Track market-moving stories before they get noisy

Bitcoin has long carried a reputation for extreme price swings that set it apart from conventional investments. A recent analysis from Grayscale, however, places those movements in a more familiar context by measuring them against individual stocks in the S&P 500.

According to the firm’s research note published on October 14, 2026, Bitcoin’s realized volatility over the past year stood at 43 percent.

That figure sits below the asset’s 10-year average of 64 percent and well under the 81 percent level recorded five years earlier.

Realized volatility tracks actual historical price movements rather than market expectations of future moves.

The one-year reading now falls inside the distribution of volatility observed among S&P 500 constituents.

More specifically, Bitcoin’s recent volatility was lower than that of 19 percent of the companies in the index, meaning a meaningful share of large-cap equities experienced larger price fluctuations over the same period.

The decline is not limited to the most recent twelve months.

Over the past decade, Bitcoin’s price swings have narrowed considerably as the market has matured.

Grayscale attributes the change to several structural developments: deeper market liquidity, broader institutional participation, and the expansion of regulated access points, including the spot Bitcoin exchange-traded products approved in the United States in 2024.

These factors have reduced the extremes that characterized the asset’s earlier years, when thin order books and limited institutional involvement amplified moves in both directions.

Even with the reduction, Bitcoin’s volatility remains higher than that of most individual S&P 500 stocks in the comparison sample.

The firm’s researchers note, however, that it no longer occupies a distinctly separate risk category.

The practical implication for portfolio construction is a shift in the central question investors face.

Rather than debating whether to hold an asset perceived as uniquely volatile, the focus moves to determining an appropriate position size that aligns with an investor’s overall risk tolerance and the way the holding interacts with the rest of a portfolio.

The same position-sizing and diversification tools already applied to high-volatility equities can be used for Bitcoin.

A single year of data does not fully capture Bitcoin’s behavior across complete market cycles, and realized volatility is inherently backward-looking. Still, the comparison supplies a concrete reference point against widely owned equities.

For investors who already allocate to volatile stocks—particularly growth-oriented names—the magnitude of Bitcoin’s recent price fluctuations may appear less exceptional than its long-standing reputation suggests.

The research emphasizes that any potential allocation still warrants the same disciplined evaluation of risk and opportunity applied to other holdings.

Grayscale’s analysis draws on data from Artemis as of October 14, 2026.

The findings align with broader observations that 2025 ranked among the least volatile years on record for the asset, according to separate research from K33. Together, the numbers illustrate how market infrastructure and participant mix have altered Bitcoin’s day-to-day behavior, even as larger drawdowns remain possible during periods of stress.

Stacks has laid out its fourth-quarter game plan, and it centers on getting more Bitcoin locked into its system.

The Bitcoin layer 2 protocol says Q4 will focus on growing BTC bonds, putting that BTC to work in ecosystem apps, and shipping the Epoch 4.1 network upgrade in early December.

The priorities arrived alongside the protocol’s Q3 Ecosystem Report, released on October 15, 2026.

Monthly bonds and a December upgrade Stacks plans to run Bitcoin Staking bonding periods on a monthly schedule. The first of these monthly windows, Bond 3, is slated to open around November 10, 2026.

Bitcoin Staking has drawn 735 BTC in total across its first two phases. That figure splits into 250 BTC from the inaugural Genesis Bond and 505 BTC from Period 2.

The other big Q4 item is Epoch 4.1, the next network upgrade, which Stacks is targeting for early December. Epoch 4.1 will make Clarity 7 the default for new smart contracts on the network.

Stacks says the exact activation block height will be announced 30 days ahead of time.

Staking growth and a leadership shift The Q3 report also pointed to a jump in STX staking. After the PoX-5 upgrade, the amount of staked STX climbed from 392 million to 493 million, an increase of more than 25%.

STX rose approximately 50% over the four weeks leading to October 13, 2026, outperforming Bitcoin across that stretch. The research findings tie that outperformance to increased institutional participation in liquid staking.

The report landed alongside a leadership change. Stacks founder Muneeb Ali transitioned to CEO of Stacks Labs as the report was released.

With the new role came a long-range strategic vision branded the “Satoshi Upgrades.” The plan aims to expand Bitcoin’s capabilities in three areas: capital markets, privacy, and post-quantum security, with a timeline running through 2030.

What this means for Stacks and BTC holders For developers, Epoch 4.1 is the item to circle on the calendar. Clarity 7 becoming the default for new contracts means teams building in December and beyond should plan around the updated version. The 30-day notice on the activation block height gives node operators, app teams, and anyone running infrastructure a month of notice before the switch flips.

Stacks is juggling a new bonding cadence, an app-integration push, a December upgrade, and a CEO transition, all in a single quarter.

The near-term scorecard is simple: watch Bond 3 intake around November 10, watch for the Epoch 4.1 block height announcement, and watch whether the BTC flowing into Stacks starts showing up inside actual apps.

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

Michael Saylor has hinted at another Bitcoin purchase for Strategy after the company reported holdings of 848,250 BTC, acquired for approximately $64 billion, in its latest weekly disclosure.

Summary

Michael Saylor hinted at further Bitcoin accumulation, although Strategy has not confirmed another purchase this weekend. Strategy’s latest filing shows holdings of 848,250 BTC, acquired for approximately $64 billion including transaction costs. The company bought 250 Bitcoin for $21.5 million during the week ending October 11, its latest disclosure. Strategy spent $192.4 million buying back STRC shares, nearly nine times its weekly Bitcoin purchase expenditure. Bitcoin traded near $81,000 on October 18, keeping Strategy’s holdings above their reported average acquisition cost. In an October 18 post on X, the Strategy co-founder wrote, “We found room for more orange,” alongside a chart showing the company’s Bitcoin buying history. The message suggested further accumulation but did not disclose a transaction amount, purchase date or confirmation of an executed trade.

Strategy’s latest official report, released October 12, showed that the company had purchased 250 BTC for 21.5millionduringtheweekendingOctober11.Ithadspentconsiderablymore—192.4 million—buying back its STRC preferred shares during the same period.

Bitcoin was trading near $81,000 on October 18, according to CoinGecko, placing the market price above Strategy’s reported average Bitcoin acquisition cost of $75,444.

Saylor hints at another Bitcoin purchase without confirming a deal Saylor’s Sunday post continued his practice of publishing charts showing Strategy’s Bitcoin transactions, with purchases represented by orange markers.

His message did not say how many coins the company might acquire or whether an additional transaction had already taken place.

The latest confirmed ownership figure remains 848,250 BTC, according to the company’s October 12 regulatory disclosure, covering activity through October 11.

Strategy’s purchases can be funded through several sources, including sales of common shares, preferred stock offerings and available company cash.

A new chart or social media message, however, does not establish that a transaction has been completed. Confirmation normally comes through the company’s financial disclosures, which identify the number of Bitcoin acquired, total spending and the resulting balance. Earlier this month, Saylor shared a similar message before the company announced its next weekly transactions.

On October 4, he posted another accumulation chart with the words “More orange than ever,” while Strategy’s latest disclosed Bitcoin holdings stood at 847,666 BTC. Crypto.news previously covered the October teaser, which followed a confirmed purchase of 1,665 BTC during the preceding reporting period. The October 18 post comes after Strategy released another set of figures showing a smaller weekly Bitcoin acquisition and substantial preferred-share repurchases.

A new filing covering purchases after October 11 would be needed to determine whether the latest message preceded an actual transaction.

In its October 12 filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, Strategy reported purchasing 250 BTC between October 5 and October 11.

The company spent approximately $21.5 million on those coins, paying an average of $86,194 per Bitcoin, including fees and expenses. Following that purchase, total holdings reached 848,250 BTC. Strategy reported aggregate acquisition costs of approximately $64 billion and an average purchase price of $75,444 per coin.

The holding represents roughly 4.04% of Bitcoin’s maximum supply of 21 million coins. That comparison uses Bitcoin’s fixed maximum issuance, not the number of coins currently circulating or available on exchanges. Strategy funded $21 million of the latest purchase using proceeds from sales of its Class A common stock, MSTR. Another $500,000 came from existing company cash.

The company sold 125,183 MSTR shares during the week, generating approximately $21 million in net proceeds. Its filing showed that approximately $18.81 billion of MSTR shares remained available for future issuance and sale under its existing at-the-market program as of October 11.

The availability of that issuance capacity does not mean the company has already sold those shares or committed the proceeds to Bitcoin purchases. Strategy’s reported average cost of $75,444 remains below Bitcoin’s October 18 market price. CoinGecko placed BTC at approximately $81,059 during the market check, with its 24-hour trading range running from $80,823 to $82,178.

At that price, multiplying 848,250 BTC by $81,059 gives an indicative portfolio value of approximately $68.76 billion. Compared with its reported $64 billion acquisition cost, the difference is around $4.76 billion before accounting for other company financial obligations, taxes or valuation adjustments. Those estimates depend on the market price used for the calculation and are not equivalent to Strategy’s company-level net profit.

STRC buybacks exceed latest Bitcoin spending Although Strategy continued buying Bitcoin during the week ending October 11, most of the spending disclosed across its Bitcoin acquisitions and preferred-share repurchases went toward STRC.

The company bought back 1,932,145 shares of its Variable Rate Series A Perpetual Stretch Preferred Stock for approximately $192.4 million. That compares with the $21.5 million spent purchasing Bitcoin during the same seven-day reporting period.

Dividing the two amounts shows that the STRC repurchase was approximately 8.95 times the value of the Bitcoin purchase. The comparison covers two disclosed transactions, not all of Strategy’s corporate spending. STRC is one of several preferred-stock instruments issued by Strategy to raise capital and finance its operations. The security pays variable dividends, creating ongoing financial obligations for the company.

Repurchasing preferred shares can reduce the number of outstanding securities on which Strategy must make future dividend payments.

However, the October 12 filing does not establish that management chose to repurchase STRC specifically because its yield had reached 12.31%, as asserted in the supplied report. Strategy’s previous weekly capital allocation report covered the same $192.4 million buyback alongside the acquisition of 250 BTC.

A subsequent analysis of its share repurchases examined the distinction between funds used to buy cryptocurrency and those used to manage the company’s preferred-stock obligations.

According to the company’s official filing, approximately $354.8 million remained authorized under its digital credit securities repurchase program after the latest transactions. An additional $1 billion authorization remained available under its separate MSTR common-stock repurchase program. Neither authorization represents a completed transaction. The amounts establish the remaining capacity under the announced programs.

Strategy retains $5.52 billion in dollar assets Alongside its cryptocurrency holdings and preferred-share repurchases, Strategy reported substantial dollar-denominated assets. As of October 11, its designated USD Reserve totaled $4.88 billion, while other USD Cash stood at $640.5 million.

Combined, those balances equaled approximately $5.52 billion. The company’s filings describe the USD Reserve as money maintained to support preferred-stock dividends and interest payments on outstanding debt. Its separate USD Cash balance serves a different purpose, supporting general Bitcoin treasury activities, possible Bitcoin acquisitions, reserve additions and other capital-management uses.

During the October 5–11 period, Strategy used $500,000 of USD Cash to supplement the proceeds from common-stock sales used to purchase Bitcoin. The filing does not indicate that the entire combined $5.52 billion is intended for new Bitcoin acquisitions. The company had previously reported using part of its available cash to repurchase preferred shares, making its capital position dependent on more than the size of its Bitcoin holdings.

In related corporate treasury activity, an October 14 comparison of share buybacks examined how Strategy and Japanese Bitcoin holder Metaplanet were managing purchases of their own securities alongside cryptocurrency exposure. Strategy’s October 12 filing specified that $17.51 billion of STRC shares remained available for issuance and sale under its at-the-market offering program.

It reported no STRC shares sold during the latest week, while its common-stock sales supplied nearly all the funding for the newly acquired 250 BTC. The company ended that reporting period with $640.5 million in general-purpose USD Cash and $4.88 billion in its designated reserve.

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

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.

ReasonTV

Michael Saylor, co-founder of Strategy Inc., presented Bitcoin as “digital capital” to investors at ParaFi Investor Day, focusing on the recovery of Strategy’s STRC preferred stock and the shift to daily dividends. Saylor highlighted the potential for Bitcoin to underpin a credit model, leveraging STRC’s dividend structure and buybacks. The presentation aimed to position STRC securities within a broader Bitcoin-backed financial strategy, although the transition to daily dividends remains contingent on shareholder approval.

Key Takeaways

Michael Saylor’s presentation appears consistent with supporting a YES outcome for STRC hitting $100, emphasizing Bitcoin’s role as digital capital.
Market pricing suggests increased confidence, with the December 31 sub-market showing 80.7% support for STRC reaching $100.
The move to daily dividends and STRC’s recovery to par value are central to Strategy’s financial strategy, though contingent on shareholder approval.

What to Watch
Markets will closely monitor any announcements from Strategy regarding shareholder approval for daily dividends, which could further support the YES scenario for STRC reaching $100. Additionally, any strategic Bitcoin acquisitions by Strategy could serve as key indicators of confidence in the underlying asset. Watch for updates on STRC’s dividend plans, as these may influence market perceptions and pricing dynamics.

Term Structure

Contract
Odds
Δ since publish
Volume 24h

December 31
80.7%
—
—
View market →

November 1 2026
22.5%
—
—
View market →

December 1 2026
67%
—
—
View market →

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.

Ethereum co-founder Vitalik Buterin shared a “fun fact of the day” on X, posting two detailed cost tables comparing Bitcoin mining economics to AI inference.

The numbers expose a clear gap: Bitcoin mining costs split roughly 50/50 between compute capex and electricity, while AI inference is dominated almost entirely by hardware capex.

That gap gives power-rich Bitcoin mining operations a structural flexibility advantage that pure AI operators largely cannot replicate.

Vitalik’s Numbers: Bitcoin Mining Is ~46% Electricity, AI Inference Is ~5% Buterin’s tables break down costs per unit of work. For Bitcoin mining, the approximate total cost per BTC mined sits near $93,700.

Compute capex, hardware, cooling, and power gear, accounts for roughly $37,600, or about 40%.

Electricity into the machines adds $40,600, or 43.3%. Other electricity costs lift the total electricity share to about 45.9%.

Labor accounts for $3,200 (3.4%). Facilities rent comes to $2,500 (2.7%). Other expenses, maintenance, insurance, and bandwidth, make up about $7,400 (7.9%).

AI inference per GPU-year tells a very different story. Total costs land near $26,260. Compute capex alone takes up $19,900, or roughly 76% of the total.

Electricity, by contrast, totals just $1,260 across all categories, barely 4.8% of the bill. Labor adds $1,400. Facilities rent comes in at $900. Other overheads make up around $2,800.

Buterin did not frame the comparison as a criticism of either model. He presented it as a factual contrast.

Wu Blockchain highlighted the post as a notable data point for the crypto-AI infrastructure debate, noting that Vitalik has been increasingly vocal on AI and crypto security risks.

He has also built a privacy-focused AI agent that limits identity and data leaks, signaling his deeper engagement with AI infrastructure questions.

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

Why Bitcoin Miners Are Structurally Positioned to Win in AI Hosting The cost gap carries a direct strategic implication. Because Bitcoin mining electricity costs are large and variable, miners with flexible power contracts can curtail or redirect capacity when hashprice falls.

AI inference operators have no such relief. Once a GPU cluster is financed and deployed, the capex clock ticks whether or not the hardware is fully utilized.

That explains the wave of miner-to-AI pivots already underway. Core Scientific signed an AI data center deal with AMD as it shifted capacity away from mining.

Bitcoin miner MARA is targeting AI growth through a $168M EDF deal. And Anthropic signed a 20-year data center lease with Bitcoin miner TeraWulf, locking in long-term power access through mining infrastructure.

VanEck has also made the case publicly. The asset manager argued that Bitcoin miners’ AI arbitrage could be a game-changer, pointing to the same structural cost gap Buterin’s tables now quantify precisely.

More broadly, Bitcoin miners are diversifying into AI and projecting billions in revenue from hosting and colocation contracts.

Buterin’s post adds a precise, data-backed foundation to a shift the industry has been tracking for months.

Miners that control large, flexible power contracts are not just hedging, they are sitting on a structural asset that AI-only operators cannot easily replicate.

And despite the AI-Bitcoin intersection narrative, Vitalik has rejected claims that AI could crash Bitcoin’s price by 50%, reinforcing his view that the two ecosystems are more complementary than competitive.

3 hours ago

Fidelity Digital Assets recently released an analysis noting that the 10-year U.S. Treasury yield has risen to its highest level since Bitcoin’s inception, while the size of U.S. federal debt has surpassed $40 trillion, with interest payments exceeding Medicare to become the second-largest expenditure item in the federal budget. Fidelity pointed out that Bitcoin’s correlation with the 10-year U.S. real interest rate was long low, but has gradually turned positive in recent years, rising above 0.6 in 2026, a record high. Over the past two months, Bitcoin has rallied nearly 30%, while the 10-year U.S. Treasury yield has jumped more than 10% in the same period. Fidelity argues that amid rising government debt, higher financing costs and growing concerns over fiscal intervention, Bitcoin’s fixed supply cap of 21 million coins may boost its appeal as a potential hedge against currency devaluation and a portfolio diversification tool. If current debt and interest rate trends persist, government interest payments could even become the largest expenditure item in the federal budget in the future. U.S. Treasury data shows that the U.S. federal budget deficit for fiscal 2026 rose to $1.99 trillion, up from $1.78 trillion in fiscal 2025, the highest level since the COVID-19 pandemic. Despite the Trump administration’s pledge to cut spending, military spending, Social Security expenditures and Treasury interest payments continue to climb, coupled with a decline in corporate tax revenue, further expanding the fiscal deficit.

Scan the QR code

Download APP

Bitcoin turned lower in late morning trade, retesting the $80,000 threshold heading into the weekend. The flagship cryptocurrency is down 1.3% to $80,970 Friday afternoon, according to pricing data from LSEG. The cryptocurrency had rallied along with the stock markets in morning trade, but succumbed to continued weakness seen in tech and AI stocks, following the 2.4% slide seen on the Nasdaq.

Bond yields turned higher in the afternoon, this after the Treasury Department passed on an opportunity to send a strong signal that it is considering reducing the sizes of bond auctions. Higher yields have been a pressure point for cryptocurrencies and general commodities, with investors cautious about engaging with what they perceive as "riskier" assets.

Crypto assets were supported in morning trade by dimming expectations for a near-term Federal Reserve rate hike. Fed Chairman Kevin Warsh avoided a clearly hawkish or dovish tone during a moderated conversation at the International Monetary Fund meetings in Bangkok. But for bitcoin, lacking demand for tokens on the spot market is a fundamental problem that hasn't gone away.

"The demand picture has not improved," said Colin Basco, a senior quantitative analyst with Coinbase Institutional. Basco attributes the upward movement seen in bitcoin earlier in the week to trading by leveraged long positions, as opposed to spot demand among investors. Net flows in and out of bitcoin ETFs, considered a metric of interest in the cryptocurrency among fund managers, have slid back into being more negative than positive for the week.

Through Thursday, bitcoin ETFs recorded a net outflow of $146 million, according to data from Coinglass. At the same time, analysts say that bitcoin's relative strength versus AI stocks this week is reason for optimism. Bitcoin shed roughly 3% this week, while the iShares Semiconductor ETF slipped 9%. Write to Kirk Maltais at [email protected] (END) Dow Jones Newswires 10-16-26 1543ET Copyright (c) 2026 Dow Jones & Company, Inc.

Standard Chartered is introducing a cryptocurrency trading solution that lets its wealthy UAE clients buy and sell Bitcoin and Ethereum directly through their existing bank accounts in a closed-loop system with institutional custody.

The bank says this marks a global first for the institution and the UAE’s first such offering by an international bank, regulated by the Virtual Assets Regulatory Authority (VARA).

Eligible affluent clients can execute trades within the bank’s ecosystem where Standard Chartered handles custody and settlement to reduce third-party risks through collaboration with its wealth and corporate businesses plus SC Ventures-backed Zodia Markets.

The service launches first for Professional Investor clients in the UAE with expansion planned to other markets later and builds on the bank’s existing crypto access through ETFs, structured products and OTC derivatives.

Samir Subberwal, Global Head of Wealth Solutions at the bank, highlights growing client interest in digital assets.

“With digital assets moving into mainstream wealth conversations, clients are increasingly looking not only for access, but also for the security, trust and confidence that comes from investing through a regulated and trusted institution.”

Rola Abu Manneh, CEO for UAE, Middle East and Pakistan at Standard Chartered, notes the strategic fit with the region.

“We are proud to be the first international bank in the UAE to launch a cryptocurrency trading offering. The UAE was a natural choice for this launch, given the country’s forward-looking approach to innovation, strong regulatory environment and growing leadership in digital assets. This also reflects the strategic importance of the UAE within our network as one of our four global wealth hubs.”

Generated Image: Midjourney

46 minutes ago

The Quantum Alliance, a consortium of nine crypto firms, was launched today. Publicly disclosed members include security company Hacken, Charles Hoskinson’s Midnight Foundation, quantum-resistant Layer 1 blockchain Quantus, and Postquant Labs; additional members have not yet been individually named. The alliance will develop common security standards for blockchains such as Bitcoin and Ethereum. It is estimated that roughly 6.4 million Bitcoin—representing 30.2% of the total supply—have exposed public keys, including around 1.1 million linked to Satoshi Nakamoto. Existing quantum computers are not yet capable of stealing these assets. However, the Quantum Alliance has significant internal divisions over the quantum threat timeline and response strategies. Bryn Bennett, chief revenue officer at The Vault, stated no one knows the exact date, but estimates of when quantum threats will become actionable are constantly advancing. Richard Carback, CTO of Postquant Labs, believes 2028 is a realistic timeline. The core debate centers on whether to freeze vulnerable assets. Carback advocates for transferring rather than freezing, while Bennett points out that freezing is a governance decision for the Bitcoin network, and any freeze would set a precedent that trades property rights and network neutrality for quantum risk. Previously, CZ suggested freezing Satoshi’s Bitcoin, and developer Jameson Lopp also proposed restricting vulnerable tokens, though critics argue this violates Bitcoin’s fundamental promise of non-seizure. Moving forward, the alliance plans to publish joint security testing and migration guidelines.

Scan the QR code

Download APP

Google has demonstrated a 40-fold reduction in quantum computing errors using its Willow processor, advancing a technology that researchers believe could eventually challenge the cryptography protecting Bitcoin.

Summary

Google reduced quantum computing errors approximately 40-fold using magic state cultivation on its Willow processor. Google’s researchers achieved 99.99% logical fidelity while testing purified quantum states on real computing hardware. Glassnode estimated 6.04 million BTC had exposed public keys, representing 30.2% of mined Bitcoin. Google’s earlier research estimated future cryptographic attacks could require fewer than 500,000 physical quantum qubits. Coinbase published Bitcoin security recommendations on October 13, addressing migration challenges and vulnerable legacy coins. Google announced the results on October 15, 2026, following the publication of its research in the scientific journal Science. The experiment used a technique called magic state cultivation to produce quantum states with 99.99% logical fidelity, or accuracy, under the researchers’ testing method. 

The achievement addresses a technical problem that has limited efforts to build reliable quantum computers. Although Google’s experiment did not break Bitcoin’s encryption, its findings concern technology that could eventually help future machines perform the calculations needed to attack existing cryptographic systems.

JUST IN: Google’s Willow chip advances quantum computing, raising fresh questions about Bitcoin’s security

A new technique called “magic state cultivation” cuts quantum errors roughly 40x with 99.99% accuracy, but scaling it up remains a challenge before quantum computers could… pic.twitter.com/9gL46tAPJT

— crypto.news (@cryptodotnews) October 16, 2026 The research follows Google’s March assessment that a sufficiently powerful quantum computer could break the type of elliptic curve cryptography used by Bitcoin with fewer than 500,000 physical qubits under specified hardware assumptions.

Google cuts quantum computing errors by 40 times Google’s latest experiment focused on reducing errors in special quantum states used to perform certain advanced calculations. Known as magic states, they provide resources needed for operations that ordinary quantum error-correction methods cannot perform on their own.

Creating these states has been one of the expensive parts of quantum computing. According to Google’s researchers, some estimates suggest that producing sufficiently reliable magic states could consume as much as 95% of a quantum computer’s capacity.

The new method begins with a quantum state that contains errors and subjects it to repeated checks. Attempts that fail the tests are discarded, leaving the successful ones with substantially lower error rates.

Using the Willow processor, Google demonstrated that the cultivation process reduced errors by approximately 40 times compared with states created without the method. Its researchers reported a record logical fidelity of 99.99% for the resulting T-states, which are used in important quantum computing operations.

Research scientists Emma Rosenfeld and Craig Gidney described the result as the first experimental demonstration of an efficient method for producing these resources on real quantum hardware.

The team developed the approach from theoretical work conducted in 2024 by Gidney, Noah Shutty, and Cody Jones. Turning the proposal into a working experiment required changes to both the hardware controls and the techniques used to measure errors.

During testing, researchers discovered that electrical drift and temperature variations were interfering with their measurements. They introduced new controls and developed a benchmarking method that allowed the cultivation process to help verify its own accuracy.

Google subsequently demonstrated that purified states could transfer between two quantum error-correction methods, known as color codes and surface codes. The experiment successfully moved a state from a distance-3 color code into a distance-5 surface code.

The company cautioned that the technique still needs testing at larger scales before it can support practical quantum computers.

What Google’s quantum advance means for Bitcoin security Bitcoin uses public-key cryptography to authorize transactions and prove that funds are being spent by their rightful owners. Private keys remain secret, while public keys can be used to verify digital signatures.

A sufficiently powerful quantum computer running Shor’s algorithm could theoretically calculate a private key from an exposed public key. Such an attack would threaten funds protected by existing elliptic curve signature systems.

In March 2026, Google researchers estimated that future machines could break 256-bit elliptic curve cryptography using fewer than 500,000 physical qubits. The research involved hardware assumptions and calculations that have not been demonstrated on a machine capable of attacking Bitcoin. 

The estimate represented approximately a 20-fold reduction from earlier resource calculations. Google’s researchers developed optimized quantum circuits intended to perform the mathematical operations required to recover private keys from public keys.

However, the work still requires millions of quantum operations and reliable error correction. Magic states are needed to support some of those operations, making Google’s latest experiment relevant to the technical requirements identified in its earlier research.

The Willow processor contains 105 physical qubits, far below the resources described in Google’s Bitcoin security study. Its latest achievement involved preparing and verifying quantum states, not extracting cryptocurrency private keys.

As previously examined in Google’s accelerated quantum security timeline, the company has urged organizations to prepare for post-quantum cryptography before capable machines become available.

Google has not announced when its cultivation method will work at the scale needed for practical cryptographic attacks. The company acknowledged that technical challenges remain in expanding the experiment to larger systems.

Glassnode identifies 6.04 million BTC with exposed public keys The potential threat to Bitcoin depends partly on whether an attacker’s target has a publicly visible cryptographic key.

Blockchain analytics firm Glassnode estimated in May that approximately 6.04 million BTC, equivalent to 30.2% of the mined supply at the time, had public-key exposure while sitting in unspent transaction outputs.

The research separated exposed holdings into two categories. Approximately 1.92 million BTC were classified as structurally exposed because their address formats revealed public keys by design.

Another 4.12 million BTC were considered operationally exposed through practices such as address reuse and partial spending. In certain transaction structures, spending Bitcoin reveals a public key that was previously hidden behind a cryptographic hash.

The figures measure exposure under Glassnode’s methodology, not coins that quantum computers can currently steal. They do not establish that all 6.04 million BTC would be accessible to an attacker under identical conditions.

The findings were covered in an earlier report on quantum computing risks to blockchain security, which examined European regulatory concerns and the concentration of Bitcoin in potentially vulnerable addresses.

Another challenge involves coins whose owners may no longer possess the private keys needed to move them. Researchers have estimated that millions of BTC could remain in old wallets because their owners lost access, abandoned the accounts, or have not moved the holdings for years.

A June study by Quantus estimated that approximately 2.3 million BTC could be difficult or impossible to migrate using ordinary wallet procedures.

The research, previously examined in warnings about lost Bitcoin and future quantum attacks, described potential risks involving dormant wallets and early Bitcoin holdings.

Those figures remain estimates. Public blockchain data cannot conclusively determine whether an inactive wallet’s owner has lost access or simply chosen not to spend the coins.

Coinbase proposes steps to protect Bitcoin from quantum attacks As researchers continue improving quantum hardware, cryptocurrency companies are examining how Bitcoin could transition to signature systems designed to resist quantum attacks.

On October 13, Coinbase published recommendations addressing Bitcoin’s long-term security, including the treatment of exposed coins, new wallet formats, and the practical challenges of replacing existing cryptographic signatures.

The exchange argued that protecting Bitcoin requires more than selecting a quantum-resistant algorithm. A successful transition would need to consider transaction fees, limited block space, wallet compatibility, custody systems, and the ability of independent nodes to verify transactions.

Coinbase described several possible approaches to coins that cannot move before a future security upgrade. Options included restrictions on spending from vulnerable addresses and recovery mechanisms that could allow legitimate owners to reclaim affected holdings.

The exchange did not present those possibilities as agreed Bitcoin policy. Decisions involving dormant coins and potential restrictions would require discussion and acceptance within Bitcoin’s decentralized development community.

For active wallets, Coinbase supported allowing users to adopt quantum-resistant options through a staged transition. The proposal would give developers and custodians time to test new signature systems before existing protections become vulnerable.

Some Bitcoin developers have already proposed changes through Bitcoin Improvement Proposals, including BIP-360, which introduces a proposed output type intended to reduce public-key exposure in certain circumstances.

Researchers have warned that migrating large numbers of Bitcoin transactions could require several years, depending on the selected signature system, network capacity, and the number of users moving their funds.

A separate June study projected that a migration beginning in 2026 might finish between 2029 and 2031 under its assumptions. The calculation remains conditional, and Bitcoin has not approved a network-wide deadline for switching to post-quantum signatures.

Google’s latest research provides a new experimental result for quantum hardware development, while Coinbase’s October recommendations remain open for discussion among Bitcoin developers, researchers, custodians, and other network participants.

The US is hoarding Bitcoin (BTC), turning net importer in 2026 for the first time since 2022, while the rest of the world buys dollar stablecoins, Chainalysis data shows.

The 2026 Geography of Crypto report covers the 12 months to July 1. Chainalysis ties the split to need, since Americans already hold dollars and users elsewhere want them without a US bank account.

Why Is the US Hoarding Bitcoin While Everyone Else Wants Dollars?Chainalysis pooled on-chain service inflows, order book volume, and cross-border position into one Bitcoin index. The US scored 0.96 in 2026 against 0.52 elsewhere, a lead of 0.44 that stood at 0.09 in 2024.

The stablecoin index runs the other way. The rest of the world scored 1.00 and the US 0.56, a deficit that was 0.05 in 2024.

US hoarding Bitcoin while rest of world adopts stablecoins, Chainalysis index finds: Source: ChainanlysisAmericans, meanwhile, treat Bitcoin as a scarce store of value. Will Su, Managing Director and Head of Digital Assets Research at BlackRock, described that demand to Chainalysis.

“Investor interest in bitcoin as a monetary alternative remains strong, particularly as government debt and spending reach new highs globally.”

Will Su, BlackRock, via Chainalysis

Flow data fits the pattern. Transfers below $10,000 left the US on net each period, yet those above $10 million alone brought in 53,200 BTC. Chainalysis describes retail sending Bitcoin out and institutions bringing it in.

Which Trade Lasts Longer?Chainalysis says Bitcoin accumulation depends on institutions’ allocation decisions, which shift with market sentiment. Users who adopt digital dollars, it argues, are unlikely to turn back.

Dollar-pegged tokens account for 99.1% of stablecoin volume on exchange order books. Euro-backed tokens hold 0.45%, despite the European Union’s Markets in Crypto-Assets (MiCA) rules for stablecoin issuers.

The crypto economy of the US and Canada has almost doubled in the past 2 years. Source: ChainanalysisStablecoin reserves sit largely in short-dated US government debt, so overseas demand for digital dollars becomes demand for Treasuries. The pattern repeats in tokenized Treasury demand, where Italy, Portugal, and Singapore each hold more value than US holders.

Singapore and Hong Kong have introduced stablecoin licensing frameworks, yet Chainalysis says rules have moved faster than users.

A hacker operating a widespread “task scam” scheme has lost approximately 60 Bitcoins, valued at around $4.8 million, as a result of the recent Ledger hardware wallet hack. The stolen amount highlights both the scale and reach of the security breach affecting the crypto hardware wallet sector.

Scammer among major victims in hardware wallet exploitChainalysis, a blockchain analytics company, reported that the scam operator initially transferred illicitly acquired Bitcoin into three separate Ledger wallets on September 22. On October 9, these funds were consolidated and sent to a wallet previously linked to stolen assets.

Despite the significant loss to the scammer, there is currently no indication that the original victims of his scheme have recovered their funds.

Task scams often involve building trust with small payouts before pressuring individuals to deposit additional money under false pretenses such as a “negative balance.”

How task scams target individualsThe accused operator organized fake jobs and paid participants to carry out fabricated sales and reviews. After a period of building trust, victims were informed of an alleged negative balance and were persuaded to deposit their own money to receive promised payouts.

In 2024, the US Federal Trade Commission (FTC) described similar fraudulent schemes where small online tasks create the illusion of legitimate employment. The FTC estimated that about 20,000 reports concerning task scams had been filed in the first half of 2024, with overall job scam losses surpassing $220 million.

Tampered Ledger devices and method of attackAccording to a statement from Ledger, the perpetrators purchased genuine hardware wallet devices, implanted malicious components within them, and then reintroduced the tampered products into Southeast Asian distributor channels. These modifications enabled the collection of 24-word recovery phrases during device setup, giving attackers remote access to affected wallets.

Ledger maintains that its systems remain secure and has instructed authorized sellers to cease displaying devices openly, supplying them only at the time of purchase.

Mini dictionary: Ledger is a French company specializing in cryptocurrency hardware wallets, widely used for the self-custody of digital assets.

Damage assessment and expanding industry responseWhile Ledger has not provided an official loss total, Bitquery, a blockchain analytics firm, estimated that around $102 million was stolen from 324 wallets spread across six blockchains: TRON, Bitcoin, Ethereum, Solana, BNB Chain, and Polygon. This figure increased from a prior estimate of $86 million.

Bitquery identified CryptoBilis, a hardware wallet reseller operating in Indonesia, Malaysia, and the Philippines, as an origin point for the affected devices. Stolen funds showed coordinated movement, including $10 million in USDT that Tether subsequently froze. Further portions of the assets were traced through protocols such as Tornado Cash and THORChain.

BlockchainEstimated Stolen FundsNotable ActionsBitcoin~$60 millionLinked to task scammer lossEthereumn/aFunds moved via mixersTRONn/aIncluded in total loss countSolanan/aPart of affected walletsBNB Chainn/aPart of affected walletsPolygonn/aPart of affected walletsMini dictionary: Tornado Cash and THORChain are decentralized protocols that enable the mixing or swapping of cryptocurrencies, often used to obfuscate the origin and movement of digital assets.

Growing industry concerns and countermeasuresThe Ledger incident has intensified concerns regarding cryptocurrency security and the vulnerability of hardware wallet supply chains. TRM Labs reported 207 crypto attacks during the first half of 2026, with $972 million in losses. Notably, while infrastructure and operational breaches made up 15% of attacks, they accounted for 76% of overall losses.

Although the recent Ledger theft has captured industry attention, researchers have not identified a significant impact on overall cryptocurrency market prices.

Chainalysis observed that despite several high-profile thefts, on-chain economic activity decreased only 1.6% during a period when the broader crypto market capitalization dropped by about half, though these statistics predate the Ledger hack.

In response to ongoing threats, hardware wallet manufacturers and resellers are adjusting their security policies. Trezor, a leading hardware wallet provider, announced the termination of some reseller authorizations effective January 1, 2027. OneKey, another wallet producer, ended its relationship with CryptoBilis. Industry sources indicate that these measures aim to address supply chain weaknesses but restoring full trust in self-custody solutions remains a challenge.

The average US spot Bitcoin ETF holder spent most of 2026 underwater. According to ARK Invest, that is no longer the case.

The firm reports that holders’ investment gained 43% in a single quarter, a move it says indicates the market may be turning positive.

From deep outflows to a record week Rewind to mid-July. Cumulative net outflows from US spot Bitcoin ETFs had reached approximately $5.8 billion, driven by Bitcoin’s choppy price action.

Then the price turned. Bitcoin climbed from about $59,500 in early July to around $85,000 by early October, a gain of roughly 42.9%.

That rally mattered for one specific number: the average holder’s cost basis. Estimates put it between $81,722 and $82,000.

Cost basis is simply the average price investors paid to get in. Once Bitcoin traded above that range, the typical ETF buyer was sitting on a profit for the first time since January.

The flows followed the price. In the week ending September 25, 2026, US spot Bitcoin ETFs took in net inflows of approximately $2.4 billion.

That was the biggest weekly haul since October 2025. It also flipped total 2026 flows back into positive territory, with estimates ranging from $800 million to $934 million.

Who led the charge The single biggest day came on September 21, when inflows hit nearly $999 million.

BlackRock’s IBIT led the category. ARK’s own product, the ARK 21Shares Bitcoin ETF, ticker ARKB, pulled in roughly $289 to $295 million during its peak week in September.

Across the funds, ETF holdings grew by approximately 88,000 BTC since July, lining up closely with the price surge.

What this means for investors The most important figure here may be the cost basis range itself. With Bitcoin around $85,000 and the average entry near $81,722 to $82,000, the typical holder’s cushion is only a few thousand dollars.

ARK’s framing describes the market as one that may be turning positive. Note the hedge: may.

The flow data does point to renewed institutional engagement. A $2.4 billion week and a near-$999 million day are not the behavior of a crowd that has given up on the asset.

The approximately $5.8 billion outflow by mid-July happened because holders reacted to losses, and the reversal happened because they reacted to gains.

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

FOMC Polymarket betting odds show traders pricing a 73% chance that the Federal Reserve leaves interest rates unchanged at its October 27–28 meeting, against 27% for a 25-basis-point hike.

The odds come from Polymarket’s October contract, which has traded more than $41.5 million in volume. They are a market-implied probability, not a poll or an official Fed forecast, and they have moved quickly. An earlier snapshot taken at 07:53 UTC on October 15 showed a 75.5% chance of a hold, and hotter inflation data has arrived since.

The Kobeissi Letter reported that September PPI inflation rose to 6.3% against expectations of 5.3%, with core PPI at 5.0% against 4.4%, and that rate-hike odds were climbing on the news.

For Bitcoin traders, the odds put a number on one near-term macro risk: whether the next Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) decision changes borrowing costs.

Rates shape Treasury yields, the dollar and appetite for risk assets, but the contract does not show who is trading it or how BTC will react.

Fed Decision in October Polymarket Have a Gut Feeling? It Pays on Polymarket

What Do the FOMC Polymarket Betting Odds Measure? The contract tracks the change in the upper bound of the target federal funds rate compared with its level before the October meeting. Besides a hold and a 25-basis-point hike, the listed outcomes include a hike of 50 basis points or more and cuts of 25 or 50 basis points or more, all of which are priced below 1%. A basis point is one-hundredth of a percentage point. If a decision does not match a listed outcome, the market rules round the change up to the nearest 25 basis points.

The market is scheduled to close on October 29, and its resolution is tied to the FOMC statement and Federal Reserve rate information. Because prices respond to every new data release, the odds should always be read with their timestamp.

Understanding the difference between prediction-market prices and conventional rate expectations matters when comparing signals. The distinction is explained in this guide to CME FedWatch and Polymarket rate odds.

Could a Fed Hold Ease Pressure on Bitcoin? JUST IN: Bitcoin falls under $80,000 pic.twitter.com/W98z2SlrdI

— Watcher.Guru (@WatcherGuru) October 15, 2026

An October hold could remove an immediate policy-change catalyst, but that is not the same as a bullish Bitcoin signal. A pause might bring near-term relief if it reduces concern about a sudden rate increase. Traders could also read it as tightening delayed rather than abandoned, and the December contract points that way: Polymarket prices an 80% chance of a 25-basis-point hike on December 9, against 19% for no change. A separate Polymarket market prices a 97% chance of zero Fed rate cuts in 2026.

The Federal Reserve’s September minutes describe market pricing and surveys that assigned considerable probability to at least 25 basis points of firming by year-end. They also describe persistent inflation, a resilient economy and uncertainty about the outlook. That is a description of market expectations, not a promise by the committee to raise rates in October or December.

For BTC, the practical distinction is between the immediate decision and the path markets anticipate afterward. A hold with language that keeps further increases in play could leave yields and the dollar sensitive to new inflation or economic data. A clearer pause in the expected path could ease that pressure, though the Polymarket contract itself does not predict Bitcoin’s price.

Bitcoin traders assessing October’s Bitcoin performance and macro risks still need to distinguish a single meeting’s outcome from the rate path beyond it.

DISCOVER: 10+ Next Crypto to 100X In 2026

When Is the Next Fed Decision? The Federal Reserve’s calendar lists the October 27–28 meeting, followed by a December 8–9 meeting. The October contract names the post-meeting FOMC statement as its resolution source, so the published decision, not the odds displayed beforehand, will determine the result.

Until then, the FOMC Polymarket betting odds are a changeable snapshot of market pricing. A hold would mean no adjustment to the target range at this meeting, but it would not tell Bitcoin traders whether the Federal Reserve considers its tightening cycle finished.

DISCOVER: 15+ Upcoming Coinbase Listings to Watch in 2026

Follow 99Bitcoins on X For the Latest Market Updates and Subscribe on YouTube For Daily Expert Market Analysis.

#Bitcoin News Today

Why you can trust 99Bitcoins

10+ Years

Established in 2013, 99Bitcoin’s team members have been crypto experts since Bitcoin’s Early days.

90hr+

Weekly Research

100k+

Monthly readers

50+

Expert contributors

2000+

Crypto Projects Reviewed

Follow 99Bitcoins on your Google News Feed

Get the latest updates, trends, and insights delivered straight to your fingertips. Subscribe now!

Subscribe now

Alan Draper

Free Bitcoin Crash Course Enjoyed by over 100,000 students. One email a day, 7 days in a row. Short and educational, guaranteed!

Bitcoin retested $82,000, and the move cost leveraged short sellers $20 million in liquidations.

What happened at $82,000 A short is a bet that price will fall. Add leverage, and that bet is made with borrowed money that an exchange can pull the moment the trade moves against you.

When Bitcoin pushed back toward $82,000, some of those positions hit their liquidation thresholds. Exchanges closed them automatically, wiping out $20 million in short exposure.

Forced closures of shorts also mean forced buying. Each liquidated short has to be bought back, which can add a little fuel to the move that caused it in the first place.

Total liquidations across crypto derivatives markets topped $1 billion during some stretches of October 2026. CoinGlass data showed long positions making up roughly 80-90% of those totals.

Specific flushes included $771 million in liquidations, mostly from long trades. Separate events wiped out $120 million and $485 million at other points.

Why $82,000 keeps coming up Bitcoin has spent early to mid-October 2026 trading near $82,000. It has retested that level several times and slipped below it more than once.

Rising oil prices, fresh US inflation data, rising Treasury yields and moves in Asian equity markets have all weighed on risk appetite.

Spot Bitcoin ETFs in the US have also seen outflows totaling hundreds of millions of dollars in a single week.

Traders have been watching a support zone around $81,000 to $82,000. A second line sits lower, near $80,100.

Leverage is shrinking, but it has not left the building The heavy long liquidations earlier in the month forced a partial clean-out of the derivatives market. Bitcoin futures open interest dropped to around $52.7 billion afterward.

What this means for traders and investors The $20 million short squeeze tells you positioning had shifted. After weeks of punishing longs, enough traders had turned bearish that a bounce to $82,000 could catch some of them offside.

Still, the size of this squeeze is a reminder to keep expectations calibrated. A $20 million flush is a ripple compared to the $771 million long wipeout.

For anyone trading with leverage, the $81,000 to $82,000 zone remains the line to watch. A clean break below it could put the $80,100 level in play.

For longer-term holders, if US spot Bitcoin ETFs stop bleeding capital, that would remove one of the clearer sources of pressure this month.

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

US spot Bitcoin ETFs posted $261.4 million in net outflows on October 14, according to daily tracking data from Farside Investors.

One fund broke from the pack. Bitwise’s BITB took in $2.2 million while the two largest products in the category bled cash.

Bitcoin’s funds weren’t the only ones hit. Spot Ethereum ETFs recorded $130 million in net outflows on the same day, so this was a broad retreat rather than a single-asset story.

Two heavyweights did most of the damage
Fidelity’s FBTC led the redemptions with $152.7 million heading out the door. BlackRock’s IBIT followed with $110.9 million in withdrawals.

Put those two together and you get $263.6 million. That is actually more than the net figure for the whole group.

The gap comes from BITB. Its $2.2 million inflow trimmed the combined FBTC and IBIT losses down to the $261.4 million total. The arithmetic suggests the rest of the field was roughly flat for the day.

Farside tracks net creations and redemptions across 12 US spot Bitcoin ETFs. On October 14, BITB was among the very few with a positive number.

October keeps changing its mind
The October 14 outflows land in a month that has swung hard in both directions.

On October 7, Bitcoin ETFs saw nearly $487 million pulled out, the standout withdrawal day of the month so far. Then on October 13, the same group of funds attracted $175.7 million in net inflows.

One day later, the money was leaving again.

That back-and-forth matters because ETF flows don’t stay on paper. When investors pour money in, the fund creates new shares and has to acquire Bitcoin to back them. When investors cash out, shares get redeemed, and that often means the fund sells some of its holdings.

So a day of $261.4 million in net redemptions can translate into actual selling pressure in the spot market.

A big pool with a choppy surface
US spot Bitcoin ETFs launched in January 2024 and quickly became a major on-ramp for institutional money.

Since launch, the products have gathered cumulative net inflows of more than $54 billion. Collectively, they hold assets worth approximately $100–107 billion as of mid-October.

Against that backdrop, a single $261.4 million outflow day is a modest dent. It represents well under 1% of total assets, even at the low end of that range.

Bitcoin itself has been trading in the low-to-mid $80,000 range during this stretch.

What this means for investors
The concentration of outflows in FBTC and IBIT is worth watching. These are the biggest funds by assets, so they naturally see the largest dollar moves in both directions. A heavy redemption day from them carries more weight for spot market supply than a similar percentage move in a smaller fund.

The Ethereum side deserves attention as well. A $130 million net outflow from spot Ether ETFs on the same day suggests the caution wasn’t confined to Bitcoin. When both major crypto ETF categories bleed simultaneously, it usually points to a broader risk-off mood rather than an asset-specific concern.

With more than $54 billion in cumulative net inflows since January 2024, the long-term structure of the Bitcoin ETF market looks intact. The short-term flows, however, show that even a $100 billion-plus asset base can move in noticeably different directions from one day to the next.

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

Strive, a Nasdaq-listed company specializing in corporate treasury management, has boosted its Bitcoin holdings with a new purchase of 2,822 BTC worth approximately $235 million. The acquisition, disclosed by CEO Matt Cole, took place between October 12 and October 13 at an average price of $83,266 per bitcoin.

Record-breaking Bitcoin reservesThis latest buy raised Strive’s total corporate Bitcoin stockpile to 35,595 BTC. With this figure, Strive overtook MARA Holdings, whose holdings stood at 35,577 BTC, securing fourth place among publicly listed companies with the largest Bitcoin reserves. The top three positions remain with Strategy (848,250 BTC), Metaplanet (44,000 BTC), and Twenty One Capital (43,514 BTC).

Just days before, Strive had completed another significant purchase, adding 3,311 BTC at an average price of $84,500, amounting to roughly $280 million. This prior acquisition raised the company’s reserves from 29,462 to 32,773 BTC.

Strive now holds 35,595 BTC in its treasury, topping MARA Holdings by 18 BTC and reaffirming its ongoing commitment to expand corporate crypto reserves.

In total, Strive acquired 6,133 BTC over the two most recent transactions, a combined outlay of around $515 million. The acquisitions, though occurring at different times, were announced on consecutive days, reflecting an 8.6% increase in Strive’s reserves.

Expansion of crypto treasuryEarlier in the year, Strive expanded its cryptocurrency assets by acquiring Semler Scientific. This move added approximately 5,048 BTC to Strive’s reserves. With the latest Bitcoin purchases, Strive’s treasury management strategy appears focused on maintaining long-term exposure to leading digital assets.

Strive’s corporate Bitcoin reserves now stand just ahead of MARA Holdings, but well below the leaders in this space.

CompanyBitcoin Holdings (BTC)Strategy848,250Metaplanet44,000Twenty One Capital43,514Strive35,595MARA Holdings35,577CEO Matt Cole previously mentioned the possibility for Strive to move up to the second position by year-end, but noted this was not his base-case expectation in September.

Financing and capital structureAlongside the new Bitcoin acquisition, Strive announced the exercise of 13,674,703 Class A common share warrants, resulting in gross proceeds of approximately $369.2 million. The exercise took place on October 12 and 13, with no outstanding traditional warrants remaining from the company’s latest private investment round.

The company noted that warrants allow the purchase of shares at predetermined prices, generating immediate cash inflow but also increasing the total number of shares in circulation.

Mini dictionary: Warrants are financial instruments that give holders the right, but not the obligation, to purchase company stock at a fixed price by a certain date. Companies often use warrants to raise capital and incentivize investors.

Strive has not disclosed what portion of the new proceeds funded the most recent Bitcoin acquisition, but maintains multiple financing channels including preferred stock and other equity offerings for its treasury operations.

Despite the aggressive accumulation, Strive’s shares came under pressure prior to the announcement. ASST stock closed at $27.59 on October 13, reflecting a decrease of 0.43%. The downward trend continued into pre-market trading on October 14, although there were no remarkable market reactions following the SEC filing.

Market performance and outlookFor the longer term, ASST stock has posted a strong performance, gaining approximately 87% year-to-date and more than 120% over the past three months, according to MarketBeat data.

Future Bitcoin acquisitions by Strive will depend on the company’s ongoing capital allocation strategies. Management has reaffirmed its approach of pairing treasury expansion with new financing options.

With continued BTC purchases and new capital inflows, Strive aims to remain a key player in the corporate crypto treasury sector while adapting its strategy to market dynamics.

MEXC CEO Vugar Usi Zade believes that Bitcoin is emerging from its bearish phase into a sustainable bull cycle, driven by growing institutional confidence and adoption. 

The current market, according to Zade,  differs greatly from the previous speculative cycles, with institutional adoption reinforcing Bitcoin’s foundation. He told AMBCrypto, 

The cryptocurrency market has entered a sustainable bull trend, fundamentally different from the speculative cycles of previous years.

So, Bitcoin’s price is gradually transitioning out of its bearish cycle.

Besides, he noted BTC reporting a 32% price recovery over the last 90 days, despite sitting below its $126,000 all-time high reached on October 6, 2025. 

According to Zade, Bitcoin could eventually reach $176,000, provided institutional demand remains elevated and wider economic conditions improve.

Bitcoin whales accumulate as exchange outflows deepen  Bitcoin’s large holders continued moving considerable amounts of BTC, supporting the accumulation story highlighted by Zade.

In particular, Lookonchain reported on  an X post that five new wallets received 1,162 BTC, worth roughly $96.77 million, from Wintermute within 12 hours.

Adding to the accumulation narrative, Bitcoin had recorded $116.14 million in weekly Spot net outflows at press time, reflecting more withdrawals than deposits across exchange platforms.

The  weekly outflows implied reducing exchange-held supply, potentially limiting the amount of Bitcoin readily available for selling.

These developments notably echoed Zade’s remarks that larger investors were greatly in favor of long-term accumulation. He noted, 

Furthermore, large Bitcoin holders have stopped selling, and coins are now flowing en masse into long-term accumulation wallets.

Source: Bitcoin Spot Netflows on CoinGlass ETF inflows surge as corporate Bitcoin holdings grow  Aside from the accumulation narrative, participation around institutions also remained elevated across Bitcoin investment products. 

Particularly,  Bitcoin’s Spot ETFs recorded $175.69 million in daily net inflows at reporting time. The cumulative ETF net inflows hit $57.68 billion, while the total ETF assets stood at $109.03 billion.

Additionally, the daily ETF trading volume had reached $2.36 billion, suggesting improved activity across the regulated investment products.

Also noteworthy, the corporate accumulation remained significant, with 60 publicly traded companies collectively holding 1.27 million BTC, valued nearly $105.53 billion.

The most recent weekly accumulation totaled 3,341.07 BTC, worth approximately $288.94 million .

Notably, these developments correlated with Zade’s comments that institutional market players  were becoming majorly influential in Bitcoin’s market structure.

Besides, the executive also identified $80,000 as a crucial institutional cost basis, arguing that established investors had reinforced that level as Bitcoin’s underlying support.

Source: BTC Public Companies Holdings on CoinGlass Final Summary MEXC CEO Vugar Usi Zade says Bitcoin has entered a sustainable bull cycle, with institutional adoption driving the shift. 

Five new wallets received 1,162 BTC from Wintermute, Spot ETFs pulled in $175.69M in a day, and 60 public companies now hold 1.27 million BTC.

Babylon Labs is pushing forward a plan to let people borrow on Aave V4 using Bitcoin that never leaves the Bitcoin network.

The pitch is simple. Your BTC stays put, you borrow against it, and nobody has to hold your coins for you.

The catch, as with most things in DeFi governance, is that the paperwork isn’t finished. Risk parameters still need to be set, and more Aave DAO votes are required before anything goes live on mainnet.

How the setup actually works
The proposal is built on Babylon’s Trustless Bitcoin Vaults protocol, or TBV. Instead of wrapping BTC into a token on another chain, TBV locks the coins in self-custodial Taproot UTXOs on Bitcoin itself.

Think of it as a safe deposit box with programmable rules. The box sits on Bitcoin, and the rules decide when the contents can move.

Those rules are enforced through Taproot scripts and zero-knowledge proofs. Put plainly, cryptography plays the role a custodian normally would, and no third party ever holds the keys.

On the Aave side, deposits show up through an internal accounting unit called vaultBTC. It acts as a verifiable record of the BTC sitting in vaults, which Aave can then treat as collateral.

The integration leans on Aave V4’s modular design, which organizes markets into components called spokes. Babylon’s plan adds two of them.

The first is the Babylon Core Lending Spoke. This is where borrowers would post vault-backed BTC and take out assets such as USDC, USDT and WBTC.

The second is the BTC Vault Swap Spoke. Its job is to handle the messy part of lending: liquidations.

The WBTC twist in liquidations
Every lending market lives or dies by its liquidations. When a loan’s collateral falls below a safe threshold, outside parties called liquidators step in, repay the debt and collect the collateral at a discount.

That works smoothly when the collateral is a token sitting on the same chain. It gets awkward when the collateral is locked BTC on an entirely different network.

Babylon’s answer is to keep the collateral on Bitcoin while settling liquidations in WBTC. Through the BTC Vault Swap Spoke, liquidators would receive WBTC immediately rather than waiting on native BTC to move.

So liquidators get a familiar asset they can use right away on Ethereum. Borrowers, meanwhile, never had to wrap anything going in.

The design keeps liquidations permissionless, meaning anyone can act as a liquidator. Babylon has published documentation on the liquidation model in its developer docs.

Importantly, control over risk settings stays with the Aave DAO. Babylon builds the plumbing, but tokenholders decide how much can be borrowed and when positions get closed out.

A timeline measured in governance phases
Babylon and Aave first announced their partnership on December 3, 2025. The idea moved into Aave’s formal process with a DAO temperature check that began on May 25, 2026.

A temperature check is Aave’s version of a show of hands. It gauges interest before a proposal moves into the heavier ARFC and AIP stages, which are the detailed request-for-comment and final on-chain vote phases.

Public testnet deployment for native BTC-backed borrowing was active by October 2026. Around the same time, HashKey Cloud’s integration of TBV for institutional clients was confirmed on October 7, 2026.

That institutional piece matters. Custody-wary funds have often been the loudest critics of wrapped Bitcoin, so a trust-minimized route may appeal to exactly that crowd.

Still, testnet is testnet. Real money hasn’t touched this design yet, and the remaining ARFC and AIP phases are where proposals tend to get picked apart line by line.

Why this matters for Bitcoin in DeFi
Bitcoin has always had an awkward relationship with DeFi. It’s the largest crypto asset, yet using it in lending markets has usually meant wrapping it and trusting someone to hold the real coins.

That tradeoff has kept plenty of long-term holders on the sidelines. For a group whose motto is roughly “not your keys, not your coins,” handing BTC to a custodian is a tough sell.

Babylon’s model tries to remove that objection entirely. If it works as described, holders could tap lending markets without ever giving up custody.

There’s also an interesting second-order effect on Aave itself. The protocol holds one of its largest token supplies in WBTC, but borrow demand for that WBTC has historically lagged.

In other words, a lot of WBTC sits in Aave’s pools doing very little. Since liquidators in Babylon’s design get paid in WBTC and borrowers can take out WBTC, the integration could potentially put more of that idle supply to work.

What to watch
The first thing to track is the risk parameters. Loan-to-value ratios, liquidation thresholds and supply caps will determine whether this is a niche experiment or a serious Bitcoin borrowing venue.

Conservative settings would limit early risk but also limit appeal. Aggressive ones would attract borrowers while putting more weight on the untested liquidation path.

The second is how the WBTC settlement holds up under stress. A design that pays liquidators instantly needs enough liquidity behind it during a sharp BTC drawdown, which is precisely when everyone wants out at once.

The third is competition. Wrapped Bitcoin products have long dominated BTC collateral in DeFi, and a credible native alternative on the largest lending protocol would put pressure on custodial models to justify their trust assumptions.

For BTC holders, the appeal is clear: borrowing power without surrendering custody. For Aave, it’s a shot at drawing in a huge pool of capital that has mostly stayed on the sidelines. Whether both sides get what they want now depends on a few more rounds of DAO voting.

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

Bitcoin (BTC) can still preserve its traditionally strong October performance, as onchain data points to a local BTC price bottom forming.

Key points:

Onchain data suggested that Bitcoin could still end October strong, following historical patterns. Bitcoin exchange reserves remained 1.7% lower than in mid-September, while whales avoided selling.Apparent demand neared a transition to positive readings for the second time in 2026.BTC price analysis flags “potential bottom” signalsNew analysis published on crypto analytics platform CryptoQuant Monday show onchain conditions in a state of “cautious optimism.” 

Bitcoin continues to weather mixed macroeconomic and geopolitical headwinds, which include 24-year highs in US bond yields, rising oil prices and cooling capital inflows to exchange-traded products. These conditions have dampened optimism over Bitcoin delivering a strong performance in October.

“Now, signs of a potential bottom are emerging,” CryptoQuant contributor XWIN Research Japan wrote.

Since the start of October, conditions have changed to increasingly benefit crypto and risk assets. XWIN points to cooling expectations of interest-rate hikes by the Federal Reserve into 2027, boosting the odds of inflows improving. At the same time, markets expect more clarity over the US domestic political situation after the approaching Midterm Elections.

“Less political uncertainty after the vote could help investors reassess allocations,” XWIN continued.

Bitcoin exchange reserves, apparent demand and whale holdings give XWIN reasons to believe that October’s local low may have already occurred.

The BTC supply on exchanges has fallen from 2.726 million on Sept. 20 to 2.68 million as of Tuesday, a decrease of 1.7%, despite a modest increase over the past week.

Bitcoin exchange BTC reserves. Source: CryptoQuant

At the same time, the combined holdings owned by large-volume investors, or whales, remain above 3 million BTC. The cohort’s urge to reduce exposure has survived BTC/USD dropping from $87,000 on Oct. 2 to near $80,000 on Oct. 8.

Bitcoin whale holdings (screenshot). Source: CryptoQuant

Bitcoin demand data stays bullish in OctoberApparent demand, a measure that compares newly mined BTC with changes in dormant supply, shows overall demand remains supportive.

The metric has been negative throughout 2026, with a brief period of positive 30-day readings in the second half of August. Since then, demand has been negative, but has recovered to near-neutral levels as of this week.

“These developments suggest conditions for a bottom are improving. Confirmation requires sustained ETF inflows, stronger US spot buying and continued demand recovery,” XWIN said. 

“‘Uptober’ need not mean uninterrupted gains: a correction can build the foundation for the next advance.”Bitcoin apparent demand growth. Source: CryptoQuant

This week, crypto asset manager Bitwise said that Q3 onchain data pointed to “crypto spring” after historically significant performance. CryptoQuant CEO Ki Young Ju, meanwhile, announced what he saw as the start of a new crypto bull market in late August, calling the bear market “over.”

This article is produced in accordance with Cointelegraph's Editorial Policy and is intended for informational purposes only. It does not constitute investment advice or recommendations. All investments and trades carry risk; readers are encouraged to conduct independent research.

Standard Chartered has unveiled a new crypto trading service that lets eligible affluent clients buy and sell Bitcoin and Ethereum directly through their existing bank accounts. This marked a first for the bank and for an international lender in the UAE.

Standard Chartered Enables Direct Bitcoin and Ethereum Trading Standard Chartered launched a first-of-its-kind crypto trading solution for affluent clients, according to an official announcement on October 14. Eligible professional clients in the UAE can now buy and sell Bitcoin (BTC) and Ethereum (ETH) directly through their existing bank accounts.

It becomes possible through a strategic collaboration between the bank’s Wealth and Retail Banking (WRB) and Corporate and Investment Banking (CIB) businesses, alongside SC Ventures-backed Zodia Markets, and regulation by Dubai’s Virtual Assets Regulatory Authority (VARA).

The crypto trading solution integrates institutional-grade custody, liquidity, and client access within a single, end-to-end digital asset ecosystem. Transactions will run within the bank’s ecosystem under a closed-loop model, reducing wallet risks.

This will enable clients to access crypto assets with their existing banking relationship while benefiting from institutional-grade custody and operational safeguards.

Samir Subberwal, Global Head of Wealth Solutions, Retail Products, Data & Analytics at Standard Chartered, described the launch as a significant milestone that brings crypto assets into the bank’s core wealth offering. He added that clients demand secure, regulated access as digital assets move into the mainstream.

“We are proud to be the first international bank in the UAE to launch a cryptocurrency trading offering,” said Rola Abu Manneh, CEO for UAE, Middle East and Pakistan at Standard Chartered.

Expanding Crypto Capabilities Across UAE Institutional and Wealth Services The launch builds on Standard Chartered’s broader crypto assets activities in the UAE and other key regions. This builds on Standard Chartered’s launch of spot crypto trading in Bitcoin and Ethereum for institutional clients in the UAE last month.

The service lets eligible institutional clients trade deliverable BTC/USD and ETH/USD through familiar electronic FX platforms, with settlement options including the bank’s own digital asset custody.

As CoinGape reported earlier, Standard Chartered launched institutional USDC minting and redemption through DIFC, becoming the first G-SIB to offer institutional access to USDC through a regulated banking channel.

Recently, Standard Chartered announced institutional custody support for Ripple’s RLUSD stablecoin on the XRP Ledger. The bank also joined Ripple and LMAX Group to enable RLUSD as eligible collateral.