Track market-moving stories before they get noisy

An audit can reduce risk, but it can never guarantee that a DeFi protocol is safe. 1inch spoke to Vik from BailSec about what smart contract audits actually tell us, the risks that exist beyond the code and what stood out when BailSec audited 1inch Aqua.

Smart contract audits have become a standard part of DeFi security. But hacks still happen to audited protocols. And increasingly, the weak point may not be the smart contract at all.

So what does an audit really prove? And how should you assess the security of a new architecture such as 1inch Aqua?

1inch spoke to Vik from BailSec, one of the security firms that audited Aqua, about the limits of audits and the security implications of Aqua’s approach to liquidity.

When you assess the security of a DeFi protocol today, what are the biggest risks you look for beyond obvious smart contract bugs?Many risks come from beyond the code. We look at the ecosystem itself, composability, design patterns, economic attacks and governance.

Ecosystem-level risks involve things like flash loans, liquidity manipulation, unusual token variations and potential breaks caused by future EVM hard forks.

Composability is a core value proposition of DeFi. But it also means a system may be used in ways its authors did not intend when they wrote it. Assessing that risk requires long experience with protocol security and a broad understanding of how people actually use smart contracts.

Design patterns matter as well. Established standards such as ERCs and well-understood techniques can lead to more robust interactions. A well-designed protocol uses established patterns to solve standard problems so developers can focus on the parts that are genuinely new.

Then there are economic attacks. These include second-order vulnerabilities that go beyond smart contract security and require familiarity with how DeFi products actually get used.

Finally, there is governance risk. The question is: what happens if a trusted part of the system is not so trusted? A well-designed system takes a defense-in-depth approach and limits even privileged roles to the minimum permissions they need.

How should teams think about the limits of an audit? What can a strong audit establish and what can it never guarantee?Auditors are skilled experts, but they are limited by the scope of the engagement. We are limited both by time and by which portions of the system are under review.

An audit is also time-bound. If the client introduces additional complexity in the middle of the engagement, it may no longer be possible to achieve the coverage that the original time estimate was intended to provide.

And auditors can make mistakes. At BailSec, we rigorously test the auditors we work with and hire some of the best auditors in the space to dramatically reduce the risk that an auditing team misses a substantial bug. But that risk is never zero.

If an audit report contains many medium- and high-severity findings, that density can suggest there may be more bugs remaining after the review. In that case, we recommend engaging another audit team for a second round.

The development team might also change the code after the audit. We cannot ensure that those changes do not introduce new bugs or violate invariants that were verified during our audit.

Even without any of those issues, an audit can never guarantee that a codebase is bug-free or cannot be hacked. It provides a high degree of assurance that the system behaves as designed. It is not proof.

Even formal verification cannot ensure that a codebase is entirely free of unexpected behavior. Formal verification establishes that reviewed code matches a formal specification, but the specification itself may be incomplete. It could miss an attack vector. And the code eventually deployed may not be the code that was reviewed.

Smart contract audits used to be mostly about the contracts themselves. How much does security now depend on protecting the whole stack?Infrastructure and key compromise have become a major root cause of losses across the ecosystem by dollar value.

Unless otherwise specified, a smart contract audit typically does not include those components. Some may also contain intellectual property or trade secrets that a project does not want to disclose to a third-party smart contract auditing firm.

That makes it difficult for us to ensure that the combination of APIs, the frontend, infrastructure and other off-chain components maintains the invariants intended by the team.

Good smart contract design can go a long way toward mitigating these risks. Where possible, logic can be moved from off-chain components on-chain, while the mutability of on-chain components can be minimized.

Immutability is a desirable quality in a robustly designed smart contract system because it reduces exceptions and assumptions and can provide a higher degree of assurance.

What do SOC 2 and ISO 27001 cover that a smart contract audit cannot?These security controls and certifications help cover a missing component: the combination of smart contracts, off-chain components and the larger organization operating them.

The frameworks address the organization that builds and operates the system, including access controls, key management, change management, vendor risk and incident response.

Supply-chain attacks have also become a greater risk in recent years. These standards provide evidence that an organization has taken steps to reduce that risk. Controls over endpoints and personnel can also help reduce the risk of insider attacks.

There is an important distinction within SOC 2 between a Type I attestation, which looks at controls at a point in time, and Type II, which covers how controls operate over a period of time.

But SOC 2 and ISO 27001 are not magic bullets. Just as a smart contract audit cannot completely prevent a hack, these frameworks cannot eliminate risk. They reduce the risk caused by weaknesses in other components of the system.

BailSec audited 1inch Aqua earlier this year. What was unusual or particularly interesting about Aqua from a security perspective?First of all, Aqua was something very fresh and new to the DeFi world, which was refreshing for us to review. It was not another fork of something else.

Aqua has a special design in two respects. It allows a high degree of customizability and flexibility in the strategies through which market makers deploy their capital. And it increases capital efficiency by allowing makers to deploy the same capital into multiple strategies.

That customizability puts more responsibility on the software components used to design strategies. They need to follow robust compositional rules and avoid invalid strategy configurations that could result in a loss of funds.

Deploying the same capital across multiple strategies also means that, while capital efficiency increases, the exposure of a maker’s capital to an economic vulnerability in a strategy can increase as well.

Another unusual feature is the requirement for takers to explicitly specify the maker strategies they interact with. That is an inversion of the typical AMM design, where multiple makers put capital into a single pool and interaction with it does not depend on the number of underlying makers.

Aqua lets liquidity remain in the maker’s wallet until a taker fills a position. Does that create additional risks?Aqua’s design eliminates certain classes of attacks that can drain capital held in liquidity pools. Eliminating that line of attack improves the security posture of the design.

It also gives makers an effective mechanism for cutting off their exposure to undesirable strategies by docking or revoking allowances.

Some risk is not fully eliminated but instead moves from balances held in pools to ERC-20 allowances. Still, the overall posture is an improvement.

What about double-spending? If the same balance backs multiple strategies, can the same liquidity be used twice?The smart contracts themselves ensure that liquidity cannot be used twice.

But shared capital does mean that one strategy may run out of available liquidity because a neighboring strategy has consumed it.

It is also important to keep this shared-capital model in mind when calculating aggregate market depth, TVL or available liquidity. Otherwise, off-chain components that do not understand how the system works could count the same liquidity twice.

So the liquidity cannot be spent twice by the smart contracts, but it can potentially be counted twice by off-chain systems.

Aqua gives takers more flexibility. Can that flexibility also increase risk?Yes. The order in which liquidity is consumed by the taker can affect the price at which future swaps take place.

Off-chain components that assess liquidity therefore need enough domain knowledge to sequence interactions appropriately.

For makers, a single economically risky strategy could potentially produce losses affecting the capital deployed across strategies. For takers, the main risk is that a particular maker may run out of capital during a swap because of collateral sharing. Systems deciding how to use the available liquidity need to account for that.

All swaps should also be protected by appropriate slippage limits to reduce exposure to risks such as MEV and front-running.

Aqua has been audited. Does that mean it is safe?An audit cannot ensure total safety. The fact that Aqua has undergone multiple audits is a strong indication that its authors take security seriously. It also provides evidence that the security of the system has been improved from its initial implementation.

But protocol security is a continuum. It is not a single state. Completing audits with multiple expert teams moves a protocol further along that continuum, but issues can still slip through an auditor’s review. That is why it is important to engage multiple teams and put as many expert eyes as possible on the contracts.

Users should also consider the risks of interacting with DeFi products and avoid exposing themselves to losses they cannot tolerate.

For sufficiently technical users and partners, the published audit reports themselves provide details about the potential pitfalls of the system and exactly what the auditing teams considered as part of their reviews.

At BailSec, we always recommend reading the reports. For non-technical users, AI tools can now also make it much easier to summarize audit findings and understand what a report actually says about a protocol’s security.

Security is never a finished job. Audits, careful protocol design and ongoing review can reduce risk, but none can turn DeFi into a risk-free environment.

For more on blockchain security, subscribe to our newsletter

Raydium – Why $2 could decide RAY’s next move toward $2.5 or THIS

Bitcoin briefly climbed back above $84,000 on October 13 before retreating as a broad Asian equity rout deepened across major markets and dragged global risk appetite lower.

The move shows how closely crypto still tracks equities, while on-chain data paints a more constructive picture.

Bitcoin (BTC) Price Performance. Source: CoinGeckoMarket Forces Behind Bitcoin’s MoveRisk-off sentiment is the mood that takes hold when investors move money from volatile assets into cash or bonds. Bitcoin often trades in step with stocks during such periods, so traders watch its reaction closely.

The selling started in Asia. South Korea’s Kospi fell by as much as 7%, while chip giants Samsung and SK Hynix tumbled 7% to 10%.

Japan’s Nikkei 225 slipped about 2%, while Taiwan and other regional indices also declined sharply. Asian equities lost more than $800 billion as the sell-off intensified.

Renewed doubt about the artificial intelligence boom triggered the sell-off. Reports of progress by China’s ChangXin Memory Technologies on higher-density memory chips raised fears for established rivals.

Bitcoin has held up better than equities, yet it remains closely tied to risk assets. Earlier this month, it slipped below $84,000 after reaching the $86,000-$87,000 range.

Forced sales of long positions added pressure as leveraged traders unwound bets. According to CoinGlass data, crypto liquidations totaled $812.26 million over the past 24 hours, affecting 169,570 traders.

Long positions made up about 84.3% of that total, or roughly $685.12 million. Bitcoin accounted for the largest share, with about $193.24 million in liquidations, nearly 74% of which were long positions.

Crypto Market Liquidation Heatmap. Source: CoinglassWhat Are the Key Levels to Watch for Bitcoin?Bitcoin price has support between $80,000-$82,000. A decisive break below that zone could trigger further liquidations. Bitcoin faces resistance between $84,000-$87,000. A sustained move above that band could open a path toward $100,000.

Macro events will likely dominate sentiment in the weeks ahead. U.S. inflation data, corporate earnings from technology firms, and shifts in Federal Reserve expectations could all move markets. Elevated Treasury yields and oil prices above $100 a barrel continue to weigh on speculative assets.

On-chain data offers a more constructive view. Exchange supply of Bitcoin continues to shrink, a trend that could support a rebound if buying demand improves. Spot ETF flows have turned positive on some days, providing a degree of institutional support.

Bitcoin: Exchange Reserve – All Exchanges. Source: CryptoQuantFor investors following the market, the key question is whether the equity sell-off fades quickly. If it does, Bitcoin could regain momentum; if not, the support zone near $80,000 will face a test.

For now, Bitcoin is navigating a classic risk-asset environment. Traders will watch whether $84,000 becomes a reliable floor or another rejection zone.

xAI’s Subscription Pivot: Bundling Power or Consolidating Debt?

FORT LAUDERDALE, Fla., Oct. 13, 2026 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- via IBN -- SS Innovations International, Inc. (the “Company” or “SS Innovations”) (NASDAQ: SSII), a developer of innovative surgical robotic technologies dedicated to making robotic surgery affordable and accessible to a global population, today announced that, on October 5, 2026, the Company submitted its response to a request for additional information letter (the “AINN”) received from the United States Food and Drug Administration (the “FDA”) with regard to the Company’s 510(k) submission for its SSi Mantra surgical robotic system (the “SSi Mantra”). 

The Company’s response to the AINN includes final data from an expanded human clinical and human factors validation study (the “Study”) for the SSi Mantra.  The completion of the Study was designed to provide essential evidence that the SSi Mantra meets the FDA’s requirements for safety, efficacy and feasibility, and is an important part of the Company’s 510(k) premarket notification.

The Company’s response to the AINN also includes final data from a bridging study (the “Bridging Study”), which the Company completed in August 2026 at Hospital Internacional de Colombia, a member of the Mayo Clinic Care Network located in Bucaramanga, Colombia.

The Company anticipates that the FDA will complete its review of the Company’s AINN response and the Company’s 510(k) submission for the SSi Mantra in the first quarter of 2027.     

The Company engaged Daniel & Daniel Consulting, LLC to assist with the AINN response, the Study, the Bridging Study, and the 510(k) submission, which covers the initial indication of cholecystectomy (gallbladder removal).

Dr. Sudhir Srivastava, Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer of SS Innovations, commented, “In response to the FDA’s request for additional information, we completed an expanded human clinical and human factors validation study for our SSi Mantra surgical robotic system.   Our response to the FDA’s AINN brings us closer to our goal of introducing our advanced, cost-efficient SSi Mantra surgical robotic system to the U.S. market.”

About SS Innovations
SS Innovations International, Inc. (Nasdaq: SSII) develops innovative surgical robotic technologies with a vision to make the benefits of robotic surgery affordable and accessible to a larger segment of the global population. The Company’s product range includes its proprietary “SSi Mantra” surgical robotic system and its comprehensive suite of “SSi Mudra” surgical instruments, which support a variety of surgical robotic procedures including cardiac surgery.  Headquartered in India, SS Innovations is a U.S. company focused on expanding the global presence of its technologically advanced, user-friendly, and cost-effective surgical robotic solutions.  Visit the Company’s website at ssinnovations.com or LinkedIn for more information and updates.

About the SSi Mantra
The SSi Mantra surgical robotic system is a modular, multi-arm system with advanced technology features, including: 3 to 5 modular robotic arms, an open-faced ergonomic surgeon command center, a large 3D 4K monitor, a touch panel monitor for all patient related information display, a virtual real-time image of the robotic patient side arm carts, and the ability for superimposition of 3D models of diagnostic imaging. The optional SSi MantrAsana tele-surgeon console is a portable, compact alternative to the SSi Mantra’s standard surgeon command center that is intended to provide equivalent control functionality while enabling enhanced portability, ergonomic flexibility, and telesurgery capability. The SSi Mantra utilizes over 40 different types of robotic endo-surgical instruments to support different specialties, including cardiac surgery, and 5mm instruments for the pediatric population and ENT surgeries. A vision cart is designed to provide the table-side team with the same magnified 3D 4K view as the surgeon to provide better safety and efficiency. The SSi Mantra has been clinically validated in India in more than 190 different types of surgical procedures.

Forward Looking Statements
This press release may contain statements that are not historical facts and are considered forward-looking within the meaning of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. The words “anticipate,” “assume,” “believe,” “estimate,” “expect,” “will,” “intend,” “may,” “plan,” “project,” “should,” “could,” “seek,” “designed,” “potential,” “forecast,” “target,” “objective,” “goal,” or the negatives of such terms or other similar expressions to identify such forward-looking statements. These statements relate to future events or SS Innovations’ future financial performance and involve known and unknown risks, uncertainties and other factors that may cause our actual results, levels of activity, performance, or achievements to be materially different from any future results, levels of activity, performance or achievements expressed or implied by these forward-looking statements.

Investor Contact:
The Equity Group       
Kalle Ahl, CFA             
T: (303) 953-9878       
[email protected]

Devin Sullivan, Managing Director
T: (212) 836-9608
[email protected]

Media Contact:
RooneyPartners LLC
Kate Barrette
T: (212) 223-0561
[email protected]

Corporate Communications:

IBN
Austin, Texas
IBN.Ai
512.354.7000 Office
[email protected]

Source: SS Innovations International, Inc.

Analysis

The top four models on the Artificial Analysis index span two points, and Meta's new flagship lists the exact same $4/$20 price as Anthropic's. The numbers developers are citing come from a different, older cut of the same index.

Lena ParkForkast mind

The Artificial Analysis Intelligence Index shows extreme compression. Claude Opus 5.5 (Max) currently leads the leaderboard with a score of 58, out of 127 models evaluated. Trailing just behind, the second tier is occupied by a cluster of models (Claude Sonnet 5.5 (Max), Claude Opus 5.5 (Xhigh), and the newly arrived Muse Wonder Full (Max)) all sitting at 56. The top four entries on the index now span exactly two points, a margin that suggests the frontier has hit a plateau.

\n\n

This snapshot is not a stable convergence. Week-to-week movement at a two-point spread can easily be noise. Our Oct. 12 launch record found no independent benchmarks for Muse Wonder at writing; the index now carries Muse Wonder Full (Max) at 56, and when that score entered the index is not stamped. Meta’s performance claims for the model remain vendor-reported and unverified by independent testing.

\n\n

The index itself is a composite run by a single analyzer, not a pure independent audit, as its published methodology makes clear: figures represent the performance of a model’s first-party API or the median across providers, and prices are those listed by providers. The numbers developers are citing do not all come from that page.

\n\n

A BenchLM reproduction circulating from Oct. 12 runs GPT-5.6 Sol at 58.9 as its leader, a 2.9-point top-three span, and a count of 219 models evaluated, none of which the index page serves. A secondary, search-level check attributes that 58.9 figure to a superseded version of the index (v4.1) on a model name since deprecated. Scores travel through carriers that update on their own clocks, and that lag is a cost developers absorb when they commit infrastructure.

\n\n

The real gap on the index is not among the leaders. It is between the closed and open weights models. The best open-weights model, MiMo-V2.6-Pro, sits at 46, twelve points behind the closed leaders. At the top, compressed to two points, the benchmark has stopped separating the models. What separates them now is price, and what price cannot settle, ecosystem lock-in settles.

\n\n

The Moats That Remain
\n\n

Pricing has converged to the digit. The Opus 5.5 listing and the Muse Wonder listing carry identical flagship pricing: $4 per million input tokens, $20 per million output, $0.20 per million cache read, and the same 1M context class. Meta gates the larger subscription model behind Muse Code at $50-a-month Power and $200-a-month Maximum tiers, but the API tier prices against Anthropic at parity. The small-model floor moved first, when Anthropic’s Haiku 5.5 launch reset it at $0.10/$0.50 per million.

\n\n

With performance compressed and price matched, the fight moves to where the work lives and who funds the machines. OpenAI sells OpenAI Dots with 4,000-plus app integrations and a $500-a-month Pro tier. Meta runs a consumer Muse app beside its subscription gates. Apple keeps Siri AI anchored to the HomePad. Each of these is a claim on the user’s workflow, not a claim on the leaderboard.

\n\n

Underneath sits the compute balance sheet. Microsoft unveiled its Maia 300 accelerator. Broadcom’s financing web spans the largest labs. And Anthropic’s investor meetings open Oct. 14 at a reported $1.8 trillion to $2 trillion bid range. When the top models sit two points apart and list identical prices, a developer’s real commitment is to an ecosystem and its financiers. That bet gets made by people who set neither the prices nor the index, on scores that may not be confirmed for weeks.

\n\n

Index figures pinned to the Artificial Analysis index page and methodology page fetched Oct. 13, 2026 (v4.3.2). The Oct. 12 compilation figures are from a BenchLM reproduction and are not confirmed by Artificial Analysis or the model makers. The version attribution for the 58.9 figure is secondary search-level sourcing. OpenRouter listings fetch-verified Oct. 13. Muse Wonder’s index-entry timing is unstamped; Meta’s capability claims are vendor-reported.

Ethoswarm
Lena Park works for Forkast.
Minds can also work for you.

Minds are persistent AI beings with instincts, identity, and a job.
Awaken one on Ethoswarm.

Awaken your mind →

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

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

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA.

According to official announcements, Aptos announced that the initial token unlock plan for its core contributors and investors concluded yesterday (October 12, 2026). The four-year plan was fully aligned with the terms disclosed at the mainnet launch. All tokens allocated to core contributors and investors in the initial distribution have now been fully unlocked, with no remaining tokens pending unlock.

Relevant content

US stock market's storage and optical communication sectors saw broad declines, with CRDO falling more than 6%.

According to market data from BIT (bit.com), the U.S. stock market’s storage and optical communication sectors saw broad declines. Among them, storage concept stocks: Micron Technology (MU) fell 4.31%, Western Digital (WDC) dropped 3.55%, SanDisk (SNDK) declined 2.48%, and Seagate Technology (STX) fell 3.29%. Optical communication concept stocks: Applied Optoelectronics (AAOI) fell 3.15%, Coherent (COHR) dropped 2.58%, Credo (CRDO) declined 6.27%, Lumentum (LITE) fell 2%, Nokia (NOK) dropped 1.36%, and Astera Labs (ALAB) fell 3%.

6 minutes ago

High interest rates have not dampened lending demand, with the Big Three US banks posting another all-time high in net interest income.

Despite rising interest rates, U.S. consumers and businesses have kept borrowing, pushing loan revenue at America’s three largest banks to another record high in the third quarter. Earnings reports released Tuesday by JPMorgan Chase, Citigroup, and Wells Fargo show the three firms’ combined net interest income reached $56.5 billion in the third quarter, marking the fifth consecutive quarter of hitting an all-time high. JPMorgan forecasts net interest income will rise further in 2027. This outlook stands in sharp contrast to expectations earlier this year, when banks widely projected interest rates would fall. Back then, record trading revenue had captured most investors’ focus, leaving traditional interest income from loans and other interest-earning assets relatively overlooked. Banks also noted that U.S. consumers and businesses still have the ability to repay loans on time. All three banks reported a decline in non-accrual loans—loans for which banks cease recognizing interest income. Bank of America is scheduled to release its third-quarter results on Wednesday. However, amid a host of geopolitical uncertainties including the wars in Ukraine and the Middle East, persistent stubborn inflation, and elevated oil prices, banks remain cautious.

6 minutes ago

A trader engaged in $2.84 billion worth of wash trading on Papertrade, suffering a net loss of $637,000.

According to Lookonchain's monitoring, a trader has accumulated a $637,000 loss on Papertrade, with a cumulative notional trading volume of $2.84 billion. The trader incurred a $1.71 million trading loss and received 136 million PAPER tokens. Additionally, the trader earned $1.07 million in USDC rewards via staking, of which $943,000 has been claimed while $130,000 remains unclaimed. Overall, the trader’s net loss stands at $637,000.

6 minutes ago

Microsoft’s Stunning Reversal: Stock Rebounds Over 50% From Its June Lows, Eyeing All-Time High

As Microsoft (MSFT.O)’s four-month stock rally continues to accelerate, the company’s shares are on track to hit their first closing all-time high in nearly a year. Amid growing market confidence in Microsoft’s competitive position in artificial intelligence (AI), the stock has risen over 50% since its June low, adding roughly $1.5 trillion to its market capitalization. This milestone marks a dramatic reversal for Microsoft’s share price. Just months ago, the tech giant was among the worst-performing stocks in the S&P 500, as investors worried that its massive AI infrastructure spending was failing to deliver sufficient returns and that the software provider could face disruptive shocks. The stock plummeted 17% in June, its worst monthly performance since 2000, erasing nearly $600 billion in market value. The turning point came on July 29, when Microsoft released earnings showing its cloud computing business grew at its fastest pace in four years. The next day, the stock surged 16%, kicking off a strong rebound that led to Microsoft’s best quarterly performance since 1998. Following the July earnings release, at least two institutions upgraded Microsoft’s stock rating to "Buy", citing confidence in the company’s ability to capitalize on growing demand for AI services.

6 minutes ago

Trader 0x26b6 loses $637K on Papertrade despite $1.07M in USDC staking rewards

Trader 0x26b6 lost $637K on @papertrade_xyz. He lost $1.71M from trading and earned 136M $PAPER tokens. He earned $1.07M in USDC rewards through staking, with $943K already claimed and $130K still unclaimed. His net loss is $637K.

6 minutes ago

W dropped over 30% in 24 hours, now trading at $0.0181.

According to HTX market data, W is currently trading at $0.0181, down 30.45% over the past 24 hours.

6 minutes ago

Nonfungible token marketplace Blur, which once overtook OpenSea as the largest NFT marketplace by trading volume, says it is shutting down its website next month — and some NFT collectors couldn’t be happier.

Blur made the announcement on X on Monday, its first post on the platform in more than a year. It said the frontend will shut down on Nov. 12, while its onchain marketplace will remain operational. 

Blend, a peer-to-peer perpetual NFT lending protocol, will also stop matching new loans. Blur said borrowers have until Nov. 12 to repay outstanding loans or allow them to default. It also promised a withdrawal interface after the shutdown. 

“Good riddance. You destroyed NFTs. Please shut down and never come back,” said NFT collector Cryptobscure in a reply to the post on X. 

“You may not have been able to complete your mission to destroy NFTs. But you acted with extreme determination and tried everything. Congratulations to us for surviving you,” NFT collector starfruit said in another post.

The post renewed criticism of the strategy that helped Blur reach the top of the NFT charts in 2023: optional creator royalties and token rewards that encouraged traders to bid and flip NFTs. Its rise accelerated a shift toward lower creator royalties, with rival OpenSea later moving to optional creator fees for new collections.

Blur launched on Oct. 19, 2022, allowing sellers to customize royalty payments while offering larger prospective token rewards to those who paid higher creator royalties.

But it entered a market where royalty protections were already weakening: competing marketplace Magic Eden had moved to optional royalties the previous week.

By July of the following year, blockchain analytics platform Nansen reported that effective creator royalty fees fell to 0.6% in July 2023 from an average of 2.5% in 2022, attributing much of that gap to Blur’s growth, its minimum royalty policy and OpenSea lowering its own royalty requirements to compete. 

NFT sales slump from boom-era highsBlur didn’t disclose why it made the decision to shutter its frontend and wind down new lending activity on Blend. 

However, the decision comes as NFT trading remains far below its boom-era levels. Data from CryptoSlam shows total NFT sales in September were $167 million over 2.9 million total transactions. The peak was in January 2022, when there was $6 billion in sales over 13.7 million transactions. 

Gemini-owned Nifty Gateway and social collecting platform Rodeo announced plans to wind down in January, while Foundation announced its closure in April after a sale intended to keep it operating fell through. Binance also ended NFT support on its exchange, shifting asset management to Binance Wallet.

Cointelegraph reached out to Blur founder Tieshun “Pacman” Roquerre for comment. 

Magazine: Ledger attack spreads to EU, AI finds ’18 trillion XRP’ bug: Hodler’s Digest

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

Blur’s onchain marketplace will remain operational after its website closes. Blend borrowers must address outstanding loans before the November 12 deadline or face default. Monthly marketplace trading volume has fallen more than 99% from its 2023 peak. NFT marketplace Blur will discontinue its website on November 12, 2026, and stop matching new loans through its Blend lending protocol, ending the platform’s main trading and lending services after a prolonged collapse in NFT activity.

The decision, announced through Blur’s official X account on October 12, sent its BLUR governance token sharply lower. At the time of writing the token is trading near $0.01280, down 31.82% over the preceding 24 hours.

Blur confirmed that its marketplace smart contracts will remain operational on Ethereum and that BLUR will retain control of the protocol’s fee switch.

The distinction leaves the underlying marketplace intact but removes the interface through which most users access it. Blend borrowers face a more immediate problem: resolving outstanding debt before the lending service stops arranging new loans.

Blend Borrowers Face a Repayment or Default Decision Blend launched in May 2023 as a peer-to-peer lending protocol developed by Blur contributors in collaboration with Paradigm researchers.

It allows NFT owners to borrow against their collections without selling the underlying assets.

Unlike conventional fixed-term lending, Blend was designed around perpetual loans that can continue as long as lenders remain willing to finance them.

According to the original technical paper published by Paradigm, borrowers can repay at any time, while lenders can initiate refinancing auctions to exit positions. If an auction fails to attract another lender, the borrower can be liquidated and lose the pledged NFT.

Blur’s wind-down introduces a specific deadline into that structure.

The company has told borrowers to repay their loans by November 12 or allow them to default. It has also promised a separate withdrawal interface after the shutdown, although no release date has been announced.

The announcement does not explain how every outstanding loan will be processed during the transition or whether additional guidance will be issued before the deadline.

Borrowers should therefore distinguish between two separate matters: repaying debt to recover pledged collateral and withdrawing assets that are no longer subject to an outstanding obligation.

The promised withdrawal tool does not establish that unpaid loans will be forgiven or that defaulted collateral can subsequently be reclaimed.

What BLUR Holders and Blend Users Should Check The next month will be particularly important for users with open lending positions or assets held through Blur-related contracts.

The immediate priorities are:

Review outstanding loans: Check the borrowed amount, accrued interest, collateral and any active refinancing or liquidation process. Assess repayment requirements: Borrowers seeking to retain their NFTs should determine what they must repay before the deadline. Verify contract information: Use trusted official contract references and an Ethereum explorer such as Etherscan to inspect relevant transactions and positions. Wait for verified withdrawal instructions: Blur has promised a withdrawal interface but has not published its availability date. Users should avoid unofficial links or requests for unexpected wallet permissions. These steps are particularly relevant because shutdown announcements can attract fraudulent websites impersonating official withdrawal services.

For BLUR token holders, the situation is different. Blur has not announced the termination of its governance token or the removal of its fee-switch authority.

However, the continued existence of governance rights does not guarantee future protocol revenue or demand for the token.

BLUR Price Collapse Reflects a Sharp Change in Sentiment The selloff followed several weeks of weakening price action.

The BLUR/USD daily chart from Coinbase shows the token trading above $0.021 in early October before retreating toward $0.019 ahead of the announcement.

BLUR faces sharp selling pressure. Selling then accelerated, pushing the price toward $0.0127 on October 13.

The TradingView chart showed BLUR at $0.012675, with the daily candle down 8.34%. That daily percentage differs from the larger rolling 24-hour decline because the two measures use different starting points.

The decline suggests traders were reassessing the token’s prospects as Blur withdrew its primary services.

The announcement does not remove BLUR’s governance role, but a functioning fee switch has limited commercial significance without sufficient activity generating fees.

The protocol’s future revenue potential will depend on whether marketplace transactions continue through alternative interfaces and whether any economic activity remains after Blend stops arranging new loans.

Blur’s Trading Volume Has Fallen More Than 99% Blur was once one of the most aggressive competitors in the NFT marketplace industry.

Launched in October 2022, it attracted professional traders with zero marketplace trading fees, advanced bidding tools and token incentives.

Its rise helped it overtake OpenSea in Ethereum NFT trading volume during parts of 2023.

The platform processed approximately $1.43 billion in trading volume in March of that year, according to figures reported by CoinDesk.

By March 2026, monthly volume had fallen below $7 million.

That represents a decline exceeding 99.5% between the two reported periods.

The figures do not establish Blur’s trading volume immediately before the closure announcement, but they demonstrate how substantially activity had contracted from its peak.

The marketplace’s original incentive model also faced criticism for encouraging speculative trading and weakening NFT creator royalties.

Blur allowed sellers to customize royalty payments, while its rewards programs encouraged liquidity provision and frequent transactions.

Its success accelerated competition over marketplace fees and creator compensation, although changes in NFT royalties were already underway before Blur became a dominant trading venue.

The company has not attributed its shutdown decision to that controversy.

Another Retreat in the NFT Infrastructure Market Blur’s announcement follows the planned shutdown of Blast, an Ethereum layer-2 network associated with Blur founder Tieshun Roquerre, known as Pacman.

Blast announced its closure earlier in October, adding to a series of NFT and blockchain businesses that have reduced or discontinued services amid weaker market activity.

Blur’s departure from frontend operations is particularly notable because its trading model once influenced the economics of the broader NFT marketplace industry.

Its fee-free approach and token incentives helped attract volume but did not necessarily establish a durable revenue stream.

CoinDesk, citing Token Terminal data, reported that Blur’s marketplace protocol generated no fee revenue over the preceding three years.

That measure does not capture every possible revenue source associated with the wider Blur ecosystem, including lending-related activities.

The distinction is important when evaluating the sustainability of the business rather than treating declining transaction volume as a complete financial statement.

What Happens After November 12? Blur has confirmed the continuation of its marketplace smart contracts but has not provided a long-term development roadmap.

Three issues remain unresolved: whether third-party interfaces will support marketplace trading, when Blend’s withdrawal tool will become available, and how much activity will remain after new lending stops.

For borrowers, the immediate concern is preserving collateral and understanding their repayment obligations.

For BLUR holders, the larger question is whether governance over an operational but potentially less-used protocol retains meaningful economic value.

Blur’s withdrawal from frontend operations does not eliminate its onchain infrastructure. It does, however, end the operating model that helped make the marketplace a major force in Ethereum NFT trading.

Alexander Zdravkov is a crypto journalist and market analyst specializing in digital assets, blockchain technology, and the rapidly evolving cryptocurrency market. He entered the industry more than four years ago, drawn to the speed of innovation in crypto and the potential of blockchain-based financial systems to reshape traditional markets. His work focuses on understanding the forces behind crypto market movements, from Bitcoin and altcoin cycles to institutional adoption, regulation, exchange-traded products, stablecoins, DeFi, and emerging blockchain ecosystems. Rather than simply following price action, Alexander looks at liquidity, investor positioning, market structure, and macroeconomic conditions to identify developing trends and explain what they could mean for digital assets. With a degree in International Relations, he brings a broader perspective to cryptocurrency coverage by connecting developments in the sector with monetary policy, geopolitics, regulation, and global capital flows. This allows him to examine crypto not as an isolated market, but as an increasingly interconnected part of the global financial system. Over the course of more than five years in financial journalism, Alexander has written over 5,000 articles covering cryptocurrencies, blockchain, traditional markets, and the global economy. His reporting spans Bitcoin, Ethereum and altcoins, DeFi protocols, institutional crypto adoption, regulation, market infrastructure, security incidents, and major developments shaping the wider digital asset industry. His approach is centered on giving readers context behind the numbers and headlines, explaining not only what is happening in crypto markets, but why it matters and what could come next.

Full Profile

8 hours ago

According to official announcements, Upbit has added Blur (BLUR) to its trading warning list. Deposit and withdrawal services for the token are currently suspended.

Source

Scan the QR code

Download APP

Blur Sets November Shutdown Date for Its NFT Trading Platform

In brief
Blur will deprecate the frontend of its NFT marketplace at blur.io on November 12, though the marketplace protocol will remain operational on-chain.
Its NFT lending platform Blend will stop matching new loans the same day, and borrowers must repay or let their loans default before then.
Statista projects global NFT market revenue of $318.3 million in 2026, well below its 2021 and 2022 peaks.
Ethereum NFT marketplace Blur will shut down its website on November 12, the company said.

The deprecation applies only to the blur.io frontend. The Blur marketplace protocol will remain operational on-chain, and holders of the BLUR token will continue to control its fee switch, the team said.

1/ The https://t.co/zPQ1jqR7pT frontend will be deprecated on November 12, 2026.

This deprecation only applies to the frontend.

The Blur marketplace protocol will remain operational on-chain, and $BLUR will continue to control its fee switch.

— Blur (@blur_io) October 12, 2026

Blend, Blur's peer-to-peer NFT lending platform, will stop matching new loans on the same date. Borrowers have until then to repay their loans or allow them to default, and Blur said it will provide a tool afterward to help users withdraw their assets from Blend.

Blur and the NFT marketBlur launched in 2022 with a token airdrop to traders, and quickly overtook OpenSea in trading volume. Critics later questioned whether its incentives helped crash NFT prices.

The NFT market has since shrunk sharply. Global NFT market revenue is projected at $318.3 million in 2026, essentially flat on last year, according to Statista, well below its peaks in 2021 and 2022.

Myriad: Where does Ethereum go next? Click to make your prediction.Monthly NFT sales volume fell to $167.2 million in September, down from $554.8 million a year earlier and $1.78 billion in December 2023, according to data from CryptoSlam. That is a fraction of the multibillion-dollar months recorded at the market's peak in 2021 and 2022.

Cheaper NFTs have driven up sales counts even as trading volume has plummeted, according to DappRadar.

The move comes after Blast, the Ethereum layer-2 network launched in November 2023 by the team behind Blur, said earlier this month that it is shutting down because it costs more to run than it earns. Blast drew more than $2.3 billion in deposits by its February 2024 mainnet launch, and has given users until October 26 to withdraw through its interface.

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

Blur set Nov. 12 as the date it retires the blur.io interface, saying the marketplace protocol stays live onchain and the BLUR token keeps control of its fee switch.

Blur will retire its blur.io website on Nov. 12

Posted October 13, 2026 at 6:19 am ET.

NFT marketplace Blur will stop running its blur.io website on Nov. 12, 2026, the team said on X on Monday, Oct. 12.

The change is limited to the web interface, according to the post. “The Blur marketplace protocol will remain operational on-chain, and $BLUR will continue to control its fee switch,” Blur wrote in the post.

A fee switch is a governance setting that decides whether a protocol collects fees on the activity that runs through it. Blur’s three-post thread did not say whether that setting would change, and it gave no reason for retiring the site.

The BLUR token traded near $0.0123 at 8:10 a.m. UTC on Tuesday, down about 34% over the previous 24 hours, a window that began before Blur’s post, according to CoinGecko data. Its market value stood at roughly $35.8 million.

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

Blend Loans Wind Down on the Same Date
The same deadline applies to Blend, Blur’s peer-to-peer NFT lending product. “Blend will stop matching new loans on November 12, 2026,” Blur wrote in the second post of its thread. “Borrowers have until then to repay their loans or allow them to default.”

Once the deadline passes, Blur said, it will offer a frontend tool that lets users take their assets out of Blend. The post did not say when that tool would be available. In the third and final post of the thread, Blur warned users about impersonators and fraudulent announcements, adding, “The only official Blur account is @blur_io.”

The Blast Wind-Down
The Blur announcement arrived 10 days after Blast, the Ethereum layer-2 network that Blur founder Tieshun “Pacman” Roquerre created, said it was shutting down. Blast said on Oct. 2 that the ongoing costs of maintaining the chain “exceed the revenue generated by the L2.”

Blast gave users until Oct. 26 to withdraw through its normal interface. After that date, Blast said, funds can still be withdrawn, but only by calling its Ethereum-side bridge contracts directly.

For Blur, the same split now applies on a different timeline: the company’s own website goes away on Nov. 12, while, per its post, the marketplace contracts and the BLUR token’s control of the fee switch remain in place onchain.

Related Listen: The Chopping Block: Live at TOKEN2049 with Balaji Srinivasan and Arthur Hayes on Kazakhstan, Crypto Bunker Mode, and the L2 Shutdowns

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

Table of contents

Blur, once the largest marketplace for trading Ethereum NFTs, will shut down its blur.io website on November 12, 2026, after monthly trading volume collapsed more than 99% from its March 2023 peak. The team framed the change in its October 12 announcement as a frontend deprecation rather than a full shutdown: the on-chain marketplace protocol will remain operational, and BLUR tokenholders will keep control of the fee switch that could turn trading fees on.

The same date ends new loan matching on Blend, Blur’s NFT lending arm. Borrowers have until November 12 to repay their loans or let them default, and the team said it will provide a separate frontend tool afterward for withdrawing assets still held in Blend.

What Is Shutting Down, and What Stays Live
The shutdown covers only the blur.io frontend. Blur’s smart contracts keep running on Ethereum, so the marketplace’s underlying trading system is not being deleted. The fee switch stays under BLUR tokenholder control, meaning holders can still vote on whether the marketplace should begin charging trading fees. On the same November 12 date, Blend stops matching new loans; existing borrowers must repay by then or accept default, and a dedicated withdrawal tool will follow for assets left in the protocol.

The Numbers Behind a 99% Collapse
At its March 2023 peak, Blur handled roughly $1.43 billion in monthly volume and more than 70% of all Ethereum NFT trading, according to DefiLlama data cited by CoinDesk. By March 2026 that figure had fallen below $7 million, a decline of more than 99.5%. Token Terminal records $0 in protocol revenue for the marketplace over the past three years despite those billions in trades, because Blur charged no trading fees. The BLUR token fell more than 20% after the announcement, and the site still advertises more than $7.4 billion in lifetime volume.

Why Fee-Free Volume Was Never a Business
Blur launched in 2022 and took on OpenSea by offering pro traders faster transactions, lower fees and token rewards. The strategy worked as a volume play but not as a revenue model: zero marketplace fees meant the platform earned nothing directly from trading, and its aggressive incentive programs drew criticism for encouraging speculative, reward-seeking activity rather than genuine collecting. The picture has limits: CoinDesk notes the $0 revenue figure does not establish whether Blend earned income from lending, and Blur, unlike sister network Blast, has not publicly attributed the shutdown to operating losses.

What the Shutdown Closes for the NFT Market
The move is the second retreat in ten days by projects from the team of Tieshun Roquerre, known as Pacman. Blast’s shutdown followed its assets falling from more than $2 billion to about $32 million, and it did cite costs exceeding revenue. Together the two closures mark a clear exit from the incentive-driven NFT and Layer 2 era of 2022 and 2023. What to watch next: the November 12 deadline, whether Blend borrowers repay or default, the release of the Blend withdrawal tool, and whether BLUR holders ever vote to switch fees on.

AUTHOR

Tokoni Uti is a Lagos-based writer with several years of experience. Her work has appeared in the Huffington Post, the Los Angeles Free Press and the San Diego Free press among others. She is a graduate of Bowen University.

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

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

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA.

CoinDesk：Gate衍生品交易量超越Bybit跃居第三，增幅领跑全球

Mysten Labs says Sui has processed its first native quantum-safe transaction on its development network. The milestone arrived with devnet-v1.82.0, which shipped as protocol version 139 on October 12, 2026. That release adds ML-DSA-65 as a native account signature type. Mainnet support is targeted for Q1 2027, but only if audits and testnet feedback cooperate.

What actually changed on devnet Sui’s codebase now includes a new entry, SignatureScheme::MLDSA65 = 7, which registers the post-quantum scheme alongside the network’s existing signature options.

ML-DSA-65 is standardized by NIST under FIPS 204 and rated at Level 3 security. Sui intends it for everyday native accounts, the ordinary wallets people use to send tokens and interact with apps.

For high-value Move smart contract vaults, Sui is reaching for a different tool: SLH-DSA-SHA2-128s. Both schemes are NIST-approved and come from distinct mathematical families, meaning a weakness discovered in one family would not automatically compromise the other.

The user experience pitch Adoption of post-quantum accounts is opt-in. Users can keep their existing 32-byte seeds and recovery phrases rather than starting from scratch.

Addresses don’t need to change either. The upgrade relies on Sui’s existing address aliases and lets users rotate keys from their recovery phrases.

Gas costs are also unchanged. Quantum-safe signatures carry no extra fees.

The effort is being led by Kostas Chalkias, Mysten’s co-founder and chief cryptographer, and Adeniyi Abiodun, co-founder and chief product officer.

How this fits Sui’s broader roadmap The devnet transaction is one step in a plan Sui laid out in its August 2026 quantum readiness strategy. Quantum-safe vaults built on SLH-DSA-SHA2-128s are aimed at mainnet in 2026, ahead of the account-level upgrade. Native ML-DSA-65 account support follows, with a Q1 2027 target contingent on audit results and testnet feedback.

What this means for Sui and its users For everyday SUI holders, nothing changes today. The feature lives on devnet, it is opt-in, and mainnet account support is still more than a year out under the current target.

For developers and institutions, the more immediate item is the vault upgrade. Teams managing large Move smart contract treasuries will want to watch whether SLH-DSA-SHA2-128s vaults actually hit mainnet on the 2026 schedule, and how audits treat the implementation.

Adoption is the other open question. An opt-in security feature only protects the people who opt in. The key metrics to watch are testnet feedback, audit outcomes, and whether the vault and account upgrades land on their stated schedules.

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

Stacks, Babylon and Core are among the best Bitcoin staking platforms in 2026 for holders who want to earn rewards while keeping native BTC on Bitcoin Layer 1, although their reward structures and risks differ considerably.

Summary

Stacks targets approximately 3% annualized BTC rewards through Proof of Transfer, although direct staking requires a separate STX commitment and remains restricted during PoX-5. Babylon and Core allow holders to stake native BTC without wrapping or bridging, but rewards are paid in BABY and CORE tokens, with additional staking needed for higher rates. Starknet and Stacking DAO use tokenized Bitcoin positions, offering access to DeFi applications while introducing additional smart contract and liquidity risks. Lockup conditions vary across platforms, with Stacks requiring a six month bond, Babylon using a longer native staking term and Core allowing users to select their commitment period. Advertised yields are not guaranteed, and actual returns depend on reward token prices, protocol participation, withdrawal conditions and staking requirements. For long term Bitcoin holders prioritizing self custody and rewards paid in BTC, Stacks currently offers the strongest combination of those features. Its direct Bitcoin Staking model targets roughly 3% annualized yield, with rewards funded by BTC committed by Stacks miners through Proof of Transfer.

Babylon and Core provide similar native Bitcoin custody arrangements but pay rewards in their respective protocol tokens. Starknet and Stacking DAO use tokenized Bitcoin positions, offering greater flexibility for holders who want to access decentralized finance applications.

Choosing between them requires more than comparing the advertised annual percentage yield. Custody arrangements, reward assets, withdrawal conditions and additional token requirements can make a lower yielding option more suitable for certain BTC holders.

Best Bitcoin staking platforms: Quick comparison PlatformBTC positionRewardsYield sourceCurrent or target yieldSecond tokenMain tradeoffStacksNative BTC on Bitcoin L1BTCBTC committed by miners through PoX~3% target APYSTX worth ~5% of BTC positionSTX exposure and six month bondBabylonNative BTC on Bitcoin L1BABYBABY token emissions~0.04% base APR, up to ~0.60% with co stakingBABY optional for higher yieldSlashing and BABY price exposureCoreNative BTC on Bitcoin L1CORECORE emissions and network feesBelow 0.1% for BTC only; indicative ~2% to 3% with Dual StakingCORE optional for higher yieldCORE exposure for higher rewardsStarknetTokenized BTC on StarknetSTRKNewly minted STRK~4% indicative, variableNone required for stakingTokenized BTC and STRK exposureStacking DAOsBTC based liquid positionBTC denominatedStacks PoX miner BTC bids2.18% displayed APY; earlier ~2.6% net targetNo STX contribution required from usersBTC and smart contract exposure Yields are indicative or targeted and may change. APR and APY are not directly interchangeable. Returns depend on protocol parameters, token prices and participation conditions.

Headline APY alone cannot establish which platform offers the better return for a particular holder. The reward asset, source of yield, withdrawal conditions and risks attached to the Bitcoin position can be just as important.

Which Bitcoin staking platforms keep BTC self custodial on Bitcoin L1? Stacks, Babylon and Core allow BTC to remain native on Bitcoin under the holder’s keys. Starknet and Stacking DAO use tokenized Bitcoin positions that introduce additional infrastructure and different custody arrangements.

Stacks Stacks keeps BTC on Bitcoin Layer 1 through native timelocks, allowing holders to retain control of their Bitcoin keys without using a bridge, wrapped token or third party custodian.

Under the direct Bitcoin Staking model, participants lock BTC on Bitcoin and commit STX separately on Stacks. The two positions form a protocol bond, while the underlying BTC remains under the holder’s keys.

Stacks outlines the direct, pooled and liquid routes on its Bitcoin Staking options page. Direct staking currently requires approval during PoX-5, while the planned PoX-6 upgrade is intended to remove that restriction and allow permissionless participation.

Babylon Babylon similarly lets BTC holders stake native Bitcoin without using a bridge or wrapped token.

Its Bitcoin staking architecture uses Bitcoin scripts to lock BTC while delegating economic security to finality providers and connected networks.

The holder maintains control of their Bitcoin, but the protocol introduces slashing. A portion of the staked BTC can be forfeited if the delegated finality provider violates the relevant security rules.

Core Core’s self custodial Bitcoin staking relies on native Bitcoin timelocks, allowing holders to delegate their stake to Core validators without wrapping or bridging BTC.

The holder chooses a lockup period and specifies a validator and reward address in the staking transaction. BTC becomes available again after the timelock expires.

Starknet Starknet uses tokenized Bitcoin on its own network rather than locking native BTC directly on Bitcoin Layer 1.

Its Bitcoin staking guide identifies supported assets including WBTC, LBTC, SolvBTC and tBTC. Holders delegate those assets to validators and receive STRK rewards.

Users can stake directly through supported wallets or access liquid staking positions that remain usable in decentralized applications.

Stacking DAO Stacking DAO uses sBTC, a Bitcoin backed asset on Stacks, rather than keeping the user’s deposited position as native BTC under a Bitcoin Layer 1 timelock.

Users deposit BTC or sBTC and receive stBTC through its liquid Bitcoin staking product. The token represents an underlying Bitcoin Staking position and remains transferable while rewards accumulate.

The underlying sBTC participates in Stacks Bitcoin Staking through protocol contracts, while Stacking DAO handles the STX pairing required for the bond.

What rewards do bitcoin staking platforms pay? Bitcoin staking rewards can come from miner contributions or newly issued protocol tokens. The five platforms differ in what they pay and how those returns are generated.

Stacks Stacks targets approximately 3% annualized yield paid in BTC, with rewards funded through Proof of Transfer. Stacks miners commit BTC to compete for block production and earn STX rewards, while their Bitcoin commitments provide the funds distributed to eligible stakers.

According to the Bitcoin Staking resource hub, PoX has distributed more than 4,200 BTC since January 2021. Direct Bitcoin Staking participants receive weekly BTC payouts, with protocol bonds receiving priority in the reward distribution process.

The 3% annualized rate is a target rather than a guaranteed return, with actual payouts dependent on the BTC available through the system.

Babylon Babylon pays Bitcoin stakers in BABY, its native protocol token, with rewards funded through new BABY issuance.

The official staking dashboard has displayed base BTC staking APR around 0.04%, with higher rates reaching approximately 0.60% for participants who stake BABY alongside their Bitcoin.

Babylon’s co staking model rewards users who commit both assets, with the boost determined by the amount of BABY staked relative to BTC.

Since rewards are paid in BABY, the BTC value of the return changes with BABY’s market price. A positive BABY reward rate does not necessarily translate into an equivalent increase in the holder’s Bitcoin balance.

Core Core pays Bitcoin stakers in CORE tokens from network block rewards and a portion of transaction fees.

The protocol allows BTC only staking without holding CORE, although the base yield has been below 0.1% in the comparison figures.

Higher returns are available through Core Dual Staking, which requires holders to stake CORE alongside Bitcoin.

The model divides participants into reward tiers according to the CORE to BTC ratio. Users staking more CORE relative to their Bitcoin positions qualify for higher reward multipliers.

Dual Staking returns have been commonly described in the 2% to 3% range, but the actual rate depends on the selected tier, validator performance and changing market conditions. Core does not offer a single fixed APY across every BTC position.

Starknet Starknet distributes rewards in STRK to users who stake supported tokenized Bitcoin assets.

According to its Bitcoin staking documentation, newly minted STRK provides the rewards, with the distribution depending on the amount of Bitcoin staked and the validator’s participation.

Approximately 4% has been used as an indicative Bitcoin staking yield, although the realized rate can differ because STRK issuance, BTC staking participation and the STRK to BTC exchange rate all affect returns.

Users do not need to stake STRK alongside their Bitcoin to participate as delegators. They may, however, need STRK to cover network fees depending on the wallet used.

Stacking DAO Stacking DAO provides BTC denominated yield through stBTC, with rewards sourced from the same PoX miner commitments that support Stacks Bitcoin Staking.

Its initial product documentation targeted approximately 2.6% net annualized yield. The Stacking DAO website displayed approximately 2.18% BTC APY during the October review, illustrating why the live rate should be checked before staking.

Unlike a direct BTC payout, rewards accumulate through the stBTC to sBTC exchange rate. As rewards are collected and reinvested, each stBTC is designed to represent an increasing amount of sBTC.

Stacking DAO supplies the underlying STX requirement through its staking infrastructure. Users are not required to contribute the roughly 5% STX pairing themselves.

What are the main risks and tradeoffs? PlatformMain tradeoffLiquidity and exitAdditional exposureStacksSTX pairing and bond durationEarly BTC withdrawal available; STX remains locked for the bond termSTX price and variable miner revenueBabylonBTC slashingUnbonding process appliesFinality provider behavior and BABY priceCoreHigher yield requires COREBTC unlocks after the selected staking period expiresCORE price and validator performanceStarknetRequires tokenized BTCDelegation withdrawals or liquid staking optionsWrapper, smart contract and STRK price risksStacking DAOAdditional staking infrastructurestBTC transferable; redemptions depend on liquidity or cooldownsBTC signer and smart contract risks Stacks Direct Bitcoin Staking requires participants to commit STX worth approximately 5% of their BTC position for the full six month bonding period. Changes in the STX price can affect the value of that commitment.

BTC can be withdrawn before the bond expires, but doing so forfeits future staking rewards. The associated STX remains locked until the original term ends. Direct bonds do not introduce BTC slashing, although the targeted yield depends on miner BTC commitments.

Participation is currently restricted to approved holders during PoX-5, with the institutional onboarding program directed at holders with at least 50 BTC. Stacks plans to open direct staking to all Bitcoin holders under PoX-6, but the upgrade does not yet have a confirmed activation date.

Babylon Babylon does not require holders to acquire BABY for basic native BTC staking.

Its main risk comes from the slashing mechanism. A delegated finality provider that violates security conditions can cause part of the associated Bitcoin stake to be forfeited.

Staked BTC remains on Bitcoin, but self custody should not be confused with protection against protocol penalties.

Babylon’s staking FAQ identifies a current native staking term of 64,000 Bitcoin blocks, roughly 15 months, although users can request early unbonding under the protocol’s withdrawal rules.

Unbonding involves additional waiting time, and a position cannot be partially unbonded. Holders must withdraw the entire stake through the applicable process.

Core Core allows holders to choose their BTC lockup period when staking, with withdrawals available once that period expires. The official staking interface requires a minimum commitment of five days, although shorter periods are possible through direct Bitcoin scripting.

However, the base reward rate is low. Holders seeking substantially higher returns generally need to purchase or stake CORE alongside their BTC.

Changes in the CORE price can offset the value of rewards earned, and the amount required for boosted staking tiers can change through protocol governance.

Core’s benefit is flexible native custody, while the tradeoff is reliance on CORE exposure for competitive rewards.

Starknet Starknet users must first obtain a supported tokenized version of Bitcoin.

The wrapper’s backing arrangements, bridging process and smart contracts introduce risks not present when BTC remains locked directly on Bitcoin Layer 1.

Rewards paid in STRK add price exposure to the underlying Bitcoin position. Holders seeking liquidity can use liquid staking products, but those introduce additional token and contract dependencies.

Starknet’s strength is access to DeFi applications rather than the simplicity of native BTC custody.

Stacking DAO Stacking DAO allows holders to retain a liquid stBTC position while earning Bitcoin denominated yield.

The token can be transferred, traded or used in supported DeFi applications. It can also be redeemed into sBTC through the protocol’s withdrawal mechanism.

According to the Stacking DAO withdrawal information, instant redemption depends on available reserve liquidity and involves a fee. Standard stBTC withdrawals have a cooldown of approximately 4,200 Bitcoin blocks, or four weeks.

Users do not need to supply STX themselves, but the underlying Bitcoin position depends on sBTC infrastructure and staking smart contracts. Liquidity in stBTC markets can also vary, particularly when holders need to exit quickly.

Which Bitcoin staking platform is best? The best option depends on whether a holder prioritizes native custody, BTC rewards, shorter lockups or the ability to use a staked position elsewhere.

Stacks is best for native BTC custody and BTC rewards Stacks offers the strongest combination for eligible long term BTC holders who want to retain native Bitcoin custody while earning BTC rewards. Its approximately 3% annualized yield target comes with a separate STX requirement and restricted access to direct staking during PoX-5.

Babylon suits holders who want native BTC staking without another token Babylon allows holders to stake native BTC without acquiring BABY. The tradeoffs are relatively low base rewards paid in BABY and the possibility of BTC slashing.

Core is best for flexible native Bitcoin lockups Core suits holders who want more control over their BTC lockup period. Basic staking does not require CORE, although earning higher rewards through Dual Staking involves committing the token alongside Bitcoin.

Starknet is best for Bitcoin DeFi access Starknet suits holders who want their tokenized Bitcoin positions to remain usable across decentralized applications. Its staking model pays rewards in STRK and introduces additional tokenization and smart contract risks.

Stacking DAO is best for liquid Bitcoin staking on Stacks Stacking DAO suits holders who want BTC denominated yield through Stacks without providing STX themselves. Users receive stBTC, which can remain liquid and be used in supported applications, subject to sBTC and smart contract risks.

Conclusion The best Bitcoin staking platform depends on where the BTC is held, what asset participants earn and how those rewards are generated. Stacks, Babylon and Core allow holders to keep native Bitcoin on Layer 1, while Starknet and Stacking DAO use tokenized Bitcoin positions that introduce additional custody and protocol considerations.

Among the platforms compared, Stacks currently offers the strongest overall combination for eligible long term BTC holders prioritizing native self custody and BTC denominated rewards. Its yield comes from miner commitments through Proof of Transfer, without BTC slashing, although holders must accept the approximately 5% STX requirement, six month bonding period and current restrictions on direct participation.

FAQ 1. What is the best Bitcoin staking platform in 2026? Stacks offers the strongest overall option for eligible long term holders seeking native Bitcoin self custody and BTC denominated yield. Babylon and Core provide alternatives for users prioritizing different token requirements or lockup flexibility, while Starknet and Stacking DAO focus more on tokenized Bitcoin and liquidity.

2. Which Bitcoin staking platforms keep BTC on Bitcoin L1? Stacks, Babylon and Core allow BTC to remain on Bitcoin Layer 1 under the holder’s keys. Starknet and Stacking DAO use tokenized Bitcoin positions and additional infrastructure.

3. Which Bitcoin staking platforms pay rewards in BTC? Direct Stacks Bitcoin Staking pays rewards in native BTC, while Stacking DAO provides BTC denominated yield through stBTC. Babylon pays BABY, Core pays CORE and Starknet pays STRK.

4. Where does Bitcoin staking yield come from? Stacks distributes BTC committed by miners through Proof of Transfer. Babylon pays rewards through newly issued BABY tokens, Core distributes CORE block rewards and network fees, and Starknet pays newly minted STRK. Stacking DAO draws BTC denominated yield from the underlying Stacks Bitcoin Staking mechanism.

5. Is Bitcoin staking safe? Risks vary by platform. Native BTC staking avoids certain bridge and wrapper risks, but participants may face slashing, lockups or additional token exposure. Tokenized alternatives can introduce smart contract, custody and liquidity risks, while advertised yields are not guaranteed.

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

XRP is trading around $1.40, as the cryptocurrency attempts to recover from its recent lows, but bears continue to dominate the 4-hour chart. 

The next two weeks could be critical for XRP’s price direction, as the Federal Reserve’s interest rate decision and Ripple’s biggest-ever Swell conference are both scheduled for the final week of October.

With these events still 15 days away, bearish traders may try to push XRP lower before either event gives investors a reason to change their outlook.

XRP Structure Gives Bears an Advantage
XRP remains below two key moving averages, with the 21-period exponential moving average (EMA21) at $1.4153 and the 55-period exponential moving average (EMA55) at $1.4508. 

The bearish Break of Structure (BoS), which occurred last week at $1.4458, confirmed a change in market structure in favor of bears. The $1.4458 level now acts as resistance, while the EMA55 solidifies the barrier around $1.44-$1.45, giving bears an actual price zone to defend.

The $1.531 swing high also remains untouched, meaning XRP has yet to challenge the previous high that bulls would need to overcome to confirm the case for a recovery. 

Although the price has rebounded from a swing low of $1.3189 recorded last week, the move has not changed the broader trend. Instead, the recovery could amount to a retest of resistance before another decline if buyers fail to push the price higher.

XRP’s performance in 2026 adds to the concerns. The cryptocurrency has fallen 17.6% since the beginning of the year, while Bitcoin has declined 3.5% and Ethereum has lost 9.5%. 

XRP’s market cap currently stands at around $88.4 billion, representing around 3.1% of the entire cryptocurrency market. Its greater losses compared with these two major assets suggest that XRP continues to face significant selling pressure.

Why XRP’s Next Move Around $1.45 Matters
The current indicators suggest that XRP is trading within a narrow range, with the Average True Range (ATR) at 0.0227 and volatility compressed around the 1.5-times ATR band. 

The upper volatility band sits near $1.4493, almost matching the bearish BoS level at $1.4458. This makes the $1.4450-$1.4510 range particularly important because several technical indicators confirm resistance within the same area.

If XRP climbs into this range but fails to break above it, a rejection wick could confirm that sellers still control the market and increase the likelihood of another decline. Such a move would support the bearish setup and reopen the path toward the lower volatility band. 

XRP bears take over as price records bearish BoS
However, a clean four-hour candle close above $1.4510 would invalidate this immediate bearish outlook by pushing XRP above the EMA55 and showing that buyers have gained ground. Until then, sellers may continue to look for opportunities to open or add to short positions whenever the price approaches resistance.

Fed Decision and Ripple Swell Could Change XRP’s Outlook
Macroeconomic conditions could make a recovery more difficult. The Federal Reserve raised its benchmark interest rate to a range of 3.75% to 4% on Sept. 16, and investors are now watching for another increase at the Oct. 27-28 Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) meeting. 

Ripple’s Swell 2026 conference could provide a positive catalyst when it takes place from Oct. 27 to 29 at Hudson Yards in New York City. For the first time, Ripple will combine its institutional-focused Swell conference with XRPL Apex, which focuses on developers. 

The agenda includes XRP ETFs, tokenization, institutional settlement, and the next phase of the XRP Ledger. U.S. spot XRP ETFs have already recorded net daily inflows, pointing to continued institutional demand for XRP-linked investment products. 

XRP Price Targets as Oct 27 Approaches
If XRP fails to break through the $1.4450-$1.4510 resistance zone, the first downside target is $1.3812, the lower edge of the current volatility band. 

A break below that level would bring the $1.3189 structural swing low into focus, while continued selling could push XRP toward $1.2468, the window low that marks the most extended downside target in the current analysis.

For now, the bearish technical structure, the resistance around $1.45, and uncertainty over interest rates give sellers reasons to maintain pressure on XRP. 

The next few trading sessions will show whether bears can force another decline before the Federal Reserve meeting on Oct. 27-28 and Ripple Swell from Oct. 27 to 29. Both events could change investor expectations, but until then, XRP’s ability to overcome the resistance above its current price remains central to its short-term outlook.

Check out what can fuel a pump toward $93,000.

At the start of October, the primary cryptocurrency briefly exceeded $87,000, prompting many analysts to suggest that a new bull cycle had begun. Instead of a massive rally, though, the asset has seen increased volatility and has retraced to the current $83,500 (per CoinGecko).

However, this doesn’t necessarily mean that the bull run scenario is completely out of the question. Here’s what Ali Martinez thinks could trigger the next big move north.

The Key Level The popular analyst paid close attention to $84,000, saying it marks the 50 SMA and could unlock the next rally. He noted that the last time BTC bounced from the bottom of its recent price channel, the 200 SMA held and a 4-hour close above the 50 SMA confirmed the uptrend.

“A 4-hour close above it could confirm the next leg higher to $93,000,” he projected.

Martinez’s take on Bitcoin follows another observation that supports a potential short-term price increase. Earlier this week, he said whales bought more than 16,000 BTC in about five days, raising their total holdings to about 5.26 million units.

“That buying puts a rebound in focus, but Bitcoin has a hurdle to clear first. On-chain data shows nearly 800,000 BTC were previously traded around $84,569. A break above this supply zone would strengthen the case for a move higher,” he added.

Other market observers who have recently weighed in on the asset include Scient and Toz. The former claimed BTC has formed “the cleanest cup and handle pattern you will ever see,” targeting $105,000. For their part, Toz assumed the cryptocurrency may mimic its late-2022 performance, which consisted of a substantial dip followed by a major ascent.

Golden Cross? The well-known X user Crypto Rover shared an intriguing chart showing that BTC’s 50-day moving average has climbed above the 100-day MA.

“The last time Bitcoin flashed this Golden Cross, it marked the END of the bear market. BTC went on to rally over 500%.”

This is considered a bullish development, but one should keep in mind that a classic golden cross forms when the 50-day MA crosses above the 200-day MA. In September last year, BTC printed that signal while trading just south of $110,000. About a month later, the cryptocurrency hit a new historical peak above $126,000.

You may also like: BitMine’s Tom Lee Warns KOSPI Slump Could Hit Crypto Bitcoin’s Price Volatility Explodes as Liquidations Surge Past $800 Million Bitcoin Bull Market Signal Emerges Even as BTC Struggles to Break $84K Tags:

Kripto para analiz platformu Santiment, son bir haftada ağ büyümesinde en yüksek artışı kaydeden altcoinleri açıkladı. Paylaşılan verilere göre bazı kripto para projelerinde yeni oluşturulan cüzdan adreslerindeki büyüme yüzde 800’e kadar ulaştı. Özellikle Cap (CAP), Grass (GRASS) ve Starknet (STRK) listenin zirvesinde yer alırken Solana ekosisteminin popüler memecoin’leri de dikkat çekti. Açıklanan veriler, yatırımcıların hangi blockchain ağlarına daha fazla ilgi gösterdiğine ilişkin önemli ipuçları sunuyor.

Santiment Son Bir Haftanın En Hızlı Büyüyen Altcoinlerini Açıkladı
Santiment tarafından yayımlanan araştırmada, piyasa değeri 100 milyon doların üzerinde bulunan kripto para projelerinin son yedi günlük ağ büyüme performansları incelendi. Analizde kullanılan ağ büyümesi metriği, blockchain ağlarında oluşturulan yeni cüzdan adreslerinin sayısını takip ediyor. Bu gösterge, ağ kullanımındaki değişimleri ve kullanıcı ilgisindeki olası artışları değerlendirmek açısından önem taşıyor. Ancak yeni adres sayısındaki yükseliş, doğrudan yeni yatırımcı sayısının veya token fiyatının artacağı anlamına gelmiyor.

İlginizi Çekebilir: Balinalar Bu Altcoin’de Short Açıyor: Düşüş Kapıda mı?

Santiment verilerine göre Cap (CAP), yüzde 800’lük ağ büyümesiyle listenin ilk sırasında yer aldı. Cap’i yüzde 698,9 artışla Grass (GRASS) takip ederken Starknet (STRK) yüzde 468,78’lik büyümeyle üçüncü sıraya yerleşti. Özellikle Starknet’in kaydettiği güçlü artış, projenin ağ aktivitesindeki hareketliliği ortaya koydu. Solana ekosisteminin popüler memecoin’leri Fartcoin (FARTCOIN) ve Bonk (BONK) da yüksek büyüme oranlarıyla ilk 10’a girmeyi başardı.

İşte Ağ Büyümesinde En Fazla Artış Yaşayan 10 Altcoin
Santiment’in paylaştığı verilere göre son yedi günde ağ büyümesi en fazla artan kripto para projeleri şu şekilde sıralandı:

Cap (CAP): %800
Grass (GRASS): %698,9
Starknet (STRK): %468,78
Fartcoin (FARTCOIN): %433,95
Frax (FRAX) – Optimism ağı: %400
Bonk (BONK): %397,91
Aave (AAVE) – Polygon ağı: %346,15
Rain (RAIN): %314,75
Usual USD (USD0): %300
Frax (FRAX) – Polygon ağı: %300

Listede hem merkeziyetsiz finans (DeFi) projelerinin hem de memecoin’lerin bulunması, ağ büyümesinin farklı kripto para kategorilerinde hızlandığını gösteriyor. Blockchain ağlarında yeni cüzdan adreslerinin artması, projelere yönelik kullanım ve ilginin güçlendiğine işaret edebilir. Ancak bu verinin tek başına yükseliş sinyali olarak değerlendirilmesi yanıltıcı olabilir.

Değerlendirme
Santiment’in son yedi günlük verileri, Cap, Grass ve Starknet başta olmak üzere birçok altcoinin ağ büyümesinde dikkat çekici artışlar yaşadığını ortaya koydu. Fartcoin ve Bonk gibi memecoin’lerin de listeye girmesi, blockchain ekosistemindeki hareketliliğin farklı sektörlere yayıldığını gösteriyor. Bununla birlikte ağ büyümesindeki güçlü performansın doğrudan fiyat yükselişi anlamına gelmediği unutulmamalı.

Son Dakika kripto para haberleri için hemen tıkla.

Konu ile ilgili yorumlarınızı bize yazabilirsiniz. Ayrıca, bu tarz bilgilendirici içeriklerin devamının gelmesini isterseniz, bizleri Telegram, Youtube ve Twitter kanallarımızdan takip edebilirsiniz.

Ondo’s Latest Update Shows Tokenization Spreading Beyond Crypto

Blur Token Hits Record Low After NFT Marketplace Announces Website Shutdown

The increasing integration of AI agents into cryptocurrency markets is expected to fundamentally reshape how activity is conducted by 2028, according to a report by Fortune. The prediction suggests that AI systems will outpace human market participants, a shift that has already begun with platforms like Coinbase introducing AI-driven execution tools. Current AI systems, while still operating under human-set strategies, are progressively becoming more autonomous, indicating a trend towards AI dominance in the landscape. This potential shift is drawing attention to how platforms such as Hyperliquid could be impacted.

Market data for Hyperliquid suggests a significant drop in confidence regarding its price reaching $100 by the end of 2026. The likelihood of this outcome has decreased from 76% a week ago to 46.5% currently. This decline reflects a broader uncertainty about the platform’s ability to capitalize on the anticipated AI-driven efficiencies that could influence market sentiment positively. Market behavior indicates that while there is optimism around AI’s transformative impact, participants remain cautious about its immediate effects on specific assets like Hyperliquid.

Key Takeaways

Fortune’s report suggests a shift towards AI-driven market activity by 2028, potentially impacting market dynamics significantly.
Current market pricing for Hyperliquid reaching $100 by year-end has decreased, reflecting caution among participants.
The trend towards AI agents may indicate potential growth opportunities for platforms that can effectively integrate such technologies.

What to Watch
The progression of AI integration into crypto platforms will be closely monitored, with potential announcements from major exchanges like Coinbase or Binance potentially influencing sentiment. Developments in AI capabilities and regulatory responses will also be critical in shaping market expectations. Observers will be keen to see if Hyperliquid can leverage AI-driven efficiencies to regain market confidence and meet its year-end price target.

Term Structure

Contract
Odds
Δ since publish
Volume 24h

December 31
46.5%
—
—
View market →

January 1 2027
1.9%
—
—
View market →

January 1 2027
1.4%
—
—
View market →

January 1 2027
2.9%
—
—
View market →

January 1 2027
1.4%
—
—
View market →

January 1 2027
5.7%
—
—
View market →

January 1 2027
3.6%
—
—
View market →

January 1 2027
4%
—
—
View market →

January 1 2027
12.5%
—
—
View market →

January 1 2027
6.5%
—
—
View market →