Track market-moving stories before they get noisy

Zcash (ZEC): ZEC's explosive recovery remains bullish, but overbought conditions and resistance around $1,450–$1,500 raise the risk of a deeper pullback.Ethereum (ETH): ETH is testing a major breakout area near $2,800, with the broader recovery intact but confirmation still needed above resistance.Hyperliquid (HYPE): HYPE remains in a strong uptrend, though persistent overbought conditions and resistance near $100 increase the probability of consolidation or a correction.Stellar (XLM): XLM remains stuck in a low-conviction range and likely needs a strong catalyst or broader altcoin momentum to break above $0.24–$0.25.Zcash recovery is explodingZcash's drop to $450 created a foundation for those looking to accumulate. The reversal since late August has been explosive: $450 to $1,750 in just six weeks. This 289% rally reflects a sharp re-rating, likely tied to privacy-coin demand cycles or renewed interest in Zcash's technical upgrades.  

ZEC/USDT Chart by TradingViewHowever, ZEC now trades near the September peak with RSI deep in overbought territory (75+), creating a critical inflection point. The October pullback from $1,750 to $1,400 shows profit-taking and resistance. Buyers must overcome the $1,450–$1,500 zone to sustain the rally; failure suggests a deeper correction toward $1,200 or the 100-day moving average.

You Might Also Like

HOT Stories

ZEC's 40-month chart history shows limited price discovery above $1,400; this is uncharted territory. Volume may thin on further advances, reducing conviction. The asset is highly speculative, privacy coins face regulatory scrutiny in some jurisdictions, and sentiment can reverse sharply.

If ZEC breaks $1,500 on volume, $1,800+ is plausible given the momentum structure. A sustained close above the moving average stack would confirm a fresh higher-low pattern. Network activity, adoption metrics, or positive regulatory signals could reignite the move.

Can Ethereum secure the breakout?Ethereum's trajectory mirrors a classic bear-to-bull transition: June's plunge to $2,650 and August's lows at $1,750 represent a 34% washout. The subsequent rally to $2,800 in early October erased most losses, but current consolidation at $2,700 signals profit-taking and resistance testing.

ETH/USDT Chart by TradingViewThe long-term downtrend line (black) from June, visible across the entire chart, represents a critical psychological barrier. ETH has now tested and held near this line in September–October, suggesting institutional accumulation beneath resistance. The moving-average stack is clean and bullish, with price respecting support from the 100-day MA. 

Volume during the August–October recovery was moderate but consistent, lacking the explosive spikes seen in ZEC; this suggests an institutional rather than retail-driven recovery.

Current setup: ETH trades within $100 of its October peak, facing overhead resistance. RSI is overbought (70+) but not extreme. The asset is torn between two narratives: (1) completing a V-shaped recovery from the August lows, or (2) consolidating ahead of a deeper structural pullback. 

You Might Also Like

A weekly close above $2,800 on volume targets $2,900–$3,000, potentially breaking the June downtrend decisively. Ethereum's fundamentals (Dencun upgrade, Shanghai scaling, staking rewards) support long-term accumulation.

ETH is consolidating sideways at $2,650-$2,750 before testing $2,500-$2,550, where the 200-day MA provides support. This is a lower-risk entry zone for buyers with conviction.

ETH's recovery is constructive but incomplete. Current levels represent fair value; accumulate on weakness into $2,500 rather than chasing resistance.

Hyperliquid crosses into overbought territoryHyperliquid's journey from $40 (June) to $90 (October) represents a 125% appreciation in just four months—classic new-token momentum. The move accelerated sharply in September and early October, with a spike attempt to $98 before pulling back to the current level of $90. This compression near recent highs signals profit-taking and resistance testing at psychological levels.

HYPE/USDT Chart by TradingViewThe technical picture is structurally bullish: moving averages stack cleanly (black, orange, blue, cyan) with price above all of them, indicating institutional entry and sustained accumulation. Volume bars show decisive conviction on breakout candles; consolidation phases are tight and orderly. 

However, RSI has remained overbought (70-75) for extended periods, creating a warning flag. New-token rallies often show elevated RSI for weeks without correcting, but mean reversion eventually arrives. The October pullback from $98 to $88 is modest (10%) but may be the first crack in momentum.

$98–$100 is the immediate overhead hurdle. A break above $100 targets $110–$120 as technical extensions. Failure to reclaim $98 risks consolidation or a pullback to $80–$85.

You Might Also Like

If HYPE breaks $100 on volume, the move is likely to continue toward $120+. Liquidity and derivatives adoption drive these protocol tokens; protocol growth justifies valuations.

Overbought RSI combined with new-token volatility suggests a 15-20% pullback to $75-$80 is plausible. Entry at lower levels offers a better risk/reward ratio.

HYPE is in a strong uptrend but now trades at peak euphoria. New buyers should wait for consolidation or a pullback; existing holders should consider taking profits into strength.

XLM needs a catalystStellar's six-month trajectory is decidedly pedestrian: June's $0.27 peak declined steadily through July–August to lows of $0.16, a 41% drawdown. The September–October recovery to $0.21–$0.22 reclaimed 30% of losses but remains far from the highs. Current consolidation between $0.20–$0.22 suggests the market is undecided on direction.

XLM/USDT Chart by TradingViewThe technical setup lacks conviction. Moving averages are compressed and neutral—no clean bullish or bearish stack—indicating a sideways market with no dominant trend. Volume is notably weak relative to HYPE or major altcoins; thin volume makes breakouts suspect and prone to false signals. The low-liquidity environment means large market buys can spike prices artificially, while small sellers can trigger cascade liquidations.

Key levels: $0.24-$0.25 is overhead resistance (retest of August highs). Below that, $0.19–$0.20 provides support; a break below $0.19 opens $0.15–$0.16 as deeper support.

You Might Also Like

XLM requires a catalyst, network upgrade announcements, Stellar Development Foundation initiatives, or a broader altcoin rally—to break higher. If macro conditions turn positive (crypto bull sentiment), thin volume works in XLM's favor; a 20% upside move to $0.26–$0.27 is possible with minimal buying pressure.

Without a catalyst, XLM is likely to consolidate indefinitely between $0.18-$0.24. Institutional capital gravitates toward higher-liquidity, higher-conviction assets; XLM's stagnation reflects reduced relevance in current market cycles.

XLM is a "wait-and-see" position. Current levels offer no attractive entry; patience for either a breakdown to $0.16–$0.18 or a catalyst-driven breakout above $0.24 is prudent. Low volume makes this a poor trading vehicle until conviction returns.

Robinhood Stock traded near $113.24 on October 1 as investors assessed unemployment claims and softer inflation. 

Bitcoin price stood around $83,975, while Ethereum (ETH) traded near $2,700 and XRP price hovered at $1.49. The economic combination could support risk appetite, although stronger employment also complicates expectations for lower interest rates.

U.S. Initial Jobless Claims came in LOWER than expected this week. Initial unemployment claims totaled 197,000 for the week ended September 26, according to the Labor Department. That result undershot the 201,000 forecast reported by Bloomingbit, reinforcing evidence that layoffs remain limited.

The previous reading was revised from 197,000 to 198,000, making the latest result a modest weekly decline. The four-week average fell to 200,000, offering a steadier indication of labor conditions than one weekly reading.

JOBS DATA: 🇺🇸U.S. initial jobless claims hit 197K vs. 201K expected, unchanged from the prior week.

The combination of resilient employment and cooler inflation keeps the soft-landing narrative alive.

A potentially favorable macro setup for risk assets 📈 https://t.co/vnso6lMbVL pic.twitter.com/GGgYo1slze

— CryptosRus (@CryptosR_Us) October 1, 2026

Continuing claims declined by 11,000 to 1.701 million, pointing to fewer people receiving benefits beyond their first week. 

However, low claims measure limited layoffs and cannot establish that employers are accelerating recruitment across the economy. The separate September payroll report is scheduled for October 2 and will provide broader evidence on hiring.

Softer Inflation Shapes Robinhood Stock Rate Outlook Wednesday’s inflation release showed annual core PCE inflation at 3.0%, with the monthly measure increasing 0.2%. Headline PCE inflation reached 3.4%, leaving overall price pressures above the Federal Reserve’s 2% target. 

These figures may reduce pressure for additional tightening, but they do not establish an immediate shift toward rate cuts.

In September, policymakers hiked their benchmark rate to 3.75%–4.00%, so expectations for an easing anytime soon proved to be misplaced. Investor confidence and trading activity in equities, options, and cryptocurrencies are the potential draws for Robinhood Stock.

Higher cryptocurrency prices would help sentiment, and revenue would require customers to up their trading volumes. The link to business performance remains conditional, with customer engagement requiring confirmation from future company disclosures

Lower rates could eventually encourage trading, although they could also reduce earnings from interest-bearing customer balances. 

Robinhood’s latest quarterly results showed that lower short-term rates partially offset growth in its interest-earning assets. The company reported $100 million in second-quarter cryptocurrency revenue, down 38% from a year earlier.

Robinhood Stock Prediction: Will HOOD Reach $114? The next technical challenge encountered by Robinhood Stock is the $113.60-$113.70 zone in the provided intraday analysis. The recurring closes over this level would enhance the argument over 114.00, an estimated round-number objective.

Robinhood Stock Maintaining the upside structure would require holding $113.00, with the next material pivot being $112.50 for HOOD stock. A loss of that pivot would put the $112.00 in perspective, and then the surrounding low, which is at $111.50.

MetaMask is removing affected validators while investigating a staking infrastructure compromise. Bitquery traced diverted block tips to an unauthorized wallet but found no validator slashing. Nearly 17,000 validators have entered the exit process, creating weeks of operational disruption. Lido says stETH holders do not need to take action. MetaMask is pulling nearly 17,000 Ethereum validators from active staking after a security incident exposed part of its infrastructure, a precautionary response covering more than half a million ETH. Onchain analysis indicates the intruder redirected validator rewards rather than the underlying stake, while MetaMask says its wallet product faces no identified threat and client withdrawal keys remain outside its control.

Onchain Data Reveals What the Intruder Actually Reached MetaMask disclosed the incident on Sept. 30 and began coordinating validator exits with clients and partners. The company has not disclosed the initial attack vector or identified which internal systems were compromised.

Bitquery subsequently reconstructed the incident from Ethereum data and found that an unauthorized wallet received block tips from 18 MetaMask-operated validators. The transfers totaled just 0.36 ETH.

The timing provides a useful clue about MetaMask’s response. Its first validator exit was submitted at 10:46 UTC on Sept. 30, while the first diverted payment appeared 85 minutes later. Six blocks proposed by its validators during that interval still paid their expected recipients.

From 12:12 UTC, the pattern changed. Most MetaMask-operated validators that proposed blocks over the following four and a half hours directed their tips to the unauthorized wallet before the fee addresses were restored. Bitquery found no slashed validators.

We’re continuing to actively investigate and respond to the security incident affecting part of our infrastructure.

Our focus remains on working closely with affected partners and taking appropriate steps to protect users. As part of this, we worked with our partners to take the… https://t.co/tbC70C6Bdi

— MetaMask 🦊 (@MetaMask) October 1, 2026

That chronology suggests MetaMask had already started containment before the suspicious reward activity became visible onchain. What the blockchain cannot establish is how the intruder entered the infrastructure or whether validator signing keys themselves were obtained.

Why Half a Million ETH Is Leaving Over a 0.36 ETH Theft The large validator exit is better understood as a security response than as a measure of funds lost.

Ethereum validator operators use signing keys to perform consensus duties. They can also configure a fee recipient that receives tips associated with block production. Withdrawal credentials serve a separate function, determining where the underlying stake goes when a validator is withdrawn.

Bitquery’s evidence points to the fee-recipient layer. An attacker able to alter that destination can capture certain validator earnings without obtaining the credentials needed to withdraw the staked ETH.

MetaMask’s decision to exit validators addresses the more serious residual risk: potentially compromised signing infrastructure. A signing key cannot simply be replaced while keeping the same validator. If an operator no longer trusts it, the validator must leave the network and the ETH must eventually be staked again using new credentials.

This is also why the absence of slashing matters. A compromised signing key could be used to sign conflicting messages, exposing the associated stake to Ethereum’s slashing mechanism. Bitquery found no evidence that occurred.

MetaMask’s Exit Spreads Across Several Staking Clients The affected infrastructure extends beyond one staking pool. Bitquery identified several groups among the validators MetaMask was removing, including Lido, MetaMask’s own pooled staking product and validators whose block tips normally flow to a Coinbase-labeled address.

Rather than repeat the headline totals, the breakdown shows where the operational disruption is concentrated:

Where MetaMask-Operated Stake Is Exiting

Bitquery snapshot as of Oct. 1, 05:29 UTC

Client group Validators ETH Lido main set 7,066 226,112 Lido small set 125 26,176 Coinbase-labeled fee address 4,041 129,312 MetaMask pool 1,469 47,008 Smaller clients 4,264 136,448 The Coinbase label requires caution. Bitquery said the address shows where those validators send block tips, but does not establish who owns the underlying stake or the contractual relationship between Coinbase and MetaMask.

The distribution also shows why the incident is primarily an infrastructure problem rather than a failure isolated to Lido. Less than half of the validators Bitquery attributed to MetaMask were part of Lido’s sets.

Ethereum’s Queues Turn Containment Into a Multi-Week Process Exiting compromised validators is not instantaneous. Ethereum limits how many can leave its active set over a given period, preventing a large operator from withdrawing thousands of validators simultaneously.

At the time of Bitquery’s Oct. 1 snapshot, the exit capacity worked out to roughly 1,800 standard validators per day. MetaMask’s withdrawals were large enough to occupy much of that capacity, with its non-Lido clients expected to continue moving through the queue after Lido’s validators leave.

Lido expects its final MetaMask-operated validators to exit by the end of Oct. 7. That date covers the validator exit, not the complete recovery of staking activity.

After withdrawal, the returned ETH must be allocated to new validators with fresh keys. Those validators then face Ethereum’s separate activation queue before they can begin earning rewards.

Lido estimates that this full cycle could take approximately up to 45 days because of the extended entry queue.

The principal cost is therefore likely to come from foregone staking rewards and possible downtime penalties while capital moves between validator sets, assuming the investigation continues to find no loss of underlying stake.

What MetaMask and stETH Users Need to Watch Lido has told stETH holders that no action is required. Its protocol distributes stake across multiple node operators, limiting dependence on any single infrastructure provider. Lido also points to an ad hoc reserve fund holding more than 6,750 stETH as one of the mechanisms available to absorb operational disruptions.

MetaMask wallet users face a different question because the security incident concerns the staking operation rather than the wallet itself. MetaMask says its investigation has found no immediate threat to wallets, while warning users to remain cautious of unsolicited messages and never disclose a Secret Recovery Phrase or private keys.

The unresolved issue is now the breach itself. Onchain data can show when fee destinations changed, which validators exited and where payments moved, but it cannot identify the original point of entry into MetaMask’s systems.

MetaMask’s eventual technical disclosure will therefore matter more than the headline size of the validator withdrawal. It should establish whether the intruder obtained signing keys or access to systems controlling them, how long that access persisted, and whether the 0.36 ETH visible onchain captures the full financial impact of the incident.

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

Full Profile

Ethereum is facing an awkward setup as US ISM PMI data lands at 54.5. The reading marks the ninth consecutive print above 52, keeping the US economy in expansion territory while raising a bigger question for the Federal Reserve.

Strong economic data isn’t necessarily comfortable for the Fed. Higher inflation expectations can complicate the rate path, leaving policymakers with an unpleasant choice: hold rates and wait, or hike and risk hurting growth.

US ISM PMI Keeps the Fed In A BindThe latest ISM PMI came slightly below the 54.8 forecast and the previous 54.6 reading. Still, 54.5 remains above 52, extending the expansion streak.

That creates a tricky backdrop. Holding rates could push yields higher if markets believe inflation isn’t disappearing soon. Raising rates, meanwhile, could weigh on economic growth.

Ethereum Has Another 56 Level To WatchThe crypto angle gets more interesting around the 56 mark, per an analyst ‘AshCrypto’. In 2017, ISM broke above 56 before Ethereum rallied from $10 to $1,400. From 2020 to 2021, the same level was followed by a move from $88 to $4,800.

Those historical episodes are the basis for the current comparison, not a guarantee of another repeat.

Today, Ethereum sits around $2,695 and is holding the Monthly MA 50. The latest ISM reading is still below the 56 threshold that previously featured in those two cycles.

Could ISM Strengthen Into A Larger Crypto Cycle?The setup therefore remains incomplete. If ISM moves higher toward 60 in coming months, the analysis points to the possibility of another major Ethereum and altcoin cycle during 2027 to 2028.

For now, 54.5 is the number on the board. The 56 level is the next key marker, while the Fed faces stronger economic activity alongside inflation concerns. Ethereum remains around $2,695, waiting for the ISM signal to develop further.

Story Ends Here

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

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

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

Read the Next News

Sources: Anthropic plans to hold its IPO before Thanksgiving

Sources familiar with the matter: Anthropic plans to hold a mega-sized IPO ahead of the Thanksgiving holiday period, and could launch its IPO roadshow as early as the week of November 9.

4 hours ago

Trump: Either Iran signs the deal, or it will cease to exist.

US President Trump said, regarding Iran: "I must make a decision now. Either Iran signs the agreement, or it will cease to exist."

4 hours ago

Head of Equities at Castle Securities: Retail investors expected to return to the US stock market, October to bring window for adding positions.

Scott Rubner, Head of Stock and Equity Derivatives Strategy at Castle Securities, said retail investors are poised to flood back into the U.S. stock market this month following a sharp cool-down in September. In a client note, Rubner wrote that while volatility may persist in October, the month offers a better entry point for investors to "rebuild positions" as earnings season arrives and corporate stock buybacks are set to resume. He noted that after positions were cleared and valuations declined, "the market enters the fourth quarter from a cleaner starting point, with significantly more room to rebuild exposure." Rubner added that in September, spot stock trading volume fell to 0.94 times the average of the past year, the lowest level since 2026. Retail option premiums also dropped to the same multiple. Currently, stock trading activity is 26% lower than its June peak, while option premiums have shrunk by roughly a third from their 1.41x level at that time.

4 hours ago

The United States has imposed new Iran-related sanctions.

According to the U.S. Treasury Department website, the United States has issued new Iran-related sanctions. The announcement states that the U.S. is imposing the latest sanctions on Iranian railway and automotive enterprise groups, aiming to economically isolate Iran.

4 hours ago

Drift Foundation launches DFX claim and redemption program, offering 1 DFX for every 1 USDT lost.

Drift Foundation announces DFX claims and redemptions are now live. Users who suffered verified losses in the April 1 incident can claim 1 DFX for every 1 USDT of loss. Each DFX corresponds to a claim right in the Recovery Pool, which currently holds around 3.11 million USDT. Funding sources include a portion of Velocity’s daily protocol net revenue, Tether’s matching funds of up to 127.5 million USDT, strategic partners’ contributions of up to 20 million USDT, and subsequently recovered assets. DFX can be exchanged for USDT at the Redemption Amount, calculated as "Recovery Pool balance ÷ DFX outstanding supply". Post-redemption DFX will be burned, and transactions are irreversible. The claim window will close at 00:00 UTC on January 1, 2028, with any unclaimed DFX burned at that time. Yesterday, the Drift Foundation released progress on asset recovery from the April 1 security incident, in which approximately $295.4 million in user funds was stolen. The foundation has hired Mandiant, zeroShadow, and SEAL 911 for investigation and fund tracing; Mandiant identified the attacker as North Korean threat group UNC6862.

4 hours ago

U.S. spot Bitcoin ETFs staged a sharp turnaround in the third quarter, attracting $6.34 billion in net inflows after losing roughly $5 billion in the second quarter, according to SoSoValue data.

The buying coincided with Bitcoin’s 42.7% quarterly gain, its strongest quarterly performance since the fourth quarter of 2024.

But for ETF investors, the more important development may be happening beyond Bitcoin.

U.S. spot Ethereum ETFs attracted approximately $3.05 billion in the third quarter, reversing about $714 million of outflows in the second quarter. Ethereum (CRYPTO: ETH) itself gained roughly 71% during the quarter, substantially outperforming Bitcoin (CRYPTO: BTC).

The flows were also broadening into smaller crypto assets. U.S. spot XRP ETFs pulled in approximately $308 million during the third quarter, taking cumulative inflows since launch to about $1.79 billion. XRP (CRYPTO: XRP) funds ended September with roughly $1.69 billion in assets.

For investors, that distinction matters because ETF flows provide a cleaner gauge of regulated-market demand than simply watching token prices. A rising cryptocurrency accompanied by persistent ETF creations suggests investors are putting fresh capital to work rather than merely benefiting from mark-to-market gains.

Bitcoin Still DominatesBitcoin remains the center of gravity. As of Wednesday, tracked crypto ETFs held about $174 billion in combined assets, with Bitcoin funds accounting for nearly $150 billion and Ethereum funds roughly $24.15 billion. BlackRock’s iShares Bitcoin Trust (NASDAQ:IBIT) led flows this week so far with $96.4 million inflows.

Yet the third quarter showed that institutional demand can rotate quickly across the crypto complex. Ethereum’s roughly 73% quarterly gain came alongside $3.1 billion of ETF inflows, while XRP ETFs continued accumulating assets despite the token’s more volatile trading profile.

• What’s next for IBIT stock?

Q4 Flow Data Will Matter MoreThe challenge is determining whether the third quarter represented a durable shift or a rebound following the second quarter’s risk-off period.

September Bitcoin ETF inflows of $2.65 billion were still substantial, but below August’s $3.52 billion. The month also ended with roughly $149 million of outflows on Wednesday, when IBIT lost $9.5 million, breaking a nine-session inflow streak.

For the fourth quarter, investors should therefore watch ETF flows alongside price performance. Sustained creations across Bitcoin, Ethereum and newer crypto ETFs would point to broader demand. A sharp reversal in flows while prices remain elevated could signal that momentum is becoming more dependent on existing holders rather than fresh capital.

Read Next

Photo: Shutterstock

This content was partially produced with the help of AI tools and was reviewed and published by Benzinga editors.

Market News and Data brought to you by Benzinga APIs

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

To add Benzinga News as your preferred source on Google, click here.

We’ve had perpetuals mania in crypto lately, and rightfully so, since perps are powerful, efficient instruments. But take note, as onchain options are quietly having their biggest year yet, and Derive is currently facilitating most of the action here. 

Indeed, per Alea Research, Derive has cleared ~$14.2B in options notional so far in 2026 (already nearly 3x its total for all of 2025), and this September was its busiest month on record, too. Not bad.

However, Derive’s next leg up could be near, as the project’s about to rebuild itself from the ground up.

— (@)

Pending a governance vote that wraps this weekend, its V3 upgrade is slated to go live on Tuesday, Oct. 6th. Notably, this shift will move the exchange off its own chain and onto Ethereum via zero-knowledge proofs.

The big idea is that V3 won't just be a better venue for trading options, but rather that it can become the options engine other apps plug into. Let's break down what's changing and what it could mean for the onchain options race.

Setting the stage Options give you the right, yet not the obligation, to buy (calls) or sell (puts) an asset at a set price by a set date. When Derive CEO Nick Forster joined David Hoffman on Bankless in mid-September, he cast perps as a blunt instrument and options as "a Swiss army knife."

In other words, with a leveraged perp you can call a trade's direction correctly and still get wiped out by a single ugly wick. An option defines your risk upfront, though, so a bad hour doesn't kill your thesis.

Crypto is Ready for Onchain Options | Nick Forster, CEO of Derive on Bankless

Getting the direction of ETH right doesn’t guarantee you survive the trade.

Bankless

That flexibility lesson hit home after last October's 10/10 crash, which per Nick also dried up two big institutional yield sources, i.e. basis trades and pre-TGE farming (earning tokens before they launch). As such, selling options became one of the few ways left to earn sustainable yield at scale.

Derive was well placed to catch that shift after years of iterating, first as an options AMM called Lyra, then as an orderbook on its own OP Stack rollup, Derive Chain.

Still, onchain remains a sliver of the pie. Derive's V3 proposal pegs its open interest (OI) at ~$2B against an estimated ~$40B globally, and Nick puts centralized offchain giant Deribit at ~70-75% of the crypto options market. In other words, Derive has won its onchain arena, but the bigger prize lies in expanding outward.

How V3 works 1) Off its own chain, onto Ethereum V3 retires Derive Chain in favor of a single zkVM application, i.e. a program whose execution gets proven correct with zk proofs.

Order matching will stay offchain for speed, while the risk math, pricing, and settling of trades all happen in the zkVM. Ethereum L1 then just verifies one proof per batch, at a roughly flat ~400-500K gas no matter how many trades are inside.

User funds will live in Ethereum L1 contracts, and a fingerprint of the program's code is committed onchain, so the sequencer (the operator batching transactions) can't bend the rules. An escape hatch will also let users force actions through L1 if that operator stalls. The data needed to rebuild V3's state, meanwhile, gets posted to Celestia.

2) Risk universes V3 splits markets into isolated risk universes, namely Prime (BTC, ETH), Mid-cap (HYPE), Alt (SOL, XRP, ADA, etc.), and RWA (gold via XAUT for now). That way a blowup in a long-tail market can't bleed into the majors.

This matters because speed-to-list has been Derive's edge. Per Nick, it launched HYPE options last November before Deribit had them and thus became the go-to venue for that market.

Enjoying this article?

Subscribe to Bankless or sign in

Accordingly, isolated universes should let Derive run that playbook faster with new coins and RWAs.

3) A builder layer This is the piece I find most compelling. V3 ships with one-click vault deployments, the ability to borrow assets like ETH or HYPE, cross-currency margin (e.g. ETH and BTC backing one portfolio), and tighter session key controls.

For integrators, this all boils down to one API and one settlement layer, and with no Derive bridge necessary to babysit.

— (@)

Toward this vision, Derive is openly courting teams building options-strategy yield vaults, fixed-payoff structured products, mobile-first trading apps, agent strategies, and even binaries and prediction markets. Nick's bar is ambitious, too. He told Bankless an outside team should be able to ship something on Derive in roughly an hour going forward.

4) The migration Users won't need to withdraw and redeposit, as V2 accounts and positions get snapshotted straight into V3.

Some orders and positions will change in the move, though, so active traders should check the account preview on Derive's V3 page beforehand. Here's how the switch is slated to play out:

Checking the vote So is V3 happening? I pulled up the proposal on Snapshot this morning (Oct. 1st) to see. The answer is looking like definitely.

At the time, ~79.5M DRV had voted For (99.18%) versus ~654K Against (0.82%), with voting set to close Saturday, Oct. 3rd. Barring a shock, the upgrade will go through. That said, the entire tally came from just 12 votes, a reminder of how concentrated DRV governance still is via its delegates system.

The market has been pricing in the shift, too, with DRV running from ~$0.14 at the end of August to ~$0.40 today.

The bottom line Can V3 help Derive take a real bite out of Deribit? As is often the case in crypto, the bull case here comes down to distribution.

If V3 becomes the options backend for wallets, vaults, agents, and other apps, Derive's growth will no longer hinge on traders finding its own frontend. There's precedent for this, too.

For instance, when Phantom built perps into its wallet on top of Hyperliquid, the integration earned Phantom ~$20M in builder-code fees in under a year, likely mostly from users who'd never opened Hyperliquid itself.

Pair this sort of dynamic with Derive’s list-first playbook, and the protocol does have a credible path to flow that's never touched DeFi.

Of course, there are tradeoffs. Per the V3 proposal, a Derive Foundation subsidiary's multisig will own the protocol at launch, with a 6-of-8 path to bypass its timelock, and a handoff to stDRV holders could come later. Plus, with state data on Celestia rather than Ethereum, V3's stated L2Beat Stage 1 goal could hit a definitional snag, as L2Beat has historically reserved stages for rollups that post data to Ethereum.

Whatever happens from here, V3 is among the most ambitious DeFi overhauls of 2026. Options are the instrument mature markets always reach for, and if they're the next big thing to bulk up onchain in earnest, Derive is the clear frontrunner to carry them. Keep your eyes peeled when things kick off next Tuesday.

Security company Sucuri has reported the discovery of a persistent malware variant targeting WordPress sites, which leverages the Ethereum blockchain’s infrastructure as part of its command-and-control operations.

Ethereum-powered command and controlThis malware, referred to as “SC” by Sucuri, has been described as a “self-healing” threat. Instead of relying on a traditional centralized command-and-control server, the malware utilizes a list of roughly 20 public Ethereum Remote Procedure Call (RPC) gateways to receive instructions. By distributing control mechanisms across several decentralized gateways, rather than a single server, attackers ensure there is no single point of failure.

Should a gateway be blocked or removed, the malware seamlessly switches to another available Ethereum RPC provider. This use of legitimate blockchain infrastructure, which typically allows applications, wallets, and services to access the Ethereum network, gives attackers enhanced resilience and flexibility.

Mini dictionary: Ethereum RPC Gateway, a public interface that allows software to access and interact with blockchain data on the Ethereum network without running a full node.

Traditional C2 Method“SC” Malware ApproachSingle central server used for commandsRoughly 20 public Ethereum RPC gateways leveragedEasier to block by defendersNo single point of failure, switching between gatewaysNot blockchain-basedUses legitimate blockchain infrastructurePersistence and infection methodSC malware maintains resilience by hiding copies of its malicious payload in multiple places, including WordPress plugins, themes, the database, and the server environment. Sucuri identified the malware simultaneously in at least eight separate locations across infected systems. This redundancy allows the malware to regenerate itself even after partial removal attempts, making full eradication significantly more complex for administrators.

Sucuri highlighted the danger of the malware’s design. The distributed storage of its components and the use of decentralized infrastructure mean that standard remediation efforts are often insufficient if even a single malware variant survives.

Capabilities and risksThe SC malware collects details from compromised websites, including URLs, hostnames, WordPress version information, and plugin versions. Notably, it can also steal administrator session tokens, giving attackers prolonged privileged access.

Attackers may use their access to inject JavaScript into a site’s front end. This enables various malicious actions, such as skimming payment card details from e-commerce transactions during user checkout processes.

SC can also deactivate a range of security software and maintain administrator-level access within WordPress, making disinfection attempts even more difficult.

Given this malware’s architectural resilience, Sucuri stressed that the recovery process for affected websites is challenging. Even if a lone undetected instance of the payload remains, it can quickly restore the malware across the system.

The Ethereum Foundation and the Open Anonymity Project have launched zkAPI, a system on Ethereum mainnet that lets people pay for API access without leaving a trail back to who they are.

The launch went live on October 1, 2026. The setup centers on a smart contract vault deployed on Ethereum mainnet.

Users deposit ETH or USDC into that vault. Those deposits become credits, and the vault contract holds them as USDC credits.

Advertisement

When a user wants to call an API, such as an AI model, they generate a cryptographic proof authorizing the payment. The service gets paid, and the user gets their response. The authorization is designed to be unlinkable to any specific deposit or identity.

Under the hood, zkAPI relies on three cryptographic building blocks:

Groth16 proofs: a type of zero-knowledge proof that lets someone prove a statement is true without revealing the underlying data. Baby-JubJub commitments: a way of locking in a value, like a deposit, so it can be referenced later without being exposed. A 32-level Merkle tree: a data structure that bundles many commitments into a single fingerprint, which a user can prove membership in without pointing to their specific entry. User funds sit in contracts controlled on Ethereum itself, not on a company server. That means users can withdraw their funds independently, without relying on any server to cooperate.

The proposal traces back to a February 11, 2026 research post by Vitalik Buterin and Davide Crapis. That puts the timeline from idea to mainnet deployment at under eight months.

The Open Anonymity Project, the Ethereum Foundation’s partner on the launch, had secured over $100,000 in grants from the Ethereum Foundation and the Human Rights Foundation as of May 2026.

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

Bitcoin, Ethereum and XRP hold below resistance as NEAR rebounds and Quant consolidates. Explore technical levels and price scenarios for October 1, 2026.

Bitcoin, Ethereum and XRP opened October with modest rolling 24-hour gains, while NEAR Protocol outperformed the group and Quant remained nearly unchanged. The completed daily charts showed different conditions: Bitcoin remained inside its recent consolidation, Ethereum and XRP stayed below nearby resistance, and NEAR recovered much of its latest pullback.

Quant and NEAR join today’s coverage because both appeared in CoinGecko’s search-trending list and ranked inside its top 100 by market capitalization. NEAR ranked 21st and Quant 32nd in the market snapshot. A trending-search listing measures attention and is distinct from a ranking of price gainers.

Asset Price 24-hour change Aggregate 24-hour volume Bitcoin $83,728 +0.49% $35.33 billion Ethereum $2,695.47 +0.86% $13.92 billion XRP $1.50 +0.46% $2.88 billion Quant $297.20 Approximately unchanged $772.29 million NEAR Protocol $5.39 +10.48% $1.51 billion Bitcoin Fails to Hold Above the Previous Resistance Zone Bitcoin closed September 30 at $83,578, down 0.07% from $83,640 a day earlier. The session reached $85,518, temporarily exceeding the $85,210 upper resistance boundary identified in the previous report, before ending back below it. That intraday move did not become a confirmed daily breakout.

The latest high expands immediate resistance to approximately $85,210–$85,520. A completed daily close above $85,520, followed by a hold of the reclaimed area, would strengthen the case for another test of the September highs around $87,250–$87,330.

Support remains near $82,580–$82,950, encompassing the September 28 and September 30 lows. Beneath it, the rising 20-day simple moving average stood near $81,302. A daily close below $82,580 would weaken the range and bring that average into focus.

Four-hour MACD, using 12,26,9 settings, remained mixed as the candle closed at 00:00 UTC. The MACD line was approximately -88.63, above its -116.44 signal line but still below zero. Its positive histogram narrowed from 34.24 to 27.81, indicating that the latest improvement relative to the signal line was losing pace.

Bitcoin combines a rising 20-day SMA with mixed four-hour MACD readings. Source: CoinGecko; chart by The Crypto Basic. Ethereum Holds Above Its 20-Day Average but Below $2,743 Ethereum closed September 30 at $2,684.57, gaining 0.27%. Its $2,736.98 session high remained below the approximately $2,743 resistance level highlighted in the previous report.

Daily Bollinger Bands, calculated using a 20-day simple moving average and two standard deviations, had a midpoint near $2,610.17 and an upper band near $2,833.57. ETH price closed above the midpoint and inside the bands, with nearby horizontal resistance still separating price from the higher band.

Fibonacci retracements of the advance from September 15’s $2,361.16 low to September 21’s $2,804.42 high place the 23.6% level near $2,699.81 and the 38.2% level near $2,635.09. The latter closely matches the recent support floor around $2,635.

A daily close above $2,743 would put the $2,787–$2,804 highs back in view. Only a further break of that area would support an extension toward the upper Bollinger Band, whose value changes with subsequent closes.

Conversely, a close below $2,635 would weaken the consolidation and expose the 20-day average near $2,610, followed by the 50% retracement near $2,583.

Ethereum’s Fibonacci retracements place a support reference near $2,635, above its Bollinger midpoint. Source: CoinGecko; chart by The Crypto Basic. XRP’s $1.45–$1.47 Support Remains in Focus XRP finished September 30 near $1.49 after reaching approximately $1.54. The close remained near the preceding session’s level and below the $1.53–$1.56 resistance band identified in the previous report.

The 20-day simple moving average rose to about $1.44. Fibonacci retracements of the advance from the September 16 low of $1.25 to the September 23 high of $1.66 provide additional reference points: approximately $1.50 at 38.2%, $1.46 at 50%, and $1.41 at 61.8%.

The 50% retracement falls within the established $1.45–$1.47 support area, while the moving average sits just beneath it. A completed close below this support band would weaken the current structure; a further loss of the average would bring the $1.41 retracement into focus.

On the upside, reclaiming $1.50 would be an initial improvement, but a close above $1.56 would be needed to clear the broader resistance band and nearby 23.6% retracement. Holding that reclaimed area would support a retest of $1.61–$1.66. A return below $1.53 after a breakout would weaken that recovery scenario.

XRP’s 50% retracement lies around $1.46, close to established support and the rising 20-day SMA. Source: CoinGecko; chart by The Crypto Basic. Quant’s Daily Recovery Meets Softer Four-Hour Momentum Quant closed September 30 at $286.87, up 7.36% from $267.20. The session climbed to $326.12 before retreating into the close. Its nearly flat rolling 24-hour return at the later snapshot measures a different window from that completed daily gain.

Fibonacci retracements of the rebound from September 28’s $196.87 low to September 30’s $326.12 high place the 23.6% level at $295.62, the 38.2% level at $276.75 and the 50% level at $261.50. The daily close sat between the first two levels, although the subsequent spot quote was back above $295.62.

The latest completed four-hour MACD line fell below its signal line, with the histogram turning from +0.32 to -1.28. Both lines remained above zero, distinguishing the loss of momentum relative to the signal from a move below the MACD baseline.

A daily reclaim of $295.62 would support another attempt at $318.36–$326.12. A confirmed break above $326.12 would reopen the September 27 high near $358.20. Failure to hold $276.75 would instead expose the September 30 low of $263.45 and nearby $261.50 retracement.

Quant’s rebound faces a negative four-hour MACD histogram, with Fibonacci references at $295.62, $276.75 and $261.50. Source: CoinGecko; chart by The Crypto Basic. NEAR Recovers Toward Its September High NEAR closed September 30 at $5.34, up 9.20% from $4.89. The session high of $5.49 remained below September 27’s $5.57 peak, so the rebound had not yet produced a confirmed breakout above the recent high.

Four-hour MACD showed improving momentum at the common chart cutoff. Its line stood near 0.109, above the 0.078 signal line, while the positive histogram increased from approximately 0.026 to 0.031. Unlike Bitcoin, both NEAR readings were above zero.

The $5.16–$5.19 area, containing earlier daily highs, is the first area to watch for a successful support retest. Holding above it would preserve the rebound toward $5.49–$5.57. A return below $5.16 would weaken the recovery, with the September 30 low at $4.84 and September 29 low at $4.55 providing lower reference points.

For a conditional upside scenario, two-point Fibonacci extensions of the recovery from September 29’s $4.55 low to September 30’s $5.49 high stand near $5.75 at 1.272 and $6.07 at 1.618. Those levels become relevant if NEAR first closes above $5.57 and holds the breakout area; they are projected extensions, not confirmed price destinations.

NEAR approaches $5.49–$5.57 resistance with improving four-hour momentum. Fibonacci extensions remain conditional on a breakout. Source: CoinGecko; chart by The Crypto Basic.

THE FINTECH TIMES: Gnosis Co-Founder Friederike Ernst on the Ethereum Economic Zone

In brief Citigroup raised its 12-month Bitcoin target to $113,000 from $82,000, and its Ethereum target to $3,028 from $2,240. It expects $5 billion of crypto inflows over the next year, at a slower but steadier pace. The Bitcoin target sits about 10% below the record set in October 2025. Citigroup has raised its 12-month price target for Bitcoin to $113,000 from $82,000, and for Ethereum to $3,028 from $2,240, citing stronger activity across crypto markets, a supportive macro backdrop and the return of ETF inflows, Reuters reported.

Both targets are increases of around 35% on the bank's previous numbers. Bitcoin is currently trading at around $83,900 and Ethereum at around $2,700, per CoinGecko data, implying roughly 35% upside for Bitcoin and 12% for Ethereum if the targets are met.

The bank expects inflows to resume at a slower but steadier pace as advisers and brokerages gradually raise their allocations to Bitcoin, according to a note dated Wednesday, and forecasts $5 billion of them over the next 12 months.

Set against the past year, $5 billion would be a turnaround rather than a modest ask. Spot Bitcoin ETFs ended the twelve months to September with a small net outflow, according to SoSoValue, with six negative months in that span and $4.51 billion leaving in June alone. They have taken in $880 million across 2026 so far, against $21.37 billion in 2025. Whether Citi's figure covers spot Bitcoin ETFs alone or crypto products more broadly is not clear from the summary of the note.

The target itself is also short of a record. Bitcoin's all-time high of about $126,200 was set in October 2025, leaving Citi's $113,000 some 10% below the peak even if the call proves right.

On regulation, the bank said the Clarity Act's failure in the Senate last month had "narrowed the path to a market-structure bill," while prompting Securities and Exchange Commission rule announcements that took the edge off negative sentiment.

Myriad: When will Bitcoin hit a new all-time high? Click to make your prediction.The rally behind the upgrade has been sharp. Bitcoin and Ethereum have gained close to 40% and 68% respectively over the past three months, cutting their losses for the year to roughly 4% and 9%, Citi noted.

Spot Bitcoin ETFs have since taken money in for nine straight sessions, about $3.08 billion from September 17, narrowly beating August's nine-day run. The week to September 25 drew $2.4 billion, the funds' biggest since October 2025, and pushed them back into positive territory for the year. Bitcoin's summer rebound dates to August 19, when the Treasury said it would double its longer-dated bond buybacks to at least $4 billion per operation.

Momentum has eased since. Daily inflows fell to $66 million on September 29, and Bitcoin rose above $85,000 after cooler-than-expected PCE data before settling back, leaving it roughly a third below its October 2025 record of $126,296.

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

MetaMask has started taking affected Ethereum validators offline after disclosing a security incident in part of its infrastructure. The company says client withdrawal keys are outside its control. That distinction matters, but it does not make the transition instantaneous: an exit, a withdrawal and the launch of a replacement validator are three different events.

Summary

MetaMask disclosed the infrastructure incident on September 30 and said it was exiting affected validators as a precaution. A legacy Ethereum validator generally starts with 32 ETH; a compounding validator can carry up to 2,048 ETH effective balance. Ethereum separates validator signing authority from the withdrawal destination, leaving at least 2 different keys or credentials in the risk picture. A validator that exits stops performing consensus duties before its full balance reaches its withdrawal address. The disclosure supplied 0 affected validator counts, client balances or confirmed loss figures; those omissions limit any exposure estimate. The disclosure identifies an exit, not a wallet breach MetaMask’s September 30 update says the company is responding to an ongoing incident affecting part of its infrastructure. It says it found no immediate threat to MetaMask wallets. As a precaution, it is exiting affected validators within its non-custodial staking operations in coordination with clients and partners. It also says it does not manage withdrawal keys for client stake. The statement does not identify the compromised component, the number of validator keys, the amount staked, the affected customers, the exact time of discovery or a loss.

BREAKING: MetaMask is exiting Ethereum validators affected by an ongoing security incident

MetaMask says user wallets face no immediate threat, while Lido warns the validator exits could lead to lost rewards and potential downtime penalties. https://t.co/lYp7snUbrk pic.twitter.com/9Jg7B5Gavt

— crypto.news (@cryptodotnews) October 1, 2026 Those are not interchangeable omissions. A wallet user who has never used MetaMask’s staking service has a different exposure from an institution whose validator operations use the affected infrastructure. Even among staking customers, an operator key’s possible exposure and a withdrawal key’s possible exposure lead to different outcomes. The public statement supports concern about service continuity and an active security response. It does not establish that client ETH was stolen, that every MetaMask validator is affected or that ordinary wallet keys were exposed.

The company had launched Validator Staking through MetaMask Portfolio as an arrangement in which customers supply stake while a provider operates validator nodes. The earlier product description is useful context, though it cannot tell us which current product or client cohort the September incident touches. MetaMask has since separated its corporate identity from Consensys, another reason not to collapse several brands, operator entities and staking products into a single affected pool without a new disclosure.

The first observable correction to the public record will be a scope statement. An incident notice is a time-stamped account of what a company knows, not a complete forensic report. If MetaMask later discloses the affected key set, the relevant client withdrawal credentials and whether any validator was slashed or missed duties, the analysis can become specific. Until then, the defensible description is narrower: precautionary exits are underway and the amount of ETH involved is unknown.

A validator can stop signing without the customer receiving ETH Ethereum staking separates at least three stages that are often described as one withdrawal. An operator initiates a voluntary exit or, where supported, a withdrawal-credential holder can trigger one using execution-layer mechanisms. The validator waits for its turn in the exit queue, stops taking on new duties when the exit becomes effective, then waits for the balance to become withdrawable and for the protocol to sweep it to the designated withdrawal address. A new validator, if one is planned, faces the entry queue as well.

Ethereum’s withdrawal documentation distinguishes a legacy validator with 32 ETH effective balance from a compounding validator whose effective balance can rise to 2,048 ETH. The latter changes the naive calculation that one validator always means exactly 32 ETH. The public MetaMask notice does not say which credentials or validator types are affected. Multiplying a guessed number of validators by 32 would create an estimate that looks precise but lacks both inputs.

An exit does not necessarily imply a sale. ETH can move from the consensus layer to the withdrawal address controlled by the client and later be deposited with another operator, or it may remain there. A different product may route the proceeds through a staking pool’s own contracts. Without the withdrawal credentials and client instructions, no observer can say that these funds are going to an exchange. Even a visible withdrawal is evidence of a transfer to a designated address, not a trade at that address’s next destination.

For liquid staking, there is another ledger between the validator and the holder. Lido’s validator exit documentation describes the operator’s exit message, oracle accounting and withdrawal-balance reporting. A token holder may keep holding a liquid staking claim while underlying validators rotate. Conversely, a holder’s request to redeem a liquid staking token can result in protocol-level exits when available liquidity is insufficient. The flow through those ledgers cannot be inferred simply from the word “exit” in MetaMask’s notice.

The key split defines the security boundary A validator signing key authorizes attestations and blocks. A withdrawal credential points to the destination for withdrawn ETH and, depending on its type, may allow an execution-layer exit request. The operator normally needs the first to run a validator. The customer should retain authority over the second in a non-custodial service. MetaMask’s statement rests on this division: it says it does not manage clients’ withdrawal keys.

That is a meaningful protection against direct diversion of principal through a changed withdrawal destination. It is not a blanket guarantee against all staking losses. An operator whose signing environment is compromised can miss duties or, in a worse case, sign conflicting messages and face slashing. Ethereum’s rewards and penalties guide distinguishes ordinary missed-duty penalties from slashing for provable consensus offenses. A planned orderly exit can reduce the time a potentially compromised signing key remains active. It cannot reverse penalties already incurred, and it cannot tell customers how long a replacement takes to activate.

The distinction also sets a burden of proof. To claim the principal is secure, one would want confirmation that withdrawal credentials remain unchanged and that no unauthorized exit or withdrawal occurred. To claim a signing-key compromise, one would need evidence about the key custody system and on-chain behavior, not the existence of an exit alone. MetaMask has not publicly attributed the incident to either class of key. Its choice to exit can be prudent even if investigators ultimately find no exploitable validator key.

The technical separation has an economic consequence. A client can retain the ETH yet lose some expected rewards during the changeover. A validator no longer earning rewards while outside active duty cannot make that time back by claiming the original stake was safe. Security of principal and continuity of yield are different service promises. Lido’s recent consolidation work further complicates any simple key-count proxy: credential type and effective balance affect how much stake one validator represents.

The public numbers do not support an exposure total A common calculation would be affected validators times 32 ETH. The only figure supplied in the incident statement is none: MetaMask has not said how many validators it is exiting. Ethereum now permits compounding validators above 32 ETH as well. The arithmetic therefore has two missing terms, not one. If a hypothetical 100 legacy validators were affected, their starting effective stake would be 3,200 ETH. That example is a unit conversion, not a claim about this incident. It would be wrong to place 3,200 ETH in a headline without an actual validator count.

Another tempting shortcut is to look at the chain’s aggregate exit queue. It is a network-wide total, not a roster of MetaMask customers. Other institutions, staking pools and solo operators can enter or leave the queue on the same day. A rising queue after the disclosure would establish simultaneous demand for exit, not attribution to MetaMask. Individual validator indices tied to the operator, paired with a published scope statement, could narrow the estimate. A dashboard that clusters by graffiti or deposit source alone might misclassify clients, pooled stake or later reassignment.

The Ethereum Foundation’s earlier unstaking shows how a visible large withdrawal can attract a market story before the receiving wallet’s purpose is clear. The MetaMask event is more opaque. No current public incident balance can be verified from the company’s short notice. Readers should be skeptical of a circulating ETH figure unless its author supplies a reproducible list of validator indices, credential types and withdrawal addresses, with a method for excluding unrelated validators.

There is also a reporting distinction between assets at risk and assets delayed. The former depends on an actual path to loss, such as slashing, unauthorized control or an affected contract. The latter can result from a precautionary change even when custody holds. Without an incident mechanism or customer-level statements, those buckets cannot be quantified together. The best number in this story may remain a missing number until investigators or operators publish more.

Exit capacity belongs to the chain, not the provider Ethereum limits how quickly validators can leave. The exit queue is not an arbitrary hold imposed by MetaMask; it is a protocol mechanism that spreads departures over time. Its length depends on how many validators across Ethereum are trying to leave, the network’s active validator set and the applicable churn limits. After exit, withdrawal eligibility and the sweep to the withdrawal credential add steps. The staking withdrawal guide warns pooled-staking users to check with their provider because products handle the path differently.

If a client wants to keep staking, the funds can take a second trip. Once accessible to the authorized withdrawal destination, they can be redeposited under a fresh validator key and perhaps a different operator. Activation also has a queue. These are sequential waits when the service truly withdraws and redeposits principal. A service able to change parts of its operational setup while retaining validators may have a different path, but MetaMask has said it is exiting affected validators, so the faster operator-switch scenario should not be assumed for those keys.

The cost is not a fixed percentage. A simple opportunity-cost example shows the sensitivity: 32 ETH at an assumed 3% annual gross rate generates about 0.00263 ETH over one day, or roughly 0.0395 ETH over 15 days. This is arithmetic, not a forecast for current yields or MetaMask clients. Validator type, fee arrangements, missed attestations, execution-layer rewards and the duration outside active service all alter the actual result. The point is that the time between an effective exit and a new activation matters even when the 32 ETH principal is intact.

A dramatic queue estimate also requires care. A service may quote an upper-bound end-to-end period that includes an exit, sweep, client processing and re-entry; a chain dashboard may display only the first of those. Comparing the two as if they measure the same interval creates a false discrepancy. An affected customer needs a sequence of dates from the provider: exit request, effective exit, withdrawable epoch, funds received at the credential, redeposit authorization and activation of a replacement.

A precautionary exit is a costly but defensible response The strongest case for MetaMask’s action is that it limits the duration of potential exposure while forensic work continues. A compromised signing environment cannot continue producing risky signatures for a validator after it has fully exited. Where the incident’s boundaries are uncertain, retiring potentially exposed operational keys is more conservative than asking customers to wait for perfect attribution. The company’s statement that it found no immediate threat to wallets is also material: it has not told ordinary wallet users to migrate keys or withdraw assets.

A customer can still reasonably ask why an exit was necessary if no wallet was threatened. The answer lies in the different security domains. Wallet access and validator operation are different services. MetaMask’s formulation does not disclose the infrastructure component or prove whether an attacker touched either one. A precaution may turn out to have been broader than needed; a forensic report can make that clear later. It is possible to accept a rapid defensive exit as prudent while pressing for a precise account of its cost and scope.

JUST IN: MetaMask nearly hacked by North Korean developer

Consensys unknowingly hired the individual who contributed to core code for nearly a month pic.twitter.com/FDplUHXlyl

— crypto.news (@cryptodotnews) July 19, 2026 Recent reporting on distributed staking operators points to an alternative design goal: reduce the operational dependence on one signer or host. Such systems have their own coordination and failure modes. They do not retroactively remove the need to exit a validator whose actual signing environment may be suspect. Nor can an institution simply claim diversification because multiple legal entities appear on a product page. The relevant question is where signing authority resides and how it is rotated after an incident.

A good incident update would separate confirmed facts from remediation choices. It would state whether there was unauthorized signing, whether duties were missed, how many validator indices are in scope and whether the withdrawal credentials were checked. If those answers are not yet known, the update should say so. Customers can then distinguish an operational pause from a loss of principal without relying on anonymous queue charts.

Clients need to map their own contract, not just the chain A non-custodial staking customer still has a service agreement, an operator relationship and a specific withdrawal destination. Those details determine who initiates an exit, who can decide where the ETH goes after withdrawal, who bears a downtime cost and what communication the customer receives. If the product uses a pooled staking protocol, token-holders may have a claim on a pool rather than direct control over each validator. If it is dedicated validator staking, a customer may be able to identify specific validator indices and credentials.

Start with the deposit records. The validator’s public key and withdrawal credential can be compared with what the product showed at onboarding. A client should not paste a seed phrase into an incident form or accept a message that says an emergency key transfer is mandatory. MetaMask’s disclosure does not announce a wallet migration. Official product channels and independently typed URLs matter particularly when a security incident creates an opening for impersonators.

Next, distinguish three status fields: pending exit, exited and withdrawn. Pending exit means the validator remains in the queue and may still have duties. Exited means it no longer participates in normal consensus duties. Withdrawn means the balance has actually reached its destination. An operator’s internal dashboard may use “complete” for its own administrative step, so the customer should request the underlying validator index and transaction or epoch evidence. The time at which rewards stop is not necessarily the time the user sees ETH in a wallet.

Finally, ask about replacement authorization. A provider should not assume that a customer who authorized staking through one set of keys wants an automatic redeposit after a security incident. Some clients will prefer new operator due diligence; others will prioritize restoring rewards. The service’s permission model decides what can occur without a new signature. That is a more important question than guessing whether the market will absorb the withdrawn ETH.

The loss ledger has four separate columns A final accounting ought to distinguish principal, protocol penalties, unpaid rewards and service fees. These are often collapsed into a single claim that customers were either “safe” or “affected.” Principal is the balance that ultimately arrives at the withdrawal credential, net of protocol changes to the validator balance. Penalties are debits caused by missed duties or provable misconduct while the validator remains active. Unpaid rewards are counterfactual: what an equally situated, active validator might have earned during the gap. Service fees depend on a contract and may or may not accrue while no validator is active.

Take a dedicated legacy validator with a 32 ETH initial deposit. Suppose it exits normally with a balance of 32.4 ETH and the full 32.4 reaches the client credential. The principal and accumulated balance arrived; that does not mean its exit and re-entry had zero cost. If its replacement was inactive for a month, foregone rewards are measured against the yield that an operating validator might have earned in that month. That yield is variable and cannot be recovered by subtracting 32 from 32.4. The latter difference includes rewards accumulated before the exit and says nothing about the gap.

Conversely, a lower-than-expected withdrawal balance is not automatically proof of theft. It could reflect consensus penalties, the validator’s actual performance before the incident or an accounting convention for pool shares. The operator should reconcile the balance at a specified epoch, the final withdrawal amount, any consensus penalties, execution-layer rewards and each fee charged. That ledger requires the validator index and a common measurement period. If the operator reimburses missed rewards or penalties under a service promise, the payment should be recorded separately from what Ethereum returned.

Pooled products add another layer. An individual holder may see a token balance or exchange rate while the pool rotates underlying validators. For that customer, the relevant reconciliation includes pool liabilities, redemption claims and the share of any loss borne by operators, insurance funds or holders. A single on-chain validator receipt cannot establish the holder’s outcome. Anchorage’s Lido custody integration illustrates why the party that holds an account, the operator that signs and the protocol that accounts for pooled claims may all differ. The September 30 notice does not identify which arrangement applies to every affected client.

This is the question a later incident review should answer: what was lost or delayed, for whom, and under which contract? A report that simply says withdrawals completed would leave the reward and penalty columns unanswered. A report that cites an aggregate yield would conceal variation across exit dates. The ledger, published with sensitive client identifiers removed, would let customers evaluate a response that otherwise looks identical whether ten validators or thousands were retired.

The market signal is weaker than the operational signal A large validator exit queue can affect narratives about ETH supply, but this disclosure supplies no amount. Exited ETH need not be sold. It may be waiting to re-enter under new keys, moved into another staking product or held by the original owner. A price chart cannot reveal which choice a client made. The direct observable change is that validators leave active service, which can modestly change the network’s active stake and reward distribution. The financial effect for the customer depends on the actual downtime and any penalties.

The incident may produce a broader question for staking providers: how quickly can they retire a compromised validator set without imposing a long interruption on client yield? That is a measurable operational quality. It requires publishing the number of affected keys and dates at each stage, not only saying that principal is non-custodial. Competitors can advertise a different key architecture; those claims should be tested against documented withdrawal control and incident procedures.

The limits of the current record are stark. There is no disclosed loss, no confirmed attacker path, no published validator list and no verified total stake in the MetaMask notice as of October 1. The company may narrow or expand the scope. A chain observer may independently identify some exits, but attributing every one to the incident requires corroboration. An article that presents a precise flow of ETH today would be filling those gaps with conjecture.

The answer to the headline is therefore conditional but useful. The staked ETH remains bound to each validator until the protocol releases it to that validator’s designated withdrawal destination. MetaMask says clients, not MetaMask, control the withdrawal keys. What happens after receipt depends on the client and the product. The operational exit is underway. The final destination of the funds is a separate decision still to be observed.

What an independent audit could actually verify An outside reviewer would begin with the deposit data and withdrawal credentials for the affected validators, then compare them with MetaMask’s incident inventory. The list need not reveal client names. It could publish validator indices or cryptographic commitments alongside aggregate balances and specify the cutoff epoch. That would make the scope reproducible while leaving customer identities in the provider’s private records. If the company cannot disclose indices during an active investigation, it can still state the count, credential classes and method used to reconcile them.

The second check is event order. Did each affected validator stop signing before its exit became effective? Was there any slashable offense or measurable missed-duty period? An exit transaction or signed exit message alone cannot answer the first question; a validator may remain active while queued. Public beacon-chain records can show attestations, proposals, exit epochs and withdrawals for known validator indices. They cannot reveal which server was compromised or what an attacker could access. A forensic claim about root cause would require logs, access records and independent testing of the affected infrastructure.

The fourth check is who paid for the interruption. A provider might credit customers for downtime, waive a fee, or point to terms under which variable network rewards were never guaranteed. None of those outcomes is implied by a successful withdrawal. For dedicated validators, the audit can state realized rewards and missed-duty penalties per cohort. For a pool, it should reconcile share accounting and any insurance or operator bond used to absorb loss. A single headline yield percentage would hide both.

An independent review that reports these four checks would answer the question readers actually have. It would show whether the precaution protected withdrawal control, whether signing produced a protocol loss, where the balance landed and who bore the cost of re-entry. Absent that record, the public can assess the logic of the response but not certify its outcome. The company’s next update should make that boundary smaller.

What to watch Scope disclosure: A MetaMask update that gives the number of affected validator indices, stake and product lines. Credential checks: A statement confirming the withdrawal credentials and whether any unauthorized signing or slashing occurred. Exit completion: Publicly verifiable exit epochs for identified affected validators, distinguished from requests still queued. Withdrawal receipts: Proof that balances arrived at the authorized withdrawal destinations, with accounting for penalties or missed rewards. Replacement activation: Client-approved redeposits, new signing keys and the date replacement validators resume duties. FAQ Did MetaMask say user wallets were hacked? No. Its September 30 notice says it identified no immediate threat to MetaMask wallets, while describing an incident in part of its infrastructure. It did not publish a full forensic finding.

How much ETH is affected by the MetaMask validator exits? MetaMask did not provide an affected validator count or ETH balance as of October 1. An estimate based on 32 ETH per validator would still need a verified count and the validators’ credential types.

Does a validator exit mean its ETH was sold? No. An exit stops the validator’s participation before the principal is withdrawn to its designated address. A later sale would require separate evidence of trading or transfers.

Who controls the withdrawal keys? MetaMask says it does not manage client withdrawal keys in its non-custodial staking operations. Individual clients should confirm their own credential and product agreement.

Can a validator lose ETH even if withdrawal keys are safe? Yes. Missed duties can incur smaller penalties, and slashable consensus offenses can reduce stake. MetaMask has not said that the affected validators were slashed.

How long will an exit and replacement take? There is no fixed interval in MetaMask’s disclosure. Ethereum’s exit, withdrawal and entry queues are distinct, and provider processing can add time.

Are liquid staking tokens affected? The public notice does not define the affected products or token-holder cohort. A liquid staking position may be backed by a pool with separate redemption accounting.

What would settle whether client funds are safe? A scoped incident report, withdrawal credential verification, validator status and reconciled withdrawal receipts would answer more than an aggregate queue chart. 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 1, 2026.

TLDR Ethereum traded near $2,713 on Oct. 1, up 1.87%, and held above the $2,700 level. A wallet linked to co-founder Joseph Lubin moved 133,298 ETH (about $356.2 million) to a new address, not to an exchange. ETH faces resistance at $2,747 to $2,800, with support at $2,670 and $2,636. 71.3% of retail traders are long, while top traders hold a smaller 57.1% long skew. U.S. spot Ethereum ETFs drew nearly $690 million over five sessions through Sept. 25. Ethereum (ETH) traded at about $2,713 early on Oct. 1, up 1.87% on the day. The token held above $2,700, a level that has acted as a key battleground during its recent recovery.

A wallet linked to Ethereum co-founder Joseph Lubin moved 133,298 ETH to a new address. Onchain tracker Lookonchain reported the transfer, which was worth about $356.2 million at the time.

The tokens were not sent to a known centralized exchange. So far, there is no evidence the ETH was moved for an immediate sale.

ETH showed little reaction and traded around $2,715 at press time. Any later movement of the coins to exchanges could change how the market views the transfer.

Ethereum Price on CoinGecko Price Stalls Below Resistance ETH hit a session high of $2,738.51 but could not hold it. The price now sits between support at $2,670 and resistance at $2,747 and $2,781.

The token was rejected near $2,800 on Sept. 23. It reached an intraday high near $2,789 before falling as low as $2,648.

ETH trades above its 7-day, 20-day, 50-day and 200-day moving averages. However, the MACD histogram has flattened to zero, and the RSI reads 64.55.

On the daily chart, the positive directional indicator stands at 29.17, above the negative indicator at 14.70. The ADX reads 39.67 but has declined from its September peak.

The 20-day Chaikin Money Flow sits at 0.10. That positive reading shows buying pressure remains stronger on a volume-weighted basis.

Traders, ETFs and Staking Derivatives data shows 71.3% of retail traders are long, with a long/short ratio of 2.49. Top traders hold a smaller 57.1% long skew.

On Binance, the taker buy/sell ratio sits at 0.75. Sell-side volume reached 72,725 contracts against 54,213 on the buy side.

Open interest fell 1.47% over 24 hours. The funding rate stands at a neutral 0.0057%.

U.S. spot Ethereum ETFs drew nearly $690 million over five straight sessions through Sept. 25. BlackRock’s ETHA took in $326.2 million and Fidelity’s FETH added $174.1 million, though demand has since cooled.

About 43.5 million ETH was staked as of Sept. 28, around 35.66% of supply. Roughly 1.61 million ETH was waiting to enter staking, compared with about 161,000 waiting to exit.

On the 4-hour chart, ETH trades inside its 20-period Donchian Channel. The upper boundary sits at $2,748.60, the midpoint at $2,692.15 and the lower boundary at $2,635.69.

A close above $2,749 could bring the $2,800 area back into focus. A break above that level could open a path toward $2,900 and $3,000.

On the downside, $2,692 is the first support. A drop below $2,636 would weaken the short-term setup.

TLDR MetaMask disclosed a Sept. 30 security incident affecting part of its infrastructure. The company says it has found no immediate threat to MetaMask wallets. Affected Ethereum validators in its non-custodial staking service are being exited as a precaution. Lido expects the last affected validators to exit by the end of Oct. 7, with the full process taking up to about 45 days. Aave founder Stani Kulechov says Aave markets remain unaffected. MetaMask has started exiting affected Ethereum validators after disclosing a security incident within its infrastructure on Sept. 30. The company said it is working with outside partners and security advisers to fix the issue.

In a short update, MetaMask said it had identified “no immediate threat to MetaMask wallets.” It did not give technical details about which systems were involved.

As a precaution, the company is exiting affected validators within its non-custodial staking operations. MetaMask said it does not manage withdrawal keys for stake on behalf of its clients.

What MetaMask Has Disclosed Public disclosures as of Oct. 1 do not name the attack method. They also do not say how many validators were affected, how much ETH is involved, or whether any data was accessed.

MetaMask did not say whether validator signing keys were accessed. It also has not reported slashing, stolen client stake, or unauthorized withdrawals.

Security Update: We are responding to a security incident affecting part of our infrastructure.

At this time, we have identified no immediate threat to MetaMask wallets.

As a precaution, we are proactively exiting affected validators within our non-custodial staking operations,…

— MetaMask 🦊 (@MetaMask) September 30, 2026

The affected operations involve MetaMask Staking, which was previously known as Consensys Staking. Earlier in September, Consensys Software Inc. announced plans to operate under the MetaMask name.

As part of that change, its protocols and institutional infrastructure businesses will move into a newly formed Consensys company. That separation is expected to be completed by the end of 2026.

MetaMask’s validator staking service uses a non-custodial model. Its documentation says users keep control of their stake and rewards, while MetaMask’s infrastructure runs the validator.

Lido Sets Oct. 7 Exit Target Lido shared more details in a Sept. 30 post on its governance forum. A Lido representative said MetaMask Staking took precautionary action following an “infrastructure compromise.”

Validators run by MetaMask Staking within the Lido protocol have begun exiting. Lido expects the final affected validators to reach the exit stage by the end of Oct. 7, though they may not be fully withdrawn by then.

Lido said ETH from these validators will return to the protocol gradually as each one moves through exit, withdrawal, and re-entry. The full process could take up to about 45 days because of Ethereum’s long validator entry queue.

Lido told users that “No action is required from stETH holders.” It said the exits could lead to lost staking rewards and possible downtime penalties if validators go offline before their exits finish.

Lido did not say any validators had been slashed. It pointed to its network of more than 600 node operators and a reserve fund holding more than 6,750 stETH as tools to absorb disruptions.

Aave founder Stani Kulechov said in an Oct. 1 update that he was monitoring the situation. He said Aave’s markets had not been affected and were operating normally.

MetaMask has not given a deadline for completing its investigation. The company said it remains in contact with clients, partners, and security advisers, while Lido said a “full investigation is underway.”

Оновлено Опубліковано Перекладено AI

2 хв читання

(Declan Sun-Unsplash/)Підсумок

Citigroup raised its 12-month bitcoin forecast to $113,000 from $82,000 and its ether target to $3,028 from $2,240, citing renewed exchange-traded fund inflows and favorable economic conditions.Citi expects cryptocurrency investment products to attract $5 billion over the next year as advisers and brokerages gradually increase bitcoin allocations.Bitcoin rose more than 10 percent after the Senate rejected the Clarity Act on Sept. 15, while subsequent SEC announcements and Treasury bond buybacks helped ease negative sentiment and revive the broader cryptocurrency market.Financial services giant Citigroup (C) has raised its outlook for bitcoin BTC$83 921,58 and ether ETH$2 705,54 on account of exchange-traded fund (ETF) inflows resuming and supportive macroeconomic conditions, in a note on Wednesdy.

Citi raised its 12-month forecast for bitcoin from $82,000 to $113,000 and for ether from $2,240 to $3,028. The targets represent increases for BTC and ETH of around 35% and 12% respectively based on their current prices.

Citi expects “slower but stickier” inflows into products like ETFs as advisers and brokerages favour gradual increases in bitcoin allocations, forecasting $5 billion of inflow over the next 12 months.

U.S. spot bitcoin ETFs had experienced year-to-date net outflows of $5.8 billion as of July 13. This has been reversed in the months since though, with net inflows for 2026 reaching $800 million as of late September.

Despite the U.S. Senate failing to advance the Clarity Act in the middle of last month, Citi says the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC)’s subsequent rule announcements dampened negative sentiment, referring to them as “a temporary but meaningful positive.”

“At this stage of the electoral cycle stage, rulemaking clarity may substitute for a durable Clarity Act,” Citi said. “However, we see risk that a 2028 administration change could roll back agency-promulgated rules, albeit this concern lies outside our forecast horizon.”

The cryptocurrency market showed resilience in the aftermath of the Clarity Act’s rejection by the Senate on Sept. 15, with bitcoin gaining more than 10% by the end of the month.

Citi cited the U.S. Treasury’s move to buy back longer-dated bonds which revived momentum across the crypto market and helped it break out of a months-long slump of trailing other risk assets.

UPDATE (Oct. 1, 12:00 UTC): Removes Reuters attributions and adds additional detail from Citi’s note.

Related Assets

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.

Bitcoin Price Prediction for This Month: Uptober or Downtober

Citi has raised its Bitcoin target from $82,000 to $113,000, and its Ethereum target from $2,240 to $3,028.

The leading cryptocurrency, Bitcoin, experienced a pullback after rising above $87,000. The decline began around the $82,000 level, and BTC is currently trading sideways around $83,000.

At this point, while there are both bearish and bullish predictions for BTC, Citi has raised its 12-month Bitcoin target to $113,000 and its Ethereum target to $3,000.

According to Reuters, Citi has raised its 12-month price targets for Bitcoin and Ethereum, citing increased cryptocurrency market activity, a positive macroeconomic environment, and renewed net inflows into ETFs.

The bank raised its BTC target from $82,000 to $113,000, and its ETH target from $2,240 to $3,028.

$5 Billion Expected Inflow into Crypto Assets! Citi’s note from yesterday indicated that capital inflows into crypto assets could resume as advisors and brokerage firms gradually increase their allocations for Bitcoin. The bank added that it forecasts inflows of approximately $5 billion over the next 12 months.

At this point, the bank added that it expects inflows to be slower but more stable compared to previous periods.

He Had Lowered the Targets! Citi had previously lowered its targets in July due to weakening ETF inflows and declining investor interest. At that time, Citi reduced its Bitcoin target from $112,000 to $82,000 and its Ethereum target from $3,175 to $2,240.

*This is not investment advice.

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

MetaMask has begun exiting certain Ethereum validators following a security incident that impacted a portion of its infrastructure. The company announced that it is working in collaboration with external partners and security consultants to address the issue.

Security incident and responseIn a brief statement, MetaMask asserted that there is “no immediate threat to MetaMask wallets.” However, specific technical information, such as which systems were impacted, has not been disclosed. The company emphasized that, as a precaution, it is removing affected validators from its non-custodial staking operations.

MetaMask, a widely used Ethereum wallet developed by Consensys Software Inc., provides users with tools to store, manage, and stake digital assets. Its non-custodial staking model allows customers to retain control of their assets and staking rewards while the validator infrastructure is managed by MetaMask.

The company clarified that it does not control client withdrawal keys, which ensures that users maintain authority over their staked funds. MetaMask has not reported any cases of slashing, theft of client stakes, unauthorized withdrawals, or access to validator signing keys.

MetaMask stated that it is “proactively exiting affected validators within our non-custodial staking operations” and has “identified no immediate threat to MetaMask wallets.”

Public disclosures as of October 1 did not include details about the nature of the attack, the number of validators impacted, or the total amount of ETH involved. The company has yet to release a completion date for its internal investigation but maintains communication with users, partners, and security advisors throughout the process.

The security incident involved MetaMask Staking, previously known as Consensys Staking. In September, Consensys Software Inc. revealed it would begin operating under the MetaMask brand. As part of this restructuring, the company’s protocols and institutional infrastructure will transition to a newly established entity, with the transition expected to be finished by the end of 2026.

The non-custodial design of MetaMask Staking allows users to retain their withdrawal keys, ensuring self-custody of deposits and rewards while MetaMask operates the validator node.

Mini dictionary: Consensys Software Inc. is a blockchain technology company that develops Ethereum-based infrastructure and applications, including MetaMask, a major non-custodial crypto wallet.

Lido protocol sets validator exit timelineLido Finance, a leading decentralized staking protocol, provided additional information on the matter in a post to its governance forum. A Lido representative described the incident as an “infrastructure compromise” affecting validators operated by MetaMask Staking within the Lido protocol. As a result, those validators have begun the exit process.

Lido anticipates that the final affected validators will reach the exit stage by the end of October 7, though the full withdrawal and reallocation of ETH may extend for up to 45 days due to Ethereum’s validator entry and exit queue.

The protocol noted that there had been no slashing incidents to date. Lido’s network consists of more than 600 node operators and a reserve fund holding over 6,750 stETH to help absorb potential disruptions.

Lido’s update also reassured stETH holders that “No action is required from stETH holders.” However, the organization warned that the exit process could cause temporary losses in staking rewards and potential downtime penalties if validators go offline before exits are finalized.

ProtocolExit Target DateFull Withdrawal TimeframeReserve FundNode OperatorsLidoBy Oct. 7Up to 45 days6,750+ stETH600+Reactions from DeFi ecosystemStani Kulechov, founder of Aave, addressed the situation on October 1, stating that Aave’s decentralized lending markets had not experienced any disruption. Operations and markets within the Aave protocol are continuing as normal despite the concerns around MetaMask’s validator infrastructure.

MetaMask and Lido have both indicated that comprehensive investigations are still ongoing and that users will remain informed as further details become available.

Robinhood unveiled Robinhood Agents at HOOD Summit 2026 in Houston. The in-app AI agents can analyze markets, build strategies, and trade on a customer’s behalf.

The product is coming soon to eligible US customers. It is Robinhood’s first in-house agent, after months of letting outside AI tools trade on its platform.

Robinhood AI Agents Build on a May LaunchRobinhood CEO Vlad Tenev presented the product as a response to how customers already trade.

“I think increasingly, customers and traders are integrating AI into their strategies… We wanted to make that easier,”

The company first opened its platform to external AI agents on May 27, according to TechCrunch. Those agents connected through the Model Context Protocol (MCP), a standard that links AI tools to outside apps.

Support began with stocks and later extended to crypto. However, agents cannot transfer, stake, or lend digital assets, as BeInCrypto noted when covering Robinhood’s Bitcoin trading costs.

How the New Agents WorkSetting up an agent takes three steps. Customers name it, open a dedicated agentic trading account, and connect an AI model.

OpenAI’s GPT-Luna model is free to use through December 31, per Robinhood’s announcement. Tenev also confirmed that users can switch off trade approvals entirely.

“By default, we have trade approvals… Now, some customers would prefer to turn that off to trade it fully autonomously in a loop. And we do enable that.”

A feature called Loops, still in development, will take that autonomy further.

 OpportunityRiskAutomationStrategies can run continuously, including overnightLoops can place, modify, or cancel trades without per-trade approvalAccessRetail users get algorithmic tools once limited to professionalsCustomers bear all trading losses, and Robinhood does not monitor or audit agentsControlApprovals are on by default, and agents cannot touch the main account balanceTurning off a Loop does not reverse trades it already placedChoiceModels from several AI labs plus 11 paid Agent Apps data toolsUsers accept the risk of third-party AI providers handling their dataDemand and stability150,000+ agentic accounts since May and about 30 million tool uses a dayBank of England Deputy Governor Sarah Breeden warned that similar agents could amplify volatility in stressAgentic Trading on Robinhood, Opportunities and RisksCalls for Stricter AI Agent ControlsIndustry calls for tighter controls are growing. Dell Technologies CEO Michael Dell recently argued that AI agents need hard limits built into their design.

Research has also flagged agent misbehavior in market-style tests. One review found some Chinese AI models lied in 88% of tests during simulated tenders. Neither case involved Robinhood’s product.

Crypto Perpetuals and 24/7 Stocks Also AnnouncedRobinhood also plans US perpetual futures, which are derivatives contracts with no expiry date. They will cover Bitcoin (BTC), Ethereum (ETH), Solana (SOL), XRP, Dogecoin (DOGE), Cardano (ADA), Chainlink (LINK), and Hyperliquid (HYPE).

Leverage will reach 10x on BTC and ETH and 3x on the rest. Robinhood Derivatives will offer the contracts through Bitstamp in the coming months.

Separately, some US stocks will trade 24/7 from early 2027, pending regulatory review. Robinhood has not said whether its agents will trade perpetuals.

The real test may come once Loops goes live. Unattended agents will show whether default safeguards hold up in volatile markets.

Key Takeaways ETH briefly surged past $2,700 on September 30 before retreating to approximately $2,679. August’s PCE inflation registered 3.4%, undershooting the anticipated 3.7% figure. Probability of a Federal Reserve rate increase at the October meeting plummeted from 67% to 34%. September 29 witnessed $2.81 million in Ethereum ETF outflows, breaking a seven-day positive flow trend. ETH maintains its position above the 200-day EMA at $2,462 while challenging resistance at $2,816. The second-largest cryptocurrency by market cap pushed beyond the $2,700 threshold on September 30 following unexpectedly mild US inflation figures. However, the upward momentum proved short-lived, with ETH settling back around $2,679.

Ethereum (ETH) Price This price action occurred immediately after the publication of the Personal Consumption Expenditures (PCE) index—the Federal Reserve’s primary inflation measurement tool. August’s PCE reading registered 3.4%, notably beneath the predicted 3.7%.

The core PCE figure similarly underperformed expectations, missing analyst projections by 10 basis points. These numbers indicate a decelerating inflation environment, despite rates remaining elevated compared to the Fed’s 2% objective.

Market Expectations Shift on Federal Reserve Policy The milder-than-anticipated inflation figures dramatically altered market sentiment regarding the Federal Reserve’s upcoming policy decisions. Data from the CME FedWatch Tool revealed that expectations for a 25 basis point rate increase at the October 28 meeting collapsed from 67% to just 34%.

BREAKING: 🇺🇸 Fed rate hike odds have dropped from 70% to 34%.

There’s now a much lower chance of another rate hike this year, which is absolutely bullish for markets. pic.twitter.com/sO8GvijaHM

— Ash Crypto (@AshCrypto) September 30, 2026

Reduced likelihood of rate increases typically benefits risk-on assets such as Ethereum. FXEmpire analyst Alejandro Arrieche observed that the majority of market participants have abandoned expectations for a hike at the upcoming FOMC gathering.

However, interpretations varied across the analyst community. Ash Crypto highlighted on X that $ETH achieved its strongest monthly close of 2026 and delivered its most impressive third-quarter performance in the network’s entire history, describing the outcome as “absolutely massive.”

This observation coincided with trading volume metrics and blockchain data indicating resurgent buyer activity. According to Santiment analytics, Ethereum’s MVRV ratio climbed above zero for the first time since July 2025—a threshold that has historically signaled the start of upward price trends.

Ethereum ETF Activity Reveals Conflicting Signals September 29 saw Ethereum ETFs register $2.81 million in net outflows. This broke a consecutive seven-day period of positive flows and represented the first negative day since September 18.

Source: SoSoValue Ethereum stood alone as the only cryptocurrency ETF category experiencing outflows on that particular trading day. Nonetheless, looking at the broader picture, Ethereum ETFs have accumulated $892 million in net inflows throughout September, marking the third consecutive month of positive investment flows.

From a technical perspective, Ethereum continues trading above its 200-day exponential moving average (EMA), presently positioned at $2,462. Market technicians consider this indicator a critical threshold separating bullish from bearish long-term market structure.

The immediate resistance barrier for ETH stands at $2,816. Breaking decisively above this level could pave the way toward the psychologically significant $3,000 milestone, based on technical assessments from CoinGape.

Technical momentum indicators, particularly the Awesome Oscillator, display expanding green bars. This configuration generally suggests favorable conditions for continued upward price progression.

Certain market observers anticipate a potential retracement before the next leg higher. FXEmpire’s technical outlook suggests ETH might retreat toward the $2,400 to $2,500 range before continuing its ascent, echoing a price pattern observed in 2025 following the Pectra network enhancement.

This upgrade-related pattern is now being drawn as a parallel to the forthcoming Glamsterdam upgrade, scheduled for the fourth quarter of 2026. Development teams view this as a comparable technical catalyst for network growth.

Should current trends persist and market liquidity return, several projections position Ethereum’s subsequent price target within the $3,000 to $3,400 range over the next four to eight weeks.

At the time of reporting on October 1, Ethereum was changing hands at $2,711.54, reflecting a daily gain of 1.49%.

Blockchain

1 October 2026 | 00:00 Ethereum’s Glamsterdam upgrade is scheduled for Sepolia on October 6, testing changes to block processing and gas accounting before developers set a date for mainnet activation.

The Ethereum Foundation’s announcement gives Sepolia operators a deadline to update their software and application teams a network on which to test the changes. Ordinary ETH holders have no upgrade action to take for this activation.

Glamsterdam prepares Ethereum to handle more work while changing the charges for some operations. The public test will let developers check whether applications still execute correctly and estimate fees accurately under those rules.

Will Glamsterdam change what users pay? The effect depends on the transaction. Creating an account, deploying contract code or adding storage leaves information that Ethereum’s nodes must retain. Glamsterdam changes the gas charged for that work, as well as for accessing existing records.

EIP-8037 increases and separately accounts for state creation costs. EIP-8038 updates charges for reading and writing stored information. An application that creates substantial new storage will therefore face a different cost profile from a simple payment.

For a plain ETH transfer to an existing ordinary account, the current transaction-gas specification keeps the charge at 21,000 execution gas. That measures the work charged to the transaction. The amount paid still depends on the price of gas when it is submitted.

Ethereum’s fee documentation explains that the final charge depends on gas consumed and the price per unit, with demand influencing pricing. More capacity can reduce competition for space, while higher charges for particular operations can increase their gas consumption. A claim that Glamsterdam will make every transaction cheaper would overlook that distinction.

Why Ethereum is changing the work behind each block Increasing capacity also increases the work nodes must perform. They need to receive transaction data, check it and maintain Ethereum’s records. Glamsterdam addresses the time available for those checks and how client software organises access to the data.

Block builders: bringing the handoff into the protocol Specialised builders already choose and arrange transactions for many validators. Enshrined proposer-builder separation, or ePBS, moves the commitment, delivery and payment mechanism for that relationship into Ethereum’s protocol.

A validator proposing a block selects a builder’s commitment to supply particular transaction data. The builder then supplies that data. Separating consensus checks from execution checks gives validators more time to verify it, while the protocol handles payment for the exchange.

Access lists: helping nodes organise validation Block-level access lists record the accounts and storage touched during execution, together with the resulting values. Client software can use that record to load data in parallel and organise compatible validation work in parallel.

The list is produced from execution data and must be checked. It helps nodes identify dependencies between transactions; it does not predict their effects before the builder executes them. The performance improvement depends on how clients implement these capabilities.

These changes create room for greater execution capacity. Gas repricing addresses the accompanying database burden: allowing more activity is easier to sustain when operations that create or access stored data are charged in proportion to their resource demands.

A fixed gas allowance can become an application problem Consider a contract that gives an internal operation a fixed amount of gas. If that operation becomes more expensive, it may exceed the allowance and fail. Giving the overall transaction more gas does not necessarily change a limit written into the contract itself.

This is why testing needs to go beyond checking whether the network activates successfully. A wallet may need to revise its estimate, while a contract with a hardcoded allowance may require a different fix.

The Foundation’s repricing impact analysis replayed historical mainnet transactions under the proposed gas schedule. In the transactions tested, the large majority produced unchanged outcomes. Some affected transactions completed after the supplied gas limit was increased. A smaller group remained potentially broken even with a substantially higher limit.

Developers can use the Foundation’s affected-contract search to investigate addresses and failure types. Teams maintaining wallets, transaction services and node tooling also need to update gas estimation rather than rely on cached cost assumptions.

Who needs to act? Sepolia operators and validators: Install compatible execution and consensus clients. Validators must update their beacon node and validator client, and review the new ePBS duties and builder-tooling requirements. Application developers: Test execution and gas estimates under the revised rules, especially where contracts use fixed gas values. Mainnet users and ETH holders: No action is required for this testnet activation. Mainnet instructions will accompany a separate announcement. A successful activation will show that clients follow the new rules together. The application testing that follows will show whether wallets estimate fees correctly and affected contracts operate reliably. Both are necessary before the proposed scaling improvements can deliver a dependable service to mainnet users.

Author

Alex is Editor-in-Chief of Coindoo and co-founder of Millennial Media Group, with nearly a decade of experience covering financial markets - crypto first, then everything else. It started in 2016 with Bitcoin. Like most people at the time, he didn't fully understand it - so he kept digging. Blockchain, tokenomics, the projects, the cycles. That curiosity never stopped, and eventually pulled him into traditional markets too: equities, commodities, macro. Not because he left crypto behind, but because you can't properly understand one without the other. What drives him is straightforward: he wants to know why something is happening, not just that it's happening. Most market coverage stops at the headline - price up, price down, here's a chart. Alex finds that kind of reporting actively unhelpful. If you walk away from an article without understanding the mechanism behind the move, what did you actually learn? He holds a degree in Tourism from New Bulgarian University - not the most obvious path into financial markets, but markets have a way of pulling in people who are simply too curious to stay out. He has authored over 200 in-depth analyses and more than 10,000 articles across crypto and traditional finance. He still thinks every day in markets teaches him something new. That's probably why he hasn't stopped.

PANews reported on October 1 that Lido stated on X that, following an investigation into an infrastructure breach, MetaMask Staking (formerly known as Consensys Staking) has taken precautionary measures to protect client assets related to the Ethereum validator nodes it operates.

Lido said these measures include exiting the Ethereum (ETH) validator nodes it operates within the Lido protocol. The related operations may result in forgoing some staking rewards, and may incur downtime penalties due to future validator node shutdowns aimed at reducing potential network slashing risks. At present, the relevant validator nodes have begun the exit process, which is expected to be completed by October 7, 2026 at the latest (though not all withdrawals have been completed yet).

Lido stated that stETH holders do not need to take any action. The ETH exited from MetaMask Staking's operated validator nodes is expected to gradually return to the protocol after the relevant validator nodes complete their exit, withdrawal, and re-entry into the staking cycle. Due to the current long Ethereum validator entry queue, the entire process is expected to take up to approximately 45 days. Staking is inherently a non-custodial model, and MetaMask will not manage staking withdrawal keys on behalf of clients.

In addition, Lido's diversified node operator system, along with security mechanisms including an ad hoc reserve fund of more than 6,750 stETH, is designed to control and mitigate the impact on the protocol's normal operations.

MetaMask has announced it is responding to a security incident affecting part of its infrastructure and is exiting affected staking validators as a precaution.

In an update on Wednesday, MetaMask said it was addressing the ongoing threat internally and was working with external partners and security advisors. It did not share what the security issue was but said it has not identified any immediate threat to MetaMask wallets.

Source: MetaMask said the precautionary measures involve validators within its non-custodial staking operations.

Cointelegraph reached out to MetaMask but did not receive an immediate response.

Lido details validator exits and potential penaltiesLido separately said MetaMask Staking had begun taking “precautionary steps to protect client assets related to its operated Ethereum validators,” including exiting its Ether (ETH) validators in the Lido protocol on Wednesday.

The last of the affected validators are expected to exit by the end of Oct. 7.

“ETH exited from MetaMask Staking-operated validators is expected to return to the protocol gradually as the relevant validators complete the exit, withdrawal, and re-entry cycle, which is estimated to take approximately up to 45 days due to the extended entry queue,” said Lido Finance developer Will Shannon.

This is a developing story. More information will be added as it becomes available.

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

A wave of technical shifts and volatility is reshaping the outlook for several prominent cryptocurrencies, including Near Protocol (NEAR), Hyperliquid (HYPE), Ethereum (ETH), and XRP. With each asset approaching critical resistance and support regions, traders face turning points that could define trends into the next quarter.

Near Protocol: The rally faces resistanceNear Protocol continues to display one of the strongest upside structures among large-cap tokens, currently trading close to $5.27 after spiking to nearly $5.47. The sustained advance since August, which has seen NEAR more than double in price, is supported by increased attention on NEAR’s artificial intelligence narrative and ecosystem developments. The launch of Bitwise’s spot NEAR ETF on NYSE Arca on September 29 has also amplified institutional interest.

However, NEAR’s technical profile signals caution. The price now sits far above all the key moving averages, with short-term metrics rising toward $3.80 while longer-term averages trail well behind. This separation points to intense momentum but also magnifies correction risk should buyers falter near immediate resistance between $5.40 and $5.50.

Mini dictionary: Bitwise is a leading crypto asset management firm offering spot ETFs and index products; NYSE Arca is a major US-based electronic securities exchange.

Relative strength index (RSI) remains elevated in the 70–75 range after extended overbought conditions during the rally. So far, the uptrend continues as NEAR records higher highs and higher lows, with no confirmation of a reversal. Still, a failure to close above resistance could trigger a sharper pullback, while a daily move above $5.50 would expose the $6.00 level as the next target.

TokenCurrent PriceKey ResistanceKey SupportRecent HighNEAR$5.27$5.40–$5.50$3.80$5.47HYPE$86.14$97–$100$85–$86$97–$98ETH$2,702$2,750–$2,800$2,650$2,800XRP$1.52$1.55–$1.65$1.44–$1.45$1.65Hyperliquid: Deep correction follows a failed breakoutHyperliquid, one of the sector’s most prominent decentralized perpetual-futures exchanges, is facing downward momentum after a strong surge earlier in September. The HYPE token recently reached $97–$98 before correcting to $86.14, where it now trades directly on critical support. The asset climbed from $57 to almost $100 during its rally, but profit-taking by large holders has increased the pressure.

HYPE remains above both medium-term and long-term moving averages, keeping the larger uptrend intact. However, after failing to reach the key $100 psychological mark, the token has produced a series of lower highs. The most recent candles now test the $85–$86 range, making this support pivotal for the next move. A breakdown from this region would signal a deeper retracement, while stabilization could allow the uptrend to resume.

Momentum indicators such as RSI have cooled from overbought, now moving back toward neutral territory. This moderation may help to reset sentiment, but buyers are expected to remain active in defending the current levels to avoid a more protracted decline.

Mini dictionary: Hyperliquid is a decentralized platform specializing in perpetual futures trading for digital assets, allowing users to open leveraged positions with on-chain transparency and no intermediaries.

Relative strength indicators are moderating across both NEAR and HYPE, creating an environment where holders may see sharper volatility if short-term support or resistance levels are breached.

Ethereum: Consolidation after breakoutEthereum is consolidating around $2,702 after completing an impressive multi-month surge. The latest advance peaked at nearly $2,800 before sellers established short-term resistance. Still, the overall chart structure has improved since the breakout from the previous $1,850–$1,950 trading zone.

This move unfolded on higher trading volume, solidifying conviction in the new uptrend as ETH quickly rallied through $2,200 and $2,500. A range has since formed between $2,650 and $2,800, with sellers unable to force a return to the earlier $2,400–$2,500 support zone.

Momentum has cooled as RSI moved from overbought toward the upper 50s and low 60s. Crucially, ETH has maintained most of its gains even as momentum indicators fell, indicating underlying strength.

A renewed breakout above $2,800 could trigger buying toward the psychological $3,000 level, while a loss of $2,650 could bring $2,600 or even the $2,450–$2,500 region into play. For now, the asset’s setup reflects a healthy pause following a sharp rally.

Ethereum maintains a much stronger technical pattern than during recent months, and the present consolidation phase appears to be a reset after the latest breakout rather than a confirmed reversal of trend.

XRP: Structure shifts after volatilityXRP is now trading at $1.52, recovering from a turbulent September that significantly changed its technical outlook. Following a move from near $1.00 to a monthly high of $1.65, the token experienced a sharp pullback but maintained its medium-term structure.

A breakthrough above a descending resistance, formed after the September spike, marked a pivotal shift for XRP. The asset is also trading above all major daily moving averages, with the fastest metric rising toward $1.44 and clustered medium-term support around $1.35–$1.38.

With RSI stabilized in the mid-50s, the current battle is centered on maintaining levels above $1.50. Success would reopen the path toward $1.55–$1.60 and possibly the $1.65 high. Failure could drive price down to $1.44–$1.45, with further risk toward the $1.35–$1.40 band. Despite the recent correction, XRP keeps a bullish undertone, but further progress will require buyers to overcome notable resistance at higher levels.