persistent selling and a failed recovery of the mid $80,000s; the downside case is invalidated by sustained inflows and a decisive move above resistance. New evidence can invalidate either scenario before November begins.

A pause in rates does not guarantee a Bitcoin rally The strongest argument for recovery is not simply that the Fed might hold rates. Inflation’s September jump was driven heavily by gasoline, while core prices rose more slowly over the year. If energy eases and the labor market weakens enough to limit further hikes without signaling recession, investors could reduce their expectations for future rates. Fund flows have turned around rapidly in earlier periods: after withdrawals around the September decision, demand returned in later sessions. The post hike market assessment from BitGo Research associated the recovery with spot fund demand, lower Treasury yields, softer oil and short covering. No single variable carried the whole explanation.

There is a counterweight. The September minutes show most Fed participants expected another increase by year end. September headline inflation at 3.7% was above August’s 3.4%, and core inflation rose to 2.6% from 2.4%. A pause in October might signal patience while officials wait for data, not the end of tightening. November CPI could reopen the debate almost immediately. Bitcoin can rise in anticipation of a pause and still lose ground if the accompanying statement points to a later hike.

Rate expectations have two effects that need separating. Higher Treasury yields can raise the appeal of interest paying assets relative to Bitcoin, which does not pay a coupon. The same yields can weaken demand for speculative risk across markets. Neither channel fixes Bitcoin’s price mechanically. Liquidity, leverage, international buying and crypto specific events can offset or magnify them. A neat historical average of returns around Fed meetings would miss differences in what investors anticipated before each event.

ETF demand presents a similar two sided argument. The products remain a substantial route for U.S. investors, and a few large positive days can reverse a negative running total. Yet the October arithmetic shows how easily one withdrawal can overwhelm multiple gains. Strong fund flows would improve the recovery case, but treating them as a sufficient condition ignores direct exchange sellers and the derivatives market. Weak flows would not prove that no buyer exists elsewhere. The honest disagreement is about the likely marginal buyer in November, not the existence of all other buyers.

Leverage can change the route without deciding the destination CoinGlass displayed roughly $52.4 billion of Bitcoin futures open interest and about $77 million of Bitcoin liquidations over 24 hours when checked on October 17. Those figures decay quickly and should be refreshed before publication. Open interest is the face value of outstanding positions, not the amount of capital that can be liquidated at once. Both a long and a short stand behind each futures contract; a rising total alone cannot tell the reader which side will win.

Funding rates and open interest together offer a better view of crowding, though neither is conclusive. Positive perpetual futures funding indicates longs are generally paying shorts on venues using that mechanism. If price rises alongside open interest and high positive funding, the move may depend more heavily on leveraged longs. If price rises while open interest falls, some of the gain may come from shorts closing. Spot volume and ETF flows would then help determine whether new cash replaced the departing positions.

The October selloff showed how forced unwinds can speed a move. Long liquidations cause exchanges to close positions according to their margin rules, creating market orders in a falling market. Subsequent short covering can make the rebound appear strong even before sustained spot demand returns. Neither event establishes a fair value for Bitcoin. Derivatives data help describe the path and fragility of a move, while the spot market and flows help assess whether it can persist.

A level such as $80,000 attracts attention partly because traders put orders and stops near round figures. No source can certify that every $80,000 touch is meaningful, and liquidation maps estimate potential pressure from displayed positions rather than commitments by every trader. A briefly broken level followed by recovery deserves different treatment from several closes below it. The same applies to a break above $85,000: a single futures driven spike is weaker evidence than several sessions accompanied by fund additions and spot volume.

The Fed release occurs during U.S. market hours, when the ETF shares trade and the underlying Bitcoin market remains open. The first ETF closing figure after the decision will provide one piece of evidence, but reporting time and creation mechanics can blur attribution. November 6 jobs data and November 10 CPI arrive before the U.S. market opens; Bitcoin can react overnight before fund shares resume trading. Comparing same time windows and the same quotation source matters when describing cause and effect.

The scenario boundaries have important limits The outlook is dated October 17. Bitcoin’s spot price, policy expectations, ETF flows and derivative positions can change substantially before October 28, let alone November 30. A scenario built around an $82,000 starting value must be recalculated if Bitcoin enters November at a very different price. The percentage distances are exact arithmetic from the chosen reference, but the chosen bands reflect observed market areas and conditional judgment. They are not statistical confidence intervals.

Neither a Fed decision nor a CPI release provides a stand alone Bitcoin forecast. Monetary policy can affect bond yields and the dollar, yet investors may have anticipated the change in advance. The September episode showed a hike and a subsequent rally; the October selloff showed inflation concerns alongside withdrawals and deleveraging. Assigning all price movement to the nearest macro headline would ignore the trading evidence.

ETF totals have reporting limits. Providers can differ in coverage, fund cutoff times and revisions. Farside’s table provides the 12 U.S. session inputs used here; an alternative tracker may show a slightly different monthly figure. Gross trading volume, net investor flow and changes in Bitcoin held by funds answer separate questions. None directly identifies the end investor, the seller on the other side or the moment the Bitcoin was acquired.

The projected $75,000 to $95,000 envelope deliberately includes different outcomes rather than implying that any one will occur. A new geopolitical shock, fund launch, regulatory decision, exchange disruption or corporate transaction could move the market outside it. Those events cannot be responsibly assigned a probability from the evidence assembled here. The next observable policy marker is the Fed’s October 28 statement; the next scheduled U.S. employment and inflation releases follow on November 6 and 10, according to the BLS calendar.

What to watch October 28 Fed statement and press conference: Compare the rate decision with the committee’s language about future increases at 2 p.m. and 2:30 p.m. Eastern. Daily U.S. spot Bitcoin ETF flows: Add the November sessions in Farside’s table and distinguish a multi day intake from a single positive close. The $80,000 and $84,200 price areas: Watch daily closes and trading participation around the recent downside and resistance zones, not just intraday touches. November 6 employment and November 10 CPI: Compare the actual releases with expectations and observe the response in yields as well as Bitcoin. Futures open interest and funding: Check whether a move in price is paired with new leveraged positions, short covering or a reduction in crowding. FAQ What is the Bitcoin price outlook for November 2026? From an $82,000 reference on October 17, the conditional recovery range is $87,500 to $95,000, the range case is $78,000 to $87,500, and the downside case is $75,000 to $78,000. None is a guaranteed target or a probability weighted forecast.

When is the next Fed decision? The Federal Open Market Committee meets October 27 and 28, 2026. Its statement is scheduled for 2 p.m. Eastern on October 28, followed by a press conference at 2:30 p.m.

Did the Fed raise rates in September 2026? Yes. On September 16, the Fed raised the target range by a quarter percentage point to 3.75% to 4%. Bitcoin’s subsequent price rise does not establish that the rate increase caused it.

How much did Bitcoin ETFs lose in early October? Adding Farside Investors’ daily U.S. spot fund totals for the 12 trading sessions from October 1 through October 16 gives approximately $614.7 million in net withdrawals. The figure can change if a provider revises its table.

Why does the $80,000 Bitcoin level matter? Bitcoin briefly traded below $80,000 before recovering during the October selloff. Repeated daily closes below the area, especially with withdrawals and long liquidations, would strengthen the downside case more than a brief intraday break.

Could Bitcoin reach $90,000 in November? A move from the article’s $82,000 reference to $90,000 would require a gain of about 9.8%. Sustained spot and fund demand, a recovery through resistance and less pressure from expected interest rates would support the recovery case; none guarantees that price.

What U.S. data arrive after the October Fed meeting? The BLS has scheduled the October employment report for November 6 and October CPI for November 10. October producer prices are scheduled for November 13. The dates should be checked again before those releases.

Does an October Fed pause mean Bitcoin will rise? No. Investors may have priced in a pause, and a hold could still accompany a warning about another rate increase. ETF flows, direct spot trading and leverage affect the outcome as well. This is educational analysis, not investment advice.

Disclaimer: This article is for information and educational purposes only and does not constitute financial or investment advice. Figures reflect regulatory filings and reporting available at the time of writing and change with each disclosure. Nothing here is a recommendation to buy, sell, or hold any security or asset. Always do your own research. Information is accurate as of October 17, 2026.

Not financial or tax advice. PANews content is strictly educational and informational and is not investment advice, financial advice, tax advice, legal advice, or a solicitation to buy or sell any digital asset, security, or financial product. Do your own research and consult qualified advisers.

Disclosure. PANews may publish sponsored content, partner content, advertisements, affiliate links, event promotions, and market commentary involving Web3 projects, service providers, or financial products. PANews personnel, contributors, or affiliates may hold digital assets or other interests related to covered topics. See our Terms of Service.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA.

U.S. crypto ETFs tracked across five Farside Investors tables have recorded $610.7 million in net outflows during Oct. 12–16, with Ethereum funds losing more money than Bitcoin products.

Summary

$610.7 million left the five tracked ETF categories, down from $1.29 billion the previous week. Ethereum ETFs lost $320.1 million, with BlackRock’s ETHA accounting for $299 million. Bitcoin funds recorded $228.4 million in withdrawals despite two positive trading sessions. Solana, Zcash and Hyperliquid products lost a combined $62.2 million during the five-session period. Farside Investors’ daily figures put Ethereum ETF withdrawals at $320.1 million, followed by $228.4 million from Bitcoin funds, while Solana, Zcash and Hyperliquid products finished the week negative.

Crypto ETF withdrawals fall 52.5% from the previous week Calculated from Farside’s five tables, weekly net withdrawals fell 52.5% from $1.2863 billion during Oct. 5–9. Each tracked category remained negative, although Bitcoin, Ethereum and Zcash recorded smaller losses than in the preceding period.

As crypto.news previously reported, the same five groups lost $1.29 billion during that earlier week. Bitcoin accounted for $678.9 million of those withdrawals, while Ethereum products shed $542.2 million.

The latest daily totals, calculated across Farside’s tables, show that Tuesday was the only session with combined net inflows. Funds attracted $194.3 million that day after losing $155.5 million on Monday.

Wednesday brought $393.4 million in withdrawals, the largest daily loss of the reporting period. Another $90.1 million left on Thursday, followed by $166 million on Friday.

Across the five-session window, Bitcoin and Ethereum accounted for $548.5 million, or approximately 89.8%, of the combined net withdrawal calculated from Farside’s figures.

A separate CoinShares update published Oct. 16 reported $434 million in withdrawals from global digital asset investment products during its reporting week. Its global product coverage and reporting cutoff differ from the five U.S. ETF categories aggregated here.

CoinShares attributed its reported withdrawals to changing interest rate expectations after U.S. inflation and retail sales releases. Its assessment concerned its own dataset; Farside’s tables provide fund flows without assigning a cause to individual transactions.

Ethereum ETF losses reach $320.1 million Ethereum funds recorded four negative sessions and one positive day in Farside’s table. Monday’s $85.4 million withdrawal was followed by $24.8 million in Tuesday inflows, before Wednesday brought the week’s largest exit at $129.5 million.

Thursday and Friday added respective withdrawals of $60.3 million and $69.7 million. Calculated across the table’s daily entries, BlackRock’s ETHA lost $299 million, equivalent to 93.4% of the category’s net weekly outflow.

Fidelity’s FETH attracted $10.5 million over the week, while Grayscale’s Ethereum Mini Trust lost $12.4 million. Grayscale’s ETHE recorded an $18.3 million withdrawal, and Franklin Templeton’s EZET shed $900,000.

The remaining Ethereum products showed no net flows during the period in Farside’s table.

Elsewhere in the U.S. Ethereum fund market, VanEck requested withdrawal of its proposed Lido Staked Ethereum ETF registration in an Oct. 14 filing, as reported Oct. 15.

The sponsor’s SEC submission said it “does not intend to proceed with the planned distribution” of the trust’s shares. VanEck confirmed that the registration statement had not become effective and that no securities had been issued or sold under it.

The filing sought the SEC’s consent to withdraw the registration statement under Rule 477. It concerned a proposed offering that had never issued shares, separate from the operating funds in Farside’s weekly flow table.

Bitcoin ETFs lose $228.4 million despite Tuesday buying Bitcoin funds recorded their strongest session on Tuesday, attracting $175.7 million, according to Farside. Wednesday’s $261.4 million withdrawal exceeded that intake, and Friday ended with another $82.4 million exit.

BlackRock’s IBIT lost $165.4 million over the week, calculated from its five daily entries. Fidelity’s FBTC shed $60.2 million, while Morgan Stanley’s MSBT attracted $6.7 million and Bitwise’s BITB added $2.2 million.

Invesco’s BTCO lost $4.1 million, and Grayscale’s Bitcoin Mini Trust recorded $7.6 million in withdrawals.

Earlier in October, Bitcoin funds had suffered $484.9 million in withdrawals during the Oct. 7 session. Coverage published Oct. 8 identified that as their largest daily outflow since June 25, when withdrawals reached $691.7 million.

Solana funds record a second week of daily outflows Solana products lost $25.5 million during Oct. 12–16, with every session negative in Farside’s table. The category recorded $25 million in withdrawals across five negative sessions the previous week.

Bitwise’s BSOL accounted for $18.8 million of the latest weekly loss, calculated from its daily entries. Grayscale’s GSOL shed $6 million on Thursday, while VSOL lost $700,000 on Monday.

Friday’s $12.7 million withdrawal, entirely from BSOL, was the category’s largest daily exit of the week.

Zcash’s tracked ZCSH product lost $19.2 million, according to Farside’s daily figures. Wednesday brought $3.7 million in inflows, but Thursday’s $14.8 million withdrawal exceeded that intake.

Hyperliquid products recorded $17.5 million in weekly withdrawals. Farside’s entries show losses of $6.4 million from BHYP, $8.5 million from THYP and $2.6 million from HYPG.

Thursday accounted for $10.3 million of Hyperliquid’s weekly net outflow, including $7.1 million from THYP. Farside recorded zero net flows across all three products on Tuesday and Friday.

Ethereum co-founder Vitalik Buterin has compared Bitcoin mining with AI inference, sharing cost estimates that put electricity at 45.9% of mining expenses and computing capital expenditure at approximately 76% of inference costs.

Summary

Electricity represents 45.9% of Bitcoin mining costs in the comparison Buterin shared. Computing capital expenditure accounts for approximately 76% of the AI inference estimate. Both tables include cooling, power equipment, and financing within computing capital expenditure. US operators have pursued AI facilities through customer leases, borrowing and crypto treasury sales. In an Oct. 17 X post, Buterin described Bitcoin mining costs as split roughly evenly between computing investment and electricity, while calling AI inference almost completely dominated by computing capital expenditure.

Fun fact of the day: Bitcoin mining cost is split about 50/50 between compute capex and electricity. Meanwhile, AI inference is almost completely dominated by compute capex. pic.twitter.com/PCFKZSuNRw

— vitalik.eth (@VitalikButerin) October 17, 2026 Bitcoin electricity costs approach half of the estimated total Buterin’s post draws a distinction between the spending required to purchase computing infrastructure and the recurring expense of powering it.

“Bitcoin mining cost is split about 50/50 between compute capex and electricity,” he wrote.

The mining table attached to his post provides a more detailed breakdown. Electricity supplied directly to computers costs an estimated $40,600 per BTC, accounting for 43.3% of the total. Other electricity expenses contribute another $2,400, or 2.6%.

Together, the two electricity categories amount to $43,000 per BTC and 45.9% of the listed cost.

Computing capital expenditure contributes approximately $37,600 per BTC, representing around 40%. The category covers hardware, cooling, and power equipment, including financing, so its scope extends beyond the purchase price of mining machines.

The remaining categories include labor at $3,200 per BTC, facility rent at approximately $2,500, and other expenses at roughly $7,400. Maintenance, spare parts, facility operations, insurance, taxes, and bandwidth fall into the final category.

Adding the listed dollar amounts produces an estimated total of $93,700 per BTC. The calculation describes the table Buterin shared and does not establish a uniform production cost for every Bitcoin miner.

AI inference spending centers on computing infrastructure The AI table uses a different unit, dollars per GPU-year, and assigns a much larger share of expenses to computing capital expenditure.

Its estimate places that category at approximately $19,900 per GPU-year, or 76% of the total. As with the mining table, the category includes hardware, cooling, power equipment, and financing.

Electricity supplied directly to computers accounts for $1,050 per GPU-year, representing 4%. Other electricity contributes $210, or 0.8%, bringing the combined electricity share to 4.8%.

Labor adds $1,400 per GPU-year, while facility rent contributes approximately $900. The remaining maintenance, operating, insurance, tax, and bandwidth expenses total roughly $2,800.

The listed amounts sum to approximately $26,260 per GPU-year. Because one table measures costs per Bitcoin and the other per GPU-year, their dollar totals do not provide a direct comparison of the price of performing the same task.

Buterin summarized the difference by writing that AI inference is “almost completely dominated by compute capex.” The accompanying breakdown assigns approximately three-quarters of total inference costs to that category, with electricity, labor, rent and other operating expenses making up the remainder.

TeraWulf separates AI hosting from processor ownership US data center agreements illustrate how companies divide responsibility for facilities and computing equipment.

As crypto.news previously reported, TeraWulf was considering a potential $3.5 billion financing in July to support an AI campus in Kentucky. The financing plans, attributed to Bloomberg, included possible leveraged loans and high-yield bonds.

The planned borrowing followed TeraWulf’s announced 20-year lease with Anthropic at its Justified Data campus in Hawesville. The company said the facility would support approximately 401 megawatts of critical computing capacity and estimated $19 billion in revenue over the initial contract term.

Initial capacity was expected in the second half of 2027, with full deployment targeted for early 2028. The revenue estimate covered two decades of the agreement and was not an upfront payment.

Chief Financial Officer Patrick Fleury described an operating model in which customers remain responsible for servers, processors and technology upgrades, while TeraWulf supplies power and physical infrastructure.

Earlier financing supported its New York operations. In October 2025, a TeraWulf subsidiary priced $3.2 billion of senior secured notes carrying a 7.75% annual interest rate and maturing in 2030.

Crypto sales and power agreements support AI development Other companies have used digital assets to help finance their AI data center projects. A July 31 account documented transactions announced the previous day by Quantum Solutions and US-listed Hyperscale Data.

Quantum’s subsidiary GPT Pals Studio sold 1,000 ETH for $1.903 million after transaction fees to support Japanese AI data center expansion plans. Hyperscale monetized approximately 100 BTC and established a Bitcoin-backed credit facility for construction in Michigan.

Hyperscale’s initial customer deployment covered approximately 20 megawatts under a ten-year agreement with two optional five-year extensions. The company estimated more than $1.2 billion in revenue over the maximum term, subject to those extensions.

MARA’s July announcement focused on securing land and power capacity for future development in Texas. The company disclosed a definitive agreement to acquire a 1,200-acre property intended to support high-performance computing, flexible computing services, and Bitcoin mining.

According to MARA’s announcement, the site was expected to provide access to an initial gigawatt of grid capacity by October 2027, with total available capacity projected to reach two gigawatts by April 2028.

MARA planned to develop the property with Starwood Digital Ventures, with phased construction subject to regulatory approvals. Seller HIF would retain a minority ownership interest once an HPC lease was executed.

TLDR:

US spot Bitcoin ETFs lost $82.39M on October 16, with BlackRock’s IBIT accounting for $71.78M.
Ethereum ETFs recorded $69.68M in outflows, marking their third consecutive day of withdrawals.
Bitcoin open interest rose 4.5% as its price fell 2.68%, raising concerns about leveraged long positions.
Cryptoinsightuk sees a possible BTC correction toward $75,000, but the outcome remains uncertain.

Bitcoin ETF outflows reached $82.39 million on October 16, as spot Ethereum ETFs lost another $69.68 million. The withdrawals coincided with Bitcoin trading at $81,381.41, down 0.38% over 24 hours and 1.41% over seven days. 

BlackRock’s iShares Bitcoin Trust (IBIT) accounted for $71.78 million in Bitcoin ETF outflows, while its Ethereum fund, ETHA, recorded $69.68 million in withdrawals. 

Meanwhile, market analyst Cryptoinsightuk warned that Bitcoin could face a deeper correction toward $75,000. He cited rising leveraged long exposure, positive funding rates, and liquidity below Ethereum’s market price.

Bitcoin ETF Outflows Reach $82.39 Million as BlackRock Leads Withdrawals
According to Wu Blockchain, US spot Bitcoin ETFs recorded $82.39 million in net outflows on October 16. 

BlackRock’s IBIT accounted for $71.78 million, while Fidelity’s fund lost $10.61 million. Crypto Patel’s flow data showed that investors withdrew approximately 1,014 BTC across the two funds.

Spot Ethereum ETFs recorded $69.68 million in net outflows, marking their third consecutive day of withdrawals. 

BlackRock’s ETHA accounted for the entire daily outflow, equivalent to 28,960 ETH. These figures indicate that selling pressure extended beyond Bitcoin into Ethereum investment products.

Other crypto ETFs also recorded net outflows. 

Solana funds lost $12.67 million, XRP funds shed $2.47 million, and Chainlink funds recorded $397,260 in withdrawals. Zcash and Hedera products also posted outflows of $1.22 million and $558,980, respectively.

NEAR ETFs were the exception, attracting $2.61 million in net inflows. 

Crypto Patel reported approximately $166.78 million in total net outflows across US spot crypto ETFs. These figures show broad-based withdrawals, although individual fund flows do not establish the direction of the entire crypto market.

Bitcoin Price Faces $75,000 Risk as Leverage Builds
Bitcoin’s price structure remains central to the market outlook. 

Cryptoinsightuk said Bitcoin may have completed an initial five-wave advance from lows near $57,000. However, he considers a deeper corrective move toward $75,000 more likely than an already completed correction.

His analysis points to positive funding rates and rising open interest. 

Since Bitcoin traded near $84,000, open interest increased approximately 4.5%, while its price declined 2.68%. This combination suggests traders continued adding exposure as the market moved lower.

The market is grappling with whether the next move is a leg higher or a leg lower.

We’ve seen what looks like exuberance across a lot of equities, but recently AI stocks have started to cool off. That’s caused some panic, pushing the Fear and Greed Index back into fear.

I’m… pic.twitter.com/urDmFQ6RTb

— Cryptoinsightuk (@Cryptoinsightuk) October 17, 2026

Positive funding rates generally mean long-position holders pay short-position holders in perpetual futures markets. That can indicate crowded bullish positioning, although funding rates alone cannot confirm whether new positions are predominantly long.

If Bitcoin continues falling, leveraged long traders could face forced liquidations. Those liquidations may add selling pressure, potentially accelerating a decline toward the $75,000 region. 

Cryptoinsightuk also identified Ethereum liquidity approximately 6% to 9% below its current price as supporting context for his scenario.

ETF withdrawals and leveraged positioning are adding pressure to an already weakening market structure. However, neither ETF flows nor funding rates guarantee further declines. 

Bitcoin’s ability to stabilize above recent lows will help traders assess whether the correction is deepening or losing momentum.