Track market-moving stories before they get noisy

A well-known trader noted that altcoins have fallen near their support levels, and plans to gradually go long amid bearish market sentiment.

Renowned trader Doctor Profit stated in a post that altcoins have dropped roughly 10% since he exited his altcoin positions when Bitcoin reached $86,000. Doctor Profit added that current market sentiment is extremely bearish, and the altcoin market is sitting near support levels, so he plans to gradually establish long positions in select altcoins.

2 minutes ago

US retail investors’ bottom-fishing in semiconductor leveraged ETFs takes a hit, with SOXL plunging 20.5% in a single day.

FactSet data shows that Direxion Daily Semiconductor Bull 3X Shares (SOXL) drew $6.1 billion in inflows last week, a new single-week record. Investors were betting on a rebound in chip stocks, but SOXL still dropped 10.8% this week, marking its third straight weekly decline, with a cumulative fall of over 43% since October. Inflows continued through Thursday, but SOXL plunged 20.5% that day, its largest single-day drop since June 23. By comparison, non-leveraged iShares Semiconductor ETF (SOXX) fell 6.8% on the same day, with a cumulative decline of around 15.9% since October. SOXL uses derivatives to track three times the daily performance of the semiconductor index, amplifying both gains and downside risks. The semiconductor sector is under pressure mainly due to market skepticism about the return on investment in AI infrastructure. Investors are reassessing whether tech giants’ aggressive spending can meet earnings expectations. Earlier, AI chip demand lifted semiconductor stocks, with SOXX’s year-to-date gain once nearing 59%, but recent sell-offs have tested its rally. Mike Reynolds, vice president of investment strategy at Glenmede, noted that semiconductors are highly sensitive to AI infrastructure development, and AI-related trades are currently facing some doubt. He added that after strong stock rallies and valuation expansions, investors’ re-examination of the AI theme’s potential returns is a healthy market move. Meanwhile, all three major U.S. stock indexes closed lower on Friday, with the S&P 500 Information Technology sector falling for the third consecutive week, its longest weekly losing streak since March.

2 minutes ago

Initia discloses details of the MoveVM vulnerability attack, suffering losses of approximately $2.7 million, while the INIT token supply remains unaffected.

Initia disclosed that at 22:59 Beijing time on October 23, attackers exploited a MoveVM script cache vulnerability to bypass security checks, forging states to add unsupported WETH, iUSD, and USDC balances to their accounts without altering the total supply of the respective tokens. The native INIT token was not minted, and its total supply remained unaffected. Before the network was shut down, the attacker transferred 105 WETH and approximately 1.4 million AUSD0 via LayerZero, and around 1.08 million USDC via Noble and CCTP, with total assets valued at roughly $2.7 million. These assets have been converted into 1135.52 ETH. Initia's L1 and Rollups remain suspended. The team is fixing the vulnerability, with repairs and audits expected to be completed within days, and is working with security partners to recover the stolen assets. The official added that a full incident analysis report will be released later, and reminded users to beware of unofficial links, messages, and statements.

2 minutes ago

Analyst: Bitcoin has seen notable pullbacks in every prior U.S. midterm election cycle, and its key support level of $73,000 requires close attention.

Crypto analyst Ali Charts wrote in a post that as the November 3 US midterm elections approach, investors may overlook the recurring Bitcoin pullbacks seen in previous election cycles. He believes this election could again bring significant volatility, with downside risks worth noting, and his key support level to watch is $73,000. According to his statistics, Bitcoin saw pullbacks of 72%, 65%, 52%, and 27% during the US midterm election cycles in 2010, 2014, 2018, and 2022 respectively. However, he emphasized that correlation does not equal causation; the elections themselves may not be the cause of the drops, and these pullbacks are also influenced by Bitcoin’s overall market cycle, liquidity conditions, and investor sentiment.
Q4 returns show a similar pattern: Bitcoin fell 16.70%, 42.16%, and 14.75% in Q4 of 2014, 2018, and 2022 respectively. The only exception was 2010, when it rose 391%—though Bitcoin was still in its early stages back then. As a result, three of the past four midterm election years saw negative Q4 returns.
Regarding future price action, Ali Charts noted that the $73,000 level is near the average acquisition cost of Bitcoin’s current short-term holders, making it a key area to monitor the positioning of recent investors. He pointed out that in an established bull market, Bitcoin often finds support near the short-term holder average cost after a significant pullback. He believes that if selling pressure accelerates after the November 3 elections, pushing Bitcoin back toward $73,000, this zone will be a critical level to test whether buyers are still willing to uphold the overall bullish trend. If prices rebound sustainably from this area, it will reinforce the bullish thesis. For trading, he will wait for signs of selling pressure drying up and demand reemerging before considering opening long positions.

2 minutes ago

SpaceX’s $40 billion off-balance-sheet debt financing is facing pressure on pricing negotiations amid turmoil in the AI market.

According to Bloomberg, citing people familiar with the matter, SpaceX is negotiating a $40 billion off-balance-sheet debt financing plan, which would use a special purpose vehicle (SPV) to purchase Nvidia chips to support its AI business expansion. The structure is designed to keep the related liabilities off SpaceX’s balance sheet, preserving its investment-grade credit rating. However, recent turmoil in the AI sector has pushed up industry borrowing costs, complicating pricing negotiations. Banks led by Goldman Sachs are discussing the plan with investors led by Apollo; Apollo-backed Atlas SP would manage the entity, with Pimco also considering participation.
Previously, yields on some subordinated debt were discussed in the mid-8% to 9% range, but recent volatility has prompted investors to reevaluate pricing, and the two sides remain in talks. SpaceX’s financial filings this week also revealed that last year, xAI had attempted to raise up to $20 billion in off-balance-sheet debt via a sale-leaseback arrangement with Valor Equity Partners. Auditors classified the deal as a “failed sale-leaseback arrangement”, leading SpaceX to eventually record roughly $13 billion of the sum as its own debt. The proposed structure aims to avoid a repeat of that outcome.

2 minutes ago

South Korean stock market's retail war chest shrank by 36.5%; retail investors continued net buying, but capital replenishment has slowed.

Data from Korea Financial Investment Association shows that as of October 22, investor deposits at South Korean securities firms fell to 88.68 trillion won, a drop of around 51 trillion won from the all-time high of 139.69 trillion won recorded on June 4, representing a 36.5% decline and returning to levels seen at the start of the year. The balance dipped below 90 trillion won on October 21, marking the first such drop in nearly nine months.
Investor deposits refer to funds held in securities firm accounts that have not yet been used to purchase assets such as stocks, and are typically viewed as potential buying power. The decline in the balance can stem from either stock purchases or fund withdrawals, so the full drop cannot be equated to capital exiting the stock market.
Retail investors continue to make net purchases. Between June 4 and October 23, individual investors bought a net 44.17 trillion won in the KOSPI market and 3.15 trillion won in the KOSDAQ market, while net purchases of ETFs over the same period reached 28.25 trillion won. The report notes that unlike the first half of the year, where new capital inflows exceeded stock purchases, the pace of capital replenishment in the second half has lagged behind outflows, leading to the continuous decline in deposit balances.
The KOSPI index closed at 5550.30 points on October 23, having fallen nearly 20% over the past month. A securities industry official said the recent decline is indeed excessive relative to earnings fundamentals, but the AI sector, which previously drove gains, still faces credit risk concerns, making it too early to expect a sustained rebound.

2 minutes ago

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

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

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA.

The Delphi Digital head of markets said Papertrade has the attack risk right, but that rewriting the rules once roughly $140 million had come in is "a bad look."

Delphi's Pagoulatos calls Papertrade's rule change after deposits "a bad look"

Posted October 23, 2026 at 7:05 pm ET.

Delphi Digital head of markets Jason Pagoulatos said on the Oct. 22 episode of Unchained that Papertrade is right about the danger of letting its PAPER token trade freely, but that changing course after users pre-deposited roughly $140 million is “a bad look.”

He said the move was “not exactly a rug” but that the team is “kind of bait and switching you” on the terms users signed up for. “You sell a bunch of people on a rule set beforehand, a bunch of money comes in, and now you change everything after the fact,” he added.

Papertrade, a high-leverage trading venue on Hyperliquid’s HyperEVM network that went live Oct. 10, said on Oct. 19 that “at this juncture we do not have plans to allow off-contract token transferability.” Its Oct. 1 launch plan had listed transfers as a later phase. Traders earn PAPER when they lose money and can stake it for a cut of fees.

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

Papertrade’s reasoning
The team said a market for shorting PAPER would make price manipulation pay. In a hypothetical with a $10 million bankroll, it wrote, “an attack costing $15m manipulating the price of bitcoin or ether is not viable,” but adding a $10 million PAPER short would make that attack “very viable indeed.”

Pagoulatos agreed that an attack “will 100% happen if the token is made transferable because anybody can whip up a perp market” and that “we’ve already seen the first part of it happen the day of launch.” He said the team manually blocked positions tied to large Hyperliquid market orders that moved ether’s price that day.

Paragon listed a PAPER perp on Hyperliquid through HIP-3, the network’s system for third-party markets, on Oct. 18, then halted and settled it about a minute after Papertrade’s post.

Pagoulatos said that by capping pool size or leverage, “you kind of take away all the reasons in which somebody would use paper trade to begin with.” He also noted the team “literally put the risk in the doc ahead of time” and said “there is some blame to go around for everybody.”

Farmers and organic demand
Papertrade has distributed about $57 million to PAPER stakers through Oct. 21, according to DefiLlama. Daily payouts fell from about $1.3 million on Oct. 20 to roughly $88,000 on Oct. 21, then recovered to about $1.07 million on Oct. 22.

Pagoulatos said current activity shows “the organic usage of people who want this type of thing” rather than that of users who came “to potentially farm a token to then sell.”

He said he was “not gonna say it’s over,” but that “it’s going to be extremely tough.”

Related Listen: PaperTrade Attracted $140M, Then Changed the Rules. Was It a Bait and Switch?

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

TLDR Table of Contents

PURR stock climbs 1.15% to $8.78 after Hyperliquid expands its buyback to $100M. Hyperliquid triples its repurchase capacity, lifting its buyback cap to $100M. About $72M remains available for PURR share repurchases under the new plan. Hyperliquid extends its PURR stock repurchase deadline to October 31, 2027. PURR shares add 0.23% after hours, reaching $8.80 following Friday’s gains. Hyperliquid Strategies expanded its stock buyback authorization to $100 million, lifting the previous $30 million cap. PURR stock gained 1.15% to $8.78, adding $0.10 after recovering from intraday lows near $8.60. Shares advanced another 0.23% to $8.80 after hours as the company updated its capital plans.

Hyperliquid Strategies Inc Common Stock, PURR

PURR Stock Gains Following Board Decision The stock reversed an early decline during Friday’s session as buying strengthened later in the day. That recovery helped offset earlier selling and supported a positive close despite uneven trading. After-hours activity produced a smaller additional increase, continuing the upward move.

The board’s decision raises the maximum authorization by $70 million against its previous limit. The new amount more than triples the program’s original capacity for share purchases. Still, the authorization gives management permission to repurchase shares without requiring immediate purchases.

Hyperliquid Strategies focuses on digital asset treasury operations within the Hyperliquid ecosystem. The company uses capital management decisions to support its financial structure and broader treasury strategy. Accordingly, the buyback expansion adds flexibility to its existing approach to share management.

Hyperliquid Strategies Extends Buyback Deadline to 2027 The board extended the program’s end date from December 5, 2026, to October 31, 2027. The longer period gives management additional opportunities to consider purchases under changing market conditions. Meanwhile, approximately $72 million remains available under the expanded authorization.

The company may buy PURR shares on public markets at prevailing prices. Management may also arrange private transactions or use other methods allowed under federal securities law. The selected approach will depend on market circumstances, transaction terms and applicable requirements.

The company linked the decision to its long-term capital strategy and broader treasury framework. The increased limit allows management to evaluate purchases alongside other company capital needs. However, the company did not establish a fixed share count or transaction calendar.

What the $100 Million PURR Repurchase Plan Allows Share repurchases allow businesses to acquire their own stock, potentially changing the number of outstanding shares. The effect depends on whether and how companies complete those transactions over time. An authorization alone creates no immediate change to outstanding shares.

Management will consider PURR’s trading price, general economic conditions and relevant legal restrictions. Those factors will shape the timing, size and total value of any future repurchases. The remaining allocation does not indicate an immediate cash commitment.

The company retains authority to extend, pause or end the program without advance notice. Accordingly, the final amount spent may differ from the authorized maximum at expiration. The expanded buyback capacity and extended deadline now form part of Hyperliquid Strategies’ capital management plans.

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

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

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA.

The new cross-margin option lets positions draw on one balance. NEAR describes a confidential route into a dedicated Hyperliquid account, while the exchange still has to price and liquidate the trades.

Summary

NEAR announced cross margin for its Hyperliquid-powered perpetuals on October 22, allowing eligible positions to use a shared perps balance. The trading page advertises more than 50 markets and leverage up to 40 times, but excludes U.S. persons and other restricted users. NEAR says each user receives a dedicated Hyperliquid trading account and that deposits and withdrawals to it are confidential; it does not publish an independent privacy audit for the full trade path. Hyperliquid’s rules liquidate cross positions against account equity and maintenance requirements, with a backstop available below two thirds of required maintenance margin. The launch announcement supplied no trading volume, user total or amount of collateral posted through the new margin mode. NEAR’s perpetuals interface now lets multiple positions use a common margin balance. The October 22 launch report describes a familiar derivatives feature with an unusual privacy claim: traders enter through NEAR’s interface, while Hyperliquid supplies the underlying perpetual markets. Pooling collateral can make an account more flexible, but a loss in one cross-margin position can consume funds supporting another. A person assessing the risk needs to know which positions share the pool and what information about that pool is visible to outsiders.

The product page says a user receives a dedicated account for trading on Hyperliquid, with confidential deposits and withdrawals. That is a more specific statement than an assertion that every order, position and risk calculation is hidden. Hyperliquid must still calculate account equity against its market prices and make liquidation decisions. NEAR has not published an independent assessment proving that every observer is unable to link a trading account to its owner, and the October announcement does not disclose usage totals for the new feature. Both the economic and privacy claims need those boundaries.

A trader switching an existing position from isolated to cross margin would need to understand which pool then supports it and whether the change alters withdrawable funds. Hyperliquid’s documentation describes the modes, but NEAR’s short launch post does not publish an interface-specific walkthrough of every switch or collateral type. The relevant account setting should be visible before a customer confirms a position, with the current maintenance requirement and the effect on other trades. An attractive quoted return says little about whether a new loss can reach collateral held for a separate strategy.

Cross margin is sometimes described as reducing liquidation risk because spare balance can support a losing trade. The statement is only half the picture. Spare balance can delay a particular position’s liquidation, while the overall account can lose more if several positions deteriorate. Isolated margin draws a firmer boundary around the collateral allocated to one trade, but it can liquidate that trade sooner even when money sits elsewhere. Neither mode is universally preferable; the allocation is a choice about how losses are shared. The new feature changes that allocation for NEAR’s users.

One balance, several positions Hyperliquid’s margin documentation says cross margin shares collateral among cross-margin positions, whereas isolated margin allocates funds to a particular position. A trader with two cross positions can use a surplus on one side of the account to support losses on the other. Unrealized profit on cross positions can also be available as initial margin for a new position. Those features reduce the amount of idle collateral needed to open several trades, but they make the account’s overall health more important than any one position’s displayed entry price.

Take an illustrative account with $1,000 of collateral and two positions, each with a notional exposure of $2,000. A $300 mark-to-market loss on one trade would reduce account equity before considering funding or fees. If the other trade gained $200, the combined change would be a $100 loss. Cross margin looks at the pool and its maintenance requirements; the example does not establish a liquidation price because each asset’s margin tier, mark price and position size matter. In isolated mode, a loss would first be limited to the margin allocated to that particular position, subject to the venue’s rules. The practical difference is the path through which an adverse move reaches the rest of the account.

The amount a trader selects as leverage is not a permanent boundary on loss. Hyperliquid says leverage is checked when a position opens; after that, changing prices and funding alter effective exposure. It also says that after closing a profitable-looking position, not all of the freed margin may become withdrawable if another cross position has losses. Collateral that appears attached to one line of the interface can already be needed by the rest of the account. Its support example addresses precisely that surprise.

Cross margin makes that account a more meaningful unit of analysis. If a trader holds several positions under one dedicated account, they can be linked to each other inside the margin pool even if the funding path conceals the trader’s name or original wallet. That linkage is necessary for the venue to calculate how one loss affects the common collateral. A product can therefore protect identity while still exposing a portfolio pattern. A customer deciding whether that level of confidentiality is sufficient needs the provider to distinguish identity privacy from position privacy in plain language.

Visibility can change across the life of a trade. A deposit may be routed through a confidential process, an order may enter a public market, and a withdrawal may return through another protected route. Time, amount and the choice of market can still be useful clues when an observer has outside information about a person. The product page does not quantify the difficulty of such linkage or claim a formal anonymity set. Its wording about confidential deposits and withdrawals should be reported as a product claim with a defined scope, rather than expanded into a guarantee about every possible adversary.

The account link is the privacy claim NEAR’s explanation centers on how a user reaches a dedicated Hyperliquid account and on the confidentiality of deposits and withdrawals. It does not state that Hyperliquid ceases to have trading records or that its public market data disappear. A visible trading account need not reveal the identity of the person controlling it. Conversely, keeping a funding route confidential does not by itself prevent a link through reused addresses, timing, off-platform disclosures or records held by service providers. Those are possible routes of inference, not findings that any named NEAR trader has been identified.

The interface says users sign funding and settlement transactions on their devices. It uses NEAR Intents to turn assets from connected chains into the margin currency. A reader needs to separate three things: the asset conversion, the transfer into the dedicated trading account, and the orders and positions that account places on Hyperliquid. The site expressly calls the deposit and withdrawal leg confidential. It has not supplied a public technical paper tracing visibility and trust assumptions across every leg for this specific product. A privacy guarantee covering the entire journey would need that explanation and testing.

Other NEAR products cannot fill the gap by analogy. Confidential Intents crossed a reported $70 million in value locked in September, with a reward snapshot for eligible users. That amount describes a broader system and a point in time; it is not collateral posted to these perpetual accounts, nor a measure of their open interest. NEAR’s co-founder has also proposed private trading applications. A proposal and a reported deposit total elsewhere in the ecosystem cannot substitute for this interface’s transaction records or an audit of its privacy properties.

For a venue to display a liquidation price, it must continually update inputs. Hyperliquid’s documentation warns that an estimate at entry may not match the eventual outcome because liquidity, funding and profit or loss elsewhere in a cross account change. If an interface shows a single number, users may treat it as a fixed stop. It is a live calculation based on a portfolio. A responsible product description should make clear when that number was computed and what account positions it includes.

The mark itself is built to resist manipulation of the last trade, but no pricing method removes every market risk. During volatility, external exchanges and the local order book can diverge. A trader trying to add margin is exposed to the speed of conversion and transfer while the mark continues to move. The documentation makes the mark’s role clear; NEAR’s launch did not quantify typical top-up times through its routing path. That missing performance measure matters more to a leveraged customer than a generic promise of convenient cross-chain funding.

What the exchange still needs to know A perpetual has no fixed expiry. Hyperliquid maintains a position, calculates unrealized profit and loss, and charges or pays funding as the contract trades against a reference. Its account system must know the position size, direction, collateral and mark price to enforce margin. A privacy layer may obscure the real-world owner or the path by which assets arrived, while the trading system retains sufficient information to settle and liquidate. The public materials do not specify every party that can see the mapping from a NEAR user to the dedicated account, so it would be premature to name an exclusive holder of that information.

Hyperliquid’s price methodology uses a mark price for margining, liquidation and unrealized profit and loss. Its inputs include an oracle-based measure, Hyperliquid order-book data and other perpetual markets. That mark can differ from the last trade visible on a chart. A trader may therefore reach a maintenance threshold even when the last transaction displayed in the interface looks less alarming. Privacy around the funding leg does nothing to remove the need for a reliable, timely mark.

An outside analyst can examine whatever account-level information the underlying venue exposes and the rules it publishes, but should not assume that public observations reveal the person behind a dedicated account. Equally, a marketing claim that positions are confidential should not be translated into a conclusion that no one can see the account’s risk. The missing disclosure is a precise map of visibility: what is public on Hyperliquid, what NEAR’s interface or its routing parties learn, and which transaction relationships its confidentiality mechanism hides. Without it, the responsible description is bounded to the product page’s stated deposit and withdrawal claim.

Hyperliquid’s margin guide gives an additional constraint on withdrawals. Moving funds out of a cross account is allowed only if the remainder meets both the initial-margin requirement and a minimum of 10% of total open notional value. A trader may therefore see an account balance and still be unable to remove the same amount. The transfer rule has a separate purpose from maintenance margin: it prevents a withdrawal from leaving the surviving positions inadequately funded at the moment of the transfer. A person checking liquidation risk must consider both available balance and the funds that can actually be withdrawn.

A successful liquidation through the order book may close only enough exposure to restore compliance. The remaining positions and funds can stay in the account. In a sharp move, however, available bids and offers may not be deep enough to achieve that outcome before equity falls further. The backstop is designed for that situation. Cross-margin users can lose control of several positions together at the vault stage, whereas an isolated liquidation is confined to the assigned position and collateral under the documented rule. The route taken depends on prices and execution, not on the privacy claim attached to the funding flow.

JUST IN: NEAR could cut annual inflation from 2.5% to 1.6%

A proposal to lower the $NEAR network’s inflation rate is expected to go live for a vote this week. pic.twitter.com/rGpeBcJBI7

— crypto.news (@cryptodotnews) October 4, 2026 Liquidation reaches across the pool Hyperliquid says cross positions become subject to liquidation when account equity, including unrealized profit and loss, falls below maintenance margin for the total open exposure. The process first tries to reduce the position through the order book. If that restores margin compliance, the remaining collateral stays with the trader. If equity drops below two thirds of required maintenance margin and the order-book liquidation fails, a backstop can transfer cross positions and cross collateral to the liquidator vault. The exchange’s liquidation rules draw a different boundary for isolated positions, whose assigned margin and affected position transfer without taking over the separate cross pool.

The backstop threshold is not the only point at which a trader may be liquidated. Maintenance breach comes first; the two-thirds condition describes one route into the vault if normal execution has not succeeded. Confusing those levels could make an account appear to have more room than it does. Liquidity in the order book also matters because an attempted close may occur during a rapid price move. An estimated liquidation price shown when a trade is entered can change once funding accrues or another cross position gains or loses value.

Funding payments run hourly under Hyperliquid’s rules and transfer value between longs and shorts. They can erode a thin collateral buffer even without a large move in the underlying asset. A mark-price change in either of two correlated positions can erode it faster. A user who deliberately uses cross margin to reduce idle balances needs to monitor all the positions together, not merely the trade they last opened. The same capital efficiency advertised by the feature is the channel through which losses become shared.

The relationship among margin, mark price and position size also changes as exposure grows. Hyperliquid’s documentation states that maximum leverage depends on the asset. For assets with margin tiers, the maintenance requirement can depend on the size of the position at the liquidation price. A trader cannot safely estimate every liquidation from the highest leverage advertised on a landing page. The relevant market’s parameters and the account’s total exposure must be used. A position that appears small on its own can be consequential when it is added to several correlated trades drawing on the same USDC pool.

Correlation is especially important in a sharp market decline. Holding long positions in several tokens can look diversified by ticker while their prices fall together. Cross margin aggregates the effect. A hedge on the other side might offset some loss, but it is not guaranteed to do so at the same rate or at the right time, and funding can alter the balance. The risk is a mathematical property of shared collateral, not a defect unique to NEAR. The new interface makes that venue model available through a route NEAR markets as confidential.

The 40 times ceiling is not a promise of uniform leverage The NEAR page advertises more than 50 perpetual markets and leverage up to 40 times. The ceiling does not mean every asset permits that maximum. Hyperliquid sets maximum leverage by asset and applies margin tiers as exposure grows. At 40 times, a $1,000 initial margin could support a $40,000 notional trade before fees under a simplified calculation; a small percentage move against that exposure can consume a large fraction of the initial balance. Actual requirements and liquidation depend on the market and the account’s other cross positions. The illustration is a scale example, not a description of any customer’s trade.

The product expressly excludes U.S. persons and people in other restricted jurisdictions. Its availability statement matters alongside its technical design. Readers should not infer from the public page that an individual in a particular country is eligible, or that a self-custodial signing flow overrides local access terms. NEAR does not publish a country-by-country volume breakdown in the announcement. Until it does, claims about how widely the new mode is used would be speculative.

The interface’s asset conversion raises another practical risk question. A trader funding from a different chain relies on the quoted conversion, execution through NEAR Intents and arrival of the appropriate margin currency. The product says those transactions are signed on the user’s device. That describes authorization, not a guarantee about timing, price slippage or the size of a position that can be rescued during a fast decline. A margin top-up is only useful if it reaches the account before the exchange’s liquidation process takes the position.

The token ticker can create another misunderstanding. NEAR is the name of the project whose interface is used, and NEAR is an asset traded in its own spot and perpetual markets. The interface’s more than 50 available markets are not all positions in the NEAR token. Cross margin can connect exposures to entirely different assets held by the same account. A rally in NEAR’s spot price cannot be read as a direct measure of activity in those other derivatives, nor can the growth of a separate confidential-intents program establish demand for leveraged contracts.

A product report should therefore identify the unit it measures. Number of interface users, amount of deposited USDC, notional value of positions, and fees earned are all distinct. Notional value can be many times the collateral because of leverage; reported turnover can exceed open interest because traders repeatedly open and close positions. A headline number without the unit and observation date would make cross-margin adoption appear larger or smaller than it is.

The distinction from NEAR spot trading NEAR itself began trading against USDC on Hyperliquid’s spot market in September, alongside an existing NEAR perpetual contract. Coverage of that listing cited roughly $344 million in NEAR perpetual open interest at one September snapshot. It would be wrong to import that figure into the October cross-margin launch: it described a token market on Hyperliquid, not aggregate collateral or usage through NEAR’s private interface. Spot purchases also do not create the same continuing margin obligation as a leveraged perpetual.

The connection is infrastructural rather than numerical. NEAR offers a route into derivatives markets that Hyperliquid operates. A trader can hold NEAR spot, trade a NEAR perpetual, or use the NEAR interface to reach many other perpetual markets. Those activities create different exposures, and only the last concerns this new cross-margin control. A token price move or a large venue-wide open-interest figure cannot establish that users adopted the new product.

A useful disclosure would give a consistent time period for active accounts, deposits, withdrawals, notional trading volume and the number of cross-margin liquidations through the interface, while preserving individual privacy. Aggregation could show the product’s scale without naming its users. Any such report would need to say whether figures include all Hyperliquid trading or only traffic originated through NEAR, and how it avoids double counting assets that move between accounts.

An independent reviewer would need to define the threat model before rating privacy. Can a casual public observer link deposits to the trading account? Can a sophisticated analyst combine trading times with external wallet activity? What can the routing service, frontend and underlying venue each see? Those are different questions. An assessment that answers only the first should not be presented as proof of the others. The provider could publish test cases and describe how it handles address reuse and timing correlations without exposing individual users.

The economics need similar precision. A launch claim establishes availability, but adoption would require evidence that accounts are active after the first funding transaction. Open interest would measure outstanding exposure, trading volume would measure turnover, and posted collateral would show the amount at risk. None is interchangeable. If NEAR reports figures later, it should distinguish the interface’s own traffic from Hyperliquid’s overall activity and say whether a trader counted across several markets appears once or several times. Those definitions would make the new feature possible to evaluate while respecting the confidentiality it promises.

JUST IN: NEAR launches multisig treasury management platform for businesses across 35+ blockchains

The NEAR Business platform will let institutions manage multisig wallets, payroll and capital deployment from one dashboard, supporting assets like $BTC, $ETH and $SOL without… pic.twitter.com/Qv69MRlcuK

— crypto.news (@cryptodotnews) October 20, 2026 Confidentiality needs a precise boundary There is a real market problem behind the privacy language. Traders can leak strategies when their wallet histories, funding transfers and positions are easily tied together. A dedicated account with confidential funding may break an obvious link between a user’s broader holdings and a trading venue. But a person can still reveal themselves by announcing a trade, reusing identifying information, or through records accessible to an intermediary. Privacy is a property of a specific data flow and adversary, not a blanket adjective for a product.

A separate proposal concerning Zcash swaps via NEAR Intents illustrates why the boundary should be spelled out. Its authors described an address exposure in one cross-chain flow and proposed distinct viewing keys as a remedy. That proposal does not establish a vulnerability in NEAR’s perps, and it addresses a different system. It shows how a privacy analysis can identify exactly what is published, who may learn from it and which part of the flow a fix covers. The perps launch would benefit from the same specificity.

The most useful question for NEAR is not a promise that no one can tell whose position it is. It is a documented account of which observers can see deposits, withdrawals, trading-account positions and the link between them, with any exceptions identified. An independent review and product-specific metrics would let readers assess both sides of the launch: whether the feature attracts traders and whether its privacy claim survives ordinary use.

What to watch Privacy documentation: A product-specific map of public and private data across NEAR Intents, the dedicated account and Hyperliquid. Usage: Distinct accounts and collateral actually routed through the new cross-margin feature, separated from venue-wide NEAR trading. Margin configuration: Confirmation of which account mode, collateral type and markets can share funds through the interface. Liquidations: Aggregate cross-margin events, order-book execution and backstop outcomes over a defined period. Eligibility: Updated restricted-jurisdiction terms and a clear explanation of who may access the product. FAQ What did NEAR add on October 22? It enabled cross margin for perpetuals reached through its Hyperliquid-powered interface, so eligible positions can share a perps balance instead of each holding separate collateral.

Does cross margin make a trade safer? It can use collateral more efficiently, but losses in one position can draw on funds supporting another. Risk depends on the combined account and the venue’s maintenance rules.

Are the positions invisible to everyone? NEAR says each trader uses a dedicated Hyperliquid account and its deposits and withdrawals are confidential. The public product page does not establish that every order, risk calculation or account link is invisible to all parties.

What price triggers liquidation? Hyperliquid uses a mark price and checks account equity against maintenance requirements. An estimated single-position price can change with funding and other cross positions.

What happens below two thirds of maintenance margin? If ordinary order-book liquidation has not worked, Hyperliquid says a liquidator vault can take over cross positions and their shared collateral. The maintenance breach can trigger liquidation before that backstop level.

Can every market be traded at 40 times leverage? No. The product advertises up to 40 times, while Hyperliquid sets limits by asset and position size.

Can people in the United States use it? The product page says perpetuals are unavailable to U.S. persons and other restricted users.

How many traders use the new feature? NEAR’s announcement did not provide user counts, posted collateral or trading volume attributable to the cross-margin launch.

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 23, 2026.

James Wynn is back after a long hiatus...

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

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

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA.

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

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

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA.

$KIMCHI Token Surges to $14M Then Crashes 95% After Coordinated Social Posts and Deletions

Today, kimchi (@kimchi1x) received 500M $kimchi and posted about the token, and @a1lon9 reposted it.
But @a1lon9 later undid his repost, and @kimchi1x deleted the post.
$kimchi quickly surged to a $14M market cap before crashing over 95%.
We found that the scammers used

11 minutes ago

Solana Foundation’s Head of Payments: Any asset could be tokenized in the next decade.

Amira Valliani, Head of Payments Business Growth at the Solana Foundation, stated that both the cryptocurrency industry and the AI sector are advancing the development of token use cases, and the tokenization trend will continue to expand. She noted that tokens are fundamentally a machine-recognizable and processable form of asset representation, adding that over the next decade, any asset-bearing entity could be tokenized. Valliani emphasized that tokenization is poised to become a critical infrastructure linking crypto assets, AI applications, and real-world assets, facilitating the integration of more assets into a programmable, tradable digital framework.

11 minutes ago

The largest U.S. public pension fund has significantly reduced its holdings in the "Magnificent Seven" tech stocks, shifting to increase allocations to private equity.

According to a Financial Times report, CalPERS, the largest U.S. public pension fund (California Public Employees' Retirement System), is adjusting its asset allocation: cutting direct holdings of the "Magnificent Seven" tech giants while increasing exposure to private equity to reduce concentration risk in public equity investments. Calculations from regulatory filings show CalPERS will slash its direct holdings of stocks in Apple, Microsoft, Alphabet, Amazon, Nvidia, Meta, and Tesla by 26% in the first half of 2026. The fund is instead diversifying its portfolio across hundreds of companies, cutting concentrated bets on a small number of top firms. Anton Orlich, CalPERS' deputy chief investment officer, confirmed this allocation shift in an interview. He noted that public equity market valuations are already elevated, and concentration in a handful of leading companies is pressuring relative returns. In contrast, private companies offer more attractive pricing, helping CalPERS buffer against potential downturns in public markets. This rebalancing took place ahead of the recent tech stock sell-off. This week, multiple tech giants released earnings reports, stoking market concerns over whether AI spending can translate into tangible returns. Microsoft, Amazon, and Alphabet are set to report results next week, leaving the tech sector facing further tests. As of June 30, CalPERS' assets under management reached $637.1 billion. Data released by the fund in July showed its preliminary net investment return for the past 12 months was 14.8%, with both public and private equity portfolios performing strongly.

11 minutes ago

Hong Kong's Secretary for the Treasury: Hong Kong's tokenization initiative is advancing towards the implementation phase.

Secretary for Financial Services and the Treasury of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, Hui Ching Yu, stated that Hong Kong’s tokenization development is transitioning from the "experimental phase" to the "implementation phase". Currently, Hong Kong hosts over 1,400 fintech enterprises, including 8 virtual banks, 4 virtual insurance companies, and 12 licensed virtual asset trading platforms, which have achieved notable results in advancing tokenization. Hui added that the Hong Kong Exchanges and Clearing (HKEX) is committed to launching a tokenized warehouse receipt financing pilot program next year. The project will partner with designated banks, utilizing distributed ledger technology, to facilitate the use of commodity warehouse receipts as collateral. Furthermore, HKEX is also developing a multi-asset tokenization platform that will include commodity warehouse receipts from approved warehouses.

11 minutes ago

South Korea's KOSPI index closed 0.3% higher, with SK Hynix gaining 4.41%.

According to Bitget's market data, South Korea's KOSPI index closed up 16.53 points on Friday, October 23, with a 0.3% gain, ending at 5550.3 points. SK Hynix closed 4.41% higher, while Samsung Electronics rose 0.46%.

11 minutes ago

He Yi reposted Binance's Agent wallet risk alert, warning of transaction risks associated with the Agent developer mode.

Jackson.ll (@0xOar), developer of Binance Wallet’s web version, posted today, stating: “Agent ID is being used in various ways, but users should also carefully check risk warnings. Enabling developer mode for the Agent means you can sign unverified contract transactions... Potential risks need attention. You can close the mode immediately after minting, or wait for products from verified developers.” He Yi subsequently retweeted the post. Earlier reports indicated that multiple minting projects exclusive to Binance Agent Wallet have recently emerged in the market, with some requiring developer mode activation.

11 minutes ago

In BriefMonero (XMR): Trades near $629 after breaking above the September peak near $635, with the RSI near 70.Stellar (XLM): Trades near $0.1777 below all major moving averages, with support at $0.172.Bitcoin (BTC): Trades near $81,500 after rejection at $84,000, with $80,000 the key support.Hyperliquid (HYPE): Trades near $78.17, testing key support near $77.60 after a 20% drop.Monero (XMR) Trades Above September High as Rally ExtendsMonero is one of the strongest charts in the market right now. XMR trades near $629 after a daily range between $604 and $656. The coin has more than doubled from its July low near $300, and the trend is still pointing up.

The main news is the move above the September peak, which sat near $635. That level stopped the price in mid-September, and now XMR is trading on top of it. A daily close above this area would confirm the breakout.

XMR/USDT Chart by TradingViewThe price also tested $656 during the day and pulled back. That upper wick suggests some sellers are active near this level. It is a small warning, but not a reason to call the trend broken.

HOT Stories

All the major moving averages slope upward and sit below the price. The short-term ones are near $565 and $548, the medium one is near $538, and the longer ones are near $492 and $443. The wide gap between the price and the long averages shows how fast this rally has been.

You Might Also Like

A strong trend like this usually pulls back to the fast averages before moving higher. The $565 to $540 area is the first place where buyers may step in.

The RSI is near 70, which is the edge of overbought territory. This means the move is strong, but it may pause or cool down. Volume has risen over the past few days, which supports the breakout.

On the upside, $656 is the first target, followed by $700. The January high near $800 is the major resistance above. On the downside, $565 is the first support, then $540 and $490.

If XMR holds above $635, buyers stay in control. A fall back below it could turn this breakout into a failed move.

Stellar (XLM) Slips Under $0.18 as Sellers Hold the TrendStellar is moving in the wrong direction for now. XLM trades near $0.1777 on Binance, down from an open of $0.1838. The daily range was tight, between $0.1768 and $0.1845, and buyers have not been able to sustain any bounce.

XLM/USDT Chart by TradingViewThe price fell from approximately $0.237 in late September to the current level, a drop of approximately 25%. XLM now sits below all of its major moving averages, which are clustered between $0.19 and $0.196. This cluster is now resistance.

Every attempt to move up will first need to clear this area. Until that happens, rallies are more likely to fade than to turn into a trend.

You Might Also Like

The nearest support is $0.172, where the price bounced earlier this week. That low has held so far, but the price is sitting only approximately 3% above it. A clean break below it might open the way to $0.17 and then to the August low near $0.1525.

The RSI is near 38, below the midpoint of 50. This suggests sellers have the upper hand, although it is not yet oversold, so there is room to fall further. Volume has also stayed low in recent weeks. Low volume means few traders are showing strong interest, which keeps the price stuck in a slow drift.

If XLM bounces, the first target is $0.19, followed by $0.20 and then $0.22. A move back above $0.19 would be the first sign that the downtrend is ending. If it fails to hold $0.172, the price could slide toward the lower end of its summer range.

For now, the safer view is that XLM needs a strong volume spike before the trend changes.

Bitcoin (BTC) Rejected at $84,000 Bitcoin trades near $81,500 after a rejection from the top of the day's range. BTC opened near $84,000, touched $84,294, and then dropped to a low of $81,483. The red candle erases the previous day's gains and suggests that sellers are still active above $84,000.

Since mid-September, Bitcoin has moved in a wide range. The top sits near $87,000, where the price failed twice, once in September and again in early October. The bottom sits near $80,000, where buyers stepped in at the start of this month. The price is now close to the bottom of this range.

BTC/USDT Chart by TradingViewEach bounce has been weaker than the last, and the highs are getting lower. That is a small sign of fading strength.

The shorter averages are bunched between $80,800 and $82,500, and Bitcoin is sitting right on top of them. This region is the first line of defense. The longer averages are rising and sit lower, near $77,400 and $76,100.

All of the averages point up, which keeps the larger trend positive since the August rally. The large gap above the long averages also means a deeper pullback is possible without breaking the trend.

You Might Also Like

The RSI is near 43, below the midpoint of 50. Momentum has slowed from the strong readings seen in late August and September. Volume is average, with no sign of panic selling.

Support begins at $80,800, then $80,000, and then $77,400. A daily close below $80,000 could push the price toward the $77,000 to $76,000 zone. On the upside, Bitcoin needs to climb back above $84,300 to challenge $87,000.

For now, $80,000 is the most important level. As long as it holds, the range remains intact.

Hyperliquid (HYPE) Tests Key Support Hyperliquid is under pressure. HYPE trades near $78.17 on Coinbase, after opening at $80.64 and falling to a low of $77.69. The price is now approximately 20% below the late September top near $98.

After reaching nearly $98, HYPE has made a series of lower highs. A bounce to $95 in early October failed, and the price has fallen nearly every week since. Sellers have controlled the trend for approximately a month.

HYPE/USDT Chart by TradingViewThe price is also below the short and medium moving averages, which sit between $82.5 and $85.8. This area is now resistance, and any bounce will first need to clear it.

The orange moving average near $77.60 is now the key level. HYPE is sitting almost on top of it. The price touched this area a few days ago and bounced, but the bounce was small and faded quickly.

You Might Also Like

This is the third test in a short time. Each test of a support level makes it a bit weaker. A clean break below it would be a negative signal.

The RSI is near 40, which indicates weak momentum but not oversold conditions. There is still room to fall before buyers might be expected to react. Volume has dropped to low levels, so neither side is showing strong conviction.

If $77.60 fails, the next support is near $75, the low from earlier this month. Below that, the long average near $65.50 is the next major area, which would mean another 15% drop. On the upside, HYPE needs to reclaim $82.50 to turn the short-term picture around. After that, $85.80 and $90 are the next targets.

The long-term trend is still up, since the price remains well above the long average. But in the short term, buyers must defend $77.60 to avoid a deeper pullback.

Grayscale has named the top 10 crypto assets by tokenholder yield and adjusted earnings yield. HYPE leads the first ranking at 8.0%, while CAKE tops the second at 14.4%.

The report argues that investors can value many crypto assets, unlike Bitcoin, using their cash flows.

Top 10 Tokenholder Yield: $HYPE, $LIT, $CAKE, $AERO, $UNI, $RAY, $PENDLE, $AAVE, $JUP, $CRV

Top 10 Adjusted Earnings Yield: $CAKE, $LIT, $HYPE, $RAY, $AAVE, $JUP, $SKY, $UNI, $AERO, $PENDLE

Crypto valuations don’t have to rely on narratives alone. Many crypto assets can be… pic.twitter.com/up8RqIdZzx

— Grayscale (@Grayscale) October 22, 2026 Which Crypto Tokens Actually Reward Their Holders?Hyperliquid (HYPE) leads Grayscale’s ranking with an 8.0% tokenholder yield. Lighter (LIT) follows closely at 7.9%.

PancakeSwap (CAKE) comes third at 2.6%, followed by Aerodrome (AERO) and Uniswap (UNI).

But the rankings reveal something more troubling.

Five of the top 10 tokens have negative holder yields.

Curve Finance (CRV) sits at the bottom with -5.5%, while Jupiter (JUP) records -2.6%.

The reason is dilution.

Grayscale calculates tokenholder yield by adding staking rewards and buybacks, then subtracting newly issued tokens. When issuance outweighs those benefits, holders face dilution despite the protocol’s economic activity.

Can Crypto Be Valued Like Stocks?Grayscale’s second ranking reveals another surprise.

PancakeSwap leads adjusted earnings yield at 14.4%, followed by Lighter at 14.1% and HYPE at 9.8%.

Jupiter offers an interesting example. Its adjusted earnings yield reaches 3.5%, yet its tokenholder yield remains negative.

A profitable crypto protocol does not automatically make its token rewarding to hold.

Grayscale’s research head, Zach Pandl, argues that Bitcoin resembles digital gold, while many other crypto assets can be valued using cash flows.

“Crypto valuations don’t have to rely on narratives alone.”

Protocols generate earnings through trading and lending fees. Buybacks and burns can help transfer that value to holders, although token issuance may offset the gains.

The rankings offer investors a way to examine the economics behind crypto valuations.

They also expose a weakness in an industry where growing revenue can coexist with disappointing returns for tokenholders.

Papertrade opened for business on October 10, 2026, offering up to 1,000x leverage on Bitcoin and Ethereum. Within hours, traders found the lever that moved its prices, and it wasn’t on Papertrade at all.

Roughly $20 million in market orders placed on Hyperliquid shifted Papertrade’s ETH quotes by about 10–20 basis points shortly after launch. For a venue whose whole pitch is borrowing someone else’s price, that is an awkward first-day stress test.

How Papertrade prices its trades
Papertrade is a synthetic perpetuals exchange built on HyperEVM, the smart contract layer of Hyperliquid. Instead of discovering prices itself, it reads Hyperliquid’s best bid and offer, known as the BBO, through a precompile. It then fills trades at the midpoint between the two.

Profits and losses settle against a shared USDC liquidity pool rather than against other traders. The platform advertises zero slippage and charges no fees on losing trades.

The first 48 hours
Demand showed up early. Papertrade launched with an initial pre-deposit of $85–137 million, according to the research findings.

The shared USDC liquidity pool that actually backs trader profits was much smaller at launch, at around $5 million. That gap may create risks for traders, since winning positions get paid from that pool.

Then came the market orders. Around $20 million worth hit Hyperliquid within hours of launch, nudging ETH quotes by about 10–20 basis points.

At 1,000x leverage, a move that size can be the difference between a big win and a wiped-out position.

One wallet illustrates the dynamic. It booked profits of approximately $1.28 million on a staggering $3.18 billion of trading volume on Papertrade. Over the same stretch, that wallet executed around $231 million notional of ETH on Hyperliquid. The winning streak did not last: the wallet reportedly suffered substantial losses on subsequent trades.

On October 11, Papertrade publicly addressed what it described as BBO manipulation attempts. The team attributed the problem to open-interest caps that had been set too loosely to meet heavy launch demand. Papertrade began tightening those limits as a precaution.

A risk the team saw coming
None of this was a surprise to the people who built it. The developers flagged manipulation risk in their documentation before launch.

Papertrade also built an accountability layer into its token design. Losses incurred by the liquidity pool are linked to PAPER, the platform’s fair-launched LP fee-claim token. That means holders of PAPER are directly exposed to how well the pool holds up.

What this means for traders and LPs
For liquidity providers, the key number is the gap between the pre-deposit and the roughly $5 million pool at launch. A pool that size facing 1,000x leverage has limited room to absorb a string of well-timed trades.

Tighter open-interest caps are the obvious first fix, and Papertrade has started there. Lower caps shrink the maximum payout from any price nudge, which makes moving Hyperliquid’s book a worse deal.

The sharper question is whether the $3.18 billion volume figure reflects organic interest or a handful of wallets probing the pricing mechanism. One account doing that much volume suggests the second explanation deserves attention.

For Hyperliquid, the episode is a reminder that its order book now carries weight beyond its own venue. When other protocols price off its BBO, a market order there can ripple into positions it never touches directly.

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

Blockchain

22 October 2026 | 21:55 Stock, ETF and index perpetuals traded $201 billion on Hyperliquid in the third quarter, according to Dune, in markets that did not exist on the platform a year ago.

Key Takeaways Onchain tokenized stocks and ETFs: $37 billion traded

Tokenized stock volume up almost 18x since January

OKX-ICE venture filed to list 63 tokenized stocks

Asian names: 24% of equity perp open interest

Dune reported the figures in its October 22 announcement of real-time market data feeds, launched as tokenized U.S. stocks begin moving onchain.

A data feed timed for tokenized U.S. stocks In September, the SEC opened a path for tokenized U.S. stocks to trade onchain, according to Dune. A joint venture between OKX and Intercontinental Exchange has since filed to list 63 of them on XLayer, OKX’s network, and the new feeds support XLayer from the first day of trading.

The pitch to hedge funds, market makers and brokers rests on scale. Spot volume on decentralised exchanges more than doubled last year to $6.8 trillion, and about a quarter of spot crypto trading now happens onchain. The launch covers that market with three products: a spot feed spanning more than 200 venues on 12 chains, including Solana, Ethereum, Base, BNB Chain and XLayer; a perpetuals feed for Hyperliquid and Lighter; and reference data giving every asset, venue and market a stable identifier.

Each trade carries price, size and side and links back to the transaction that settled it. The company’s launch post says trades arrive about a second after the block containing them, unpriced trades are flagged with a reason, and blockchain reorganisations trigger correction messages. Venues are screened for liquidity, pricing integrity and registration, so some onchain activity is left out by design.

Derivatives outtraded tokenized shares about five to one In the third quarter, tokenized stocks and ETFs traded more than $37 billion across every venue Dune tracks. Stock, ETF and index perpetuals on Hyperliquid alone traded $201 billion, roughly five times as much.

Hyperliquid stock, ETF and index perpetuals, Q3

$201B

All tracked onchain tokenized stocks and ETFs, Q3

$37B+

Source: Dune, October 22 announcement.

The ratio compares unlike things. Perpetual volume is notional: leverage lets a position exceed the collateral behind it, and traders who open and close the same contract repeatedly add volume each time. Hyperliquid’s figure counts each match once, not once per side, according to Dune’s perpetuals dataset, but it still measures turnover, not money invested in companies. What the gap does show is which product traders reach for when they want stock exposure onchain.

The two products also give holders very different things.

Instrument What the holder has What keeps it tied to the stock Conventional share An equity interest, with rights set by the share class It is the stock Tokenized stock Whatever entitlement the issuer’s legal structure defines The issuer’s backing and redemption terms Stock perpetual A long or short price position, with no shares delivered Funding payments between longs and shorts Perpetuals also trade around the clock on margin and can list names that are hard to buy directly. Dune’s September 30 report found Asian stocks made up 24% of equity perpetual open interest, much of it in memory stocks.

Outside operators write most of the contracts Most of Hyperliquid’s equity, commodity, index and currency exposure sits in markets launched by outside teams under the HIP-3 framework, according to Dune. Those operators set leverage terms, supply the reference price and take a share of fees. Two contracts named after the same stock can therefore use different price sources and leverage caps, and Dune attaches a written contract specification to each market to tell them apart.

Institutions are reaching these markets through intermediaries as well. In October, Ripple Prime launched swaps referencing Trade.xyz perpetuals on Hyperliquid, giving its clients exposure linked to those markets through a swap with the prime broker.

The weekend gap The price source matters most when the stock market is closed. Hyperliquid’s pricing documentation uses a mark price for margining and liquidation, with the oracle supplying the reference. Over a weekend, the last trade, the oracle and the mark can drift apart, and how each updates depends on the contract’s specification. A Saturday trade on Dune’s feed shows what someone just paid, not necessarily the price used to liquidate positions or where the stock opens on Monday.

Dune’s September report argues that weekend trading reveals how traders are positioned while the underlying market is shut. Its enterprise perpetuals dataset rebuilds Hyperliquid’s order book every minute, so the cost of that positioning, in spread and depth, is now measurable for subscribers.

What to watch next XLayer listings
Whether onchain share volume starts closing the five-to-one gap once the 63 tokenized stocks go live.

Q4 totals
Dune’s fourth-quarter figures for stock perpetuals and tokenized stocks, measured side by side.

Weekend spreads
How far spreads widen and depth thins in HIP-3 equity markets between Friday’s close and Monday’s open.

This article is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute financial or investment advice. Perpetual derivatives involve margin, funding and liquidation risks.

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.

NEAR Protocol has rolled out cross-margin on its Hyperliquid-powered perpetuals platform, allowing trading positions to share a single perps balance while retaining what the project describes as confidential trading.

Summary

Positions can draw collateral from a shared perps balance instead of holding separate margin. NEAR’s privacy explanation describes dedicated Hyperliquid accounts with confidential deposits and withdrawals. Hyperliquid documents account-level liquidation rules for positions that use shared cross margin. The platform advertises more than 50 markets, with U.S. persons excluded from access. NEAR Protocol announced the feature on Oct. 22, saying positions now share the user’s perps balance as margin. Its accompanying image presents cross and isolated margin alongside the platform’s confidentiality claim.

“Positions now share your perps balance as margin instead of each holding its own,” the project said.

The announcement identifies perps.near.com as the trading interface and Hyperliquid as the underlying provider. NEAR’s message says the feature is live, although it does not provide trading volume, user counts, or figures showing how much collateral customers have committed.

NEAR describes confidentiality through a dedicated trading account NEAR’s product page gives a more specific description of privacy than the short launch announcement. The service says each user receives a dedicated account for trading perpetuals on Hyperliquid, with confidential deposits and withdrawals to and from that account.

The Oct. 22 post describes positions as confidential, stating “nobody can tell they’re yours.” The product page’s explanation centers on the account and its funding flows, without establishing that every order, execution, or position record disappears from Hyperliquid’s public infrastructure.

Neither the announcement nor that explanation provides an independent assessment of whether observers could identify users through other information. The material supports reporting NEAR’s confidentiality claim, but not a guarantee that trading activity cannot be linked to a person under any circumstances.

For funding, the site says NEAR Intents converts supported assets into the required margin currency. Users can start with assets held across connected networks, while funding and settlement transactions are signed on their devices, according to the service.

Cross margin shares collateral across eligible positions Hyperliquid’s documentation describes cross margin as collateral shared among cross-margin positions. Isolated margin assigns collateral to an individual position, separating it from the collateral used elsewhere in the account.

Its rules allow unrealized profits from cross-margin positions to become available as initial margin for new trades. For isolated positions, unrealized profit instead becomes additional margin for the existing position, the documentation states.

Hyperliquid calculates initial margin from position size, mark price, and the leverage selected by the trader. Maximum leverage depends on the asset, so the platform’s advertised ceiling does not apply equally to every market.

The documentation says leverage is checked when a position opens. Afterward, users must monitor their exposure, with available actions including closing positions, adding collateral to isolated trades or depositing USDC for cross-margin positions.

Hyperliquid distinguishes how cross-margin works across different perpetual exchanges deployed on its infrastructure. Its documentation says collateral sharing across those venues depends on the account mode and collateral type. NEAR’s announcement does not specify which of those configurations its interface supports.

Hyperliquid applies account-level liquidation rules Hyperliquid’s liquidation rules say positions become subject to liquidation when account equity falls below the required maintenance margin. The platform first attempts to close positions through orders sent to its order book. Remaining collateral stays with the trader when the resulting closures restore compliance with margin requirements.

If account equity falls below two-thirds of maintenance margin and liquidation through the book has not succeeded, the documentation describes a backstop process involving the liquidator vault.

For a cross-margin backstop liquidation, Hyperliquid says the trader’s cross positions and cross collateral transfer to the liquidator. An isolated backstop liquidation transfers the affected position and its assigned margin while leaving cross-margin positions untouched.

The exchange uses a mark price for liquidations. Its pricing documentation says that measure combines external market information with Hyperliquid trading data and is used for margin calculations, unrealized profit and loss, and take-profit or stop-loss triggers.

Funding payments can change an account’s balance while positions remain open. Hyperliquid states that funding is exchanged hourly between long and short holders, with the payment direction determined by the funding rate. The exchange says it collects no fee on those transfers.

NEAR’s perps service excludes U.S. persons The product page advertises access to more than 50 perpetual markets with leverage of up to 40 times. It explicitly states that perpetuals are unavailable to U.S. persons and users in other restricted jurisdictions, alongside a warning that leveraged trading carries a substantial risk of loss.

NEAR’s relationship with Hyperliquid includes direct token trading. On Sep. 23, crypto.news reported that NEAR spot trading had become available against USDC, alongside an existing perpetual market for the token. The announcement cited in that article said inclusion on Hyperliquid’s Strict List would take several more days after deployment.

Over $210 million in leveraged long positions were liquidated in the cryptocurrency market as Bitcoin (BTC) and Ethereum (ETH) experienced significant price declines. The liquidation occurred as BTC prices dropped towards $81,000 and ETH approached $2,300, suggesting a sharp deleveraging in the market. This event indicates a possible shift in market sentiment as participants react to the downturn in major cryptocurrencies.

In the context of the Hyperliquid price prediction market, these developments could influence the perception of Hyperliquid’s potential to reach the $100 benchmark by the end of 2026. The current market odds for Hyperliquid reaching $100 have seen a decrease, with the December 31 sub-market now priced at 38.5% YES, down from 44% the previous day. The liquidation event and the subsequent decline in market odds suggest a potential reevaluation of Hyperliquid’s price trajectory among market participants.

Key Takeaways

Liquidation of over $210 million in crypto longs suggests a market shift in sentiment.
Market odds for Hyperliquid reaching $100 by December 31, 2026, have decreased to 38.5% YES.
The recent downturn in BTC and ETH prices appears consistent with a more cautious outlook for cryptocurrency derivatives.

What to Watch
Market participants will be closely monitoring further price movements in BTC and ETH, as sustained declines could further impact market sentiment. Additionally, any significant developments or announcements related to Hyperliquid, such as new partnerships or technological advancements, could influence market odds. Observers should also watch for broader macroeconomic factors that might affect the cryptocurrency markets, which could subsequently impact the Hyperliquid price predictions.

Term Structure

Contract
Odds
Δ since publish
Volume 24h

December 31
38.5%
—
—
View market →

January 1 2027
2.5%
—
—
View market →

January 1 2027
1.4%
—
—
View market →

January 1 2027
2.5%
—
—
View market →

January 1 2027
1%
—
—
View market →

January 1 2027
5%
—
—
View market →

January 1 2027
3.5%
—
—
View market →

January 1 2027
2.7%
—
—
View market →

January 1 2027
12.5%
—
—
View market →

January 1 2027
4.7%
—
—
View market →

Bitcoin and altcoins are once again facing a sell-off. Under this selling pressure, BTC has fallen back below $82,000, while Ethereum has dropped to around $2,400.

However, according to one analyst, Bitcoin, Hyperliquid (HYPE), and Zcash (ZEC) are showing potential recovery signals following this sell-off.

Is Bitcoin’s Recovery Likely to Strengthen? Ali Martinez, a closely watched analyst in the market, pointed to buy signals in all three assets and stated that their next moves would depend on whether key support levels are held.

At this point, the analyst first recalled that the TD Sequential indicator gave a sell signal after Bitcoin approached $85,000, and that BTC lost approximately 2.80% of its value, falling to the $82,000 level.

Noting that the TD Sequential indicator generated a buy signal this time after the sell signal, the analyst indicated that the correction may be nearing its end and a new recovery could occur in the coming period.

The Critical $82 Level for Hype is Back in the Spotlight! Secondly, the analyst noted that the TD Sequential indicator also gave a buy signal for HYPE.

The analyst also noted that the TD Sequential indicator for HYPE had given a sell signal at its local peak around $82, resulting in a 4.22% drop in price. Now, however, the same indicator is generating a buy signal again on the hourly chart. According to the analyst, if the $78 level is maintained, HYPE has the potential to recover towards $82 and higher.

Buy Signal in Zcash: $1,250 Support is Critical! According to the analyst, Zcash is exhibiting similar price movement. Noting that the TD Sequential indicator gave a sell signal near its local peak of around $1,350, the analyst stated that the price subsequently experienced a 6.44% retracement.

According to the analyst, with the indicator generating a buy signal again, attention for ZEC has turned to the $1,250 support level. If this level is maintained, ZEC may be able to recover towards the $1,350 level.

*This is not investment advice.

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

Bitcoin, Hyperliquid (HYPE) and Zcash (ZEC) are showing potential recovery signals after a sharp crypto market sell-off reportedly erased $70 billion in market value over 10 hours. Crypto analyst Ali Charts has identified new buy signals for all three assets, with their next moves depending on whether key support levels hold.

BITCOIN, HYPERLIQUID, AND ZCASH RETRACE…

BUT LOOK READY TO BOUNCE BACK

1/5 🧵👇

— Ali Charts (@alicharts) October 22, 2026 Bitcoin Price PredictionBitcoin fell 2.80% after approaching $85,000, retreating toward $82,000. The TD Sequential indicator has now flashed a buy signal, suggesting the correction could be nearing its end.

BTC was trading near $82,800 in the latest figures provided. Meanwhile, US spot Bitcoin ETFs recorded approximately $528 million in net inflows on October 21, marking three consecutive sessions of positive flows.

If Bitcoin holds above $82,000, it could attempt to reclaim $85,000. However, renewed selling pressure could prevent a recovery.

Hyperliquid Price PredictionHyperliquid’s HYPE token dropped 4.22% after reaching a local high near $82. Ali Charts has since identified a buy signal on the hourly chart.

The analyst is watching $78 as the key support level. If buyers defend this price, HYPE could rebound toward $82 or higher. A break below $78 could weaken the recovery outlook.

Zcash Price PredictionZcash declined 6.44% after reaching a local high around $1,350. Its TD Sequential indicator has now flashed a buy signal, pointing to a possible recovery.

Ali Charts identified $1,250 as the support level to watch. If ZEC stays above it, the price could climb toward $1,350. A drop below this level could expose the token to further losses.

What Could Drive the Next Crypto Market Move?US economic data and the Federal Reserve’s October 28 policy decision remain important factors for crypto prices. Investors are also watching preliminary US business activity data due October 23.

Bitcoin and Ethereum spot ETFs recorded net inflows of approximately $528 million and $15 million, respectively, on October 21. Continued institutional investment could support market demand, while persistent inflation or escalating geopolitical tensions could trigger further selling.

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

Why Is Lighter Up 23% This Week? 2 Catalysts Explain the Move

Spot gold breaks below the $4,100 mark, down 1.08% intraday.

According to Bitget's market data, spot gold has fallen below the $4,100 mark, down 1.08% on the day, and is currently trading at $4,096.58 per ounce.

9 minutes ago

Lightning Labs’ CTO warns of eMudhra Certificate Authority (CA) leakage risk, advises users to update relevant clients.

Lightning Labs CTO Olaoluwa Osuntokun published a post stating that due to the impact of the CVE-2026-111943 vulnerability, he strongly recommends all users of lnd, btcd, tapd, and litd either update their binary files or rebuild the software using Go 1.27.3. The CVE-2026-111943 flaw involves a compromised certificate authority, which may affect the security of the relevant software.

9 minutes ago

Glassnode: Bitcoin is in a strong range-bound state, with the market focusing on key catalyst events.

Glassnode released its weekly market report, stating that Bitcoin is constrained within a "trading range" of $80,000 to $87,000. Daily closes once rose above roughly $87,500, and recent ETF inflows paired with expanding trading volume show demand is absorbing supply at the upper end of the range. If Bitcoin breaks below $80,000, both ETF holders and average treasury investors will enter losses, potentially dragging the price down toward the True Market Mean. Below the range, buyers have re-accumulated positions near $80,000 based on ETF and Treasury cost bases (though at a smaller scale than the peak). Above the range, the cost basis for buyers who entered positions 6 to 12 months ago is around $86,700, paired with order book sell walls and liquidation clusters at roughly $85,000 and $87,000. A breakout from this range could accelerate, but will encounter selling pressure. Glassnode noted that investors should focus on upcoming key catalysts, including the Federal Reserve’s October 28 interest rate decision, rising oil prices and yields, and a rebound in inflation expectations. Separately, MSCI will publish its index adjustment list on November 11 (effective November 30), with potential removals of stocks such as Strategy, which could impact related equities and Bitcoin buying demand.

9 minutes ago

Bithumb will suspend XPLA deposits and withdrawals at 15:00 today to support network upgrades.

According to Bithumb's announcement, the platform will suspend XPLA token deposits and withdrawals on the XPLA network starting at 15:00 KST (Korea Standard Time) on October 22 to support network upgrades and node server updates. The node server update is scheduled for 19:00 the same day, though the exact time may be adjusted based on network conditions and block generation speed. Deposits and withdrawals will resume once network stability is confirmed, with a specific resumption time to be announced separately. XPLA trading will remain unaffected during this period.

9 minutes ago

Anthropic plans to publicly file its IPO documents as early as this Friday, with its current private market valuation standing at $1.957 trillion.

According to three people familiar with the matter, Anthropic plans to publicly file its S-1 investor prospectus as early as this Friday. The company confidentially submitted a draft to the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) in June. Per SEC regulations, companies that file confidentially must disclose relevant materials to the public at least 15 calendar days before the launch of their formal investor roadshow. The public filing will clear key procedural hurdles for a potential November initial public offering (IPO), though the final timing remains dependent on factors such as market conditions. Earlier reports noted some investors are targeting a $1.5 trillion valuation for Anthropic’s upcoming IPO, a 25% decrease from the earlier $2 trillion projection. Separately, data from trading platform Entropy shows Anthropic’s over-the-counter (OTC) contract market capitalization stands at $1.957 trillion.

9 minutes ago

Dragonfly Partner: The crypto industry is at the forefront of a global wave of cyberattacks.

Dragonfly Managing Partner Haseeb Qureshi has warned that the global cybersecurity landscape is facing a hacker wave comparable to the COVID-19 pandemic, with the crypto industry being the first to experience this trend. He argues that because on-chain attacks are the most straightforward way for hackers to generate direct profits, security breaches in crypto protocols can serve as an early warning sign of broader internet security risks. While the number of hacker attacks targeting the crypto sector has surged sharply, the annualized total value of stolen funds remains roughly on par with 2025 levels, indicating a decline in the average loss per attack. Qureshi pointed out that attackers are focusing on small DeFi protocols with weak security safeguards and inadequate maintenance, whereas large crypto protocols have begun leveraging AI tools to bolster their defenses. He predicts that this large-scale attack trend will eventually spread to the traditional internet industry.

9 minutes ago

Grayscale Opens 10 Crypto ETFs to Investors, But There's a Catch

8 hours ago

According to TradingBeats' monitoring, the largest SpaceX short holder on Hyperliquid continued to expand their bearish bet today. After accounting for intraday position covering, this whale’s net short position rose by roughly $7.2548 million, with their position size increasing 73.1% since market open. As of press time, the whale’s SPCX short positions stand at 109,793.82 contracts, worth approximately $17.5527 million, with an average entry price of $153.44, an unrealized loss of around $705,900, and a liquidation price of $207.27.

Scan the QR code

Download APP

A series of security vulnerabilities have been disclosed in internet infrastructure software within a single day, affecting PHP, Node.js, and Go.

Multiple internet infrastructure software projects rolled out security updates in a single day, addressing vulnerabilities including remote code execution, TLS certificate validation bypass, and certificate trust risks. PHP fixed two critical flaws: CVE-2026-109618 and CVE-2026-109619, both enabling unauthenticated remote code execution that impacts PHP environments processing web requests. The patched versions are 8.5.12, 8.4.27, 8.3.36, and 8.2.35. Node.js’ advisory details 10 vulnerabilities, four of which are high-severity: these include remote code execution via out-of-bounds write in the Brotli decoder, DNS name truncation, and two TLS certificate hostname validation bypass issues. Fixed versions are 26.12.1, 24.22.1, and 22.23.4. Additionally, Go’s crypto/x509-related risk is tracked as CVE-2026-111943, rated "Important" by Red Hat with a CVSS 3.1 score of 6.8. Attackers with specific network access and valid certificates could impersonate legitimate servers to intercept or alter communications. Go 1.26.10 and 1.27.3 have been added to a deny list, blocking trust for compromised intermediate certificates.

1 hours ago

Dataline completes $10.6 million seed round funding, and plans to conduct an ICO.

Decentralized data network for AI agents Dataline has closed a $10.6 million seed round, co-led by Lattice and Samsung-backed Dispersion Capital, with participation from Symbolic Capital, Coinbase Ventures, Anagram, and Robinhood co-founder & CEO Vlad Tenev, among others. The round, completed in April, utilized a SAFE agreement with token warrants; valuation was not disclosed. Dataline is now live, covering approximately 50 data sources to deliver on-chain and off-chain data, and scores data reliability, timeliness, and consistency using AI. Proceeds will be allocated to expanding data sources, enhancing data validation, and expanding into robotics, AI training data, and other sectors. Dataline plans to launch a token by the end of 2026 for network payments and data access, and intends to conduct a public token sale on Base via Uniswap’s Continuous Clearing Auction (CCA) system, with details set to be revealed next week. The public sale’s target fundraising amount, token quantity, and other terms remain undisclosed.

1 hours ago

Trump plans to leverage White House cyber crime efforts to showcase achievements in combating cross-border crypto fraud.

White House officials said on October 21 that Trump planned to focus on the U.S. government’s actions to crack down on overseas crypto fraud rings during the White House’s cybersecurity event that day, including recovering funds and shutting down fraudulent operations. These transnational criminal groups steal funds from U.S. citizens via romance scams, phishing, ransomware and other methods. The U.S. government noted that law enforcement agencies have seized approximately $833 million in crypto assets linked to overseas fraud, and shut down 503 fraudulent crypto websites under the supervision of the Homeland Security Task Force. Relevant authorities have also notified nearly 9,000 U.S. citizens to alert them they are being targeted by fraud. The U.S. Treasury Department previously announced the establishment of an inter-agency "Fraud Strike Task Force" to target "pig butchering" scams run by organized criminal groups in Myanmar, Cambodia, Laos and the Philippines. Since last year, the U.S. has also imposed multiple sanctions aimed at cutting off support for related fraud websites and their infrastructure.

1 hours ago

American Bankers Association voices dissatisfaction with OCC’s final GENIUS Act rule, which abandons proposed restrictions on stablecoin yields.

Crypto journalist Eleanor Terrett reported that the American Bankers Association (ABA) has voiced dissatisfaction with the final rules implemented by the U.S. Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) under the GENIUS Act. The OCC abandoned the previously proposed restrictions on stablecoin yields, a move the ABA argues will "maintain the status quo for crypto platforms." The ABA’s CEO stated: "It is a mistake to wait until deposit outflows and economic harm have already occurred before attempting to address these issues."

1 hours ago

Beyond PHP, three Node.js version branches are also affected by high-severity vulnerabilities, and users need to update their runtime environments promptly.

Node.js rolled out a security update on October 21, covering its 26.x, 24.x, and 22.x version branches, with corresponding patched releases: 26.12.1, 24.22.1, and 22.23.4. The advisory details 10 total vulnerabilities, categorized as 4 critical-severity, 3 medium-severity, and 3 low-severity, with varying impact scopes across the three version lines. The critical CVE-2026-111497 is an out-of-bounds write flaw in the Brotli decoder that could enable remote code execution (RCE), affecting all three branches. Other critical issues include improper null character handling in DNS resolution and a TLS certificate hostname validation bypass. The update also resolves problems with persistent connection response processing, random number cache duplication, and permission models, while updating dependencies including c-ares, OpenSSL, and Undici. The official note warns that end-of-life (EOL) versions may still be vulnerable, advising users to use the latest supported releases. Separately, prior reports noted PHP has fixed two critical unauthenticated RCE vulnerabilities, with patches available for versions 8.5.12, 8.4.27, 8.3.36, and 8.2.35; PHP users are urged to upgrade immediately.

1 hours ago

Bonk Guy: This round is the "privacy cycle", privacy protocol MASK is undervalued.

Renowned trader Bonk Guy posted that the current crypto market is showing characteristics of a "privacy cycle". He noted that since yesterday, Bitcoin has risen approximately 3%, ZEC is up 16%, adding over $3 billion in market capitalization. MASK currently has a market cap of roughly $26 million, with its protocol trading volume and fees hitting consecutive all-time highs, he added. Citing data from DefiLlama, he stated that MASK ranks first among privacy protocols by revenue, outearning the next 10 privacy protocols combined. By comparison, ZEC’s market cap gain over the past 24 hours is roughly 115 times MASK’s entire market cap. Bonk Guy also said that MASK’s upcoming deployment on Solana is set to launch in the coming days, which he expects will further drive growth in usage, trading volume, and fees. He went on to call MASK the most undervalued privacy protocol in the crypto market.

1 hours ago

A series of security vulnerabilities have been disclosed in internet infrastructure software within a single day, affecting PHP, Node.js, and Go.

Multiple internet infrastructure software projects rolled out security updates in a single day, addressing vulnerabilities including remote code execution, TLS certificate validation bypass, and certificate trust risks. PHP fixed two critical flaws: CVE-2026-109618 and CVE-2026-109619, both enabling unauthenticated remote code execution that impacts PHP environments processing web requests. The patched versions are 8.5.12, 8.4.27, 8.3.36, and 8.2.35. Node.js’ advisory details 10 vulnerabilities, four of which are high-severity: these include remote code execution via out-of-bounds write in the Brotli decoder, DNS name truncation, and two TLS certificate hostname validation bypass issues. Fixed versions are 26.12.1, 24.22.1, and 22.23.4. Additionally, Go’s crypto/x509-related risk is tracked as CVE-2026-111943, rated "Important" by Red Hat with a CVSS 3.1 score of 6.8. Attackers with specific network access and valid certificates could impersonate legitimate servers to intercept or alter communications. Go 1.26.10 and 1.27.3 have been added to a deny list, blocking trust for compromised intermediate certificates.

1 hours ago

Dataline completes $10.6 million seed round funding, and plans to conduct an ICO.

Decentralized data network for AI agents Dataline has closed a $10.6 million seed round, co-led by Lattice and Samsung-backed Dispersion Capital, with participation from Symbolic Capital, Coinbase Ventures, Anagram, and Robinhood co-founder & CEO Vlad Tenev, among others. The round, completed in April, utilized a SAFE agreement with token warrants; valuation was not disclosed. Dataline is now live, covering approximately 50 data sources to deliver on-chain and off-chain data, and scores data reliability, timeliness, and consistency using AI. Proceeds will be allocated to expanding data sources, enhancing data validation, and expanding into robotics, AI training data, and other sectors. Dataline plans to launch a token by the end of 2026 for network payments and data access, and intends to conduct a public token sale on Base via Uniswap’s Continuous Clearing Auction (CCA) system, with details set to be revealed next week. The public sale’s target fundraising amount, token quantity, and other terms remain undisclosed.

1 hours ago

Trump plans to leverage White House cyber crime efforts to showcase achievements in combating cross-border crypto fraud.

White House officials said on October 21 that Trump planned to focus on the U.S. government’s actions to crack down on overseas crypto fraud rings during the White House’s cybersecurity event that day, including recovering funds and shutting down fraudulent operations. These transnational criminal groups steal funds from U.S. citizens via romance scams, phishing, ransomware and other methods. The U.S. government noted that law enforcement agencies have seized approximately $833 million in crypto assets linked to overseas fraud, and shut down 503 fraudulent crypto websites under the supervision of the Homeland Security Task Force. Relevant authorities have also notified nearly 9,000 U.S. citizens to alert them they are being targeted by fraud. The U.S. Treasury Department previously announced the establishment of an inter-agency "Fraud Strike Task Force" to target "pig butchering" scams run by organized criminal groups in Myanmar, Cambodia, Laos and the Philippines. Since last year, the U.S. has also imposed multiple sanctions aimed at cutting off support for related fraud websites and their infrastructure.

1 hours ago

American Bankers Association voices dissatisfaction with OCC’s final GENIUS Act rule, which abandons proposed restrictions on stablecoin yields.

Crypto journalist Eleanor Terrett reported that the American Bankers Association (ABA) has voiced dissatisfaction with the final rules implemented by the U.S. Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) under the GENIUS Act. The OCC abandoned the previously proposed restrictions on stablecoin yields, a move the ABA argues will "maintain the status quo for crypto platforms." The ABA’s CEO stated: "It is a mistake to wait until deposit outflows and economic harm have already occurred before attempting to address these issues."

1 hours ago

Beyond PHP, three Node.js version branches are also affected by high-severity vulnerabilities, and users need to update their runtime environments promptly.

Node.js rolled out a security update on October 21, covering its 26.x, 24.x, and 22.x version branches, with corresponding patched releases: 26.12.1, 24.22.1, and 22.23.4. The advisory details 10 total vulnerabilities, categorized as 4 critical-severity, 3 medium-severity, and 3 low-severity, with varying impact scopes across the three version lines. The critical CVE-2026-111497 is an out-of-bounds write flaw in the Brotli decoder that could enable remote code execution (RCE), affecting all three branches. Other critical issues include improper null character handling in DNS resolution and a TLS certificate hostname validation bypass. The update also resolves problems with persistent connection response processing, random number cache duplication, and permission models, while updating dependencies including c-ares, OpenSSL, and Undici. The official note warns that end-of-life (EOL) versions may still be vulnerable, advising users to use the latest supported releases. Separately, prior reports noted PHP has fixed two critical unauthenticated RCE vulnerabilities, with patches available for versions 8.5.12, 8.4.27, 8.3.36, and 8.2.35; PHP users are urged to upgrade immediately.

1 hours ago

Bonk Guy: This round is the "privacy cycle", privacy protocol MASK is undervalued.

Renowned trader Bonk Guy posted that the current crypto market is showing characteristics of a "privacy cycle". He noted that since yesterday, Bitcoin has risen approximately 3%, ZEC is up 16%, adding over $3 billion in market capitalization. MASK currently has a market cap of roughly $26 million, with its protocol trading volume and fees hitting consecutive all-time highs, he added. Citing data from DefiLlama, he stated that MASK ranks first among privacy protocols by revenue, outearning the next 10 privacy protocols combined. By comparison, ZEC’s market cap gain over the past 24 hours is roughly 115 times MASK’s entire market cap. Bonk Guy also said that MASK’s upcoming deployment on Solana is set to launch in the coming days, which he expects will further drive growth in usage, trading volume, and fees. He went on to call MASK the most undervalued privacy protocol in the crypto market.

1 hours ago

Cryptocurrency research firm Delphi Digital has published a new report arguing that speculation could be one of the defining investment themes of the next decade, highlighting assets such as Robinhood (HOOD), Hyperliquid (HYPE), and Lighter (LIT).

The company’s report, titled “The House Always Wins: Why Speculation Is the Theme of the Decade,” argues that investors should focus on platforms that generate income from speculative transactions rather than on speculative assets themselves.

According to the company, technological transformation and pressures on the economic system are two key factors supporting speculative trading activity. While new technologies like artificial intelligence increase uncertainties about the future, economic conditions and the increasing difficulty of acquiring assets can also drive investors to seek high returns.

According to the report, the real opportunity in this environment lies not in predicting which asset will rise, but in identifying and investing in platforms that can generate revenue from increased trading activity.

Why Do Robinhood, Hyperliquid, and Lighter Stand Out? The report noted that Robinhood stood out because it combined stock trading, options, cryptocurrencies, and prediction markets within the same user ecosystem.

Hyperliquid, on the other hand, stands out with its on-chain perpetual futures markets and trading infrastructure open to different asset classes. The report also highlighted that the platform operates a buyback mechanism for the HYPE token with its transaction fees.

Finally, Lighter’s order book infrastructure, which utilizes zero-knowledge proofs, is noted for its zero-transaction fee approach for individual users.

Delphi Digital emphasizes profitability, the ability to convert transaction fees into revenue, and user reach when evaluating platforms. However, the report states that transaction volume alone is not a sufficient metric, and that competition, regulatory risks, and market cycles must also be taken into account.

*This is not investment advice.

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