Track market-moving stories before they get noisy

Cardano price fell 2.04% to $0.219 over 24 hours, extending its weekly decline to 11%. 

The broader cryptocurrency market consolidated slightly, with total capitalization near $2.73 trillion. Bitcoin price hovered at $81,650, and Ethereum and XRP were at around $2,400 and $1.30 respectively.

The developers of the Leios are aiming to release a mainnet-ready release candidate by the end of 2026. A rebound above $0.30 remains uncertain following the ADA price daily and weekly declines.

Cardano Leios Release Candidate Reaches 52% Completion
Cardano’s Ouroboros Leios release candidate has reached 52% completion, according to an update shared by Cardanians. A few development objectives were completed and 28 updates were reported on the post during the last week.

The improvement proposal, technical specification, 1,000 TPS showcase, and Leios testnet were among these. The dashboard indicates that the confidence testing was at 45% and that the hard fork objective had 0% completed.

Cardano’s Ouroboros Leios is steadily progressing towards a mainnet release candidate.

Several objectives are fully completed, and the release candidate is now 52% complete.

28 updates were added last week.

Can’t wait! 🔥 https://t.co/R808zf5oMd

— Cardanians (CRDN) (@Cardanians_io) October 16, 2026

Leios will boost the capacity of transactions on Cardano while maintaining its security with the introduction of more blocks and committee validation. To be ready for the deployment on the mainnet, a developer will need to do additional testing and integration.

Activations do also require audits, ecosystem coordination and governance approval. No confirmation of a launch date was given, and no reason was offered as to why the 28 weekly updates were made.

Cardano Price Outlook: Can Cardano Rebound Toward $0.30?
The ADA price traded at $0.2199 on October 17, as Cardano tested the $0.22 area. 

The MACD line was at -0.0042, and a bit under its -0.0040 signal line, and the histogram was at -0.0002. Both lines were below zero, which confirms a bearish reading without determining the extent to which the price would fall.

The Chaikin Money Flow indicator also stood at positive value of 0.14, indicating that there was selling pressure as compared to buying pressure. 

Source: ADA/USDT 4-hour chart: TradingView
The $0.22 mark has become the immediate pivot, and the continued trading under the mark poses greater downside risk. Further weakness would put a focus on the $0.21. In case of such a support, the psychological $0.20 level is a potential second target.

On the positive, the immediate outlook would be improved with the reclaiming of $0.22, leaving the first goal of recovery at $0.23. A four-hour high of over $0.23 may open a trade to the next resistance of $0.25, which is noted on the chart. The Cardano price outlook for long term could target $0.30 ahead of Leios Mainnet release candidate.

Cardano Open Interest Rises to $487.18M as Trading Volume Falls
The volume of the Cardano (ADA) derivatives trading decreased 8.99% to reach $324.55 million, and open interest rose 1.26% to reach $487.18 million. The volume of options trading fell by 92.94% to $6,590, the greatest percentage decrease among the reported indicators.

Source: Coinglass data
In the meantime, the options open interest declined 0.27% to $374,920, and the value of outstanding options positions had decreased modestly. The statistics indicated reduced trading in the derivatives market, although the aggregate open interest stepped up.

Aave V4 has passed $450 million in active loans less than seven months after its March 2026 launch on Ethereum. Here is what is driving growth in the Aave lending protocol and what the data shows.

Aave V4 has reached $450 million in active loans, a milestone the protocol marked in a post from @aave. The latest version of the DeFi lending platform, led by Aave Labs CEO @StaniKulechov, went live on March 30, 2026, which puts the figure at less than seven months after launch.

How Aave V4 reached $450M Aave V4 rolled out on the Ethereum mainnet after more than two years in development. The initial deployment included three hubs (Core, Plus, Prime) and eleven spokes, which route liquidity across different collateral categories. The launch was deliberately cautious. All three hubs started with conservative supply and borrow caps, which Aave Labs described as an intentional, security-first approach.

Growth then picked up. V4 deposits sat below $340 million at the start of August and were around $1.16 billion by late September, with active loans between $300 million and $310 million. Aave V4 also launched on Avalanche on July 15, its first multi-chain deployment. More recently, deposits on Circle's Arc blockchain crossed about $300 million by October 12, with total V4 deposits near $1.2 billion and active loans above $400 million across Ethereum, Avalanche and Arc.

Tokenized equities are part of the picture. Aave V4's Base deployment supports borrowing against seven Coinbase-tokenized U.S. stocks, and eligible users outside the United States can deposit them and borrow USDC. U.S. users are excluded.

What it means for $AAVE holdersThe V4 numbers come after a weak stretch for the wider protocol. According to Token Terminal data cited by Cryptonews, Aave's deposits and active loans in September were both more than 55% below their September 2025 levels , and protocol revenue remained 66.6% below the previous year . The same report said Aave remained the largest onchain lending protocol, with 47% of outstanding loans across the projects Token Terminal tracks.

In other words, V4's $450 million in active loans is still small next to the roughly $12.5 billion in total active loans across Aave, based on Aavescan data. V4 is, however, the fastest-growing part of the protocol.

Whether that translates into value for the $AAVE token will depend on whether borrowing demand keeps rising and converts into protocol revenue. Kulechov has said V4 is focused on the borrow side. He told The Block the aim is

Sources

Aave Labs: Aave V4 is Live on EthereumThe Block: Aave V4 launches on Ethereum mainnetCryptonews: Aave's lending recovery faces a new test as V4 expands

Share

Altcoins

18 October 2026 | 11:50 At about 03:43 UTC on August 12, a bad internet route began spreading from TeraSwitch’s data centre in Miami.

According to Metrika’s analysis of the incident, around 90 Solana validators holding roughly 29% of staked SOL lost connectivity, and blocks took up to about 30 minutes to finalise, against the usual 13 seconds.

Solana never went down. Blocks kept coming, and an uptime chart would have shown an ordinary day. On Wednesday, October 21, the network switches to Alpenglow, an upgrade that targets finality of roughly 150 milliseconds, but nothing in it touches the hosting problem. A research report published on October 16 by Fidelity’s FCAT unit puts the largest hosting network at about 29% of stake, close to the share Metrika saw go offline.

What happened on August 12 Solana finalises a block, the point at which a transaction can no longer be reversed, only while more than two-thirds of staked SOL is voting. That normally takes about 13 seconds. With roughly 71% of stake still online on August 12, the network stayed above the line, but only just. Metrika puts the offline share at 28.83%, against a 33.34% point at which finalisation stops chain-wide.

August 12: share of staked SOL offline, against the finality-halt line

Offline: 28.83%
Headroom: about 4.5 points
Finalisation stops: 33.34%
Online: about 71%

Source: Metrika.

Metrika says another four to five percentage points of stake on the affected routes would have meant a network-wide halt needing coordinated recovery. The fault began in TeraSwitch’s Miami facility and spread to validator infrastructure in London, Amsterdam, Frankfurt, Singapore and Tokyo, and in most cases the affected validators’ backup systems never switched on.

TeraSwitch fixed the fault about ten minutes after diagnosing it, and traffic was flowing again by 04:16 UTC, 33 minutes after it began. Validators recovered over the following 40 minutes. In that time, the share of scheduled slots producing no block jumped above 32%, from under 1%. Non-vote transactions per second fell from roughly 1,100–1,300 to below 300. For about half an hour no blocks finalised at all, and the backlog then cleared in a burst averaging around 1,600 seconds from production to finality.

The one number that didn’t move was uptime, which held at 100% because the chain never stopped producing blocks. For about half an hour, though, nobody could say when a payment would become irreversible. Metrika, which sells a digital-asset risk-management platform and draws on its own indicators here, treats finality delay, not downtime, as the event that matters to anyone settling funds on Solana.

What a stalled chain would and wouldn’t mean The risk FCAT describes is stalled finality and possible censorship. A coalition holding more than one-third of stake could stop the rest from reaching the two-thirds needed for finality, the report says, but it would not gain unrestricted control over user assets or the ability to rewrite finalised transactions. A hosting fault that took out the same share of stake would halt finality without anyone attacking anything.

That share is not hard to reach. FCAT counts roughly 20 validator identities (18 in another passage) holding more than a third of stake, and says that third sits in two countries, on two hosting networks and on two base client implementations. Those are vote accounts, not independent organisations: Figment, for one, runs two of the top five validators in that group. FCAT’s overall verdict is positive, citing more than two years without a major mainnet outage, vote success averaging about 99.7% in 2026 and a software stack that is slowly diversifying. It lists concentration as the thing to keep watching. FCAT is Fidelity’s applied-technology research unit and runs a small Solana validator of its own.

Two months on, the share is still about 29% FCAT’s October snapshot puts the largest hosting network at about 29% of stake. The two figures measure different things, stake offline during a fault and a network’s share of all stake, but they land in the same place. FCAT says the Solana Foundation had already been working to reduce TeraSwitch’s dominance. Here is how its numbers break down, from the people running validators to the code they run.

18-20

OPERATORS

validator identities hold over a third of stake

Vote accounts, not independent organisations. Figment runs two of the group’s top five.

~40%

LOCATION

of stake in Frankfurt and Amsterdam

An IP-geolocation estimate that FCAT says may be inaccurate. About 59% sits in Germany, the Netherlands and the US.

~29%

NETWORK PROVIDER

of stake on one hosting network

October snapshot. Validators in different cities can share a provider, and validators in one city can use different ones.

~63%

SOFTWARE

of stake ran Jito-based software in Q3

Another 26% ran Harmonic. Most configurations still share Agave code underneath, so one bug there could hit them together.

Source: FCAT, The State of Solana: Network Health and Resilience (October 2026).

Validators cluster for a reason. Latency rewards being close to other nodes, FCAT notes, and specialist hosts such as TeraSwitch and Latitude build hardware for Solana’s workload. Operators do have protections: failovers, backup power, and private networks such as DoubleZero that reduce reliance on the public internet. The Foundation also set up an incident-response network, SIRN, in early 2026. On August 12, though, most backups never switched on.

The Foundation’s limit reaches about 4% of stake The Solana Foundation’s delegation programme sets the main rule. Since May 1, 2026, validators that want Foundation stake have had to sit on a hosting network under a 25% ceiling and in a data centre under 15%. A validator that fails loses its Foundation delegation until it passes again.

The limits took effect three months before the August fault, and by FCAT’s October snapshot the largest network was still above the ceiling. The programme’s reach is the other half of the problem. As of Q3 it delegated to about 51% of validators, but those delegations amounted to about 4% of active stake. The rule gives validators a reason to diversify, but it doesn’t govern the rest of the stake.

Largest hosting network’s share of stake (October)

About 29%. The black line marks the Foundation’s 25% ceiling.

Stake delegated by the Foundation’s programme (Q3)

About 4%.

Both bars use the same scale, 0-40% of staked SOL. Sources: FCAT, Solana Foundation.

What Alpenglow fixes, and what it doesn’t Alpenglow goes live on mainnet in epoch 1064, which Solana says starts around 15:00 UTC on Wednesday, October 21. Anza, the team behind the Agave client, has said about 14:50. The old voting system keeps running for the first 5,000 slots, about 18 minutes, and the new one takes over at slot 459,653,000. Finality is meant to drop from about 12.8 seconds to roughly 150 milliseconds, a figure Solana describes as an expectation, not a constant. Wallets and apps keep working as they do today.

It does nothing for the hosting problem. A faster vote shortens how long agreement takes, but nothing on Solana’s upgrade page changes where validators run or which provider connects them.

For now it also narrows software diversity. Validators must run Agave, Jito-Solana or Harmonic Salsa on a release built on Agave 4.3.0. Firedancer and Frankendancer aren’t supported during the migration, and Solana’s page gives no date for when they will be. Firedancer is the independent codebase FCAT calls Solana’s most significant move toward independent client diversity. Validators must also hold at least 0.8 SOL above the rent-exempt minimum in their vote account, or they won’t vote or produce blocks in the next epoch.

BEFORE

Now to about 14:50-15:00 UTC, October 21

Firedancer and Frankendancer operators move to an Agave-based client. Every voting validator holds 0.8 SOL above rent-exempt in its vote account.

AT THE SWITCH

Epoch 1064 begins

The old voting system runs for the first 5,000 slots, about 18 minutes. Alpenglow takes over at slot 459,653,000.

AFTER

What changes for data

Vote transactions leave blocks, so transaction counts fall. Confirmed and finalized become the same state. Participation data moves to block-footer certificates.

Monitoring changes too. Metrika’s analysis treats votes per block as the closest indicator of how near the network is to the finality line, because votes are ordinary transactions carried in blocks. Alpenglow takes votes out of blocks, and Solana’s migration notes say anything that measures validator participation by parsing vote transactions will need a new source, because that data moves into certificates in the block footer. Reported transaction counts will also fall without any drop in real activity.

What to check this week If you stake SOL: look up where your validator is hosted before you delegate. Validators.app, the source both FCAT and the Foundation use, tracks stake by hosting network and data centre. A validator on the largest network shares the August risk.

If you build on Solana: expect transaction-count and TPS dashboards to drop on Wednesday with no change in real activity. Keep reading at confirmed until Alpenglow is live, then move to finalized, as Solana’s migration notes advise. Before activation, finalized still means a wait of about 12.8 seconds. Re-check any timeout or retry tuned to that delay, and track time to finality alongside uptime.

If you run a validator: if you use Firedancer or Frankendancer, switch to an Agave-based client before epoch 1064, and check that the vote account holds the 0.8 SOL.

After Wednesday, two numbers are worth watching: whether the largest hosting network’s share falls below the Foundation’s 25% ceiling, and when Firedancer is supported again. Neither is on Wednesday’s schedule.

This article is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute financial or investment advice.

Author

Kosta has reported on cryptocurrency markets and blockchain infrastructure since 2020, bringing over six years of hands-on experience in the crypto industry built through daily tracking of markets, trends, and emerging blockchain developments. Specializing in Bitcoin on-chain analysis, institutional ETF flows, and digital asset price action, his work at Coindoo has been cited by other news agencies and consistently covers market developments with a focus on data-driven reporting across Bitcoin, Ethereum, Solana, and XRP. Over the years, Kosta has contributed to multiple crypto media outlets in different regions, authoring over 6,000 articles across the sector. His reporting spans cryptocurrency markets and the broader fintech industry, tracking not only price action but also the technological and regulatory forces shaping the ecosystem. To support his analysis, Kosta actively leverages on-chain data and metrics from leading platforms such as Santiment, Glassnode, and CryptoQuant, enabling deeper, evidence-based market insights. He believes in the power of transparency and the data that underpins the blockchain ecosystem. His academic background in Marketing Management from Denmark further complements his analytical approach, adding a strong understanding of communication strategy and content positioning to his work.

Cover image via U.Today

Disclaimer: The opinions expressed by our writers are their own and do not represent the views of U.Today. The financial and market information provided on U.Today is intended for informational purposes only. U.Today is not liable for any financial losses incurred while trading cryptocurrencies. Conduct your own research by contacting financial experts before making any investment decisions. We believe that all content is accurate as of the date of publication, but certain offers mentioned may no longer be available.

Shibarium's daily transactions dropped to 659 in the last 24 hours, the lowest since September 20, 2026, according to Shibariumscan data. The Shiba Inu layer 2 saw 2,280 transactions on October 15, 2026, which dropped to 659 on October 17, 2026.

The dip shows there is less activity on the network as a whole. The number of transactions fell sharply from 5,710 on October 6 after a steady rise in September. While the number of transactions is a metric for measuring network usage, it does not capture all aspects of ecosystem participation.

Shibarium continues to receive quiet upgrades behind the scenes. According to long-time SHIB community member Mazrael, CreateX is now live on Shibarium. CreateX is the standard factory devs use to deploy contracts at the same address on every chain, making multi-chain deploys on Shibarium much easier.

HOT Stories

In a separate development, all 12 Safe v1.4.1 contracts are deployed at their canonical addresses via the Safe Singleton Factory.

You Might Also Like

In separate news, x402 is fully live on Shibarium with two payment modes: exact, allowing users to pay a fixed price, and up to, allowing users to pay up to a cap, for metered APIs and AI agents. AI agents can pay in SHIB, TREAT, or wrapped BONE.

A notice on the Shibariumscan page reveals ongoing indexing: "59% Blocks Indexed – We're indexing this chain right now. Some of the counts may be inaccurate."

Shiba Inu adds 2,495 holdersShiba Inu continues to expand its holder base in October, adding 2,495 holders according to the Etherscan SHIB X account despite relatively quiet growth across the broader cryptocurrency market.

You Might Also Like

The increase suggests that SHIB continues to attract new wallet holders, but whether that growth translates into stronger market demand remains to be seen as the month progresses.

At the time of writing, SHIB was down 2.98% in the last 24 hours to $0.00000488 and down 10.13% over the past week.

Cover image via U.Today Disclaimer: The opinions expressed by our writers are their own and do not represent the views of U.Today. The financial and market information provided on U.Today is intended for informational purposes only. U.Today is not liable for any financial losses incurred while trading cryptocurrencies. Conduct your own research by contacting financial experts before making any investment decisions. We believe that all content is accurate as of the date of publication, but certain offers mentioned may no longer be available.

According to Ethereum researcher Toni Wahrstätter, Hoodi is the final testnet before Glamsterdam reaches mainnet. The upgrade is expected to bring a major change to Ethereum's gas limit, with the proposed increase taking it from 60 million to 200 million.

That would represent a roughly 3.3-fold increase, potentially allowing more computation and transactions to be included in each block, depending on their gas requirements.

Hoodi is the final testnet before mainnet. With Glamsterdam going live soon, Ethereum will 3.3x its gas limit, from 60M to 200M. From there, 300M feels like a realistic next step.

HOT Stories

— Toni Wahrstätter ⟠ (@nero_eth) October 18, 2026 Following its activation on Sepolia on October 6, the Glamsterdam network upgrade is now scheduled for the Hoodi testnet. Glamsterdam advances Ethereum's L1 scaling roadmap with enshrined proposer-builder separation, block-level access lists, and gas pricing changes that better reflect the cost of execution and state growth.

The Glamsterdam network upgrade will activate on Hoodi at epoch 132,352, slot 4,235,264 (October 26, 2026, 17:42:48 UTC). At the same epoch, Hoodi's gas limit will be raised to 200 million via the gas limit schedule, matching the Sepolia testnet.

You Might Also Like

Wahrstätter suggested that 300 million for Ethereum's gas limit could become a realistic next step after the proposed 200 million target. However, that figure should be treated as a potential future milestone rather than a confirmed part of the Glamsterdam upgrade.

According to Ethereum developers, the mainnet activation time for the Glamsterdam upgrade will be announced once decided by client teams.

Hegotá eyes 2027 launchPreparations for Hegotá are shaping up as Glamsterdam nears the final mile. According to Ethereum creator Vitalik Buterin, Hegota—the fork planned for next year—may likely be Ethereum's last "normal" fork, with features and technology that would be recognizable to someone from 2015. 

You Might Also Like

Everything after that involves recursive STARKs, automated formal verification, highly optimized consensus algorithms, and making it all quantum-safe. With PeerDAS, Ethereum began its transition from being just a blockchain to something much more powerful.

Starting after Hegotá, this transformation becomes Ethereum's primary story. The outcome: a cryptographic world computer. According to Ethereum researcher Toni Wahrstätter, 23 EIPs are being considered for Hegotá, with two headliners (FOCIL and Frame Transactions).

Altcoins

18 October 2026
|
10:39

Bitcoin Cash and Uniswap join CME’s futures lineup on Monday, October 19, becoming the exchange’s tenth and eleventh single-coin crypto futures.

CME announced the contracts on September 22, pending regulatory review, and Bitcoin Cash rose more than 25% that day, according to Decrypt.

Bitcoin Cash split from Bitcoin in 2017 over block size, and its backers pitch it for cheaper payments. UNI is the governance token of Uniswap, the largest decentralized exchange. Holders use it to vote on changes to the protocol.

BCA

Bitcoin Cash

250 BCH

≈ $84,500

MCH

Micro Bitcoin Cash

25 BCH

≈ $8,450

UNI

Uniswap

10,000 UNI

≈ $92,800

MUN

Micro Uniswap

1,000 UNI

≈ $9,280

Dollar values at September 22 prices (BCH $338, UNI $9.28) and move with the market. Contract details: CME product page.

What one contract is actually worth
Each Micro covers a tenth of the larger contract, and even the smallest is a five-figure position. A 5% move in UNI changes the value of a Micro Uniswap contract by about $460. A $10 move in BCH changes a Micro Bitcoin Cash contract by $250.

Nobody receives coins. According to CME’s clearing advisory, the contracts settle in cash against a reference price at expiry, so traders need a futures account rather than a crypto wallet. Each contract also has a fixed expiry date. Anyone holding a position for longer has to close it and reopen it in a later month, paying trading costs each time.

Who these are built for
CME says the launch answers client demand for regulated ways to manage altcoin price risk. The firms quoted in its announcement show who that means: Volatility Shares, an ETF issuer, and Ripple Prime, Ripple’s prime brokerage business, which finances institutional trading.

For Bitcoin Cash, the obvious users are miners and businesses paid in BCH that want to lock in a price for coins they already hold. For Uniswap, it’s funds and project treasuries that hold UNI and want protection against a fall without selling the tokens they vote with.

For individuals, the maths is harder. A Micro contract worth around $9,000 can swing by several hundred dollars on an ordinary day, and that money moves in or out of the account the same day. Offshore exchanges have offered BCH and UNI derivatives in much smaller sizes for years. What CME adds is a US-regulated venue, not a cheaper way in.

A Bitcoin Cash miner hedges 275 coins

Holds 275 BCH (≈ $93,000 at $338). Sells one BCA and one MCH contract, a 275-coin short.

If BCH falls 10% to $304.20

Coins ……….. −$9,295

Futures ……… +$9,295

Net …………. ≈ $0

If BCH rises 10% to $371.80

Coins ……….. +$9,295 (on paper)

Futures ……… −$9,295 (paid in cash as prices move)

Net …………. ≈ $0, but cash has left the account

Before fees, assuming futures and spot prices move together. In practice they drift apart a little.

The second scenario is the one that catches people out. CME’s margin rules settle gains and losses on futures as prices move, so the miner pays out on the hedge before it has sold a single coin. The initial margin is a deposit, not a limit on what it can lose.

Will futures push BCH and UNI higher?
BCH’s jump came on the announcement, before a single contract traded. Nothing about the futures requires anyone to buy coins. A trader betting on a rise can buy BCH futures without touching BCH, and a holder hedging with futures keeps the coins they already have.

Futures pull in spot buying mainly in one case. When futures trade far enough above the coin’s price, trading desks buy the coin and sell the futures, collecting the gap as the two prices meet at expiry. That only pays if the premium covers borrowing, fees and custody. Market makers quoting the new contracts may also buy or sell coins to balance their books, but that can push the price either way.

Don’t expect a flood of volume
CME’s earlier altcoin launches give a realistic yardstick. Futures on Cardano, Chainlink and Stellar, launched in February, and on Avalanche and Sui, launched in May, have produced just over $1 billion in combined notional value so far this year, according to CME. Its crypto futures and options as a whole averaged $8.3 billion a day in the first half of the year. Five altcoin markets, in other words, have traded less in ten months than the complex does in a typical three hours.

Contract counts will mislead too. Ten Micro UNI contracts equal one large one, so a headline figure for contracts traded says little without the dollar value behind it.

How to tell if these futures catch on

Open interest

Weak: drops back after launch week

Strong: keeps building for a month

Quotes

Weak: wide gap between buy and sell prices

Strong: tight prices with real size behind them

Dollar volume

Weak: behind the Cardano-to-Sui pace

Strong: level with it or ahead

Expiry months

Weak: everything in the nearest month

Strong: positions in later months too

Jargon decoder

Basis: the gap between the futures price and the coin’s price.

Open interest: contracts still open at the end of the day. Each has a buyer and a seller, so a rise on its own isn’t a bullish signal.

Margin: collateral held by the broker, topped up or paid out as prices move.

Cash settlement: at expiry, profits and losses are paid in dollars. No coins change hands.

Getting access: you need a futures broker that lists the new contracts and has cleared you to trade them. No crypto wallet is required, as CME’s crypto futures FAQ explains. Trading switches on Sunday evening, October 18, for the Monday trade date, according to CME’s operational notice, and runs on the exchange’s round-the-clock crypto schedule with short maintenance breaks.

This article is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute financial or investment advice. Futures use leverage, and losses can exceed the initial margin.

Author

Kosta has reported on cryptocurrency markets and blockchain infrastructure since 2020, bringing over six years of hands-on experience in the crypto industry built through daily tracking of markets, trends, and emerging blockchain developments. Specializing in Bitcoin on-chain analysis, institutional ETF flows, and digital asset price action, his work at Coindoo has been cited by other news agencies and consistently covers market developments with a focus on data-driven reporting across Bitcoin, Ethereum, Solana, and XRP.
Over the years, Kosta has contributed to multiple crypto media outlets in different regions, authoring over 6,000 articles across the sector. His reporting spans cryptocurrency markets and the broader fintech industry, tracking not only price action but also the technological and regulatory forces shaping the ecosystem.
To support his analysis, Kosta actively leverages on-chain data and metrics from leading platforms such as Santiment, Glassnode, and CryptoQuant, enabling deeper, evidence-based market insights. He believes in the power of transparency and the data that underpins the blockchain ecosystem.
His academic background in Marketing Management from Denmark further complements his analytical approach, adding a strong understanding of communication strategy and content positioning to his work.

Charles Hoskinson, the founder of Cardano, has revealed that he is currently working on creating a new programming language for the blockchain, promising to add advanced cryptography features to it.

The new language will be able to handle intents and proof-carrying data (PCD) with the help of Groth16 proofs.

"I'm actually personally developing a programming language for Cardano. It's the first of its kind enabling intents + PCD via Groth16 proofs," Hoskinson wrote.

HOT Stories

He made this announcement after a community member inquired about the unique benefits of Cardano as a highly decentralized base for blockchain use cases.

The creator of Cardano did not share any details of the language's name, specs, or release timeframe.

Earlier this week, he also hinted at an ambitious use case for Midnight, a partner blockchain for Cardano focused on privacy.

You Might Also Like

"I'm working on a concept that only Midnight can bring to the cryptocurrency space to solve most of the problems. It's gonna be the magnum opus for my career," he said.

It's unclear if the two announcements are related.

Merits of programming languages Hoskinson has shared his views on programming languages many times. He is a fan of Haskell, which was originally used as the basis of the development architecture of Cardano.

In June 2022, he jumped into a discussion between Elon Musk and Jack Dorsey on programming languages' merits.

After Musk shared his fondness for the C programming language instead of the modern C++, Hoskinson responded by suggesting they should try Haskell.

However, later on, Hoskinson admitted that the choice to develop Cardano with Haskell was not something he was sure about.

In May 2024, the founder revealed that he nearly picked Clojure at one point. He said Haskell was chosen eventually due to the presence of Cloud Haskell. Plus, he could use other technologies like Liquid Haskell, Agda, etc.

In an interview in April 2025, he said he would probably pick another language for programming if he could rewrite Cardano from scratch.

Currently, Cardano supports a few smart contract programming languages like Plutus (based on Haskell) and Aiken. Another privacy-focused language on Midnight is called Compact.

9h05 ▪ 4 min read ▪ by Fenelon L.

Summarize this article with:

A slight increase in interest rates on bank deposits could slow the growth of stablecoins. This is the finding of a study by the Bank for International Settlements (BIS), which highlights competition between bank savings and these cryptocurrencies pegged to traditional currencies. However, the effect varies depending on the players: Circle’s USDC appears more sensitive to this competition than Tether’s USDT.

In Brief A one basis point increase in deposit rates reduces stablecoin growth over ten weeks, from 15% to 12% in the main estimate, and down to 6% in an alternative estimate. USDC reacts more than USDT, especially due to its closer ties with American users. The study neither proves deposit outflows nor credit contraction. It also highlights the limits of an analysis conducted during a period of high rates. Higher Savings Rates to Slow Stablecoins The question of the links between banks and stablecoins continues to fuel debate. Tether already contested, at the end of August, the BIS’s reading on tokenized deposits. This time, the institution moves on to data analysis with a study by Rashad Ahmed and Iñaki Aldasoro.

The researchers studied American weekly data from January 2019 to June 2025. They notably took into account policy rates, bond yields, the dollar, and stock market volatility.

Their finding is clear: a one basis point increase, or 0.01 percentage point, reduces stablecoin growth over ten weeks from about 15% to 12%. Another estimate, which adjusts for banks’ reactions in setting their rates, brings this growth to about 6%.

Why? The rates offered by banks do not mechanically follow those of the central bank. They change little when rates remain low, then adjust more strongly beyond a certain threshold. 

The researchers use this difference to measure the effect of rates on stablecoins. Their results hold up to several tests, including excluding the Silicon Valley Bank episode.

USDC and USDT, Different Sensitivity to Bank Rates The study also highlights a difference between the two main stablecoins. Circle’s USDC reacts more to changes in deposit rates than Tether’s USDT. The researchers attribute this gap mainly to Circle’s proximity to American users.

The results also do not seem to reflect a simple overall trend in the crypto market. An additional test does not show the same link between the instrument used by the researchers and the growth of other cryptocurrencies.

Furthermore, a Federal Reserve note explains that funds placed in stablecoins can return to the banking system in the form of deposits held by issuers. Deposits therefore do not necessarily disappear, but their distribution changes. Banks may nonetheless have to hold more liquid assets if they depend on more volatile funding.

The Study’s Limits and Open Questions However, caution is needed not to draw excessive conclusions. The study does not demonstrate either an actual decrease in deposits or a credit contraction. In addition, it covers only one episode of high rates. Yield-bearing stablecoins and tokenized money market funds could also change this competition by directly offering a return to their holders.

On the regulatory side the Federal Reserve proposed at the end of September a two-day deadline to reimburse stablecoin holders. In January, the head of Bank of America also mentioned the risk of several thousands of billions of dollars leaving bank deposits.

In essence, banks have a simple lever to remain competitive: better remuneration of savings. The competition with stablecoins therefore relies not only on technology but also on the yield offered to liquidity holders.

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

Join the program

A

A

Lien copié

Fenelon L.

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

DISCLAIMER

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

Yuga Labs, the company behind Bored Ape Yacht Club, is getting into trading cards. Its new Mudwater collection went live on Solana on October 17, 2026, and BAYC and Mutant Ape Yacht Club holders can now claim packs.

What Mudwater actually is The debut set is called “Swamp Origins.” It includes 120 distinct artworks built around the familiar Bored Ape imagery.

Cards come in four tiers: standard, foil, serialized, and a rare “cracked-ice” edition. At the top sit 8 serialized cracked-ice 1/1 grails, the one-of-a-kind cards that collectors tend to chase hardest.

Each card links a physical collectible to a matching Solana NFT held in a vault, so ownership exists both on the shelf and on the blockchain.

Claims opened at roughly 23:30–23:35 UTC, right after the announcement. The rollout coincided with ApeFest 2026 in Charleston, Yuga’s yearly gathering for its community.

How the claim process works Eligibility runs through something Yuga calls Totems. BAYC and MAYC holders received 6,551 Totems, which are ERC-6551 token-bound accounts. A token-bound account is an NFT that functions as its own wallet, so the Totem acts as the container that receives and manages a holder’s packs.

BAYC holders can claim 10 packs each, while MAYC holders can claim 2. Every pack contains 10 cards. Altogether, more than 140,000 packs are available to claim.

The claim window remains open until January 19, 2027. The total planned supply goes beyond the first wave of claims: Yuga plans for 10,000 boxes, each holding 24 packs.

The ApeCoin twist Mudwater also includes an unusual fee mechanic. A 2.5% reflection on NFT trades automatically purchases ApeCoin ($APE), which then goes out to Mudwater NFT holders in proportion to their holdings.

Trading happens on OpenSea, which carries separate listings for Totems, Packs, and Cards. Secondary-market listings showed up on the platform soon after claims opened.

Why Yuga is doing this A demo of the card gameplay is available in Otherside, and Yuga has said further expansions inside the metaverse are possible. The company also plans to let collectors upgrade packs into boxes and cases, with upgradeable game elements on the roadmap as well.

What this means for holders and the market For BAYC and MAYC owners, the immediate effect is a fresh airdrop with tradable value. The 10-to-2 ratio rewards BAYC holders more generously, which reinforces the pecking order between the two collections.

The 8 cracked-ice 1/1 grails are likely to anchor the high end of the market. More than 140,000 packs are claimable now, and the planned 10,000 boxes point to substantial total volume, so rarity sits mostly in the serialized and cracked-ice tiers.

For ApeCoin, the 2.5% reflection creates buying tied to Mudwater trades, though its scale depends entirely on how actively the cards change hands.

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

Bitcoin

17 October 2026
|
20:41

AI agents can now order a Bitcoin mix. Flash Mixer, launched this year, has added an MCP server, the plug-in standard that AI apps such as Claude Desktop use to call outside tools.

In an October 15 report, blockchain analytics firm Elliptic said it is the first mixer it has found doing so.

Read Flash Mixer’s own setup guide, though, and the agent turns out to need a human at both ends. The access key is issued only after its owner places a manual order on the website and pays for it. Even with the key, the guide’s sample workflow hands the decisive step back to a person: “user sends BTC.”

AT A GLANCE

What it is: A Bitcoin mixing service launched in 2026, reachable by website, Telegram bot, Tor, and now MCP.

What’s new: Five tools that let an AI agent check fees, create mixing orders and track payouts.

What still needs a person: Getting the access key, and sending the bitcoin.

What nobody knows yet: How much, if anything, agents have mixed through it.

What can an agent actually do with it?
Flash Mixer’s integration guide on GitHub lists five tools. One returns the current pool limits, fee ranges and payout delays. A second works out how much bitcoin to send to receive a given amount. A third creates the order: the agent chooses the standard or premium pool, a fee percentage, and one or two payout addresses, each with its own delay of up to 72 hours. The last two check whether the deposit has arrived and how the payouts are progressing.

The guide includes ready-made configuration for Claude Desktop and PyCharm’s AI Assistant. Every order comes back with its own deposit address and an order ID. There are no customer accounts, so that ID is the only handle anyone has on the order.

1Check limits and fees. The agent reads the current pool settings and BTC/USD rate.
2Calculate the amount to send. Fees are added on top of what the payout addresses should receive.
3Create the order. Flash Mixer returns a fresh deposit address and an order ID.
4Someone sends the bitcoin. None of the five tools can do this. The guide leaves it to the user.
5Track the payouts. The agent polls the order until both payouts complete.

Source: Flash Mixer’s MCP integration guide, “Typical agent flow.”

Why can’t the agent just pay?
Nothing in the toolset can sign a Bitcoin transaction. The server never touches a wallet. It hands back an address and waits for coins to arrive.

Getting connected in the first place also takes a human. According to the guide, the MCP key appears once on the status page of a paid manual order, after the deposit reaches three confirmations, and isn’t shown again. So the first mix through Flash Mixer is done by a person, not a model. The documentation is rough in places: its closing notes describe ordering and status checks as “no-key capabilities,” contradicting the authentication section a few screens earlier.

The footprint is small so far. When we checked the GitHub repository on October 17, it had 18 stars and four forks. There is no public data on how many orders have come through the MCP route.

So where is the gap?
In the agent’s wallet. Flash Mixer doesn’t need a payment integration of its own. An agent that has the Flash Mixer tools and a wallet that will pay any address already has everything it needs: step three produces an address, and the wallet pays it.

That deposit address is new for every order. A wallet that blocks known mixer addresses won’t recognise it, because nobody has seen it before. The rule that does stop the payment works the other way round: the agent may only pay addresses on an approved list, and anything new goes to a person.

Spending caps alone don’t close the gap. MoonPay’s PayBox for ChatGPT and Claude lets users approve each payment or let an agent spend on its own within set limits, according to its launch announcement. A limit decides how much an agent can spend. A small payment to a brand-new mixer address fits under almost any cap.

If you’ve given an agent a wallet

Let it pay only addresses you’ve approved. A new address should need your sign-off every time.
Treat MCP servers like browser extensions. Install only ones you’ve read, and note which can create orders or move money.
Log which tool call produced each payment address, so you can trace where a destination came from.
Keep the wallet balance to what the agent needs for its current task, not everything you hold.

Is there a legitimate reason for an agent to mix coins?
Yes, and Elliptic makes the case itself. An agent pays for what it needs as it works, far more often than a person would, and on a public blockchain every one of those payments is visible. Picture an agent buying specialist datasets for a research team. Once its wallet is tied to the company, anyone watching can see the suppliers, the budget and what the team is working on.

Elliptic’s answer is privacy that can be proven on request. Privacy Pools, run by 0xbow, screens deposits before admitting them and lets users later prove their withdrawal came from an approved set without revealing which deposit was theirs. The Ethereum Foundation’s Kohaku wallet includes privacy pool functionality. Flash Mixer’s guide offers nothing of the kind.

Treating every mixer as the same risk gets it wrong in both directions. Tornado Cash came off the US sanctions list in 2025, yet Elliptic’s research found that over the past six months, a third of deposits into its 100 ETH pool drew more than half their funds from illicit sources.

Why does Elliptic think agents change laundering?
Scripted laundering repeats itself: the same hops in the same order, a pattern monitoring rules learn to spot. An agent given a goal picks its own route, choosing which services to use, how to split the funds and when to move them, and does it differently each run. Elliptic says that makes agents harder to monitor than conventional automation, and warns they could break funds into many small, fast “micromixes.”

Volume is the other concern. Elliptic said in September that agentic crypto payments had risen 500% in three months, and argues that human review alone can’t keep up. That view comes from a company that sells blockchain analytics and uses the report to promote its own agent-based compliance tools. The report cites no instance of an agent laundering money through Flash Mixer.

Quick answers
Can an AI agent mix bitcoin on its own?

Not with Flash Mixer’s documented tools alone. They can price and create an order, but sending the bitcoin needs a wallet the agent has separately been allowed to use, and the access key itself requires a paid manual order first.

What is an MCP server?

A connection point that lets AI apps such as Claude Desktop find and call outside tools. The MCP specification recommends that apps show tool activity and let users refuse calls, but leaves the details to each app.

This article is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal, financial or investment advice.

Author

Alexander Zdravkov is a market analyst and crypto journalist with interests in economics, broader financial markets and digital assets.
His journey into crypto began more than four years ago, driven by a fascination with the rapid evolution of blockchain technology and the transformative potential of decentralized finance. He began analyzing market cycles and identifying emerging trends before they reach the mainstream.
He holds a degree in International Relations - a background that helped shape his broader perspective on global economics, geopolitics, and the interconnected nature of modern financial markets.
Whether covering the latest developments in the crypto sector or exploring broader macroeconomic themes, Alexander focuses on giving readers context rather than simply repeating headlines.
During his career, he has authored more than 5,000 articles covering cryptocurrencies, traditional finance, and global market developments. His work spans everything from Bitcoin and altcoins to macroeconomic trends influencing risk assets worldwide.

Coinbase (NASDAQ: COIN) has released a detailed set of technical priorities aimed at guiding Bitcoin’s shift toward quantum-resistant security.

In a blog post dated October 13, 2026, the digital assets focused firm emphasized the need for proactive steps on signature scheme upgrades and the gradual relocation of funds, noting that both consensus changes and ecosystem-wide migrations can require multiple years of coordinated effort.

As a custodian holding roughly 5 percent of the total bitcoin supply, Coinbase stated that it is already adapting its own infrastructure while engaging with Bitcoin developers and researchers.

It also contributes engineering resources and participates in the Bitcoin Security Consortium to support related open-source work.

The post is framed as input for community discussion rather than a finalized company position or an announced upgrade path.

The exchange has also stressed that defending the network against future cryptographically relevant quantum computers (CRQCs) extends well beyond simply selecting a new digital signature algorithm.

A workable plan, it argued, must safeguard both funds whose public keys are already visible on-chain and newly created outputs, operate within Bitcoin’s constrained block space, allow full nodes to validate transactions independently, remain compatible with institutional custody systems and ordinary wallets, and offer a realistic route for coins whose owners cannot or will not move them.

Central to Coinbase’s recommendations is the idea of decoupling the output “container” that holds funds from the specific signature scheme used to authorize spending.

Such separation would let post-quantum algorithms be added, swapped, or combined later without redesigning the underlying structure.

The company pointed to constructions such as P2MR (associated with BIP-360) and P2TRv2 as designs that appear to provide this flexibility by keeping public keys hidden until they are needed and leaving room for future signature options.

For the transition period itself, Coinbase favors staged protection.

Active wallets could begin using post-quantum-capable or hybrid formats before any final rules governing older signature types are settled.

One example discussed is a 1-of-2 arrangement in which the same funds support two alternative spending paths—one authorized by a classical ECDSA or Schnorr key and another by a post-quantum key—allowing users to retain familiar methods in the near term while gaining quantum resistance when required.

On the choice of signature algorithms, the post called for a reproducible evaluation process tailored specifically to Bitcoin’s constraints.

General-purpose cryptographic comparisons developed for internet protocols do not map directly, because Bitcoin signatures are stored permanently and verified by every full node.

Suggested candidates include finalized standards such as ML-DSA and SLH-DSA, FN-DSA once standardized, and more compact alternatives such as SHRINCS.

Coinbase also warned that stateful schemes, while potentially smaller or faster, carry the risk that improper state management could enable forgery; therefore any support for them should include reliable stateless fallbacks, along with clear security requirements for wallets and custody providers.

Additional practical considerations include consensus-level limits on signature and script sizes to keep transaction costs manageable, low-friction formats that ordinary users and hardware wallets can adopt, and compatibility with multi-party computation techniques used in institutional custody.

Questions surrounding abandoned or inaccessible coins—those whose private keys are lost or whose owners do not migrate—were described as important but separate.

Coinbase suggested these governance and engineering issues can be debated in parallel so they do not delay the core technical work of adding post-quantum signature support.

Overall, the priorities underscore that preparation must begin well before any announcement of a functional CRQC, because the combination of protocol upgrades, wallet software changes, and user migration across a decentralized network cannot be completed on short notice.

By focusing on flexible designs, staged adoption, rigorous Bitcoin-specific testing, and separation of the abandoned-coin debate, Coinbase aims to contribute to an orderly, multi-year transition that protects both existing and future funds while preserving the network’s ability to operate and validate independently.

ReasonTV

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

Key Takeaways

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

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

Term Structure

Contract
Odds
Δ since publish
Volume 24h

December 31
80.7%
—
—
View market →

November 1 2026
22.5%
—
—
View market →

December 1 2026
67%
—
—
View market →

The severe market volatility that affected XRP's price movement last week has also extended to its ETF ecosystem as both retail and institutional investors appear to be taking caution.

The broad XRP ETF market has posted its worst weekly performance in over three months, drawing attention from market analysts about how this could affect XRP's price potential.

Over $1.84 million exit XRP funds last weekAccording to the latest data from SosoValue, XRP ETFs have recorded a net outflow of over $1.84 million over the last week.

HOT Stories

While this marks the first weekly outflow the funds have registered since July 7th, it has come at a time when the market is facing a downturn, raising concerns about whether investor demand for the XRP investment product is beginning to weaken. 

You Might Also Like

Notably, the reversal has come after XRP ETFs maintained a steady streak of consistent capital inflows for 13 consecutive weeks. 

As such, the XRP funds have broken the bullish trend with a negative performance this week after seeing sustained investor interest in gaining exposure to the XRP investment product.

XRP demand stalls as price retests $1.30While the performance of the XRP funds provides a bearish outlook for the asset, XRP's recent price movements have contributed to the uncertainty surrounding its short-term outlook.

Despite showing signs of a potential price recovery in the previous day, XRP is back in the red and has once again retested the $1.30 level, placing market sentiment under renewed pressure.

Ripple’s RLUSD stablecoin continues to attract significant attention from both XRP supporters and institutional analysts, with fresh analysis highlighting its importance within the Ripple ecosystem. The crypto researcher SMQKE presented findings on how RLUSD strategically complements XRP, particularly in the areas of decentralized finance and broader institutional engagement.

RLUSD and its strategic roleThe analysis positions RLUSD as an asset intended to work alongside, rather than against, XRP. By leveraging RLUSD, Ripple aims to strengthen market presence in low-liquidity environments. The new stablecoin is designed to operate in a way that supports XRP’s key functions, furthering its adoption across DeFi and among institutional investors.

Management of RLUSD reserves was assigned to Standard Custody, which became part of Ripple through an acquisition in 2024. This move seeks to assure both transparency and stability for those using the stablecoin.

RLUSD is structured to complement XRP and expand its adoption, not to compete with it.

Progress in real-world asset tokenizationRipple’s efforts have also extended into real-world asset (RWA) tokenization, an area gaining traction among leading financial institutions. Through a partnership with Archax, Ripple has advanced the integration of hundreds of millions of dollars worth of tokenized assets onto the XRP Ledger, positioning itself among established players like BlackRock, JPMorgan, and Goldman Sachs, who have also moved toward blockchain adoption.

Tokenized assets require robust infrastructure in terms of both liquidity and stability. Within this structure, RLUSD is tasked with fulfilling the demand for stability, while XRP focuses on transaction settlement and liquidity management. These two assets are designed to perform separate roles but jointly enhance the overall efficiency of Ripple’s solutions.

In a market where a single Fed decision or a sudden altcoin listing can change everything in seconds, switching between multiple apps for trading tools and news can become costly for investors. As a result, more traders are turning to privacy-first platforms like CryptoAppsy, which consolidate real-time charts, news, portfolio tracking, and macro data into one interface, with no account required.

The impact of XRP ETFsMonica Long, referenced in the analysis, expressed confidence in the prospects for an XRP exchange-traded fund, citing regulatory clarity from the United States as a driving force. XRP and Bitcoin are the only digital assets with this level of explicit regulatory recognition in the country, which Long argued would create favourable conditions for an XRP ETF filing.

This view was validated when the first spot XRP ETFs received approval in late 2025. The launch of these products gave traditional investors a new gateway to gain exposure to XRP and removed several longstanding access barriers for large institutional participants.

Community members have discussed the integration of RLUSD within current payment channels. One observer emphasized that placing RLUSD alongside conventional systems such as ACH and wire transfers through shared APIs could expand the ledger’s utility while retaining XRP’s central role as a bridge asset.

Others focused on RLUSD’s US dollar peg, expressing concerns about maintaining stability should the dollar weaken. Some analysts argued that the ongoing development of network effects and broader blockchain adoption remains an area many market participants have yet to fully recognize.

By addressing stability and leveraging liquidity, RLUSD and XRP are positioned to strengthen Ripple’s footprint in tokenized finance and institutional adoption.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Polkadot (DOT) experienced a drop of around 5% on October 17, reversing much of its recent recovery as intensified selling activity weighed on the broader altcoin market. The move erased gains that followed a brief rally earlier in the month.

Market reversal follows weak altcoin sentimentThe price of DOT hovered between $1.16 and $1.18 after reaching as high as $1.29 on October 10. This pullback reversed a portion of the double-digit rally that began on October 9, when the token traded near $1.09 before climbing back to $1.24. The bullish momentum continued through October 10, but failed to hold above the $1.20 level over subsequent trading sessions.

On October 12, selling pressure accelerated, causing DOT to fall roughly 7% and close near $1.17. Although the cryptocurrency briefly recovered on October 16, it struggled to maintain gains and slipped below $1.20 by the following day.

Analysts attributed DOT’s reversal to overall bearishness among altcoins, with smaller tokens broadly declining as investors trimmed exposure to speculative digital assets. There was no discrete event unique to Polkadot cited as a catalyst for the recent declines.

Tokenomics overhaul and its effectsThe latest price action comes just after significant updates to Polkadot’s tokenomics, which introduced a maximum supply cap of 2.1 billion DOT and a revised issuance schedule limiting the production of new tokens over time. The first such reduction took place on March 14, 2026, lowering the rate at which new DOT enter circulation. Going forward, issuance will be reduced every two years, further slowing supply expansion.

Polkadot, a blockchain platform designed to enable interoperability among different networks, recently sought to curb inflation by introducing these supply controls. A prior governance proposal restructured the ecosystem’s inflationary model, aiming to strengthen the platform’s long-term value proposition for holders.

Mini dictionary: Polkadot, a project created by Web3 Foundation, focuses on connecting multiple blockchains into a unified network, facilitating cross-chain transfers of any type of data or asset.

While lower issuance is intended to reduce dilution for existing holders, the effects of this change depend on broader market dynamics. If selling by current token holders outpaces demand from new investors, prices can continue falling even as supply growth slows.

EventBeforeAfterDOT maximum supplyUnlimited2.1 billionIssuance reductionNo scheduled decreaseReduced every 2 yearsInflation modelInflationaryDeflationary trendInvestor behavior remains influentialDespite these fundamental adjustments, improving token economics alone did not halt DOT’s recent decline. Short-term price trends remain heavily influenced by trader sentiment, liquidity, and general appetite for risk within the altcoin sector.

Short-term momentum has faded for Polkadot, and profit-taking has increased following the recent rally, limiting the immediate impact of its new supply controls.

Lower supply growth does not guarantee stronger prices, especially in periods when demand for altcoins is subdued. DOT’s struggles reflect this dynamic, signaling the importance of market conditions beyond supply-side changes.

Complementing its tokenomics overhaul, Polkadot has advanced upgrades to its staking incentives and network infrastructure, aiming to foster long-term network health and broader adoption.

Cover image via U.Today Disclaimer: The opinions expressed by our writers are their own and do not represent the views of U.Today. The financial and market information provided on U.Today is intended for informational purposes only. U.Today is not liable for any financial losses incurred while trading cryptocurrencies. Conduct your own research by contacting financial experts before making any investment decisions. We believe that all content is accurate as of the date of publication, but certain offers mentioned may no longer be available.

Coinbase has emerged among the top Shiba Inu (SHIB) burners for the month, with over 152.3 million SHIB  sent to dead addresses in the last 30 days, according to Shibburn.

Among the top burners in the last 30 days, Coinbase sits in the second spot, just below the '0xc774406cc' address, which sent 297,572,672 SHIB to dead wallets in just one transaction.

The SHIB tokens burned did not come in one lump sum but rather from various burn transactions that may have originated from Coinbase transactions and trading fees.

HOT Stories

152,307,330 SHIB burned in 9 transactions was attributed to Coinbase in the last 30 days, when a total of 758.92 million was burned, according to the Shibburn page. Tokens sent to recognized burn addresses, often called dead wallets, are generally considered permanently inaccessible, effectively removing those tokens from the circulating supply.

You Might Also Like

Coinbase's emergence among the top monthly burners does not, by itself, establish that the exchange deliberately initiated a token-burning campaign, but rather from transactions and trading fees.

SHIB burn rate surges 100%Over 61 million SHIB tokens have been burned in the last 24 hours, causing an uptick in the daily burn rate. According to Shibburn, 61.46 million SHIB were sent to dead wallets in this timeframe, with the daily burn rate rising 100%.

You Might Also Like

This marks a rebound from that seen earlier in the week when the burn rate flattened after a collapse on October 11. In line with this, the weekly burn rate was down 59.25% in the last seven days, with 163.52 million SHIB burned, while the monthly burn rate increased 79.30%.

At the time of writing, SHIB price was down 2.36% in the last 24 hours to $0.000005015 following a broader crypto market selloff as investors reacted to a week of strong inflation data, with Thursday's producer price index showing that wholesale prices jumped 6.3% annually in September, the biggest gain since 2022. This came after Wednesday's release of the consumer price index, which also rose.

Federal Reserve Chair Kevin Warsh declined to signal the central bank's intentions for its meeting later this month, with the odds of an October interest-rate increase dropping to about 15% from about 30%. 

RAY failed to reclaim its 200-period moving average on the 4-hour chart.
Raydium’s quarterly trading fees more than tripled on launchpad and tokenized-stock activity.
Buybacks absorbed a noticeable share of RAY’s circulating supply during the quarter.
Early October data shows protocol activity cooling after an exceptionally strong September.

The RAY price is down 23.7% over the past seven days and sits around $1.82, even though Raydium, the Solana-based decentralized exchange behind the token, has just closed its strongest fee quarter in a year. Data compiled by Pine Analytics shows Raydium collected $57.1 million in trading fees in Q3 2026 and directed about $6.2 million of that into RAY buybacks, yet the token now sits below its EMA 200 on the 4-hour chart after a failed attempt to recover it on Oct 16. With a market capitalization of $489.7 million, RAY is caught between a fundamental story that improved sharply over the summer and a chart that still belongs to the sellers.

What Tripled Raydium’s Fees
The headline figure hides an unusual detail, since adjusted trading volume rose only 17% quarter-over-quarter to $16.1 billion, while fees more than tripled, which means Raydium earned far more on every dollar that passed through its pools. A rough calculation from the reported numbers puts the effective fee rate at about 0.35% of volume in Q3, compared with something below 0.14% in Q2, a shift that points to a different mix of traders and pools.

Two sources drove that mix, starting with tokenized-stock trading on Raydium, which reached $4.14 billion in the quarter, up from $1.77 billion in Q2, and LaunchLab, the protocol’s token-launch platform, went from 5,420 launches in August to 156,294 in September. Almost all of that September surge, roughly 95%, came through a single integration called StonkFun. Launch-driven trading of this kind tends to carry higher fees per trade than large-cap swaps, which would fit the gap between fee and volume growth, and the activity pushed Raydium’s share of Solana DEX volume from 4.3% in July to 12.2% in September.

Metric
Q3 2026
Change

Trading fees
$57.1M
More than 3x QoQ

Adjusted volume
$16.1B
+17% QoQ

Tokenized-stock volume
$4.14B
From $1.77B

TVL in dollars
$1.34B
+56%

TVL in SOL
–
-2%

Source: Pine Analytics

Why the Buyback Has Not Moved the Price
Raydium’s buyback wallet received about 4.58 million RAY during the quarter, worth $5.15 million at the time of receipt and equal to roughly 1.7% of circulating supply. Measured against today’s market cap, the $6.2 million allocation works out to about 1.3% of the token’s value per quarter, a steady source of demand that can soften sell-offs but is too small to set the direction on its own when traders are taking profit after a sharp rally. The program has a long track record, and Raydium said in August that cumulative repurchases had passed 30% of circulating supply.

The bigger issue is how concentrated Q3 was, with September alone producing $44.6 million in fees, about 78% of the quarterly total, so July and August together brought in only around $12.5 million. Raydium has seen this pattern before: when LetsBonk drove a LaunchLab boom in July 2025, LaunchLab fees fell 79% the following month. Pine Analytics found that activity in the first four days of October was already running below September’s pace, a short sample, but one that matches what the chart shows, with RAY breaking down from its $2.25-$2.55 range on Oct 12.

The liquidity data adds another caveat, because total value locked rose 56% to $1.34 billion in dollar terms, but fell 2% when measured in SOL, which suggests SOL’s own price rise accounts for most of the gain, with little fresh capital entering Raydium’s pools.

Sellers Defend the EMA 200
RAY/USDT 4-hour chart. Source: TradingView / Alexander Stefanov
The Oct 7 spike came on the heaviest volume of the past month, and RAY held between roughly $2.25 and $2.55 for five days before sellers took over on Oct 12. The drop that followed cut through every Fibonacci retracement level of the rally and ended at $1.7371 on Oct 15, after RAY lost its EMA 200 on Oct 14, the average that had supported the uptrend since late September. That breakdown coincided with a broader sell-off, after a hotter-than-expected US inflation print pushed Bitcoin below $82,000 and a wave of liquidations hit altcoins.

Buyers tried to win that line back on Oct 16 and briefly lifted RAY to about $1.96, but the move stalled at the 0.236 retracement at $1.9344 and price fell back under the EMA 200, which now sits at $1.8949 and has stopped rising. The RSI reads 38.94, slightly above its signal line at 37.20, after dropping into oversold territory during the Oct 14-15 sell-off, so selling pressure has eased without buyers showing real conviction. Volume on the latest candles is among the lowest on the chart, and the SMA 50 at $2.1004 has turned lower.

Level
Price
Role

0.382 Fib / SMA 50
$2.06-$2.10
Resistance

0.236 Fib
$1.9344
Resistance

EMA 200
$1.8949
Resistance

Oct 15 low
$1.7371
Support

Late-September base
$1.60-$1.62
Support

The Triggers on Both Sides
A 4-hour close above $1.9344 would put the RAY price back over both the EMA 200 and the first retracement level, which would open a path toward the 0.382 level at $2.0564 and the SMA 50 near $2.10, the area where sellers are likely to return first. On the downside, the Oct 15 low at $1.7371 holds the current structure together, and losing it would expose $1.62 and the late-September lows below $1.60, where the rally behind the Oct 7 spike first picked up speed. Until one of those levels breaks, RAY is likely to keep trading between $1.74 and $1.94.

The next data point that could break that range sits outside the chart. On Oct 1, Raydium began keeping 5% of creator fees across its CPMM pools, the standard constant-product pools where most new tokens list, which gives the protocol a revenue line that grows directly with launch activity. October fee data will show whether that change, together with StonkFun and tokenized-stock flows, can hold revenue near September’s level, and that figure will also decide how much RAY the buyback wallet can absorb in Q4.

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

Full Profile

ShapeShift is trying to fix that for Starknet users. The multichain swap aggregator now supports Starknet, letting users complete a trade in one swap with no bridge step.

ShapeShift announced the integration on October 16, 2026. Starknet amplified the news a day later, on October 17, 2026, describing the network as now available on the platform.

What the integration actually does The core change is about friction. Before this, getting value into or out of Starknet through a typical route meant two separate actions: bridging first, then swapping.

Now the platform handles it as a single trade. You pick what you have and what you want, and ShapeShift does the routing behind the scenes.

The integration also involved updates to ShapeShift’s technical configurations to support the new network. The announcement did not name specific tokens or trading pairs included in the launch.

Who’s involved Starknet is an Ethereum Layer 2 scaling solution built on zk-STARK technology. Layer 2 networks process transactions off Ethereum’s main chain and then settle back to it, aiming for lower costs and higher throughput.

Starknet has positioned itself around three priorities: scalability, privacy, and interoperability. The ShapeShift integration lines up most directly with the third one.

ShapeShift has been in development since 2014. Today it operates as a community-led multichain swap aggregator. An aggregator does not hold all the liquidity itself. Instead it searches across sources to find a route for a trade.

The platform already supports multiple chains and has recently leaned further into interoperability. In September 2026, ShapeShift released its swap stack as a free widget and API for developers.

That earlier move is relevant context. If developers embed ShapeShift’s swap tooling in their own apps, any new chain ShapeShift supports could potentially travel further than ShapeShift’s own interface.

Why this matters for Starknet and its users For Starknet, the bigger prize is access. Layer 2 networks compete partly on how easy it is to get money in and out of them.

Plugging into an established multichain aggregator puts Starknet in front of users who may not have gone looking for it. Someone already using ShapeShift for other chains now sees Starknet as just another destination on the menu.

Removing the bridging step could encourage more frequent and smaller transactions, since the overhead of each trade drops. The integration could also lift trading volume on ShapeShift’s platform and user engagement on Starknet. The announcement did not include any volume or usage figures.

The bigger interoperability picture For traders and investors watching Starknet, the practical signals to monitor are straightforward. Look for changes in Starknet transaction volumes and for any data ShapeShift shares on Starknet-related activity.

Watch, too, whether developers using ShapeShift’s free widget and API start surfacing Starknet swaps inside their own products. That would be the clearest sign the integration is spreading beyond a single front end.

The open question is which assets and pairs see real use once the novelty fades. The announcement left those specifics out, so actual trading behavior over the coming weeks will tell the more useful story.

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

Bitcoin enters the final weeks of October near $82,000 after a brief fall below $80,000. The October 28 Federal Reserve decision, uneven demand for U.S. spot funds and November inflation data will help determine whether the recovery survives. A forecast requires conditions for both gains and losses, not a single number detached from the evidence.

Summary

Bitcoin traded near $81,500 on October 17 after briefly dipping below $80,000 this week. September U.S. inflation reached 3.7% annually, up from 3.4% in August. U.S. spot Bitcoin funds lost a net $614.7 million across October’s first 12 trading sessions, based on Farside’s daily totals. The Fed meets October 27 and 28, before U.S. jobs data on November 6 and inflation data on November 10. A move from $82,000 to $90,000 requires a 9.8% gain; a drop to $75,000 would be an 8.5% loss. Bitcoin has traded around $81,500 on October 17, having recovered from a move below $80,000 during the week. CoinGlass market data put the 24 hour change near negative 0.7% when checked for this article. A live price can move before publication, so the scenarios below use $82,000 as a rounded reference point, not a claim about the exact execution price available to a reader.

The Federal Reserve’s calendar places its next policy decision on October 28. Inflation has complicated the choice: the Bureau of Labor Statistics’ September CPI release put annual headline inflation at 3.7%. November will bring new employment and consumer price readings, giving investors evidence on whether the October decision was the start of another tightening phase or a single step. The price outlook therefore has two clocks: what markets expect before the meeting, and what the incoming data say afterward.

JUST IN: Bitcoin posts its strongest quarter since 2017 with a 43% Q3 gain

The rally now faces tougher conditions as Treasury yields climb above 5%, although weaker US jobs data has cut the odds of another Fed rate hike in October. pic.twitter.com/St18atn53Y

— crypto.news (@cryptodotnews) October 6, 2026 Bitcoin’s October recovery has a weak demand backdrop The starting point is less reassuring than the bounce suggests. Bitcoin slipped below $80,000 and subsequently recovered above $82,000 on October 16. A separate October 16 price assessment at crypto.news placed the market near $81,400 and noted the sequence of lower local highs. Clearing a level intraday is different from sustaining buying through several sessions, especially when the same area has served as both support and resistance.

October’s price movement followed several conflicting signals. U.S. spot Bitcoin funds began the month with two positive sessions, then recorded substantial withdrawals on October 7 and 8. The October 7 fund outflow reached $484.9 million, the largest daily exit since June at the time. October 13 brought $175.7 million back, but October 14 saw $261.4 million leave. Farside Investors’ daily fund table now records an $82.4 million withdrawal for October 16. Daily totals can be revised, and a net flow is not a direct measure of exchange spot purchases on that date.

Price and flow do not have to move together. Bitcoin trades continuously, while the U.S. ETF table reflects the close of an equity trading day. A buyer using an offshore exchange or a derivatives position can move the price while the fund complex loses assets. Authorized participants can acquire or deliver Bitcoin through creation and redemption processes that need not match a single hour of trading. Treating each positive close as proof that ETFs bought the rebound would assign a cause that the available figures cannot establish.

The October 14 CPI report added a macroeconomic complication. Headline consumer prices rose 0.6% during September, while the measure excluding food and energy rose 0.3%. Gasoline accounted for more than half of the monthly increase in the headline index, according to the BLS. Annual core inflation reached 2.6%, below the 3.7% headline reading but above August’s 2.4%. A reader looking only at the headline could miss that the sources of inflation are different; a reader looking only at core could miss the pressure that energy prices put on household spending and market rates.

Bitcoin’s drop after the CPI release left the market near $81,900 on October 14. The report recorded an increase in market-implied odds of an October rate increase after the inflation data, but those odds are a changing price of futures contracts, not a vote by the Fed. They should be checked again near the decision. Positioning against a policy announcement can make an otherwise ordinary price move violent when leveraged traders have crowded into one outcome.

JUST IN: Bitcoin jumps above $85,000 after softer U.S. inflation data

August core PCE rose 3% year-over-year versus 3.3% expected, while markets cut October Fed rate-hike odds, giving $BTC and other risk assets an immediate boost. pic.twitter.com/z1n9vm6GQJ

— crypto.news (@cryptodotnews) September 30, 2026 The Fed decision is only the first date on November’s calendar On September 16, the Federal Open Market Committee raised its target by a quarter percentage point to 3.75% to 4%. The vote was unanimous. Its next scheduled meeting ends October 28 at 2 p.m. Eastern time, followed by a press conference at 2:30 p.m. The October meeting is not marked as one of the scheduled quarterly projection meetings on the Fed’s calendar, so investors should not assume it will include a new dot plot.

The September meeting minutes, released October 7, say most participants considered another increase likely to be appropriate by year end, while stressing that later decisions depended on incoming information. Year end leaves two meetings, October and December. The minutes do not commit the committee to October, and individual September projections are conditional judgments, not instructions to a future meeting. The September median projected policy rate at the end of 2026 was 4.1%, according to the Fed’s projection tables.

Bitcoin rallied after the September rate increase despite fund withdrawals during the decision window. An examination of buyers after the September hike found subsequent ETF demand and derivatives adjustment, showing why the rate announcement alone cannot explain the entire move. Traders had been preparing for the decision beforehand; the same announcement can lift or lower an asset depending on what was already priced in and what the chair says about future policy.

On October 28, the rate decision, statement, and press conference, should be read separately. A quarter point increase with language suggesting a pause would not carry the same implication as an increase followed by concern about more persistent inflation. A hold could still weigh on Bitcoin if officials signal another hike in December. Market prices respond to changes in expected policy paths, not simply to the label attached to one decision.

November’s scheduled releases will then test the Fed’s reading of the economy. The BLS calendar for November lists the October employment report for November 6, October CPI for November 10, and October producer prices for November 13. October CPI will arrive after the Fed meeting, meaning the committee cannot use that report to decide on October 28. It can still change expectations for the December 8 and 9 meeting. Figures and release dates should be rechecked at publication because government calendars can change.

The sequence allows a conditional outlook. An October decision followed by softer inflation and moderate employment growth could ease pressure on bond yields. A decision followed by stubborn inflation or a much stronger labor market could support expectations of more tightening. A weak jobs report is not automatically favorable for Bitcoin if it points to a broad economic shock that sends investors toward cash. None of the official releases predicts a Bitcoin price; they influence the rates and risk appetite against which Bitcoin trades.

Twelve ETF sessions show how much buying the recovery needs The distinguishing figure comes from adding the fund flows rather than citing a single large withdrawal. Farside’s U.S. spot Bitcoin ETF table lists daily totals, in millions of dollars, for the first 12 trading sessions of October: plus 102.7, plus 189.9, minus 89.8, plus 118.8, minus 484.9, minus 244.1, plus 21.1, minus 65.4, plus 175.7, minus 261.4, plus 5.1 and minus 82.4. Adding those published entries gives minus $614.7 million through October 16. The calculation uses the displayed one decimal place and may differ slightly if a provider later revises individual funds.

Across the same 12 sessions, positive days total $613.3 million and negative days total $1.228 billion after rounding the entries. Net outflows are therefore the result of several heavy selling days overwhelming the purchases, not the absence of any positive session. October 7 alone accounts for approximately 79% of the net withdrawal figure, a ratio obtained by dividing $484.9 million by $614.7 million. That ratio describes the arithmetic concentration of the monthly total, not an estimate that one day’s redemptions caused 79% of Bitcoin’s price change.

Four of the first 12 sessions show net gains above $100 million, while four show losses above $80 million. A small positive day does not erase a large negative day. For example, the $175.7 million gained on October 13 was smaller than the $261.4 million lost the next day; together they represent an $85.7 million withdrawal. October 15’s $5.1 million intake did little to counter the $82.4 million that left on October 16. These comparisons explain why a chart of alternating green and red bars can look balanced even when the month is firmly negative.

The calculation answers a narrower question than some headlines imply. It does not tell us how much Bitcoin was sold on exchanges, which participants bought any supply offered, or whether a fund’s holdings changed by the same dollar amount as its flow. Net flow is an accounting estimate for money entering or leaving the listed products. Assets under management fluctuate with Bitcoin’s price. Trading volume can surge even when net flow is zero, because shares can change hands between investors without new fund shares being created.

The starting imbalance creates an observable condition for November. A durable recovery supported by fund demand would require multiple positive sessions large enough to offset withdrawals, not merely a return to zero on one day. At the October 16 balance, a single $100 million intake would leave the October running total around $515 million negative if no other dates changed. Restoring the first 12 sessions to flat would require approximately $615 million of net additions in later sessions. The figure is an arithmetic hurdle for the month, not a threshold Bitcoin must clear to rise.

Fund flows could remain negative while direct spot buyers take the other side. Conversely, positive ETF totals could coexist with selling by long held wallets, corporate treasuries or miners. An October assessment of institutional demand quoted Bitget Wallet research lead Lacie Zhang saying institutional buying must absorb profit taking and miner sales for gains to hold. Her argument concerns the balance of buyers and sellers across venues, not an ETF flow target that guarantees a certain price.

BREAKING: Fed raises its benchmark interest rates for the first time since 2023

The Fed has raised its benchmark rate by 25 basis points to 3.75%–4%, while 30-year mortgage rates have climbed to around 7.28%; persistent inflation, higher oil prices and geopolitical tensions are… pic.twitter.com/CXNUmqJqEf

— crypto.news (@cryptodotnews) September 16, 2026 The price cases start from one reference point A November scenario needs an explicit starting value. This article uses $82,000, close to the market around the October 16 rebound, as a common reference. At that price, $85,000 is 3.7% higher; $87,500 is 6.7% higher; $90,000 is 9.8% higher; $95,000 is 15.9% higher. On the downside, $80,000 is 2.4% lower; $78,000 is 4.9% lower; and $75,000 is 8.5% lower. Each percentage is the difference from $82,000 divided by $82,000, rounded to one decimal place. They are arithmetic distances, not modeled probabilities or promised targets.

Recovery case: $87,500 to $95,000. Bitcoin would first need to regain the $84,200 area that traders identified as resistance in the October 16 chart analysis, then build on the move through the upper $80,000s. A sustained run of ETF inflows, stronger spot participation and less aggressive rate expectations after October 28 would support that case. The upper end requires a 15.9% rise from the reference, a material move in a month. The case weakens if ETF flows stay negative through a price rally or if the October 28 message and November 10 CPI push yields higher.

Range case: $78,000 to $87,500. Bitcoin could remain between the October downside area and the late September resistance zone if fund buying returns intermittently but cannot sustain itself. A Fed decision that changes little about December expectations, followed by mixed labor and inflation releases, would fit the setting. The breadth of the range is deliberate: from $82,000 it spans a 4.9% decline to a 6.7% gain. Calling this a base case does not mean assigning it a numerical probability. It describes the path when neither the buying evidence nor the policy evidence resolves decisively.

Downside case: $75,000 to $78,000. A break below $80,000 that persists through several daily closes, together with further ETF redemptions and renewed leverage liquidations, would bring lower price areas into view. A Fed message pointing to continued tightening, followed by another strong inflation print, would make the downside scenario more plausible. The range is an analytical boundary, not a claim that a particular exchange has a buy order at $75,000. A fall through the lower end would invalidate this bounded case and require a fresh analysis rather than a wider target invented after the event.

The ranges overlap at $78,000 and $87,500 because price can trade at a boundary without giving a reliable signal about the next month. Daily closes, participation and changes in flow would be more informative than a brief intraday touch. The upper case is invalidated by persistent selling and a failed recovery of the mid $80,000s; the downside case is invalidated by sustained inflows and a decisive move above resistance. New evidence can invalidate either scenario before November begins.

A pause in rates does not guarantee a Bitcoin rally The strongest argument for recovery is not simply that the Fed might hold rates. Inflation’s September jump was driven heavily by gasoline, while core prices rose more slowly over the year. If energy eases and the labor market weakens enough to limit further hikes without signaling recession, investors could reduce their expectations for future rates. Fund flows have turned around rapidly in earlier periods: after withdrawals around the September decision, demand returned in later sessions. The post hike market assessment from BitGo Research associated the recovery with spot fund demand, lower Treasury yields, softer oil and short covering. No single variable carried the whole explanation.

There is a counterweight. The September minutes show most Fed participants expected another increase by year end. September headline inflation at 3.7% was above August’s 3.4%, and core inflation rose to 2.6% from 2.4%. A pause in October might signal patience while officials wait for data, not the end of tightening. November CPI could reopen the debate almost immediately. Bitcoin can rise in anticipation of a pause and still lose ground if the accompanying statement points to a later hike.

Rate expectations have two effects that need separating. Higher Treasury yields can raise the appeal of interest paying assets relative to Bitcoin, which does not pay a coupon. The same yields can weaken demand for speculative risk across markets. Neither channel fixes Bitcoin’s price mechanically. Liquidity, leverage, international buying and crypto specific events can offset or magnify them. A neat historical average of returns around Fed meetings would miss differences in what investors anticipated before each event.

ETF demand presents a similar two sided argument. The products remain a substantial route for U.S. investors, and a few large positive days can reverse a negative running total. Yet the October arithmetic shows how easily one withdrawal can overwhelm multiple gains. Strong fund flows would improve the recovery case, but treating them as a sufficient condition ignores direct exchange sellers and the derivatives market. Weak flows would not prove that no buyer exists elsewhere. The honest disagreement is about the likely marginal buyer in November, not the existence of all other buyers.

Leverage can change the route without deciding the destination CoinGlass displayed roughly $52.4 billion of Bitcoin futures open interest and about $77 million of Bitcoin liquidations over 24 hours when checked on October 17. Those figures decay quickly and should be refreshed before publication. Open interest is the face value of outstanding positions, not the amount of capital that can be liquidated at once. Both a long and a short stand behind each futures contract; a rising total alone cannot tell the reader which side will win.

Funding rates and open interest together offer a better view of crowding, though neither is conclusive. Positive perpetual futures funding indicates longs are generally paying shorts on venues using that mechanism. If price rises alongside open interest and high positive funding, the move may depend more heavily on leveraged longs. If price rises while open interest falls, some of the gain may come from shorts closing. Spot volume and ETF flows would then help determine whether new cash replaced the departing positions.

The October selloff showed how forced unwinds can speed a move. Long liquidations cause exchanges to close positions according to their margin rules, creating market orders in a falling market. Subsequent short covering can make the rebound appear strong even before sustained spot demand returns. Neither event establishes a fair value for Bitcoin. Derivatives data help describe the path and fragility of a move, while the spot market and flows help assess whether it can persist.

A level such as $80,000 attracts attention partly because traders put orders and stops near round figures. No source can certify that every $80,000 touch is meaningful, and liquidation maps estimate potential pressure from displayed positions rather than commitments by every trader. A briefly broken level followed by recovery deserves different treatment from several closes below it. The same applies to a break above $85,000: a single futures driven spike is weaker evidence than several sessions accompanied by fund additions and spot volume.

The Fed release occurs during U.S. market hours, when the ETF shares trade and the underlying Bitcoin market remains open. The first ETF closing figure after the decision will provide one piece of evidence, but reporting time and creation mechanics can blur attribution. November 6 jobs data and November 10 CPI arrive before the U.S. market opens; Bitcoin can react overnight before fund shares resume trading. Comparing same time windows and the same quotation source matters when describing cause and effect.

The scenario boundaries have important limits The outlook is dated October 17. Bitcoin’s spot price, policy expectations, ETF flows and derivative positions can change substantially before October 28, let alone November 30. A scenario built around an $82,000 starting value must be recalculated if Bitcoin enters November at a very different price. The percentage distances are exact arithmetic from the chosen reference, but the chosen bands reflect observed market areas and conditional judgment. They are not statistical confidence intervals.

Neither a Fed decision nor a CPI release provides a stand alone Bitcoin forecast. Monetary policy can affect bond yields and the dollar, yet investors may have anticipated the change in advance. The September episode showed a hike and a subsequent rally; the October selloff showed inflation concerns alongside withdrawals and deleveraging. Assigning all price movement to the nearest macro headline would ignore the trading evidence.

ETF totals have reporting limits. Providers can differ in coverage, fund cutoff times and revisions. Farside’s table provides the 12 U.S. session inputs used here; an alternative tracker may show a slightly different monthly figure. Gross trading volume, net investor flow and changes in Bitcoin held by funds answer separate questions. None directly identifies the end investor, the seller on the other side or the moment the Bitcoin was acquired.

The projected $75,000 to $95,000 envelope deliberately includes different outcomes rather than implying that any one will occur. A new geopolitical shock, fund launch, regulatory decision, exchange disruption or corporate transaction could move the market outside it. Those events cannot be responsibly assigned a probability from the evidence assembled here. The next observable policy marker is the Fed’s October 28 statement; the next scheduled U.S. employment and inflation releases follow on November 6 and 10, according to the BLS calendar.

What to watch October 28 Fed statement and press conference: Compare the rate decision with the committee’s language about future increases at 2 p.m. and 2:30 p.m. Eastern. Daily U.S. spot Bitcoin ETF flows: Add the November sessions in Farside’s table and distinguish a multi day intake from a single positive close. The $80,000 and $84,200 price areas: Watch daily closes and trading participation around the recent downside and resistance zones, not just intraday touches. November 6 employment and November 10 CPI: Compare the actual releases with expectations and observe the response in yields as well as Bitcoin. Futures open interest and funding: Check whether a move in price is paired with new leveraged positions, short covering or a reduction in crowding. FAQ What is the Bitcoin price outlook for November 2026? From an $82,000 reference on October 17, the conditional recovery range is $87,500 to $95,000, the range case is $78,000 to $87,500, and the downside case is $75,000 to $78,000. None is a guaranteed target or a probability weighted forecast.

When is the next Fed decision? The Federal Open Market Committee meets October 27 and 28, 2026. Its statement is scheduled for 2 p.m. Eastern on October 28, followed by a press conference at 2:30 p.m.

Did the Fed raise rates in September 2026? Yes. On September 16, the Fed raised the target range by a quarter percentage point to 3.75% to 4%. Bitcoin’s subsequent price rise does not establish that the rate increase caused it.

How much did Bitcoin ETFs lose in early October? Adding Farside Investors’ daily U.S. spot fund totals for the 12 trading sessions from October 1 through October 16 gives approximately $614.7 million in net withdrawals. The figure can change if a provider revises its table.

Why does the $80,000 Bitcoin level matter? Bitcoin briefly traded below $80,000 before recovering during the October selloff. Repeated daily closes below the area, especially with withdrawals and long liquidations, would strengthen the downside case more than a brief intraday break.

Could Bitcoin reach $90,000 in November? A move from the article’s $82,000 reference to $90,000 would require a gain of about 9.8%. Sustained spot and fund demand, a recovery through resistance and less pressure from expected interest rates would support the recovery case; none guarantees that price.

What U.S. data arrive after the October Fed meeting? The BLS has scheduled the October employment report for November 6 and October CPI for November 10. October producer prices are scheduled for November 13. The dates should be checked again before those releases.

Does an October Fed pause mean Bitcoin will rise? No. Investors may have priced in a pause, and a hold could still accompany a warning about another rate increase. ETF flows, direct spot trading and leverage affect the outcome as well. This is educational analysis, not investment advice.

Disclaimer: This article is for information and educational purposes only and does not constitute financial or investment advice. Figures reflect regulatory filings and reporting available at the time of writing and change with each disclosure. Nothing here is a recommendation to buy, sell, or hold any security or asset. Always do your own research. Information is accurate as of October 17, 2026.

U.S. crypto ETFs tracked across five Farside Investors tables have recorded $610.7 million in net outflows during Oct. 12–16, with Ethereum funds losing more money than Bitcoin products.

Summary

$610.7 million left the five tracked ETF categories, down from $1.29 billion the previous week. Ethereum ETFs lost $320.1 million, with BlackRock’s ETHA accounting for $299 million. Bitcoin funds recorded $228.4 million in withdrawals despite two positive trading sessions. Solana, Zcash and Hyperliquid products lost a combined $62.2 million during the five-session period. Farside Investors’ daily figures put Ethereum ETF withdrawals at $320.1 million, followed by $228.4 million from Bitcoin funds, while Solana, Zcash and Hyperliquid products finished the week negative.

Crypto ETF withdrawals fall 52.5% from the previous week Calculated from Farside’s five tables, weekly net withdrawals fell 52.5% from $1.2863 billion during Oct. 5–9. Each tracked category remained negative, although Bitcoin, Ethereum and Zcash recorded smaller losses than in the preceding period.

As crypto.news previously reported, the same five groups lost $1.29 billion during that earlier week. Bitcoin accounted for $678.9 million of those withdrawals, while Ethereum products shed $542.2 million.

The latest daily totals, calculated across Farside’s tables, show that Tuesday was the only session with combined net inflows. Funds attracted $194.3 million that day after losing $155.5 million on Monday.

Wednesday brought $393.4 million in withdrawals, the largest daily loss of the reporting period. Another $90.1 million left on Thursday, followed by $166 million on Friday.

Across the five-session window, Bitcoin and Ethereum accounted for $548.5 million, or approximately 89.8%, of the combined net withdrawal calculated from Farside’s figures.

A separate CoinShares update published Oct. 16 reported $434 million in withdrawals from global digital asset investment products during its reporting week. Its global product coverage and reporting cutoff differ from the five U.S. ETF categories aggregated here.

CoinShares attributed its reported withdrawals to changing interest rate expectations after U.S. inflation and retail sales releases. Its assessment concerned its own dataset; Farside’s tables provide fund flows without assigning a cause to individual transactions.

Ethereum ETF losses reach $320.1 million Ethereum funds recorded four negative sessions and one positive day in Farside’s table. Monday’s $85.4 million withdrawal was followed by $24.8 million in Tuesday inflows, before Wednesday brought the week’s largest exit at $129.5 million.

Thursday and Friday added respective withdrawals of $60.3 million and $69.7 million. Calculated across the table’s daily entries, BlackRock’s ETHA lost $299 million, equivalent to 93.4% of the category’s net weekly outflow.

Fidelity’s FETH attracted $10.5 million over the week, while Grayscale’s Ethereum Mini Trust lost $12.4 million. Grayscale’s ETHE recorded an $18.3 million withdrawal, and Franklin Templeton’s EZET shed $900,000.

The remaining Ethereum products showed no net flows during the period in Farside’s table.

Elsewhere in the U.S. Ethereum fund market, VanEck requested withdrawal of its proposed Lido Staked Ethereum ETF registration in an Oct. 14 filing, as reported Oct. 15.

The sponsor’s SEC submission said it “does not intend to proceed with the planned distribution” of the trust’s shares. VanEck confirmed that the registration statement had not become effective and that no securities had been issued or sold under it.

The filing sought the SEC’s consent to withdraw the registration statement under Rule 477. It concerned a proposed offering that had never issued shares, separate from the operating funds in Farside’s weekly flow table.

Bitcoin ETFs lose $228.4 million despite Tuesday buying Bitcoin funds recorded their strongest session on Tuesday, attracting $175.7 million, according to Farside. Wednesday’s $261.4 million withdrawal exceeded that intake, and Friday ended with another $82.4 million exit.

BlackRock’s IBIT lost $165.4 million over the week, calculated from its five daily entries. Fidelity’s FBTC shed $60.2 million, while Morgan Stanley’s MSBT attracted $6.7 million and Bitwise’s BITB added $2.2 million.

Invesco’s BTCO lost $4.1 million, and Grayscale’s Bitcoin Mini Trust recorded $7.6 million in withdrawals.

Earlier in October, Bitcoin funds had suffered $484.9 million in withdrawals during the Oct. 7 session. Coverage published Oct. 8 identified that as their largest daily outflow since June 25, when withdrawals reached $691.7 million.

Solana funds record a second week of daily outflows Solana products lost $25.5 million during Oct. 12–16, with every session negative in Farside’s table. The category recorded $25 million in withdrawals across five negative sessions the previous week.

Bitwise’s BSOL accounted for $18.8 million of the latest weekly loss, calculated from its daily entries. Grayscale’s GSOL shed $6 million on Thursday, while VSOL lost $700,000 on Monday.

Friday’s $12.7 million withdrawal, entirely from BSOL, was the category’s largest daily exit of the week.

Zcash’s tracked ZCSH product lost $19.2 million, according to Farside’s daily figures. Wednesday brought $3.7 million in inflows, but Thursday’s $14.8 million withdrawal exceeded that intake.

Hyperliquid products recorded $17.5 million in weekly withdrawals. Farside’s entries show losses of $6.4 million from BHYP, $8.5 million from THYP and $2.6 million from HYPG.

Thursday accounted for $10.3 million of Hyperliquid’s weekly net outflow, including $7.1 million from THYP. Farside recorded zero net flows across all three products on Tuesday and Friday.

TLDR:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Cover image via U.Today Disclaimer: The opinions expressed by our writers are their own and do not represent the views of U.Today. The financial and market information provided on U.Today is intended for informational purposes only. U.Today is not liable for any financial losses incurred while trading cryptocurrencies. Conduct your own research by contacting financial experts before making any investment decisions. We believe that all content is accurate as of the date of publication, but certain offers mentioned may no longer be available.

In an X conversation, Cardano founder Charles Hoskinson answered whether the Cardano blockchain network is complete. An X user had asked the question, "Is Cardano finished? Meaning completed?"

In response, Hoskinson pointed to one major milestone that remains before he considers Cardano completed: the Leios upgrade.

I'm working on a concept that only midnight can bring to the cryptocurrency space that solves most of the problems. Almost have all of it designed conceptually. It's the magnum opus of my career

HOT Stories

— Charles Hoskinson (@IOHK_Charles) October 17, 2026 "After Leios, yes. It has everything I wanted to do," Hoskinson answered. "Decentralized consensus, governance and development, EUTXO, Plutus, infinitely scalable, secure, built with formal methods, multiple independent nodes, recursively self-improving, and millions of people hold Ada," he continued.

The question from the X user about whether Cardano is complete comes after Hoskinson revealed that he was working on a concept that only Midnight a Cardano-related privacy sidechain can bring to the crypto space and that solves most of the problems. Hoskinson stated that he had almost designed it conceptually, describing it as the magnum opus of his career.

Leios upgradeLeios, which was mentioned by the Cardano founder, refers to Cardano's next-generation consensus and scaling upgrade designed to massively increase transaction throughput and speed without sacrificing decentralization or security.

You Might Also Like

Leios delivers a phased throughput increase on mainnet, scaling from 2x to 30x current capacity, with full capacity demonstrated on testnet first. In September 2026, IOG developers demonstrated about 1,000 TPS with Ouroboros Leios in testing.

The public testnet (known as MusashiNet or Musashi Dojo) launched on June 23, 2026, rolling out through five phases (Earth, Water, Fire, Wind, Void). According to a recent update from Input Output, the Musashi Dojo testnet has entered its Fire phase.

Leios accelerates Cardano throughputCardano's current consensus protocol, Ouroboros Praos, was designed for security and decentralization but was not designed for the throughput that a globally adopted layer 1 needs. Enter Leios, which enhances Praos by adding endorser blocks and committee-based validation, which increase the number of transactions Cardano can process.

You Might Also Like

Leios aims to increase throughput from about 5–10 transactions per second (TPS) to around 100 TPS, with a longer-term target of 1,000 TPS or more, subject to validation and parameter selection.

Areas where higher throughput could have a meaningful impact include global microtransaction ecosystems, decentralized supply chain tracking, scalable DeFi with time-sensitive transactions, decentralized identity for large populations, and real-time voting systems.

Algorand (ALGO) says it has processed millions of post-quantum transactions on mainnet since Google's quantum paper, using NIST-selected Falcon signatures.

@Algorand says it has processed roughly 1.7 million post-quantum transactions on mainnet since @Google published its widely discussed research on quantum threats to cryptocurrencies, as the network pushes its early start on quantum-resistant security as a competitive edge for $ALGO.

The figure is a company claim and has shifted in recent weeks. Algorand's own posts earlier this week cited , and secondary coverage has since reported . The numbers have not been independently audited in the sources reviewed.

What Google's paper changedThe research behind the debate was published on March 30 by Google Quantum AI. The authors stressed that such attacks are not yet feasible.

The paper also pointed to chains already working on the problem. According to a market report, The same report noted that , only that it had implemented features to support future migration.

How Algorand's approach worksAlgorand's technical documentation says The chain's history is also protected: That is only part of the picture, however. Algorand's own write-up says the hardest remaining step

There are trade-offs. , which

Other networks are also preparing. One analysis noted that It also described @Starknet as using hash-based cryptography that is Algorand's transaction count, if it holds, shows live usage rather than roadmaps, though the volume does not settle how the wider industry will migrate.

Sources

Algorand technical brief on Falcon-signed transactionsThe Quantum Insider on Google's quantum paperThe Defiant on the Google Quantum AI whitepaper

Uniswap just had its best month ever, and most of the credit goes to a blockchain that didn’t exist in June.

The decentralized exchange generated $14.81 million in protocol revenue in September 2026. Robinhood Chain, a Layer-2 network that went live on July 1, 2026, accounted for 53% of that total.

A newcomer carries the quarter
Token Terminal released September figures based on on-chain data in early October 2026. Its numbers put Uniswap’s protocol revenue at approximately $14.7 million, the highest monthly figure the protocol has recorded to date.

Robinhood Chain’s 53% slice works out to roughly $7.8 million. In other words, one network out-earned all of Uniswap’s other deployments combined.

The engine behind that surge was trading in tokenized stocks and other assets. Tokenized stocks are blockchain-based tokens designed to track the value of traditional equities, letting users trade them on-chain rather than through a conventional brokerage.

Why the fees were so rich
Uniswap’s average fee capture on Robinhood Chain sits at 0.465% per trade. Across Uniswap globally, the average is 0.214%.

Uniswap also dominated the chain’s trading flow. On September 1, 2026, Robinhood Chain processed $1.95 billion in total daily volume, and $1.75 billion of that ran through Uniswap’s liquidity pools.

How Uniswap got its foot in the door
Robinhood Chain is built on Arbitrum, one of the established Layer-2 networks that sit on top of Ethereum. Layer-2s batch transactions off the main chain to make trading cheaper and faster.

Uniswap was integrated as the chain’s primary automated market maker from day one. It deployed its full product lineup at launch: v2, v3, v4 and UniswapX.

Fee collection on Robinhood Chain did not begin immediately. Uniswap started collecting protocol fees on the network on July 27, 2026, nearly four weeks after launch.

The October cooldown
By early October 2026, daily transactions on Robinhood Chain had fallen by more than 40%. That signals a moderation in trading activity after September’s surge.

Concentration cuts both ways. The same dependence that powered the record could just as easily drag the next month’s figures lower.

What this means for Uniswap and DeFi
Tokenized stocks are generating fee capture well above Uniswap’s global average, which suggests traders in this asset class are willing to pay more per trade than typical crypto swappers.

A single chain supplying 53% of monthly revenue creates real concentration exposure, and the more than 40% drop in Robinhood Chain’s daily transactions shows how quickly early enthusiasm can cool.

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