Track market-moving stories before they get noisy

Ethereum is stabilizing after a period of heightened volatility, with its price trading near $2,460.98, reflecting a rebound of 0.52% in the past 24 hours. The market’s attention has turned to several encouraging signals as ETH attempts to move out of correction territory and into a new phase of accumulation and potential recovery.

Short-term resistance and support levelsEthereum is rebounding from recent lows but still faces significant resistance overhead. Analysts have noted that the price continues to encounter selling pressure around $2,415, a level that has capped multiple previous rebound attempts on intraday charts. Despite these hurdles, support appears solid in the $2,370 to $2,380 range, where buyers previously stepped in following the most recent downturn.

Maintaining above this support region would help ETH build a more stable base, but a decisive move above $2,415 is needed to signal a material improvement in the short-term trend. Without such a breakout, the price may remain vulnerable to further downside retests. Should Ethereum overcome this resistance, attention is likely to shift back toward $2,500 and the next set of hurdles higher up.

Ethereum’s price has rebounded several times during the current correction, but converting resistance into confirmed support at $2,415 would be an important step in strengthening the short-term outlook.

Major whale rotates $155 million into ETHOn-chain data from Lookonchain indicates a large investor recently rotated approximately $159 million out of Bitcoin, selling nearly 1,918 BTC over 11 days, while acquiring about 64,545 ETH valued at around $155 million. This move places Ethereum at the center of large-holder accumulation, suggesting that institutional and large-scale investors are building positions amid current market weakness.

Such whale activity is often viewed as a signal of increased institutional interest, especially if the market is still searching for a recovery confirmation. The transaction amplifies demand-side momentum, reinforcing arguments for a possible trend reversal if resistance levels are reclaimed.

Mini dictionary: Lookonchain is a blockchain data analytics platform known for tracking large transactions and whale activity in the cryptocurrency markets. The service provides real-time insights into the movements of significant holders and institutional participants.

Shift in derivatives market: Longs build, shorts collapseEthereum’s derivatives market is also showing a shift in sentiment. Data from market trackers reveal a sharp reduction in ETH short positions, falling from over 14,000 to about 3,000. Simultaneously, long exposure has surged from below $100 million to about $365 million, suggesting that traders are increasingly betting on a bullish recovery as ETH stabilizes near $2,460.

MetricBeforeCurrentETH Short Positions14,000+~3,000ETH Long Exposure<$100 million$365 millionThis change places more pressure on Ethereum’s price to respond and break through resistance levels. The strong buildup in long positions and the reduction in shorts highlight growing conviction that the market could soon transition from base-building to renewed gains.

As traders increase long positions and reduce short exposure, optimism grows that ETH can build on its current base and advance toward higher levels if key resistance points are cleared.

Technical signals and long-term outlookShort-term technical indicators support the prospect for recovery. The 2-hour Relative Strength Index (RSI) has cooled to 47, indicating room for price growth, and the Moving Average Convergence Divergence (MACD) remains negative but reset after previous overbought conditions. These factors suggest that ETH could stage another move higher if buying interest returns.

Longer-term, analysts describe the $2,270–$2,500 range as a key accumulation zone, where strong hands are accumulating positions despite short-term weakness. A trend reversal and close above $3,000 to $3,300 could indicate the start of a broader expansion phase, with some roadmaps targeting $8,800 as a future objective, and a distribution zone extending toward $11,500. However, these upside targets are dependent on ETH successfully establishing a stable base and reclaiming higher resistance levels in the weeks ahead.

Key levels and what to watch nextTraders are monitoring whether Ethereum can turn its current stabilization near $2,400 into a sustained recovery. A hold above this level could trigger interest in retesting $2,455 and $2,500, benchmarks where past rallies have faltered. If ETH moves above $2,500, momentum could improve and open the door to higher targets. Alternatively, if the $2,370–$2,400 band fails to hold, focus may shift to the next support near $2,345, signaling potential for further pullbacks before recovery resumes.

Co-founder Zon's preliminary read points to a MoveVM flaw, while D2 Finance traced the payouts to LayerZero adapters on Ethereum.

Initia's chain stays halted after an attacker minted and bridged out tokens

Posted October 23, 2026 at 10:35 pm ET.

Anyone holding assets on Initia is waiting on a restart. Initia’s layer 1 and its rollups have been offline since 11:41 a.m. ET on Friday, when the team cited a “security incident,” and it had not said when they would come back as of 5:52 p.m. ET. Initia said in the same notice that it was working “to establish the full scope of any impact with security teams, validators, and exchanges.”

Co-founder Zon pointed to Initia’s own software, citing preliminary findings. He wrote that it was “a Day 0 bug related to Initia’s MoveVM on CosmosSDK that allowed the exploiter to mint additional tokens on the Initia L1 but does not apply to native INIT tokens.” The attacker managed to “mint and bridge out ~$2.7m worth of AUSD, ETH, and USDC before the chain was paused,” he added.

Pseudonymous researcher Spreek flagged the attack at 11:27 a.m. ET, 14 minutes before the halt, estimating $2.6 million cashed out.

Get Unchained’s crypto news in your inbox with the free Unchained Daily newsletter.

How the Funds Left D2 Finance, which published a breakdown of the transactions, said one transaction at 10:59 a.m. ET minted 2 million AUSD on the Initia side. By D2’s account, those unbacked tokens were burned and sent over LayerZero to Ethereum, where OFT adapters, lockbox contracts holding the real tokens behind Initia’s bridged versions, paid out. D2 wrote that “an OFT adapter cannot check whether burned tokens were ever backed.”

D2 said the attacker pulled 1.4 million AUSD, 71% of the AUSD adapter’s holdings, leaving about 576,000, plus 105 ETH, 96% of the native-ETH adapter. Another 1.08 million USDC arrived as new mints through Circle’s CCTP. In D2’s telling, $2.65 million had reached Ethereum within seven minutes and 21 seconds of the mint.

Agora Says AUSD Is Unaffected Agora, which issues AUSD, said at 12:57 p.m. ET that it “has no smart contracts deployed on Initia.” At 2:26 p.m. ET it added that “AUSD does not exist on Initia,” and that “AUSD is fully backed.” Agora’s statements indicate the token minted on Initia was a bridged representation rather than AUSD itself. D2 said the AUSD that left came from an Ethereum lockbox adapter backing that bridged token.

Onchain records show the 1.4 million AUSD sat in the attacker’s Ethereum address for about 84 seconds before it was traded away on the 1inch aggregator at 11:03 a.m. ET. Agora froze that address at 12:31 p.m. ET, roughly 89 minutes later and before its first statement, when the address held no AUSD.

The same address sent 1,135.5 ETH, which D2 valued at about $2.7 million, to a newly used wallet at 11:41 a.m. ET, the minute the halt took effect.

Initia’s own account has not confirmed Zon’s loss figure or published a post-mortem. It said it would post verified updates through its official channels.

Related Listen: Who’s to Blame for How KelpDAO’s DVN Was Set Up? KelpDAO or LayerZero?

AI-assisted content: This article was produced with the assistance of AI tools and was reviewed, edited, and fact-checked by a member of the Unchained editorial team before publication.

In May 2023, the Ethereum blockchain faced its first inactivity leak, a mechanism designed to restore chain finalization amid prolonged network disruptions. This feature aims to reduce the voting power of validators who become unreachable, redistributing their power to active validators. Our investigation delves into the safety implications of this inactivity leak within the Ethereum blockchain. Through theoretical analysis, we explore how Byzantine validators might expedite the finalization of conflicting branches or reach a voting power exceeding the critical safety threshold of one-third. Additionally, we revisit the probabilistic bouncing attack, demonstrating how the inactivity leak might allow Byzantine validators to breach safety thresholds. This article uncovers how penalizing inactive nodes can undermine blockchain properties, especially when Byzantine validators can coordinate their actions.

I. Overview
Background
In September 2022, Ethereum transitioned from a proof-of-work (PoW) consensus mechanism to a proof-of-stake (PoS) protocol. This change aimed to improve energy efficiency and scalability. The Ethereum PoS protocol is unique due to its hybrid nature, combining elements of classical Byzantine Fault-Tolerant (BFT) Consensus with the Nakamoto-style blockchain framework. In BFT blockchains, validators explicitly vote on block proposals, ensuring that once a block is added, it remains permanently incorporated. In contrast, Nakamoto-style blockchains allow forks but eventually reconcile to a single chain.

Motivation
The motivation behind this study stems from Ethereum's introduction of the inactivity leak, a penalty mechanism designed to address prolonged network disruptions. When validators become unreachable, their voting power is reduced and redistributed to active validators. While this mechanism aims to restore chain finalization and maintain liveness during network partitions, it raises significant concerns about its impact on the blockchain's safety. Specifically, the potential for Byzantine validators to exploit the inactivity leak to expedite the finalization of conflicting branches or gain a voting power exceeding the critical safety threshold of one-third necessitates a thorough investigation.

Contributions
This article is mainly based on the many sources, one of our main contents came from Byzantine Attacks Exploiting Penalties in Ethereum PoS from authors: Ulysse Pavloff, Yackolley Amoussou-Genou, Sara Tucci-Piergiovanni

This paper makes several key contributions:

Formal Analysis of the Inactivity Leak: They provide the first formal description of the inactivity leak, detailing its operational mechanics and its intended purpose within the Ethereum PoS protocol.

Impact on Safety: Our analysis explores various configurations and scenarios to understand how the inactivity leak influences the safety of the Ethereum blockchain, particularly under the influence of Byzantine validators.

Revisiting Known Attacks: We reexamine the probabilistic bouncing attack in the context of the inactivity leak, demonstrating how this attack can be leveraged to probabilistically breach safety thresholds.

Theoretical and Practical Insights: The findings offer valuable insights for both theoretical research and practical implementations of penalty mechanisms in PoS blockchains.

Organization of the Paper
The paper is structured to provide a comprehensive exploration of the inactivity leak and its implications. The organization is as follows:

Introduction: An overview of the motivation, contributions, and structure of the paper.

System Model and Ethereum Protocol: A detailed description of the Ethereum PoS protocol, including its safety and liveness trade-offs, Byzantine fault tolerance, and the inactivity leak mechanism.

Analysis of Safety Loss Scenarios: An in-depth analysis of scenarios where safety might be compromised, including conflicting finalization with honest validators and coordinated Byzantine attacks.

Revisiting the Probabilistic Bouncing Attack: A thorough reexamination of the probabilistic bouncing attack, assessing its impact in the presence of the inactivity leak and presenting simulation results.

Future Work: A discussion of the implications of our findings for Ethereum and other PoS blockchains, along with directions for future research.

Conclusions: A summary of our findings, emphasizing the importance of refining penalty mechanisms to ensure blockchain safety and stability.

II. System Model and Ethereum Protocol
Ethereum PoS Protocol Overview
Ethereum's shift to proof-of-stake (PoS) in September 2022 was a landmark event, transitioning from the energy-intensive proof-of-work (PoW) to a more sustainable and scalable consensus mechanism. The Ethereum PoS protocol combines elements of classical Byzantine Fault-Tolerant (BFT) Consensus with the Nakamoto-style blockchain, creating a hybrid model. In this system, validators are selected based on their stake to propose and validate new blocks, aiming to achieve consensus through voting. The protocol leverages a fork-choice rule to determine the canonical chain from a tree-like structure of blocks, ensuring that the blockchain can adapt and reconcile forks to maintain a single chain.

Safety and Liveness Trade-offs
In the context of blockchain protocols, safety and liveness are critical properties that need to be balanced. Safety ensures that the blockchain does not fork, meaning that once a block is finalized, it cannot be revoked. Liveness, on the other hand, ensures that the blockchain continues to grow and accept new transactions.

BFT Consensus: BFT blockchains achieve safety by using super-majority quorums to finalize blocks, preventing forks but potentially halting growth during network partitions or failures. This trade-off means that while the blockchain is safe, it may not always be live.

Nakamoto-style Blockchains: These blockchains are designed to remain live even during network disruptions, as they allow for the existence of multiple forks. Eventually, they reconcile to a single chain, but this means they can experience temporary forks, which poses a challenge to safety.

Ethereum PoS: Ethereum PoS aims to balance these trade-offs by maintaining a finalized chain alongside a forkable chain. The finalized chain is protected by BFT mechanisms, ensuring safety, while the forkable chain continues to grow, ensuring liveness.

Byzantine Fault Tolerance
Byzantine Fault Tolerance (BFT) is a critical aspect of blockchain security, ensuring that the protocol can withstand malicious actions by up to one-third of the validators. In BFT systems, validators vote on proposed blocks, and a block is only considered finalized if it receives votes from a super-majority of validators. This mechanism ensures that even if some validators act maliciously or become unreachable, the blockchain can still achieve consensus and finalize blocks.

Inactivity Leak Mechanism
Definition and Purpose

The inactivity leak is a penalty mechanism introduced to handle scenarios where validators become inactive or unreachable due to network disruptions. When validators fail to participate in the consensus process for an extended period, their stake and voting power are gradually reduced. This reduction is intended to reallocate voting power to active validators, thereby restoring the blockchain's ability to achieve finalization and maintain liveness.

Impact on Voting Power

The inactivity leak directly affects the distribution of voting power among validators. By penalizing inactive validators, the mechanism ensures that the remaining active validators have increased influence in the consensus process. This reallocation is crucial for restoring liveness during network partitions, as it allows the blockchain to continue finalizing blocks despite the absence of some validators. However, this mechanism also introduces potential risks, particularly if Byzantine validators can exploit it to gain a disproportionate amount of voting power.

Restoring Liveness: During network partitions or disruptions, the inactivity leak helps maintain liveness by reducing the influence of inactive validators and empowering active ones to continue finalizing blocks.

Risks to Safety: The redistribution of voting power can create scenarios where Byzantine validators, through coordinated actions, may exploit the inactivity leak to increase their influence. This can lead to safety breaches, such as the finalization of conflicting chains or exceeding the critical one-third threshold of Byzantine voting power.

Ethereum's Unique Hybrid Model

Ethereum PoS's hybrid model of maintaining a finalized and non-finalized chain within a single data structure aims to offer the best of both BFT and Nakamoto-style blockchains. The finalized chain guarantees safety, ensuring that once a block is finalized, it remains unaltered. The non-finalized chain allows for continued growth and transaction processing, ensuring liveness even during adverse network conditions.

The Ethereum PoS protocol's innovative combination of BFT and Nakamoto-style elements, along with the introduction of the inactivity leak, represents a significant advancement in blockchain technology. However, this complexity also introduces new challenges, particularly regarding the balance between safety and liveness and the potential exploitation by Byzantine validators. Understanding these dynamics is crucial for ensuring the robustness and security of the Ethereum blockchain.

III. Analysis of Safety Loss Scenarios
Conflicting Finalization with Honest Validators
Network Partitions and CAP Theorem

Network partitions can disrupt the Ethereum blockchain's operation, potentially leading to conflicting finalization of blocks. The CAP theorem, which states that a distributed system can only achieve two out of three properties—consistency, availability, and partition tolerance—underlines the challenge of maintaining both safety and liveness during network partitions. In Ethereum PoS, this means that while efforts are made to maintain liveness by allowing the chain to continue growing, safety can be compromised if different parts of the network finalize conflicting blocks independently.

Independent Finalization on Different Chains

During network partitions, validators in different network segments may finalize different blocks independently. This situation arises when validators in one partition finalize one set of blocks, while validators in another partition finalize a different set. As a result, the blockchain can face conflicting finalization, where multiple chains claim to be the valid continuation of the blockchain. This scenario challenges the blockchain's safety guarantees, as transactions on conflicting branches may lead to inconsistencies and potential double-spending.

Coordinated Byzantine Attacks
Accelerated Conflicting Finalization

Byzantine validators can exploit network partitions and the inactivity leak to accelerate conflicting finalization intentionally. In scenarios where Byzantine validators strategically coordinate their actions, they can exploit the reduced influence of honest validators (due to network partitions or penalties from the inactivity leak) to finalize conflicting blocks quickly. This coordinated action undermines the blockchain's safety guarantees, as it introduces uncertainty about the true state of the blockchain.

Breaching the Safety Threshold

Another significant risk arises when Byzantine validators coordinate to exceed the critical one-third threshold of voting power. In Ethereum PoS, maintaining safety relies on ensuring that less than one-third of validators are Byzantine. However, if Byzantine validators can increase their influence through strategic actions during network disruptions or by exploiting the inactivity leak, they may collectively control more than one-third of the voting power. This breach of the safety threshold can lead to irreversible decisions and compromises the integrity of the blockchain.

IV. Revisiting the Probabilistic Bouncing Attack
Original Attack Description
The probabilistic bouncing attack is a known strategy in blockchain environments, particularly relevant in proof-of-stake (PoS) protocols like Ethereum. This attack exploits periods of network uncertainty or synchronization to delay block finalization intentionally. Validators participating in the consensus process strategically withhold their votes or propose conflicting blocks, leading to prolonged ambiguity about which chain should be considered the canonical one. By introducing delays in the finalization process, the attack undermines the blockchain's liveness guarantees, as transactions may remain pending or reversible for extended periods.

sources: arxiv.org

Impact of the Inactivity Leak
The introduction of the inactivity leak mechanism amplifies the effectiveness of the probabilistic bouncing attack. This penalty mechanism penalizes validators who become inactive due to network disruptions or strategic inactivity. As inactive validators lose stake and voting power over time, active validators gain a disproportionate influence in the consensus process. This redistribution of voting power alters the dynamics of the blockchain's security model, potentially creating opportunities for malicious actors to exploit.

In the context of the probabilistic bouncing attack, the inactivity leak exacerbates the impact during periods of network synchrony. Byzantine validators can strategically become inactive to avoid penalties and then coordinate attacks when network conditions are favorable. By delaying finalization through strategic inactivity and subsequent coordinated actions, malicious validators can prolong uncertainty about the blockchain's state, further compromising its liveness and integrity.

Conditions for Safety Threshold Breach
Our analysis identifies specific conditions under which the probabilistic bouncing attack, augmented by the inactivity leak, can breach the safety threshold of Ethereum PoS. These conditions include prolonged network partitions, strategic coordination among Byzantine validators to exploit penalties, and the operational mechanics of the inactivity leak itself. The combination of these factors creates a scenario where Byzantine validators can probabilistically control the blockchain's decision-making process, potentially leading to irreversible decisions or conflicting finalizations.

Simulation Results and Discussion
Simulation studies provide empirical evidence of how the probabilistic bouncing attack, enhanced by the inactivity leak, impacts Ethereum's safety and liveness properties. By modeling various attack scenarios and network conditions, we illustrate the potential vulnerabilities introduced by the inactivity leak and the strategies employed by Byzantine validators to exploit them. Discussions delve into the implications of these findings for blockchain security and propose strategies for mitigating the risks posed by such attacks.

source: arxiv.org

V. Future Work
Summary of Findings
Our study has highlighted significant vulnerabilities in Ethereum's proof-of-stake (PoS) protocol, particularly concerning the probabilistic bouncing attack and the inactivity leak mechanism. These findings underscore the importance of enhancing blockchain security while maintaining robustness in consensus mechanisms. We have identified critical areas where future research and development efforts can focus to address these challenges effectively.

Implications for Ethereum and Other PoS Blockchains
The implications extend beyond Ethereum to other PoS blockchains that utilize penalty mechanisms and face similar security challenges. Understanding these vulnerabilities provides a foundation for improving the design and implementation of future blockchain protocols. Key implications include:

Security Enhancements: Develop more resilient penalty mechanisms that mitigate the risks posed by Byzantine attacks and strategic network disruptions.

Consensus Protocol Optimization: Refine consensus algorithms to improve their ability to handle network partitions and maintain safety and liveness guarantees simultaneously.

Governance and Protocol Design: Implement governance structures that can adapt dynamically to emerging threats and vulnerabilities, ensuring continuous improvement and adaptation of blockchain protocols.

Directions for Future Research
Future research efforts should prioritize the following areas to advance blockchain security and resilience:

Enhanced Penalty Mechanisms: Investigate novel penalty mechanisms that discourage malicious behavior while incentivizing active participation and network stability.

Dynamic Governance Models: Explore governance frameworks that enable swift responses to security threats, including protocol upgrades and adjustments to consensus rules.

Formal Verification and Security Audits: Conduct rigorous formal verification and security audits of blockchain protocols to identify and mitigate potential vulnerabilities before deployment.

Cross-Chain Interoperability: Address interoperability challenges between different PoS blockchains to foster collaboration and enhance overall blockchain ecosystem resilience.

Related Work and References
Our study builds upon existing research in Ethereum PoS, Byzantine fault tolerance, and consensus algorithm design. Further exploration into related work can provide deeper insights and inspire innovative solutions to address current and future challenges in blockchain security.

Conclusion
Our exploration of the probabilistic bouncing attack and the inactivity leak in Ethereum PoS has underscored critical vulnerabilities that require immediate attention. By focusing on enhancing security mechanisms, optimizing consensus protocols, and fostering collaborative research, the blockchain community can strengthen the resilience of PoS blockchains against malicious actors and network disruptions. Through these efforts, we aim to contribute to the evolution of blockchain technologies towards more secure, efficient, and trustworthy decentralized systems.

Spot ether ETFs have lost $1.2 billion in October and Bitmine is weeks from its 5% cap, leaving ETF flows to decide who absorbs ether’s new supply into year-end.

Ether's spot ETF buyers and its largest corporate holder are both pulling back in October.

Posted October 23, 2026 at 3:00 pm ET.

Ether’s (ETH) demand this year has largely come from two places: spot exchange-traded funds (ETFs) and Bitmine Immersion Technologies (BMNR), the company building an ether treasury. In October, both are pulling back at once.

No month this year has seen spot ether ETFs lose as much as October, with $1.2 billion in net outflows so far. Investors pulled money on all but two trading days through Oct. 22.

Bitmine, meanwhile, is about 66,000 ETH short of its goal of owning 5% of all ether, by our count from its latest holdings update. At the company’s current pace, it hits its target late next month.

Ether bulls often parse their outlooks through adoption headlines, like JPMorgan bringing its deposit token to Ethereum this week. Adoption builds the network, but it only lifts the price when someone buys the coin. Presently, the question is who absorbs the roughly 20,000 new ETH the network issues every week once Bitmine stops.

This issue of Bits + Bips measures how much of that supply Bitmine has been taking, why no other ether treasury can take over, and what ETF flows would need to look like for ether to hold up into year-end.

Spot ether ETFs swung from $2.7 billion of net inflows in August and September to $1.2 billion of net outflows in October through Oct. 22. Source: SoSoValue; Farside. Bitmine’s Buying Has Already Slowed Bitmine is finishing its accumulation at a fraction of the pace it started with. The company has bought ether every week since June 30, 2025. In April and May it bought more than 100,000 ETH in a single week four times. In each of the last two weeks it bought about 12,500.

It now holds 6.04 million ETH, or 4.9% of Ethereum‘s circulating token supply, and its cash has fallen by about $30 million a week with no new capital raise in its last three updates.

“We’re done stacking,” Bitmine Chair Tom Lee said earlier this month in a message to investors.

Bitmine’s 5% ether target is “a hard cap,” Lee said at the Token2049 conference, adding, “We’re not gonna be accumulating past 5%.”

One caveat on timing: 5% of ether’s supply is a moving target. Supply grows by about 87,000 ETH a month, so the finish line moves out by roughly 4,300 ETH a month, by our count.

Additionally, Ethereum’s issuance is subject to change, and not fixed at roughly 20,000 new ETH per week. The network uses a fee-burning mechanism that dynamically adjusts to user demand. At times of high use, like in 2023, this mechanism burns more tokens than are created to pay the validators that secure the network, actually turning Ethereum’s token economy deflationary. That said, ether token inflation has stayed relatively stable this year, in part due to a migration of user activity onto Layer-2 networks, which has left mainnet gas fees too low to burn off the newly issued coins.

ETF Money Moves in Billions The ETFs have been the larger and less predictable buyer this year. Net inflows reached $1.85 billion in August and another $832 million in September, then reversed in October.

The funds now hold roughly 6.2 million ETH, about the same as Bitmine, from their combined net assets of $14.6 billion. However, the two buyers move at very different speeds. October’s outflows have averaged about $357 million a week. Bitmine’s recent purchases come to about $30 million a week at its own reported prices. The ETF swing is about 12 times larger.

In the rest of the issue, subscribers get:

How much of ether’s new supply Bitmine has been absorbing, and why part of the hand-off has already happened Why no other ether treasury can step in, judged by what their shares trade at against their coins What is driving October’s ETF outflows The weekly ETF number that would cover ether’s new supply after Bitmine stops, plus bull, base and bear ranges for ETH into year-end Already a subscriber? Keep reading.

Why serious investors subscribe:

Clear thinking during macro regime changes

Fewer trades, better decisions

Avoiding one bad allocation often matters more than finding one great trade

An early Ethereum investor has moved 3,000 ETH, valued at approximately $7.23 million, to crypto exchange Kraken. According to onchain data tracked by analytics platform Lookonchain, the transfer took place on Friday. The wallet in question acquired the ETH about nine years ago at an average price of $18.83 per token, booking an estimated 128-fold profit on the original purchase price.

Major profit for early Ethereum adopterOnchain monitoring revealed that the investor’s wallet, identified as 0xa4c2CA8d5A6f488604cA417C0aaCe8E2621F02D0 and tagged by crypto intelligence firm Arkham Intelligence, received the initial ETH funds from a Gemini hot wallet and an additional address between 2015 and 2016.

Lookonchain reported that the 3,000 ETH transfer to Kraken signals the possible liquidation of the holdings. While deposits to exchanges often precede sales, there is no public order data confirming that the entire stack was sold in a single transaction or at one price. Nonetheless, assuming a current ETH price near $2,410, the investor’s $56,500 original cost would have appreciated to over $7.2 million.

The 3,000 ETH transferred to Kraken can be traced back to purchases made nine years ago, representing a significant return on investment for the early adopter based on today’s ETH price.

Mini dictionary: Arkham Intelligence is a blockchain analytics company specializing in tracking and labeling crypto wallets to provide transparency and risk assessment for market participants.

Ethereum price steadies despite large holder’s exitDespite the sizable transfer, ETH’s market price held steady. CoinMarketCap data showed Ethereum trading at $2,405.81, up 1.27% in the last 24 hours. Analysts noted that recent gains have been supported by modest capital rotation into alternative cryptocurrencies, while Bitcoin’s market dominance eased during the same period.

No direct evidence suggests that the early investor’s transfer affected market prices. Ethereum continued to trade in a narrow range through the session, with the broader crypto market displaying similar stability. The current movement is seen as part of ongoing price consolidation, rather than a response to isolated large holder actions.

Ethereum demonstrates resilience as it remains within a consolidation range, even after a major early adopter moved 3,000 ETH to an exchange for potential sale.

Support and resistance levels draw trader focusMarket observers are closely watching key technical levels for Ethereum. According to analyst CryptoBusy, ETH is testing an ascending trendline with support between $2,350 and $2,480, following a recent decline from $2,700. If buyers maintain the $2,350 level, a recovery toward $2,500 is projected, with $2,800 identified as the next major resistance point.

On the downside, a decisive break below $2,350 could prompt further losses toward $2,200. CoinMarketCap notes a similar outlook, suggesting a support band at $2,350–$2,390. Across several analyst assessments, $2,350 has emerged as a critical line to monitor. These technical perspectives will likely shape near-term trading strategies.

Key LevelScenarioAction Point$2,350SupportBreak below signals possible drop to $2,200$2,480Support/ResistanceDefend for bounce toward $2,500/$2,800$2,800Major resistanceBreak above signals next upside targetMacro events may influence upcoming moves. CoinMarketCap identified the upcoming Federal Reserve policy meeting on October 27-28 as a relevant potential catalyst. Trader Daan Crypto Trades emphasized the importance of waiting for a clear resolution above or below this range before making directional bets, citing continued price congestion between $2,350 and $2,550.

While the early investor’s transfer drew attention, analysts suggest Ethereum’s immediate trajectory will depend on the defense or loss of key technical support, with broader macro triggers such as central bank policy potentially steering market direction in the coming days.

Ethereum faces renewed selling pressure after a failed recovery attempt, increasing the possibility that ETH may test the $2,000 level before finding a durable market bottom. The cryptocurrency traded near $2,390 on October 23, retreating sharply after briefly touching $2,500. Over the past month, Ethereum has declined about 13%, with buyers repeatedly intervening to support the $2,300 region.

Heavy Liquidations and Technical BarriersRecent market turbulence triggered around $75.4 million in total ETH liquidations, according to CoinGlass data cited by Invezz. Notably, $63.7 million stemmed from leveraged long positions, highlighting the vulnerabilities present when traders expect rising prices using borrowed funds.

At the start of October, Ethereum traded above $2,700, but momentum soon faded. Repeated rebound attempts failed to sustain higher prices, drawing ETH back toward $2,400. This latest decline follows an earlier October selloff, as rising US Treasury yields and a strengthening dollar weighed on cryptocurrency valuations.

Ethereum currently trades below its key short-term moving averages. The $2,480 to $2,550 zone has consistently served as a ceiling, preventing any robust recovery. Analysts suggest that a decisive breakout above this level is needed to generate sustained positive momentum and revive prospects for a move toward $2,700 or $2,800.

ETH’s technical outlook remains fragile, with buyers under pressure and liquidations intensifying following recent failed rebounds.

Earlier analysis of ETH derivatives revealed that concentrated bullish positions can aggravate downside moves when key support levels break. This dynamic continues to pose a risk, as leveraged traders could trigger forced selling that accelerates any decline rather than containing it.

Staking Trends and Network DevelopmentsDespite price weakness, Ethereum’s network has seen increased staking activity. Bitwise, a crypto asset manager known for its industry research and investment products, recently reported record levels of institutional staking, even as yields decrease. This trend indicates that long-term holders are still participating actively on the network, even as price volatility persists.

Staking generally reduces the liquid supply of ETH available on exchanges. However, analysts caution that diminished supply does not guarantee higher prices, as demand must still counteract selling by existing holders, derivatives traders, and other market participants.

Coinpaper previously highlighted how a $2 billion exit queue raised concerns over potential selling pressure. However, not all withdrawals are destined for exchanges, and large exit queues do not necessarily signal imminent sell-offs.

Ethereum’s upcoming Glamsterdam upgrade introduces further improvements aimed at increasing network efficiency. This technical update could enhance scalability, though such developments do not necessarily drive immediate demand for ETH.

Mini dictionary: Glamsterdam upgrade, a planned Ethereum network enhancement focused on improving transaction efficiency and scalability, forming part of the ongoing roadmap for Ethereum’s technical evolution.

Key Price Levels and OutlookLooking ahead, the $2,300 to $2,350 support band represents the immediate downside area to monitor. Buyers recently protected levels such as $2,313 and $2,325 in mid-October, emphasizing the significance of holding above this region.

Should the price fall below $2,300, technical reference points emerge at $2,200 and $2,025. Breaching these levels could bring the $2,000 mark into view as a realistic bearish target, rather than a distant possibility.

Price LevelSignificance$2,700+Pre-October high, bullish target if recovery holds$2,480–$2,550Major resistance, must be broken for upside momentum$2,300–$2,350Key support, tested in October$2,200 / $2,025Technical support levels below current market price$2,000Plausible bearish target on further breakdownAlternatively, if Ethereum can reclaim the $2,500–$2,550 region, a deeper recovery toward $2,700 or $2,800 could take shape. Previous attempts to break out above resistance were short-lived, suggesting sustained buying is needed for a lasting reversal.

Institutional sentiment about Ethereum remains mixed, with bank analysts like Citi previously noting a $3,028 price target over a 12-month horizon, but emphasizing this is not an immediate goal.

Ethereum options traders are bracing for turbulence. The actual price chart has been far calmer.

According to Coinbase Markets data dated October 21, 2026, Ether’s one-month at-the-money implied volatility stands at 49%. Its 30-day realized volatility is 37%. That leaves a 12.5-point premium, which ranks in the 90th percentile of readings over the past two years.

Reading the volatility gauges Implied volatility (IV) is the market’s forecast of future price swings, backed out of what traders are willing to pay for options. Realized volatility measures how much the asset actually moved over a past window, in this case 30 days. “At-the-money” refers to options with strike prices near the current market price.

The gap between the two is often called the variance risk premium. A spread landing in the 90th percentile of the past two years suggests demand is running well above the usual baseline.

The numbers line up across platforms Options analytics platforms including Swolecharts and Coinotag reported that Ether’s 30-day ATM implied volatility held steady between 49% and 51% through mid-to-late October 2026. Those same sources put realized volatility around 32% during that stretch.

On October 22, 2026, ATM implied volatility was approximately 49.7% to 50.0% on Bybit and Binance.

Broader figures from Derivasys and Glassnode show Ether’s options implied volatility sitting in the mid-to-high 40s up to the low 50s across various near-term tenors throughout October 2026.

Why the premium is notable A 90th-percentile reading over two years means that in roughly nine out of ten observations across that period, the gap between expected and actual volatility was smaller than it is now.

The source data does not point to a specific catalyst. No commentary on upcoming events or trader positioning accompanied the figures.

What this means for traders and the market For option buyers, purchasing protection or directional exposure when IV sits well above realized volatility means paying a hefty premium. If Ether keeps moving at its recent pace, those options can lose value even if the eventual direction is right.

For option sellers, collecting premium priced at around 49% to 50% volatility while the underlying moves at 32% to 37% is the core logic behind many volatility-selling strategies. The catch is obvious: sellers carry the risk if the expected storm actually arrives.

Wide gaps between implied and realized volatility tend not to persist forever. Either realized volatility rises to meet expectations, or implied volatility drifts lower as the anticipated turbulence fails to show up.

Traders watching this setup will likely track whether realized volatility begins climbing from its recent range in the 30s, and whether IV holds near 50% across Coinbase, Bybit and Binance, or starts slipping back into the mid-40s range that also appeared across some near-term tenors this month.

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

After hovering between $2.3K and $2.4K, Ethereum [ETH] finally broke out of the range, climbing to $2,526.

However, the altcoin soon retraced below $2.5K. At press time, Ethereum traded around $2,435, down 0.16% on the daily charts.

Whales continued accumulating through the volatility, but their activity had yet to translate into stronger price momentum.

Can Ethereum whales help reclaim $2.5K? As Ethereum [ETH] struggled to hold $2.5K, whales stepped up on both the buy and sell sides. The Whale Behaviour Shift showed increased accumulation, with 133 whales adding over 426K ETH.

Source: Swiss Intelligence Lookonchain highlighted three whales withdrawing Ethereum from exchanges.

One withdrew 10,954 ETH worth $26.97 million from Kraken and staked it after four months of inactivity. Another withdrew 9,000 ETH worth $22.42 million from Binance and deposited it into Aave.

A third withdrew 4,500 ETH worth $11.29 million from Binance. Together, these withdrawals totaled 24,454 ETH, valued at $60.68 million.

Source: Arkham These moves suggested some large holders preferred staking, lending, or holding Ethereum away from exchanges despite market volatility. Still, those choices alone could not establish expectations of an imminent rally.

Exchange activity echoed that shift. Over 12 hours, outflows exceeded $365 million, pushing Netflow to approximately -$30 million.

Source: CoinGlass That reversed the preceding 24-hour period, when inflows outpaced outflows and Netflow reached $21 million.

Fewer coins on exchanges could ease immediate selling pressure. Even so, Ethereum’s price had yet to reflect that potential support.

Why does Ethereum’s momentum remain bearish? Although some whales increased their holdings, sellers retained the upper hand in Ethereum’s momentum indicators. The Relative Strength Index (RSI) stood at 42, below the neutral 50 level, indicating bearish momentum.

Source: TradingView Likewise, the Positive Directional Indicator (+DI) hovered around 17. The Negative Directional Indicator (-DI) remained above it, reinforcing the bearish reading.

Together, these indicators suggested whale accumulation had yet to overcome broader selling pressure. They did not identify which holders were selling.

If that momentum persists, Ethereum could revisit $2.3K. However, stronger demand following the whale accumulation could help Ethereum reclaim $2.5K, potentially bringing $2.7K into view.

For now, the indicators offered limited support for that recovery.

Robinhood Chain generated about $51 million in network revenue in its first quarter of operation. Ethereum (ETH) brought in roughly $41 million over the same period.

ARK Invest reported the figures in its DeFi Quarterly covering the third quarter of 2026. Its data shows Ethereum’s network revenue fell about 35% from the second quarter.

Ethereum Missed Out on a Rebound QuarterAcross the networks in the report, revenue rose about 24% from the second quarter to roughly $349 million. The total sat about 47% below its level a year earlier.

ARK said the quarter marked the first increase in 5 quarters. It credited the rise to Solana’s (SOL) recovery and Robinhood Chain’s debut.

Ethereum also lost ground in tokenization. On public blockchains, its share of tokenized real-world asset value fell from about 50% in late June to 44%. It still hosted the most, at about $16.7 billion.

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

Network Real Economic Value by Blockchain Source: ARK Invest Ethereum’s decentralized exchange (DEX) volume also fell about 27% from the second quarter, while Base’s dropped about 17%. ARK said trading volume shifted toward newer venues such as Robinhood Chain.

Robinhood’s Chain Faces Its First Earnings TestRobinhood opened the chain’s public mainnet on July 1, about 5 months after its testnet went live in February.

The network settles transactions on Ethereum and uses ETH as its gas token. That means Ethereum still collects a portion of the fees the chain generates.

In its debut quarter, the chain processed about $65 billion in DEX volume. That made it the fourth-largest network by DEX volume in ARK’s data.

Tokenized equities accounted for about $13.7 billion of that trading. Only BNB Chain hosted more, at roughly $16.5 billion.

For Robinhood shareholders, the revenue question lands on October 27, when the company reports third-quarter results. That release covers the chain’s first full quarter of operation.

Robinhood has tied the chain’s payoff to usage in its second-quarter filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC).

“Our ability to generate revenue from Robinhood Chain depends significantly on the level of adoption and developer activity on the network,” it said.

Coinbase offers a precedent. It noted in July that it books Base sequencer fees within other transaction revenue. That line fell about 11% from the first quarter to $47.4 million. CFO Alesia Haas tied the drop to lower instant transfer activity and Base revenue.

ARK also flagged a risk to those numbers.

“We do not expect to see Robinhood Chain continue to post such impressive revenue numbers, as a recent increase in gas on Robinhood Chain will eliminate high fees from congestion pricing,” the firm noted. 

Robinhood shares traded at $101.9 at press time, down 11.5% in 2026 so far. The call will show whether management reports the chain’s contribution separately.

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

Two Texas-area names you probably haven’t heard of just did something most big banks are still writing white papers about. Vantage Bank and Rio Bank completed a loan payment between themselves using tokenized deposits on Ethereum.

According to Participate, the platform that handled the deal, the principal and interest landed in the receiving bank’s digital wallet in under three minutes. Loan balances and payment notices updated in the same motion as the money moved.

What actually happened The transaction took place on October 19, 2026. It was framed as the world’s first interbank loan participation or syndication principal-and-interest payment made with tokenized deposits.

In a loan participation, one bank makes a loan and sells slices of it to other banks. When the borrower pays, the lead bank has to pass each participant its share of principal and interest.

The payment ran through two pieces of infrastructure. The first was Participate’s loan-sales platform, which connects banks buying and selling loan interests. The second was the Hazel Network, which Vantage Bank built alongside Custodia Bank.

The settlement itself happened on the Ethereum mainnet. That’s the public blockchain, not a private sandbox or a walled-off test chain.

Custodia’s ERC-20 token, called Avit, was part of the setup. ERC-20 is the standard format for fungible tokens on Ethereum, the same template behind a large share of the tokens issued on that network.

Matt Johnner of Participate described the payment as a practical demonstration of tokenized deposits slotting into workflows banks already run. He positioned it as a key step toward automating interbank loan servicing.

How we got here This didn’t appear out of nowhere. Vantage and Custodia have been testing tokenized deposits since March 2025, which means roughly a year and a half of trial runs before this live payment.

The more recent chapter began in April 2026. That’s when Participate, Vantage Bank and Custodia Bank announced a strategic collaboration to plug Hazel Network capabilities into Participate’s ecosystem.

That ecosystem now includes more than 750 banks. So the rails used here sit on a network that already reaches hundreds of potential counterparties, at least in principle.

A tokenized deposit is a regular bank deposit represented as a token on a blockchain. It remains a claim on the issuing bank, inside the regulated banking system.

Why it matters The headline number is the three minutes, but the more interesting detail is that records updated alongside the payment. In loan servicing, moving cash is only half the job. Someone also has to update balances, send notices and confirm everyone agrees on who owns what. Bundling them into one on-chain event is the efficiency argument for tokenization in a nutshell.

The partners also stressed that the transaction stayed within banking compliance requirements.

For the crypto industry, the choice of Ethereum mainnet stands out. Traditional institutions have often preferred permissioned networks where they control who participates. Running a regulated bank-to-bank payment on a public chain is a vote of confidence in its reliability for this kind of use.

Custodia’s role is notable too. The Wyoming-chartered bank has spent years positioning itself at the intersection of crypto and traditional banking. A live interbank payment using its Avit token gives that positioning a concrete use case rather than a pitch deck.

Wider adoption would require more banks willing to hold tokenized deposits, connect to the Hazel Network and get comfortable with on-chain settlement from a risk and compliance standpoint.

Interoperability is another thing to watch. If other banks build competing tokenized deposit systems, the value of near-instant settlement depends on whether those systems can talk to each other.

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

Crypto asset manager Grayscale continues to take innovative steps regarding cryptocurrencies. In its latest announcement, Grayscale stated that it will allow investors to invest in spot cryptocurrencies like Bitcoin directly in exchange for shares in its ETFs and other investment products.

Accordingly, Grayscale has implemented an in-kind subscription model in 10 of its products, allowing investors to exchange eligible digital assets for direct investment product shares. The new model aims to facilitate the integration of crypto assets into traditional portfolio management.

The Need for Cash Conversion is Decreasing!
Grayscale has announced a new investment method for some of its investment products. This system allows investors to directly exchange their crypto assets for shares in Grayscale’s investment products without first having to convert them to cash.

The company stated that this method could reduce operational burdens stemming from custody and security processes, lower transaction costs in crypto markets, and facilitate the inclusion of digital assets in traditional investment portfolios.

10 Cryptocurrencies, Including Bitcoin and Ethereum, on the List!
According to Grayscale, the subscription service includes 10 investment products, including Bitcoin and Ethereum: “Bitcoin, Ethereum, Avalanche, Chainlink, Dogecoin, Hyperliquid, Solana, XRP, Sui, Zcash”

“Grayscale Bitcoin Mini Trust ETF (BTC)

Grayscale Ethereum Staking Mini ETF (ETH)

Grayscale Avalanche Staking ETF (GAVA)

Grayscale Chainlink Trust ETF (GLNK)

Grayscale Dogecoin Trust ETF (GDOG)

Grayscale Hyperliquid Staking ETF (HYPG)

Grayscale Solana Staking ETF (GSOL)

Grayscale Sui Staking ETF (GSUI)

Grayscale XRP Trust ETF (GXRP)

The Zcash ETF (ZCSH)”

Finally, according to Grayscale’s statement, the service is available to eligible investors. Clients wishing to trade on the primary market must work with authorized participants or the institutions that act as intermediaries for these participants.

*This is not investment advice.

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

Ethereum maintained levels near $2,400 over the past 24 hours, continuing a six-day recovery streak as buying activity absorbed pressure from recent sell-offs. This price zone has provided stability for ETH amid broader macroeconomic headwinds and ongoing withdrawals from investment products, serving as a key support area during the latest consolidation phase.

Onchain support and realized priceRecent trading activity has positioned Ethereum just above a critical onchain reference point. CryptoQuant data shows Ethereum’s realized price is approximately $2,311, reflecting the average onchain acquisition cost of ETH holders based on the price at which coins last changed hands.

When Ethereum trades below this level, it often signals that, on aggregate, holders are dealing with unrealized losses, although this does not necessarily mean that all investors are underwater. Historically, buying above the realized price has helped sustain support during market weakness.

Continuing to defend this onchain support may play a vital role in maintaining Ethereum’s current stabilization. However, a breach and daily close below $2,311 could undermine investor confidence and potentially trigger further sell-offs.

Mini dictionary: Realized price, the average price at which all circulating coins were last moved onchain, indicating an aggregate cost basis for holders and serving as a benchmark during periods of market stress.

Pressure has increased on ETH as US spot Ethereum ETFs saw significant outflows, with $103.2 million withdrawn on Monday and another $26 million on Tuesday, according to data from SoSoValue. This marks the fifteenth consecutive session of net outflows over the last fifteen trading days, suggesting persistent softness in institutional demand for ETH through regulated products.

Even with fifteen days of negative flows from US spot ETFs, Ethereum has stabilized near its recent support, showing that market demand outside of ETF channels has helped offset the selling activity.

Derivatives trading has also mirrored this volatility. Within the past 24 hours, total ETH futures liquidations reached $90.59 million, with $62.17 million of those being short positions. The figures imply that recent upward price moves have caught leveraged bearish traders off-guard, reversing a trend that previously favored long liquidation events during ETH’s decline.

Technical levels: $2,324–$2,362 support and near-term resistanceOn the daily ETH/USD chart, Ethereum has been consolidating, with technical support tightly clustered between $2,324 and $2,362. This area aligns with the 100-day Exponential Moving Average ($2,362) and a major horizontal support line ($2,324).

Ethereum has repeatedly tested this range without closing below it, which has enabled buyers to push prices back above $2,400 during the recent rebound phases.

LevelSignificance$2,311Onchain realized price/cost basis$2,324Major horizontal support$2,362100-day EMA$2,44450-day EMA/resistance$2,50020-day EMA/resistance$2,548Horizontal resistance target$2,781Higher resistanceA definitive daily close below $2,324–$2,362 would put the onchain cost basis at $2,311 in sharper focus and could intensify the downside momentum, potentially exposing secondary support at $2,215. On the upside, the 50-day and 20-day EMAs, currently at $2,444 and $2,500 respectively, continue to act as resistance. Sustained movement above these levels could signal a turn in short-term sentiment and open a path toward the $2,548 resistance.

The Relative Strength Index and Stochastic Oscillator have shifted upward but remain below neutral, indicating that selling pressure is waning, while buyers have yet to establish lasting control over price momentum.

For now, preserving the key technical support between $2,324 and $2,362 is central to keeping Ethereum’s current recovery intact. Further advances would likely require buyers to reclaim the $2,444–$2,500 region, reaffirming a stronger upside trajectory.

Table of contents

Optimum wants one number to do the work before anything else: $3.4 billion. That is the dollar value of Ethereum stake the startup says its block-propagation protocol, mump2p, is already “boosting” after going live on Ethereum mainnet on October 20. The launch went out on X with a simpler claim — that data now moves across Ethereum two to three times faster than the default network.

The Optimum team is pleased to announce our first mainnet deployment, mump2p on Ethereum. With mump2p, data moves across all of Ethereum 2-3x faster, boosting validator performance and network health.

$3.4B of Ethereum stake is already being boosted by mump2p, and we’re now… pic.twitter.com/6HP0eMAd3D

— Optimum (@get_optimum) October 20, 2026

Behind the headline sit 16 node operators, roughly 22,000 validator keys, and more than 1.4 million ETH in active stake, according to Optimum’s launch announcement. It is the first production deployment of Random Linear Network Coding, or RLNC, on Ethereum’s consensus layer — technology co-invented by MIT professor Muriel Médard, who is also Optimum’s co-founder and chief executive.

What mump2p actually changes
mump2p runs as a sidecar gateway beside a validator’s consensus client. It does not replace GossipSub, the gossip protocol Ethereum’s consensus layer uses by default, and it does not touch consensus rules, execution, or signing keys. Blocks and attestations still travel the default path; mump2p adds a second, coded channel that can deliver the same data sooner.

Under the hood, the protocol breaks a block into fragments and sends random linear combinations of those fragments. A receiving node reconstructs the full block after collecting enough linearly independent pieces. Because every node can forward and recombine fragments before the entire message arrives, the network stops re-sending identical data through every hop — the main source of gossip overhead.

Validators reach mump2p through two services. Signal lets a validator receive blocks and attestations earlier than it would over GossipSub alone and is free. Accelerate propagates the blocks a validator sends and is offered to operators running 200 or more validators, according to Optimum’s product page.

The $3.4 billion number, deconstructed
The “Total Value Boosted” figure is easy to decode. Divide $3.4 billion by 1.4 million ETH and you get about $2,428 per ether — almost exactly where ETH traded around the launch, and just below the $2,454 it printed on CoinGecko at the time of writing. Total Value Boosted is not a separate economic quantity. It is staked ether multiplied by the market price, given a new name.

Optimum says its reach is “more than 3%” of all staked ETH. The arithmetic holds: 1.4 million ETH is about 3.2% of the roughly 43.7 million ETH locked in the Beacon Chain.

The speed claims are where the numbers begin to drift. The launch post says “2-3x faster.” The homepage advertises “2-4x faster” and a “90% first seen” rate. The press release cites 2.42 times faster block delivery and 7.88 times lower arrival variance, with mump2p users seeing the block first in nine of ten measurements. All of it is self-reported, and the announcement does not disclose how the measurements were gathered.

There is also a count that does not match. The homepage says “20 mainnet partners & counting,” while the release names 16 node operators. Optimum did not explain the gap.

What faster blocks actually buy a validator
Ethereum validators earn rewards in small, regular increments for attesting to blocks. When they attest late or on the wrong head, they forfeit part of that reward. A validator that reliably sees blocks a few hundred milliseconds sooner misses fewer head votes and collects a steadier stream.

The second payoff sits on the proposal side. A block proposer has a narrow window to collect bids from builders before it must commit. Accelerate is pitched as a way to wait longer for higher MEV bids and still land the block on time. That is a measurable margin for large operators — and the reason a liquid restaking provider would make the software mandatory.

Rok Kopp, ether.fi’s co-founder and chief growth officer, framed the decision in the announcement: “We don’t mandate new infrastructure across our entire validator set unless we’re confident it raises the bar for our stakers and for the network.” Optimum says ether.fi now requires all 12 of its node operators to run mump2p.

What isn’t proven yet
The numbers are Optimum’s own. There is no independent benchmark, and ether.fi has not published anything about the mandate on its own blog, docs, or governance forum. The 2.42x and 7.88x figures also appeared in an Optimum-sponsored Four Pillars report in August, which described a test across 30 gateways while the protocol was still preparing for mainnet.

The full operator list, as Optimum published it: Blockdaemon, Everstake, P2P.org, Stakefish, Luganodes, InfStones, Meria, Finoa, Node.Monster, HashKey Cloud, DSRV, RockX, Nansen, Validatrium, Ebunker and Validation Cloud. That roster spans most of the institutional staking market — and none of them independently confirmed the performance numbers either.

“Permissionless” deserves the same scrutiny. Optimum’s marketing describes free, permissionless onboarding, but its own August blog post called the network “permissioned for now,” with operators connecting through an API key issued by the company.

There is also a hard bound on what mump2p can do. It accelerates how quickly data arrives; it does not make Ethereum settle transactions faster or process more of them. The upside is concentrated in attestation timing and the proposer’s bid window — real money for operators, but not a consensus upgrade.

Médard put the pitch in sharper terms in the announcement: “In traditional finance, firms spend billions shaving milliseconds off execution because speed is money. The same economics now apply to Ethereum’s top operators.” And: “This goes beyond validator performance. Optimum is the optimal acceleration path, built on a new coded networking approach for systems that are truly decentralized.”

The next signals are concrete. An independent benchmark of mump2p’s mainnet numbers, an official ether.fi confirmation, and the launch of “Optimum for Traders” — which the team says is coming without a date — would each move the story from self-reported claims toward verified validator infrastructure.

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

Ethereum staking hit a new record in the third quarter of 2026, but investors found themselves earning smaller yields as rewards were spread across a wider pool of staked ETH.

According to Bitwise's latest quarterly staking report, 43.8 million ETH, which is nearly 36% of the total supply, was locked into staking at the end of September. At the same time, annualized staking yields averaged 2.63%, down from 2.81% in the prior quarter.

"As more ETH is staked, rewards are distributed across a larger pool, reducing the yield earned on each ETH," the researchers wrote.

Staked Ethereum QoQ. Source: BitwiseInstitutional staking drives Ethereum inflowsEthereum recorded net staking inflows of just under 2 million ETH in the third quarter, its sixth consecutive quarter of positive flows.

Institutional staking has been a big driver of these flows. Bitwise pointed to Bitmine, the leading Ethereum treasury company led by Tom Lee, whose staking rose more than 1,000% from 410,000 ETH in December to 5.07 million ETH as of Sept. 27.

Newly issued ETH accounted for more than 96% of Ethereum's staking yield, leaving the rest to come from transaction tips and revenue from ordering transactions (MEV).

In the same period, Ethereum network revenue fell to roughly $40.6 million from $63 million in the second quarter.

Solana staking hits record 69% of supplySolana's active staking numbers also hit a record, climbing to 440.5 million SOL, totaling 69% of the total supply. Similar to Ethereum, gross staking yields fell around 6%, with newly issued tokens making up 90% of returns.

The network recorded 14.2 billion transactions, up 45% from the second quarter, while average transaction costs stayed mostly flat.

Solana Non-Vote Transactions. Source: BitwiseTransaction fees jumped 49% to $76 million, driven mostly by memecoin trading. Tokenized equities trading volume climbed 45% to more than $6.9 billion.

Deutsche Bank is preparing to launch its crypto custody service in Germany within weeks, while planning to expand into the Asian market in 2027.

Deutsche Bank, one of Germany’s largest banks, is expanding its digital asset strategy and preparing to offer cryptocurrency custody services in both Europe and Asia. According to the co-head of the bank’s corporate banking division, the service is planned to launch in Germany within a few weeks and in Asia in 2027.

Deutsche Bank is expected to initially support Bitcoin, Ethereum, USDC, EURC, and the euro-pegged EURAU stablecoin. Institutional clients will not have to manage their own wallets or private key infrastructure to hold and transfer their assets. Wallet technology and key security will be provided by the bank.

The bank doesn’t intend to limit itself to just cryptocurrency custody services. Plans include stablecoin conversions, tokenized deposits, and services to help companies issue digital bonds or other blockchain-based securities.

Deutsche Bank received the necessary authorization from Germany’s financial regulator BaFin on October 12th under the European Union’s MiCA rules. However, the final launch of the product in Germany depends on the completion of regulatory processes. Which countries or financial centers will be prioritized in the Asian expansion has not yet been announced.

The bank had previously worked with Bitpanda and Taurus on crypto custody infrastructure. The new service is seen as part of Deutsche Bank’s goal to grow its corporate banking revenue by approximately 8 percent compound annual between 2025 and 2028.

The announcement doesn’t mean the Asian service is launching today. While the German launch is a short-term goal, the Asian expansion is planned for 2027. Also, the service will initially be geared more towards companies and institutional clients than individual investors.

*This is not investment advice.

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

SharpLink (Nasdaq: SBET) has confirmed its first major onchain deployment, $200 million with Ether.fi and $200 million with Lido Finance, with Anchorage Digital serving as custodian for both positions.

The Nasdaq-listed Ethereum treasury firm shared the news via its official X account on October 19, 2026, describing the move as putting its ETH “to work every day.”

The SharpLink ETH deployment marks a shift from passive accumulation to active, yield-generating onchain strategy, a benchmark the company says others in institutional finance can now follow.

From Treasury Build to Active Yield: Inside the $400M Onchain Strategy SharpLink’s treasury thesis has been consistent since the company pivoted to an Ethereum-first model. Accumulate ETH. Make it productive. Compound yields. Increase ETH per share.

The $400 million SharpLink ETH deployment is the clearest execution of that thesis yet.

Anyone can own $ETH. We know how to put it to work.

Over the last year, Sharplink has done roughly $500M worth of deals to put ETH to work across the ecosystem.

These include staking deployments, a dedicated onchain yield fund, and investments for the teams leading Ethereum’s… pic.twitter.com/Ecjuz7n6wn

— Sharplink (@Sharplink) October 19, 2026

The Lido allocation fulfils a plan announced in August 2026. Under that arrangement, SharpLink stakes $200 million and receives wstETH, a liquid token that earns staking rewards while remaining deployable in DeFi, custodied by Anchorage.

CEO Joseph Chalom described the move then as “an exciting expansion in making our ETH even more productive.”

Lido holds roughly $16.5 billion in staked ETH, with wstETH integrated across more than 100 protocols. That scale, and the infrastructure around it, made Lido the natural partner for institutional-grade staking.

The Ether.fi allocation extends a separate line of work involving liquid restaking and weETH instruments.

Both positions sit inside a public-company balance sheet with Big 4 audit oversight, a structure SharpLink has consistently highlighted as the institutional standard.

This latest move builds on a longer capital deployment effort. In early August, SharpLink committed $100 million of its staked ETH to the Galaxy SharpLink Onchain Yield Fund, a $125 million vehicle Galaxy manages to pursue onchain yield strategies and emerging protocol investments.

Mike Novogratz, CEO of Galaxy, said the launch reflects institutional investors moving “from passive ownership toward active participation in blockchain-based markets.”

SharpLink now reports institutional ownership of approximately 60%, up roughly 12 percentage points, with Fidelity, BlackRock, Morgan Stanley, and Vanguard among its holders.

The depth of that institutional base reflects confidence in a treasury model built around productive ETH, not passive holding.

Liquid Staking Leaders and a Widening Institutional Playbook Lido and Ether.fi occupy different but complementary roles in Ethereum’s staking infrastructure.

Lido remains the dominant liquid staking platform by total value locked. Ether.fi leads in liquid restaking, giving depositors exposure to both base staking yield and additional reward layers.

Splitting the $400 million evenly across both protocols gives SharpLink diversified exposure to Ethereum’s productive layer.

Lido has also been expanding its footprint. The protocol launched ETH staking across four Layer-2 networks, Arbitrum, Base, Linea, and Optimism, using Chainlink CCIP, a move that deepens the liquidity reach of wstETH well beyond Ethereum mainnet. SharpLink’s deployment lands as that expansion gains traction.

Meanwhile, efforts to give retail investors direct stETH exposure through regulated products have stalled.

VanEck withdrew its proposed Lido staked Ethereum ETF registration with the SEC, leaving institutional deployments like SharpLink’s as the more accessible path for large allocators today.

SharpLink is not alone among listed companies treating ETH as a productive asset. BitMine has been a consistent buyer and staker, with its ETH accumulation continuing even as BMNR stock faced pressure.

The peer comparison underscores a broader shift: treasury firms are increasingly benchmarked not just on how much ETH they hold, but on how much yield that ETH generates.

On the traditional finance side, banks are also deepening their Ethereum commitments, JPMorgan recently expanded its JPM Coin deposit token to the Ethereum network, a further signal of the institutional drift toward productive on-chain infrastructure.

For SBET equity holders, the metric that matters most now is ETH-per-share compounding. The SharpLink ETH deployment is live. The protocols are running.

The question is how quickly the realized yields, and any further deployment tranches, show up in disclosed performance metrics. Watch for SharpLink’s next quarterly update and any X posts from the company on early yield data.

Ethereum traders are buying insurance, and they are paying a premium for it.

On October 19, 2026, ETH options markets showed a clear downside skew. Short-dated puts traded at a meaningful premium to calls, which signals that traders are more worried about a drop than excited about a rally.

ETH has slipped roughly 8% over the past month while Bitcoin quietly held its ground, gaining 1.5% over the same stretch.

What the options market is saying Data from Block Scholes showed seven-day ETH puts trading at an implied volatility premium of up to 8 percentage points over calls.

The 1-week 25-delta skew for ETH stood at +7.4 vol points, sitting at the 11th percentile. The 25-delta skew compares the price of puts and calls that are similarly far from the current price. A positive reading means puts are richer, so traders are leaning defensive.

ETH’s 7-day implied volatility climbed nearly 10 points, a sign that tension is building in the near-term contracts.

Further out on the curve, the tone softens but does not flip. The 30-day 25-delta skew came in at +3.1 vol points. Puts are still favored on a monthly view, just with less urgency than in the one-week window.

A tale of two assets Bitcoin has held a range between $80,000 and $84,000. ETH, by contrast, has been referenced around $2,400 in spot trading.

Both assets have seen their put-call skews widen since early October. A decline in AI and tech equities has weighed on sentiment, and that caution has spilled into crypto. ETH has taken the bigger hit, while Bitcoin has mostly shrugged.

Calls still dominate open interest Despite the defensive skew, ETH options open interest remains heavily tilted toward calls. Calls make up approximately 63% of open interest, with puts at roughly 37%. Total open interest for ETH options was approximately $6.09 billion.

The call wall sits at $2,600, while the put wall rests at $2,300. With spot near $2,400, ETH is trading between those two markers, closer to the put side than the call side.

What this means for traders For anyone using options to hedge, the cost of that hedge has gone up. Buying short-dated puts now means paying a premium compared with a few weeks ago. Selling puts, on the other hand, pays more, though it comes with the obvious risk of being on the hook if prices fall.

The $2,300 put wall is the level many traders will likely have circled. A move toward that zone would test whether the defensive positioning was prescient or simply expensive peace of mind.

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

Tom Lee sees crypto’s recent weakness as part of a broader selloff in AI stocks and Asian markets, as investors pull back from risk.

BitMine Immersion Technologies (BMNR) said on Monday its crypto, cash, and equity holdings were worth $15.1 billion on October 18, down from $16.2 billion a week earlier.

Most of that total is Ethereum (ETH). BitMine marked its Ether at $2,365 per token, using Coinbase prices, against $2,544 in the prior update. That is its lowest weekly mark since the update for August 16, according to its SEC filings.

The company bought 12,535 ETH over the week, taking its treasury to 6,041,481 tokens. That equals 4.9% of the 122.1 million ETH in supply, short of BitMine’s 5% goal. The buy nearly matched the 12,532 ETH BitMine added in the week to October 11.

Cash and marketable securities fell to $582 million, the fourth weekly drop in a row from $714 million on September 20. BitMine’s release gives no reason for the cash decline.

Lee Cites AI Stock Selloff Chairman Tom Lee warned in a post on X on October 13 that a slump in South Korean equities could hit crypto. He said in Monday’s release that investors’ appetite for risk has shrunk over the past few weeks. He tied that to concerns over AI funding and AI model safety. Lee also cited the escalating US-Iran war, anxiety ahead of the US midterm elections and rising bond yields worldwide.

Lee said those worries set off a selloff in AI stocks, including chip and memory makers. That selloff then spread to South Korea and Taiwan, whose stock markets those companies dominate, he said.

“Crypto is widely held in the US, Korea and Taiwan. So naturally, when investors in those regions de-risk, this creates spillover pressures in crypto markets,” Lee stated.

He noted that past price drops that came while fundamentals held up have offered attractive risk and reward. He said he expects the same this time, citing crypto’s exposure to modernizing financial rails and to agentic AI.

You may also like: OpenAI Says Research Model Raided Developer Wallet on Ethereum Testnet Starknet Considers Becoming an L1 to Reach Quantum Resistance by 2027 BitMine’s Weekly ETH Buys Shrink to 12,532 as Tom Lee Says Stacking Is Done Legal Note Drops The Finished-Buying Line Lee said in an October 7 video message that BitMine needed about 100,000 more ETH. BitMine’s next weekly release then added a line to its note on forward-looking statements, and that line cited a management statement that BitMine is largely finished buying ETH.

Monday’s note drops that statement. Its wording on buying matches the updates through the week to October 4, which cited continued weekly ETH acquisitions, without any explanation.

The same note lists Lee’s staking projections. He put annual staking revenue at $309 million on the 5,067,309 ETH BitMine has staked. That staked count has not moved in any weekly update since August 9. Fully staked, he said, the treasury would earn $369 million at a 2.58% seven-day yield.

Tags:

Stablecoins now total $300.3 billion, spread across 47 blockchains. Ethereum holds 54.1% of that supply, and Tron holds 31.4%, according to figures shared on X.

Those two chains together account for more than 85% of all stablecoin supply. The remaining 45 networks share what is left.

The numbers, and the fine print
The total is a milestone. Stablecoins are crypto tokens built to track a fiat currency, usually the US dollar, and they now form a market worth roughly $300 billion. Research findings put total supply at an estimated $300.3 billion to $302 billion as of early to mid-October 2026.

Ethereum’s exact share depends on who is counting. Across data sources, its slice of supply ranged from 47.7% to 54.2% during the same period.

Stablecoin Beat, measuring as of October 19, 2026, put Ethereum at around 48.4% and Tron at 31.5%. Other readings place Tron at approximately 31.2% to 31.5% as of mid-October.

The quarterly trend is where the story gets sharper. During Q3 2026, Tron added about $5 billion in stablecoin supply. Over the same stretch, Ethereum shed around $4.9 billion.

Supply versus usage
Tron processed approximately 73% of stablecoin transfer volume in Q3 2026, according to the research findings. That figure is well ahead of Ethereum’s share of flows.

The issuer side is even more concentrated than the chain side. Tether’s USDT and Circle’s USDC together make up around 85% of total stablecoin supply as of October 2026.

Further down the table, the fragmentation is real but thin. Chains such as Solana and BNB Chain each capture only low-single-digit percentages of total supply.

What this means
For Ethereum, a roughly $4.9 billion decline in a single quarter is not a crisis for a network holding well over a hundred billion dollars in stablecoins. Still, losing supply while a rival gains a near-identical amount is the kind of trend that compounds if it continues for several quarters.

The data-source spread also matters for anyone citing Ethereum’s dominance. With readings from 47.7% to 54.2%, the safest framing is that Ethereum holds roughly half, and the exact figure depends on methodology.

For Tron, commanding about 73% of transfer volume while holding about 31% of supply means its stablecoins are working much harder per dollar.

Concentration at the issuer level is the other risk to track. With USDT and USDC holding around 85% of supply, any regulatory, operational, or reserve issue at either company would hit the whole market, regardless of which chain the tokens live on.

The metrics to watch next are straightforward. Watch whether Tron’s Q3 supply gains continue into the next quarter, whether Ethereum’s share stabilizes near the top of its reported range or drifts toward the bottom, and whether any third chain breaks out of the low single digits.

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

Germany’s Sparkassen savings bank network launched cryptocurrency trading on Monday, allowing customers to buy Bitcoin, Ethereum, XRP, Solana, and Polygon. The service is being rolled out through DekaBank and will be launched slowly in the participating savings banks, albeit with restrictions on transfers to personal wallets.

Sparkassen Launches Five Cryptocurrencies Through Banking App Under certain conditions, the Sparkassen customers of DekaBank can trade five cryptocurrencies directly via the existing banking application. The offering is named “Krypto – powered by Deka,” and it enables trading in BTC, ETH, XRP, SOL, and POL.

The service can be used in the investment part of the Sparkasse app without the need for a separate securities account. Each transaction costs €0.99, although additional costs arise from the difference between buying and selling prices.

The launch comes after a series of initiatives by German banks to bring on-board cryptocurrency trading to existing customer accounts. DekaBank has created the Sparkassen service, and DZ Bank has backed up a separate rollout amongst Germany’s cooperative banks.

DekaBank is custodian of cryptocurrencies on its own wallet infrastructure and participates in trading arrangements with Börse Stuttgart. Users will have the ability to see their cryptocurrency assets in addition to various other monetary products and services in the current application.

DekaBank Restricts Crypto Withdrawals to Approved Providers While it is possible to buy cryptocurrencies at Sparkassen, they cannot be transferred directly to private hardware wallets. DekaBank maintains the private keys, and only specific cryptocurrency service providers are allowed to make transfers.

The agreement involves customers having to trust that DekaBank will keep their digital assets safe and handle their permitted withdrawals. However, the restrictions do not prevent users from selling their cryptocurrencies through the banking application.

The service is aimed at adult customers who make it on their own, and Sparkassen will not give investment advice on cryptocurrencies. DekaBank also cautions investors that the value of digital assets could be volatile with a potential loss of investment.

The custody is part of a broader trend across German financial institutions, including Deutsche Bank’s cryptocurrency custody plans. These services are regulated under EU laws, such as the Markets in Crypto-Assets Regulation.

Sparkassen Plans Wider Crypto Trading Rollout Into 2027 More than 230 Sparkassen institutions have expressed interest in introducing cryptocurrency trading, according to German banking representatives. Each savings bank, however, will determine on its own if and when it will provide the service.

Around 30 to 40 institutions can join monthly, said Joachim Schmalzl, an executive board member of the German Savings Banks Association. The group is targeting the first half of 2027 for the largest number of interested banks to be connected.

The first phase is limited to the participating institutions and not nationwide through Germany’s savings banking network. Before opening a cryptocurrency account, customers should therefore inquire whether their local Sparkasse has switched on the service.

The expansion comes after the banking group’s earlier stance on digital assets. Sparkassen had previously been against the retail trading of cryptocurrencies due to concerns about price volatility and losses by investors.

The group is still pushing traditional securities and savings products as a way to build up long-term wealth, even with the introduction of cryptocurrency trading.

JPMorgan takes JPM Coin to Ethereum for institutional clients: ReportJPMorgan is reportedly expanding its JPM Coin deposit token to Ethereum, allowing institutional clients to make payments and settle tokenized asset transactions.

JPMorgan Chase, the world’s biggest bank by market capitalization, is expanding its JPM Coin deposit token to Ethereum, Bloomberg reported on Monday.

JPM Coin represents US dollar deposits held at JPMorgan and lets eligible clients transfer funds within seconds, around the clock.

Emma Landriault, global head of Kinexys Labs, said crypto companies could use the token for blockchain payments, while financial institutions could use it to settle trades and post collateral.

Landriault said JPMorgan chose Ethereum for its liquidity and existing use among clients. While the tokens are issued on public networks, JPM Coin will remain restricted to approved institutional participants.

The expansion follows JPMorgan’s November 2025 rollout of JPM Coin on Base, an Ethereum layer-2 network built by cryptocurrency exchange Coinbase. At the time, JPMorgan said it planned to support additional public blockchains. In January, JPMorgan announced plans to bring JPM Coin to the Canton Network. 

Cointelegraph contacted JPMorgan for additional details but did not receive an immediate response.

Cointelegraph is committed to independent, transparent journalism. This news article is produced in accordance with Cointelegraph’s Editorial Policy and aims to provide accurate and timely information. Readers are encouraged to verify information independently.

Ethereum co-founder Vitalik Buterin has outlined an experimental privacy framework for artificial intelligence agents that layers anonymous payments, network anonymization, and on-device prompt handling.

The approach, which he describes as a “paranoid mode” wrapper around his personal agent harness, aims to limit the exposure of user identities and sensitive details when agents interact with external language models.

The system is packaged as a daemon compatible with the OpenAI application programming interface. Inside it, three distinct protections operate together.

First, every conversation is assigned its own circuit on the Tor network.

Wrapped zkAPI + Tor + extra cover traffic + local LLM prompt rewriting in an open-AI compatible daemon, and made a "paranoid mode" wrapper for my agent harness (pi):

Each conversation gets assigned a separate Tor circuit, your requests are masked with random cover traffic, zkAPI… pic.twitter.com/2y236zA0cw

— vitalik.eth (@VitalikButerin) October 16, 2026

Requests are further obscured by the injection of random cover traffic, which is intended to make genuine queries harder to distinguish from background noise on the basis of timing or volume.

Second, payment for model usage is handled through zkAPI, a protocol developed with involvement from the Open Anonymity Project and the Ethereum Foundation.

zkAPI allows a user to maintain a private balance and prove, via zero-knowledge proofs, that sufficient funds exist for a request without linking that request back to a specific on-chain deposit or wallet identity.

Third, prompts are rewritten on the user’s own machine by a local language model before they leave the device.

Buterin has indicated he uses a Qwen 3.8 Flash Next model for this step, so that stylistic markers and potentially identifying wording can be altered prior to transmission.

The agent harness itself runs inside a bubblewrap sandbox, with additional experiments underway involving MicroVM isolation.

The entire environment is then wrapped with torsocks, forcing all outbound connections through Tor.

In a short demonstration, Buterin asked the agent to perform a simple research task—identifying vegan restaurants in Tallinn—and reported that the stack returned usable results.

He characterized the overall experience as increasingly practical, while noting that the added layers introduce noticeable latency, particularly when a new conversation begins and a fresh Tor circuit must be established.Buterin has also flagged remaining limitations.

He observes that Tor, while helpful against passive observers, is far from ideal for this use case.

Cover traffic offers only modest protection if an AI service provider colludes with a Tor entry (guard) node and actively manipulates timing patterns.

In such scenarios, he suggests that a purpose-built mix network, accepting higher bandwidth overhead and continuous cover traffic, would be more appropriate.

Separately, he notes that substantially lower gas costs for zkAPI deposits and withdrawals are expected to arrive on Ethereum mainnet in the near term, which could enlarge the anonymity set available to users.

The arrangement offers a concrete illustration of how AI-powered agents might access remote models while reducing the linkage between prompts, network metadata, and payment credentials.

It does not eliminate all possible leakage paths, nor does it claim to replace the need for stronger anonymity systems in the long run. The code for the daemon and related components has been made available for inspection, allowing others to examine, test, or adapt the design.

This October, capital flows seem to prefer Bitcoin despite the overall risk-off mood.

Technically, it means that capital is not rotating into altcoins as the textbook fear rotation would suggest. Ethereum dominance fell 5% this month, and Bitcoin dominance increased 2.5% this month, highlighting a clear shift in market preference toward BTC.

Then, what does this imply about the SOL/ETH momentum?

The ratio jumped over 11% during the last two months but decreased by more than 2.3% so far this month. Thus, Solana seems to have difficulty gaining any significant ground against Ethereum despite the relative weakness of the latter.

Moreover, the ratio now encounters resistance at the critical level of 0.05.

Source: TradingView (SOL/ETH) Why is Solana’s activity lead missing from SOL/ETH? That said, on-chain data tell a different story.

According to data from Token Terminal, Ethereum has only recorded around 28 million transactions so far this month, compared to over 6 billion on Solana.

The key takeaway?

Solana is averaging nearly 1,500 transactions per second in 2026, which is almost 8x BNB Chain’s throughput and around 60x Ethereum’s, underscoring the network’s edge in transaction throughput.

Notably, this divergence is beginning to show in social sentiment.

Data shows Solana has overtaken Ethereum in Social Engagements, with 29.7 million engagements over the past 24 hours compared to ETH’s 28.91 million. In addition, Solana has overtaken Ethereum in Creator Activity, with 24.4k creators compared with 23k for ETH.

This suggests that there is growing social traction for SOL, even as its relative price momentum against ETH remains weak.

The key question is: Why is the market still betting on the SOL/ETH setup despite capital flows favoring Bitcoin and ETH demonstrating better price momentum than Solana [SOL]?

According to AMBCrypto, this is where Solana’s divergence in transaction activity begins to matter.

Could Solana’s fees support a SOL/ETH recovery? High transaction activity can generate fees, giving the activity comparison an economic dimension.

Solana’s Monthly Fees reached around $20 million in recent months, with October already recording $15 million. Ethereum generated approximately $8 million in fees over the comparable October period.

However, the supply implications required a closer look.

Solana burned half its Base Fees, while validators received all Priority Fees. Higher total fees therefore offered an incomplete supply picture.

The accompanying Blockworks chart put Solana’s Burn Rate at 2.2%, its highest since early 2025. That reading alone did not establish that SOL’s supply was shrinking or that burns exceeded new issuance.

Source: Blockworks What could Ethereum’s staking queues mean for SOL? Meanwhile, the staking dynamics of Ethereum [ETH] are adding another layer to the SOL/ETH setup.

According to ValidatorQueue, ETH’s entry queue has fallen from 3 million in early May to 1.23 million. At the same time, the exit queue has jumped from around 103,000 to over 1 million, suggesting that demand for new staking deposits is cooling and there is a surge in the number of validators waiting to unstake their ETH.

In short, the SOL/ETH ratio is showing a divergence between tightening supply and cautious market demand. If this trend holds, Solana’s growing burn rate and Ethereum’s increasing staking exit queue could strengthen SOL’s relative performance and set the stage for a breakout above the 0.05 level.

Final Summary Solana’s high transaction activity and rising burn rate are helping tighten SOL’s supply, even as its price struggles against ETH.

Ethereum’s rising staking exit queue could give SOL an edge and support a potential SOL/ETH breakout above 0.05.

A major Ethereum transaction recently caught market attention after 23,528 ETH moved from Coinbase Institutional to an unknown wallet. According to Whale Alert, this transfer was valued at around $57.88 million worth of ETH, marking a significant movement from an institutional custody.

However, the receiving address remained unidentified, leaving the wallet’s ownership and the purpose of the transaction unclear.

Meanwhile, on the other side, BlackRock reportedly sold approximately $69.68 million worth of ETH, introducing another significant institutional development.

These developments notably emerged during a period of significant exchange outflows, reflecting contrasting signals around Ethereum’s institutional activity.

ETH exchange outflows approach fourth consecutive week Here, it’s worth noting that Ethereum’s spot exchange flows recorded three consecutive weeks of net outflows, extending a sustained withdrawal trend. In particular, the recent weekly reading approached -$1.5 billion, hinting at significant withdrawals from trading platforms.

In case netflows remain negative through the weekly close on 19th October, Ethereum will complete its fourth consecutive week of outflows.

These sustained withdrawals have reduced exchange-side supply, potentially limiting the amount of ETH readily available for selling.

The fall in exchange balances, however, did not establish an automatic stronger demand or guarantee a price recovery. Instead, the sustained outflows contrasted with ETH’s weak price performance, hinting at a divergence between exchange activity and market direction.

Source: CoinGlass Are Ethereum traders still betting on a price recovery? Despite the fall in price, Ethereum derivatives traders predominantly maintained a bullish position across major trading platforms.

According to Coinglass, ETH’s OI-Weighted Funding Rate remained positive at 0.0037%, hinting at continued demand for long exposure as longs paid shorts.

Meanwhile, Binance’s top trader accounts recorded a notable imbalance between bullish and bearish positions. Specifically, the long positions accounted for 69.78% compared to the 30.22% holding short positions. The positioning resulted in a Long/Short Ratio of 2.31 as bullish accounts outnumbered the bearish accounts.

These metrics together reflected persistent bullish positioning even when Ethereum failured to record a meaningful price recovery. However, the long positions concentration also increased exposure to potential liquidations in case ETH extends its decline.

Ultimately, the derivatives positioning provided a more optimistic outlook than Ethereum’s underlying technical structure.

Source: CoinGlass ETH approaches $2,400 as bearish signals intensify After correcting from the $2,800-resistance area, Ethereum [ETH] sat at around $2,429. The pullback pushed ETH towards the $2,400-support, although the bulls were trying to prevent a sustained breakdown.

Also, on the daily chart, the price action highlighted repeated attempts to stabilize around the prevailing demand area, keeping the technical support structure intact.

The Parabolic SAR indicator, however, remained above ETH at $2,638.98, validating the prevailing bearish trend.

The MACD indicator fell to -41.36, below its Signal line, to produce a negative histogram. This confirmed that bearish pressure has continued to dominate the market.

The $2,400-support level will remain crucial since a breakdown below it could expose ETH to another corrective leg. Especially if the bears continue to maintain control.

Source: TradingView Final Summary Ethereum’s exchange outflows continued for a fourth potential week despite persistent price weakness. ETH remained above $2,400, but bearish indicators increased the risk of a further fall. 

TLDR:

Ethereum Derivatives carried $30.59 billion in futures open interest, although the aggregate book slipped 0.42% during the latest 24-hour period.
Calls represented 61.75% of Ethereum options open interest, but 24-hour put volume narrowly exceeded call volume, showing balanced near-term flow.
Long liquidations exceeded short liquidations over both 24-hour and 12-hour windows, while positive funding kept leveraged bulls paying shorts.
Max pain levels differed across Deribit, OKX, and Binance for October and December, so they do not form one market-wide price target.

Ethereum derivatives are sending mixed messages as ETH trades inside a weekly range. The token moved between $2,324 and $2,575 during the week, while futures traders maintained $30.59 billion in open interest. Options positioning still tilted toward calls, which accounted for 61.75% of outstanding contracts. Yet the futures book slipped, positive funding persisted, and liquidations struck more longs than shorts. 

Ethereum derivatives therefore show substantial bullish positioning without a clear signal. The split matters because calls can serve hedging strategies, while rising leverage creates vulnerability during sharp price moves. ETH traded near $2,428 intraday on October 17.

Ethereum Derivatives Keep $30B in Futures as OI Slips
Outstanding Ethereum futures totaled 12.63 million ETH, valued at $30.59 billion, after a 0.42% daily decline. Open interest tracks active contracts rather than completed trades. Binance held $8.73 billion, or 28.55% of the total. MEXC followed with $3.25 billion, narrowly above CME at $3.24 billion.

Binance’s share made it the largest venue in the reported futures rankings. Other venues held smaller shares of exposure.

Source: Coinglass
Hyperliquid carried $2.61 billion, followed by Bybit at $2.15 billion and Bitget at $2 billion. The distribution shows liquidity remains spread between centralized platforms, a regulated exchange, and a perpetuals DEX. Large open interest does not identify the market direction by itself. It shows the amount of capital still exposed to future price changes.

That distinction matters when comparing dollar open interest across exchanges. ETH price changes can alter the book’s reported value even if contract quantities change less.

Exchange trends were uneven. MEXC added 6.49% to its open interest, and Bitget grew 1.22%. Bitunix fell 11.27%, BingX lost 7.57%, and Hyperliquid declined 1.70%. CME also contracted 1.11%, pointing to selective rather than broad leverage growth.

Ethereum derivatives still held a large aggregate futures book, but the liquidation data put bulls on notice. The market recorded 3,222 long liquidations against 2,181 shorts in 24 hours. The 12-hour count showed 2,651 longs liquidated, compared with 876 shorts. Positive funding near 0.0053 meant longs continued paying shorts.

Ethereum Options Show Bullish Calls but Fragile Long Positions
Ethereum options carried 1.59 million ETH in calls and 983,689 ETH in puts. That composition gave calls a 61.75% share of open interest. Still, the newest flow was nearly balanced. Twenty-four-hour volume reached 414,521 ETH for calls and 420,513 ETH for puts.

Ethereum derivatives can look call-heavy without proving that every holder expects an immediate rally. Traders may use calls to hedge short exposure or structure spreads. The put activity near the spot also remained visible. Bybit’s $2,100 and $2,200 put led several high-volume contracts. $2,500 calls also traded actively on Binance and Bybit.

Deribit’s December 25 $3,200 call held the largest individual position at 69,667 ETH. Its $2,200 call held 51,016 ETH, and an October 30 $2,600 call held 38,043 ETH. These positions show interest across several price levels and expiries. They do not prove a single outright bullish view.

Ethereum options max pain readings differed by exchange. For October 30, Deribit and Binance pointed to $2,500, while OKX stood near $2,650. For December 25, Deribit showed $2,200, OKX $2,300, and Binance $2,500. Max pain represents a theoretical payout-minimizing level, not a price target.

CME options exposure had also declined toward 50,000 ETH by October from above 500,000 ETH earlier in 2026. Its dollar position readings fell near $10 million after exceeding $70 million in late 2025. Ethereum derivatives remain divided between a reduced CME options footprint and larger crypto-native futures markets.