Track market-moving stories before they get noisy

A Critical Date for Ethereum Has Arrived: A Major Update Is Expected

Ethereum unstaking has jumped 392% since the start of October, according to data circulated on X. By October 2, roughly 850,000 ETH was lined up to leave the network’s validator set.

That is the longest exit line Ethereum has seen all year. It happened in the same week that MetaMask Staking told users part of its infrastructure had been compromised.

What is driving the exit line By October 2, the estimated wait to exit had reached about 14.77 days. In late September, exits had been sitting in the low-to-mid 100,000s ETH range.

The queue sat at approximately 850,000 to 850,736 ETH at its peak. Total staked ETH stood at roughly 43.6 million across about 878,000 active validators. The pending exits therefore represented close to 2% of all staked supply.

Advertisement

The MetaMask Staking incident On September 30, MetaMask Staking disclosed a compromise of its infrastructure. Block rewards of about 0.36 ETH across 18 blocks were briefly diverted. MetaMask said no user wallets or sensitive data were affected.

MetaMask moved to exit nearly 17,000 validators holding approximately 523,000 ETH, a significant share of which was tied to Lido’s operations. The exits were framed as a precaution and were expected to finish by October 7.

Of the roughly 850,000 ETH waiting to exit, approximately 523,000 ETH came from MetaMask’s validators alone.

Not all of it is caution Jiang Zhuoer, founder of an LTC mining pool, said the jump in the queue suggested some holders were taking advantage of current prices to lock in profits.

The price barely moved ETH traded in a narrow band between $2,686 and $2,725 from September 30 to October 2. With waits near 14.77 days, any selling is spread over time rather than hitting the market in one burst.

What this means for stakers and the market MetaMask’s exits were expected to finish by October 7. Once they clear, the queue should shrink noticeably unless fresh exits replace them.

With a significant portion of the exiting stake tied to Lido’s operations, the event highlights how decisions by one infrastructure partner can affect a much larger pool of staked ETH.

Roughly 43.6 million ETH is still staked across about 878,000 validators. Even at its peak, the exit queue was a small slice of that total.

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

The crypto market is down today, October 3, as Bitcoin retreats from resistance and leveraged liquidations pressure other major tokens. 

Total market capitalization fell about 1.8% to $2.88 trillion over 24 hours, as Ethereum and XRP extended their daily losses. The pullback follows a brief rally after weak US employment data, while earlier ETF withdrawals show uneven demand for funds.

Crypto Market Falls as BTC, ETH and XRP Extend Losses Bitcoin price traded near $84,627, down 1.92% over 24 hours, according to CoinMarketCap’s October 3 market. Ethereum price fell 2.14% to approximately $2,684, while XRP lost 3.65% to $1.48 during the same period.

Coin 360 data Bitcoin price briefly cleared $87,000 on Friday before reversing, leaving the initial crypto market rebound unable to hold. Its recent low near $83,898 provides a downside reference, while the failed rally highlights resistance around $87,000.

Solana and Dogecoin also declined, extending losses across other leading cryptocurrencies.

Weak US Jobs Data Shifts Federal Reserve Expectations US employers added 29,000 jobs in September, compared with a 90,000 forecast. Unemployment increased to 4.2% from 4.1%, while revisions reduced July and August employment totals by 60,000.

U.S. September Payrolls Miss Sharply at 29K as Unemployment Rises to 4.2%

U.S. nonfarm payrolls increased by just 29,000 in September, well below the 90,000 market forecast, while the unemployment rate rose to 4.2% versus 4.1% expected. August payroll growth was revised down to… pic.twitter.com/9YePiVAEiY

— Wu Blockchain (@WuBlockchain) October 2, 2026

August’s increase was revised to 133,000 jobs, while July’s updated reading showed a decline of 10,000. Average hourly earnings rose 0.1% monthly, bringing annual wage growth to 3.0%, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

Reported market pricing placed an October rate hike at 17%, strengthening expectations that the Federal Reserve could pause. Bitcoin initially advanced after the employment release, but that improvement failed to sustain the crypto market rally.

Leveraged Liquidations Deepen Losses Across Major Cryptocurrencies At 06:02 UTC, CoinGlass figures showed $433.57 million in liquidations over 24 hours. Long positions added $321.77 million or about 74% of the total, while short liquidations totaled $111.80 million.

Liquidations will take place when losses reduce an account’s collateral to an amount lower than its leveraged position. Exchanges then forcibly close positions, potentially intensifying declines and exposing other leveraged accounts to further losses.

Crypto ETF Outflows Reach Bitcoin and Ethereum Funds US spot Bitcoin ETFs recorded $149 million in net outflows on September 30, according to SoSoValue data. None of the 12 tracked Bitcoin funds registered net inflows during that session.

Ethereum spot ETFs recorded another $59.58 million in net outflows on the same date. None of the 10 tracked Ethereum funds posted inflows, bringing combined withdrawals to approximately $208.58 million.

According to SoSoValue, US Bitcoin spot ETFs recorded a total net outflow of $149 million on September 30 (Eastern Time), with none of the 12 ETFs logging net inflows. Concurrently, US Ethereum spot ETFs posted a total net outflow of $59.58 million yesterday, with zero net… pic.twitter.com/B7JPrgirAh

— Wu Blockchain (@WuBlockchain) October 1, 2026

Bitcoin’s withdrawals ended a nine-day ETF inflow streak, interrupting the stronger demand recorded earlier in September. Across the full month, Bitcoin funds attracted $2.65 billion, while Ethereum ETFs received $832.43 million.

Social sentiment for Ethereum ($ETH) and XRP ($XRP) has turned sharply negative at the start of October, according to data from on-chain analytics firm @SantimentData. Bearish comments are now outpacing bullish ones for both tokens across major platforms including X, Reddit, and Telegram, marking some of the lowest optimism readings in months.

The Numbers Behind the Gloom Santiment tracks the ratio of positive to negative commentary across social platforms. A reading below 1.0 signals that bearish posts are in the majority. According to its latest data, $ETH's bullish-to-bearish ratio has fallen to 0.89, its lowest level since June 7. $XRP is weaker still, sitting at just 0.67, a level not seen since August 17. That translates to roughly 67 bullish comments for every 100 bearish ones for @Ripple's token.

The sour mood arrives at the start of a month traders often call "Uptober," a nod to October's historically positive seasonal performance for crypto. Adding to the pressure on $ETH, Ethereum spot ETFs recorded three consecutive days of net outflows totalling around $117.8 million through October 1. $XRP funds have remained relatively more stable, though the token is not immune to the broader negative sentiment sweep.

Notably, Bitcoin ($BTC) sentiment stands in contrast, with its ratio sitting at 1.37, meaning the pessimism is concentrated squarely on the two altcoins rather than the broader market.

A Contrarian Signal Worth Watching @SantimentData is not sounding the alarm just yet. The firm has long argued that extreme crowd pessimism can set up a contrarian opportunity, noting that when traders become convinced prices are heading lower, much of the panic selling may already have happened. The underlying logic, widely observed in behavioral finance, is that the crowd tends to be most wrong at market turning points.

That said, @SantimentData cautioned that bearish sentiment alone does not guarantee a price recovery. Investors would still need to weigh market structure, technical support levels, and broader macro conditions before acting on any contrarian view. Upcoming catalysts for $XRP include Ripple's Swell conference and a Federal Reserve meeting later in October, either of which could shift the mood quickly.

Whether $ETH and $XRP can reclaim bullish momentum and challenge new all-time highs before year-end remains an open question. For now, the crowd is firmly in the bearish camp.

Sources:
BeInCrypto: Welcome to Uptober: ETH and XRP Sentiment Just Hit Multi-Month Lows
Bitcoin.com News: XRP Sentiment Turns Bearish as Bullish-to-Bearish Ratio Hits 0.67
Coin Edition: Ethereum and XRP Sentiment Has Suddenly Turned Very Negative

MetaMask has begun withdrawing a large set of Ethereum validators from active duty after reporting a security incident inside part of its infrastructure. The company says ordinary wallet users were not exposed and that customer funds were not put at risk.

The response is concentrated in its non-custodial staking business, including validators it runs for the Lido protocol, and it is being treated as a containment step rather than evidence that stake itself was drained.

On 30 September 2026, MetaMask said it was handling an ongoing incident affecting a portion of its systems and that it had not identified an immediate threat to MetaMask wallets.

It added that it was exiting affected validators in coordination with clients, partners, and security advisers.

The firm stressed that its staking activity does not hold withdrawal credentials for client stake.

An update the following day repeated that investigation so far showed no sign that wallets or customer assets had been touched, while teams continued containment and verification.

MetaMask also warned users to ignore unsolicited messages and never to share a Secret Recovery Phrase, noting that the company does not request that phrase.

Lido’s account of the operational fallout is more specific on timing.

Affected validators are expected to have left the active set, though not necessarily completed withdrawal, by the end of 7 October 2026.

Returning that ether to productive staking may take up to about 45 days because of Ethereum’s entry queue.

Holders of stETH were told no action was required.

The protocol warned of forgone rewards and possible downtime penalties if operators take machines offline early to reduce the chance of slashable behavior.

Lido has described its operator set as diversified and has pointed to a reserve that can absorb some operational loss.

Independent chain analysis, which MetaMask has not confirmed, sketches a narrower theft and a much wider precaution.

Researcher observations indicate that fee-recipient settings on a subset of MetaMask-operated validators were altered for several hours on 30 September.

Of 19 validators that proposed blocks in the relevant window, 18 sent tips to an unexpected address that had been funded through Tornado Cash, totaling roughly 0.36 ETH—under $1,000 at prevailing prices.

The same analysis put the precautionary exits near 17,000 validators controlling on the order of 523,000 ETH, with figures in other counts close to 17,000 validators and a bit above 560,000 ETH.

No validator was reported slashed.

MetaMask has not published how access was obtained or which systems were involved.

The gap between a few tenths of an ether diverted and hundreds of thousands of ether taken offline is the design point of the response.

In non-custodial staking, the operator runs the machines that propose and attest, while withdrawal authority stays with the client or protocol.

Compromising fee configuration or, in a worse case, signing keys can redirect tips or create slash risk.

It does not, by itself, let an intruder move the bonded stake.

Exiting early closes the window in which a stolen signing key could be misused, at the cost of rewards the validators would otherwise have earned and the delay of re-entering the queue.

That pattern is familiar.

In September 2025, staking provider Kiln traced an infrastructure breach to a compromised GitHub access token tied to an engineer and began an orderly exit of its Ethereum validators.

Stake was not taken, yet Lido later attributed more than 200 ETH in missed rewards to the downtime.

Earlier, a 2023 platform vulnerability at node operator InfStones raised the possibility of exposed server access; Lido-related keys were not shown to have been exploited, and instances were redeployed as a precaution.

Separate operator mistakes—duplicated keys at RockLogic in 2023, and correlated issues among providers using distributed validator setups in 2025—have produced actual slashings without any outside theft of principal.

The common thread is operational access and key handling, not a novel model exploiting the consensus rules.

Incidents of this kind are often discussed alongside the spread of automated attack tooling, but the record does not require that framing.

Leaked developer tokens, overly broad server access, weak separation between build systems and production keys, and simple credential reuse have repeatedly been enough.

Social engineering that coaxes an engineer into approving a malicious action, or poor hygiene around tokens and recovery material, sits in the same category as the failures operators already document.

MetaMask’s public notices do not assign a cause, so any specific vector remains unknown.

What is clear is that the economic damage, if the on-chain estimates hold, is mostly opportunity cost and queue delay rather than stolen principal—and that the same class of infrastructure lapse has forced large exits before.

2 min read

(Unsplash)Summary

Cryptocurrency job postings more than tripled from 382 in July to 1,241 in September, according to one firm, signaling a hiring rebound after a subdued first half of 2026.Applications, however, fell from 25,700 in July to fewer than 20,000 in September, suggesting that competition for specialized workers may be tightening as openings increase.Finance, engineering and trading led hiring demand, while Bitcoin, Ethereum and Solana were the most frequently requested blockchain skills.Cryptocurrency companies are in hiring mode again with job postings more than tripling between July and September as the industry emerged from a subdued first half of 2026.

Companies listed 1,241 positions in September, compared to 886 in August and 382 in July, according to data from crypto-focused recrruitment platform CryptoJobsList. The September total was more than double the 573 in January, which was the busiest month of the year until August.

The number of different companies recruiting also increased to 125 in September, compared to 107 in July, which then dipped to 77 in August.

A rebound would be expected in September, as business gets back to normal from the seasonal lull in proceedings over the Northern Hemisphere summer months. The data, however, suggests seasonality isn’t the whole story. The acceleration was already well underway in August, with the month’s figures doubling July’s.

The CryptoJobsList data for 2025 also shows no comparable August-September surge as would be expected if the end of summer was such a prominent factor. That said, 2025 was a subdued year for crypto hirings from start to finish. The most active month was October, with a mere 373 listings. The figures were flat throughout July, August and September.

While listings may have surged in September this year, applications have not. CryptoJobsList recorded 25,700 applications in July, 24,631 in August and just under 20,000 in September.

The platform interprets this divergence as evidence that competition for specialist workers is tightening, though its data alone doesn’t establish why application numbers have gone the opposite way to listings.

The comparison of listings nevertheless provides some indication of where demand lies. Finance was the largest job category over the past three months, followed by engineering and trading, with stablecoins, AI, security and compliance all also in the top 10. Bitcoin was the most frequently sought blockchain familiarity, followed by Ethereum and Solana, as would be expected being the three largest networks in the crypto industry.

CryptoJobsList’s data suggests the crypto job market enters the fourth quarter with a lot more openings than any time previously this year, but not necessarily more applicants chasing them for the time being.

AI Disclaimer: Parts of this article were generated with the assistance from AI tools and reviewed by our editorial team to ensure accuracy and adherence to our standards. For more information, see CoinDesk's full AI Policy.

12345678910The Definitive Stablecoin Landscape Series: Asia Pacific

The Definitive Stablecoin Landscape Series: Asia Pacific

As stablecoins move into regulated finance, APAC is becoming a key proving ground. This report maps the region’s rules, use cases, and RLUSD’s role.

Sep 15, 2026

As stablecoins move into regulated finance, APAC is becoming a key proving ground. This report maps the region’s rules, use cases, and RLUSD’s role.

Why it matters:

As stablecoins move into regulated finance, APAC is becoming a key proving ground. This report maps the region’s rules, use cases, and RLUSD’s role.

Ethereum (CRYPTO: ETH) has stalled as its rally takes a breather. The coin traded at $2,681 on Saturday, Oct. 3, slightly below its year-to-date high of $2,806. Despite this pullback, several catalysts could push it above $3,000, according to Citigroup (NYSE:C) analysts.

Ethereum Demand Continues RisingETH price has done well in the past few months, moving from the year-to-date low of $1,516 in June to the current $2,682. This rally has stalled recently, mirroring the performance of other top coins like Bitcoin (CRYPTO: BTC) and XRP (CRYPTO: XRP). 

There are signs that demand is still rising. BitMine Immersion (NASDAQ:BMNR) has bought more coins this year and now holds over 6 million. It aims to hold 5% of the circulating supply. 

Spot Ethereum ETF inflows have also done well. These funds added over $832 million in inflows last month after adding $1.82 billion a month earlier. In total, they have added close to $3 billion in assets in the last three months, bringing the cumulative inflows to $13.8 billion.

Read Next

More Ethereum investors are staking their tokens, where they are earning an annual reward rate of 2.57%. The staking ratio has jumped to 35%, with the amount of staked tokens being valued at over $117 billion. The real figure may be much higher since StakingRewards has not tracked BitMine’s MAVAN staking platform. 

Other Ethereum metrics are also bullish. For example, the total value locked (TVL) in its decentralized finance (DeFi) ecosystem jumped to $54 billion from $39 billion in June this year. 

Ethereum Price Technicals Point to More GainsThe daily chart shows that ETH price has rebounded in the past few months. It has soared from a low of $1,516 in June to the current $2,680. 

Ethereum has moved above the Supertrend indicator, a sign that bulls are in control. At the same time, it formed a golden cross pattern on September 6 this year. A golden cross normally leads to more gains over time. 

Therefore, the token may continue rising as bulls target the important resistance level of $3,000, up by 12% from the current level. A move above that price will point to more gains towards $3,400, its highest level on January 14.

Read Next

Image: Shutterstock

© 2026 Benzinga.com. Benzinga does not provide investment advice. All rights reserved.

Chainalysis has attributed the $387 million Bitget theft to North Korean hackers. The firm said the attack lifts the value of crypto stolen by DPRK-linked actors this year above $1 billion.

North Korean attackers reportedly used a cross-chain swap to convert stolen XRP into Bitcoin and kept the tokens away from exchanges.

Drift, KelpDAO and Now BitgetBitget joins 2 April attacks that firms had already tied to North Korea. Hackers drained $285 million from Drift Protocol on April 1. Drift said the operation involved months of social engineering, including in-person meetings.

On April 18, attackers took $292 million through a KelpDAO bridge exploit. TRM and LayerZero both linked that attack to TraderTraitor, a Lazarus-affiliated unit.

Together, the 2 hacks made up 76% of all crypto hack losses through April, according to TRM. Chainalysis said Bitget’s $387 million brings the overall 2026 haul to over $1 billion. In 2025, DPRK actors stole over $2 billion from the crypto industry.

Chainalysis said faster tracing is becoming essential.

“The ability to quickly identify and understand illicit activity is increasingly important as North Korea increasingly uses sophisticated automation to move and obscure stolen funds,” Chainalysis said.

Bitget CEO Gracy Chen had already pointed to North Korea shortly after the breach. She cited IP addresses that matched a DPRK group’s VPN choices. The theft also ranks as 2026’s largest crypto hack, lifting September losses 462%.

How Did Stolen XRP Become Bitcoin Without an Exchange?Chainalysis counted 23 outbound transfers in the first 3 hours after the September 24 exploit. Together, they spread $387 million across 4 blockchains.

Ethereum received nearly half the outflows at 49.7%. The XRP Ledger took 40.8%, followed by privacy-focused Zcash at 7.6% and Tron at 1.8%.

The report highlighted that instead of sending the XRP to an exchange, the attackers deposited it into a cross-chain liquidity protocol. They then withdrew Bitcoin on another network.

How The Stolen XRP Was Turned to BTC. Source: ChainalysisChainalysis matched those deposits to their payouts. Tens of millions of dollars moved this way over roughly 36 hours. The trail ended at attacker-controlled Bitcoin addresses the firm now monitors.

Notably, the firm said it built custom automations with its in-house AI to speed up that cross-chain tracing. It estimated that more than 20 hours of manual bridge reconciliation shrank to under 10 minutes.

Investigators still set the logic and reviewed the results, Chainalysis added.

Crypto market analyst Ali Charts has outlined ambitious bull market targets for Bitcoin, Ethereum, XRP, and Solana, contingent on confirmed technical breakouts across their monthly charts. His projections, based on established chart patterns, suggest potential highs for each of the four major assets if current resistance levels are surpassed.

Bitcoin must clear $125,000 to target $190,000According to Ali Charts, Bitcoin has traded within a rising channel for the past two years. He has identified $125,000 as the key resistance level that Bitcoin needs to break in order to initiate a stronger upward move. Should Bitcoin achieve a decisive breakout above this level, it could potentially reach the channel’s upper boundary near $190,000. The analyst highlighted that this price is not guaranteed, emphasizing that the target depends entirely on Bitcoin maintaining momentum after clearing $125,000.

“Bitcoin has consistently respected the rising channel, with $125,000 as the critical threshold. Only a decisive move above this mark would bring the $190,000 cycle target into focus.”

Ethereum faces $5,000 resistance, eyes $8,800Turning to Ethereum, Ali Charts located a long-term channel on the monthly timeframe, with the upper boundary standing at $5,000. The analyst stated that Ethereum must first break this resistance before any higher target can be considered. If the breakout is confirmed, Ethereum could move toward $8,800, based on the measured move of the channel formation. Ali Charts framed this as a cycle target, not a guaranteed outcome, and pointed out that the projection remains conditional until Ethereum closes above that crucial $5,000 level.

XRP’s ascending triangle signals $31.87For XRP, analysis centers on an ascending triangle pattern, with resistance mapped near $3.66. Ali Charts signaled that a monthly close above $3.66 would confirm the bullish setup for a substantial price move. Should that breakout occur, the projection targets a level near $31.87, directly derived from the ascending triangle’s measured move. Until XRP solidifies a close above $3.66, the higher target remains speculative.

Mini dictionary: Ascending triangle, a chart pattern that forms when price follows a horizontal resistance line and a rising trendline, suggesting potential for a strong breakout if the resistance is crossed.

Solana could surge to $2,744 if neckline is brokenRegarding Solana, Ali Charts identified a cup-and-handle pattern on the monthly chart, highlighting the neckline at $295. The analyst insisted that a solid monthly close above this level would activate the bullish scenario. With the neckline crossed, Solana could aim for approximately $2,744, determined by the height of the pattern added to the breakout point. As with the other assets, this projection is tied to the confirmation of the technical setup.

Mini dictionary: Cup-and-handle formation, a bullish continuation pattern where price forms a ‘cup’ shape followed by a smaller consolidation forming the ‘handle,’ often preceding further upward movement if resistance is cleared.

Ali Charts summarized that the bullish projections for all four assets are contingent on overcoming these major resistance levels. The long-term targets are only considered actionable if clear breakouts are confirmed on monthly charts.

AssetKey ResistanceBull Market TargetPatternBitcoin (BTC)$125,000$190,000Rising channelEthereum (ETH)$5,000$8,800Long-term channelXRP$3.66$31.87Ascending triangleSolana (SOL)$295$2,744Cup-and-handle“Each of these targets depends on a confirmed breakout above the respective resistance. Until then, they remain potential cycle projections rather than guaranteed price points.”

Ali Charts is a widely followed cryptocurrency analyst known for technical analysis and market commentary across major digital assets. The technical patterns discussed, such as ascending triangles and cup-and-handle formations, are commonly used tools among traders to predict potential breakout directions in price charts.

No timeframe was suggested for the targets, and all were described as conditional upon the assets achieving breakout confirmation. Traders and investors are advised to monitor these resistance levels closely as the market develops.

Massive Ethereum Awakening: Why 580M in Dormant ETH Just Moved Without Crashing Price

9h05 ▪ 4 min read ▪ by Fenelon L.

Summarize this article with:

Blast announced on Friday the closure of its Ethereum layer 2 network. Operating costs now exceed the revenue generated by the chain, and the team no longer sees “any credible path” to a sustainable model. Users have until October 26 to withdraw their assets.

In brief Blast invites users to withdraw their assets to Ethereum before October 26, then via the bridge contracts. The withdrawal period will be 24 hours, after a pause of about a week while Blast exits its assets from Lido. Its locked value dropped from about 2.2 billion dollars in June 2024 to around 32 million today. A clean shutdown, and a countdown Ethereum layer 2s are going through a turbulent phase since the drop in fees on the main network reduced the size of the pie. Blast is the latest victim, with an announcement released Friday. The network is closing, and users are encouraged to transfer their assets back to Ethereum before October 26.

The team detailed its decision in a message posted on X. “The maintenance costs of Blast exceed the revenues generated by the L2, and we do not see any credible path to an economically sustainable model“, it wrote.

The withdrawal period will be 24 hours, after an approximately one-week suspension while Blast unwraps its assets placed in Lido. After October 26, it will be necessary to interact directly with the bridge contracts on Ethereum.

Two billion in deposits, then the collapse Blast was not an anonymous project. Behind it is Tieshun “Pacman” Roquerre, founder of the NFT marketplace Blur, which had shaken OpenSea in 2022 with incentives. Unveiled in November 2023 with native yield on ETH and stablecoins and points promising an airdrop, it attracted over 2 billion dollars in deposits before its launch in February 2024.

The rest is more painful. Its locked value peaked around 2.2 billion dollars in June 2024, before melting by more than 98% (DefiLlama data, recorded on October 2). About 32 million dollars remain in its contracts. Blur was not spared either; its locked value fell from about 200 million in early 2024 to 27 million.

An entire generation of Ethereum layer 2s under pressure Blast joins a growing list. Kinto, another layer 2, closed its doors in fall 2025 after a hack. The market is also focusing on a handful of players. Base, Coinbase’s chain, openly attacks new territories like Robinhood Chain, while smaller networks have neither massive distribution nor their own usage.

Everywhere, the same equation. Revenues depend on activity, costs are largely fixed, and several analysts doubt that most rollups will survive the year. The bet on layer 2s, long driven by incentives and airdrops, is confronted with reality. The future, between closures and absorptions, will be written in Ethereum news.

The deadline first. On October 26, the Blast interface will close withdrawals; afterward, you will need to use the bridge contracts. Beyond this case, the closure reminds us that the question for layer 2s is no longer how much they promise, but how much they generate. Ethereum itself continues its scaling, with a target of 200 million gas per block under study.

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

Join the program

A

A

Lien copié

Fenelon L.

Passionné par le Bitcoin, j'aime explorer les méandres de la blockchain et des cryptos et je partage mes découvertes avec la communauté. Mon rêve est de vivre dans un monde où la vie privée et la liberté financière sont garanties pour tous, et je crois fermement que Bitcoin est l'outil qui peut rendre cela possible.

DISCLAIMER

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

U.S. Bitcoin ETFs recorded provisional net inflows of $82.9 million for Sep. 28–Oct. 2, while Ethereum ETFs posted $118 million in net outflows, according to Farside Investors. Bitcoin’s reported weekly intake fell sharply from $2.39 billion in the preceding week.

Summary

Bitcoin ETFs added $82.9 million, with Friday’s BlackRock IBIT entry still pending. Ethereum ETFs lost $118 million after attracting $689.8 million in the previous week. Solana ETFs recorded $800,000 in net inflows, down from $188.1 million a week earlier. Hyperliquid ETFs added $3.4 million, while Zcash’s tracked fund lost $77.6 million. Farside Investors’ data showed Bitcoin ETFs recording inflows on four of the five trading days. Wednesday’s withdrawals reduced the weekly total, while Thursday’s intake was the largest positive session of the period.

Friday’s figures remained incomplete when checked on Oct. 3. Farside showed blank entries for BlackRock’s IBIT, ETHA and ETHB, so the Bitcoin and Ethereum weekly totals remain provisional.

Bitcoin ETF inflows fall from $2.39 billion Bitcoin funds opened the week with $31 million in net inflows on Monday, followed by $66.2 million on Tuesday. Wednesday brought $148.7 million in withdrawals before investors added $102.7 million on Thursday and a reported $31.7 million on Friday.

BlackRock’s IBIT recorded $292 million in net inflows across Monday through Thursday. Its largest intake was $195.6 million on Oct. 1, following $9.5 million in withdrawals a day earlier.

Fidelity’s FBTC posted $167.9 million in weekly net outflows, despite receiving $29.3 million on Friday. Bitwise’s BITB lost $38.6 million, while Grayscale’s GBTC recorded $54.6 million in withdrawals.

ARKB added $25.5 million over the week, and Grayscale’s BTC fund attracted $24.9 million. Morgan Stanley’s MSBT recorded $9.4 million in inflows.

The preceding week, Sep. 21–25, delivered five consecutive positive sessions, including $999 million on Monday and $714.7 million on Tuesday.

Ethereum ETFs reverse the previous week’s inflows Ethereum funds began Monday with $17.1 million in net inflows before recording withdrawals during each subsequent session, according to Farside’s Ethereum figures.

Tuesday’s outflow was $2.8 million. Withdrawals then reached $59.6 million on Wednesday and $55.4 million on Thursday, followed by a provisional $17.3 million on Friday.

Fidelity’s FETH accounted for $74.1 million in weekly net outflows. Its largest withdrawal was $26.6 million on Wednesday, followed by $23.5 million on Thursday.

Grayscale’s ETHE lost $27.9 million, while its ETH fund recorded $11.2 million in net withdrawals. VanEck’s ETHV and Franklin’s EZET lost $6.9 million and $6.1 million, respectively.

BlackRock’s ETHA recorded $6.5 million in net inflows through Thursday, while ETHB showed zero flows over those four sessions. Both Friday entries remained blank.

The reversal followed $689.8 million in Ethereum ETF inflows during Sep. 21–25, when every session finished positive. Monday’s $270 million intake led that earlier week.

Solana ETF inflows shrink to $800,000 Solana ETFs finished the week with $800,000 in net inflows, according to Farside’s table, compared with $188.1 million in the preceding week.

Monday and Tuesday brought inflows of $7.7 million and $5.4 million. Funds then lost $12.5 million on Wednesday and $1.1 million on Thursday before adding $1.3 million on Friday.

Bitwise’s BSOL recorded $1.3 million in weekly net inflows. Grayscale’s GSOL added $5.4 million, while FSOL attracted $2.8 million.

VSOL posted $6.8 million in withdrawals, and MSOL lost $1.9 million. TSOL and SOEZ recorded zero flows throughout the week.

BSOL’s $9.7 million Monday intake was its largest positive session, while its $8.9 million Wednesday withdrawal was its biggest outflow.

Hyperliquid gains $3.4 million as Zcash loses $77.6 million Hyperliquid ETFs recorded $3.4 million in net inflows, Farside reported. Monday and Tuesday showed zero flows, followed by a $5 million Wednesday withdrawal and inflows of $5 million on Thursday and $3.4 million on Friday.

HYPG attracted $8.4 million over the week, offsetting $5 million in withdrawals from BHYP. THYP recorded zero flows. The group had received $9.3 million during Sep. 21–25.

Farside’s Zcash data showed $77.6 million in withdrawals from ZCSH, reversing the previous week’s $35.2 million intake.

The fund lost $8.1 million on Monday, recorded zero flows on Tuesday, and posted $30.2 million in withdrawals on Wednesday. Further outflows reached $12.4 million on Thursday and $26.9 million on Friday.

Anchorage Digital, the first federally chartered US digital asset bank, has reportedly laid off 17% of its staff. Chief Executive Nathan McCauley told employees about the cuts this week, according to The Information.

The report cited people familiar with the matter and tied the layoffs to a year-long crypto market slump. Anchorage has not publicly commented on the reduction.

How Many Jobs Anchorage’s 17% Cut Could ReachMcCauley put the global workforce at about 400 people in congressional testimony in February 2025. If staffing held near that level, a 17% cut would affect roughly 68 jobs.

The real figure may differ since headcount could have shifted since then. BeInCrypto has contacted Anchorage Digital for comment.

The company has made deep cuts before. In 2023, Anchorage laid off 20% of its workforce. McCauley later said that being cut off from banks contributed to that decision.

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

From Bitwise to Coinbase, Crypto’s Job Cuts Keep ComingAnchorage joins a long line of crypto firms that have cut staff in 2026. Gemini shrank its workforce by about 30%, while Crypto.com cut 12% in March.

Coinbase then announced it is eliminating about 700 roles, or 14% of staff, in May. That same month, Dune laid off 25% of its team to focus on AI agents and institutional data.

Exchange Luno trimmed 20% of its staff in July, and Bitwise cut about 14% in August. Others announced complete shutdowns, including BitMEX, the Lisk blockchain, and Ethereum layer-2 network Blast.

Outside crypto, technology companies have stepped up job cuts. US tech firms announced 10,799 cuts in September, up 77% from August, a Challenger, Gray & Christmas report shows.

Tech has announced 165,925 cuts so far in 2026, up 54% from a year earlier. However, total US job cut announcements fell 18% in September, leaving tech with 29% of this year’s cuts.

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

Bitcoin (CRYPTO: BTC) has pared gains from Friday morning trading, selling off $84,600 after a rally to $86,500 into a weaker-than-expected jobs numbers report.

Ethereum (CRYPTO: ETH) and XRP (CRYPTO: XRP) followed the reversal, with social sentiment flipping sharply negative, according to data provider Santiment.

How Negative Sentiment Has GottenSantiment flagged on X that ETH is down to 0.89 bullish comments per bearish comment across X, Telegram, Reddit, and other platforms, its lowest ratio since June 7. 

XRP sits even lower at 0.67, its weakest reading since Aug. 17. A ratio below 1.0 means bearish commentary now dominates the conversation across crypto communities.

Santiment argues heavy pessimism like this can create a useful contrarian setup. When most traders already expect prices to fall, much of the panic selling may have already happened. 

The firm’s social analysis has repeatedly shown that quiet fear tends to produce better entry conditions than obvious buy-the-dip excitement. This doesn’t guarantee a bounce, but the current mood sits far from the euphoria typically seen near local tops.

Why Dormant ETH Just Woke UpSantiment also flagged that long-dormant ETH moved on Sept. 30 at a scale not seen since early June, even as exchange balances barely budged. 

Age consumed, a metric tracking how long moved coins sat untouched, hit 580 million token-days that day, roughly 9x the September weekday average and the highest since June 2.

Exchange supply rose about 18,000 ETH that day before falling roughly 21,000 the next, against the 5.9 million ETH currently held on exchanges. 

For comparison, the last comparable spike on June 2 saw balances jump more than 140,000 ETH. Santiment notes it can’t yet confirm who moved these coins, since past spikes this size have often reflected wallet reshuffling rather than holders cashing out.

What the ETF Flows ShowXRP spot ETFs pulled in $4.07 million on Oct. 1, ending two sessions of zero net flows and pushing this week’s total inflows to $8.03 million according to SoSoValue. 

Franklin led with $4.06 million, while Bitwise’s $3.18 million nearly offset outflows from Canary.

Ethereum ETFs told the opposite story, losing $55.37 million on Oct. 1 in a third straight outflow session, bringing combined withdrawals to $117.76 million. 

That reversal followed six consecutive days of inflows, with Fidelity and Grayscale’s (NASDAQ:ETHE) leading the latest exits.

Where ETH and XRP Stand TechnicallyXRP is coiling inside a broadening wedge with price holding above every EMA. RSI at 57.53 shows steady, non-extended momentum.

Resistance: $1.60 (upper trendline) Support: $1.4671 (20-day EMA) Ethereum consolidates just below its recent breakout high, down slightly to $2,685, riding a multi-month ascending trendline near $2,634. RSI at 62.85 confirms healthy bullish momentum.

Resistance: $2,774 Support: $2,634 (20-day EMA and trendline) Photo via Shutterstock

© 2026 Benzinga.com. Benzinga does not provide investment advice. All rights reserved.

Coinbase stock fell 3.32% to $183.00 on Friday, October 2, after an early rally approached $200. Shares were down $6.29 at 1:33 p.m. EDT, with trading still underway near the session’s lowest levels. 

Bitcoin price traded near $85,709, Ethereum around $2,704, and XRP at $1.51 as the crypto market surged 1% over the past 24 hours.

US payrolls add just 29,000 jobs in September American employers added 29,000 positions in September, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, falling well below expectations. Anticipated 90,000 additional jobs, highlighting the gap between forecasts and reported hiring.

Unemployment increased to 4.2% from 4.1%, while revisions removed 60,000 jobs from July and August estimates. September’s average hourly earnings increased 0.1%, bringing annual wage growth to 3.0%. More people entering the workforce also contributed to the increase in the unemployment rate.

BREAKING: Market expectations for an October rate hike fall to a new low 17% chance after the weaker than expected September jobs report.

Just days ago, markets saw a near 75% chance of an October rate hike.

We are seeing some insane volatility in the bond market. pic.twitter.com/TlenzaBFMD

— The Kobeissi Letter (@KobeissiLetter) October 2, 2026

Healthcare added 17,000 positions, while construction employment increased by 11,000 and manufacturing gained 9,000 jobs. The figures suggested modest hiring across several sectors rather than a broad employment expansion.

The weaker release reduced expectations for another October interest rate increase, although inflation remained central to the policy debate. A pause would leave borrowing costs unchanged rather than provide the stimulus associated with an interest rate cut.

Coinbase stock faces shifting Fed rate expectations October hike odds of 16% on Polymarket by 17% according to CME FedWatch. Polymarket’s probability had stood near 69% on Monday.

The repricing had already started before Friday, following softer inflation readings and cautious comments from Federal Reserve officials. Treasury yields initially declined before reversing higher, underscoring uncertainty over the next policy decision.

BREAKING: 🇺🇸 Fed rate hike odds just crashed to 16% after US unemployment rose and job growth badly missed expectations. pic.twitter.com/2M47401e0v

— Bull Theory (@BullTheoryio) October 2, 2026

For Coinbase stock, lower yields could improve appetite for companies exposed to speculative trading and digital assets. 

Those competing influences leave the immediate outlook dependent on both market sentiment and the stock’s ability to stabilize. Coinbase stock lost ground even as traders reduced their expectations for another Federal Reserve rate increase.

Coinbase stock Prediction: Will COIN Reclaim $185? Based on Friday’s intraday trading, $185 represents the first potential recovery barrier after the sharp reversal erased gains. A sustained rebound above that area could bring the previous close of $189.29 back into consideration.

Coinbase stock Clearing the previous close would strengthen the case for a move toward $195, followed by the morning peak near $200. 

COIN stock has potential support around $182, where the visible session lows formed. Holding that area could allow another recovery attempt, while a break would expose $180 as a psychological downside level. 

Continued trading below $185 would leave the rebound vulnerable to further setbacks during the remaining session.

The biggest crowd of leveraged Ethereum bulls has a favorite number, and it is $2,538.

The largest cluster of net long ETH positions entered at that price. Another detail matters more: 21% of positions in the cluster were opened above where ETH currently trades.

What the Hyperliquid data shows The positioning comes from Hyperliquid, a decentralized exchange for perpetual futures. These contracts let traders bet on an asset’s price without owning it, and they never expire.

The headline position in this cluster belongs to a wallet identified as 0x0392…d7d9. It holds an 8x leveraged long worth approximately $151 million, opened at an entry price of $2,538.3.

The catch is the liquidation price, set at $2,460.8 for this position. If ETH falls to that level, the exchange closes the trade automatically, and the collateral backing it is gone.

Where ETH trades right now Hyperliquid data snapshots as of October 2, 2026 put ETH between $2,662 and $2,683. That places the $2,538 cluster above water, depending on exact timing.

Advertisement

The 21% of positions entered above the current price tell a different story. Those traders bought in higher and are, for now, sitting on paper losses.

They are not alone at elevated levels. Another notable long nearby is a $111 million position at 10x leverage, opened at $2,693.9, which sits above the current trading range.

The book is not all bulls, either. The trackers also flag significant short positions, including a short of roughly $278 million at $2,304.

Who is watching and why it matters The data comes from on-chain and perpetual DEX analytics trackers such as CoinLobster and Proliquid whale monitors. These tools scrape public blockchain records to show who is holding what.

On a decentralized exchange, positions and wallets are public by design, so large traders operate in full view.

The trackers found no direct link between this specific entry level and CME or traditional futures activity. There is also no identified connection to institutional reporting frameworks or the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) for this cluster.

What this means for traders Clusters like this matter because they map where pressure could build. When many leveraged positions share a similar entry and liquidation zone, those prices can act like tripwires.

If ETH were to slide toward the liquidation levels of big longs, forced closures could add selling pressure. Liquidations sell into the market automatically, which can accelerate a move that was already underway.

The same logic works in reverse for shorts. A sharp rally can squeeze bearish positions and force them to buy back, adding fuel on the way up.

A few things are worth watching. The first is how ETH trades relative to the $2,538 entry zone and the $2,460.8 liquidation level on the largest position.

The second is whether the $111 million long at $2,693.9 gets back into profit, or whether its owner trims exposure.

The third is the $278 million short at $2,304. A position that size, betting against the prevailing trend, signals that not every whale shares the bullish read.

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

In brief The Ethereum Foundation and the Open Anonymity Project announced zkAPI on Ethereum mainnet on October 1, letting users prepay in USDC and receive capped, short-lived API keys through zero-knowledge proofs. The design follows a February 2026 Ethereum Research proposal by Davide Crapis, who leads the foundation's dAI team, and Vitalik Buterin. The project's repository labels the protocol experimental, and its documentation points to OpenRouter as the AI provider behind the keys. The Ethereum Foundation has put zkAPI live on Ethereum's main network, a system that lets people pay for AI services without tying their identity to what they ask, according to the Ethereum Foundation's announcement.

“Prompts are personal. People ask AI models about their health, their finances, their doubts. Under the current model, using AI means handing a running transcript of your thinking to whoever holds the billing relationship,” the Ethereum Foundation argued.

Myriad: Where does Ethereum go next? Click to make your prediction.“zkAPI separates payment from identity,” the Foundation continued. “You deposit credits (ETH, USDC, etc.) into a vault contract on Ethereum, one ordinary transaction. From then on, your balance exists as a private note: digital cash that only you can spend and that nobody can trace back to the deposit.”

It was built with the Open Anonymity Project. Alongside the launch comes OA Chat, a browser-based private chatbot that needs no installation, and the code is open on GitHub.

The concern over privacy in the AI space isn't an abstract one. In May 2025, a federal court ordered OpenAI to preserve its output logs, including chats users had deleted, in a copyright lawsuit brought by The New York Times and other publishers.

With this implementation, every time you want to ask an AI something, software on your device builds a zero-knowledge proof—a mathematical receipt that proves a fact without showing the details behind it. This one proves you have enough funds and haven't already spent them.

The server checks the proof and hands back a temporary API key, which is basically a password that lets software talk to an AI service. The key is capped at a dollar amount and lives only in your device's memory.

Your requests then go to the AI provider with that key and nothing else. No name, no payment details.

When the key expires, the provider issues a signed usage receipt and you're charged for what you actually used, not the cap. The provider sees what you asked, the payment layer sees what you spent, and neither can link the two.

The project's documentation describes short-lived keys that work with OpenRouter, a service that gives access to hundreds of AI models through one connection. Any app that speaks the OpenAI format can plug in by pointing at a local address.

The idea comes from a proposal Davide Crapis and Vitalik Buterin posted on Ethereum Research in February. Crapis leads the foundation's dAI team, which aims to make Ethereum the preferred settlement and coordination layer for AIs.

He had already pitched Ethereum as plumbing for software agents. In August 2025, Crapis and Marco De Rossi proposed the ERC-8004 standard, a shared rulebook that lets autonomous AI agents find each other, verify identity and transact. Crapis predicted most Ethereum traffic would come from machines within three to five years.

Buterin ran the same thread. On February 10, he had laid out an Ethereum-AI roadmap that included zero-knowledge payments for private API use.

In April, he showed the other path: running an open-source model locally on his own Nvidia 5090 graphics card instead of feeding his life to cloud services. Local models keep your data at home. zkAPI covers the case where your prompts still travel to someone else's servers.

The same plumbing could cover other metered services, per the post: blockchain data queries, image and video generation, VPNs, and payments between machines. Providers would have to accept a proof instead of an API key and settle signed usage receipts to integrate directly.

The repository itself labels the protocol experimental and does not list a formal audit.

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

Social sentiment across cryptocurrency markets has entered a new bearish phase, according to analytics firm Santiment. The latest data highlights that both Ethereum and XRP have reached their most negative social sentiment levels in months, as negative comments dominate online discussions.

Sharp downturns in ETH and XRP sentimentData from Santiment, a well-known blockchain analytics provider, tracks the ratio of positive to negative mentions for leading cryptocurrencies. As of early October, sentiment for XRP has dropped to 0.67 positive comments per negative comment, marking the lowest point since August 17. This shift occurred just before XRP saw a price surge of more than 50%.

Meanwhile, sentiment surrounding Ethereum has hit its most bearish level since June 7. Santiment’s chart displays these trends across several months, overlaying commentary ratios with Bitcoin’s price movement for context.

Sentiment oscillated throughout the period, with sharp increases in positive comments during price rallies and steep declines during market consolidations. The most recent drop now places both ETH and XRP at the lower end of their historical sentiment ranges for this cycle.

During the same period, Bitcoin’s price rose steadily through August and September, reaching nearly $84,700 before experiencing a slight pullback in October.

AssetSentiment Ratio (Positive/Negative)Last Lowest PointRecent Price ActionEthereum (ETH)Lowest since June 7June 7Bounced with market activityXRP0.67August 17Over 50% surge after August lowBitcoin (BTC)N/AN/APeaked near $84,700 in SeptemberSentiment and market signalsHistorically, sharp downturns in social sentiment have drawn interest as possible contrarian indicators. During previous market cycles, periods of peak retail pessimism sometimes preceded rebounds in price, according to several market observers. These references point out that negativity often coincides with local market bottoms.

However, some community voices urge caution, noting that negative social fundamentals are not equivalent to fundamental weaknesses in the assets themselves. One user commented that a low sentiment reading does not alone constitute a definitive buy opportunity.

Santiment is known for its on-chain and social analytics reports, used by a wide spectrum of investors and researchers in the cryptocurrency sector.

Mini dictionary: Santiment, a blockchain analytics platform that provides data-driven insights into social sentiment, on-chain activity, and major market trends across cryptocurrencies.

Community responses and perspectivesCrypto community members offered a range of reactions. One commentator suggested that sentiment extremes reveal emotional trader positions and can be relevant for tracking shifts in on-chain activity. Another voice highlighted that instances of extreme sentiment often coincide with changes in market positioning and momentum.

Other community members urged a more balanced view, noting that bearish sentiment can reverse unexpectedly fast. Several participants expressed confidence that the current low mood is temporary, with some stating the market bottom is already in. Another observer remarked that when social sentiment is low, it frequently indicates that retail traders have already exited their positions.

One observer argued that extremes in sentiment are significant mainly because they show where traders stand psychologically, noting that shifts in mood can precede changes in on-chain data and market trends.

The Ethereum Foundation and the Open Anonymity Project have brought a mainnet system online that lets people pay for metered APIs without tying those calls to a durable billing identity.

Announced on October 1, 2026, by Vittorio Rivabella of the Foundation’s dAI team, the design—called zkAPI—is already running on Ethereum and implements an earlier research proposal from Davide Crapis and Vitalik Buterin.

Ordinary API access today binds every request to an account.

An API key maps to a user, that user maps to a payment method, and the provider can assemble years of prompts into a single profile.

Because people routinely ask models about health, money, and private doubts, that arrangement hands a long transcript of thought to whoever holds the billing relationship.

Paying per call directly on-chain avoids the middleman but is slow, costly, and publicly traceable.

Trusting an intermediary not to inspect traffic is the other common compromise.

zkAPI splits the payment relationship from the content of the request.

A user deposits ETH, USDC, or similar assets into a vault contract in a single ordinary transaction.

From that point the balance exists as a private note—effectively digital cash that only the holder can spend and that cannot be traced back to the original deposit.

When spending is needed, software on the user’s own device produces a compact zero-knowledge proof asserting that a funded note covers a bounded amount of usage and has not already been spent.

One proof can authorize a single call or an entire session.

The server can confirm the statement is true without learning which note, which deposit, or which person stands behind it.

At the payment layer, successive requests neither link to the user nor to one another.Two cryptographic mechanisms support the claim.

Deposits are stored as commitments inside a Merkle tree, so a proof can demonstrate that a note belongs among the valid set without identifying it.

Each spend also publishes a nullifier, a one-way serial number derived from the note’s secret.

Staying inside the balance keeps activity unlinkable; attempting to spend the same funds twice produces a duplicate nullifier that reveals only the double-spend attempt.

In operation, a small client on the user’s machine speaks the familiar API.

It forwards a payment proof—containing neither prompt nor identity—to the zkAPI server.

The server checks the proof and issues a short-lived key capped in dollars, which lives only in local memory.

Prompts then travel directly from the device to the provider under that key.

When the key expires, a signed usage receipt records actual consumption, and the server deducts that amount from the private note rather than the full reserved cap.

Neither party can alter the bill afterward.

A simpler proxy mode exists in which the server relays traffic, but the preferred path keeps content away from the payment intermediary entirely.

Proofs use Groth16 over the BN254 curve, with Poseidon hashes for commitments and nullifiers, and notes held in a 32-level Merkle tree.

Spend proofs are verified off-chain by the server; the vault contract itself checks equivalent proofs at deposit, close, and withdrawal, so users can exit even if every server vanishes.

Funds therefore remain under the user’s control on Ethereum rather than in a company account.

The division of knowledge is explicit.

The zkAPI server learns that a valid payment exists and the dollar total for a session, but not the user’s identity, the content of requests, or which deposit funded them.

The AI provider sees prompts and responses because it must run the model, yet never learns who is paying.

The public Ethereum chain records deposits, closures, and withdrawals, but not what any balance was spent on.

The same client and contracts can front other metered services—blockchain RPC queries, image or video jobs, VPN bandwidth, or machine-to-machine tasks—hiding the funding link in each case.

Existing applications need little change: the local client exposes standard OpenAI– and Ollama-compatible endpoints, so editors and chat tools can simply point at localhost.

A browser chat interface is also available.

The protections stop at the payment link.

Providers still observe request contents and network metadata such as IP addresses, and they can attempt to correlate sessions by timing or by recurring personal details, writing style, or conversation history inside prompts.

Network anonymity requires a separate layer such as Tor with a fresh circuit per session; content privacy is a further, still-emerging concern addressed by techniques like confidential computing. The protocol is described as being somewhat experimental.

13 minutes ago

Bloomberg ETF analyst Eric Balchunas said in a post that the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) has approved 3x bull ETPs for Bitcoin, Ethereum, gold, silver, crude oil, and natural gas under the Securities Act of 1933.

Source

Scan the QR code

Download APP

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

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

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA.

Blast, a crypto network that held $2.24 billion in June 2024, is shutting down. In the past day, it earned $110 in chain revenue.

Blast is a Layer 2 (L2), a cheaper side network that runs on top of Ethereum. It paid interest on deposits and promised a token reward. The money came for the reward. The Blast (BLAST) token fell 19% on the news.

BLAST Price Performance. Source: BeInCryptoWhy Blast Is Shutting Down NowThe team said on Friday that the chain costs more to run than it makes, with no credible fix in sight.

Blast will be shutting down.

We launched Blast with the goal of building a self-sustaining chain for users and developers. Unfortunately, the economics of operating the chain no longer make sense: the ongoing costs of maintaining Blast exceed the revenue generated by the L2, and…

— Blast (@blast) October 2, 2026 Founder Tieshun Roquerre, known online as Pacman, also built Blur, a marketplace for digital collectibles. He posted his own goodbye.

“I’m disappointed that we weren’t able to make the chain sustainable over the long term, but I’m grateful to the users, developers, and teams who helped give Blast its moment, even if its run was shorter than we had hoped,” Pacman said.

Value locked on Blast has since fallen to $32.3 million from its 2024 peak, a drop of nearly 99%, DefiLlama data shows.

Blast TVL. Source: DefiLlamaBeInCrypto flagged the strain early, when Blast posted negative revenue in March. It had raised $20 million from investors.

Who Holds the Keys to Users’ Last $51 MillionAbout $51 million bridged from Ethereum still sits in Blast’s contracts, says L2BEAT, a site that rates network safety. Most of it, $46.6 million, is staked ETH held with Lido, an interest service.

That is why exits freeze first. Blast must pull its money out of Lido, which takes about a week. After that, the withdrawal wait drops from seven days to 24 hours.

Users have until October 26 to use the normal app. After that, they must deal with Blast’s contracts on Ethereum directly.

L2BEAT shows five keyholders control those contracts. Any three can change them instantly or pause withdrawals. Blast’s fraud-proof system, which lets anyone challenge a false record, never fully worked.

“A malicious proposer can finalize an invalid state, which can cause loss of funds,” read an excerpt on the page.

L2BEAT flags the design risk. It does not allege misuse.

Blast value secured breakdown and risk summary. Source: L2BeatBlast now joins a string of 2026 closures, from Lisk’s blockchain shutdown to Bitcoin Layer 2 Botanix. Its deposits arrived in weeks. Two years later, the chain earns $110 a day.

Crowd sentiment toward Ethereum (ETH) and XRP (XRP) has turned negative as October begins, according to Santiment. Bearish comments now outnumber bullish ones for both altcoins across major social platforms.

The souring mood greets a month that traders often nickname Uptober. Prices have barely moved, with ETH at $2,715.50 and XRP at $1.51, both slightly up on the day.

Ethereum and XRP Bearish Chatter Drowns Out the BullsSantiment tracked the ratio of bullish to bearish commentary across X, Telegram, Reddit and other platforms. A reading below 1.0 means negative posts make up the majority.

ETH’s ratio fell to 0.89, its lowest reading since June 7. XRP dropped further, to 0.67, its weakest level since August 17.

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

Ethereum, XRP, and Bitcoin Positive-To-Negative Sentiment Ratio on Social Media. Source: X/SantimentBitcoin (BTC) sentiment, by contrast, sits at 1.37 on the chart, so the pessimism centers on the two altcoins. Alternative.me‘s broader Crypto Fear & Greed Index reads 72, in Greed territory, up from 63 a month ago. Santiment sees a possible contrarian signal in the drop.

“Heavy pessimism can create a useful contrarian setup. When traders become convinced prices are heading lower, much of the panic selling may already have happened,” it said.

Santiment added that the low readings do not guarantee an immediate bounce for either token.

Fund Flows and Network Data Pull in Two DirectionsSocial chatter is only one gauge, and on-chain and fund data paint a more mixed picture for both tokens. On the Ethereum network, activity has picked up, according to analyst CryptoOnchain.

Mean base fees jumped 193% week over week. Meanwhile, the staking rate climbed from 35.53% to 35.92% in 14 days.

However, the Coinbase Premium Index has printed negative in each of the last 14 sessions. CryptoOnchain read that as a sign that US institutional buyers are not driving the move.

US spot exchange-traded fund (ETF) data matches that read. SoSoValue data shows Ethereum ETFs logged three straight days of net outflows through October 1, totaling about $117.8 million. 

The streak followed 7 consecutive inflow sessions worth roughly $850.7 million.

Ethereum ETF Flows. Source: SoSoValueXRP funds have held up better. Spot XRP ETFs have not recorded an outflow since September 18 and added $4.07 million on October 1. Still, two of the last four sessions saw zero net flows.

XRP enters October off a milestone quarter. July, August and September each closed positive for the first time, lifting XRP more than 43%.

Seasonality offers little support for extending that run, a point BeInCrypto’s October outlook also raised. CryptoRank data shows the token closed October lower in 8 of 13 years, including 2024 and 2025.

For ETH, CryptoOnchain named a positive Coinbase premium as the clearest sign that US buyers are returning. XRP’s key catalysts arrive later in the month. Ripple’s Swell conference and the Federal Reserve’s October 27 to 28 meeting both land in October’s final week.

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

WLFI Staking Goes Live With $1.25M USD1 Seed@Worldlibertyfi has confirmed the first capital seeding of its $USD1 reward vault on Ethereum mainnet, with $1.25 million deposited to kick off the protocol's new staking program. On-chain data shows more than 15.11 million $WLFI staked since the vault launched, a figure that reflects early appetite for dollar-denominated yields within the ecosystem.

Crypto Briefing reports that the program went live on October 1, with the first rewards deposit scheduled for October 2. The $1.25 million pool is distributed linearly over 180 days, meaning individual payouts are variable rather than fixed, and depend on each participant's share of the total $WLFI staked.

180-Day Lock-Up and Governance RequirementsUnder the Governance Participation Incentive Program, participation comes with strict conditions. Stakers must commit unlocked $WLFI tokens through smart contract vaults on Ethereum for a minimum of 180 days, with no option for early withdrawal. To qualify for rewards at the end of the lock-up period, participants must cast at least one governance vote for every full 90 days staked, meaning two votes are required by day 180. Votes must originate from the staking wallet directly; delegated votes do not count toward eligibility.

The protocol also adopts a regular bi-weekly capital injection policy, allowing the reward pool to be topped up over time. Funding for the pool is drawn from the WLFI treasury, fees from protocol-owned liquidity, and revenue from World Liberty Markets. $USD1, the project's dollar-backed stablecoin, serves as the reward currency, giving it an additional built-in use case within the ecosystem.

Participants who withdraw without meeting the voting requirement forfeit their accrued rewards back to the pool, creating a mechanism that redistributes unclaimed yields to compliant stakers.

Sources:
Crypto Briefing: World Liberty Financial launches WLFI staking with $1.25 million USD1 rewards pool
CryptoNews: World Liberty Launches WLFI Staking, Plans $1.25M USD1 Pool

The Ethereum Foundation and Open Anonymity Project launched zkAPI on Ethereum mainnet on October 1. A user can deposit credits and prove a later AI API request is paid for without giving the payment server an identity or the model provider the funding address. The provider still receives the prompt. That separation is useful, but it is a narrower privacy claim than an anonymous conversation with a model.

Summary

Ethereum Foundation says zkAPI went live on mainnet October 1, with an onchain vault and offchain proof checks. One funded note can authorize a capped, short-lived API session rather than one onchain payment per prompt. The payment server learns a valid spend and session total; the model provider receives prompts and responses. Direct runtime-key mode avoids a content relay; proxy mode lets the zkAPI server see traffic. IP addresses, timing, reused context and personal details can link sessions despite a hidden payment source. TheEthereum Foundation’s technical announcement is unusually explicit about the boundary. The proof hides which note pays for usage, while the provider operates the model and sees the request. It also names network metadata and prompt content as remaining sources of correlation. That matters because the phrase private AI payments can easily be heard as private AI use.

The project is live, according to the Foundation, with a public GitHub repository, a mainnet vault holding USDC credits and a demonstration chat interface linked from its announcement. Live deployment establishes that there is code and a contract to inspect. It does not establish user adoption, a security audit’s scope, anonymity in every client configuration or protection against a provider that recognizes a user’s writing and documents.

JUST IN: Ethereum Foundation and Open Anonymity launch zkAPI for private AI

The system lets users deposit ETH, prove payment with a zero-knowledge proof and receive a fixed amount of private AI inference without linking their identity or personal data. pic.twitter.com/nPLLmmbhrq

— crypto.news (@cryptodotnews) October 2, 2026 One deposit replaces a trail of API invoices Most commercial AI APIs connect a key to an account and a payment method. The provider can associate requests with a billing identity, even if a user never signs the prompt with a name. zkAPI introduces a funded vault and a private note. A user deposits supported assets such as USDC into a contract; software on the user’s machine later produces a zero-knowledge proof that a valid funded note can pay for bounded usage without disclosing which note it is.

The payment server verifies the proof and issues a short-lived, dollar-capped API key. In the direct runtime-key mode described by the Foundation, prompts go from the user’s device to the AI provider with that key. After the session, a signed receipt records metered usage, and the private balance is charged for the amount used rather than simply the reserved cap. One proof can cover a session of multiple requests.

This avoids putting every model request on Ethereum. The chain sees vault deposits, closures and withdrawals, while the server verifies spend proofs offchain. The model provider sees the text and API traffic. The payment server sees evidence that the session is funded and the total charge, but in the direct mode does not receive the prompt. These are claims about the described architecture, not proof that a particular deployment’s logs or network configuration can never correlate users.

There is a simpler proxy mode. In it the zkAPI server relays the user’s request to the model provider. That server can see traffic, according to the Foundation. A person deciding between modes should ask which party they trust with content and which one only needs to validate a payment proof. A local interface that looks identical could route requests differently under the hood.

The note proves value without naming its depositor The cryptographic construction uses commitments in a Merkle tree. A proof says the user’s note is among the valid funded notes without identifying its leaf. A nullifier, derived from a note secret, prevents the same balance from being spent twice. The Foundation names Groth16 proofs on BN254 and Poseidon hashes, with a 32-level tree. These details matter to implementers, but the financial principle is simpler: verify membership and remaining authority to spend without publishing the account that supplied the credit.

The user does not get free usage by hiding an identity. The server must check the spend proof and reserve a cap before it issues the temporary key. The provider meters use. The receipt settles the actual amount after the key expires. If a $10 cap is reserved and $3 of service is consumed, the system is meant to charge $3, not $10. That example illustrates the reservation logic, not a published price or guaranteed minimum. The remaining balance stays in the private note subject to the implementation’s rules.

The nullifier addresses a specific failure: an attempt to spend one note twice. It does not prove the AI model answered accurately, preserve the confidentiality of the prompt, or prevent the provider from recording requests. A zero-knowledge proof is a statement about the validity of a transaction under a defined circuit. Its guarantees do not expand automatically to other data that move alongside the transaction.

The contract’s exit path matters too. The Foundation says a user can close the vault balance and withdraw onchain even if zkAPI servers disappear. This avoids making the payment server the sole route to reclaim funds. It does not make exits invisible: Ethereum records the relevant transactions. The user’s ability to exit depends on the contract and possession of the necessary secret, and a prudent user should inspect deployment addresses, permissions and any independent review before assigning large value to the mechanism.

The provider can recognize what the proof cannot reveal The payment proof can conceal a funding source while the request body contains a person’s name, employer, medical history or proprietary code. A model provider that reads the prompt can link it to prior sessions using repeated phrases, uploaded files, conversation history or highly distinctive facts. No wallet link is needed. A prompt about an unpublished product with the same internal project name across three sessions is its own identifier.

Network metadata supplies another path. In runtime-key mode, the provider may see the IP address from which the device connects. In proxy mode, the intermediary can see traffic and potentially its originating network information. The Foundation explicitly says a stable IP and correlated timing can weaken privacy, and suggests network anonymity tools for users seeking stronger protection. A VPN or Tor can alter the network path, but neither removes a name typed into the prompt.

There is a three-layer privacy test. Payment privacy asks whether a bill can be tied to a funding note or person. Network privacy asks whether the service can identify a connection by IP, timing or device characteristics. Content privacy asks whether anyone operating the model can read the prompt. zkAPI is designed chiefly for the first layer. It can reduce an account-level link between the model provider’s usage log and the user’s payment source. It does not deliver the other two by itself.

This is not a defect hidden in the fine print. The project’s own announcement says the provider sees the requests. The honest description is stronger than an expansive anonymity slogan because it tells users where to focus additional precautions. A person who uses the service to ask generic questions may gain substantial payment unlinkability. A person who pastes a signed contract and a full name has disclosed identity in the content regardless of the payment route.

The anonymity set can be small even with sound proofs Zero knowledge can hide which of several notes paid, but the practical crowd matters. If only one user funds a vault in a narrow time window with an unusual deposit amount, and an equally distinctive withdrawal follows a session, an observer can form a plausible correlation from public timing and amounts. The proof may remain cryptographically valid and unbroken. Inference from external information is a separate attack.

The 32-level tree is a capacity parameter in the design, not evidence that billions of distinct users are mixing their credits today. A newly live service may have a small set of funded notes. To evaluate anonymity in practice, one would want dated counts of deposits, distinct active notes and withdrawal patterns, with privacy-conscious aggregation. A repository or theoretical tree size does not provide those numbers.

Suppose ten notes are eligible for a session and public facts rule out nine of them. The mathematical proof can still hide its witness perfectly, while the surrounding information points to the tenth. This toy example explains why the size and diversity of the plausible set matter more than the raw number of transactions in the vault. Amount standardization, delayed activity and regular usage may help, but user behavior and service design determine what is available to correlate.

There is a second kind of set at the AI provider: the group of requests sharing a short-lived key. The key can link requests within its capped session even if it cannot identify the deposit. That is inherent in metering a session. If the client repeatedly sends the same documents in later sessions, the provider may link them across keys too. Hiding the billing account is valuable, but it does not force the provider to forget what it has read.

Draw the records for a single session without assuming anyone cheats. Ethereum records the deposit transaction and its funding address. The user device retains the note secret and sends a proof to the payment server. The server records the proof’s validity, a nullifier and an issuance event for a capped key. The model provider records that key, the requests and the usage it billed. The signed receipt ties the key to a metered total. At close, the contract can record an exit. Each party has a partial ledger.

The intended privacy property is that no single honest party’s ledger directly joins the funding address to the provider’s prompts. A coalition, data leak or outside observer with timestamps can have more information. If a user deposits an unusual amount and immediately sends a single unusual request, correlating events might become easier. If a provider receives a document that identifies the user, it can know who asked despite never seeing the vault address. This is a composition problem, not a failed zero-knowledge proof.

The ledger exercise also exposes the importance of key lifetimes. A session credential deliberately groups all requests it authorizes so a provider can meter them. A $50 cap may allow many prompts under one key. Lower caps and shorter sessions can reduce how much content is linked within one credential, but they require more frequent proofs and may add latency or expense. There is no universally private setting; the user and provider choose between convenience, cost and linkability.

A public threat model should name exactly which records are retained and for how long. It should say whether the server logs source IP addresses during proof submission, whether it stores nullifiers indefinitely, and whether the provider can associate receipt identifiers with request content after settlement. Deleting a billing name from a database is helpful. It is insufficient if a persistent device identifier quietly recreates the same profile.

A signed usage receipt moves trust into metering The provider or server needs a way to charge for the work actually performed. The design uses a signed receipt associated with the short-lived key and its usage. This shifts a central commercial question to the accuracy of metering. If a provider overcounts tokens, requests or time, a valid payment proof cannot correct the underlying bill. The signature makes an asserted total hard to rewrite later; it does not establish that the asserted usage was fair under the provider’s rate card.

A customer should ask what unit is charged, who signs the receipt, how unused reservation is released, and what happens when a request fails halfway through. These are ordinary billing questions in unusual cryptographic clothing. A cap limits the size of an unexpected charge in one session, but many small sessions can still accrue substantial cost. Rate limits and invoices may need a privacy-preserving dispute process.

The tradeoff is operational. Traditional API accounts simplify customer support, refunds and abuse investigation because a provider can identify the buyer. zkAPI removes a persistent billing identity from the intended payment path. Providers may still need abuse controls, sanctions screening where applicable and usage enforcement. The Foundation says pricing and rate limits can remain, but actual integrations will show how services balance accountless payments with their obligations and fraud controls.

One practical test is a deliberately interrupted session. The client gets a capped key, makes several requests, loses network access and later reconnects. Does the receipt reflect only delivered usage? Can a user audit the metered amount locally without sending the prompt to the payment server? If the server disappears, can the user retrieve unused balance through the contract as advertised? These tests move beyond whether a proof verifies to whether the product preserves the promised separation under failure.

The onchain contract is an escape hatch, not a privacy shield The vault contract can verify proofs for deposit, close and escape operations, according to the Foundation. An onchain exit route matters because a provider shutdown should not strand user funds in an operator database. The contract replaces some institutional trust with smart-contract risk. A bug in proof verification, accounting or withdrawal logic could affect funds despite a sound privacy concept. A live address is evidence of deployment, not an audit certificate.

Public deposits and withdrawals also have a privacy cost. Someone who knows a user’s funding address can observe that it interacted with the vault. They may not see which API session it paid for, but they can see participation and amounts. If the same user quickly withdraws an unusual amount to an address already associated with them, some of the surrounding anonymity may shrink. The private note breaks a deterministic billing link; it does not erase the public funding transaction.

The project has roots in an Ethereum Research design for zero -knowledge API credits, which the Foundation identifies as work by Davide Crapis and Vitalik Buterin. A research proposal and a production system answer different questions. The former sets out a construction; the latter must handle key storage, front-end behavior, outages, receipt disputes, upgrades and real adversaries. The October 1 release moves the idea into a testable deployment, and that is the relevant fresh hook.

Ethereum’s wider privacy efforts are not the same product. Crypto.news’ coverage of a proposed native privacy design concerns a draft protocol change, while zkAPI is an application running now. The recent zk.money wallet launch concerns private transfers in another environment. Neither should be cited as evidence that an AI prompt sent through zkAPI is concealed from its model provider.

Privacy claims should survive a reproducible test An independent reviewer could create two funded notes from unrelated addresses, issue short sessions with the same model provider and inspect every packet and log visible to the client, payment server and provider. The reviewer should test the direct and proxy modes separately. If the direct-mode payment server receives a prompt, that contradicts the described separation. If the provider receives a deposit address or a durable billing account identifier, the intended unlinkability has failed at the integration layer even if the proof circuit is sound.

The harder test is statistical. Run many sessions with varied amounts and timing, then ask whether a party with only public chain data and server logs can correlate funding and use better than chance. The benchmark depends on the actual anonymity set and what auxiliary data the adversary has. A successful small laboratory demonstration does not establish privacy under a tiny production user base, but it creates a method for measuring whether deployments improve over time.

The content test is straightforward and sobering. Submit the same distinctive document under two fresh session keys. If a provider can recognize it in both, the payment unlinkability has not given the user conversation unlinkability. A claim about payment should be evaluated by the first two tests; a claim about anonymous AI usage must also survive the third. Publishing the mode, threat model and results would let users choose the right tool for their actual concern.

The strongest case is unlinking billing from useful content There are many legitimate reasons to ask an AI provider a sensitive question without building a permanent account-linked usage dossier. A journalist testing a public document, a researcher exploring a controversial hypothesis or a developer using an API inside an agent may want the provider to see the current request while severing the durable billing relationship. zkAPI’s design addresses that narrower need. It also lets a machine pay for metered services without managing a long-lived personal account for each request.

The case against overclaiming is equally strong. Providers still see prompts, and some prompts necessarily reveal identity. An enterprise with strict confidentiality requirements may need contractual controls, local models or confidential computing as well as payment unlinkability. Some users may prefer an ordinary account with established support and refunds over a cryptographic payment layer whose dispute mechanisms are still immature. The choice depends on the actual threat model.

The Ethereum privacy roadmap discussed by crypto.news frames privacy as a wider objective. A roadmap does not confer its future protections on this application today. An AI user must judge the live client and provider path that actually handles a prompt.

Crypto.news explained the narrower mechanics of zero-knowledge proofs in a separate primer. A proof reveals a defined fact without revealing a witness; it is not a general-purpose invisibility cloak. Its interview on privacy-focused Ethereum infrastructure underscores how different products protect different data. The useful question for zkAPI is which party sees which record at each step, not whether the project qualifies for the broad word private.

The best contrary evidence to a skeptical reading would be measured use without a persistent identity link, clear mode labels, independent security review and a published threat model covering IP, browser telemetry and receipts. The best contrary evidence to an expansive marketing claim is already in the Foundation post: the provider sees the prompt. Both observations can be true at once.

The Foundation lists machine-to-machine API payments as a possible application. An autonomous agent may send hundreds of calls using one funded note or many short sessions. If its tasks carry customer records, the model provider can learn about those customers even while the agent’s payment source remains private. The privacy benefit belongs to the billing link; it should not be passed through to every subject named in a request.

An agent also needs budget controls. A cap per key limits one session, but a loop can obtain repeated keys until the note is drained unless the client enforces a broader spending policy. The operator should define a daily or task-level limit, alerting and a pause control separate from the cryptographic proof. The proof verifies authorized credit, not whether the agent’s call was necessary or economical.

When several agents share one pool of credits, internal accounting can become the hidden billing system. The operator may need to allocate charges to teams or customers without exporting their identities to the API provider. That can be done with a local ledger, but it creates another sensitive dataset to safeguard. The move from account billing to note billing does not abolish reconciliation; it relocates it.

Finally, an agent can reveal itself through behavior. Repeated calls at the same schedule, the same tool headers and the same task-specific phrases may make separate short-lived keys easy to cluster. Hiding an onchain funding note is useful against payment surveillance. It is not a defense against a behavioral fingerprint that the agent sends with every request.

JUST IN: Vitalik Buterin envisions Ethereum becoming a “cryptographic world computer” by 2030

His vision shifts more computation offchain, with cryptographic proofs allowing the network to verify results without every computer repeating the same work, while also improving… pic.twitter.com/aCMpSto8H5

— crypto.news (@cryptodotnews) September 28, 2026 A deployment still needs a threat-model audit As of October 2, the Foundation says the code, server, client and vault are live. The post links a mainnet contract and repository. It does not publish in the announcement a definitive user count, audited total value, all third-party integrations or a guarantee that every client configuration uses direct runtime-key mode. This feature does not claim a breach or misbehavior by a named provider. It identifies the information each party is intended to receive and the additional leaks the project’s authors acknowledge.

An outside assessment should inspect client defaults and outbound connections. Does the browser demonstration send telemetry to unrelated domains? Does the local client retain keys or prompt logs? Can the payment server join issuance timestamps with network addresses? Are receipts linkable across sessions? How are circuit and contract updates governed? A proof can be mathematically sound while a user interface accidentally gives away the identity it was meant to separate.

The same assessment should test an AI provider’s view. It will see the content it processes and a session credential. It may collect device or network metadata depending on the request path. A provider’s data-retention policy and any contractual terms remain central. The payment layer can reduce one source of identifying information without constraining all the others.

zkAPI makes a real advance if it reliably prevents a model provider from binding useful requests to a billing account while preserving the user’s ability to reclaim funds. It will disappoint anyone who expects a private conversation simply because the payment was proven in zero knowledge. The two claims should be judged separately.

What to watch Mode labeling: Check whether each client makes direct runtime-key or proxy routing visible before a user sends prompts. Mainnet activity: Look for dated counts of funded notes and usage, reported without compromising users’ anonymity. Security reviews: Read the scope of independent assessments covering contract exits, proof circuits, client storage and receipt settlement. Metadata controls: Test IP handling, telemetry, key lifetimes and provider retention in actual integrations. Billing disputes: Check how failed requests, cap release and contested receipts are handled without forcing identity disclosure. FAQ Is zkAPI live on Ethereum mainnet? The Ethereum Foundation said on October 1 that its vault and supporting client and server are live, and linked a mainnet contract and code repository.

Does zkAPI hide my prompt from the AI provider? No. The provider receives the prompt to run the model. The payment proof is designed to conceal the source of the usage credits.

What does the payment server learn? In the described direct mode, it learns that a valid payment exists and the session’s metered total, without receiving the prompt or identifying the specific deposit.

Is proxy mode as private as direct mode? No. The Foundation says the proxy relays requests and can see traffic. Direct runtime-key mode sends the prompt from the device to the provider.

Can an IP address identify a user? It can help correlate sessions, especially alongside timing and content. zkAPI does not supply network anonymity by itself.

What happens if the zkAPI server shuts down? The Foundation says the vault contract offers an onchain exit so users can close and withdraw balances without relying on that server. The implementation still merits review.

Are deposits and withdrawals invisible on Ethereum? No. Public transactions reveal vault interactions. The proof aims to sever the link between a funded note and later metered API usage.

Is this a private way to discuss confidential material with any model? Not by itself. The provider sees the content, and users need to assess retention, network metadata and the sensitivity of each prompt. This is educational analysis, not investment advice.

Disclaimer: This article is for information and educational purposes only and does not constitute financial or investment advice. Figures reflect regulatory filings and reporting available at the time of writing and change with each disclosure. Nothing here is a recommendation to buy, sell, or hold any security or asset. Always do your own research. Information is accurate as of October 2, 2026.